Melbourne Public Transport (Part II)

[Planks & Sticks]

Originally Posted by Nick R

Well they have been working on the clearways project and various superstop upgrades, St Kilda Rd being the latest.

I can't see how they can go much further with any tram routes that sit in mixed traffic, so more of this is going to have to happen.

I really don't know if they can come to a satisfactory solution regarding the clearways through inner shopping strips. Perhaps traffic light priority would be a bettter idea, to clear the lane ahead of the tram rather than try and move traffic into side lanes in lieu of street parking.

It definitely won't be easy, and I am appluad them for making ways to improve the flow of the tram services through the busy areas. Hopefully they keep moving ahead with that after the election as it does seem to help the trams. Unfortunately clearways give the impression that they were introduced to make it easier for cars rather than the trams so it is a sore point for many people. I have thought about the effect of removing the lane altogether so that no one can drive or park in them except for a small number of designated short term (off-peak only?) bays but not too sure how the shop keepers will react to it. Probably badly lol. At least they get more pavement space to plant trees and place their tables.

I do hope that when new apartment buildings go up, they have local corridors preserved so that trams/trains/buses can access these corridors at a later date should the need arise. For example, shopping centre junction XYZ in 2020 becomes far too busy for the trams with all the new shops and high rises opening in the area, so the tram route is rerouted off mainstreet and routed behind the high street stores with its own right of way and preserved pedestrian access to improve the flow, just to name an example of what sort of vision could be used in the long term.

Back to the original point, while the inner city gets new trams, 'B' lights and right of way in sections as an election promise, placed like Rowville and Doncaster get a railway line into the heart of the CBD ("study", but still :P ) as a promise. I was having a gripe about how they are rushing to promise to make it quicker for people in the outer suburbs to get into the city, but barely a peep for the inner city people who also need to get into the city or surrounding commercial areas.

That is why I like the orbital smart buses, it is a start to creating a reasonably well serviced radial route that has nothing to do with the CBD and think it is a great that they have finished the original promise (even if it was half baked). Now they just need to improve on it with better right of way and add more routes to the network.

(Had a handful of beers tonight, so I apologise if I am a little bit unclear)

[Eureka!]

Originally Posted by Nick R

Perhaps traffic light priority would be a bettter idea, to clear the lane ahead of the tram rather than try and move traffic into side lanes in lieu of street parking.

Interesting idea. Most tram lines have traffic lights every few hundred metres, so it would definately give cars a chance to overtake. And it would only take a few seconds each time. Would stop cars sneaking up when the trams stop too, ready to mow over pedestrians..

[John_Proctor]

all they need to do is implement clearways AND tram lanes at the same time.

kerbside clearway lane becomes for traffic and central lane becomes trams and right turns only at signalised intersections where the right turners can be cleared away from an approaching tram.

as part of this you would build a carpark at the rear of shops for cars to park in at that shopping strip. - most shopping strips already have underutilised rear carparks that would either just become more utiliised or could be multi-decked to offset the loss in on street parking.

Back to the original point, while the inner city gets new trams, 'B' lights and right of way in sections as an election promise, placed like Rowville and Doncaster get a railway line into the heart of the CBD ("study", but still :P ) as a promise. I was having a gripe about how they are rushing to promise to make it quicker for people in the outer suburbs to get into the city, but barely a peep for the inner city people who also need to get into the city or surrounding commercial areas.

I would say that on a rating of 1-100 anything within Melbournes Tram network has about a 65/100 for PT access. anything frmo the tram network out to say Warrigal/Bell/Millers Road (smartbus 903) has about a 50/100 for PT access. anyone out to about Springvale Road/Ring Road has about a 35/100 and most beyond that have about a 20/100.

obviosuly the above increase if you happen to live walking distance to a train station even if it is Pakenham Station.

SO if a Rowville/South Morang line brings somewhere that is abotu 20/100 at the moment up to a 50/100 I think it is hard for people in the inner city who are already at 50 or 65/100 that they should have money spent on them to increase to 90/100.

And the fact is there isn't actually much money to be spent on these issues. You wouldn't want to bulldoze half of hte inner suburbs to widen roads to provide tram priority.

It is purely a political decision as per my post above. almost zero infrastructure cost (aside from the carparks) and overnight the tram network would be twice as efficient but who is going to make the call in the face of what is still a 50% car preferred voting public.

[TheSentinel]

Originally Posted by Nick R

I really don't know if they can come to a satisfactory solution regarding the clearways through inner shopping strips. Perhaps traffic light priority would be a bettter idea, to clear the lane ahead of the tram rather than try and move traffic into side lanes in lieu of street parking.

Originally Posted by Eureka!

Interesting idea. Most tram lines have traffic lights every few hundred metres, so it would definately give cars a chance to overtake. And it would only take a few seconds each time. Would stop cars sneaking up when the trams stop too, ready to mow over pedestrians..

Trams already activate traffic light priorities as the approach to clear the road ahead including right hand turn arrows.

The problem is the uses of the road. On street parking is not a right its a privilege. If the road is to be used at is full potential during peak times on street parking needs to go with the clear way extensions. People waiting to reverse park all along these streets cause congestion, not only do they delay the trams they also inhibit the flow of car traffic. Im sure we have all seem some car driver hold up the traffic for a few minutes; waiting for a parked car to be loaded up with shopping and kids and then waiting till the road is clear so they can illegally U-turn over a solid white line finally allowing the waiting car to park. All unnecessary delays.

Local councils should insist on new developments along these shopping strips to include some form of off street parking be it basement or roof top.

Roads are for driving not for parking.

[Nick R]

I generally agree with your sentiment Sentinel... but I'm a little concerned for the urban environment if we convert out shopping strips into four lane arterial roads. One thing that roadside parking is good for is slowing traffic and creating a barrier between traffic and the footpath.

I live just off Swan St myself, and I appreciate the fact that I can sit out on the footpath at a cafe table, and more or less cross the street at will.

If the road was comprised of two dedicated tram lanes in the centre and two dedicated traffic lanes at the kerb, doing either of those two things would be a lot less enjoyable! Not sure if I'd sit at that cafe table with traffic doing 60km/h a few inches from my shoulder.

[Planks & Sticks]

Originally Posted by Nick R

I generally agree with your sentiment Sentinel... but I'm a little concerned for the urban environment if we convert out shopping strips into four lane arterial roads. One thing that roadside parking is good for is slowing traffic and creating a barrier between traffic and the footpath.

I live just off Swan St myself, and I appreciate the fact that I can sit out on the footpath at a cafe table, and more or less cross the street at will.

If the road was comprised of two dedicated tram lanes in the centre and two dedicated traffic lanes at the kerb, doing either of those two things would be a lot less enjoyable! Not sure if I'd sit at that cafe table with traffic doing 60km/h a few inches from my shoulder.

That is why I sort of had a suggestion about doing away with the lane altogether and have more space on the footpath for the shops (or even have a push bike parking lot). The issue with that however is that now the tram will end up being merged in with the cars into the single lane. The positive is that with less cars needing to stop and start, the traffic could be smoother flowing than the current arrangement with on street parking.

What I have noticed at Bridge road is that the city bound tram pulls up at the Church Street intersection and drop off people in its own right of way. It then gets a Tram light head start allowing it to travel onto the narrow part of Bridge Road at the front with all the cars behind it being unable to get past it due to the left hand lane filled with parked vehicles. The result is a traffic jam, but not experienced by the tram itself. By removing the lane and the carparks, I don't see how it should be too much different except for no more cars pulling in and out of the parking spots. Obviously in peak hour, no doubt it will be different so I will be interested seeing the outcome of that, especially now that the road would be less desirable as a through-fare.

Keeping the existing speed limit of 40km/hr (or maybe even raising it a little bit to 50km/hr?), I think having a two lane shopping strip with frequent right of ways for the trams to allow them to get past the line of cars shouldn't be a terrible thing. To be honest, I will be interested how it would fare in reality, I am sure a lot of things could happen, perhaps making it even worse than the current situation.

As it has been pointed out, the parking spots behind the shops will remain so it isn't like the big bad greenies are coming to remove /all/ of the parking spots making it the end of the world. :P

Note, this isn't a serious thought. Was just exploring mentally what alternatives could be used other than clearways. The other one that I have thought of in the past is to turn a few shopping strips into one way streets for cars with the alternative direction a few blocks away (especially with the gridded inner city making this quite possible) while the tram gets its own right of way and the parking spots on one side remains.

[John_Proctor]

Keeping the existing speed limit of 40km/hr (or maybe even raising it a little bit to 50km/hr?), I think having a two lane shopping strip with frequent right of ways for the trams to allow them to get past the line of cars shouldn't be a terrible thing. To be honest, I will be interested how it would fare in reality, I am sure a lot of things could happen, perhaps making it even worse than the current situation.

sorry Planks. I'll say it again time to take a reality check. there is 1% chance of this working from a traffic/transport engineering perspective and probably less chance of it working from a political and behavioural sense.

of the 25,000 vpd on Swan Street most of them have the choice of catching PT to work and specifically choose not to because the route isn't direct enough for them, they multi-trip after work (eg. sports training), its cheaper to drive (carpark included in job), or they prefer to drive. Even significant improvements in PT travel times will not greatly alter this scenario AND tbh if you look at hte timetables for Trams at 6am generally its only a 10 minute timetable saving for a 'good run'.

The only way to do it is to block half of the roads off at one end or the other and provide a rabbit warren of local acess only.

[Eco-rat]

Originally Posted by John_Proctor

sorry Planks. I'll say it again time to take a reality check. there is 1% chance of this working from a traffic/transport engineering perspective and probably less chance of it working from a political and behavioural sense.

of the 25,000 vpd on Swan Street most of them have the choice of catching PT to work and specifically choose not to because the route isn't direct enough for them, they multi-trip after work (eg. sports training), its cheaper to drive (carpark included in job), or they prefer to drive. Even significant improvements in PT travel times will not greatly alter this scenario AND tbh if you look at hte timetables for Trams at 6am generally its only a 10 minute timetable saving for a 'good run'.

The only way to do it is to block half of the roads off at one end or the other and provide a rabbit warren of local acess only.

There's consensus now that most PT improvements need to be separately evaluated from their road external benefits. Any improvement in road congestion from PT is simultaneously swallowed by more traffic (although probably 'lower opportunity cost' journeys).

So if improving tram times through there is the objective, it needs to be assessed on its own. The congestion you see on Swan St is not going to go away.

And it's why I'm not really a fan of street tramways - there are few scenarios where they are the best form of transport - and certainly don't work on the narrow streets outside the Hoddle grid. Separated or restricted traffic streets like Swanston are one thing - but the worst offenders like Chapel, Mt Alex, Victoria, High, Swan and Bridge are poor advertisements for trams.

[Planks & Sticks]

Originally Posted by John_Proctor

sorry Planks. I'll say it again time to take a reality check. there is 1% chance of this working from a traffic/transport engineering perspective and probably less chance of it working from a political and behavioural sense.

of the 25,000 vpd on Swan Street most of them have the choice of catching PT to work and specifically choose not to because the route isn't direct enough for them, they multi-trip after work (eg. sports training), its cheaper to drive (carpark included in job), or they prefer to drive. Even significant improvements in PT travel times will not greatly alter this scenario AND tbh if you look at hte timetables for Trams at 6am generally its only a 10 minute timetable saving for a 'good run'.

The only way to do it is to block half of the roads off at one end or the other and provide a rabbit warren of local acess only.

Fair enough, that is why I was constantly pointing out that what I was saying was just a brain storm rather than an actual serious want. I was hoping to see what other long term options (5-10 years or even longer) were out there, hence why I commented on the one way street idea as well. Clearways does its job as designed, but what more can be done to improve the traffic flow to make the tram services (and traffic in general) even better once the success of clearways becomes constrained?

This comes back to my small frustration about public transport priority when it comes to outer suburban and the inner city. I would never suggest stopping all works in the outer suburbs as it would definitely not help and will probably end up costing more in the long term run. I was feeling a bit annoyed with how the public transport in the inner city has becoming a victim of its success and nothing visionary is done about it (with exceptions obviously, such as better platform stops, Smith Street improvements which I support greatly). I confess that it was also a little bit of a selfish greed as I am one of the users of the service.

To be realistic, I understand that the piggy bank isn't an infinite source, especially with the outer suburbs playing catch up. As I said before, I am not serious about what I was putting forwards. It was only an idea and seeing how people will react to it. I presume badly, so I guess I won't think about it anymore.

I have to admit that I am no way qualified in any related fields, hence why I am posting it here, rather than sending it to the MP as I don't believe that I am qualified enough to make an educated decision. I do plan to eventually go into a degree that is relevant, but for the mean time, I have a lot to learn!

[Eco-rat]

Your point was a good one. The political system is favouring the outer suburbs over the inner ones.

The reality may be that if we were allocating resources rationally, rather than electorally, you might have already built a rail system that massively favoured the inner suburbs because that's where the congestion is, and where pollution is most likely to do damage. People in the outer burbs, are served by lower density employment and retail, much wider roads, may in fact need less PT (irrespective of the problems of providing it).

So you might well survive with ripping up Hurstbridge, Belgrave and Lilydale lines, running what remains with buses, but keeping and improving the rail system as far as Box Hill to provide metro-standard services in the denser part of town.

Truth be known, I would have few tears if most of the street tram system was ripped up and replaced with pre-metro to the right places. Some of the paralleling of the system is pure waste.

The three or four northern routes are barely 500 metres from each other in places - a combined pre-metro route could take all that traffic, capture more by being better than the current service, and still use feeder buses to supply yet more traffic from off line.

[L2]

which is exactly what happens overseas.

They wouldn't bother investing in running an 8-minute peak service past that horse I showed you in the pic on my camera tonight. They also wouldn't run literally exactly the same service to what runs past that horse as what suffices for the inner suburbs for a lot of the time.

But the people who go past those horseys are more likely to change the government in power than someone like John_Proctor is.

[Eco-rat]

Originally Posted by L2

which is exactly what happens overseas.

They wouldn't bother investing in running an 8-minute peak service past that horse I showed you in the pic on my camera tonight. They also wouldn't run literally exactly the same service to what runs past that horse as what suffices for the inner suburbs for a lot of the time.

But the people who go past those horseys are more likely to change the government in power than someone like John_Proctor is.

My heart breaks when I see stations like North Richmond, or Middle Footscray, places with fairly good population densities and where the roads are crap, the stations should be 100 deep with people wanting to board a train all day, every day.

Why are they fighting over the couple of on-street parks on Victoria St when they could be turning up and going to the nosh on the western end from North Richmond station?

But no, they can't run a full service to North Richmond lest some marginal seater in Wattle Glen who has been on the train for an hour already objects to the stop on their way to FSS.

[Eco-rat]

I can also hear the evil laugh of a middle ranking DTF bureaucrat at the idea that the trains are there for more than commuters during peaks.

"No, no, no, there is a marginal seat voter to $ spending on getting people to work ratio we must maximise...you thought we actually cared about transport...ha ha ha ha ha ha [/evil laugh]"

[Maxwell the Lesser]

Libs promise $1.4b for transport
November 14, 2010 - 1:59PM
....

In an almost 40-minute speech that was punctuated by whooping and applause, Mr Baillieu made only one new policy announcement, and that was for public transport.

In addition to $1.4 billion for 40 new trains over two terms, he also pledged two new train stations, an extra $100 million for infrastructure maintenance and renewal and a new $10 million independent transport authority to co-ordinate and improve train, tram and bus services.

The new stations would be built on the Frankston line at Southland, in Melbourne's outer southeast ($13 million) and Grovedale on the regional Geelong line ($25 million).

Mr Baillieu said the transport plan would improve services and safety and "relieve pressure on long-suffering commuters".

[Gazza2]

a new $10 million independent transport authority to co-ordinate and improve train, tram and bus services.

Osnap!

[BleakCity]

Twains from Geelong to Bendigo via Ballarat too lawl.

[Dark_matter]

Originally Posted by BleakCity

Twains from Geelong to Bendigo via Ballarat too lawl.

Um, WTF for and lol and bullshit and haha...

[get400]

Baillieu promises Airport Rail link.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/st...114-17spg.html

Unfortunately for BleakCity, Kennett reserved land in 1998 for it to be built.

[17 floors up]

How they fark are they going to have the capacity to run frequent express trains to the Airport from Flinders St? Is there enough capacity on the viaduct between FS and SX?

[John_Proctor]

Originally Posted by get400

Baillieu promises Airport Rail link.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/st...114-17spg.html

Unfortunately for BleakCity, Kennett reserved land in 1998 for it to be built.

any unfortunately it only reserved about 100m from the airport land to the Jacana/Albion corridor. The 1998 solution is unworkable.

it also seems that they aren't proposing to use the 1998 solution but the westmeadows/broadmeadows flight path option which is 'reserved' in that it goes through public parkland/undevelopable land.


$13 million for Southland station = good.

do the people of Grovedale (seat held by Labor with margin of 2.3%) want a train station (liberal) or a hospital (labor)???