Shuz -
Thanks for the detailed answers. I will deal with your second set of points first.
Shuz wrote:Railways should improve connectivity. Your vision actually makes things worse!
Please elaborate.
The disadvantage of closing that many stations would outweigh the advantage of faster station to station journey times.
Your "vision" removes some of the busiest stations (like Hallett Cove Beach and Gawler Central) for no great benefit. It removes the wrong Marino station. It's obvious you haven't even considered who you're doing it for - e.g. there's no way the closure of North Haven station would result in more passengers.
If you actually
read my first post, I mentioned that some stations will be relocated, some stations will be renamed. In the case of Hallet Cove Beach - it would be relocated approximately 500m south of the existing station to where Lonsdale Road and the Noarlunga line "hug" each other.
A Park and Ride facility would be built with direct access to and from Lonsdale Road, which stands only to improve accessibility and patronage than the existing station. Remember, this is a rapid transit network vision. This means accommodating the needs of the greater community, not the local community - in respect to station locality.
I see you've not been there! That's where the railway and road cross the Field river. The railway is on a high embankment while the road is much lower (though still high above the river), on a curve at the bottom of a hill, and zoned for 100km/h with no provision for any junction, let alone a car park!
Contrast this with Hallett Cove beach station: hundreds of houses within easy walking distance, dozens of parking spaces, buses can (and do) access it fairly easily. A much better location for a station!
And just who do you think would want to use a Park&Ride station on Lonsdale Road? Most of the traffic would either come from Dyson Road or Sherriffs Road, and the existing Lonsdale station is less than a minute's drive from either of those. And the existing Hallett Cove Beach station would be almost as close, if not closer, to the origin of most of the rest. So your plan wouldn't benefit the wider community at all. But even if it there were slight benefits to the wider community, that doesn't mean the local community is unimportant. They are more likely than most to use train services - it's likely to be an important factor in why they chose to live where they did, and they're likely to have paid tens of thousands of dollars more for their houses than similar properties cost further away from the station. Should that count for nothing?
Gawler Central is Gawler. A simple matter of renaming is all.
OK then, what about the station currently named Gawler? A good Park&Ride location with quite a good foot catchment area as well.
Again in a matter of renaming and relocating - the current Outer Harbor station would be closed also, and a new station built in place about halfway between the current Outer Harbor and North Haven stations. This brings commuters closer to the North Haven Marina community and still services those in the two other developments surrounding the current North Haven station.
It's a fair compromise, as it doesn't drop people off in the middle of nowhere (as is the case with the current Outer Harbor station) nor does it disadvantage residents in the North Haven Marina community who now stand to benefit from a train station at its doorstep.
Come 2050, I would also think that the Outer Harbor golf course would be slated for residential development in conjunction with a land-swap arrangement to build a new 18-course one north of Victoria Road. The relocated Outer Harbor station would benefit from increased patronage again as a result - I am merely speculating here though, we do have another 40 years left!
Why do you regard the North Haven Marina community as more worthy of a station than the community that already has a station (but no bus service) at North Haven? Why do you ignore the potential to directly serve cruise ships at Outer Harbour? And most importantly, why do you think reducing the line's direct catchment area is a fair compromise, and were did you get the idea that you have to compromise at all?
Have you considered just adding another station between North Haven and Outer Harbour? Unlike your "compromise" which would inconvenience many people, this would only inconvenience passengers going to Outer Harbour, and they'd only lose a few seconds each.
In fact I'd prefer to go much further - convert the line into light rail, have stops much closer together N of Taperoo, and reinstate the balloon loop with some extra stops on it to serve not just the marina community but also the industrial area (giving the line the benefit of significant 2 way commuting). But even keeping the line as heavy rail, more stops are a good thing when they make things faster and more convenient for passengers.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it would be advantageous to have evenly spaced stations.
Then why was it a key recommendation of the MATS 1968 plan concerning public transport use?
Probably because its authors didn't know any better. But as you have admitted, even they had much more closely spaced stations in the CIty.
[*] Red Line and Blue line go through in a new underground tunnel from the Goodwood Junction to Adelaide Railway Station.
Why Goodwood?
How else do you think the Red and Blue lines will be able to maintain its north-eastern approach into the City? The lines would interesect at/or near a right angle to each other. Refer to Google Earth/Maps for your understanding.
But why do you need for them to intersect at all outside the City?
The only thing worse than the economic effects of your airport relocation would be the environmental effects.
Yet, why has it been long touted as the only suitable alternative site for the relocation of Adelaide Airport within the metropolitan area?
Because there are no suitable sites for relocation of the Adelaide Airport within the metropolitan area. This is quite unsurprising when you consider what
metropolitan area actually means!
Occasionally people who don't understand the environmental value of the Port River, or the economic value of keeping the airport near the City, will look at a map and conclude the Dry Creek are is a good site for an airport. But the only remotely sensible place to relocate the airport to is offshore.
Not to mention, that by 2050 - accessibility to and from the airport site would be easily accomodated by the intersection of the Northern Connector/Port River Expressway and South Road Superway freeways in nearby vicinity. It is only fair to provide a rail service also as a counter-intuitive measure to relieve congestion.
Providing a rail service to the airport to relieve congestion would not be counterintuitive. But nor would it be particularly effective for relieving congestion on those roads.
And the old Dry Creek rail corridor is actually a busy freight line.
Sorry, it's actually the Northfield rail corridor. It closed in 1995.
So which route would you intend it to take W of Dry Creek? And now that you've mentioned the Northfield line, what are you suggesting doing E of Northfield?
[*] New Mitcham to Belair rail tunnel to bypass the existing Belair rail corridor, in order to maximise effective travel times to and from Mount Barker (Green Line). Existing Belair route would be converted to light-rail.
Why would you want to waste time detouring via Mile End?
Mile End would still need to be retained for interstate train services. To provide a third rail tunnel for the Green Line through the City would be cost prohibitive, and two is being generous enough to accomodate the Blue and Red Lines. Commuters are still given two oppurtunities to transfer to the Red and Blue Lines at both Goodwood and Adelaide Railway Station. And you claim that's bad connectivity - Two is better than one, and one is better than nothing!
But how much longer do you think it would take, and what proportion of passengers do you think would use it? Considering you've been recommending closing down busy stations, it seems rather anomalous that you now want to make a big detour to serve one that is not currently well used.
How long do you imagine the journeys would take compared to the freeway?
At absolute most, 40 minutes.
Really? On what do you base your timings? It seems very ambitious considering the gradients your line would need!
Your route seems puzzling - it looks like you want to climb steeply to Belair and then descend into the Brownhill Creek valley. Why?
As the rail line ascends quite drastically between the current Mitcham and old Clapham stations, the route would enter into a tunnel into the face of the hillslope, swing due east and ascend its way gently into the Brownhill Creek Valley.
So the inclusion of Belair station is an error?
The topography of the valley is the only accomodating route for the ascension of a line through the Hills which doesn't needlessly wind its way through the suburbia of Eden Hills, Blackwood, etc. which would be disadvantegous for those whom live in Mount Barker.
A route through the Brownhill Creek valley was previously considered as part of the Monarto plan, but it involved far less climbing and more tunelling than your Mount Barker route.
But need not fear, as the existing Belair line would be replaced by a light rail service instead so commuters from this region are not left without adequate rail transport. It would run down Unley Road and connect to the existing line thereafter the heavy rail corridor enters into its tunnel.
Unley Road is very busy. How do you propose to run light rail down it?
Who do you imagine would use your Onkaparinga station?
Those who would reside in new housing developments that would have taken place in the area between now and 2050.
There will be Seaford Meadows, but most of the rest of the area is National Park.
Also your Regional Express lines share much of the route of your suburban lines for no good reason.
How else do you suggest that the Regional Express services operate? If you're suggesting they operate on their own tracks, I would suggest to think again - as the cost and numbers of property acquisition would be exponentially unjustifiable to do so. I am trying to present a vision which doesn't attract as much public backlash as the MATS plan, especially where concerning property acquisition!
The Copper Triangle service could branch off at Dry Creek rather than Salisbury.
This is a vision which works under the parameters of the existing network, and then some. But not so drastic to cause widespread revolt, as which led to the demise of the MATS plan from ever eventuating.
Guess again! People value their stations. Closing them down to help Adelaide sprawl even further would be exceedingly unpopular. You might be able to get away with closing a few stations like Marino and Green Fields which are near others, but the latter was slated for closure and the residents have resisted so far.
