Re: Bus Privatization

["C. P. Zilliacus" <patrick.zilliacus@mix.cpcug.org>]

In article
<Pine.OSF.4.10.10011201836460.30925-100000@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au>,
  Anna Catherine Morton <acmort@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, David McLoughlin wrote:
>
> > Re this thread, another interesting example of "privatisation" of
buses
> > is Melbourne in Australia where most bus routes have always been
> > privately owned.
> >
> > Melbourne's buses are mostly cross-suburban routes and feeders to
train
> > stations and tram lines.
>
> They may be cross suburban, and may often go to, or near, railway
> stations, but the service and co-ordination with the trains are
> nowhere near good enough in general for them to be referred to as
> feeders!  The reason the PTC took over all the bus routes in the
> first place was because the private operaters weren't making
> anything from them.  The problem now  is that some of the operators
> are competing with the rail system rather  than, as would happen if
> the whole train-tram-bus network was run properly, the busses acting
> as feeders.

What is wrong with buses competing with rail?  In Washington (D.C.),
as the rail system has opened, the transit authority has turned-back
bus routes at the rail stations.  In many cases, this has led to
LONGER travel times for patrons, which might be OK with a "captive"
group of riders, but is not good if the idea is to lure people from
the private automobiles onto transit.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.