Re: Melbourne Double deckers

["Graeme" <gvrail@thatsent.com.au>]

Yes, frequency, comfort, cleanliness, punctuality and ease of access have
always rated as the major items of customer concern in the monthly customer
surveys undertaken in Perth.  Ticketing was also a high scorer.  Without
being too simplistic, get these things right and you'll have a chance of
getting the "choice" user onto the system.  Why Perth is a good model to
study is because only 2% of all pax are captive to the system.  98% of Perth
rail travellers can leave you at a drop of a hat and be in cars tomorrow if
you don't keep up the standard.

In some respects although not totally systems that have high levels of
captive users don't need to try as hard.  They can develop a supply driven
culture which of course was very much what took place for many years.
Melbourne and indeed every Australian city faces huge challenges to woo
choice users to the networks and it can be very hard to get that cultural
shift amongst management and staff to make that happen.

--
Graeme Vellacott
PO Box 322
CANNINGTON 6987
AUSTRALIA
Email:   gvrail@thatsent.com.au
Ph/Fax: +61 8 9451 5630
Visit www.thatsent.com.au
David Bromage <dbromage@fang.omni.com.au> wrote in message
k45W3.19$451.446716@news0.optus.net.au">news:k45W3.19$451.446716@news0.optus.net.au...
> Graeme (gvrail@thatsent.com.au) wrote:
> > I'm sorry I can't agree with your views on frequencies.  In Perth, THE
MOST
> > CAR DOMINATED CITY IN AUSTRALIA, getting people onto the trains required
> > very frequent services.  Because rail is capital intensive the added
labour
> > cost on driver only trains to increase frequencies is by comparison
small.
>
> Perth should be an example to to Melbourne and Sydney. Brisbane is close,
> but hasn't quite grasped the commuter express concept the right way.
>
> The Perth example can be mirrored in all other cities with urban rail
> systems. The trains just need to be longer.
>
> Cheers
> David