News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[Llessur2002]

I'm not sure I follow - reducing the overall number of stations can only reduce access to the network. Making the remaining stations better or increasing service frequency does not increase access to public transport (improvements around interchanges excepted) it merely makes it more attractive to a cohort of potential users who think the current frequency or quality of stations are too low.

Using the OH line as an example - geography dictates there will be no massive increase of population at the far end of the line, the majority of users live closer to the city. I'd argue that shaving 4-5 minutes off of someone who lives in Glanville's journey time will not significantly change their opinion of whether they'd commute via train or car. I'd even go as far as questioning whether shaving 10 minutes off of a Gawler-CBD commuter's journey time would be an absolute deal breaker compared to other factors.

I think improvements to service quality, safety, stations and increasing overall access to railway stations both in the suburbs and the CBD will do far more to attract new users.

I also really think service frequency is a red herring in Adelaide's situation. Reducing wait times for a hop-on, hop-off light rail network in the city and through suburban centres? Absolutely. For a predominantly end to end commuter service like ours? I just don't see it. An average commuter will choose a service which gets them to the city at around the time they start work. Increasing frequency from every 30 minutes to every 20 minutes will be of limited benefit to many people.

The o-bahn is by far the most successful PT in Adelaide so there is no hesitation for mass take up of a bus service with very high frequency and close to destination stops.

I don't doubt this, but very few areas have access to BRT. Closing local stations and expecting rail users to happily transition to a vastly inferior local bus service is wishful thinking.

[UEX]

From my experience but if someone closed my local station that's a 5 minute walk away and replaced it with a 'better' station with higher frequency trains 15 minutes walk away I'd be significantly less likely to use it - especially if it was hot or raining or if I had stuff/children to carry. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone on that front. I love PT but I really don't enjoy getting on a rattly bus to sit in traffic and pull over every 45 seconds. I know I'm far from alone there.

In your example, if you didn't want to walk 15 minutes - you'd only be on a local station shuttle for less than 5 minutes - and you'd still have far better access to fast mass transit than the majority of people do today. And once you get to the station, you have less wait for a train due to higher frequencies and a faster trip once on the train.

And it wouldn't be a clunky old bus, they'd ideally be dedicated, low-floor, electric shuttles.

It's simply not possible to have journey times (frequency+speed) that are competitive with cars with a system which avoids transfers. Every 'gold standard' transit system in the world revolves around transfers and high frequencies.

[Llessur2002]

Every 'gold standard' transit system in the world revolves around transfers and high frequencies.

And in lots of those cases road traffic and parking means that PT, in any form, is likely to be both substantially cheaper and substantially quicker than driving.

Until that's the case in Adelaide - and we're far from that - mode transfers and reducing access to local stations across the network will be a net turn off. It will be too much faff for a lot of people to work out what shuttle to get, walk to the nearest main road, sit in traffic on that shuttle, exit the shuttle, walk to the platform and then wait in sun/rain/cold for a train. And then repeat at 5pm. I'm a long-term PT user and that sounds like a faff to me.

This is Adelaide - people will get in their car, sit in relatively light traffic and park in a Wilson close to their office. Even if it takes them 15 minutes longer and costs $10 more.

I'm not knocking the underlying theory but in ten years of listening to Adelaidians tell me why they don't use public transport I can't recollect many complaining that journey times are too long. Safety (or perceived safety) is a big one, cost always comes up (even though our PT is insanely cheap compared to many cities) and the fact that PT doesn't go where they need it to go would be up there too. Removing stations would make that last point even worse.

My money no object plan would be to retain all but the least patronised or virtually duplicated stations, embark on a massive station upgrade across the entire network (shelters, CCTV, signage, access, amenities etc), extend operating hours and frequencies at night/on weekends and build a CBD rail tunnel with additional stations (all serviced by a high frequency city loop tram line). Large gaps in the network would get the previously planned light rail lines (Unley, Norwood, Prospect etc) and the OH line would probably join them as light rail given the possiblity to better service other key areas such as Port Adelaide, Semaphore, West Lakes, Grange etc.

[bits]

The o-bahn is by far the most successful PT in Adelaide so there is no hesitation for mass take up of a bus service with very high frequency and close to destination stops.

I don't doubt this, but very few areas have access to BRT. Closing local stations and expecting rail users to happily transition to a vastly inferior local bus service is wishful thinking.

What part do you doubt?
Where no train runs people use buses.
They often do transfer from bus to bus.
The o-bahn is far more popular than any Adelaide train line. Likely because during peak there is a bus every 2 minutes and off peak every 5-10 minutes. A massive upgrade to get trains running every 15 minutes would still be well short of what the o-bahn is offering.

All Adelaide train lines should have all the tiny local stations removed and all remaining stations should be located to suit transfers from shuttle buses.
There would only be a small reduction of local users lost and a great increase from other users.

The o-bahn has very very few stops on the 15km track. Extra stops does not add users.

[PeFe]

Where no train runs people use buses.
They often do transfer from bus to bus.
The o-bahn is far more popular than any Adelaide train line. Likely because during peak there is a bus every 2 minutes and off peak every 5-10 minutes. A massive upgrade to get trains running every 15 minutes would still be well short of what the o-bahn is offering.

The O-Bahn is like an express train service to Paradise and TTP. Should you wish to go any further on a bus past these 2 interchanges you either have to change or wait the normal time for a bus......your local bus does not run every 5 minutes during the day and certainly not every 5-10 m minutes at night.

No wonder the "local bus" part of the O-Bahn seems to being replaced by "express bus to a park'n'ride" concept.

All Adelaide train lines should have all the tiny local stations removed and all remaining stations should be located to suit transfers from shuttle buses.
There would only be a small reduction of local users lost and a great increase from other users.

Why do we need to rebuild the train lines? Why don't we just build NEAR public transport, not as far away as possible !

All these Adelaide train stations called "Interchange" with no-one living next to them......such a 1960's planning concept.

Just look at Mawson Lakes, the commercial centre is a 15 minute walk away. All of Adelaide's train lines could easily increase patronage with densification along the lines (Belair may be the exception)

And how many people live within a 10 minute walk of Paradise Interchange or TTP? Another planning fail.....

[Llessur2002]

OK, I see what you're advocating for here - a very widespread removal of stations to turn each line into essentially the same model as the O-bahn with stops every 5-6km. So the Gawler line might have 7 stops instead of 20? Feeder buses feeding into these big stops?

That's a step further than I presumed the alternative solution was, maybe removing a few stations from each line in the search for some relatively minor efficiency gains.

I can see an argument for this but as you touch on above, are the benefits of the O-bahn model even possible with a bus to rail system? What is the maximum frequency of trains on, say, the Gawler line with a hypothetical 7 stop arrangement? What is the capacity of ARS to host and turn around these services? What volume of rolling stock would need to be purchased, stabled and maintained?

One of the benefits of the O-bahn is that a transfer isn't always required - local bus routes from high patronage areas can join the track and continue directly to the city. With a hybrid model every journey would require a transfer which is unarguably a less optimal user experience. At the end of the day the O-bahn isn't a single service in the same way that the Seaford or Gawler lines are - it is just a dedicated corridor that multiple services can use. If the N-S Motorway was made bus-only and opened to any buses travelling direct to the city I imagine that would rack up a pretty mammoth patronage figure too.

In that respect perhaps Adelaide doesn't actually need any heavy rail? Wouldn't it ultimately be cheaper and easier in the long run just to replace the rail lines with guided bus ways? In an ideal world wouldn't BRT systems do a better job of covering the outer suburbs whilst a good light rail network serviced the city, inner/middle suburbs and local destinations?

I think maybe we're looking at the problem from two different perspectives. I'm an inner city dweller with a vision of reduced urban sprawl, sympathetically increased density of inner and middle suburbs and the growth of distinct local centres of activity like the Parade, Henley Beach Road, Prospect Road etc. I also see rail-based PT as far superior to road-based bus services and crucial to increasing connectivity of local areas and reducing car dependency. To me, closing local stations in inner suburban areas shuts down opportunities for the use of PT for local trips and for increasing density and livability close to the city. Rail lines can act as catalysts for development and activity but only around stations. Fewer stations = fewer opportunities for growth. Yes, you can (and should) build around the interchanges but at 5-6km apart they are not accessible local centres.

[claybro]

In that respect perhaps Adelaide doesn't actually need any heavy rail? Wouldn't it ultimately be cheaper and easier in the long run just to replace the rail lines with guided bus ways? In an ideal world wouldn't BRT systems do a better job of covering the outer suburbs whilst a good light rail network serviced the city, inner/middle suburbs and local destinations?

The volume of passengers able to be carried by trains far exceeds buses-even more frequent buses, and the amount of busses required to carry the same amount of passengers would cause absolute gridlock at the city end.-Grenfel street is already conjested..imagine that multiplied, and along KW Street. At that point we start talking bus tunnels-which is fine-but why not just build a train tunnel.-,Then you also have to factor in the much shorter lifespan of buses, the extra maintenance required for all those extra buses, extra drivers...the list goes on all because Adelaide commuters have been allowed a system where they don't like to change modes? Be careful what you wish for.

[Llessur2002]

In that respect perhaps Adelaide doesn't actually need any heavy rail? Wouldn't it ultimately be cheaper and easier in the long run just to replace the rail lines with guided bus ways? In an ideal world wouldn't BRT systems do a better job of covering the outer suburbs whilst a good light rail network serviced the city, inner/middle suburbs and local destinations?

The volume of passengers able to be carried by trains far exceeds buses-even more frequent buses, and the amount of busses required to carry the same amount of passengers would cause absolute gridlock at the city end.-Grenfel street is already conjested..imagine that multiplied, and along KW Street. At that point we start talking bus tunnels-which is fine-but why not just build a train tunnel.-,Then you also have to factor in the much shorter lifespan of buses, the extra maintenance required for all those extra buses, extra drivers...the list goes on all because Adelaide commuters have been allowed a system where they don't like to change modes? Be careful what you wish for.

So would the O-bahn be better as heavy rail?

Also, I don't think Adelaidians are any more averse to changing mode than commuters in other cities - it's just not that difficult or expensive to commute by car here. When cost and time of the same journey are within similar ballparks then of course people will choose the most convenient option. Getting off of one bus/train and waiting for another, even if that's only for 5-10 minutes, is an inconvenience that potential users will take into account when deciding whether to ditch their cars.

[bits]

The O-Bahn is like an express train service to Paradise and TTP. Should you wish to go any further on a bus past these 2 interchanges you either have to change or wait the normal time for a bus......your local bus does not run every 5 minutes during the day and certainly not every 5-10 m minutes at night.

But for the current train lines we are talking what 100 houses at 10 backstreet stations per line that live right near the train station. If you are not one of those 1000 houses along the line, the transfer to bus is the exact same thing. It is a tiny minority of users that are the nearby houses.
Those houses can transfer just like the majority of everyone already has to.
I dont believe we should reserve huge amounts of land, give priority through traffic lights, pay for bridges, pay for trains and expensive stations so a fraction of houses might decide to use the train.
These public transport corridors need mass users from all over. They should hoover up as many users as we can.

Why do we need to rebuild the train lines? Why don't we just build NEAR public transport, not as far away as possible !

I agree it is rubbish that we have train station after train station not near to where people are.
The Gawler line looks like one of the worst offenders.
I don't see North Adelaide parklands getting housing.
I don't see Dudley Park Cemetary moving.
I don't see Adelaide Feight terminal moving.
I don't see Salisbury wetlands land being sold.
I don't see Parafield Airport going.
I don't see old Bridgestone Tyres being high density.
I don't think they are about to sell Penfield Golf Course nor old Holdens site being high density.
I don't see defense selling land off.
I DO see Munno Para area filling out finally but perhaps not out to Kudla for a logn time.
And Gawler Oval is pointlessly close to Gawler Central.

[bits]

Then you also have to factor in the much shorter lifespan of buses, the extra maintenance required for all those extra buses, extra drivers..

I would love an economist to jump in because I think the costs have different impacts.
Trains are often imported at great upfront costs which means the money was exported.
Bus drivers are local SA residents with their pay being spent in SA.

I imagine a whole bunch of the "cost" of bus drivers can be wiped out and are instead an economic benefit to the state.

[SBD]

I had got behind and have just read two or three days worth of this conversation in one go. I think there are two or three different sets of (potential) users with different priority requirements and different goals. The necessary "improvements" are different for each group.

CBD daytime commuters
For the people who live in the suburbs and work in the Adelaide CBD on weekday daytime, there is little need for high frequency services. They need a fast service which is reliably on-time and roughly when they need it. They will know exactly what time to leave home so that they arrive at the point the train/bus door will open just as the train is slowing to a stop. For people who live further from the railway, they need exactly the same requirement for the feeder bus, and a high-quality, sheltered (roof and windbreak) interchange with a short walk between their bus and train, in each direction, ideally just across the platform.

These people also own cars, but choose to leave them at home when they go to work as the public transport meets their convenience needs. The "need" for a frequent service is really only driven by the requred capacity. One or two services a day would do, if they were at exactly the right time.

Irregular or non-standard hours workers
The nurses, cleaners, waiters, performers etc who provide services to make the city operate effectively, and provide the vibe of a cosmopolitan centre don't necessarily work the same hours as the "city workers". They provide the evening meal, then have to clean the kitchen before they knock off, or they start early to clean the office before the "real workers" get there. Without them, nothing happens, but they can't use the public transport because sometimes they won't knock off in time for the last service, or they need to start before the first one or they'd have to wait round at a deserted and poorly-lit stop. The other end of their shift is in the heat of the day. They need safety, security, and all-hours service. I haven't seen anyone suggesting that there should be Adelaide Metro taxis provided at interchanges to meet the after-dark trains for doorway-service where it doesn't feel safe to rely on a bus to a stop on the nearby main road in the outer suburbs, regardless of the weather.

Casual users
These people might normally walk, cycle or drive to work, school or shop. Sometimes, they want to go to the city, perhaps to visit the big shops, or for a night out. They need the perception of clean, safe and frequent service, but don't actually use it often enough to justify the cost of running the service just for them.

Removing the need for a car at all
To not need a car at all, the public transport has to provide everything the person does in a week. That's not just to and from work. They need a viable alternative for the shopping (both the big weekly shop and the one-off extra things). Home delivery needs a couple of days planning ahead, so without a car, they need either a convenient ad hoc public transport option, or a nearby convenience store within a few minutes walk/utility cycle of home. Despite complaining about the plethora of OTR and X Convenience outlets popping up, they aren't showing up in the middle of the residential areas to provide less-than-five-minute walks because the milk got left out and went off.

There's also the issue that a lot of us don't work, shop and party in the Adelaide CBD. In that case, all of the above are needed in a network, so people don't have to travel a long way out of their way to transfer to an almost-connecting service to a destination that is closer to the start than the transfer point was.

[MT269]

What is the current schedule for deliveries of electric sets? I still haven't noticed 4027 in any form. But 4026 was definitely in service a month ago. How many are planned to be delivered by the end of the year?

[UEX]

On the topic of frequencies and transfers, I reckon there's some solid logic to increasing frequency on the Flinders Line, alongside relocating the Flinders Bus interchange to the Flinders Station precinct. Let's say a 15 minute frequency 6:30am-6:30pm.

This would allow for some bus routes that currently continue on to the City to terminate at Flinders which would deliver some rather significant cost efficiencies that can be reallocated to both increasing the frequency of the line and increasing the frequency of the busses which now terminate at Flinders.

This would also allow for the Seaford line to always run express from Woodlands Park to the City, and a new service colour for the Flinders Line distinct from Seaford's orange, e.g. yellow - making the stations serviced by each line and the transfer points clear.

The operational time savings from all Seaford services running express from Woodlands Park would also result in some cost savings, further offsetting the cost of increased frequencies.

[Spotto]

On the topic of frequencies and transfers, I reckon there's some solid logic to increasing frequency on the Flinders Line, alongside relocating the Flinders Bus interchange to the Flinders Station precinct. Let's say a 15 minute frequency 6:30am-6:30pm.

Unfortunately there’s nowhere to put the bus interchange over at the station without demolishing the hospital staff carpark. That entire oval is going to be redeveloped into Flinders Village precinct.

[UEX]

On the topic of frequencies and transfers, I reckon there's some solid logic to increasing frequency on the Flinders Line, alongside relocating the Flinders Bus interchange to the Flinders Station precinct. Let's say a 15 minute frequency 6:30am-6:30pm.

Unfortunately there’s nowhere to put the bus interchange over at the station without demolishing the hospital staff carpark. That entire oval is going to be redeveloped into Flinders Village precinct.

Better integration between rail and bus has always been an underlying priority for Flinders Link. It's already rather within a very short walk, but it has been discussed to relocate in the future https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2019/ ... ange-site/