Cheap Airport O-Bahn

[bits]

A structure in a creek doesn't sound wise.
Would it not need to be checked for damage, debris and organic growth after every time it rains?
How do you cross roads like South Road?
Privacy and noise pollution for properties?
How do you promote a service that may or may not be running whenever it rains?

[Ho Really]

Here's some options I drew up a while ago for light rail...



From left to right...
1. Above the drain
2. In the drain with water from drain diverted in new drains in adjoining streets.
3. In the drain with water piped in new enclosed drain below.
4. Lowered so catenary system runs under road bridges.
5. New drain with tunnel below.

In option 2 the existing drain is lowered further where it passes under road bridges to give room to the catenary system. If the light rail runs without the overhead catenary (on batteries or by induction) that's one less hassle.

An O-bahn system would require similar solutions.

Cheers

[Nort]

Here's some options I drew up a while ago for light rail...



From left to right...
1. Above the drain
2. In the drain with water from drain diverted in new drains in adjoining streets.
3. In the drain with water piped in new enclosed drain below.
4. Lowered so catenary system runs under road bridges.
5. New drain with tunnel below.

In option 2 the existing drain is lowered further where it passes under road bridges to give room to the catenary system. If the light rail runs without the overhead catenary (on batteries or by induction) that's one less hassle.

An O-bahn system would require similar solutions.

Cheers

The idea of just diverting water to drains in nearby streets suggests you haven't seen just how much water flows through that creek when it gets flowing after heavy rain.

[Ho Really]

The idea of just diverting water to drains in nearby streets suggests you haven't seen just how much water flows through that creek when it gets flowing after heavy rain.

That's one suggestion out of several. At present you are talking about a 1-in-a-100 year flood situation as you'll probably know they've been working on mitigation and most of flood waters will be diverted to Brownhill Creek. And who says more work cannot be done? There are engineering solutions it is only a matter of how much money one wants to spend. Anyhow as you can see from the diagrams there are other solutions.

Cheers

[Nort]

The idea of just diverting water to drains in nearby streets suggests you haven't seen just how much water flows through that creek when it gets flowing after heavy rain.

That's one suggestion out of several. At present you are talking about a 1-in-a-100 year flood situation as you'll probably know they've been working on mitigation and most of flood waters will be diverted to Brownhill Creek. And who says more work cannot be done? There are engineering solutions it is only a matter of how much money one wants to spend. Anyhow as you can see from the diagrams there are other solutions.

Cheers

Nah, as someone who lives near Keswick Creek and crosses it daily I'm talking about the amount of water multiple times a year when it rains heavily. I've seen it multiple times flowing only a couple of feet below the top.

There are other solutions proposed, but they require so much engineering that the questions becomes why do it? Seems like a solution in search of a problem.

[1NEEDS2POST]

The idea of just diverting water to drains in nearby streets suggests you haven't seen just how much water flows through that creek when it gets flowing after heavy rain.

That's one suggestion out of several. At present you are talking about a 1-in-a-100 year flood situation as you'll probably know they've been working on mitigation and most of flood waters will be diverted to Brownhill Creek. And who says more work cannot be done? There are engineering solutions it is only a matter of how much money one wants to spend. Anyhow as you can see from the diagrams there are other solutions.

Cheers

Nah, as someone who lives near Keswick Creek and crosses it daily I'm talking about the amount of water multiple times a year when it rains heavily. I've seen it multiple times flowing only a couple of feet below the top.

There are other solutions proposed, but they require so much engineering that the questions becomes why do it? Seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Over the years, there have been many proposals for a public transport link between the airport and the city. They typically go on the road with other traffic (eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_ ... /maplink/4). The problem is this is no faster than the current bus. The way to make it faster than the current bus is to use a dedicated public transport path.

The solution we propose is to use the path of the drain for rapid transit. Yes, there will still need to be a large drain. Using this path is cheaper than the alternatives for a dedicated public transport path, such as acquiring houses or digging tunnels.

[brizzlar]

When it comes to the question of trackless trams, my answer is the same as to a "drain O-Bahn".

No.

Lots of cities, including Perth, The Sunshine Coast and Geelong are either implementing or considering implementing this technology.

I have not heard of this happening in any of those cities. Can you point me to any sources? The closest thing to a "trackless tram" is the Brisbane "Metro".

Perth:

https://www.cleanstate.org.au/trackless ... %20experts.

Sunshine coast:

https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/Co ... it-Options

Geelong:

https://committeeforgeelong.com.au/medi ... r-geelong/

And yes, Brisbane Metro was the project I was referring to.

[Nort]

The solution we propose is to use the path of the drain for rapid transit. Yes, there will still need to be a large drain. Using this path is cheaper than the alternatives for a dedicated public transport path, such as acquiring houses or digging tunnels.

Have you actually run any numbers on this? Between having to reengineer the whole drain, deal with multiple traffic and pedestrian crossings, the proximity of houses that would likely need engineering works to deal with heavy vehicles passing next to them at high speed, and the fact that the corridor is only wide enough for one way traffic at a time putting a low upper limit on service frequency, I don't see how it necessarily comes out cheaper.

Heck, I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if the joke suggestion of a monorail down Sir Donald Bradman would actually be a cheaper solution.