 fast rail question
PC wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:09:08 +1000, Chris Brownbill
> <chrisbrownbill@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>No you haven't. If they used to arrive 10 mins early just in case, they
>>had a 10 minute wait. If they now show up at random times regardless of
>>the timetable that has a 10 minute interval they have an average 5
>>minute wait. Even then, to be sure of arriving at their destination on
>>time they'd have to arrive at their departure station at a time that is
>>the length of their journey PLUS 10 minutes just in case they just
>>missed a train.
>
>
> And what if the existing infrequent service forced them to arrive in
> the office 20 minutes early, as it often does? They'll end up an
> average of 15 minutes ahead..
>
They're actually not ahead at all under this scenario
Compare a 20min frequency where people read the timetable, with a 10min
frequency where people ignore the timetable.
a) Person consults the timetable, selects the latest train that gets
him/her to his destination in time. On average it is 10 minutes earlier
than he would ideally like (20min/2). Add his journey time plus 10
minutes contingency on the front as you suggest. That gives a total of
journey time plus 20 minutes for waiting or wasted before after arrival.
b) Person works out that trains take x minutes to get to his
destination. Because he doesn't know the timetable needs to allow 10
minutes at the back end of his journey and at the front end of the
journey in case the next train is 10mins away. Unless he's prepared to
be late, that means that he must allow journey time plus 20 minutes.
Now, if the journey was sped up - well there's a gain.
Of course, a 10min interval for someone who reads a timetable is better
than a 20min interval for someone who reads a timetable.
The single most effective and cost-effective action a traveller can take
for delivering reduced travel time is to consult a timetable!
>
> OK, if you have to spend half a billion dollars on increasing speed,
> knocking 10 minutes off trip times, you get a few savings in crew
> costs, you get increased RoW maintenance costs and vehicle wear and
> tear due to the higher speed, and end out having spent a fortune and
> the ongoing costs are about the same..
>
> Given the inevitable cost blowouts attributable to any project run by
> Vic ALP, it will probably end up costing a billion to deliver the fast
> rail project, and anyway, they left out Albury as they thought that
> SpeedRail would cover that (HA!), which would take up the change from
> a billion even if the cost didn't blow out..
>
> If you take that billion dollars and dump it in an account that earns
> say 3% above inflation, that's $30 million a year, which would hire a
> lot of drivers to drive the trains that a city needs to buy to meet
> peak capacity anyway, and maint guys to keep them running..
>
> If you assume the infrastructure would still deteriorate in 20 or 30
> years anyway, then you can draw down on the capital and be even
> further ahead on the frequency spending relative to spending on speed
> alone..
>
My argument is about changing perceptions and community attitudes so
that increased investment will be supported (competence of government
project management aside - which I agree is a real risk) Ie increase the
size of the rail investment pie. What is time worth to people? Time is
money.
>
>>Rupert Murdoch for one through his innumerable and influential
>>mouthpieces around the nation.
>
>
> The fact that there's usually one ad for a car in any ad break on TV
> presenting roads and driving conditions as being uncongested doesn't
> help.. Perhaps truth in advertising laws should apply to car ads..
>
>
>>Also, think about who else stands to profit from keeping people wedded
>>to their cars - its quite pervasive and endemic.
>
>
> Too true..
>
>
> PC
>
| 
