daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > OZScrapers > Urban Spaces > Transportation

Transportation Trains, planes and automobiles.



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 25th, 2012, 07:58 AM   #2901
John_Proctor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,822
Likes (Received): 383

Capacity is different to patronage... Capacity doubled I a decade, patronage probably won,t double as the economy and population growth ha slowed so patronage grow has too...
John_Proctor no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old March 25th, 2012, 02:36 PM   #2902
tayser
Champagne Socialist
 
tayser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 10,341
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Proctor View Post

Not sure what Roweville says about tunnelling in Melbourne but $50million per kilometer for pure tunneling costs isn,t far off I,d say, stations are the expensive bit though and then there are so many on costs in these projects that are easy to forget...

Eg, engineering design (in any industry eg, oil, mining,civil) can generallybe estimated at about 10% project costs... So if the cost if $4billion add $400 million design to that. Then their is the PM costs to ensure delivery (normally about 3%), funding costs, land acquisition, enabling works (services, temporary diversions etc) and the killer is escalation particularly in a post mining boom Australia with civil construction CPI running at 6% per year for the last 10 years more or less (slowing now as less projects getting started)...

Escalation alone would make Mandurah look more like current project estimate (probably double the cost of the project to todays prices) it was tendered in a sweet spot cost wise for such projects just before the mining boom really went crazy (2003). (still a well delivered project at better value for money than some recent examples in melbourne and no doubt Sydney too).
What you say sort of lends itself toward looking at alternative rail tech especially given 1 station could be 100-150 million dollars.

I've been banging on about driverless fully-automated systems such as Vancouver's skytrain for a while but the more and more you look at it it's the right fit for here as well.

The trains are smaller 2 car sets are only 41m long (1/3 the length of a normal Melbourne train - 6 * 22-23m - all platforms here are basically 140m long at least) - in design and construction phase you'd build for up to double the length of a standard set (82m) - which is still only 2/3 the current length of platform required to the current system.

I originally posted this on failpage in response to the same discussion on here re: the 3 different options for Doncaster.

See map for an eg: http://maps.google.com.au/maps/ms?ms...36497,0.528374

Phase 1 is Box Hill - Doncaster and two stations - would only require 3-4 train sets and can be stabled at the platforms out of hours.
Phase 2 North is Doncaster - Heidelberg connecting Bulleen, DART buses, the Austin Hospital and Hurstbridge line
Phase 2 South is Box Hill - Oakleigh connecting Deakin University/Burwood Hwy Trams, Holmesglen Institute/Glen Waverley Line, Chadstone, Oakleigh and Pakenham/Cranbourne line services
Phase 3 North is Heidelberg - Preston either via Northland or direct under Bell St, connecting Northland (if detoured north), Station St buses and the Epping Line at Preston
Phase 3 South is Oakleigh - Brighton Beach connecting Bentleigh East, Moorabbin/Franga Line and Sandringham Line at Brighton Beach
Phase 4 North is Preston - Pascoe Vale connecting #1 Trams at Nicholson St, Coburg/Upfield Line, #55 Trams at Melville Road/Pacco South and the Craigieburn Line at Pascoe Vale (you could make this just all one big Phase 3)
And to complete it through the west, from Pascoe Vale connect with Craigieburn at Strathmore, #59 Trams at Niddrie, Avondale Heights, North Sunshine, Albion/Sydenham Line, Sunshine/RRL, Brooklyn/Industrial Areas, Kingsville/Industrial Areas, Newport - and convert the Williamstown line to this tech to complete the orbital.

Yeah it's pie in the sky (clearly) but take the following into account:

In 2008 it cost $83million CAD to operate the skytrain (Expo/Millenium line, which is partial shared, but in total there was 50km of track and 33 stations).

Capital Costs for most recent line (Canada Line pre-Olympics) was $2billion CAD in 2006 dollars:
- 19km of track, (9km underground, 7.3km elevated, 600m of bridges and 1.3km of at grade track)
- 16 stations (15 new)
- 20 sets (2 cars), which
-- seat and stand 334 people and on one section of the Expo/Millenium line they get headways of 2.5 minutes.
-- top speed of 80kph

Throw that into a Melbourne context & the rough idea I've thrown in above

As a standard template, stations should be built to cater for up to 4 car trains (using Canada Line stats, that's a crush of 668 people)
Like in the Van system, every couple of kilometres a third track is built in between the two running lines to stable up to 2 trains - they also use them to turn trains to give extra capacity to congested areas (which in the Melbourne context would occur as well - i.e highest patronage is likely to be in the Pacco-Preston and Doncaster-Oakleigh section)
From day run on 7.5 min off-peak frequencies (that's what the Canada line does) and Peak 5 min frequencies and as per previous sentence, run through to the maximum frequency where and when needed.

Total (realistic line that passes through much higher density areas and passed the most patronage generators) line length above is 45km

Box Hill-Doncaster 4km
Box Hill-Oakleigh 11km
Oakleigh-Brighton Beach 10km
Doncaster-Heidelberg 7km
Heidelberg-Preston (via Northland) 6km
Preston-Pacco 7km

with 17 stations.

Western Orbital to Newport is 24km - and you could make it shorter by going South East from Avondale heights under Highpoint and terminating / becoming the Williamstown line at Footscray.

There's a higher amount of stations in the Bell St / Moonee Ponds Creek - Darebin Creek corridor as the population density is already very and there is a significant amount of intersection rail - tram and train that would make it even more favourable for people to use with easy "not needing to know the timetable" rail to rail and rail to bus connections (assuming a bus rationalisation and frequency increase occurs at the same time). The suburb of Coburg is 23k people (Gaffney St to Moreland Road, Merri Creek to Melville Road) in 7 square kilometres or 3400 people / square kilometre now and has huge scope for further increasing that (it's already happening further down Sydney Road in Brunswick).

Contrast Coburg with Doncaster: 18k in 9sqkm or 2000 people / square kilometre, Box Hill: 8.6k in 3.5 square km or 2461 people / square. More "O&D" (in airline speak) in the North, but many more patronage generators along the line in the East.

Overall - you wouldn't want to build any orbital line further out in the East or North..... Springvale Road population densities are only on par with Doncaster and Box Hill at Glen Waverley and they get less and less with furthermore less scope for more intense development around the line the further south (and north aka Donvale) you go. Likewise, Bell St is the perfect "divider" in the North as to the south there's already more people in this area and a lot of brownfields for redevelopment and to the north is lower density but again further scope for more intense redevelopment.

Types of construction - under/grade/elevated:

- Pascoe Station: At grade alonside existing station, runs at grade to before Kelvin Thompson Park starts and then underground.
- Pascoe Vale South Station: underground
- Coburg Station: underground
- Nicholson St station: underground, line surfaces and goes straight to elevated where the median widens to the east of the cemetary.
- Bell Station: elevated, with the Epping line dropped under Bell St
--If to Northland: back underground at Plenty Road with an underground station at Northland
--If direct: elevated with an elevated Station St Station (hahah best name for a station)
- Elevated/Bridge over the Darebin Creek
- Elevated section goes underground where median narrows at Waterdale Road
- Heidelberg station: underground
- To make it cheaper, but no doubt more resistance from locals the line surfaces and goes back elevated to the west of the Yarra with an elevated station at Bulleen and then goes back underground at Williamsons/Manningham Road intersection
- More expensive option keep it underground all the way to Doncaster.

Doncaster-Box Hill all underground, Box Hill-Oakleigh all underground, Oakleigh-Moorabbin all underground and potentially make it elevated all the way to an elevated Brighton Beach terminus.

_______________

using the $50million per km figure for tunneling and applying it to the above 45km * $50 million for just the tunneling costs (i.e cost could go up or down based on method and it could be cheaper with elevated sections) that's $2.25 billion.

$50million per station = $850million (elevated stations would be a lot cheaper than underground) - throw in another $1-2billion for all the other things that JP was talking about + train sets (the $2billion CAD figure for the Canada Line in 2006 dollars actually included 20 train sets) and the inevitable cost overruns.

Re: train sets. For 45km and minimum headways of 2.5 minutes (Canada Line specs) assuming the top speed of 80kph (Canada Line specs) that's a distance of 3.5km between each train . 45km / 3.5km = 12.8 (12) * 2 (for both directions) = 24 trains - round that up to 30 for a nice "Round" figure for what you'd need to run the system at max capacity.

If construction is phased the ordering of trains can also be phased. As per above you need 2 trains for every 3.5km of track - so as you can make savings/getting other sources of revenue as the system is expanded, the same money can be "saved" by staggering the orders (or doing what airlines do: do an initial order and have options over the rest of the intended fleet).

__________

Overall, I really hope they dont do Option 1 or 2 for Doncaster and start thinking about the whole middle ring of the city - creating a fast and frequent alternative to driving in these areas would probably save billions in relieving congestion to all the big centres outlined above and furthermore I really dont like the idea, after the metro Tunnel, of building more rail lines where there are requirements to have large costly stations, costly drivers (an automated system removes the need to train a driver (1 year process) and pay a high unionised salary thus making it much cheaper to operate the system and big trains that run on frequencies of 10 or more minutes - cos lets face it, Doncaster would never require - assuming a normal sized train (XTrap, Siemens/Comeng whatever) frequencies greater than that whereas there's a big incentive to provide a ring route around the parts of Melbourne that are static from a development and redevelopment stand point.

I.e dont think about just getting people from a dormintory suburb to the city. It would also fill up more seats on the contra-peak flow on the existing lines. i.e people living Carnegie catch a down train to Oakleigh, change and go to work in Camberwell (There are heaps of these kinds of examples) - conversely it could put more pressure on the normal peak flow by the extra passengers squishing in, but then changing to the ring route to go elsewhere.

Yes, I'm a mega fanboy of the Van Skytrain, but the various youtube videos illustrate how relatively inexpensive the infrastructure is (especially elevated sections) - one of the best vids:

__________________
"America gave the world George Bush, France gave the world the ménage à trois... Game Over."
tayser no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 06:40 AM   #2903
ChrisJudd83
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth
Posts: 372
Likes (Received): 0

Here's an article on the Doncaster line. Interesting to note that most went for a direct line to the CBD

Doncaster to city railway line popular at forum

23 Mar 12 @ 10:25am by Staff writers

A RAILWAY line along the Eastern Freeway into the city was voted the most popular option at a Doncaster rail forum last night.

More than 100 people attended the forum at Manningham Function Centre, hosted by Doncaster MP Mary Wooldridge, which gave attendees the chance to quiz key people involved in the Doncaster Rail Study.

The panel included study leader Tim Gosbell, Department of Transport project director and strategic planner Robert Abboud, Manningham Council chief executive Lydia Wilson and Ms Wooldridge.

The study’s three proposed routes include a Doncaster Hill to city line aligned with the Eastern Freeway, an underground track along Doncaster Rd through to Kew Junction and a track underneath Tram Rd connecting Doncaster with Box Hill Station.

The first two routes include a possible connection to Ringwood train station, while the third flags connections to Melbourne Airport and Monash University as part of a future orbital rail line.

Asked to show which proposal they backed, the majority of the crowd raised their hands for option one.

Option two was voted the second best option, with the underground connection to Box Hill coming third.

A forth option - no train - sent about four hands up into the air.

http://manningham-leader.whereilive....ular-at-forum/
ChrisJudd83 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 07:04 AM   #2904
TWK90
Infrastructure
 
TWK90's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Petaling Jaya
Posts: 4,249
Likes (Received): 1042

Quote:
Originally Posted by tayser View Post
Yes, I'm a mega fanboy of the Van Skytrain, but the various youtube videos illustrate how relatively inexpensive the infrastructure is (especially elevated sections) - one of the best vids:


In our case in Kuala Lumpur, the 17-kilometre Kelana Jaya line extension (based on Bombardier ART MK II, similar to Vancouver Skytraibn) costs RM 2.35 billion (AUD 730 million)

Package A (9.2 km) = RM 1.043 billion (AUD 330 million)
Package B (8.1 km) = RM 636.2 million (AUD 198 million)
Signalling system = RM 673.9 million (AUD 210 million)
TWK90 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 07:08 AM   #2905
Alphaville
Registered User
 
Alphaville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sydney.
Posts: 4,269
Likes (Received): 237

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWK90 View Post
In our case in Kuala Lumpur, the 17-kilometre Kelana Jaya line extension (based on Bombardier ART MK II, similar to Vancouver Skytraibn) costs RM 2.35 billion (AUD 730 million)

Package A (9.2 km) = RM 1.043 billion (AUD 330 million)
Package B (8.1 km) = RM 636.2 million (AUD 198 million)
Signalling system = RM 673.9 million (AUD 210 million)
You cannot compare costings of projects in Malaysia to Australia. Malaysia has the 'benefit' of cheap labour to get these projects in on such small budgets.
__________________
i'll drop my gun, if you drop your pants.
Alphaville no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 07:30 AM   #2906
tayser
Champagne Socialist
 
tayser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 10,341
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alphaville View Post
You cannot compare costings of projects in Malaysia to Australia. Malaysia has the 'benefit' of cheap labour to get these projects in on such small budgets.
very true, however you can't completely discount S.E. Asian examples.... in fact it improves the case for implementing such a system: if many are, it means it has been proven operational effective for other regions of the world to do the same thing. And when there's a larger market (Regardless of individual input costs) prices to acquire common components come down overall.
__________________
"America gave the world George Bush, France gave the world the ménage à trois... Game Over."
tayser no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 07:37 AM   #2907
MetropolOZ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 196
Likes (Received): 10

The huge cost difference between similar projects in Malaysia to Australia just highlights why we need to fully outsource these infrastructure projects, including foreign workers on non australian wages. Nothing much of significance will ever be built. We are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.
MetropolOZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 08:22 AM   #2908
John_Proctor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,822
Likes (Received): 383

CJ83 - I assume most went with Option 1 because its the one they are used to and therefroe have the most understanding of... it was also Manningham based and that route is called 'city express' so from a selfish viewpoint gets them into town faster.

I'm sure the Boroondara residents (and Yarra ones as well) would probably vote for Option 2.

While gunzels and planners and prgmatists (due to cheaper cost of shorter link) might argue for option 3.
John_Proctor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 08:57 AM   #2909
John_Proctor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,822
Likes (Received): 383

Tayser - I agree with your thoughts on the Doncaster line.

It/Rowville/Melbourne Airport are an opportunity to introduce modern systems to the Melbourne rail network in a post Melbourne Metro world.

most know that I'm a strong supporter of Melbourne Metro - I do think it is the last piece of our suburban rail system that should be built though. I would suggest MM would make the current system a brilliant 'commuter' system by almost any world cities standards (aside from the level crossings which need to be removed over time).

Having therefore 'finsihed' the commuter system their are a series of questions:
- how should a 'metro' system be serviced - and for me it is as described, smaller rolling stock leading to cheaper build costs, driverless for cheaping opex etc. need to provide for more patronage run more trains than we currently do.

- scope of the system? - first stage is identifying what of the commuter system and tram system can be cherry picked, and how these new lines can connect into it.

I think the Rowville - Camberwell via Huntingdale-Oakeligh-Chadstone-East Malvern is obvious.

I think the Doncaster one is more difficult - personally I think the expense of the full orbital route is so great that it'd never be built and the benefits only work if you build the full route. So I'd go Docnaster-Box Hill and then build the 4th track into the city so Doncaster would have its own track pair into town. This could still be extended north to Greensborough (and maybe beyond)

The Airport could potentially be made a metro using Melrose Drive, through Airport West on the current tram reservation, past DFO and down Bulla Road to Essendon Station, and Moonee Ponds, left turn past Moonee Valley Racecourse to the Tullarmarine Freeway to the Upfield Line and then under Citylink to SXS.

I'd convert the Glen Waverley and Sandringham lines (over time) to metro style operation.

In the long term I'd do the oft discussed Upfield Line/Route 19 merge and conversion to metro style operation (with all the grade separations taken care of and running down Royal Parade.

I'd look for ways to reconnect the Port Melbourne and St Kilda lines with the metro network (eg. short sections of tunnel to connect with other lines I've noted above)

I'd 'metroise' the Dandenong Road trams and look at ways to metro-ise the St Georges Road/Plenty Road trams (I know they are different routes ATM but could be connected and metro'd) also the 96 on Nicholson.

Over time I could imagine Bourke Street trams being undergrounded to basically make the current 96 a Metro line with City Tunnel, St Kilda rail reserve and Nicholson Street median with underpasses/overpasses of intersections.

2040/2050 Metro System (cost in brackets)
1- Doncaster-City Line ($4 billion 4th track+few kilometres tunnel+new station Doncaster+rolling stock+overhead conversions et al)
2- Rowville-Camberwell Line ($4 billion (new stations, new line on structure, tunnel via chadstone, rolling stock+overhead conversions et al)
3- Glen Waverley-City Line ($1 billion grade separations, overhead conversions, rolling stock)
4- Port Melbourne Line ($few hundred million for rolling stock/overhead conversions)
5- St Kilda Line ($few hundred million for rolling stock/overhead conversions)
6- Dandenong Road Line ($few hundred million for grade separations/rolling stock/overhead conversions)
7- Sandringham Line ($1 billion grade separations, overhead conversions, rolling stock)
8- Airport Line Express ($5 billion lots of new track, few new stations, etc).

trying to show with costings that you can get reasonable 'metro' system over say 20-30 years (from 2020 onwards) at about $1 billion per year

Importantly with the above 1-3 could all share a maintenance/stabling facility as the tracks are inter-connected... and 4-7 could do the same given close proximity...

Even Longer Term Proposals ???
- Upfield Line
- Bundoora Line (Plenty Road, St Georges Road ???)
- Burwood Highway 75 Tram stopping at Alamein Line?

And for those that love the Newport Tunnel Idea Williamstown/Laverton connected to the Port Melbourne line, or converted to Metro but still via Footscray with Werribee's in the tunnel...

Last edited by John_Proctor; March 26th, 2012 at 09:09 AM.
John_Proctor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 08:58 AM   #2910
John_Proctor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,822
Likes (Received): 383

thinking about the Tram Routes a bit more how about this as a cheap way to convert existign 'light rail' into dedicated 'metro' ... Port Melbourne-Spencer Street-short tunnel to Kings Way reserve-Domain-Dandenong Road - Malvern

You'd interchange with Route 96 and 112 into the City at Spencer Street (55 at Kings Way), Domain Eddingtunnel Station and trams, and Windsor on the Sandy line, and Malvern on the Caulfield lines. Remembering that Southbank is a legitimate destination in itself in the future...
John_Proctor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 01:19 PM   #2911
Aussie Steve
Registered User
 
Aussie Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,758
Likes (Received): 66

But we need a total plan that includes train, tram and bus improvements. Most of the bus improvements are already outlined in the many bus reviews, but there is still more planning to be done with justifying train and tram improvements/extensions/etc...
Aussie Steve no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 01:28 PM   #2912
L2
Needs an avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Western Melbourne
Posts: 4,543
Likes (Received): 89

I think bus improvements are the top thing that needs to be done ASAP.

Like on weekends they're boosting trains from every 20 to 10 minutes now, yet the SmartBus routes including the very busiest of all routes only run every 30 minutes.

Not surprising that with a little 40-seat bus they get overcrowded running every half hour yet they can fund 500-seat trains at 3x the frequency to run all the way to Frankston which doesn't have a large catchment area past a certain point.

And why is it they still can't do useful things make the Hoddle Street bus lanes full time? There's 26 buses per hour in either direction along Hoddle Street in the middle of the day (half on weekends) but that's not enough to allow use of the bus lanes apparently.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Age
We go to cafes not just to have coffee, we go there to be seen," he said. "It's like showing your peers that you're living the dream."
L2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 01:33 PM   #2913
NoshowwithoutPunch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,866

Quote:
Originally Posted by MetropolOZ View Post
The huge cost difference between similar projects in Malaysia to Australia just highlights why we need to fully outsource these infrastructure projects, including foreign workers on non australian wages. Nothing much of significance will ever be built. We are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.
Agree. Why do we outsource somethings not others. Again i can only think race is the answer. No darkies, turbans, yellow skins onshore. Happy to send work to you offshore though.

Thinking how much better if we could dump gillard abbott and co and get a foreign government in to run the place.
NoshowwithoutPunch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 01:35 PM   #2914
NoshowwithoutPunch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,866

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Proctor View Post
thinking about the Tram Routes a bit more how about this as a cheap way to convert existign 'light rail' into dedicated 'metro' ... Port Melbourne-Spencer Street-short tunnel to Kings Way reserve-Domain-Dandenong Road - Malvern

You'd interchange with Route 96 and 112 into the City at Spencer Street (55 at Kings Way), Domain Eddingtunnel Station and trams, and Windsor on the Sandy line, and Malvern on the Caulfield lines. Remembering that Southbank is a legitimate destination in itself in the future...
Ive always thought this. The legacy system is too physically large in profile for ehat we get out of it. Smaller profile bodies, corridors could be used under dandy rd, kingsway etc and satill move tens of thousands per hour.
NoshowwithoutPunch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2012, 03:55 AM   #2915
John_Proctor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,822
Likes (Received): 383

you could still use probably 75% of the existing surface track as well by closing turning lanes etc. just need to have quick (high gradient) down's and up's through the major interesections these routes pass to be fully grade separated.
John_Proctor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2012, 01:57 PM   #2916
Infuriated_Manila
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Makati
Posts: 3
Likes (Received): 0

Sorry Tays but that plan absolutely sux ballbags. Do you honestly believe that an orbital rail line will fill even half a two car set? Most certainly not when most commuters are headed to the city. What do you think the smart buses do now? Why duplicate a feeder system that works and is only going to be improved with more funding by the Ballieu government? Carnegie to Cmberwell? Let's get this straight i interchange at Oakleigh, catch the pie in the sky link to Box Hill, get off again then head to Camberwell. Three stops? No thank you may aswell drive and get there quicker.
Infuriated_Manila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2012, 02:07 PM   #2917
MelbourneOnTheRise
We are the 99%
 
MelbourneOnTheRise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,293
Likes (Received): 317

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infuriated_Manila View Post
Sorry Tays but that plan absolutely sux ballbags. Do you honestly believe that an orbital rail line will fill even half a two car set? Most certainly not when most commuters are headed to the city. What do you think the smart buses do now? Why duplicate a feeder system that works and is only going to be improved with more funding by the Ballieu government? Carnegie to Cmberwell? Let's get this straight i interchange at Oakleigh, catch the pie in the sky link to Box Hill, get off again then head to Camberwell. Three stops? No thank you may aswell drive and get there quicker.
You need to do some reading.

Start with Transport for Suburbia, Paul Mees, 2010. Or the report by Rob Adams about intensification along transport corridors: Transforming Australian Cities, 2009. Anything by Newman and Kenworthy. Just any kind of reading about PT that isn't in the Herald Sun.

The constant anti-PT nonsense just makes you sound like an astro-turfing troll for some car company.
__________________
"As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please. Those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome."

Noam Chomsky
MelbourneOnTheRise no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2012, 02:15 PM   #2918
Infuriated_Manila
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Makati
Posts: 3
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by MelbourneOnTheRise View Post
You need to do some reading.

Start with Transport for Suburbia, Paul Mees, 2010. Or the report by Rob Adams about intensification along transport corridors: Transforming Australian Cities, 2009. Anything by Newman and Kenworthy. Just any kind of reading about PT that isn't in the Herald Sun.

The constant anti-PT nonsense just makes you sound like an astro-turfing troll for some car company.
Why would i read anything that tosser writes? This is the same guy that is against your beloved Eddington tunnel and upgrades to inner city capacity just so more dregs of society can be serviced in the outer suburbs like Rowville and Mernda. You got a short memory but we voted out a government not long ago based on "intensification along transport corridors".
Infuriated_Manila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2012, 02:37 PM   #2919
MelbourneOnTheRise
We are the 99%
 
MelbourneOnTheRise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,293
Likes (Received): 317

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infuriated_Manila View Post
Why would i read anything that tosser writes? This is the same guy that is against your beloved Eddington tunnel and upgrades to inner city capacity just so more dregs of society can be serviced in the outer suburbs like Rowville and Mernda. You got a short memory but we voted out a government not long ago based on "intensification along transport corridors".
If you had half a brain, you'd be able to connect the dots. Tayser discussed orbital PT. You alleged there is no demand for such service. 70% of jobs in Melbourne and 90% of the population are located further than 5km from the GPO. Most people who commute to the CBD do so by train, not car. Most trips to work are not from suburban areas to the CBD, but from one suburban area to another.

Transport for suburbia makes it very clear that any suburban area with enough people to generate traffic gridlock has enough people to operate a first class public transport network. The best way to increase PT patronage is to improve the service. This should be done through a "grid network" planning approach; ie very long north south and very long east west bus routes crossing the suburban arterial roads; with full priority, operating at least every 10 minutes, 18 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is nowhere near as expensive as you'd think. Operating a bus costs $45 per hour (publicly given by Leighton when they ran bus replacement tram services during the Southern Cross Station redevelopment). Full cost recovery based on $1.50 per passenger trip requires only 30 passenger boardings per hour.

Seriously, you need to read a few books before posting another uninformed rant.
__________________
"As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please. Those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome."

Noam Chomsky

Last edited by MelbourneOnTheRise; March 27th, 2012 at 02:44 PM.
MelbourneOnTheRise no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2012, 02:39 PM   #2920
cjb287
Registered User
 
cjb287's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,043
Likes (Received): 33

Am I correct in thinking the 903 was one of the few bus routes in Melbourne that actually turns a profit? My memory is hazy but it was definitely one of the smart bus orbitals. It runs something like every 8 or 9 minutes in the peak along certain portions anyway so I'm pretty sure there is demand for cross town travel.

No one said we should build it tomorrow. Buses are clearly still sufficient for the foreseeable future.
cjb287 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
mandurahboyz

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu