The O-Bahn

[fabricator]

The money meant to be spent on the MATS Plan did exist Aidan. Do you not remember the State Bank Disaster? The State HAD before that disaster, $3+ BILLION either on the books or in the ability to borrow for investment - and if it had been spent, then maybe the State Bank morons may not have been able to gamble with it (that second is speculation on my part).

Huh, the state had to borrow most of that money, it almost bankrupted us paying it off as well.
Do you really think any government would put the people of this state through that much pain just to pay for the MATS mostly freeways plan ?

In the MATS plans, there was no Obahn, nor a tram line, nope the NE corridor was a freeway. Its better for the environment, and people of those suburbs the freeway never got built.

[Splashmo]

It's easy to say that now, but we have no idea how Adelaide would have turned out had the MATS plan come to fruition.

[Shuz]

Away with the O-Bahn and freeway+plus rail in the middle FTW.

[rubberman]

Hi Shuz,

The point I was making about the MATS plan was that SA did have the demonstrated ability to fund alternative transport infrastructure. So, in 1979 when the O-bahn was built, it could easily have been extended in concept without people saying finance was the limiting factor. I call BS on that.

That MATS funding ability was never used usefully (some land bought, then sold), but could have been used for alternative infrastructure (be that rail, O-bahns, metro, more trams, grade separation along South, Marion, Goodwood, Brighton Roads) with something left over to spare. It was only after the State Bank that money became tight.

Now, of course it was painful funding the State Bank disaster, because there was no offsetting benefit.

Had the money been spent on infrastructure that improved transport, then people would have benefited directly from shorter travel times to work, as well as businesses benefiting from shorter travel times along those major north south roads. People mind the pain less, if they can see there is something positive coming out of it.

Further, I am not sure now if the cost of the MATS plan was anything near the cost of the State Bank, so the situation may well have been - less pain IF the cost was less than the State Bank Bungle, plus more gain through shorter travel times.

However, I was not meaning to debate the dead and buried MATS plan, rather to highlight that the State had enough money to really invest in the transport system, and given the rejection of the MATS plan, should have invested that money in alternative non-freeway transport, rather than doing nothing, which was a recipe for economic strangulation of the city.

The three million dollars that the State Bank cost us in 1991(?) probably works out at about $5Bill in today's dollars.

Just think what even part of $5Bill would do for transport in SA.

[Aidan]

You think it's laughable that a railway would do the job much better even when it's a lot faster due to the lack of any street running?

I think it is laughable that anyone would think that a railway would do the job of an O-bahn much better in the situation relevant to this thread.
That is, taking some of the buses from the main north south roads (Brighton, South, Marion, Goodwood), divert some of them down the Glenelg/City corridor to:

1) Improve travel time for those in the buses thus diverted (a plus)
2) Remove some buses from Anzac Highway thus improving traffic conditions on that Highway.

Since this is NOT a general rail thread, and IS the O-bahn thread, I thought maybe, perhaps, shot in the dark, wild surmise, you might have understood the context.

There is certainly a lack of understanding, but it's entirely on your part. I'm perfectly well aware of the context, and I find it laughable that anyone would think that a railway wouldn't do the job of an O-bahn much better in the situation relevant to this thread.

Obviously rail has its advantages - especially in the relatively longer distances south of Noarlunga. What is laughable is the assertion in the context of this thread (which well you know is the case) that railways would do the job that an O-bahn running along the Glenelg corridor would do.

Well, lets take a more detailed look:

You wrote last Wednesday:

Given that a number of buses coming down South, Brighton and Marion Rds have limited or no set down/pick up close to the city - the argument that this would not serve directly so much of the city is a little disingenuous

So just which buses are you suggesting would use it? The limited stop buses on South Road and Goodwood Road remain limited stop until Bedford Park - trains have the potential to get passengers from there to the CIty much faster. Buses on Brighton Road don't currently run any limited stop services! Diverting the single route on Marion Road would make it more difficult for passengers to intermediate destinations, and it would take longer for the passengers from Anzac Highway to reach Marion Shopping Centre - but if it makes you feel any better, I concede that it would enable passengers to travel more quickly between the City and South Plympton.

Improving travel time could be done simply and relatively cheaply by running more express buses along Anzac Highway. But that would require more buses, and at the moment more frequent services are seen as a higher priority.

As for improving traffic conditions by removing some buses from Anzac Highway, considering how small a fraction of the total traffic they are, it looks like you're just clutching at straws.

The overhead has had to be replaced - probably several times since ears and wire are regularly replaced in sections as it wears - did it not also have to be replaced for the pantograph operation (that is SOP since trolley wheels usually leave arcing scars that score the panatograph slides)? Oh, and all the AC-DC substations have been replaced totally, as have the feeders. Did you not know any of this Aidan?

I didn't say the overhead never has to be replaced - merely that it didn't at the time the track was upgraded. But I admit I'd underestimated the amount of work they've done on it since then.

The money meant to be spent on the MATS Plan did exist Aidan. Do you not remember the State Bank Disaster? The State HAD before that disaster, $3+ BILLION either on the books or in the ability to borrow for investment - and if it had been spent, then maybe the State Bank morons may not have been able to gamble with it (that second is speculation on my part).

The money meant to be spent on the MATS Plan did not exist - federal funding would have been needed. The state finances were a bit better after the Olympic Dam mine opened, but even then we were highly dependent on the federal government. Do you not remember the state election before the State Bank disaster? The Libs announced they'd go up to the federal government and tell them what we want. I seem to recall it was the main claim of their campaign, and of course the voters realised that this wouldn't actually make us more likely to get what we want.

[rubberman]

A couple of things.

First of all, State vs Federal finances. In rough terms States have only about 30% of revenue raising power for their needs. So they have to go to the Feds via the Grants Commission and the Loan Council for funding. For 70% of their needs as a matter of course. So your point about having to get Federal money is just a complete misunderstanding of the Federal - State funding system as it stands. Go google 'Australia vertical fiscal imbalance' - and learn before you post.

Second of all. To say that the money does/did not exist is like saying that someone cannot build a house because they don't have the money up front. Capital works in South Australia in all categories have traditionally had up front funding from loans. It is a major source of capital funding in fact. Please google 'Australia Loan Council' to see how it works. All States and Territories MUST use it, and do.

Third of all. To say on the one hand that there was no money, but on the other hand you want to build railways. LOL! Keep digging champ!

[Aidan]

rubberman -
I'm well aware of the fiscal imbalance, and I didn't claim that the lack of funding was the reason the MATS Plan was never implemented. But the fact remains that the federal government never gave SA the money nor set it aside. And look how long it took to build the parts of the MATS Plan that were implemented - despite its economic importance, the Port River Expressway didn't open until the 21st century. That does suggest a reluctance to fund SA infrastructure.

Third of all. To say on the one hand that there was no money, but on the other hand you want to build railways. LOL! Keep digging champ!

You seemed to have missed that I'm not suggesting we should construct railways in the past!

In case you hadn't noticed, the increased amount of mining in SA means that our economic situation is improving. Money is likely to be more readily available in the future. Nevertheless, I am aware there are threats, and if you look in the Land Tax Reform thread you'll see that I oppose the planned cuts in land tax for this very reason.

Also, I regard value for money as very important for new railways, hence my opposition to the DTEI's Seaford extension route.

[rubberman]

rubberman -
I'm well aware of the fiscal imbalance, and I didn't claim that the lack of funding was the reason the MATS Plan was never implemented. But the fact remains that the federal government never gave SA the money nor set it aside.

Straw man. Of course the MATS plan was never implemented - because it was rejected by the electorate.

What I said, and what you did not address, was that with the money that could have been found for MATS Plan works, other infrastructure could have been built - eg public transport.

What you then claimed was that there was no money available for the MATS Plan in any case.

To which I pointed out that the State managed to come up with the money for bailing out the State Bank. Not being aware that you have stated that there was no money available, perhaps the money to fund the State Bank bailout was pulled out of its own ignorance - after all you have deemed it impossible that the State could get the money. Or is it that a different currency is used for infrastructure as compared to paying off bank debts? Wherever it came from the State found the money.

I wonder if the Feds never gave the State the money for the reason the State never actually put up a case for it? Funding agencies often have this funny notion of not funding things that are neither asked for nor supported by a technical and financial analysis. I wonder what would have happened if, subsequent to the rejection of the MATS Plan, an alternative acceptable plan had been drawn up and submitted for funding?



Did we all miss something?

[Straze]

Bus Rapid Transit vs Light Rail, http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf/padelford.htm there is some interesting points about Bus Rapid Transit. The part below is explains a persons conclusion that bus rapid transit is cheaper, faster and a better choice than light rail. Feel free to discuss for yourself.

Links
1. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... ug=tolls09

BACK



2. One can eliminate freeway congestion by “mobility pricing” all freeway lanes. One thing that is not generally recognized is that doing this would substantially increase effective rush-hours highway capacity. The reason is that a freeway in semi-gridlock cannot carry many vehicles. In a sense a highway in this condition “stalls out” like an airplane wing, losing half or more of its effective capacity. In a seeming paradox, by limiting instantaneous access to a highway (not letting it “stall out”), one can increase its capacity, which therefore increases access.



Another approach, which the Puget Sound Regional Council has studied in depth, is to “mobility charge” all roadways.

http://www.psrc.org/projects/trafficcho ... report.pdf

If the net revenues from pricing were distributed to the region’s voters per capita, most people would make money from this strategy. And since the wealthier generally consume more than “their share” of rush hours roadway space, the net result would be mildly “progressive” in an income redistribution sense.

BACK



3. Where a lane is used for parking, it would be annexed for buses. However, since parking is the “mother’s milk” or retail it would be necessary to more than make up for the foregone parking spaces, replacing them, perhaps on a 2 for 1 basis, with lots or garages every block or two. To keep vehicles other than buses off the bus lanes, arms like those found in parking garages would be spaced along these lanes. The actual bus stops could be located to the right of the bus lanes (“inset” into the block). Right-turning vehicles would be allowed in the bus lanes, but, of course, they would have to exit prior to coming to a parking-garage-type arm.

BACK



4. Which doesn’t mean that completing the HOV lane system, something the region is committed to do in any event, would be costless. Over two-thirds of this system has been built, and most of the balance is funded. The most difficult, and expensive, section will be the current express lanes between downtown Seattle and Northgate.
BACK



5. “Heavy” rail systems, like BART, are totally grade-separated. The “light” in light rail refers not to the weight of the trains (they are generally heavier than heavy rail), but to capacity. They are light-weight in terms of capacity.
BACK



6. Capacity of a route or of a group of routes on the same facility is almost always determined by conditions at stops areas rather than line conditions. ... When stops are made off the main line or artery, capacity is determined by the safe separation between transit units. Thus, on exclusive busways or bus lanes on freeways, with off-line bus stops, headways of 5 s[econds] can be achieved. Theoretically rail systems could operate at headways of perhaps 60 s[econds] under similar conditions, but such situations are not found in practice. -- Highway Capacity Manual
BACK



7. The Lincoln Tunnel bus lanes are burdened by a difficult merge. If this were resolved, the facility would be able to carry additional traffic. But using the this facility as the template, the seated capacity of a bus-only lane, or a HOT lane that has become a de-facto bus-only lane due to extraordinary demand, is:

1 bus per 5 seconds x 3600 seconds per hour x 61 seats per bus
= 720 buses per hour x 61 seats per bus
= 43,920 seats per hour.

BACK



8. According to Sound Transit’s “Regional Transit Long-Range Plan”, DEIS, December 2004, Figure 4.9-10 (page 4.9-26), light rail on the I-90 bridge could ultimately have headways as low as 5 minutes (ie, 5 minutes per train).

http://www.bettertransport.info/padelfo ... 201204.htm footnote 24

One train every 5 minutes = 12 trains per hour; each train could have as many as four cars; and each car could have as many as 72 seats:

12 trains per hour x 4 cars per train x 72 seats per car = 3456 seats per hour per direction (compare with the bus number, 43,920 in footnote 7).

Hybrid buses have 61 seats, so to equal light rail, BRT would need 3456 seats per hour / 61 seats per bus = 58 buses per hour, round up to 60 per hour, or one per minute.

BACK



9. If you’re taking public transit from Redmond to downtown Seattle, you’re going to want to be able to sit down! This is also the transit policy for the region.
BACK



10. A lane dedicated to buses can carry one bus per 5 seconds (footnote 6). To equal LRT, BRT on I-90 would need only one per 60 seconds (footnote . 5/60 = 1/12.
BACK



11. Among pricing wonks, what constitutes a “qualifying carpool” is a matter of much discussion. The two bookends are a) HOV3 (three or more people per vehicle, since at HOV2 the lanes bog down during rush hours, and b) vanpools or better (only official vanpools and buses qualify, all others pay). Of course at the second bookend, the per person charge for a 3 person carpool would be 1/3 of the charge for the vehicle. Most such wonks favor “vanpools or better” since it is much easier to enforce, and, once set, it need never be changed. The argument in favor of HOV3 is one of “fairness” (which, as every parent knows, is a hard concept to get agreement on).



Note that in the case of I-90, Mercer Island vehicles might get a special break, depending on how the politics of the matter play out.
BACK



12. Tweaking the DSTT for optimal bus operations would entail slightly widening the travel lanes at the stations so that a bus could pass while another is stopped at the station.

See http://www.bettertransport.info/padelfo ... tsound.htm footnote 22. This document is a slightly expanded version of the following OpEd:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bi ... e=20051113
BACK



13. Until recently Bay Area cities with BART stations had less concentrated development than those without!
BACK



14. http://www.seattlechannel.org/schedule/ ... le=3060820

BACK



15. On the other hand I would ride an elevated bus-on-rail system like the O-Bahn in Adelaide, Australia, a kind of a rail-bus hybrid pictured on the left, in preference to a light rail system, since it has the flexibility of bus plus the grade-separation of heavy rail. (Aurora Avenue would be a good place for such a bus-on-rail system.)

BACK

[monotonehell]

LOL I spent a good part of 2008 trying to explain the points in those first few sections to people on this board. A lot of them just refused to see the logic. Instead they set up strawmen like the real bottlenecks the OBahn does have here.

[Prince George]

Good lord, I thought that putting several thousand miles of ocean between us would mean I would never need to see some of these names again.

You've found the ramblings of a noted Seattle area anti-transit, pro-road crank. He is not interested in BRT per se, he is interested in opposing rail with a view to increasing funding to roads generally. Once rail is taken off the table, they then turn around and oppose BRT.

As an example of the tactics, you see there's a section where he discusses the capacity of BRT vs light-rail and concludes that BRT can carry 12 times as many? "Boo, down with light rail, it's not going to have enough capacity", they cry now. What they don't mention is that there's no way in hell that the city will be able to fund the maximum capacity of buses that they are supposing - one bus per 5 seconds on I-90 means that between 8 and 9 AM you have 720 individual buses and their drivers going one-way across that one bridge alone *just for BRT* not including all the other routes. SoundTransit's primary expense is wages, both for the drivers and for the maintenance staff, this would make their balance sheet implode without a mountain of extra funding, and do you suppose they're going to get that? Not from the authors of these articles they won't.

His interest in congestion pricing has little to do with controlling demand and more to do with providing the option of a better class of private commute for the people who can afford it. You'll notice that his credentials are that he is a "Seattle area businessman" and his friends are the likes of former Governors - these aren't people who are scratching around to find a few bucks. Sure, they'll pay a toll, and the heck with the people who can't.

Long story short - what he wants is the HOT lane (the transit lane that he can use by paying a toll without having to have extra people in the car). All these other ideas are just tools for trying to dress up what amounts to getting a private road for him and his friends.

[monotonehell]

Good lord, I thought that putting several thousand miles of ocean between us would mean I would never need to see some of these names again...

You see, there's this thing, called the Internet...

You'd think he'd be all for rail, so the poor people get off his roads. But I guess he doesn't want to see "his" tax dollars spent on poor people.

I've found very few (possibly none) websites that provide a scientific, balanced and honest discussion of the pros and cons of all transit systems. They're either like the one above when every half truth is presented to oppose rail, or the opposite where every half truth is presented to promote rail. Most of the arguments against one or the other, that are presented, can apply equally to the other or one. The truth (as always) lies somewhere in between; that rail isn't the panacea a lot make it out to be, and buses aren't the problem that some make those out to be.

(tee hee see what I did there?)

[Straze]

In my opinion the Adelaide O-Bahn is a great public transport concept because it is fast, flexible, and cheap. How is it fast? The O-Bahn buses are designed and capable of travelling at speeds of up to 100km/h, can travel within headway of 20 seconds and stop quicker than a train or tram. How is it flexible? Buses are not restricted to rails like trains and trams, as long as the bus is equipped with a guide wheel it can run on the guided track as well as run on roads like a typical bus, unlike trains and trams which would required rails to run. How is it cheap? A bus that needs to be modified to run on the guided track is still far more cheaper than a train or tram so the capital costs are low and would generally pay it self off alot faster than a train or tram. And since the O-Bahn buses can run on roads it does not require additional infrastructure to run off the guided track. Most of all it as worked well and is popular amongst many locals, tourists and bus enthusiasts, and me! If any State Government proposes another O-Bahn in Adelaide, i would more likely support it than an inflexible light rail project.

[Prince George]

You'd think he'd be all for rail, so the poor people get off his roads. But I guess he doesn't want to see "his" tax dollars spent on poor people.

The answer to that is the funding model for rail construction - it's not only that they don't like transit, they really don't like paying for it. The bill in question (Prop 1 - Sound Transit Link light rail extensions) included approval to increase the sales tax levied in the three counties to pay for the extensions. Taxation increases like this have to be put to the electorate across almost all of the US, which produces a very different climate than here. Every state has a store of anti-tax, small-goverment "tea party" types that are constantly mounting legal challenges (which the author has done to SoundTransit twice, I believe) or raising tax and spending limiting propositions for the electorate to vote on. It was the result of one of them that means that revenue car-regestration and tolls can *only* be spent on highways. So when the author is opposing Prop 1 and proposing tolls, he is also directing funding towards roads.

[iTouch]

I know im sounding like a NIMBY but as a N-E Kid all my life, I think the O Bahn was one of the biggest successes of the state. Most people from the North Eastern Suburbs will agree that the O Bahn is an efficient way of transport.
So if the local population is happy, then why change what doesn't need to be changed because a bunch of Eastern Suburb snobs that never use it said so?