Re: [MELB] City Loop issues

[amorton@mudguard.ee.mu.oz.au (Anthony Morton)]

Vaughan wrote:

>> Burnley group people would still be able to get to the loop without
>> changing,
>> just by staying on their train as it runs around the loop after Flinders.
>> Flagstaff people would probably save some time, and Spencer/Flinders people
>> certainly would.

Peter  <railvic@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>How about Parliament station customers?  Change at Richmond to have
>direct access, you bet they would!

Yes, the same as people who now get off at Richmond to go direct to
Flinders St (including all the St Kilda Rd workers changing to trams).
Since there are somewhat more people going to Flinders St than to Parliament,
this change would leave a greater number of people better off.

Of course, not everyone whose final destination is Flinders St bothers to
change at Richmond in order to save those last few minutes.  If the long
layovers at Flinders St were eliminated, there's no reason why the number of
people changing at Richmond would increase even if the direction of the Loop
were reversed.

>> Well, its not specifically PTUA policy to change the direction of that
>> particular line. I can't help thinking youre deliberately beating up the
>> story. I never suggested removing all Burnley trains from the loop, only
>> reversing their direction.
>
>Well Vaughan, I'm not "deliberately beating up the story", because you
>have signed off your previous messages as "Secretary of PTUA" which to
>me as representing the view of the organisation.  There is no mention
>that the view presented in your earlier postings do not represent the
>Association.

PTUA policy is for a public transport system that provides fast, frequent,
easy-to-use and easy-to-understand service to the widest practicable range of
destinations.  Vaughan has suggested that this would be best achieved in the
case of City Loop services by running different train groups in different
directions and making the direction uniform throughout the day.  To make the
proposal concrete he has suggested reversing the direction of the Burnley
group thus making the upper level of the loop uniformly anticlockwise and
the lower level uniformly clockwise.  The idea has a way to go before it
becomes formal PTUA policy.

>> Lets do a bit of guesswork here:
>> Flinders 25% (accepting your figure as correct)
>> Melb Central 22.5%
>> Parliament 20%
>> Spencer 20%
>> Flagstaff 17.5%
>
>Vaughan, the 75% component does not add up above - 22.5% + 20% +20%
>+17.5% = 80%.  

OK - let's scale the percentages then....

Flinders St  25%
Melb Central 21%
Parliament   19%
Spencer St   19%
Flagstaff    16%

....keeping in mind that the error in estimating these figures is greater
than the scaling required.  I think we're splitting hairs here.

As Vaughan said, the precise details matter less than the basic ideas of
consistency of service and 'connectivity' of destinations.

Cheers,
Tony M.

Public Transport Users Association        http://www.vicnet.net.au/~ptua/