Re: Travel patterns (was Re: New form of rail transportation)

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

Anthony Morton <amorton@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au> wrote in message
8uvf7m$2ra$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU">news:8uvf7m$2ra$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU...
> Peter Berrett <pberrett@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
> >One does not need to cajole. Their choices of where they live and work
are
> >probably determined to a degree by the availablity of public transport.
> >Build it and over time they will come.
> >
> >A good example is the high speed railway to Gippsland. once the railway
is
> >built I expect to see a sharp rise in land prices down there as people
> >choose a country lifestyle and commute to Dandenong.
>
> This is my point.  Doesn't this mean people are travelling longer, not
> shorter, distances to work?
>
> >4 does not contradict 2. Currently if I live in Hawthorn and work in
> >Dandenong (as I once did) my public transport option is to go by train to
> >Richmond and change trains to Dandenong.
>
> No, if Melbourne's public tranport were operated in an at all sensible
manner
> your obvious choice would be tram down Glenferrie Rd and change to a train
at
> Malvern, or frequent bus down Tooronga Rd and change at Caulfield.
>
> That said, I'm not personally averse to the idea of extending the Alamein
line
> back to Hughesdale, if it went past Chadstone shopping centre.  I just
don't
> think it's terribly high on the list of priorities, compared to (say)
> overhauling the bus services.
>
> I interpreted your reason 4 to imply that people would be able to locate
> themselves more or less anywhere relative to their work and wouldn't be
> constrained to living locally or on the same radial rail line.  So if
someone
> worked in Ringwood and wanted to travel by public transport they could
choose
> to live in Frankston or Watsonia or even Sunbury if they wished, rather
than
> considering just the Ringwood area itself or places on the same line such
as
> Hawthorn or Box Hill.  I think the net effect of this would be to increase
> people's distance from where they work.
>
> >My argument is that a cheap, fully comprehensive, frequent, safe system
able
> >to get people quickly and efficiently from where they live or work to
where
> >they want to go (with as few buses as possible) will attract signficantly
> >increased patronage sufficent to compensate for the evening out effect
cited
> >above.
>
> I see a problem of economics here.  If you build a new circumferential
railway
> in an established urban area without much circumferential travel, then you
> have to generate a _lot_ of extra circumferential trips in order to
recover
> the cost of construction and operation.  Whereas if you concentrate your
major
> infrastructure on the radial routes where the bulk of people already
travel,
> and use relatively inexpensive, though high-quality, bus services on the
> circumferential routes, you can recover the cost of boosting services
> relatively easily.

I'm prepared to compromise here. Give that we will shortly have a ring road
it would be sensible to start a high quality, frequent ring road bus service
with good interchanges to rail initially and then once ring road public
transport passenger numbers have built up put light rail or heavy rail up
the middle of the ring road.

cheers Peter

>
> Everything else you say I agree with (although I'd put off electrification
to
> Geelong for a few years yet).  As I say, I think we come from the same
> direction where public transport is concerned, the main difference being
that
> I'm wary of spending money to put rail lines everywhere they're not
currently
> needed.
>
> Cheers,
> Tony M.
>
> Public Transport Users Association         http://www.vicnet.net.au/~ptua/
>