Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

Ideas and concepts of what Adelaide can be.

Should we build an underground railway from North Terrace to Keswick

Poll ended at Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:24 pm

Yes immediately - not only would it be very useful, but it's just the sort of countercyclical measure needed to keep SA out of the global depression!
5
15%
Yes - but we should wait for the revenue from the mining boom to flow first
4
12%
Yes eventually - but it won't be needed any time soon. We should make provision for it now, but wait a few decades before constructing it
9
26%
Maybe eventually - but we shouldn't let it affect current planning decisions
11
32%
No, but maybe someday we should build it somewhere else
2
6%
No, even if our population doubles we won't need one
2
6%
No, our state's going to remain a dried up backwater so we won't need one
1
3%
No, we will always be better off without one
0
No votes
Undecided
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 34

Message
Author
Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Location: Christies Beach

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#31 Post by Aidan » Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:26 pm

Adamo wrote:adelaide does not even have the substantial public transport commuters to make use of an underground system.. it just dosnt work.
The main reason we don't even have the substantial public transport commuters is because of the lack of an underground railway. A lot of potential passengers are deterred because the railway does not serve the part of the City they work in. Using proxy zones I calculated that an underground railway would increase passenger numbers by about a third. And we've seen in many cities around the world that electrification will attract many passengers. All these extra passengers mean that the train service frequency can be increased... and that will itself attract more passengers.

The combination of electrification and construction of new lines in Perth has resulted in the quadrupling of passenger numbers, and there is potential for similar things to be done in Adelaide.
Plus, what about our rotting railways, lack of tram and bus routes.
The railways will be fixed and electrified, and the plan for an underground railway is to be part of the suburban rail system, not an isolated line.
I'm also in favour of more tramways, but because the railways extend into the outer suburbs, I think they have a greater potential to cause a modal shift than the tramways do. And lack of bus routes isn't a problem in much of Adelaide, but poor operating frequency is.
stop thinking new york dreams... sigh waste time creating new bus routes. sorry about the attitude, but a subway in adelaide? you could build a lot more tram line in city lopes instead of wasting millions on a few underground stations that add no street ambiance.
I haven't noticed much improvement in street ambience when the tramway was extended. But building a railway to where the passengers want to go to seems to me to be far more important.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

Somebody
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 6:06 pm
Location: Australia (East Coast)

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#32 Post by Somebody » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:51 pm

I head to the other side of the continent for a few days, and look what happens :wank:
Aiden wrote:The main reason we don't even have the substantial public transport commuters is because of the lack of an underground railway.
Wrong, sport. There is many factors - and this is a relatively minor one.
Aiden wrote:A lot of potential passengers are deterred because the railway does not serve the part of the City they work in. Using proxy zones I calculated that an underground railway would increase passenger numbers by about a third.
You're full of a shit - so you say leave everything as-is, but funnel them underneth the CBD and kaboom, 33% increase in rail patronage?

What percentage of CBD trips are already on PT anyway?
Aiden wrote:And we've seen in many cities around the world that electrification will attract many passengers.
"Electrification" alone does not bring in extra patronage, except gunzels from Railpage who want to foam over new trains. Are you so stupid that you think all Perth did is change their trains from Diesel to Electric Traction, nothing more, and it resulted in patronage boosts?
Aiden wrote:All these extra passengers mean that the train service frequency can be increased... and that will itself attract more passengers.
PT demand is entirely fucking supply led - get it? You have to provide a decent service first before passengers will come.
The Gold Coast - Australia's centre for insipid, tacky & boring.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Location: Christies Beach

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#33 Post by Aidan » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:29 pm

Sumbody wrote:I head to the other side of the continent for a few days, and look what happens :wank:
Aiden wrote:The main reason we don't even have the substantial public transport commuters is because of the lack of an underground railway.
Wrong, sport. There is many factors - and this is a relatively minor one.
Of course there are many factors, but I'm puzzled as to how you reach that conclusion. Do you think having only a single railway station that poorly serves the CBD is only a minor factor for determining the public transport market share? Or do you think that our single railway station serves the CBD very well despite only being on the edge of it?
Aiden wrote:A lot of potential passengers are deterred because the railway does not serve the part of the City they work in. Using proxy zones I calculated that an underground railway would increase passenger numbers by about a third.
You're full of a shit - so you say leave everything as-is, but funnel them underneth the CBD and kaboom, 33% increase in rail patronage?
That's roughly what I calculated from MASTEM output data from along the Gawler and Noarlunga lines (excluding the inner suburbs from which public transport users are more likely to travel by bus). Unsurprisingly the market share is highest nearest the station. When I assigned other parts of the City the market share of other zones according to proximity to the new stations and land use,
What percentage of CBD trips are already on PT anyway?
From the suburbs in question, about 20% and rising. I did not calculate market share from the inner suburbs.
Aiden wrote:And we've seen in many cities around the world that electrification will attract many passengers.
"Electrification" alone does not bring in extra patronage, except gunzels from Railpage who want to foam over new trains.
The evidence suggests otherwise. The Sparks Effect (the patronage boost from electrification alone) has been found to be around 20%.
Are you so stupid that you think all Perth did is change their trains from Diesel to Electric Traction, nothing more, and it resulted in patronage boosts?
Of course not - Perth electrified, improved its services and built new lines. Electrification alone can not be expected to result in a quadrupling of patronage.
Aiden wrote:All these extra passengers mean that the train service frequency can be increased... and that will itself attract more passengers.
PT demand is entirely fucking supply led - get it? You have to provide a decent service first before passengers will come.
It is one of the most important factors, but can we really have a decent service when it terminates so short of where the such a large proportion of the people want to go?
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#34 Post by monotonehell » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:08 pm

Aidan wrote:It is one of the most important factors, but can we really have a decent service when it terminates so short of where the such a large proportion of the people want to go?
As an aside, that can be said of all stations on a rail line. How can we have a decent service when it terminates so far from where people want to come from? Answer, they transfer from feeder services. In Adelaide it's the same situation around the CBD. It's just too sprawling to be serviced effectively by a train. There's not enough density to provide the patronage for it to be cost effective. You even show one of your stations in the lowest density area of Adelaide, where there's minor industry and cottage style dwellings.

I can actually see some truth in your above points, as most of those were also true of even the short tram extension. But the costs of construction would FAR exceed the benefits you've outlined.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

Somebody
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 6:06 pm
Location: Australia (East Coast)

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#35 Post by Somebody » Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:25 pm

Aidan wrote:Sumbody wrote:
Cute - but doesn't help your cause.
Aidan wrote:Do you think having only a single railway station that poorly serves the CBD is only a minor factor for determining the public transport market share?
Who cares as long as the distributional transport is decent - and I've walked from Adelaide Station to Rundle Mall before (when there was no tram). It ain't that far. Stop whinging like it's the main thing wrong with the entire system.

This is a fucking commuter system, not a metro, sport.
Aidan wrote:Or do you think that our single railway station serves the CBD very well despite only being on the edge of it?
Get off it - you make it sound like it's down at West Terrace.
Aidan wrote:From the suburbs in question, about 20% and rising. I did not calculate market share from the inner suburbs.
What 'suburbs in question' are these? Do you seriously think that there are thousands of cars per day driving from the outer suburban sprawl all the way into the Adelaide CBD? :wank:
Aidan wrote:The Sparks Effect (the patronage boost from electrification alone) has been found to be around 20%.
I'm not going to look at stupid links, but what you're saying is fucking ridiculous. How often has there been electrification BY ITSELF? BY THAT I MEAN THEY JUST CONVERTED FROM DIESEL TO ELECTRIC TRACTION, NOTHING ELSE? Same trains, same stations, same frequency.. but now they run on electricity? It is almost always accompanied by a full upgrade of a system - for Perth: new fleet, track relaying, station upgrading, much better frequencies, etc.

FACT: Normal people do not see a pantograph on top of a train and suddenly decide to use it "because its electric and I like electric better". Railpage members such as Aiden and other dribblers are not in the "normal train users" category.
Aidan wrote:Electrification alone can not be expected to result in a quadrupling of patronage.
It can't be expected to result in anything more than an increase in the number of trips by idiot train spotters.
Aidan wrote:It is one of the most important factors, but can we really have a decent service when it terminates so short of where the such a large proportion of the people want to go?
You make it sound like the Adelaide Station is in a barren wasteland with tumbleweed passing.

Go over to the USA and see how the major commuter lines only have one terminus in part of a major CBD. Or have you never left Adelaide in your life? :wank:
The Gold Coast - Australia's centre for insipid, tacky & boring.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Location: Christies Beach

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#36 Post by Aidan » Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:31 pm

monotonehell wrote:
Aidan wrote:It is one of the most important factors, but can we really have a decent service when it terminates so short of where the such a large proportion of the people want to go?
As an aside, that can be said of all stations on a rail line. How can we have a decent service when it terminates so far from where people want to come from? Answer, they transfer from feeder services.
Transferring from feeder services is indeed an option. But it's a slow option that is unattractive to many passengers. In the suburbs, many people use Park&Ride rather than feeder services. If they have to resort to using feeder services in the City, many will just drive all the way instead - and they do.
In Adelaide it's the same situation around the CBD. It's just too sprawling to be serviced effectively by a train.
Really? What makes you think the plan I posted would fail to serve the CBD effectively? Every part of the CBD would be better served than it is now, and most of it would be within a five minute walk of a station, removing the requirement for passengers to resort to using feeder services.
There's not enough density to provide the patronage for it to be cost effective.
How dense do you think it has to be? The density is increasing, and more stations in the City would help to increase it faster.
You even show one of your stations in the lowest density area of Adelaide, where there's minor industry and cottage style dwellings.

Yes, that's deliberate. It's there to encourage development in part of the City that is currently underdeveloped and not very well served by buses.
I can actually see some truth in your above points, as most of those were also true of even the short tram extension. But the costs of construction would FAR exceed the benefits you've outlined.
What brings you to that conclusion?
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Location: Christies Beach

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#37 Post by Aidan » Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:42 am

Somebody wrote:
Aidan wrote:Sumbody wrote:
Cute - but doesn't help your cause.
It merely seemed like the most efficient way of correcting your spelling.
Aidan wrote:Do you think having only a single railway station that poorly serves the CBD is only a minor factor for determining the public transport market share?
Who cares as long as the distributional transport is decent - and I've walked from Adelaide Station to Rundle Mall before (when there was no tram). It ain't that far. Stop whinging like it's the main thing wrong with the entire system.
I have also done it on foot many times. From the King William Street of Rundle Mall it isn't a problem. From the Pultney Street end it's far more annoying. And I've often had to walk to the station from parts of the City further east than that. A station under Gawler Place would be a great improvement.
This is a fucking commuter system, not a metro, sport.
What exactly is that supposed to mean? It's not as if it's only used by commuters. Currently it is more like a commuter system than a metro, and that brings significant disadvantages. What's the advantage? Maybe faster services, but I don't think so - having every train stopping at every station is not a defining characteristic of a metro, and many don't. So I can't think of any advantage at all.
Aidan wrote:Or do you think that our single railway station serves the CBD very well despite only being on the edge of it?
Get off it - you make it sound like it's down at West Terrace.
Technically West Terrace is on the edge of the Western Frame rather than the CBD.
Aidan wrote:From the suburbs in question, about 20% and rising. I did not calculate market share from the inner suburbs.
What 'suburbs in question' are these? Do you seriously think that there are thousands of cars per day driving from the outer suburban sprawl all the way into the Adelaide CBD? :wank:
The suburbs along the Noarlunga line from Oaklands and beyond, and the Gawler Line from Dry Creek and beyond.

It depends what you mean by outer suburban sprawl. But unless you restrict it to the remotest suburbs, yes I do. Do you seriously think the number of cars driving from the outer suburban sprawl into the CBD isn't in the thousands?
Aidan wrote:The Sparks Effect (the patronage boost from electrification alone) has been found to be around 20%.
I'm not going to look at stupid links, but what you're saying is fucking ridiculous. How often has there been electrification BY ITSELF? BY THAT I MEAN THEY JUST CONVERTED FROM DIESEL TO ELECTRIC TRACTION, NOTHING ELSE? Same trains, same stations, same frequency.. but now they run on electricity?
Of course they normally use different trains. It's usually cheaper to sell the diesel trains for further use and buy new ones than to convert them.
It is almost always accompanied by a full upgrade of a system - for Perth: new fleet, track relaying, station upgrading, much better frequencies, etc.
And a full upgrade with electrification attracts more passengers than a full upgrade without electrification.
FACT: Normal people do not see a pantograph on top of a train and suddenly decide to use it "because its electric and I like electric better". Railpage members such as Aiden and other dribblers are not in the "normal train users" category.
Shouting FACT doesn't make something true, and what you are posting without evidence contradicts a lot of what I've seen with evidence.

And FWIW I'm pretty sure the reverse is true - Railpage members would use the train however it's powered, but normal people are more likely to use electric train services.
Aidan wrote:Electrification alone can not be expected to result in a quadrupling of patronage.
It can't be expected to result in anything more than an increase in the number of trips by idiot train spotters.
Why do you deny the existence of a phenomenon known since the 1960s?
Aidan wrote:It is one of the most important factors, but can we really have a decent service when it terminates so short of where the such a large proportion of the people want to go?
You make it sound like the Adelaide Station is in a barren wasteland with tumbleweed passing.
No, that's Keswick Terminal :-)
Go over to the USA and see how the major commuter lines only have one terminus in part of a major CBD. Or have you never left Adelaide in your life? :wank:
Go over to Europe and see how much better major suburban lines do when they run right across the City rather than terminating on the edge.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

Somebody
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 6:06 pm
Location: Australia (East Coast)

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#38 Post by Somebody » Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:04 pm

Aidan wrote:I have also done it on foot many times. From the King William Street of Rundle Mall it isn't a problem. From the Pultney Street end it's far more annoying. And I've often had to walk to the station from parts of the City further east than that.
Answer - distributional transport. People are fat these days so they deserve to walk anyway - especially the schoolkids I see around.
Aidan wrote:A station under Gawler Place would be a great improvement.
So would be a station at Angaston. Priorities kid, priorities.
Aidan wrote:What exactly is that supposed to mean?
Do you know anything? Go look up "commuter rail" before your next spoutings.

Places such as Elizabeth, Gawler, Noarlunga Centre, etc are not metro territory and don't need single seat journeys to every corner of the fucken CBD.
Aidan wrote:Do you seriously think the number of cars driving from the outer suburban sprawl into the CBD isn't in the thousands?
Prove it to me.
Aidan wrote:Of course they normally use different trains. It's usually cheaper to sell the diesel trains for further use and buy new ones than to convert them.
But here you are spouting that the fact the trains are electric is why people would use them. Would new diesel trains not have the same effect? :wank:
Aidan wrote:And a full upgrade with electrification attracts more passengers than a full upgrade without electrification.
Here's a new thread for you. I'd appreciate it if you didn't post dribble while refusing to see others' non-dribbly facts being put forward to you.

http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... 25&start=0
Aidan wrote:And FWIW I'm pretty sure the reverse is true - Railpage members would use the train however it's powered, but normal people are more likely to use electric train services.
Out comes the foam! Of course they would use sparks more, it would be something new to foam over while nobody goes out to see TransAdelaide's fleet because they think the poxboxes are so darn boring.
Aidan wrote:Why do you deny the existence of a phenomenon known since the 1960s?
Show me one example where there has been electrification all by itself. Phin's blog de-bunked this last year - go look it up.

Go have a look at sites like http://melbpt.wordpress.com before your next spoutings, but please try to leave foaming over trains out of transport planning. Don't start demanding something just because you'd like to take pictures of trains on it. OK?
The Gold Coast - Australia's centre for insipid, tacky & boring.

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#39 Post by Shuz » Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:18 pm

You know, if we had an undergroung railway, I'd ask the two of you to shutup and take your conversation down there and away from the streets!

User avatar
jk1237
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1756
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:22 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#40 Post by jk1237 » Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:39 pm

somebody, if you mention that PT is supply based (provide a good PT service and people will use it) what is fundamentally wrong with the idea of an underground railway looping by the university area to Hindmarsh Square to Victoria Square then out to the parklands at keswick to eliminate our dead end system. The word loop does not mean Im implying a circle which you will no doubt accuse me of once again. Im implying a through system.
There is quite a lot of office development around Hindmarsh Square that would not be attractive to many commuters to take the train in and bother walking or busing from North Terrace to Hindmarsh Square. So if it is supply based, whats so wrong with developing stations in the CBD closer to the destinations for large groups of commuters. If its too long to walk from the station, (even if they are fit people) they are more likely to say, stuff the train i might drive in today which is the whole problem were meant to be addressing. The exactly the same logic was involved with the tramline extension - get it closer to peoples destinations, and more people will use it.
There only needs to be 2 tunnels , 1 northbound, 1 southbound. Ofcourse the obstacle is the cost but if it was once proposed in the 60s, its not as if its an outlandish proposal for a city of over 1 million people.

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5518
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#41 Post by crawf » Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:17 am

P.S don't feed trolls.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Location: Christies Beach

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#42 Post by Aidan » Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:17 am

Somebody wrote:
Aidan wrote:I have also done it on foot many times. From the King William Street of Rundle Mall it isn't a problem. From the Pultney Street end it's far more annoying. And I've often had to walk to the station from parts of the City further east than that.
Answer - distributional transport. People are fat these days so they deserve to walk anyway - especially the schoolkids I see around.
The ones I see on trains generally aren't fat, so maybe the fat schoolkids you see get driven everywhere?

Distributional transport will certainly help, but where people have to use it at both ends, many choose to drive instead.

And having the station further from the destination doesn't always mean people will walk further. If I'm going from Adelaide station to Frome Road, I'll probably catch a bus. If I were going from a station on Rundle Mall under Gawler Place, I'd walk.
Aidan wrote:A station under Gawler Place would be a great improvement.
So would be a station at Angaston. Priorities kid, priorities.
A station under Gawler Place would be very well used, as would one under Central Market.
Aidan wrote:What exactly is that supposed to mean?
Do you know anything? Go look up "commuter rail" before your next spoutings.
I know what I mean by commuter rail, but I don't know what you mean, and I can't find out for certain unless you tell me. More specifically, what aspect of it being commuter rail do you think is a reason for failing to adopt the most desirable characteristics of a metro system?
Places such as Elizabeth, Gawler, Noarlunga Centre, etc are not metro territory and don't need single seat journeys to every corner of the fucken CBD.
Actually they are. Although most journeys are local, people still go to the CBD a lot.
Aidan wrote:Do you seriously think the number of cars driving from the outer suburban sprawl into the CBD isn't in the thousands?
Prove it to me.
That's not easy, since I'm no longer at Uni, so I can't easily get my hands on census data any more. But the official Seaford Extension Report (October 2007) mentions in Appendix H that according to the 2001 census, 7733 people living in the Onkaparinga LGA work in the Adelaide LGA, and 2393 of them use public transport to get to work. So even from the Onkaparinga LGA alone, thousands drive to work destinations in the Adelaide LGA, and looking at the maps I think it's safe to say the majority of those work in the CBD. And the 2001 census was held before the opening of Stage 2 of the Southern Expressway. Since then there has been substantial population growth.
Aidan wrote:Of course they normally use different trains. It's usually cheaper to sell the diesel trains for further use and buy new ones than to convert them.
But here you are spouting that the fact the trains are electric is why people would use them. Would new diesel trains not have the same effect? :wank:
No they wouldn't. You might come close with new specially designed high performance high ambience diesel trains, but those would be uneconomic compared to electrification.
Aidan wrote:And a full upgrade with electrification attracts more passengers than a full upgrade without electrification.
Here's a new thread for you. I'd appreciate it if you didn't post dribble while refusing to see others' non-dribbly facts being put forward to you.
http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... 25&start=0
You missed out too many options for it to be able to tell you anything.
Aidan wrote:And FWIW I'm pretty sure the reverse is true - Railpage members would use the train however it's powered, but normal people are more likely to use electric train services.
Out comes the foam! Of course they would use sparks more, it would be something new to foam over while nobody goes out to see TransAdelaide's fleet because they think the poxboxes are so darn boring.
OK, if we electrified then a few Railpage members would come here specifically to ride them. But I don't think that would be statistically significant. What would be significant is that the locals would use them more.
Aidan wrote:Why do you deny the existence of a phenomenon known since the 1960s?
Show me one example where there has been electrification all by itself. Phin's blog de-bunked this last year - go look it up.
It is indeed difficult to find examples of electrification where performance hasn't improved or the trains aren't quieter, because those things are much easier to achieve in electric trains than in diesels. These improvements are part of the Sparks Effect, but there is a lot more to it than that. Image counts for a lot, and electric trains do have a better image in the eyes of the public.

I had a look at Phin's blog. A couple of reasoned expressions of scepticism do not constitute a debunking.
Go have a look at sites like http://melbpt.wordpress.com before your next spoutings, but please try to leave foaming over trains out of transport planning. Don't start demanding something just because you'd like to take pictures of trains on it. OK?
If that were what I was doing, I'd've demanded restoration of Broad Gauge through the Hills so Steamranger can run all the way from Adelaide to Victor Harbour again!

I'm proposing a genuinely useful piece of transport infrastructure. Why do you have so much trouble distinguishing that from foaming?
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

Somebody
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 6:06 pm
Location: Australia (East Coast)

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#43 Post by Somebody » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:55 pm

jk1237 wrote:somebody, if you mention that PT is supply based (provide a good PT service and people will use it) what is fundamentally wrong with the idea of an underground railway looping
Mmm, eastadl is going loopy in both senses again. I rode a Hitarchie on the 14:23 dn Alamein thru teh Melbun Loop today - jealous?

crawf wrote:P.S don't feed trolls.
Good idea crawf. This 'Aidan' one was starting to get to me, coming back with all this kind of rubbish despite facts being put to him/her:
Aidan wrote:These improvements are part of the Sparks Effect, but there is a lot more to it than that. Image counts for a lot, and electric trains do have a better image in the eyes of the public.
Unfortunately while he did make some good, valid arguments, there was a bit of garbage too. Best to let him be. :wank:
The Gold Coast - Australia's centre for insipid, tacky & boring.

User avatar
AG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:44 am
Location: Adelaide SA

Re: Poll: Should Adelaide have an underground railway

#44 Post by AG » Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:19 am

Time to cool down for a little bit I think people.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests