Welcome. If you're new to this site, start here

Friday, October 20, 2006

Bus Only?

Tom reports rumours that the "bus only" option is the likely choice.

While that's nobody's first choice, there is a way to make it everybody's second choice, to get real value out of it, and lock nobody into an unnaceptable long-term choice:

Just change the bus only option as follows:


  1. Treat it as a test not as the long term solution. Run the buses on the roads but just don't rip up the tracks. After 5 to 10 years, make the final decision as to what to do with the tracks. Running the buses on roads for 5 to 10 years will prove or disprove many of the claims/assumptions made by those on both sides of this debate. Was "peak oil" in 2004, and is it about to drive fossil fueled vehicles off the road? Or will road congestion get worse? If the trains stop, will a significant number of rail passengers use their cars instead of riding buses? After the test period, if it becomes clear that rail is the only long-term option, just buy some trains and start running them on the line again. The expense can be justified because the bus option has been tested, and failed.

  2. Use hybrid diesel-electric buses, for a solution that's probably just as green as rail (since rail involves heavy vehicles powered on, basically, 25% coal-fired electricity). Bus on road is cheaper, making the extra expense of these buses more likely to be acceptable.

  3. Do it quickly, to free up the J'Ville trains for a few years use elsewhere in the region (since we have a train shortage, that cannot otherwise be filled for a number of years)

  4. Take bus priority measures very seriously.



This is probably no-one's first choice, not even mine, but if I was the council, faced with a bill not far from $100,000 per passenger for rail, I would want to run a test before I parted with that kind of cash.

Just a thought. Interested in your comments...

0 Comments:

<< Home