Re: buses or trams

[rffergus@socs.uts.edu.au]

In article <366d43a1.8050247@news.ozemail.com.au>,
  kingpin1@ozemail.com.au (Derek Woodlands) wrote:
> 'Twas a dark and stormy night on Thu, 03 Dec 1998 11:52:03 GMT as
> billboltonREMOVE-TO-EMAIL@computer.org (Bill Bolton) took time out from the
> neverending quest to rid the world of grues and wrote:
>
>
> > Heavy rail can only address some of Sydney's transport needs, as has
> > always been clear in the multi-mode transport system which has existed
> > in the city for a very long time.  An "efficient transport system"
> > will employ the best mode for the particular transport need evident in
> > each situation.
>
> An efficient system should be compatible throughout the system.  Modern
> tunneling techniques mean that it is possible to put heavy rail almost anywhere.
> Or they could look at Chicago and put heavy rail above the road.

Just because modern tunneling techniques make it possible to install heavy
rail almost anywhere, it doesn't mean that heavy rail is warranted, as it
might not be the most efficient mode of transportation for the market that it
serves. An example of where it would be the most efficient mode is the
proposed Parramatta to Chatswood line, where its carrying capacity, speed and
compatibility with the rest of the network make it the ideal and obvious
choice. In this market heavy rail would perform well, demand would warrant a
service with an attractive freqency, and the compatibility with the rest of
the network would permit through routed services from destinations outside
the Parramatta to Chatswood area.

An example of where heavy rail would not be the most efficient mode is the
Central to Wentworth Park (and soon to Lilyfield) light rail line. The
engineering costs of installing heavy rail on this line would have been
higher than for light rail, operating costs would have been much greater, and
the demand levels on this line would not allow a service frequency that would
approach the attractiveness of light rail. You'd probably only get an off
peak frequency of two trains per hour with heavy rail, as opposed to the
current six or so with light rail.

Heavy rail would be unable to integrate with the new developments in the area
as neatly as light rail has (the Pyrmont line passes through both the Gateway
and Star City complexes, and underneath the John St Square development), and
would cause greater levels of noise in the surrounding areas. The only real
advantage heavy rail could have in this sort of market is if there were
opportunities to through route services to other areas, however the
Pyrmont/Lilyfield line doesn't suggest such links would be viable. Light rail
permits a future extension to Circular Quay.

As for creating long stretches of elevated railways, IMHO this would give a
system with one of the major disadvantage of monorails, but with a much
greater level of obtrusiveness that monorails have. I don't see how putting
whole streets under the shadow of a rail system could have a positive effect
on the character and public utility of such areas.

>
> Catchya
>
>    http://www.ozemail.com.au/~kingpin1
>
>        > The home of #The-Pit <
>
> > Home of the Aussie Dropbear Page <
>


Rob

Sydney (Australia)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own