Railway Under the City (new plan)

[Aidan]

yes, the point of a railway under the city

To enable people to get where they're going more quickly, to make Adelaide less car dependent, and to encourage City development.

Currently there's only one City station, and it's right on the edge of the CBD. To get into the middle of the City, someone from a Gawler train has to walk to the tran stop and wait for a tram, which is typically rather slow — sometimes the long walk from the station is quicker! But from the Seaford train it's even worse, as the train wastes time running past the City before dumping all its passengers on the far edge!

[abc]

yes, the point of a railway under the city

To enable people to get where they're going more quickly, to make Adelaide less car dependent, and to encourage City development.

Currently there's only one City station, and it's right on the edge of the CBD. To get into the middle of the City, someone from a Gawler train has to walk to the tran stop and wait for a tram, which is typically rather slow — sometimes the long walk from the station is quicker! But from the Seaford train it's even worse, as the train wastes time running past the City before dumping all its passengers on the far edge!

but its really not a long walk from anywhere in the rather small Adelaide CBD area

to save someone 5 minutes of walking time really isn't worth the expense unless you're designing a PT system for a geriatric population

for perspective the entire 'business district' of Adelaide... if you want to call it that, and I'm not including the southern residential area... would fit into the Manhattan Financial District.

[Aidan]

yes, the point of a railway under the city

To enable people to get where they're going more quickly, to make Adelaide less car dependent, and to encourage City development.

Currently there's only one City station, and it's right on the edge of the CBD. To get into the middle of the City, someone from a Gawler train has to walk to the tran stop and wait for a tram, which is typically rather slow — sometimes the long walk from the station is quicker! But from the Seaford train it's even worse, as the train wastes time running past the City before dumping all its passengers on the far edge!

but its really not a long walk from anywhere in the rather small Adelaide CBD area

to save someone 5 minutes of walking time really isn't worth the expense unless you're designing a PT system for a geriatric population

for perspective the entire 'business district' of Adelaide... if you want to call it that, and I'm not including the southern residential area... would fit into the Manhattan Financial District.

See all those stations in the Manhattan Financial District?

To save people 5 minutes of walking time is worth the expense. However far they're prepared to walk, another five minutes significantly extends the catchment area.
And it's not just age that prevents a long walk being an obstacle. Walking is far more tiring when you're carrying something heavy. Plus there are weather and tine constraints.

The public transport market share is higher in the parts of the City nearest the station. More stations means more of the City would have a higher market share. When I was at Uni I calculated this would (with 3 extra City stations) increase the number of City passengers by about a quarter on the Gawler Line and a third on the Noarlunga Line (as it then was; the Seaford extension had been announced but not yet built).

[victorious80]

The other advantage is increasing capacity of the lines that will use the underground section. Currently the limited platform numbers and very slow speed limit in Adelaide Railway Station means trains take a long time getting into and out off the station. This really limits the frequency of trains that can use the station.

Making some of ARS platforms "through platforms" rather than dead ends, allows greater number of trains to access the station and increases capacity of those lines. A good case study is the Auckland City Rail Link project (https://www.cityraillink.co.nz/). They had a dead end station (Britomart) at the northern end of the CBD too. Auckland is not much bigger than Adelaide, so this case study is particularly interesting.

[abc]

To enable people to get where they're going more quickly, to make Adelaide less car dependent, and to encourage City development.

Currently there's only one City station, and it's right on the edge of the CBD. To get into the middle of the City, someone from a Gawler train has to walk to the tran stop and wait for a tram, which is typically rather slow — sometimes the long walk from the station is quicker! But from the Seaford train it's even worse, as the train wastes time running past the City before dumping all its passengers on the far edge!

but its really not a long walk from anywhere in the rather small Adelaide CBD area

to save someone 5 minutes of walking time really isn't worth the expense unless you're designing a PT system for a geriatric population

for perspective the entire 'business district' of Adelaide... if you want to call it that, and I'm not including the southern residential area... would fit into the Manhattan Financial District.

See all those stations in the Manhattan Financial District?

To save people 5 minutes of walking time is worth the expense. However far they're prepared to walk, another five minutes significantly extends the catchment area.
And it's not just age that prevents a long walk being an obstacle. Walking is far more tiring when you're carrying something heavy. Plus there are weather and tine constraints.

The public transport market share is higher in the parts of the City nearest the station. More stations means more of the City would have a higher market share. When I was at Uni I calculated this would (with 3 extra City stations) increase the number of City passengers by about a quarter on the Gawler Line and a third on the Noarlunga Line (as it then was; the Seaford extension had been announced but not yet built).

the stations are on many different lines

[Aidan]

the stations are on many different lines

...because NYC has many different lines! But most of those lines have multiple stations in the Financial District.

[abc]

the stations are on many different lines

...because NYC has many different lines! But most of those lines have multiple stations in the Financial District.

at most 2

however the financial district has 10x the working population of Adelaide's CBD

[Aidan]

the stations are on many different lines

...because NYC has many different lines! But most of those lines have multiple stations in the Financial District.

at most 2

however the financial district has 10x the working population of Adelaide's CBD

The R line has 5 stations in the map excerpt you've depicted. And of course the financial district is served by many more railways.

[HiTouch]

Unlike everyone else, I think its a pretty good thought Aidan. I think the biggest problem with rail is that there is a lack of connection between suburban hubs. Most interchanges occur at the Adelaide railway station which is super inconvenient. Especially when data says that the main commute for the majority in the Northern Suburbs outside of the region is to Port Adelaide/WIngfield. My three cents to solve the city rail is this:

My ideal scenario:
Cent 1: Grade seperate one line to underground fro a North-South corridor utilising utilising the existing underground spaces that go alongside bank street for commuter access, bypass mile end station and connect back on to either parklands or showgrounds.

If we go by your thoughts Aidan:
Cent 2: Hutt st is typically seperate from all city activity because of a lack of connection points (it literally functions as Unley road) which is why the hospitality industry is struggling. Instead of Frome Road, I would widen it out to Hutt St

If we go the most affordable:
Cent 3: A connector rail line between Elizabeth, Mawson Lakes and Port Adelaide along the Port River.

[Aidan]

My ideal scenario:
Cent 1: Grade seperate one line to underground fro a North-South corridor utilising utilising the existing underground spaces that go alongside bank street for commuter access, bypass mile end station and connect back on to either parklands or showgrounds.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you refer to “existing underground spaces”. Are you thinking of the London Underground themed diner that was under Station Arcade in the '90s? That was just the bottom floor of an existing building: below ground level at the Hindley Street end but not the North Terrace end.

Incidentally there was a proposal that was seriously considered (in the early '80s, I think) to link the basements of buildings to create a walkway between the station and the KWS end of Rundle Mall. It was rejected because (among other things) the basement floor level was different in each building!

If we go by your thoughts Aidan:
Cent 2: Hutt st is typically seperate from all city activity because of a lack of connection points (it literally functions as Unley road) which is why the hospitality industry is struggling. Instead of Frome Road, I would widen it out to Hutt St

Unley Road connects with Pultney Street; Hutt Street connects with the road I call 172nd Avenue (but is officially known as George Street and Duthy Street) and intersects in the Parklands with Glen Osmond Road. A tramway that way might eventually be a possibility but I'd rate Unley Road itself as a higher priority.

Hutt Street doesn't even intersect with Grenfell Street; it links with East Terrace instead. But though there are some advantages to having the station partially under the Parklands, that's not where the main demand is. It makes more sense to have developed land on both sides. And for those who do want to go to the Parklands (or indeed the northern end of Hutt Street) a Frome Street station would be close enough to be considered convenient.

If we go the most affordable:
Cent 3: A connector rail line between Elizabeth, Mawson Lakes and Port Adelaide along the Port River.

Do you mean along the freight line? Or are you thinking of something else?
The problem is demand is dispersed at both ends, so getting people onto the trains would be difficult as few would have a one seat ride to their destination. Also the roads are pretty good around there (despite some peak congestion around Port Wakefield Road). I think there definitely should be another bus route or two, but I can't see demand for train services any time soon.

[rev]

Why to Edwardstown?
Wouldn't a series of new underground lines from Adelaide Railway station to key points into the metropolitan area be better?

I like the idea though, hopefully when you present it to the government and media it sparks that much needed conversation.
We have few options in Adelaide.
More buses, which adds to traffic congestion.
More tram lines, which have limited viable routes they can be placed.
More train lines, which would require huge amounts of property acquisitions.
Going underground.
..or doing nothing which seems to be the preferred option at the moment.


Good luck with it Aidan.

[Aidan]

Why to Edwardstown?

The Edwardstown portal location is a compromise between capability and cost. It's the most northerly point the line can diverge while still avoiding the Emerson crossing, and just happens to be ideally located for taking advantage of major works planned for the South Road corridor.

The platform at Edwardstown station is very wide. With only minor realignment of the tracks it could be replaced by side platforms, making space for the new tracks to come up between the existing ones.

I'd eventually like to see Woodlands Park station undergrounded with four way cross platform interchange, and the line continuing as four tracks until the Flinders Line diverges... or with more tunnelling there could be a more direct route from Mitchell Park to Woodlands Park, saving time... but that's something for the far future; it would be hopelessly uneconomic at the moment. When value for money is considered, a connection at Edwardstown is as much as can currently be justified.

Wouldn't a series of new underground lines from Adelaide Railway station to key points into the metropolitan area be better?

From Adelaide station? Definitely not; the City deserves better!

From the City? No single line is more urgently needed than this one. But subsequently it's worth doing, and provision for them should be made in the design.
They needn't necessarily all be railways through —
Sometimes an O-bahn can be a more appropriate solution.