Trams could fix traffic troubles: MacTiernan
DAWN GIBSON
02 May 2005
The West Australian

A light rail or tram line, such as the one which once ran through Perth, would run along Hay Street from Subiaco to East Perth under an ambitious plan to ease city traffic.

Planning and Infrastructure Minister Alannah MacTiernan believes Perth's population is near the stage when it would make sense to install a light rail network to encourage people to use public transport.

The line could eventually be extended through the western suburbs and Perry Lakes.

Light rail could also feed into the Mandurah railway at Rockingham to replace a bus loop to the town's shopping centre. Another option was a line south of Fremantle along the Cockburn coast.

With light rail, trams and small trains run on tracks but do not need as much infrastructure as train networks.

Ms MacTiernan said city light rail was still "visionary" and she had not taken the idea to the Government. But she saw Hay Street as a good option because it formed a spine through West Perth.

Conceptual work was expected to begin by early next year.

The cost of Perth and Cockburn lines was unknown but Rockingham's was estimated at $48 million, including $12 million for a transit way for buses which would be the foundation for a light rail loop.

Urban planners embrace city light rail as a logical way to help Perth move from its car obsession.

CityVision chairman Ken Adam said the big advantage was it could run a lot closer to homes than standard trains. He would like to see it introduced or reintroduced to other near-city suburbs.

Opposition transport spokesman John Day said the idea had merit but had to be investigated and would have to be viable.

Professor Fiona Haslam McKenzie, director of the new Housing~ and Urban Research Institute of WA, said it was a fantastic idea but Perth might not yet have the population to make it workable.

why not build something like Sydney.

Sydney doesnt have light rail.
Sydney has a tourist monorail, and commuter heavy rail.

Perth already has Commuter Heavy Rail.

Brisbane is also looking at installing a light rail network forthe CBD and inner suburbs right now (as seen in Aus forums).

Wrong, Sydney does have a light rail / tram line that runs from Central Station, thru Haymarket and then onto Glebe. There will be more lines in the years to come.

Seems that in the western world, Australian cities have the least rapid transit anywhere. A commuter heavy rail is not rapid transit like a subway or LRT. Rapid transit comes every 10minutes..at the most.
How do you people get around the cities themselves with no urban mass/rapid transit? I don't mean the suburbs to downtown but actual city use for urban city dwellers?

I can get anywhere in Sydney City using Public transport or foot within 10 minutes. That's not to say that the PT is good, the city is just small. The PT here is better than many American cities but obviously it doesn't rate on a world scale that takes Europe into account.

The commuter rail gets you from Suburbs -> City or anywhere else.

If you need a connection you can take a bus. (at least in Brisbane)

and i was unaware of sydneys light rail.

Seems that in the western world, Australian cities have the least rapid transit anywhere. A commuter heavy rail is not rapid transit like a subway or LRT. Rapid transit comes every 10minutes..at the most.
How do you people get around the cities themselves with no urban mass/rapid transit? I don't mean the suburbs to downtown but actual city use for urban city dwellers?

Getting around the inner suburbs I can take the very frequent buses (not on a North American once-an-hour schedule), and train frequencies are more frequent in the city. Understand that Australian 'commuter rail' is nothing like American commuter rail which is usually diesel hauled and comes only once an hour off peak. Sydney's trains are more like the suburban networks that complement the metro systems of Europe, except in our case there's no metro to complement...yet. There's been rumblings lately and I'm expecting a true metro to be built in Sydney or Melbourne or both in the next 10 years. Either have the density in their inner cities to support at least one line.

Wheres Perth light rail discussion?

Please don't say "North American" transit. The transit systems and usuage in Canda are far, far superoir to that of the US and significantly higher than Australia.
There is not one major transit system in Canada without LRT or subway. The three highest per-capita ridership in N.A. are all in Canada. The US has rougly 10times as many people than Canada but only 4 times as many riders.
Once an hour for a bus in Canada......no mid or large city in Canada has that. In larger centres they come atleast once everty 20 minutes in the outskirts but ussually once every 8-10 and on the busier routes every 4-6 minutes. The subway run every 2-3 minutes in rush hour as do LRT. In non rush hour every 4-6minutes. In Vancouver during rush hour the SkyTrain runs every 90seconds and every 2-3 minutes in non rush hour.
Canadian service is vastly better than Australia's so please don't use Canada and the US in the same tongue.
The TTC serving just 2.6 million carries a stagerring 470,000,000 passengers a year......roughly 1.2 million a day. That does not include the other 3.2 million in the suburbs or the outer suburban cities of an within 100km of Tor with another 2.3million.
Commuter rail and service for outer areas is NOT mass transit. As far as getting anywhere in the city, sure on a bus but not on a subway.......not at all the same thing.

The TTC serving just 2.6 million carries a stagerring 470,000,000 passengers a year......roughly 1.2 million a day. That does not include the other 3.2 million in the suburbs or the outer suburban cities of an within 100km of Tor with another 2.3million.
Commuter rail and service for outer areas is NOT mass transit. As far as getting anywhere in the city, sure on a bus but not on a subway.......not at all the same thing.


Sydney's trains carry 280 million passengers a year and the buses also carry more than 200 million per year. Sydney Buses alone carries 200 million people. All the private bus companies carry something like another 70 million. That's about 550 million/year for a population of 4 million.
Not as great per capita as Toronto's, but not hugely behind. I also suspect that if we could get separate figures for inner Sydney, as you have for Toronto, the usage gap would narow. Inner city dwellers in Sydney use public transport far more than outer suburbs do.



Rapid transit comes every 10minutes..at the most


There are "commuter rail" lines in Sydney with frequencies of 10 minutes or less. And half that in peak hour. Is this really comparable to commuter rail in North America?

Not all lines have that, but many have a fifteen minute frequency.

Sydney does need higher frequency trains and more lines, but it is more than just a commuter rail system.

Seems that in the western world, Australian cities have the least rapid transit anywhere. A commuter heavy rail is not rapid transit like a subway or LRT.

Melbourne does have the fourth largest tram network in the world. Other Australian cities have dedicated busways (and dedicated bus lanes) at high frequency because it was considered a good idea in the 1960s to replace trams with buses (buses were better at negotiating hills compared to the trams at the time)

Besides, commuter lines in Sydney and Melbourne do a loop underground around the city area. And especially in Melbourne (where tickets last for a set period of time across all modes in specified zones), people do take a commuter train to get across the CBD area - at peak there is one train every three minutes on one platform, with four platforms in the loop. Trains from almost all of the sixteen commuter lines travel through the loop.

and i was unaware of sydneys light rail.

yeah, it's more of a tourist attraction run by the monorail mob.

Perth will probably do alright with LRT. Because it's not that big, but does need some form of high-frequency transit around the inner city.

yeah, it's more of a tourist attraction run by the monorail mob.


It does get use from people living in the very inner west - but not a lot. Whenever I've been on it, the main users are Star City Casino staff who I believe travel to the casino via Light Rail free.

I don't mean the suburbs to downtown but actual city use for urban city dwellers?

I still think your statement here misunderstands Australian cities. Most Australian cities themselves are tiny and have small populations. They are all suburbs therefore suburbs to 'downtown' is what counts. This is slowly changing but you still can't compare the situation to most European cities.

It does get use from people living in the very inner west - but not a lot. Whenever I've been on it, the main users are Star City Casino staff who I believe travel to the casino via Light Rail free.

Well exactly, it's too damn expensive anyway. $2.90 a one-zone trip...you gotta be kidding me.

god canadians always talking there country up.

There's nothing wrong with that, we all do it.

A commuter heavy rail is not rapid transit like a subway or LRT.

I just had a look at the GO Trains timetables in Toronto.
You are absolutely right. Commuter rail is not rapid transit. GO has off peak frequencies of 1 hour on the most frequent lines (Oshawa/Hamilton). On the other lines they simply don't run trains in between the morning and evening peaks. One line I looked at had trains only every three hours on sunday

That is pretty bad service and is obviously meant only for people commuting to and from work in the morning and evening.

Sydney's trains can be used to get around the city at all hours of the day, with much better frequencies than GO trains. They also run at decent frequencies on the weekends.

I'm not trying to have a go at your commuter trains, just trying to point out that the train services in Australian cities are vastly better than commuter rail in Toronto. Sydney's trains fall somewhere in between GO trains and the Toronto subway.

Sydney needs to increase the frequency of trains on all the major suburban lines to maximum 15 minutes and it needs to build some proper metro/subway type lines.
But most importantly, it needs the sucessive governments that have neglected the rail system to pull their fingers out and build/maintain some rail as well as the freeways that they seem to be so fond of.

EDIT:
I'll also add that I calculated the average distance between stations in Sydney's network and Toronto's Go train network.

Toronto's stations seem to be spaced about 6km apart - quite a long distance.
Sydney's stations are one to two kilometres apart. e.g. between Central and penrith, the average distance is 1.7 km

These two systems are obviously quite different.

Also keep in mind that Australia has a different definition of "suburb" compared to North America. With the exception of the City of Brisbane, you can walk across the city proper of most cities in a matter of minutes - the City of Melbourne would only be a couple of km from one side to another.

I'd hazrd to say that the Canadian/North American commuter rail networks are more similar to Sydney's intercity network or the V/Line network in Victoria, not sure about Sydney, but V/Line runs diesel multiple units (or some older loco haulled carriages) at about an hourly frequency (Sydney uses electric trains), compared to trains every 20 minutes between 4:40am and 12:30am on the commuter network.

You're right invincible. We don't really use the term 'neighbourhood' or when we do, it doesn't have the same weighting as it is classified in North America.

I believe commuter rail in N. America and in most other countries is a system set up to haul a large amount of passengers from the suburbs into the city proper making very infrequent trips.

Australia works on this principal (believing people still only travel Suburbs<>City) but making their trains more metro-style and giving them 10-15 minute frequencies in peak.

But even frequent commuter rail doesn't help design streets. That's point to point travel not under main roads where development can be very high as well as high density.
Going from a part of the city to the other even if the stations are closer than commuter rail doesn't development main corridor streets and the urbanity they inspire.
Subways allow develpoment to develop at them FOR inner city urban dwellers not suburbanites even if they are inner suburbs.
Toronto itself in the more classic sence has only 750,000 but transit ussuage is EXTREMLY high. Toronto also has a massive streetcar sysytem.
On a per mileage basis of subway Toronto has higher ridership than London.
It seems you have chosen suburban travel than transit for the city itself.
Point to point transit will never get the numbers or develpe the urbanity of a subway system.

^^^

Of course not.

Brisbane is looking at a Metro for the Inner City.
But other than that, governments still work on the suburbs<>City basis. Because Australian cities (bar Brisbane and Melbourne to an extent) Don't have a large population living in the inner city area.

Wow, Torronto really is the greatest city ever. Thanks for reminding us.

BACK TO TOPIC.

Personally I'm not a fan of light rail, i think buses and dedicated bus lanes are essentially the same thing. I would prefer heavy rail offshoots from exisisting lines, but it wont happen :P Rockingham could have them though.

Please don't say "North American" transit. The transit systems and usuage in Canda are far, far superoir to that of the US and significantly higher than Australia.
There is not one major transit system in Canada without LRT or subway. The three highest per-capita ridership in N.A. are all in Canada. The US has rougly 10times as many people than Canada but only 4 times as many riders.
Once an hour for a bus in Canada......no mid or large city in Canada has that. In larger centres they come atleast once everty 20 minutes in the outskirts but ussually once every 8-10 and on the busier routes every 4-6 minutes. The subway run every 2-3 minutes in rush hour as do LRT. In non rush hour every 4-6minutes. In Vancouver during rush hour the SkyTrain runs every 90seconds and every 2-3 minutes in non rush hour.
Canadian service is vastly better than Australia's so please don't use Canada and the US in the same tongue.
The TTC serving just 2.6 million carries a stagerring 470,000,000 passengers a year......roughly 1.2 million a day. That does not include the other 3.2 million in the suburbs or the outer suburban cities of an within 100km of Tor with another 2.3million.
Commuter rail and service for outer areas is NOT mass transit. As far as getting anywhere in the city, sure on a bus but not on a subway.......not at all the same thing.

Try telling that to a New Yorker

Only Montrael and to a lesser extent Toronto have a metro that covers the city.

You're right invincible. We don't really use the term 'neighbourhood' or when we do, it doesn't have the same weighting as it is classified in North America.

I believe commuter rail in N. America and in most other countries is a system set up to haul a large amount of passengers from the suburbs into the city proper making very infrequent trips.

Australia works on this principal (believing people still only travel Suburbs<>City) but making their trains more metro-style and giving them 10-15 minute frequencies in peak.

Sydney,Melbourne,Perth,Brisbane have a Metro in the form of electrified commuter rail.Particularly Syndey.There are 21 underground stations.

wow this thread was abducted bad!! but personally i wouldnt mind trams :)

what nikko said but about high frequency transport in the inner city is wrong !

Perth has CAT buses which are Central Area Transit buses i think??
which are different to the normal Transperth buses in shape and colour scheme.
they come about every 10 mins? and they have 4 different routes, one goes from north to south, one from east perth to west and kings park, parliament house, one to north bridge etc..

Fremantle also has them but it is one route, with buses every 15 minutes and they go as far down as south fremantle

subiaco also has them.

So with this LRT, which would be great, would Perth jump over Brisbane as having the third-best transit system in Australia? I would rank it Sydney, Melbourne right now, is that wrong?

In terms of coverage.

Melbourne would be first.Then Sydney(Although the city is expanding its network slowly),Bris and Perth.When Perth finishes its southern line it will overtake Brisbane as the third.

As for size,frequency and numbers of Passengers,Sydney is the king with just over 1 million trips per day.

So with this LRT, which would be great, would Perth jump over Brisbane as having the third-best transit system in Australia? I would rank it Sydney, Melbourne right now, is that wrong?

Didn't Brisbane have a large tram fleet wiped out by a fire at a carbarn, and was forced to shutdown the system? I seem to recall something like this happening in Australia in the sixties.

...There is not one major transit system in Canada without LRT or subway...

Could post some pictures of the Winnipeg LRT, I've never seen any?

As for size,frequency and numbers of Passengers,Sydney is the king with just over 1 million trips per day.

Interesting. But if Sydney has bigger size, frequency and numbers, what makes Melbourne better?

Could post some pictures of the Winnipeg LRT, I've never seen any?

I would post mine, but Winnipeg doesn't have one yet:) I think by major, it was meant every city over one million people (Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton). Winnipeg has flirted with one in the past (as well as subway), but hasn't done so (yet, I'm hoping). Kitchener/Waterloo, a city with less than half a million is also building a starter line.

I would post mine, but Winnipeg doesn't have one yet:) I think by major, it was meant every city over one million people (Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton). Winnipeg has flirted with one in the past (as well as subway), but hasn't done so (yet, I'm hoping). Kitchener/Waterloo, a city with less than half a million is also building a starter line.

I think back in the eighties Winnipeg came close to building an LRT. They have used a wide avenue (Portage?) which had streetcars in the median into the fifties. Thunder Bay, Ottawa and Quebec City had streetcars for quite a few years after WW2 also.

I believe commuter rail in N. America and in most other countries is a system set up to haul a large amount of passengers from the suburbs into the city proper making very infrequent trips.

Australia works on this principal (believing people still only travel Suburbs<>City) but making their trains more metro-style and giving them 10-15 minute frequencies in peak.

You may be correct for North American commuter rail, but not so here in Europe. The suburban lines that compliment the metro's/subway's have similar service in many cases to Australia's suburban lines.

A metro line usually has trains every couple of minutes during peak times here (in some parts of Europe it's measured in seconds). The suburban lines except on the outskirts which may lag to 30minutes are usually around every 10-15 in the urban area's, and in the central area are similar to the metro in frequencies.

If the Sydney or Melbourne rail networks were transplanted here in Germany, or France, they would be called an S-bahn or RER service. Here in Germany we also have an R-bahn (or regional rail) which has the longer frequencies, but the fastest service in speed (i.e. express),

I do love Sydney's and Melbourne's rail system, but it is certainly not a metro. An S-bahn service is the best description. It can be a bit hard in Sydney during off-peak. I was waiting for a train last year from Circular Quay to Newtown, only a couple of stops but after 30minutes nothing turned up, so I had to get a taxi. (This was after 10pm)

Yep, in terms of frequency and the type of service, North American commuter networks are probably more similar to regional rail lines in New South Wales and Victoria, while I'm yet to see an equivalent of a suburban rail network in North America. I've seen the timetables for Toronto's commuter trains - they're just beyond comparison and serves a totally different use. Can't really say that one is better than the other.

On a weekday, at my station (23.3km from the city) - in the DOWN direction:
05: 40
06: 00 21 39 59
07: 14 29 44 59
08: 03 13 28 43 50 59
09: 07 18 27 37 46 56
10: 07 22 37 52
11: 07 22 37 52
12: 07 22 37 52
13: 07 22 37 52
14: 07 22 37 52
15: 07 21 34 46
16: 00 11 25 36 50 55
17: 08 14 23 34 40 46 52 49
18: 01 07 17 22 28 36 48 59
19: 06 18 31 41 48
20: 01 08 23 43
21: 13 43
22: 13 43
23: 13 43
00: 13 43
Needs more improvement too, trains are still full and bottlenecks exist at several points.




Didn't Brisbane have a large tram fleet wiped out by a fire at a carbarn, and was forced to shutdown the system? I seem to recall something like this happening in Australia in the sixties.
It was a popular thing at the time to remove tram networks anyway, since buses were believed to be the future. Even today, academics are saying the same thing.

On a weekday, at my station (23.3km from the city) - in the DOWN direction:
05: 40
06: 00 21 39 59
07: 14 29 44 59
08: 03 13 28 43 50 59
09: 07 18 27 37 46 56
10: 07 22 37 52
11: 07 22 37 52
12: 07 22 37 52
13: 07 22 37 52
14: 07 22 37 52
15: 07 21 34 46
16: 00 11 25 36 50 55
17: 08 14 23 34 40 46 52 49
18: 01 07 17 22 28 36 48 59
19: 06 18 31 41 48
20: 01 08 23 43
21: 13 43
22: 13 43
23: 13 43
00: 13 43


Yes, this is similar to most suburban systems in Europe. A metro generally has to have better off-peak services to be classified a metro system (amongst many other things)

The services above are not bad for a suburban service, and quite typical.

just thought id post perths rail map (it includes the mandurah line u/c)

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/1254/transitmapperth0mz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


here are the frequencies for my stop (my stop being North Fremantle on the fremantle line shown above ^) it also has the express route which goes straight through north fremantle without stopping thats where frequencies are different.

5:47 AM 6:02 AM 6:21 AM 6:36 AM 6:51 AM 7:05 AM 7:21 AM
7:40 AM 7:58 AM 8:16 AM 8:38 AM
8:55 AM 9:09 AM 9:24 AM 9:39 AM 9:54 AM 10:09 AM 10:24 AM
10:39 AM 10:54 AM 11:09 AM 11:24 AM 11:39 AM 11:54 AM 12:09 PM 12:24 PM etc..

and on weekends i think trains run until 2 or 3.