Legacy public transport fails all transport system objectives, is not financially viable and has a fatal flaw

Submitted by john on Tue, 17/12/2019 - 15:30
pt vs podcar

For the ten objectives, the graph shows a comparison of legacy public transport with suspended aerial podcars, the apparent most desirable of the available alternatives.
Public transport is a low quality service, not capable of attracting people away from cars, because it fails on cost, reliability and trip time. It does not provide a seat, requires vehicle change from high volume routes to and from low volume feeder routes, does not deliver door to door, creates excessive pedestrian flows and requires increasing subsidies. Proposed improvements in public transport involve higher capacities and less personal service. There is no consideration of upgrading train technology to fully automatic control, nor to include extensive video monitoring. There is no plan for spare capacity in peak periods, and planning is based on “crush” loading, so there will always be times when passengers can not all board, and are left at the stop.
As a result, Public Transport will:
* not reduce crashes, but will have minimal diverted trips, and increased pedestrian and cyclist crashes with cars;
* have limited monitoring, have increased exposure during travel, at vehicle change, and when waiting, so will greatly increase assaults;
* not improve amenity by reducing car traffic, but will retain car traffic, so retaining pollution, and not improving amenity;
* not remove congestion, but make it much worse by diverting funding;
* not make trip times faster, but congested trips will become slower;
* not generate extra revenue, but will greatly increase the drain on the public purse;
* not create more jobs, but the subsidies required and congestion growth will forego and waste many more jobs, far in excess of the jobs created by construction;
* not create trip time reliability, but will retain the number of traffic incidents and reduce the possibility of managed traffic;
* not reduce CO2, but the increased congestion will reduce the benefits accruing from reduced emissions by cars;
* and it is not cheap enough to improve rural service.
In short, it fails all objectives and has a fatal flaw of not enough mode change. It is not financially viable and delivers worse service.