Joined
·
683 Posts
Transport: we mustn't miss this very fast bus
There's a much better alternative to trains, trams and traffic, writes David Hensher.
THE continuing media focus that suggests the need for greater investment in public transport is to be commended - but let's place this recognition in context.
If money was no object and the public really wants government to significantly increase public debt, then let's invest in heavy and light rail - but would everyone be happy?
Unfortunately there are two large deficiencies in this popular perception of a solution to meeting Sydney's transport needs: the huge cost (in the billions of dollars, not millions) and the inability of such a solution to deliver more than a service to specific corridors, to the neglect of the systemwide network needs.
There are many ways of investing in improved public transport, assuming it will substantially resolve the claims about Sydney's traffic congestion. These include heavy rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, where buses have their own roads just like trains have their own track and do not compete with cars in mixed traffic.
Globally there is growing support for delivering service capacity through bus rapid transit as a legitimate alternative to heavy and light rail within the traffic density range that Sydney experiences.
Typically, $1 billion buys 400 kilometres of dedicated bus rapid transport in contrast to 15 kilometres of elevated rail or seven kilometres of underground rail. Most importantly, this not only delivers greater network coverage but also shows the error of the accepted view of the capacity of specific public transport modes (buses up to 6000 passengers an hour in one direction, compared with up to 15,000 for light rail/tram and more than 15,000 for heavy rail/metro). Advanced bus rapid transport systems can move 38,000 passengers an hour in each direction.
There is a growing number of examples around the world and the International Union of Public Transport in Europe stated recently that bus rapid transport is increasingly preferred over fixed-rail systems for value for money. Some will immediately ignore this argument and keep pushing fixed-corridor rail systems that are very expensive and which will fail to serve the fuller demands of the Sydney metropolitan area.
Our challenge is to get away from thinking of bus rapid transport as those awful polluting buses that get delayed because they compete with cars and occasionally are offered bits of disconnected roads in the form of bus lanes and transit lanes.
We can start the investment, as Brisbane has, in bus rapid transport with clean-fuelled buses and get away from the adage that trains are sexy and buses are boring.
There is an urgent need to set aside dedicated roads or land parcels for bus rapid transport to achieve its potential, remembering that the width of a right of way required for bus rapid transport is far less than for railways, not only in the central business district but across the Sydney network.
The announced strategic corridors outlined by the State Government this week are a good start provided they are fully connected and dedicated to bus rapid transport. Castlereagh Street, for example, is a good candidate for the CBD link.
But the technology must not be the driver. Rather, the way forward is to identify systems (that is, integrated vehicles and infrastructure) that will provide a high level of service capacity throughout a connected network, delivering frequency, connectivity and visibility so that we know where the services run to and from.
All of this support for public transport must be part of a large package in which we consider ways of financing improved public transport, and a good start is to learn from the experiences of London and Stockholm, where congestion charging schemes are in place.
The money raised in London and Stockholm is earmarked for investment in public transport - a sensible strategy.
Politically it has worked, which is very important. Over 30 per cent of commuters who were previously car users now use public transport, continuing car users see benefits in improved travel times and, most importantly, the politicians have earned respect for taking such an initiative. All of this seems so obvious in many ways; yet will Sydney rise to the occasion?
Professor David Hensher is director of the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, in the Economics and Business Faculty, University of Sydney.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A congestion charge in the CBD would be a great idea. It would be better to do it sooner rather than later.
Here's another good article from the SMH. This one's a bit more about heavy rail in the North-West and light rail in the CBD.
Transport shambles
May 19, 2006
TRAFFIC chaos in the CBD will worsen if the State Government continues to rely on buses instead of expanding light rail or charging motorists to drive into the city, a report prepared for the Government warns.
The independent study finds extending light rail from Central to Circular Quay would be a more efficient and reliable way of relieving pressure on the city's public transport than adding buses or depending on trains.
If the Government did nothing to improve public transport, an extra 36 buses would have to travel along George Street in the morning peak period to cater for the increase in passengers expected by 2021, it says.
"Travel conditions for buses and other traffic is already poor in George Street, the main corridor which will experience increased demand for bus seats," the report says.
"An increase in the number of buses and/or the conversion to articulated buses is likely to add to traffic congestion and/or reduce bus running times."
The report, which finds there are "no insurmountable issues" to preclude extending light rail, has been kept secret by the Government since it was delivered in September 2004 by the transport consultants, Parsons Brinckerhoff.
Obtained by the Herald through freedom of information laws, it is one of the most recent in a series of reports commissioned by the Government since the mid-1990s into the feasibility of light rail in Sydney.
Its disclosure will fuel demands from transport experts, the City of Sydney Council and business and community leaders for a wider light rail network. The Opposition Leader, Peter Debnam, has promised to extend light rail if the Coalition wins next year's election.
It follows sustained criticism of the Government over its transport strategy. At a forum hosted by the Herald last month, it was warned the city would lose investment and residents to Melbourne and Brisbane if public transport was not improved.
This week, the City of Sydney Council increased the pressure by setting aside $13.5 million over four years to upgrade streets or contribute to infrastructure for a new light rail route.
But yesterday, the Transport Minister, John Watkins, said he was not convinced light rail was the best option. Potential problems included the additional journey time if passengers had to change modes of transport at Central or Circular Quay, for example from a bus to light rail.
There was also concern over the east-west traffic congestion that would be caused if a light rail route was given signal priority in the city streets, he said.
"I haven't closed the door to light rail in Sydney. But I have to say, the more I look at it … I just don't see it working," Mr Watkins told the Herald.
"If I have $1.5 billion to spend on public transport, where should I spend it? Should I spend it in the CBD to replace an existing form of public transport, or should I spend it somewhere else where it gets a bigger bang for the buck?"
The Parsons Brinckerhoff report analysed how a light rail system along George Street or Castlereagh Street would cater for increased passenger demand compared with conventional or articulated buses, an extended monorail system, increased train services or measures to limit private cars in the city, such as a congestion levy or increased parking charges.
Light rail beat or drew equal with its closest rival, articulated buses, on all criteria except for the initial infrastructure costs, which would be about $126 million for a new light rail route. Signal priority would be the greatest challenge facing the project, the report said.
There's a much better alternative to trains, trams and traffic, writes David Hensher.
THE continuing media focus that suggests the need for greater investment in public transport is to be commended - but let's place this recognition in context.
If money was no object and the public really wants government to significantly increase public debt, then let's invest in heavy and light rail - but would everyone be happy?
Unfortunately there are two large deficiencies in this popular perception of a solution to meeting Sydney's transport needs: the huge cost (in the billions of dollars, not millions) and the inability of such a solution to deliver more than a service to specific corridors, to the neglect of the systemwide network needs.
There are many ways of investing in improved public transport, assuming it will substantially resolve the claims about Sydney's traffic congestion. These include heavy rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, where buses have their own roads just like trains have their own track and do not compete with cars in mixed traffic.
Globally there is growing support for delivering service capacity through bus rapid transit as a legitimate alternative to heavy and light rail within the traffic density range that Sydney experiences.
Typically, $1 billion buys 400 kilometres of dedicated bus rapid transport in contrast to 15 kilometres of elevated rail or seven kilometres of underground rail. Most importantly, this not only delivers greater network coverage but also shows the error of the accepted view of the capacity of specific public transport modes (buses up to 6000 passengers an hour in one direction, compared with up to 15,000 for light rail/tram and more than 15,000 for heavy rail/metro). Advanced bus rapid transport systems can move 38,000 passengers an hour in each direction.
There is a growing number of examples around the world and the International Union of Public Transport in Europe stated recently that bus rapid transport is increasingly preferred over fixed-rail systems for value for money. Some will immediately ignore this argument and keep pushing fixed-corridor rail systems that are very expensive and which will fail to serve the fuller demands of the Sydney metropolitan area.
Our challenge is to get away from thinking of bus rapid transport as those awful polluting buses that get delayed because they compete with cars and occasionally are offered bits of disconnected roads in the form of bus lanes and transit lanes.
We can start the investment, as Brisbane has, in bus rapid transport with clean-fuelled buses and get away from the adage that trains are sexy and buses are boring.
There is an urgent need to set aside dedicated roads or land parcels for bus rapid transport to achieve its potential, remembering that the width of a right of way required for bus rapid transport is far less than for railways, not only in the central business district but across the Sydney network.
The announced strategic corridors outlined by the State Government this week are a good start provided they are fully connected and dedicated to bus rapid transport. Castlereagh Street, for example, is a good candidate for the CBD link.
But the technology must not be the driver. Rather, the way forward is to identify systems (that is, integrated vehicles and infrastructure) that will provide a high level of service capacity throughout a connected network, delivering frequency, connectivity and visibility so that we know where the services run to and from.
All of this support for public transport must be part of a large package in which we consider ways of financing improved public transport, and a good start is to learn from the experiences of London and Stockholm, where congestion charging schemes are in place.
The money raised in London and Stockholm is earmarked for investment in public transport - a sensible strategy.
Politically it has worked, which is very important. Over 30 per cent of commuters who were previously car users now use public transport, continuing car users see benefits in improved travel times and, most importantly, the politicians have earned respect for taking such an initiative. All of this seems so obvious in many ways; yet will Sydney rise to the occasion?
Professor David Hensher is director of the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, in the Economics and Business Faculty, University of Sydney.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A congestion charge in the CBD would be a great idea. It would be better to do it sooner rather than later.
Here's another good article from the SMH. This one's a bit more about heavy rail in the North-West and light rail in the CBD.
Transport shambles
May 19, 2006
TRAFFIC chaos in the CBD will worsen if the State Government continues to rely on buses instead of expanding light rail or charging motorists to drive into the city, a report prepared for the Government warns.
The independent study finds extending light rail from Central to Circular Quay would be a more efficient and reliable way of relieving pressure on the city's public transport than adding buses or depending on trains.
If the Government did nothing to improve public transport, an extra 36 buses would have to travel along George Street in the morning peak period to cater for the increase in passengers expected by 2021, it says.
"Travel conditions for buses and other traffic is already poor in George Street, the main corridor which will experience increased demand for bus seats," the report says.
"An increase in the number of buses and/or the conversion to articulated buses is likely to add to traffic congestion and/or reduce bus running times."
The report, which finds there are "no insurmountable issues" to preclude extending light rail, has been kept secret by the Government since it was delivered in September 2004 by the transport consultants, Parsons Brinckerhoff.
Obtained by the Herald through freedom of information laws, it is one of the most recent in a series of reports commissioned by the Government since the mid-1990s into the feasibility of light rail in Sydney.
Its disclosure will fuel demands from transport experts, the City of Sydney Council and business and community leaders for a wider light rail network. The Opposition Leader, Peter Debnam, has promised to extend light rail if the Coalition wins next year's election.
It follows sustained criticism of the Government over its transport strategy. At a forum hosted by the Herald last month, it was warned the city would lose investment and residents to Melbourne and Brisbane if public transport was not improved.
This week, the City of Sydney Council increased the pressure by setting aside $13.5 million over four years to upgrade streets or contribute to infrastructure for a new light rail route.
But yesterday, the Transport Minister, John Watkins, said he was not convinced light rail was the best option. Potential problems included the additional journey time if passengers had to change modes of transport at Central or Circular Quay, for example from a bus to light rail.
There was also concern over the east-west traffic congestion that would be caused if a light rail route was given signal priority in the city streets, he said.
"I haven't closed the door to light rail in Sydney. But I have to say, the more I look at it … I just don't see it working," Mr Watkins told the Herald.
"If I have $1.5 billion to spend on public transport, where should I spend it? Should I spend it in the CBD to replace an existing form of public transport, or should I spend it somewhere else where it gets a bigger bang for the buck?"
The Parsons Brinckerhoff report analysed how a light rail system along George Street or Castlereagh Street would cater for increased passenger demand compared with conventional or articulated buses, an extended monorail system, increased train services or measures to limit private cars in the city, such as a congestion levy or increased parking charges.
Light rail beat or drew equal with its closest rival, articulated buses, on all criteria except for the initial infrastructure costs, which would be about $126 million for a new light rail route. Signal priority would be the greatest challenge facing the project, the report said.