Opportunities for Trackless Tram in Sydney

Isaac Besarra, Tess Hewitt, Adli Roslin, Anthony Tsang, Kenneth Wu, Ankith Anil Das

Jacaranda Flame Consulting

Requested by and Submitted to

Ai Jen Lim

Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA)

6th August 2021

Disclaimer

This report was prepared by consultants at Jacaranda Flame Consulting for Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) and describes opportunities and concept design of trackless tram on Parramatta Road. The opinions, conclusions and recommendations presented herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The University of Sydney or any of the sponsoring parties to this project.

Acknowledgement of Country

We acknowledge the tradition of custodianship and law of the Country on which the University of Sydney campuses stand. We pay our respects to those who have cared and continue to care for Country.

Acronyms/Abbreviations Definitions

APS Aesthetic Power Supply

ART Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit

AS/NZS Australian Standards/New Zealand Standards

AUD Australian Dollar

AV Autonomous Vehicle

BAH Booz Allen Hamilton

BRT Bus Rapid Transit

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

CBD Central Business District

DSLR Digital Single-Lens Reflex

EV Electric Vehicle

FIC Finance & Investment Committee

FMCW Frequency Modulation Continuous Wave

FoV Field of View

GETS Guided Electric Transit Systems

GHD Gutteridge Haskins and Davey

GLT Guided Light Transit

GPS Global Positioning System

IEC International Electrotechnical Commission

IMU Inertial Measurement Unit

IR Infrared

ITDP Institute of Transportation & Development Policy

LED Light Emitting Diode

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging

Li-On Lithium-Ion

LPT Liverpool-Parramatta T-way

LRT Light Rail Transit

LTO Lithium Titanate Oxide

MEMS Micro-Electro-Mechanical System

NWT North-West T-way

PCB Printed Circuit Board

RADAR Radio Detection and Ranging

RGB Red Green Blue

RGB-D Red Green Blue - Depth

RMS Roads & Maritime Services

SBEnrc Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre

ToF Time of Flight

TropiQ Townsville Tropical Intelligence & Health Precinct

USD United States Dollar

iii

Executive Summary

This project aims to explore the feasibility of introducing trackless trams between Central and Leichhardt along Parramatta Road. This report will investigate the suitability of implementing these systems in Australia through understanding the technology available and conducting a cost-benefit analysis, as well as providing recommendations and preliminary concept designs.

The literature review starts by exploring trackless tram technologies. It was found to be a combination of bus and light-rail technology with additional automated features. From this, a review of automation technology was performed to understand various types of sensors used in autonomous vehicles. Case studies were also researched to provide a greater understanding of existing trackless trams. It was found that the Hunan, China trackless tram was a successful implementation of the mode of transport. Then, research was conducted to understand the current opportunities within Australia for the trackless tram, having a stronger focus on the current modes of public transport used on Parramatta Road. Finally, a site context study of Parramatta Road from Leichhardt to Central was researched to understand the landscape and topography to ensure feasibility of deploying trackless trams along this route.

The technology available for the trackless tram was broken up into three sections, the exterior/body, the underside and the power source. The body should be similar to a bus, using aluminium or plastic materials. The underside of the trackless tram should match a rail system bogie. The main power source for consideration should be electrical using either a lithium titanate battery or in future, hydrogen fuel cells. For the analysis, the trackless tram was compared against both bus and light-rail systems. The cost was broken up into acquisition costs, construction costs and operating costs. The benefits of each mode of transport was also weighed, considering factors such as carbon footprint and safety. It was finally determined that a trackless tram was the most suitable mode of transport. Automation was also considered with fully automation being the cheapest in the long term. However, due to potential societal concerns and uncertainty of the technology, it is recommended to deploy a semi-autonomous trackless tram

The final concept design is broken down into 3 sections. Section 1 (between Petersham Park and Missenden Road) and Section 3 (between Victoria Park and Central Station) have the same design, focusing on lane configuration and adapting to the existing road infrastructure. The design uses designated outer lanes for the trackless trams, which can also be used by pedestrians and surrounding businesses, adding aspects of urban renewal. Section 2 borders the University of Sydney along Parramatta Road, and will use a combination of tunnels and elevated roads to maximise areas of public green space. The purpose of this feature is to add a secondary extension to Victoria Park which can add additional outdoor space for local university students and for the broader community.

Table of Contents

Disclaimer ...... i

Executive Summary ...... iv

1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Objectives ...... 1

1.2 Scope ...... 2

1.3 Constraints ...... 2

2 Literature Review ...... 3

2.1 Trackless Tram Technology ...... 3

2.2 Automation Technology ...... 5

2.2.1 Navigation Strategies ...... 5

2.2.2 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) ...... 7

2.2.3 Camera ...... 12

2.2.4 Sensor Fusion ...... 13

2.2.5 Radio Detection and Ranging (Radar) ...... 14

2.3 Trackless Tram Case Studies ...... 15

2.3.1 Case Study: Hunan, China ...... 15

2.3.2 Case Study: Nancy, France ...... 18

2.4 Applications and Opportunities in Australia ...... 20

2.4.1 Perth, Western Australia ...... 21

2.4.2 Townsville, Queensland ...... 22

2.4.3 Badgerys Creek, New South Wales ...... 23

2.4.4 Leichhardt to Central, New South Wales ...... 23

2.5 Current Popular Modes of Transport ...... 24

2.5.1 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) ...... 25

2.5.2 Light Rail Transit (LRT) ...... 27

2.5.3 Comparison Between LRT and BRT ...... 28

2.6 Site Context Study ...... 29

2.6.1 Site Context Information ...... 29

2.6.2 Existing Public Transport Systems on Site ...... 30

2.6.3 Traffic Volume Data ...... 31

2.6.4 Site Mapping Studies ...... 32

3 Analysis ...... 35

3.1 Trade-off Table ...... 35

3.2 Available Technology ...... 45

3.2.1 Structure ...... 45

3.2.2 Fuel ...... 46

3.2.3 Road Markings ...... 48

3.3 Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) ...... 48

3.3.1 Cost ...... 48

3.3.2 Benefit ...... 58

3.4 Risks ...... 62

4 Concept Design ...... 64

4.1 Option 1: Surface Level Roads ...... 65

4.2 Option 2: Elevated Roads ...... 68

4.3 Option 3: Underground Roads ...... 69

4.4 Final Recommendation ...... 70

4.4.1 Sections 1 and 3 ...... 71

4.4.2 Section 2 ...... 72

4.5 Station Locations ...... 76

5 Conclusion and Future Work ...... 84

6 References ...... 85

7 Appendix ...... 98

7.1 Appendix 1: Team member individual assigned weights ...... 98

Table of Figures

Figure 2.1: Comparison between ART in Hunan China (left) (Newman, 2018) and Van Hool buses in Barcelona (right) (atha9kd5, 2013) ...... 4

Figure 2.2: IR sensors configuration (Chowdhury et al., 2017) ...... 6

Figure 2.3: Path deviation and intersection scenarios (Chowdhury et al., 2017) ...... 6

Figure 2.4: Lane following demonstration (Amaradi et al., 2016) ...... 7

Figure 2.5: Example point cloud (Royo & Ballesta-Garcia, 2019) ...... 11

Figure 2.6: Pinhole camera model and its mathematical representation (Yeong et al., 2021) ...... 13

Figure 2.7: CRRC Zhuzhou Institute trackless tram trialled in Hunan, China (Newman, 2018) ...... 15

Figure 2.8: The battery-powered trackless tram in operation at Zhuzhou (Newman, 2018) ...... 17

Figure 2.9: GLT in Nancy (Vergez, 2009) ...... 18

Figure 2.10: Cross section of guide rail and guide wheel (Snaevar, 2011) ...... 19

Figure 2.11: GLT operating as conventional trolleybu (Budach, 2019) ...... 20

Figure 2.12: Proposed trackless tram network connecting Scarborough Beach and Carousel (Scheurer, 2020) ...... 21

Figure 2.13: Proposed trackless tram corridor in Townsville, illustrate the area of influence for surrounding property prices (Caldera et al., 2020) ...... 22

Figure 2.14: Public transport patronage percentage by mode in Sydney derived from Transport for NSW (2021c) data ...... 24

Figure 2.15: Example of a BRT Corridor as per the BRT Standard (Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, 2016) ...... 25

Figure 2.16: Monthly patronage of the Liverpool-Parramatta T-way between 2002 – 2010 (State Transit Authority of New South Wales, 2011) ...... 26

vii

Figure 2.17: Site context plan (NSW Government Spatial Service, 2021) ...... 29

Figure 2.18: Railway and roadway site plan (NSW Government Spatial Service, 2021) ...... 30

Figure 2.19: Parramatta Road Average Daily Traffic Volumes, Yearly Profile (Roads & Maritime Services, 2021) ...... 31

Figure 2.20: Parramatta Road Average Traffic Volumes, Daily Profile (Roads & Maritime Services, 2021) ...... 31

Figure 2.21: Parramatta Road Total Traffic Volumes, Daily Profile (Roads & Maritime Services, 2021) .. 32

Figure 2.22: Site context plan ...... 33

Figure 2.23: Site topographic plan and section ...... 34

Figure 3.1: Individual assigned weights for each design criteria ...... 36

Figure 4.1: 3 Concept design options: surface level, elevated, and underground roads ...... 64

Figure 4.2: Design Option A, section and plan ...... 65

Figure 4.3: Design Option B, with 2 or 4 car lanes, sections and plans ...... 66

Figure 4.4: Design Option C, with 2 or 4 car lanes, sections and plans ...... 67

Figure 4.5: Design Option D, section and plan ...... 67

Figure 4.6: Design Options E and F, elevation ...... 68

Figure 4.7: Design Option G, long and short sections ...... 69

Figure 4.8: Design Option H, long and short sections ...... 69

Figure 4.9: Final recommendation for trackless tram route and design ...... 70

Figure 4.10: Final recommendation for Section 1 and 3, section and plan ...... 71

Figure 4.11: Final recommendation for Section 2, plan ...... 73

Figure 4.12: Final recommendation for western segment of Section 2, long and short sections ...... 74

viii

Figure 4.13: Final recommendation for eastern segment of Section 2, long and short sections ...... 74

Figure 4.14: Sydney Light Rail Map P1 Line Proposal ...... 75

Figure 4.15: Proposed trackless tram station locations ...... 76

Figure 4.16: Proposed location for Petersham station derived from Google Maps (2021) ...... 77

Figure 4.17: Proposed location for Fort Street station derived from Google Maps (2021) ...... 78

Figure 4.18: Proposed location for Petersham TAFE station derived from Google Maps (2021) ...... 78

Figure 4.19: Proposed location for Johnson Street station derived from Google Maps (2021) ...... 79

Figure 4.20: Proposed location for Bridge Road station derived from Google Maps (2021) ...... 80

Figure 4.21: Proposed location for RPA Hospital station derived from Google Maps (2021) ...... 80

Figure 4.22: Proposed location for USYD School of Veterinary Science station derived from Google Maps (2021) ...... 81

Figure 4.23: Proposed location for Victoria Park station derived from Google Maps (2021) ...... 82

Figure 4.24: Proposed location for Broadway station derived from Google Maps (2021) ...... 83

Figure 4.25: Proposed location for Broadway station derived from Google Maps (2021) ...... 83

Table of Tables

Table 2.1: Comparison between bus, BRT and light rail ...... 28

Table 3.1: Design criteria definitions and weights – time ...... 37

Table 3.2: Design criteria definitions and weights – cost ...... 38

Table 3.3: Design criteria definitions and weights – cost (cont.) ...... 39

Table 3.4: Design criteria definitions and weights – safety level ...... 40

Table 3.5: Design criteria definitions and weights – capacity ...... 41

Table 3.6: Design criteria definitions and weights – sustainability...... 42

Table 3.7: Design criteria definitions and weights – public opinion ...... 43

Table 3.8: Trade-off table weights and scores ...... 44

Table 3.9: Initial and operating costs comparison between bus, light rail, and trackless tram ...... 50

Table 3.10: Benefits comparison between bus, light rail, and trackless tram ...... 60

Table 3.11: Annual safety benefits for road accidents derived from Bus Industry Confederation (2014), Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics (2021), and Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (2009) ...... 61

Table 4.1: Tabulation summary of the pros and cons for Design Option B ...... 65

Table 4.2: Tabulation summary of the pros and cons for Design Option C ...... 66

Table 4.3: Tabulation summary of the pros and cons for Design Option D...... 67

Table 4.4: Tabulation summary of the pros and cons for Design Option E & F ...... 68

Table 4.5: Tabulation summary of the pros and cons for Design Option G & H ...... 69

1 Introduction

Sydney's light rail networks commute a large number of people on a daily basis, covering densely populated regions and frequently visited areas around Sydney CBD such as Central, Circular Quay, Randwick, Kingsford and Dulwich Hill. Currently, there are three interconnecting light rail networks in Sydney, including Parramatta Light Rail that is under construction and expected to be opened in 2023. The increment in daily volume of customers and traffic conditions influence the service frequency of the developing light rail networks. To allow more accessibility to all Sydneysiders, increasing the coverage of the light rail networks is one of the ways. However, there are concerns such as the expensive cost of building the light rail networks and significant disruption made that affect communities and businesses. Road closure, limited lanes on the road, high installation cost and noise pollution are some of the problems that may arise during the project. Therefore, an alternative that suits to address such problems is to utilise the next generation light rail, the trackless tram. Trackless trams are electric vehicles that look and behave similarly to light rail, instead they are battery-powered and run on rubber tyres rather than steel wheels. Having such innovation will not only reduce the overall cost, but also provides easier operating conditions compared to the existing light rail networks. To obtain a deeper understanding on the opportunities of having trackless trams, it is crucial to weigh the benefits and the limitations of the vehicle and compare them to the existing light rail and buses. The report aims to identify existing research and practices of trackless trams, analysis on the availability, suitability and effectiveness of trackless trams in Australia through a cost-benefit analysis, and provide concept design and future recommendations for implementation on Parramatta Road.

1.1 Objectives

This report aims to:

1. Research existing and proposed trackless trams in Australia (Perth, Townsville, Badgerys Creek) and globally. 2. Conduct geographic context studies of the site, Parramatta Road, Central – Leichhardt. 3. Research the principles of Guided Electric Transit System (GETS) and Autonomous Rail Rapid Technology (ART). 4. Understand the basic principles of Autonomous Navigation (LiDAR technology). 5. Analyse the differences between trackless trams and conventional buses/light rail through a cost- benefit Analysis and its environmental impact. 6. Propose new design ideas on Parramatta Road between Central and Leichhardt.

1.2 Scope

The scope of this project is defined as below:

1. Literature review to research and analyse existing and proposed trackless tram technology. 2. Comparative research and analysis between trackless trams, light rail, and buses. 3. Proposed concept design and recommendations for future development of trackless trams.

1.3 Constraints

There are some constraints that exist in this 6-week investigation: 1. Only one autonomous trackless tram exists currently in the world and therefore there is a limited amount of existing research done on this new technology. 2. Cost-benefit analysis is estimated based on publicly available data; hence, it may not accurately reflect the actual costing of the proposed design. 3. No prototyping has been conducted in this report; thus, all the recommendations and concept designs are made based on theoretical research data.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Trackless Tram Technology

Trackless trams, also known as Autonomous Rail Rapid Technology (ART) or Guided Electric Transit System (GETS) (Newman et al., 2018), are vehicles that look like a light rail but operate with rubber tyres instead of rail wheels on tracks. They are often a combination of new and existing technologies such as extended high-capacity, bi-articulated buses, electric and hybrid buses, and optically guided buses (GTA Consultants, 2020). Trackless trams are designed to travel in a dedicated corridor with signal priority to minimise traffic congestion delays (Verschuer, 2020), and can include automated optical guidance technology to automatically steer the vehicle to follow painted line markings along the road, which allows for precision docking for easy access boarding at platform (GTA Consultants, 2020).

Although trackless trams gained renewed interest in recent years, they have been around since the early 20th century and were better known as Trolleybuses which were popular in cities in Europe and (then) Soviet Union (Murray, 2000). Trolleybuses were also operated in six Australian cities between 1932 – 1969, and were phased out as diesel and petrol buses were more preferred (Australasian Railway Association, 2021). The unappealing view of overhanging networks of wires and the high maintenance costs also played a contributing factor in the phaseout of trolleybuses.

The latest iteration of trackless tram, developed by CRRC Zhuzhou Institute Co. Ltd., combines the latest optical guidance technology and sensors to accurately follow line markings along the road. The system known as the Autonomous Rapid Rail Transit (ART), was unveiled in Zhuzhou, Hunan province, China, in June 2017. This new system caught the attention of the international transport community for its innovative design and technology as it is neither a bus rapid transit (BRT) nor a light rail transit (LRT), but rather a new transit system (Newman et al., 2018). This system is completely battery powered, which is partially recharged at each stop or at the end or the trip, avoiding expensive overhead catenary. It is built as a bi-directional vehicle, with driver cabins on both sides which allow it to travel at full speed in either direction. Bidirectionality allows for simple manoeuvres at terminus stations, avoiding complex turning manoeuvres or road infrastructure for turning such extended bi-articulated buses. Newman et al. (2018) further suggests that the trackless tram provides a higher ride quality due to the usage of autonomous optical sensor systems.

As trackless tram systems use rubber wheels and operate directly on existing road infrastructure, substantial cost and time for civil works associated with conventional light rail is avoided. This switch in design eliminates the need for building tracks on the road, making it less disruptive as laying tracks require

substantial excavation for moving underground utilities and strengthening the surface. Moving buried services such as water mains, electricity cables, telecommunication wires and wastewater systems adds substantial cost to the project if disturbed (Jean, 2013). Furthermore, uncertainties in underground infrastructure can result in significant cost blowouts (Saulwick, 2014). Another major advantage of trackless tram is its ability to alter their course to avoid obstructions. The ability to manoeuvre around obstructions can significantly increase the average operating speed and thus reduce journey times for passengers. It also reduces the cost and downtime associated with road incidents and maintenance as trackless tram could just manoeuvre around or use other lanes on the road. For example, in Melbourne, trams often get stuck behind turning vehicles or due to obstructions such as crashes or broken-down cars.

However, the ART system has not been widely implemented except in China. On the other hand, there are multiple manufacturers of bi-articulated buses in Europe, which have been put into service in many European cities (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, 2010; Urban Transport Magazine, 2019; Van Hool NV, 2014). When compared to the ART system, these bi-articulated buses offer similar aesthetics and functionalities. In fact, the distinction between the two is often not clear and is shown in Figure 2.1. Despite the similarity in appearance, the ART system is far more technologically advanced with features such as bidirectionality, multi-axle steering, and guidance technology.

Figure 2.1: Comparison between ART in Hunan China (left) (Newman, 2018) and Van Hool buses in Barcelona (right) (atha9kd5, 2013)

2.2 Automation Technology

Looking at the recent trends in the automotive and locomotive industries, there is fast growing interest in the automation of vehicles. The goal of this field is to remove the need for human intervention during travel, thus allowing people to focus on performing other tasks. Like most autonomous vehicles (AVs), the trackless tram scenario requires considering a variety of issues including perception and safety. At the core of the automation process, there are 3 key challenges which must be addressed:

- Localisation and Navigation - Obstacle Detection & Avoidance - Traffic Control

Thinking about how humans are able to drive safely, the most important piece of information is the visual perception of the environment. Therefore, an AV must have a mechanism to replicate the human eye. This is achieved by implementing visual sensors such as a visual camera onto a vehicle. It is often better to implement multiple sensors where possible to account for errors due to various factors such as hardware failure or noisy data (Yeong et al., 2021).

2.2.1 Navigation Strategies

Trains and light rail systems involve guiding a vehicle along a set of physical rails placed along the desired route. In this case, there is no navigation strategy required as the vehicle simply moves on fixed paths. For a trackless tram however, the physical rails are removed from the system. Therefore, one of the main challenges in developing a trackless tram system is to find a replacement for the rails and navigate the vehicle between destinations.

2.2.1.1 Line Following

One solution to the navigation problem is to paint a solid line in the centre of a lane between destinations. The line should be coloured such that there is clear distinction in reflectivity between the road and the line. For example, if the road is a dark colour such as black, the line should be a light colour such as white. The reason for this distinction is to allow for the use of Infrared (IR) sensors in the line following system. An IR sensor consists of an IR Light-Emitting Diode (LED) paired with a photodiode (Rishabh, 2021). When the IR light is emitted towards the ground, the intensity of the reflected signal captured by the photodiode will vary based on the colour of the ground (Chowdhury et al., 2017). This way, an algorithm can be devised to understand whether the vehicle is following the line or has deviated.

In the simplest case of following a straight line, a minimum of two IR sensors are required to detect deviations on either side of the line (Rishabh, 2021). For more complex solutions such as an intersection, more sensors are required. Chowdhury et al. (2017) suggests that four IR sensors was the minimum to achieve fully autonomous navigation in realistic scenarios beyond the simplest case. The configuration used is shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: IR sensors configuration (Chowdhury et al., 2017)

For the simple solution, any one of the two centre sensors activating will indicate a small adjustment required to stay on path. When two or more sensors are activated, this will indicate an intersection which the algorithm can understand and make an appropriate decision to continue navigating. This process is illustrated in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Path deviation and intersection scenarios (Chowdhury et al., 2017)

The processing required for a line following system can be completed using microcontrollers such as the Arduino Uno (Chowdhury et al., 2017; Rishabh, 2021). Therefore, this solution will be cheaper due to the reduced costs for hardware and power consumption. A potential disadvantage of this implementation may be in a slow response time varying based on the number of IR sensors. By implementing more IR Sensors, any deviation will be detected sooner and allow for more accurate line following. However, this will increase costs and should therefore be considered carefully.

2.2.1.2 Lane Following

Another solution is to use a camera sensor for line detection of an entire lane. Differing from the previous approach, this solution requires an onboard computer to process the image data. Using complex Computer Vision algorithms, straight lines may be detected within an image as shown in Figure 2.4. Internally, the computer is then able to calculate an offset by comparing the projected straight line with the actual lines in the image. Using this offset, the system can finally make adjustments and realign the vehicle to stay inside the lane.

Figure 2.4: Lane following demonstration (Amaradi et al., 2016)

Figure 2.4 shows that the lane following solution using Computer Vision algorithms is much more complicated than the line following algorithm described in section 2.2.1.1. However, the significant advantage of this algorithm is found in the improved stability of the system. The camera images are able to perceive further into the future and predict the required actions earlier than the line following algorithm. As such, for real-time applications requiring fast decision making, the lane following solution is the preferred option. The other major advantage of using a camera for line detection is the ability to simultaneously detect obstacles in the image. Although computationally heavy, the camera images provide much more data back to the system than the line following algorithm.

2.2.2 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)

LiDAR refers to a device capable of measuring distances by utilising light. The main application of LiDAR sensors for the trackless tram scenario is for localisation and obstacle detection and avoidance. Due to LiDAR’s unique method of capturing visual information, it has several advantages over other sensors for solving these problems. Depending on the wavelength of light used, LiDAR is able to penetrate through certain materials such as vegetation and bodies of water. This would allow for better detection of pedestrians and obstacles around areas with a high density of plants such as parks. The most common wavelengths range from 905 nm to 1550 nm; however, this can vary based on the application. In Australia, all LiDARs must comply with the safety standard AS/NZS IEC 60825.1-2011 Safety of laser products -

Part 1: Equipment classification and requirements (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, 2021). This standard classifies LiDAR based on their impacts to the human eye and skin, ranging from class 1 (the safest) to class 4 (the most hazardous). Fortunately, many commercial LiDARs such as those by Velodyne are classified as class 1 meaning they are safe to use in public. LiDAR is also capable of collecting visual data regardless of lighting, allowing for day and night operations.

2.2.2.1 Basic Principles

The mechanism behind this device may be broken down into three components:

- Transmitter

The transmitter component of the LiDAR facilitates the generation and transmission of a beam of light into the environment.

- Receiver

The receiver component of the LiDAR facilitates the process of capturing the beam of light and converting it to an electrical signal.

- Processor

The processor component of the LiDAR facilitates the internal processing of the LiDAR for calculating the distance.

The most common method to calculate distance is to measure the Time of Flight (ToF). As the speed of light is known and constant, the distance between the device and target can be calculated by the following equation:

= 2 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑 :

𝑤𝑤ℎ=𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ( ) 𝑑𝑑 = 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑚𝑚 ( / ) 𝑐𝑐 = 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ( 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜) 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙ℎ𝑡𝑡 𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑒 𝑠𝑠 :

𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑇𝑇 ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙ℎ𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

As time is a key factor in this method, the laser must be transmitted in specific pulses such that there is only ever one beam of light in the environment. This prevents any confusion within the system and therefore allows for accurate measurement of distance.

Another method used for internal processing is the Frequency Modulation Continuous Wave (FMCW). Differing from the pulsed light approach, an FMCW LiDAR will always emit a beam of light and effectively continuously scan an area. However, the underlying calculation of distance in this case still relies on the ToF (Royo & Ballesta-Garcia, 2019). This is possible as the frequency of the light being transmitted has been modulated to a specific beat frequency. A single section of this light wave at the beat frequency, otherwise known as a chirp, is transmitted and reflected off the target which is similar to the pulsed approach. Due to the frequency modulation, the reflected wave will have a different phase to that of the transmitted signal. It is this difference in phase that allows for the measurement of distance at better resolutions. Additionally, the FMCW approach is able to provide information regarding the speed and direction of a target being measured (Khader & Cherian, 2020; Royo & Ballesta-Garcia, 2019). The main disadvantage of using an FMCW LiDAR is in the reduced stability of chirp generation primarily due to temperature (Khader & Cherian, 2020). FMCW is also more likely to be affected by interference, making the pulsed ToF the preferred solution in commercial AVs (Royo & Ballesta-Garcia, 2019)

2.2.2.2 3D LiDAR

So far, the basic principles behind how a LiDAR operates in one dimension has been explored. This is not beneficial for use cases beyond simply measuring distances like a ruler. To gain enough information for autonomous navigation, the LiDAR needs to perceive three dimensions like humans. The traditional solution to adding dimensionality is to incorporate motors capable of mechanically actuating the LiDAR device. This could involve directly moving the laser transmitter or by moving a mirror, both of which will cause the laser to sweep and scan an area. Due to the simplicity of mechanical actuation, mechanical LiDARs are able to easily achieve a high horizontal field of view (FoV) of 360°

A 3D LiDAR would require the use of two motors, one for each additional axis. However, this is undesirable due to being bulky and incurring higher ongoing costs. One common solution to this is to increase the number of lasers in place of one of the motors, thereby reducing maintenance costs of the LiDAR. However, this is still relatively expensive as more and more lasers are required to achieve high resolutions.

2.2.2.3 Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS) LiDAR

Recent developments in LiDAR technology have attempted to solve many of the existing issues mentioned above by considering solid-state technology. One of the main solid-state LiDAR systems uses MEMS technology in place of the traditional mechanical system. A MEMS LiDAR incorporates silicon chip technology to create MEMS mirrors that are used to redirect the laser instead of motors (Aijazi et al., 2020). Differing from normal mirrors, MEMS mirrors are generally much smaller and are therefore cheaper to manufacture (Aijazi et al., 2020; D. Wang et al., 2020). MEMS mirrors are instead actuated via various electrical methods which allow for a longer lifespan and lower ongoing costs (Aijazi et al., 2020). Despite having many advantages, the use of solid-state technology also brings disadvantages. Current implementations of this technology limit the maximum possible FoV. This means more of the LiDARs would be required to have the same coverage as a mechanical LiDAR. Therefore, careful consideration is required before choosing an appropriate LiDAR for the trackless tram. A brief description of the actuation methods is provided below:

- Electro-Static

This refers to the use of two electrically charged plates on either side of the MEMS mirror, effectively forming a gimbal system (Imboden et al., 2016). By polarizing the charges of the two plates, a current or flow of electrons is generated (Fargas Marques et al., 2005). It is this current that exerts a force on the mirror causing actuation. In this way, the speed of actuation is directly proportional to the current of the system and can be adjusted accordingly.

- Electro-Magnetic

Similar to the electro-static method, the implementation of an electro-magnetic actuated system also follows a gimbal mechanism. However, instead of the two charged plates, a pair of magnets are used instead to generate a magnetic field (Fargas Marques et al., 2005). This is most commonly a conductive coil wrapped around iron allowing for the magnetic field to be adjusted based on the amount of current flowing through the coil. By attaching a magnet to the mirror as well, the magnetic field will exert a force on that magnet and thus actuate the mirror.

- Electro-Thermal

Differing from the previous methods, electro-thermal actuation relies on the deformation of materials due to heat. As such, this implementation does not follow a gimbal design but instead uses a single axis arm attached to the MEMS mirror (Imboden et al., 2016). The heating process is facilitated by passing a current through a conductive material, such as nichrome, near the arm (Fargas Marques et al., 2005). As the arm heats up, it will slowly curve and thus actuate the mirror. Although simple, this method suffers from stability

issues due to heat from external factors such as the sun and heat from the trackless tram system. A study on a common type of MEMS mirror using an Aluminium and Silicon Oxide bimorph (Al/SiO2) revealed an optimal operating temperature of between 75 ℃ - 100 ℃ (P. Wang et al., 2019). If the temperature were to deviate, the accuracy of the LiDAR would be compromised. Therefore, it is essential to maintain a stable temperature when using an electro-thermal actuated LiDAR.

2.2.2.4 Processing

After collecting a set of distances across three dimensions, the LiDAR must be able to arrange the distance data together into a meaningful visual format. To achieve this, a LiDAR must be combined with other sensors such as an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a global positioning system (GPS). An IMU refers to a combined system of sensors such as a gyroscope and accelerometer, providing the orientation and acceleration of the system. A GPS module will constantly return the position of the system, which when combined with the acceleration information provides a highly accurate estimation of location. A single distance measurement is then able to be mapped to a specific location for a given LiDAR location and orientation. This computation across all of the data uses specific data processing software, the end result being a set of points in 3D space known as a point cloud.

Figure 2.5: Example point cloud (Royo & Ballesta-Garcia, 2019)

2.2.3 Camera

Cameras are one of the most common sensors used for visualisation. It is also one of the oldest technologies with the fundamental principles being discovered potentially thousands of years ago (Rick, 2013). Similar to a LiDAR, a standard camera also functions by detecting light in the environment. The key difference is that a camera is typically a passive sensor, meaning it does not emit light itself. For an AV such as the trackless tram, the main purpose of utilising a camera is to easily recognise road signs, traffic lights and other objects where colour is particularly important as camera data can retain key information including colour and texture. The specific texture or colour differences allowing the perception of features on flat surfaces such as text which LiDAR may be unable to detect.

There are two types of cameras generally considered for an AV: an RGB or RGB-D Camera. These refer to the type of data captured by the camera where RGB stands for Red, Green & Blue (colour data) and D stands for depth. The RGB camera in this context refers to traditional use of a monocular or singular camera. This is the most basic configuration only returning a high-resolution coloured image. Note, this image data is stored across three layers, one for each colour as the name suggests. In motion, the camera will have a certain capture rate and thus feed in a series of still images which must be processed to track obstacles (Yeong et al., 2021). The second type of camera mentioned above contains additional depth information. There are multiple methods to achieve this including a stereo camera configuration which combines two RGB cameras and simultaneously processes the images; or similar ToF concepts to the LiDAR as cameras also rely on sensing light signals (Yeong et al., 2021). Due to the similarities of the latter form of RGB-D cameras, recent implementations have directly incorporated a simple LiDAR with a camera to achieve the RGB-D effect. The main purpose of using an RGB-D camera over the former is the additional data allowing for higher accuracy during sensor fusion. This will be discussed further in a later section

2.2.3.1 Calibration

It is important to first consider intrinsic calibration when using a camera to ensure there is no distortion and objects appear in the correct location. The calibration of a camera is performed based on the pinhole model (Yeong et al., 2021). The pinhole model is illustrated in figures below. Figure A provides a simple understanding of how this process works. Much like a camera, the light of an object passes through a single lens and forms an image within the box. Looking at Figure B, this mathematically shows how the 2D image is converted to 3D coordinates relative to the camera. Through this mathematical process, and knowing the intrinsic properties of the camera such as the focal length, the computer is able to compute precise coordinates in 3D space (Yeong et al., 2021). Popular methods to perform this calibration involves the use

of a checkerboard pattern to easily identify distortions with a simple and consistent pattern. For known camera properties, there is also the possibility of using precomputed value to adjust it as this field has been highly studied (Yeong et al., 2021).

Figure 2.6: Pinhole camera model and its mathematical representation (Yeong et al., 2021)

2.2.4 Sensor Fusion

As stated previously, the use of a single sensor is often undesirable due to many intrinsic factors which may lead to inaccurate measurements within the system. External noise in the environment is also commonly found in sensor data, introducing additional unwanted data. For a real-world problem such as a trackless tram, any inaccuracies from the errors or noise could lead to catastrophic events. As such, when designing a system like the trackless tram, it is vital to consider how to minimise this possibility.

Sensor Fusion refers to the process of combining the data of different types of sensors together to achieve higher accuracy. It is important that the sensors are different such as a camera with a LiDAR rather than using 3 LiDARs. In the latter example, the combination of LiDARs may reduce the error by a certain amount. However, there is no way to ensure the validity of this example solution as the final output still incorporates erroneous data. Instead, the use of a camera and LiDAR sensor together is able to find common data points and ensure certain features are accurate. Although this is traditionally a difficult problem, the use of machine learning and deep neural networks has simplified the process. Sharing common data points also reduces the complexity of the problem allowing algorithms to solve the problem of perception more consistently and therefore faster (Yeong et al., 2021). In this sense, the design of an AV should ideally include multiple sensors or various types to ensure high safety and also reduce overall operational costs. The exact implementation and costs of sensor fusion for AVs will be discussed in a later section.

2.2.5 Radio Detection and Ranging (Radar)

Radar, as the name suggests, is a sensor which emits radio wave signals to gather information in the environment. This is achieved by following the principles of echoing known as the Doppler effect (Yeong et al., 2021). The Doppler effect can be understood from a sound perspective where the noise from a vehicle slowly gets louder as it approaches a person before fading as it is travelling away from the person. Knowing this, Radar differs from the two previous sensors where the primary information obtained is the velocity and position of an object (Yeong et al., 2021). However, a radar offers similar advantages to the LiDAR in having capabilities to operate very well regardless of time and weather conditions (Roos et al., 2019).

Similar to a LiDAR, the sensor operates under two mechanisms: a pulsed radar and a FMCW radar. These behave in a very similar manner to the LiDAR with radio waves being measured. Refer to the discussion in the LiDAR section above for further details regarding the mechanisms. Due to the long history behind the radar system, the technology has much lower costs than the LiDAR sensor. The relative size of the sensor has also been significantly reduced allowing for unique mounting in small or hidden locations on a vehicle (Yeong et al., 2021). Radars may also be adjusted dynamically to switch between short range measurements and long-range measurements based on the selected wavelength or frequency of the radio wave signal (Roos et al., 2019). This allows for greater flexibility and therefore lowers the costs associated with deploying radars onto an AV. The main drawback of the radar however lies in its inability to recognise features of an object well, often only providing additional information of the objects size (Yeong et al., 2021). Taking all of this into consideration, the main challenge that radar is able to solve for AVs is basic obstacle collision detection for early warning systems (Roos et al., 2019). It is also beneficial for sensor fusion to further improve the accuracy of the entire autonomous system (Yeong et al., 2021).

2.3 Trackless Tram Case Studies

2.3.1 Case Study: Hunan, China

Figure 2.7: CRRC Zhuzhou Institute trackless tram trialled in Hunan, China (Newman, 2018)

To incorporate the knowledge and implementation of trackless trams, it is fair to investigate the existing innovation from other countries that have a similar concept to the aim of the project. The most famous and convincing case is the Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART) in Zhuzhou that is located in Hunan province, China. It is believed that the ART can address the disadvantages of other existing public transport such as buses and light rails. Having the capacity to carry 300 to 500 passengers, the trackless trams were unveiled and first tested by CRRC Zhuzhou Institute Co. Ltd. in 2017 and started their commercial operation in 2019 (Ibold, 2020). The trackless trams are capable of travelling at 70 km/h on road surfaces and have the potential to carry as much as 20,000 - 30,000 people per hour (Dalkmann & Shah, 2018). Following are the technical features outlined by Newman et al. (2019) regarding the ART in comparison to conventional light rail:

- Rubber tyres rather than rails

The existing conventional light rail operates by cruising on rails embedded into the surface of the ground whilst ART uses rubber tyres similar to on-road vehicles. This suggests that vigorous digging activity onto the surface of the road for installation purposes is not necessary as the technology is able to run on the asphalt just like other vehicles that use rubber tyres, and it is also ready to cruise on concrete surfaces. Hence, addressing the concerning matters of expensive costs to build networks for trams to run on rails. Disruption to the local community and businesses will be significantly reduced as the installation process is much less complex compared to the conventional light rails.

- Non-polluting electric

ART is powered by a lithium-titanate battery that is located on the roof of the carriages. Utilising batteries that have a 25-year lifespan will ensure cleaner and more sustainable power generation compared to conventional light rails that demand a continuous supply of electricity either from overhead lines or from the ground by using the Aesthetic Power Supply (APS). APS is recently installed in the new network of light rail in Sydney providing the vehicle with the same power as overhead wiring through transferring power from the ground with more complex operations (Transport for NSW, 2019b). On the other hand, lithium-titanate batteries possess high current thresholds which allow the cells to be charged quickly as well as supply the power needed to drive the trackless tram (Giuliano et al., 2011). Therefore, the trackless tram can be rapidly charged when they stop momentarily at stations or return to the depot after finishing scheduled travelling services to be fully charged.

- Autonomous

ART will not need any driver as it is guided by GPS and LiDAR technologies. GPS is used to navigate the carriages along a corridor whilst the detection of obstructions during motion depends on LiDAR. These technologies allow the carriages to have precise docking with station platforms, a smoother ride experience for the passenger and variations in route to avoid over-wearing or rutting of pavements. However, manual override by the driver is always enabled in case unexpected obstructions come to exist. The accuracy of the technology allows the carriages to slide into the station within millimetres, whilst also compatible for disability access (Newman, 2018).

Figure 2.8: The battery-powered trackless tram in operation at Zhuzhou (Newman, 2018)

A combination of these features will reduce the cost of building a trackless tram 3 - 4 times lower than the cost of light rails (Bodhi Alliance Pty Ltd & EDAB Consulting Pty Ltd, 2017). It also opens up the opportunity to promote environmental sustainability based on the capacity of the trackless trams and the implementation of clean energy utilisation to drive the trackless trams (Dalkmann & Shah, 2018). The chances of reducing the amount of private motorised vehicles on the road will increase and consequently, the amount of greenhouse gas released from fossil fuel-powered vehicles can be reduced and substantially abate air pollution.

2.3.2 Case Study: Nancy, France

Figure 2.9: GLT in Nancy (Vergez, 2009)

Another existing example of trackless trams can be seen in Nancy, France where it was first unveiled in 2000. The technology is known as Guided Light Transit system (GLT) operation by using rubber tyres for cruising in unidirectional and guided by central rail for direction as shown in Figure 2.9. The central rail is only used for navigation purposes and the weight of the carriages are entirely supported by the rubber tyres. However, there are some parts of the route that the trams are being steered by assigned drivers where the central rail is absent, which is one-third of the total route (National Trolleybus Association (UK), 2008). Having the maximum capacity to carry 143 - 147 passengers within 3 carriages, the technology unveiled by Bombardier Transportation encountered many issues since the first inauguration including erratically steering and guide wheel breakage (Kuhn & An, 2008). This has led the tram in Nancy to travel at a very slow speed especially at corners in order to avoid derailment of the central rail (Budach, 2019).

. Figure 2.10: Cross section of guide rail and guide wheel (Snaevar, 2011)

Following are the technical features of the GLT that are worth mentioning:

- Steel rail and rubber tyres

GLT has a similar operating condition as the conventional light rails. Figure 2.10 depicts the steel rail that acts as a guide rail for the trams during motion that covers nearly two-thirds of the total route of the GLT in Nancy. The rubber tyres are used to drive the trams just like any other rubber-tyred vehicle on the road. Over one-third of the GLT route operates without the central guide rail and is steered by the assigned driver. However, the transition from guided to free-wheeling mode occurs in motion, thus small bumping and noise are noticeable (Allen, 2012). This suggests that the trams can operate with and without the guide rail based on circumstances such as the topography of the route and the direction of the motion of the trams. Hence, road constructions must be made to install the central rail on the road which may disrupt the local community and businesses and a high construction cost.

- Electric powered with auxiliary diesel engine

GLT uses dual trolley poles to collect and return their electrical power from the overhead lines to drive the trams in motion. The technology uses the existing wires constructed by the town’s previous generation of trolleybuses. Hence, reducing the overall cost of installation of GLT in Nancy. However, implementing such technology to a new place that does not have any existing overhead lines will increase the capital cost significantly, whilst also having a similar feature to conventional light rail systems. In the section where the trams are being steered independently of that central guide rail, the auxiliary diesel engine is used to drive the tram in motion. GLT will operate as a light rail when the motion is within guidance and it will behave like a bus once it successfully goes through the transition to the free-wheeling mode.

Figure 2.11: GLT operating as conventional trolleybu (Budach, 2019)

Generally, there are many doubts and uncertainties about the suitability of the GLT operating conditions. Although the technology is able to travel with maximum speed as other existing light rails or trams, it usually operates at extremely low speed in order to avoid derailment of the central guide rail. Since the beginning of the inauguration, derailments have occurred on multiple occasions due to the high travelling speed of the trams and the accumulation of ice and snow on the rail during winter. The poor quality of ride experienced by the passengers also occurred and is caused by the tyres running over the same spot in the road which results in significant rutting. Nancy has since initiated a refurbishment program for its vehicles, but these vehicles will eventually be phased out by 2021 to allow a new tramway to be built along the same route.

2.4 Applications and Opportunities in Australia

Trackless trams are currently proposed in different areas in Australia with the majority of the following proposals being put forward by the Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre (SBEnrc).

2.4.1 Perth, Western Australia

Perth is home to over two million Australians with a 2% increase in population between 2019 - 2020 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021). This calls for an opportunity to improve the city’s current transport infrastructure. A study conducted by Kelobonye et al. (2019) into the “Drivers of Change in Urban Growth Patterns” uses Perth as a case study to suggest that transport development is a critical component of the cities’ evolution, raising that public transport in the form of both heavy and light rail have significantly influence of urban growth patterns, allowing for an increase in population density and promoting sustainable growth in catchment areas.

Currently there are proposals to construct a diametrical trackless trams network that will connect Scarborough and Cannington through the main city of Perth and Curtin University (Scheurer, 2020). A total of six main design option routes spanning a distance of 16 to 30 km were considered in a collaborative study with RMIT University and Curtin University, all resulting in varying impacts on the existing transport network and surrounding communities. From these findings, certain route designs required a lower number of trackless trams in the areas when compared to buses due to the ability of trackless trams travelling at higher speeds and increase in passenger capacity. A notable change was also evident in Perth’s public transport network such that there was an increase of 7.5% in Global Efficiency, an indication of transport accessibility for the most optimal network design (Refer to Figure 2.12) (Scheurer, 2020). These proposals will significantly impact the transport industry providing over 50,000 jobs and provide urban regeneration in the proposed area (Clean State, 2021). Newman et al. (2020) further suggests that the whole trackless trams project in Perth can be completed in 18 months with urban development continuing to grow in surrounding communities for the next ten years.

Figure 2.12: Proposed trackless tram network connecting Scarborough Beach and Carousel (Scheurer, 2020)

2.4.2 Townsville, Queensland

Townville has an estimated population of 194,000 people, growing at a steady rate of 2.6% per year and with an expected growth to 300,000 persons by the end of 2036 (Townsville City Council, 2016).

There is untapped potential for the City of Townsville to undergo urban renewal and revitalisation in collaboration with the Townsville Tropical Intelligence & Health Precinct (TropiQ) and SBEnrc. The current proposed idea for implementing trackless trams corridors in Townsville is to connect Thuringowa and Douglas to the CBD. Research has been conducted by SBEnrc, which illustrates that the surrounding land value is likely to increase by 6% due to an increase in mobility and accessibility to public transport (Refer to Figure 2.13) (Caldera et al., 2020). The creation of job opportunities and increased economic diversity are key benefits that could be explored with the new emerging technology of trackless trams. However, environmental factors such as the poor battery in tropical climates and potential flood hazards during monsoon season will need to be considered when implementing such a system.

Figure 2.13: Proposed trackless tram corridor in Townsville, illustrate the area of influence for surrounding property prices (Caldera et al., 2020)

2.4.3 Badgerys Creek, New South Wales

With plans of the Greater Sydney Commission to explore the metropolis of three new cities, Badgerys Creek has been an area of interest for urbanisation and expansion of Western Sydney. Western Sydney’s current opportunities lie within linking Badgerys Creek Airport with Liverpool CBD as part of the Sydney West City Deal (Greater Sydney Commission, 2018). There are opportunities for the undeveloped nature of this community, such that infrastructure such as roads and buildings can be better tailored to the conditions of the trackless trams. The straight roads that this link can provide will enable a smoother and more enjoyable ride for commuters with the construction of a new airport also calls for the needs of commuting travellers to and from the Liverpool CBD.

2.4.4 Leichhardt to Central, New South Wales

Parramatta Road between Leichhardt and Central is another consideration for the integration of trackless trams put forward by the Inner West Council. The 23 km stretch of road aims to ease congestion and increase transport accessibilities for commuters, students, families, and surrounding commutes.

A critical component for considering Parramatta Road as a focal point is to not only decrease current congestion and increase transport accessibility, but also exploit opportunities in urban renewal. A report prepared by HASSELL (2013) raise the opportunity for urban renewal on Parramatta Road through the following projects:

- A Plan for Growing Sydney 2014 – ongoing A. “Goal 1: A competitive economy with world-class services and transport” (NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 2014, p. 6)

- Sydney CBD to Parramatta Strategic Transport Plan 2015 A. Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy 2016 – 2023 “Focuses on eight Precincts – …. Leichhardt and Camperdown – and integrates land use and built form with public domain initiatives to meet the Road’s future population, housing, and employment needs.” (Transport for NSW, 2015, p. 2)

- Future Transport Technology Roadmap 2016 – 2056 A. “Personal mobility devices such as pods and powered bikes that offer new options for first- and last-mile travel between homes and key public transport nodes” (Transport for NSW, 2016b, p. 3) B. “Alternatively fuelled vehicles, which can deliver greater sustainability and a quieter ride” (Transport for NSW, 2016b, p. 3)

2.5 Current Popular Modes of Transport

There are currently 5 main modes of transportation available in Sydney; train, bus (including B-Line and bus rapid transit (BRT) T-way), light rail, metro and ferry, with train and bus accounting for 49% and 42% of patronage respectively (Refer to Figure 2.14). Tirachini et al. (2014) suggests that travellers are commonly influenced by a number of factors when choosing public transport, this include accessibility, waiting time, travel time, price, reliability, comfort and safety. The average time people in Sydney spend commuting on public transport is 46 minutes, with an average distance of 8.5 km (Moovit, 2020). This equates to a cost of $3.66 on the metro and train, $4.87 on the bus and light rail, and $6.21 on the ferry (Transport for NSW, 2021a). The high price of ferry combined with the limited area of service, being only available in the Sydney Harbour area, results in a low number of patronage (2%). Meanwhile, 17% of Sydney’s population travel over 12 km every day to work (Moovit, 2020). Whilst the cost, reliability and comfort is similar for all the remaining modes of transport, bus and train is preferred for long distance commute due to their wide network availability.

Public Transport Patronage Percentage

2% Train 4%3% Bus

Light Rail 49% 42% Metro

Ferry

Figure 2.14: Public transport patronage percentage by mode in Sydney derived from Transport for NSW (2021c) data

2.5.1 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

The Institute of Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP) is a global non-governmental not-for-profit organisation that focuses on design and implementation of transport and urban development systems, which aims to mitigate the impacts of climate change and to support a more prosperous and sustainable city, with bus rapid transit (BRT) being one of the ITDP’s area of expertise (Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, 2021). According to the Institute of Transportation & Development Policy (2016), a BRT system must incorporate the five basic elements below as per the BRT Standard:

- Dedicated right-of-way - Busway alignment - Off-board fare collection - Intersection treatment - Platform-level boarding

The BRT Standard further suggests that to qualify as a BRT, there must be “a section of road or contiguous roads served by a bus route or multiple bus routes with a minimum length of 3 kilometres that has dedicated bus lanes” (Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, 2016, p. 26).

Figure 2.15: Example of a BRT Corridor as per the BRT Standard (Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, 2016)

Hensher & Golob (2008) suggests that with the introduction of bus rapid transit (BRT), the common notion of buses operating in a constrained environment and trains having the dedicated right-of-way is no longer valid. A BRT can be classified into “full BRT” and “light BRT” where a full BRT operates on its own right- of-way with efficient passengers boarding at high quality interchanges, and a light BRT having a combination of both dedicated right-of-way and shared way, coupled with fewer integration of other services.

BRT has been highly successful in cities like Ottawa, Canada (Cervero, 1998), Curitiba, Brazil (Cervero, 1998), Bogota, Columbia (Hidalgo et al., 2013) and Guangzhou, China (Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, 2016). Currently, over 40 cities across 6 different continents have already implemented a BRT system with many more planned around the world (Wright & Hook, 2007). A BRT system in comparison with a normal bus system has numerous benefits, including the reduction of spaces between vehicles and a reduction of accidents, as well as an increase in speeds on dedicated BRT corridors. This leads to an increase in productivity and capacity of service (Transport for NSW Research Hub, 2018a).

The capital cost of a BRT system normally costs 4 to 20 times less than a light rail system and 10 to 100 times less than a metro system, whilst the operating cost varies in developing and developed nations due to the difference in labour cost (Wright & Hook, 2007). Overall, Levinson et al. (2003) suggests that the operating cost of BRT is normally the same or less than the light rail system.

Two BRT infrastructure currently exists in Sydney: the Liverpool-Parramatta T-way (LPT) and North-West T-way (NWT). The LPT is a 31 km roadway with 20 km of dedicated busway and 11 km of bus priority lanes. There are 33 bus “stations” on each side of the T-way connecting both Parramatta train station and Liverpool train station (The Audit Office of New South Wales, 2005). Since its inception in 2003, there has been a steady increase of patronage, and has accumulated up to 2.76 million customers by 2011 (Refer to Figure 2.16) (State Transit Authority of New South Wales, 2011).

Figure 2.16: Monthly patronage of the Liverpool-Parramatta T-way between 2002 – 2010 (State Transit Authority of New South Wales, 2011)

Whilst there has been research (Cervero & Kang, 2011; Rodríguez & Targa, 2004) which suggests that land value increases with the introduction of a BRT system, there is also contradicting research (Cervero & Duncan, 2002) which shows no correlation between them. Mulley & Tsai (2013) further concluded that the Liverpool-Parramatta T-way shows little to no correlation to land value in the surrounding area.

The NWT is a 24 km roadway with 21 km of dedicated busway and 3 km of bus only lanes. There are 30 bus “stations” connecting Parramatta to Rouse Hill and Blacktown to Parklea (Australian National Construction Review, 2009), with patronage on the NWT expecting to be doubled between 2016 - 2036 (Jacobs Australia, 2016).

2.5.2 Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Whilst there is no standard definition of what light rails are, Transport for NSW (2021d) defines it as follow:

“Light rail is a frequent, reliable mode of transport featuring modern, air-conditioned, driver-operated vehicles which run along a dedicated track, bypassing traffic congestion. It is a great way to get around the city and connect to major train, bus and ferry hubs.”

Light rail is normally implemented as a cheaper way to transport commuters through urban areas where existing roadway capacity cannot be expanded and a heavy rail investment cannot be justified (Cervero, 1984). De Bruijin & Veeneman (2009) further suggests that the optimal distance to implement a light rail system is between 10 km and 40 km, and positioned between metro and train stations.

There are currently three light rail lines in operation in Sydney: Dulwich Hill Line, Randwick Line, and Kingsford Line, with a fourth line, the Parramatta Line, connecting Westmead to Carlingford expecting to open in 2023 (Transport for NSW, 2021b). The CBD & South East Light Rail (Randwick Line and Kingsford Line) aims to “transform public transport in Sydney” and “provide high capacity, clean and reliable service” (Transport for NSW, 2018a), this was however met with high costs far exceeding the initial budget proposed. The State Audit Office of New South Wales (2020) found that the project will exceed $3.1 billion, in contrast to the original approved funding of $2.104 billion. Mulley et al. (2018) concluded that the introduction of the Sydney Inner West Light Rail Line (Dulwich Hill Line) saw an increase in property value, with a 0.5% increase in value for each 100 m nearer to a LRT station.

2.5.3 Comparison Between LRT and BRT

There are numerous benefits of light rail in comparison with buses (including BRT), these include flexibility, accessibility, and efficiency. Transport for NSW (2021d) lists the following key benefits for light rail:

- Light rail is a quieter and more energy-efficient mode of travel, able to quickly move a high volume of passengers. For example, a 45-metre light rail vehicle can carry up to 300 passengers, equivalent to around six buses. - Light rail stops are fully accessible and integrated into the urban environment. - Offers modern, air-conditioned and comfortable vehicles. - In NSW, light rail is fully integrated with the Opal Card ticketing system used on buses, ferries and trains. - Light rail stops connect seamlessly to existing rail, bus and ferry terminals. - Frequency and reliability are features of light rail. By operating in its own corridor, light rail is less affected by traffic congestion than buses that share road space with general traffic. - Light rail provides a “turn up and go” service, meaning you’ll never need to check timetables because there will be a service every few minutes.

Whilst there are a wide range of benefits associated with LRT, Hensher (2016) argues that BRT can deliver an equivalent or better service than LRT and heavy rail and is better value for money. Hensher (2016) further suggests that there is a prejudice about buses (and BRT), with misconceptions about the difference in “service capacity” and “vehicle capacity”, where if implemented properly, buses can in fact provide the same service levels as LRT. This is further summarised in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Comparison between bus, BRT and light rail

Bus Bus Rapid Transit Light Rail

Dedicated Right-of-Way No Yes Yes

Vehicle Capacity Low Low High

Service Capacity Medium High Low

Capital Cost Low Medium High

Speed Low High High

2.6 Site Context Study

2.6.1 Site Context Information

The site for this project is Parramatta Road, between Central and Leichhardt, as shown in Figure 2.17 below. The local councils which this site lies within are the Inner West Council to the west and the City of Sydney Council to the east. Parramatta Road has 6 lanes with 3 lanes in each direction, hence it is approximately 21 meters wide, assuming that the average lane width is 3.5 meters. The road is 23 km long in total and stretches from Granville in the west to Ultimo in the east. The section of Parramatta Road between Central and Leichhardt is approximately 6 km in length.

Parramatta Road makes up the easternmost segment of the Greater Western Highway, which is 201 km long and connects Sydney to Bathurst. To the west, Parramatta Road ends in Granville and connects to the M4 Western Motorway, and to the east Parramatta road ends in Ultimo and connects to George Street. Between Leichhardt and Central, Parramatta Road divides the northern suburbs of Leichhardt, Annandale, Forest Lodge, Glebe, and Ultimo, from the southern suburbs of Lewisham, Petersham, Stanmore, Camperdown, and Chippendale. 3 bridges cross over this section of Parramatta Road: Battle Bridge, Elswick Street bridge, and Footbridge. From west to east, Battle Bridge has a clearance of 4.9 meters, Elswick Street Bridge has a clearance of 4.6 meters, and the Footbridge has a curb side clearance of 4.7 meters.

Figure 2.17: Site context plan (NSW Government Spatial Service, 2021)

2.6.2 Existing Public Transport Systems on Site

This stretch of Parramatta road would be a convenient location to implement a new line of public transport, due to the close proximity of connecting public transport at both ends. To the west, the Leichhardt end of Parramatta Road is a 10 minute walk to Lewisham train station and a 1 minute walk to the Taverners Hill light rail stop. To the east, the Central end of Parramatta Road is a 5 minute walk to Central train station, and a 7 minute walk to the Central Grand Concourse light rail stop. Travel between Central Station and Lewisham Station takes 13 minutes by train, and travel between the Central Grand Concourse stop and the Taverners Hill stop takes 30 minutes by light rail. If a new line of public transport was implemented along this stretch of Parramatta Road it would have to have a similar travel time to be competitive. Figure 2.18 below maps the roadways, train routes, and light rail routes surrounding the site.

Figure 2.18: Railway and roadway site plan (NSW Government Spatial Service, 2021)

2.6.3 Traffic Volume Data

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has roadside collection devices throughout NSW, which continuously collect traffic data. A permanent counter exists on Parramatta Road, at Mathieson St, Annandale (Station ID: 19065), which has recorded traffic volume data since 2006. This data is accessible via the Traffic Volume Counts API, which is the source for Figure 2.19, Figure 2.20, and Figure 2.21. All plots present traffic data from weekdays, as traffic tends to be significantly lower on weekends. Figure 2.19 is a bar graph of the average daily traffic volumes along Parramatta Road, and shows eastbound and westbound traffic volume data from 2006 to 2021. In 2021, the average daily traffic volume along the road was approximately 30,000 vehicles in each direction. Figure 2.20 is a bar graph showing the daily profile of the average traffic volumes along Parramatta Road, and uses averaged data from 2006 to 2021. This graph shows that the peak eastbound traffic volume is roughly 2,600 vehicles at 07:00 and the peak westbound traffic volume is 2,200 vehicles at 17:00 (Roads & Maritime Services, 2021).

Figure 2.19: Parramatta Road Average Daily Traffic Volumes, Yearly Profile (Roads & Maritime Services, 2021)

Figure 2.20: Parramatta Road Average Traffic Volumes, Daily Profile (Roads & Maritime Services, 2021)

Figure 2.21 plots the daily profile for the total traffic volumes on Parramatta Road, and shows traffic volume data for each month. This graph plots data from weekdays and plots the summation of eastbound and westbound traffic volumes. The y axis of the graph is the summation of traffic volume information for every full year of data on record, which is 14 years, from 2007 to 2020. This graph shows that January is typically the least busy month, while October tends to be one of the busiest months on this road, although there is significant variation between years. The maximum average traffic volume on this graph is 3,743 vehicles (52,398 vehicles/14 years) on Parramatta Road at 08:00 in August. The maximum eastbound traffic volume is 2,712 vehicles (37,974 vehicles/14 year) at 07:00 in September, and the maximum westbound traffic volume is 1,944 vehicles (27,222 vehicles/14 years) at 17:00 in February, on average (Roads & Maritime Services, 2021).

Figure 2.21: Parramatta Road Total Traffic Volumes, Daily Profile (Roads & Maritime Services, 2021)

2.6.4 Site Mapping Studies

A series of plans and sections of the site have been created. Figure 2.22 maps site qualities including the locations and densities of roadways, railways, pathways, buildings, green spaces, and waterways. Figure 2.23 investigates the site topography, as trams can operate on a maximum gradient of approximately 14% (Lesley, 2018). A number of locations on the site were found with a gradient over 14%, however these hills all have a horizontal length of under 20m, so they could be flattened if necessary. CAD Mapper was used to source all the linework and topographic contours for these drawings, and Google Earth Pro was used to source the topographic section data. Note that the site section in Figure 2.23 maps the topography of a straight line along the road, hence its accuracy is limited, and site surveying must be carried out.

Figure 2.22: Site context plan

Figure 2.23: Site topographic plan and section

3 Analysis

3.1 Trade-off Table

A trade-off table analysis was conducted to explore the suitability of trackless tram when compared to bus and light rail. The design criteria weighted are split into the following categories:

- Time A. Average Travel Time B. Construction Time C. Infrastructure Lifetime - Cost A. Acquisition Cost B. Construction Cost C. Operating Cost (excl. Labour) D. Operating Cost (Labour) E. End of Life Cost - Safety Level A. Obstacle Avoidance B. Response Time C. Maximum Allowable Capacity D. Lane Departure Warning - Capacity A. Vehicle Capacity B. Service Capacity - Sustainability A. Construction Emissions B. Operating Emissions - Public Opinion A. Stakeholder Opinions B. Disruption on Community C. User Experience

These categories were then further classified into individual design criteria parameters. The process used to determine the weighting are as follow:

1. The project team collectively defined the definition of each design criteria. 2. The project team members independently assigned weights between 1-10 to each design criteria, where 1 = least important and 10 = most important. 3. The project team members presented their weightings and discussed the reasons behind their individual assigned weight. The project team then collectively assigned final weights to each design criteria. D. The project team had longer discussions when there was a large spread of opinion

The range of the team member’s individual assigned weights for each design criteria is shown in Figure 3.1 (Refer to 7.1 Appendix 1: Team member individual assigned weights for the full table of the individual assigned weights). The definitions of each design criteria and its weights and scoring methods are shown in Table 3.1, Table 3.2, Table 3.3, Table 3.4, Table 3.5, Table 3.6 and Table 3.7.

Figure 3.1: Individual assigned weights for each design criteria

Table 3.1: Design criteria definitions and weights – time

Design Criteria Units Weight/10 Score

Average Travel Time

Average time to travel from Point A to Point B on Parramatta Road (including Minutes stopping time, waiting time, traffic light signals, average traffic congestions, etc.) 9

Construction Time 1 = Short

Time taken to complete the project (from work commencement on site until Months 10 = Long operation with community) 7

Infrastructure Lifetime

Operational lifetime of structure and technology Years 6

Table 3.2: Design criteria definitions and weights – cost

Design Criteria Units Weight/10 Score

Acquisition Cost

Purchasing cost for the project prior to construction commencement (land, $AUD technology, permits, vehicle, etc.) 9

Construction Cost 1 = Costly

Cost of the construction process (contractors, construction vehicles, materials, $AUD 10 = Cheap etc.) 8

Operating Cost (excl. Labour)

Cost associated for running and maintenance (petrol, electricity, maintenance, etc.) $AUD 8

Table 3.3: Design criteria definitions and weights – cost (cont.)

Design Criteria Units Weight/10 Score

Operating Cost (Labour)

Recurring cost associated with human capital (salary, WHS compensation, $AUD/Year insurance, etc.) 8 1 = Costly

End of Life Cost 10 = Cheap

Disposal, replacing, and land reconstructing cost $AUD 3

Table 3.4: Design criteria definitions and weights – safety level

Design Criteria Units Weight/10 Score

Obstacle Avoidance

Ability to manoeuvre around obstacles to avoid incidents Incidents/Year 8

Response Time

Time taken to detect and avoid obstacles 1 = Minimum Milliseconds 8 Standards

10 = Exceeds Maximum Allowable Capacity Standards The capacity to support the loads before failure Kilograms 8

Lane Departure Warning

Ability to stay within a lane Millimetres 8

Table 3.5: Design criteria definitions and weights – capacity

Design Criteria Units Weight/10 Score

Vehicle Capacity

The amount of people who fit into the mode of transport (i.e. number of people pax/veh per vehicle) 6 1 = Low

Service Capacity 10 = High

The timetabled frequency of the mode of transport on Parramatta Road from pax/hr Point A to Point B (i.e. Number of people per hour) 8

Table 3.6: Design criteria definitions and weights – sustainability

Design Criteria Units Weight/10 Score

Construction Emissions

The Greenhouse Gas emissions produced during the construction phase and Tonnes manufacturing of modes 6 1 = Bad

Operating Emissions 10 = Good

The Greenhouse Gas emissions (per passenger) produced during the operating Tonnes/pax/km phase 8

Table 3.7: Design criteria definitions and weights – public opinion

Design Criteria Units Weight/10 Score

Disruption on Community 1 = High The impact on business and surrounding communities during construction (noise, 10 = Low air pollution, closing down businesses, closing roads during construction, short - 7 term congestion fluctuations)

Stakeholder Satisfaction

Overall public satisfaction (existing public perceptions, perceived value, local - economic impact, long term congestion fluctuations) 7 1 = Unsatisfied

User Experience 10 = Satisfied

Passenger comfort (including disability access, comfort, visual appearance, etc.) - 7

The final trade-off table weights and scores are shown in Table 3.8. Each mode of transport was scored between 1 – 10 against all the design criteria where 1 being a score that is unfavoured and 10 being a score that is favoured. Bus resulted in an overall positive score in the time and cost category, but performed poorly in the safety level, capacity and sustainability category. In contrast with buses, light rail performed poorly in the time and cost category, but achieved an overall positive score in the capacity and public opinion category. Trackless trams scored above average across all categories and achieved a positive score in both the safety level, capacity, sustainability and public opinion category. Overall, trackless tram resulted in the highest total score of 941, followed by bus with a score of 812 and light rail with a score of 794.

Table 3.8: Trade-off table weights and scores

Trackless Design Criteria Weight Bus Light Rail Tram

Average travel time 9 5.8 7.5 7.5

Time Construction time 7 8.3 3.3 6.5

Infrastructure life span 6 6.5 6.7 6.7

Acquisition cost 9 7.3 4.5 5.0

Construction cost 8 8.3 3.0 6.8

Cost Operating cost 8 6.0 5.8 6.5

Labour cost 8 5.3 6.2 6.3

End of Life cost 3 8.3 3.8 5.0

Obstacle Avoidance 8 6.2 2.0 5.8

Response Time 8 5.2 4.5 6.8 Safety Level Maximum Allowable Capacity 8 5.3 7.0 6.8

Lane Departure Warning 8 4.7 9.8 8.5

Service capacity 8 4.5 8.0 8.0 Capacity Vehicle capacity 6 4.2 7.5 7.5 Construction emissions 5 6.3 3.3 6.7 Sustainability Operating emissions 7 4.2 6.2 7.2

Stakeholder opinion 7 5.5 7.3 6.8

Public Opinion Disruption on Community 7 5.8 4.0 7.0

Comfort 7 8.3 8.0 8.2 Total 812 794 941

3.2 Available Technology

As stated previously, a trackless tram is a combination of bus and light rail technology. As both of these modes of transport are being used within Australia, a majority of the designs and technology exist to make this transition. This section of the report breaks down the necessary components for the trackless tram system and the availability of the technology. (Note: This section does not provide a specific design breakdown but simply presents the available technologies which can be considered for a trackless tram.)

3.2.1 Structure

3.2.1.1 Tyres

Tyres are composed of several materials including steel, carbon, fabrics, and bonding agents, with the main component that makes up a tyre being rubber. Based on the application of a tyre, the rubber content may contain varying amounts of natural and synthetic rubbers. For a truck or bus, the tyres will often be made with 70% natural rubbers and 30% synthetic rubbers, with an average lifespan of tyres for buses estimated to be 1.5 years. Since 2010, Australia has stopped the manufacturing of tyres with sales being only from imported tyres (Envisage Works, 2019).

3.2.1.2 Wheels

The wheel refers to a circular metal structure capable of bearing the load of a vehicle. These are designed to fit inside of a tyre and are most commonly constructed using alloys such as aluminium and magnesium. Wheels are typically offered together with tyres as a whole package. However, wheels have a significantly longer lifespan and do not need to be replaced (SOLAS, 2013).

3.2.1.3 Body

There are many materials available for designing the body of the trackless tram. There are two key considerations to take into account for this technology: the material should be lightweight to reduce fuel consumption and must be visually appealing to the community. Traditional bus and light rail design both use steel as the primary material for the frame due to advantages in mechanical properties such as tensile strength. However, the main disadvantage of steel is the high weight which increases ongoing costs for maintenance and fuel. Aluminium and its alloys are another material for consideration. Despite being more expensive than steel, the mechanical properties of aluminium are weaker than steel. The advantage of aluminium is in the lower weight and therefore lower fuel consumption. An analysis by Ulianov et al. (2018)

revealed that aluminium could reduce the weight by 50%, thus saving about 14% on power consumption. Through a projected 2 - 3 year period, the reduced power consumption can make up for the higher initial cost of the material with other benefits including an 80% recycling rate. Composite materials such as fiberglass and carbon fibre are also lightweight solutions for designing the trackless tram. Other advantages in using these materials include longer lifecycles and improved appearance which may be desirable for the trackless tram design. Considering long term benefits, the poor recyclability of composite materials is not a significant downside.

3.2.1.4 Bogie

A bogie in this context refers to the underside of the vehicle covering aspects such as the wheel arrangement, axles, suspension, etc. Despite sharing many features with a bus, a trackless tram will have a similar bogie design to that of a train or light rail system. Mimicking railway designs here provides two main benefits: to allow for smooth turning with multiple connected vehicles, and improved stability during travel. The ideal number of wheelsets per vehicle, i.e. the number of axles and therefore wheels, may be calculated based on known principles for railways systems (SKF, 2011).

3.2.2 Fuel

3.2.2.1 Oil

Oil-based fuels, including diesel and petrol, are the primary resource used in powering automotive (Rare Consulting, 2010). Australia has predominantly used indigenous crude oil to produce these fuels for various purposes. However, this resource is declining with a majority of crude oil now being imported from other countries. Combining this with Australian refineries exporting fuels, Australia contributes a large portion to the global fuel market (Australian Institute of Petroleum, 2020). These factors ultimately result in fluctuations in the price of oil-based fuels, making this undesirable for the ever-growing demand. Beyond the financial concerns, there are also concerns regarding the environmental impacts oil-based fuels produce (Rare Consulting, 2010).

3.2.2.2 Electric

An alternative fuel source for vehicles is electricity. Although the current market for electric vehicles (EVs) in Australia is small, there is a long-term goal of increasing usage across the country (Helen Lewis Research, 2016; Transport for NSW, 2018c). The NSW Government announced a forty year plan in 2016, towards

improving transport, one part of this being the use of EVs. By adopting this technology, it is believed that there will be improvements to the economy and the environment (Transport for NSW, 2018c). The economic benefits include reduced costs on the fuel itself and increased productivity across various businesses using EVs. Considering the environmental factors, EVs do not emit CO2 and therefore will not pollute urban cities during operation. There are currently two methods for powering a vehicle with electricity. One is through the use of a Lithium-Ion (Li-On) battery and the other through a Hydrogen Fuel Cell.

3.2.2.2.1 Lithium Titanate Oxide

Li-On batteries involve the use of lithium as an electrode for discharging electricity. A Li-On battery works via the transfer of electrons between two electrodes, one of which being lithium. The main advantage of using a Li-On battery is due to the fast rechargeability and a long lifespan of typically 10 - 15 years (or more). Although many variations of the Li-On battery exist, the most suitable one for large vehicles is the Lithium Titanate Oxide (LTO) battery (Helen Lewis Research, 2016). As stated in section 2.3, LTO batteries are already being used in the trackless tram system in Hunan, China. Therefore, LTO batteries are a reliable and trusted method for powering a trackless tram system.

3.2.2.2.2 Hydrogen Fuel Cell

Hydrogen Fuel Cell uses hydrogen gas as the primary resource for powering an EV. The technology involved in hydrogen fuel cells is currently still very new and therefore will not be widely available in Australia. However, there are plans to implement this technology into public transport, particularly for heavy vehicles which may include trackless trams. This is due to the fuel cell being much more light weight allowing for higher fuel efficiency, longer operational ranges, and also a longer lifespan compared to Li-On batteries (Transport for NSW, 2018c). Refuelling of such a vehicle will also be faster and require less changes in infrastructure. This is because the mechanism for refuelling will mimic traditional methods, using a nozzle to pump in gas instead of liquid. The production of hydrogen itself is already an established industry around the world including Australia, and the primary methods for extracting hydrogen from water is through the use of renewable electricity, fossil fuels or natural gases (COAG Energy Council, 2019). Therefore, hydrogen is considered a highly clean power source for various purposes including vehicles and should be considered for future projects.

3.2.3 Road Markings

Road markings for the trackless tram will be classified as a longitudinal line by definition of Australian road marking standards (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2021). The three main materials used for Australian road markings are waterborne-paints, thermoplastics, and cold applied plastics. The materials used for the lines must comply with the AS 4049 Paints and related materials—Pavement marking materials and be approved under the Australian Paint Approval Scheme AP S0041. These standards ensure the line has a specific reflectance and skid resistance level for safe driving. The colour of the line must also conform to specific colour standards outlined in AS 2700 Colour standards for general purposes. For longitudinal line markings, the colour should be Y35 off white or whiter.

3.3 Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

Bus and light rail currently run between Central and Leichhardt through various routes. This section aims to explore the cost and benefit of implementing a trackless tram system on Parramatta Road which provides commuters another mode of transport. (Note: All costings and benefits presented in this section are indicative only based on publicly available data. These numbers are subject to a high variance based on site specific information.)

3.3.1 Cost

The cost to implement a bus, light rail and trackless tram service can be split into 2 main categories: initial cost and on-going operating costs. Understanding and determining an estimate of these costs are crucial to determine the feasibility of implementing the proposed trackless tram service. An initial and operating costs comparison between bus, light rail, and trackless is shown in Table 3.9.

- Initial Cost

Initial cost comprised of the following:

- Acquisition cost - Community compensation - Vehicle cost - Construction cost

Acquisition cost relates to the purchasing cost of all project related items prior to the commencement of construction, this includes acquisition of land, permits, equipment and assets. Under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, land can be acquired through mutually acceptable agreement or compulsory acquisition. Entitlement of compensation will consider (Roads & Maritime Services, 2014):

- Market value (the market value of the property as unaffected by the road proposals) - Special value - Severance - Disturbance - Solatium - Any increase or decrease in the value of adjoining or severed land (as affected by the road proposals)

Construction cost relates to the cost of the construction process, including contractors, construction vehicles and materials. For this CBA, this cost is split into 3 categories: the construction cost of the depot, stations/stops, and tracks/paint. All 3 categories are inclusive of all costs.

Community compensation relates to the cost of attribution on managing the project that involves payments to individuals, groups or businesses that are directly impacted by the development of the project. The compensation covers the area where the business and community have the potential impacts on how they can best prepare for construction such as temporary loss of public parkland/open space, changes to recreational facilities, open spaces and community and sporting facilities and others.

- Operating Cost

Operating cost comprised of the following on-going costs:

- Maintenance cost - Fuel/Electricity cost - Labour cost

Maintenance cost relates to the on-going servicing and repairing cost of the vehicles. These are calculated on a per vehicle per year basis. This cost is inclusive of all parts and labour.

Fuel/Electricity cost relates to the on-going cost to power the vehicle whether it is through petrol or battery charged. This cost is calculated on a per km basis.

Labour cost relates to the average salary across all departments. This includes drivers, engineers, cleaners, executives, administrators etc.). This cost is calculated on a per year basis.

Table 3.9: Initial and operating costs comparison between bus, light rail, and trackless tram

Trackless Tram

Bus Light Rail

Manual Semi Auto

Land Acquisition Cost — $ 53.5 M — — —

Community Compensation — $ 60 M — — —

Vehicle Cost $ 700 k $ 4 M $ 3 M + $ 40 k + $ 70 k

Depot $ 6 M

Construction Station/Stops $ 10 k $ 31.5 M / km $ 15 M / km Cost

Tracks/Paint $ 665 k / km

Maintenance Cost (per vehicle per year) $ 17 k $ 117 k $ 12 k + $ 3 k + $ 5 k

Operating Fuel/Electricity Cost (per km) $ 0.57 $ 0.5 $ 0.22 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 Cost

Labour Cost $ 95 k $ 277 k $ 95 k $ 75 k $ 55 k

Total* $ 65 M $ 483 M $168 M $ 158 M $ 149 M * Note: This is based on an estimation of a 6 km route between Central and Leichhardt with 10 stops, 10 vehicles each travelling 1 million km per year, and with 500 staffs

3.3.1.1 Bus Cost Analysis

The land acquisition cost for buses are assumed to be none, as buses are normally implemented on existing roadways requiring little to no land acquisition needs, therefore there will also be no community compensation required due to minimum amount of community disruption. According to a Election Policy Costing document from the NSW Parliament, the cost of purchasing an electric bus is approximately $700,000 each (NSW Parliament, 2019).

The construction cost for buses can be split into depot, stops and painting related costs. According to existing bus depot construction projects in Australia, the construction cost for a new depot infrastructure is approximately $2.3 million (Mandurah Mail, 2019). A recent bus shelter asset management plan from the North Sydney council suggests that the cost of a JCDecaux bus stop is around $50,000 each (North Sydney Council, 2018). The capital cost to paint a dedicated bus lane is approximately $308,000 per mile, which equates to approximately $665,000 per km (National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, 2017).

Based on the annual report from State Transit Authority of New South Wales, a bus operator in Sydney, it is estimated that the maintenance cost is approximately $17,000 per vehicle per year, the fuel cost is approximately $0.57 per km, and the average labour cost is approximately $95,000 per year (State Transit Authority of New South Wales, 2011).

3.3.1.2 Light Rail Cost Analysis

For light rail, the initial cost can be broken down into several items such as acquisition land cost, vehicle cost, construction cost, and community compensation. For rough estimation, all of these values of costs are taken from the Parramatta Light Rail and CBD South East Light Rail projects.

According to the briefing note of the out-of-session requested to Finance & Investment Committee (FIC) by the Deputy Secretary Finance and Investment of Transport for NSW, an approval of releasing $53.5 million is being made to acquire a property of 6.2 hectares at 6 Grand Avenue, Camellia 2142 (Transport for NSW, 2016a). This property is for depot stabling facilities, where the light rail vehicles are parked when they are not in operation. The released fund also includes maintenance costs for all the facilities of the Parramatta Light Rail.

As mentioned above, community compensation comprises the payments to individuals, groups or businesses that are directly impacted by the development of the project. According to the key findings by The Audit Office of New South Wales on the CBD South East Sydney Light Rail, the community

compensation cost incurred within the small business assistance package is worth $60 million (The Audit Office of New South Wales, 2020).

According to the North West Transport Link Economic Appraisal, the cost of purchasing the light rail vehicle is estimated to be $4 million per vehicle (Douglas Economics, 2006). The estimation is made based on Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) and Gutteridge Haskinz and Davey (GHD) vehicle and cost assumptions. The BAH-GHD undertook alternatives study on capital, land acquisition and operating costs commissioned by the Department of Planning, which is highly dependent on the economic appraisal of public transport options for the North-West sector of Sydney. However, the existing Sydney Light Rail Network has acquired a fleet of 12 new Urbos-3 vehicles that cost roughly $20 million that operate along the Inner West Line (Railway Gazette, 2012). Since there is no legitimate document for this acquisition being disclosed to the public, hence the estimation cost for a light rail vehicle is used based on the mentioned economic appraisal.

Based on the Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1 Project, the allocated budget for the construction costs that include supply and operate the network and building the depot, light rail stops and power systems has been awarded to the Great River City Light Rail consortium (Transport for NSW, 2018b). The awarded contract comprises a budget of $536 million for all 16 stops and the depot at Camellia. For rough estimation on the overall construction costs for light rail that includes building depot, stops and network tracks, the total budget is divided with the total number of relevant facilities by assuming the construction cost of building the depot is two-thirds more than building the stops. Hence, giving the construction cost for the depot and the stops and tracks are $52.5 million and $30.2 million respectively.

For maintenance cost, the unit cost for light rail vehicles is estimated by BAH-GHD will be $1.01 per km. BAH-GHD outlined in the 2021 Output Estimates where there will be 28 light rail vehicles, where each one of which will travel approximately 3,254,000 km per annum (Douglas Economics, 2006). From these numbers, the maintenance costs that include repairing and servicing the vehicles will yield a cost of $117,000 per vehicle in a year.

As light rail and trackless tram both run on electricity, the operating cost to power the light rail vehicle for each kilometre is estimated to be similar to the ones from trackless trams. This is because the cost of running on electricity is far cheaper than using conventional fossil fuels such as diesel or petrol. Based on the unit costs estimated by BAH-GHD, the operating cost of running the electricity is approximately $0.5 per km for each light rail vehicle (Douglas Economics, 2006).

For labour cost, there are several costs gathered and calculated before being summed up to estimate the rough values. Labour cost comprises the cost for station staff, drivers, customer services and ticketing (Douglas Economics, 2006). These values are calculated based on the total operating hours for all labours within a year. Therefore, giving the values of $277,000 per year.

3.3.1.3 Trackless Tram Cost Analysis

For this analysis, a comparison between three levels of automation is considered. These are defined as follows:

- Manual

The manual trackless tram will be operated solely by a human driver. The driver will control both the speed of the vehicle and the direction. As such, there will be no external assistance and the potential for accidents is solely managed by the driver.

- Semi-Autonomous

The semi-autonomous trackless tram refers to a combination of both a human and a robot driver. The robot driver is made up of a system of sensors capable of perceiving important information as a human would. The robot is then capable of actuating the vehicle, controlling speed and direction without the need for human intervention. The purpose of the human driver in this case is to constantly monitor the performance of the autonomous robot. If the situation becomes dangerous at any time during operation, the human driver is able to intervene and take control of the trackless tram.

- Fully Autonomous

The fully autonomous trackless tram will be operated solely by a robot driver. Like the semi-autonomous trackless tram, the robot in this case is a system of sensors and actuators controlled by a centralised computer brain. This system will be much more complex than that of the semi-autonomous robot, involving more sensors and better algorithms for managing dynamic road conditions. Thus, the system will be fully capable of manoeuvring the tram safely in all situations, not requiring human intervention.

Similar to bus and light rail, the trackless tram costs have been broken down into acquisition land cost, vehicle cost, and construction cost. There is no land acquisition cost for the trackless tram as the tram is expected to operate on existing land infrastructure. Additionally, the trackless tram will not suffer from community compensation costs as there are minimal infrastructure adjustments for simply deploying the trackless tram.

The cost to manufacture the vehicle is a combination of both bus and light rail technology. As such, the cost of the trackless tram is expected to be a middle ground solution. From a study by Wong (2018), it has been estimated that the total cost of ownership of a trackless tram vehicle is approximately $3 million per vehicle. The cost of construction up until usage by the community is estimated to be approximately $15 million per km.

As stated above, the autonomous system is a combination of sensors, actuators, and a centralised computer. These are all external hardware components to be implemented onto a trackless tram. As such, these will all incur an upfront acquisition cost prior to deployment.

For a semi-autonomous vehicle, the proposed trackless tram will use:

- 3 x LiDAR sensors - 2 x Cameras - 2 x Radar module - 1 x GPS module - 1 x IMU module - 1 x Processor

For a fully autonomous vehicle, the proposed trackless tram will use:

- 4 x LiDAR sensors - 4 x Cameras - 3 x Radar module - 1 x GPS module - 1 x IMU module - 1 x Processor - 1 x Wi-Fi module

A breakdown of the individual costs for each component is provided below.

- LiDAR

As stated in the literature review, mechanical LiDARs are currently the preferred solution for AVs, as its capabilities have been proven over the years as compared to solid-state LiDARs which are still new. The price for a mechanical LiDAR over the years however has not decreased significantly. Quoted by Velodyne, one of the leading LiDAR companies for AVs, the Velodyne Puck is currently priced at $5,400 ($3,950 USD) (A. Lee, personal communication, 2021).

Recently, the production of solid-state LiDARs has started to pick up with companies such as Velodyne and Luminar planning to release their products by the end of 2021. The expected price for the mass- produced solid-state LiDARs is around $680 ($500 USD) (Abuelsamid, 2020). This is significantly cheaper than the mechanical counterparts, however, the technology also comes with certain limitations, one of which is the FoV being significantly lower. Solid-state LiDARs currently offer a FoV of typically 120° as opposed to the 360° offered by mechanical LiDARs. As such, a minimum of three solid-state LiDARs is required to achieve similar results to the mechanical LiDAR. There may also be additional costs in the software or complexity in implementing multiple LiDARs together as required when combining the three separate LiDARs together.

- Camera

Conventional cameras for photography are typically monocular or single lens. This means the camera will only return one image back to the system for information processing. The price of using a camera may vary greatly due to the vast number of cameras available and also depending on the desired application. For example, a professional digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera may cost over $1,000 whilst a small action camera could cost $400 (JB Hi-Fi, 2021).

The main use case of such a camera is for recognising signs as monocular cameras are unable to provide depth information for obstacle detection. In this case, a stereo camera or dual lens camera must be considered. Differing from conventional cameras, a stereo camera will simultaneously take two images in an instant. Feeding these images back, the system is able to accurately calculate depth information using complex algorithms. The Intel RealSense D435 is one of the more popular depth cameras commonly used in robotic vehicles. The price for this depth camera is $260 ($189 USD) (Intel RealSense, 2021). Despite the lower price, the stereo cameras typically provide lower resolution images and are thus better suited for the purposes of obstacle detection.

- Radar

Radar sensors are typically packaged together in one module capable of producing and receiving signals across multiple channels. This means less radar sensors need to be implemented to cover a wide area, thus making this a relatively cheap sensor solution. Many radar solutions are offered by private companies for a complete solution towards AVs. The price is, therefore, variable and subject to the specific application. For a rough idea of typical radar prices, the SmartMicro UMRR-96 Type 153 has been listed for a price of $4,200 (£ 2,605) (Level Five Supplies, 2021).

- GPS

A GPS module here refers to a small chip capable of feeding location information to the system. The price range for a GPS chip may vary from as cheap as $10 (Lantronix A2200A) to $80 (NV08C-CSM) (element14, 2021). The implementation cost for the GPS module can be approximated to an additional $30 dollars for wires, printed circuit board (PCB) and other small components.

- IMU

The IMU module here refers to a small chip capable of feeding information regarding acceleration, orientation, and magnetic field (Xsens, 2021a). Similar to the GPS module, there are variations in price. One example module for consideration is the Xsens MTI-1 IMU module costing $250 (€ 129) (Xsens, 2021b).

- Processor

A processor in this case is the component capable of reading all the sensor information discussed above and acting on it. The options available are quite broad ranging from microcontrollers such as a PIC board to laptops or desktop computers. More specifically for robotic systems, miniature computers exist for the very purpose of deploying autonomous systems onto mobile platforms. One such example is the Raspberry Pi 4, which has capabilities rivalling that of a standard computer or laptop at a lower price. A standard Raspberry Pi 4 may be purchased online for $107 (Pi Australia, 2021). Although for heavy processing, a laptop with high processing power may still be considered at a premium cost of approximately $2,000.

The software costs for the trackless tram cannot be accurately calculated for this project and only estimated to a ballpark range. This is due to the availability of the software as it may be acquired as open-source meaning it can be free, or it may be proprietary making the cost variable subject to the developer.

Using the proposed AV requirements and example hardware components, the acquisition cost of implementing automation to a trackless tram can be estimated. The current cost for a semi-autonomous trackless tram may be approximately an additional $35,000 - $55,000 per vehicle. For a fully autonomous trackless tram, the cost may be approximately an additional $60,000 - $80,000 per vehicle. The future cost of AVs will also dramatically decrease with cheaper solid-state LiDAR systems. This is because LiDAR forms the largest percentage of the costs at about 60%. The semi-autonomous system may cost as low as $20,000 per vehicle whilst the fully autonomous system as low as $40,000 per vehicle. (Note: This cost is a rough estimation using commercial off-the-shelf prices for various components. The implementation and software costs are also subject to a high level of variance. This can be attributed to the experience required to work with this new technology or to the variable costs outlined by proprietary/private companies.)

The maintenance cost of a trackless tram refers to the cost of ensuring the vehicle is able to continue operating to a high standard. This includes all the hardware components of the vehicle, cleaning and infrastructure associated with the trackless tram. A study performed by AECOM (2011) estimated maintenance costs of an EV to be approximately 30% lower than that of a traditional oil-fuelled vehicle. Taking this into consideration, the expected maintenance cost for an electric trackless tram is estimated to be $12,000 per vehicle per year. When considering the additional hardware and software components required for automation, the operating cost will increase. It is speculated in this same study that the operating costs could increase by approximately 15%, bringing the operating cost for an autonomous trackless tram to $14,500 per vehicle per year. Thus, the maintenance cost of the trackless tram will be lower than the other modes of transport.

From the same study by AECOM (2011), EVs are expected to reduce costs for fuel by approximately 61%. As previously stated, the estimated fuel cost for an oil-based heavy vehicle is $0.57 per km. Knowing this, the expected cost of deploying an manual electric trackless tram is calculated to approximately $0.22 per km. Comparing these two costs, there is a significant improvement after switching to electric power. Additionally, this may be further improved with automation features for controlling the speed of the trackless tram. It has been studied that due to the increased control in speed and acceleration offered by automation, less fuel will be consumed during travel over the same distance. As such, fuel costs may be further reduced by approximately 10% after implementing an autonomous control system (Bösch et al., 2017). Therefore, the fuel cost for both a semi and fully autonomous electric trackless tram is $0.20 per km.

The labour costs associated with operating a trackless tram is assumed to be similar to that of a bus system. The primary working staff consist of the driver, maintenance engineers and office coordinators monitoring the network. Without implementing automation, there will be no changes to the required labour and thus the cost is unchanged. However once automation is introduced, there will be changes in the driver and coordinators. For semi-autonomous trackless trams, a driver must still be present and operate the vehicle in dangerous situations. As such, there is the potential of salary cuts for the driver position. For a fully autonomous trackless tram, it is proposed that no driver is required to operate the vehicle. As such, the driver costs are completely removed, and the coordinator costs may also slightly decrease. With additional sensors however, the engineers may also need more time and therefore will increase costs. From this, it has been assumed that with each additional stage of autonomy there will be a 20% reduction to the average salary for operating a trackless tram. Therefore, the labour costs for a semi-autonomous vehicle has been estimated to $75,000 per person, and the fully autonomous vehicle to $55,000 per person. As the driver constitutes a relatively large portion of the labour cost, the assumption has been made that both the average salary and number of staff required will decrease as the trackless tram becomes more autonomous.

3.3.2 Benefit

The benefits of implementing a bus, light rail and trackless tram service can be split into 5 main categories:

- Land uplift value - Carbon footprint offset (compared to car) - Decrease in travel time (compared to car) - Environmental damage avoided - Aesthetics, social, cultural, and heritage

These benefits are measured based on the proposed trackless tram design, shown in section xxx, of 6 km between Central and Leichhardt on Parramatta Road. A benefits comparison between bus, light rail, and trackless is shown in Table 3.10.

3.3.2.1 Bus Benefit Analysis

Based on research conducted by Mulley & Tsai (2013), it was found that implementing a BRT service in Sydney did not result in any noticeable increase in the surrounding land value. As such, it is estimated that there is also no increase in land uplift value along Parramatta Road.

Hickman (2011) suggests that the corridor capacity, which is the maximum amount of people that can be transported per second per metre, for buses is 0.72, which is 0.61 higher than regular cars. This translates to a reduction of 12 cars per second on Parramatta Road, which is 21 m wide. This results in a 12 tonnes reduction in CO2 emission per year, which would normally cost $600 to offset (CHOICE, 2021; Foundation Myclimate, 2021).

During peak hour, it can take up to 22 minutes to travel from Leichhardt to Central by car. However, buses have an average travel time of 16 minutes due to having a dedicated bus lane to avoid traffic congestion. This translates to a savings of $2,210 per year when accounting for potential gain in time in terms of average salary of $88,000 per year (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020).

The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (2007) suggests that the cost of environmental damage is about 2.5 c per km for cars. The bus system on Parramatta Road between Central and Leichhardt can replace 3.4% of cars, with 4,800 vehicles travelling to and from work each day (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017; Roads & Maritime Services, 2021). This translates to 163 cars being replaced which can lead to a $6,400 savings in environmental damage cost per year.

The Transport for NSW Research Hub (2018b) suggests that aesthetics, social, cultural, and heritage benefits should also be considered. However, this is deemed to be outside of the current scope of this project and can only be estimated as “low” in terms of benefits received.

A study done by pteg (2013) suggests that for every £ 1 spent on buses, £ 3 of benefits are received when implementing a bus infrastructure. This estimation is used when valuing the bus service on Parramatta Road, being every $1 spent, $3 benefit is received.

3.3.2.2 Light Rail Benefit Analysis

Based on research conducted by Mulley et al. (2018), it was found that implementing a light rail system in Sydney resulted in a 0.5% increase in the surrounding land value for every 100 m closer to the station. As such, it is estimated that there will be a similar effect in land uplift value along Parramatta Road.

Hickman (2011) suggests that the corridor capacity, which is the maximum amount of people that can be transported per second per metre, for light rail is 1.75, which is 1.65 higher than regular cars. This translates to a reduction of 35 cars per second on Parramatta Road, which is 21 m wide. This results in a 35 tonnes reduction in CO2 emission per year, which would normally cost $1,800 to offset (CHOICE, 2021; Foundation Myclimate, 2021).

During peak hour, it can take up to 22 minutes to travel from Leichhardt to Central by car. However, light rail has an average travel time of 30 minutes due to its indirect route. This translates to a loss of $3,100 per year when accounting for potential lost in time in terms of average salary of $88,000 per year (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020).

The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (2007) suggests that the cost of environmental damage is about 2.5 c per km for cars. The light rail system between Central and Leichhardt can replace 0.6 % of cars, with 4,800 vehicles travelling to and from work each day (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017; Roads & Maritime Services, 2021). This translates to 30 cars being replaced which can lead to a $1,100 savings in environmental damage cost per year.

Transport for NSW (2019a) suggests that for every $1 spent on light rail, $1.4 of benefits are received in the CBD and South East Light Rail project. This estimation is used when valuing the light rail service on Parramatta Road.

Table 3.10: Benefits comparison between bus, light rail, and trackless tram

Trackless Tram Bus Light Rail Manual Semi Auto

0.5 % increase for — 0.5 % increase for every 100m closer Land Uplift Value every 100m closer

Carbon Footprint Offset $ 600 / year $ 1,800 / year $ 2,340 / year (Compared to Car)

Decrease in Travel Time $ 2,210 / year - $3,100 / year $ 2,210 / year (Compared to Car)

Environmental Damage $6,400 / year $ 1,100 / year $6,400 / year Avoided

Aesthetics, Social, Cultural, $ $$ $$$ Heritage

$ 1 spent $ 1 spent $1 spent

Spending/Benefit Ratio $ 3 benefit $ 1.4 benefit $ 2 benefit

Improved Safety — — — $ 50 M / year $ 95 M / year

3.3.2.3 Trackless Tram Benefit Analysis

The land uplift value for trackless tram is considered to be the same as light rail due to the similarity in nature of the two modes of transport. AECOM (2011) suggests that the carbon footprint offset is approximately $2,340 per year for an electric vehicle. Both decrease in travel time and environmental damage avoided is estimated to be similar as the proposed trackless tram is subject to replacing all the buses on Parramatta Road. Hence these factors for trackless trams are considered to be similar to buses. Similar to bus and light rail, the aesthetics, social, cultural, and heritage benefits are deemed to be outside of the current scope of this project and can only be estimated as “high” in terms of benefits received. As all of the costs are rough estimates, the spending/benefit ratio for trackless tram is considered to be in between bus and light rail, hence an estimate of $2 benefit received from every $1 spent is chosen.

One of the main purposes of considering an AV is to improve safety during travel. It has been proposed that 94% of road accidents occur due to human error, the remaining 6% being due to external factors such as mechanical failure or the environment (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2015). The quantification of safety benefits is presented in this report as the cost saved from an estimated number of road accidents avoided by automation. A key consideration for this analysis was to use typical bus accident statistics over light rail. This is because the proposed trackless tram in this case will be operating on a main road as opposed to inside a city. This decision was also made due to the similarities in bus operations along this route and limitations in road accident data related to light rail. Road accidents are first broken into three categories based on the outcome as follows: fatal, serious injury and property damage. The data and results associated with each category is presented in Table 3.11.

Fatality Serious Injury Property Damage Total

Average Annual Cases 1,198 38,919 361,452 401,569

Bus Percentage 0.63% 0.6% 0.6% —

Average Annual Cases (Bus) 7.5 234.8 2184 2426.3

Average Cost per Accident $2,500,00 $250,000 $10,000 $2,760,000

Annual Safety Benefits (10%) $1,888,110 $5,870,434 $2,184,018 $9,942,562

Annual Safety Benefits (50%) $9,440,550 $29,352,171 $10,920,090 $49,712,811

Annual Safety Benefits (94%) $17,748,234 $55,182,081 $20,529,769 $93,460084

3.4 Risks

Despite the technology’s potential in Australian cities, trackless trams pose some significant potential risks. It is an untested technology in Australia and therefore requires careful consideration of the following risks and challenges. The aim of this section is to provide the overarching challenges and risks associated with implementing Trackless trams.

- Monopolised Market

Buying trackless trams on a competitive basis presents a challenge as there is only one supplier, the CRRC. As this is a proprietary technology, relying on one supplier exposes significant risks which are difficult to manage and mitigate. Although CRRC is one of the largest rolling stock manufacturers (SCI Verkehr, 2016), which usually implies a lower inherited risk (Business Queensland, 2021), some risks are further amplified by the emerging nature of trackless tram technology.

The risks associated with being locked with a sole supplier are:

- Increased exposure to supplier side risks: Identifying and managing supplier side risks are particularly challenging as these are usually hidden and difficult to quantify. - Increased Leverage in contract and price negotiation: As the sole supplier of modern TT technology, CRRC could impose additional leverage in contractual or price negotiations which could reduce the cost benefits of adopting this technology.

Some risks associated with adopting emerging technology include (Deloitte, 2018)

- Operational risks: As a new technology, it is often uncertain how it will fit into existing transportation systems. There might be unforeseen challenges with integrating this technology with other modes of transport - Regulatory Risk: New regulatory changes might be required to operate trackless trams on Australian Roads. For example, trackless trams are typically longer than 31 m (Verschuer, 2020), but the maximum length of heavy vehicles that can operate on NSW roads with general access is 19 m (Roads & Maritime Services, 2019). These vehicles might need additional regulations if they are operated in close proximity with other vehicles. - Security: As a semi-autonomous system where many decisions are made by a computer, the technology’s vulnerabilities and weaknesses need to be analysed and managed. - Financial Risks: Accurate estimation of financial costs might be challenging as it is a new technology only tested in one city.

- Untested Technology

The trackless tram technology is currently unproven in several environmental conditions, such as snow, heavy rains, hail and fog conditions. Although some of these environmental conditions are unlikely in Sydney, other operating uncertainties like technology lifespan (e.g. battery life under varying temperatures) still needs to be tested.

- Compliance with Australian Standards

It is unclear whether this technology has the ability to meet Australian design standards. For example, if trackless trams cannot meet road capacity/load requirements, expensive road upgrades may be required to prevent fast road surface wear.

- Social Acceptance

The current prediction of uptake of this new technology is based on the assumption that trackless trams would be adopted as a new alternate mode of transport. Although similar technology has seen popular uptake in Barcelona (Ellis, 2016), it is uncertain whether Sydneysiders would see trackless trams as an innovation or as a repackaging of existing buses. Poor public perception could result in slow uptake of the new mode of transport.

Automation technology used in the trackless tram could raise concerns about safety and reliability. Data from public perception studies show that a large portion of Australians (43.4%) have low confidence in a fully automated system and a significant portion (21.2 %) would not trust a fully automated system (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2017). Finally, as a new mode of transport which is aimed at replacing buses, it is uncertain whether Sydneysiders would easily transition from buses.

- Increase Congestion on Parramatta Road

There is a possibility of increased congestion on Parramatta Road after the completion of WestConnex M4- M5 Link Tunnels and Rozelle Interchange (Conybeare Morrison International, 2020). Commuters may resort back to using Parramatta Road to avoid expensive tolls, which could increase congestion. Furthermore, as the project would close a few lanes on Parramatta road, there could be an unexpected increase in congestion if commuters don’t utilize WestConnex tunnels. Finally, making the corridor pedestrian friendly could actually increase traffic since there could be more people on the road.

4 Concept Design

As part of the concept design development process, 8 different concept design options have been proposed, analysed, and evaluated. The 8 different design options, Options A to H, have been grouped into 3 categories, Option 1: Surface Level Roads, Option 2: Elevated Roads, and Option 3: Underground Roads. Option 1 refers to designs which make alterations to the road surface and lane configuration, Option 2 refers to designs which introduce raised walkways or overpasses, and Option 3 refers to designs which introduce underground vehicular tunnels.

- Option 1: Surface Level Roads A. Do Nothing B. Trams in designated inner lanes C. Trams in designated outer lanes D. Manoeuvrable trams

- Option 2: Elevated Roads E. Elevated pedestrian walkway F. Elevated tram railway

- Option 3: Underground Roads G. Tunnel for vehicles and trams H. Tunnel for vehicles

Option 1: Surface Level Roads Option 2: Elevated Roads Option 3: Underground Roads

Figure 4.1: 3 Concept design options: surface level, elevated, and underground roads

4.1 Option 1: Surface Level Roads

Design Option A: Do Nothing

The ‘Do Nothing’ option is a consideration to make no changes to the current conditions on Parramatta Road. This option will have the minimum disruption on the community; however, Parramatta Road may experience congestion due to increased traffic and travel demands towards the Central Business District (CBD).

Figure 4.2: Design Option A, section and plan

Design Option B: Trams in Designated Inner Lanes

This design option focuses on introducing designated inner lanes for the trackless trams to operate in, while the outer lanes remain unchanged. This configuration will include stations located in the middle of the road with central boarding, in conjunction with pedestrian crossings for accessibility. Design Option B facilitates the most efficient design when trackless trams reach the end of the line. This is due to the inner lane design which allows the trackless trams to seamlessly cross to the opposing lane at the end of the line, to change directions and continue their route. This will prevent the trackless trams from simply going backwards against the flow of traffic, which will confuse pedestrians and vehicle drivers, and cause safety concerns. An additional design for Design Option B is included to introduce additional green space for pedestrians, however, this will amplify congestion for car lane users due the reduced lanes.

Table 4.1: Tabulation summary of the pros and cons for Design Option B

Pros Cons

Efficient tram turn-around at the end of the line Lack of integration with pedestrian spaces

Centralised stations allow commuters to change Centralised stations may increase traffic trams easily congestion due to pedestrian crossings

Figure 4.3: Design Option B, with 2 or 4 car lanes, sections and plans

Design Option C: Trams in Designated Outer Lanes

This design option features designated outer lanes for the trackless trams, with kerbside boarding. It focuses on integrating trackless tram lanes with pedestrian walkways to maximise possibilities of urban renewal on Parramatta Road. Design Option C provides additional green spaces along the transit corridors, which can be utilised by pedestrians, and make it environmentally friendly. This design potentially can transform the pedestrian lanes into wide green spaces, however, as aforementioned, the singular lane for cars may cause increased traffic congestion. A major limitation of this design is that it calls for rerouting the trams at the end of the line to accommodate for the 15 m turning radius of the trackless trams and allow them to change directions.

Table 4.2: Tabulation summary of the pros and cons for Design Option C

Pros Cons

Allows for an integration with pedestrians along Public transit users have to cross the road to the trackless tram transit lane change directions compared to central design

Maximising urban green space for pedestrians and Additional space is needed at end stations for businesses along the corridor trams to turn around and change directions

Curb side boarding allows easy pedestrian access Higher safety concerns due to integration with to trams. pedestrian lanes

Figure 4.4: Design Option C, with 2 or 4 car lanes, sections and plans

Design Option D: Manoeuvrable Trams

The manoeuvrable design allows for trackless trams to move between lanes to avoid traffic and allows flexibility in boarding locations. This design creates increased green space for pedestrians adjacent to the outer lanes, for increased urban renewal. However, without a dedicated lane for transit, the trackless trams may either cause or experience congestion due to lane sharing. Additional safety concerns are added due to the interaction of vehicles with a lane sharing design. Possibilities for automation of the trams become expensive and unrealistic when lane sharing and complex obstacle avoidance must be considered.

Table 4.3: Tabulation summary of the pros and cons for Design Option D

Pros Cons

Able to avoid traffic and congestion and move Safety and congestion concerns regarding lane around obstacles sharing

Maximising urban green space for pedestrians and Possibilities for automation of the trams are businesses along the corridor unrealistic

Figure 4.5: Design Option D, section and plan

4.2 Option 2: Elevated Roads

Design Options E: Elevated Pedestrian Walkway & Design Option F: Elevated Tram Railway

Design Option E utilises an elevated pedestrian walkway to maximise green space for the pedestrians and align with urban renewal strategies. This design was inspired by a precedent context study on The High Line in New York, which is a 2.3 km long elevated garden, which is used as a public space for the community. Alternatively, Design Option F, flips this and allows for the tram to be carried along the elevated railway. This design is based on the current train system used in Manhattan, such that the existing train networks run on top of the city.

Table 4.4: Tabulation summary of the pros and cons for Design Option E & F

Pros Cons

Introduction of a maximum amount of public May block natural sunlight for the business along green spaces for the pedestrians, vehicle drivers, the corridor and community, leading to urban renewal

Will reduce congestion along the road (specifically Existing bridges and infrastructures need to be Design F) as the design avoids lane sharing for considered and may impede the construction of an trams and other vehicles elevated section

Increased public space will lead to significant Design needs to take into account additional cost urban redevelopment, attract visitors, and have due to excess load carried from trackless trams financial benefits for the local area (specifically Design F)

Option E: Elevated Pedestrian Walkway Option F: Elevated Tram Railway Figure 4.6: Design Options E and F, elevation

4.3 Option 3: Underground Roads

Design Options G: Tunnel for Vehicles and Trams & Design Option H: Tunnel for Vehicles

The final design option is to design an underground tunnel to redirect the flow of traffic and create space on the ground level for pedestrians. The use of a tunnel opens opportunities for the ground level to be used for community events such as markets, food-trucks, festivals, etc. Design Option G involves all vehicles and public transport being rerouted into an underground tunnel, while Design Option H involves the trackless trams remaining above ground and all other vehicles being routed into underground tunnels. The additional Design Option H was taken into consideration to mitigate issues surrounding the maximum incline of trackless trams.

Table 4.5: Tabulation summary of the pros and cons for Design Option G & H

Pros Cons

Allows the entirety of the ground level space to be Significant construction operations which may reclaimed as public green space for use by the cause disturbances around surrounding community communities

Traffic will flow smoothly in the tunnel and Exit portals may have high concentrations due to congestion will be avoided due to lack of CO2 emissions and the piston effect intersections and increased speeds

Figure 4.7: Design Option G, long and short sections

Figure 4.8: Design Option H, long and short sections

4.4 Final Recommendation

Figure 4.9: Final recommendation for trackless tram route and design

4.4.1 Sections 1 and 3

Sections 1 and 3 lie between Petersham Park and Missenden Road, and Victoria Park and Central Station, as seen in Figure 4.9. These two segments will focus on lane configuration and adapting new concepts of urban renewal without major constructions which would impact the surrounding business and community. Focusing on Section 1, the 2.8 km stretch of road cuts through the main corridors of Leichhardt and Stanmore. The design option of using trackless trams along the outer lanes was designed to adapt to the current conditions and increase urban renewal by providing a shared space for the pedestrians with the trackless trams. The purpose of this section has a strong focus on providing maximum opportunity for local business by attracting more communities to surround the areas due to the available green space. The environmentally friendly use of trackless trams seamlessly integrates the use of transport within the surrounding urban environment, contributing to the ‘greener’ transformation of Parramatta Road along this section.

- Key Features

Petersham Station: Petersham Park lies within this section and a trackless tram station will be integrated into it. This area is of high interest as it is a short walk to Stanmore Train Station and Tavern Hill Light Rail. Petersham Park being the last station of the route gives trackless trams the space to turn around. By utilising this greenspace, the park will offer the accessibility of bicycle racks for commuters.

Central Station: The final stop will be Central Station, which will allow the users to access the surrounding trains, buses, and light rails.

Figure 4.10: Final recommendation for Section 1 and 3, section and plan

4.4.2 Section 2

The most uniquely designed segment of Parramatta Road lies between Missenden Road and Broadway, which outlines the north perimeter of the University of Sydney Camperdown Campus. This section design incorporates three levels: pedestrian high rise, ground surface, and diverted traffic underground. The purpose of this section is maximising the useability for pedestrians which have a stronger focus for students at the University of Sydney and surrounding residential households. This section allows for trackless trams to use the surface and while redirecting private vehicles underground.

- Key Features

Overpass: A unique design is to develop an overpass that rises above the surface to create a second level of green space for the community. The use of space rises above the last section of Parramatta Road adjacent to USYD and Broadway shopping centre. The use of ramps and stairs will make this space accessible for the community. The purpose of this section is to create a secondary extension of Victoria Park above the existing road. Possibilities may include integrating the elevated section with Broadway Shopping Centre, to create an outdoor area.

Open Surface: The additional surface level open space will be used to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. The will allow the trackless trams to continue on a straight surface to avoid the incline restrictions of 14% of the trackless trams.

Tunnel: The tunnel will span a total distance of 1.15 km from Missenden Road to University Avenue (entrance of USYD). According to the Advisory Committee on Tunnel Air Quality, ventilation stacks are not needed for tunnel lengths that are less than 1 km (Longley, 2018). However, given the small margin of excess and similar case studies of no ventilation stacks (such as the Hanfnerber Tunnel in Zurich and the Nam Wan Tunnel in Hong Kong which are 1.37 km and 1.2 km respectively), the Parramatta Road design will have no ventilation stack. With this, the tunnel design will use a semi transverse system ventilation system inside the tunnel to ensure air quality standards are met (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2008). This tunnel will operate to facilitate and redirect the traffic of cars under the ground.

Figure 4.11: Final recommendation for Section 2, plan

Figure 4.12: Final recommendation for western segment of Section 2, long and short sections

Figure 4.13: Final recommendation for eastern segment of Section 2, long and short sections

Figure 4.14: Sydney Light Rail Map P1 Line Proposal

4.5 Station Locations

Determining ideal stop location is a multifaceted optimization problem where one needs to consider a plethora of factors to attain optimal transport efficiency (Deng & Yan, 2019). Limited by availability of population and retail businesses data, only a few factors were taken into consideration while selecting optimal TT station location. It was assumed that existing bus stops on Parramatta Road were at optimal locations which maximised utilisation, and accessibility.

These factors were taken into consideration to determine the location of trackless tram stations:

- Proximity to Learning centers, Recreational areas, Hospital and clinics, and Retail centers - Proximity to other modes of transport like trains, buses and light rail - Opportunities for redevelopment and urban renewal - Vicinity to crosswalks - Proximity to dense residential areas

Figure 4.15: Proposed trackless tram station locations

- Petersham Park

The trackless trams start at the picturesque and historic Petersham Park. This park is known for its beautiful forked trees, cricket oval and children’s playground. It is where the cricket legend Donald Bradman scored his first century in grade cricket in 1926 (Inner West Council, 2021). This was deemed be a beautiful spot to start one’s journey towards Central. The trackless trams will slowly merge with the park along West St, allowing passengers to appreciate and enjoy the green space in their daily commute. The space in the park will allow the trams to realign with the flow of the traffic. This location is also a 5 min walk to Lewisham station and 10 min walk to Taverners Hill Light Rail station. Possible developmental opportunities include implementing a dedicated walkway that connects green space with the station and an express walkway that connects trackless tram station with train station.

Figure 4.16: Proposed location for Petersham station derived from Google Maps (2021)

- Fort Street High School

This station is directly in front of Fort Street High school, a local high school near Petersham Park. The station is mainly for local school students during school hours. Furthermore, this station is close to many luxury auto dealers and neighbouring dense residential areas. This station would be optional during off- school hours. Passengers on the tram or at the station could request this stop during off-school hours. Possible developmental opportunities include implementing a cycleway connecting the station with neighbouring residential areas.

Figure 4.17: Proposed location for Fort Street station derived from Google Maps (2021)

- Petersham TAFE

Petersham TAFE station will become a prime shopping location for local residents. It is a 2 minute walk from Norton Plaza and a 5 minute walk from Norton St shopping area. Furthermore, this station is only a few minutes walk from Petersham TAFE and Leichhardt Public School. This station is expected to revitalise the local area including cafes and small dining areas, mainly targeting passengers who stop for a quick shopping run. It is also expected to increase the influx of students to TAFE because of the increased accessibility. Possible developmental opportunities include widening walkways connecting the station and neighbouring streets to promote pedestrian activities.

Figure 4.18: Proposed location for Petersham TAFE station derived from Google Maps (2021)

- Johnson Street

The main objective of Johnston St station is to revitalise once held lively local stores, milk bars and cafes neighbouring this street. This section of Parramatta road has fallen into despair and dilapidation, with unviable and declining business over the last 20 years (Committee for Sydney, 2020). Google Maps shows that most shop fronts along this section are closed with little to no signs of reopening after the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, this section has a few retail centres consisting of restaurants, bodegas, cafes, and hardware stores and has dense residential areas on either side of Parramatta Road. Having a station at this section would result in a rise in commercial and residential real estate value, resulting in a renewed interest in retail storefront businesses. With proximity to CBD, this area could attract new businesses, retail centres and young professionals. Finally, this station would improve access to Annandale Public School.

Figure 4.19: Proposed location for Johnson Street station derived from Google Maps (2021)

- Bridge Road

The Bride Street station would be another strategic location with promising regeneration opportunities along Parramatta road. It could leverage its proximity to two green spaces, the Camperdown Park and O'Dea Reserve, and Royal Prince Alfred Hospital to expand and foster diverse industries. Currently, this section has many small businesses, including homeware stores, cafes, and pubs. Placing strategic stops along this section would improve access to Central, allowing businesses to expand and take better advantage of this location. We expect many more shopfronts in this section with improved walkways that connect the green spaces. We also hope commercialization of Australia St and Denison St due to their improved proximity to the CBD.

Figure 4.20: Proposed location for Bridge Road station derived from Google Maps (2021)

- RPA Hospital

The RPA Hospital station is strategically selected to provide direct access to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and its subsidiary healthcare centres. Placing a station in this section would improve access to existing educational centres and medical precincts while supporting the current redevelopment of RPA (NSW Government, 2020). This location could foster certain tech companies due to its proximity to the University of Sydney, RPAH and CBD. With improved public transport to Central, it is expected that there will a rise of healthcare-based tech companies along the northern side of Parramatta Road. It is also expected to increase commercialisation of residential space neighbouring in this region to support new economic activities.

Figure 4.21: Proposed location for RPA Hospital station derived from Google Maps (2021)

- USYD School of Veterinary Science

The USYD School of Veterinary Science station would be one of the two stations linking directly to the University of Sydney. This stop aims to commercialise the Glebe region and transform it into a secondary technology centre. Placing a station here will enable direct access to existing educational centres and provide a direct link to the CBD. Combined with transformed streets with links to institutions, this space can become a new major centre. Residential areas like Arundel St, Forest St Lodge St could become new business centres, and St Johns Rd could transform into a new retail hub. It is expected that new walkways and cycle paths will join Jubilee Park and Harold Park with Parramatta Road. Finally, this location is close to USYD ovals, sporting centre and USYD Vet & Emergency clinic.

Figure 4.22: Proposed location for USYD School of Veterinary Science station derived from Google Maps (2021)

- Victoria Park

Victoria Park station is another strategic location selected for its proximity to learning centres, retail centres and green spaces. It serves not only as a second entrance to the University of Sydney, but is also adjacent to the Broadway Shopping Centre. The park retains substantial components including an in ground public pool. The stop location is neighbouring City Road, allowing pedestrians to transfer to the City Road buses for their travel. It is also only a walking distance from the Glebe Point Road, where it is filled with shopping areas, cozy cafes, residential areas and many other major stops of the Glebe region. If a tunnel is implented here, it will expand the park and offer a shared space for pedestrians and trackless trams. Victoria Park will connect to a raised walkway section and the green parkspace that is above the tunnel. Possible developmental opportunities include implementing dedicated cycling lanes that would promote cycling as a mode of transport in this dense region.

Figure 4.23: Proposed location for Victoria Park station derived from Google Maps (2021)

- Broadway

The Broadway station serves as a hub connecting multiple learning centres, shopping areas and dense residential areas. Broadway has undergone significant redevelopment over the past 15 years, with major changes in the University of Technology Sydney Campus (University of Technology Sydney, 2016) and the completion of Central Park (Williams, 2016). These changes have resulted in increased pedestrian activities in an area with a large allocation of road space, mostly eight lanes with some parts nine. Reclaiming this space with trackless trams would allow for improved pedestrian access with opportunities to provide cycle accessibility from learning centres to Central and neighbouring green spaces. Furthermore, the provision of a cycleway would encourage cycling as a viable mode of transport. Although a significant increase in economic value in this section in not expected as it is already saturated, it is expected to increase pedestrian activity with improved accessibility to neighbouring regions.

Figure 4.24: Proposed location for Broadway station derived from Google Maps (2021)

- Railway Square

The Railway Square station would join trackless trams with Sydney Trains, connecting it to Sydney's primary transport network. A stop in this region would transform Railway square from a pedestrian- unfriendly area to a shared space utilised by cars, trackless trams and pedestrians (Zhou, 2019). As the last stop along this route, the trackless trams would interchange and reverse direction to realign themselves with the traffic flow. Connecting trackless trams to a major transportation hub allows easy flow of passengers from one mode of transport to another. Implementing dedicated cycleways and broadening existing pedestrian walkways would encourage pedestrian activity and increase cycling as an alternative mode of transport.

Figure 4.25: Proposed location for Broadway station derived from Google Maps (2021)

5 Conclusion and Future Work

There are still several future works that are needed to be considered to implement a viable and efficient trackless tram system in Sydney. A detailed design of the trackless tram system that comprises the vehicle prototyping, tunnel entrance and exit at the middle section and the urban landscape design should be well- produced as these vital features are not being covered within this project's scope. The detailed design of the trackless tram vehicle prototype should be compatible with the existing features along Parramatta Road. Additionally, paying more attention to the detailed designing of the tunnel entrance and exit within the middle section of the concept design is also important as there are plenty of construction works involved, whilst maintaining the safety and efficiency of local areas remain unaffected. A detailed design including on-site surveying with 3D modelling along the Parramatta Road can be incorporated with future works. The viability of the whole project implementation can be well improved by performing detailed site studies through in-depth analysis and modelling.Additionally, traffic flow modelling should also be well understood to avoid additional congestions on the road. According to the obtained traffic volume data, a considerably large amount of vehicles utilised the Parramatta Road on a daily basis; therefore any problems relating to the traffic flow should be well eliminated. Lastly, detailed costing and quotes for all components including the trackless trams vehicles, infrastructures, roads and tunnels must be comprehensively outlined so that the actual costs for the whole project can be determined for budget estimations.

To summarise, trackless trams have been identified as the most effective mode of public transport, compared to the bus and light rail. Significant benefits can be obtained by implementing the semi- autonomous functionality. Having better safety and cost criteria amongst the others, semi-autonomous trackless trams will be able to incorporate the best of bus and light rail such as providing a fast and smooth ride with a considerably large number of passengers. Based on the concept design along Parramatta Road, the trackless trams can be incorporated with the decided final concept design by dividing the route into 3 sections of ground level, underground level, and elevated road designs. The proposed design also needs to build a total of 10 stops that cover key areas that have a high potential for economic activities. Completing the project with the inclusion of the recommended future works will yield a game-changing trackless tram system, hence benefitting people in the local area.

6 References

Abuelsamid, S. (2020). Velodyne’s $500 Velarray Solid-State LiDAR Goes Into Production In 2021.

Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2020/11/13/velodyne-announces-500-

velarray-h800-lidar-production-in-2021/

AECOM. (2011). Forecast Uptake and Economic Evaluation of Electric Vehicles in Victoria (p. 105).

http://www.ehcar.net/library/rapport/rapport002.pdf

Aijazi, A., Malaterre, L., Trassoudaine, L., & Checchin, P. (2020). Systematic Evaluation and

Characterization of 3d Solid State LiDAR Sensors for Autonomous Ground Vehicles. ISPRS -

International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLIII-B1-

2020, 199–203. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B1-2020-199-2020

Allen, D. (2012). Nancy and Caen, France. https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Nancy_and_Caen,_France

Amaradi, P., Sriramoju, N., Dang, L., Tewolde, G. S., & Kwon, J. (2016). Lane Following and Obstacle

Detection Techniques in Autonomous Driving Vehicles. 2016 IEEE International Conference on

Electro Information Technology (EIT), 0674–0679. https://doi.org/10.1109/EIT.2016.7535320 atha9kd5. (2013). Van Hool Exquicity 24 3902 Barcelona.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/83825632@N07/11950336895

Australasian Railway Association. (2021). The Renaissance of Light Rail. https://ara.net.au/wp-

content/uploads/The_Renaissance_of_Light_Rail.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). Media Release—More Than Two in Three Drive to Work, Census Reveals

(media Release).

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mediareleasesbyreleasedate/7DD5DC715B608612

CA2581BF001F8404?OpenDocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020). Average Weekly Earnings, Australia, November 2020.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-work-hours/average-weekly-earnings-

australia/latest-release

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021). Brisbane and Perth Have Highest Growth Rates.

https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/brisbane-and-perth-have-highest-growth-

rates

Australian Institute of Petroleum. (2020). Downstream Petroleum.

https://www.aip.com.au/sites/default/files/download-files/2020-

04/Downstream%20Petroleum.pdf

Australian National Construction Review. (2009). North-West T-way. 48–61.

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. (2021). Lasers. ARPANSA.

https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/what-is-radiation/non-ionising-

radiation/laser

Bodhi Alliance Pty Ltd & EDAB Consulting Pty Ltd. (2017). Parramatta Road Public Transport Opportunities

Study.

https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/808/Parramatta%20Summary%20FINA

L.pdf.aspx

Bösch, P., Becker, F., Becker, H., & Axhausen, K. (2017). Cost-Based Analysis of Autonomous Mobility

Services. Transport Policy, 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.09.005

Budach, D. (2019). Nancy Is Paving the Way for a New Tram. Urban Transport Magazine.

https://www.urban-transport-magazine.com/en/nancy-is-paving-the-way-for-a-new-tram/

Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. (2021). Safety Statistics. Bureau of

Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics; Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport

Research Economics. https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety

Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. (2009). Cost of Road Crashes in Australia

2006. https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/report_118.pdf

Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics. (2007). Estimating Urban Traffic and Congestion Cost Trends for

Australian Cities. Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics.

Bus Industry Confederation. (2014). Road Safety and the Bus Industry. http://bic.asn.au/information-for-

moving-people/road-safety-and-the-bus-industry

Business Queensland. (2021). Choosing Suppliers for Your Business.

https://www.business.qld.gov.au/starting-business/planning/suppliers/finding-

suppliers/choosing

Caldera, S., Desha, C., Reid, S., Yen, B., Shearer, H., Newman, P., & Mouritz, M. (2020). Townsville Metro:

Unlocking Urban Potential Through Improving a Key Transit Corridor. Sustainable Built Environment

National Research Centre.

Cervero, R. (1984). Journal Report: Light Rail Transit and Urban Development. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 50(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368408977170

Cervero, R. (1998). The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Island Press.

Cervero, R., & Duncan, M. (2002). Land Value Impacts of Rail Transit Services in Los Angeles County. 37.

Cervero, R., & Kang, C. D. (2011). Bus Rapid Transit Impacts on Land Uses and Land Values in Seoul,

Korea. Transport Policy, 18(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.06.005

CHOICE. (2021). Carbon Offsets—Energy Saving. CHOICE. https://www.choice.com.au/home-

improvement/energy-saving/reducing-your-carbon-footprint/articles/carbon-offsets

Chowdhury, N. H., Khushi, D., & Rashid, Md. M. (2017). Algorithm for Line Follower Robots to Follow

Critical Paths with Minimum Number of Sensors. International Journal of Computer, 24(1), 13–22.

Clean State. (2021). Deliver a WA-Made Tram Network for Perth.

https://www.cleanstate.org.au/trackless_trams

COAG Energy Council. (2019). Australia’s National Hydrogen Strategy.

Committee for Sydney. (2020). Reclaiming Parramatta Road. https://sydney.org.au/wp-

content/uploads/2020/11/CfS-Reclaiming-Parramatta-Road-Web.pdf

Conybeare Morrison International. (2020). Urban Design and Landscape Plan.

Dalkmann, H., & Shah, S. (2018). Promoting Green Growth in Asia: Role of Urban Planning and Design to

Encourage Environmentally Sustainable Transport. 64.

De Bruijn, H., & Veeneman, W. (2009). Decision-Making for Light Rail. Transportation Research Part A:

Policy and Practice, 43(4), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.11.003

Deloitte. (2018). Emerging Technology, Similar Risks.

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/financial-services/us-

emerging-technology-similar-risks.pdf

Deng, Y., & Yan, Y. (2019). Evaluating Route and Frequency Design of Bus Lines Based on Data

Envelopment Analysis with Network Epsilon-Based Measures. Journal of Advanced Transportation,

2019, e5024253. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5024253

Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2021). Technical Specification: Transport and Main Roads

Specification MRTS45 Road Surface Delineation. https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-

/media/busind/techstdpubs/Specifications-and-drawings/Specifications/3-Roadworks-

Drainage-Culverts-and-Geotechnical/MRTS45.pdf?la=en

Douglas Economics. (2006). North West Rail Link Economic Appraisal. element14. (2021). Element14 Australia | Formerly Farnell | Electronic Components Distributor.

https://au.element14.com/

Ellis, G. (2016). Redesigning the surface transport system in Barcelona. Intelligent Transport.

https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/18116/redesigning-surface-transport-

system-barcelona/

Envisage Works. (2019). Tyre Flows and Recycling Analysis—Project Report (p. 27).

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4fe81607-c549-465b-b8b0-

759ec0a1a683/files/tyre-flows-recycling-analysis.pdf

Fargas Marques, A., Costa Castelló, R., & Shkel, A. M. (2005). Modelling the Electrostatic Actuation of

MEMS: State of the Art 2005. Institut d’Organitzaci ó i Control de Sistemes Industrials.

Foundation Myclimate. (2021). Calculate Your Co2 Emissions Now!

https://co2.myclimate.org/en/car_calculators/new

Giuliano, M. R., Advani, S. G., & Prasad, A. K. (2011). Thermal Analysis and Management of Lithium–

Titanate Batteries. Journal of Power Sources, 196(15), 6517–6524.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.03.099

Google. (2021). Google Maps. https://www.google.com/maps

Greater Sydney Commission. (2018). Greater Sydney Region Plan: A Metropolis of Three Cities—Connecting

People. https://www.greater.sydney/file/12064/download?token=bdYDWQiH

GTA Consultants. (2020). Trackless Trams or Guided Electric Vehicles. https://www.gta.com.au/wp-

content/uploads/2020/11/GTA_Insights_Trackless-Trams.pdf

HASSELL. (2013). WestConnex Motorway Urban Design Framework (p. 106). Roads & Martime Services.

https://roads-waterways.transport.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/partners-

suppliers/documents/centre-for-urban-design/westconnex-urban-design-framework.pdf

Helen Lewis Research. (2016). Lithium-Ion Battery Consultation Report. 21.

Hensher, D. A. (2016). Why is Light Rail Starting to Dominate Bus Rapid Transit Yet Again? Transport

Reviews, 36(3), 289–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1155851

Hensher, D. A., & Golob, T. F. (2008). Bus Rapid Transit Systems: A Comparative Assessment.

Transportation, 35(4), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-008-9163-y

Hickman, R. (Ed.). (2011). Changing Course in Urban Transport: An Illustrated Guide. Asian Development

Bank.

Hidalgo, D., Pereira, L., Estupiñán, N., & Jiménez, P. L. (2013). Transmilenio BRT System in Bogota,

High Performance and Positive Impact – Main Results of an Ex-Post Evaluation. Research in

Transportation Economics, 39(1), 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.06.005

Ibold, S. (2020). Are Chinese Trackless Trams the Best New Thing to Hit the Road in Your City? SUTP.

https://www.sutp.org/are-chinese-trackless-trams-the-best-new-thing-to-hit-the-road-in-your-

city/

Imboden, M., Chang, J., Pollock, C., Lowell, E., Akbulut, M., Morrison, J., Stark, T., Bifano, T. G., &

Bishop, D. J. (2016). High Speed Control of Electro-Mechanical Transduction: Advanced Drive

Techniques for Optimized Step-and-Settle Response of MEMS Micromirrors. IEEE Control

Systems, 36(5), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCS.2016.2584338

Inner West Council. (2021). Petersham Park—Inner West Council.

https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/explore/parks-sport-and-recreation/sporting-

grounds/petersham-park

Institute for Transportation & Development Policy. (2016). The BRT Standard (2016th ed.).

Institute for Transportation & Development Policy. (2021). About Us. Institute for Transportation and

Development Policy. https://www.itdp.org/about/

Intel RealSense. (2021). Intel® RealSenseTM Depth Camera D435. https://store.intelrealsense.com/buy-intel-

realsense-depth-camera-d435.html

Jacobs Australia. (2016). North West Priority Growth Area. https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-

/media/Files/DPE/Reports/north-west-priority-growth-area-integrated-transport-and-land-use-

report-2016-11.pdf

JB Hi-Fi. (2021). GoPro Hero8 Black 4K HyperSmooth 2.0 Action Cam Bundle. JB Hi-Fi.

https://www.jbhifi.com.au/products/gopro-hero8-black-4k-hypersmooth-2-0-action-cam-

bundle

Jean, P. (2013). $200m Utility Cost on Light Rail. The Canberra Times.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6154889/200m-utility-cost-on-light-rail/

Kelobonye, K., Xia, J. C., Swapan, M. S. H., McCarney, G., & Zhou, H. (2019). Drivers of Change in

Urban Growth Patterns: A Transport Perspective from Perth, Western Australia. Urban Science,

3(2), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3020040

Khader, M., & Cherian, S. (2020). An Introduction to Automotive LiDAR. 7.

Kuhn, F., & An, J.-H. (2008). Impacts of Insertion and Operation of a New Surface Guided Transit System.

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18074.26567

Lee, A. (2021). Velodyne Lidar Quote [Personal communication].

Lesley, L. (2018). Can Trams Climb the Steep Gradients and Hills in Bath (and in Winter)? Bath & Bristol Area

Trams Association. https://bathtrams.uk/trams-in-other-cities/can-trams-climb-steep-gradients-

bath-winter/

Level Five Supplies. (2021). Smartmicro Radar Sensor: UMRR-96 | Level Five Supplies.

https://levelfivesupplies.com/product/automotive-radar-sensor-umrr-96-type-153/

Levinson, H., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J., Rutherford, S., Smith, R., Cracknell, J., Soberman, R.,

Transportation Research Board, & National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

(2003). Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit. Transportation Research

Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/24726

Longley, I. (2018). Techincal Paper—TP05: Road Tunnel Stack Emissions.

https://chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/196645/TP05_Road-Tunnel-

Stack-Emissions.pdf

Mandurah Mail. (2019). Construction set to begin on $2.3 million Pinjarra bus depot. Mandurah Mail.

https://www.mandurahmail.com.au/story/6366427/construction-set-to-begin-on-23-million-

pinjarra-bus-depot/

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. (2010). Public Transport in the Netherlands.

https://www.emta.com/IMG/pdf/brochure.pdf

Moovit. (2020). Public Transit Facts & Statistics for Sydney.

https://moovitapp.com/insights/en/Moovit_Insights_Public_Transit_Index_Australia_Sydney-

442

Mulley, C., & Tsai, C.-H. (Patrick). (2013). The Impact of Liverpool-Parramatta Transitway on Housing

Price: A Repeat Sales Approach. Australasian Transport Research Forum, 14.

Mulley, C., Tsai, C.-H. (Patrick), & Ma, L. (2018). Does Residential Property Price Benefit from Light Rail

in Sydney? Research in Transportation Economics, 67, 3–10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2016.11.002

Murray, A. G. (2000). World Trolleybus Encyclopaedia. Trolleybooks.

National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board. (2017). Bus Lane Enforcement Study.

https://www.mwcog.org/assets/1/28/10062017_-_Item_12_-_DO_NOT_PRINT_-

_Bus_Lane_Enforcement_Study_Final_Report.pdf

National Health and Medical Research Council. (2008). Air Quality In and Around Traffic Tunnels.

https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.vic-

engage.files/5215/0527/7815/236._Air_Quality_in_and_around_Traffic_Tunnels_Final_Report

_by_the_Australian_Government_National_Health_and_Medical_Research_Council.pdf

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2015). Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National

Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/api/public/viewpublication/812115

National Trolleybus Association (UK). (2008). Trolleybus Magazine. 279(65).

Newman, P. (2018). Why Trackless Trams Are Ready to Replace Light Rail. The Conversation.

http://theconversation.com/why-trackless-trams-are-ready-to-replace-light-rail-103690

Newman, P., Hargroves, K., Davies-Slate, S., Conley, D., Verschuer, M., Mouritz, M., & Yangka, D.

(2019). The Trackless Tram: Is It the Transit and City Shaping Catalyst We Have Been Waiting

for? Journal of Transportation Technologies, 9(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.4236/jtts.2019.91003

Newman, P., Mouritz, M., Davies-Slate, S., Jones, E., Hargroves, K., Sharma, R., & Adams, D. (2018).

Delivering Integrated Transit, Land Development and Finance – a Guide and Manual: With Application to

Trackless Trams. Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre.

North Sydney Council. (2018). Bus Shelthers Asset Management Plan (Concise).

NSW Department of Planning and Environment. (2014). A Plan for Growing Sydney: A Strong Global City, a

Great Place to Live. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2014-12/apo-

nid70556.pdf

NSW Government. (2020). $750 Million RPA Hospital Redevelopment Fast-Tracked. NSW Government;

NSW Government. https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/750-million-rpa-hospital-

redevelopment-fast-tracked

NSW Government Spatial Service. (2021). SIX Maps. https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/

NSW Parliament. (2019). Parliamentary Budget Office—Election Policy Costing.

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/pbo/Documents/2019%20Coalition%20Election%20Polic

y%20Costings/Y095%20-%20Costing.pdf

Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. (2017). Social Issues Relating to Land-Based Automated Vehicles

in Australia.

Pi Australia. (2021). Raspberry Pi 4 Model B. Pi Australia.

https://raspberry.piaustralia.com.au/products/raspberry-pi-4 pteg. (2013). Making the Connections: The Cross-Sector Benefits of Supporting Bus Services.

Railway Gazette. (2012). CAF wins Sydney tram order. Railway Gazette International.

https://www.railwaygazette.com/caf-wins-sydney-tram-order/37225.article

Rare Consulting. (2010). Bus Technologies in Australia to 2020 and Beyond: A Discussion of the Opportunitiy for

New Technology Adoption for the Australian Bus Industry.

Rick, D. (2013). A Brief History of Light & Photography. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2425.2804

Rishabh, K. (2021). Design of Autonomous Line Follower Robot with Obstacle Avoidance.

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11652.86403

Roads & Maritime Services. (2014). Land Acquisition Information Guide—July 2014 (p. 19). https://roads-

waterways.transport.nsw.gov.au/documents/about/land-acquisition/factsheet-land-acquisition-

information-guide.pdf

Roads & Maritime Services. (2019). Heavy Vehicles Chart (p. 8).

Roads & Maritime Services. (2021). Traffic Volume Viewer. https://roads-

waterways.transport.nsw.gov.au/about/corporate-publications/statistics/traffic-volumes/aadt-

map/index.html#/?z=15&lat=-

33.882500893906325&lon=151.17052500218705&id=19065&yr=2021

Rodríguez, D. A., & Targa, F. (2004). Value of Accessibility to Bogotá’s Bus Rapid Transit System.

Transport Reviews, 24(5), 587–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144164042000195081

Roos, F., Bechter, J., Knill, C., Schweizer, B., & Waldschmidt, C. (2019). Radar Sensors for Autonomous

Driving: Modulation Schemes and Interference Mitigation. IEEE Microwave Magazine, 20(9), 58–

72. https://doi.org/10.1109/MMM.2019.2922120

Royo, S., & Ballesta-Garcia, M. (2019). An Overview of LiDAR Imaging Systems for Autonomous

Vehicles. Applied Sciences, 9, 4093. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9194093

Saulwick, J. (2014, November 9). Sydney Light Rail Line Costs Blow Out to $2.2 Billion – $600 Million

More Than Budgeted. The Sydney Morning Herald.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-light-rail-line-costs-blow-out-to-22-billion--600-

million-more-than-budgeted-20141109-11jazn.html

Scheurer, J. (2020). Trackless Trams in Perth Spatial Network Analysis for Multimodal Urban Transport Systems

(SNAMUTS) Report. Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre.

SCI Verkehr. (2016). Wordwide Rolling Stock Manufacturers: Market.

SKF. (2011). Railway Technical Handbook Volume 1: Axleboxes, Wheelset Bearings, Sensors, Condition Monitoring,

Subsystems and Services. SKF.

Snaevar. (2011). Geleidingssysteem van de TVR [Guidance System of the GLT].

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TVRGeleiding.svg

SOLAS. (2013). Trade of Motor Mechanic Module 7 Unit 1: Wheels & Tyres.

https://local.ecollege.ie/Content/APPRENTICE/liu/motor_notes/Ver_2/m7_u1_v2.pdf

State Transit Authority of New South Wales. (2011). Annual Report 2010/11.

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/tp/files/48968/STA%20Annual%20Report%202010-

11.pdf

The Audit Office of New South Wales. (2005). Auditor-General’s Report: Performance Audit: Liverpool to

Parramatta Bus Transitway.

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/tp/files/30080/146_Liverpool_Parramatta_Bus.pdf

The Audit Office of New South Wales. (2020). CBD South East Sydney Light Rail: Follow-up Performance

Audit.

https://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/CBD%20and%20South%20East

%20Light%20Rail%20follow%20up%20performance%20audit%20-%20UPDATED.pdf

Tirachini, A., Hensher, D. A., & Rose, J. M. (2014). Multimodal Pricing and Optimal Design of Urban

Public Transport: The Interplay Between Traffic Congestion and Bus Crowding. Transportation

Research Part B: Methodological, 61, 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2014.01.003

Townsville City Council. (2016). Townsville Economic Development Scorecard.

https://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/20016/Economic-Scorecard-

April-16.pdf

Transport for NSW. (2015). Sydney CBD to Parramatta Strategic Transport Plan. 41.

Transport for NSW. (2016a). Finance & Investment Recommendations.

https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/hub/media/tearout-excerpt/527/FIC%20-

%20%20Out%20of%20Session_Redacted.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0tixDjVdgJSaM6yZ3iRc7PnU8IFlz6

iRmjgkgGFOYJix-nND7xCfY_r_I

Transport for NSW. (2016b). Future Transport Technology Overview Roadmap 2016.

https://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018/Future-

Transport-Technology-Overview-Roadmap-2016.pdf

Transport for NSW. (2018a). CBD & South East Light Rail | Tomorrow’s Sydney.

https://mysydneycbd.nsw.gov.au/projects/cbd-and-south-east-light-rail

Transport for NSW. (2018b). Parramatta Light Rail Contracts Signed [Interactive Resource]. Transport for

NSW. https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/node/9561

Transport for NSW. (2018c). NSW Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Plan [Interactive Resource]. Future

Transport.

https://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/2019/Future%20Tra

nsport%20NSW%20Electric%20%26%20Hybrid%20vehicle%20plan.pdf

Transport for NSW. (2019a). Light Rail Benefits. http://data.sydneylightrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/s3fs-

public/BENEFITS%20FACTSHEET.pdf

Transport for NSW. (2019b). The APS system. http://data.sydneylightrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/s3fs-

public/APS%20FACT%20SHEET.pdf

Transport for NSW. (2021a). Adult Fares. http://transportnsw.info/tickets-opal/opal/fares-

payments/adult-fares

Transport for NSW. (2021b). Parramatta Light Rail | Parramatta.

https://www.parramattalightrail.nsw.gov.au/

Transport for NSW. (2021c). Public Transport Patronage [Interactive Resource]. Transport for NSW.

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/node/4815

Transport for NSW. (2021d). What Is Light Rail? | Parramatta.

https://www.parramattalightrail.nsw.gov.au/what-light-rail

Transport for NSW Research Hub. (2018a). Benefits and Costs of Automation for Bus Rapid Transit (Problem

Statement TD 18-10).

Transport for NSW Research Hub. (2018b). How to Price/Value the Benefits of Placemaking for the Development

of Business Cases (Problem Statement AP 18-01).

Ulianov, C., Önder, A., & Peng, Q. (2018). Analysis and Selection of Materials for the Design of

Lightweight Railway Vehicles. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 292, 012072.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/292/1/012072

University of Technology Sydney. (2016). Building 2 Transformation to Revitalise the Heart of Campus.

University of Technology Sydney. https://www.uts.edu.au/partners-and-

community/initiatives/city-campus-master-plan/campus-development-news-archive/2016-

news/building-2-transformation-revitalise-heart-campus

Urban Transport Magazine. (2019). Nantes Launches E-Busway with Bi-Articulated Buses—Urban Transport

Magazine. https://www.urban-transport-magazine.com/en/nantes-launches-e-busway-with-bi-

articulated-buses/

Van Hool NV. (2014). Van Hool Delivers First Hybrid “Tram-Bus” to Malmö. Van Hool.

https://www.vanhool.be/en/news/van-hool-delivers-first-hybrid-tram-bus-to-malmoe

Vergez, J.-P. (2009). Service de Transport de l’Agglomération Nancéienne.

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?100403

Verschuer, M. (2020). Frequently Asked Questions and the Myths of Trackless Trams. Sustainable Built

Environment National Research Centre. https://sbenrc.com.au/app/uploads/2020/06/FAQs-

report-on-Trackless-Trams-11-May-2020.pdf

Wang, D., Watkins, C., & Xie, H. (2020). MEMS Mirrors for LiDAR: A Review. Micromachines, 11, 456.

https://doi.org/10.3390/mi11050456

Wang, P., Liu, Y., Wang, D., Liu, H., Liu, W., & Xie, H. (2019). Stability Study of an Electrothermally-

Actuated MEMS Mirror with Al/SiO2 Bimorphs. Micromachines, 10, 693.

https://doi.org/10.3390/mi10100693

Williams, S. (2016). Fairytale Ending: The Last Piece of Sydney’s Central Park Puzzle Is Ready. Domain.

https://www.domain.com.au/news/fairytale-ending-the-last-piece-of-sydneys-central-park-

puzzle-is-ready-20160729-gqdskn/

Wong, Y. Z. (2018). Debunking the Myths Around Optically-Guided Bus (Trackless Trams). BusNSW

Bulletin. https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/business-

school/news-and-events/news/busnsw-bulletin-december-2018.pdf

Wright, L., & Hook, W. (2007). Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide (3rd ed.). Institute for Transportation &

Development Policy.

Xsens. (2021a). Inertial Measurement Unit. https://www.xsens.com/imu

Xsens. (2021b). MTi-1. http://shop.xsens.com/shop/mti-1-series/mti-1-imu/mti-1

Yeong, D. J., Velasco-Hernandez, G., Barry, J., & Walsh, J. (2021). Sensor and Sensor Fusion Technology in

Autonomous Vehicles: A Review. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202102.0459.v1

Zhou, N. (2019). Frustrating Cities: Behind Australia’s Urban Design Fails. The Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/06/frustrating-cities-behind-australias-

urban-design-fails

7 Appendix

7.1 Appendix 1: Team member individual assigned weights Design Criteria Anthony Kenneth Isaac Tess Ankith Adli Final Value Average travel time 8 8 10 8 8 10 9 Construction time 4 6 6 7 7 7 7 Infrastructure life span 6 3 6 6 7 9 6 Acquisition cost 10 9 6 8 9 7 9 Construction cost 9 8 6 9 8 7 8 Operating cost 8 8 7 10 7 9 8 Labour cost 5 9 4 10 6 7 8 End of Life cost 2 7 2 7 3 6 3

Obstacle Avoidance 6 10 10 8 9 7 8

Response Time 7 9 10 6 8 7 8

Maximum Allowable Capacity 6 8 10 8 9 8 8

Lane Departure Warning 7 10 9 8 7 7 8

Service capacity 8 7 8 7 8 9 8

Vehicle capacity 5 7 5 5 7 9 6

Construction emissions 6 4 5 5 5 6 5

Operating emissions 6 6 8 6 8 7 7

Stakeholder opinion 7 7 4 6 8 5 7 Disruption on Community 5 8 10 7 6 8 7 User Experience 7 8 7 5 8 8 7