Liberals throw down the gauntlet with public transport policy

These views would be very relevant to, say, a parcel delivery system, but human beings are not parcels. The customers and potential customers have preferences and feelings to be taken into account. The significance of this aspect has resoundingly been demonstrated by the reported usage data of buses and light rail. Why waste money on a system the customer has demonstrated they don’t prefer? Just encourages continued car use and damages the goal of mitigating climate change.

Roger S,
I’ve already commented around your claims on the patronage data elsewhere.

There is no evidence to back up the statements around preferences and their impact on public transport usage between buses and light rail in Canberra at present.

And the patronage data for the first stage of light rail is well behind the projections used in the business case, so the claims of its popularity are also in question.

The point is, no bus routes in Canberra have ever been given the same level of resourcing and priority given to the first stage of light rail. You’re attempting to compare apples amd oranges.

Data from quarter ending March 23 for top 10 routes gives total boardings for R! (light rail) of 1,012,654. That is for 1 core section (Gungahlin – Civic).

For the remainder of the top 10 routes (Rapid routes R2 to R6, R8, R9, and non-Rapid routes 32, and 59) boardings were 1,929,651. That encompasses 7 individual route core sections (Belconnen – City – Woden – Tuggeranong, and Belconnen – Gungahlin) suburban and lesser significant sections. Thus only an average of 275,664 per service per core section. A rather stark contrast with light rail of 1,012,654 for only one core section.
Counting up the total number of services across each route and core section I haven’t done but it would be hard to argue it is less than the light rail equivalent number… With such a disparity in boarding numbers, the suggestion that service quality entirely explains the difference hardly holds water. (Note that the bus average is inflated by the inclusion of boardings unrelated to the core sections, but if it could be excluded would simply make the light rail figure even more impressive).
To condemn light rail as not achieving what were probably optimistic results is just spin, and does not invalidate the inference of the data. There is also a conflict with published statements a while back that light rail usage was more than anticipated.
I do not have the time to analyse data more closely and the moment is already almost past.

Just to clarify there are 4 core sections for buses quoted but some routes share a section thus core sections are directly traversed by 7 of the top ten routes. For immediacy I didn’t have time to separate out the suburban and non-core but, as said, would simply disbenefit the buses in favour of the tram.

Roger,
What on earth is that meant to mean?

You are comparing one light rail route versus completely different routes.

A light rail route that has deliberately had bus routes funnelled into it to increase patronage.

It’s absolutely meaningless to attempt to claim this can be used to assert light rail popularity compared with bus routes.

And then claiming that it’s unfair to use the light rail business case numbers as overly optimistic just highlights that light rail hasn’t achieved the results claimed.

The transport benefits were only 20% of the assessed benefits, the majority falling on development benefits.

Those numbers mean that the assessed transport benefits are not remotely being achieved.

I agree you haven’t had time to assess the data properly, because it doesn’t remotely match what you’re claiming.

I guess for a fair comparison of the situations before and after the Stage 1 LR, the data should include how many are taking LR, how many are taking the LR and are fuming, how many are still driving, and how many have quit their jobs or have left the areas along the LR route altogether. 😉

Nonetheless, the stated business case for Stage 1 LR does not apply to other routes, not the one to Woden, not now.

Yes, a fairly rushed ham fisted attempt to set out the numbers as I see them. It is however, inescapable that with light rail carrying over 20% of the entire Transport Canberra patronage as expressed by boarding numbers, no matter how the numbers are viewed in greater detail (and my attempt was, in fact, generous to buses, as suburban usage can’t be separated out from core route usage) and discounted, the popularity of light rail and its potential is obvious.

I still get the feeling that opposition to the idea of light rail smacks of the NBN downgrade, and arguments of the time that Sydney Harbour bridge was far to big. Short termism thinking, I fear, partly driven by the Government’s failure to get on with it in a timely manner.

As this discussion item is now a day old and behind “view more conversations”, I see little point in continuing to expend time engaging.

Roger,
No, you have attempted to compare apples with oranges.

The data simply does not support your proposition.

The first light rail route has had massive amounts of supporting infrastructure, route prioritisation and network design created to maximise patronage. Even then the numbers are not reaching those used to assess its feasibility in the business case.

Whilst it is perfectly reasonable to maximise the value of the investment in the first stage of light rail, you cannot remotely use those figures to compare to other bus route patronage in the rest of the city.

Each route is completely different, the travel characteristics, lengths, area, demographics, growth profiles etc. are all individual.

No bus route has currently been given the same level of resourcing and in fact, the previous bus network changes made suburban network usability far worse, through reduced services and longer trips.

And if the government was actually thinking long term, they would build the most efficient public transport solution with the provision for future upgrades.

The enormous cost of light rail being constructed now is actually causing a lower quality overall public transport network because it consumes so much resources and funding from a constrained budget. It is a perfect example of short termism whilst ignoring the best overall, long term solution.

Roger S,
I’m not sure I understand the point of your travel data?

The only data I care about is the travel time between Tuggeranong and the City.

If I can catch a bus from Tuggeranong, then change onto LR and arrive in the City quicker than a bus from Tuggeranong to the City, I’ll support LR.

If LR will increase my travel time, you’ve lost me.