Academic provides compelling reason why universities should be closed.
There's an elephant in the room that's completely ignored by those arguing
for "BRT" - capacity. The ignorant overlooking this issue can be excused
but for an academic it should be at the root of the analysis.

You have a city corridor. You look at the population and development along
and around it. You look at the future urban planning around the corridor.
Is there going to be more consolidation, higher population, more activity
centres, a new university (said without irony), or is it going to remain
much as it is for generations ahead (Adelaide lol)? So then you work out
how many people need to move along the corridor and what the future growth
projections for this figure are, considering the planning intentions. Then
you need to work out the likely passenger demand on the corridor which
brings us to mode. Does it need trains, trams or buses (or a combination of
these)?

You can run all of these modes at similar headways (vehicles per hour) but
the vehicle capacities are markedly different, thus will move different
numbers of commuters per hour. A train will carry hundreds of people, a
tram anything from about 200 to about 400, a bus from 50 or less to about
150 or so (the latter double-articulated, not legal on Australian roads,
needs special exclusive roadway). So there's the analysis. All for the cost
of a pension, not an academic salary.

Tony P
On Tuesday, 6 April 2021 at 09:19:56 UTC+10gregsut...@... wrote:

>

>

> https://theconversation.com/why-cities-planning-to-spend-billions-on-light-rail-should-look-again-at-what-buses-can-do-156844?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%206%202021%20-%201908618658&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%206%202021%20-%201908618658+CID_ca84d0d19c8593ec0358de93e0c9d12f&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Why%20cities%20planning%20to%20spend%20billions%20on%20light%20rail%20should%20look%20again%20at%20what%20buses%20can%20do

>

>

>