Sensational-Adelaide.com

rubberman wrote:In any case, the O-Bahn predecessor (in planning terms) was the NEAPTR proposal for a light railway. So it was certainly feasible and practicable.

Yes, it was. But nowadays there's that pesky o-bahn in the way. Completely replacing one system with another very similar system (in terms of cost/benefit etc) is completely redundant. If there were a light rail system there now, it would be a waste of money turning it into an obahn. The opposite holds true today.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the O-Bahn designed in such a way that tram tracks could easily be laid atop the concrete, and all that it required is electrification poles be installed along the sides?

Not that a light rail service would be better, because of capacity issues - which is why I favour replacing the system with a heavy rail service, as I'm led to believe that the O-Bahn actually carries the highest number of passengers per kilometre of some means of measurement when compared against the other three major PT nodes in Adelaide - that being the Gawler & Noarlunga train lines and the Glenelg tram line... There's a chart I've seen floating around somewhere which shows this.

[Shuz] wrote:Not that a light rail service would be better, because of capacity issues - which is why I favour replacing the system with a heavy rail service, as I'm led to believe that the O-Bahn actually carries the highest number of passengers per kilometre of some means of measurement when compared against the other three major PT nodes in Adelaide - that being the Gawler & Noarlunga train lines and the Glenelg tram line... There's a chart I've seen floating around somewhere which shows this.

This is right, the OBahn and LightRail have similar capacity, but the OBahn has the advantage of singe seat ride options. There is little point replacing the OBahn with light rail as we would be going backwards in terms of functionality. It's even difficult justifying a heavy rail line as a replacement, due to the large amount of connector buses required and the advantage lost with transfers.

If the NE Suburbs were linear a rail line would be suitable, but they are a spread out, sprawling, cul-de-sac ridden, suburban hell.

Shuz wrote

Not that a light rail service would be better, because of capacity issues

How about this for solving capacity issues...light rail in Los Angeles.(The photo is mine)

If you want a reliable and efficient PT system, just say "no" to on street light rail. It's as bad as on street buses. IIRC Melbourne's street trams run at about 33% off timetable.

^^ well we better stick with buses then, because there's no way prospect and unley roads are wide enough for "adelaide style" trams.

They're wide enough, you just assume that the car will continue to be prioritised over trams, which if that were the case, then there would be insufficient room, but the intention would be to prioritise trams over cars, which would have sufficient space. Its all in the detail of the street / urban landscape when you factor in things like minimum lane widths, bicycle lanes, kerbing, turning lanes, platform length and widths, footpath width, parking controls, street amenities, landscaping, electrification poles, etc. It depends how each are spatially arranged and prioritised over other street landscape elements.

Anyway, back to the O-Bahn...

The north-eastern urban sprawl is historically and relatively linear. I see no reason why this should impede the possibility of a heavy rail service. Feeder bus services along main roads to key interchanges can more than adequately provide the backbone to support the viability of the train service. The issue is maintaining high frequency services for both bus and train, so as to reduce waiting times between transfers - which incurs higher maintenance and running costs. Yes, I concede it would be subsidizing the O-Bahn system moreso than it is now, but PT is one of the few social services which I believe should be subsidized as much as possible to essentially provide unlimited / maximal economic and social benefits beyond the scope of providing the PT service; i.e. improved social equality outcomes, maximize higher density development opportunities, provide economic stimulus, etc.

The north-eastern urban sprawl is historically and relatively linear.

Nope, look on a map. North East of around Reservoir Road, it sprawls out into an impossibly twisty, cul-de-sac ridden wasteland that goes for kilometres out past Golden Grove. Buses have a hard time servicing the area.

I see no reason why this should impede the possibility of a heavy rail service. Feeder bus services along main roads to key interchanges can more than adequately provide the backbone to support the viability of the train service. The issue is maintaining high frequency services for both bus and train, so as to reduce waiting times between transfers - which incurs higher maintenance and running costs. Yes, I concede it would be subsidizing the O-Bahn system moreso than it is now, but PT is one of the few social services which I believe should be subsidized as much as possible to essentially provide unlimited / maximal economic and social benefits beyond the scope of providing the PT service; i.e. improved social equality outcomes, maximize higher density development opportunities, provide economic stimulus, etc.

Buses along the main roads would miss most of the passengers, as they all live back in the car dependant sprawl. They would choose to drive rather than walk for more than 10 minutes to get to a main road.

The big problem with a bus-fed train corridor out that way is that it is relatively close to the city already. Door to door bus services, along the OBahn, during peak times are between 25 and 45 minutes depending where the start of the journey is. If you consider an entire bus+train journey, including transfers, you are looking at a large increase in total ride time. The average transfer penalty for bus to heavy rail is 13 minutes [Currie G (2005) 'The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit' Journal of Public Transportation Vol 8 No 1]. Add that to a journey and you will be putting a lot of people off PT. Again they'll jump in their cars.

Heavy rail works best on linear and distant destinations - like the Gawler line or Noarlunga line (or what ever the southern line is called). Where the transfer penalty from bus to heavy rail is a smaller percentage of the entire journey.

The "park 'n ride" is coming along nicely.

That's quite a massive structure for the 'suburbs'.

Anyone have a photo of the real-time screens in operation?

Norman wrote:Anyone have a photo of the real-time screens in operation?

I do indeed! I'll have more very soon!

New info units at TTP interchange by The Scooter Guy, on Flickr


New info units at TTP interchange by The Scooter Guy, on Flickr

The Exceloos at all interchanges are now in operation! The new info units do speak in both a male voice & in some cases, a female voice for some strange reason!
The Park-N-Ride is now complete and will open on Monday 13th January 2014!

Wait, are some of those screens raised up, above eye level?

Disregarding some of the other questionable design decisions (seemingly random placement of things, wasted space with needless 'connect and go' branding, time and date not even fitting within those silly blue partly rounded boxes), how to they expect anyone to be able to read even the real time arrival information, let alone the minuscule bus destination information??)

Nathan-I suggest you take a trip out there and see for yourself the information.It is very clear and easy to read and follow,rather than making negative comments without seeing it.
Congratulations to DPTI for this excellent innovation.Hope to see more of them at key locations,which I am sure will be appreciated by the travelling public.

It would be only a matter of time before those screens are rolled out to other interchanges. Once the system is up and running the cost of making more of these units (ie scaling) is relatively cheap.