Sensational-Adelaide.com

These are the new Sydney trams, coupled double trams, maximum capacity 300.


Now..........if the O-Bahn was replaced by light rail with the frequencies such as trams every 5 minutes peak and 10 minutes off peak.
5am - 7am....12 trams total capacity 3600 passengers
7am - 10 am......36 trams capacity 10,800 passengers
10am - 4pm.......36 trams capacity 10,800 passengers
4pm - 7pm.........36 trams capacity 10,800 passengers
7pm - midnight.......30 trams capacity 9,000 passengers

Total : 45,000 maximum passenger capacity
O-Bahn latest passenger numbers per day : 31,000..... using hundreds of buses

Now if you increase those frequencies just a little say trams every 4 minutes during peak and 8 minutes off peak.....I get around 56,000 passengers per day (maximum)
.....and that is why (in my opinion) the O-Bahn has not been copied hundreds of times around the world.

PeFe wrote:These are the new Sydney trams, coupled double trams, maximum capacity 300.
...

Total : 45,000 maximum passenger capacity
O-Bahn latest passenger numbers per day : 31,000..... using hundreds of buses

Now if you increase those frequencies just a little say trams every 4 minutes during peak and 8 minutes off peak.....I get around 56,000 passengers per day (maximum)
.....and that is why (in my opinion) the O-Bahn has not been copied hundreds of times around the world.

I think you misunderstand the concept of capacity. Especially your comparison between your idea of the Sydney LR capacity of 45k /day and the O-bahn's actual patronage (not capacity) of 31k /day.

Having fewer trams in the interpeak does not reduce a line's capacity. The max capacity of that line would be running (as you say) 36 trams consistently 24/7. Or, even better explained as xx pax per hour. Ie (for example) 300 pax per train, 5 min headway = 3,600 pax per hour (as per your calculations too). Now, the o-bahn already runs buses at sub-1min headway, but let's use 1 min to prove a point at 70 pax per artic bus = 4,200 pax per hour. So I'm not sure what comparison you're trying to make in saying o-bahn has a capacity lower than LR. If you want to make a comparison regarding the cost of using hundreds of buses vs 36 trams, then you may have some ground. But realistically, the higher maintenance costs (of both the vehicles and infrastructure) of LR greatly outweighs any savings made from the reduction in driver wages.

PeFe wrote:7am - 10 am......36 trams capacity 10,800 passengers

So 3,600 passengers per hour?
The O-Bahn's estimated maximum capacity is 18,000 passengers per hour.

Your comparison is apples and oranges. You need to use the same quantification basis in order to make a comparison. Also you can't make a proper comparison ceteris paribus like you have been making. You need to consider all the support externalities...

For example there's no mention of all the feeder buses you would need to coordinate with your trams in that peak period. Because 80% of your passengers live outside of walking distance of the corridor. The literature shows an average transfer penalty value for bus-light rail of 19 minutes. 19 minutes is easily enough for a potential passenger to jump in their car instead of taking PT.

A single bus seat is usually costed at a little over half that of a single light rail seat. and this costing doesn't include the costs of feeder services. The off peak periods, where patronage is lower need to approach the peak periods in patronage where the higher cost of rail is reduced by economies of scale.

^^ Yeah, what he said too. ^^

Westside said

I think you misunderstand the concept of capacity. Especially your comparison between your idea of the Sydney LR capacity of 45k /day and the O-bahn's actual patronage (not capacity) of 31k /day.

No I didn't....I used the words"capacity" for potential LR and then "passenger numbers" for daily O-Bahn use. Plainly different phrases that relate to overall concept of "patronage". Even if my LR plan was to be implemented it still might result in only 31,000 passengers per day.....but capacity....you get the drift.

And no-one has answered my question on how many 0-Bahn journeys are one seat rides?
My guess is that during business hours it is probably high 70-80%, but then across the weekend and night time it probably plummets to 30%. So the 0-Bahn has significant transfer obligations built into its operating structure.
And as for having a bus meet every single tram, not going to happen, some bus routes justify that, others do not. Obviously you redploy O-Bahn buses to serving the tram, I doubt you need more buses, in fact I think you need less....

And no-one has answered my question about why the O-Bahn has not been copied numerous times around the world.
I will put forward my views.....comparing transport decisions made in North America (best comparison to Australia, serving sprawling low density suburbia).
Ottawa : replacing their busway with light rail, reason : capacity issues, future transport expansion without having to radically increase number of "transport vehicles" on cbd streets.
Los Angeles : the most popular BRT route "Orange Line" into the San Fernando Valley, constantly full buses,a mixture of row and street running, constant speculation that should be upgraded to light rail. BRT is seen as the poor mans light rail.....capacity issues.
future expansion of any type of BRT system obviously requires a larger number of buses, compared to light rail vehicles (yes I know, trams cost more..but last longer)

PeFe wrote:And no-one has answered my question on how many 0-Bahn journeys are one seat rides?
My guess is that during business hours it is probably high 70-80%, but then across the weekend and night time it probably plummets to 30%. So the 0-Bahn has significant transfer obligations built into its operating structure.
And as for having a bus meet every single tram, not going to happen, some bus routes justify that, others do not. Obviously you redploy O-Bahn buses to serving the tram, I doubt you need more buses, in fact I think you need less....

I can't find the current percentage of single seat rides over a whole day. But as explained already; your question is based on a faulty premise and is a strawman argument. You're looking at the advantage the O-Bahn has where single seat rides are possible. And assuming that the advantage is only gained if single rides are offered on every journey.

A single vehicle can run the feeder route, on street, and then jump on the track and go the whole route into and through the city (and beyond for cross town services), or the reverse going back out to the suburbs.

This doesn't mean EVERY service SHOULD do this. During peak periods, where patronage is high, and we are trying to encourage people to leave their cars at home, single seat journeys are a good idea. Off peak, however, patronage is lower. It would be expensive and wasteful to run EVERY service direct, so we can either run less services overall, or revert to a feeder system but keep the frequency high.

The O-Bahn has this option. Rail does not. Therefore it's an advantage over rail. Light rail requires feeder services all the time. A feeder service means a transfer. Passengers hate transfers. This (as noted above) means an average transfer penalty value from bus to light rail of 19 minutes. That extra perceived penalty value is enough to shift butts into cars and off the PT we are trying to get them to take.

PeFe wrote:And no-one has answered my question about why the O-Bahn has not been copied numerous times around the world.

And this is another question based on a false premise. Guided busways have been built numerous times. More so in the last two decades, as more studies have been published and decision makers are starting to take notice. There's at least four in England and Scotland.

However, it's a number of factors, most of them are perception and ideologically based. Prof Graham Currie has published at least one paper on the phenomenon.

None of heavy rail, light rail, BRT or guided BRT are a panacea. Each situation needs to be looked at and whichever solution works best in that situation should be implemented. Your examples show this.

PeFe wrote:Westside said

I think you misunderstand the concept of capacity. Especially your comparison between your idea of the Sydney LR capacity of 45k /day and the O-bahn's actual patronage (not capacity) of 31k /day.

No I didn't....I used the words "capacity" for potential LR and then "passenger numbers" for daily O-Bahn use. Plainly different phrases that relate to overall concept of "patronage". Even if my LR plan was to be implemented it still might result in only 31,000 passengers per day.....but capacity....you get the drift.

Not really. You have used two figures in a comparative way. But one is a capacity and one is not. So what comparison are you trying to make?

PeFe wrote: And no-one has answered my question about why the O-Bahn has not been copied numerous times around the world.
I will put forward my views.....comparing transport decisions made in North America (best comparison to Australia, serving sprawling low density suburbia).
Ottawa : replacing their busway with light rail, reason : capacity issues, future transport expansion without having to radically increase number of "transport vehicles" on cbd streets.
Los Angeles : the most popular BRT route "Orange Line" into the San Fernando Valley, constantly full buses,a mixture of row and street running, constant speculation that should be upgraded to light rail. BRT is seen as the poor mans light rail.....capacity issues.
future expansion of any type of BRT system obviously requires a larger number of buses, compared to light rail vehicles (yes I know, trams cost more..but last longer)

Ok, bringing LA as the beacon of PT decisions is always an interesting move.

In terms of the orange line, the capacity issues exist there because of the at-grade crossings. Can you imagine the frustration of motorists on Lower Portrush Rd if they had to wait at a red light every time a busway bus went past! Light rail will only slightly alleviate this problem by reducing the number of vehicle crossings. However removing the crossings and leaving the line as a BRT will give a much greater capacity uplift. Also, as only one route operates on this line the 'single-seat' benefits of a BRT are lost, so the differences between BRT and LRT become fewer.

In terms of Ottawa, their one light rail line did not replace a BRT, it was to provide additional coverage and added to complement it. However, it was built single track, so you'll find that this line has significantly lower capacity than the BRT. It also has significantly lower patronage than the existing BRT routes.

Really, the only reason cities choose to adopt LRT over BRT is that LRT has a greater perception in modern cities as providing a better PT experience. However, this is is not due to anything other than the flavour of the day. Modern BRT can provide as great an amenity and experience as LRT, if not greater. Remember, LR was pulled from most capital cities in Australia because at the time buses were perceived as the better form of transport, not because of any capacity or cost issues.

Westside wrote:...Ok, bringing LA as the beacon of PT decisions is always an interesting move...

To be fair. I think LA & Orange County are doing PT better than Adelaide now.

Westside wrote:Really, the only reason cities choose to adopt LRT over BRT is that LRT has a greater perception in modern cities as providing a better PT experience. However, this is is not due to anything other than the flavour of the day. Modern BRT can provide as great an amenity and experience as LRT, if not greater. Remember, LR was pulled from most capital cities in Australia because at the time buses were perceived as the better form of transport, not because of any capacity or cost issues.

There are a few reasons the PERCEPTION of light rail worldwide is better than BRT.
1. Perceived permanence of the route. Not such an issue where the BRT has its own right of way, but where people see rails on the road and decent stops they assume the route is permanent, and therefore developers are more inclined to invest in urban renewal along these routes. A tram is a great selling point.
2. BRT still often utilises diesel powered buses creating local noise and pollution, which is not good along all the café strips they are envisaged to pass through.
3. Comfort of ride- Buses are jerky and relatively slow on take off, a light rail ride by comparison is smooth and more consistent. There is also far less roll in a light rail car.
4. Loading and unloading-unless specifically designed buses are used (not the case with Obahn) is much slower than with light rail.
5. Steel wheels on steel rails are more efficient, use less power, and are quieter than rubber on road. (stand near the Obahn track and listen to the whine of the rubber tires on the track).
6. BRT is often perceived only as a stop gap cost cutting plan, with the idea that eventually light rail will replace it.(the same argument is currently being played out in Perth)
Capacity may not be a reason to do away with BRT (Obahn), but there are good reasons why worldwide there is more light rail being rolled out than BRT.
and perception of the travelling public is a big part of it, for any politician wanting to sell so much public expenditure.

monotonehell wrote:19 minutes is easily enough for a potential passenger to jump in their car instead of taking PT.

As is proven by all the other light and heavy rail corridors in Adelaide.
Convert the O-Bahn to light rail and you will likely mirror what all the other rail corridors of Adelaide do, which is have far less people use the service.
"people will always be asking 'should it light rail?'"; should read "people will always be asking 'should it O-Bahn?'" regarding the existing rail corridors.

bits wrote:

monotonehell wrote:19 minutes is easily enough for a potential passenger to jump in their car instead of taking PT.

As is proven by all the other light and heavy rail corridors in Adelaide.
Convert the O-Bahn to light rail and you will likely mirror what all the other rail corridors of Adelaide do, which is have far less people use the service.
"people will always be asking 'should it light rail?'"; should read "people will always be asking 'should it O-Bahn?'" regarding the existing rail corridors.

"Should I"? "Should it be converted to.."? I don't understand what your trying to say sorry.

fishinajar wrote: "Should I"? "Should it be converted to.."? I don't understand what your trying to say sorry.

"Should it 'light rail?'" Is a direct quote of PeFe's post a few posts back.
I believe it should read "should it be converted to light rail?"

rev wrote:There's one in Japan as well..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutorito_Line


Regardless, if nobody else in the world used a similar guided busway like we do, who cares.
Is the O Bahn here used with good patronage? Yes? Then that's all that matters.

Not like there's a choice for people in the north east. It would be the same if it were a tram instead

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

monotonehell wrote:

claybro wrote:

monotonehell wrote:The whole point of the O-Bahn guided busway system is so we can have two lanes of busses going at high speed in a corridor far narrower than an unguided roadway or two rail tracks.

That may be how it was sold, however the Southern Brisbane busway travels up to 90km/h, and has no guide track. From my observation, the width of the corridor is no wider. Could it be the Obahn was purchased for political purposes as commuters were promised something on rails, so this was a cheap compromise? -Just an observation,- I was far too young at the time, and all reports I have read from that time seem highly politicised, from both sides.

monotonehell wrote:If the guided busway were scrapped, then the whole corridor would be unsuitable for rail or roadway as all the bridges would need to be replaced (both over the Torrens and under the roadways. So you'd have a far larger problem than just the parklands tunnel.

Is this correct? Is it a weight issue with the bridges, and pantogragh clearance in tunnels? I kind of understand this with heavy rail conversion, but a light rail/ roadway would surely have no such issue.

The width of both tracks on the O-Bahn is 6.2 metres (not counting the external barriers). The standard width of the South East Busway was spec'ed at 10.2 metres - wider on corners (not counting the external barriers). (I'm not sure about heavy rail widths, something like 12 metres?)

Originally the guide rails were only going to be installed on the "curvy" bit between Klemzig and Hackney in order to allow faster speeds. The rest of the busway out to TTP was intended to be a normal road. The public made a lot of noise and demanded the guides be installed along the entire project, due to safety and speed concerns.

The decision to install an O-Bahn instead of light rail was due to a number of reasons, mostly down to cost and the intrusion/destruction of the Torrens River valley. But it was political, as an election was won on it. In hindsight, it was the better choice. Cost-wise it was much cheaper to build with a cheaper maintenance cost than light rail. Performance-wise it performs better than the light rail alternative in terms of door to door services, with a similar capacity to light rail. All of the perceived benefits of light rail are also seen in fixed route infrastructure like busways (guided or unguided).

There would be no point replacing the O-Bahn with light rail other than system integration or end of life. In terms of capacity, when the upper limit is reached, heavy rail would be the next step.

There's been a lot of with hindsight reviews and studies of the busways, and despite peoples' "feelings" on the matter, the facts show the O-Bahn was a huge success on all measures. That success has only been recognised in the past couple of decades, with other guided busways being adopted in the UK and beyond (Cambridge, Manchester, Nagoya, Japan).

No it was purely a political decision to build it but it wasn't the issue that decided the election. As for it being the best choice in hindsight and facts existing to back this up I believe you can interpret " facts " anyway you like especially if you commission the study. I doubt very much any independent study has been done to justify those claims.

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

PeFe wrote:What percentage of O-Bahn trips are one bus journeys?
I tried to find out using the Adelaide Metro timetables, but it was near impossible to work out.....
Does anyone know?

I believe the number of one seat journeys is highest during the day, but at weekends/night time a considerable number of trips involve transfers, so the belief that the O-Bahn is a non-transfer service is not true.

The weakness of the O-Bahn is the capacity issues (60 people on 1 bus, compared to 160-250 people on 1 tram)
Also the number of buses that clog up major thoroughfares like Grenfell/Currie Streets, its an issue and it will only get worse.

The new Sydney CBD/South East Light rail will be tram/bus transfer, the future issue there is capacity (should it be a metro?)
Also the Gold Coast light rail is tram/bus transfer.....a big success, why would Adelaide be any different?

The O-Bahn has not been replicated in any great number around the world (bar the few exceptions mentioned) so you have got to ask yourself why?
Capacity would be my guess, if you have a transit corridor like the linear park, then light rail/metro would be the world's answer for that particular space. BRT seems to be usually built on main roads, creating a "bus only" lane.

Having said all this I am actually looking forward to the new O-Bahn tunnel opening at the end of the year. I believe it will be a winner, muck quicker transit times into the CBD, another "plus" for the public transport in the eyes of "Joe public".

One further suggestion though, maybe during the weekday business hours, the buses should all be the longer/articulated kind, so this addresses the capacity and number of buses in Grenfell St issue. This of course may entail more transfers down the line though....

Yes I agree regardless the tunnel will be great

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk