Re: [AUS] Radio forum on public transport

[craig@ina.com.au (Craig Read)]

On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:27:51 +0800, William J Evans
<bill@joinet.net.au> wrote:

>joneill wrote:
>> 
>> True,
>> 
>>   But the government is in a catch 22, people don't like public transport
>> here in Melbourne,
>>   and the city is HUGE (in overall area) compared to other cities in
>> Australia. So people
>>   don't use it as much as they should.. government reacts by encouraging
>> more roads
>>   and this perpetuates the cycle...
>> 
>>   I think that we should just run public transport at a loss and make it
>> free...no ticketing
>>   machines..just go where you want..It would attract a lot more people and
>> take pressure
>>   of the roads..

IIRC somebody was saying a few years ago that the total cost of making
the trains free and removing the ppl employed to sell tickets and
catch fare evaders would almost ballance with the money generated from
selling the tickets.  The benefits to the roads (less cars on them)
and environment (less pollution) would more than make up for any
difference.

>Until about 6 years ago, Perth had an absolutely abysmal suburban rail
>service. The ALP made it a major election issue and won office. They
>re-opened the one third of the network the Libs had recently closed,
>planned the extension of the network to the rapidly developing northern
>suburbs and ordered the new trains. The original design was that the
>trains would all be 2 cars long and would run at 15 minute intervals. 
>
>When the new trains arrived, they proved so popular that they now run 4
>cars (that being the maximum that will fit most platforms, and run at 5
>minute intervals during peak times. The original fleet was expected to
>be sufficient to meet demand for at least 10 years, but has had to be
>trebled in just 5 years. The fares have also doubled since the Libs got
>back in after the WA Inc. fiasco, but the demand continues to rise and
>the service now operates at a significant profit.

While in Perth in '97 I had a look at the trains.  I was amazed at how
clean they were in relation to Melbourne.  Not to mention how much
more often they run!

>Perth is also far more spread out than Melbourne, occupying more space
>than New York which has more than 20 times the population.

I find the idea of Perth being more spread out than Melbourne a bit
hard to swallow.   I travel 50ks each way to work in the city and I
still live 10-15ks from the edge of the suburbs.  IIRC New York is
smaller in area than Melbourne.

The last I heard three of the most spread out cities are L.A.,
Melbourne and Aukland.

>If you provide a good service, people will use it.

Some people, but not all!

I'm a contractor and could only rarely go to work without my car.
There also seems to be a lot more people running small businesses
these days and I don't think many of them could work without their
cars.

There is also the problem of location.  Even if trains were free in
Melbourne you wouldn't catch one from Ferntree Gully to Dandenong to
get to work.  It's only a half-hour drive, but you need to catch the
train into the city and back out again.  It's a 1 hour trip from FTG
to the city and about a 40 minute trip back to Dandenong.  With
waiting for trains (every 20 mins) it would take 2-2 1/2 hours each
way!

Cheers...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1986 Lotus Excel S.E.