Canberra New “Rapid Express Direct” Buses
Posted on April 28, 2009 by by valerirojas
Canberrans can expect a bus every 15 minutes during peak times and every 30 minutes during off-peak times on high demand weekday routes when the ACT Labor Government trials new rapid transit buses in October this year, Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said today.
This year’s Budget will provide $1 million for the new service, REDEX – Rapid Express Direct, to be trialled in 2009-10 between 6:30am and 7pm on weekdays during school terms.
This responsible investment by the ACT Labor Government will deliver more buses more frequently in peak demand periods,” Mr Stanhope said. “The rapid transit buses will create the capacity for an additional 300,000 passengers travelling to major employment hubs, town centres and through the Parliamentary Triangle.
“REDEX is expectedto commence in October 2009 to coincide with the start of the 4th school term. New ACTION buses that were funded in last year’s Budget, for nearly $50 million, will provide the additional bus capacity needed to deliver the services. A review of the trial and community feedback about the new services will inform the future of REDEX and its potential growth.
REDEX 1 will be a return service to Gungahlin, Dickson, City, Russell, Barton, Woden, Erindale and Tuggeranong. REDEX 2 will be a return service to Kippax, Belconnen, City, Russell, Barton, Woden, Erindale and Tuggeranong.
Buses will run every 15 minutes from 6:30am to 9:30am and 3:30pm to 6:30pm and every 30 minutes at all other times.
27 Comments to “Canberra New “Rapid Express Direct” Buses”
"Leave a Comment"
Typeboard uses automatic spam filters, sometimes comments are sent to moderation
Please read our Code of Conduct
Any improvement in public transport is good news. The major benefit I can see is that these routes are reasonable direct compared to the magical mystery tours of the current bus routes.
However, my prediction is that this trial is ultimately destined to be a failure as these so called “rapid transit buses”, running every 15 minutes will sit in the same peak time road traffic everyone else sits in all the way to the destination.
The only way you can achieve true inter-town “rapid transit” is to have grade separated (that means for the most part not running on the road) transport and the cheapest way to achieve that is to bite the bullet and implement light rail.
The government’s recent Cost Benefit Analysis (as submitted to Infrastructure Australia) clearly showed significant savings in roads and bus systems by implementing light rail (see page 57 – Summary of benefits and costs fo the light rail system – http://tinyurl.com/d8fdoz ).
Building dedicated bus-ways (i.e. roads dedicated to buses) are going to have a higher overall lifetime cost than implemention of light rail along those same routes.
Further more Light rail offers higher passenger capability in greater comfort – up to approximately 200 people per vehicle vs. a maximum of 70 passengers per stop/start traffic lurching bus.
(Report comment)
Why would busways be more expensive than light rail? After all, the buses already exist, so there’s a good portion of the expense out of the way before you even start looking at maintenance.
The busway in Brisbane is awesome. And it’s not stop/start while it’s in the busway. That’s kind of the point
I’m not sure that “high passenger capability” (I’m taking this to mean, “carries more people”) is really going to be a problem in a city 350,000 people small, especially when only a tiny fraction of them can be convinced to get on public transport at all.
L
(Report comment)
@loquacity:
You need to look at the TCO (total cost of ownership) of any system to do a proper comparison. Plucking an arbitrary item out at random in isolation and making the statement “look its cheaper” is an interesting tactic but in reality that doesn’t work.
With the example you gave: rolling stock (buses) are only a fraction of the total cost – what about the total life expectancy of the assets, ongoing maintenance costs, running costs (fuel), number of drivers required etc… In reality we need to add in all the other comparisons to get a real and meaningful figure. I’m sure you can see what I’m getting at.
I have no argument with how the bus way works in Brisbane. But as you correctly point out “it’s not stop/start while it’s in the busway.”.
I’m racking my brain here but the only significant stretch of dedicated bus way (actually just a dedicated road lane) I can think of here in Canberra runs down Adelaide Avenue to Yarra Glenn. For most of the rest of the ACT, buses are stuck in the traffic like any other vehicle with the occasional bus priority signal at traffic lights to give them a small head start. The million dollars for the trial probably wont go very far… I guess it is predominately set aside to give the buses a distinctive coat of paint, print new maps, new REDEX bus stop signage and some paid advertising. I know as fact that paltry amount of money would no got very far at all if it was utilized for painting new lines on roads and put up new road signage to create new dedicated bus lanes.
Finally to address your final comment questioning passenger capacity. This is the most critical aspect of an effective transit system, the ability to move passengers at the PEAK times.
Let me try and explain this by using an example of workers using the system, traveling in to the Civic/Barton area in the morning from either end of the one of the two lines.
Assumptions:
* Length of Peak period: 3 Hours
* Frequency of peak service: 15 minutes
* Maximum capacity of each bus: 70
Therefore in during the peak period (only), the total possible number of passengers availing themselves to the service would 840 passengers.
If we substitute a light rail vehicle capable of carrying 200 passengers at maximum capacity then the number for the total possible number would become 2400 passengers.
Obviously it is during the peak periods that you want to be able to move the greatest number of people efficiently. In off peak times you are not so worried about “packing the buses” and whilst tehre is no appreciable advantage in running costs, “midi” buses could probably be used in off peak times. I’m sure you will counter that you could run more buses, more frequently during the peak period, that true but you can also do the same with light rail vehicles which means that light rail will always be more efficient in the total passenger carrying capacity.
Finally the whole point of convincing people to use public transport is that they have to be able to see the advantages. It is irrelevant on what the underlying population size is.
End of rant
(Report comment)
The busway in adelaide is called the O-Bahn. here are some facts on it:
At 12 kilometres long, the Adelaide O-Bahn is the longest and fastest guided bus service in the world, travelling at speeds up to 100km/h.
More than 7 million passengers a year, including local, interstate and overseas visitors use the O-Bahn. The system is capable of moving 18,000 people an hour in each direction.
The busway consists of 5,800 sleepers, 5,600 pylons drilled to a depth of 3 metres, 4,200 track pieces, 25 bridges, 8 pedestrian overpasses and a 60 metre-long tunnel.
Compared with equivalent rail systems, the O-Bahn is almost 50 per cent cheaper to operate while providing a faster, more flexible service than many other transit systems.
At the time of building, the entire O-Bahn project, (including the bus fleet) cost $98 million.
we already have the buses, when can we have the O-Bahn, please?
Travelling from City to woden or belconnen is ok on the standard systems, but think of the benefits in travelling from gungahlin to woden, unencumbered by the GDE, or to civic, or tuggeranong. It could be a light rail alternative…
(Report comment)
forgot the link: http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/guides/obahn.html
(Report comment)
Hold on. I never said that light rail wouldn’t carry more passengers. What I said was that Canberra has a small population, and one that is not predisposed towards using public transport. I think, in this situation anyway, population size really does matter. So does population density. Canberra is a very spread-out city. It’s one of the things people like about it. By linking in all these outlying suburbs with small populations into an internal busway, there’s a lot of efficiencies to be gained. Light rail is great for really centralised cities, where the population lives in the inner suburbs, and works in the CBD. But here in Cnaberra, people live all over the place, and work in a number of geographically-distributed town centres. Canberra really is a completely different kettle of proverbials to any other Australian city.
You also are taking my comment about busways to apply to what we currently have in Canberra. I was referring to the Brisbane system, actually, and suggesting that a similar system could be implemented here for (possibly) much less cost and greater efficiency than a light rail system.
I can see your argument, and completely agree with the need for cost/benefit models, but I think you’re pushing a light rail agenda, and not willing to see the pitfalls of it, or consider alternatives.
L
(Report comment)
@Loquacity:
I just want to pick up on a few items from your response:
* Population is not the most determinant factor in the provision of a light rail service. There are cities with much lower populations than Canberra that have successful light rail.
* Lack of population density in Canberra is yet another furphy that keeps getting repeated without basis. Advocates of light rail (and the recent ACT government studies confirm this) recommend that the inter-town backbone transport routes be serviced with Light Rail. Through the use of an INTEGRATED TRANSPORT NETWORK, buses can feed the light rail in a hub and spoke arrangement. Each of the town centres today offer high retail, employment and increasing residential density. Over time these backbone transport corridors will become high density residential as the utility of FIXED (= certainty) service is leveraged. There are plenty of examples in the US where as you move out from the CBD and population density drops off sharply, in some cases to less than what we have in the ACT, but it hasnt stopped those networks from being highly sucessful.
* Yes I am strong advocate of light rail and always more than happy to engage in serious debate with individuals and groups advocating alternative options. Bring it on
Free free to be further enlightened by visiting the ACT Light Rail web page http://www.actlightrail.info/ or alternatively come along to the next meeting of the ACT Light Rail which will be held Thursday 7th May 2009 (18:30-19:30) at the Belconnen Community Centre, Swanson Court, Belconnen.
(Report comment)
Jonathon, what about a compromise, as i have shown above with the usage of a bus rail transport system? the hub and spoke arrangement would be applicable to an O-Bahn arrangement, the ability to travel on standard roads would overcome any maintenance issues on the tracks, and thus eliminate any delays or down time due to the required works. The tourism factor would allow for the system to be operational at all times, without running empty carriages.
(Report comment)
Light rail proponents never answer the fundamental question: if Canberra cannot sustain a bus system and make it work, why would a rail system be any different?
Especially given that a bus system has, by its nature, much more flexibility?
It’s a pipedream for a bunch of train-spotters. What’s so pathetic is that they get sucked in every few years when politicians (who have no intention of ever actually *doing* anything about it) wave their little “light rail” banner and get all the model-railway nerds excited.”
(Report comment)
@Peter:
The backbone network requires high passenger capability … a guided bus way doesn’t solve that fundamental issue. See my comments earlier.
If guided busways were actually such a good proposition then I’m sure we would have seen much greater (international) adoption of the technology. Checking wikipedia only shows a handful of examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus
(Report comment)
Jonathan, could you please repeat that in English? I lost interest and drifted off.
L
(Report comment)
I think that the reason that we haven’t seen a high adoption is the already existing infrastructure in most cities. canberra has a bus service or a bus service.
(Report comment)
And, if you’re really desperate, they have a bus service!
I’ve also heard rumours of a bus service, but I could be mistaken …
(Sorry Peter, I couldn’t resist!)
L
(Report comment)
don’t you mean a taxi service?
pick a brand, any brand…
or cabexpress. and they are from queanbeyan…
(Report comment)
Peter, go back and read your second-to-last comment again (the one you made at 2:18). And then read my comment again (at 2:24).
And then laugh.
It’s funny.
Or at least groan-worthy (which is about as funny as I get, according to most people who know me, anyway).
L
(Report comment)
the humor module is fine, thank-you. the idea that sprang into my head whilst chortling was the taxi stuff.
I did an empathy test today – apparently I am empathetic…
(Report comment)
Empathetic huh? Better than being pathetic, I guess.
Oh dear, I think it’s time to give my humour module a bit of a sleep. The jokes have been getting worse all night, and they never were all that great to start with.
L
(Report comment)
Valeri – I’ve just been reading back through the commentary on this thread, and one of them seems to have been severely modified. Has the comment been moderated or do we have light rail spies hacked in to the system?
L
(Report comment)
Will 1 million dollars be enough to have a better action service? should the government put more money into it?
(Report comment)
Considering the country is in recession (and is likely to be for some time yet), I can think of better things to pour money into right now.
L
(Report comment)
Want public transport to work in Canberra? Triple the cost of parking in the CBD. If it doesn’t work, double it again. Then halve the parking spaces in the parliamentary triangle.
Commuters drive because it’s the easy option. Make it less easy, and they’ll find other methods.
I note though that our light rail supporters still haven’t addressed the question that highlights the weak spot in their argument.
(Report comment)
supporters? is there someone else other than jon?
(Report comment)
@Dermott:
Just face it, given your obvious anti-light rail stance, whatever answer is given you’ll find problems with.
However, despite your assertions that Light Rail advocates have always been willing to provide an answer to your so called “fundamental question” here is a response in generic terms:
Apart from the total cost over the life of the system advantage, light rail does have the power to attract more passengers than buses.
Most noticeably in the United States: since the 1970’s there was a significant decline in individuals utilizing public transport. A key factor in reversing the trend has been the expansion and re-deployment of light rail transit services. Light Rail patronage has climbed at a rate several times that for buses, which has comparatively remained stagnant. In the United States between 1977 and 1997, while bus ridership rose 5%, “heavy” rail patronage (mainly on subways/metro systems) increased 13%, and light rail patronage escalated at 155%.
The main reason for this, as I have outlined in a comment above is that is that that buses will tend to get tied up in the increasingly congested road traffic, and thus have a hard time keeping their passengers. Also, compared to light rail, bus transit is less reliable and comfortable. Bus routes are less visible and understandable. Consistently, on the international stage, when transit operators have converted existing rail transit lines into bus routes, the vast majority of the riders have just abandoned the service – the bus service is typically left with a small fraction of the original patronage.
Light rail supporters consistently argue that, for fundamentally equivalent types of transit service, light rail will attract more riders. The public tends to be drawn by the attractive specific attributes of light rail service – the permanence of the alignment, vehicle comfort, etc. – in a way and to a degree not exhibited in the case of similar bus operations. The result is substantially higher Light Rail patronage for a given investment in higher-quality transit – be it bus or rail.
In a 1999 paper: E.L. Tennyson, “North American Bus way Experience” – Evidence was provided through a 1991 research project in Philadelphia, which examined basically similar services of the South-eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority’s suburban trolley lines and the Ardmore bus way – relatively fast bus service on a dedicated bus-only roadway. The history of the Ardmore bus way itself gives confirms the case for the greater attractiveness of light rail, since, when the route was converted from trolleys to buses (i.e., Light Rail Transit to Bus Rapid Transit) in 1967, patronage dropped 15%. This was despite the fact that older “streetcar” (trams) were replaced by then highly modern, air conditioned buses on a newly paved private bus way.
Finally don’t underestimate the image perception factor that plays a large role in the choice of transport modes. For some people buses are unfortunately perceived as the transport option for individuals from lower socio-economic levels. In reality whatever the public transit option, those without choice will continue to use what is available, but for whatever reason Light Rail is continually perceived to be a high class of public transport and thus more attractive.
(Report comment)
JR, despite your assertion, I am in fact a supporter of light rail and public transport. But the reality of Canberra is that one has been poorly implemented, and the other shows no sign of being done at all.
I believe that, if the supporters cannot justify to myself – a supporter – why they should be given a billion dollars for a pipedream – then their ability to convince Treasury, and the wider public is destined to fail.
(Report comment)
@Dermott,
Then would it appears that you agree with points 6 & 7 of the ACT Light Rail guiding principles below (emphasis added).
The most recently PWC document (as submitted to Infrastructure Australia) was based on the Canberra Public Transport Futures Feasibility Study – Final Report: Economic and Financial Implications of Transport Options (Prepared for ACTPLA by Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd in January 2004).
The KBR study was based on studies and information dating back to 2000 and earlier (rail costing in that document was based on “heavy rail” and several component items such as the communications network – clearly inflated compared with actual outcomes that ACTION and ACTEW achieved undertaking a similar communications project at the time).
Because the PWC document was based solely on the KBR report there are also some glaring omissions including lack of any reference to catering for the new Molonglo development (a prime candidate for an integrated transport solution from the outset), and the significant increases in employment at the Airport.
Even with what ACT Light Rail believe to be inflated figures in the PWC/KBR documents, and failure to include new imperatives for public transport solutions in the territory, the PWC submission has clearly shown a significant positive outcome in the cost benefit analysis.
——
The following are the guiding principles of ACT Light Rail:
1. We believe that Light Rail is the best form of mass transit public transport for the Capital Region.
2. We believe that integration of Light Rail with the ACTION bus network and other bus systems is the most efficient, attractive and sustainable public transport system for Capital Region residents.
3. We believe that the Capital Region already has the population to support a viable Light Rail network.
4. We believe that the establishment of Light Rail is essentially a political challenge for Canberra and that detailed planning, technical, financial and operational issues can be dealt with once the political issues around Light Rail are resolved.
5. We believe that we should work collaboratively with other public transport stakeholders and promote wide community and business involvement, contribution and debate in support of Light Rail.
6. We believe that there should be a detailed, unbiased and realistic feasibility study into the establishment of Light Rail in the Capital Region.
7. We believe that one or both of the ACT or Federal governments should fund a detailed feasibility study to establish viable routes for a Capital Region Light Rail network including proper triple bottom line assessment.
8. We believe that a proof of concept Light Rail line should be built before construction of a wider network, which links employment areas and town centres.
9. We believe that consideration should be given to leveraging existing infrastructure and development opportunities to assist in this process.
(Report comment)