ART still lacks proven track record
My previous article
posits seven reasons why Light-Rail Transit (LRT) beats Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) and Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART) as better public
transport for Penang. Lim Mah Hui and Jackie Moey
have written responses that I wish to engage as my contribution to the
on-going public discourse on this matter. Regrettably, I can only
address the more repeated counterpoints to keep this reply brief.
Ambiguous ART
The 12th InnoTrans – the world’s largest rail industry fair – was held at Berlin in September last year. There were 3,062 exhibitors from 61 countries, with more than 400 rail-related innovations displayed. Industrial giants showcase their most advanced, top technology at InnoTrans. And curiously, the ART was not there.
CRRC, the maker of ART, had an elaborate booth and launched their track-based train Cetrovo at InnoTrans, but nowhere was the trackless ART seen. This has prompted internationally-renowned public transport expert Graham Currie to wonder, “Why would they not bring that along?”
To many in the industry, the ART is basically a tram that moves on tyres, like a bus. The founding director of the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at University of Sydney, David Hensher calls the ART a “BRT system.” To him, the branding of ART as “trackless tram” is a “clever use” to give “emotional attachment” to tram, while it is practically a bus.
This is not surprising as the label “Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit” is also a reference used by CRRC for self-driving bus. (See screenshot below)
Ambiguous ART
The 12th InnoTrans – the world’s largest rail industry fair – was held at Berlin in September last year. There were 3,062 exhibitors from 61 countries, with more than 400 rail-related innovations displayed. Industrial giants showcase their most advanced, top technology at InnoTrans. And curiously, the ART was not there.
CRRC, the maker of ART, had an elaborate booth and launched their track-based train Cetrovo at InnoTrans, but nowhere was the trackless ART seen. This has prompted internationally-renowned public transport expert Graham Currie to wonder, “Why would they not bring that along?”
To many in the industry, the ART is basically a tram that moves on tyres, like a bus. The founding director of the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at University of Sydney, David Hensher calls the ART a “BRT system.” To him, the branding of ART as “trackless tram” is a “clever use” to give “emotional attachment” to tram, while it is practically a bus.
This is not surprising as the label “Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit” is also a reference used by CRRC for self-driving bus. (See screenshot below)
The ambiguous ART has also been examined by other transport experts. Public transport researcher Zhuxiao Wong had written to “debunk some misconceptions” about the ART, responding to inflated claims and potentials of the technology. Wong’s list of misconceptions about the ART are the claims that it is a “revolutionary technology,” “have better ride quality,” and a “game-changing” system.
After considering the ART, the New South Wales government is of the view that it is an “untested technology” and not a “viable option” for mass public transport. Graham Currie, who wonders over the absence of ART at InnoTrans, says that the information about ART is “speculative data” that needs another 10 years of test to ascertain its feasibility. In other words, the ART still lacks of track record.
Unlike the LRT, a transit system being used in many parts of the world and tested through time, the ART has not achieved consensus among transport experts as a viable option. Urban mobility expert from University of Adelaide, Jennifer Bonham is cautious to recommend ART just because it is cheap, “I certainly wouldn’t invest straight away based on the cost savings because they are still only assumptions.”
Despite its ambiguity, proponents of ART insist that the state government should buy the unproven system for Penang – treating the rest of us as guinea pigs for their “emotional attachment” to tram?
Diversion from on-ground public transport risk
Lim and Jackie have raised question over the construction of highway in view of road accidents. They state that the concern for accidents should stop new highway from being built, as there are more accidents on the road than accidents caused by bus and tram. This is nothing but a diversion.
The main issue is deciding among modes of public transport system for Penang, not deciding between public transport system and building roads. As shown previously, LRT has the least risk compares to BRT and ART, and therefore it is a safer public transport mode.
Bringing in statistics of road accidents does not make LRT more accident-prone than BRT and ART. Neither does it make BRT and ART less accident-prone. The fact remains that LRT is safer than the other two as it has zero chances of colliding with road vehicles. In fact, it gives us more reason to abandon BRT and ART precisely because they use roads which is accident-prone.
Diversion is neither constructive nor illuminating. We should keep to the topic when discussing which mode of public transport should be implemented, and not divert to other things such as the pros and cons of building highway.
When being revealed the disadvantages of one’s preferred mode of public transport, one should explain or make counter-claim over the revelation. Diverting to other topic is a desperate attempt to dismiss the revelation.
Free up road space?
Lim and others often claim that bus and tram free up road space. Public transport – be it LRT, BRT, or ART – does not free up road space. It is private car users who free up road space when they do not use their vehicle.
Likewise, bus or tram system with dedicated lane does not take away cars from roads too. They take away roads.
Taking away roads from the current condition of 97% private car usage will only frustrate private car users and also bus and tram users as their journey are disrupted by intersection, junctions, and pedestrian crossings. One just need to visit Kota Tua in Jakarta to experience this.
Doesn’t LRT elevated track take up road space too? That depends on the alignment design, where to build the supporting beams with minimal reduction of road space. This option is not available for dedicated bus/tram lane unless new roads are built.
Besides, I cannot see how is choking the 97% of current road users being democratic and fair, as believed by Lim. He wrote that, “Road space should be shared with all users – public transport, cyclists and pedestrians.” As far as I know, there is no banning of buses, cyclists and pedestrians from using the roads.
It is undeniable that certain roads are user-friendlier to one group than others, yet to write as if bus passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians are banned from using the roads is rhetorical rather than factual. Besides, if most road users are private car users, then the most democratic way is to allocate more space for them, since 97% is by any count very representative of the people.
Any policy change to public mobility should therefore take very serious consideration of the plight of the 97%. The focus of public mobility should be to educate and encourage. Not by choking the traffic to force private vehicle users to use public transport, which is authoritarian.
Better mobile option with least traffic disruption, more comfortable ride experience, and safer mode of transportation must be made available to incentivise more private vehicle users to free up road space.
That option was definitely not the one missing at InnoTrans 2018.
After considering the ART, the New South Wales government is of the view that it is an “untested technology” and not a “viable option” for mass public transport. Graham Currie, who wonders over the absence of ART at InnoTrans, says that the information about ART is “speculative data” that needs another 10 years of test to ascertain its feasibility. In other words, the ART still lacks of track record.
Unlike the LRT, a transit system being used in many parts of the world and tested through time, the ART has not achieved consensus among transport experts as a viable option. Urban mobility expert from University of Adelaide, Jennifer Bonham is cautious to recommend ART just because it is cheap, “I certainly wouldn’t invest straight away based on the cost savings because they are still only assumptions.”
Despite its ambiguity, proponents of ART insist that the state government should buy the unproven system for Penang – treating the rest of us as guinea pigs for their “emotional attachment” to tram?
Diversion from on-ground public transport risk
Lim and Jackie have raised question over the construction of highway in view of road accidents. They state that the concern for accidents should stop new highway from being built, as there are more accidents on the road than accidents caused by bus and tram. This is nothing but a diversion.
The main issue is deciding among modes of public transport system for Penang, not deciding between public transport system and building roads. As shown previously, LRT has the least risk compares to BRT and ART, and therefore it is a safer public transport mode.
Bringing in statistics of road accidents does not make LRT more accident-prone than BRT and ART. Neither does it make BRT and ART less accident-prone. The fact remains that LRT is safer than the other two as it has zero chances of colliding with road vehicles. In fact, it gives us more reason to abandon BRT and ART precisely because they use roads which is accident-prone.
Diversion is neither constructive nor illuminating. We should keep to the topic when discussing which mode of public transport should be implemented, and not divert to other things such as the pros and cons of building highway.
When being revealed the disadvantages of one’s preferred mode of public transport, one should explain or make counter-claim over the revelation. Diverting to other topic is a desperate attempt to dismiss the revelation.
Free up road space?
Lim and others often claim that bus and tram free up road space. Public transport – be it LRT, BRT, or ART – does not free up road space. It is private car users who free up road space when they do not use their vehicle.
Likewise, bus or tram system with dedicated lane does not take away cars from roads too. They take away roads.
Taking away roads from the current condition of 97% private car usage will only frustrate private car users and also bus and tram users as their journey are disrupted by intersection, junctions, and pedestrian crossings. One just need to visit Kota Tua in Jakarta to experience this.
Doesn’t LRT elevated track take up road space too? That depends on the alignment design, where to build the supporting beams with minimal reduction of road space. This option is not available for dedicated bus/tram lane unless new roads are built.
Besides, I cannot see how is choking the 97% of current road users being democratic and fair, as believed by Lim. He wrote that, “Road space should be shared with all users – public transport, cyclists and pedestrians.” As far as I know, there is no banning of buses, cyclists and pedestrians from using the roads.
It is undeniable that certain roads are user-friendlier to one group than others, yet to write as if bus passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians are banned from using the roads is rhetorical rather than factual. Besides, if most road users are private car users, then the most democratic way is to allocate more space for them, since 97% is by any count very representative of the people.
Any policy change to public mobility should therefore take very serious consideration of the plight of the 97%. The focus of public mobility should be to educate and encourage. Not by choking the traffic to force private vehicle users to use public transport, which is authoritarian.
Better mobile option with least traffic disruption, more comfortable ride experience, and safer mode of transportation must be made available to incentivise more private vehicle users to free up road space.
That option was definitely not the one missing at InnoTrans 2018.
