Higher passenger capacity (but with more standing)
Lower operating costs
Lower noise
Benefit to other road users where surfaces rebuilt – i.e. fewer jolts for the buses
Pollution is remote from the vehicle
Can draw on whatever source of electricity is used
Aesthetic – very well-designed trams are seen as adding
visual appeal to the urban landscape
Seen as a positive benefit to areas – part of urban renewal schemes, affecting property values
Legibility – people including infrequent public transport users can see where it goes and feel confident something will come
Integrates well into a pedestrian mall – eg. Bourke St (Melbourne) or Hay St
Potential for dual-current vehicles as used in Karlsruhe or Saarbrucken – can run on LRT and heavy rail routes
May suit areas where level of demand is between bus and heavy rail
Symbolic value: owing to the cost and effort required, can be seen as proof that a government is truly committed to public transport.
DISADVANTAGES of light rail
Compared to buses:
Higher capital costs
Generally lower proportion of seats to standees
Inflexibility of route e.g. in case of breakdown or a temporary street closure due to a special event or parade
Inflexibility - one tram cannot overtake another
Disruption to traffic and local businesses during construction
Permanent inconvenience to motorists where lanes are lost or the motorists are required to stop behind a tram with passengers getting on and off.
Cost of construction means that interchanges will be necessary on some routes or outer ends of routes
Greater capacity of vehicles may mean reduced frequency compared to buses
If coal-fired electricity is used, greenhouse emissions per passenger-km may be higher than buses
May lead to neglect of bus routes in areas away from LRT
Aesthetic – overhead wires are disliked by many people
Principles for light rail planning for Sydney:
LR should always be planned as part of an integrated public transport system, not as a separate money-making venture.
Lines should go where the demand is (present or planned), NOT just somewhere there is a disused railway line or other surplus land.
Some bus service into the city should be maintained. If a bus/LR interchange is necessary it should be at-grade (i.e. no steps / escalators) and involve as short a walk as possible.
Frequencies of all services should be good enough that exact timekeeping and connections are not necessary.
Where a bus journey into the city is replaced by a feeder bus with LR interchange, the total journey time should not be increased.
The cost structure and ticketing should be totally integrated with the rest of the public transport system. There should be no surcharge on change of mode e.g. tram to bus.
There are many possible improvements to existing bus services, e.g. dedicated lanes, traffic light priority and elimination of ticket sales by the drivers.
These should be pursued as widely as possible. The healthier bus patronage is on any route, the more potential for conversion to LR.
All improvements to bus facilities should be designed with potential LR conversion in mind.
New release areas at the edge of Sydney may be suitable for LR as it can be planned for from the beginning. This would be dependent on the population density being high enough to support a line, and that LR would take people to at least a major centre (e.g. Penrith or Liverpool) without having to change.
