Sensational-Adelaide.com

drwaddles wrote:Having read your generally good posts, with well-thought-out and knowledgeable arguments I suspected that you did indeed know about the SEQ busways but were ignoring them intentionally because they don't help your arguments promoting a guided busway. I guess I anticipated you more than you did

Yeah, I don't do that. That undermines an argument before you begin, because it gives others an argument against you. I try to anticipate any arguments against my point and then think them through. Some of the time that causes me to change my opinion.


I had a look at what I could find on the SEQ Busway, which isn't much, I can't see why it isn't rail. Unless I'm misinterpreting the lay of the land population wise. It seems IF these busways are intended to fill in the radial gaps in the existing rail network, with numerous stations along the way, it would make more sense to make them rail. But like I said, I haven't worked through the areas that they cover and their population patterns. Since I live in Adelaide it's easier for me here.

There's been a bit of NIMBY action in the past (although both groups' websites seem to have expired) from people who didn't like the freeway-esque appearance of an elevated busway. Although the SEQ one follows the motorway... so? I do think we are blessed here with an OBahn in a channel. It reduces noise and isn't as in your face as an elevated busway would be.

One thing I came across is an article from a year or two ago that said the busway was in danger of becoming congested, with a headway during peak of around 12 seconds. Translink was looking into artics to increase capacity. We borrowed an artic from Translink to test on the OBahn recently. So I'm wondering if Brisbane have purchased their artics now. Help me out here, please. The literature on the SEQ is near zero.


But think how much better it would be if it were a guided busway!

monotonehell wrote:But think how much better it would be if it were a guided busway!

This is why I brought them up. The "should it be rail?" debate is irrelevant to this particular discussion of guided versus unguided busways.

You haven't cited one argument against unguided busways that holds true against the successful SEQ example.

When this was discussed on SSC a while ago, Cruise and I were interested in comparing crash statistics for guided and unguided busways. Have you got any crash statistics for the O-Bahn that can be compared with the SEQ Busways? Both are probably publicly available if you simply write to the Transport Minister or CEO/Director of the relevant Department and wait your 6 weeks for a response.

There's been a few crashes on the OBahn that I know of involving people throwing objects onto the tracks (bikes IIRC) from the overhead bridges. That's why the cages on the bridges have been improved recently and a fence upgrade in in progress along the route. The original fence was built when people apparently had more sense and was designed just to keep dumb animals off the track.

There's been a number of incidents where drivers missed the funnel completely, which is an amazing misjudgement considering the width and length of the funnels.

One thing there's never been is a head on collision. Which has happened on several US unguided busways. Several cities in the US have installed these freeway-esque elevated busways since the 1980s. And while the number of incidents is low (because of the lack of the general motoring public I suspect) there have been several head on collisions reported in the literature when buses deviate from their lane into oncoming traffic. This is the main reason why a guided busway is preferable. It allows a narrower corridor than even would be used for rail to be navigated at greater speed. Further, most of the unguided busways that were constructed have slowly been handed over to other uses. I think I already mentioned the one in LA that went from bus only, to HOV, to paid expressway for single occupancy vehicles? Not having the track means that pro-car legislators can easily convert the corridor to other non PT uses.

That's about it though, other than that and the emergency vehicles that can use non-guided busways, both non-guided and guided busways have the same advantages and disadvantages and serve the same purposes.

I heard that the o'Bahn was intended to have 'spurs' so that buses can join up at points that aren't interchanges? Or is that incorrect?

peas_and_corn wrote:I heard that the o'Bahn was intended to have 'spurs' so that buses can join up at points that aren't interchanges? Or is that incorrect?

Sort of correct, but a little misstated.

There were two non-interchange joining points planned for the OBahn. One at Klemzig and one where it crosses under Grand Junction Road (Holden Hill?). The one at Klemzig was built, the one at GJR was provided for but not constructed. Since then Klemzig has become ostensibly a mini interchange and GJR has been left vacant.

So this point would have just been like the klemzig interchange?

peas_and_corn wrote:So this point would have just been like the klemzig interchange?

I don't know...

i've feeling very pedantic today so just one little thing that bugs me is the name interchange, which makes me think of changing from a bus to a bus...i get worried when we start calling our railway stations 'interchanges', oh well says something about our train system atm

just look at the Gawler Timetable: Adelaide Station, Mawson INTERCHANGE, Salisbury INTERCHANGE, Elizabeth INTERCHANGE, Smithfield INTERCHANGE, Gawler Central Station...is this the Gawler Bus line or something, how about calling it Mawson Lakes Railway Station, Salisbury Railway Station..and so on

anyway back to the debate

just my view on buses is, they are used for short distance shuttle runs to the nearest railway station when it is too far to walk or if you are in a hurry, buses should not be used for long distance commuting like from Elizabeth direct to Adelaide or Seaford direct to Adelaide unless it has an express un-interupted busway or an O-bahn...

my view on train's is, they are used for long distance commuting getting from one point to another quickly with as few stops as possible, once out of the inner-city area, our trains should be able to get up to 140-160km/h between stations and hold that speed for at least a few minutes before slowing down, but we need to keep slow trains to stop at some of the smaller stations which could travel at about 90-120km/h between stations

Düsseldorfer wrote:i've feeling very pedantic today so just one little thing that bugs me is the name interchange, which makes me think of changing from a bus to a bus...i get worried when we start calling our railway stations 'interchanges', oh well says something about our train system atm

A station or interchange is a purpose built complex. If there's several different PT routes connecting; then it's an interchange. If your only choice is to call a taxi or get into your car or (God help us!) to walk; then it's a station. Happy now?

Düsseldorfer wrote:just my view on buses is, they are used for short distance shuttle runs to the nearest railway station when it is too far to walk or if you are in a hurry, buses should not be used for long distance commuting like from Elizabeth direct to Adelaide or Seaford direct to Adelaide unless it has an express un-interupted busway or an O-bahn...

Correct

Düsseldorfer wrote:my view on train's is, they are used for long distance commuting getting from one point to another quickly with as few stops as possible, once out of the inner-city area, our trains should be able to get up to 140-160km/h between stations and hold that speed for at least a few minutes before slowing down, but we need to keep slow trains to stop at some of the smaller stations which could travel at about 90-120km/h between stations

Correct! Not sure if those maximum speeds are necessary or even possible (without complete grade separation) unless you're speaking about an inter-centre service. The stations just need to be far enough apart so that a train can reach a reasonable speed.

Point of order
I'd like to change the title of this thread. It's not buses VERSES trains. It's buses AND trains. Each mode of PT has its part to play in a fully integrated system. Unless everyone is living in TODs within walking distance of a station, trains need feeder buses.

I would like to see busses eventually banned from the CBD with trams going down Wakefield St, South Tce, West Tce, East Tce and North Tce. I could perhaps handle a few shuttle buses that run from say Vic Square to Rundle Street, but we are such a lazt bunch of people if we cannot walk to a tram in these areas.

Buses should be left in the burbs were they belong, not blocking off 2 lanes of traffic as 10 of them try to utilise 1 stop at the same time. We should have Trams that lead out to major interchages were you hop off the tram and hop on a bus, North Adelaide, Norwood, Unley and Woodville could all have these. But its pie in the sky thinking because South Australia will never have the money to complete a decent PT service.

That's an interesting suggestion. So what will the o'bahn buses do? Terminate just outside the city where passengers will get off, then get onto a tram for the rest of the journey into the city?

maybe, capitalist is suggesting that the O-Bahn be more more after the tram plan, it maybe a tramway itself

Surely the O'bahn would be a train rather than a tram, since it only has three stops? (this is assuming it will be converted to rail...)

capitalist wrote:I would like to see busses eventually banned from the CBD with trams going down Wakefield St, South Tce, West Tce, East Tce and North Tce. I could perhaps handle a few shuttle buses that run from say Vic Square to Rundle Street, but we are such a lazt bunch of people if we cannot walk to a tram in these areas.

Buses should be left in the burbs were they belong, not blocking off 2 lanes of traffic as 10 of them try to utilise 1 stop at the same time. We should have Trams that lead out to major interchages were you hop off the tram and hop on a bus, North Adelaide, Norwood, Unley and Woodville could all have these. But its pie in the sky thinking because South Australia will never have the money to complete a decent PT service.

I strongly disagree. If anything, cars should be removed from the city!

Seriously though, Grenfell and Currie Streets are a big delay for O-Bahn buses and a bus lane down them. I've given this some serious thought and I think the best option would be:
- Keep the left lane as not open to through traffic (ie, for bus stops, loading zones and turning lanes)
- Close the middle lane for a bus lane, even if only in peak.
- Keep the right lane for through traffic only, with no turns.

If you're really upset about the loss of traffic lanes, Waymouth/Pirie and Franklin/Flinders could be made one way.

AtD wrote:

capitalist wrote:I would like to see busses eventually banned from the CBD with trams going down Wakefield St, South Tce, West Tce, East Tce and North Tce. I could perhaps handle a few shuttle buses that run from say Vic Square to Rundle Street, but we are such a lazt bunch of people if we cannot walk to a tram in these areas.

Buses should be left in the burbs were they belong, not blocking off 2 lanes of traffic as 10 of them try to utilise 1 stop at the same time. We should have Trams that lead out to major interchages were you hop off the tram and hop on a bus, North Adelaide, Norwood, Unley and Woodville could all have these. But its pie in the sky thinking because South Australia will never have the money to complete a decent PT service.

I strongly disagree. If anything, cars should be removed from the city!

Me agree. What a retarded idea capitalist.