News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Buses

[[Shuz]]

Interesting figures for buses there.

For comparison: Adelaide, Population 1.25million, 50 million passenger boardings per year (excluding suburban trains).
Prague, Population 1.25 million, 1 Billion passenger boardings per year (excluding suburban trains).

That's NOT a criticism in any way. Merely an indication of the potential traffic that could be carried by PT if the system were there to be used.

Greater Adelaide Population: 1,304,631
Adelaide Urban Area - 3,257.7 km2 (1,257.8 sq mi)

Greater Prague Population: 2,156,097
Prague Urban Area - 496 km2 (192 sq mi)

Urban sprawl. That's why.

[[Shuz]]

I get that this is a discussion on buses - but if you just consider this food for thought - The Adelaide - Glenelg tramline attracts 3.1m boardings a year and the entire Adelaide Metro heavy rail network attracts 9.5m boardings a year (based on 5% and 15% respectively of total network wide 63,190,821 boardings in the 2012/2013 FY according to DPTI)

If the O-Bahn corridor was converted to heavy rail - that would attract roughly 5.75m boardings a year, by consuming parts of the M44 (2.25m), C1 (1.1m), 174 (0.6m), 506 (0.6m), 502 (0.4m), 541X (0.4m), 500 (0.4m) bus routes along the O-Bahn (based on rough interpretation of the graph within the news article about busiest routes).

And also, I believe that there is a case for establishing tramlines along the Parade to Magill and Henley Beach Road as an East-West route, replacing part of the B10 (1.25m), H20 (1.0m), H22 (0.5m) and H30 (1.25m) bus routes - which collectively attract around 4.0m boardings a year and also via Prospect Road and Goodwood Roads as a North-South route, replacing part of the 222 (0.8m), G10 (1.7m) bus routes - collectively attracting 2.5m boardings a year.

I'm sure there's some academic literature around that supports the theory that if you build light and or heavy rail systems to replace bus routes, you get a sort of 'induced demand' effect - in that the attractiveness of rail, attracts more people to use the service, even if the service is equal to the frequency provided by the prior bus service. (Someone help back me up on this one! )

Not to mention these three examples above are key corridors which have already been earmarked for medium density infill developments as per the Inner City Metropolitan Rim Structure Plan - along the Parade, Goodwood Road, Prospect Road, Henley Beach Roads. TODs are earmarked (to varying degrees of density) in the 30 Year Plan at the Walkerville, Klemzig, Paradise, Tea Tree Plaza and Golden Grove Interchanges along the O-Bahn corridor.

I really don't get why we aren't investing in heavy and light rail moreso, given that there is enough supporting evidence in favour which would sustain the viability of such large-scale capital projects.

[Waewick]

I get that this is a discussion on buses - but if you just consider this food for thought - The Adelaide - Glenelg tramline attracts 3.1m boardings a year and the entire Adelaide Metro heavy rail network attracts 9.5m boardings a year (based on 5% of total network wide 63,190,821 boardings in the 2012/2013 FY according to DPTI)

If the O-Bahn corridor was converted to heavy rail - that would attract roughly 5.75m boardings a year, by consuming parts of the M44 (2.25m), C1 (1.1m), 174 (0.6m), 506 (0.6m), 502 (0.4m), 541X (0.4m), 500 (0.4m) bus routes along the O-Bahn (based on rough interpretation of the graph within the news article about busiest routes).

And also, I believe that there is a case for establishing tramlines and the Parade to Magill and Henley Beach Road as an East-West route, replacing part of the B10 (1.25m), H20 (1.0m), H22 (0.5m) and H30 (1.25m) bus routes - which collectively attract around 4.0m boardings a year.

Via Prospect Road and Goodwood Roads as a North-South route, replacing part of the 222 (0.8m), G10 (1.7m) bus routes - collectively attracting 2.5m boardings a year.

I'm sure there's some academic literature around that supports the theory that if you build light and or heavy rail systems to replace bus routes, you get a sort of 'induced demand' effect - in that the attractiveness of rail, attracts more people to use the service, even if the service is equal to the frequency provided by the prior bus service. (Someone help back me up on this one! )

Not to mention these three examples above are key corridors which have already been earmarked for medium density infill developments as per the Inner City Metropolitan Rim Structure Plan - along the Parade, Goodwood Road, Prospect Road, Henley Beach Roads. TODs are earmarked (to varying degrees of density) in the 30 Year Plan at the Walkerville, Klemzig, Paradise, Tea Tree Plaza and Golden Grove Interchanges along the O-Bahn corridor.

I really don't get why we aren't investing in heavy and light rail moreso, given that there is enough supporting evidence in favour which would sustain the viability of such large-scale capital projects.

I think you'll find it is because we have no money as a state.....

but I like your theory so I'm going to run with it

[PeFe]

Certainly the number of passengers using the O-Bahn (per year) would justify its conversion to light rail, but I am not sure about Goodwood Rd and The Parade could justify tram lines...
I have read on other transport forums numbers relating to trams and metros ie once you want to move more than 10,000 passengers per hour, then the building of a metro is justified. Has anyone ever seen any numbers related to buses and trams? (for example transporting more than 2000 passengers per hour justifies the establishment of a light rail/tram corridor)
I wonder whether Goodwood Rd is transporting a lot of people to Flinders University/Medical Centre and this would indicate the need to extend the Tonsley train line.
Also the electrification of the Gawler train line would supposedly see the rationalization of bus services in the northern suburbs with more bus/train connections (like Perth)

[rubberman]

Greater Prague Population: 2,156,097
Prague Urban Area - 496 km2 (192 sq mi)

Urban sprawl. That's why.

Two points: First according to the official website of the Czech equivalent of the ABS it's 1,259,079 in Prague.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "That's why". That's why what? I wasn't asking a question, merely pointing out that with cities of almost the same population, it is possible to shift almost fifty times as many people by public transport as Adelaide does. Urban sprawl might go to the question of economics, but not to the capacity. Would you not think that cities with the same or close populations would have roughly the same numbers of trip requirements. Urban sprawl would dictate the lengths of those trips, but not whether or not they are needed. And if they are needed, I was merely pointing out what others are doing. So, I guess I'm not sure what you mean.

[claybro]

This argument often comes up. There may be any number of European cities with populations simialr to Adelaide, transporting double the number of commuters daily by PT. It is one thing having 1 million or so Praguites travelling 5km in 15 minutes to work/shops, grannys apartment or whereever. It is another thing for Adelaide commuters to be on their train/tram/bus for up to an hour and travelling 20-30km to work. The sheer distance in Australian cities produces the need for far more infrastrucure and more services to cover the extra time and distance travelled. The amount if infrastructure needed to get PT numbers well up here is huge and just look at our current furore over 1 simple bus tunnel in the parklands!! Until we get serious about putting train stations where poeple are ie(UNDER shopping centres) feed those stations with local buses and lay out tram/lightrail for intermediate trips, we will keep on the same path we are now. To get the PT useage to European numbers, the amount of $ spend, and the disruption of new trainlines, tunnels, flyovers, tramline construction will send most Adelaideans into meltdown.

[rubberman]

Claybro,

I'm not trying to argue anything. So, it's not really an argument coming up at all. It is obvious that the more spread out a city is, the greater the transport infrastructure required. Now, whether that is all roads and all private cars, or minimal roads and maximum public transport, the point remains that for both situations, a more spread out city will require much more transport infrastructure. There simply is no argument to make.

So, ok since people seem to need an argument , how about this? Keeping on topic, of course.

Adelaide's public transport buses carry around 10% of journeys to the CBD. So 90% is private.

Would it not be simpler and cheaper to abandon most bus routes altogether? That would save a huge swathe of taxpayer dollars. There would be ten percent more cars on the road, but less buses stopping and disrupting traffic flow. So would not the extra cars be balanced out by the fewer buses?

Of course, what about those who cannot drive, or are unable to afford cars? How about taxi vouchers? Or how about the State government embracing Uber?

Put bluntly, do we really need to pay the huge amounts we do for the bus susystem in Adelaide, when the roads could probably take an extra 10% of cars if the stopping buses were axed?

We then could save up the amounts saved by not having buses, and if and when fossil fuels became deadly expensive, we would have a nest egg to build ourselves a metro-tram-bus-rail integrated system from scratch. Of course, if solar cars become economic for most people, then we would have enough money to invest in road infrastructure for individual transport exclusively.

[Westside]

Claybro,

I'm not trying to argue anything. So, it's not really an argument coming up at all. It is obvious that the more spread out a city is, the greater the transport infrastructure required. Now, whether that is all roads and all private cars, or minimal roads and maximum public transport, the point remains that for both situations, a more spread out city will require much more transport infrastructure. There simply is no argument to make.

So, ok since people seem to need an argument , how about this? Keeping on topic, of course.

Adelaide's public transport buses carry around 10% of journeys to the CBD. So 90% is private.

Would it not be simpler and cheaper to abandon most bus routes altogether? That would save a huge swathe of taxpayer dollars. There would be ten percent more cars on the road, but less buses stopping and disrupting traffic flow. So would not the extra cars be balanced out by the fewer buses?

Of course, what about those who cannot drive, or are unable to afford cars? How about taxi vouchers? Or how about the State government embracing Uber?

Put bluntly, do we really need to pay the huge amounts we do for the bus susystem in Adelaide, when the roads could probably take an extra 10% of cars if the stopping buses were axed?

We then could save up the amounts saved by not having buses, and if and when fossil fuels became deadly expensive, we would have a nest egg to build ourselves a metro-tram-bus-rail integrated system from scratch. Of course, if solar cars become economic for most people, then we would have enough money to invest in road infrastructure for individual transport exclusively.

What?

[rubberman]

What?

Put simply. If only 10% of people use public transport, why do we bother with subsidising it?

If we completely abolished buses, then there would be more cars on the road (but they would not be stopping every few hundred metres like the buses do to pick up and deposit people), but less buses. So would there really be any net negative effect of removing buses? More cars balanced out by less stopping buses?

However, the real killer is this, IF we believe in global warming, then at some time in the future we will need to leave our cars at home and then we will have to travel by public transport. OK, at that point we will need to have enough money to put in a metro-tram-train-bus integrated system. It will be fiendishly expensive. Horribly so, but we will have to do it (but see below). How will we fund such a monster project without the State going broke? Well, if we abandoned buses NOW when we don't use them (and at 10%, clearly it's marginal), and put the annual subsidy into a future fund, then in fifteen to twenty years, we would have a big pot of money with which to build a metro-tram-train-bus system without sending the State broke.

If anyone has a better idea for how we might pay for a future public transport system, let's hear it. However, pouring money into a system that is only used by 10% of the population doesn't do anything of the sort.

On the other hand, maybe solar cars will become as efficient as petrol/diesel in the same time frame. If so, and only 10% of people are still using public transport, my original contention remains that are we any better off having more buses on the road vs less cars for the whopping subsidy that public transport presently gets?

Either way, at 10% of trips, public bus transport is just so marginal from an economic sense, the government should be at least looking at other alternatives (eg actively encouraging the likes of Uber).

[Goodsy]

If anyone has a better idea for how we might pay for a future public transport system, let's hear it..

Legalizing cannabis

[rubberman]

If anyone has a better idea for how we might pay for a future public transport system, let's hear it..

Legalizing cannabis

Flying high?

And prostitution.

Taxing churches.

[Goodsy]

If anyone has a better idea for how we might pay for a future public transport system, let's hear it..

Legalizing cannabis

Flying high?

And prostitution.

Taxing churches.

Well Colorado collected about $75M in tax revenue from Cannabis last year, why wouldn't it work for us?

[SBD]

This thread slowed down a few months ago, but 'm just catching up...
The conversation appears to be predicated on most journeys starting near (potential) railway stations and ending at the CBD. Does anyone have any statistics on what percentage of jobs in the Adelaide metro area are in the CBD, and how that compares to European examples such as Prague? My current cross-suburb commute is about 20 minutes by car, 30-45 by bike and slightly over an hour by public transport (according to Google) including at least one change, and requiring walks at both ends. Adelaide has significant industrial centres well away from the CBD, as well as all of the shopping centres that employ people who don't go to the city, and neither do their customers.

[Tonsley213]

This thread slowed down a few months ago, but 'm just catching up...
The conversation appears to be predicated on most journeys starting near (potential) railway stations and ending at the CBD. Does anyone have any statistics on what percentage of jobs in the Adelaide metro area are in the CBD, and how that compares to European examples such as Prague? My current cross-suburb commute is about 20 minutes by car, 30-45 by bike and slightly over an hour by public transport (according to Google) including at least one change, and requiring walks at both ends. Adelaide has significant industrial centres well away from the CBD, as well as all of the shopping centres that employ people who don't go to the city, and neither do their customers.

You should be able to work that sorta stuff out on the http://www.abs.gov.au/census it is a rather easy website to use and has heaps of interesting information.

[ChillyPhilly]

This thread slowed down a few months ago, but 'm just catching up...
The conversation appears to be predicated on most journeys starting near (potential) railway stations and ending at the CBD. Does anyone have any statistics on what percentage of jobs in the Adelaide metro area are in the CBD, and how that compares to European examples such as Prague? My current cross-suburb commute is about 20 minutes by car, 30-45 by bike and slightly over an hour by public transport (according to Google) including at least one change, and requiring walks at both ends. Adelaide has significant industrial centres well away from the CBD, as well as all of the shopping centres that employ people who don't go to the city, and neither do their customers.

15% of all metro Adelaide jobs are in the CBD. Has been the rough case for a few years or more now.