needs to be just that - public transport. It has to be accessible by everyone.
So why on earth is the man most likely to be the nation's next transport minister spruiking the need for more trams. Why is he spruiking the need for more trams on roads which are already crowded? Why is he hinting at the closure of at least one rail line in favour of tram?
Madness.
We need more trains and we need them to go further. Those in the know tell me that a train line east would not be used because it would simply take too long to do the journey. They are of course thinking of the old route...and yes, it would cost billions to send the train along a new route. It means that those areas may well never have a train service but it would be wise to plan for one.
We need trains to go much further south. The rail extension there barely made a mark. The utter stupidity of removing what had once been there has now been recognised but the cost of putting it back in place is so great that again it may never be done.
We need trains to go much further north and north east...and yes there was some there too.
Those who originally planned our public transport had much more sense than those who are now responsible for it.
And trams? The roads are already clogged. Perhaps if you want to ban the use of cars it makes sense?
I don't see that happening.
Trains make sense. They don't share the road. They have priority. Properly designed rail routes mean that trains can move efficiently.
They can move high numbers of people and goods at the same time.
As kittens we liked to go on the only tram. It went from the centre of the city down to a popular beach. That route is a dedicated line. When we used it the tram only shared the road for a mere half a mile at either end. The old trams used to rattle and sway along and we could see the driver pulling at levers. Modern trams are not like that.
Oh yes, they are supposed to be "accessible" but, like buses, they are only partially accessible. They carry fewer people than trains too.
I suppose there are reasons for trams but trains make more sense to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Cat, would I be correct to assume that those who originally planned your public transportation used the trains? And just as likely that those in charge of public transportation today never use it, trains or trams? Genie
Trains yes. There were more trams once and then "trolley" buses. The current mob of politicians don't seem to use anything apart from cars but there have been one or two who used, and supported, the rail service. They would certainly have used trains when the rail network was first set up.
Our current state transport department and minister's actions seem to be favouring road travel over rail. The sales message is all about "using new technology" such as "ride sharing" etc. and yet the people who need public transport the most - low income households, students, people with disabilities and elderly - have the least access to technology. Our transport planners seem to be missing the mark. Perhaps they should be forced to use the very transport system that they have designed to gain better insight.
An idea to extend a rail line had a number of different possible routes from which to choose on the table. What was chosen? A rail line that finishes in a dead end and in the direction of an area that is already served by another rail route. This was chosen instead of routes which could be further extended or branched in multiple ways to suburbs that need a rail service which would open up transport options for popular tourist regions beyond.
Post a Comment