Cheers, Michael.

(Report comment)

The public transport website is here: http://www.octranspo.com/Main_MenuE.asp

Here in Canberra, I can’t even work out (from the Net) what time the next bus comes at my local stop. I generally walk over and read the hardcopy attached to the bus stop sign. It is fine from the interchanges, but in the burbs, impossible. I would use the buses more often if ACTION had such a system. I emailed the details to them while I was in Canada, but – no response, of course.

(Report comment)

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)

(Report comment)

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)

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

L

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

L

(Report comment)

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)

I did an empathy test today – apparently I am empathetic…

(Report comment)

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)

pick a brand, any brand…

or cabexpress. and they are from queanbeyan…

(Report comment)

I’ve also heard rumours of a bus service, but I could be mistaken …

(Sorry Peter, I couldn’t resist!)

L

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

L

(Report comment)

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)

(Report comment)

(Report comment)