Re: Bus Privatization

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

In article <3a1a2469@news.alphalink.com.au>,
  "Peter Parker" <parkerp@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>
> C. P. Zilliacus <patrick.zilliacus@mix.cpcug.org> wrote in message
> 8vbids$gai$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:8vbids$gai$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> It's inefficient and wasteful.

Perhaps not if the rail system is near (or at) capacity, as the
Washington system is during peak periods (this is in part due to a lack
of rolling stock).

> Consider a system where there is a fixed number of route kilometres
> can be travelled (due to lack of vehicles, drivers and cost
> constraints).  Consider an outer suburban route that went into the
> city that duplicates a rail line.
> Let's say it runs every 30 min and is 45 kilometres long, 30 km of
> this duplicating the train.

We have such bus routes in certain parts of the Washington region.

> Let's eliminate the duplication but leave the route kilomeres
> constant (ie reduce route to 15km, serving only those areas
> away from the rail station).
> What do we get?  A bus every 10 minutes.  The gain may even
> be greater than this as the bus is not held up in congested
> inner-city streets, and providing more kilometres of
> service to outer suburbs, where it's needed.

Perhaps.  But when the bus is running on transit/car-pool lanes
(such as the I-395/I-95 (Shirley Highway) HOV roadway) at 100 or 110
k/h (with schedules adhered to), and the rail is about half that
speed, do you think patrons will WANT to switch from bus to rail?
Even worse, many of the buses used to take patrons in to downtown
Washington, but when the Metro opened, the bus riders got dumped out
at the edge of "downtown" at the Pentagon, and were forced to endure a
long walk, and a wait for (an already crowded) train to get to their
ultimate destination.  This forced transfer added time and expense to
the trip, and many former bus riders found other ways to get to work,
including the so-called "slug" queues ("informal" car-pools).

> Provided that it was co-ordinated with an equally frequent train
> service, that sort of service  is more likely to lure people from
> their cars.  Another bonus is that the frequency of the
> route makes transfers to cris-crossing bus routes along the line
> more convenient, and thus makes it easier for public transport
> to serve many local and cross-suburban trips.

I do not disagree with you.  BUT, the customer HAS to come first
in order to provide a good alternative to the single-occupant
vehicle, and I am not sure that what you describe does that.

> A city such as Toronto has a grid network based on the above.  If
> you look at the route kilometres of service provided, it is not
> much more than Melbourne.  However their patronage is
> 2 to 3 times us, and a much greater percentage of their population
> has access to frequent public transport than us.   Why?

I have ridden subway and trolley lines in Toronto.  Nice systems
that TTC runs.  However, I cannot speak to transit utilization,
walk access and mode share in Toronto, or in Melbourne (I have NOT
been "down under," however).


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