Separation of LRT from other traffic

Separation is fundamentally important because of the kinetic energy of the light rail vehicle (LRV) compared to that of bodies colliding with it.

In a metropolitan built up area:
The mass of a typical LRV is about 50,000 kg travelling at up to 80 kph. Compared to this you have cars of about 1,500 kg travelling at up to 80 kph and pedestrians of 80 kg walking at about 5 kph.

For the example above, the order of magnitude of the kinetic energy is as follows:

• For every kinetic energy unit of the person walking, the car has 9,600 and the LRV has 160,000.
• Even if the vehicles are travelling at a slow speed of only 20 kph, for every kinetic energy unit of the person walking, the car has 600 and the LRV has 10,000.

This is a very unequal battle that explains why in any collision, where kinetic energy is transformed into other forms of energy (usually deforming human and vehicle bodies) virtually every other road user suffers against the scale of the LRV.

Put simply, it is folly to allow LRVs to share road space with any other form of traffic.

If it proceeds, using the American at grade model typified by TriMet MAX in Portland Oregon (Translink's exemplar), it will create the most dangerous public transport system in Australia.

If it is not allowed, and a model using grade separation (overpasses and underpasses) or physical separation (substantial barriers between flows of traffic) is used, that would result in creating one of Australia's safest public transport systems.

How is it that the American at grade systems endure if they are so dangerous? Well, let us look at two aspects:

• The systems were introduced before the local population fully appreciated how dangerous they were to become. Previous systems were horse drawn and locals failed to recognize the developing danger due to kinetic energy increases. It is obviously more difficult to have these dangerous systems removed once they are in place. The vested interests have had time to ingratiate themselves with the local politicians, a lot of business had been done and some new jobs created.
• Many American jurisdictions by law limit their public liability to very small dollar sums per person - so the true costs of fatalities are understated. Additionally the usual 'James Hardie' stalling tactics are used to shake off litigants. In a jurisdiction such as Oregon (where until February 2009 public liability was pegged at $200,000 per victim) the total maximum public liability for MAX killing 20 people in its first 20 years of operation would be a mere $4 million; not enough to shock and achieve change to a multi-billion dollar system.

Let us examine what the statistics from Portland mean. We will set aside the particular details of the 20 deaths and work from the fatality frequency rates. Killing at a rate 248% that of cars, indicates that 8 of the 20 fatalities would have occurred on the road anyway. Statistically the other 12 would have been spared. The loss of those 12 lives clearly demonstrates the additional risks presented by at grade light rail.

Is it any wonder that trying to convert car drivers and their passengers to ride light rail is so difficult? No wonder that LRT ridership forecasts are almost never achieved!

Analogy: If you have a wild animal and let it run loose, it will injure and kill people. If you confine it to its own exclusive use pen there will be no damage or fatalities.

So is there an answer to the safety problem?

The most advanced light rail systems (e.g. Docklands, London) are totally separated from other traffic flows and do not have a driver. Driverless light rail avoids human mistakes by not having a driver but fails occasionally due to other errors of technology in and around the vehicle. Likewise monorails have a superior safety record because they are totally grade separated from other traffic.

Translink runs safe separated systems in Brisbane only 80 km away, but doesn't seem willing to do so at the Gold Coast.

Special Safety Section on LEVEL CROSSINGS

The dangers of level crossings have been known since 1806 with the advent of the first public railway in England. Over the years increased traffic volumes and speeds turned level crossings into killing zones for both public and private travellers alike.

All fittings such as boom gates, audible alarms via road ripple strips or train whistles, flashing lights etc have proven to be of only little safety value at level crossings. The billions of dollars spent all over the World on such measures have disappointed.

So what is the answer?

Two things need to happen:

• The design and building of new level crossings must be forbidden. This is already the case in more enlightened countries such as England and The Netherlands. It stands to reason that a problem can never be solved if it is continually refreshed. By way of cost comparison, this embargo costs virtually nothing directly and can be quickly done.
• All existing level crossings must be removed entirely. Of course this will cost a lot of money and will take some years to accomplish.

The first railway in Queensland covered 35 km from Ipswich to Bigges Camp (now Grandchester). It opened in 1865.

So in Queensland all level crossings have been built with the full knowledge of their dangers by the authorities.

To date there are at least 1,800 level crossings across this State and Queensland Rail has a program for monitoring their (lack of) safety and toying with retrofits (and publicity campaigns!) in the vain hope of improving their safety record.

On the GC the first stage of the proposed LRT will introduce between 30 and 40 new level crossings along the 13 km route from Griffith University to Broadbeach. This area has a lot of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Many residents are elderly retirees. Visitors, both domestic and from overseas, are numerous as the GC is Australia's premier holiday destination.

The Queensland Government has no effective plan for addressing the dangers of level crossings.

The government's criticism that if all people followed the laws at level crossings there would be no accidents is fatuous.

If all people followed the laws driving up a mountain there would be no need to install Armco rails at the edge. Will the government remove all such Armco?

If all people followed the laws driving on divided highways there would be no need for barrier fencing to prevent vehicles crossing into oncoming traffic. Should it all be removed?

The current Queensland Government needs to totally reassess its approach to level crossings.