SOME people have suggested that any extensions to Newcastle's light rail should be with trackless trams. I recently saw a YouTube video that questioned the alleged advantages of trackless trams.
An alleged advantage is the much lower cost.
However, the only cities with trackless trams are in China where construction costs for transport infrastructure are usually much lower.
Were trackless trams to be used in Newcastle, the construction costs would be much higher. The difference in the cost would be much lower.
Those trackless trams that are in operation have a much smaller carrying capacity than trams, and trackless trams cannot run in multiples like normal trams can.
Trackless trams cannot be extended, as there are glorified battery powered articulated buses, whereas articulated trams can be extended.
Normal trams are smoother in operation as they don't have to contend with any pot holes or rough roads. If we are to see any expansion to the light rail in Newcastle we have to get it right with the right light rail track and trams.
Peter Sansom, Kahibah
Don't accept rail case too quickly
THE High Speed Rail Authority's Tim Parker and federal Newcastle MP Sharon Claydon states that 14.9 million passengers use the Newcastle to Sydney / Sydney to Newcastle (or part thereof) every year.
Can we have a 'fact check' on these statistics please? What is the alighting and departing point breakup for these numbers, especially when evaluating a high speed rail from Newcastle to Sydney?
By my calculations 14.9 million passengers would equate to 1700 passengers per hour for every single hour of the year. Are we to believe this? Even split 50/50 each way, that is 850 riders every single hour, every single day.
Trains arrive regularly from Sydney into Newcastle's interchange and for the life of me, even at peak hour, I have not seen 850 people alight off a train from Sydney. I guess that means the average number of passengers arriving by train when I'm not there must be far higher, even at midnight.
I ask - are we being duped by a number that's perhaps a bit more complex being stated so simply? A simple calculator often proves the notion that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Also, where is the money coming from to pay for our high speed rail?
I observe many $2.50 per trip 'senior' gold Opal card holders arriving and departing. In times such as those we are currently experiencing, I think we could spend our taxpayer provided monies elsewhere more efficiently (by doing things right) and effectively (doing the right things).
Why build a Rolls Royce efficiently if people are buying Toyotas?
Neil Allen, Newcastle East
It's more than just another rail line
NEIL Allen ("Fast train 'thought bubble'", Letters, 12/10), doesn't seem to realise that high-speed rail manages to operate with normal rail all over the world. He must have a very low opinion of local transport if he doesn't believe they are capable of similar scheduling. In my opinion his calculator skills are fine as far as they go, but his suppositions are flawed in key areas.
High-speed rail would be transport infrastructure which benefits the entire state, so if we divide the $26 billion cost by the population of NSW (rounded down), 8 million, then divide that figure by his 40 years, the cost is 81 cents per person per year. I volunteer to cover Mr Allen's share.
David Jennings, Edgeworth
Refine how we define Israel debate
I have come across an issue that I think has helped me understand the reluctance of our media and politicians to criticise Israel in any way. It concerns the definition of antisemitism.
Many countries including Australia have adopted the 2016 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) "working definition" of the term.
This definition has been widely criticised as unclear and too broad, for example by proponents of the Jerusalem Definition, who claim that the IHRA definition potentially condemns as antisemitic even ordinary political criticism of particular Israeli governments.
It seems to me that this goes a long way towards accounting for what is going on in our public discourse. Antisemitism is, rightly, anathema and nobody wants to be accused of it. If a flawed definition can be interpreted as extending its condemnation to any criticism of Israeli government policy, then clearly the supporters of that policy have an unfair advantage in the public debate.
In 2016 the IHRA itself proposed their formulation as a "working definition", yet it has been widely adopted without review. It seems such a review or replacement, for instance by the Jerusalem Definition, is long overdue.
Kate Newton, Charlestown
We chose the chamber the city has now
I wonder if our lord mayor, Ross Kerridge has had any experience in teaching preschoolers, or if he has seen the movie Mean Girls. Good education for him. Finding your own seat in preschool often started a kindergarten war that some carried through to adulthood. He is in for a fight to get these councillors to work together. Always remember that we voted for them.
John Hollingsworth, Hamilton
Voters picked their lord mayor
NEWCASTLE council should bring back straight shooters like Allan Robinson (Robbo) to help Ross Kerridge run it the way it should be run. The whinging board members should remember the people of Newcastle put Ross in the top spot.
Phil Grainger, Lemon Tree Passage
Mural no basis for rejection
ENVIRONMENT Minister Tanya Plibersek has now cited a mural on a central NSW post office as proof of the existence of the blue-banded bee dreaming story, one of the central reasons she stopped the Blayney gold mine proposal despite evidence from the local land council that the story is not a local Indigenous tradition.
There goes a multimillion-dollar gold mine project and its projected employment for about 580 construction and 290 full-time jobs and the loss of $200 million in state royalties, all based on an unsubstantiated mythical story. If this was not about our future livelihoods it would be rib-tickling funny.
John Cooper, Charlestown
Soar point in emissions
WHEN are we going to hear something from the climate gurus regarding aircraft pollution? The rapid rise in aircraft numbers since World War II has been astronomical. Increasing aircraft numbers has also paralleled increasing global temperatures.
Where does aircraft pollution go? How or where is it absorbed? Does it remain in the atmosphere?
That's not to mention the heat generated by aircraft in transit. We are spending billions reinventing our electricity grid while a new international airport will open soon, running more and more aircraft ...
