News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[bdm]

Freeways should be built not for commuter traffic, but for freight and bypass traffic. And why build them through the metropolitan area? Can't we build a bypass from Murray Bridge to northern Adelaide, therefore deverting all the trucks from metro routes and getting them straight to the Port / Railyards / Northern SA / Perth / Darwin?

[ynotsfables]

I think the fact we don't have an extensive freeway system like cities half our size, yet we still can get around quite easily, is testament to the efficiency of the grid system. Your suggesting our lack of freeways is a result of bad planning, I think the opposite!

Spot on well said, wide roads and the grid system that even inner city suburbs are built on that replicate Adelaide in a small scale.
Eg Norwood, Prospect, Nth Adelaide, Unley, Woodville & all the circulating suburbs after the belt of parklands.
Very unique design.

[rogue]

Just out of curiosity adam73837, what is your background?

[adam73837]

Just out of curiosity adam73837, what is your background?

I am currently doing year 10 at Glenunga International High School and I work at Foodland.

[adam73837]

The north of Adelaide is expanding. It has been said in this forum that:

• rather than building freeways, why not encourage our public transport sytem?

• It has also been stated in this forum that buses are better to have in our transport system than trains.

• We should create a road to bypass Adelaide to get the freight to Port Adelaide quicker

Okay, point taken, buses are more flexible than trains and are thus better to have, however buses still have to travel down our congested roads during peak hour, whilst trains bypass it. If we were to build a north-south freeway like MHS has suggested, traffic will move more efficently from the expanding northern and southern suburbs. This means that the buses will do so as well.
Secondly, creating something to bypass Adelaide and get freight to Port Adelaide quicker would cost a LOT of money. Instead, why don't we convert the Cross Road, A17, Grand Junction Road loop in to a non-stop route which can connect as non-stop intersections to South Road (which is apparently going to become a non-stop route as well). This will make the freight move through Adelaide quicker and it will also allow people to get from one side of the city to the other quicker.
Now before people jump down my throat and say that building a freeway will encourage people to use it, if the freeway and its exits are designed with the knowledge of how the traffic will grow, people will be able to use the freeways more efficiently for a very long time. If not, extra lanes can be added and the exit ramps can be extended.
By the way, is anyone aware that Hobart (which has a population that is a fifth of ours) has at least two freeways which go through its urban areas and into the city. Although these freeways are probably as long as Cross Road, they still get people into the city quicker.
Perth had freeways, our population is smaller, but not significantly. Now Hobart has freeways, Adelaide really needs to progress. I hop MHS gets elected if he plans on staying true to his word of creating a north-south corridor and inner and outer city ring routes.

[Will409]

You may want to remove that post and edit it because what rogue is asking was "what is your background field" (ie urban planning, transport planning or enthusiast).

[monotonehell]

The north of Adelaide is expanding. It has been said in this forum that:

• rather than building freeways, why not encourage our public transport sytem?

• It has also been stated in this forum that buses are better to have in our transport system than trains.

• We should create a road to bypass Adelaide to get the freight to Port Adelaide quicker

Okay, point taken, buses are more flexible than trains and are thus better to have, however buses still have to travel down our congested roads during peak hour, whilst trains bypass it. If we were to build a north-south freeway like MHS has suggested, traffic will move more efficently from the expanding northern and southern suburbs. This means that the buses will do so as well...

Building a freeway just means moving the congestion onto that. It's been the experience elsewhere that building freeways encourages people to use them, until their capacity is reached. Putting buses onto the same freeways just means more congestion.

The answer? Either build rail networks or bus transit lanes that encourage people OUT of their cars and onto public transport. Then you're left with the age old question, bus or rail. There's so much emotion and misinformation out there regarding this it's hard to decide. I used to favour rail, but recent reading of a number of academic papers on the subject that look at actual figures and give the basis behind those figures, I'm starting to lean toward busways. And specifically guided busways like our OBahn. BUT, there's so little actual factual data on the costs associated with running and building the things that I'm still sitting on the fence. The last best comparison of build costs I've found was roughly $16m for O-Bahn or $20m for rail per Km. And running costs of about $7.00 per passenger trip for O-Bahn and $13.70 per passenger trip. So O-Bahn seems cheaper on both counts, but it's so hard to get credible figures.

[adam73837]

The north of Adelaide is expanding. It has been said in this forum that:

• rather than building freeways, why not encourage our public transport sytem?

• It has also been stated in this forum that buses are better to have in our transport system than trains.

• We should create a road to bypass Adelaide to get the freight to Port Adelaide quicker

Okay, point taken, buses are more flexible than trains and are thus better to have, however buses still have to travel down our congested roads during peak hour, whilst trains bypass it. If we were to build a north-south freeway like MHS has suggested, traffic will move more efficently from the expanding northern and southern suburbs. This means that the buses will do so as well...

Building a freeway just means moving the congestion onto that. It's been the experience elsewhere that building freeways encourages people to use them, until their capacity is reached. Putting buses onto the same freeways just means more congestion.

The answer? Either build rail networks or bus transit lanes that encourage people OUT of their cars and onto public transport. Then you're left with the age old question, bus or rail. There's so much emotion and misinformation out there regarding this it's hard to decide. I used to favour rail, but recent reading of a number of academic papers on the subject that look at actual figures and give the basis behind those figures, I'm starting to lean toward busways. And specifically guided busways like our OBahn. BUT, there's so little actual factual data on the costs associated with running and building the things that I'm still sitting on the fence. The last best comparison of build costs I've found was roughly $16m for O-Bahn or $20m for rail per Km. And running costs of about $7.00 per passenger trip for O-Bahn and $13.70 per passenger trip. So O-Bahn seems cheaper on both counts, but it's so hard to get credible figures.

You have a good point about the effect of buses on the freeways. Why not build busways like they have in brisbane? These would connect to suburban roads, meaning that it is more flexible than having a railway and more flexible than the O-Bahn.
Could everyone submit their opinions on this?

[Will409]

I personally favour rail because individual vehicle can carry a higher maximum number of passengers (both seated and standing) then a bus. Most rigid buses have between 47 and 55 seats and artic's have around 70. At crush capacity, a rigid framed bus can carry a passenger load of 80 or so maximum. An articulated bus can carry around 100 maximum.

The Flexity trams we currently have in service have 64 seats which is greater then any rigid framed buses and nearly the same of an articulated bus. When loaded to 'crush load' with every available seat and floor space taken, they can carry 110 or so passengers. The H class also have 64 seats but can be coupled together creating a total of 128 seats. When loaded, a coupled set can carry around 180 passengers.

Heavy rail has an even bigger lead. A single 3100 class railcar carries 113 passengers and remember that they are semi permanently coupled in 2 car sets (occasionally for maintenance considerations, they are broken up for a period of upto 3 weeks). In Adelaide, the average maximum train length is 4 cars although most platforms are designed for trains upto 6 cars long. A 4 car train made up entirely of 3100 class railcars equals 452 seated passengers. That doesn't factor in standing passengers which represent a maximum crush load of upto 550 - 580 passengers. Back in the early 1990s before train schedules on the Noarlunga line were made more frequent, 6 car trains were run. If the platforms are long enough, you can add railcars where available at will to the point where Sydney operate 8 car trains on a daily basis and all possible with a single driver. One of heavy rail's greatest advantages is you can add and remove railcars to suit the passenger numbers. Buses and to a lesser extent trams can't do this. For those who are wondering and don't, the Flexity trams do have couplers fitted but don't have MU equipment and the couplers are only used in emergencies for towing a failed tram.

Another issue is that when you try to run buses to carry a similar number of passengers to a heavy rail route, you need a far greater number of
a: buses
b: bus drivers
to carry an equivelant number of passengers. In addition to having to pay a larger number of bus driver' salaries but you also need to maintain a greater number of buses also. Yes, a bus does cost less to run then a tram but during peak periods, you need a larger fleet of buses to carry the same number of passengers as a train or tram. Trams in Adelaide are at a disadvantage because we still have 2 man crews on trams (driver and conductor) although as Melbourne has proven, it is possible to run trams with only a driver (and they have a fleet of nearly 500 trams).

Summing up, on heavly patronised or long distance routes, trains are ideal. For higher capacity routes of either a short or medium distance (maximum of say 15-20kms) then trams are good. Buses are good for either low patronage, short distance routes or in areas where heavy and light rail would not be practicle.

[adam73837]

I personally favour rail because individual vehicle can carry a higher maximum number of passengers (both seated and standing) then a bus. Most rigid buses have between 47 and 55 seats and artic's have around 70. At crush capacity, a rigid framed bus can carry a passenger load of 80 or so maximum. An articulated bus can carry around 100 maximum.

The Flexity trams we currently have in service have 64 seats which is greater then any rigid framed buses and nearly the same of an articulated bus. When loaded to 'crush load' with every available seat and floor space taken, they can carry 110 or so passengers. The H class also have 64 seats but can be coupled together creating a total of 128 seats. When loaded, a coupled set can carry around 180 passengers.

Heavy rail has an even bigger lead. A single 3100 class railcar carries 113 passengers and remember that they are semi permanently coupled in 2 car sets (occasionally for maintenance considerations, they are broken up for a period of upto 3 weeks). In Adelaide, the average maximum train length is 4 cars although most platforms are designed for trains upto 6 cars long. A 4 car train made up entirely of 3100 class railcars equals 452 seated passengers. That doesn't factor in standing passengers which represent a maximum crush load of upto 550 - 580 passengers. Back in the early 1990s before train schedules on the Noarlunga line were made more frequent, 6 car trains were run. If the platforms are long enough, you can add railcars where available at will to the point where Sydney operate 8 car trains on a daily basis and all possible with a single driver. One of heavy rail's greatest advantages is you can add and remove railcars to suit the passenger numbers. Buses and to a lesser extent trams can't do this. For those who are wondering and don't, the Flexity trams do have couplers fitted but don't have MU equipment and the couplers are only used in emergencies for towing a failed tram.

Another issue is that when you try to run buses to carry a similar number of passengers to a heavy rail route, you need a far greater number of
a: buses
b: bus drivers
to carry an equivelant number of passengers. In addition to having to pay a larger number of bus driver' salaries but you also need to maintain a greater number of buses also. Yes, a bus does cost less to run then a tram but during peak periods, you need a larger fleet of buses to carry the same number of passengers as a train or tram. Trams in Adelaide are at a disadvantage because we still have 2 man crews on trams (driver and conductor) although as Melbourne has proven, it is possible to run trams with only a driver (and they have a fleet of nearly 500 trams).

Summing up, on heavly patronised or long distance routes, trains are ideal. For higher capacity routes of either a short or medium distance (maximum of say 15-20kms) then trams are good. Buses are good for either low patronage, short distance routes or in areas where heavy and light rail would not be practicle.

You have a good point Will409. What type of public transport would you suggest to put onto/ next to a freeway system (if we were to build one).

[Will409]

It really does depend on several factors:

-Existing PT links/routes
-Area density
-Local topography
-Freeway length

If for example the O-bahn was going to be converted to a freeway, I would advise heavy rail because the length and current O-bahn patronage would make it a desired option even though a fair amount of tunneling would be required at the city end of the line. This would atleast mean the eastern end of North Terrace would have access to a heavy rail station and does give a perfect oppurtunity to create an underground city loop. The current width of the right of way on the O-bahn also means it would be possible (with some work) to create a 4 or even 6 lane freeway with a double track heavy rail line in the middle. There are some hills on route which will slow the trains down but unlike the Belair line which is frought with curves, the generally straight nature of the route means that some decent speeds up and down the hills such as between Hallet Cove and Lonsdale on the Noarlunga Centre line.

However, I would still prefer a heavy rail only option because it would encourage PT use rather then having a good freeway neighbouring it.

[monotonehell]

You have a good point about the effect of buses on the freeways. Why not build busways like they have in brisbane? These would connect to suburban roads, meaning that it is more flexible than having a railway and more flexible than the O-Bahn.

Busways seem like a good idea, but I worry about the safety of having manually guided buses going at speed in a narrow pathway. If I could get good data on the difference in costs between rail, busway and guided busway construction it would help, but there's so much cloud on this subject.

I personally favour rail because individual vehicle can carry a higher maximum number of passengers (both seated and standing) then a bus. Most rigid buses have between 47 and 55 seats and artic's have around 70. At crush capacity, a rigid framed bus can carry a passenger load of 80 or so maximum. An articulated bus can carry around 100 maximum.

The Flexity trams we currently have in service have 64 seats which is greater then any rigid framed buses and nearly the same of an articulated bus. When loaded to 'crush load' with every available seat and floor space taken, they can carry 110 or so passengers. The H class also have 64 seats but can be coupled together creating a total of 128 seats. When loaded, a coupled set can carry around 180 passengers.

Heavy rail has an even bigger lead. A single 3100 class railcar carries 113 passengers and remember that they are semi permanently coupled in 2 car sets (occasionally for maintenance considerations, they are broken up for a period of upto 3 weeks). In Adelaide, the average maximum train length is 4 cars although most platforms are designed for trains upto 6 cars long. A 4 car train made up entirely of 3100 class railcars equals 452 seated passengers. That doesn't factor in standing passengers which represent a maximum crush load of upto 550 - 580 passengers. Back in the early 1990s before train schedules on the Noarlunga line were made more frequent, 6 car trains were run. If the platforms are long enough, you can add railcars where available at will to the point where Sydney operate 8 car trains on a daily basis and all possible with a single driver. One of heavy rail's greatest advantages is you can add and remove railcars to suit the passenger numbers. Buses and to a lesser extent trams can't do this. For those who are wondering and don't, the Flexity trams do have couplers fitted but don't have MU equipment and the couplers are only used in emergencies for towing a failed tram.

Another issue is that when you try to run buses to carry a similar number of passengers to a heavy rail route, you need a far greater number of
a: buses
b: bus drivers
to carry an equivelant number of passengers. In addition to having to pay a larger number of bus driver' salaries but you also need to maintain a greater number of buses also. Yes, a bus does cost less to run then a tram but during peak periods, you need a larger fleet of buses to carry the same number of passengers as a train or tram. Trams in Adelaide are at a disadvantage because we still have 2 man crews on trams (driver and conductor) although as Melbourne has proven, it is possible to run trams with only a driver (and they have a fleet of nearly 500 trams).

Summing up, on heavly patronised or long distance routes, trains are ideal. For higher capacity routes of either a short or medium distance (maximum of say 15-20kms) then trams are good. Buses are good for either low patronage, short distance routes or in areas where heavy and light rail would not be practicle.

So to summarise obahn / light rail / heavy rail:
ridgid:
50 to 80
(Fixed run but can use artic for more capacity)
artic:
70 to 100
(Fixed run)
Lead 15 seconds (Is this correct? I got the figure from Hensher, 1999 "bus-based transitway or light rail?" sounds terribly optimistic)
= 240 buses in an hour so between 12000 and 24000 passengers an hour?
Lead 2 minutes (My guess)
= 30 buses in a hour = 1500 and 3000 in an hour

Flexity:
64 to 110
(Fixed run)
Lead 2 minutes (actually 15 minutes due to being at grade)
= 30 a hour = 1920 to 3300 an hour

3100:
113 to 580
(Can add or remove rail cars to suit passenger loads)
Lead 2 minutes (again this is my guess, what's the lead on a properly maintained rail line, considering being mostly at grade?)
= 30 a hour = 3390 to 17400 an hour

That's running at ABSOLUTE capacity which is stupid because reality would never get there. But OBahn compares with theoretical max capacities and has the advantage of being able to go to more than one place. Trains are stuck on their rails while a bus can leave the OBahn at an interchange and provide a transfer free door to door service, trains need buses to provide feeders. If the track is blocked buses can switch directly to roads whereas train passengers need to be rescued with buses. They're cheaper to run by at least 20% and possibly cheaper to construct and maintain (depending whether these figure I have are factual).

The more research I read the less I like trains. Which is a shame as I'm a bit of a closet anorak

[Will409]

Considering we don't have a properly upgraded line going to Noarlunga (yet), I really can't give any good headway figures for a good quality rail line down that way.

As I have already stated, an O-bahn in comparison to heavy rail does have the disadvantage of having to use a higher number of buses to carry the same amount of passengers as well as an increased number of drivers.

[monotonehell]

Considering we don't have a properly upgraded line going to Noarlunga (yet), I really can't give any good headway figures for a good quality rail line down that way.

As I have already stated, an O-bahn in comparison to heavy rail does have the disadvantage of having to use a higher number of buses to carry the same amount of passengers as well as an increased number of drivers.

Any idea of the cost difference between running several buses to different destinations down a busway compared to running one train of the same capacity and then several feeder buses?

[Will409]

Not often I say this but I don't have access to that sort of information. It must be remembered that not all train journeys involve a bus transfer though (especially at the small local stations).

That said, ALL forms of PT that have been mentioned in this thread do have a place in the overall network and need to be used to what they have been designed for to the maximum extent. Public transport that is run by the Government should not be run as a profit making exercise.