Even in Australia, light rail doesn't make sense.

Trams - a return to the past or a genuine advance? By Professor David A. Hensher

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sydney has emotionally embraced the old idea of inflexible public transport with the return to Sydney's streets of steel-on-steel light rail.

Soon we will see the mingling of trams with cars and buses as our street system struggles to cope with yet another form of old public transport which competes with walking and buses far more than it is likely to attract individuals out of their beloved cars.

With such generous parking facilities in and near the Central City and at such reasonable prices (early bird specials of $6 per day), this increased accessibility offered by more public transport technology is unlikely to do much more than provide an interesting tourist attraction and satisfy the needs of those who believe in trains as the only form of public transport.

The light rail system currently being trialed between Ultimo and Pyrmont is a private sector venture, although the contract with Government for rights to deliver the service builds in some very attractive risk-sharing clauses, and is promoted as the beginning of the revival of the city as a residential precinct.

The new Sydney Casino is expected to be a major traffic generator. Indeed, so important was the Casino in early discussions with Government that a risk provision in the privatisation contract stated that "If the permanent Casino opens for trading more than 12 months after the light rail is completed, or after 31 March 1998 if this is a later date, the Department of Transport will be liable to pay the Pyrmont Light Rail Company $8,219 per day until the Casino opens".

With the Olympics fast descending on Sydney, transport has emerged as the most contentious planning issue.

It is very tempting to use the Olympics as a catalyst for funding the pent-up infrastructure desires of many interested parties, with ideas of grandeur emerging in the realm of public transport, such as the promotion of light rail.

While I am the first to suggest that we should support greater use of public transport, I am sufficiently realistic about the merits of throwing large sums of money at transport plans to cater for the extraordinary peak that Sydney will witness for a period not exceeding 4 weeks in September 2000.

Light rail will almost certainly not be a panacea and fades into insignificance in comparison with the role that buses can play in filling the capacity shortage in September 2000.

Luckily for Sydney there are plenty of buses to be called on - they will come, they will deliver and they will go. Trams on track do not have this great asset of flexibility.

When it is recalled that roads are the greatest infrastructure deliverer of public transport, not rail track, one wonders why we have to devote so many resources to create further traffic congestion on the road by investing in light rail in mixed traffic. When there is a tram strike in Melbourne the traffic flows so much more smoothly. Will we ever learn?

Strong views exist on the merits of light rail as a preferred alternative to dedicated busway systems. Why did we not consider having a very flexible bus system on the same corridor dedicated to light rail tracks? This would have the capability of offering much better door-to-door service than a very inflexible fixed rail system.

The answers are relatively simple - the Mayor of Los Angeles' adage that "trains are sexy and buses are boring" says it all.

I have previosuly described this as "choice versus blind commitment". When the evidence suggests that one can move three times as many people by dedicated busway systems for the same cost, or the same number of people for one-third of the cost as light rail, one wonders about the rationality of urban planning.

To those who might be offended by my personal view of trains, let me not apologise but suggest that light rail is neither a train nor a bus - it is a confused technology failing to serve either the genuine density of traffic supporting heavy rail or the less dense by dispersed traffic better served by flexible bus systems.

The tone is not anti-public transport but pro-commonsense in judicial matching of public transport to the needs of the end user.

Professor Hensher is Professor of Management in the Graduate School of Business and Director of the Institute of Transport Studies: The Australian Key Centre of Transport Management.

http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/exterel/news/970807News/7.8.notover.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 15, 2000