Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:11 am

for those interested. You can find the study at http://mams.rmit.edu.au/ov14prh13lps1.pdf

The Summary follows verbattim:
SUMMARY
This report analyses the way residents of Australia’s seven capital cities (the six state capitals
plus Canberra) have travelled to work over the last 35 years. It uses data from the census,
which has included a question on the mode of transport used to travel to work since 1976.

Key findings
• The number of cars driven to work each day in Australia’s capital cities has nearly doubled
since 1976, from 2,027,990 to 3,942,167. Just under two-thirds of the increase is due to
growth in the workforce; the remaining third is due to a shift away from more sustainable
transport modes: public transport, walking and car-pooling.
• After two decades of rapid decline, public transport usage rates commenced a revival in
1996. The revival began slowly, but the five years to 2011 saw the biggest increase in public
transport mode share seen since 1976. There has been a corresponding fall in the share of
workers travelling by car, although the fall in the car driving rate has been dampened by
continuing declines in car-pooling. Adelaide, Canberra and Hobart have missed out on this
public transport revival.
• The revival of public transport has occurred mainly on rail systems, which have recovered
the ground lost during the two decades of decline to 1996. The share of workers travelling by
train is now higher than at any time since 1976, and in Perth is three times as high as 35 years
ago. Buses and (in Melbourne and Adelaide) trams have been less successful, with current
usage rates still less than half those of 1976.
• Walking is the most sustainable of all travel modes, and makes a significant contribution to
work travel in Hobart, Canberra and Sydney. Walking receives little support from policy
makers, but despite this, walking rates increased in the decade leading up to the 2006 census.
However, walking rates have declined since 2006 in all cities except Canberra and Perth,
suggesting that a renewed policy effort is required to improve conditions for pedestrians.
• Cycling is of negligible importance as a travel mode for work trips in all cities except
Canberra. It is not clear that increases in cycling have come at the expense of the car, since
higher cycling rates are usually accompanied by lower walking rates. Cycling receives much
more attention from policy makers than walking, even though it plays a much smaller role in
the journey to work: one possible reason is that cycling is by far the most male-dominated
transport mode, reflecting the gender composition of the transport planning profession.
• Despite the publicity devoted to its transport problems in recent years, Sydney is Australia’s
sustainable transport capital, with by far the lowest mode share for car driving, the highest
share for public transport and above-average rates of walking. More cars are driven to work
each day in Melbourne than Sydney, despite the latter’s larger workforce. Public transport
grew rapidly in the five years to 2011, reversing a decline over the previous five years.
Despite this, the state’s infrastructure advisory body is recommending that funding be
redirected from rail to road, based on projections that the census data has shown to be
erroneous.
• Melbourne has the second-highest public transport mode share, but the lowest rate of car
pooling and below average rates of walking: as a result, car driving is higher than in Brisbane.
Melbourne has experienced the fastest growth in public transport mode share of all seven
capitals since 1996, but had the most rapid decline in the two decades before then: because
the earlier decline was much greater than the recent increase, Melbourne had the biggest
decline in public transport usage, and the biggest rise in car driving, over the 35 years since1976,
except for Hobart. Given the recent revival in public transport, it is strange that the
Victorian government’s top transport priority is an as-yet-unfunded east-west road tunnel
estimated to cost between $12 and $15 billion. No serious analysis has been presented to
justify this project, which if it proceeds would likely put a stop to the revival of public
transport.
• Census figures also cast doubt on recent rail patronage figures from Sydney and Melbourne.
Travel to work by rail in Sydney grew faster between 2006 and 2011 than published
patronage data, while travel to work in Melbourne grew more slowly. This suggests that
patronage estimation methodologies may have underestimated rail patronage growth in
Sydney and overestimated it in Melbourne.
• Brisbane has the second-lowest rate of car driving among the seven capitals, and has also
experienced a revival of public transport over the last three censuses. However, the growth in
public transport over the last five years has been slower than in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth:
indeed, rail usage rates are now higher in Perth than in Brisbane. Public transport growth has
been held back by the City of Brisbane’s large program of tunnel, bridge and motorway
building.
• Adelaide is Australia’s ‘car capital’, with the highest rate of car driving among the seven
capital cities. This is the result of low public transport usage and low rates of active transport
(walking and cycling). In the five years to 2011, Adelaide missed out on the public transport
revival that occurred in other larger capital cities: public transport mode share stagnated,
while both walking and cycling rates declined. These trends are the result of the abandonment
over the last 30 years of the Dunstan government’s pro-public transport policies.
• Perth has had the most impressive turnaround in public transport of any capital city during
the period covered by this study: it is the only city where public transport mode share is
higher than in 1981. A concerted community campaign, backed by skilled planning and
budgeting, has revived the city’s rail system, which now carries more passengers than
Brisbane’s. This success suggests that Perth can be a model for other Australian cities,
particularly Adelaide.
• Canberra has experienced a sustained decline in public transport, and a steady rise in car
driving, for the last two decades (apart from a temporary reversal during 2001-06). The
current car driving rate is the highest ever recorded, something that has not occurred in any
other capital city except Hobart. Public transport mode share actually declined slightly in the
five years to 2011: Canberra was the only one of the seven cities where this occurred. The
problems are the result of poor transport policies, which have focussed on road construction,
while reversing the successful public transport approach employed in Canberra until the late
1980s.
• Hobart has relatively high rates of walking, but public transport has been declining, and car
use growing, since the Tasman Bridge reopened in 1977. The current rate of car driving is the
highest on record. No serious attempt has been made to improve the attractiveness of public
transport, while facilities for pedestrians also require attention.

Policy implications
These findings show that the time has come for a radical reorientation of transport policy in
Australian cities. In the past, policy makers who favoured roads could claim to be following
public preferences, expressed in mode share trends, but now that public transport is gaining
ground at the expense of the car, policy makers are still stubbornly clinging to road-based
solutions. The recent revival of public transport has, except in Perth, been achieved with
relatively little policy support, suggesting that serious pro-transit policies could create
greenhouse gases and oil security than continued road-building, which will only add to the
rising car volumes choking our cities.
The census figures suggest that Australian cities, while lacking the urban density of European
cities, can achieve European-level mode shares by providing European-quality public
transport, along with substantially improved conditions for pedestrians. State and territory
governments need to change their transport policies, which remain dominated by roadbuilding.
They also need to create effective capacity for transport governance, management,
planning and research to ensure that investment in sustainable transport delivers value for
money. The Federal Government’s Infrastructure Australia agency proposes a national debate
about public transport: we agree, but argue that this debate must include public transport’s
role in reducing the need for major investment in urban roads.


Some may be offended with the statement "Cyling is of negligible importance for work trips..." which does not surprise me at all. I was surprised however with the reported contribution of walking.

I was also surprised at Canberra's bad rating afa car transport. But on reflection it may be consistant with my opinion that if enough money is poured into highly useable fast roads then people will mostly use it regardless of most other factors. Possibly why Perth has trouble filling better quality seats on cleaner transport than some other cities do with grotty old fleets.

I suppose that my policy advice would be for cities to maintain at the current level what roads they have, let any increased demand flow elsewhere and fund and develop those "elsewheres" accordingly. Unfortunately a recipe for electoral disaster.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

by BNA » Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:17 pm

BNA
 

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby jules21 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:17 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:Some may be offended with the statement "Cyling is of negligible importance for work trips..." which does not surprise me at all. I was surprised however with the reported contribution of walking.

the author of the study is obsessed with PT and i suspect is jealous of the increased attention given to cycling infrastructure. there are dozens of these boffins with an agenda to push, cloaking their bias under the guise of impartial academic research.

cycling isn't "negligible" compared to PT - contributing 12 and 5% of what train travel does in melbourne and sydney respectively. that's huge, given the scale of cost attributed to supporting those numbers of rail travellers, let alone the same numbers of motorists.

the claim about cycling acting as a substitute for walking is unsubstantiated nonsense - i can't think of anyone who i know who cycles to work who would otherwise walk. there must be some people in that category, but really, he is just showing his colours.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8704
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:03 pm

If there is a conspiracy against cyclist by transport theorists it is certainly lwo on the radar. I don't think there is some transport analysts agenda against cyclists.

You have selected one component as a base - trains. So while a tenth of something may seem big, it is less so when it is a tenth of something else that is a tenth of the bigger. Compare cycling to the overall and it is still piddlingly small. Yes, it is increasing by decent percentages but at this point is it still only by decent percentages of a small base.

More importantly than comparing the raw counts, the mode question in the Census does not factor in the distances travelled or in what parts of a strained network they occur. A single trip on a train is likely to be far far longer than a single trip on a bike, especially in large cities and where people move long distances to work. Perhaps one train trip should be equated to something like 4 bike trips.

(The Census question is insufficient not just for reasons of distance. It also understates things like walking and riding as the respondent only ticks the MAIN mode. Cycling to trains is not counted. Ditto walking and driving and busing.)

Of course, I would make the same observation about walking trips. I can quite safely say that the number of people walking from Mandurah to the Perth CBD would not only be negligable. It would be close to nix.

Of course, as much of those short trips by cyclists will be by inner city dwellers who are going the relatively short distances to the CBD, then the value of them is greater than the average. Simply because it is more expensive and more difficult to grow the capacity in those nearer locations. And the same for pedestrians. So, a couple of thousand cyclists riding the last eight or ten km to the CBD could be responsible for negating the need for another lane on each side of a freeway at a place in the network where the capacity is already insufficient. The couple of thousand could be described as "insignificant" on the simple Census counts. But with a more nuanced assessement the value of those riders goes up and up.

I think if they are awry in there assessment it is in treating one walking trip to one car trip or one train trip or one bike trip. Sorta grossly overstates the walking contirbution a lot IMO. Besides the pedestrian count may simply be telling us more about changing social patterns where a great number of people are living closer to where they work than they did in the past.

And, as you point out, the cost of cycle infrastructure is relatively small. (Insignificant? :mrgreen: ) I don't expect the authors need to weight for that though - let the actual planners do the cost-benefits case by case.

While cycling is certainly good for the broader community, we need to be wary of overstating it's significance. Public Transport is deserving of all the attention that it can get and is a clear way to transport people in the tens of thousands over quite significant commuting distances in a city.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby jules21 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:11 pm

colin, that's a well thought out post and i agree with most of it. but you do contradict yourself slightly when you correctly point out that what counts is mode shift in congested areas of the transport network - i.e. the CBD. in that context, where cycle commuting is concentrated, its contribution is significant.

i support PT and am not trying to talk it down. but as you also correctly point out, cycling infrastructure is pretty cheap. unfortunately, PT infrastructure is horrendously expensive. while i see investment in PT as necessary, despite the high cost, investing in cycling infrastructure is an obvious measure which can be done in the short term (unlike PT) with a very high Benefit-Cost ratio. so in essence, the study is quite wrong about dismissing cycling.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8704
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:18 pm

I think the statement implying some sort of conspiracy against walkers
one possible reason is that cycling is by far the most male-dominated
transport mode, reflecting the gender composition of the transport planning profession
makes it quite understandable however to question them. It is a stab in the dark no more likely or worthy of comment than a dozen other stabs in the dark that others could make. It would have been better left out of the report. They offer no evidence to favour their particular stab in the dark.
Last edited by ColinOldnCranky on Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:30 pm

jules21 wrote:colin, that's a well thought out post and i agree with most of it. but you do contradict yourself slightly when you correctly point out that what counts is mode shift in congested areas of the transport network - i.e. the CBD. in that context, where cycle commuting is concentrated, its contribution is significant.


colinoldncranky wrote:So, a couple of thousand cyclists riding the last eight or ten km to the CBD could be responsible for negating the need for another lane on each side of a freeway at a place in the network where the capacity is already insufficient. The couple of thousand could be described as "insignificant" on the simple Census counts. But with a more nuanced assessement the value of those riders goes up and up.
and therein is the value of riders. That last several kms of car infrastructure that is overused to the point of gridlock. And which can't be addressed except with works that, even by road cost standards, are excessive.

One lane of freeway just before gridlock (ie maximum able to be carried at all) is AROUND 2000 people per hour if in cars. In the case of Perth, adding just ONE extra set of carriages (six carriage set) each peak-hour carries the equivalent of a lane. If we can get two thousand cyclists an hour on a cycleway up to the task it also equates to a freeway lane.

What does it cost to add 8km of lane to a fattish freeway in densely packed inner-city? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. What does it cost to build proper cycle paths? Around $50,000 to $100,000 per km, higher price being affected mostly by overcoming impediments to traffic separation (according to comment by WA DoT, late 2012). If you already have a separated path (the case in Perth next to freeways) then the cost is just the cost of widening it, so it would be at the lower end of the scale.

The current widening of the freeway section from Leach Hwy to Roe Highway with some works related to Fiona Stanley Hospital (parking?) was estimated at $58m plus two years of traffic disruption and rear-enders. Ouch. For 4.5 km that is not even that close to the the CBD.
Last edited by ColinOldnCranky on Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby jules21 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:55 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote: I think the statement implying some sort of conspiracy against walkers
one possible reason is that cycling is by far the most male-dominated
transport mode, reflecting the gender composition of the transport planning profession
makes it quite understandable however to question them. It is a stab in the dark no more likely or worthy of comment than a dozen other stabs in the dark that others could make. It would have been better left out of the report. They offer no evidence to favour their particular stab in the dark.

the author has form. he was recently shown the door at one academic institution and now works at another. the problem is, once you forfeit your independence and objectivity, you tend to also forfeit your credibility.
ColinOldnCranky wrote:One lane of freeway just before gridlock (ie maximum able to be carried at all) is AROUND 2000 people per hour if in cars. In the case of Perth, adding just ONE extra set of carriages (six carriage set) each peak-hour carries the equivalent of a lane. If we can get two thousand cyclists an hour on a cycleway up to the task it also equates to a freeway lane.

Bicycle Vic did a study which showed that the shared path along the Monash fwy was carrying as many people as the increase in car occupants resulting from the additional freeway lane, the latter at a cost of $1bn. it's a joke isn't it?
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8704
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby ymlam » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:08 pm

I am not surprise at the statistics for the past 5 years.

Comparing 2006 with 2011:

Walking is a significant because many live in the Sydney CBD, a significant population contribution and I expect walk to work.

Public transport had improved quite significantly in cities like Perth with an ever increasing car parking problem. Hence an increase of 28.6%.

Cycling actually increase the most, 31.4%. It looks small because of the low base. An increase of 1.1% to 1.3% overall is quite significant.

Car travel increase by 12.8% but overall is a decrease compared to other forms of transport.
ymlam
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:29 pm

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby KenGS » Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:27 pm

Cycling currently plays only a minor role in reducing car use in Australian cities. Although it
is important to provide safe, convenient facilities for cyclists, some of the extravagant rhetoric
currently circulating about cycling needs to be given a rest. Policy-makers need to pay
attention to the extremely restricted constituency that currently dominates the cycling ‘market’
(mainly male, inner city professionals), and develop measures to make cycling a viable option
for a wider section of the community, as is the case in the best European cities. This should
mean an end to policies such as the recent trend to combine bike and bus lanes in such a way
that buses must weave back and forth across cycle lanes to reach stops, which endangers
cyclists, delays buses and adds to driver stress
.

Author showing his true colours in the conclusions on page 29.
Try as I might I could not find the evidence presented to support the highlighted statement.
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby il padrone » Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:48 pm

This study is bullsh!t!! And it comes from someone at the RMIT :roll: . He really needs to open the door and have a look outside. A very high proportion of the cyclists coming into and out of the CBD from the northern suburbs (right past RMIT) are women, higher proportions than almost any other city in Australia. Make cycling safe and easy and women will take it up. It is actually a quite empowering transport mode for many women.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18404
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby il padrone » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:15 pm

jules21 wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote:Some may be offended with the statement "Cyling is of negligible importance for work trips..." which does not surprise me at all. I was surprised however with the reported contribution of walking.

the author of the study is obsessed with PT and i suspect is jealous of the increased attention given to cycling infrastructure

PTUA's credibility has just taken a huge leap downwards in my estimation. Seems Paul Mees is trying to join forces with Howdy Scruloose and the Pedestrians Front of Australia.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18404
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby Mulger bill » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:05 pm

Wonder who or what funded this study?

A question for the academics amongst us: Is using half a dozen of your own prior works as reference material seen to be academically legitimate?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25798
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby g-boaf » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:06 pm

I think it's a good study - especially if it galvanises the cycling community into a unified voice - rather than a whole lot of groups who sometimes take shots at achievements others have been able to get. Eg, that recent BikeEast and BikeSydney document which moaned in a sour grapes manner about Western Sydney getting cycle ways, which apparently weren't used much. :roll:

Trains are for me still a much better transport option than cycling. Even if I rode at best speed and had a direct off road route with no stopping, I wouldn't beat the train. I'd love to be able to try it, but proposals of veloways by BikeEast and BikeSydney in their most recent joint document are improbable and probably would be as unused as the Western Sydney cycle ways they so much disliked on page 20 final paragraph (using old data for justify the sour grapes).

And only investing in areas already showing a high use of cycling? Are they for real? Or is that a synonym for give us all the riches and stuff everyone else? If you don't build infrastructure where it doesn't already exist - how do you attract new people to cycling.

Excuse me if I seem jaded and cynical of all these papers that are presented all the time. Maybe just once, someone might do one for real that has some teeth and might deliver results before the next election (rather than being an election promise).
User avatar
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4043
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby DavidS » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:32 pm

Cycling will not become a major way to commute in this country in the medium term, I think that is just reality. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be catered for, especially since it is cheap infrastructure, but the big ticket infrastructure issues are elsewhere. In any case, we have bicycle infrastructure, it's called roads. We ride road vehicles, and the more of us ride them on roads the less we need specific infrastructure.

The big issue in urban transport in Australia is cars or trains. The problem with trams (although this can be overcome by more separated tracks) and buses is that the very traffic congestion you try and avoid by not taking the car is what is holding up your tram or bus. Compare the time it takes a No 19 or 67 tram in Melbourne to get to the city now compared with 20 years ago. Trains have the ability to move large numbers of people quickly over long distances. One train of 6 carriages can take 1,000 people. The issue is that we need to get governments to stop their insane, and insanely expensive, road tunnels and freeways, and instead invest in trains. In Melbourne the last time a new train line was built was in the 1930s. We need more train lines, a new signalling system and a better way to get trains in and out of the city (there were more train movements in Melbourne per day in the 1960s than is possible now - the infrastructure has got worse). Despite the willful neglect of the train system it is getting more passengers. Imagine what we could do if it was expanded and improved. The problems with cars are obvious: congestion, pollution, safety etc etc etc.

I'll still ride my bike to work, but the real solution is large capacity quick public transport, and that means mainly trains and maybe trams (some have a capacity of 200 so they can move a lot of people, but traffic is a big issue). I consider buses a niche add on, they have small capacity and are too easily stuck in traffic, only good for feeders to mass transit systems.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:34 pm

KenGS wrote:
Cycling currently plays only a minor role in reducing car use in Australian cities. Although it
is important to provide safe, convenient facilities for cyclists, some of the extravagant rhetoric
currently circulating about cycling needs to be given a rest. Policy-makers need to pay
attention to the extremely restricted constituency that currently dominates the cycling ‘market’
(mainly male, inner city professionals), and develop measures to make cycling a viable option
for a wider section of the community, as is the case in the best European cities. This should
mean an end to policies such as the recent trend to combine bike and bus lanes in such a way
that buses must weave back and forth across cycle lanes to reach stops, which endangers
cyclists, delays buses and adds to driver stress
.

Author showing his true colours in the conclusions on page 29.
Try as I might I could not find the evidence presented to support the highlighted statement.

I haven't any evidence either but it gels with the stereotype. And while it is a stereotype my own observations sit well with it. I think that they are right in that the appeal of cycling needs to be broadened a lot.

However the authors do seem to stray a fair bit from the data they are using.

The report needs to be taken with a big grain of salt as it is based on a very simple and insufficient set of data. (Earlier discussion between myself and Jules21.) Unfortunately though that data set has the one advantage of extending over a long period of time at regular intervals asked in a consistent manner,
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby il padrone » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:14 pm

DavidS wrote: In Melbourne the last time a new train line was built was in the 1930s.

I think you'd have to include the City Loop as a new line. It was such a revolutionary development for the whole rail system, and finally opened in 1981.

But yeah - more lines. And in particular more duplicated/triplicated lines with reduced/removed level crossings. Expensive, but have you looked at what a kilometre of freeway costs??
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18404
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby KenGS » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:17 pm

According to Paul Mees the City Loop was a waste of money also
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:31 pm

DavidS wrote:Cycling will not become a major way to commute in this country in the medium term, I think that is just reality. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be catered for, especially since it is cheap infrastructure, but the big ticket infrastructure issues are elsewhere. In any case, we have bicycle infrastructure, it's called roads. We ride road vehicles, and the more of us ride them on roads the less we need specific infrastructure.

The big issue in urban transport in Australia is cars or trains. The problem with trams (although this can be overcome by more separated tracks) and buses is that the very traffic congestion you try and avoid by not taking the car is what is holding up your tram or bus. Compare the time it takes a No 19 or 67 tram in Melbourne to get to the city now compared with 20 years ago. Trains have the ability to move large numbers of people quickly over long distances. One train of 6 carriages can take 1,000 people. The issue is that we need to get governments to stop their insane, and insanely expensive, road tunnels and freeways, and instead invest in trains. In Melbourne the last time a new train line was built was in the 1930s. We need more train lines, a new signalling system and a better way to get trains in and out of the city (there were more train movements in Melbourne per day in the 1960s than is possible now - the infrastructure has got worse). Despite the willful neglect of the train system it is getting more passengers. Imagine what we could do if it was expanded and improved. The problems with cars are obvious: congestion, pollution, safety etc etc etc.

I'll still ride my bike to work, but the real solution is large capacity quick public transport, and that means mainly trains and maybe trams (some have a capacity of 200 so they can move a lot of people, but traffic is a big issue). I consider buses a niche add on, they have small capacity and are too easily stuck in traffic, only good for feeders to mass transit systems.

DS


Apart from the bit pointed out by Pete, I support and endorse Daves post 95%
As an insider, I can say that a new signalling system will do little to improve service provision. Small incremental improvements to existing equipment and practices will. What we do need is to get rid of all single line sections, (token or non token) to remove major bottlenecks on certain lines and most importantly, remove-as much as physically possible-ALL at grade junctions. Purchasing rolling stock with fewer passenger doors to increase seat numbers has not increased system throughput as extra standover time is needed at stations for loading and unloading which effectively limits the number of trains that can operate in any section of track at a given time.

Shaun
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25798
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby jules21 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:49 pm

hey Shaun - wouldn't ATP allow trains to run closer together?
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8704
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby il padrone » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:51 pm

Yeah, I could bet the old swing-door cars were a lot quicker to load and unload. A bit like the old green trams - lots of entries.

Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18404
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby wellington_street » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:08 pm

KenGS wrote:
Cycling currently plays only a minor role in reducing car use in Australian cities. Although it
is important to provide safe, convenient facilities for cyclists, some of the extravagant rhetoric
currently circulating about cycling needs to be given a rest. Policy-makers need to pay
attention to the extremely restricted constituency that currently dominates the cycling ‘market’
(mainly male, inner city professionals), and develop measures to make cycling a viable option
for a wider section of the community, as is the case in the best European cities. This should
mean an end to policies such as the recent trend to combine bike and bus lanes in such a way
that buses must weave back and forth across cycle lanes to reach stops, which endangers
cyclists, delays buses and adds to driver stress
.

Author showing his true colours in the conclusions on page 29.
Try as I might I could not find the evidence presented to support the highlighted statement.


What exactly did he say that was wrong?

- spot on re: the commuter cycling 'market' at the present time
- spot on re: the need to make cycling a viable option for a wider section of the community
- spot on re: the danger and inefficiency of combined cycle/bus lanes (or cycle lanes that run on the kerb side of bus lanes on heavily patronised routes)

That paragraph certainly reads to me like he supports the growth of cycling as a legit mode of transport.

But hey let's just bash the other modes instead, that's much more constructive...
wellington_street
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby wellington_street » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:11 pm

KenGS wrote:According to Paul Mees the City Loop was a waste of money also


I don't know if I would go as far to say it was a waste of money but it is certainly a big contributor to the problems on the rail network at the moment and a barrier to getting the most out of the existing infrastructure.
wellington_street
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby cyclotaur » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:12 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:]
...... I was surprised however with the reported contribution of walking.

I used to walk to work rather than ride just 4-5kms - got more exercise that way. When I got a bike and started riding I instantly put on 3-5kgs and took up running every day to control my weight whilst riding to work to save time.

I know people who walk to the CBD (Melbourne) from the inner suburbs 'cos it's just simpler (and safer ...?) than cycling. Some listen to podcasts or audio books along the way.

If I was still working, then under 4-5kms I would walk rather than ride.
Here's my blog - A bit of fun :)
"Riding not racing...."
User avatar
cyclotaur
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:36 pm

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:29 pm

jules21 wrote:hey Shaun - wouldn't ATP allow trains to run closer together?



How close do you want them? Much of the suburban network is already at minimum overlaps now. ATP and similar systems do have major advantages over fixed block working but a network wide refit would mean no freeway upgrades for a decade or more to pay for it AND be political suicide considering the power of the roads lobby and their mates in the media.
Personally, if we want to go down the very high tech route, we may as well consider removing the human element from the train as well. Seems to work for Skytrain among others.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25798
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Transport POlicy study - RMIT

Postby DavidS » Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:43 pm

il padrone wrote:
DavidS wrote: In Melbourne the last time a new train line was built was in the 1930s.

I think you'd have to include the City Loop as a new line. It was such a revolutionary development for the whole rail system, and finally opened in 1981.

But yeah - more lines. And in particular more duplicated/triplicated lines with reduced/removed level crossings. Expensive, but have you looked at what a kilometre of freeway costs??


I think the loop was a disaster, putting all the lines on 4 tracks and screwing up Flinders St.

Interesting to hear from Mulger Bill, from what I had heard the signalling system desperately needs replacing but I also thought it would improve things. If the distance between trains is already small then it isn't safe to make it closer, those things don't stop in a hurry. Never driven a train but used to drive trams, being on rails certainly complicates things.

I would agree that the W class trams do load and unload much quicker. There are a number of factors: wide doors, only 2 steps, but one of the biggest factors was that we used to not have to wait for the doors to close to get moving. When I drove trams, mainly W class, we would be opening the doors as we got into the stop and closing them while we moved off.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Next

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: toofat



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit
cron