Discussion

Clarification of language

When you say car-pooling in this section, do you mean car-sharing? I was unclear.

Thanks!

-- FMInternalEditor - 17 Jul 2008 16:35

The priority of pedestrian and cyclists over on road public transport.

In inner urban streets however trams and buses should not endanger, discourage or limit the mobility of pedestrians and cyclists. In these settings pedestrians and cyclists are encouraged when they have optimal access to all the streets in the local network. In particular tram and bus traffic volumes speeds must be compatible with high levels of road use by pedestrians and cyclists.

It is important to establish this principle and avoide, for example closing down parts of the street network to bicycles for tram/bus priority as has been done in Bourke Street. As the use of PT expands it can make the streets more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. This would be a backward step. Buses, in particular can kill urban centres when they dominate the road space through their speed and traffic volumes.

-- DavidMayes - 24 May 2008 12:11

Adelaide St, Brisbane, a local traffic only and bus-dedicated street is a example of how they can dominate the road, make crossing the roads difficult and emit noxious diesel fumes along a street that has some of the highest commercial rent spaces in Brisbane. -- ScottPrz - 12 Jun 2008 22:55

"Public Transport" Paradigm should change

I suggethat the whole approach to mobility, the whole set of assumptions, need to be reconsidered. When we see 'public transport' and 'roads for vehicles' listed as a separate components, either we are envisaging separate rights of way, which is generally true for trains (but not trams or buses), or we are confusing the goals with the underlying assumptions. I don't think the future plan is about saying 'cars are bad', though I realise there is a constituency out there who do. On the other hand, our current situation would suggest that 'single occupant cars' are bad. The roads are for all vehicles. The key problem is that there are too many vehicles for the amount of road.

Surprisingly this is not solved by having smaller vehicles. As the table on the cycling page shows, a vehicle at 100 km per hour takes up lots of space. It doesn't matter if this is a normal car, a van, or a micro-car. The problem is the same. Four micro cars will take up four times as much road space as one normal car with four people in it.

A new 'social contract' for use of the roads, that makes empty seats abhorrent, would take pressure off the budgets for more buses, and instantly create transport system capacity. The case is made for us on the public transport page that talks of the pressure the public transport system is under. They now have a problem of 'too little capacity', which could be flipped to be 'too much demand'.

What we need is a way to make it easy and rewarding for people to share rides. My personal view of how to best do this is using something I call 'flexible carpooling'. Information can be found at http://www.flexiblecarpooling.org/. We need to get people using this as a way to reduce the amount of traffic, and to reduce demand for added public transport, all at the same time. People who enjoy driving in a flexible carpooling system might in time drive vans and further reduce traffic (or at least manage the increase in the traffic).

The reason this is a better way of reducing vehicle counts rather than funding more and more buses is that it is far more energy efficient, it is more resilient, it is more responsive to change, it is more flexible as to destination.

Flexible carpooling and flexible vanpooling should be adopted and integrated into the public transport system, such that the network of interchanges can be used to maximise both systems for effectiveness and efficiency.

I am creating a group called FlexibleCarpoolingInterestGroup. I will link it when I have figured out how to do it.

-- PaulMinett - 18 May 2008 07:38.

• NERI_20080407d.pdf: Flexible carpooling saves transportation energy

• A Modal Choice Continuum:
  

  Paul, I agree, flexible car pooling should be added to the mix of options. I suggest adding it to the the table of proposed outcomes and also have a sentence up in the body of the pathway description with the link to the website.

  When we think about mobility a distinction needs to be made between public transport in all its forms and autonomous mobility. one of the main objectives for mobility in the city should be to maximise the opportunity for autonomous mobility for all citizens. Walking, bicycling are the best at delivering autonomous mobility in inner city settings because any age group can use these to move autonomously as they desire. The car, because of its size, power and speed is less effective because it impinges so strongly on the mobility options of other citizens and it is impossible for everyone to drive at once because it quickly leads to congestion.

  Public transport including car pooling has an critical role in making cities work but it does offer a compromise mobility i.e. we can only move on them according to fixed arrangements for agreed routes and timetables.

  -- DavidMayes - 18 May 2008 10:17

  Paul your car pooling suggestions fill a gap in the plan. I have created a sub headed section on car pooling based on your edits. does it still get across all of the points you were making? Also I note you have formed a group - are you OK how to use the groups function on the wiki?

  -- DavidMayes - 18 May 2008 22:56

  David I think the reorganisation you did works and still gets across all the points I was making.

  Regarding the group, I am not totally sure how to now use the group that has been formed. I understand that new ideas are more likely to stay in the plan if there is evidence of support, but I don't quite see how to attract that support to the group. Any suggestions?

  Regarding autonomous travel, and the energy impacts of different modes, please see the graphic of mode choices, and the paper attached below.

  -- PaulMinett - 20 May 2008 13:09

  Hi David and Paul, I've just re-ordered the discussion on this page to follow a chronological order from top to bottom. This is the general format on the Future Melbourne wiki. Starting new posts at the top of the page might confuse readers who are trying to keep track of the conversation and who are used to the layout on other topics.

  Paul, in terms of setting up your group, you might want to consider the following suggestions:

  • be active and post information on your group page that you feel others would fine useful in considering why they might be interested in joining - facts, links research, explanations of the issues at hand etc. - on a wiki, activity is the main thing that attracts other to participate - they notice your activity (through the recent changes on home page etc) and are attracted to what's happening.
  • (from HowYouCanParticipate) Read relevant discussion pages and invite participants who you think might be interested in your group.
    • We all like to be recognised for our work and this makes for an ideal way to connect with others with similar interests.
    • This will also give you an idea of what topics are of interest to others and help you attract others by fine tuning what you focus on.
    • And of course you might also invite your friends and colleges who have yet to post to this wiki. We're still just finding our feet with the groups feature so we're interested in any feedback you might have. We'll keep you posted as we roll out more functionality and opportunities in the near future.

  If any questions feel free to post back here. Thanks.

  -- DaleBowerman - 20 May 2008 18:52

  Tram Priority

  Rohan, I have taken your suggestion on tram priority and included it as an outcome.

  -- SandraWade - 23 May 2008 14:05

  A Dynamic Bus Service

  I live in Melton. Out here, a new housing estate opens up almost every month. While the developers of these estates provide many services (e.g. community halls), public transport tends to be forgotten. The local bus company needs to change timetables and routes regularly in order to cope, but every time they do, the quality of the service deteriorates. To be fair to the schedulers, they have a very difficult task: no matter what fixed timetable and routes they choose, we end up with both lack of service and empty bus seats.

  My proposal is not to have the bus service operate to a fixed timetable or route. Instead, I envisage a Dynamic Bus Service which operates in this fashion:

  1. Every bus stop has an assigned number.
  2. Located at the bus stop is a numeric keypad.
  3. When passengers go to the bus stop, they enter in the number of the bus stop they wish to go to.
  4. The entry feeds into a central computer system which optimally recalculates the existing bus routes to include the requested trip.
  5. The central system notifies the selected bus wirelessly of the change in route.
  6. A visual display unit at the bus stop advises each passenger how long the bus will take to arrive.

  The cost to taxpayers could be kept at a minimum by only covering the bus stops and part of the central system through the public purse. The buses themselves could be provided by multiple private bus companies. The public computer would "advertise" the passenger as "available" to the private companies. Each private computer could respond with likely arrival times, with the best time being the winner.

  -- WardVanDerVeer - 01 Jun 2008 21:40

  Fiscal incentives for governments to provide public transport

  If the (State or Local) tax system claws back a fraction of every unearned uplift in property values, the (State or Local) government has a fiscal incentive to do things that raise property values. One such thing is improving public transport.
  
  The net benefit of public transport (i.e. "net" of fares) is location-specific, and therefore is reflected as an uplift in property values in the serviced locations. More precisely, it is reflected as an uplift in land values - not building values, because the value of a building is limited by construction costs, but land values, because land has location, and therefore locational value, even if no buildings yet stand on it.
  
  So if municipal rates were maximally dependent on site values ( not on combined values of sites and buildings), and if developers' contributions to infrastructure costs were apportioned to the "capital gains" on resale of land by the developers, and if the stamp duty on sale of a property were payable by the seller and apportioned to the uplift in the site value since the last sale, governments would have much more incentive to invest in public transport, and the coverage and frequency of services would consequently improve.

  (I propose to make a small addition to the wiki along those lines.)

  -- GavinPutland - 13 Jun 2008 16:56

  P.S.: I also propose to shift the "indicators" to appropriate positions in the table (DONE). Other readers might like to check that the placements are indeed appropriate.

  -- GavinPutland - 14 Jun 2008 11:37

  A row dealing with "fiscal incentives for governments" has been added to the table. Because the goal is "more services", which seems to me to be the most fundamental of all goals stated in the table, I have been so bold as to place the new row at the top.

  -- GavinPutland - 14 Jun 2008 12:50

  Column widths adjusted.

  -- GavinPutland - 15 Jun 2008 14:28

  TRAIN TIMETABLING

  TRAIN TIMETABLING has been identified by Future Melbourne (Connected City) as being key to moving people around the city effectively, as well as reducing the number of cars on roads which will deliver quicker public transport times (trams/buses able to travel faster) as well as safer roads for cyclists, pedestrians and cleaner air for all.

  I commute from an outer suburb to the CBD each day and would like to provide the following as my view of various issues/factors as to how and why I still travel by car each day:

  a) Insufficient express trains (current full-service trains take an unneccessarily long time to outer areas). Also, not all lines have the same number of express/limited express trains in peak times and that is just plain UNFAIR.

  b) I feel that is partly due to inadequate/unequal distribution of public transport (WAY too many train stops in inner-suburbs: compare Melway Pg59-60 (Malvern/Hawthorn/Glen Iris/Caufield - Total stations=FIFTEEN + TRAMS) with Pg202-207 (Werribee/Hoppers Crossing/Point Cook/Laverton/Altona Meadows - Total stations=FOUR and NO TRAMS) or Pg25-26 (Caroline Springs/Deer Park/St Albans/Sunshine - Total stations=FIVE and NO TRAMS) By-pass/Consolidate some of these stations in peak hours to REDUCE TRAVEL TIMES to/from middle-outer suburb areas (because, of everyone, many 'burb-dwellers' really can't afford NOT to have more express trains - considering we don't have equal access to trams, and cycling 30-50km isn't as manageable as those living 10-20km from CBD). Also, purely for social reasons, it would be great if there were one or two faster trains or limited express trains TO the city on the weekends. I think many more people would travel in to the city to DO things if the train ride was equal to or less than their travel time by car, as well as giving younger people another option to connect with the city.

  c) Personal Comfort: I finish work at 5.10pm which does not allow time to get the ONE express train on the Werribee line from the CBD. Either I have to leave early (short lunch) where I still have to SPRINT to Flinders Street stations. I can try to run up to Parliament station (extra few minutes to get to station), but then there is little hope of getting a seat (as standing for long-ish periods causes physical pain)

  **I would LOVE to use public transport more often: but the current state of the train timetable and the MASSIVE UNFAIRNESS in distribution of trains to inner-city and/or eastern areas impacts on my use of the public transport system. I am an environmentalist and I make myself ashamed for driving in each day. Plus it is costing me a FORTUNE - OVER 20% of my wage is sucked-up on travelling to/from work!! This is money that is not being saved, invested or otherwise enjoyed at my leisure. Cycling is not a viable option for me (distance and physical injuries) and I've found car pooling is more hastle than helpful. I understand City of Melbourne needs to consider their residents' needs (providing safe cycling lanes, reducing traffic congestion etc..) and initiatives such as the Copenhagen cycling lanes as a means of improving SAFETY is one thing. HOWEVER, various communications have mentioned how these bike lanes will better enable the people of Melbourne/Carlton to use 'more sustainable' public transport options in to the CBD and - given that very few Carlton residents/students would actually DRIVE to the CBD to begin with - I would hope that OTHER initiatives that could benefit a MUCH LARGER GROUP of the Melbourne's population would be implemented so boldy.

  As the state capital city, I think that more CoM? ? residents (and perhaps staff??) could benefit from looking OUTSIDE of CoM? ? for answers to some of their problems. Cyclists' safe use of the roads could be SIGNIFICANTLY improved if REAL alternatives were available for the thousands of CBD-bound motorists (such as improving the train timetabling), so I think it is important to understand that catering for or advocating for OUTER-SUBURB RESIDENTS/CBD WORKERS could have a MAJOR positive impact on various strategies already identified in CityPlan? ? 2010 and Future Melbourne.

  I acknowledge that reviewing Melbourne's train timetable is probably not a simple task however there would HAVE TO BE people with the relevant skills and authority to be able to start making revolutionary changes for Melbournites. If New York and London etc.. can provide world-renowned train travel then SURELY Melbourne can review, refine and REJUVENATE our train timetable to make the capital city of Melbourne much more accessible MORE OFTEN. I would encourage City of Melbourne to advocate the necessary transport authorities to encourage this rejuvenation in order to better engage with those across the entire metropolis of Melbourne in the future and I look forward to the bold implementation of such initiatives.

  LeanneEdwards 15 Jun 2008 - 16:32

  From Affordable business:

  Greater investment in, and improved management of, public transport. Work with the State Government in developing a medium term vision for a metro style public transport system in central Melbourne to complement the tramway network and the commuter rail system.

  Public transport directly moves personnel and helps to relieve congestion on roads, thus indirectly helping the intra-city flow of supplies and products.

  -- SandraWade - 18 Jun 2008 13:24

  Submerged integrated rail proposal

  Please see the following topic: Submerged integrated rail proposal

  Proposed Rowville Line and Burnley Group Service Improvements

  Please see the following topic: Proposed Rowville Line and Burnley Group Service Improvements

  Do you have any suggested actions to achieve this Goal?

  Please add them here.

  Higher efficiency from existing public transport infrastructure - Shuttle services

  I have taken the following edit by RalphWebster out of the goal. It is good stuff but more suitable for the next implementation stage. -- DavidMayes - 13 Jul 2008 21:49

  Our current public transport infrastructure could be made more efficient through a 'spine and shuttle' based system over the existing 'route' based network. The spine based network works by the taking existing heavily used public transport routes, such as the tramway on St Kilda Road or Swanston St and re-organising them into a dedicated bi-directional lines only, which do not branch. The existing branches are then turn redefined as 'feeder' spines. In the example of St Kilda Road, there would be several shuttles that run along these new 'feeder' spines, along the existing transport routes, such as Toorak Road, Commercial Road, High Street etc. To further add to the service, the feeder spines themselves could in turn be fed by other a tertiary feeder lines - and the so on.

  This spine and shuttle network also need not be limited to trams only, as other roads, which currently do not have a tram line could be integrated through the use of buses or minibuses, feeding the primary spine. These tram spines can be further integrated with the existing radial spines of the metropolitan heavy rail system.

  Once in place, the major transport spine(s), with regular and frequent shuttles running for their entire lengths and without the complications of integrating with suburban vehicular traffic, could then be treated as a regular light rail. By creating a preferential traffic light synchronisation and the ability to ensure no traffic interferes, it would be possible to run a tram past every stop on St Kilda road every few minutes.

  This system not only increases the certainty and reduces the waiting times of a shuttle but also reduces the issues of overcrowding by creating a reliability that is currently missing from the route based network. The inherent uncertainty in road based public transport, such as traffic, signal crossings and other road conditions which cause trams and buses to be held up. These issues, which are addressed elsewhere on this page, are actually compounded by the longer the distance a tram is required to travel. When a tram is required to run from Moreland to Toorak or from St Kilda to Preston, to use some examples from the current route structure, it has a flow on effect to the timetabling of the entire network, as this same tram shares the tracks of trams heading to completely different destinations. When many trams come together to use the same tracks at uncertain intervals, they get snarled up with each other and traffic signals. This further adds to transport 'dead time' which reduces the overall speed of the tram to less than that of a bicycle. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/tram-dead-time-costs-200000-hours-a-year/2007/09/27/1190486482925.html)

  The transport spine and shuttle system is used in many cities throughout the world, such as the recently reinvigorated public bus system in Bogota.

  -- DavidMayes - 13 Jul 2008 21:49

  more

  Land uses surrounding train stations and bus interchanges are mixed, allowing people to live, work and be active within close proximity to the city's transport services.
  
  Food and service providers (Coles, Safeway and IGA for example) form partnerships with State Government and private investment to create of a pattern of development where Supermarkets and commercial activities are partnered with rail and bus infrastructure which form the catalyst for activity and basis for transit-oriented activity centres.

  -- DavidMayes - 13 Jul 2008 22:45

  David, FYI the edit above was made by RalphWebster

  -- DaleBowerman - 14 Jul 2008 16:56

To All, This edit was made by me, regarding a Japanese model of rail-based development. Thank-You.

"Food and service providers (Coles, Safeway and IGA for example) form partnerships with State Government and private investment to create of a pattern of development where Supermarkets and commercial activities are partnered with rail and bus infrastructure which form the catalyst for activity and basis for transit-oriented activity centres. :

-- ScottPrz - 23 Jul 2008 22:37 I am an architect in Design + Urban Environment City of Melbourne.