• Welcome to RAIL - Back On Track Forum.
 

Sustainable Transport Planning

Started by Jon Bryant, June 15, 2010, 22:30:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

#Metro

#1
June 15, 2010, 22:39:04 PM Last Edit: June 15, 2010, 22:52:47 PM by tramtrain
I like Currie's presentation.
GIGANTIC cities... Melbourne more area than London!
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

Golliwog

#2
June 16, 2010, 15:39:48 PM
I like the idea of a tax/levy on petrol to help fund PT. You would need to get the level just right though, too low and it's all but pointless, too high and people will stop using cars all together as they can't afford it, again making it all but pointless but would also involve mass complaints about the tax/levy.
There is no silver bullet... but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

#Metro

#3
June 16, 2010, 15:53:34 PM
Tax car purchases. That way it is incorporated into the price.
This will never happen though. Not with the subsidy "research grants" for car production.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

somebody

#4
June 16, 2010, 19:35:43 PM
Quote from: tramtrain on June 15, 2010, 22:39:04 PM
I like Currie's presentation.
GIGANTIC cities... Melbourne more area than London!
I actually found it quite depressing.  The notion that the low socio-economic areas also have the worst PT is very sad.

And this quote from the p8 of the second one: "Reform car FBT– perverse subsidy", is something I haven't thought about for a while.  I can't believe we are still doing this.

#Metro

#5
June 16, 2010, 20:12:35 PM Last Edit: June 16, 2010, 20:17:57 PM by tramtrain
The other thing is that its just so difficult.
You have to run a bus or train 20 km out to the edges of the city and somehow cover it, attach feeder buses to it and get to rail.
Being such a broad area too, makes it even worse. Very expensive.

OK, so supplying things to growing communities is the role of government, but infill should be much cheaper from a transport perspective.

Hypothetical- Rail

A) services per day - 54
B) route is to the terminus and back, so x 2
C) cost to run train assume is $60/km
D) distance to terminus is 20km

Weekdays: a x b x c x d = $129 600 per day x 260 workdays = $33 million
Weekends: $6.7 million
Ballpark running costs: $39.7 million x 0.75% subsidy = about $30 million per year in operating costs.

Question is, how much does it cost to operate a freeway each year?
(I know this is a narrow question, but its a rhetorical one I'm sure many pollies ask themselves).

IMHO the proposed new cities at Yarrabilla, Flagstone and Ripley are not a good idea.
Why not site those settlements around where the Kippa-Ring line would go.
Where the density is said to be too low to justify a railway line at this time?

How can it be justified the construction of 3 new rail lines to these places, while Kippa-Ring is still languishing?
Or maybe they will just build 3 freeways first and the 3 railway lines can just go into glossy reports which
will sit at the bottom of a file, and not be built until the roads are blocked.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions
🡱 🡳