Re: Bus-train integration (was Free Ride (Victoria))

["Bradley Torr" <btorr@bigpond.nospam.com>]

Anthony Morton wrote in message <8gv6al$50f$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>...

>Even on pure engineering grounds I'd dispute the claim that buses are
superior.
>I grant that trams are restricted to fixed routes, but seen another way
this
>is actually an advantage - it enforces a straightforward route structure
for
>trams (because the routes are almost literally 'set in stone' for the long
>term), and it's clearer to passengers where the route goes.  Too often the
>route 'flexibility' for buses is just an excuse to run on long, confusing,
>circuitous routes that deter passengers.  (Take a look at some Melbourne
bus
>maps and you'll see what I mean.)

I know all too well - much the same in western Sydney, and here in my
hometown (Wollongong). Not to mention the fact that many buses often deviate
from the already devious routes, with no indication on the desto boards and
nothing more than an elusive alphabetic code or footnote in the timetable.
At least trams are much more fixed, and provide greater route certainty -
which I also think is important.

>Melbourne has the great
>advantage here of possessing a grid network of arterial roads which could
>provide a template for high-capacity transport routes - though I wouldn't
>envisage putting trams on more than a select few of these in the
foreseeable
>future.

Especially divided cross-city arterials such as Route 40 (the Bell
Street/Springvale Road metro bypass), Police Road, etc.

>Returning to more purely technical concerns, the disadvantage of points-
>switching for trams is easily matched by the higher mechanical efficiency
of
>steel-on-steel traction over rubber-on-bitumen.  But what's a few points
>between friends?  There are very few points left in Melbourne where the
driver
>actually has to get out and switch them manually - in a proper tram system
>there shouldn't be any.

Ask any operations manager at any Typical Dodgy Private Bus Operating
Company, and they'll tell you their biggest mechanical expense of all is bus
tyres. Why? Because too many drivers hit kerbs.... it's nothing to do with
the fact that bitumen/rubber is less efficient than steel/steel, but
careless drivers. At least tram drivers can't run their vehicles onto
gutters ;-)

>As for overtaking - I've been on buses in Oxford St and Pitt St in Sydney
and
>it's an absolute nightmare.

As for Oxford Street, it's all those queers crossing the road to get from
one sauna to the next crossing the street without checking the road, holding
traffic up ;-) *ducks*

>The key to
>preventing trams getting in each other's way is punctuality, assisted by
>tram priority at intersections.  It's late running (often due to hostile
>traffic signals in Melbourne) that feeds back on itself and leads to the
>dreaded 'bunching' effect.

Are there any special "T-signals" in operation anywhere in Melbourne? I know
they use them extensively on that huge 400-metre on-road section of the
SLR... ;-)

>Well, it's true Melbourne will never have anything resembling the Paris
Metro.
>But the 'ultra-low metropolitan density' is a furphy; Australian cities in
>general are intermediate in density between European and American cities.

Depends which American city - some of them are surprisingly dense (Boston,
San Francisco, Washington DC come to mind). Some do sprawl more than
Australia's five main cities - Denver, Atlanta, Phoenix.... I'd say
Melbourne is somewhere in the middle - similar density (and population) to
St. Louis. (Which, incidentally, was one of the greatest streetcar cities in
America before GM had its way.....)

>Someone else in this NG mentioned Paul Mees' new book "A Very Public
Solution".
>It's well worth reading in this respect; it goes through the
Melbourne-Toronto
>comparison in painstaking detail.

Will look out for it soon......

>I can't quite fathom why Melbourne's flat terrain would explain why people
>won't use public transport.

That's OK, I should have explained.... well, Melbourne's wide streets,
relatively ample motorway system, etc. are a direct result of the ease of
construction facilitated by flat terrain. As we all know, such conditions
encourage excessive road travel and are anathema to high public transport
patronage. Wider, flatter streets are easier to park on too - why ride when
you can drive and park right outside your workplace? I can't help but
noticing too.... the 'freeway' cities in America - Los Angeles, the TEXAS
metroplexes, Chicago, Atlanta - are all in relatively flat cities. The
denser, less freeway-dependent cities with relatively good public transport
are often hilly - Boston, San Francisco, Baltimore, etc. It's not the flat
terrain which leads to low public transport usage directly; but the fact
that flat terrains lend themselves to good roads, which in turn lead to more
ppl in cars and less in buses and trains.

Well, that's my hypothesis anyway - I wouldn't mind using it as a PhD thesis
if I ever wish to get to that level......

>Agreed.  There's no reason why we shouldn't provide late-night services;
every
>city with a decent public transport system provides at least some services
>that run round the clock.  As we say in the PTUA, Melbourne is a 24-hour
7-day
>city and needs a 24-hour 7-day service.

And with the phenomenal growth in shiftwork - especially in the IT, finance
and hospitality industries..... there would certainly be a demand for
24-hour trams or buses - not every single route, just the main ones. The
existing NightRider service is advertised and operated as little more than a
service to get drunkards home from their weekend boozing in the downtown
pubs and nightclubs.

>Yes, Melbourne needs more express services (real expresses at that, not
these
>ones we've got that skip three stations and save perhaps three minutes) and
>electrifications to Craigieburn and Sunbury.  I'm not so sure about Melton:
>there's a long stretch of non-electrified track which is still sparsely
>populated beyond Deer Park West; high-speed DMUs are probably sufficient
for
>the time being.

Well, Campbelltown (NSW) was electrified in the 1960's - back then it had
only about 20,000 people, and was separated from the consolidated urban area
(which at the time ended just south of Liverpool, 20km away) by thinly
populated rural land. Melton has twice that number now and its distance from
the main urban area is in the same approximate magnitude. Melton deserves
better IMO. Richmond, Penrith, etc. were both electrified before they were
'joined' to the metropolis. At least things are starting to happen in
Melbourne regarding this.....

>Cross-city links are important but I'd question whether the need is there
for
>rail lines.

What about anabraches, such as the North Shore/Main North, Regents Park
branches and the East Hills line in Sydney? I wonder why Melbourne has none
of these (apart from the now-dead Chadstone/Alamein link). Sydney is still a
radial system - but there are many ways to reach a certain outer point - for
instance, from Campbelltown you have five ways of getting to the Sydney CBD
now (though some require changing trains, but connections are rarely long).
It might not be a true 'cross-city system', but it helps IMO. If you live in
Berowra you have a choice of going to both the North Shore area and the
Epping-Eastwood-Ryde area for your recreation, work, education, etc. and not
have to change trains. What do Pakenham, Eltham and Werribee residents have?

On that note, I'll take a break.... ;-)

Regards,
Bradley.