Ideas for a greater public transport system

[jk1237]

good Shuz, but just a note on your Tailem Bend line, that the line to Mt Barker branches off from the main hills line for a few km's, and travels through Littlehampton to Mt Barker, and then down to Strathalbyn

[Bulldozer]

Any thoughts on boring a new train tunnel through the hills to Mt Barker? Dare I say it, you'd be able to shave a fair amount of time off the trip to Mt Barker, and also enable passenger services to Victor via Strath and Goolwa on the old Steamranger line. It would most probably bypass the existing stops on the hills line, but maybe they could instead be serviced with buses taking people to Mt Barker or the City.

It might be possible to pick up a second-hand TBM on the cheap from Brisbane when the NSBT is done. (Currently the biggest TBM's in the world.) I wonder how much it costs to do a metre of tunnel with one of those things?

[Mants]

The Belair line should at least be extended to Bridgewater for standard suburban operations, with the track redirected between Lynton to travel directly to the Glenunga station, leaving the other stations to be serviced via the Woodcroft line as it services Aberfoyle Park, Happy Valley, Hackham etc.

dont you mean Glenalta?

[AG]

It might be possible to pick up a second-hand TBM on the cheap from Brisbane when the NSBT is done. (Currently the biggest TBM's in the world.) I wonder how much it costs to do a metre of tunnel with one of those things?

Not sure if that would be possible. The TBMs are generally manufactured specifically to meet the needs of a particular project, which is largely influenced by the type of rock and soil being excavated and the use of the tunnel. A 12.4m diameter TBM for a single track rail tunnel is a bit large, but it would probably be a good size for a rail tunnel containing two tracks, maybe not the most cost effective way of building it though.

[Wayno]

not sure if this one has been posted elsewhere...
http://www.citymessenger.com.au/article ... _news.html

Bus interchange bid
Chris Day
16Apr08

A NEW city bus interchange and providing more bus lanes should be considered to help reduce peak-hour traffic congestion, City Council chief executive Stuart Moseley says.

Mr Moseley this week said "everything is on the table" in the battle to cut travel times across the city.

He said better co-ordination of traffic lights, more bus-only turning signals, and encouraging more people to walk and cycle to work would also be investigated by the City Council and State Government traffic taskforce, set up last month.

"We need to think carefully about the best arrangements and maybe it's time we look at an off-street (bus) interchange," Mr Moseley told the City Messenger.

He said a central interchange would mean fewer bus stops were needed, speeding up journey times and improving traffic flow.

Mr Moseley had no site in mind for an interchange and said finding one would be a "major challenge".

More bus lanes were an option although they would limit kerbside access to delivery drivers and taxis, he said.

"It's very hard to see how we could achieve that but we have to look at it."

The use of more "scrambled" pedestrian crossings, where people can walk diagonally across intersections, will also be investigated.

"We are not planning the city road network just for traffic, pedestrians and cyclists also have to be considered."

Torrens Transit managing director Neil Smith welcomed the idea of a bus interchange.

He said Grenfell St the city's busiest bus route was the ideal location and it could be built underground.

Meanwhile, Mr Smith floated the idea of doubling morning bus fares in return for free early-evening travel, saying that eliminating ticket validations would save time during the after-work rush hour.

He admitted there were "some risks" with the idea as it meant one-way evening travellers would ride for free.

[AtD]

That's an idea that's been thrown around before, and I am yet to see anyone actually come up with a good suggestion for a site. If they intend to replace all the bus stops in the city then it'll probably be a dismal failure. I am all for more bus lanes, though.

Although the cynic in me wonders if this is just an attempt to appease the short-sighted "buses cause traffic problems" crowd.

[SRW]

They really need to just limit the amount of buses coming into the city in the first place by converting routes (where appropriate) to feed into the train network. An expanded tram system within the square mile would then ferry people about the city.

[monotonehell]

They really need to just limit the amount of buses coming into the city in the first place by converting routes (where appropriate) to feed into the train network. An expanded tram system within the square mile would then ferry people about the city.

Trains are good for transporting a LOT of people from one distant place to another. You can have a bus network feeding into that distant place, but feeding a lot of inner suburb buses into a rail system is a folly. Passengers get turned off if they need to make a transfer, especially if it's a short ride.

We need to use each kind of PT where it works best:

• Trains on long runs with limited stops in between
• Trams running down high density residential corridors interfacing with the urban fabric with many stops - on short runs only
• Buses covering urban sprawl and either delivering them to the nearest train station if the run into the CBD is long or delivering them directly to the CBD - ie on short runs only
• OBahns, where appropriate, replacing train long runs where the terminus and inter-run is servicing urban sprawl. (To avoid peak period transfers from bus to train)

[Omicron]

They really need to just limit the amount of buses coming into the city in the first place by converting routes (where appropriate) to feed into the train network. An expanded tram system within the square mile would then ferry people about the city.

Trains are good for transporting a LOT of people from one distant place to another. You can have a bus network feeding into that distant place, but feeding a lot of inner suburb buses into a rail system is a folly. Passengers get turned off if they need to make a transfer, especially if it's a short ride.

We need to use each kind of PT where it works best:

• Trains on long runs with limited stops in between
• Trams running down high density residential corridors interfacing with the urban fabric with many stops - on short runs only
• Buses covering urban sprawl and either delivering them to the nearest train station if the run into the CBD is long or delivering them directly to the CBD - ie on short runs only
• OBahns, where appropriate, replacing train long runs where the terminus and inter-run is servicing urban sprawl. (To avoid peak period transfers from bus to train)

Hear, hear.

[Shuz]

I just thought of something! A lot of people have spoken of having an underpass beneath Victoria Square - why not utilise it as a 2-lane bus only underpass, that leads into a central station widening into 4-6 lanes of superstops where buses enter and exit accordingly. That way slip lanes are still viable for traffic to meander around Victoria Square without having to go through it.

[SRW]

Trains are good for transporting a LOT of people from one distant place to another. You can have a bus network feeding into that distant place, but feeding a lot of inner suburb buses into a rail system is a folly. Passengers get turned off if they need to make a transfer, especially if it's a short ride.

I agree. I said bus routes should be feed into the train system where appropriate, which would mean bus services such as those from the outer suburbs like Noarlunga. Although, I must say, we shouldn't concern ourselves too much over the pain of transfers (though we should focus on limiting them to once or twice at the most). If the system is good enough, people will put up with it. At least, that's my experience on some of the European systems.

A lot of the trouble of buses is focused on Grenfell/Currie St, and it results mostly (I would suggest) from the O-Bahn. More reason to convert it to heavy rail? I think so.

[Shuz]

Basically this is my idea of managing the Adelaide Railway station to serve as the interstate and domestic terminals for all train services.

The Noarlunga line would submerge into a subway, which as previously mentioned in other vision threads would run under KWS and rejoin the line where the Belair/Noarlunga lines currently meet.

The Golden Grove line (replacing the OBahn) too would be a subway, servicing Adelaide University before it adjoins the O-Bahn entry at the Park/Mann Terrace intersection thingy.

Interstate passenger services would be able to come in from the Belair line, and use either the Golden Grove or Noarlunga platforms, to exit out of the city via the Golden Grove line where it would meet up with a future Hills Bypass line and feed directly into the Barossa/Eden Valleys.

Frieght services would operate as per normal using Keswick as the freight terminal, and the Outer Harbor/Gawler/Belair lines would now have two designated platforms each. There would be 1 interstate terminus, whichever line has the longest straight-track section into ARS to accomodate X amount of carriages. And for good measure, there will be two extra non-designated platforms to assist services that are delayed for speedy recovery of the network to operate to schedule.

[AG]

It's a good idea Shuz, the subway idea is great, but the track layout is far too simplistic for proper operation.

Things to keep in mind:
- Where do the tunnels begin?
In the diagram, you've marked the tunnels as being west of Adelaide Station, but how far west? 100m, 200m?

- How do you keep conflicts between terminating services and commencing services to a minimum? (An issue that both Sydney Terminal and Southern Cross Stations have)
There's an immediate conflict between eastbound services heading for the Noarlunga tunnels and westbound from them that I can see. Also between services heading for the Golden Grove tunnels and the Noarlunga tunnels. There's also a lot of platforms sharing single sections of track just west of the station.

- What gradients do you run the trains down into the tunnels at?
This relates to where the tunnels start as mentioned above.

- How do you provide crossovers and turnouts to allow trains to travel to other lines in the case of emergencies or shortfalls in rollingstock in some parts of the network? Where do they go?
There aren't enough marked crossovers in the plan, and also some that should be there that are missing. For example, how does a train that has terminated on platform 3 run back out to the Belair line? The crossovers should also be placed so that services crossing tracks from different lines don't conflict with each other.

- Where are the underground platforms in relation to the existing platforms?
Marked on the plan clearly.

- How will people access the new platforms?
Self explanatory.

- What above ground changes will be made in order to make way for those below ground?
Again, self explanatory.

[Norman]

Also, how will fumes be managed when the interstate trains go underground? Remember, they all run on Diesel.

[Cruise]

A bus interchange on the RAH site?