News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Buses

[Düsseldorfer]

fingers crossed for a few of these beasts


image from wikipedia

but i can already guess that Adelaide Metro have decided on the typical badly designed scania artic buses, the ones with seats in the doorway, and only one main entry door that can leave passengers waiting for about 5mins while a wheelchair or scooter try to get round the corner and into the disabled space *puts hand to head*

i'm hoping for an artic bus that is low floor right through almost to the back of the bus with lots of standing room and big wide double doors to allow for quick boarding (makes sense if they're gonna make gated interchanges in the future)

also there is the possibility of installing tram/train tracks to allow for trams or light rail, might also be possible to make the glenelg tram line a busway so that buses can use the line too, like in Oberhausen, Germany http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96PNV- ... Oberhausen

[AtD]

A quick and easy solution would be to place bus lanes down Grenfell Street, even if they're enforced during peak only. This will at least give the system a little bit more breathing space while longer term solutions are explored.

[monotonehell]

All the more reason the case for the O-Bahn to be converted to a rail corridor, with an extension to Golden Grove. It will be able to take on board the increased capacity now and in the future with more reliable operational times.

Totally wrong considering that the OBahn costs about half the amount to run than a rail system, was about two thirds the cost of a comparable LRT to build (even ignoring that it's grade separated - cost of bridges etc, that the Torrens's Valley has poor clay soil to build on, that the cost included the development of Linear Park, and that you still need to consider the cost of buses needed to feed a rail corridor into its costing) and has a theoretical capacity of 36,000 passengers an hour --- There's plenty of capacity in the OBahn, well beyond the point that converting it to a rail corridor even starts to become worth it. All we need are more buses. Also consider that the rail system is currently receiving complaints of it being full.

Compare the two:
Rail
Capital cost of building the rail line
Capital cost of the rolling stock
Capital cost of buses to serve as feeder routes.
Running costs of the rail system
Running costs of the feeder buses.

OBahn
Capital cost of building the guideway (2/3rds the cost of rail)
Capital cost of the buses (Don't need to buy rolling stock on top of buses)
Running costs of the buses (half the cost of running rail)

Both systems have a capacity way above what's needed (~36k obahn - ~50k rail)

Just doesn't add up Shuz.

[Norman]

Also consider that the rail system is currently receiving complaints of it being full.

That's debatable, plus our rail system is at a lower frequency than most rail lines, and has very short car sets.

In other news, the new Artic was in use today, but only did one quick trip on the 540W route (GGV-Wayville).

Photos here: http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewt ... 10&t=34319

[monotonehell]

Also consider that the rail system is currently receiving complaints of it being full.

That's debatable, plus our rail system is at a lower frequency than most rail lines, and has very short car sets.

In other news, the new Artic was in use today, but only did one quick trip on the 540W route (GGV-Wayville).

Photos here: http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewt ... 10&t=34319

Similarly our OBahn is operating at reduced capacity due to the very short buses. See what I'm getting at here?

Also I catch the OBahn in to and out of work every day. I get a seat almost every day. Even in peak period. I have, however, experienced the line up at TTP at absolute peak time (around 8:30). Yes the line is constantly around 40 people long and looks daunting when you arrive. But it's being added to by people arriving and subtracted from by buses picking up people. So you move to the head of the queue with in a few minutes.

O-bahn headway at peak is currently something like 50seconds.

[AG]

A quick and easy solution would be to place bus lanes down Grenfell Street, even if they're enforced during peak only. This will at least give the system a little bit more breathing space while longer term solutions are explored.

Also, parts of Hackney Road should be considered for bus lanes as well, this is another one of the slow points for the O-Bahn routes. There's not much consistency in the capacity of the buses coming down the O-Bahn on some routes, occasionally I have seen shorter buses that are full only to be followed by an articulated bus that is nearly empty. The buses really need to be rearranged so that the busier routes off the O-Bahn get the articulated buses and the the less busy routes the shorter buses. The slow boarding process with the current ticketing system doesn't exactly assist boarding times well either, hopefully this will be resolved with the planned new ticketing system.

[AtD]

If you want to see slow boarding times, take a bus in Canberra! Adelaide bus passengers are somewhat civilised and have developed a queuing etiquette, at least at the O-Bahn stops.

I can't see the cost of providing a bus lane from Park Tce to Currie Street as being very high. It will have to end for the Hackney Road bridge over the river, and there's a few interesting weaving movements required, but it's doable. I think the only thing that may cause a high cost is relocating power lines on Hackney Road.

[Düsseldorfer]

In other news, the new Artic was in use today, but only did one quick trip on the 540W route (GGV-Wayville).

Photos here: http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewt ... 10&t=34319

well that's good if those are double doors, finally they got something right!!

[Cruise]

Trams overcrowding = good

Buses overcrowding = bad

go figure

[jk1237]

Cruise, what do you mean? Remember the anti-tram hysteria in this city, until they were all proven wrong.

I think The Advertiser thought it hadn't done a negative PT story on overcrowding for a while, so this time they targetted the o'bahn

and mr monotonehell, I wanna see these figures that the o'bahn running costs are half of a train line. Our trains' running costs are high caus its so rundown, but other cities????

[Düsseldorfer]

I think The Advertiser thought it hadn't done a negative PT story on overcrowding for a while, so this time they targetted the o'bahn

lol maybe it was an Advertiser journalist who threw that Molotov cocktail

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 82,00.html

[monotonehell]

...
and mr monotonehell, I wanna see these figures that the o'bahn running costs are half of a train line. Our trains' running costs are high caus its so rundown, but other cities????

Well the first place you'll see it is on the Adelaide Metro page. I've also seen it in several academic papers.

The capital costs of the OBahn were estimated to be less than comparable LRI before it was built, and confirmed ten years after it was completed with the economic review.

Adelaide Metro's cost accountants had our rail and bus costs per ride at $12.90 and $7 respectively in 2006 (that's 54%).

Capital costs of LRI compared to OBahn are undoubtedly dearer, most of the sources I've seen say that running costs of buses are lower. The only ones that claim otherwise are special interest groups like light-rail-now, who are so biased it's embarrassing.

I've still not satisfied myself that it's 100% true, however. I can't find any truly reliable data to work it out myself to my satisfaction, but all that I've read definitely leans in that direction. And a lot of the rail calculations don't include all of the costs. Even I can see that.

[jk1237]

What would be interesting is to see and compare the running costs of the rail systems for each of the 5 capitals, and Wellington and Auckland, per capita of course. Auckland is the only other that uses diesel, and their system has always been as run down as Adelaide's, but I think we've now shot to Number 1 for the most neglected system.

Buses are definitely cheaper to build and run, but the indirect cost of wear and tear from buses on roads is never taken into account (just like semi-trailers on our national highways). Whereas upkeep of railway lines (for passenger and freight) is always inbuilt to the cost of rail transport so it looks worse than road based transport.

For example, when I lived out TTG way, 2 or 3 times I saw they had to redo (bitumise) Illyarrie/Riverside Drv on the 543 route, because continuous flows of artic buses kept ripping up the road.

[monotonehell]

The thing is to include all the costs - yes jk like wear and tear on roads.

For trains, we have to consider:
* capital cost of tracks & stations
* capital cost of rolling stock
* running costs of tracks and stations (maint. etc)
* running costs of rolling stock (inc maint. and staffing)
* capital cost of feeder buses
* running cost of feeder buses (inc maint. and staffing)
* road costs of feeder buses

For obahn, we have to consider:
* capital cost of tracks & stations
* capital cost of buses
* running cost of tracks & stations (maint. etc)
* running costs of buses (inc maint. and staffing)
* road costs of on road buses

Interesting facts from my reading tonight:
* Trains NEED buses. The cost of running trains alone is much higher than an integrated train and bus system due to ridership increases from feeder routes.
* Trains cost 24% less to run than on road buses (not obahn) ONLY during peak period and only when ridership is near capacity. The rest of the time buses are cheaper to run.
* BRT systems are faster than LRT (this shocked me)

[jk1237]

I think the signalling systems for rail cost a lot to run too.

I took a tram from South Tce to Rundle Mall today, and it stopped at every traffic light possible, including cars turning right blocking the tram at K W st south. Far out I probably could have walked quicker. Priorities please! The tram is last on the list.

Trams first, then cars