Centenary loop closing down

steveu said :

ChrisinTurner said :

The taxpayer already pays between 80% and 90% of the cost of ACTION and at least half of the rest would be saved by not charging fares. The government told the old ACTION Advisory Committee that it is not a question of economics. They said the problem with fare-free public transport is that too many people would use the service! True!

Bingo.

This local council really needs to have a good look at itself.
People are literally persecuted for using cars, yet they cut bus services or eliminate them alltogether.
Not everyone can ride their bicycle to work. As for commuting times, trying to make a comparison to sydney (or any other capital for that matter) is simply stupid, they are very, very different cities.

….and not everyone has a ratepayer funded car with a reserved parking spot just outside the office. Take those privileges away, and a more reasonable, practical approach might, just, in time (etc. etc.) be taken to Canberra transport issues.

ChrisinTurner said :

The taxpayer already pays between 80% and 90% of the cost of ACTION and at least half of the rest would be saved by not charging fares. The government told the old ACTION Advisory Committee that it is not a question of economics. They said the problem with fare-free public transport is that too many people would use the service! True!

Bingo.

This local council really needs to have a good look at itself.
People are literally persecuted for using cars, yet they cut bus services or eliminate them alltogether.
Not everyone can ride their bicycle to work. As for commuting times, trying to make a comparison to sydney (or any other capital for that matter) is simply stupid, they are very, very different cities.

The taxpayer already pays between 80% and 90% of the cost of ACTION and at least half of the rest would be saved by not charging fares. The government told the old ACTION Advisory Committee that it is not a question of economics. They said the problem with fare-free public transport is that too many people would use the service! True!

magiccar9 said :

And what has this bus route cost the taxpayers over those 335 days?

$750k according to Katy G’s election promise costing.

And what has this bus route cost the taxpayers over those 335 days?

The timings were probably never going to work for commuters (0900 to 1630), at least not both ways. Extend the loop to the airport, and eventually replace it with a light rail service, Shane. That’s what I say. Doesn’t even have to be free.

IP

Ahh, one of the few busses that only had standing room really should be axed, as this is the logical thing to do (using ACT government logic, which involves buying a terrible art, ACTPLA, etc etc)

Using the same ACT government logic, the majority of poor mans limos (term I use when there is 1 passenger on the bus), should surely stay as is. What was particularly awesome was when I recently took a stretched poor mans limo on a non-peak time service that at most has 10 people on the bus when it is peak time! Lol

So I figure that’s something like an average of 22 passengers per bus, which probably destroys the average of plenty of suburban routes.

I was in Wollongong yesterday, and noticed they’ve got a free city loop bus. I would have thought that there was way more justification for a service like this in Canberra compared to Wollongong…

HiddenDragon said :

Yes, spending money on clunky marketing will achieve so much more than boring, practical stuff like this.

It’s actually history repeating itself. Back in the 90s, ACTION purchased a set of Mitsubishi busses that were externally styled to look like trams and on the inside had rather nicely designed woodwork interiors. They operated on a free city to triangle route that was reportedly very popular. They axed it. Was hoping this time they may have better sense.

Just when the government plan to discourage parking in the Triangle they remove a successful free service. Overuse?