Re: Brisbane Light Rail,Briztram - questions

["David Bennetts" <davibenn@pcug.org.au>]

>
>Don't quite get how FIXED rails in the ground could be regarded a
>FLEXIBLE - certainly a lot less flexible than busses - but I digress.


It is more flexible and less costly than heavy rail, I concede that buses
may be more flexible but they get stuck in traffic and produce more noise
and air pollution.

>
>And MODERN?
>
>As I said before.....
>Ah tramways (now renamed as light rail so it doesn't sound old hat)
>the very best of 1830's technology, (New York steam tram 1837) and
>1881 (Berlin - first electric tram) and adapted from a technique used
>in ancient Greece and Rome....
>
>Which one looks more modern to you now?
>

The fax machine and telephone were invented a long time ago, but you'd have
to agree they've improved somewhat.  The light rail vehicles of today are
vastly improved in terms of comfort and design over their predecessors.


>And what makes you think we should repeat the mistakes of our American
>friends - perhaps it's just a case of "infrastructure envy"


I don't agree that the Americans have made mistakes.  Having recently
experienced systems in LA, Denver, San Diego and Portland, they're fast,
clean and comfortable, and extremely well patronised.  A lot of what is
published in  your referred websites is certainly challengable - why is rail
always expected to recoup cost of infrastructure when road building is
mainly free.  Some of their content is nonsense - eg light rail being slower
than buses, if you ride the Green Line in LA for example you whizz down the
centre of a freeway while the traffic crawls along bumper to bumper,
stop-start.

You can always get some boffins to oppose anything, you only have to look at
the tobacco industry who can always trot out a doctor to say smoking is
safe.

Sorry you haven't convinced me.

Regards
David Bennetts