If the report on the
West website today (Nalder finds light rail 'unviable' - https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/28774077/nalder-finds-light-rail-unviable - also at right) is correct, one is forced to ask whether our Transport Minister understands anything about light rail.
On the basis of a
single visit to Singapore, he finds that light rail is 'unviable' - in contrast
to the views of his predecessor and the findings of the Government's own draft (never-to-be-finalised) public transport plan.
One is forced to
wonder if the Minister actually had a look at the Singapore system, as distinct
from just talking with people in an office, as the proposed Perth MAX and the
Singapore system are as unlike as chalk and cheese.
And did he talk only with the operators? If so, this would have omitted many of the key stakeholders, as light rail is as much about land use and development as it is about operating public transport.
In terms of
technology, the MAX light rail proposed for Perth is a conventional
steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system entirely at ground level. This is a tried and
true technology, construction of which is 'standard practice' and low-risk.
The Singapore system,
however, is an automated people mover system similar to that at Singapore Airport, not a traditional light rail
system. The lines are fully automated and elevated, and run largely on viaducts
in order to save scarce land space.
The cost of an automated, elevated system will be much higher than a
conventional on-ground system.
And
Singapore is not Perth. While Singapore does have very high density,
conventionally regarded as supportive of rail-based public transport, the
Singapore light rail serves a primarily residential area on the north-eastern
edge of Singapore Island. It does not serve the city centre. Instead, it relies
on interchange with the MRT (heavy rail) system for journeys to the downtown
core of Singapore, which is some 15km away as the crow flies.
If
taxpayer's money is to be used to find reasons not to build the MAX LRT in
Perth, the Government should, at the very least, not insult our intelligence by
basing its decisions on irrelevant so-called evidence from a situation that
bears no similarity to Perth.
Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA
