Re: New form of rail transportation

["Peter Berrett" <pberrett@optushome.com.au>]

Thansk for your comments Peter but I beg to disagree.

Essentially for public transport to be feasibel it must have a competitive
advantage over using yoru own car whether that be cost, time, comfort or
some cobinatation of these factors. People have to prefer to use the system
rather than using their own car.

The reason why I selected Springvale road as an example was that it crosses
the Dandenong line, passes the terminus of the GlenWaverley line, crosses
the Lilydale/Belgrave line and will eventually cross the East Burwood tram
if it is extended. Public transportation along this route would not only
service the areas along this road but also provide a means of cutting across
the suburbs and removing the necessity to travel into the city to get to
areas across town.

Melbourne's train system is crying out for some form of ring railway or a
form of public transportation to cut across town.Eventually this may to some
extent be facilitated by an express bus service running along the ring road
and Scoresby freeway but this would not be an optimal solution.

The prinicipal issue (as usual) is cost and one of the principal costs is
land. A suspended railway avoids much of this cost
by using existing rights of way - eg roads.

You mention that a bus service along Sprinvale Road could have traffic light
priority. This would play havoc with traffic diring peak periods and still
not provide a smooth express service. An optimal service has to have its own
right of way.

Elsewhere an overhead railway that operates in Germany has been mentioned.
This looks good but after further consideration
I have concluded that an efficient public transport system must have a
degree of flexibility as well.

It might be an idea to redesign trains or buses so that they can use the
overhead suspension system as well as existing railways or roads. Eg One
might travel by train to Nunawading station at which point the train would
hook up to the overhead suspension system, lift off the ground and continue
suspended down to Springvale. It could then continue down to Cranbourne
using the rail line. Alternatively I could catch a bus in Donvale. It would
then continue to Nuawading where it would switch to the suspension system
and then run swiftly down to Springvale.

It is even conceivable that both trams and buses could share an overhead
suspension system. It would take some redesigning though.

cheers Peter

Peter Parker <parkerp@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
3a0d8ae5@news.alphalink.com.au">news:3a0d8ae5@news.alphalink.com.au...
>
> Peter Berrett <pberrett@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> YH3P5.10589$Xx3.45072@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au">news:YH3P5.10589$Xx3.45072@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au...
>
> >
> > Has anyone tried such a scheme anywhere in the world as a solution to
> urban
> > public transport problems? The principal advantage as I see is that the
> > rails would run in the airspace over roads so there is no need to
purchase
> > land. Stations would be built in the air and subruban lines could follow
> the
> > airspace above existing roads.
>
> Interesting.... But it looks like an expensive solution looking for a
> problem.
>
> In relation to Springvale Rd, a frequent (7 1/2 minute) bus service with
> traffic light priority would be much cheaper and attract higher patronage.
> Main stops could be at Princes Hwy, Wellington Rd, FTG Rd, Waverley Rd,
> GlenWaverley Stn, Highbury Rd, Burwood Hwy, Canterbury Rd.   The 7.5 min
> would mesh in with the normal 15min train headway on all three lines
served.
>
> Only people travelling direct from Springvale to Nunawading (relatively
few)
> would benefit from the faster travel times of the overhead railway.
However
> a frequent bus service would serve the much greater number making trips
> along the route, especially if fed with frequent east-west feeder buses
and
> an extended Burwood Hwy tram. If total trip times are taken into account
for
> all who use public transport in the area, frequent buses with bus priority
> would speed more people's travel than an overhead rail line with few stops
> en-route.
>
> The cost of the bus option would be quite modest, and much less than
either
> an overhead railway or the Government's ill-conceived and wasteful
> "Smart-Bus" scheme whose only benefit will be to tell waiting passengers
> that it's 119 minutes until the next bus (if waiting on a Saturday
> afternoon)!
>
> Overhead railways are fun to think about, but the cost-benefits of one
along
> Springvale Rd are dubious, compared to a more modest system based on
> existing rail lines and a radically overhauled bus system.  Much more can
be
> achieved for much less by considering other low-cost improvements to the
> transport system, such as timed transfers, bus priority, frequency
> improvements, straighter routes and better interchanges (not only between
> bus and train, but also between bus and bus).
>
> Peter
>
>
> Let's do a simple cost-benefit analysis and compare it to a bus running
> every 7 1/2 minutes down Springvale Rd with traffic light priority (so
buses
> would not face red lights en-route) I think
>
>