Unfortunately Alex it's almost impossible to get passenger km figures for
various systems nowadays, nor even the data inputs upon which to do your
own calculations! Otherwise I agree that you're possibly right. At the
moment the Glenelg branch has a capacity of about 1,200-1,300 passengers
per hour per direction, which is no more than a moderately busy bus
service. It would be interesting to see if a boost in the service produced
a boost in patronage, but with the nature of the catchment I can't see this
happening. Another method to feed it is to build more park-and-ride
capacity along the line.

I wonder how much use that northern stub is going to attract with its
infrequent weekend feeder to the parklands? It would be nice to see that
extended to North Adelaide.

Tony P

On Sunday, 14 October 2018 15:25:05 UTC+11, Alex Cowie wrote:
>

> Tony,

> The published figures indeed show that the non-city section accounts for

> about a quarter of the patronage, as reflected in the *number of

> passenger boardings*. It would however be interesting to see the

> corresponding figures, when expressed in *passenger-km*. It certainly is

> the case that heaviest loadings do occur within the CBD. However as the

> free travel is confined to the CBD and Jetty Road zones, the average

> length of the free journeys is likely to be shorter than the paid journeys

> and so I would expect the disparity between city and non-city to be less in

> *passenger-km* terms. This is consistent with Richard's and Graham's

> comments about the substantial level of loading south of the city. It is

> also significant that the 2016 timetable changes saw the withdrawal of the

> city shuttles to give an increase in the daytime frequency from 15 to 10

> minutes, thus providing greater capacity on the non-city section of the

> line.

>

> The present peak hour service is effectively constrained by the size of

> the fleet, with the three new Citadis being required to sustain the North

> Tce shuttle.

>

> Alex C - in a city which has just seen this weekend an increase in the

> *vehicle-km* within the CBD

>

> On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 9:38:06 AM UTC+10:30, Prescott wrote:

>>

>> Possibly there's a rolling stock issue, but the main factor would likely

>> be not wanting to over-service the Glenelg line which only accounts for

>> about a quarter of the system's patronage and has had little growth for

>> yonks due to the low-density development and lack of new development along

>> that line. The newer medium to high density development at Glenelg is a

>> little to the north of the line and the patronage spoils for that go to the

>> bus services. It would benefit the line to turn it to the north at Glenelg.

>>

>> Tony P

>>

>> On Saturday, 13 October 2018 11:04:44 UTC+11, Graham Jaunay wrote:

>>>

>>> Disappointed that a decent notice was not given to all.

>>>

>>> The new timetable provides a poorer service for residents on the Glenelg

>>> line who want to go to Entertainment Centre (now have to change trams) or

>>> the RAH on weekends (now effectively a 20 min service or change trams).

>>>

>>> Even I could (and have) devised a better service embracing the new line.

>>> 1, Glenelg to Entertainment Centre as previous with same frequency 2. City

>>> Circuit: South Tce-Entertainment Centre-Botanic Gdns-RAH-South Tce 10 min

>>> service. I admit I haven't bothered to work out the servicing needs with

>>> regard to rolling stock etc.

>>> G

>>>

>>> On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 8:07:48 AM UTC+10:30, Mark Skinner

>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Last night I received an email from the project team saying that the

>>>> new services to the Adelaide Botanic Gardens and Festival Centre would open

>>>> from start of service next morning. Less than 12 hrs notice!

>>>>

>>>> Fortunately, despite the lack of notice, the first trip was decently

>>>> patronised...for the Channel 7 camera crew.

>>>>

>>>> First shot is at City West going to Bot Gardens. Second is at the Bot

>>>> Gardens terminus.

>>>>

>>>