The Adelaide Hills region has one railway line passing through it, being the main interstate standard gauge line to Melbourne, used by many daily freight trains as well as GSR’s The Overland passenger train to Melbourne three times per week.

This area now has a population of around 60,000 people and there have been numerous proposals from various people to re-instate a regular local passenger service. Although this may sound good in theory, the line is far from suitable as a public transport corridor.

As far as Belair, TransAdelaide operates a suburban passenger service which provides an uneven 2tph service during the off-peak, and a train roughly every 20 minutes in peak and an hourly frequency on weekends an evenings. This line is only operated with single or two-carriage sets most of the time and serves a separate area to the main Adelaide Hills area as described.

Adelaide to Mount Barker routes. Green = rail, Red = road.

The large ‘U’ in the route of the line to get it uphill kills any chances of it being relatively direct for through traffic and as a suburban service it is still indirect, particularly beyond Blackwood where most alight. Sure Belair is a popular railfan spot and has a national park but neither generate much PT ridership.

Beyond the present terminus at Belair, Redhens and the odd Jumbo previously trundled up to Bridgewater every couple of hours until 1987 when the service was axed due to poor patronage. Any chance in re-instating the previous service was lost in 1995 but may be re-gained in the next few years when the suburban network is standardised.

Prior to 1995 the line consisted of two broad gauge tracks to Belair (shared by freight & passenger) with a single track continuing beyond there. During that project the line from Adelaide to Belair was split into two parallel lines, one BG line retained for suburban railcars and one line converted to SG forming the interstate line to Melbourne.

Three suburban stations at Millswood, Hawthorn and Clapham were closed to reduce running times, and crossing loops were installed along the line. More recently the weekday service frequency has been changed so that it is no longer clockface, outbound trains depart Adelaide at 36-24 minute intervals during the off-peak.

Running times vary from 31 minutes on weekends when only one train is in the single line, to in excess of 45 minutes for some counter-peak weekday runs. This line isn’t proposed for electrification as a part of the rail revitalisation project, the best it’s getting is concrete sleepers and refurbished 3000/3100 class railcars.

I won’t cry over it’s omission from electrification – like so much of the Adelaide network, the line is marginal and the need for heavy rail in particular is debatable. Riccardo has blogged before on the topic of making it light rail, and Want mayo with that about to do with attempts by Mitcham Council and others to get rid of those noisy freighters.

Proposals & my cold water

Occasionally the idea of running a passenger service to Adelaide Hills or the town beyond of Murray Bridge comes up, such as this article in Murray Bridge’s local paper or this Railpage thread. Some would rather a meandering loss-making railcar to 1.5km of containers:

Great idea: Murray Bridge councillor Jerry Wilson welcomes the idea of regional passenger rail in the Murraylands and the reduction of freight trains on the tracks.

Or the occasional comment like this from Family First:

(b)the introduction of a passenger train service between Adelaide and Mount Barker via either the duplication of a broad gauge line from Belair to Mount Barker or conversion of the Belair metropolitan train line to standard gauge during scheduled re-sleepering works in such a way that the metropolitan line can reconnect with the standard gauge ARTC line from Mount Barker to restore rail coverage to Mount Barker, Littlehampton, Balhannah, Bridgewater, Aldgate and Stirling;

The idea might sound good from the outset – you have an existing railway line and a reasonable population. If there were a good, relatively direct mainline with spare paths then I’d suggest putting on some railcars and incorporating it into the suburban network.

But as my map above shows, this is a dog of a line from another era. I’ve done it myself and it was fun to ride but takes far too long to get anywhere. You can still do it on a passenger train if you book a ticket on GSR’s Overland to Murray Bridge, taking almost two hours from Adelaide’s Keswick Terminal, as opposed to about an hour’s drive.

Closer to Adelaide, bus route 840F makes it to Mount Barker in 43 minutes, and the 864F reaches Bridgewater via Stirling/Aldgate in about 35, as compared to that little railcar that might be still climbing the hill to Belair before the bus reached Bridgewater, or might have just gotten there when the bus arrived in Mt Barker.

None of these bus services are particularly frequent. During the off-peak, the main route 864/864F which runs from the Adelaide CBD to Mount Barker via other towns on the way only comes every 30 minutes supplemented by the once-hourly express bus from Mount Barker although the peak service is relatively intensive.

Poor old Murray Bridge with it’s 18,000 people located another 40km west of Mount Barker only gets four buses per day, not included in the Adelaide system with a $20 return fare.

Fix the buses and use trains elsewhere

Who would catch a winding old train when you’ve got this? (Photo from Ozroads)

The road route to the area, the South Eastern Freeway has been upgraded in recent years and is now of a high standard, providing for quick travel to the area. There is no congestion on the freeway itself but in peak hours there can be on Glen Osmond and the CBD. Bus lanes would be cheaper and provide a superior service to a train.

My view is that you should be grateful TransAdelaide’s railcars are still making their way up around that horse-shoe to Belair and that any local passenger services beyond there are dead and buried. This is another case of only trains can or nostalgia getting in the way of transport planning.

The solution to public transport in this area is buses which provide much more bang-for-buck than a couple of railcars per day from Murray Bridge or Mount Barker, fighting with ARTC and 1.5km freight trains for paths ever would.

In light of Riccardo’s recent post Money for Jam: Contra-peak traffics and encouraging them I have had some thoughts of how you can justify providing a heavy rail service over other forms of public transport.

The main benefit of heavy rail is it’s ability to transport large numbers of people frequently, as well as speed. Both points are essential for any decent suburban commuter rail or metro service as well as a good interurban service, but where does the title shot of Hurstbridge in Victoria fit into all this, a town of 3,400 that gets visited by a 6-car electric set every 40 minutes? Or somewhere like poor old Armidale in the New England region of NSW which has it’s railway kept open for one loss-making CountryLink train per day?

This all boils down to the issue of cost recovery. Heavy rail is the most expensive mode to provide due to it’s high fixed costs yet low variable costs, making it an ideal mode for shifting a load of commuters every 10 minutes but not for a single two-car railcar per week (ala Griffith, NSW).

The justifications for a train service

There are regularly proposals from railfans for new passenger train services that are usually proposing to use the infrastructure purely as it is there (but usually needing upgrading), such as this Railpage thread proposing a service to SA’s Barossa Valley.

Of course if we are to ignore the political reasons that cause many services to exist, such as how Griffith, NSW receives a railcar once per week, running a choo choo purely because it is possible is a poor use of limited resources.

For a suburban commuter railway to be justified, I’d be hoping for a line with a good population catchment and intermediate destinations that would present consistent patronage. Certainly I wouldn’t support building expensive infrastructure (ie third tracks) that would only see use during peak hours.

And of course, I wouldn’t support jumping up from a lackluster bus service to an entirely new railway. This applies for some proposals such as for Doncaster and Rowville in Victoria, both of which should IMO not get railways until a high frequency bus service is not enough.

One pre-feasiblity study (1MB PDF) for the latter by Knox City Council actually went as far as suggesting the railway should be built because it would most likely provide Sunday & evening services at times when existing buses do not. This is a common myth similar to the buses/trams issue; although most suburban railways in Australia run to an 18/7/365 service standard, there is nothing to stop buses from running to a similar service level.

Having said that, there are numerous instances where the construction of a railway would not be warranted (if there was not already one), but providing services along the existing line is viable.

But on the other hand the operation of joke services like what QR provides to Doomben in Brisbane, a line that was electrified to Eagle Farm in 1988, replaced with buses in 1993, and had it’s passenger service re-instated to the present hourly Monday-Saturday service (not including evenings) in 1998 should be re-considered. Either a proper service should be provided or if the capacity of rail is not warranted the service should be ceased, as running such a poor service benefits few people and diverts vital rail funding.

Wrapping this up

I have done little to touch on the issue of country passenger trains in this post, particularily the issue of keeping a line open for only a couple of trains a day or services provided for welfare and/or political reasons. That will be for another day.

The conclusion of all this is similar to my Only Trams Can post, public transport should provide the most appropriate mode for each service. Just because there is already a railway (or even already a passenger service) it does not mean rail is the best mode for that service.

I’m particularily interested in seeing comments from others on this issue as I beleive there is much I haven’t touched on yet.

An articulated 'Phileas' bus travelling along a busway in Eindhoven, Netherlands.

Bus services are often seen by the travelling public, policy makers and planners alike as an inferior third rate public transport service which travellers fall back on when other services aren’t available. When planned and implemented effectively however, buses can provide a fast, frequent and efficient service which is attractive to commuters. The list of criticisms of buses is long, and there is no shortage of lobby groups and advocates who lobby for the laying of rails as the panacea to all their transport woes. While there are certainly cases where replacement of bus services with rail is warranted by passenger demand, this is not always the case. Somebody and MJJA have written recent posts about matching the appropriate modes to the required task. Rail solutions are often put up as solutions to problems where the answer in fact lies not in the vehicle used, but the manner in which the service is delivered. Given the right operating environment, buses can provide an alternative to trunk metro or light rail services with shorter implementation timeframes and lower implementation costs. 

Bus services as we know them

In many Australian cities, bus services involve poor frequencies (often half hour at best), old vehicles, contending with traffic congestion, poor signage and route information, poor passenger amenity (bus stops which consist of little more than a pole at the side of the road), poor interconnectivity and frequent stopping delaying journey times. Journeys are further delayed by the need for the driver to sell tickets to passengers. Buses are therefore said to be slow, irregular, uncomfortable and unpredictable. Furthermore, it is often claimed that passengers don’t catch buses because they “don’t know where bus stops are and they don’t know where the bus is going to go”. Conversely, it is said, trams and trains, give prospective travellers an idea of where the vehicle travels by virtue of the fact that the vehicles follow the rails.

Can buses play a mass transit role?

Let’s contrast this poor standard of services with the other extreme on the bus transport spectrum – the deluxe model in bus transport, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Based on the pioneering BRT model from Curitiba, Brazil, BRTs have been employed in other parts of Latin America and increasingly catching on in Europe and North America. Australasian bus systems which contain significant features of BRT include Brisbane’s South East busway, Adelaide’s O-Bahn, Sydney’s Liverpool – Paramatta transitway and Auckland’s Northern Busway. Queensland Transport is considering options for a Cairns Busway and a busway has been planned for Canberra.

How is BRT different?

The BRT model provides high frequency services, with high occupancy articulated buses carring up to 300 passengers. Vehicles can be gas powered, reducing emissions. Multiple doors allow for rapid boarding/alighting in the same manner that passengers enter and exit trams or metro carriages. The bus driver is relieved of the responsibility for selling or checking tickets as these are purchased at stations and various other outlets before boarding. Rather than stopping at frequent bus stops, BRT buses stop at bus stations which resemble light rail stops.

Busways can be created without the need for tracks or overhead cabling and can often be laid in less time than it takes to construct rail networks. Furthermore, because residents along major roads are already used to high volumes of traffic, new busways tend not to be subject to NIMBYism to the same extent that new rail or light rail lines are.

Ideally, BRT involves dedicated ‘bus roads’ or busways which separate buses from cars and regular traffic. Separating bus routes has the obvious advantage of removing buses from congestion – in the case of Brisbane’s South East Busway, buses zip along at 80km/h adjacent to the South Eastern Freeway, which in peak hour resembles a car park (a good depiction of this appears briefly in the video linked below). A journey from Eagle Plains to the city takes 18 minutes, compared to 45 – 60 minutes by car in peak hour. [1]. 

Achieving separation

Adeaide's O-Banh runs on a guided system designed to achieve a smoother ride. Running at top speeds of 100 km/h, it is among the fastest BRTs in the world.

Separation can be achieved by delineating existing lanes of traffic exclusively for bus use (in some cases by using physical barriers such as low curbs or in Chinese examples ‘fences’). More elaborate schemes involve the complete physical separation of busways from roads. This can be done by locating busways in the medians along arterial roads or freeways (eg. Curitiba, Brazil), in tunnels, elevated roads and overpasses (eg. Brisbane), or building new transport corridors (eg. Adelaide). Integrating busways with existing tram/light rail lines is also an option, however this option would be more prone to bunching.

Providing a dedicated, clearly legible bus route also removes the problem of “not knowing where the bus is going to go or where to catch it”. Moreover, it allows for trunk bus routes to be indicated schematically on metropolitan transit maps alongside trains, trams and light rail. This has been done effectively on Brisbane transit maps.

Bus stations

Bus stations are located at intervals similar to those of metro stations. Bus stations can provide ticket sale facilities, high levels of commuter information, real time departure info, and passenger amenities. When designed properly, bus stations enable buses to overtake those ahead of them and avoid the bunching phenomenon sometimes experienced by trams.

Significantly, bus stations can be staffed. Contributors at other forums have derided the suggestion that a ‘bus stop’ might be staffed at all, however staffing has significant potential benefits. Staff can sell tickets, undertake fare enforcement functions, provide customer assistance and information (particularly useful upon opening of new services), and ensure safety and amenity at bus stations. I understand that Brisbane bus stations and interchanges have begun employing staff at peak times to pre-sell tickets in order to expedite boardings and reduce dwell times.

Bus stations in Bogota have glass doors which open when the bus pulls up.

Off-road operations and network integration

Finally, busways enable integration between trunk services and local feeder bus services. This can be done by allowing feeder routes to enter the busway and travel along it to a final destination (CBD or a cross city destination), providing a single seat journey as is done in Brisbane and Adelaide (39% and 80% off system boardings respectively)[2]. Alternatively, feeder routes can be designed to connect with busway trunk services, allowing passengers to transfer to the busway. This is the case in Sydney’s Liverpool – Parramatta Transitway where no on-road bus routes directly access the busway. The latter option, with turn-up-and-go services can avoid the need for real time travel information, but may require high level of coordination with on-road feeder services if the trunk service is less frequent.

With these higher standards of service, one would expect sizable passenger volumes. In peak hour Brisbane’s South East Busway moves 15,000 people per hour. It has achieved a 56% increase in corridor ridership growth resulting carrying 26 million passengers a year. Adelaide’s O-Bahn carries 7 million pax/year, 4,500/hour in the peak, achieving a ridership growth of 25%, of whom 40% previously drove cars. [3].

A shopping list of options

BRT is the top of the range in bus services – the top shelf product. Like all transport modes, it isn’t without costs. An obvious one is higher staffing costs arising from higher numbers of vehicles involved. Another is the initial infrastructure cost compared with on-road buses. Installation costs vary depending on busway alignment, station intervals, and infrastructure such as tunnels and bridges. Brisbane’s South East Busway, which involved eight tunnels over 1.6km, a further 1.6km of bridges and viaducts, and 10 bus stations over a distance of 16 km (other sources report 20km) came in at a pricey >$24m/km [4]. There is no question that this was an expensive busway however much of this cost must be attributed to high quality station design, tunnelling and bridges. Adelaide’s O-Bahn cost only around $8m/km (in 1998 prices)[5]. Both of these were new busways built along entirely new alignments (although Brisbane’s follows an existing freeway). BRT costs would be reduced significantly when constructed on existing roadways, or within existing road reserves as has been done in South American and Asian examples. The quality of station design, amenities, and provision of real time travel information adds to the costs, as does the provision of elevators where bus stations are located above or below the ground.

Implementing low cost improvements utilising BRT principles

Even without full blown BRTs running inside the medians of major freeways and arterial roads, there are elements of BRT which can be incorporated into existing bus systems to provide better levels of service. Where opportunities exist, the busway separation concept can be partially applied at no cost, (eg. the use of freeway shoulders by buses in peak hour, as is done on Melbourne’s Eastern Freeway). Other initiatives may involve some cost. It is possible to cherry pick any one or more of these to provide improved services:

Buses share the tracks with trams in Mannheim, Germany.

- bus priority on the road network (eg. bus only lanes and priority signalling at intersections),
- improved traveller information,
- real time departure displays,
- improved cross modal integration,
- improved frequency,
- expedited boarding, and
- route legibility & identification.

In the interests of length I won’t describe each in great detail however I will briefly discuss the last two.

Expediting boarding and reducing dwell times is a no-brainer . This involves enabling passengers to enter/exit through all doors and relieving the driver of the ticket sale and enforcement function. Many European bus systems (particularly those in Eastern Europe) have significantly wider doors than Australian buses and operate much like Melbourne trams do – that is, passengers get on at any door and validate their ticket on board. Ticketing is not the driver’s concern. Some networks provide conductors, but most simply rely on random ticket checks by ticket inspectors.

Secondly – route identification. Without the need to construct busways, it should be possible to convey to (sub)urban dwellers the existence and connectedness of a bus network in the same way that tram tracks do through their presence.  What I have in mind is high visibility bus stops with matching on-road signage that indicates to potential travellers the presence and direction of a bus route. I’m not aware of any existing system, where cars and buses share lanes of traffic, which uses road markings indicate bus routes in a similar fashion to those used for dedicated bus lanes. I’m sure that some bright minds could come up with effective designs (like a continuous wavy line, or regular yellow polka dots) which could be used to indicate the presence of a bus route.

Another tool in the transport planner’s toolkit.

Buses are by no means a panacea. There will still remain a role for heavy and light rial. Buses need not however remain the poor cousins of trains, trams and metros with expectations of lower service standards. They can be an effective means of rapid mass transit and have proven to be effective in this role both in Australia and in other parts of the world. They should be considered as a viable option where the mode suits the purpose.

——-
References
[1] Currie, Graham. 2006. Journal of Public Transportation, 2006 BRT Special Edition. “Bus Rapid Transit in Australiasia: Performance, Lessons Learned and Futures”. p12. (references – Cr Quirk, and Currie, p12. ) .
Cr Quirk, quoted on “”Making Things Happen with Rapid Bus Transit Part II”. Accessed at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEtf32Bu3Y&NR=1 on 21 Nov 2008.
[2] Currie, Graham. 2006. Journal of Public Transportation, 2006 BRT Special Edition. “Bus Rapid Transit in Australiasia: Performance, Lessons Learned and Futures”. p7.
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid. p5.
[5] ibid.

Useful Resources
1. “Go BRT” A ‘Fact Sheet’ with several good photos (PDF).
2. “Making Things Happen with Rapid Bus Transit“. YouTube video in two parts. (A look at BRT through rose coloured glasses, but several interesting images).
3. National Urban Transit institute “At-Grade Busway Planning Guide” – full of technical design info for all you technical folk.

Professor William Mitchell – Director MIT Design Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Wants to “democratize” public transport. Judging by later comments I think he was getting at “transport equality”, where everyone, everywhere should have equal access to public transport.

Focus on urban personal mobility. In this case, mainly battery-electric ultralight foldable vehicles (2 seats), although other light vehicles (eg scooters, pushbikes) also figured in his vision. The vehicles were about the length of a Smart car (2.7m) while driving and half that folded for storage.

Banks of vehicles, basically the same as the successful Velib bicycle system in Paris, which for those unfamiliar operates by having racks of bikes around 4-500m apart around Paris. You pay (free for 20 min, then sliding scale) and borrow the bike, credit card used as security. You drop off at another Velib bike rack close to your destination and pay (electronically) any applicable charges. In the ultralight vehicle instance, the vehicle bay also serves as a charging station (inductive charging). They’d probably operate much like the current “car-share” schemes but look like they’d really only carry passengers (no golf clubs, bulky goods).

Proposed fix to the “last kilometre” problem, ie work in conjunction with existing public transport infrastructure. However, Mitchell also proposed these vehicles work in the outer suburbs more like a “last 5 kilometre” solution, operating as feeder services to train stations and the like. My take is that the inner-city scenario, with many cross-town, random direction trips would keep the vehicles evenly distributed, but that in the outer suburbs you essentially end up with a “park and ride” situation in which the vehicles only get used twice to get to/from the station to the charging bay nearest your house/estate, and that feeder buses (minibuses?) might be a better solution.

Suggested that the batteries could be used to store intermittent energy (ie renewables) and sell back to the grid when required. However, he had previously indicated that the batteries on these ultralights were small in view of their intended usage to save weight and in light of this, depleting the batteries to balance the grid might detract from their primary function – I’d probably call this one “greenwash” right now.

====

Professor Rob Adams – Director, Design & Urban Environment, City of Melbourne

Adams indicated 80-90% of the infrastructure required by 2020 is already in place, such that we shouldn’t be expecting to build ourselves out of congestion/transport problems.

Suggested that viable PT requires a minimum density of 100-150 persons per hectare (pph), and cited Barcelona as a good example. Barcelona has around 7 storeys in built areas, but 40% open space and a density of 200 pph. This to me contrasts with Moreland in Melbourne, which is increasing substantially in density but has one of the lowest parkland/open space levels in the city, which will have long-term consequences for liveability.

Adams cites early planning failures for our “sprawl” but contends that growth along major transport corridors can help preserve the suburban block (which would be “green” – water tanks, solar panels etc). This would mean around 10% of the city would become high density (4-8 storeys) and the other 90% (current suburbia) let alone. This approach would permit an additional 2 million residents without any further subdivision (by which I think he meant land release…?)

High density housing proposed not just on train lines (as Melb 2030) but also tram and bus routes (eg Johnston St, especially east end). Indicated the investment had been made in the transport infrastructure and suboptimal outcomes were being achieved where they ran next to low density zones. He provided examples (the “wild west” – single dwellings on garden blocks) on tram lines within view of the city (eg 96 terminus, Route 70 Riversdale Rd east, etc). In my view it’s not surprising some of these are low density, as the time to CBD (assuming that remains the primary destination) is much the same as a train line more than twice the distance (these tram routes also have less opportunity than some for heavy rail interchange, meaning more one-seat trips and less passenger “recycling”).

Provided Curitiba as an example of what he would like to see – dedicated bus lanes, bus/tram combinations (ie extend buses past tram termini, but have them run on the tram route once they encountered it, alternating with the tram service. Wanted more buses pronto, thought heavy rail had too long a lead time to be useful right away.

Wanted no “big ticket” PT items – things you could take a photo from 4km away. Preferred distributed improvement.

=====

Dr Jago Dodson – Senior Research Fellow, Urban Research Program, Griffith University, Brisbane

Approached transport/ planning from the energy (read: petroleum) security perspective. Used VIPER (Vulnerability Index for Petrol Expense Rise) and VAMPIRE (Vulnerability Assessment for Mortgage,Petrol and Inflation Risks and Expenditure) assessments to gauge geographical vulnerability to fuel price rises.

High vulnerability in both cases were essentially areas with poor PT, low socio-economic status, and outer metropolitan / growth areas. Low risk were the inverse – old “rail” suburbs, inner Melbourne, PT-rich areas.

The high-risk areas were also indicated (through budgetary and planning constraints) as having the least capacity to switch to non-car modes of transport (ie walking, cycling, PT).

Dodson described the current urban structure as regressive and socially inequitable. Most 2030 “nodes” are planned for the inner PT rich suburbs, already low-risk on the VAMPIRE index. Asked the question of what to do in the outer suburbs, which are essentially being let be rather than integrating into a non-radial network of PT (many linked nodes – “network effect“).

He also noted that any gains from increased PT ridership/mode switch from cars through higher density housing could easily be offset by efficiency losses in that housing mode – current high density housing is built to very low standards (3 star, maybe 4 star efficient) and no legislative requirement exists to do any better (despite negligible cost difference to 7 stars).

Dodson suggested improved PT network planning could solve many urban transport problems but currently the focus is too much on infrastructure (built out of the problem) rather than planning.

=====

Professor Nicholas Low – Director, Australasian Centre for Governance and Management of Urban Transport, University of Melbourne.

He reviewed the proposed Brumby Transport Plan (ostensibly leaked) indicating a South Morang rail extension, 100 new buses, DART upgrade, Melbourne Central loop changes as proposed by Mees, Tarneit line, increase in Smart buses, and (medium term) Melton electrification.

He then contrasted these incremental improvements to the road projects expected to be announced – Frankston Bypass, Eddington road tunnel, Ring Road “Missing Link” via Heidelberg/Banyule Flats.

He quoted David Metz, a former UK transport planner who presided over massive roadbuilding during his tenure but now believes roads are not the answer. Bottleneck removal (used to justify most road building) can simply move the bottleneck somewhere else, and Metz believes bottlenecks in fact can play in important role in regulating congestion, and sometimes moving it can make things worse.

Australian data indicates despite massive road projects in the period 1991-2006, typical commute times have rises slightly for men (71 to 74 mins) and substantially for women (54 to 74 mins). $29bn of federal funds (our money!) was spent under the Auslink roads program under Howard, without any going to PT projects.

He believed greater Melbourne should have a Mayor – a metropolitan group that covered Melbourne proper, not just the limited Melbourne Council or State Govt (which presumably sees Melbourne as individual electorates rather than a cohesive whole). He talked about the utility of the political process – we elect Governments, not policy, and if the alternative Govt has the same policy we have no choice.

Since a dollar spent can’t be spent again he also orated on the need for proper consultation with the community on where it would like the money spent (ie on roads vs PT or whatever – a large road could provide a lot of supported childcare, for instance).

Low also discussed the costs of 2^nd/3^rd car ownership vs yearly PT - $6,400 (small car) to $16,000 p.a. (SUV) versus $1722.00 (Zone 1 and 2, 10% cheaper through PTUA!). He asked if the $6bn car industry assistance package would instead be better spent on more PT, giving people a choice between the more expensive car or cheaper PT ticket. However, Low did not discuss the ongoing cost of subsidy to PT required for this but clearly this begins to fall in the “PT as welfare” realm.

=====

Cath Smith - CEO, Victorian Council of Social Service, Melbourne

Indicated VCOSS is interested in the 15% of the population who don’t drive at all, and for whom roads can be considered mostly useless. Also costs of travel and “locationally disadvantaged drivers” (e.g. high-risk VAMPIRES).

Considered PT as an “essential service” along the lines of hospitals and schools. Claimed the current DDA compliance pace was “glacial”. While able-bodied myself I have seen a lot of improvement in this area and wonder if Smith is making ambit claims here.

She expressed a wish for improved co-ordination of door-to-door / community based transport (I assume mainly minibuses). I think she was getting towards the fact at the moment most of these are council or community group run and there is no overarching control to extract maximum efficiency from these operations (nor provide funding to do so). She also discussed the anomaly of school buses bypassing TAFE students, and although I can think of some reasons this occurs discriminatory PT does seem a contradiction in terms.

Advocates 7 day / ½ hourly bus services with emphasis on connections (trains), and mentions that many bus routes follow historical paths with little regard for current traffic movements, reducing their utility. Mentions as Peter Parker noticed recently that NightRiders now run more frequently than day buses in some locations.

Smith tried talking about speed vs modal connections, and again I think she was getting toward true end-to-end journey time here. With a ½ hourly bus service I’m not sure this is going to happen though…

With regard to climate change, she indicated that only 1.3% of carbon reduction is anticipated to come from modal shift (car to PT) and that this is going to need to be much higher for a decent emissions reduction.

Smith also believes that the current housing affordability debate should become an “affordable living” debate in which housing and transport costs are taken into consideration. In this context urban planning providing employment opportunities close to housing for a reduced commute is required.

=====

Respondents:

Robin Batterham (former Chief Scientist)

Believed common elements of the talks to be to provide mobility on demand in an equitable way, with emissions reduction.

Increase in population density required, increase spending on network to “fill gaps”.

Traditional PT is not the only way to provide mobility on demand. One of the other speakers earlier discussed Malcom Turnbull, who pushed legslative change that permitted him to use taxis and PT instead of a Govt car (19k p.a.).

Batterham mentioned we don’t just move people but also goods, but that more efficient people-moving usually leads to better goods movement. Wanted an increase in bike tracks.

Believed cars have their place but noted that Australia’s average fuel performance is the equal worst in the world; Europe’s is half ours. He noted legislative change could quickly remedy that.

David Eddershank (Kensington resident)

I’ve only a few notes from this one but noted that Eddershank discussed that when left to itself the private market does not necessarily deliver what’s best for livability or efficient use of space/resources. Highlighted the dichotomy of “Cranbourne Man” (apparently an ALP construct) whose #1 issue is roads (Cranbourne woman’s is services, but that doesn’t seem to rate) versus the inner-city “chattering classes” desire for more PT.

I’ve noticed that Peter Parker has posted a similar summary over at his blog while I’ve been writing this that covers the questions well so direct you there for them (although I’ve included some of their question responses into the speaker summary). Also Peter might have a few points I’ve missed and vice versa.

Dave

Sydney has a small metropolitan freight railway network with a main line from Port Botany to Sefton,
and a branch from Dulwich Hill to Rozelle that has become irrelevant in recent years, except for a train
servicing a flour mill which will cease by the end of 2008. Part of this line was converted to light
rail in the 1990s and the owners of MLR are keen to extend it further to Summer Hill although the state
government has been reluctant, using the excuse that spoil trains from North West Metro construction will need it.

Interstate mainlines are seemingly tacked onto the ends of double track suburban lines, with the 1.5km superfreighter from Melb to Bris competing with the spark from Macarthur to get a path. Freight trains do not run between 6am-9am and 3pm-6pm on weekdays to free paths for CityRail peak services.

There are no winners in the current scenario. Suburban services to stations on the line between Hornsby and Strathfield only come in 30 minutely intervals during the off-peak, while long intermodal trains get stuck in the refuge for hours at Cowan for hours if they miss the curfew.

The ARTC is building the Southern Sydney Freight Line from Sefton to Macarthur which should cure the issues along the suburban section of the Main South. Passenger services to the Southern Highlands area are inadequate as noted in this Railpage thread and would suitably be replaced with a high-speed train. As the suburbs south west of Sydney are mostly flat and there is space for extra tracks easily visible south of Glenfield, this is the easiest project to complete.

Quadding from Strathfield to Hornsby has been proposed, but any additional trackage in this section would most likely be serviced by the 2tph of Wyong/Newcastle CityRail trains as well as any freight. Beyond the suburban terminus, V sets to the Central Coast operate at a near-suburban frequency, so any quadding further south will move the bottleneck further north.  Much rail demand from this area comes from long distance commuters from dormitory areas to Sydney, an example of poor urban planning.

Superfreighter to Brisbane slowly makes it’s way through Brooklyn

Unlike anywhere seen in Victoria, after Berowra the line makes it’s way to the small station & former suburban terminus at Cowan where it descends a 1 in 40 grade to Brooklyn, crosses the river on a large bridge and follows a scenic route beside Mullet Creek to Woy Woy, through the isolated passenger station at Wondabyne. There is no way that extra tracks could be constructed along the existing alignment.

The Western Line to Penrith sees less issues as there are four tracks to St Marys which provide enough paths beyond Granville at least for all trains. Australian National decided in the 1990s to send interstate traffic via Cootamundra to avoid the steep grades and poor alignment of the line west of Penrith, leaving hourly CityRail services west of Emu Plains and coal trains as the main users of the line.

Four tracks at Doonside on the Main West, yet typically CityRail only provides two trains per hour (plus one interurban) in the off-peak!

The South Coast Line has a quad-track section to Hurstville with double track as far south as Unanderra. Suburban services on this line operate almost independantly of the rest of the CityRail network, with most trains running through to Bondi Jungo. The most congested section of this line is between Hurstville and Sutherland which receives 6tph of off-peak suburbans, 1tph of interurbans to Wollongong and usually at least one coal train per hour. The alignment of the line between Waterfall and Thirroul is deserving of a separate post.

The main issue for comparison in Victoria is all stations suburbans getting in the way of V/Line express trains (and v.v) on double track lines. Not sure how much of an issue it is in Brisbane – there is three tracks to Petrie and Darra now as well as the Exhibition Loop to help absorb freight traffic. Poxboxes to Gawler are unlikely to be delayed by the infrequent stone train in Adelaide, and Perth has no freight competing with EMUs.

Solutions

I think it is clear that if you were starting from scratch, you’d go the way Perth has with the suburban network isolated from other networks. I don’t see a problem with allowing infrequent freight traffic from local industry like the Lyndhurst cement or Long Island steel trains in Victoria to use suburban tracks at quieter times, but an intensive frequency of suburban services cannot be efficiently provided with competing traffic.

Moving containers between Australia’s two largest cities should operate completely independantly of local commuter trains, and vice versa. Upgrading the suburban sections is crucial if you’re upgrading the rest of the line – it would still be useless if a train had a quick run from Albury to Macarthur and then either gets stuck in a siding, or crawls behind other traffic.

The Sydney Basin is surrounded by hills in all directions making railway construction difficult compared to other states. If the lines from Sydney to Newcastle or Wollongong were to be constructed now they would sbe major engineering accomplishments, although most likely both routes would involve a large tunnel.

What is the real solution to this mess?

Crossing the metaphorical Murray into new transport topics!

Sorry guys – I agree we do need to start broadening out our topics beyond Melbourne though I realise that is what most people are familiar with.

I will start a series looking at urban rail transport in Brisbane which will tie in with the recent release of the report discussing an Inner City network of tunnels, loosely described as “metro” but probably more in name than in spirit or fact.

I have blogged recently on this issue as well if you are interested.

Too much to do! Working on the Pakenham series, my training tracks and dealing with current topics such as metro rail proposals, urban planning and contributing to others’ posts and blogs, and doing my own blog.

Some of my hobbyhorses I have worked on on Railpage and on my blog, such as the use of Stadtbahns in smaller capitals, I will leave for the moment as the political momentum of Adelaide pursuing this course of action will serve as a good example for other jurisdictions.

If anyone is interested, I would love to read and contribute to a discussion on the Gold Coast light rail proposal. You’re probably all as busy as I am though. And there are plenty of good Melbourne topics to keep up with. Best wishes to all.

Problem:
Transport planning in Victoria so far has largely been based on each different service being provided by one technology, for instance urban transit with trams, metro transport with electric trains and interurban transport with diesel trains.

On top of this, as Melbourne has expanded and the need for different services has arisen, the technology has been “stretched” to perform two roles, often with mixed success. The result is often a compromise which compares badly with networks elsewhere which focus on either one role or the other.

Solution:

1. The system should be untangled, with separate services dedicated to each role.
2. The service should be made independent of the technology – for instance, interurban electric trains and metro trams should be introduced wherever the local conditions make them more feasible than current practice
3. With some alterations, different services can be provided using the same technology in the same corridoor – for instance, rail lines can carry both metro and interurban trains if expanded to four tracks. However four platforms are an unnecessary waste except at metro-interurban interchange stations.
4. Passengers should realise that changing modes during a trip (eg from a metro to an interurban service) is vital in the provision of high quality public transport. High frequency will ensure it is not a disincentive to travel.