Sensational-Adelaide.com

Looks like the government is trying to shore up votes in the NE suburbs, due to be finished just before the 2018 election .... that's what this decision is really all about.

Why wouldn't you put that money into completing the Gawler Line electrification .... aren't they electrifying up to Salisbury only?

Would rather see the money invested into completing the electrification process or bettering the Darlington South Road upgrades.

Hell, for another $800-900m on-top of the $160m you could turn the O-Bahn into a dual freeway with designated bus-lanes each way and run it right into an interchange at Hackney. ...Yeah, I'm dreaming; perhaps one day?

Definitely a waste of money. What will the returned benefits be for such a large fee?

I wonder if Brisbane residents are complaining about the tunnel for buses that's going to be built over there...or is it just an Adelaide thing to complain about everything..

If only the Liberal government that built the O-bahn hadn't sabotaged things by making all the bridges too low for trams to pass under. Would cost a lot of that $160M just to raise the bridges (or lower the ground) just to gain that 30cm needed for tram overhead.

The only 1:1 option as far as speed and passenger capacity is to replace it with heavy rail, but that's going to cost a lot of money as involves tunnelling under the parklands to avoid the NIMBYs in North Adelaide. Sure trams would be easier, but try getting them to do 100km/hr and carry lots of passengers.

Just highlights the need for an independent authority/board to prioritise the state's transport infrastructure requirements otherwise we will get more ludicrous politically-driven decisions like this.

Excuse the ignorance, but why is this such a terrible project? Is it just the fact that the $160M could be better spent elsewhere? Or are there other major drawbacks with this project.

I have never caught the O-Bahn and I very rarely venture into this portion of the city so I don't really have any idea on what the traffic and buses in this area are like..

SouthAussie94 wrote:Excuse the ignorance, but why is this such a terrible project? Is it just the fact that the $160M could be better spent elsewhere? Or are there other major drawbacks with this project.

I have never caught the O-Bahn and I very rarely venture into this portion of the city so I don't really have any idea on what the traffic and buses in this area are like..

I don't think it's a terrible project, but I think the route/method is wrong (isolating pedestrian/cycling connections to and through the parklands, and still keeping the left/right kink from Rundle Rd to Grenfell St through East Tce), and that there are better projects worth spending that money on.

fabricator wrote:If only the Liberal government that built the O-bahn hadn't sabotaged things by making all the bridges too low for trams to pass under. Would cost a lot of that $160M just to raise the bridges (or lower the ground) just to gain that 30cm needed for tram overhead.

The only 1:1 option as far as speed and passenger capacity is to replace it with heavy rail, but that's going to cost a lot of money as involves tunnelling under the parklands to avoid the NIMBYs in North Adelaide. Sure trams would be easier, but try getting them to do 100km/hr and carry lots of passengers.

There would have to be more changes than just raising bridges for light rail to be able to run on the OBahn route. The OBahn's foot print is considerably narrower than that needed for rail for a start. The capacity of the OBahn is comparable to light rail. Only heavy rail would be able to exceed OBahn's capacity enough to be considered an alternative, but what is won in capacity there is lost in the need for bus transfers along the route.


As for the proposed underpass, I'm not sure that it solves the bottleneck problem at the Hackney exit.

Initially the O-Bahn began planning as the Modbury Freeway under MATS. About 20 years later the corridor was reborn in planning form as a light rail route and was very nearly built that way (look through some 80s street directories). Seems that it was changed to a busway quite late on in its development.

I don't think the O-Bahn has any future as a light rail route. In its present form it is highly functional, popular, efficient and serves its users very well. If anything it'd have to be heavy rail when existing maximum capacity is consistently and predictably exceeded; i.e., demand outstrips supply.

ChillyPhilly wrote:I don't think the O-Bahn has any future as a light rail route. In its present form it is highly functional, popular, efficient and serves its users very well. If anything it'd have to be heavy rail when existing maximum capacity is consistently and predictably exceeded; i.e., demand outstrips supply.

Correct. I posted a graph on here somewhere, years ago, that showed the relative capacities of different PT. It showed that light rail and OBahn have around the same range of capacity, except that OBahn is more flexible due to more discrete vehicles and the ability to run on road. It also showed the point at which demand dictated the need to convert OBahn to heavy rail (when OBahn starts to be over patronised). That point was way in the future.

If I manage to find it again I'll post a link.

Some interesting and relevant links. I haven't read through any of these, just thought they'd be of relevance via a Google Scholar search.

http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=377254 (1992)

http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=719917 (2000)

http://trb.metapress.com/content/c6615461712t565l/ (2002) (restricted access)

The Sunday Mail are comparing the $160m plan for that O-bahn tunnel to save four minutes with the earlier (scrapped) $61m plan for a busway along Hackney Road to save ten minutes. The transport minister is quoted as saying that the ten minutes was overly ambitious, the tunnel's four minutes was a conservative estimate, and it would also benefit other traffic more.

I don't normally agree with the Murdoch press, but I do agree with their implied conclusion that they should drop this plan and revive the earlier one instead.

Full story here.

The Advertiser doesn't waste any time in teaming up with the opposition to criticise the latest bit of infrastructure, lite on mentioning that the new proposal is more expensive because it is longer and two way instead of one way.

And then they give Vicki Chapman air to rubbish the state governments supposed cost over runs on projects with out mentioning any. I would have thought the tram extension, Adelaide Oval, Torrens bridge and Northern expressway and other road projects are perfect examples of projects done on time and on budget.
And then try to crap on about all the disruption to traffic during the proposed construction time, once again Advertiser and Libs, come up with some positives for SA instead of turning every positive into a negative!

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/tunn ... 6970101967

Its a dumb development pure and simple, infrastructure or not.

This is one of those pie on the sky promises Labor didn't expect to have to keep.