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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 14th, 2005, 07:10 AM   #61
globocentric
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 380
Likes (Received): 8

definenently melbourne Australia. Train run every 20 - 30 minutes for a city with a very low density by international standards. Buses run every 30 - 45 minutes.
globocentric no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 14th, 2005, 10:49 AM   #62
nikko
Registered Yooser
 
nikko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,456
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by globocentric
definenently melbourne Australia. Train run every 20 - 30 minutes for a city with a very low density by international standards. Buses run every 30 - 45 minutes.
That's correct. Lower densities cause trains and buses to run at lower frequencies.
__________________
See whats happening in BRISBANE!
nikko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2005, 10:08 AM   #63
invincible
Lurker
 
invincible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,804
Likes (Received): 523

Quote:
Originally Posted by globocentric
definenently melbourne Australia. Train run every 20 - 30 minutes for a city with a very low density by international standards. Buses run every 30 - 45 minutes.
That's the Sunday timetable for my part of Melbourne (outer zone 2). Okay, so I'm served by the 888-9 SmartBus (15 minute frequency to 7pm then 30 mins to midnight). But the tram network is quite a redeeming feature compared to a lot of other cities out there, and not just Detroit.

And for the record, train times for weekday mornings at my station: ... 7:43 7:54 7:59 8:04 8:07 8:15 8:22 8:27 8:32 ... Which isn't that bad for suburbia. Reliability is more of a problem (cancellations) and the trains still do get very full.

Bus frequency on other routes need a lot of improvement though. I'm just lucky because there's two routes I can take from school to home, and about 5 that go to the station (and the option of a healthier 2km walk which I also take)

The trams might be hindered in the future by increasing amounts of traffic though (most tram lines share a lane with normal traffic, but there are a few that run down the median of a road and a couple that have their own right of way, usually on former rail lines).
invincible no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2005, 04:39 AM   #64
Haber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 213
Likes (Received): 0

Probably Detroit because it doesn't have one.
Haber no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2005, 05:01 AM   #65
Homer J. Simpson
Registered User
 
Homer J. Simpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sector 7-G
Posts: 2,465
Likes (Received): 18

Detroit and LA are my top two choices for worst PT systems.

Every transit system in Western Europe is really good despite what some may think. Same goes for some of the systems in Eastern North America. NYC, Montreal and Toronto all have excellent transit systems.
__________________

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." --John Stuart Mill

Special thanks to Ttownfeen for giving me the author of the quote above

To quote some wise men whos names I can not remember:

"Conservative politics is like masterbation, it takes a lot of jerking things around and only pays off for those who do it."
Homer J. Simpson no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2005, 07:12 AM   #66
Nick
Gosford/Sydney.
 
Nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gosford (From Sydney)
Posts: 1,528
Likes (Received): 53

Holy Jesus that LA system was huge!!!! I thought Syndey used to have a big system.But man......Ive never seem a tram system that big!
__________________
STOP THE NIMBYS.SUPPORT THE WATERFRONT PROJECT IN GOSFORD.
Nick no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2005, 07:12 AM   #67
furrycanuck
Registered User
 
furrycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CALGARY
Posts: 199
Likes (Received): 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by xantarc
Many of them around the world, for what I've read.
For what I've seen, Toronto, Chicago, Budapest.
So you've only been to Toronto, Chicago, and Budapest, right?

Toronto's transit is amazing- and infinitely, immeasurably, indescribably better than the two cities that you are, apparently, living in (Edmonton and Winnipeg).
furrycanuck no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 02:38 AM   #68
dewback
Registered User
 
dewback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 595
Likes (Received): 1

Judging by pictures and raw data it has to be Detroit. Is that "People Mover" actually useful?
__________________
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
-George Carlin
dewback no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 03:23 AM   #69
philip
The Picture Guy
 
philip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 568
Likes (Received): 71

Los Angeles has the worst big city transit system because.............it doesn't have one !!

And excuse me, LA has no trams. That huge tram map you saw in the previous map no longer exists. All the trams were torn down decades ago and freeways took over.

LA recently (very recently) constructed a few light rails and a subway line, but in terms of the percentage of population served, it cannot compare with other big cities.
__________________
I am the Picture Guy - A picture is worth a thousand words.

Last edited by philip; November 28th, 2005 at 03:29 AM.
philip no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 07:46 AM   #70
LA-dude
LA-dude
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: LA(downey)
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 0

well at least we are trying to build subways, light rails etc.. Right now there is what, 75 miles of mass transit via subway or LRT and that number is only goin up. Right now were just trying to compensate for the mistakes made by LA in the 50's.
LA-dude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 09:11 PM   #71
Gil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,120
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by bitxofo
Paved over?
Why?
No one's got a clear answer as to why, so here's me shot at it:

GM, Standard Oil and a few other companies banded together and began buying up trolley systems across North America. Their goal was to eventually introduce their products to a market that was at the time predominantly based around the streetcar/trolley/tram (whatever you want to call them). As these private/municipal systems were bought up they were systematically made worse through service cuts, poor connecting service and lack of maintenance. The result was that theses systems began to look bad.

The owners (GM et al.) then introduced motorized buses as a modern improvement to the worn out trolleys. Some clever marketing got people convinced that the buses were the key to improving public transit service. Eventually as the trolley systems were phased out across North America the tracks were either paved over or ripped out.

Flash forward to today and now you see many of the cities which had scrapped their trolley service are now paying dearly to have them restored. Only a few cities (San Francisco, Toronto, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and New Orleans) were able to hold on to their systems, often at the request of local riders.
Gil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 09:22 PM   #72
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,952
Likes (Received): 780

^ There is also another reason why trams were phased out to buses on networks around the world. The main problem was that they were simply very inefficient at the time. They required men to be at many junction points throughout the network to keep them working (London Transport in the 1950's needed 100,000 staff to keep the networks running). They were very noisy (unlike modern trams) so much so, that many people moved to streets without trams. The buses that replaced the old trams were relitively silent, cheaper to operate, didn't keep breaking free of the overhead cables and could be more flexible on routes.

The difference between Detriot (and many American cities) and others like London where they lost the tram, was the the replacing infrastructure was still maintained and updated (The loss of the trams in London brought the arrival of the famous double decker buses)
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 11:19 PM   #73
samsonyuen
SSLL
 
samsonyuen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canary Wharf > CityPlace
Posts: 8,350
Likes (Received): 314

Detroit and Phoenix are disappointing in North America.
samsonyuen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2017, 09:40 PM   #74
Yardmaster
Registered Melbourne
 
Yardmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,152
Likes (Received): 198

Quote:
Originally Posted by globocentric View Post
definenently melbourne Australia. Train run every 20 - 30 minutes for a city with a very low density by international standards. Buses run every 30 - 45 minutes.
Must say it took a while to respond here, but let's set the record straight.

The crap about bus frequencies probably doesn't need to be addressed at all: there may be bus services running at those frequencies, but they're way out on the extremities of the Metropolis.

I get 9 trains an hour off-peak into the City, plus quite a few buses, which I don't actually worry about: OK, trains run at 15-20 frequencies off-peak, perhaps more if your station serves several lines (hence my 9 trains/hour off peak) and much more considerably during peak periods.

Melbourne certainly has a low urban density by international standards: and a high usage of private cars, for commuting and other transport. This does impact on the timetable. I'd reflect on whether the postings here are grammatically and otherwise correct, before attaching too much weight to the assertions therein.
Yardmaster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2017, 01:41 AM   #75
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,609
Likes (Received): 5972

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme View Post
^ There is also another reason why trams were phased out to buses on networks around the world. The main problem was that they were simply very inefficient at the time. They required men to be at many junction points throughout the network to keep them working (London Transport in the 1950's needed 100,000 staff to keep the networks running). They were very noisy (unlike modern trams) so much so, that many people moved to streets without trams. The buses that replaced the old trams were relitively silent, cheaper to operate, didn't keep breaking free of the overhead cables and could be more flexible on routes.77
Problems with Overhead cables? Was this really a bigger issues back then than today? The noise argument I don't buy for a second I have seen those oldies in action already and they weren't really signficantly louder.

Trams being less flexible than busses is a feature, not a bug as it gives long term reliability for neigbhouring real estates. It is true however that people had to realize that yet at the dawn of the car age.

The demand higher demand for men in operating the system sounds more credible already. But also road traffic was more manpower dependent back in the days.

Conclusion: No, the framework didn't really change all that much in regards to trams. What changed is how they are seen by politics and society nowadays.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK

Last edited by Slartibartfas; February 12th, 2017 at 01:47 AM.
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2017, 03:23 PM   #76
Alargule
Res Uder et Siger
 
Alargule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 8,210
Likes (Received): 2093

You do realize you took 4094 days to respond to that, right? Not that I don't agree with you though.
__________________
Nu op Wordpress: Rails in Amsterdam
Alargule no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:58 AM   #77
Newropean
Ganesh
 
Newropean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Praha Ravensburg Genčve Padova Istanbul Maastricht Bruxelles Mechelen
Posts: 2,041
Likes (Received): 1574

Rome and Istanbul could be better..
Newropean no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

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

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

tech management by Sysprosium