Re: [Vic] $2m study of public transport options

["Peter Parker" <parkerp@alphalink.com.au>]

David Bromage <dbromage@fang.omni.com.au> wrote in message
news:3AF5F484.C7836060@fang.omni.com.au...
> DL wrote:
> > Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said the study would investigate:
> >
> > A rail reservation in the freeway median strip.
>
> Works well in Perth. Write to the Minister with your support for this
> option.

Just because there is a successful railway up Perth's Mitchell Freeway does
not
mean that one up the Scoresby would necessarily be as successful.

Perth's northern suburbs system provides fast radial travel to and from the
CBD, with several
key regional centres (Joondalup, Stirling) en route.   In contrast a railway
up the Scoresby
would mainly serve cross-regional non-CBD travel.  Buses are co-ordinated
with trains.
Though bus service frequency is not the best, there is at least service
seven days per week,
which is not true for most bus routes in Melbourne.

In contrast, a railway up the Scoresby would be cross-radial.  It would
serve few local and CBD travel
needs.  Surveys show that comparatively few people commute from Franskston
to Ringwood, but
more travel locally and to the CBD.  It makes sense that we use this to
guide decisions on
where high capacity is required.   As a matter of general principle, service
frequency should be
uniformly high to permit easy interchange between services but capacity
should be roughly in
proportion to patronage.  The reverse is a recipe for large empty infrequent
trains that hardly anyone
uses!

North-south public transport is important and is the missing gap in
Melbourne's east.  Frequent services
are important, but high vehicle capacity isn't.  Also capital investment
should be spread over a
large number (20 or 30?) of high-quality frequent routes, rather than
concentrated in one or two that will
benefit only a few and reqiure needless interchanging.  As a train service
is as only as good
as its least infrequent feeder bus, it makes sense to provide a
high-frequency comprehensive bus
network that both increases the reach of the rail system and meets most
local travel needs.

Given the greater importance of service frequency than vehicle capacity, I
conclude that a comprehensive
 network of frequent north-south bus services running seven days per week
would benefit more people
than two or three routes (eg train up the Scoresby or SmartBus up Springvale
Rd), while all other routes
maintain their archaic running times and infrequent schedules.

I would support a railway between Glen Waverley and Rowville.  If backed by
frequent north-south
feeder buses, it would provide better links to the CBD, and to a huge chunk
of the eastern and south eastern suburbs.
For N-S cross-suburban travel in-vehicle time may be longer than a Scoresby
train, but walking and waiting time
would be less due to a dense network of frequent feeder buses along all
major roads.   Overall most people would
get better service, require fewer transfers than an expensive railway up the
Scoresby which is not backed by decent
buses.

As for Smartbus, I remain unconvinced that this program is the best approach
to providing good public
transport  in the Eastern suburbs.    As mentioned before, the main priority
should be service frequency.
Public transport measures should be evaluated by the proportion of the
population
that have reasonably good public transport within walking distance of their
homes.  If we define
this as 15 minutes frequencies during the day and 30 min or less at night
and on weekends, only
areas near train and tram lines qualify.  Most of the outer eastern suburbs
now miss out due to
their distance from train and tram lines.   Improvements should be assessed
against an aim of increasing
 the proportion of Melbourne's population within walking  distance of
reasonable transport to a range
of destination from 20-40% or so to 80% plus.  SmartBus, being confined to
one or two routes does
little to accomplish this despite its expense.

A better approach would be to put most resources into more frequent bus
services that connect
with trains.  Buses running every 15 minutes on every north-south arterial
road in Melbourne's
east would go a long way to making reasonable public transport accessible to
more people.
The main change from now would have to be route redesign, timetable changes
and greater
frequency and hours of operation.  However some money should be spent on bus
priority on
main roads, better bus shelters, and interchanges.  An expensive GPS
tracking device telling a
passenger that the next bus is in 59 or 119 minutes time is hardly an
improvement in my view!

A Scoresby train and a couple of SmartBus routes do not address the
transport problems of
Melbourne's outer east.  In contrast, a far smaller sum spent on an
interconnecting grid of frequent
services will benefit everyone and will start to give public transport a go
anywhere, anytime
convenience that is now reserved for car drivers only.

Peter