2013 Election Promises

 
  drwaddles In need of a breath mint

Location: Newcastle
Might as well put all the pie-in-the-sky stuff in a single thread to see which 'truth embellisher' you might prefer to vote for in next year's homecoming queen contest.

Labor promises new Perth rail network


Opposition leader Mark McGowan has announced plans to overhaul Perth's rail network and build a new Metronet system to reduce traffic congestion, should Labour win the state election in March.

Plans released on Sunday showed Labor's priorities for building new infrastructure included a northern and southern suburbs route and extension of the existing Clarkson and Armadale line.

Mr McGowan said they don't have a cost or a timeframe for the project but believe it will cost more than the development of the Mandurah Line and Thornlie spur line in 2007, and the extension to Clarkson in 2004, which during Labor's last two terms in office that came to an estimated $1.6 billion.

Mr McGowan said that the new rail system was needed due to a lack of planning and wrong priorities by the Liberal Government which has led to "a public transport network that can't meet the needs of our growing city".
"Perth is suffering a congestion crisis and our rail system is struggling to cope. Over the past eight years, the number of people boarding Perth trains has doubled."

"Poor planning by the Barnett Government has resulted in a public transport network that can't meet the needs of our growing city, making life harder for people living in Perth," Mr McGowan said.
Mr McGowan said Labor will unveil more detailed costing plans after the mid-year review.
Labor say key features of the new Metronet include:

1. New North Circle route
The Ellenbrook Line, with new stations at Walter Rd, Noranda, Bennett Springs, Whiteman and Ellenbrook
Railway line connecting the Joondalup Line (at Balcatta) to the Ellenbrook line (at Noranda), with new stations at Balcatta, Wanneroo Rd, Mirrabooka Ave and Alexander Drive.

2. New South Circle route
The Airport line, with new stations at Airport West, Perth Airport and Forrestfield
Railway line connecting Thornlie station to the Mandurah line, with new stations at Nicholson Rd and Ranford Rd

3. Extension of the Clarkson line
Extension to Yanchep, with new stations to be determined

4. Extension of the Armadale line
Extension to Byford, with a new station at Byford

5. New stations on the Mandurah line
New stations at Atwell and Karnup


No more rail lines in the centre of freeways please, we can do a lot better than that.

No rail line to Ellenbrook please, demand will never exceed the capacity of BRT. 

Airport - yeah OK, probably all we can hope for with that one. What you going to do about capacity between Claisebrook and Bayswater though?

Butler to Yanchep extension - yep, no brainer. 

Byford - not my highest priority but justified eventually.

Atwell station is already funded isn't it? (as Aubin Grove)

Karnup - sure.

Sponsored advertisement

  doggie015 Junior Train Controller

Location: On a bus going from esplanade busport to canning bridge so I can catch a train to Esplanade station
I do love the stuff that comes out during elections. I wish them luck if they have any plans to follow through with the promise. Putting rail lines through parts of the city that were never designed for train line use is not going to be easy...
  andrew1996 Train Controller

Location: Fremantle

...No more rail lines in the centre of freeways please, we can do a lot better than that...
"drwaddles"


Not picking a fight or anything, I am just curious. What is wrong with railways in the middle of freeways?

Also it would be nice to see the government be a little more enthusiastic with WA's regional railways, not just the suburban ones.
  doggie015 Junior Train Controller

Location: On a bus going from esplanade busport to canning bridge so I can catch a train to Esplanade station
...it would be nice to see the government be a little more enthusiastic with WA's regional railways, not just the suburban ones.
"andrew1996"
Agreed. Albany has been SCREAMING out for a passenger rail service for a while now!
  1213Driver Chief Commissioner

Location: Perth Western Australia

...No more rail lines in the centre of freeways please, we can do a lot better than that...
"drwaddles"


Not picking a fight or anything, I am just curious. What is wrong with railways in the middle of freeways?

Also it would be nice to see the government be a little more enthusiastic with WA's regional railways, not just the suburban ones.
"andrew1996"


There is nothing at all wrong with railways combined with freeways - it makes the best use of the available land. Not sure that we can do much better than that!
The motorists jammed up in their carparks just don't like seeing the trains go whizzing by !


"No rail line to Ellenbrook please, demand will never exceed the capacity of BRT" - the same could be said for Yanchep.

Have heard this said before with respect to Mandurah - The white elephant brigade go quiet after the subsequent openings and success.

The Ellenbrook extension is valid and with the current land sales continuing to expand Ellenbrook as well as land sales along the eastern side of Whiteman Park filling in large areas, there will be a significant demand for a rail service. This will also ease some of the issues with parking etc along the Midland line as people from this intended corridor are travelling to the midland line stations to get into the city. Of course it will then also ease the road congestion through these areas which due to a lack of proper long term planning, are served by congested single lane roads.
  drwaddles In need of a breath mint

Location: Newcastle

...No more rail lines in the centre of freeways please, we can do a lot better than that...
"drwaddles"


Not picking a fight or anything, I am just curious. What is wrong with railways in the middle of freeways?

Also it would be nice to see the government be a little more enthusiastic with WA's regional railways, not just the suburban ones.
"andrew1996"


There is nothing at all wrong with railways combined with freeways - it makes the best use of the available land. Not sure that we can do much better than that!
The motorists jammed up in their carparks just don't like seeing the trains go whizzing by !
"1213Driver"


Typical non-thinker response.

Andrew - I'll give you a dot point overview later when I get a chance. 

"No rail line to Ellenbrook please, demand will never exceed the capacity of BRT" - the same could be said for Yanchep.

Have heard this said before with respect to Mandurah - The white elephant brigade go quiet after the subsequent openings and success.
"1213Driver"


Perhaps you are correct about the far reaches of Yanchep, however the travel demand along this corridor is much more linear - and thus better suited to PT - than Ellenbrook. Furthermore, it is an extension of an existing line which has a corridor integrated with the future town centres - not a spur through wasteland to serve nothing but big-box-on-small-lot residential development. 

The Mandurah comparison is ridiculously invalid - the Mandurah Line serving the entire southern corridor and Ellenbrook serving...umm...Ellenbrook?

The Ellenbrook extension is valid and with the current land sales continuing to expand Ellenbrook as well as land sales along the eastern side of Whiteman Park filling in large areas, there will be a significant demand for a rail service. This will also ease some of the issues with parking etc along the Midland line as people from this intended corridor are travelling to the midland line stations to get into the city. Of course it will then also ease the road congestion through these areas which due to a lack of proper long term planning, are served by congested single lane roads.
"1213Driver"


Yeah, nah. The capacity of BRT will not be exceeded on this corridor. Park and ride really doesn't add much demand to mass transit services relative to the capacity.
  andrew1996 Train Controller

Location: Fremantle
...it would be nice to see the government be a little more enthusiastic with WA's regional railways, not just the suburban ones.
"andrew1996"
Agreed. Albany has been SCREAMING out for a passenger rail service for a while now!
"doggie015"


It wasn't really what I meant, it would be nice to see a passenger service to Albany, but what I would really like is to hear something like, "We will actually include maintenance and overhaul of regional railways in our annual budget and try to take more freight off the roads and on to the rail."
  drwaddles In need of a breath mint

Location: Newcastle
Agreed. Albany has been SCREAMING out for a passenger rail service for a while now!
"doggie015"


Well this is the thread for pie-in-the-sky stuff...
  1213Driver Chief Commissioner

Location: Perth Western Australia


The Mandurah comparison is ridiculously invalid - the Mandurah Line serving the entire southern corridor and Ellenbrook serving...umm...Ellenbrook?
"drwaddles"




To quote yourself - "Typical non-thinker response."

All and Sundry said that the Mandurah line would be a white elephant  and that you would not be able to get people out of their cars. and look at what happened - perhaps you have a short memory.
Your consideration of Ellenbrook is no different -  therefore not a ridiculous comparison at all given the context it was provided in .

Perhaps you should get out of your coastal strip safety zone and take a better look at Ellenbrook and its surrounding suburbs and proposed suburbs, including some of those that were originally sold on the promise of a railway service, and just like the wastelands that the Mandurah line travels through ( and there is a lot of that) , these areas  will also fill out (if not already) and become thriving communities just like those other areas.

Ellenbrook deserves a rail service no different to if a service was provided to Byford & Mundijong or the National Park at the end of the north south line.

Personally I don't care as I don't live there but that doesn't mean its not worthwhile.
Forward thinking is what is required - if planners of our city/state were not so backward we would still have rail serving areas previously served as well as extra lines to places now in need.

Good thing C Y O'Conner was a thinking man. 

"Typical non-thinker response."




  WAGR Chief Commissioner


...No more rail lines in the centre of freeways please, we can do a lot better than that...
"drwaddles"


Not picking a fight or anything, I am just curious. What is wrong with railways in the middle of freeways?

Also it would be nice to see the government be a little more enthusiastic with WA's regional railways, not just the suburban ones.
"andrew1996"


There is nothing at all wrong with railways combined with freeways - it makes the best use of the available land. Not sure that we can do much better than that!
The motorists jammed up in their carparks just don't like seeing the trains go whizzing by !
"1213Driver"


Typical non-thinker response.

Andrew - I'll give you a dot point overview later when I get a chance.

"No rail line to Ellenbrook please, demand will never exceed the capacity of BRT" - the same could be said for Yanchep.

Have heard this said before with respect to Mandurah - The white elephant brigade go quiet after the subsequent openings and success.
"1213Driver"


Perhaps you are correct about the far reaches of Yanchep, however the travel demand along this corridor is much more linear - and thus better suited to PT - than Ellenbrook. Furthermore, it is an extension of an existing line which has a corridor integrated with the future town centres - not a spur through wasteland to serve nothing but big-box-on-small-lot residential development.

The Mandurah comparison is ridiculously invalid - the Mandurah Line serving the entire southern corridor and Ellenbrook serving...umm...Ellenbrook?

The Ellenbrook extension is valid and with the current land sales continuing to expand Ellenbrook as well as land sales along the eastern side of Whiteman Park filling in large areas, there will be a significant demand for a rail service. This will also ease some of the issues with parking etc along the Midland line as people from this intended corridor are travelling to the midland line stations to get into the city. Of course it will then also ease the road congestion through these areas which due to a lack of proper long term planning, are served by congested single lane roads.
"1213Driver"


Yeah, nah. The capacity of BRT will not be exceeded on this corridor. Park and ride really doesn't add much demand to mass transit services relative to the capacity.
"drwaddles"
BRT is that "Buswell's Research Team"
  DBclass Chief Commissioner

Location: Western Australia

...No more rail lines in the centre of freeways please, we can do a lot better than that...
"drwaddles"


Not picking a fight or anything, I am just curious. What is wrong with railways in the middle of freeways?

Also it would be nice to see the government be a little more enthusiastic with WA's regional railways, not just the suburban ones.
"andrew1996"


There is nothing at all wrong with railways combined with freeways - it makes the best use of the available land. Not sure that we can do much better than that!
The motorists jammed up in their carparks just don't like seeing the trains go whizzing by !


"No rail line to Ellenbrook please, demand will never exceed the capacity of BRT" - the same could be said for Yanchep.

Have heard this said before with respect to Mandurah - The white elephant brigade go quiet after the subsequent openings and success.

The Ellenbrook extension is valid and with the current land sales continuing to expand Ellenbrook as well as land sales along the eastern side of Whiteman Park filling in large areas, there will be a significant demand for a rail service. This will also ease some of the issues with parking etc along the Midland line as people from this intended corridor are travelling to the midland line stations to get into the city. Of course it will then also ease the road congestion through these areas which due to a lack of proper long term planning, are served by congested single lane roads.
"1213Driver"



I have to say, i love seeing the trains in between the freeway. But, i agree, its not the best place. Put the train station, right in the middle of the houses. Where its relevant.
  drwaddles In need of a breath mint

Location: Newcastle

...No more rail lines in the centre of freeways please, we can do a lot better than that...
"drwaddles"


Not picking a fight or anything, I am just curious. What is wrong with railways in the middle of freeways?.
"andrew1996"


A rail line is a massive investment that has significant short, medium and long term implications for the growth, urban form and functioning of the city. When you're talking the expenditure of billions, you want to make sure that you get the most value for money and make sure the investment makes a contribution to the sustainable growth and efficient functioning of a city. Transport is inextricably linked to land use. 

There's some circumstances where it is a good idea to have the rail line down the middle of the freeway. These include:

- freight lines (no pax = no stations = no worries)
- high speed, long distance routes (no stations required, high speed alignment desired)
- the inner sections of commuter lines where the freeway forms part of the most direct route into the CBD and there's no alternative (e.g. Kwinana north of Murdoch, Mitchell south of Glendalough)

The main advantages of using the freeway are:
- existing corridor = minimal land resumption and minimal tunneling
- consolidated transport corridor = minimises severance of urban areas, particularly where there's no benefit
- cheaper to construct

However, freeway routes for metro and/or suburban services are not a good thing. Whilst cheaper in capital terms, they mean ongoing higher operational costs due to lower patronage.

Why lower patronage? Well your patronage comes from the stations. A station's catchment is a variable distance which includes, in order of magnitude:

- walk up (400m to 1.2km) and cycle up (1km to 3km) patronage
- feeder bus patronage
- park and ride patronage (limited by the number of parking spaces)

Now if you build the rail line in the middle of the freeway, your stations are also in the freeway. That means:

- your walking catchment is at least halved due to the freeway carriageways, ramps, noise buffers etc taking up the land adjacent to the station and pedestrian access being convoluted due to the expense of constructing pedestrian overpasses
- people are much less likely to walk to the station due to the extremely unpleasant environment created by the need to cross large areas of noisy, smelly wasteland to reach the station
- the stations don't have any activity at or near them, making them deserted wastelands at night with a strong perception of danger, particularly for women
- people are less likely to cycle for the same reasons
- there's no possibility of building mixed use TOD (Transit Oriented Development) or town centres on top of the station due to the presence of the freeway
- building beside the freeway creates a poor environment for residential living due to the noise and amenity issues, making it even more difficult to develop a town centre compared to somewhere like Subiaco
- freeways bypass all centres of note, so you are relying on building brand new town centres in the middle of nowhere. Look at the difficulty in establishing Cockburn Central for an example of the challenges of doing this.
- the need for large amounts of car parking due to the location away from any residences and the challenges of getting to the station by other modes means that even more land is wasted within the walking catchment of the station

To summarise, it essentially creates a railway line that people can only access by car or feeder bus, thereby adding a significant cost and time penalty to the operation and use of the line. Patronage is strongly peak orientated as there's no walk-up patronage and no destinations along the line. This means high costs to provide peak capacity that is unused outside of peaks and in the contra-peak direction.

The greater costs that are incurred in operation, the less money there is for things like frequency increases or future capital works. 

The existing lines down the freeway served their purpose - providing a commuter backbone at an affordable price for the north and south corridors. I would not like to see the same mistakes made on new lines though, particularly those which don't have any reason for using freeway corridors.

Similar comments apply to the use of the freight lines between Fremantle and the Airport area - what a ridiculous proposal if I've ever seen one, particularly the claims of creating new town centres around the new stations. Who would want to live on top of the goods lines with long, noisy trains all night, surrounded by trucks and sand? There's a reason these lines were built in the first place - to get freight trains out of the suburban train system and residential areas. Look at the complaints about Woodbridge triangle and freighters through Midland. 

hmm...maybe i should save this post somewhere to save re-typing the same thing again next time the question is asked Laughing
  thewaratahtrain Chief Train Controller

It's great to see politicians with an imagination,
Wanneroo yes it will need a rail service eventually
Ellenbrook yes the residents have been left short changed they've been screaming for a train
the extra services to Shenton Park yes the D pattern is quite a popular service
the only thing is timeline, cost and the extra rolling stock
don't forget the b series fleet is soon going quite large 68 of them and election pending could become 78 trains,
It would be good to see METRONET and stadium WA both go ahead, with two new rolling stock depots as part of the stadium WA project which will be needed in the future claisebrook's full with 48 trains.
  drwaddles In need of a breath mint

Location: Newcastle
The Mandurah comparison is ridiculously invalid - the Mandurah Line serving the entire southern corridor and Ellenbrook serving...umm...Ellenbrook?
"drwaddles"


To quote yourself - "Typical non-thinker response."

All and Sundry said that the Mandurah line would be a white elephant and that you would not be able to get people out of their cars. and look at what happened - perhaps you have a short memory.
Your consideration of Ellenbrook is no different - therefore not a ridiculous comparison at all given the context it was provided in .
"1213Driver"


Not a short memory at all. Just an excellent knowledge of the facts which make such a comparison ridiculous. The population of the Mandurah corridor, even at the construction stage, is huge. Ellenbrook and corridor would be perhaps 1/4 of that, at full development (still years away). 

How many people live in Ellenbrook and suburbs along the line?
How many of these people work/study/shop outside of their local area?
How many of these people work/study/shop in Midland or Perth City? (the only two major destinations served by the rail line and even Midland is stretching it a little bit)

Do the sums and you'll find the answer is very very small. Lots of people living there work in places like the Airport, Malaga, Wangara and as tradesmen who drive as part of their job. Not to mention the FIFO workers. None of these would be served by the rail line.

Personally I don't care as I don't live there but that doesn't mean its not worthwhile.
Forward thinking is what is required...
"1213Driver"


I don't live there either or have any interest in living there.

However I care because of that exact reason - forward thinking. I am not thinking about past promises which turned out to be garbage. I am thinking about what is best for the transport network now and into the future. Wasting huge amounts of money on building and operating a rail line that runs at a crippling loss for the rest of its life is not prudent forward planning - providing BRT to Ellenbrook and using the savings elsewhere on much more deserving, effective and patronage generating projects is prudent forward planning.

Good thing C Y O'Conner was a thinking man.
"1213Driver"


Hardly a good example - the bloke necked himself before his greatest achievement was finished. 
  1213Driver Chief Commissioner

Location: Perth Western Australia
I am thinking about what is best for the transport network now and into the future. Wasting huge amounts of money on building and operating a rail line that runs at a crippling loss for the rest of its life is not prudent forward planning
"drwaddles"



Yes but Public Transport generally does run at a loss, so if your concept was adhered to, then there would be no public transport at all!  Is that Forward thinking?

Rail Lines, Roads etc are never practical to build after a city or town has been built and finished - they need to be built before the location is overcrowded to enable the city to build and flourish.
All this was in the past done knowing it will be good for the future despite the cost in the present time.


Good thing C Y O'Conner was a thinking man.
"1213Driver"




Hardly a good example - the bloke necked himself before his greatest achievement was finished.
"drwaddles"


Rolling Eyes Shot himself actually!
 But he did so due to the pressures applied to him by the "white elephant brigade" who once again were shown to be wrong when his dream became a reality.
But rather than focus on his end, do the research and look at how much this man dreamt a little bigger and better than all others and provided great infrastructure to our state (including railways)  - a true forward thinker.

Little Colin and his brigade of misfits have none of O'Connor's  vision and I doubt that they will be getting the Vote from the North Eastern part of the city either.
  drwaddles In need of a breath mint

Location: Newcastle
I am thinking about what is best for the transport network now and into the future. Wasting huge amounts of money on building and operating a rail line that runs at a crippling loss for the rest of its life is not prudent forward planning
"drwaddles"



Yes but Public Transport generally does run at a loss, so if your concept was adhered to, then there would be no public transport at all! Is that Forward thinking?

Rail Lines, Roads etc are never practical to build after a city or town has been built and finished - they need to be built before the location is overcrowded to enable the city to build and flourish.
All this was in the past done knowing it will be good for the future despite the cost in the present time.
"1213Driver"


It seems we are in agreement on the rhetoric but in disagreement as to how it applies to Ellenbrook. I don't think there's any further we can go with this unless an Ellenbrook case can be presented with numbers. 
  Bahnfrend Station Master

Location: Perth, WA
I'm inclined to agree with the points Dr Waddles has been making in this thread.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that the Perth to Mandurah line would be a white elephant.  However, I understand that the main reason it has been so successful is that it carries an unexpectedly large amount of traffic between Perth and Cockburn Central, along an alignment that wasn't part of the original plan.

On the other hand, the original proposed route between these two stations, via Thornlie, probably would have been a dud, not only because of a lack of demand from people wanting to travel between Thornlie and Cockburn Central, but also because it would have made the Perth to Rockingham/Mandurah trip much slower.  But guess what - the opposition is has just anounced that a passenger service should now be provided along that dud stretch of line!  So what has the opposition been smoking?

I also understand that the line between Rockingham and Mandurah has not been all that well patronised.  Which is not surprising, really.

Now let's translate all of the above to the Ellenbrook area.

The opposition is proposing a new line that would enable people to travel by train between Perth and Ellenbrook.  But the "Perth to Cockburn Central" part of that trip is already there (it's called Perth to Bayswater or Midland), so the true proposal is to build another "Rockingham to Mandurah" section (ie Bayswater or Midland to Ellenbrook). That's right, it's another proposed dud, or, at least, another proposed 'bit of a disappointment'.

Much the same can then be said about Ellenbrook to Greenwood and Fremantle to Thornlie as I have said above about Thornlie to Cockburn Central.

Oh, and do you really think the genteel burghers of Fremantle are going to be enthusiastic about an electric train thundering past the roundhouse and Cicerellos every 15 minutes in each direction?

And then once we've eliminated all the duds, what's left?  Something akin to an emperor without clothes, I suspect.

Bahnfrend
  DBclass Chief Commissioner

Location: Western Australia
I am thinking about what is best for the transport network now and into the future. Wasting huge amounts of money on building and operating a rail line that runs at a crippling loss for the rest of its life is not prudent forward planning
"drwaddles"



Yes but Public Transport generally does run at a loss, so if your concept was adhered to, then there would be no public transport at all! Is that Forward thinking?

Rail Lines, Roads etc are never practical to build after a city or town has been built and finished - they need to be built before the location is overcrowded to enable the city to build and flourish.
All this was in the past done knowing it will be good for the future despite the cost in the present time.


Good thing C Y O'Conner was a thinking man.
"1213Driver"




Hardly a good example - the bloke necked himself before his greatest achievement was finished.
"drwaddles"


Rolling Eyes Shot himself actually!
But he did so due to the pressures applied to him by the "white elephant brigade" who once again were shown to be wrong when his dream became a reality.
But rather than focus on his end, do the research and look at how much this man dreamt a little bigger and better than all others and provided great infrastructure to our state (including railways) - a true forward thinker.

Little Colin and his brigade of misfits have none of O'Connor's vision and I doubt that they will be getting the Vote from the North Eastern part of the city either.
"1213Driver"


CY OConnor died from public pressure, because he had pride. Which was publicly ruined, by people (media etc) who should not have the power they have given the way they use it. Seems many of our polititions do not have pride. Otherwise they would shut their mouth a little more often, and own their stuff ups. They would probably do a better job if they did.

I will say though, i would much prefer the government waste money on a rail line making our system better, than educating boat people's kids. At leat they are having a crack at making things in this state better, which we cant knock them for that. Unlike some of the time, they promise this for next election rather then doing, now!
  witzendoz Junior Train Controller

Location: Fremantle
One thing I notice in todays thinking is that we won't built anything until there is demand, for example we won't build a railway as there are not enough people there to justify it.  If you look back on history people built railways and then the population sprung up around it as they now had a means of quick transport and job opportunities.  There was not much around the Perth to Fremantle line when it was built but the population filled in around it.

I am sure that if a railway was built to developing areas that the fact that transport links are there would increase the growth rate in the area and the rail would be justified. If we wait until the area had fully developed it is already too late for those people and they wait many years for anything to happen and sit in traffic jams in cars.
  drwaddles In need of a breath mint

Location: Newcastle
One thing I notice in todays thinking is that we won't built anything until there is demand, for example we won't build a railway as there are not enough people there to justify it. If you look back on history people built railways and then the population sprung up around it as they now had a means of quick transport and job opportunities.
"witzendoz"


That was a time where the alternative was horse and cart or shanks pony over rudimentary tracks - not cars, buses and trucks over sealed, flood-proof roads.

There was not much around the Perth to Fremantle line when it was built but the population filled in around it.
"witzendoz"


There was not much population there when it closed either. It survived only as a freight link from Armadale to Fremantle port - the land that the line served was an abject failure in terms of production and had it not been a through route it would have closed much earlier. 

Let's not start on revisionist history please...

I am sure that if a railway was built to developing areas that the fact that transport links are there would increase the growth rate in the area and the rail would be justified.


It does, sort of, work that way but you need to look at it from the city as a whole. The Ellenbrook corridor doesn't have the potential to ever exceed BRT capacity, even when fully developed. If you wanted to increase density - why would you choose the Ellenbrook corridor? How do you build a new town centre from scratch within spitting distance of Midland and Morley? It's hard enough to develop these centres into something adequate, let alone build new ones in the sand. 

Using your rhetoric above, the rail line should be built to established urban areas to increase the growth rate there. That way you take advantage of established centres, established travel demand and having the higher density closer to the CBD and the other centres is much more efficient. 

If we wait until the area had fully developed it is already too late for those people and they wait many years for anything to happen and sit in traffic jams in cars.

They can do that, or use the BRT. Up to them really. I have no time for the few whingers (who seem to overrepresented on this site) that refuse to use a bus at all cost.
  1213Driver Chief Commissioner

Location: Perth Western Australia


 
If we wait until the area had fully developed it is already too late for those people and they wait many years for anything to happen and sit in traffic jams in cars.


They can do that, or use the BRT. Up to them really. I have no time for the few whingers (who seem to overrepresented on this site) that refuse to use a bus at all cost.
"drwaddles"




The point witzendoz makes (above) is quite valid, as whilst the cars sit in the traffic - so to will your favored buses of the BRT sit in the traffic jam making the BRT a useless BST service.
With respect to the Ellenbrook area this is very much the case as the road network, as I have outlined previously, is unsuitable to the volume of traffic (including the buses) that use it.
This is why the people of the area want a train service

Your quite right though "it is up to them", but I think if you surveyed the community, you would find that most people who had to use public transport, would prefer to catch a train over a bus any day, being that a train is fast, direct and for the most part, much more reliable than a bus service.




  drwaddles In need of a breath mint

Location: Newcastle
The point witzendoz makes (above) is quite valid, as whilst the cars sit in the traffic - so to will your favored buses of the BRT sit in the traffic jam making the BRT a useless BST service.
"1213Driver"


I don't think you understand what BRT is. The BRT = Bus Rapid Transit, i.e. it has priority and/or its own right of way. Therefore, minimal interference with and by general traffic. It is, for all intents and purposes, the same as a train service just with lower capacity and a fvckload cheaper to construct and operate.

Your quite right though "it is up to them", but I think if you surveyed the community, you would find that most people who had to use public transport, would prefer to catch a train over a bus any day, being that a train is fast, direct and for the most part, much more reliable than a bus service.
"1213Driver"


I can't speak for Ellenbrook specifically but I doubt it would be any different to everywhere else that chooses to use high quality bus services, where they exist. 

Regardless of whether they would prefer a train (who wouldn't if cost or reality is no barrier?) the fact is that high quality bus services attract large numbers of choice patrons. In fact, case studies have shown that the typical 400m bus walking catchment spreads out to be much closer to the typical 800-1200m rail walking catchment when high quality services are provided - i.e. frequent, fast and direct. 
  1213Driver Chief Commissioner

Location: Perth Western Australia
The point witzendoz makes (above) is quite valid, as whilst the cars sit in the traffic - so to will your favored buses of the BRT sit in the traffic jam making the BRT a useless BST service.
"1213Driver"


I don't think you understand what BRT is. The BRT = Bus Rapid Transit, i.e. it has priority and/or its own right of way. Therefore, minimal interference with and by general traffic. It is, for all intents and purposes, the same as a train service just with lower capacity and a fvckload cheaper to construct and operate.

Your quite right though "it is up to them", but I think if you surveyed the community, you would find that most people who had to use public transport, would prefer to catch a train over a bus any day, being that a train is fast, direct and for the most part, much more reliable than a bus service.
"1213Driver"


I can't speak for Ellenbrook specifically but I doubt it would be any different to everywhere else that chooses to use high quality bus services, where they exist.

Regardless of whether they would prefer a train (who wouldn't if cost or reality is no barrier?) the fact is that high quality bus services attract large numbers of choice patrons. In fact, case studies have shown that the typical 400m bus walking catchment spreads out to be much closer to the typical 800-1200m rail walking catchment when high quality services are provided - i.e. frequent, fast and direct.
"drwaddles"




Ah well actually I do understand what BRT means and still the buses have to be able to access the "BRT" which is difficult in congested roads!
If a BRT was the most practical thing to do then we would have lots of them by now so "why do we not"?
It obviously worked soooooo well in South Australia sooooo many years ago when they built the "O-Bahn"  so why did it go no further and gee why are they finally investing in their trains. People still prefer trains over Buses.

This extract shows how good the Obahn was - I like the last 6 words personally!

"It was planned that bus routes serving the O-Bahn would be enhanced from Hackney Road along Grenfell and Currie streets and extended to West Terrace on the far side of the CBD along dedicated bus lanes. However, the Federal Government announced in January 2011, as part of its response to the 2010–2011 Queensland floods, that the extension would be cancelled "as a result of a significant scope reduction of the original project, resulting in only limited transport benefits".

Buses are only good for short distance feeder services to railway stations! 

Quite obviously many parts of the world are opting for BRTs apparently Rolling Eyes , though none are readily noticeable, but the continued installation and reintroduction of rail services be it Trams, light rail or heavy rail in cities around the world with overcrowded freeways and road systems is definitely a good indication that  BRTs are the way go - or so you say!
The fact is that high quality bus services attract nobody who wants to get anywhere fast.

"Hark" do you hear the people of Ellenbrook calling for better buses? Nooooooo

I hear "We want Trains" -  "We want Trains" -  "We want Trains".

I think you may be barking up the wrong tree on this forum looking for answers that appease your desired outcome of Buses over trains.
The "whingers"  you have little time for are only "whingers" to you as they don't agree with your point of view and naturally those who choose to post a comment, will be over-represented on this site as they have more of an interest in seeing trains implemented than buses - that is why they are here on Railpage, a rail based forum. 





  drwaddles In need of a breath mint

Location: Newcastle
well actually I do understand what BRT means
"1213Driver"


Obviously not, judging by your previous posts and the rest of this one.

and still the buses have to be able to access the "BRT" which is difficult in congested roads!
"1213Driver"


And the buses/cars still have to be able to access the rail stations which is difficult in congested roads. What's your point?

If a BRT was the most practical thing to do then we would have lots of them by now so "why do we not"?
"1213Driver"


We do. Not so much in Perth (yet) but look elsewhere in Australia.

It obviously worked soooooo well in South Australia sooooo many years ago when they tested the "O-Bahn" so why did it go no further and gee why are they finally investing in their trains. People still prefer trains over Buses.
"1213Driver"


O-Bahn is a while elephant technology. O-Bahn is BRT but BRT is not necessarily O-Bah. It's a white elephant because it requires specially designed and fitted buses to operate on it. Nobody is proposing that here or elsewhere.

This extract shows how good the Obahn was - I like the last 6 words personally!

"It was planned that bus routes serving the O-Bahn would be enhanced from Hackney Road along Grenfell and Currie streets and extended to West Terrace on the far side of the CBD along dedicated bus lanes. However, the Federal Government announced in January 2011, as part of its response to the 2010–2011 Queensland floods, that the extension would be cancelled "as a result of a significant scope reduction of the original project, resulting in only limited transport benefits".
"1213Driver"


Did you not read your own post? The reason it was cancelled is because the project was dumbed down so much by vested interest (e.g. the parkland NIMBYs) that it did not resemble BRT anymore. From memory it was a only few disconnected bits of bus lane in the end, minus the priority route linking the end of O-Bahn to the CBD. 

Buses are only good for short distance feeder services to railway stations!
"1213Driver"


Obviously not.

Quite obviously many parts of the world are opting for BRTs apparently:roll:, though none are readily noticeable, but the continued installation and reintroduction of rail services be it Trams, light rail or heavy rail in cities around the world with overcrowded freeways and road systems is definitely a good indication that BRTs are the way go - or so you say!
"1213Driver"


I'd love to see some examples where a brand new 20km long, greenfield rail line is being constructed to serve a low density corridor with no activity centres along it. 

The fact is that high quality bus services attract nobody who wants to get anywhere fast.
"1213Driver"


How do you explain the high levels of patronage on:

- Brisbane's SE Busway?
- Brisbane's northern busway?
- Brisbane's eastern busway?
- Sydney's M2 services from the City to the Hills District (and funnily enough some people are campaigning to keep the buses after the rail line opens as it will be quicker from certain suburbs - funny that...)
- Sydney's northern beaches services?
- Sydney's eastern suburbs (without the benefit of any BRT)?

"Hark" do you hear the people of Ellenbrook calling for better buses? Nooooooo
"1213Driver"


I can't actually hear Ellenbrook from my place, it's too far away.

I think you may be barking up the wrong tree on this forum looking for answers that appease your desired outcome of Buses over trains.
"1213Driver"


I'm here (in this thread) to discuss the issues objectively because it is something I enjoy thinking and talking about. I enjoy transport and land use planning. I'm not here for a popularity contest.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: pandem, vxII4u, witzendoz, wn514

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.