Sensational-Adelaide.com

AtD wrote:There's a handful of other guided busways in the world, mostly in the UK as well as Japan and Germany. There's one under construction right now that will be longer than ours...

Unfortunately the people in charge of constructing the guided busway in Cambridge came to Adelaide, took a look at the OBahn, saw how successful it is, spoke to our people here, took copious notes and then failed to take notice of how to lay the track down. In areas that are prone to flooding they simply laid the concrete tracks directly onto the ground with little attention to drainage or piling. The result has been an all mighty cock up with the project about a year behind schedule and costs blown out of budget. The people over there who were campaigning for a rail solution (which wouldn't have been able to penetrate the built up areas, the main reason a busway was chosen) are laughing.

All they had to do was spend a little more time and money raising the tracks above the flood areas and piling (as we did here along the Torrens) and the project would have been on time and near budget. The operators, who have the guided double decker buses in service on road, have lost interest as they haven't been allowed onto the guideway as yet, everyone's suing everyone else.

Shambles.

But yes, there are a lot of guided busways in service -- the mode has its uses. Many people who live in Adelaide aren't even aware that we have one here, so I'm not surprised that people think that there's no other ones in the World. Rail also has am irrational romanticism in a lot of people's heads that is hard to get past.

stumpjumper wrote:Buses can also manage tight turns and varying gradients, ie hills routes.

I was wondering about the single ticket machine per bus, and thought it was a cost issue, but the realised that the driver must supervise the machine - 1 'yes' click per passenger, or they must buy a valid ticket.

It's not that the machine needs supervising, it's that the passengers aren't allowed to board without a ticket. We could have conductors or a proof of payment system instead, but that usually costs more.

Since there are experts here - why hasn't the O-Bahn been copied anywhere around the world? (if in fact it hasn't)

It has - but none of the others have got it right!

As I said before, it's a specialist mode for connecting a high demand destination with a large area of sprawl. The British tend to regard it as like light rail but cheaper to construct - so unsurprisingly their O-bahn tracks tend to be slow and poor quality. This leaves the public unimpressed, which decreases the chances of more being built.

Also, most cities already have rail infrastructure - and those that do are usually better off taking advantage of it.

Does it cover its hardware and running costs?

If by it you mean fare revenue, it doesn't in Adelaide because fares are kept artificially low.

In the 2010 annual report, DTEI received $77m from Metroticket sales plus $8m from other non-government sources. Public Transport Services expenses were $332m, and that probably doesn't include capital costs (new vehicles and construction). Needless to say, all PT in Adelaide is heavily subsidised.

AtD wrote:In the 2010 annual report, DTEI received $77m from Metroticket sales plus $8m from other non-government sources. Public Transport Services expenses were $332m, and that probably doesn't include capital costs (new vehicles and construction). Needless to say, all PT in Adelaide is heavily subsidised.

Further to that, bare in mind these are old figures.
Single-trip adult tickets for buses were subsidised by $2.90 (plus retail $4.10 = $7.00)
Single-trip adult tickets for trains were subsidised by $8.80 (plus retail $4.10 = $12.90)

I wish the USA had a guided busway. Texas, California, New York or Florida may be most suitable.

Moar tramz plz.

Another question: Does it make more sense to go double-decker with trains as patronage numbers increase? or just add more single-level carriages. My presumption is DDs are more *effective* as you can almost double the amount of seating without incurring a corresponding increase in rolling stock maintenance costs.

Oh, and can DD & SL carriages be linked together? or would you need to swap out all our existing SL carriages to introduce DDs?

I lived in NSW for a while and the Tangara trains were very nice indeed.

Wayno wrote:Oh, and can DD & SL carriages be linked together? or would you need to swap out all our existing SL carriages to introduce DDs?

when Sydney was first introducing double deck carriages they mixed them in with the single level red-rattlers. The L, R and S sets were the first all double deck trains, and after that the only single deck trains built were for diesel country trains.

The downside with double deckers is loading time. DDs are slower at loading due to stairs and fewer doors. Eg a Melbourne train has three doors per car so it spends less time at the platform. And of course you have metro trains with 4 or 5 doors per car for very fast loading, not something that could be done with a double decker. It's a problem for Sydney.

Of course the advantage is more seats for a given length of train, which is useful for Sydney as their platforms dictate a maximum 8 car length. However you could argue the same capacity could be reached by two single deck trains with many doors that spent a fraction of the time at the platform.

Not really an issue for Adelaide.

I believe that in Melbourne the loading guage (height and width limitations) won't allow double-decked trains. Not sure if that's an issue here, except on the Belair line.