1988•Unpublished venueRequires access

A review of northern suburbs rapid transit options: report of expert panel

Peter W. G. Newman, D F Howard, Vuchic

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

The Expert Panel was set up by the Minister for Transport in response to requests for further information to provide a perspective on Perth's public transport system, to see how other cities are resolving their transport problems and to give another view on Travers Morgan's analysis of the Northern Suburbs Rapid Transit options. The following conclusions are made: 1) Perth has a window of opportunity to complete the basic public transport infrastructure of a modern city. 2) The best option for the Northern Suburbs would be a rail trunk line with bus feeders. 3) Initial cost analysis suggests the rail option would be: $124m capital costs (cf $145m by Travers Morgan), $5.8m less in operating costs annually than the bus option. Thus the difference between rail and bus ($45m) would be eliminated in 12 to 15 years with savings from thereon. 4) Further savings could be obtained if a more comprehensive bidding system were provided by tenderers involving land development and financing. It could be anticipated that capital costs for the rail option under such a comprehensive bidding system would be considerably reduced. 5) To maximise financial return through land development the Northern Line could be redirected into the Innaloo Regional Centre as well as the Joondalup Regional Centre after detailed consideration of the alignment.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The Expert Panel was set up by the Minister for Transport in response to requests for further information to provide a perspective on Perth's public transport system, to see how other cities are resolving their transport problems and to give another view on Travers Morgan's analysis of the Northern Suburbs Rapid Transit options. The following conclusions are made: 1) Perth has a window of opportunity to complete the basic public transport infrastructure of a modern city. 2) The best option for the Northern Suburbs would be a rail trunk line with bus feeders. 3) Initial cost analysis suggests the rail option would be: $124m capital costs (cf $145m by Travers Morgan), $5.8m less in operating costs annually than the bus option. Thus the difference between rail and bus ($45m) would be eliminated in 12 to 15 years with savings from thereon. 4) Further savings could be obtained if a more comprehensive bidding system were provided by tenderers involving land development and financing. It could be anticipated that capital costs for the rail option under such a comprehensive bidding system would be considerably reduced. 5) To maximise financial return through land development the Northern Line could be redirected into the Innaloo Regional Centre as well as the Joondalup Regional Centre after detailed consideration of the alignment.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The Expert Panel was set up by the Minister for Transport in response to requests for further information to provide a perspective on Perth's public transport system, to see how other cities are resolving their transport problems and to give another view on Travers Morgan's analysis of the Northern Suburbs Rapid Transit options. The following conclusions are made: 1) Perth has a window of opportunity to complete the basic public transport infrastructure of a modern city. 2) The best option for the Northern Suburbs would be a rail trunk line with bus feeders. 3) Initial cost analysis suggests the rail option would be: $124m capital costs (cf $145m by Travers Morgan), $5.8m less in operating costs annually than the bus option. Thus the difference between rail and bus ($45m) would be eliminated in 12 to 15 years with savings from thereon. 4) Further savings could be obtained if a more comprehensive bidding system were provided by tenderers involving land development and financing. It could be anticipated that capital costs for the rail option under such a comprehensive bidding system would be considerably reduced. 5) To maximise financial return through land development the Northern Line could be redirected into the Innaloo Regional Centre as well as the Joondalup Regional Centre after detailed consideration of the alignment.

Key concepts: Bidding, Public transport, Finance, Business, Bus rapid transit, Capital cost, Transport engineering, Light rail transit

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A review of northern suburbs rapid transit options: report of expert panel — Research Paper | ScholarLens