News & Discussion: O-Bahn

[PeFe]

I believe the Jet Express bus to the airport was not a great success when it previously ran...ie low patronage.

The Express bus stops were different to the J1 and J2 bus stops so if you missed the express bus you had to walk to another bus stop on another street to get the alternative services.

I would like to see an electronic indicator board at the Adelaide Airport bus stop describing departing buses under two headlines like

1) Adelaide City Centre Buses
J1.....1345
J2.....1400
J1.....1415

2)Other Buses
J1 Glenelg......1355
J8 West Lakes.....1410
J2 Glenelg......1410

Adelaide's bus numbering is extremely confusing and not tourist friendly at all....I have personally had numerous conversations with tourists at the Adelaide Airport bus stop and many are confused about the direction and destination of buses.

[Saltwater]

This is a really good idea and would certainly bump patronage up. if I can get this information on Google Maps surely they could plug it into a couple of screens at the departures area.

Perhaps along with some better signage on where the bus routes go... so if a bus rocks up saying Golden Grove, they can at least see it goes through the city first.

[rubberman]

Trolleybuses can be used on up to three laned roads. Further, they can run on sections without overhead wiring when combined with battery technology. So, in the urban transport setting, they can go anywhere that a diesel bus can go. Since they are 100% electric, they can use renewables. They also run mostly during the day, with night service being less frequent, so solar is a bigger share of the electricity mix.

Is there any advantage of trolley buses over pure battery electric buses these days? Quite a few places in China have switched their entire fleets across to battery electric, and even Adelaide is trialing one now: https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/about- ... ectric-bus . If the ones you are suggesting have got batteries anyway, why not just use the batteries the whole time?

And if you are going to go to the expense of putting up overhead wiring, why not just spend a bit more to add the tracks and build a proper tram line?

Given that the airport is so close to the CBD, and to North-South arterial corridors, it's hard to see a rail connection with the CBD as anything more than a vanity project.

Now that would be ok if every other aspect of the public transport system was top notch. However, that's far from the case. There are plenty of higher priority projects for trams, trains, O-Bahn.

Agreed that heavy rail would probably be overkill at this stage, but a light rail line via Henley Beach and Airport Rds, as envisioned in Adelink, would be very useful and not insanely expensive. This was actually government policy during the Wetherill years, and was only shelved because of Marshall and Koutsantonis' politicking.

In the distant future, when the population has increased a lot and the city has densified, it might be worth linking the airport with heavy rail. But if they were going to do this, we wouldn't get the maximum benefits by building it as just a stub line to the airport. It would have far greater benefits if it formed part of a bigger interconnector line linking the key activity centres in the south-western suburbs. City > Airport > Glenelg > Marion > Flinders.

Trams on Henley Beach Road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive wouldn't be an improvement on existing bus routes. They would get stuck in traffic and cost more to build than a one track O-Bahn.

Trams would likely have dedicated lanes, so they wouldn't get stuck in traffic. That said, we could give buses dedicated lanes right now.

Agree with all of this. The median of Airport Road is clearly a reserved corridor, and there is sufficient width in the Bakewell Underpass for a light rail corridor. There also seems to be some reserved space on the eastern side of James Congdon Drive north of Henley Beach Road, presumably for road widening but this can include light rail.

Ideally, I think an airport light rail link would meet a restored light rail corridor along a narrowed West Terrace. Unsure about sending light rail down Currie/Grenfell as this is better suited to being a semi-transit mall for the O-Bahn corridor in future, but the more, the merrier.

Originally, Adelink recommended the Airport Link tram running along Grenfell/Currie, with through running to the East Link line via the old tram embankment in Rymill Park. The preliminary works for the Rymil Park connection was going to be done along with the O-Bahn tunnel, but after the usual complaints about reduced on-street parking (Rundle Rd was going to be closed through the parklands) the O-Bahn city access project was reconfigured to what it is now.

obahn city access.jpg

I'm not sure what they were planning to do about finding space for trams as well as buses on Grenfell/Currie. I suppose King William St and North Tce already have to deal with this problem, to a slightly lesser as Grenfell/Currie has more buses that anywhere else.

Personally, I think the O-Bahn tunnel should be extended under the length of Grenfell/Currie, with platforms below street level like they have in Brisbane. That would free up a lot of space to narrow the above-ground streets and make them much more pleasant places to be in. As you suggest, the street could even be semi-pedestrianised as a transit mall similar to what George St in Sydney is like now, with trams and bikes allowed but the rest of the space allocated to pedestrians.

We really need to do something about Grenfell/Currie at some point. Its such a grotty, ugly environment to be in, despite arguably being Adelaide's main street. As it currently stands, and despite its excellent location, it is a place people only visit because they have to (to catch a bus or go to the office). The street is currently a real stain on the image of the city. It could be so much more than it is, and the main thing stopping it becoming that is the presence of large numbers of fast, noisy and unpredictably moving heavy vehicles (principally buses). Putting them below the surface would solve all of this.

If you have an electric bus, then, depending on the duty required, you can have 100% battery and zero overhead infrastructure, ranging to 100% overhead power and zero battery.

It boils down to the duty required for the bus. Smaller, less frequent buses on flat terrain favour batteries because the smaller batteries are cheaper and fifteen minutes charging at each terminus is no problem. Larger buses running frequently and any hills favour overhead charging as there's no need to wait at termini other than required for driver comfort. Otherwise, you have to buy more buses with those more expensive bigger batteries. I recently travelled to Ostrava in the Czech Republic. They have smaller fully battery buses for feeders, and larger trolleybuses for main routes. Alongside trams, of course. I also observed that there were always battery buses stopped at charging points at termini.

By my observation of their operations, 100% battery buses are a little small for Adelaide. Not by much, but they are. A service requiring artics would look to be more expensive if using 100% battery vs overhead.

[1NEEDS2POST]

Trams on Henley Beach Road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive wouldn't be an improvement on existing bus routes. They would get stuck in traffic and cost more to build than a one track O-Bahn.

Trams would likely have dedicated lanes, so they wouldn't get stuck in traffic. That said, we could give buses dedicated lanes right now.

Bus lanes would still result in buses stuck at traffic lights. There's nothing better than a grade separated route and we have that in the form of Keswick Creek. There really aren't any other suitable inner city grade separated routes that a new O-Bahn could be built along.

If you have an electric bus, then, depending on the duty required, you can have 100% battery and zero overhead infrastructure, ranging to 100% overhead power and zero battery.

It boils down to the duty required for the bus. Smaller, less frequent buses on flat terrain favour batteries because the smaller batteries are cheaper and fifteen minutes charging at each terminus is no problem. Larger buses running frequently and any hills favour overhead charging as there's no need to wait at termini other than required for driver comfort. Otherwise, you have to buy more buses with those more expensive bigger batteries. I recently travelled to Ostrava in the Czech Republic. They have smaller fully battery buses for feeders, and larger trolleybuses for main routes. Alongside trams, of course. I also observed that there were always battery buses stopped at charging points at termini.

By my observation of their operations, 100% battery buses are a little small for Adelaide. Not by much, but they are. A service requiring artics would look to be more expensive if using 100% battery vs overhead.

Or have overhead wiring on the O-Bahn and recharge while driving on the O-Bahn. That would be the best of both worlds because buses wouldn't need to stop to recharge and multiple routes could be covered by electric buses without stringing overhead lines.

[dbl96]

Trams on Henley Beach Road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive wouldn't be an improvement on existing bus routes. They would get stuck in traffic and cost more to build than a one track O-Bahn.

Trams would likely have dedicated lanes, so they wouldn't get stuck in traffic. That said, we could give buses dedicated lanes right now.

Bus lanes would still result in buses stuck at traffic lights. There's nothing better than a grade separated route and we have that in the form of Keswick Creek. There really aren't any other suitable inner city grade separated routes that a new O-Bahn could be built along.

While we haven't done so so far in Adelaide, the traffic light problem can be overcome with tram-priority signaling. Obviously a tram still won't be as fast as a grade separated heavy rail/metro line, but it would still be a massive improvement in the standard of service we have currently to the airport. Also, as I stated previously, I'm not opposed to heavy rail/metro in the long term, but with current levels of demand, it would be much easier to justify the relatively minor expense of building an at grade tram line, which would have the added benefit of improving accessibility to the Henley Beach Rd precinct and other areas in the western suburbs.

As others have pointed out, the Keswick Creek corridor is barely wide enough to accommodate a bikeway in most places - let alone alone a double track railway line or O-bahn track. To make space, a lot of compulsory acquisition would need to take place, somewhat offsetting the advantage of using the creek corridor in the first place. This is a typical cross section of the creek:

Also, due to the fact that the line would be being built above a creek, and the presence of a large number of street crossings, the only realistic option for it to be grade separated would be for it to be elevated for its entire length. I am all for elevated rail - it is much cheaper to build than underground rail, and achieves perfectly good outcomes, but realistically there would be a lot of opposition from inner West NIMBYs.

If we ever get to the point where it is worthwhile building heavy rail/metro to the airport, the best route option would be underground via Sir Donald Bradman Drive:

Red is the tram line, with stops marked as dashes. Black is the heavy rail line, with stations marked as circles.

[Nort]

The grade separation is a good point, since the creek passes under Marion Road, Brooker Terrace, and Miller Road where the above photo is taken. So at least three new street level rail crossings unless a significant chunk of the route is raised.

[1NEEDS2POST]

As others have pointed out, the Keswick Creek corridor is barely wide enough to accommodate a bikeway in most places - let alone alone a double track railway line or O-bahn track. To make space, a lot of compulsory acquisition would need to take place, somewhat offsetting the advantage of using the creek corridor in the first place. This is a typical cross section of the creek:

keswick creek.JPG

There only needs to be one O-Bahn track that reverses direction. It wouldn't support multiple bus routes, only airport buses. With the distance involved, it could support a five minute frequency with a single track O-Bahn.

[[Shuz]]

As others have pointed out, the Keswick Creek corridor is barely wide enough to accommodate a bikeway in most places - let alone alone a double track railway line or O-bahn track. To make space, a lot of compulsory acquisition would need to take place, somewhat offsetting the advantage of using the creek corridor in the first place. This is a typical cross section of the creek:

keswick creek.JPG

You clearly learnt nothing from the Southern Expressway debacle.

There only needs to be one O-Bahn track that reverses direction. It wouldn't support multiple bus routes, only airport buses. With the distance involved, it could support a five minute frequency with a single track O-Bahn.

[Saltwater]

it is much cheaper to build than underground rail, and achieves perfectly good outcomes, but realistically there would be a lot of opposition from inner West NIMBYs.

As a resident of the inner west I find this comment quite amusing. A lot of the push back on plans like this comes from the chronic lack of open space and tree canopy in the area as compared to the rest of Adelaide. As I've said here several times already, there is a push to convert some of that section of Keswick Creek to an open space concept, which is in direct conflict to converting it to a busway that would remove this space, and offer little benefit to the local community.

[dbl96]

it is much cheaper to build than underground rail, and achieves perfectly good outcomes, but realistically there would be a lot of opposition from inner West NIMBYs.

As a resident of the inner west I find this comment quite amusing. A lot of the push back on plans like this comes from the chronic lack of open space and tree canopy in the area as compared to the rest of Adelaide. As I've said here several times already, there is a push to convert some of that section of Keswick Creek to an open space concept, which is in direct conflict to converting it to a busway that would remove this space, and offer little benefit to the local community.

Agreed, we have already concreted over enough of our creeks in Adelaide. As stated previously, I’m not in favour of using Keswick creek as the airport rail corridor. It should be retained and improved as space for the public and the environment. Creek corridors are really important from an environmental (and amenity) perspective. It’s just unfortunate that the mid 20th century saw so many of them turned into ugly drains like this one.

My comment about NIMBYs was more of a general one about elevated rail, rather than anything particularly targeting the inner west. For the most part, Australian planners don’t even consider elevated rail as an option because they know the backlash will be intense, particularly in middle class areas. So the only option left is much more expensive underground rail. If elevated rail was given more of a look in, a lot more projects might become viable, particularly in places like Sydney and Melbourne where the demand is clearly there.

[A-Town]

it is much cheaper to build than underground rail, and achieves perfectly good outcomes, but realistically there would be a lot of opposition from inner West NIMBYs.

As a resident of the inner west I find this comment quite amusing. A lot of the push back on plans like this comes from the chronic lack of open space and tree canopy in the area as compared to the rest of Adelaide. As I've said here several times already, there is a push to convert some of that section of Keswick Creek to an open space concept, which is in direct conflict to converting it to a busway that would remove this space, and offer little benefit to the local community.

Agreed, we have already concreted over enough of our creeks in Adelaide. As stated previously, I’m not in favour of using Keswick creek as the airport rail corridor. It should be retained and improved as space for the public and the environment. Creek corridors are really important from an environmental (and amenity) perspective. It’s just unfortunate that the mid 20th century saw so many of them turned into ugly drains like this one.

Agree. Any notion of turning the Keswick creek into some sort of transport corridor needs to be binned.

[[Shuz]]

Alright, so it's agreed by majority vote then. Anyone who keeps bringing up this stupid idea of an airport creek train bus drain thingymajig gets threadlocked.

Lets all move onto the next sensible topic.

[rubberman]

As a resident of the inner west I find this comment quite amusing. A lot of the push back on plans like this comes from the chronic lack of open space and tree canopy in the area as compared to the rest of Adelaide. As I've said here several times already, there is a push to convert some of that section of Keswick Creek to an open space concept, which is in direct conflict to converting it to a busway that would remove this space, and offer little benefit to the local community.

Agreed, we have already concreted over enough of our creeks in Adelaide. As stated previously, I’m not in favour of using Keswick creek as the airport rail corridor. It should be retained and improved as space for the public and the environment. Creek corridors are really important from an environmental (and amenity) perspective. It’s just unfortunate that the mid 20th century saw so many of them turned into ugly drains like this one.

Agree. Any notion of turning the Keswick creek into some sort of transport corridor needs to be binned.

I'd go further, and say that the whole of the Western suburbs are due for a revamp. All of Thebarton could be repurposed from light industrial and commercial to residential over 20-30 years. Similarly, the whole of Grange Road. Keswick to the airport as well could be somewhat more densely residential than at the moment.

With that in mind, either political party could come up with a 30 year plan to transform those Western suburbs.

In that case. Open spaces, transport corridors along Grange, Richmond, Henley Beach Roads and to and from the airport could easily be incorporated as part of a long term plan.

In that situation, Keswick Creek could be repurposed as a 'natural' waterway with a recreational flavour. Transport to the airport could be O-Bahn, or tram later, if the passenger numbers warranted. I can't ever see heavy rail being justified, but who knows? A corridor could be reserved.

I'm surprised that neither political party is doing this. With the right sort of development for a chosen demographic, a political party could heavily favour the types of voters in the West. It's now close into the city, and with revamped transport options and upgraded living, it could be very desirable for voters. It could change the political map of SA for generations.

[SBD]

Agreed, we have already concreted over enough of our creeks in Adelaide. As stated previously, I’m not in favour of using Keswick creek as the airport rail corridor. It should be retained and improved as space for the public and the environment. Creek corridors are really important from an environmental (and amenity) perspective. It’s just unfortunate that the mid 20th century saw so many of them turned into ugly drains like this one.

Agree. Any notion of turning the Keswick creek into some sort of transport corridor needs to be binned.

I'd go further, and say that the whole of the Western suburbs are due for a revamp. All of Thebarton could be repurposed from light industrial and commercial to residential over 20-30 years. Similarly, the whole of Grange Road. Keswick to the airport as well could be somewhat more densely residential than at the moment.

With that in mind, either political party could come up with a 30 year plan to transform those Western suburbs.

In that case. Open spaces, transport corridors along Grange, Richmond, Henley Beach Roads and to and from the airport could easily be incorporated as part of a long term plan.

In that situation, Keswick Creek could be repurposed as a 'natural' waterway with a recreational flavour. Transport to the airport could be O-Bahn, or tram later, if the passenger numbers warranted. I can't ever see heavy rail being justified, but who knows? A corridor could be reserved.

I'm surprised that neither political party is doing this. With the right sort of development for a chosen demographic, a political party could heavily favour the types of voters in the West. It's now close into the city, and with revamped transport options and upgraded living, it could be very desirable for voters. It could change the political map of SA for generations.

If all the industrial and commercial property is converted to residential, where would all those people work? We're in the O-Bahn thread, so is the whole point just to generate demand for public transport from the inner residential suburbs to the outer suburban employment precincts?

[rubberman]

Agree. Any notion of turning the Keswick creek into some sort of transport corridor needs to be binned.

I'd go further, and say that the whole of the Western suburbs are due for a revamp. All of Thebarton could be repurposed from light industrial and commercial to residential over 20-30 years. Similarly, the whole of Grange Road. Keswick to the airport as well could be somewhat more densely residential than at the moment.

With that in mind, either political party could come up with a 30 year plan to transform those Western suburbs.

In that case. Open spaces, transport corridors along Grange, Richmond, Henley Beach Roads and to and from the airport could easily be incorporated as part of a long term plan.

In that situation, Keswick Creek could be repurposed as a 'natural' waterway with a recreational flavour. Transport to the airport could be O-Bahn, or tram later, if the passenger numbers warranted. I can't ever see heavy rail being justified, but who knows? A corridor could be reserved.

I'm surprised that neither political party is doing this. With the right sort of development for a chosen demographic, a political party could heavily favour the types of voters in the West. It's now close into the city, and with revamped transport options and upgraded living, it could be very desirable for voters. It could change the political map of SA for generations.

If all the industrial and commercial property is converted to residential, where would all those people work? We're in the O-Bahn thread, so is the whole point just to generate demand for public transport from the inner residential suburbs to the outer suburban employment precincts?

There's a huge area available and suitable for light industrial and commercial in and around Dry Creek. It's massive. Close to the port. Close to rail. Close to road corridors.