Finally, we are about to see some progress on the issue of bus lanes!!! The Christchurch City Council has announced that on 17 August construction of bus lanes for Papanui Road will begin. There will be seven stages with each stage taking about two-three weeks to complete and the whole thing should be up and running by mid December. When completed the bus lanes will stretch along Papanui and Main North Roads from Bealey Ave to the Northern Motorway just north of Belfast (its a shame they will not extend onto the motorway, bus lanes would be a much more appropriate option than an extra traffic lane).
The Council has indicated that lanes will be either full-time or part-time but has not indicated which parts of the current development are which. Full-time bus lanes operate 24 hours a day, while part-time bus lanes will operate 7am-9am inbound and 3pm-6pm outbound (except outside schools from 3pm-4pm). Enforcement is an issue I am concerned with but I am glad to see that they are following the London example and cars parked in lanes will be immediately towed while those caught travelling in the lanes will be fined $150. The lanes will likely be administered by the City Councils parking wardens and the New Zealand Police Force.
There are other upgrades mooted as well, including new shelters and improved stops altogether. It is also important to note that cyclists will be able to use the bus lanes as well, this is good, as I am all for encouraging more cycling, but I wonder how much of a danger this could be, or whether it will hold up buses? It seems to work in London, so I guess we will have to see. There is also some controversy over the fact that much on street parking will make way for these bus lanes. I believe it is a small price to pay, the benefits far outweigh the costs and there is plenty of parking down side streets. Plus it works fine overseas, it is just a case of moving with the times (well this effort is still 40 years too late!).
Finally I want to point out three things. First, there is no other mention of other bus priority measures such as bus signals. I feel such measures can only aid bus lanes and transit times. Second, expect a similar announcement for the southern portion of Colombo Street towards Cashmere some time soon with similar completion dates. Finally, I must point out that many of the planned bus lanes are simply too far away from being a reality. The Sumner route isn't planned until 2013/14 and Cranford Street until 2017/18. This is unacceptable, more funding must be made available for these initiatives. To find out more about bus priority measures in Christchurch the Council has a very helpful website while if you want to check out the relevant press release visit here. All in all this news is excellent and is a start to finally making public transport in Christchurch a realistic opion for everyday people. Hopefully we will see more of this in the near future.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
What Will Bob Parker See In North America?
Its old news that Mayor Bob Parker and the City Council CEO are to visit North American cities to study urban regeneration and public transport and at the time I didn't think much about talking about it on here. However, I got to thinking about what exactly he will see transport wise when he is there. So, basically, I'm going to have a very quick 'tour' of the various transport systems present in the cities that Bob will be visiting and the characteristics of each.
San Francisco
Population: 800 000+ (Bay area is 6 million+)
Bob & Co will most likely be interested in the 'Muni Metro' as it serves an area that is more realistic in comparison to Christchurch and is within an area of density for which Christchurch is planning to mirror.
Below is a map of the light rail system.
Below is an image of the Skytrain.
San Francisco
Population: 800 000+ (Bay area is 6 million+)
San Francisco is the second most densely populated city in the USA after New York. It is served by a light rail system called the 'Muni Metro' which has a daily ridership of 150 000+. In addition there is the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) which serves the wider Bay urban area and the 'Caltrain', a single line commuter rail operation.
Bob & Co will most likely be interested in the 'Muni Metro' as it serves an area that is more realistic in comparison to Christchurch and is within an area of density for which Christchurch is planning to mirror.
Below is a map of the light rail system.
Portland
Population: 500 000+
Portland is considered the greenest city in the USA and the second greenest in the world. Portland is well known for its land use planning and investment in light rail. Given these characteristics (which Christchurch and other NZ cities such as Auckland and Wellington are trying to emulate) and it's relative similar population it must be high on the list for Bob & Co.
The MAX light rail system has three lines and a daily ridership of over 100 000. The light rail vehicles run within their own reserved lanes on the streets and sometimes in their own corridor. There is also the Westside Express Service which is a commuter train opened earlier this year on tracks formerly used for freight only (sounds familiar!).
Seattle
Population: 600 000+
Seattle got rid of much of it's rail systems but the ensuing road congestion has forced a recent back track (for those who continue to deny that automobile dependency is a bad thing please take note!!!). Seattle has begun to rebuild what it lost in a bid to counter congestion more effectively including the 'Sounder' commuter rail service, which has two lines and is still expanding, and the 'Central Link' light rail system. The latter is still being expanded and is similar in operation to the MAX system in Portland (though less extensive).
Vancouver
Population: 600 000+
Vancouver is the Canadian city everyone raves about and it is often ranked as one of the most livable cities in the world.
In addition to one commuter rail line Vancouver also has the much heralded 'Skytrain' system which is a fully automated elevated rail system that is still undergoing expansion.
Below is an image of the Skytrain.
So, what does all this mean? Well let me first point out a couple of things. First, yes these cities are all at the centre of much larger metropolitan areas, but these areas spread out a long way and the transport systems that are being talked about are only relevant to the immediate population as listed. If you think Christchurch is still too small to compare, consider that the current population is almost 400 000 (second largest in New Zealand) and will be well over half a million by 2030.
Now, there are several things I have picked up on. All these cities appear to have undergone a phase where their respective rail and tram systems were removed in favour of freeways and buses. Of all New Zealand's cities, Christchurch fits this bill most (Auckland and Wellington retained their rail systems, in Auckland's case just). It is also quite clear that all these cities have undertaken a review of their land use and have adjusted to a more efficient and well planned use of their land. This later point is important because it increases the future viability of mass transit and is an exercise Christchurch is now beginning.
Most of the commuter rail services have been reinstated or are totally new, utilising lines previously only used for freight. All rail proposals for Christchurch have been regional in nature, aiming to serve the outer urban areas and ease traffic congestion on the approaches to the city by using the three existing lines. There are obvious parallels there. It must also be noted that Christchurch has the characteristics of a North American city, again more so than Auckland or Wellington and the success of light rail in these examples is very encouraging, particularly the high ridership and the populations they are serving.
Of all these examples I am most encouraged by Portland, and perhaps San Francisco's light rail. There have been some people who have scoffed at this attempt by the Mayor to visit these cities, and they have come up with many reasons why it is a folly. Rubbish, I say, these are very good examples from which Christchurch can learn a lot. I believe that I have given much reason to suggest that Christchurch is in a state that these cities were in ten or twenty years ago. To ignore the lessons is the true folly.
Pedestrian Friendly Street for CBD
Hereford Street is to be made more pedestrian friendly with wider footpaths, more trees, outdoor dining and a slow road between the intersections with Manchester Street and Oxford Tce. Okay, so this is only very slightly related to transport but I still think it's important. I'm not totally into pedestrianising streets too much, I have always felt the 'City Mall' was slightly too big and that Cathedral Square is too open and barren. However, this is different. This is creating an environment where traffic still exists, it just takes second place to pedestrians. I am fully in support of this because for some time now I feel our CBD has lacked that real 'city' feel. Hereford Street is one of the most dense in the city and is home to a significant chunk of the city's commercial firms. Recently I was in Wellington and I loved the way Lambton Quay retains its traffic but was dominated by people. The street looked nice, busy and full of life. At the moment, Hereford Street is drab, cold and boring. It should also flow into the City Mall upgrade quite well.
This project is seen by the City Council as a way to encourage more business in the area and I feel that they are onto something here. In addition to Hereford Street, Armagh Street is also an important commercial area with more projects planned for the future. With the tram running down it, and with New Regent Street running off it, I feel Armagh Street should be in line for a similar upgrade if the Hereford Street project is successful. Another possibility is Glouchester Street, especially with construction to start soon on two commercial buildings and one high density residential building on the soon to be vacated Press site. Keeping road traffic but not letting it dominate is something I believe will help create a more vibrant and attractive CBD. You can find the project here at the Christchurch City Council website.
I'm still working on creating a new better blog, unfortunately I just don't have the time to get online as much as I would like. However, it is slowly coming together, I have decided on simply making this blog a bit nicer and then developing a concept Christchurch 2020 transport plan which can be accessed and commented on. Hopefully, this will create some debate and I can get it 'out there'. Until then...
This project is seen by the City Council as a way to encourage more business in the area and I feel that they are onto something here. In addition to Hereford Street, Armagh Street is also an important commercial area with more projects planned for the future. With the tram running down it, and with New Regent Street running off it, I feel Armagh Street should be in line for a similar upgrade if the Hereford Street project is successful. Another possibility is Glouchester Street, especially with construction to start soon on two commercial buildings and one high density residential building on the soon to be vacated Press site. Keeping road traffic but not letting it dominate is something I believe will help create a more vibrant and attractive CBD. You can find the project here at the Christchurch City Council website.
I'm still working on creating a new better blog, unfortunately I just don't have the time to get online as much as I would like. However, it is slowly coming together, I have decided on simply making this blog a bit nicer and then developing a concept Christchurch 2020 transport plan which can be accessed and commented on. Hopefully, this will create some debate and I can get it 'out there'. Until then...
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
ANNOUNCEMENT
Lately it's been a bit of a struggle to finish my planned installments of my 'Whats Next?' series of blogs as I have been very busy and unable to put the time in. I have also been thinking about where I can go from here and what I can achieve given the right tools and time. It came down to closing this blog altogether or coming up with a new and exciting idea that others could join me in working on (hence more minds and more time).
So I'm going to try get something going, a group focused on campaigning for a modern, efficient, sustainable transport system for the Greater Christchurch Region. I would begin by splitting things off into a news blog, reporting relevant issues, and an ideas blog, outlining concepts such as my 'Metro Express' idea. These would then be opened up to discussion, and I would hope from there others may join in and help develop it into an actual entity capable of campaigning on multiple levels. I plan to put this in place over the next month or so by rationalising this blog, coming up with a snappy name and logo, getting some key contacts together and then garnering interest on relevant websites (such as CBT).
In the meantime if anyone out there is at all interested in helping me set this up please get in contact! Thanks, and I will still continue to blog news and ideas until this is all done.
So I'm going to try get something going, a group focused on campaigning for a modern, efficient, sustainable transport system for the Greater Christchurch Region. I would begin by splitting things off into a news blog, reporting relevant issues, and an ideas blog, outlining concepts such as my 'Metro Express' idea. These would then be opened up to discussion, and I would hope from there others may join in and help develop it into an actual entity capable of campaigning on multiple levels. I plan to put this in place over the next month or so by rationalising this blog, coming up with a snappy name and logo, getting some key contacts together and then garnering interest on relevant websites (such as CBT).
In the meantime if anyone out there is at all interested in helping me set this up please get in contact! Thanks, and I will still continue to blog news and ideas until this is all done.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Christchurch Mayor Supports Rail Reinstatement
While at times I think that Mayor Bob Parker is the wannabe dictator of Christchurch, I must confess the man does operate with a vision. Part of his vision is to plan smarter, more long-term solutions for our transport needs. Recently, in an article in the KiwiRail 'Express', Mayor Parker was questioning whether our transport planning was delivering the best possible solution. It would seem to him that it is not, and I, for one, certainly agree.
When you consider that our current system is failing, and detrimental to our economic performance and lifestyles, you start to realise that we cannot continue to put all our eggs in one basket. That line of thinking is what got us the 1962 Christchurch Transport Masterplan, where barely a paragraph was given to public transport. The result of this line of thinking is that if we continue it we will always be behind the eight ball, so to speak. Our road building has never kept up with demand, and with the Christchurch urban area growing at it's current and projected rate, it will continue to fall behind. Whats more, this way of thinking is incredibly expensive, not just in the first phase but also in developing increased capacity in the long term. This simply adds to the bare fact that 'roading' our way towards a transport solution (ala the 1962 'Masterplan') is impossible, we haven't been able to do it, we can't do it and we never will.
So with this in mind Bob's comments on Newstalk ZB that key entry points are at the maximum capacity, and even operating beyond maximum capacity hit home a little more. Sure, we can build more roads to relieve congestion but it won't keep pace with growth because it's too expensive to do so. Alternatives are needed to make the road system work as it should and to provide a properly functioning transportation system. Alternatives with more flexibility when it comes to capacity, and with lower long-term development costs which negate the need to build an illogical road system that will never keep pace with demand.
At this time Bob is talking rail as a solution to relieve key entrance points into the city. The last census puts the commuting population entering the city from outside (e.g Rolleston, Rangiora etc) at 16 000, so considering the growth rates of the Waimakariri and Selwyn districts and their ever increasing high rates of Christchurch workers you really get a feel for how many that might be now, and how fast it must be increasing. With only one per cent of commuters opting to use the bus services in these districts there needs to be development of suitable alternatives to attract greater patronage and ease the congestion at key points on the road system. As Bob himself point's out, 500 people using trains from Rangiora and Kaiapoi means 500 less cars coming in from the north on our roads. Bob also points out that park and ride would be suitable for Rangiora, Kaiapoi and Rolleston and that they could really work well with a rail service. If you've read some of my other posts you will know that this is something I have been screaming for and have already pointed out how it works well with the nature of those areas (a nature Ecan seems to believe provides an excuse for forgetting about public transport altogether).
Bob may not be everyone's cup of tea but it is good to see our Mayor with a vision that doesn't smack of ignorance and uses common sense. Unfortunately, he has a lot of hurdles to cross, first on the list being Ecan and second on the list being a central government that would probably support the 1962 Christchurch Transport Masterplan as a triumph of 21st Century thinking. Nevertheless, it is a start, lets just hope it leads somewhere. Perhaps a Christchurch 'Super City' taking in the urbanised parts of the Waimakariri & Selwyn District Councils and being delegated Ecan's powers over it's jurisdiction would be a good start. However, thats for another forum.
When you consider that our current system is failing, and detrimental to our economic performance and lifestyles, you start to realise that we cannot continue to put all our eggs in one basket. That line of thinking is what got us the 1962 Christchurch Transport Masterplan, where barely a paragraph was given to public transport. The result of this line of thinking is that if we continue it we will always be behind the eight ball, so to speak. Our road building has never kept up with demand, and with the Christchurch urban area growing at it's current and projected rate, it will continue to fall behind. Whats more, this way of thinking is incredibly expensive, not just in the first phase but also in developing increased capacity in the long term. This simply adds to the bare fact that 'roading' our way towards a transport solution (ala the 1962 'Masterplan') is impossible, we haven't been able to do it, we can't do it and we never will.
So with this in mind Bob's comments on Newstalk ZB that key entry points are at the maximum capacity, and even operating beyond maximum capacity hit home a little more. Sure, we can build more roads to relieve congestion but it won't keep pace with growth because it's too expensive to do so. Alternatives are needed to make the road system work as it should and to provide a properly functioning transportation system. Alternatives with more flexibility when it comes to capacity, and with lower long-term development costs which negate the need to build an illogical road system that will never keep pace with demand.
At this time Bob is talking rail as a solution to relieve key entrance points into the city. The last census puts the commuting population entering the city from outside (e.g Rolleston, Rangiora etc) at 16 000, so considering the growth rates of the Waimakariri and Selwyn districts and their ever increasing high rates of Christchurch workers you really get a feel for how many that might be now, and how fast it must be increasing. With only one per cent of commuters opting to use the bus services in these districts there needs to be development of suitable alternatives to attract greater patronage and ease the congestion at key points on the road system. As Bob himself point's out, 500 people using trains from Rangiora and Kaiapoi means 500 less cars coming in from the north on our roads. Bob also points out that park and ride would be suitable for Rangiora, Kaiapoi and Rolleston and that they could really work well with a rail service. If you've read some of my other posts you will know that this is something I have been screaming for and have already pointed out how it works well with the nature of those areas (a nature Ecan seems to believe provides an excuse for forgetting about public transport altogether).
Bob may not be everyone's cup of tea but it is good to see our Mayor with a vision that doesn't smack of ignorance and uses common sense. Unfortunately, he has a lot of hurdles to cross, first on the list being Ecan and second on the list being a central government that would probably support the 1962 Christchurch Transport Masterplan as a triumph of 21st Century thinking. Nevertheless, it is a start, lets just hope it leads somewhere. Perhaps a Christchurch 'Super City' taking in the urbanised parts of the Waimakariri & Selwyn District Councils and being delegated Ecan's powers over it's jurisdiction would be a good start. However, thats for another forum.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Commuting Chaos for Rolleston
A little bit of old news (I was supposed to post this days ago) but last week there was a very interesting article in the Selwyn Times. Of course this is just the local rag so it must be taken for what it is but it did seem to give a good indication of the mood of Rolleston residents towards transport policy. Basically, as Rolleston continues to grow, the percentage of the population that works in Christchurch continues to increase. The 2008 population estimate for Rolleston was about 7000, up significantly from 3822 recorded in the 2006 census. The article reported that residents should get used to increased congestion on the commute into Christchurch, something which I would agree with. The total population of Rolleston is expected to reach about 15 000 sometime around 2015 from memory and with cheap land, a strong Canterbury/Christchurch economy and subsequent continued high internal migration from other parts of New Zealand I don't even see the recession slowing this growth down (in fact I think you could argue that in the long term it could increase population growth).
Anyway, what was most interesting about this article was that a couple of locals who both seemed to be of the opinion that the local bus service wasn't good enough and that the nature of a bus service for such a long commute wasn't at all appealing. Both locals interviewed claimed that they would use a regular rail service if there was one, so long as it was frequent and took full advantage of it's right of way by getting them into the city quicker. One of the interviewees claimed if it could be done in twenty minutes he would most definitely use it.
I take two things from this article. First, no matter what Ecan claims, their bus service simply isn't good enough. Where is park and ride? Where is cycle and ride? Where is a modern bus station with information and shelter from winter weather? Where are bus lanes? Where is the frequency? No wonder no one uses it.
Second, local authorities are blind. There is a perfectly good double track rail line running from Rolleston to the city. Heck there is even a station and car park. Yet despite hundreds of submission the 'Rolleston Transport and Environs' study for ignoring the potential of rail in reducing car use between Selwyn and Christchurch. The prevailing opinion is that rail will not be worthwhile until Rollestons population reaches 50 000 yet this is unsubstantiated and ignorant. In my mind, 15 000 is just as likely a threshold for the success of some type of rail service being effective in increasing accessibility between Rolleston and Christchurch and it could be planned for now. Rail would be fast and have a flexible capacity. It fits park and ride like a glove (and park and ride fits Rolleston like a glove), is more comfortable, and could provide seamless transfers to the bus system at Hornby and Addington to other parts of the city. As well as Rolleston it could also serve Templeton and Isllington and would have a schedule of between 20 and 30 minutes from Rolleston to the City (based on timetables from the 1960's!!!).
All in all it is little wonder that public transport is under utilised and marginal in Selwyn. Ecan rely on a bus service designed for short commutes in a built up city in a bid to entice people out of their cars when, in reality, any public transport needs to be adapted to the nature of the areas it operates in. This should be simple, easy, yet they fail due to ignorance. The argument that no one uses public transport or that public transport in these areas doesn't work is just ridiculous when they haven't even developed it for the area in mind. I have pointed out time and again the obvious measures that need to be adopted to make public transport work in Selwyn and I have pointed out many again. When will some one listen?
Anyway, what was most interesting about this article was that a couple of locals who both seemed to be of the opinion that the local bus service wasn't good enough and that the nature of a bus service for such a long commute wasn't at all appealing. Both locals interviewed claimed that they would use a regular rail service if there was one, so long as it was frequent and took full advantage of it's right of way by getting them into the city quicker. One of the interviewees claimed if it could be done in twenty minutes he would most definitely use it.
I take two things from this article. First, no matter what Ecan claims, their bus service simply isn't good enough. Where is park and ride? Where is cycle and ride? Where is a modern bus station with information and shelter from winter weather? Where are bus lanes? Where is the frequency? No wonder no one uses it.
Second, local authorities are blind. There is a perfectly good double track rail line running from Rolleston to the city. Heck there is even a station and car park. Yet despite hundreds of submission the 'Rolleston Transport and Environs' study for ignoring the potential of rail in reducing car use between Selwyn and Christchurch. The prevailing opinion is that rail will not be worthwhile until Rollestons population reaches 50 000 yet this is unsubstantiated and ignorant. In my mind, 15 000 is just as likely a threshold for the success of some type of rail service being effective in increasing accessibility between Rolleston and Christchurch and it could be planned for now. Rail would be fast and have a flexible capacity. It fits park and ride like a glove (and park and ride fits Rolleston like a glove), is more comfortable, and could provide seamless transfers to the bus system at Hornby and Addington to other parts of the city. As well as Rolleston it could also serve Templeton and Isllington and would have a schedule of between 20 and 30 minutes from Rolleston to the City (based on timetables from the 1960's!!!).
All in all it is little wonder that public transport is under utilised and marginal in Selwyn. Ecan rely on a bus service designed for short commutes in a built up city in a bid to entice people out of their cars when, in reality, any public transport needs to be adapted to the nature of the areas it operates in. This should be simple, easy, yet they fail due to ignorance. The argument that no one uses public transport or that public transport in these areas doesn't work is just ridiculous when they haven't even developed it for the area in mind. I have pointed out time and again the obvious measures that need to be adopted to make public transport work in Selwyn and I have pointed out many again. When will some one listen?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Where Next? Part One: Improving Our Bus System
This is the first post in a series detailing some ideas on where we can go from what we have now in terms of transport options for Greater Christchurch. It will be limited to utilising and improving as much existing infrastructure as possible in order to generate better ideas and cheaper options and to keep it realistic. In part one, I want to look at a way in which we could improve the current bus system with a concept I have called 'Metro Express'.
Metro 'Express'?
My idea is to develop a series of key bus routes, along the cities busiest corridors, which would be direct and would make a limited number of stops. They would make use of bus lanes and other bus priority measures, would be frequent and have a larger capacity than other buses and would be smart card only (no cash fares). Basically they would operate more like a rail or light-rail system complete with 'stations' made up of more prominent bus stops with 'Express' badging. The idea is to make the bus system easier to use, more attractive and more efficient at getting you to your destination.
Here is an example of a route which could be implemented to New Brighton;
The red line is the route and the black dots are the 'stations' being the only stops that the bus would make (notice the city 'station' is located where the new transport interchange would be). Of course, this is only an example, more stops may be required or less may be sufficient but the point is they would be limited. In addition, this route would take advantage of bus lanes planned for the New Brighton routes but would offer a faster, more efficient method of utilising them. Call it 'Light-Rail Light' if you will, nevertheless it is much cheaper and more likely an idea to be implemented now and get more people using public transport. Other routes I could see this system being implemented on include Sumner, the Airport, Halswell, Cashmere, Riccarton, Queenspark and basically anywhere where there are bus lanes to be developed.
In addition to the nature of the route another aspect of the 'Metro Express' concept would be the buses themselves. Adding to the efficiency and speed of the service would be greater capacity. It is perhaps about time we looked at articulated 'bendy' buses and I believe it would be more than appropriate to allocate them to this type of service. Not only do articulated buses have greater capacity than double decker's, they also have faster boarding and alighting due to having three sets of doors. Below is an example of an articulated bus in Sydney operating on the Metrobus service which is similar to what I am proposing here.
Metro 'Express'?
My idea is to develop a series of key bus routes, along the cities busiest corridors, which would be direct and would make a limited number of stops. They would make use of bus lanes and other bus priority measures, would be frequent and have a larger capacity than other buses and would be smart card only (no cash fares). Basically they would operate more like a rail or light-rail system complete with 'stations' made up of more prominent bus stops with 'Express' badging. The idea is to make the bus system easier to use, more attractive and more efficient at getting you to your destination.
Here is an example of a route which could be implemented to New Brighton;
The red line is the route and the black dots are the 'stations' being the only stops that the bus would make (notice the city 'station' is located where the new transport interchange would be). Of course, this is only an example, more stops may be required or less may be sufficient but the point is they would be limited. In addition, this route would take advantage of bus lanes planned for the New Brighton routes but would offer a faster, more efficient method of utilising them. Call it 'Light-Rail Light' if you will, nevertheless it is much cheaper and more likely an idea to be implemented now and get more people using public transport. Other routes I could see this system being implemented on include Sumner, the Airport, Halswell, Cashmere, Riccarton, Queenspark and basically anywhere where there are bus lanes to be developed.
In addition to the nature of the route another aspect of the 'Metro Express' concept would be the buses themselves. Adding to the efficiency and speed of the service would be greater capacity. It is perhaps about time we looked at articulated 'bendy' buses and I believe it would be more than appropriate to allocate them to this type of service. Not only do articulated buses have greater capacity than double decker's, they also have faster boarding and alighting due to having three sets of doors. Below is an example of an articulated bus in Sydney operating on the Metrobus service which is similar to what I am proposing here.
Other features of the service would be on board computer announcements for stops, destinations and transfers and a set frequency, similar to the Orbiter service. High frequencies would be ideal, perhaps 10 minutes at peak and 15 minutes off peak during weekdays and 15 minutes all day on weekends. As patronage increases frequency could be increased on some routes. There would also be a common brand across all routes.
In the end I believe that this concept is a basic, cheap and quick way to increase public transport use. Routes are basic and permanent like light-rail, there is greater capacity and increased speed and efficiency over other bus routes. It will be easier to use, more attractive to commuters and offer a much advanced alternative to using your car. Perhaps most of all though, it's costs will be low and it will utilise existing infrastructure where possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)