May 24, 2022, 11:09:39 AM

The Light Rail debate

Started by The Love Guru, March 10, 2013, 08:09:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Love Guru

March 10, 2013, 08:09:34 PM Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 02:34:27 PM by ACTbusspotter
[Topic split from Brisbane Bus Review]

Here is some interesting reading. Appears a city of a few million can't make light rail work, but obviously Canberra has a much better chance with its lower population denisty and love of cars.

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec058/15_03_Turner.pdf


Whilst here is a much more balanced view of the whole scene, however the ACT government has failed to collect all the data required to make an informed decision.

http://publictransport.about.com/od/Transit_War/a/Overview-Of-The-Bus-Rapid-Transit-Versus-Light-Rail-Debate.htm


Another article that makes interesting reading

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2010/09/22/urban-light-rail-fail/


And again

http://www.ti.org/vaupdate05.html


The whole point of this is that there are just as many failed, if not more, attempts at light rail than there are succesful outcomes. Australia has yet to produce an on road light rail project that has lived up to the hype and promise that surrounded it when construction began. As a tax payer i would be unimpressed to see $1bn (which the project will no doubt exceed) spent on a project that will still require buses to run parallel with it to supplement its service. This can be avoided through correct planning and understanding of not just current, but also our future transport needs and options. Pushing light rail through just to get it in is a reciepe for disaster, however the ACT has a track record of doing just this with other projects and it is the tax payer left carrying the can at the end of the day.

route56

March 11, 2013, 10:38:49 AM #1 Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 10:44:26 AM by route56
I see what you did there!

I post a link to a report on a public transport network, in another city, therefore i must be anti-bus... So you thought an attack on me for being a public transport advocate might assist your argument (it doesnt). I didn't write the review, i didn't write the media report. i just posted the link. Attacking me for that is pointless and shows quite a bit of insecurity.

I only advocate for light rail in the ACT. i'm not welded to the idea that light rail is the mass transit solution for every city, just the ACT. I also advocate for an integrated bus/light rail system.

Dismissing anything I say because I would like a better solution for our future is just ridiculous. I suggest you google the term 'moral agency'. I do agree with questioning everything a person says, because we need to. Blindly accepting our masters promises is what leaves us with sub-standard public  transport year on year,despite promises everything will be better.

You can dismiss light rail, but what do you really want? More people using public transport or a lovely fleet of new buses, endlessly circling the city shiny but empty as patronage continues to decline? Thats a real great use of taxpayers money. The best system for Canberra is light rail for mass transit and buses for local services.


The Love Guru

What I want is the best solution possible, with all factors taken into account. The justification of a 2 track light rail line that is to serve high denisty areas on Northbourne Avenue as well as be a rapid transport service to Gunghilin is not possible. Should the government choose to build the system right, with it segregated and grade seperated from all road ways as well as at least 3 tracks to allow for both express type and all stops services then its justification as a full transport solution would exist. It's then up to the governemnt to work out of the cost benefit is in the project. What they have proposed currently will be no better than the current bus system and will just leave the ACT with a billion $ hole in our budget.

Barry Drive

Quote from: route56 on March 11, 2013, 10:38:49 AM
You can dismiss light rail, but what do you really want? More people using public transport or a lovely fleet of new buses, endlessly circling the city shiny but empty as patronage continues to decline? Thats a real great use of taxpayers money. The best system for Canberra is light rail for mass transit and buses for local services.
And here we go again with statements being made that are not supported by facts.

Your basic argument is bus = bad; bus = declining patronage; light rail = good; light rail = unlimited capacity. None of which are supported by facts.

(A) Spend some time travelling on the "Rapid" bus services (200 & 300 series) during peak and tell me that patronage is declining.

(B) If Light Rail is best for mass transit, then why is the line proposed for Northbourne Ave / Flemington Road? If you want a proper mass transit system, you need to minimise stops and provide a genuine express service between City and Gungahlin (or anywhere else you want it to go). Having a system which has to compete for traffic light priority and stop for passengers every 2 minutes is hardly an improvement over what buses can currently achieve.

route56

Quote from: ACTbusspotter on March 11, 2013, 02:44:02 PM
And here we go again with statements being made that are not supported by facts.

Your basic argument is bus = bad; bus = declining patronage; light rail = good; light rail = unlimited capacity. None of which are supported by facts.

(A) Spend some time travelling on the "Rapid" bus services (200 & 300 series) during peak and tell me that patronage is declining.

(B) If Light Rail is best for mass transit, then why is the line proposed for Northbourne Ave / Flemington Road? If you want a proper mass transit system, you need to minimise stops and provide a genuine express service between City and Gungahlin (or anywhere else you want it to go). Having a system which has to compete for traffic light priority and stop for passengers every 2 minutes is hardly an improvement over what buses can currently achieve.

Great! Now in being told what my argument is. Please, dont verbal me. If you must - use my own words against me, not ones you have made up.

Attempting to portray me as anti-bus is just wrong. I dont even know why you are trying too. i'm not anti-bus, I am pro-public transport. I catch buses several times as week, out of preference not because I have to.

I have pasted an attachment from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to support my claim that bus patronage is declining. Are they wrong too? Investment in buses as mass rapid transit in Canberra has not been successful. Ive seen the attempts that have been made. So has the government.

Some questions for you:
Do you accept 5.6% as a success?
Tell me how low this figure must sink before you concede an alternative method needs to be tried?
Or do you not care about actually carrying passengers, just as long as the network is bus only?

To address your points.

A - I've never made any such claim. I maintain that increased patronage on the rapid routes is great argument for light rail. Those routes are at capacity. The buses routinely fail to stop and collect passengers because they are full. 

You tell me what frequency of bus service you need before moving to a higher capacity technology.

B - Because Northbourne Avenue is the most congested road in the ACT.

You are assuming there will be no traffic light prioritisation. On what basis do you make this claim?


Barry Drive

March 12, 2013, 07:06:12 PM #5 Last Edit: March 12, 2013, 08:00:58 PM by ACTbusspotter
I'll have more to say later, but the ABS data does not show a decline in patronage. It shows a growth in journeys to work by bus - slower than population growth, but a growth nonetheless. While journeys to work by bus is a useful measure, it does not reflect overall patronage. Get back to me if/when you have proof of a decline in overall patronage. [That's "bus = declining patronage" taken care of]

So "investment in buses as mass rapid transit has failed" and to support this claim you state that some buses run full. (Which in turn led to an additional 200 route in the morning). Things can always be done better, but I don't regard running full buses during peak a failure.

ajw373

I am coming in late here, but if the 200 is getting to be so popular AND more high density housing continues to be built along Flemmington Road, then as far as I can see that is a very good reason for light rail down that corridor.

Elsewhere in Canberra (except maybe Molonglo in 20 years time) no chance what so ever though. Light rail won't work as a high speed intertown service in Canberra, say Belconnen/Woden or even Gungahlin to the City, where it works well is moving large numbers of people, hence a shorter high density corridor such as Northborne Ave and Flemmington Road. Now some may jump on me and say my last two paragraphs contradict each other, but really they don't. Light rail to Gungahlin to move those along the corridor, rapid express bus to move those from the burbs of Gungahlin.

The Love Guru

Quote from: ajw373 on March 12, 2013, 08:44:47 PM
I am coming in late here, but if the 200 is getting to be so popular AND more high density housing continues to be built along Flemmington Road, then as far as I can see that is a very good reason for light rail down that corridor.

Elsewhere in Canberra (except maybe Molonglo in 20 years time) no chance what so ever though. Light rail won't work as a high speed intertown service in Canberra, say Belconnen/Woden or even Gungahlin to the City, where it works well is moving large numbers of people, hence a shorter high density corridor such as Northborne Ave and Flemmington Road. Now some may jump on me and say my last two paragraphs contradict each other, but really they don't. Light rail to Gungahlin to move those along the corridor, rapid express bus to move those from the burbs of Gungahlin.

Agree with you totally there. Unfortunately the government and light rail lobby are selling the light rail idea as a fix all for BOTH Northbourne/Flemington as well as being able to act as a mass transit solution which buses can feed into at Gungahlin. There is a way in which this can occur however would require a lot more infrastructure as you would need 3 or 4 tracks the length of the line, or at least as far as EPIC.

As for the comment about trams getting priority at traffic signals on Northbourne Ave, you really think that there wont be a dramatic effect on traffic flow should lights just change mid cycle to let a tram pass. It would be a complete disaster for any traffic trying to cross Northbourne Ave in peak periods, particularly at the intersection with Antill/Mouat. Could all be solved by grade seperation. If only we could get the right plan to be built, rather than a compromise to save money, then the system could be a show case of how to do things right. Just think Brisbanes South East busway desgin for light rail.

ajw373

Quote from: The Love Guru on March 13, 2013, 11:27:54 AM
Agree with you totally there. Unfortunately the government and light rail lobby are selling the light rail idea as a fix all for BOTH Northbourne/Flemington as well as being able to act as a mass transit solution which buses can feed into at Gungahlin. There is a way in which this can occur however would require a lot more infrastructure as you would need 3 or 4 tracks the length of the line, or at least as far as EPIC.
Yep think they are in la la land, same too with those who think that the intertown routes would be ideal for light rail. As much as I disliked the change at first, changing from the old 333 to the 300 and 700 series express buses from the suburbs to me proves that what people want is less changes. Going to a light rail Belconnen to City for example is just a mode change. Now if traffic from the burbs could handle light rail then yes it would make sense to convert the central section, but clearly the population density of Canberra suburbs can never support it. What could, maybe is say the US model (Dallas for example) of a light rail that serves park and rides.


Quote from: The Love Guru on March 13, 2013, 11:27:54 AM
As for the comment about trams getting priority at traffic signals on Northbourne Ave, you really think that there wont be a dramatic effect on traffic flow should lights just change mid cycle to let a tram pass. It would be a complete disaster for any traffic trying to cross Northbourne Ave in peak periods, particularly at the intersection with Antill/Mouat. Could all be solved by grade seperation. If only we could get the right plan to be built, rather than a compromise to save money, then the system could be a show case of how to do things right. Just think Brisbanes South East busway desgin for light rail.

Considering all turning traffic off Northborne (except a couple in the City) now queues on Northborne, whereas before they would queue in the interestion I really don't see why trams would need any extra priority. No reason why trams and through Northborne traffic couldn't be on the same phase as they would be travelling in the same direction anyway and cross and turning traffic are minor phases.

The Love Guru

QuoteConsidering all turning traffic off Northborne (except a couple in the City) now queues on Northborne, whereas before they would queue in the interestion I really don't see why trams would need any extra priority. No reason why trams and through Northborne traffic couldn't be on the same phase as they would be travelling in the same direction anyway and cross and turning traffic are minor phases.

I'm 99.9% certain this is how it will be done. If this is the case, I don't see how it is going to be any better than a seperated busway (similar to those on Anzac Pde in Sydney). Advantage of the Busway concept is that you can run all stops and expresses at the same time on the road as they can easily pass each other. Once again, light rail would be a better option if it were to be done right but we are all out of luck there.

Stan butler

Quote from: Robot on March 18, 2018, 01:46:59 PM

On the other hand what are they going to do with all the buses that will no longer go down Northbourne Ave after the light rail opens? They can keep old buses running until that happens but I doubt if that would be enough.

Do you recall when we got that deluge of rain a few weeks back and they had to close Parts of Flemington road for a while (and then divert the buses).  Can't see how they can divert the light rail next time that low lying area of the road floods.

So I am guessing they will need to keep a couple of extra buses on hand - just in case another flood comes along, or a car prangs into a train, or for any other reason the new train may have to stop. 

At least with a bus, if one breaks down - Then a new one can be called upon and then go around the one that is broken down. A broken down train/tram or whatever you call it will stop the network.

Robot

Quote from: Stan butler on March 18, 2018, 08:05:09 PM
Do you recall when we got that deluge of rain a few weeks back and they had to close Parts of Flemington road for a while (and then divert the buses).  Can't see how they can divert the light rail next time that low lying area of the road floods.

So I am guessing they will need to keep a couple of extra buses on hand - just in case another flood comes along, or a car prangs into a train, or for any other reason the new train may have to stop. 

At least with a bus, if one breaks down - Then a new one can be called upon and then go around the one that is broken down. A broken down train/tram or whatever you call it will stop the network.

Hopefully such things would be rare. No a broken down tram would be removed very quickly and so not cause much disruption. Do they ever break down?

Stan butler

Quote from: Robot on March 18, 2018, 08:33:57 PM
Hopefully such things would be rare. No a broken down tram would be removed very quickly and so not cause much disruption. Do they ever break down?

How do you remove a broken down tram?  And what do you do with the incoming trams while waiting for the so called removal of the broken down tram?  Unlike a bus, you cannot call out a tow truck to hitch a broken down tram to and haul it away - and (especially during peak times), There will be a number of other trams using the track, so a broken down tram (or one that has been in an accident with a Canberran driver at an intersection) will block the tracks and therefore - stop the network.  Hence the need for a series of spare buses.

Imagine the headlines when the billion dollar tram is stuck and buses are called in to fix the loads.

One other thing, if or when Flemington road floods again, they won't allow the tram to start up again until the track and foundations are fully inspected.  At least with buses, you can a) immediately continue the service by using a diversion, and b) resume normal service much quicker without the need for inspecting the tracks and foundations etc after a flood.

triumph

Quote from: Robot on March 18, 2018, 08:33:57 PM
Do they ever break down?

In the 1940's and 50's I was a semi-regular user of Hobart trams, and on holidays, trams in Sydney and Melbourne. Whilst, they did break down, it was very rare. I, personally, never experienced an on-board break down or long delay at a stop due to a no-show. BUT I did experience a derailment. The rear end of a bogie tram decided to take a branching route and was dragged off the track by several meters. Fortunately the front end remained on the tracks and the bow collector in contact. Some judicious to and fro shunting saw all 4 rear bogie wheels back on the rails and we were on our way. Delay, about 3 minutes. I suppose these days there would be a song and dance and National Transport Safety Board investigation.

Other major delays I noticed in Hobart were both due to flooding. Once when the centre of the City was inundated and secondly, an interruption to the West Hobart service on its final day of operation. Things were different then. Much effort saw the tram service resume for a final few hours.

More recently, I experienced a 20 min delay on the "G" at the Gold Coast. Cause was a power outage initiated by a lorry with overheight load coming into contact with the overhead.

I think the actions and interference by 3rd parties is the most likely source of delay, but do wonder if the more complicated modern light rail vehicle with operation subject to more stringent rules, can be as reliable as the simpler 40s and 50s trams.

Recovery in Canberra seems, from information given at an inspection, to rely on a specially equipped Mercedes Benz Unimog (I wonder if it has been delivered yet?) It may also be possible to couple lightrail vehicles together in some way, even if only to push.

The thing that puzzles me is how the bus industry can operate efficiently and yet, at the same time, have lots of standby vehicles and drivers ready for when a train or tram breaks down, or the line is closed. Certainly, if the regular pleas over Action bus radios for drivers to cover an imminent service are any indication, then Action, apparently not having enough standby resource for its own needs, could not be regarded as a reliable standby resource for the light rail. We shall see, when it happens.

Sylvan Loves Buses

Quote from: Robot on March 18, 2018, 08:33:57 PM
Do they ever break down?

I've always wondered that myself, although they run on the current going through the lines above, so I would imagine if there was a city-wide blackout, that would cause them to stop.

Stan butler

Quote from: Sylvan Loves Buses on March 19, 2018, 01:33:19 AM
I've always wondered that myself, although they run on the current going through the lines above, so I would imagine if there was a city-wide blackout, that would cause them to stop.

It may also be caused by a very localised blackout.  Have you ever seen power out in one area of the city and not another?  Another example, sometimes the traffic lights may go out in say Dickson and not in civic. Not saying the light rail be the same as traffic lights, but sometimes in high heat, we have rolling blackouts. I dare say the light rail will be on its own circuit though but it would still have to source power from somewhere.

There was a good example last Friday.  I spied a bus crash with a car in the bus lane on Belconnen way. Yep a car in the dedicated bus lane caused a crash in peak hour.  But existing buses just went around it and continued delivering passengers by using the normal car lanes - and I imagine another bus came along and they transferred the passengers from the bus crash.  So what happens if a Canberra car tries to run the lights or an intersection on north Bourne (which they do) and then comes to grief with the tram?  They would need to stop all services on the line as other trams would soon bank up.

The good 'ole buses can simply go around it.

Swagman

Thanks for the fleet info BD, it'll be good to see these new ones out on the road. As for the 19th century transportation this Gvmt insist on installing I'll give it 20 years before it gets ripped up and a fleet of rapid high frequency, electric,  autonomous buses are put in place....! 

Sylvan Loves Buses

By then, I would be thinking they'd be going for solar powered buses.

Quote from: Stan butler on March 19, 2018, 02:49:44 AMHave you ever seen power out in one area of the city and not another?
Yes of course, I get them all the time - just wasn't awake enough at the time of posting that to remember how to word it ::)

Bus 503

Quote from: Swagman on March 19, 2018, 08:27:09 AM
Thanks for the fleet info BD, it'll be good to see these new ones out on the road. As for the 19th century transportation this Gvmt insist on installing I'll give it 20 years before it gets ripped up and a fleet of rapid high frequency, electric,  autonomous buses are put in place....!

That is what they did in Adelaide and Sydney - buses were the future according to the politicians of the 1920s. That was short term thinking and now they are having to put back the tram network because it offers superior benefits to buses!

Swagman

Adelaide and Sydney have their own problems, my comments were about Canberra so lets see where we are in 20 years time. 

Northside

Is this discussion for real? Do you think Canberra is the only city with a tram? Other cities deal with this perfectly well all the time.

Some points to counter above:
1. The rail bed sits much higher (in the middle of the road) compared with the outside of the road base on Northbourne, so if the road floods, the cars (and thus buses if there were any) would still be affected, but the tram will still go along its merry way.
2. Yes there are 'tow trucks' for trams. They are called other trams. Trams, like trains can be coupled together, so an empty tram can pull up behind or in front of the affected tram and tow it back to the depot. (This happened a few weeks ago in Adelaide (still a rare occurrence) - http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4615&start=2715 - see about halfway down for the tram tow.
3. Yes, while that will affect operations, it doesn't bring a whole line to a stand still. Lines have turn backs or crossovers, where a tram can move from the inbound lane to the outbound lane and vice versa. You could still operate trams to the stop with the nearest crossover and then use buses etc to complete the journey
4. Yes, blackouts happen. But there is redundancy built into the system. Usually one line is serviced by a number of sub-stations, so that if one goes down, it doesn't affect the whole line.
5. Obviously if something does happen to a tram (esp in peak), it's going to cause some chaos to the network. But this is no more than say when a car breaks down on the Parkway - it can cause traffic delays to other roads in the city. As people adjust their driving pattern to avoid one delay, it causes delays all around in response. The tram line is just one piece of the network and doesn't operate in isolation. Generally speaking, tram lines have much greater reliability than any bus or any road network, so should decrease the chances of congestion caused by unforeseen circumstances.

Anyway, just my 2c.

Stan butler

Quote from: Northside on March 27, 2018, 12:47:55 PM

1. The rail bed sits much higher (in the middle of the road) compared with the outside of the road base on Northbourne, so if the road floods, the cars (and thus buses if there were any) would still be affected, but the tram will still go along its merry way.

I don't agree.  If hypothetically the road was fully flooded across it to an extent that cars and buses were not allowed to use it, then they would still stop the tram.    For safety sake.  Even though the tram tracks are higher - in our case, maybe about about 60cms at the very most above the road.  They would still need to ascertain whether there is any underlying damage to the foundations or integrity of the track before allowing further use.  Water can seep into many unexpected places and this would need to be checked.


Quote
Generally speaking, tram lines have much greater reliability than any bus or any road network, so should decrease the chances of congestion caused by unforeseen circumstances.

Can you please provide evidence on this claim.  If a tram track is blocked, buckled, flooded or whatever then the tram is stopped. If a road is the same, then the transport using that road can be re-routed to another - therefore allowing the network to operate and improving reliability.

Busfanatic101

Quote from: Stan butler on March 27, 2018, 06:55:03 PM
I don't agree.  If hypothetically the road was fully flooded across it to an extent that cars and buses were not allowed to use it, then they would still stop the tram.    For safety sake.  Even though the tram tracks are higher - in our case, maybe about about 60cms at the very most above the road.  They would still need to ascertain whether there is any underlying damage to the foundations or integrity of the track before allowing further use.  Water can seep into many unexpected places and this would need to be checked.
If that was the case trams would need be stopped whenever it rained, not to mention all the roads that cave in, the buildings that collapse, the sinkholes that appear...


Quote from: Stan butler on March 27, 2018, 06:55:03 PM
Can you please provide evidence on this claim.  If a tram track is blocked, buckled, flooded or whatever then the tram is stopped. If a road is the same, then the transport using that road can be re-routed to another - therefore allowing the network to operate and improving reliability.
The chances of congestion caused by unforeseen circumstances is less on the tram line - other than factors likely to affect both the tram line (floods, falling trees), normal roads have much more traffic, with significantly higher chances of breakdowns, collisions, and congestion.


If Northbourne floods, trams are stopped and buses are stopped. Services to the affected portion stop in both scenarios. Buses going on a completely different diversion does not count as the continued reliable operation of the network any more than trams going back and forth between the unflooded portion of the tracks.[/quote]

Northside

Quote from: Stan butler on March 27, 2018, 06:55:03 PM
I don't agree.  If hypothetically the road was fully flooded across it to an extent that cars and buses were not allowed to use it, then they would still stop the tram.    For safety sake.  Even though the tram tracks are higher - in our case, maybe about about 60cms at the very most above the road.  They would still need to ascertain whether there is any underlying damage to the foundations or integrity of the track before allowing further use.  Water can seep into many unexpected places and this would need to be checked.


Can you please provide evidence on this claim.  If a tram track is blocked, buckled, flooded or whatever then the tram is stopped. If a road is the same, then the transport using that road can be re-routed to another - therefore allowing the network to operate and improving reliability.

So are you saying that whenever it flood currently, all roads in Canberra are suspended until they can be independently tested and verified that no water has seeped into the bitumen? Why do you think trams have special requirements? Besides, 60cm of water is a significant amount of water!

For reliability - take a look at the reliability statistics for public transport in any Australian city. You will find that rail (tram and train) performs consistently higher than buses in all cities for at least the past decade.

The Love Guru

Quote from: Northside on April 03, 2018, 10:15:41 AM
So are you saying that whenever it flood currently, all roads in Canberra are suspended until they can be independently tested and verified that no water has seeped into the bitumen? Why do you think trams have special requirements? Besides, 60cm of water is a significant amount of water!

For reliability - take a look at the reliability statistics for public transport in any Australian city. You will find that rail (tram and train) performs consistently higher than buses in all cities for at least the past decade.

Unless of course you compare apples with apples and use bus rapid transit ways which have all the advantages of a light rail system without the limiting factors of being stuck on a steel rail. BRTs are a much better alternative to light rail, especially with electric only propulsion systems to be the norm in the very near future. 20m articulated buses would be a fine alternative, in a way taking the best aspects of both forms of transport and rolling them into one.

However, as we all know, the light rail wasn't built to provide transport, it was a political pawn used to infulence and hide the true agenda of removing government housing from Northbourne Avenue and then selling off the highly valuable land and to increase rates for those areas.

The Barr government has proved itself to be nothing more than a revenue raising juggernaught with very little consideration given to the living standards of those effected, whilst promising the earth (City to Lake - New Stadium - New Convention Centre), all canned in a bid to save money. Light rail only survived due to the above mentioned sale of land.

Stan butler

Quote from: Busfanatic101 on March 27, 2018, 11:06:32 PM
If that was the case trams would need be stopped whenever it rained, not to mention all the roads that cave in, the buildings that collapse, the sinkholes that appear...



That is not what I said. I said if the road floods then they would need to stop the tram to inspect the tracks. This is correct process for all light rail. Even in heavy rail for severe flooding ( and after a fire too).  I have always been referring to flooded roads with total water coverage - not just rain.  Flemington road has flooded twice in the last 3-4 years.

Additionally, there is talk that the actual road works associated with the tram has changed the storm water piping in the area and therefore increases the chance of flooding. Whether this gets fixed after the work is all complete is anyone's guess.


Quote
If Northbourne floods, trams are stopped and buses are stopped. Services to the affected portion stop in both scenarios. Buses going on a completely different diversion does not count as the continued reliable operation of the network any more than trams going back and forth between the unflooded portion of the tracks.

You have missed my point all along - buses can be diverted (as there were during the recent floods).  Therefore keeping the routes, and movement of passengers going.  A closed tram line cannot be diverted.  Buses are not stopped during a flood - they are diverted, and thus keeping the network running.

Swagman

Quote from: The Love Guru on April 05, 2018, 04:10:50 PM
Unless of course you compare apples with apples and use bus rapid transit ways which have all the advantages of a light rail system without the limiting factors of being stuck on a steel rail. BRTs are a much better alternative to light rail, especially with electric only propulsion systems to be the norm in the very near future. 20m articulated buses would be a fine alternative, in a way taking the best aspects of both forms of transport and rolling them into one.
Guru, never go into politics, you talk for too much sense to be a success :)  I agree with what you say whole heartedly and I'm convinced that at some point in time the tracks will be ripped up, the trains sold off and the route made nto a dedicated Bus Transit way totally separate from normal road traffic.