Doncaster to CBD: Special busway may run down middle of Hoddle Street

 
Topic moved from News by dthead on 22 Oct 2017 20:03
  kitchgp Deputy Commissioner

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Doncaster doesn't need to move 50,000 people per hour - generous studies have demonstrated patronage would barely reach that over an entire day (and that's only after dragging half its patronage off existing lines)...................
ZH836301

Whilst I don't disagree with the first part, the second part could easily be turned into a pro, ie "help relieve overcrowding on existing rail lines".

Doncaster is changing, eg the towers at Doncaster Hill, Tullamore Estate and every other block of land having its house demolished and replaced with units.

Sponsored advertisement

  cabidass Chief Train Controller

The Obahn in Adelaide is a perfect example of how a bus system should be run
doyle
Adelaide is the perfect example of how to get people to move to Melbourne.
  cabidass Chief Train Controller

The problem with buses running from that distance into the city is the amount of buses it will put into the Melbourne CBD.
simstrain
This is a real issue that should not be poo pooed.

There's no justification for rail to Doncaster. None.
ZH836301

"Late 2008, at a forum investigating the Doncaster rail line, which involved the Yarra, Melbourne and Manningham city councils, it was noted that 41% of Manningham residents are classified as low-income earners (despite the eastern suburb affluence stereotype), this is higher than the city average. The discrepancy is suspected to be caused by the increased reliance on private automobiles to meet day to day transport requirements residents face due to the lack of alternative methods of transportation such as Tram-Trains.[13]

"Other recommendations included the creation of transport corridors to aid in the transition of the existing urban environment towards Transit oriented development.[14]

"In December 2008, in response to massive patronage increases on Melbourne's public transport system and increased road infrastructure problems, the State Labor Government released a transport plan which failed to deal with the construction of the Doncaster line. The proposal investigated the construction of a freeway through Greensborough, into Heidelberg and through the Yarra Flats to connect with the Eastern Freeway at a cost of $6 billion. The proposal is six times the cost of the Doncaster rail line and relies on the continued use of private automobiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doncaster_railway_line#2007-present:_Increased_local_council_.26_public_pressure

Because some fool mentioned Dumbcaster rail in the 1969 plan we have to hear about the nonsense in perpetuity -
ZH836301

"First proposed in 1890... - ibid

Doncaster is changing, eg the towers at Doncaster Hill, Tullamore Estate and every other block of land having its house demolished and replaced with units.
kitchgp

I agree that on the face of it, having a rail line there will allow greater density in that suburban pocket. Melbourne's population is set to double from 4.7 million, to 10 million by 2050. Now even if that forecast is wrong by 50%, that still means our city's population will grow by 2.5 million people. Those people need to go somewhere. And surely it's far better to spread them out a bit by ensuring each corner is well serviced by quality and comfortable rapid public transport.

The wiki map does seem to show that it's any empty wedge that could use servicing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doncaster_railway_line#/media/File:Melbrail_former_present_proposed.svg

I concede that it will be a short line (short of some sort of extended ring line connection down the centre of Eastlink..)

But in saying that, Doncaster proper is about 14.5km as the bird flies to Melbourne CBD. Which is only 1km shorter than Sandringham to same..

So there is precedent for a shorter line.


I hate travelling on buses. I do use them, more than I used to. But feel much more refreshed if I travel by train...

Whatever the decision on this, I hope for the people of Doncaster's sake, the government is able to put this issue to rest once and for all...
  kitchgp Deputy Commissioner

Although the proposal has its merits, it does raise a lot of questions and some of the statistics quoted in support of the proposal don't seem to stack up.

Doncaster's peak hour bus travel is pretty much one-way, ie passengers travelling into the CBD in the AM and out from the CBD in the PM. The AECOM consultancy spokesperson is quoted in The Age article as saying the capacity of the system will be 24,000 a day during peak hours, but this is for travel in both directions during a peak. The capacity of the system is more like 12,000 a day in practical terms. The proposed frequency of the 150-passenger buses is every 3 mins in peak or 20 buses per hour, giving a capacity of 3000 passengers per hour (20 x 150). As the peaks last about 2 hours each this gives a capacity of 12,000 a day (4 x 3000ph). Currently at least 40 buses per hour (Routes 905, 906, 907, 908, 303, 305, etc) are timetabled to use the freeway into the CBD during the AM peak. A conservative capacity of 70 passengers per bus (there are some articulated buses) gives a capacity of 2800 per hour (40 x 70), not much less than the proposal. Note the overall capacity of the proposed service will be influenced by the questions below. There is no indication in the article as to how much the headway between buses can be reduced to increase capacity. Given the buses will be double-articulated and carrying 150 passengers each that might not be much.

What happens to the existing bus routes that currently use the Eastern Freeway? Will existing routes be truncated or closed? If some, or all, of the routes still continue to the CBD, will the 'regular'  buses be able to use the busway? The proposed route follows most of the existing Route 907. All the other routes join this route at some stage, mainly at the particular freeway entrance. Route 905 (The Pines) joins the freeway at the Bulleen Road 'station' from Thompsons Road. Route 906 (Warrandyte) crosses the proposed route at Blackburn Road then joins the proposed route in the vicinity of the Doncaster Park & Ride. Will these routes be truncated at these points and passengers required to change buses? If so, this will add up to 5 mins to the journey time. The off-peak frequency of 7 mins implies that the existing routes will be truncated, as there is way too much capacity compared to the current Route 907 off-peak frequencies of 15 mins (during day to 9pm, weekdays), 20 mins(during day, weekends) and 30 mins (at night) using 70-passenger buses.

How exactly will it be funded? How will the public-private partnership work, given that fares from passengers won't generate sufficient revenue? What risk is being taken by the private sector?

Will Transdev charge for parking at the 'stations'? The proposal is to build underground parking at the existing Doncaster Park & Ride (which currently has parking for about 400 cars and, like everywhere else, is full before 7.30am) and the proposed Doncaster terminus.

How far apart will the 'stations' in Doncaster Road be? This applies only to Route 907. Currently buses stop on-demand at stops placed approximately 250 metres apart. Placing 'stations'  say 1km apart will add significantly to walking time, negating to some extent the benefit of reduced bus travel time. Another specific to Route 907 will be loss of the connection to Mitcham rail station.

Will the buses be powerful enough to cope with a full load and the air-conditioning flat out on a hot day struggling up the hillier parts of the route? It needs to be made abundantly clear to whoever is responsible for the fleet acquisition and maintenance that 35C (or 95F) is not hot.

There are many other questions.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
"First proposed in 1890... - ibid
cabidass

It has only been considered in the contemporary sense since the 1969 Transport Plan - there was nothing there in the 1800s.


"Late 2008, at a forum investigating the Doncaster rail line, which involved the Yarra, Melbourne and [color=#0066cc][size=2][font=Roboto, wf_SegoeUI,]Manningham[/font][/size][/color] city councils, it was noted that 41% of Manningham residents are classified as low-income earners (despite the eastern suburb affluence stereotype), this is higher than the city average. The discrepancy is suspected to be caused by the increased reliance on private automobiles to meet day to day transport requirements residents face due to the lack of alternative methods of transportation such as Tram-Trains.[13]
cabidass

This is the sort of steaming cowpat typical of proponents putting the objective before the evidence, struggling to come up with justifications.

In reality, Manningham is a better off part of the city, with 34.2% (2011) of households in the top income quartile.

That it also has better income figures than nearby Whitehorse which has both tram and train links shows the argument is nonsense.

I agree that on the face of it, having a rail line there will allow greater density in that suburban pocket.
cabidass

We already have more than enough tram and train lines to push increased densities into.


The wiki map does seem to show that it's any empty wedge that could use servicing.
cabidass

And that's what it all boils down to - drawing lines on a map and ignoring evidence and statistics that show it isn't warranted.

It's the same reason there isn't rail due northwest - like the Yarra, the Maribyrnong prevented extensive development.
  cabidass Chief Train Controller

..in the contemporary sense...
ZH836301
*Moves goalposts for ZH*...

steaming cowpat
ZH836301

*Feels overwhelmingly convinced now because hyperbole was applied*


In reality, Manningham is a better off part of the city, with 34.2% (2011) of households in the top income quartile.
ZH836301

So what you are saying is that 65.8% are not in the top income quartile...?

That it also has better income figures than nearby Whitehorse which has both tram and train links shows the argument is nonsense.
ZH836301

The garden city of Babylon also had a vast wealth inequality. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.


We already have more than enough tram and train lines to push increased densities into.
ZH836301

Apologies. I was not aware you were an urban planner.

ignoring evidence
ZH836301

*Is overwhelmingly convinced by the addition of foot stomping*...

I didn't ignore anything. I put forward a case based on available information. You just didn't agree with it. That's all.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
I wouldn't expect you to understand since you don't even seem to know what a quartile is.
  cabidass Chief Train Controller

Apologies. Feel free to insult me again cause it worked so well for you last time.
It is true I misused quartile in my argument.
But then, I haven't used them since high school.....

We can go back to your cow pat if you would like to continue with your informative argument. I'm sure everyone else will be so captivated.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

If you haven't already read this article: https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2017/06/13/doncaster-bus-rapid-transit-good-idea/
James974

Only issue with this article is that it says there is more bus ridership in Sydney then rail. This is completely incorrect.

There is about 240 million bus journeys a year vs 360 million train journeys.

There article or the comments section mentions the use of electric buses. Why not run a light rail service instead if this is the case?
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The article also got another stat wrong in higher bus patronage then trams which is false. Melbourne trams move about 210 million passengers a year vs 130 million by bus.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Apologies. Feel free to insult me again cause it worked so well for you last time.
It is true I misused quartile in my argument.
But then, I haven't used them since high school.....

We can go back to your cow pat if you would like to continue with your informative argument. I'm sure everyone else will be so captivated.
cabidass
I think ZH feels particularly passionate that the Doncaster line is a waste of money - and he's expressed that point of view before.

The opportunity to build the line was squibbed in the eighties when the reservations to complete the line were sold off; I think heavy rail will be an extra-expensive task given the topography of that part of Melbourne too.

I feel that if they wanted to do something with fixed rail that an extension of the North Balwyn or Box Hill trams would probably do the trick; Tram Road is especially desirable because it enables passengers to transfer to trains and buses to other destinations rather than forcing them to sit on the 48 for an hour plus in peak traffic. It would also replicate the original 1890's electric tramway, the first in Australia - originally built to sell residential blocks of land out that way in among the (then) orchards.
  cabidass Chief Train Controller

I think ZH feels particularly passionate that the Doncaster line is a waste of money
don_dunstan
I'm sure lots of people are passionately against it. I'm sure lots of people are passionately for it also...
That's why people discuss things..

I feel
don_dunstan

I don't feel anything. I'm not emotionally connected to the project, or lack thereof..

that if they wanted to do something with fixed rail that an extension of the North Balwyn or Box Hill trams would probably do the trick;
don_dunstan
As I understand it, the existing tram extension to Box Hill is an incredibly long and slow way to stand up all the way to work..

Tram Road is especially desirable because it enables passengers to transfer to trains and buses to other destinations rather than forcing them to sit on the 48 for an hour plus in peak traffic.
don_dunstan

I'm sure trams have been debated passionately and at length in the past. Are you suggesting just along Tram Road, or all the way to the city? I suppose if it goes all the way to Box hill, one could utilise their line.

Whether it's the best option moving forward I couldn't say. If the buses are full, suffice it to say that any tram replacements would also be full. Would you want to stand all the way from Doncaster to Melbourne on a slow tram? Direct rail would be much smoother and faster.

Given Tram Road runs North-South, it does seem like an intriguing project. However I would suggest it's a separate issue to the Rail vs Bus argument that this thread sits around. Though I agree that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And could very well compliment one another.


--------

Read the Crikey article. First of all, Crikey is not the epitome of great journalism. It seems people have already outlined issues therein. It also points to lack of development in Manningham. But one must ask which comes first - The lack of desire for development, or the lack of suitable transport connections to make development desirable...
  ElliotProvis Junior Train Controller

Location: Melbourne, Victoria
I tend to agree with @cabidass that more infrastructure provision is better; however having studied urban planning for numerous years, and understanding the location specific problems Melbourne has, I do not believe it would be worthwhile to build a heavy-rail line out to Doncaster. Melbourne has a problem with centralisation of jobs. Having so many jobs centralised in the city has caused problems with equity of access to jobs and services, and this has driven social disadvantage. Building another railway directly into the city will only further exacerbate this. What we should be aiming for is a giant LRT between Clayton train station, intersecting Monash University (National Employment Cluster), all the relevant train and tram lines, extending up to Doncaster, and terminating at Latrobe University (National Employment Cluster) to interchange with the 86 tram. This would detract from the need for the ridiculous 'Outer North-East Link' tollroad that the state government has set its heart on, by offering a reliable and high capacity rail service that links up numerous interchange and employment hubs. Eventually it could be extended to link up with the Frankston line, and maybe even out to the Airport (dare I say it).

Also, to all self proclaimed deficit hawks ('economic rationalists') who believe we cannot afford to build infrastructure; you're all wrong. Time and time again has Thatcherism and Reaganism been proven wrong and shown to damage our economic prospects. We should be pouring as much money as possible into infrastructure as possible, to keep our economy floating.
  cabidass Chief Train Controller

Interesting points.

I admit I don't know enough about the Doncaster pocket to really comment any further. And I do concede the issues logistically with building any standard rail.

With regards to the North East link (and without wanting to digress too much), it's not just the government pushing it. It's been top of the list with varying bodies inclusive of the RACV, because the road makes sense.

With regards to a 'city centric' workforce, all our governments (on the east coast at least) have come out in favour of decentralisation in very recent times. This is a direct reversal of previous policy of centralisation, that I've known and witnessed my entire adult life. Something that I was confidently aware of having a looming 'trend reversal'....

While I'm happy to continue with infrastructure spending in times of slow growth and high living expenses, I don't want any government to overbuild and play infrastructure fortune teller..

We still don't know the effect that self driving cars will have on peoples movements. And to put that in context, even if we don't see a single self driving car for 20 years on our roads, it would still be pointless in that case building infrastructure based on 50 year population forecasts.

There is just too many unknowns.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Apologies. Feel free to insult me again cause it worked so well for you last time.
cabidass

Where did I insult you?  You posted a quote, I said the quote was rubbish - if you think that's insulting you, man up.

The quote's claim that Manningham is not an affluent area instantly raised the alarm on the BS-detector, since it's always been considered a better off part of the city, which is reflected in property prices particularly around Templestowe and Donvale where larger block sizes dominate.



If we look further into the numbers the fact that the claim is garbage is readily identifiable.  In general, a higher income area will be over-represented in the top income quartile (eg. >25%) whereas lower income areas will have larger representation in the bottom income quartile.  Areas weighted above the average at both ends could indicate advanced gentrification.  Two claims are made:

1/ Manningham is a less affluent part of the city
2/ Reliance on cars due to lack of trains results in economic disadvantage

Now for the first, the weighting of Manningham's population for household income in each quartile, from highest income to lowest is 34.2%-23.5%-22.0%-20.3% (2011).  This clearly indicates Manningham is an area of above average wealth, so the first claim is bogus.

For the second, one only needs to give examples of similar areas with better transport links but lower levels of affluence.  Adjacent Whitehorse is a similar distance from the city with train and tram links, however its household income quartile weightings are 29.8%-23.3%-22.8%-24.1% (2011).  This demonstrates access to heavy rail links does not have a large impact on income, so the second claim is also false.

Calls for rail to Doncaster are based on emotion, not evidence, and as such it is common to find false justifications such as this.
  cabidass Chief Train Controller

Where did I insult you?  You posted a quote, I said the quote was rubbish - if you think that's insulting you, man up.
ZH836301
Oh I'm sorry. I'll just flop it out and swing it around a bit for you. Will that assist?

The quote's claim that Manningham is not an affluent area instantly raised the alarm on the BS-detector
ZH836301

I never said it wasn't affluent. If you recall my rebuttal cited that while Babylon was a very wealthy city, it had a big poor population as well.

Citing that more people are affluent there, does not automatically discount the need for rail. All it points out is that there are more more affluent people there....

There is lots of poor people in my community. It doesn't mean that there isn't a Mercedes dealership within....
  cabidass Chief Train Controller

Here is the wiki quote again for you just in case you needed me to warm up the milk for you...

"Late 2008, at a forum investigating the Doncaster rail line, which involved the Yarra, Melbourne and Manningham city councils, it was noted that 41% of Manningham residents are classified as low-income earners (despite the eastern suburb affluence stereotype),
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
I never said it wasn't affluent.
cabidass

Obviously I was addressing a quote you posted...


Citing that more people are affluent there, does not automatically discount the need for rail.
cabidass

... that claimed both that Manningham was a disadvantaged area and that lack of rail causes disadvantage...


Here is the wiki quote again
cabidass

... and which I just demonstrated to be completely false.

Are you thick?  See, that would be insulting you.
  cabidass Chief Train Controller

ZH836301... and which I just demonstrated to be completely false.
No you didn't.
Let's recap:

I posted some data, along with an image.
You posted some data, along with an image.

How is that proving me false?

All you have pointed out is that there are rich people in that pocket. You've totally ignored a level of poverty that also exists.

Hell, if you've been following the news you would know that even in North Kensington where the Grenfell tower commission flats burned, is within one of the richest pockets in London.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/wealth-and-poverty-sit-side-by-side-in-grenfell-towers-borough

Poor and rich often live close together. I live in a very poor socio-economic area. Yet there are bugger all homeless here. Yet in central Melbourne.....

Poor can't afford to drive a car.
And the poor are disadvantaged if they have a terrible trip into work on a bus, compared to those who have a smooth ride in on a train.

Hell even fatigue comes into play.

-------

Regardless, let's look at some more data to keep it objective:

"Australia's trend estimate of employment increased by 8,300 persons in June 2016, with: the number of unemployed persons decreasing by 200; the unemployment rate steady at 5.7 per cent;

Ditto Victoria at the same time.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/6202.0Main%20Features2Jun%202016?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6202.0&issue=Jun%202016&num=&view=

"In the 2016 December quarter, the unemployment rate in the City of Manningham was 6.12%.

"The unemployment rate is derived from the ABS labour force survey and Centrelink data and compiled by the Department of Employment. It is published quarterly in the Small Area Labour Markets publication, for Local Government Areas. The unemployment rate shown here is the proportion of the resident labour force (those in work or looking for work, and aged over 15) who are looking for work. Unemployment does not include people who don’t have a job but are not seeking a job."

http://economy.id.com.au/manningham/unemployment

So while in your argument (with your pretty graph with pretty green blotches) there are indeed rich people within Manningham, unemployment in 2016 was higher than the state and country average.....

I would concede if it was the rich man's wife's in their Mercedes sipping mojitos by the pool. But the data clearly states that the data only includes people actively seeking work.....
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

It doesn't matter if your neighbourhood is poor or rich. Rail provides connections to your community without prejudice. Meaning it doesn't matter if you have a slew of e class mercs or just a matchbox merc it provides everyone with similar access. It allows anybody from that community to have access to the CBD and vice versa.

A lack of PT has no meaning on whether or not an area is poor or rich. It just means that people who are not able to drive have a reliance on more expensive transport options such as taxi's. What trains, buses and trams provide is a means to reduce the amount of people who need to use a car to get to work.

Both Melbourne and Sydney move about 2million people a day by train, tram, bus and ferry. Imagine how bad the traffic would be if there was no PT. PT provides relief to the roads in these cities and when one is not operational it can cause chaos throughout the cities. The problem with buses doing long runs into the cbd from an outlying area is that you end up with the mess in the CBD (like at york street in Wynyard, Sydney) and a reduced amount of buses available for local services. Buses should never do trunk routes as they aren't capable of doing such without causing congestion issues.
  cabidass Chief Train Controller

Aaaaand today, PwC are proposing driver-less rapidrail to Doncaster...

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/driverless-trains-a-part-of-expanded-airshuttle-proposal
  Aussie trooper Station Master

Manningham is the only municipality in Melbourne with no tram or train service. Pretty hard to argue that it doesn't need a top notch freeway bus service, and right now it doesn't have one.
I suppose it's a moot point anyway, if North East Link Option A goes ahead, they are taking the Doncaster park and ride land, so I guess we will have to drive and pay tolls on the Eastern Freeway...

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: N463, x31

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.