News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 255 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1711 Post by SBD » Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:23 pm

claybro wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:33 pm
SBD wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:36 pm
From a regional development perspective, I'm not sure we want commuters travelling to Adelaide from Mount Barker and Murray Bridge anyway. It would be much better to encourage employment in those towns so that people who live there can be employed there, and the kids in the schools there expect to be able to grow up and have meaningful jobs in the district.
Having said that, the regional rail upgrades in Victoria have provided a boom for such places as Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong. These centres are now a commute from Melbourne, and far from just becoming dormitory towns, the additional influx of residents who maybe do commute, has created employment options for building services and trades, retail, health and education, to service all the extra residents and home building activity. The windy track is often mentioned as a reason not to run trains, but I wonder if there has been any study done to diverting the train to the centre of the freeway past Bridgewater. Expensive I'm sure, but so is building freeways to cater for never ending North and South sprawl.
Aside from there not being a third Heysen Tunnel, how does the freeway gradient between Measdays and Glen Osmond compare to the maximum grade for a commuter rail? How would you connect it back in to the rail network on the plain? Trench under Glen Osmond Road and join the city loop?

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1868
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 187 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1712 Post by claybro » Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:33 am

SBD wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:23 pm
claybro wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:33 pm
SBD wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:36 pm
From a regional development perspective, I'm not sure we want commuters travelling to Adelaide from Mount Barker and Murray Bridge anyway. It would be much better to encourage employment in those towns so that people who live there can be employed there, and the kids in the schools there expect to be able to grow up and have meaningful jobs in the district.
Having said that, the regional rail upgrades in Victoria have provided a boom for such places as Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong. These centres are now a commute from Melbourne, and far from just becoming dormitory towns, the additional influx of residents who maybe do commute, has created employment options for building services and trades, retail, health and education, to service all the extra residents and home building activity. The windy track is often mentioned as a reason not to run trains, but I wonder if there has been any study done to diverting the train to the centre of the freeway past Bridgewater. Expensive I'm sure, but so is building freeways to cater for never ending North and South sprawl.
Aside from there not being a third Heysen Tunnel, how does the freeway gradient between Measdays and Glen Osmond compare to the maximum grade for a commuter rail? How would you connect it back in to the rail network on the plain? Trench under Glen Osmond Road and join the city loop?
It wouldn't go thru the Heysen tunnels. It would join the freeway alignment after Bridgewater. As for the grade, I have no clue. It was just an idea to resolve the giant deviation the current rail takes in that area.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 255 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1713 Post by SBD » Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:44 am

claybro wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:33 am
SBD wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:23 pm
claybro wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:33 pm


Having said that, the regional rail upgrades in Victoria have provided a boom for such places as Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong. These centres are now a commute from Melbourne, and far from just becoming dormitory towns, the additional influx of residents who maybe do commute, has created employment options for building services and trades, retail, health and education, to service all the extra residents and home building activity. The windy track is often mentioned as a reason not to run trains, but I wonder if there has been any study done to diverting the train to the centre of the freeway past Bridgewater. Expensive I'm sure, but so is building freeways to cater for never ending North and South sprawl.
Aside from there not being a third Heysen Tunnel, how does the freeway gradient between Measdays and Glen Osmond compare to the maximum grade for a commuter rail? How would you connect it back in to the rail network on the plain? Trench under Glen Osmond Road and join the city loop?
It wouldn't go thru the Heysen tunnels. It would join the freeway alignment after Bridgewater. As for the grade, I have no clue. It was just an idea to resolve the giant deviation the current rail takes in that area.
I may have misunderstood you. I was thinking of the loop through Belair/Blackwood/Eden Hills as the problem. Are you meaning the section from Bridgewater through Balhannah and Nairne?

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1868
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 187 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1714 Post by claybro » Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:01 pm

SBD wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:44 am
I may have misunderstood you. I was thinking of the loop through Belair/Blackwood/Eden Hills as the problem. Are you meaning the section from Bridgewater through Balhannah and Nairne?
Yes. Removing that giant deviation would speed up a passenger service significantly. As you say though, the freeway alignment may be too steep.

ml69
Legendary Member!
Posts: 796
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:16 pm
Location: Adelaide SA
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1715 Post by ml69 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:53 pm

claybro wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:01 pm
SBD wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:44 am
I may have misunderstood you. I was thinking of the loop through Belair/Blackwood/Eden Hills as the problem. Are you meaning the section from Bridgewater through Balhannah and Nairne?
Yes. Removing that giant deviation would speed up a passenger service significantly. As you say though, the freeway alignment may be too steep.
A rail service to Mt Barker would cost several billion dollars with huge lengths of tunnels required and would be a giant waste of money. There are higher priorities than this.

Buses down the freeway are just as fast.

All we need is another bus lane for the last 1-2km of freeway downtrack towards the Tollgate. Then we need a bus-only tunnel to connect the Tollgate with Fullarton Rd near Vic Park racecourse (thereby completely bypassing Glen Osmond Rd). Then it’s a simple left turn down Wakefield St into the CBD ... this could also be on a bus lane.

Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1574
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA
Been thanked: 183 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1716 Post by Patrick_27 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:05 pm

There was already a plan drawn for this leading up the last state election (by someone involved or formerly with the DPTI), the plan involved building a viaduct through Brown Hill Creek etc from Mitcham Station and then taking the line up the centre of the freeway once you hit the section of the freeway where there is a massive median strip. Apparently it was quite cost efficient. I still think that would be a sensible plan, the environmental impact could be quite minimal when you look at how they went about the Seaford Rail extension; you could still keep the Belair Line but perhaps close the line beyond Blackwood, which Blackwood is probably the busiest station on that end of the line.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1868
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 187 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1717 Post by claybro » Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:37 pm

ml69 wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:53 pm
claybro wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:01 pm
SBD wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:44 am
I may have misunderstood you. I was thinking of the loop through Belair/Blackwood/Eden Hills as the problem. Are you meaning the section from Bridgewater through Balhannah and Nairne?
Yes. Removing that giant deviation would speed up a passenger service significantly. As you say though, the freeway alignment may be too steep.
A rail service to Mt Barker would cost several billion dollars with huge lengths of tunnels required and would be a giant waste of money. There are higher priorities than this.

Buses down the freeway are just as fast.

All we need is another bus lane for the last 1-2km of freeway downtrack towards the Tollgate. Then we need a bus-only tunnel to connect the Tollgate with Fullarton Rd near Vic Park racecourse (thereby completely bypassing Glen Osmond Rd). Then it’s a simple left turn down Wakefield St into the CBD ... this could also be on a bus lane.
The problem with bus lanes, is that they either remove an existing traffic lane, or add lanes that buses then need to merge back into existing traffic. I'm not sure about the capacity of the freeway, but the potential growth of Murray bridge and mt Barker could be severely limited by the capacity of the existing freeway even with bus lanes. Trains carry many multitudes more numbers and quicker, if they could just iron out some of the curves. Ironically the freeway right of way allows for this to some extent. Thankfully as per the last post it appears someone is already on to this idea.

ml69
Legendary Member!
Posts: 796
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:16 pm
Location: Adelaide SA
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1718 Post by ml69 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:45 pm

Patrick_27 wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:05 pm
There was already a plan drawn for this leading up the last state election (by someone involved or formerly with the DPTI), the plan involved building a viaduct through Brown Hill Creek etc from Mitcham Station and then taking the line up the centre of the freeway once you hit the section of the freeway where there is a massive median strip. Apparently it was quite cost efficient. I still think that would be a sensible plan, the environmental impact could be quite minimal when you look at how they went about the Seaford Rail extension; you could still keep the Belair Line but perhaps close the line beyond Blackwood, which Blackwood is probably the busiest station on that end of the line.
It wasn’t a plan, it was a pie-in-the-sky vision that got people talking.

A railway viaduct along Brownhill Creek?? Can you imagine how that would go down with the Greenies?

The plan was simply one ex-DPTI staffer’s thoughts on what could be done. Good on him, but I suspect the idea would never even come close to having a business case.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 255 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1719 Post by SBD » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:20 am

claybro wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:37 pm
ml69 wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:53 pm
claybro wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:01 pm


Yes. Removing that giant deviation would speed up a passenger service significantly. As you say though, the freeway alignment may be too steep.
A rail service to Mt Barker would cost several billion dollars with huge lengths of tunnels required and would be a giant waste of money. There are higher priorities than this.

Buses down the freeway are just as fast.

All we need is another bus lane for the last 1-2km of freeway downtrack towards the Tollgate. Then we need a bus-only tunnel to connect the Tollgate with Fullarton Rd near Vic Park racecourse (thereby completely bypassing Glen Osmond Rd). Then it’s a simple left turn down Wakefield St into the CBD ... this could also be on a bus lane.
The problem with bus lanes, is that they either remove an existing traffic lane, or add lanes that buses then need to merge back into existing traffic. I'm not sure about the capacity of the freeway, but the potential growth of Murray bridge and mt Barker could be severely limited by the capacity of the existing freeway even with bus lanes. Trains carry many multitudes more numbers and quicker, if they could just iron out some of the curves. Ironically the freeway right of way allows for this to some extent. Thankfully as per the last post it appears someone is already on to this idea.
Why would anyone want to commute daily from Murray Bridge to Adelaide and return? Surely a commute that long (by any technology) defeats most of the benefits of living there, especially in winter.

We need to develop regional cities, then develop inter-city rail, not commuter rail, between centres. By then, GlobeLink might have eventuated as more than a thought bubble, and it would be interesting to see if the higher running speed can compensate for the longer distance involved.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1868
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 187 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1720 Post by claybro » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:55 pm

SBD wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:20 am
Why would anyone want to commute daily from Murray Bridge to Adelaide and return? Surely a commute that long (by any technology) defeats most of the benefits of living there, especially in winter.

We need to develop regional cities, then develop inter-city rail, not commuter rail, between centres. By then, GlobeLink might have eventuated as more than a thought bubble, and it would be interesting to see if the higher running speed can compensate for the longer distance involved.
Why would anyone want to commute from Murray Bridge? People commute from Ballarat and Geelong to Melbourne everyday. If we want to stop Adelaide engulfing the Barossa and Southern Vales, and ending up further north than Murray bridge anyway, we must develop alternatives with a buffer in between. An area like Murray bridge would benefit from the added population as extra families move in to the area creating more local employment opportunities.
I do agree we need to better develop regional cities. Isn't Murray Bridge a regional City? Also if you include in regional cities, Mount Gambier, wouldn't the Mount also benefit from any upgrade of the rail route through the hills to also speed up its future vital rail link? Wouldn't a regular Melbourne train benefit from an upgrade to the hills route? Put simply, SA regional roads, including the SE freeway would not cope with a large increase in regional populations, nor would people be enticed to the regions without decent transport links. The SE of the state including Murray Bridge could be a big growth area if it was properly connected to Adelaide by rail. Commuter rail to Murray bridge should be the start of this.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1262
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 138 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1721 Post by rubberman » Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:38 pm

As something of a historical curiosity, in the early 1970s the South Australian Railways produced what were termed "the Project Peregrine Schemes" to speed up services to Monarto. These are of interest because they were produced by an organisation which had a pretty good idea of what was practical vs just dreaming something up and putting it on a plan. So, they were thoroughly thought through.

Here's a short extract from a later BITRE report:

"Project Peregrine Scheme 3 ”~ ~- In this scheme a long tunnel would be bored between Mi.tcham and Mount Barker and then an improved line constructed to Monarto. The grade in the long tunnel would be either 1: 80 or 1: 67 , so that with a ruling grade of 1: 100 beyond Mount Barker Cown goods trains would need to be topped up‘ at this station. This inconvenience is inherent in both Scheme 2 and Scheme 3. Also this scheme would not serve existing communities between Mitcham and Bridgewater and it is probable that the existing line would have to be retained over this length in addition to the new line. S.A.R. estimated the cost of this scheme as $198 rr,illion (Septem- ber 1974 dollars)."

For more, google:

Mainline Upgrading - Evaluation of a Range of Options for the Adelaide-Serviceton Rail Link - Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics

PDFhttps://bitre.gov.au › files › report_030

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 255 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1722 Post by SBD » Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:20 pm

claybro wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:55 pm
SBD wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:20 am
Why would anyone want to commute daily from Murray Bridge to Adelaide and return? Surely a commute that long (by any technology) defeats most of the benefits of living there, especially in winter.

We need to develop regional cities, then develop inter-city rail, not commuter rail, between centres. By then, GlobeLink might have eventuated as more than a thought bubble, and it would be interesting to see if the higher running speed can compensate for the longer distance involved.
Why would anyone want to commute from Murray Bridge? People commute from Ballarat and Geelong to Melbourne everyday. If we want to stop Adelaide engulfing the Barossa and Southern Vales, and ending up further north than Murray bridge anyway, we must develop alternatives with a buffer in between. An area like Murray bridge would benefit from the added population as extra families move in to the area creating more local employment opportunities.
I do agree we need to better develop regional cities. Isn't Murray Bridge a regional City? Also if you include in regional cities, Mount Gambier, wouldn't the Mount also benefit from any upgrade of the rail route through the hills to also speed up its future vital rail link? Wouldn't a regular Melbourne train benefit from an upgrade to the hills route? Put simply, SA regional roads, including the SE freeway would not cope with a large increase in regional populations, nor would people be enticed to the regions without decent transport links. The SE of the state including Murray Bridge could be a big growth area if it was properly connected to Adelaide by rail. Commuter rail to Murray bridge should be the start of this.
I am not questioning that travel from Murray Bridge and Mount Gambier to/from Adelaide could be improved with better freeways and railways.

What I challenge is the notion that we might want to encourage or facilitate more people commuting from Murray Bridge to Adelaide every day. I would like to see these regional cities grow and develop as regional cities, not as enormous self-contained dormitories. There may well be people who commute from Ballarat or Geelong into the Melbourne CBD every day. Is this considered "good" for any of Ballarat, Melbourne or Victoria? Or would it be much better to make it both unnecessary and undesirable to commute from Murray Bridge or Mount Gambier (and even Mount Barker) to Adelaide?

Maybe I am out of step with "modern thinking". I think we'd be better off if Elizabeth, Mount Barker, Stirling, Reynella, Noarlunga had stayed as regional centres rather than becoming predominantly dormitories for people working in Adelaide. There are a lot more populous cities in the world with much smaller footprints than Adelaide.

User avatar
PeFe
Legendary Member!
Posts: 815
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:47 am
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 101 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1723 Post by PeFe » Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:42 pm

SBD wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:20 pm
Maybe I am out of step with "modern thinking". I think we'd be better off if Elizabeth, Mount Barker, Stirling, Reynella, Noarlunga had stayed as regional centres rather than becoming predominantly dormitories for people working in Adelaide. There are a lot more populous cities in the world with much smaller footprints than Adelaide.
Well its too late now, Elizabeth, Mt Barker, Reynella have effectively been Adelaide suburbs for a long time ......the question is now what development do you plan for them? Leave them as dormitory suburbs where people drive out at 8 am and return at 6pm (or if you are really lucky, decent public transport to their place of work) or do you consider activating some sort of development (and I mean more than a shopping centre!)

And Murray Bridge really isn't that far away in commute times (1 hour to the Adelaide CBD). Plenty of people in Sydney and Melbourne do that already (and I am not arguing that Murray Bridge should become a suburb, I would rather see Adelaide consolidate its already established footprint and stop the sprawl..
No to Buckland Park!)

EBG
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1880
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:49 pm
Has thanked: 585 times
Been thanked: 1043 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1724 Post by EBG » Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:33 pm

It would not cost $B's to build a railway to Mt Barker, the line is already there .it is just that parts of it are the wrong gauge. The board gauge stops at Belair then it is standard gauge to Mt Barker junction then board gauge from there to Mt Barker. There is a single line tunnel under the SE freeway. This came about by Paul Keating's One Nation Project in 1995 when then line to Melbourne was converted to standard gauge. The main problem is the round about track between Bridgewater and Balhannah where the track doubles back on it self. This could be relatively easy to fix with a new section. Such a railway would serve Littlehampton and Nairne. If this line was in Melbourne or Sydney there would be a 1/2 hourly service throughout the day.
Last edited by EBG on Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 255 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport Service & Policy

#1725 Post by SBD » Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:38 pm

PeFe wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:42 pm
SBD wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:20 pm
Maybe I am out of step with "modern thinking". I think we'd be better off if Elizabeth, Mount Barker, Stirling, Reynella, Noarlunga had stayed as regional centres rather than becoming predominantly dormitories for people working in Adelaide. There are a lot more populous cities in the world with much smaller footprints than Adelaide.
Well its too late now, Elizabeth, Mt Barker, Reynella have effectively been Adelaide suburbs for a long time ......the question is now what development do you plan for them? Leave them as dormitory suburbs where people drive out at 8 am and return at 6pm (or if you are really lucky, decent public transport to their place of work) or do you consider activating some sort of development (and I mean more than a shopping centre!)

And Murray Bridge really isn't that far away in commute times (1 hour to the Adelaide CBD). Plenty of people in Sydney and Melbourne do that already (and I am not arguing that Murray Bridge should become a suburb, I would rather see Adelaide consolidate its already established footprint and stop the sprawl..
No to Buckland Park!)
Contrary to the popular opinion that the last employer left the Elizabeth area when General Motors stopped manufacturing cars in Australia, there are still a lot of employers in the area - Defence, several Defence contractors, Drake's new warehouse opens mid-year, Coles warehouse, Inghams, Treasury Wines warehouse, health services around the Lyell McEwin Hospital. I have been to the CBD a couple of times this year so far I think.

I agree that they have become somewhat of Adelaide dormitories. I don't have a good solution for what went wrong to make that happen and whether it is possible to reverse it. I know that making commuting easier is not going to fix it. Making commuting from even further away easier is just going to continue the issue. Murray Bridge is further from the CBD than Buckland Park, and far more expensive to build commuter rail to. If either is to be expanded for Adelaide's urban sprawl, Buckland Park swampland is a better choice (assuming the houses are far enough above the streets to handle Gawler River floods).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Goodsy and 6 guests