Changed lines 3-4 from:
(:typeset-page fontset=kepler watermark=draft colophon=off parasep=number subtitle="Choose Autonomous Light Metro" headingcolor=RoyalBlue colorlinks=on :)
to:
(:typeset-page fontset=kepler colophon=off parasep=number subtitle="Choose Autonomous Light Metro" headingcolor=RoyalBlue colorlinks=on :)
Added lines 44-47:
X:John Rankin, ed.,\\
FIT Wellington
Changed lines 7-8 from:
FIT supports the project reviewing its preferred option, tunnelled light rail. In FIT's view, ''Autonomous Light Metro'' -- self-driving light rail vehicles running on a fully segregated corridor -- offers Auckland better whole-of-life value for money for its proposed mass rapid transit network.
to:
FIT supports the project reviewing its preferred option, tunnelled light rail. In FIT's view, ''Autonomous Light Metro'' -- self-driving light rail vehicles running on a fully segregated corridor -- potentially offers Auckland better whole-of-life value for money for its proposed mass rapid transit network.
Changed line 43 from:
All of these reasons would appear to apply to the Auckland Light Rail project. Travellers on an Auckland autonomous light metro service would be immune to Auckland's "March madness" and other congestion costs.
to:
Most of these reasons would appear to apply to the Auckland Light Rail project. Travellers on an Auckland autonomous light metro service would be immune to Auckland's "March madness" and other congestion costs.
Changed line 7 from:
FIT supports the project taking another look at its preferred option, tunnelled light rail. In FIT's view, ''Autonomous Light Metro'' -- self-driving light rail vehicles running on a fully segregated corridor -- offers Auckland better whole-of-life value for money for its proposed mass rapid transit network.
to:
FIT supports the project reviewing its preferred option, tunnelled light rail. In FIT's view, ''Autonomous Light Metro'' -- self-driving light rail vehicles running on a fully segregated corridor -- offers Auckland better whole-of-life value for money for its proposed mass rapid transit network.
Changed lines 7-8 from:
In FIT's view, ''Autonomous Light Metro'' -- self-driving light rail vehicles running on a fully segregated corridor -- offers Auckland the best whole-of-life value for money for its proposed mass rapid transit network.
to:
FIT supports the project taking another look at its preferred option, tunnelled light rail. In FIT's view, ''Autonomous Light Metro'' -- self-driving light rail vehicles running on a fully segregated corridor -- offers Auckland better whole-of-life value for money for its proposed mass rapid transit network.
Changed line 43 from:
All of these reasons would appear to apply to the Auckland Light Rail project. Those using an Auckland autonomous light metro service would be immune to Auckland's "March madness" and other congestion costs.
to:
All of these reasons would appear to apply to the Auckland Light Rail project. Travellers on an Auckland autonomous light metro service would be immune to Auckland's "March madness" and other congestion costs.
Changed lines 1-2 from:
FIT (fair intelligent transport) Wellington is a group of professionals who support a change in transport priorities so the private motor vehicle no longer dominates our cities. Our vision is modern, vibrant, amenity-rich cities designed around the needs of people, not cars. FIT has made a number of submissions to Let's Get Wellington Moving covering its mass rapid transit proposals.
to:
FIT (Fair Intelligent Transport) Wellington is a group of professionals who support a change in transport priorities so the private motor vehicle no longer dominates our cities. Our vision is modern, vibrant, amenity-rich cities designed around the needs of people, not cars. FIT has made a number of submissions to Let's Get Wellington Moving covering its mass rapid transit proposals.
Changed lines 5-6 from:
FIT supports the Auckland Light Rail project. Our submission considers only the project's investment logic and value for money. We do not have a view on the route options being considered.
to:
FIT supports the Auckland Light Rail project. Our submission considers only the project's investment logic and value for money. We do not have a view on the route options the project is assessing.
Changed lines 19-20 from:
Why "may not" rather than "will not"? As written, this statement lacks ambition and misses the point of autonomous light metro, which is shorter trains more often, giving better service at lower cost:
to:
Why "may not" rather than "will not"? As written, this statement lacks ambition and misses the point of autonomous light metro, which is shorter, faster trains more often, giving better service at lower cost. Because:
Changed lines 27-30 from:
* higher frequency and higher speeds offset the time taken to enter and leave underground or overhead stations
Autonomous light metro is a productivity investment. For example, trains carrying up to 300 passengers running every 90 seconds give a corridor capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour, if needed. Achieving this capacity with human drivers on a non-segregated corridor is expensive and difficult. Provided that Auckland has the demand, autonomous light metro offers the best value.
to:
* higher frequencies and higher speeds offset the time taken to enter and leave underground or overhead stations
Autonomous light metro is an investment in productivity. For example, trains carrying up to 300 passengers running every 90 seconds give a corridor capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour, if needed. Achieving this level of service with human drivers on a non-segregated corridor is expensive and difficult (if not impossible). Provided that Auckland has the demand, autonomous light metro offers the best value.
Changed line 43 from:
All of these reasons would appear to apply to the Auckland Light Rail project. Those using an Auckland autonomous light metro service would be immune to "March madness" and other congestion costs.
to:
All of these reasons would appear to apply to the Auckland Light Rail project. Those using an Auckland autonomous light metro service would be immune to Auckland's "March madness" and other congestion costs.
Added lines 1-43:
FIT (fair intelligent transport) Wellington is a group of professionals who support a change in transport priorities so the private motor vehicle no longer dominates our cities. Our vision is modern, vibrant, amenity-rich cities designed around the needs of people, not cars. FIT has made a number of submissions to Let's Get Wellington Moving covering its mass rapid transit proposals.
(:typeset-page fontset=kepler watermark=draft colophon=off parasep=number subtitle="Choose Autonomous Light Metro" headingcolor=RoyalBlue :)
FIT supports the Auckland Light Rail project. Our submission considers only the project's investment logic and value for money. We do not have a view on the route options being considered.
In FIT's view, ''Autonomous Light Metro'' -- self-driving light rail vehicles running on a fully segregated corridor -- offers Auckland the best whole-of-life value for money for its proposed mass rapid transit network.
The [[ALR consultation document -> https://www.lightrail.co.nz/media/kalnbj15/alr-brochure-mar-2023-web.pdf]] states:
;;From Mt. Roskill to the airport, light rail will run mostly above the ground. In this section, we are looking at options to separate light rail from local streets and traffic. This means longer trains can run at higher speeds, giving faster travel times.
In FIT's view, "longer trains" are a bug in light metro, not a feature. Stations (elevated or underground) are the most expensive part of a segregated corridor. Longer trains mean longer, more expensive stations.
The consultation document recognises the way to fix this bug:
;;Drivers may not be required as the system is automatic.
Why "may not" rather than "will not"? As written, this statement lacks ambition and misses the point of autonomous light metro, which is shorter trains more often, giving better service at lower cost:
* one robot driver replaces at least 3 human drivers (based on an 18-hour service day)
* higher speeds on a segregated corridor make the trains more productive, moving more people with fewer vehicles
* shorter trains mean shorter, less expensive stations
* higher frequency and higher speeds offset the time taken to enter and leave underground or overhead stations
Autonomous light metro is a productivity investment. For example, trains carrying up to 300 passengers running every 90 seconds give a corridor capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour, if needed. Achieving this capacity with human drivers on a non-segregated corridor is expensive and difficult. Provided that Auckland has the demand, autonomous light metro offers the best value.
FIT notes that Vancouver in Canada gives the following reasons, among others, for choosing [[tunnelled autonomous light metro -> https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/ubc-line-rapid-transit-study.aspx]] for its `SkyTrain extension to the University of British Columbia:
:More volume: A tunnelled `SkyTrain extension allows for the highest number of travellers and ensures that the new system retains the capacity required for the region's growing needs.
:Lower operating costs: `SkyTrain technology has the lowest operating costs per kilometre and per passenger than other technologies like light rail transit or bus rapid transit.
:More flexible: Because `SkyTrain technology is driverless, `TransLink [system operator] can easily add or remove cars to accommodate demand.
:More efficient goods movement: Underground transit will free up road space for more efficient goods movement and vehicle transportation.
:Faster commutes: The `SkyTrain extension would cut travel time [...] -- as fast as by car.
All of these reasons would appear to apply to the Auckland Light Rail project. Those using an Auckland autonomous light metro service would be immune to "March madness" and other congestion costs.