Plan to turn buses around before they hit city

 

 

 

Thousands of bus commuters to Sydney's CBD would need to hop off at major interchanges on the outskirts of the city before arriving at their desks in the morning, under proposals outlined in yesterday's draft transport master plan.

 

The interchanges might be an inconvenience. But they might also be necessary, with the city already groaning under an unsustainable volume of bus traffic.

 

Yesterday's plan puts the creation of new bus routes and interchanges some years away. Yet it also outlines the philosophy that would be adopted if a government was ever brave enough to redesign the city's bus network.

 

In short, the philosophy recognises a simple trade-off: to have more frequent bus services, bus commuters would also need to get out and change more often.

 

Fewer bus routes would take people all the way from their home to their final destination.

 

This is how the master plan puts it: "The current radial one-seat bus service network, which attempts to provide single-service bus transport from many origins to many destinations, has little capacity for growth and is not adequate to the task of meeting complex 21st century travel patterns."

 

I asked Ken this question, about a month ago.

 

would it be worthwhile to force a transfer if it could shorten the overall journey time?

 

Is that one seat ride so important that people would be willing to sacrifice time to not have to get.

 

If a simple Equation could demonstrate the marginal propensity of a customer to tranfer vs an expect reduction in travel time, with the Waiting enviroment factors (i.e. heated/cooled  shelters, or waiting area's that are also major shopping areas)  think market square,  if you force a transfer at the West side market how likeley would the rider be to stop and do some shopping there?

 

how do the nodes of transit distribuion can facilitate Transit oriented development.

 

any hoo, interesting stuff

^I agree that studying the trade-offs like this is fascinating and could be very fruitful.  But defining service goals (e.g., speed vs. one-seat rides, vs. reduction of first/last mile distance) is pretty fraught, because rider preferences are likely extremely heterogeneous. And with regards to Cleveland, because of our lousy downtown rail distribution, the route planning decision is often between one-seat and three-seat rides for many riders. That Red Line transfer at Market Square is probably a deal breaker for someone going to CSU.

^I agree that studying the trade-offs like this is fascinating and could be very fruitful.  But defining service goals (e.g., speed vs. one-seat rides, vs. reduction of first/last mile distance) is pretty fraught, because rider preferences are likely extremely heterogeneous. And with regards to Cleveland, because of our lousy downtown rail distribution, the route planning decision is often between one-seat and three-seat rides for many riders. That Red Line transfer at Market Square is probably a deal breaker for someone going to CSU.

 

IF this exsisted it could work.

 

 

 

 

there were a streetcar system from ohio city to downtown.  you could reduce  travel time to public Square form an average of 10 minutes at rush hour down to let say 5-6 minutes.

 

and by developeing a faster routing around the market and signalization prioritization, you can speed traffic through the area.

 

From a service POV you can reduce the 34+ buses per hour on west 25th during peak hours to 20 90 foot trains,  that could deliver riders directly to CSU or city hall something the redline cannot do.

 

Reducing the 10 minutes from the schedule of the (22, 35, 51, 79, 20, 81, and 45) and reduces the number of ATU memebers from ~20 to 6 (numbers may not be accurate).

 

If you take the 8am hour. 

 

34+ buses

on west 25th and lorain, 30+ going thru 25th to detroit.

 

Bus capasity of 85 persons (40 foot) buses 116 (60 foot) buses.

 

replaced with

10  90 foot LRT vehicles

Capasity of 151 persons each.

 

with intervals of 6 mins, add a 4 more and the interval drops to 4 minutes.

 

it has the potential to both Reduce costs, and improve service.

 

^The colors of your map suggest separate streetcar lines which would still mean a three-seat ride to CSU from the western burbs, but if we're talking a single line from Market Square that reaches east (perhaps to the STJ Transit Center), I'm on board.  I'd still probably continue some buses to a future west side transportation center, but I definitely appreciate the value of removing buses from downtown streets as long as the replacement service is very high quality.  I still think the subway proposal with Dual Hub (or something like it) would have been the best solution, but the streetcar is obviously far more likely to ever be affordable to build and offers other advantages that make it very appealing.

they could be combined to run on either the north or south route or even the a combination of the two routes.

 

The reputation that fixed guideway rail is not flexible is not 100% true because it would be possible to adjust the route to meet demand where ever the tracks are.  So during peak hours you can run an extended route that can cover more ground and and boost capsity on the normal circulator routes. And off peak you can run fewer vehicles and split the routes to optimize the system for ridership levels.

 

Then you have the option of running 3 segment 60 foot vehicle (38seats) or 5 segment 90 foot vehicles (74 seats) depending on demand.

 

The problems with the current system are the buses are a primary source of delay for other buses this costs alot of time and money.  Thus the need to split some routes  in Sydney.

some options

 

 

southern loop.

 

northern loop

 

in between Starter Loop.