Article: Chadstone station and tunnel on $2b shopping list

[ozbob]

From the Melbourne Age click here!

Chadstone station and tunnel on $2b shopping list


http://images.theage.com.au/2012/11/10/3786604/CHaddie-620x349.jpg

Chadstone station and tunnel on $2b shopping list
November 11, 2012 Adam Carey

A NEW train line connecting the Glen Waverley and Dandenong railway lines would stop at Chadstone Shopping Centre as part of a bold $2 billion plan to bury part of the Glen Waverley line.

A private consortium wants government money to help build the new Chadstone station and subway tunnels, which would remove six of the eastern suburbs' most dangerous level crossings and free up valuable land for development.

The heavy-hitting consortium, which includes NAB, Thiess, Hassell, Grimshaw Architects and KPMG among others, has proposed linking Chadstone to the rail network by digging a tunnel between the Glen Waverley and Dandenong lines.

The inclusion of Chadstone distinguishes the pitch from a similar, failed proposal the consortium put to the former Labor government in 2006, which withered in the face of bureaucratic opposition.

The Baillieu government is still considering whether it will include the revised plan, called ''Project Double Fault'', on its already ambitious list of impending railway upgrades.

The consortium is seeking a $600 million to $700 million contribution from the government. It says the Chadstone connection would spark a huge increase in rail patronage and help the government recoup its costs.

Chris Eves, a consultant with consortium member Lighthouse Infrastructure, said the project would also fix several rail and road bottlenecks and create capacity to run more trains.

It would remove every level crossing on the Glen Waverley line, including two that intersect with tram lines.

''We believe that the Victorian government would achieve major economies of scale if they were to approach the removal of level crossings on a systemic basis,'' Mr Eves said.

The deadly smash between a train and a truck at Dandenong last week proved the government needed to attack the task of removing Melbourne's 170-plus level crossings with greater urgency, Mr Eves said.

The Cranbourne line remains closed eight days after the collision at the Abbotts Road level crossing, which is still being investigated.

The Baillieu government has committed to removing 12 level crossings, but only five of those projects have been funded.

''Our discussions with the [Transport] Department and other agencies indicate that they do not have the financial or human resources to devote to level-crossing removal,'' Mr Eves said. ''This must change. The Victorian government needs to develop a specific authority to devote itself to planning for the removal of level crossings.''

The project would would require building five new underground stations at Heyington, Kooyong, Tooronga, Gardiner and Glen Iris.

It would create more than 100,000 square metres of valuable new real estate along a corridor up to 50 metres wide and more than four kilometres long. The consortium would not own this land and would still have to tender for the right to develop.

Kelly O'Dwyer, the federal Liberal member for Higgins, which takes in the affected land, said it was an innovative proposal that ''deserves very serious consideration''.

''If we want to increase productivity we must look at unlocking investment for grade separations of road and rail,'' she said.

A spokesman for Public Transport Victoria confirmed the authority had met consortium representatives, and said the proposal was being assessed against several other transport development plans, including the proposed Melbourne Metro rail tunnel from South Kensington to South Yarra.

A spokeswoman for Public Transport Minister Terry Mulder would not say whether the proposal was being considered but said the state needed private investment in transport.

''The investment required to address Victoria's infrastructure backlog is now at a scale not experienced for decades,'' she said.

''Commonwealth and private sector partnerships will be essential to address Victoria's infrastructure backlog and achieve maximum economic and liveability benefits.''

Tony Morton, president of the Public Transport Users Association, warned that the Chadstone connection could further tangle the network, which needed to be more streamlined to operate efficiently, and could potentially confuse passengers on the Glen Waverley and Dandenong lines.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/chadstone-station-and-tunnel-on-2b-shopping-list-20121110-29556.html

[somebody]

Am I missing something?  How do the level crossings on the Glen Waverley line get removed by branching it?

Why does the idea of branching have anything to do with burying the line?

[ozbob]

It is a bit mixed up.  There are really two separate proposals put the Glen Waverley line in a tunnel (this gets rid of the lx's and tram crosses) and additionally another tunnel from East Malvern to Oakleigh. 

I would suggest a far higher priority would be Caulfield to Springvale ...   the tram can be extended from East Malvern to Chadstone easily ..

[ozbob]

For interest the PTUA and others, think an extension of the Alamein line to Chadstone would be the go.  Shades of Outer Circle Line.

Frankly neither is going to happen, although the ROW for the outer circle is basically intact (system of linear parks) too many nimbys etc.  And to get into Chadstone would have to go underground for the last part.  Cheaper than the other but still very expensive.  I spent a couple of misguided years at Chadstone High school (long gone now) in my early teenage years and know the area well.

Chadstone Shopping Centre is huge, but if they extended the tram at East Malvern to Chadstone, punters could easily catch it from East Malvern rail.

Another option is to extend the tram along Dandenong Road from Caulfield to Chadstone.

[somebody]

I don't like the branching idea, especially with the subsequent merge with the other line.  Better to just have connecting buses.

[ozbob]

I don't like the branching idea, especially with the subsequent merge with the other line.  Better to just have connecting buses.

Buses are having increasing problems at Chadstone, there is no bus priority and traffic issues are very significant.  There are also plans to increase the shopping centre even more.  Extending the tram along Waverley Road, up Chadstone Road and a short underground cut and cover into Chadstone would work well.  That way they can move hundreds easily in and out of the shopping centre avoiding most of the road issues.  This I think is the probably what might occur in the end.

[ozbob]

For interest, you can see the outer circle row easily on the map.

Start at Hughesdale rail, it joined onto the Dandenong line just before Hughesdale (melb side) and you can trace it northwards from there to Alamein rail. Note the size of Chadstone shopping centre ...

View Larger Map

[ozbob]

Twitter

PTUA ‏@ptua

To clarify this Age article, PTUA *does* support rail to Chadstone, as an extension of the Alamein line http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/chadstone-station-and-tunnel-on-2b-shopping-list-20121110-29556.html ...

[somebody]

I don't like the branching idea, especially with the subsequent merge with the other line.  Better to just have connecting buses.

Buses are having increasing problems at Chadstone, there is no bus priority and traffic issues are very significant.  There are also plans to increase the shopping centre even more.  Extending the tram along Waverley Road, up Chadstone Road and a short underground cut and cover into Chadstone would work well.  That way they can move hundreds easily in and out of the shopping centre avoiding most of the road issues.  This I think is the probably what might occur in the end.

Almost anything would be better than this Cityrail-esque branching plan.

[ozbob]

Extending Alamein line is a much better heavy rail proposition, although I think unlikely due to the other competing pressures on the Melbourne heavy rail network.  Tram is a good outcome.

[#Metro]

I really don't understand these proposals at all. They make no sense to me whatsoever.

I think the Alemein line should be ripped up. Trains have capacity to carry 1000 pax on a line that barely even carries a FRACTION of traffic is a misuse of resources. Those trains should be taken off and re-allocated to other lines where they will fill up and be well used. Recycle the stations by raising the rail track height with fill to make busway platforms out of the old train platforms.

A busway is a better proposition, in combination with class B ROW and road priority lanes. This removes the argument that "buses get caught in traffic" by simply taking them OUT of traffic. It would also be far cheaper engineering wise and the smaller vehicle capacity would also mean better all day frequency.

Rowville rail is also a waste of time and should be dumped ASAP. Why the PTUA is crazy about this crack, and other crack proposals I don't know. It's like the truth and reality don't matter anymore!

[SurfRail]

You've all completely missed the point of this.

What this enables you to do is run short-starting trains from Westall or wherever to use excess capacity on the Glen Waverley line (there is plenty), and run more trains north of Oakleigh on the existing alignment.  There is basically Buckley's chance of anything happening inbound of Oakleigh other than the Melbourne Metro tunnel at South Yarra, due to the ridiculous expense any such project would entail.

Alamein extension would probably have to involve closing Ashburton and Alamein and realigning the route so it intersects with either East Malvern or the next station down the line, and then Chadstone/Oakleigh.  Different kettle of fish and would not happen with this project.

I can't believe I am still hearing this stuff about running a busway on lightly used branch lines TT.  Fremantle line and the Court Government ring a bell?  There is no way building a new busway on an existing heavy rail right of way can be cheaper than maintaining the status quo which was paid off LONG ago.  Further to the point, the last 2 such closures in Melbourne (downgrade to LRT) are now experiencing massive overcrowding...

[somebody]

I see what you are saying.  I count 15 trains 7:39am-8:36am @ Richmond which have passed Oakleigh.  I believe there are some additional V/Line trains too.  Triple or Quad doesn't seem very likely.  Perhaps the plan is for the "Oakleigh" line to take over Malvern-Hawkesburn, which would add capacity and speed to the Frankston line.

[ozbob]

Extending the line from Alamein is technically easy to Gardiner Greek reserve then  you need a tunnel to get into Chadstone.  You could forgo the outer circle alignment and just tunnel from Alamein to Chadstone.  But I don't think it will happen.

TT Alamein line is going nowhere.  Go out and have a look, they are doing a lot of work at the stations and have just replaced all the sleepers.  It is there to stay.

[ozbob]

What money they have got will need to go into sorting out grade separation, particularly between Oakleigh and Caulfield.  This alone will have a positive impact on both rail and road reliability.  Some of the gates eg. Murrumbeena, Carnegie etc. can be down 30 or 40 minutes at a time worst case.  A lot of local grief and this will be the priority.

Amplification between Oakleigh and Caulfield is technically achievable but will be costly as well.

[somebody]

Amplification between Oakleigh and Caulfield is technically achievable but will be costly as well.

Even if that is done, then what do you do once you reach Caulfield?  You have only released capacity if you use the Frankston Line's tracks, which makes it pointless.

[ozbob]

And don't forget the Government down there is very keen mistakenly for more road solutions as a priority and then you have the 'Metro" tunnel plan from Footscray to Domain - South Yarra ( ummm $20 billion at a guess .. )  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Metro

Chadstone heavy rail  is just not going to get up for a while if at all ...  Ding Ding!   

[ozbob]

Amplification between Oakleigh and Caulfield is technically achievable but will be costly as well.

Even if that is done, then what do you do once you reach Caulfield?  You have only released capacity if you use the Frankston Line's tracks, which makes it pointless.

The quad from Caulfield to South Yarra operates as a quad should.  The real problems are south and east of Caulfield.  Ultimately there might be the 'metro' or what ever as well. 

[#Metro]

I can't believe I am still hearing this stuff about running a busway on lightly used branch lines TT.  Fremantle line and the Court Government ring a bell?  There is no way building a new busway on an existing heavy rail right of way can be cheaper than maintaining the status quo which was paid off LONG ago.  Further to the point, the last 2 such closures in Melbourne (downgrade to LRT) are now experiencing massive overcrowding...

Er, the court gov't was trying to close the ENTIRE system. This is nothing like that.

The Alamein line does have shuttle service every 15 minutes which is excellent, compared to say, doomben and yes Ozbob is right that it isn't going anywhere soon.

That said though, $2BN is a LOT of money, all these proposals - a few billion here for rowville, a few billion there for doncaster, more billions for tullamarine, more millions for Avalon, blah blah blah is a LOT of money to spend on gratuitous concrete.

$2 BN for ONE station! Spend a tiny fraction of that on a bus station underground or above Chadstone, perform separations on the surface roads for buses and upgrade the buses to BUZ frequency. And you'd still have $$ left over.

The heavy-hitting consortium, which includes NAB, Thiess, Hassell, Grimshaw Architects and KPMG among others, has proposed linking Chadstone to the rail network by digging a tunnel between the Glen Waverley and Dandenong lines.

^^ Just as I thought, concrete fiesta and co Ltd... building heavy infrastructure for the sake of building heavy infrastructure/shareholder dividends... is there a transport consultancy in that list.. no.
No idea about the separation of infrastructure vs service.

[SurfRail]

What money they have got will need to go into sorting out grade separation, particularly between Oakleigh and Caulfield.  This alone will have a positive impact on both rail and road reliability.  Some of the gates eg. Murrumbeena, Carnegie etc. can be down 30 or 40 minutes at a time worst case.  A lot of local grief and this will be the priority.

Amplification between Oakleigh and Caulfield is technically achievable but will be costly as well.

I'm not averse to that happening either, but I think this proposal should be given some serious attention.  This country of ours is obssessed with real estate value, so it's somewhat surprising that so little attention is given to leveraging that to pay for things like this.

$2bn for this kind of work would be pretty good value if it could happen.

[Golliwog]

^^ Just as I thought, concrete fiesta and co Ltd... building heavy infrastructure for the sake of building heavy infrastructure/shareholder dividends... is there a transport consultancy in that list.. no.
No idea about the separation of infrastructure vs service.

A) It says 'among others' so there could well be a transport consultancy firm in there.
B) That's the list of companies in the consortium. What I mean is, I highly doubt NAB, being a bank, did any of the design work, equally it's not going to list off who they pay to do work for them.
C) It's a proposal, which is now being looked at by PTV. Even if they didn't involve a transport consultancy, PTV should be able to work out whether it's good for the network or not.

[SurfRail]

Er, the court gov't was trying to close the ENTIRE system. This is nothing like that.

The point to be made is that at the time, the entire Perth system was light patronised and arguably not worthy of retention.  The Court government bought a fleet of arcticulated buses (a number of which are actually still floating around over there in service), implemented a number of bus priority features (some of which are still used such as a bus-only bridge at Shenton Park) and delivered what was notionally a more frequent service. 

Patronage still slumped and the decision was abandoned 4 years later.

That is the only significant example of an attempt to replace a paid-off railway line with a rapid bus service in this country in the last few decades, and it failed dismally.  As a consequence I am very leery of any suggestion that a more frequent bus service, even with its own right of way, is going to do the heavy hauling job of even an infrequent railway, let alone one that operates as often as the Alamein line. 

Airtrain patronage is higher than Skybus...

That said though, $2BN is a LOT of money, all these proposals - a few billion here for rowville, a few billion there for doncaster, more billions for tullamarine, more millions for Avalon, blah blah blah is a LOT of money to spend on gratuitous concrete.

$2 BN for ONE station! Spend a tiny fraction of that on a bus station underground or above Chadstone, perform separations on the surface roads for buses and upgrade the buses to BUZ frequency. And you'd still have $$ left over.

It solves or at least seriously alleviates a pretty big capacity constraint in the network, which is the number of trains that can be run on the Dandenong line.  This allows a whole heap of them to run via Burnley instead.  I don't think you can write that off as gratuitous given there is no alternative to making that happen - certainly no bus solution fixes that issue.

Further to the point, the $2bn includes numerous Glen Waverley line grade-separations (which together are probably about half the cost of the entire project at the going rate for recent works down there) and undergrounding the line.  The Chadstone link is probably not even 25% of the total cost.  Putting the Glen Waverley line underground will free up surface land for redevelopment, which can off-set a lot of the cost.

Avalon is a waste of money, I concur.  I am not going to agree on Doncaster and Rowville necessarily, although I do think simply tacking those onto the existing network will be a waste of time.

[#Metro]

The point to be made is that at the time, the entire Perth system was light patronised and arguably not worthy of retention.  The Court government bought a fleet of arcticulated buses (a number of which are actually still floating around over there in service), implemented a number of bus priority features (some of which are still used such as a bus-only bridge at Shenton Park) and delivered what was notionally a more frequent service. 

Patronage still slumped and the decision was abandoned 4 years later.

Yes, but patronage slumped in ALL cities at that time. Adelaide *retained* the train system and it's system is rubbish as ever. In fact, bus system carried an order of magnitude more passengers than the train system did. The issue is providing decent service and improvements. Simply 'keeping it rail' is not sufficient enough.

That is the only significant example of an attempt to replace a paid-off railway line with a rapid bus service in this country in the last few decades, and it failed dismally.  As a consequence I am very leery of any suggestion that a more frequent bus service, even with its own right of way, is going to do the heavy hauling job of even an infrequent railway, let alone one that operates as often as the Alamein line. 

Yes, but I would suggest that you have a false association there. Rail = good, bus = bad, low patronage etc etc. The BUZ does fine, the LRTs do well. Not every line should have to be rail. The Williamstown line is a line which I do not know justifies the use of a 1000 pax capacity train for three station - there are more worthy places on the network for such rollingstock and slots for other lines.

Airtrain patronage is higher than Skybus...

But that is highly simplistic - I could easily turn around and say Doomen Line and Carlingford Lines have less patronage than, I don't know, the 314! Decent patronage comes from frequency, speed, and span of hours - not how the vehicle looks. Trust me, when I moved from behind a train station with 30 minute operating hours to a busway station 10 km further out with buses every 5 minutes or better all day, I can tell you, the difference was like night and day!

It solves or at least seriously alleviates a pretty big capacity constraint in the network, which is the number of trains that can be run on the Dandenong line.  This allows a whole heap of them to run via Burnley instead.  I don't think you can write that off as gratuitous given there is no alternative to making that happen - certainly no bus solution fixes that issue.

But you have ignored the alternative use of those funds. Capacity on the dandenong line (and I used this line this afternoon) will be solved anyway when the metro tunnel project goes through. A simple bus to form a link between both lines and chadstone with some traffic separation is all that is needed. Why does it have to be TRAIN?

Further to the point, the $2bn includes numerous Glen Waverley line grade-separations (which together are probably about half the cost of the entire project at the going rate for recent works down there) and undergrounding the line.  The Chadstone link is probably not even 25% of the total cost.  Putting the Glen Waverley line underground will free up surface land for redevelopment, which can off-set a lot of the cost.

Part of me suspects 'Cleveland Solution' danger here / lowballing. It seems too cheap for a tunnel, when you consider that a busway at Buranda cost $465 million for ONE kilometre. Having half the trains pop on to the Glen Waverley line is going to pee of a lot of people because you are effectively halving the frequency for downstream stations and is it faster? Furthermore, the grade separations for road/rail are logically seperate from the project - what is the reason why these grade separations cannot be pursued independently of any chadstone connection?

I would suggest with $2 billion the entire city of Melbourne could be saturated in bus services running to train lines and that would improve public transport for the WHOLE city and have many orders of magnitude more improvement in terms of mobility than ONE $2 BILLION dollar station at Chadstone.

[#Metro]

The chadstone proposal to one side, grade separation of the glen waverley line seems worthwhile, 5 grade separations = 500 - 800 million already, difficult to see how development is going to pay that off, even if gov pays say 40% of that cost, that's still $300 million dollars of development that needs to happen - might be possible.

[Gazza]

The Williamstown line is a line which I do not know justifies the use of a 1000 pax capacity train for three station - there are more worthy places on the network for such rollingstock and slots for other lines.

But 1000 pax is crush load, not many rail systems run with 1000 pax on every run.
A 3 car train in Melbourne seats 264 people, lets use that figure.

You say that it's a waste to run these lines with a train that can hold so many people and that it should be ripped up and turned into a busway instead. Turning into a busway requires the cost of the busway (And a wider ROW and earthworks, for places where the line is in a cutting or at an underpass) and new buses.

What you haven't explained is why this is cheaper than just buying a 6 car set, splitting it into two 256 pax units, then working the line as a shuttle, with modified platform arrangement at the transfer station to permit cross platform interchange.

$2 BN for ONE station! Spend a tiny fraction of that on a bus station underground or above Chadstone, perform separations on the surface roads for buses and upgrade the buses to BUZ frequency. And you'd still have $$ left over.

I haven't gone through all the options for increasing capacity on those lines, but in a way isn't it about the capacity boost rather than Chadstone.

It's just like CRR in a way, you build the project primarily for extra track capacity, but if you can swing the track by another destination at not much extra cost (In our case it's Albert St, in Melbournes case it's Chadstone) then hey why not.

Capacity on the dandenong line (and I used this line this afternoon) will be solved anyway when the metro tunnel project goes through.

But what about the capacity of the tracks leading up to the tunnel?

[Gazza]

Part of me suspects 'Cleveland Solution' danger here / lowballing. It seems too cheap for a tunnel, when you consider that a busway at Buranda cost $465 million for ONE kilometre.

It's more Buranda was exceedingly expensive due to building around a creek, 2  tunnels, an elevated station, and lots of property possessions, all in the space of 1km. Fun fun fun!

Tunnels can be quite simple if they need to be. Think of the one in Perth for the Mandurah line...Popped in and out at an easy location, stations were pits on vacant land, and they only cost part of the Billion dollar total.

Having half the trains pop on to the Glen Waverley line is going to pee of a lot of people because you are effectively halving the frequency for downstream stations and is it faster?

Derp! Think about it for a second before clicking the post button.

-"Halving/Branching" is only bad when the frequency on the branch drops below a good baseline level.
Say if you had 2 branches at 10 min frequency and 5 min frequency on the common section nobody would complain because 10 min frequency is good.
If you had a common section at 15 min frequency but only 30 min on the branches, now that would be bad, so you can see either can happen depending on the operator.

-The point of the project is to free up capacity on one line by diverting some trains to another line which does have space to take them, so the frequency wouldn't drop because new train services would be scheduled to fill in the extra capacity.

[#Metro]

You say that it's a waste to run these lines with a train that can hold so many people and that it should be ripped up and turned into a busway instead. Turning into a busway requires the cost of the busway (And a wider ROW and earthworks, for places where the line is in a cutting or at an underpass) and new buses.

What you haven't explained is why this is cheaper than just buying a 6 car set, splitting it into two 256 pax units, then working the line as a shuttle, with modified platform arrangement at the transfer station to permit cross platform interchange.

I think it is an idea that should be explored. Obviously I can't say what the outcome of such a study would be, but it would be worth to look at. Conversion would incur costs but would free up train paths for the rest of the network during peak hour, which will be important, and furthermore allow buses to travel right up to the main line to dump pax rather than have triple interchange from bus to shuttle train to main line train line.

I haven't gone through all the options for increasing capacity on those lines, but in a way isn't it about the capacity boost rather than Chadstone.

If the purpose of this project is to boost capacity, then why not just pursue capacity boosting on the Dandenong line? The ROW is already acquired and there is plenty of room to lay tracks without major earthworks or house demolitions. The proposal to grade separate some crossings is worthwhile to look at but the risks seem rather high and the cost might be too optimistic (this may be on purpose too so that the gov't funds it and then shoulders the 'surprise' cost blowout later). I think the grade separation component has merit - but I'd suggest they challenge to consortium to do one station/project as a proof of concept. Also, grade separations are logically separate from extensions.

It's just like CRR in a way, you build the project primarily for extra track capacity, but if you can swing the track by another destination at not much extra cost (In our case it's Albert St, in Melbournes case it's Chadstone) then hey why not.

Er, because it sounds like crack to go via Glen waverly?

But what about the capacity of the tracks leading up to the tunnel?

What about them? What you would have are trains departing dandenong, half of them going on to the Glen Waverly Line and then those trains would rejoin again at Richmond? The Glen Waverley line and Dandenong Lines run together at Richmond - it is easy to see how this could become confusing and one of the lines would be slower than another.

[SurfRail]

Yes, but patronage slumped in ALL cities at that time. Adelaide *retained* the train system and it's system is rubbish as ever. In fact, bus system carried an order of magnitude more passengers than the train system did. The issue is providing decent service and improvements. Simply 'keeping it rail' is not sufficient enough.

I'm not interested in what other cities were doing, I'm interested in this specific instance because it is the only one pertinent to what you are suggesting.  The specific decision taken led to dramatically fewer people using the service than the already dismal numbers seen before.  The trend reversed when the railway was reinstated.

Yes, but I would suggest that you have a false association there. Rail = good, bus = bad, low patronage etc etc. The BUZ does fine, the LRTs do well. Not every line should have to be rail.

Explain why the bus, despite being more frequent than the diesel railcars and using virtually the same route on adjacent roads, failed to capture the patronage the railcars generated.

The Williamstown line is a line which I do not know justifies the use of a 1000 pax capacity train for three station - there are more worthy places on the network for such rollingstock and slots for other lines.

We are talking about Alamein, not the 3-station Williamstown branch.

But that is highly simplistic - I could easily turn around and say Doomen Line and Carlingford Lines have less patronage than, I don't know, the 314!   Decent patronage comes from frequency, speed, and span of hours - not how the vehicle looks. Trust me, when I moved from behind a train station with 30 minute operating hours to a busway station 10 km further out with buses every 5 minutes or better all day, I can tell you, the difference was like night and day!

I feel perfectly justified in ignoring the first sentence above. 

Skybus is more frequent, runs 24 hrs, is cheaper, serves a busier airport and in a bigger city and has a virtual monopoly on public transport to the airport.  (I would consider catching a bus to Toombul/Carindale etc, then a bus to the DFO and then a bus to the terminal to be around the same as trying to catch one of the public buses which go to Melbourne Airport but not from the direction of the city, and stop nowhere near the terminals.)

Please explain why Airtrain, which is less frequent, does not run 24hrs, serves a less busy airport and also has a virtual monopoly on public transport to the airport, somehow carries more people per year than Skybus does, given the Skybus service parameters and operating environment.

But you have ignored the alternative use of those funds. Capacity on the dandenong line (and I used this line this afternoon) will be solved anyway when the metro tunnel project goes through. A simple bus to form a link between both lines and chadstone with some traffic separation is all that is needed. Why does it have to be TRAIN?

Beg to differ, your appeal to authority by proximity notwithstanding. 

The Dandenong line could be separated into a Westall originating pattern on a permanent basis with this link in place, while allowing the same or a greater number of trains from Dandenong running express.  This way you only need to add track capacity south of Oakleigh, where it is easier to do so.

The tunnel just means the Frankston line can have more trains too because the Frankston and Dandenong corridors would no longer need to share the Caulfield Loop.

Part of me suspects 'Cleveland Solution' danger here / lowballing. It seems too cheap for a tunnel, when you consider that a busway at Buranda cost $465 million for ONE kilometre.

Cross River Rail is $4bn for around 10km of tunnel.  Here, the Glen Waverley line would probably be built using cut and cover, which is a fair bit cheaper than that.  The only driven bit would probably need to be the stretch under Chadstone itself.  Buranda involved no economies of scale and needed to deal with a lot of remediation work, plus I'm confident that figure included the acquisition costs for the site and not just construction.  This isn't a greenfield project except for the little bit in the middle at Chadstone.

Having half the trains pop on to the Glen Waverley line is going to pee of a lot of people because you are effectively halving the frequency for downstream stations and is it faster? Furthermore, the grade separations for road/rail are logically seperate from the project - what is the reason why these grade separations cannot be pursued independently of any chadstone connection?

The Glen Waverley line does not justify a train every 4-5  minutes to the terminus, and probably never will, yet it is capable of running more frequently than that.  It makes better use of system resources to share that with the Westall services over the inner bit closer to town, and which is likely to be redeveloped with higher densities.

The grade-sepping is part of sinking the Glen Waverley line.  The economics probably stack up better for doing that if they can sell off properties on the basis you can catch a train to Chadstone.  Bundling projects like this is common and the propoonents won't be floating this as some brain-fart like the Cleveland Solution, which was politically motivated and commissioned.

I would suggest with $2 billion the entire city of Melbourne could be saturated in bus services running to train lines and that would improve public transport for the WHOLE city and have many orders of magnitude more improvement in terms of mobility than ONE $2 BILLION dollar station at Chadstone.

In your previous paragraph you said the costs were distinct.  Anyway...

This is the kind of Hensherite gibberish which really gets my goat.  $2bn will buy you around 4,000 buses.  Do you want to explain where these buses will be stored, how many extra thousands of people need to be employed to run and maintain them, how the urban form of outer Melbourne supports the kind of ridiculous headways which that would enable, how you plan on replacing them when they reach the end of their service life twice as fast as a railcar will?

And when you have caught a bus-every-5-minutes to a Dandenong line station, will you actually have any more trains to carry you into town?

Some things are just expensive.  It is no solution to say you can buy a lot of cheaper things to do the same job without any kind of detailed breakdown.

[#Metro]

I'm not interested in what other cities were doing, I'm interested in this specific instance because it is the only one pertinent to what you are suggesting.  The specific decision taken led to dramatically fewer people using the service than the already dismal numbers seen before.  The trend reversed when the railway was reinstated.

Actually, it is relevant because confounding factors are likely present, the factor being the general downturn in PT use that affected all cities in that time. Did the bus service take the same time and run in a class A ROW alignment?

I still think frequency, speed and span are the key things. The Adelaide System has none of the above, it's rail and it is still garbage. Now they're getting an upgrade...

Explain why the bus, despite being more frequent than the diesel railcars and using virtually the same route on adjacent roads, failed to capture the patronage the railcars generated.

Provide me information with a table that compares the speed, span, frequency and ticket costs and a graph of before and after patronage please. I need to look at that and see if the services were comparable.

Please explain why Airtrain, which is less frequent, does not run 24hrs, serves a less busy airport and also has a virtual monopoly on public transport to the airport,

Brisbane has a train from the CBD to the airport that carries just 5% of all travellers (another 3% come by bus). Sydney has a train too – it only carries 10% of all travellers (and a further 2% access the airport by bus)... Even without a train, Melbourne Airport already has a higher public transport mode share than either Sydney or Brisbane, with 14% of travellers accessing the terminal by bus. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2011/12/14/would-we-use-an-airport-train-as-much-as-we-say-we-would/

I have to say I am VERY skeptical about this proposal because it sound too good to be true and is very light on detail.


In your previous paragraph you said the costs were distinct.  Anyway...

This is the kind of Hensherite gibberish which really gets my goat.  $2bn will buy you around 4,000 buses.  Do you want to explain where these buses will be stored, how many extra thousands of people need to be employed to run and maintain them, how the urban form of outer Melbourne supports the kind of ridiculous headways which that would enable, how you plan on replacing them when they reach the end of their service life twice as fast as a railcar will?

Well before you explode into a fireball of rage, Brisbane runs on just over 1000 buses so we wouldn't need 4000 and if you actually read what I wrote, I think a bus connection between the lines would be OK to connect Chadstone to the two existing rail lines and furthermore these buses would be used to run pax to train stations. And I think the benefits of that will be a better spending of the same funds.

And when you have caught a bus-every-5-minutes to a Dandenong line station, will you actually have any more trains to carry you into town?

Line is pretty frequent at service every 15 minutes all day, every 10 minutes on the weekend. Seems like plenty of capacity during the daytime hours. Peak is the problem, that and actually getting a bus to the stations. The ROW is quite wide so adding extra tracks to the Dandenong line doesn't seem such a big problem.

[Gazza]

If the purpose of this project is to boost capacity, then why not just pursue capacity boosting on the Dandenong line? The ROW is already acquired and there is plenty of room to lay tracks without major earthworks or house demolitions.

Nah.

Scoot along the corridor in Nearmaps and you can see how tight it is in places, especially around the stations.

You have to ask what would cost less, a 2km tunnel with one station, or adding extra tracks in a tight squeeze, dealing more with an operating line and heritage stations.

[HappyTrainGuy]

If the purpose of this project is to boost capacity, then why not just pursue capacity boosting on the Dandenong line? The ROW is already acquired and there is plenty of room to lay tracks without major earthworks or house demolitions.

Nah.

Scoot along the corridor in Nearmaps and you can see how tight it is in places, especially around the stations.

You have to ask what would cost less, a 2km tunnel with one station, or adding extra tracks in a tight squeeze, dealing more with an operating line and heritage stations.

Sort of similar to Northgate-Strathpine. There is more than plenty of space along the corridor but there are sections where property has to be resumed, bridges replaced/modified, road modifications during construction, station property modified for DDA/park and rides and then all the trackside equipment such as level crossing sensors, signaling, additional crossovers etc. Not much in the grand scheme of things but add it up and its very costly to put an extra 2 rails, some ballast and a platform here and there. Which is made even worse when there is a preserved corridor a few km away that will allow for even greater capacity and multiple running patterns all the way to the city that would make the previous upgrade void in terms of needing it.

[somebody]

Regarding Airtrain vs Skybus, that is an interesting comparison.  Skybus grew their patronage significantly when they started to gain some bus priority.  I'd have to say that the Class A ROW for Airtrain vs the Class B for Skybus is doubtless a factor.  Because Taxis get in bus lanes too, Skybus doesn't have a competitive advantage over them timewise, but Airtrain does.  Another factor is the possibility of being unable to board Skybus is non-zero.  A third factor is that there are more interchange possibilities on Airtrain e.g. at Eagle Junction you can change from Shorncliffe and Caboolture line trains.

Having said all that, I do believe that there is a "rail factor".

[ozbob]

Few observations on Skybus from the other week.  There are long waits to board at times, this may dissuade at peaks particularly combined with road delays.  Anti-peak, off peak the bus does make the trip quickly. 



Around 1.30pm (not even peak), hundreds waiting to board the SkyBus  29th October 2012 at Southern Cross, I had arrived opposite direction, seamless for me, not for these outbound punters ..

Melbourne really needs rail ...

[somebody]

Thanks ozbob.

In the meantime, perhaps we could just run the Skybus more frequently.  I don't understand why the operators wouldn't want to do that.  Is the ticket price not expensive enough for them not to make a profit?  I doubt that.

[BrizCommuter]

I really don't understand these proposals at all. They make no sense to me whatsoever.

I think the Alemein line should be ripped up. Trains have capacity to carry 1000 pax on a line that barely even carries a FRACTION of traffic is a misuse of resources. Those trains should be taken off and re-allocated to other lines where they will fill up and be well used. Recycle the stations by raising the rail track height with fill to make busway platforms out of the old train platforms.

A busway is a better proposition, in combination with class B ROW and road priority lanes. This removes the argument that "buses get caught in traffic" by simply taking them OUT of traffic. It would also be far cheaper engineering wise and the smaller vehicle capacity would also mean better all day frequency.

Rowville rail is also a waste of time and should be dumped ASAP. Why the PTUA is crazy about this crack, and other crack proposals I don't know. It's like the truth and reality don't matter anymore!

Alamein Line appears to be considerably busier than many SE Queensland rail lines during the off-peak (and it is certainly more frequent). I'm sure you would not be calling for most SEQ rail lines to be ripped up based on your theory?

[#Metro]

Thanks ozbob.

In the meantime, perhaps we could just run the Skybus more frequently.  I don't understand why the operators wouldn't want to do that.  Is the ticket price not expensive enough for them not to make a profit?  I doubt that.

I think LRT or Rail to Melbourne Airport would be good, LRT is probably better because it has less engineering constraints and avoids heavy rail network congestion issues.

Rail to Alamein on the other hand, Alamein isn't Melbourne Airport by any standard, or anything that is likely to generate high demand. What is the daily patronage on Alamein Brizcommuter? The line currently operates as a shuttle every 15 minutes all day which is quite good, though during peak it does eat up train paths by running services into the CBD.

Assuming 50% capacity x 4 services = 4 services x 500 passengers = 2000 pax (seems over, but anyway)

2000 pax divided by 80 = 25 services per hour, or a bus every 3 minutes roughly. Therefore, 15 minutes minus three = a 12 minute saving.

An Alamein busway, run at equivalent capacity, would mean journey times would be faster by at minimum, 12 minutes. With train paths freed up and a train freed as well, those services could be re-allocated to Belgrave and Lilydale lines for increased service. Some passengers would have faster journey times as because double interchange would be avoided.

The same logic can be applied to build a case for the closure of the williamstown line.

Like I said, the best mode for that demand (a feeder service) I think is bus, as it avoids double interchange. It can also penetrate into suburban streets, unlike the train, and doesn't eat up train paths during peak that could be better re-allocated elsewhere. That said, the line is already built and not likely to go anywhere any time soon.

[Gazza]

though during peak it does eat up train paths by running services into the CBD.

But it's not like they are express trains, people will board all the way into the CBD at places like Hawthorn, Camberwell etc. So long as the trains get full by the time they reach the city its doing the job.
Also, who says you cant just run it as a shuttle in peak hour too?

2000 pax divided by 80 = 25 services per hour, or a bus every 3 minutes roughly

But could you afford to run a bus every 3 minutes compared to shuttling a train? Your proposals seem like they would need 5 times more staff.

Assuming 50% capacity x 4 services = 4 services x 500 passengers

Also, I think you are being misleading by saying 500 pax because thats a crush load in a 3 car set. Y u no just use the 246 figure i gave earlier?

Anyway, the idea is retarded anyway lol.

Edit: The shuttle is 3 car anyway due to the short turnaround siding at Camberwell, so it's using not many resources in the context of the network.
See http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=28698

[#Metro]

But it's not like they are express trains, people will board all the way into the CBD at places like Hawthorn, Camberwell etc. So long as the trains get full by the time they reach the city its doing the job.

I think the path would be better used on the main line.

Also, who says you cant just run it as a shuttle in peak hour too?

You could do that but you'd still lock up a few trains and paths that would be better used elsewhere.

But could you afford to run a bus every 3 minutes compared to shuttling a train? Your proposals seem like they would need 5 times more staff.

If built from scratch, I wouldn't allow rail to Alamein, given the task at hand. It would require more staff, but I put it to you many QR lines only use 4 staff because they run 2 trains per hour -- result, low demand, long journeys- but it is cheap, but also missing the point. If the purpose of public transport is to move people quickly, frequently and with minimum journey time, bus does that best in this case IMHO. Even a bus every 5 minutes would be very good, and we already do that on the busways in brisbane. If anything is costing a lot of money and not putting out much bang, it is queensland rail, and the audit report bears that out - QR takes the lions share of costs, much of that being sunk into maintenance, with very little bang coming out the other end. Am I saying rip up all rail, no and I would never say that, but I am saying that for feeder tasks bus is usually better IMHO. There's also rail maintenance as well to factor in.

Also, I think you are being misleading by saying 500 pax because thats a crush load in a 3 car set. Y u no just use the 246 figure i gave earlier?

There is a difference between symbols of decent transport, and actual decent transport.

[Gazza]

I think the path would be better used on the main line.

Why?
Is this an outer suburban commuter versus inner suburban commuter debate?

There is a difference between symbols of decent transport, and actual decent transport.

Why are you avoiding the question. It's like you are using the figure of 500 pax to make the train sound deliberately over the top capacitywise.

Whats wrong with saying the train holds 246?

[#Metro]

12 minute time saving by bus, sounds good.
Alamein line is taking a modest volume of passengers a short distance.
Higher frequency and higher speed will stimulate patronage as well.