tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18909424.post114928833321836831..comments2024-03-24T23:01:11.766+11:00Comments on Melbourne on Transit: Peter Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13413976934040474125noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18909424.post-40609453961290062542008-09-25T14:13:00.000+10:002008-09-25T14:13:00.000+10:00Excellent PeterMaybe we could adapt it for the Tra...Excellent Peter<BR/><BR/>Maybe we could adapt it for the Transport Textbook.<BR/><BR/>I have a strong feeling for this. I also find a dimension of town/city 'purpose' that affects what happens.<BR/><BR/>Hence why I would probably use a Christchurch style solution in Adelaide, though it is much bigger, and why I support the Stadtbahning of Adelaide. <BR/><BR/>Apart from a couple of very long corridors, I don't see much potential in heavy rail for Adelaide. The city is very dispersed, and suitable for buses with high capacity light rail on most spines. The CBD is a weak attractor.<BR/><BR/>Yet Perth, which frequently talks about Light Rail, is probably already past the Light rail stage for its longer distance routes, and is picking up sizeable heavy rail traffic. And the CBD is this case is a strong attractor.<BR/><BR/>Wellington, because of its legacy, is probably on the border and like Adelaide (though it is significantly smaller) so probably should have Light Rail to penetrate the city and only the couple of long distance heavy rail routes.<BR/><BR/>Newcastle is a complicated one. It services to Maitland and Lake Macquarie are really interurban, not suburban, and the suburbs as such are poorly served by rail transport. <BR/><BR/>The spines of the Newcastle urban area would probably make good light rail turf, but until they get their planning sorted and bus ridership up, I probably wouldn't bother. <BR/><BR/>I have read that the University is a bigger attractor than the CBD so getting that right is the key.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com