Re: New form of rail transportation

["Peter Parker" <parkerp@alphalink.com.au>]

Peter Berrett <pberrett@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
ginP5.10733$Xx3.45408@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au">news:ginP5.10733$Xx3.45408@news1.eburwd1.vic.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.

I agree.  For public transport to be attractive, it needs to be so good that
people
can travel anywhere in the metropolitan area at any time they wish to.

Issues such as service frequency, ability to interchange and directness
of trip are as important as on-vehicle travel time.

What would the difference in travel time be between a limited stop elevated
train
 and a bus service with bus priority along Springvale Rd?   Maybe 10 to 20
minutes
for the whole length of the trip - could be more in peak times though.  The
difference
would be about half this for trips from Springvale to Glen Waverley, Glen
Waverley to
Nunawading, etc.

Now let's assume the train runs every 15 min, and the bus every 7.5 min.
The average waiting
time for the train is 7.5 min, and 3.75 for the bus.  So there is a time
saving of 3.75 minutes in favour
of the bus.  So the time saving of the train falls to 6 to 16 minutes for
the full trip and 1 to 6 minutes for
the half-trip to Glen Waverley.  That 1 - 6 min is trivial!  And, it gets
better!  Because the bus provides
the ability to make very short trips, it will provide service where the
limited stop train will not.  So many more
will use the bus who can't use the train.  And, if the number of stations is
increased to allow the train to provide
a similar service, the travel time advantages of the train are largely lost.

What's the lesson?  For short local trips (which are ideal candidates to
attract to PT) service frequency
has a much bigger effect on overall travel time than saving a few minutes of
on-vehicle travel time.  Also recall
that human perception is that 5 min of waiting time feels longer than 5 min
of travel time.  The high service
frequency also makes it possible for people to say "I'll be there at 10:15",
rather than "Umm - I'll just consult
my  timetable".

But wait, there's more!  We are basing all these times on trips from
Nunawading to Springvale (or GW).
There's not a huge volume of these trips to justify this gleaming white
elephant.   Could the overhead rail
attract patronage by servicing other cross-suburban trips, for instance
Clayton to Laburnum?

Let's see - train to Springvale, SkyTrain to Nunawading, train to Laburnum.
With two interchanges and up
to 15 minutes per wait, waiting time could (in the absolute worst case) be
45 minutes (including the initial
wait).  It would average about 22 minutes, assuming there was no special
co-ordination of services.
During evenings, waiting time could be double this.  It might even be
worthwhile to go into the city and out
to Laburnum to save oneself the hassle of an extra interchange.  And, we
haven't even factored in the travel time!
No, the car still wins hands-down!

Now, contrast this to another frequent bus service.  Again every 7.5 min and
bus priority along Middleborough/
Stephensons Rd.  Good service frequency and no interchanging.   Plus
connections with the train and Mt Waverley,
tram on Burwood Hwy and buses on other major east-west roads.  Monash Uni
would also generate some patronage.
The travel and waiting time of this direct route would surely be less than
via a Springvale Rd SkyTrain.  The same would
apply to other trips that involve a single interchange, such as Clayton to
Box Hill, or Springvale to Mt Waverley.  Sure
the travel time is still more than a car (maybe 30 to 50% more), but a good
service frequency, direct trip  and reasonable fares will make PT
competititve.

The current radial bias of Melbourne PT is making PT take up to 5 to 10
times longer than car trips.  No wonder patronage is low when PT is an
unsatisfactory alternative for a large proportion of trips (especially local
trips) that people make.   And the problem gets worse the further from the
city you get.   In the whole scheme of things, ending the 500 to 1000%
travel time difference in favour of the car for many trips should be the
biggest priority for PT.   Big capital projects on one or two cross-radial
lines won't make a huge difference for most people.  However frequent and
direct services that are within walking distance of nearly everyone will go
a long way to making PT competitive.

It is noteworthy to add that Perth's southern suburbs have seen improvements
to bus services in the last 5 years.  Most important has been the shift from
merely carting commuters to the CBD and back again to satisfying a wider
variety of travel needs.  The new routes are providing cross-suburban
linkages, while feeding rail stations.  Service frequency (currently 30 or
60 min) is the main issue, but at least there are evening and weekend
services.  Also Melbourne can learn from the matching of train and bus
headways so that the waiting time is constant throughout the day.

> 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.

Agree 100%, but it shouldn't just be Springvale Rd that enjoys these
services.
If frequent services are provided along every major road (N-S) and (E-W),
waiting times can be reduced.  Also it should be possible to complete most
trips
within a region (say eastern suburbs) with just one transfer and not two if
people
are being forced to use SkyTrain in the absence of decent bus services
elsewhere.

> 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.

Agreed.  Doesn't have to be a railway though.  An express bus along a
Scoresby
Fwy wouldn't be much good as trip attractors are off the freeway.

> 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.

Neither would a stopping train.  However an express train would not attract
as many
local trips (currently made by car) as a frequent bus for reasons explained
above.

> 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.

A lot of effort to save a transfer for very few people.  Better to have
frequent services so
that transferring isn't a drama.  Then the benefit would be spread more
widely.

One might say build a Springvale Rd Skytrain AND better buses.  However
there are limited funds, and we need to go for the best bang for the buck.
Otherwide the road lobby will see Skytrain's failure as proof that PT will
never work, and will put their hands in our pockets for billion dollar
freeways, and leave the rails to rust.

Part of a metropolitan public transport plan might involve setting the
following targets:

* 80% of the metropolitan population resides within 1km of a public
transport service that runs at least
every 15 minutes on weekdays and 30 minutes on weekends and evenings (what
Adelaide calls a Go Zone).
* Train, bus and tram timetables are co-ordinated to ensure reliable
connections.
* Reduced travel+waiting times to make PT  an attractive alternative to the
car for most trips (Aim for 2:1 or better)
* Double patronage over the next 10 years.

Only then should we discuss what hardware is necessary to most economically
achieve these goals.  I would say that frequent buses that run 7 days per
week on direct routes co-ordinated with trains/trams should be the main part
of the solution.  The tragedy is that sufficient money is there, but the
government chooses to spend it wastefully on the oxymoronically-named 'Smart
Bus' that will benefit no one.

rgds,

Peter