🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:52:42 +0200, David Richardson
<drichardson@web.de> wrote:

>These aren't the only criteria involved, and if they were then there
>wouldn't be any tram systems left- even in Europe. If you run trams that
>hold 217 people per unit, couples into sets then of course you run to a
>lower frequency than the equivalent buses, with degraded connection times
>and so on.

>On the other hand, the operating costs of the service are significantly
>reduced, and capcacity is correspondingly cheaper to provide- attaching an
>additional unit doesn't increase the staffing costs whereas adding a new
>bus or train on the fly requires a new driver or crew to be found.

Don't you in fact have to hire a driver per coupled set, plus a
conductor for every unit within the set (either that or secure the
platforms, and assuming we already have an underground network and
this would be a street network, would be a near impossibility)?


PC

I know it's just an election stunt, but I'm all for this!

David Bromage wrote:

> Light rail is set to replace buses in the city as competition grows
> over future access to the CBD's increasingly clogged streets. And it
> seems inevitable the light-rail network, five years old today, will
> win approval for a Circular Quay extension.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/30/1030508124322.html

Alex, Jill, Tim & Caroline Wardrop wrote:

> Just a cotton picking moment ..... is there some misguided assumption
> that the Sydney Buses network is not delivering?
>
> Any study of restoring tram services will have to address the issue
> whether travellers will actually be better off.  For example, the bus
> services along Allison Road and Anzac Parade run at sub-minute headways
> directly into and through the City during peak periods. Under what
> circumstances will restoration of tram services offer better services in
> terms of waiting time, interchange time, travel time and overall time
> than current bus services. If trams are to run on surface/on street in
> what way will they offer a better service than the existing buses?

These aren't the only criteria involved, and if they were then there
wouldn't be any tram systems left- even in Europe. If you run trams that
hold 217 people per unit, couples into sets then of course you run to a
lower frequency than the equivalent buses, with degraded connection times
and so on.

On the other hand, the operating costs of the service are significantly
reduced, and capcacity is correspondingly cheaper to provide- attaching an
additional unit doesn't increase the staffing costs whereas adding a new
bus or train on the fly requires a new driver or crew to be found.

>
> Has anybody endured Melbourne's trams mid City of late (or any time)?
> One of the most frustrating things I find about travelling in
> Melbourne's trams along Collins Street is HOW LONG IT TAKES.  I can make
> the the same complaint about George Street buses in Sydney. The reason
> is the same: stopping to pick up and set down passengers (don't forget
> THEM); and getting though traffic lights (don't anybody witter on about
> tram/bus priority because that is impossible unless traffic is
> substantially removed from city streets - Zurich is tram heaven because
> there is little traffic in city streets).

Any many cities where there are heavily used trams and raods in the center,
the trams become subways for the inner city (or least the longer distance
routes do). In Frankfurt it takes 5 minutes to go from one side of the CBD
to the other by an underground route irrespective of the time of day and
traffic conditions in the streets, and 15-20 by the trams in the streets.

Karlsruhe have a busy CBD network now, but they have done too many
extensions to the outer suburbs and neighbouring towns, meaning that trams
block the CBD without needing any help from cars. They are going to build a
new tram tunnel to solve this.

>
> Then there is another thing: how is travelling 217 persons to a tram (ie
> with a 30% chance of having a seat) going to be attractive to either
> someone with a 70% chance of having a peak period bus seat or someone
> with a 100% chance of a private vehicle seat?

I hate communiting by bus in the eastern suburbs not because the frequency
of the buses is so low, but because so many go past full that you often
have to wait 10 or 20 minutes to get on anything on the busier corridors.
You are forgetting to factor in what the chance is of getting on to any
particular service.

>
> I will be supportive and enthusiastic about the return of trams to
> Sydney when THEY MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION to public transport
> travel.  Currently all I see is people who are probably not regular
> public transport travellers (eg Prof Paxinos) telling people who ARE
> regular public transport travellers (possibly myself) to make their wet
> dreams come true.  Sydney is cursed by a facile mode-ridden debate (eg
> buses bad - trams goods: two legs bad - four legs good, etc) about
> public transport improvements rather than having a serious demand and
> supply driven debate.  What is the point of tranferring existing public
> transport travellers from one mode to another without any certain travel
> improvement when efforts should be directed at attracting serious
> numbers of NEW travellers to public transport (eg something like the
> probably unattainable target of lifting public transport use from less
> to 10% to 20% in metropolitan Brisbane).

I will be supportive of new transport proposals when people stop looking to
England and the US for models of providing transport, and stop looking at
Melbourne for a concept of how to run a tram system. There are far better
systems around the place. If Prof Paxinos is in a position to convince the
powers that be to look to some of these better systems for inspiration,
then good luck to him.

Cheers,

David


>
> Regards,
>
> Alex Wardrop
>
> Marco Spaccavento wrote:
>>
>> "David Bromage" <dbromage@omni.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:ca7386a3.0208301714.349d538a@posting.google.com...
>> > Light rail is set to replace buses in the city as competition grows
>> > over future access to the CBD's increasingly clogged streets. And it
>> > seems inevitable the light-rail network, five years old today, will
>> > win approval for a Circular Quay extension.
>>
>> So am I to assume the money saved from the government bus services that
>> will be cut out will be put towards public transport in areas that need
>> it?
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Marco Spaccavento
>> rbgemini@iprimus.com.au
>

"David Bromage" <dbromage@omni.com.au> wrote in message
news:ca7386a3.0208301714.349d538a@posting.google.com...
> Light rail is set to replace buses in the city as competition grows
> over future access to the CBD's increasingly clogged streets. And it
> seems inevitable the light-rail network, five years old today, will
> win approval for a Circular Quay extension.

So am I to assume the money saved from the government bus services that will
be cut out will be put towards public transport in areas that need it?


--
--
Marco Spaccavento
rbgemini@iprimus.com.au

"Marco Spaccavento" <rbgemini@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:akpqn2$1k9ngr$1@ID-132730.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "David Bromage" <dbromage@omni.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ca7386a3.0208301714.349d538a@posting.google.com...
> > Light rail is set to replace buses in the city as competition grows
> > over future access to the CBD's increasingly clogged streets. And it
> > seems inevitable the light-rail network, five years old today, will
> > win approval for a Circular Quay extension.
>
> So am I to assume the money saved from the government bus services that
will
> be cut out will be put towards public transport in areas that need it?

No, they'll find a way to give it to private enterprise to clog up the
streets with their slow trams.

Just a cotton picking moment ..... is there some misguided assumption
that the Sydney Buses network is not delivering?

Any study of restoring tram services will have to address the issue
whether travellers will actually be better off.  For example, the bus
services along Allison Road and Anzac Parade run at sub-minute headways
directly into and through the City during peak periods. Under what
circumstances will restoration of tram services offer better services in
terms of waiting time, interchange time, travel time and overall time
than current bus services. If trams are to run on surface/on street in
what way will they offer a better service than the existing buses?

Has anybody endured Melbourne's trams mid City of late (or any time)?
One of the most frustrating things I find about travelling in
Melbourne's trams along Collins Street is HOW LONG IT TAKES.  I can make
the the same complaint about George Street buses in Sydney. The reason
is the same: stopping to pick up and set down passengers (don't forget
THEM); and getting though traffic lights (don't anybody witter on about
tram/bus priority because that is impossible unless traffic is
substantially removed from city streets - Zurich is tram heaven because
there is little traffic in city streets).

Then there is another thing: how is travelling 217 persons to a tram (ie
with a 30% chance of having a seat) going to be attractive to either
someone with a 70% chance of having a peak period bus seat or someone
with a 100% chance of a private vehicle seat?

I will be supportive and enthusiastic about the return of trams to
Sydney when THEY MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION to public transport
travel.  Currently all I see is people who are probably not regular
public transport travellers (eg Prof Paxinos) telling people who ARE
regular public transport travellers (possibly myself) to make their wet
dreams come true.  Sydney is cursed by a facile mode-ridden debate (eg
buses bad - trams goods: two legs bad - four legs good, etc) about
public transport improvements rather than having a serious demand and
supply driven debate.  What is the point of tranferring existing public
transport travellers from one mode to another without any certain travel
improvement when efforts should be directed at attracting serious
numbers of NEW travellers to public transport (eg something like the
probably unattainable target of lifting public transport use from less
to 10% to 20% in metropolitan Brisbane).

Regards,

Alex Wardrop

Marco Spaccavento wrote:
>
> "David Bromage" <dbromage@omni.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ca7386a3.0208301714.349d538a@posting.google.com...
> > Light rail is set to replace buses in the city as competition grows
> > over future access to the CBD's increasingly clogged streets. And it
> > seems inevitable the light-rail network, five years old today, will
> > win approval for a Circular Quay extension.
>
> So am I to assume the money saved from the government bus services that will
> be cut out will be put towards public transport in areas that need it?
>
> --
> --
> Marco Spaccavento
> rbgemini@iprimus.com.au

mrpc@abbreviate.i.h.u.g.com.au (MrPC) wrote:

> plus a conductor for every unit within the set (either that or secure the
> platforms, and assuming we already have an underground network and
> this would be a street network, would be a near impossibility)?

No, you only need a ticket system that actually works.  Sydney has one
of those already.

Cheers,

Bill


Bill Bolton
Sydney, Australia

What are you mob, a mouth piece for that bunch of retailers in the mall that
whinged about the tram extension into the city previously and had it stopped
because they were afraid that might sell on pair less of their overpriced
crap jeans. The way shops go broke around that area the original whingers
are probably all out of business now. Looks like Scully woke up and is going
to provide a transport system that will please the majority and not just
pander to a bunch of retailers.  By the way who the hell writes your
messages, is it Alex, Jill, Tim or Caroline or do you all type at the same
time?  Sounds like that group sex movie from the sixties Ted Carol and Alice
or whatever.
Cheers

Rod Gayford

"Alex, Jill, Tim & Caroline Wardrop" <wardrop@ar.com.au> wrote in message
news:3D70B4B4.84A23A13@ar.com.au...
> Just a cotton picking moment ..... is there some misguided assumption
> that the Sydney Buses network is not delivering?
>
> Any study of restoring tram services will have to address the issue
> whether travellers will actually be better off.  For example, the bus
> services along Allison Road and Anzac Parade run at sub-minute headways
> directly into and through the City during peak periods. Under what
> circumstances will restoration of tram services offer better services in
> terms of waiting time, interchange time, travel time and overall time
> than current bus services. If trams are to run on surface/on street in
> what way will they offer a better service than the existing buses?
>
> Has anybody endured Melbourne's trams mid City of late (or any time)?
> One of the most frustrating things I find about travelling in
> Melbourne's trams along Collins Street is HOW LONG IT TAKES.  I can make
> the the same complaint about George Street buses in Sydney. The reason
> is the same: stopping to pick up and set down passengers (don't forget
> THEM); and getting though traffic lights (don't anybody witter on about
> tram/bus priority because that is impossible unless traffic is
> substantially removed from city streets - Zurich is tram heaven because
> there is little traffic in city streets).
>
> Then there is another thing: how is travelling 217 persons to a tram (ie
> with a 30% chance of having a seat) going to be attractive to either
> someone with a 70% chance of having a peak period bus seat or someone
> with a 100% chance of a private vehicle seat?
>
> I will be supportive and enthusiastic about the return of trams to
> Sydney when THEY MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION to public transport
> travel.  Currently all I see is people who are probably not regular
> public transport travellers (eg Prof Paxinos) telling people who ARE
> regular public transport travellers (possibly myself) to make their wet
> dreams come true.  Sydney is cursed by a facile mode-ridden debate (eg
> buses bad - trams goods: two legs bad - four legs good, etc) about
> public transport improvements rather than having a serious demand and
> supply driven debate.  What is the point of tranferring existing public
> transport travellers from one mode to another without any certain travel
> improvement when efforts should be directed at attracting serious
> numbers of NEW travellers to public transport (eg something like the
> probably unattainable target of lifting public transport use from less
> to 10% to 20% in metropolitan Brisbane).
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex Wardrop
>
> Marco Spaccavento wrote:
> >
> > "David Bromage" <dbromage@omni.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:ca7386a3.0208301714.349d538a@posting.google.com...
> > > Light rail is set to replace buses in the city as competition grows
> > > over future access to the CBD's increasingly clogged streets. And it
> > > seems inevitable the light-rail network, five years old today, will
> > > win approval for a Circular Quay extension.
> >
> > So am I to assume the money saved from the government bus services that
will
> > be cut out will be put towards public transport in areas that need it?
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Marco Spaccavento
> > rbgemini@iprimus.com.au

"Tezza" <tezza2002@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:akpt6a$1j7o$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> >
> > So am I to assume the money saved from the government bus services that
> will
> > be cut out will be put towards public transport in areas that need it?
>
> No, they'll find a way to give it to private enterprise to clog up the
> streets with their slow trams.

Sorry, for a minute there I forgot where I lived...


--
--
Marco Spaccavento
rbgemini@iprimus.com.au

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 22:51:19 GMT, Bill Bolton
<billbolton@computer.org> wrote:

>> plus a conductor for every unit within the set (either that or secure the
>> platforms, and assuming we already have an underground network and
>> this would be a street network, would be a near impossibility)?
>
>No, you only need a ticket system that actually works.  Sydney has one
>of those already.

*cough*  Connex Light Rail uses conductors...


PC

In article <3d7179b8.84421191@news.mel.ihug.com.au>, MrPC wrote:
>>No, you only need a ticket system that actually works.  Sydney has one
>>of those already.
>
> *cough*  Connex Light Rail uses conductors...

A private tramway with conductors?  We were jibbed!

--
Jeremy Lunn
Melbourne, Australia
Homepage: http://www.austux.net/
http://www.jabber.org/ - the next generation of Instant Messaging.

On 01 Sep 2002 06:43:26 GMT, Jeremy Lunn
<spammers-must-die@austux.net> wrote:

>>>No, you only need a ticket system that actually works.  Sydney has one
>>>of those already.
>>
>> *cough*  Connex Light Rail uses conductors...
>
>A private tramway with conductors?  We were jibbed!

They found the TVMs to be shite, and boarded them up with liveried
perspex panelling saying to buy your ticket on board...

Funny thing is the MLR TVMs were probably better quality than
Melbourne's  :-)


PC

> Has anybody endured Melbourne's trams mid City of late (or any time)?
> One of the most frustrating things I find about travelling in
> Melbourne's trams along Collins Street is HOW LONG IT TAKES.  I can make
> the the same complaint about George Street buses in Sydney. The reason
> is the same: stopping to pick up and set down passengers (don't forget
> THEM); and getting though traffic lights (don't anybody witter on about
> tram/bus priority because that is impossible unless traffic is
> substantially removed from city streets - Zurich is tram heaven because
> there is little traffic in city streets).

I don't necessarily disagree with the comments about buses being OK, but you
have the chicken and egg around the wrong way re Zurich. There is little
traffic in city streets largely because there is excellent public transport,
and restraint of inner city traffic - in part through absolute tram priority
with no exceptions.

Over 50% of tram passengers now are commuters. I think that says something.

"Alex, Jill, Tim & Caroline Wardrop" wrote:

> Just a cotton picking moment ..... is there some misguided assumption
> that the Sydney Buses network is not delivering?
>
> Any study of restoring tram services will have to address the issue
> whether travellers will actually be better off.  For example, the bus
> services along Allison Road and Anzac Parade run at sub-minute headways
> directly into and through the City during peak periods. Under what
> circumstances will restoration of tram services offer better services in
> terms of waiting time, interchange time, travel time and overall time
> than current bus services. If trams are to run on surface/on street in
> what way will they offer a better service than the existing buses?
>
> Has anybody endured Melbourne's trams mid City of late (or any time)?
> One of the most frustrating things I find about travelling in
> Melbourne's trams along Collins Street is HOW LONG IT TAKES.  I can make
> the the same complaint about George Street buses in Sydney. The reason
> is the same: stopping to pick up and set down passengers (don't forget
> THEM); and getting though traffic lights (don't anybody witter on about
> tram/bus priority because that is impossible unless traffic is
> substantially removed from city streets - Zurich is tram heaven because
> there is little traffic in city streets).
>
> Then there is another thing: how is travelling 217 persons to a tram (ie
> with a 30% chance of having a seat) going to be attractive to either
> someone with a 70% chance of having a peak period bus seat or someone
> with a 100% chance of a private vehicle seat?
>
> I will be supportive and enthusiastic about the return of trams to
> Sydney when THEY MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION to public transport
> travel.  Currently all I see is people who are probably not regular
> public transport travellers (eg Prof Paxinos) telling people who ARE
> regular public transport travellers (possibly myself) to make their wet
> dreams come true.  Sydney is cursed by a facile mode-ridden debate (eg
> buses bad - trams goods: two legs bad - four legs good, etc) about
> public transport improvements rather than having a serious demand and
> supply driven debate.  What is the point of tranferring existing public
> transport travellers from one mode to another without any certain travel
> improvement when efforts should be directed at attracting serious
> numbers of NEW travellers to public transport (eg something like the
> probably unattainable target of lifting public transport use from less
> to 10% to 20% in metropolitan Brisbane).
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex Wardrop
>
> Marco Spaccavento wrote:
> >
> > "David Bromage" <dbromage@omni.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:ca7386a3.0208301714.349d538a@posting.google.com...
> > > Light rail is set to replace buses in the city as competition grows
> > > over future access to the CBD's increasingly clogged streets. And it
> > > seems inevitable the light-rail network, five years old today, will
> > > win approval for a Circular Quay extension.
> >
> > So am I to assume the money saved from the government bus services that will
> > be cut out will be put towards public transport in areas that need it?
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Marco Spaccavento
> > rbgemini@iprimus.com.au

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:04:02 +1000, "Ted Gay" <tedgay@spam.bigpond.com>
wrote:

>> >> *cough*  Connex Light Rail uses conductors...
>> >
>> >A private tramway with conductors?  We were jibbed!
>>
>> They found the TVMs to be shite, and boarded them up with liveried
>> perspex panelling saying to buy your ticket on board...
>>
>> Funny thing is the MLR TVMs were probably better quality than
>> Melbourne's  :-)
>
>ROFLMAO!  They were a load of shit.

And you think I'm disputing that?  Melbourne's are still worse...


PC

"MrPC" <mrpc@abbreviate.i.h.u.g.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d71ec2b.113719760@news.mel.ihug.com.au...
> On 01 Sep 2002 06:43:26 GMT, Jeremy Lunn
> <spammers-must-die@austux.net> wrote:
>
> >>>No, you only need a ticket system that actually works.  Sydney has one
> >>>of those already.
> >>
> >> *cough*  Connex Light Rail uses conductors...
> >
> >A private tramway with conductors?  We were jibbed!
>
> They found the TVMs to be shite, and boarded them up with liveried
> perspex panelling saying to buy your ticket on board...
>
> Funny thing is the MLR TVMs were probably better quality than
> Melbourne's  :-)

ROFLMAO!  They were a load of shit.

Ted

>
>
> PC
>

--
David Bromage <dbromage@omni.com.au> wrote in message
news:ca7386a3.0208301714.349d538a@posting.google.com...
> Light rail is set to replace buses in the city as competition grows
> over future access to the CBD's increasingly clogged streets. And it
> seems inevitable the light-rail network, five years old today, will
> win approval for a Circular Quay extension.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/30/1030508124322.html

Considering the cost of installing tram tracks in streets, the danger to
pedestrians, the slow speed, the high ticket cost, and ugly overhead wires
which need to be installed the only reason why the government likes this
option is to try to decrease the capital cost of expanding government owned
public transport. The problem is we will be getting a second rate tram
system which will cost more to use compared to an expand city rail network.
If light rail is such a good option, get it off the streets and underground,
let the private company pay full price.

Terry Flynn

For HO scale track standards  go to
http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
also includes details of HO wagon weight  and locomotive tractive effort
estimates

"Marco Spaccavento" <rbgemini@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:akpqn2$1k9ngr$1@ID-132730.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "David Bromage" <dbromage@omni.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ca7386a3.0208301714.349d538a@posting.google.com...
> > Light rail is set to replace buses in the city as competition grows
> > over future access to the CBD's increasingly clogged streets. And it
> > seems inevitable the light-rail network, five years old today, will
> > win approval for a Circular Quay extension.
>
> So am I to assume the money saved from the government bus services that
will
> be cut out will be put towards public transport in areas that need it?
>
>

Remember...this is another step towards the rude "P" (rivatisatio*) word.
NSW Gov isn't going to fork out $$$ to run the light rail, but of course,
www.connexsydney.com.au would be operating it :-p

"Paul Dwerryhouse" <paul+usenet@dwerryhouse.com.au> wrote in message
news:akpvi1$m9t$1@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au...
> dbromage@omni.com.au (David Bromage) writes:
>
> >Light rail is set to replace buses in the city as competition grows
> >over future access to the CBD's increasingly clogged streets. And it
> >seems inevitable the light-rail network, five years old today, will
> >win approval for a Circular Quay extension.
>
> Are they going to let people use normal train tickets on these new
vehicles,
> or is it going to be another gift to a commercial body?
>

[...]

Well this seems even more of a pipe dream than integrated PT ticketing for
Sydney, so hopefully that will be implemented first and actually incorporate
the SLR.


-----
Stephen Mok :: Chancellor Martok
<usenet@filters.mail.smkcc.com>

// too stingy to use the SLR anyway

"Alex, Jill, Tim & Caroline Wardrop" <wardrop@ar.com.au> wrote in message
news:3D70B4B4.84A23A13@ar.com.au...
> Just a cotton picking moment ..... is there some misguided assumption
> that the Sydney Buses network is not delivering?

No misguided assumptions are needed to recognise that whilst Sydney or any
other city's buses may be fine for regular commuters who know how they work,
for visitors and casual users, bus networks will never deliver.

> Any study of restoring tram services will have to address the issue
> whether travellers will actually be better off.  For example, the bus
> services along Allison Road and Anzac Parade run at sub-minute headways
> directly into and through the City during peak periods. Under what
> circumstances will restoration of tram services offer better services in
> terms of waiting time, interchange time, travel time and overall time
> than current bus services. If trams are to run on surface/on street in
> what way will they offer a better service than the existing buses?

Even if buses are "technically" more efficient than trams, for the regular
familiar user, the ignorant traveller will avoid them like the plague, as
they cant be relied on to go where you want to go, especially if you are not
inclined to study for a Masters degree on the timetables. Trams, are so much
better for casual users. They go from "A" to "B" (courtesy of a track) often
regularly, without risking being taken on scenic tours of every back street
and suburb, unaware of the best place to alight for your destination and
ending up in some god-forsaken place with no idea how to get back again.

> Has anybody endured Melbourne's trams mid City of late (or any time)?
> One of the most frustrating things I find about travelling in
> Melbourne's trams along Collins Street is HOW LONG IT TAKES.

I have! But even despite being frustrated by slow progress in heavy traffic,
you can at least A] rely on getting a tram heading where you want to go and
B] getting there (eventually). If, late at night, with tram frequencies down
to zilch, would I then consider getting a bus? No way! Wouldn't have a clue
where to start and not interested. Rather pay for a cab.

> Then there is another thing: how is travelling 217 persons to a tram (ie
> with a 30% chance of having a seat) going to be attractive to either
> someone with a 70% chance of having a peak period bus seat or someone
> with a 100% chance of a private vehicle seat?

Having travelled extensively on both trams and (yes I do actually at times,
when given no other choice) buses all around Australia and recently N.E.
Canada & U.S.A., I find the higher turnover of passengers on a tram give you
more opportunity of claiming a seat than on a crowded bus. Standing on a
tram is far more comfortable and safer than swinging like a monkey standing
in a bus as it plays dodgem cars with traffic!

> I will be supportive and enthusiastic about the return of trams to
> Sydney when THEY MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION to public transport
> travel.

Well get enthusiastic. They do, in attracting the casual traveller and
visitor - the only way to GROW public transport usage, which buses, no
matter how modern. comfortable, frequent or whatever, can do. The only
losers to light rail are cars, who deserve to be inconvenienced for a
change, as they have had it all their own way for too long. The harder it is
to commute by car, the more attractive P.T. becomes, which then makes life
easier for those that cannot use P.T.

> Currently all I see is people who are probably not regular
> public transport travellers (eg Prof Paxinos)

That is the whole point! To grow P.T. it is the NON regular riders who are
needed!

> telling people who ARE
> regular public transport travellers (possibly myself)
What?
> to make their wet
> dreams come true.

Well consider this. An efficient well used L.R.V. system can increase the
attractiveness of public transport, thus both reduce road traffic (if
allowed with appropriate traffic calming measures) and increase investment
and amenity, so your bus will 1] get to where its going quicker and 2] not
be crowded with poor confused sods who don't know if they are on the right
bus or where to get off.

> Sydney is cursed by a facile mode-ridden debate (eg
> buses bad - trams goods: two legs bad - four legs good, etc)

Four legs? Eh?

> about
> public transport improvements rather than having a serious demand and
> supply driven debate.

How can one make a supply and demand determination without all available
supply options being available? The supply / demand of one product can
collapse if a "better" (impression, rather than fact, even)  product comes
along.

> What is the point of transferring existing public
> transport travellers from one mode to another without any certain travel
> improvement when efforts should be directed at attracting serious
> numbers of NEW travellers to public transport (eg something like the
> probably unattainable target of lifting public transport use from less
> to 10% to 20% in metropolitan Brisbane).

Well there you go. My argument exactly. Attracting serious numbers of NEW
travellers can be achieved with the widely proven "sparks" effect.
(Electrified suburban rail & light rail) Buses just are not and never will
be attractive to casual travellers. I would love to use more P.T. at home
(Hobart) but as good as Metro is (and it IS good, with new vehicles arriving
all the time) it is just too awkward to use for casual travellers. I have
found the same in every other capital city around Australia and in places
such as Auckland, Christchurch and Montreal. The only place I found buses to
be on a par with rail or light rail for ease of use was Ottawa, where the
city bus network is uniquely arranged on an extensive private road (busway)
network, arranged like a suburban rail or subway system. (eg. wait at a
"station" and go from "A" to "B" to the next station). Loved it. Best bus
experience I have ever had (and a nice contrast to the nightmare that was
Montreal)

Cheers,
Steve Z.

Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol, "Steve.Z."
<stephenzvillis@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>Even if buses are "technically" more efficient than trams, for the regular
>familiar user, the ignorant traveller will avoid them like the plague, as
>they cant be relied on to go where you want to go, especially if you are not
>inclined to study for a Masters degree on the timetables. Trams, are so much
>better for casual users. They go from "A" to "B" (courtesy of a track) often
>regularly, without risking being taken on scenic tours of every back street
>and suburb, unaware of the best place to alight for your destination and
>ending up in some god-forsaken place with no idea how to get back again.

You seem to be suggesting that we have a system which is more geared
to the irregular passenger than the regular passenger, in order to
encourage irregular usage. Won't this entail the regular users finding
alternate means of travel, thus making them irregular travellers?

=====

Dave
There are 10 types of people - those who understand binary and 
those who don't.