Re: Bus Privatization

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

In article <s_lS5.15171$tU2.128442@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
  "Daniel Bowen" <dbowen@custard.REMOVE.net.au> wrote:
>
> "C. P. Zilliacus" <patrick.zilliacus@mix.cpcug.org> wrote in message
> 8vc5ic$232$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:8vc5ic$232$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3a1a2469@news.alphalink.com.au>,
> >   "Peter Parker" <parkerp@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> > > 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).
>
> Good point. I think the point Peter was making was that less
> efficient methods of transit should not be directly competing
> against less efficient methods of transit.
>
> The situation in Melbourne is that the highly efficient, frequent,
> fast (at least in peak hour, express trains every 4 minutes) and
> well-patronised Ringwood railline is seeing competition introduced
> from one of the bus companies, which sends its vehicles from the
> same suburbs into the CBD, by a longer route, serving less
> intermediate destinations such as Box Hill district centre and
> Swinburne university. They seem to be trying to win  market share
> from the railway, when they could be trying to win market share
> from those who currently drive. Then the overall public transport
> share would be larger.
>
> Your description of DC may very well be the reverse - if the bus
> system was running efficiently for certain trips, why was the rail
> system, which could not serve the same customers as well, brought
> in to figuratively steamroller over the buses?

In my opinion, because the transit authority considers itself to
be in the _rail_ transit business (as opposed to the transit
business), and only grudgingly runs buses.  Whenever bus and rail
serves the same market, WMATA instinctively gets rid of the bus
service.


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