10个月前

‘The cheap option’?: why the Gold Coast may be on track to build the most expensive light rail in the world

www.theguardian.com ‘The cheap option’?: why the Gold Coast may be on track to build the most expensive light rail in the world

Limiting reliance on the private sector, hiring foreign experts, and improving contracting transparency could be ways to keep costs down, experts say

Alon Levy, co-lead of the transportation and land use program at New York University’s Marron Institute, has spent years studying why some countries are able to build transport infrastructure cheaply and others aren’t.

Though the preliminary business case of the expansion of Gold Coast light rail includes few details, Levy estimates that the project may ultimately cost as much as 10 times more than comparable European infrastructure.

Those include, Levy says, a lack of contracting transparency, over-engineering, politicisation, poor allocation of cost risk – and above all, contracting out to the private sector.

您正在查看单个对话串。

18 评论

Putting aside Big 4 concerns and fiscal irresponsibility, what annoys me is the continued prejudice involved in the mode of transport chosen.
Bus beats the pants off light rail in just about every respect you can think of. It's quickly scalable up and down, it can be rerouted on a whim, it doesn't require additional road or electrical infrastructure to operate, spare parts are plentiful and the parts economy is competitive, maintenance overheads are lower, the fleet is amenable to reuse in non-PT contexts, etc.
But none of this counts for much when you realize you'll sometimes sit near poor people on the bus! The bus does not boost real estate values.
- Light rail is higher capacity. Being separated from the road is an advantage because it makes it more consistent. It costs less to run once it's built. It's far more environmentally friendly—even if the buses were electric. It creates a nicer environment for the people living, working, and visiting the area near it (less noise, less inhospitable asphalt, etc.) There are very, very few advantages to buses over light rail.
- Dedicated bus lanes are needed if we want everyone to use it, and not just the poor (since people will typically use the fastest, most convenient option). So it requires some changes to road infrastructure. Buses are also typically worse from an emissions perspective (especially fossil fuel buses) although it depends on the specifics. I'm not sure how that last point is any different with light rail, since all public transport will involve sharing space with poor people.
  Nevertheless, I agree that buses can be a good option and might be a better fit in less dense locations in particular. On demand buses are starting to become a good option in rural areas, for example.
  And Australia seems to be arguably overenthusiastic about light rail in general when it isn't always the best fit.
  
  Australia seems to be arguably overenthusiastic about light rail in general
  I have no idea where you get that sense. The Gold Coast light rail has so far been a massive success, proving that it was the right decision. It seems to have been very successful in Newcastle despite the route it takes being utterly ludicrous (incredibly short, only in areas that you'd probably have to drive to to begin with, parallel to a fantastic easy walking path), at least for now until the extensions are built. Sydney's light rail has been an absolute blowout success.
  And yet despite every time it's been done it being enormously successful, we are still hesitant to do more. The Sunshine Coast has just made the myopic decision to not build light rail. Despite the enormous success of stages 1 and 2, stage 3 won't be finished until nearly a decade after the completion of the previous stage. Brisbane decided it would go for short team ease rather than the long term superior option. And Newcastle doesn't seem to have any serious plans for its stage 2 over 5 years since it first opened.
  We have some good light rail systems in this country, but we are nowhere near "overenthusiastic". Quite the opposite.
  
  I was thinking enthusiasm from the general public, not so much governments. It's not that it isn't a good idea, it's just that conventional rail can often be a better alternative in many cases. But when it's the choice between building nothing and building light rail? Then yeah, building it's the obvious choice. And obviously, light rail is the better option in certain cases too.
  
  it’s just that conventional rail can often be a better alternative in many cases
  Yeah it can. In most of the cases I've seen though, it's been a question of light rail or buses. Buses also have their place for sure, but any time you're sincerely asking the question "should we build light rail or use buses?" the answer is almost guaranteed to be light rail. That goes double if the buses are going to be BRT with specific dedicated infrastructure anyway.
- The ability of buses to be rerouted on a whim isn't necessarily good though
  like I'd much rather plan my life around a tram line than a bus line because of its permanence
  Also trams have less ongoing costs because less drivers are needed to move the same amount of people
- Bus beats the pants off light rail in just about every respect you can think of
  Um, no. The only reason I would ever set foot on a bus is if there was no rail option.
  It’s quickly scalable up and down
  It really isn't.
  it can be rerouted on a whim
  I was on a bus that was rerouted once - when a road closed unexpectedly. We were 10 minutes drive from home, and the new route took us 20 minutes in the opposite direction, we waited 30 minutes for a bus that could drop us off 45 minutes walk from home. Including the original bus trip it was about three hours and by the time we got home we were dangerously dehydrated (we had water with us, but not three hours worth).
  The ability to reroute buses is not a positive attribute. It sucks.
  it doesn’t require additional road or electrical infrastructure to operate
  Yeah it does. You need bus stops. Bus lanes. And these days you need totally do need electrical infrastructure — according to my city, the total cost to the tax payer for diesel vs electric works out to $70,000 per bus if it's electric... and that includes spending a fortune on electrical infrastructure upgrades to be able to charge those huge batteries. Batteries a train doesn't need because they would never go hours between charging the train.
  Spare parts are plentiful and the parts economy is competitive, maintenance overheads are lower, the fleet is amenable to reuse in non-PT contexts, etc.
  I don't really see how busses are that different from trains. Pretty much the only difference is metal wheels vs rubber wheels. I would think the metal ones last longer.
  Ultimately, a bus is always slower than driving. Light rail, on the other hand, is often faster than driving.
  
  I agree that light rail is vastly preferable to buses where appropriate, but I think you're going too far in the other direction.
  It’s quickly scalable up and down
  It really isn’t.
  Yes it is. That's why, for example, we're able to have special event buses take you from Chermside to Lang Park or the Gabba when there's a game or concert on.
  Of course, @Tregetour@lemdro.id underestimates the degree to which rail can be scaled, too. It's quite easy to add a car or two to a particular light rail engine when peak use demands it.
  The ability to reroute buses is not a positive attribute. It sucks.
  It can suck if done badly, like in the situation you describe. It doesn't have to suck. It's important to clearly communicate and make allowances when rerouting though. For example, you might have to completely abandon several stops, which needs to be clearly announced ahead of time, and if it's a decision made en-route, you should give the opportunity for people to get off outside of a scheduled stop, if appropriate.
  You need bus stops. Bus lanes.
  Bus stops cost effectively zero. They can be just a sign post at a minimum, and even a shelter costs almost nothing compared to the significant infrastructure costs of rail.
  Bus lanes are optional. They should be used. And frankly I don't think we should ever have 3 lanes in the same direction without at least one of them being either a bus lane or a separated bike lane/bike path. But most buses run most of their routes on entirely normal roads.
  I don’t really see how busses are that different from trains.
  Honestly the parent comment is just straight-up wrong here. Maintenance costs for buses (btw, buses, not busses) and trains are night and day. Train maintenance costs are so much less than buses it's not funny.
  
  There is no profit in allowing users to steer. All the profit lies in steering them. That's why search results
  Do elaborate =o
  
  Did you reply to the wrong person, or?
  
  Tell us how bus maintenence far exceeds that of train carriages. Just seems highly counterintuitive.
  
  It does? It seems completely obvious to me. Buses are like cars, but bigger. Cars have huge numbers of complex parts that need to be maintained, but the most obvious one is tyres. Rubber tyres wear out, and on heavier vehicles they wear out faster. Fossil fuel–powered buses additionally have very complex engines and transmissions which require significant amounts of maintenance for which there is simply no equivalent on trains. Electric buses perform better in this capacity, at the cost of being heavier and thus putting more wear on their tyres. Because of their maintenance needs, you'll need to over-purchase buses in order to have the required number running while others are off the road for maintenance.
  There's also the secondary effect that buses do a lot of damage to roads, being both heavier and more frequently accelerating & decelerating at the same locations than single-occupancy cars, and thus you end up needing to spend more money on road resurfacing. And again, EVs end up worse in this regard than petrol, diesel, or natural gas vehicles.
  Trains are steel on steel. They wear out shockingly little. Their electric motors require less maintenance than ICE engines. And the vehicles themselves last a lot longer due to this simplicity, so you can buy trains now and keep using them for far longer than you can keep using a bus you buy now. I'm not clear on the lifespan of electric buses, except that at a minimum the battery will need to be replaced much more regularly than a train would need replacing.
  
  To move the same number of people you need several times more buses, which means more engines that can fail, wonky acceleration profiles from the variability of road traffic conditions wears engines and physical road conditions wear tires. The lifetime of a rail system is at least 3x as long as a bus. Many metro systems across north america are still running some trains from the 80s that are only just being replaced. Chips and burrs on metal wheels can easily be ground down then replaced after many, many repair cycles, whereas worn or blown tires can only be replaced when the train wears.
  So you're right, buses can can be set up faster and are more versatile on our existing road networks and lower upfront capital costs. In the long term, trains are cheaper to maintain and operate and provide a better rider experience.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0gZPTC15M0
  
  Continuity of service is a massive advantage to reroutability. If there's an accident or track damage affecting the rail route, that's the end of the service for the time being. A bus will simply take an alternate route - and depending on the disruption, alternations may have no impact on the ability to service all route stops.
  On power efficiency, I'm willing to bet the draw required for tram car conveyance is heavier than what's needed for buses carrying an equivalent number of passengers. It would be interesting to see figures on that front.
- I don't know man, I'd prefer light rail than a banananana bus, you know Brisbane style 3 segment bus...

18 评论