Sensational-Adelaide.com

I agree that it would be a nice thing to work towards, but I'd hate to see money taken out of the public transport budget to fund projects like this that only help road users. For the cost of those dozen grade separations, you could probably double the size of Adelaide's bus fleet.

Level crossings are common everywhere, it's not an Adelaide-only issue and it is not feasible to remove all level crossings.

I agree with AG's list, except maybe omitting Leader Street, Woodville Road and Cormack Road.

The reason I set up this thread is because the State Government has publicly stated that after the lines are electrified, resleepered, etc. They intend to run trains on most lines (I'm assuming Gawler, Seaford, Belair and Outer Harbour on a 15 minute frequency off-peak; and 7.5 minutes peak hour. At present this is unachievable, simply because level crossings would get in the way of being able to operate the network at this capability - due to the boomgates being down all the time, for too long, and causing a backlog of road traffic.

Sorry to do an "Aidan" but I'll break it down point by point.

AG wrote:Is there any particular reason why you've chosen 50% as a minimum threshold?

Spin, purely. I'm sure Mike Rann would be proud of me. Seriously, though, - setting a target is a good measure of performance. If the Government has something to work towards and achieves it; at can rightly say to the people - we set this for ourselves, we committed to it, and we achieved it - action has been taken. We didn't do nothing. Etc. To the average clueless voter, if you waved a few fancy numbers like that at them, they'd be all dazzled and be pretty easy to win over come election time. It could even be something put in the Strategic Plan - "Improve safety by eliminating level crossings on the rail network, with a target of 50% by 2020". Ta-dah!

Dylan_ wrote:I agree that it would be a nice thing to work towards, but I'd hate to see money taken out of the public transport budget to fund projects like this that only help road users. For the cost of those dozen grade separations, you could probably double the size of Adelaide's bus fleet.

Re: Funding/Public Transport Budget
I don't think any money should be diverted from the existing funding allocation of projects at the moment. It should actually compliment it and be a rolling investment, keep the momentum going after the existing funding allocation. Think of it as the next 10-year multi-billion dollar public transport investment will go towards eliminating level crossings and buying more trains, buses, etc. (Having said that the next 10 years would be 2015-2025) which gives 5 years to reach the 50-50 target... But whatever.

Re: Benefits to road users.
Wrong. It's about improving safety, first and foremost. Consider the following hypothetical scenarios;
Imagine if a vehicle broke down on at a level crossing. Train oncoming...
Or if a train breaks down whilst approaching a level crossing... it blocks cars getting through.
Or an old lady fell over while crossing the tracks at a level crossing...
By eliminating level crossings, and instead having trains/cars pass over/under the other you are eliminating those risks from happening. It's standard OHSW knowledge. The best way to prevent something, is to eliminate it. Sure, it's costly, but I don't think you can put a price on the value of human life?

Line by line breakdown of intersections;
Note: Lines which share a branch with another, I've split from the nearest station. Grange/Tonsley services tend to stop all stations Adelaide to respective destinations, and Noarlunga/Outer Harbour run express to the nearest station of the branch split, and stop all stations from thereon.

LC - Level Crossings GS - Grade Seperated

Gawler
17 LC | 11 GS
60.7% | 39.3%

Noarlunga/Seaford (from Ascot Park to Seaford)
7 LC | 19 GS
26.9% | 73.1%

Tonsley (from Goodwood to Tonsley)
9 LC | 0 GS
100% | 0%

Belair (from Goodwood to Belair)
9 LC | 7 GS
56.2% | 43.8%

Outer Harbour (from Woodville to Outer Harbour)
15 LC | 6 GS
71.4% | 28.6%

Grange (from Adelaide to Grange)
13 LC | 2 GS
86.7% | 13.3%

Noarlunga/Belair/Tonsley lines from Adelaide to Goodwood
2 LC | 4 GS
33.3% | 66.7%

Ideally when you grade separate road and rail you'd try and kill several birds with one stone. For example, a lot of these crossings that would be candidates for grade separating are adjacent to existing stations that would need to be rebuilt or upgraded in the process. Eliminating the crossings becomes an opportunity in providing not only grade separated crossings that are safer and more reliable, but also in improving local amenity and station facilities as well as any associated interchange, connections to the surrounding community and improvements to other local infrastructure (e.g. stormwater). Therefore grade separations become more sellable (is this a real word?) to the public as they target more user groups. Good example of this recently undertaken worth looking at is Nunawading Station in Melbourne where the station was rebuilt when the Springvale Road crossing was grade separated.

Norman wrote:Level crossings are common everywhere

they're very un-common within metropolitan Sydney, there are a few on the Richmond line and around Liverpool, but they arent main roads. Melbourne is the opposite, they're everywhere, and they cross a lot of very busy arterial roads, as well as roads with TRAMS

those Victorians were and still are a bit backward with their infrastructure. Even Adelaide separated the trams and trains, and the trains here werent even electric back then

metro wrote:

Norman wrote:Level crossings are common everywhere

they're very un-common within metropolitan Sydney, there are a few on the Richmond line and around Liverpool, but they arent main roads. Melbourne is the opposite, they're everywhere, and they cross a lot of very busy arterial roads, as well as roads with TRAMS

those Victorians were and still are a bit backward with their infrastructure. Even Adelaide separated the trams and trains, and the trains here werent even electric back then

Even with very few level crossings, the Sydney rail system is still far from reliable. The cause of the poor reliability has little to do with level crossings, it has more to do with the long dwell times at stations, the at grade railway junctions that are all over the network and the sharing of tracks by multiple lines and with freight trains. A delay on the rail network on one side of the city can result in delays on the opposite side of the city. It might also be worth considering eliminating some of the at-grade railway junctions that exist in Adelaide such as the ones already slated for removal at Goodwood and Torrens Junctions and replacing them with flyovers.

The Melbourne tram/train crossings are a horrible achilles heel on their network. There are four of these in Melbourne, and where they exist both trains and trams can only cross at 20km/h which slows down everyone. Below is one of them:

I think you should look at the south road tram overpass for an example of how it should and could be done.

Anyone who has transferred between bus and tram there would know that its ideal for transferring between the two modes. You can catch the lift down to either side of the road depending on your intended direction and its a very short walk - its hard to imagine it being any better from a transferring perspective.

[Shuz] wrote:The reason I set up this thread is because the State Government has publicly stated that after the lines are electrified, resleepered, etc. They intend to run trains on most lines (I'm assuming Gawler, Seaford, Belair and Outer Harbour on a 15 minute frequency off-peak; and 7.5 minutes peak hour. At present this is unachievable, simply because level crossings would get in the way of being able to operate the network at this capability - due to the boomgates being down all the time, for too long, and causing a backlog of road traffic.

It should easily be achievable, as more people on the trains means less people in their cars. Level crossings do sometimes cause long delays, but so do our many traffic lights.

Dylan_ wrote:I agree that it would be a nice thing to work towards, but I'd hate to see money taken out of the public transport budget to fund projects like this that only help road users. For the cost of those dozen grade separations, you could probably double the size of Adelaide's bus fleet.

Re: Funding/Public Transport Budget
I don't think any money should be diverted from the existing funding allocation of projects at the moment. It should actually compliment it and be a rolling investment, keep the momentum going after the existing funding allocation. Think of it as the next 10-year multi-billion dollar public transport investment will go towards eliminating level crossings and buying more trains, buses, etc. (Having said that the next 10 years would be 2015-2025) which gives 5 years to reach the 50-50 target... But whatever.

It is one of the things that should be done in the future, but of all the possible improvements, a general level crossing replacement should be low priority, though there are some crossings that may deserve high priority.

Re: Benefits to road users.
Wrong. It's about improving safety, first and foremost. Consider the following hypothetical scenarios;
Imagine if a vehicle broke down on at a level crossing. Train oncoming...
Or if a train breaks down whilst approaching a level crossing... it blocks cars getting through.
Or an old lady fell over while crossing the tracks at a level crossing...
By eliminating level crossings, and instead having trains/cars pass over/under the other you are eliminating those risks from happening. It's standard OHSW knowledge. The best way to prevent something, is to eliminate it.

The trouble is eliminating risk is much more difficult than eliminating level crossings. For example a car blocked the railway in Hallett Cove a few years ago. Hallett Cove has no level crossings, but a few years ago a car came off the road and blocked the railway.

Sure, it's costly, but I don't think you can put a price on the value of human life?

We often put the price on the value of human life, even though we dislike admitting it.

I'd have to agree with AG's list for the priority 12, with the exception of Victoria Street, Goodwood.

Main Road, Belair would seem more important as it is an absolute bottleneck whenever a freight train goes through. If Leader Street was g/s, I'd likely assume a lot of the through traffic would utilise that route over Victoria Street, therefore reducing the bottleneck at Victoria Street as well.

I would add Grange Road, Lower Mitcham to that list instead.

Cross Road Emerson doesn't deserve to be on the list. 'Tis not a particularly heavily used section of road, and because most of the South Road traffic avoids the intersection, the effect isn't much worse than a normal set of traffic lights.

Hawker Street would be a better candidate, as it has three tracks, one of which carries interstate trains, and is heavily used by buses. But there are also the crossings on the Glenelg Tram route to consider. The Marion Road one in particular causes a lot of delays, as traffic jams affect traffic on Anzac Highway in the afternoon peak, and Cross Road in the morning.

[Shuz] wrote:The reason I set up this thread is because the State Government has publicly stated that after the lines are electrified, resleepered, etc. They intend to run trains on most lines (I'm assuming Gawler, Seaford, Belair and Outer Harbour on a 15 minute frequency off-peak; and 7.5 minutes peak hour. At present this is unachievable, simply because level crossings would get in the way of being able to operate the network at this capability - due to the boomgates being down all the time, for too long, and causing a backlog of road traffic.

It is acievable and will be instigated. All the timetables have been done already for when the electified trains will take over. There will be a complete change in thinking from car priority to P/T and cycling priority in line with other progessive cities such as London. Exciting times ahead.

Park Terrace in Bowden should be up there as a main priority.

crawf wrote:Park Terrace in Bowden should be up there as a main priority.

'Twas on AG's list, and DTEI regards it as a priority, but I'm unconvinced. Better signal coordination there would be just as effective IMO.