On
9/2/2003, Toby Fiander posted:
Below is a
short article on the relative pollution caused by various modes of
transport. The tram appears to be a serious problem.
I wonder at some
of the assumptions made but at first blush it seems to reasonably sum
up the situation as I observe it.
************************************************************
ARTICLE FROM
IEAUST UPDATE SERVICE
A transport
study by researchers at Melbourne's RMIT University has found that in
the long term trams produce the highest amount of greenhouse gases, are
expensive to make and cause major traffic problems.
The research
compared greenhouse gas emissions from the public transport systems and
private cars in the Melbourne metropolitan area, based on the number of
passengers and length of trips. Trams were the highest emitter of CO2 per passenger
kilometre with 0.74kg, followed by cars (0.25kg), trains (0.23kg) and
buses (0.04kg).
Dr Ed Boyapati,
a senior lecturer in engineering who led the study, told ABC Science
Online the problem with trams was low occupancy. They also create a
flow-on effect when they stop to pick up and drop off passengers.
"Up to 40 cars can be backed up behind a stopped tram, adding
about 80% more greenhouse gas over its life cycle," Boyapati said.
"Trams are definitely a lost cause. Around the world, they are being
replaced by buses."
However, he said
the solution was to not abandon public transport in favour of cars, but
to increase the number of passengers using buses and trains.
[ends]
Stephen
Berry replied:
I
also found some of the assumtions suspect.
The
first objection would be to the assumtion that people who use
trams will automaticly tranfer to buses when trams are discontiued.
This was not the case in Sydney, Brisbane & Adelaide
where less than 50% of passengers made the change.
The
second objection would be the statement that trams cause more
traffic problems than buses. Burwood (where I live) is a major
bus terminus and rail inter-change with 9 bus routes and the
traffic chaos on a Saturday morning caused by buses blocking
one lane in each direction every 5-10 minutes to set down and pick
up passengers could hardly be any worse.
Lastly
is the assumtion that because the majority of our electricity
supply is provided by fossil fuels that this can and will cotinue to be
the case indefinitly.
Zero
Sum responded:
That
confirms what I have long though. There is no future in trains
either. The difference between trains and cars is hardly
significant.
The
advantage of cars and (to a certain extent) busses, is that they do not
carry so much excess infrastucture when travellling empty. Cars
don't travel empty at all. Moving 'empty' weigh costs.
Public
transport needs to be private in that it is on demand and provides
privacy and convience and does continually move excess infrastructure
around.
Very
light, computer controlled monorail that runs door to door is what is
called for. A computerised electric cab service.
Jim Edwards commented:
Most
of the trams around the world that were replaced by buses went long
before anyone knew about greenhouse gases. They went as a
result of intense lobbying by the petroleum and rubber industries who
stood to gain immense profits from their replacement by cars and
buses. Even in those places where they were retained competition
from buses and cars has ensured that they have few passengers.
If
the CO2 per passenger/kilometre were calculated on the basis of fully
loaded trams I imagine that they would have a much better rating.
I
wonder who funded this research?
Toby Fiander replied:
I
put up a short article which outlined findings of an RMIT study about
the greenhouse gases associated with various forms of public
transport. The tram looks crap in this study due to the cars
behind it having to wait.
Sydney
has no trams, but Melbourne does.
Jim
said of trams:
>
They went as a result of intense lobbying by the
> petroleum and rubber industries who stood to
> gain immense profits from their replacement by
> cars and buses.
That
may be, but my recollection of trams is that for the few years before
they were abandoned in Sydney there were serious accidents as
well. I recall talk of traffic problems that at the time although
I don't recall much detail, as the last tram ran in Sydney when I was
six years old. While the new tram to Lilyfield, or wherever it
goes, does not seem to suffer from the same problems, it does have the
advantage of having its own street is some crucial sections of the city.
The
Sydney Morning Herald made an interesting point on 25 February, 1961,
the day Sydney ran the last tram:
>
It will be hard to imagine Sydney without trams. Once
> it had the second largest tramway system (after London)
> in the world. For 80 years and more trams carried
> Sydney people to the races, to the beach, to the zoo,
> to the Show, the cricket and the football and to work.
> The trams themselves... were noisy, draughty and
> cumbrous, neither particularly attractive nor particularly
> comfortable. Yet they were homely and dependable and,
> in an age before the streets were being slowly strangled to
> death by private cars, reasonably punctual.
Jim
again:
> If the CO2 per passenger/kilometre were calculated on
> the basis of fully loaded trams I imagine that they would
> have a much better rating.
Yes,
although if you think of public transport as the study seems to as a
small part of the transport system, then the answer is always going to
look crook, because there will always be cars behind waiting while the
tram does it business.
Stephen
says it might be better if electricity was produced from sources that
do not emit CO2, which it probably would, although the cars stopped
behind a tram might need to run on hydrogen to make trams look good
unless the private vehicle becomes a small part of the transport
system. The alternative, re-design of cities in Australia, is
100year long a project, probably.
Most
of the greenhouse gas problem with electricity currently (oops) is that
the transmission makes it only about 25% efficient. Some increase
in efficiency would help a lot.
If
the efficiency of Martin Green's solar cells can be raised, as Peter
Macinnis was intimating, then the capital cost would plummet and the
transmission grid could be a smaller part of the electricity generation
system. That would then offer some interesting possibilities for
public transport as well as a lot of other things.
>
I wonder who funded this research
I
will try to find out. I think it might be worth trying to get a
copy of the report, too. Sydney's public transport is appalling
for the majority of its population, and never likely to be any better
unless some original thinking like Zero Sum's is applied.
In
the mean time, competing politicians speculatively deflect blame for
engineering matters at Waterfall from themselves and their ideas.
I will comment further when Mr McInerney has started his
hearings. I think there is more to say than any politicians have
let on so far.
Stephen Douglas
wrote:
On
Sunday 09 February 2003 04:23 pm, Toby Fiander wrote:
> I put up a short article which outlined findings of an RMIT study
about the
> greenhouse gases associated with various forms of public
transport. The
> tram looks crap in this study due to the cars behind it having to
wait.
> Sydney has no trams, but Melbourne does.
>
> Jim said of trams:
> > They went as a result
of intense lobbying by the
> > petroleum and rubber industries who stood to
> > gain immense profits from their replacement by
> > cars and buses.
>
> That may be, but my recollection of trams is that for the few
years before
> they were abandoned in Sydney there were serious accidents as
well. I
> recall talk of traffic problems that at the time although I don't
recall
> much detail, as the last tram ran in Sydney when I was six years
old.
> While the new tram to Lilyfield, or wherever it goes, does not
seem to
> suffer from the same problems, it does have the advantage of
having its own
> street is some crucial sections of the city.
> Jim again:
> > If the CO2 per
passenger/kilometre were calculated on
> > the basis of fully loaded trams I imagine that they
would
> > have a much better rating.
>
> Yes, although if you think of public transport as the study seems
to as a
> small part of the transport system, then the answer is always
going to look
> crook, because there will always be cars behind waiting while the
tram does
> it business.
>
> Stephen says it might be better if electricity was produced from
sources
> that do not emit CO2, which it probably would, although the cars
stopped
> behind a tram might need to run on hydrogen to make trams look
good unless
> the private vehicle becomes a small part of the transport
system. The
> alternative, re-design of cities in Australia, is 100year long a
project,
> probably.
>
Most of the greenhouse gas problem with electricity currently (oops) is
> that the transmission makes it only about 25% efficient.
Some increase in
> efficiency would help a lot.
>
> If the efficiency of Martin Green's solar cells can be raised, as
Peter
> Macinnis was intimating, then the capital cost would plummet and
the
> transmission grid could be a smaller part of the electricity
generation
> system. That would then offer some interesting possibilities
for public
> transport as well as a lot of other things.
Another
alternative would be to use some of the power at source to produce
liquid nitrogen to fuel public transport vehicles.Which would reduce
transmission loss and provide a cheap clean fuel.
Toby
Fiander added:
Stephen
said (referring to Singapore):
>
years ago their politicians bit the bullet and imposed
> restrictions on the ownership of private cars.
It
seems to be rather too late to do much about this in NSW. The
whole character of the Sydney would need to change, and I think that is
the 100year project, with no sign of it commencing. The first
thing that would need to happen would be to amalgamate all the local
government, or perhaps just remove their planning powers. This
would create an upheaval which probably
would make it impossible to proceed.
A
more likely alternative would be for fuel prices to increase due to
chronic problems in the Middle East following a rather klutzy entry
there by George Bush... perhaps we shall see a brave new Sydney as a
result of the relative attractiveness of public transport.
Donald Lang
posted:
I heard some of
this on the air on RN. Has anyone read far enough to answer the
question that bothered me from the start., I wonder.
Just what energy
costs are going into each mode of transport?
Starting with
the trams, I think I woujld like all the numbers to be in CO2 production per
passenger km. The obvious first cost is the CO2 production based on
the amount emitted by the power station. Has this been enhanced to
allow for the CO2 production in
getting the fuel to the station? Over and
above that has anyone
decided at what rate to depreciate the energy cost of the capital
construction involved. I have to admit that I don't know the initial
energy cost of the rail system for the tramways. All my questions may
refer to small components of energy costs and hence of greenhouse
emission.
As I try to
disentangle this stuff in my head it is beginning to sound like Marx,
but with value eventually tied back to CO2 production
instead of to
individual
worker hours. I would still be more comfortable if I knew the
assumptions about which components matter.
I think I will
just float this much tonight and come back when I am thinking more
clearly.
Anthony
Morton wrote:
Melburnians
have been tossing around these kinds of arguments about trams for
decades. Speaking with my engineer's hat on, I can say that this
latest effort, coming as it does with no supporting data, doesn't
actually contribute anything new to the debate.
On
the greenhouse issue, it's quite true that if you make sufficiently
pessimistic assumptions about patronage you can easily show that the
average tram passenger contributes more greenhouse emissions than the
average car driver. If you assume all electricity is generated
from Victorian brown coal and don't factor in the embodied energy of
petroleum manufacture, you find that trams have to be about four times
as energy-efficient as cars per passenger just to break even on
greenhouse emissions. Given that energy use per passenger is
inversely proportional to patronage, and a tram is obviously heavier
than a car, i t's not hard to make trams look bad if you assume they're
running around empty most of the time.
Unfortunately,
Boyapati's paper does not provide either model parameters or survey
results that would allow us to reconstruct the conclusions. Going
on my own back-of-the-envelope calculations and drawing on earlier
findings by other researchers, I believe the conclusions to be
exaggerated.
Most
of the paper, however, is devoted to rehashing old 1960s arguments for
replacing trams with buses and private cars. Chief among these is
that trams contribute to air pollution from cars by making cars wait
behind them. But if the road is congested anyway, then if the
tram were not present those same cars would be waiting behind other
cars instead. The argument can only be made to apply on
uncongested roads, where the volume of traffic is insignificant as a
contributor to air pollution. This leaves aside the fact that
each tram taken off the road would put enough additional cars on the
road to make congestion worse.
In
the end Major-General Risson (the old tramways director) is correct: in
the task of moving large numbers of people through a linear corridor,
trams will always be more efficient than either buses or private
cars. Melbourne still retains a distinct linear flavour in its
settlement patterns, but tram patronage is a great deal less than it
could be chiefly because of inadequate evening services and lack of
integration with other services. The solution is not to scrap
trams but to fix the systemic problems that keep people from using them.
and:
>
The advantage of cars and (to a certain extent) busses, is that they do
not
> carry so much excess infrastucture when travellling empty.
Cars don't
> travel empty at all. Moving 'empty' weigh costs.
Successful
public transport systems carry passengers, so that vehicles do not
travel around empty. The paradox is that if you provide only a
fraction of the services a successful system requires, you're not going
to attract sufficient people out of their cars and so a lot of your
vehicles will run around empty and you'll be worse off than if you
provided no public transport at all. This is the problem with
buses that run once an hour; few people will voluntarily use such a
service. When the buses or trams run every ten minutes, there are more
vehicles on the road but fewer of them are empty!
But
is it really true that cars never travel 'empty' at all? Even an
'empty' public transport vehicle has a driver on board, but the driver
quite properly isn't counted when tallying up the 'valuable' journeys.
But what happens when a parent drives a child from home to a friend's
place and returns straight home again? There is only one
'valuable' journey: the child going to the friend's place.
Effectively the car is empty on the trip home, and three person-trips
have been generated for the equivalent of one valuable journey!
If the child took public transport, those extra two trips could in
principle be avoided.
In
transport surveys, the fastest-growing trip purpose is the one
charmingly designated 'Serve passenger'. So this isn't just an
academic point: it has important consequences for the way we assess
transport policy.
>
Public transport needs to be private in that it is on demand and
provides
> privacy and convience and does continually move excess
infrastructure around.
> Very light, computer controlled monorail that runs door to door is
what is
> called for. A computerised electric cab service.
Hmmm.
So just how would this serve every possible combination of origins and
destinations in reasonable time, as compared to, say, a grid of
high-frequency conventional bus or tram routes feeding into a
conventional rail network with easy cross-platform interchange at
stations?
and:
>
I put up a short article which outlined findings of an RMIT study about
the
> greenhouse gases associated with various forms of public
transport. The
> tram looks crap in this study due to the cars behind it having to
wait.
I
would add that the typical picture on congested tram streets in
Melbourne is: line of stationary cars, stationary tram, line of
stationary cars. Occasionally the tram is stationary because it's
picking up or setting down passengers, but most of the time it's just
stuck in traffic. Now and then the first car behind the tram
passes and joins the end of the queue in front of the tram. It's
doubtful this has much of an effect on anyone's journey time.
This
is the typical picture in peak hour. Off peak, these roads are
mostly uncongested and from time to time a tram will have two or three
cars tailing it and having to stop whenever the tram does.
Opportunities usually exist to pass the tram at
intersections. But given it's off-peak the tram usually moves
fast enough that there's little point trying to pass, and there's
almost always the option of an alternative route free of trams for
those who'd rather not contend with them.
Zero Sum
answered:
On Mon, 10 Feb
2003 14:54, Anthony Morton wrote:
> Hmmm. So
just how would this serve every possible combination of
> origins and
destinations in reasonable time, as compared to, say, a
> grid of
high-frequency conventional bus or tram routes feeding into a
>
conventional rail network with easy cross-platform interchange at
> stations?
In many
ways. The next available empty vehicle is routed to your door.
During
peak times, the computer can optimise the carrying capacity of a vehicle by
picking/dropping others up/off.
Really
light-weight vehicles would run on electrical power with a top speed of maybe 80kph (but
it doesn't have to stop!) which would probably give much shorter transit
times than we have now. Quite possibly, the infrastructure could
pick up the majority of the power needed via solar cells (on
infrastructure and vehicle).
Transport (other
than people) doesn't have to change, but could be resticted in hours to
allow the 'streets' to be public places again. Use the roads for
loads and the super-light rail for people.
I don't think
the design would be the problem. Getting there from here is another issue.
and:
> The solution is
not to scrap trams
> but to fix
the systemic problems that keep people from using them.
So how are you
going to handle 120 mph trams?
They are
extending the Burwood tramline again... If it does ever get
out this far, I am NOT going to take a four hour tram ride to get to the
city.
As it is, in
peak hour it takes about an hour by car, but an hour and forty five minutes by
train. If it were not for the trams, it would take less than an hour by car.
I can't afford
the time that public transport takes...
Anthony Morton responded:
Interesting
idea if somewhat whimsical. I'm sceptical that you would achieve
higher energy efficiency with this system than with conventional
heavy rail and feeder bus/tram (given heavy rail is always more
efficient than light rail for passenger throughput above a basic
critical threshold). I'm also unsure about how you'd arrange
things so that vehicles never had to stop!
and:
>
So how are you going to handle 120 mph trams?
Who
said anything about running at 120mph? Even on uncongested
freeways cars only manage 100kph which is equivalent to about 55mph.
There is no urban public transport system anywhere in the world that
runs at speeds greater than this.
To
be an attractive alternative to car travel, trams only need to attain
an average speed comparable to the average speed of car travel, which
in Melbourne is 30kph on a good day.
>
They are extending the burwood tramline again...
> If it does ever get out this far, I am NOT going to take a four
hour tram
> ride to get to the city.
That's
not the intention. The tram is there mainly to cater for the 50%
of trips that are confined to the local area. This means trips
from Vermont South to K Mart in East Burwood, from Deakin Uni to Tally
Ho business park, from Hartwell to Camberwell Junction and so on.
If it were extended to Knox City as originally promised, it would allow
people from Vermont South or Wantirna to catch the tram to their
nearest major shopping centre as well.
The
conventional wisdom is that people don't want to go all the way to the
city any more. Though this is only partly true, those who do
would be better advised to catch a bus to Nunawading or Box Hill
station, or campaign for a minor rearrangement of stations on the
Alamein train line that would allow easy interchange with the tram and
shops at Hartwell.
>
As it is, in peak hour it takes about an hour by car, but an hour
and forty
> five minutes by train.
Sounds
like you have a typically lousy suburban bus connection. In
principle it should be possible to get to just about any point in the
Melbourne urban area from Flinders St station by public transport in
about an hour. It's not possible in the current circumstances,
where the bus people don't talk to the train people and no-one in the
bureaucracy takes the idea of attracting more passengers seriously.
>
If it were not for the trams, it would take less
> than an hour by car.
What
trams? From that part of the world you have a direct route into
the city via Canterbury Rd, Barkers Rd and Studley Park Rd that avoids
trams completely. Alternatively, you could go a couple of k's
south on Warrigal Rd and jump on the Monash Freeway.
>
I can't afford the time that public transport takes...
Nor
can most people. This message hasn't yet sunk into our planners'
tiny minds.
Ray
wrote:
There
must be doubt that a single tram compares well in greenhouse gas
emissions to 50 cars driven by 50 drivers without passengers.
How
serious, exactly, are people in regard to reduction in CO2
emission? Going by the number of cars with only the single person on
board, I suggest not very serious at all.
Peter Macinnis
posted:
>Just
what energy costs are going into each mode of transport?
A lot will
depend on how you cost the infrastructure and maintenance, and whether
you assess that as a carbon cost. Tram tracks need less
maintenance than train tracks, I suspect.
Of course, if
you factor in the stray asbestos fibres from cheap brake pads (I
believe there are still some around and on sale, but this may be
wrong), the NOx, ozone, particulates and such, that might change things
again.
A good
accountant once advisded me that we should not sign a contract that
offered profit-sharing. "I can make any profit into a loss if I need
to," he said. All accounting is like that -- so you need the
ground rules first.
Zero Sum answered:
On Mon, 10 Feb
2003 15:29, Anthony Morton wrote:
>
Interesting idea if somewhat whimsical. I'm sceptical that you
would
> achieve higher energy efficiency with this system than with
> conventional heavy rail and feeder bus/tram (given heavy rail is
always
> more efficient than light rail for passenger throughput above a
basic
> critical threshold).
While you are
quite correct in this, the reason that (I think) it would be more
efficient is that you have less 'empty' transport. Yes bigger
vehicles are more fuel efficient, but they are not 'efficient' for
peoples' needs and will not be well patronised (unless there is no
choice) thereby creating a large number of empty seats.
Additionally, large vehicles carry a big penalty when you try to
optimise the number of them. "Not enough" is never acceptable, so you
will wind up a hell of a lot of empty seats anyway.
>
I'm also unsure about how you'd arrange things so that vehicles never
> had to stop!
Miniature
cloverleafs everywhere.
It
isn't actually that whimsical if you think about it. It seems so
because it is designed to cater to peoples' whims. No 'public
transport' that doesn't cater to peoples whim will ever suceeed unless
it is mandatory.
and:
>
attain an average speed comparable to the average speed of car travel,
> which in Melbourne is 30kph on a good day.
Then
add in the half hour waiting for the damn transport to turn up, and
then it stops every three seconds.
Sorry,
it doesn't work.
And
if public transport is public transport it should serve the purpose of
public transport. ie. Get me from Belgrave to Williamstown
in a reasonable time when *I* want to go.
So,
Melbourne is quite big enough to require speedy public transport...
>
That's not the intention. The tram is there mainly to cater for
the
> 50% of trips that are confined to the local area. This means
trips
> from Vermont South to K Mart in East Burwood, from Deakin Uni to
Tally
> Ho business park, from Hartwell to Camberwell Junction and so
on. If
> it were extended to Knox City as originally promised, it would
allow
> people from Vermont South or Wantirna to catch the tram to their
> nearest major shopping centre as well.
Unfortunately,
the only purpose on your list not alreadyserved
(and I'm not sure about that) is Vermont South to Kmart. And that
will just take bussiness away from Knox. Hmmm... I wonder
if anyone is "following the money"?
>
The conventional wisdom is that people don't want to go all the way to
> the city any more. Though this is only partly true, those
who do would
> be better advised to catch a bus to Nunawading or Box Hill
station, or
> campaign for a minor rearrangement of stations on the Alamein train
> line that would allow easy interchange with the tram and shops at
> Hartwell.
Please
don't take this as hostile, but "Bullshit!". There is no
reasonable Public transport to the city from out here - not even trains
(and I live close to the station).
FWIW,
the proceedure that I am suposed to follow (according to the instructionsof
the railway people) is that I have to walk to go and buy a ticket
before I get on the train. Thereis a half hour lost before you
start...
>
Sounds like you have a typically lousy suburban bus connection. In
> principle it should be possible to get to just about any point in
the
> Melbourne urban area from Flinders St station by public transport
in
> about an hour. It's not possible in the current
circumstances, where
> the bus people don't talk to the train people and no-one in the
> bureaucracy takes the idea of attracting more passengers seriously.
Bus?
Bus? Where did I say anything about a bus?
In
principle? That's silly. At the best of times, using an
express, the train trip is 75 minutes.
Anyway,
I don't want to have to keep changing vehicles. I'd rather walk
(and I have walked it).
I've
been so sick of public transport that I have push biked the 55 km to
and from St. Kilda road... (where I worked).
>
What trams? From that part of the world you have a direct route
into
> the city via Canterbury Rd, Barkers Rd and Studley Park Rd that
avoids
> trams completely. Alternatively, you could go a couple of
k's south on
> Warrigal Rd and jump on the Monash Freeway.
Please
don't let me upset your geography but that would be a lunatic's route
and take much longer. High Street (whatever) runs from Albert
Park to Know (where it joins the Burwood Highway). Anybody coming
from the
East
does not want to enter Melbourne from the Nth. - Beleive me!
As
for the frigging Monash Freeway. Sorry but no such thing
exists. I think you mean the Monash Tollway that was stolen from
us. Sorry, I'm not paying for my own property. I do not,
will not, ever pay tolls. Taxes or Tolls, one or the other.
Not both. The day I am required to pay a toll, that is the day
politicians start... Whoops, don't want run afoul of
terrorism
laws...
> > I can't afford the time that
public transport takes...
>
> Nor can most people. This message hasn't yet sunk into our
planners'
> tiny minds.
Because
they are only thinking fuel efficiency not people efficiency.
Jann O'Connor
replied to Ray:
>
How serious, exactly, are people in regard to reduction in CO2 emission?
> Going by the number of cars with only the single person on board,
I suggest
> not very serious at all.
I work odd
hours. I left home at 6:40 this morning and came home at 3pm to
continue a writing job. Tomorrow I will get into the office at
about 10am and will leave the city to come home at 9.30pm.
Wednesday day will be a repeat of tomorrow and Thursday an early start
again and an earnest wish to leave at 4pm (you sometimes get
lucky). Friday is my day off in lieu of the extra work and
weekends I have worked since we came back after New Year.
Where can I find
1. Someone
who works ever changing hours (and days) like mine and who lives in the
Hills District and works in the city. And who doesn't mind
working 13 hour days on numerous occasions.
2. Public
transport. The buses to the city are about 3km away and they run
very infrequently from there. Also, much to my amazement, there are NO
return buses to that pick up point....
It costs me a
lot to go to work - $3.30 toll on the M2 (two ways). $3.00 one
way on the Harbour Bridge. $50 a week for parking (this is very
cheap - I rent from a friend who lives around the corner from my
office). So, $98 for tolls and parking per week (assuming I am only at
the office 5 days). Plus petrol. The round tip is 81km.
(Mine is not a company car - nor are any of my expenses
tax deductible.)
Would I like a
nice bus trip - yes of course, but it just doesn't work out here.
(There is a bus stop about 60 metres from our place - but the bus only
goes to the shops after 9am.)
Would I like to
reduce emissions - yes. Can I? Not by using the useless
public transport system.
Ray
replied:
Fair
enough Jann, and you are probably not an exception to the rule with an
irregular working roster.
However,
in many working circumstances still, there are those who work the same
shifts and car pooling is possible. The question is I suppose,
when one or other person lives further away from the workplace than
another, requiring one party to drive further than they would
ordinarily need to, then it is only they who are entitled to the extra
petrol money come their
turn.
We
tried car pooling at the ATO some years ago, and the problem of parties
having to drive out of their way was the greatest handicap, and the
primary cause for its discontinuation due to lack of sufficient
interest.
Personally,
because it is easier not to have to worry about parking or vehicle
security -and because I take the opportunity to read or study en route-
I use a train.
The
advantage of starting no earlier than 8:30am and finishing no later
than 6:00pm, as well as living walking distance from Ferntree Gully
station and needing only to get to Glenferrie (same line) means that I,
at least, do not have to drive. So I don't.
PS
...the fact that my car needs some money spent on it and has two flat
tyres also means I have no choice, but given choice, I think I would
still prefer train to car because it is the less expensive
option. (especially since I have only extended 3rd party property
insurance, and if the car were 'knocked off' that would be it until
what was left was found)
Anthony Morton
posted:
>
There must be doubt that a single tram compares well in greenhouse gas
> emissions to 50 cars driven by 50 drivers without passengers.
There is no
question that trams carrying 50 people are far better in environmental
performance than single-occupant cars. On a
rule-of-thumb
calculation the advantage is at least 5 to 1.
This argument
has only ever been about whether the severe underutilisation of
Melbourne's trams makes them as bad or worse than cars. They
always have the potential to do better than cars if people are
encouraged to use them.
>
How serious, exactly, are people in regard to reduction in CO2 emission?
> Going by the number of cars with only the single person on board,
I suggest
> not very serious at all.
Unfortunately,
most people won't do much to help the environment unless they're given
a minimum-effort way of doing so. The good news is that once
they're presented with a convenient alternative they will largely
embrace it. Thus recycling had a slow start, but really took off
once local councils started giving people separate bins for
recyclables. It wouldn't be exaggerating to suggest that
participation in recycling has gone from 1% to at least 50% of
households in a relatively short time.
There is the
potential for a similar shift to public transport, if we remove the
defects that make the system inconvenient. In a city like
Melbourne this requires a small amount of money and a moderate amount
of thought. The main defects are low service frequency, poor
connections, and dysfunctional bus route structures, which could
largely be fixed by being a little smarter in allocating the resources
that already exist.
and:
>
No 'public transport'
> that doesn't cater to peoples whim will ever suceeed unless it is
> mandatory.
You're half
right. It's overly pessimistic to suggest that people will only
use public transport if they're forced to. In Canadian cities for
example, vast numbers of people use public transport regularly by
choice. The difference between their public transport and ours is
simply that they run better services.
But you're quite
right to say that if public transport is to succeed it needs to cater
to people's 'whims' in the sense that it should take people where they
want to go at whatever time they wish to travel. This means
better evening services for a start: we don't all go to bed at 6:30 any
more. And the 'network effect' needs to be used to maximum
advantage to connect widespread origins and destinations with maximum
ease of transfer. Again, Canadian cities provide a useful
example, as do the inter-urban networks of Europe.
and:
>
We tried car pooling at the ATO some years ago, and the problem
of parties
> having to drive out of their way was the greatest handicap, and
the primary
> cause for its discontinuation due to lack of sufficient interest.
Indeed.
Carpooling is basically a fourth-rate alternative to providing decent
public transport. The mutual inconvenience involved dooms it to
failure.
And if you do
the sums, you find you need an unrealistically large number of people
to carpool in order to match the efficiency gains of even a modest
increase in public transport patronage.
Zero Sum answered:
On
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:47, Ray wrote:
> Tony M wrote on Wednesday,
February 12, 2003 11:37 AM
> >>There is the potential for a similar shift to public
transport, if we
> remove the defects that make the system inconvenient. In a
city like
> Melbourne this requires a small amount of money and a moderate
amount of
> thought. The main defects are low service frequency, poor
connections,
> and dysfunctional bus route structures, which could largely be
fixed by
> being a little smarter in allocating the resources that already
exist.
>
> Agreed.
I
don't. It would take a massive investment and complete
restructure. Anthony is thiking localy (wherever that locality
might be). There are parts of Melbourne that are not served by
public tranport in any realistic form and could not be seved without
new corridors.
And
you live in one, Ray.
Ray answered:
Zero Sum, I
certainly agree that out here, if you need to go anywhere on a Sunday
or after 6pm any day of the week, you're practically stranded. However,
if I want to get to Oakleigh from here, the bus passes my door. The
hourly intervals aren't so good.
I realise, that
further up the hill, things are much worse.
When doing an
evening course at RMIT, and living in Monbulk at the time, I had to
walk to Monbulk from Belgrave station. That was good exercise,
but I could have done without it.
Anthony
Morton responded:
>
I don't. It would take a massive investment and complete
restructure.
> Anthony is thiking localy (wherever that locality might be).
There are
> parts of melbourne that are not served by public tranport in
any relistc
> form and could not be seved without new corridors.
That's
true. The rail backbone of Melbourne doesn't extend into south
Knox or into the Doncaster-Templestowe region. So we'll need a
couple of new rail lines. Plans exist for a line along the
Wellington Road median from Huntingdale to Rowville, and for a line
along the Eastern Freeway median to Bulleen and then underground to
East Doncaster. I have a vested interest in the former as it
would also serve Monash University.
The
total cost of these lines has been estimated at around $700 million,
including the cost of tunnelling for the East Doncaster line. This is
hardly a 'massive' investment given that we're supposed now to be
spending $1800 million on a Mitcham-Frankston freeway.
and:
>
Then add in the half hour waiting for the damn transport to turn up, and
> then it stops every three seconds.
> Sorry, it doesn't work.
Melbourne's
public transport is bad but doesn't have
to be bad. We could run services every ten minutes throughout the
day, and people wouldn't be left waiting for half an hour. We
could give trams and buses real priority like in other cities, so
they're not caught out by traffic lights turning amber when they're
ready to leave a stop.
>
And if public transport is public transport it should serve the purpose
of
> public transport. ie. Get me from Belgrave to
Williamstown in a
> reasonable time when *I* want to go.
> So, Melbourne is quite big enough to require speedy public
transport...
Melbourne's
train system is crying out for more extensive express running, like in
Sydney. Run all the Belgrave trains express Richmond - Glenferrie
- Camberwell - Box Hill and all the Lilydale trains Richmond -
Glenferrie - Camberwell and Box Hill - Ringwood, all day long, and let
the Alamein trains pick up the stations between Camberwell and the
city. You don't need top speeds of 120kph to beat cars travelling
at 60kph. The existing urban speed of 80kph if
consistently
achieved will do the job.
>
Unfortunately, the only purpose on your list not _already_ served (and
I'm
> not sure about that) is Vermont South to Kmart. And that
will just take
> bussiness away from Knox. Hmmm... I wonder if anyone
is "following the money"?
The
$50 million tram extension to Knox was promised as a tokenistic gesture
to public transport when the $1800 million Mitcham-Frankston Freeway
was approved. It was always meant to be part of a package. But
it's of the nature of politicians to pick bits and pieces without
addressing the network as a whole.
>
Please don't take this as hostile, but "Bullshit!". There is _no_
> reasonable Public transport to the city from out here - not even
trains
> (and I live close to the station).
> FWIW, the proceedure that I am suposed to follow (according to the
> _instructions_ of the railway people) is that I have to walk to go
and buy
> a ticket before I get on the train. Thereis a half hour lost
before you start...
Yes
I know, the system sucks. No-one's doubting that. But the
attitude of the bureaucrats is that it doesn't matter that public
transport sucks if people have nice new freeways to drive on, and
bugger the cost.
>> What trams? From that
part of the world you have a direct route into
>> the city via Canterbury Rd, Barkers Rd and Studley Park Rd
that avoids
>> trams completely. Alternatively, you could go a couple
of k's south on
>> Warrigal Rd and jump on the Monash Freeway.
>>
> Please don't let me upset your geography but that would be a
lunatic's
> route and take much longer. High Street (whatever) runs from
Albert Park
> to Know (where it joins the Burwood Highway). Anybody coming
from the
> East does not want to enter Melbourne from the Nth. - Beleive me!
Well,
there are other alternatives. Half a mile south of High Street is
Dandenong Rd, where the trams run on reserved track and don't get in
the way of the cars. If trams are really the only thing stopping
you getting to the city faster, you couldn't object to a half-mile
detour to avoid them. Unless it's really just all the other cars
that are holding you up.
Zero Sum replied:
>
And the 'network effect' needs to be used to maximum
> advantage to connect widespread origins and destinations with
maximum
> ease of transfer.
No transfr
should be necessary and public transport is nouse unless it can get
me to my door with a weeks worth of groceries.
Okay,
personally, I (mostly) carry my supermarket shopping home (a couple of
kilometres) but realisticly, that would be a problem for many people.
People travel
more nowadays, keep less stocks of things and less things are delivered.
There are a
number of things a workable public transport system needs to do.
But primarily;
Eliminate the
need for a car. If the need remains then people will have cars
and they will be used when unecessary. Anyhow, unless you
eliminate the need for the car, you still have the energy cost of
producing and maintaining it. To eliminate the need for the car,
you have to have the capability for door to door delivery with minor
loads (groceries, the new TV...).
So a workable
public system must indded (as you agreed) cater to people's whims in
timing but also in routing (to the door, no transfers...).
>
Again, Canadian cities provide a useful example, as do the inter-urban
> networks of Europe.
Why copy an
already obsolete technology? Picking the 'best' of incredibly bad
systems will not provide us with a solution that will last.
