interestingly, ballarat is nowhere near as much of a dormitory town for melbourne as some people make out.
On 2006 data - hopefully it stays that way.LanceDriver said:interestingly, ballarat is nowhere near as much of a dormitory town for melbourne as some people make out.
Rather hung over- went over my head.Thanks Alphaville
However, I thought I better say it before it happens - this thread is not designed for posters to list their place of work.
Rather, discuss the transport task in relation to the movement of people from their home to their workplace.
There's plenty wrong with that.Sure, there is nothing wrong with having a predominantly peak service to cater for commuters and a less frequent service for the rest of the times
Mainly because services are hopeless so people don't use them - PT demand is supply driven(as cross-suburb journeys tend to be low patronage routes)
True to a point, however, I'm talking about small municipal areas and frequencies of 30 minutes off-peak as you can see in cities with populations of 150K in Europe rather than larger cities such as the Aussie capitals. Unfortunately economies of scale come into play when considering smaller cities and there simply isn't the scope for patronage in a small city for cross-suburb trips. Sorry, I should have actually defined what I class as a "smaller" municipality.There's plenty wrong with that.
If you don't provide a turn-up-and-go service, you won't get any non-captive users.
Mainly because services are hopeless so people don't use them - PT demand is supply driven![]()
I agree that regional centres are more likely to get shit given that local PT is a low priority to the government compared to the needs of the capital city and larger centres, none of which in Australia have decent PT.Unfortunately economies of scale come into play when considering smaller cities and there simply isn't the scope for patronage in a small city for cross-suburb trips
Orbital lines through sprawl are a bit of a waste as the centres rarely line up - and they aren't where most traffic is going. No idea what the situation is like in Berlin though - speaking for Aussie cities here.it has a polycentric metro combined with a very frequent ring railway system to ensure that cross-suburb trips are easy to handle despite only having a population of 3.6 million.
But then one could argue that most PT routes in most new world cities are therefore unviable if you wish to discount all 30 minute services. Sure, it's not a turn up and go, but people still utilise it. This is very evident considering I am currently served by a 30 minute service to the CBD which I use daily to get to Uni and trust me, it's packed to the brim most of the time, especially around peak (when the frequency increases to every 20 minutes, oh my)!I agree that regional centres are more likely to get shit given that local PT is a low priority to the government compared to the needs of the capital city and larger centres, none of which in Australia have decent PT.
I don't see how that an inflexible 30 minute frequency is any more useful in a regional centre (let's use Geelong as an example) than it would be in suburbs of a capital city which are be just as built up.
There would be few examples where you'd need true cross-suburban routes in Aussie regional cities due to their size and geography. Using Geelong as the example, you'd have routes radiating out of the CBD along the main roads, passing the suburban centres and terminating at somewhere useful.
Transferring for local trips should not be an issue if services run frequently, say every 10 mins.
Just for your interest, the Ringbahn in Berlin serves as a ring railway around the innermost parts of the city. The ring railway there actually serves 146million passengers per year, is 37.5km long and consists of 28 stations (and links to 12 different U-bahn stations for instant metro transfer). This is why I cite it as an example of a good ring railway system as it not only links to the S-bahn but also to the U-bahn. Trains usually run every few minutes on most of the ring throughout the day.Orbital lines through sprawl are a bit of a waste as the centres rarely line up - and they aren't where most traffic is going. No idea what the situation is like in Berlin though - speaking for Aussie cities here.
I'm not saying that I'm in support of a 100% rail network (like Melbourne) - am in support for incorporating useful cross-suburban links into the rail system.
And of course in Australia, you have radial lines which pass suburban centres on their way to the CBD, but most people only bother using the train if they are going all the way to the CBD due to the poor service provided :bash:
At lease someone else has the balls to admit that most urban car commutes are NOT to the CBD via car for the majority of MEL / SYD residents. For one it's two expensive, secondly PT in peak time is acceptable for most people.Thanks for posting that ZH - I might do a comparable list for Sydney some time later tonight if I can be stuffed.
The "everybody goes to the CBD" thing has to be one of the biggest transport planning myths floating around - and unfortunately it is believed by most dribblers on Whalepage and other sites. Look at the proposals for express buses from Narre and Endeavour Hills - what point would they serve?
Also seems to be forgotten by most gunzelzorz that most CBD trips are already done on public transport - it's about the only place where PT has been successful. Some of the proposed rail extensionz in Melb ie Doncaster seem a tad too CBD-centric.
The present role of trainz in most Aussie cities is essentially to collect people all over the urban sprawl and take them to the CBD - what a waste. Australian systems put too much focus on catering to CBD commuters - like look how many services QR Citytrain runs from Darra peak (9tph) vs off-peak (2tph).
Yes, that was called a slight exaggeration, but my point still stands regarding the sudden drop in density of the inner suburbs (bar Sydney and Melbourne in certain areas) in comparison to the CBD. Brisbane in particular suffers from Auckland syndrome in the inner suburbs it seems. We stayed in the West End and that was mostly single unit dwellings on fairly large plots of land and most of the other surrounding suburbs were single unit dwellings (density = 3242/km squared).^ there are no low-density suburbs 1km from Melbourne's CBD, nor Sydney's, Adelaide's, Brisbane's...
Historic housing in Brisbane is protected, even so a bit over half the residents in West End live in apartments. In addition, West End still has a decent amount of industrial warehousing towards the riverside.Yes, that was called a slight exaggeration, but my point still stands regarding the sudden drop in density of the inner suburbs (bar Sydney and Melbourne in certain areas) in comparison to the CBD. Brisbane in particular suffers from Auckland syndrome in the inner suburbs it seems. We stayed in the West End and that was mostly single unit dwellings on fairly large plots of land and most of the other surrounding suburbs were single unit dwellings (density = 3242/km squared).
This is the same for many cities worldwide too, it's not unique for Brisbane to see warehouses and industrial areas included in a statistical division/suburb density calculation. We also see similar densities to the West End in Woolloongabba, South Brisbane, Toowong, Spring Hill et al so I'd not say it is a statistic confined to the West End.Historic housing in Brisbane is protected, even so a bit over half the residents in West End live in apartments. In addition, West End still has a decent amount of industrial warehousing towards the riverside.
Brisbane has very few parks and doesn't have a lot if industrial land close into the city centre so within a 5km ring you end up with about the same amount of people as in Melbourne.Brisbane has plenty of low-density single-dwelling blocks within a few kilometres of the CBD - e.g. West End and Buranda, Woolloongabba