Re: New form of rail transportation

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

Peter Parker <parkerp@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
3a0fd15d@news.alphalink.com.au">news:3a0fd15d@news.alphalink.com.au...
>
>
> 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 people don't like buses. The like roomy, comfortable, fast express
trains with their own dedicated carriageway. I've travelled on the O-Bahn in
Adeliade and whilst it is marginally better than a normal bus - it is still
a bus!

I forget whether it was John Kennedy or Allan Jeans that said something to
the effect of "you can fry, them bake, them cook them but they're still
sausages". Buses are an uncomfortable form of public transport.

>
> 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?

Build it and they will come.

>
> 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!

A good public transportation system should have high frequency of service
that's all. If we had trains every 15 minutes of less in Melbourne on every
line I believe patronage would significantly improve. Perth has got the
right idea.

>
> 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.

Sounds ok - but people still don't like buses.

>
> 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.

I think over time it would. The effect would not be immediate but people's
choices of suburb and choices of place of work wodul change as a result of
the cross town links.

 However frequent and
> direct services that are within walking distance of nearly everyone will
go
> a long way to making PT competitive.


No argument there - so long as there isn't a bus involved.

>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.

Even with priority signalling bus services will still have to wait at
lights, albeit for a shorter period of time. I have my doubts whether such a
system would be practical given it's effect on car traffic.

>
> > 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.

Hard to prove one way or the other

>
> > 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.

I agree with you 100% re frequency.

>
> 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

You and I live in hope

cheers Peter