Somebody wrote:Aidan wrote:I have also done it on foot many times. From the King William Street of Rundle Mall it isn't a problem. From the Pultney Street end it's far more annoying. And I've often had to walk to the station from parts of the City further east than that.
Answer - distributional transport. People are fat these days so they deserve to walk anyway - especially the schoolkids I see around.
The ones I see on trains generally aren't fat, so maybe the fat schoolkids you see get driven everywhere?
Distributional transport will certainly help, but where people have to use it at both ends, many choose to drive instead.
And having the station further from the destination doesn't always mean people will walk further. If I'm going from Adelaide station to Frome Road, I'll probably catch a bus. If I were going from a station on Rundle Mall under Gawler Place, I'd walk.
Aidan wrote:A station under Gawler Place would be a great improvement.
So would be a station at Angaston. Priorities kid, priorities.
A station under Gawler Place would be very well used, as would one under Central Market.
Aidan wrote:What exactly is that supposed to mean?
Do you know anything? Go look up "commuter rail" before your next spoutings.
I know what I mean by commuter rail, but I don't know what
you mean, and I can't find out for certain unless you tell me. More specifically, what aspect of it being commuter rail do you think is a reason for failing to adopt the most desirable characteristics of a metro system?
Places such as Elizabeth, Gawler, Noarlunga Centre, etc are not metro territory and don't need single seat journeys to every corner of the fucken CBD.
Actually they are. Although most journeys are local, people still go to the CBD a lot.
Aidan wrote:Do you seriously think the number of cars driving from the outer suburban sprawl into the CBD isn't in the thousands?
Prove it to me.
That's not easy, since I'm no longer at Uni, so I can't easily get my hands on census data any more. But the official Seaford Extension Report (October 2007) mentions in Appendix H that according to the 2001 census, 7733 people living in the Onkaparinga LGA work in the Adelaide LGA, and 2393 of them use public transport to get to work. So even from the Onkaparinga LGA alone, thousands drive to work destinations in the Adelaide LGA, and looking at the maps I think it's safe to say the majority of those work in the CBD. And the 2001 census was held before the opening of Stage 2 of the Southern Expressway. Since then there has been substantial population growth.
Aidan wrote:Of course they normally use different trains. It's usually cheaper to sell the diesel trains for further use and buy new ones than to convert them.
But here you are spouting that
the fact the trains are electric is why people would use them. Would new diesel trains not have the same effect? :wank:
No they wouldn't. You might come close with new specially designed high performance high ambience diesel trains, but those would be uneconomic compared to electrification.
Aidan wrote:And a full upgrade with electrification attracts more passengers than a full upgrade without electrification.
Here's a new thread for you. I'd appreciate it if you didn't post dribble while refusing to see others' non-dribbly facts being put forward to you.
http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... 25&start=0
You missed out too many options for it to be able to tell you anything.
Aidan wrote:And FWIW I'm pretty sure the reverse is true - Railpage members would use the train however it's powered, but normal people are more likely to use electric train services.
Out comes the foam! Of course they would use sparks more, it would be something new to foam over while nobody goes out to see TransAdelaide's fleet because they think the poxboxes are so darn boring.
OK, if we electrified then a few Railpage members would come here specifically to ride them. But I don't think that would be statistically significant. What would be significant is that the locals would use them more.
Aidan wrote:Why do you deny the existence of a phenomenon known since the 1960s?
Show me one example where there has been electrification all by itself. Phin's blog de-bunked this last year - go look it up.
It is indeed difficult to find examples of electrification where performance hasn't improved or the trains aren't quieter, because those things are much easier to achieve in electric trains than in diesels. These improvements are part of the Sparks Effect, but there is a lot more to it than that. Image counts for a lot, and
electric trains do have a better image in the eyes of the public.
I had a look at Phin's blog. A couple of reasoned expressions of scepticism do not constitute a debunking.
Go have a look at sites like
http://melbpt.wordpress.com before your next spoutings, but
please try to leave foaming over trains out of transport planning. Don't start demanding something just because you'd like to take pictures of trains on it. OK?
If that were what I was doing, I'd've demanded restoration of Broad Gauge through the Hills so Steamranger can run all the way from Adelaide to Victor Harbour again!
I'm proposing a genuinely useful piece of transport infrastructure. Why do you have so much trouble distinguishing that from foaming?