Re: Boo Hiss to Hillside

["Exnarc" <gwrly@netspace.net.au>]

Vaughan,

I'm not trying to attack you, I agree with you in principle, however we live
in a society that for worse has adopted Thatcherism as its doctrine and
everything has to be paid for.

In a perfect world standby buses would be the order of the day, but the
public transport system of Melbourne is now completely in private hands and
is required to make a profit (for its shareholders).

Give PT back to the people, remove the profit mentality and we might be able
to co-ordinate things again???

As it is, PT competes with each other whilst we still build Freeways for the
car to polute the air.

Bob.
Vaughan Williams <ender2000@my-deja.com> wrote in message
83fj2c$7rt$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:83fj2c$7rt$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> And here you point out what some of the major obstacles are.
> There is no planning for public transport in melbourne.
> The various modes try to compete with each other instead of with the
> real competitor - the private car.
> Buses wander all over back streets and/or try to compete with the
> trains by taking passengers all the way into the city. the result is
> low frequencies and buses wandering around all over the place going
> nowhere and doing nothing, AND no spare buses in the depot waiting to,
> for example, substitute for a broken down bus.
>
> A good public transport system plans for the fact that a service
> disruption of one form or another will happen on a reasonably regular
> basis and a contingency plan is required (Ringing up some bus companies
> to enquire if they have some buses just waiting in case the railways
> need them does not equal contingency plan).
>
> In article <83dim5$5ch$1@otis.netspace.net.au>,
>   "Exnarc" <gwrly@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > Vaughan Williams <ender2000@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > 83cva0$db9$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:83cva0$db9$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > This reply is to a few messages:
> > > 1. Suburban buses should all be running at a ten minute frequency
> > > during the peak, so the odd cancelled bus shouldn't matter much if
> > > buses DO need to be pulled off their runs to do train replacement.
> >
> > Then the PTUA would be the first complaining about bus cancelations!!!
> >
> > >
> > > 2. The bus companies should have a couple of spare buses for in case
> > > one of theirs (for example) breaks down. These buses could be
> organised
> > > for train replacement if needed. Bus companies, unfortunately, are
> even
> > > more administratively incompetant than the rail operators hence the
> > > hopeless service they provide.
> >
> > So a private bus operator is required to have "X" number of drivers
> and
> > buses standing by to provide replacement transport for it's
> competition???
> > Interesting concept!!!
> >
> > > 3. The railways probably should have a bus or two on standby
> (perhaps
> > > could be shared with the tramways) for any major service
> disruption. It
> > > might take 20 or 30 minutes to organise it and a little while for
> it to
> > > get to where its required, but it shouldn't take hours.
> >
> > So now the railway companies need to employ bus drivers for standby
> > services, whose footing the bill???
> >
> > >
> > > 4. Contingency planning dictates that it is known to the railways
> and
> > > tramways that major disruptions occur on a reasonably regular basis
> > > somewhere in the system, whether its a fire on the tracks, an
> overhead
> > > coming down or whatever. There has to be a plan and procedure for
> > > whenever this happens. This might include organising special extra
> > > trams if the affected stations are on a tram route, getting at
> least a
> > > couple of buses on standby (rather than doing a ringaround of the
> bus
> > > companies, the station staff should know exactly where the spare
> buses
> > > are and who to ring to organise them)
> >
> > Get real!!!
> >
> > > and going out of their way to
> > > assist passengers like the person who kicked off this thread -
> getting
> > > him on the first bus, or if necessary putting him in a cab.
> >
> > I agree on this point, re the passenger who had to catch another
> connection,
> > but this is not an exclusive Hillside or Bayside problem, its the
> result of
> > selling off a public assett to the private sector, in PTC (pre
> Kennett) days
> > the culture was changing as a result of the Service Now program (for
> all its
> > faults) an effort would have been made to help this individual. But
> then the
> > emphasis was on SERVICE not PROFIT.
> >
> > >
> > > 5. The analogy someone drew with Vicroads not helping if theres
> heavy
> > > traffic is quite different. Vicroads do take prompt action to divert
> > > traffic around an accident, and even severe congestion shouldn't
> make
> > > you miss a train if you allow plenty of time. The railways are
> > > responsible for getting their passengers from A to B and must take
> all
> > > the reasonable steps to do so. This includes having a mechanism to
> > > promptly secure at least a couple of buses rather than ad hoc
> searches
> > > for buses that show up when they show up.
> > >
> > > A year or two ago I was held up at Heidelburg because someone
> jumped in
> > > front of a train at Rosanna. It took almost two hours for the first
> bus
> > > to arrive, and there was no sign of any more for another half an
> hour
> > > after that. The disruption may be beyond the railways control but
> the
> > > poor planning and long delays in obtaining a substitute service is
> not.
> >
> > How can you plan when some fool is going to jump in front of a
> train???
> >
> > If you could do that you could arrange for the Police to arrive to
> arrest
> > him/her.
> >
> > Whilst the operator should make every effort to arrange replacement
> > services, the reality is that you can't have buses/trams standing by
> on the
> > slim chance that something might happen.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.