Bus Rapid Transit System for Canberra

My Northbourne Avenue Proposal

The ACT Liberal party have proposed a Bus Rapid Transit System for Canberra, as an alternative to the Light Rail system already under construction by the ACT Government. While lower cost than the Light Rail option, the opposition's bus alternative would still be more expensive than the option I proposed and would result in higher carbon emissions.

The opposition plan adds an extra lane for busses to Northbourne Avenue.  Adding a lane would require extensive and expensive work, but not as much as laying tram tracks and adding overhead power. Because the number of lanes for cars would not be reduced, there would not be a reduction in carbon emmissions from cars.

Canberra Busway with Bays Instead of Light Rail

A report from Bob Nairn for the Liberal Party is reported to estimate the cost of a light rail project for Canberra at $915 million, 50% more than previous estimates.

Infrastructure Australia also did not support light rail in its "National Infrastructure Plan". The alternative I suggest is bus transit lanes on existing streets. The existing bicycle lanes can be moved to parkland and the road space freed up used for bus bays. This will allow express buses to overtake local stopping ones, which would not be possible with a light rail system.

Infrastructure Australia Supports Canberra Busway

In its "National Infrastructure Plan", Infrastructure Australia recommends bus transit lanes between Civic and Gungahlin in Canberra, not support the ACT's government plan for Light Rail. In my view, bus transit lanes are the better option, being cheaper and quicker to build then tram tracks.
 The ACT Government previously investigated a light rail line from Civic to Belconnen, but chose the better option of a bus lane, which is now working well, including a new addition routing the buses through ANU.

Bus lanes on Northbourne Avenue: Low-cost public transport measures such as bus transit lanes along Northbourne Avenue connecting the high-growth area of Gungahlin with the Canberra central business district. This will provide greater access and connectivity to activity centres and support the Australian Capital Territory Government’s plans for redevelopment along Northbourne Avenue.

The project needs to be accompanied by a change in the pricing of parking in Civic and other centres in Canberra. This is also in line with the Australian Capital Territory Government’s existing plans.

Capital Metro Light Rail Project for Canberra

The ACT Labor Party has proposed a light rail network through Canberra, under the title "Capital Metro Light Rail Project". This would start with a line from Civic (the City Centre) to the Gungahlin Town Centre (the northern satellite town). This is estimated to cost $614m,  but only $30m is to be initially committed to design work. In my view, a bus rapid transit system would be cheaper, could be started sooner and has more chance of actually being built.
The use of the term "Metro" in the Canberra proposal and the lack of a commitment of funds to build the project is reminiscent of the previous NSW Government's failed plan for a Sydney Metro. But a useful transport initiative which the former NSW Government did implement, and could be emulated in Canberra, are Metro Buses.
The ACT Government released details of a "City to Gungahlin Transit Corridor Study" some months ago, with options for Light Rail Transit and Bus Rapid Transit. Two ways to run the route down Northborne Avenue (Canberra's main street) were considered: in the curb lane and down the grassed central reserve.


The new proposal is to use the central reserve for trams. This will require extensive work to install rails, overhead power (although no overhead wires are shown in the artist's renderings) and possibly fences alongside the track.  The  proposal will increase carbon emissions, as the trams will run on coal fired power and freeing up roadway will increase pollution from cars.

In my view a better option would be a bus transit lane on the existing roadway and a new bicycle path in the centre of the median. This would be quicker and cheaper to build. It could operate with existing buses while new hybrid renewable units were acquired. The busway would reduce pollution by displacing cars from the roadway. There more chance of such a system being built, as it could be done in stages, delivering tangible benefits at each stage.

Lower Cost Rapid Transit System for Canberra

The ACT Government released details of a "City to Gungahlin Transit Corridor Study" for public transport between Canberra's city center and its northern satellite town. The two options considered were Light Rail Transit and Bus Rapid Transit. Both options would use the same route down Northborne Avenue (Canberra's main street). The proposals have been criticized for high cost estimates, much higher than other Australian transit system. I suggest this cost could be reduced with a simpler design.

All of the options envisaged by the ACT Government involve adding more lanes of traffic on Northborne Avenue. This will require the remove of the trees in the existing median strip to install the extra lanes for buses, or tram tracks.

I suggest an alternative approach, where the existing bicycle lane and traffic lane closest to the curb is replaced with the bus or tram transit lane. The bicycle lane can be then moved to the median strip.

The lowest cost options would be a buss-way. This would require the road lanes to be repainted, signs to be changed and traffic light reprogrammed, but no major roadworks.

A new bicycle lane would be built in the middle of the median strip. This would have the advantage of not requiring any trees to be removed, as a bus or tram-way would. The cost of lighting the bicycle path could be reduced by using a LED illuminated lane dividing strip down the middle of the path, with the electrical conductors built in. This would eliminate the need for lighting poles and underground power. The power for the bicycle lane lighting could be provided at each road intersection, from the existing circuit for the traffic lights.

Such a system could be possible to be installed in Northborne Avenue in months, rather than years and at half the cost of the ACT Government's proposed design.

The addition of the bus lane will more than make up for the capacity lost due to the removal of one car lane. This will also have the advantage of reducing the carbon emissions caused by the route, whereas the ACT Government's current plans would increase carbon emissions.

Bus Rapid Transit for Canberra

The ACT Government has released details of a "City to Gungahlin Transit Corridor Study" with two options for public transport between Canberra's city center and its northern satellite town. There is a project update, a concept report and view a fact sheet. There is an online survey and a Feedback Form. Also consultations will be held in the Civic Canberra Centre (ground floor near Supa Barn), 11am to 2pm 4 and 5 May 2012 and The Market Place Shopping Centre, Gungahlin (near Woolworths), 11am to 2pm 11 and 12 May 2012.

The two options being considered are Light Rail Transit and Bus Rapid Transit. LRT and BRT are fancy terms for trams and buses running in their own dedicated lanes, not mixed with other traffic. Both options would use the same route down Northborne Avenue (Canberra's main street). My preference would be for BRT, due to the lower cost and greater flexibility over LRT. As the BRT vehicles are buses, they can run on ordinary roads, as well as on the bus-way. Also as the bus-way is just a road reserved for buses it can be used by ordinary buses, as well as special high capacity ones. In contrast the trams used for a LRT can only run where tracks have been installed. Brisbane has an extensive BRT system, with the South-East, Inner Northern, Northern, Eastern and Boggo Road Busways. Adelaide has the O-Bahn Busway.

The ACT Government give a good overview of the options. One choice to be made is if vehicles should run along the outside lanes of Northborne avenue, or though the median strip in the center. The median strip in the center of Northborne avenue was made very wide so trams could be added later, so I suggest it be used for the busway. This will require the removal of an extensive grassed area and many mature trees, but this area is of no use to the community, as access is cut off by three lanes of traffic on either side. New trees can be planted along side the busway and the footpaths increased in size providing a better look and more useful space for pedestrians and cyclists.

The more difficult choice to be made is between trams and buses. As the ACT Government points out, trams are more popular, but buses are cheaper and can be designed to be as comfortable as trams. Also trams are more efficient in use of energy, but buses can be made almost as fuel efficient with the use of hybrid engines (diesel/electric) and renewable fuel (such as compressed methane). In addition, if trams are run from coal fired electricity, they will be just as polluting (perhaps more so) than a bus. Running trams from green electricity would be more expensive than using renewable fuel in a bus. In particular, solar power for trams would be prohibitively expensive.

My suggestion is to run a BRT with mild-hybrid buses. Mild hybrids have electric motors powered from small, low cost battery, to supplement the internal combustion engine. This is efficient and gives smooth, rapid acceleration, comparable to a tram. There is no need for the vehicles to run on battery power alone, as they will be on dedicated roads most of the time, not in stop-start traffic. BRT vehicles could be Australian made, by the existing vehicle industry, whereas LRT vehicles would need to be imported. The engines can be powered from the same diesel or Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as the rest of the Canberra bus fleet. When bio-diesel or synthetic methane become available (made from crop and domestic waste) this can be used, with no changes to the vehicles needed.

The ACT Government states that "Passenger capacity per BRT vehicle is half that of LRT vehicles". However, this is not correct. BRT buses can be made with two trailers. Such a double articulated "bendy bus" is as long as three standard buses, is a similar size and has a similar passenger capacity to an articulated LRT vehicle. Buses require extra space for an internal combustion engine and fuel, but this can be accommodated beneath the floor and on the roof, without compromising passenger space. LRT allows for multiple units to be coupled and run by one driver, but it is unlikely Canberra will require this capacity in the foreseeable future (and it could be matched by advances in BRT).

One area where the ACT Government plans are deficient is in ticketing and passenger information systems. One of the major ways to encourage use of transit systems is with integrated ticketing and good real-time information for passengers. The ACT Government appears to be underestimating the importance an difficulty of ICT systems for transport. Several Australian governments have failed to implement ICT for transport on time and on budget, resulting in billions of dollars extra cost, years of delay and resulting inadequate transport systems. There may be value in a strategy which concentrates on the ICT systems for Canberra transport and leaving the vehicles and roadways as a secondary issue.

Evolutionary BRT

Much of the benefit of the BRT can be achieved before new vehicles and extensive roadwork are implemented. I suggest the ACT Government commence work now on an advanced ICT system and some simple changes to the existing road system with the existing bus fleet. This could see improvements to the system from the beginning of 2013, with the full BRT progressively introduced in later years.

This would take advantage of one of the features of BRT: that it can be progressively introduced. Unlike LRT, which requires all new vehicles, newly trained drivers and a completed track, BRT can use a mix of old and new vehicles with the current drivers on mixed sections old and new roadway.

Bicycling the Sydney Light Rail Extension

View Leichhardt to the Cooks River by Cycle in a larger mapIt has been proposed to extend the existing inner Sydney light rail line 5.6 km to Dulwich Hill along the old Rozelle Freight Line. Some Greenway proposals envisage the space being used for a cycle and walkway, rather than a tram line. On Sunday I folding bicycle along the route from Marion Street, Leichardt to Dulwich Hill, using the directions in "Cycling Around Sydney - 30 of the Best Rides in Sydney" (Bruce Ashley, 2007).

The first half kilometre is a pleasant ride between the Hawthorne Canal and the embankment of the rail line, in some places through a tunnel of green. There are pedestrian underpasses allowing access to the cycle track at several points, including adjacent to the Artest. Art School. At Parramatta Road it is necessary to leave the green path and cross the very busy road and corss the bridge to the western bank of the canal. The path then continues south to Grosvenor Crescent. AT this point you can see the remaining span of the Whipple truss bridge over Long Cove Creek (1886). There is an Institution of Engineers Australia historic engineering marker on the nearby railway viaduct (unfortunately the marker is slightly crooked, not in keeping with the IE Aust standards). At this point there is no bicycle or pedestrian access along the river or rail line.

In my view the best option would be to use the route for trams and, where possible, accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. The goods line can be converted to a tram line at little cost, compared to the proposed Sydney Metro.

See also "Leichhardt to Cooks River by folding Bicycle", in Travel Journal

• Historic Railway Bridge
• Summer Hill
• Disused Railway line and Mungo Scott Flour Mill

Sydney Light Rail Extension

According to several media reports the NSW Government are considering a relatively low cost ($100M) plan to extend the existing light rail line in Sydney's inner west.

The Sydney Morning Hearld goes further, reporting that "Light rail extension could run within a year" (Andrew West, SMH, May 25, 2009), and this would go to cabinet today.

The plan is low cost and low risk, as it would extend an existing tram service along an existing disused goods rail line. This appears cheap and easy when compared with the proposed Sydney CBD to Rozelle metro which requires tunnels and the resumption of private businesses for stations and would cost $5.3B if it was built.

It was not clear why the NSW government previously opposed the low cost, low risk scheme, in favour of high cost high risk metros (which it keeps cancelling). One suggestion in the SMH is that the director-general of the Ministry of Transport, Jim Glasson, was opposed to light rail. It is also suggested that the government needed to do something to support the Education Minister, Verity Firth in her electorate for the 2011 election.

According to the SMH, the Transport Minister, David Campbell, had an epiphany when travelling by tram on holiday in holiday in Paris and Nice.

One problem which remains for hr tram is the lack of an integrated ticketing system in Sydney. Like Melbourne, Sydney has had problems with a smart card based system. Like Melbourne the problems are due to an overly complex ticket system and the failure by the government to adopt a simplified system, as used in Istanbul.

Two Sides of Japan Model Railway

The Canberra Model Railway Club held its Expo 2009 last weekend. Highlight of the event was the "Two Sides of Japan" display in N Gauge, showing not only bullet trains speeding across the countryside, but a Japanese city with electronic display signs and light rail. Unfortunately while there is a web site detailing how this was built, there are no photos doing the finished layout justice.

Sydney CBD Metro

The New South Wales Government has announced that work will commence on the $4.8B Sydney CBD metro. Unfortunately, as with previous metro proposals , this seems to be an ad-hoc one off proposal not part of a plan for Sydney.

The NSW Government released "City of Cities: A Plan for Sydney's Future" in December 2005. It aimed to plan for a population increase of 1.1 million by 2030, balancing economic growth with social and environmental issues. Whatever the plan's flaws, it is better than no plan.

The City of Cities plan included a $8B North West-CBD-South West Rail Link. There3 was no CBD Metro in the plan. However the Strategy for Transport included criteria to assess transport proposals: enhanced liveability, economic competitiveness, fairness, environmental protection and governance. These could be applied to the CBD Meto to see if it would be of value to Sydney. The metro announcement makes no mention of a long term large scale plan, only short term details:

The 7km CBD Metro is the first step towards a metro rail network for Sydney. It will run underground from Central to Rozelle via Town Hall, Martin Place, Barangaroo/Wynyard and Pyrmont. A station will also be safeguarded for future development at White Bay.

The route alignment is subject to further development and some modifications may occur as new information is obtained (particularly information related to major services and building basements).

The platform depth at the stations will range from approximately 20 to 35 metres below street level. The tunnel depths will be further determined as the design progresses.

Objectives of the route

The proposed route has been selected based on the objectives listed below and in consideration of a number of significant constraints, particularly in the CBD.

• Provide for stations to be built at optimal locations
• Take account of operational requirements for customer experience and maintenance
• Minimise impacts on future CBD developments by following road alignments as far as possible
• Minimise impacts on existing structures and basements
• Minimise impacts on existing underground infrastructure
• Utilise the Interim Metropolitan Rail Expansion Pitt corridor through the CBD (as identified in the Infrastructure SEPP) as much as possible
• Safeguard the Interim Metropolitan Rail Expansion West corridor through the CBD (as identified in the Infrastructure SEPP) and other underground infrastructure

From: The Route, Sydney Metro, NSW Government, 2009

Fast track Sydney transport with web enhanced planning

A Leichardt Council Transport Forum was held at the Leichardt Town Hall, 22 November 2008. This proposed a fast planning process for public transport in Leichardt and Sydney's inner west using experts and the community. I suggest that the Internet could be used to gain wider public and expert input into the process. Also the political realities of NSW suggest that upgrading the bus system should be included as a sub-optimal but politically feasable option.

The Meeting

Speakers were: Dr Gary Glazebrook from UTS, Dr. Michelle Zeibots, Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS and Councillor Jamie Parker, Mayor of Leichardt Council. As well as the listed speakers, there were people from EcoTransit Sydney present.

The forum discussed issues including the Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill Light Rail extension and the Iron Cove Bridge Duplication (also known as the Victoria Road upgrade). However, rather than proposing to deal with transport projects piecemeal, the planning experts proposed that the local councils get together with the community and planners to produce an overall plan. Such a plan could include public transport options which the NSW state Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) is unwilling to consider.

Proceedings were delayed for 20 minutes while we waited for the Mayor to arrive. Given that the expert transport speakers were present, this was an unnecessary waste of the time for the forty or so people present. The Mayor is obviously a busy person and I suggest he issue instructions that events not be held up waiting for him to arrive.

The Mayor opened the event by mentioning what was discussed at the local government summit recently in Canberra. He noted that NSW local government people were concerned about the lack of public transport planning in NSW. He claimed to have raised this with the PM and others at the event. He then expressed concern at the proposed and then cancelled Sydney metro and the new proposal a few weeks later. There was also a proposal for a $250m coordinated bike route in NSW.

Unfortunately this was all presented very rapidly by the Mayor, like a political campaign speech. There were no details provided to back up the claims made, nor any written text provided. While the Mayor sounded sincere, given the poor history of transport planning in NSW, much more is needed for a credible presentation. Leichardt Council needs to cite evidence when presenting proposals, for those proposals to have credibility.

Inquiry by design

Dr. Zeibots provided an excellent "Big picture" overview of transport planning for Sydney. Dr. Glazebrook went into more detail on light rail proposals for the inner west. Both were able to back up their proposals with credible evidence.

Dr. Zeibots advocated better planning using a process called "Inquiry by design". With this the usual years of planning and public consultations are compressed into about five days. The planners, experts and community representatives meet at the site to be planned, talk to locals and draw up options.

Some notes on the talk:

• The County of Cumberland scheme 1951 planned radial motorways for Sydney. This has been largely followed with Sydney's tollways. Unfortunately Sydney's 21 century transport is being planned using a 50 year old last century plan. Due to the cancellation of the Johnston creek extension to the motorways, Marrickiville and iron cove motorway tunnels are being considered by the RTA internally without adequate public consultation.
• Analysis of the traffic of the M4 shows that it did not greatly reduce the traffic on the existing great western highway and the total traffic of the two combined was much higher.

Enhance with the Internet and Political Realism

The meeting was useful and the inquiry by design process appears feasable. However, I suggest that the planners could usefully incorporate the Internet in their process and also inject some political realism.

Use the Internt for public and expert input to planning

The planners propose a process over a few days where the experts and community come together. However, not everyone concerned is able or willing to give up five days of their time. Only about forty of the many thousands of residents gave up a few hours for this meeting.

Therefore I suggested after the meeting to Dr. Zeibots that Internet and web tools could be used to enhance the meeting process. Experts and residents could be provided with the materials which were to be provided at the meetings and invited to provide input. As the process progressed, what the meeting came up with could be put online and the community invited to have input. This would allow wider input with minimal extra effort.

Between 1996 and 1998 I provided some web pages about planning for the Dickson p precinct of Canberra. Normally the Draft Master Plan would be displayed at the local library and perhaps an item about it placed in the local newspaper. By placing a copy online many more people could see it.

As part of the Federal Government's 2020 Summitt process I orgnaised a day long local summitt on open source with Senator Lundy. This made use of the Austrlaian developed Moodle free open source Learning Management System. Moodle was used to prepare the program for the day, solicit input and to report on the day. UTS has the Moodle system installed. This could be used to provide an online forum for a planning process. I have also used Moodle live in a classroom and it could be simiarly used to organise and present materials to people at a live forum as well as online.

Take account of political realities

The planners seemed to be curiously naive of the political process. A transport plan for Sydney may increase the chances of better public transport, it would seem more likely to be adopted if it took into account political realities.

The NSW state government has produced a number of transport proposals, such as the North West Metro, which make little sense in planning terms. These are only understandable in political terms as a way to attract votes. After the cancellation of the North West Metro and the quick creation of another metro proposal, there can be few who believe such proposals are being created through any rational planning process. Clearly these proposals are being up up in order to meet short term political aims, not the long term public interest.

Therefore any proposal put up by others needs to take into account the political issues and meet short term political needs of the government. As an example, projects which can be started quickly at low cost and employ people in NSW are more likely to receive political support, than those taking decades and using imported equipment. An example of such a project would be expanding the MetroBus recently introduced in the Inner West. The buses can be made in NSW, the bus lanes they need to run on can be built by NSW workers. The NSW government can apply for federal funding to create hybrid, large, fuel efficient buses.

Buses are not as good a long term transport option as trams and metros. However, buses which are actually purchased are a better option than trams which may not be approved and metros which are never built.

Leichhardt Transport Forum, 13 November 2008

A Leichhardt Council Transport Forum will be held at the Leichhardt Town Hall, 22 Nov 2008. Issues include the Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill Light Rail extension and the Iron Cove Bridge Duplication (also known as the Victoria Road upgrade).

Start: 22 Nov 2008 - 1:30am
End: 22 Nov 2008 - 3:30pm

Planning and implementing transport in the inner west will be addressed by transport experts, Dr. Garry Glazebrook and Dr. Michelle Zeibots, and local transport groups. Topics for discussion will include the Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill Light Rail extension and the Iron Cove Bridge Duplication.

Venue: Leichhardt Town Hall
Norton St. Leichhardt

From: Leichhardt Council Transport Forum, EcoTransit Sydney, 2008

The RTA propose to build a new three lane bridge to the west of the existing four lane Iron Cove Bridge. My view is that a better option would be to not build a new bridge and instead devote two of the lanes of the existing bridge to buses. The funds saved on the new bridge could be spent on purchasing additional buses. This would have advantages:

• Provides for far larger capacity at peak times than an additional bridge.
• Less noise and vibration impacts on the local residents.
• Does not require relocation of underwater utilities.
• Does not require acquisition of private property.
• No impact on Birkenhead Wharf that has heritage characteristics.
• Safer, simpler alignment with the existing road.

An additional bridge would not be a good long term investment, as individual passenger cars do not have a future for peak hour city transport. An additional bridge will simply clog with additional cars at peak time. Buses can carry many times the number of passengers per unit of road space as cars. The new Sydney MetroBus has shown how a well resourced bus service can be popular.

Rail transport would be preferable, but the NSW government has been unable to prepare a credible rail transport plan, with unworkable schemes such as the North West Metro. The city will therefore have to make do with buses for the foreseeable future.

Big Red Metrobus in Sydney

Yesterday I was in a hurry to get from Norton Street (Sydney's Little Italy) to the Sunday concert by The Song Company in the 2008 Spring Festival of Music Concert Series. In answer to my prayer, along came a big red new Metrobus. This is a new service which commenced operation yesterday and is being trialled for 12 months. As the name implies the service operates like a metro: there is no timetable, with buses instead arriving at set frequent intervals (every 10 minutes in peak hours, 15 minutes off peak, 20 minutes on weekends).

As the service had just been introduced there were two extra staff on board to hand out pamphlets and explain the service. The buses are claimed to carry more people that a standard bus, but looked the same to me. They are fitted with an electronic display showing the next stop and an automatic voice announcement. The bus I was on is a single unit, but articulated ones are also being used.

The pamphlet and the bus stop signs are an improvement on previous STA bus information. The metro style maps are easy to understand and to work out where to change to other transport. The roadside signs lack a countdown timer to tell you when the next bus is leaving, but the on-board staff explained that these signs are planned.

The buses do not accept cash and all tickets must be purchased before boarding. This will cause some inconvenience but greatly reduces bus loading time. It is also safer than the arrangement in Melbourne with trams (and buses in Thessaloniki), where patrons have to attempt to buy a ticket from a machine on-board a moving vehicle. There are newsagents and other vendors selling tickets near most bus stops.

The Metrobus is a cost effective and realistic answer to some of Sydney's transport problems, unlike the unworkable "North West Metro". However, there is a danger the Metrobus trial will fail due to a lack of investment. Some areas where it could be improved are:

1. Usable Web Site: Sydney Buses provide a minimum of information about the service on the web in a difficult to read format. Instead of large, slow to download and hard to read PDF documents, the Brochure, Route Map, Download the TravelTen calculator should be provided in the form of web pages accessible by the disabled and usable on a mobile phone. The Wikipedia entry for the service provides better information than the official government web site.
   
2. Next bus electronic sign: Each stop needs an electronic sign counting down to when the next bus leaves. These signs need to provide an accurate estimate. When I tried the Perth "Cat" system, the signs were so inaccurate as to be useless and discouraged patronage, rather than helping it. STA should invest in a reliable system which uses real time displays with wireless links to a GPS reporting bus. The signs could be solar powered in most cases.
3. Next Bus Cafe: Electronic signs could be installed in cafes near the stops and the the staff encouraged to help patrons with bus information.
   
4. Better road access: While the Metrobuses are new and have a good ride, the service suffers from the poor Sydney roads. The NSW government should repair the road surface along the bus lane for the Metrobus route to improve the ride and speed up the service. Bus priority traffic lights would further improve the service. Also the buses could be equipped with with traffic cameras, linked to the RTA Transport Management Centre, with a button for the driver to report a traffic problem. The RTA central controllers could then see and act on problems effecting the buses. An additional option would be to fit the buses out with mobile traffic infringement cameras, so that vehicles parked in bus stops and otherwise impeding the service could be issued with fines immediately.
5. Electronic tickets: Sydney needs a workable electronic ticketing system, such as the Akbil system used by Istanbul Public Transport. Sydney has abandoned one electronic ticket system (Tcard) and is planning to install another system which will not work. Sydney needs to rationalise its fare structure before an electronic ticketing system will be workable. One option would be to propose the Australian Government fund a national standardised system and have it piloted on the Sydney Metrobus.

Name of station	Stop number	Locations served	Connections
Market Place Leichhardt	22W	Leichhardt Market Place
Elswick Street	21W	Leichhardt
Cromwell Street (Eastbound only)	20/21W	Leichhardt
Leichhardt Town Hall	20W	Leichhardt, Norton Street Palace Cinema
Norton Plaza	19W	Norton Street Plaza
Norton Street	18W	Norton Street Italian Forum
Catherine Street	17W	Sydney Institute of TAFE - Petersham College
Percival Road	16W	Annandale, Stanmore
Johnston Street	15W	Annandale
Bridge Road	14W	Annandale
Denison Street (Westbound only)	13/14W	Camperdown, Annandale
Mallett Street	13W	Camperdown
Missenden Road	12W	Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
Larkin Street	11W	University of Sydney
Ross Street	10W	University of Sydney
Sydney Uni (Footbridge)	9W	University of Sydney
Sydney Uni (Main Gate) (Westbound only)	8/9W	University of Sydney
Victoria Park	8W	University of Sydney, Victoria Park, Broadway Shopping Centre
Broadway	7W	Broadway, Broadway Shopping Centre	Bus: Newtown, Glebe Point Road
Abercrombie Street	6W	Broadway, Ultimo
Unversity of Technology (UTS)	5W	UTS, Broadway, Ultimo, Haymarket
Railway Square	4W	Railway Square, Sydney Institute of TAFE, Ultimo, Haymarket	Train: Central Station Bus: Northern Beaches
Rawson Place	3W	Chinatown, Paddy's Markets, Haymarket
Chinatown (Westbound only)	2/3W	Chinatown, Paddy's Markets, Haymarket
World Square	2W	Chinatown, World Square, Town Hall
Sydney Town Hall	1W	Town Hall, Queen Victoria Building, St. Andrew's Cathedral, George St Cinemas	Train: Town Hall Station
Park Street City	1E	Town Hall, The Galeries Victoria, Pitt Street Mall	Monorail: Galeries Victoria
Hyde Park	2E	Hyde Park
Museum	3E	Hyde Park, Downing Centre	Train: Museum Station Bus: Bondi Beach, Paddington, Bondi Junction, Bronte
Brisbane Street	4E	Whitlam Square
Riley Street	5E	Oxford Square
Taylor Square	6E	Taylor Square, St Vincent's Hospital, University of Notre Dame Australia
Albion Street	7E	Surry Hills, UNSW College of Fine Arts
South Dowling Street (Eastbound only)	7/8E	Surry Hills
Moore Park	8E	Moore Park, Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney Football Stadium
Cleveland Street	9E	Moore Park, Fox Studios, Entertainment Quarter	Bus: Randwick, Coogee
Robertson Street	10E	Moore Park, Centennial Park
Alison Road (Eastbound only)	10/11E	Moore Park Supa Centa
Carlton Street	11E	Randwick Racecourse
Ascot Street	12E	Randwick Racecourse
Todman Ave	13E	Kensington
Addison Street	14E	Kensington
Doncaster Avenue	15E	Kensington
UNSW	16E	University of New South Wales
Barker Street	17E	University of New South Wales
Middle Street	18E	Kingsford
Kingsford Nine Ways	19E	Kingsford	Bus: Maroubra, La Perouse

From: Metrobus, Wikipedia, 2008

Metro in Sydney Transport Plan

The formation of a new NSW Government provides the opportunity to rethink Sydney's transport planning. The "North West Metro" proposed as a "European" style metro was not viablee. Sydney is not a European style city and needs a different transport system. The government should look to cities such as Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane to see how to use heavy and light rail and express bus ways for public transport.

European style metros service densely populated cities using closely spaced stations and short lines. The Sydney metro was to be a single 38km rail line with 17 stations (one for every 2 km) to cost $12B. A few months ago I visited the Greek city of Thessaloniki and saw a real European metro under construction This will have 13 stations, almost as many as the Sydney plan, but is only 9.6 km long, one third the spacing of the Sydney system. This smaller system will cost only 800 million euros, but even so has taken thirty years to build.

Instead of one long rail line, Sydney could consider some shorter genuine metro lines to service densely populated parts of the city in the next few decades. However, this should be a supplement to improved heavy rail, as Perth has done. There are also measures which can be introduced relatively quickly and cheaply, costing hundreds of millions of dollars and taking years, rather than billions taking decades. These include extending the existing light rail in the inner west of Sydney and providing priority bus lanes.

Another relatively easy problem to solve is the ticketing system for Sydney transport. The previous smart card project failed due to a complex pricing system for Sydney's diverse transport system. Istanbul has an integrated electronic ticketing system (Akbil) for the city's trams, trains, buses, ferries and even two Funicular railways. This works because the fare structure of the transport system has been simplified.

Given that transport systems take decades to implement, Sydney could look at some emerging technologies, such as hybrid buses, Guided buses (used in Adelaide), and rubber-tyred trams. The have the potential of providing the low cost and flexibility of conventional buses with the capacities of metro and light rail, using some of Sydney's existing road infrastructure. As an example some of the lanes of existing toll roads and toll tunnels could be converted to guided bus-ways. The buses would collect passengers on ordinary roads and the enter the guided way for a high speed trip to the city center.

The buses could be electrically powered from renewable sources while on the bus way. Computer control of the buses would provide a similar level of safety, ride comfort and speed to an advanced light rail system. Buses which primarily use the guided ways could be powered by rechargable batteries when away from the guide way and would not require internal combustion engines. Express buses which only used the guide way could be driver-less.

Canberra Light Rail Proposals

Just had a call from a company asking if I knew who to talk to in Canberra about light rail proposals. The only people I know of with a serious proposal for trams in Canberra were the Federation Line. But there appears to have been no progress with that for several years.

This was a very modest proposal for a tourist tram in central Canberra, which seemed well thought out and would require the minimum of capital works. It would service some office staff and shoppers as well as tourists.

There is also ACT Light Rail. This seems to be a relatively recent group which has been active in late 2007. They do not appear to have a specific project proposal.

The ACT Government has proposed a light rail system linking Civic to the Airport, Parliamentary Triangle and major town centres, at a cost of "around $1 billion". They also proposed this could like to a future fast train to Sydney.

The ACT Government doesn't appear to have done a serious assessment of light rail, but instead is just putting in an ambit claim. The one billion dollars would be enough to run a line between two of Canberra's town centers, but not between them all.

One option might be to expand the Federation Line's proposal around Civic out to the Airport. This could service defence offices and offices at the airport itself.

Recently I visited Turkey and Greece and saw their impressive public transport facilities. However, those depend on having densely packed apartment blocks. The same infrastructure would be prohibitively expensive in Canberra's suburbs. About the best which could be hoped for is more bus lanes and reserved ways waiting for newer technology.

Melbourne St Kilda Tram one of World's Greatest Trips

National Geographic's book "Journeys of a Lifetime: 500 of the World's Greatest Trips" features the Melbourne 96 Tram (). If you have the time this is well worth the ride. It goes from the center of the city to the beach, incluidng a section along what was the St Kilda Railway.

Unfortunately the book did not include the Adelaide to Glenelg Tram, which must rate as one of the great light rail trips of the world (12 km from the center of Adelaide to the beach).

Ps: Other trips in the book include Toronto's 501 Queen streetcar.