Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport
Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:03 am
One thing that annoys me about Adelaide's rail network (particularly the heavily-used Gawler and Seaford lines which account for around two-thirds of all rail trips in Adelaide) is the closeness of the stations.
Stations are roughly 1km apart, meaning frequent stopping and starting and a much longer ride from the outer suburbs. Surely this must add an unnecessary extra 10 mins coming from Gawler or Seaford? Why can't we get rid of all the low-frequented stations (saving maintenance costs) and improving park and ride facilities and safety at the remaining highly-frequented stations?
This may result in the reduction of, perhaps, half of our stations. But I don't see a problem with this, a metro rail system should provide fast and efficient transport for lots of people. It shouldn't be designed to provide a stop within 500m of each house along the rail corridor. That's the role of buses and trams.
This principle already works well for the Obahn. There are only 3 stops on the Obahn - Klemzig, Paradise and TTP. Buses feed these interchanges, and the car parks are usually full. It only takes 6 mins from Paradise to Hackney Rd on the edge of the CBD in peak hour!
Another great example are the Joondalup (now Clarkson) and Mandurah rail lines in Perth. The Clarkson line is 33km long (about the length of the Seaford line) with just 10 stations. The Mandurah line is 70km long with 8 stations. However each station is very modern with extensive floodlit car parking and allows for connecting buses to the local catchment area. Both these lines each carry over 50,000 passengers per day.
Why can't we do the same? We have similar low density sprawling outer suburbs like Perth. Any thoughts?
Stations are roughly 1km apart, meaning frequent stopping and starting and a much longer ride from the outer suburbs. Surely this must add an unnecessary extra 10 mins coming from Gawler or Seaford? Why can't we get rid of all the low-frequented stations (saving maintenance costs) and improving park and ride facilities and safety at the remaining highly-frequented stations?
This may result in the reduction of, perhaps, half of our stations. But I don't see a problem with this, a metro rail system should provide fast and efficient transport for lots of people. It shouldn't be designed to provide a stop within 500m of each house along the rail corridor. That's the role of buses and trams.
This principle already works well for the Obahn. There are only 3 stops on the Obahn - Klemzig, Paradise and TTP. Buses feed these interchanges, and the car parks are usually full. It only takes 6 mins from Paradise to Hackney Rd on the edge of the CBD in peak hour!
Another great example are the Joondalup (now Clarkson) and Mandurah rail lines in Perth. The Clarkson line is 33km long (about the length of the Seaford line) with just 10 stations. The Mandurah line is 70km long with 8 stations. However each station is very modern with extensive floodlit car parking and allows for connecting buses to the local catchment area. Both these lines each carry over 50,000 passengers per day.
Why can't we do the same? We have similar low density sprawling outer suburbs like Perth. Any thoughts?