Adelaide Metro 2050

[Shuz]

It's a large file - pixel wise, but small resolution for those on limited internet speeds.

Would much appreciate your feedback.

EDIT: I figure I should explain some things, before some people go "what the?"...

As part of the "vision", it would involve a heavy restructuring of how the train network would operate, shifting away from an intermediate travel-based system, to more of a rapid-transit system. Many existing stations would face closure to facilitate this effect. Some have been relocated, some have been renamed. Furthermore to add to this effect, in terms of maximizing operational speed, frequency and capacity, station distances are approximately 2-3 kilometers apart - with the exception of those within the CBD area. The rail network would be entirely grade-separated, thus - all level crossings would be eliminated.

Some key features.
[*] Red Line and Blue line go through in a new underground tunnel from the Goodwood Junction to Adelaide Railway Station.
[*] New Yellow Line, utilizing old Dry Creek rail corridor, serving as a dual-purpose cross-city and Airport Line route (to accommodate for my other vision, the relocation of Adelaide Airport to Dry Creek)
[*] New Mitcham to Belair rail tunnel to bypass the existing Belair rail corridor, in order to maximise effective travel times to and from Mount Barker (Green Line). Existing Belair route would be converted to light-rail.

[Prince George]

When you were choosing stations, did you consider the development areas around the stations? For example, depending on what happens around Castle Plaza, it may be better to have Woodlands Park rather than Ascot Park.

[Shuz]

Woodlands Park would be closed. As mentioned before, required to facilitate and maximise the potential for rapid transit.

Ascot Park would actually just be moved about 100m north from its current location serving as the last junction/transfer point between the Blue and Red Lines. I also think it's better to retain Ascot Park - as the development potential for urban infill stands to progress much better than the potential around Woodlands Park. There are still large amounts of land allotments available for subdivision, which will increase density, and therefore support the viability of retaining Ascot Park, with increased frequency and capacity as due result.

Development potential around Castle Plaza has long been setback, for whatever reason. Even now, I am still unaware whether if Raglan Avenue will be diverted through the old Hills Factory site, connecting directly into Edward Street. If I recall correctly, this was one of the many recommendations made in the MATS 1968 plan, regarding road diversions. Here we are, 40 years on, still no clue. I merely highlight this example as a small part of the jigsaw which would contribute to the success of development in the surrounding area.

[Shuz]

When you were choosing stations, did you consider the development areas around the stations? For example, depending on what happens around Castle Plaza, it may be better to have Woodlands Park rather than Ascot Park.

To answer the other part of your question, considering development potential around other stations.

Cheltenham (St. Clair)
Semaphore (Newport Quays)
Concordia (Concordia/Gawler East)
Gepps Cross - (Sports Park)

Just to name a few.

[AG]

The way the map is presented is quite impressive, what do you use to create these maps? I must really brush up on my drawing skills.

Some quick questions, under what roads would the Purple Line travel? Also, I've noticed you've included some Regional Express lines. Was your intention to use these lines for regional commuter trains or for special reserved seat express trains, or both? It might help to look at how you've planned to restructure existing train lines and maybe consider different train services along the same corridor (eg. local service all-stoppers versus rapid service trains that skip minor stations) which would allow more existing stations to remain open (for coverage reasons).

[Shuz]

The way the map is presented is quite impressive, what do you use to create these maps? I must really brush up on my drawing skills.

Thanks. I used Macromedia Fireworks, and a bit of patience.

Some quick questions, under what roads would the Purple Line travel?

Would be literally a direct East-West service. Going under Kensington, Grote, Wakefield and Sir Donald Bradman Roads. It would be the only "metro" line, in which the entire corridor would run underground. However, I do have my doubts on the viability of such a corridor, especially by 2050. 2100, maybe.

Also, I've noticed you've included some Regional Express lines. Was your intention to use these lines for regional commuter trains or for special reserved seat express trains, or both? It might help to look at how you've planned to restructure existing train lines and maybe consider different train services along the same corridor (eg. local service all-stoppers versus rapid service trains that skip minor stations) which would allow more existing stations to remain open (for coverage reasons).

Regional Express would serve their job to do exactly as it implies, being an express service from regional centers, into the city, with one or two stops along the way - at major interchanges. I haven't given it all that much thought to be honest, but let's say hypothetically - the Barossa Valley. Such a service would operate like a standard train service in the area which it comes from, Angaston, Tanunda, Nuriopta, but after it has collected its passengers from that area, it would then run express stopping at Gawler, Salisbury, Adelaide Airport, then both City stations.

However, having said that - My primary focus was to shift away from a terminating-based system to a throughfare based system. Effectively, I wanted to make the idea of literally travelling from the Barossa Valley to Victor Harbor in one trip possible. So it wouldn't just then terminate at the city, but continue on to the South Coast!

[fabricator]

You might as well have a cross connection between the Red and Blue lines at Onkaparinga, the tracks have to merge at this point anyway. The original segment of the Willunga line being built over by housing at Seaford.

[Prince George]

Woodlands Park would be closed. As mentioned before, required to facilitate and maximise the potential for rapid transit.

Ascot Park would actually just be moved about 100m north from its current location serving as the last junction/transfer point between the Blue and Red Lines. I also think it's better to retain Ascot Park - as the development potential for urban infill stands to progress much better than the potential around Woodlands Park. There are still large amounts of land allotments available for subdivision, which will increase density, and therefore support the viability of retaining Ascot Park, with increased frequency and capacity as due result.

Development potential around Castle Plaza has long been setback, for whatever reason. Even now, I am still unaware whether if Raglan Avenue will be diverted through the old Hills Factory site, connecting directly into Edward Street. If I recall correctly, this was one of the many recommendations made in the MATS 1968 plan, regarding road diversions. Here we are, 40 years on, still no clue. I merely highlight this example as a small part of the jigsaw which would contribute to the success of development in the surrounding area.

There have been various noises (such as here or here) from Marion council and the developers about pursuing having a new station constructed somewhere near Raglan Av as part of the development in the area (presumably replacing at least Woodlands and perhaps Edwardstown too).

OTOH, is there a compelling reason for keeping Mitcham?

[Wayno]

OTOH, is there a compelling reason for keeping Mitcham?

yes - i use it! also noted Torrens Park station is missing - intentional?

[Shuz]

You might as well have a cross connection between the Red and Blue lines at Onkaparinga, the tracks have to merge at this point anyway. The original segment of the Willunga line being built over by housing at Seaford.

Nope. I'd have the line cut into the hills of the Onkaparinga Valley, immediately due south of Huntfield Heights, tunnel, bridge, tunne, if have to be.

There have been various noises (such as here or here) from Marion council and the developers about pursuing having a new station constructed somewhere near Raglan Av as part of the development in the area (presumably replacing at least Woodlands and perhaps Edwardstown too).

OTOH, is there a compelling reason for keeping Mitcham?

Of course Mitcham has to be retained!
1. It's a designated TOD site - I would consider it more far more viable than one at Castle Plaza.
2. Particularly if the Belair line is to be converted to light rail - it would be the cross-junction of these two transport modes (new Belair line would travel down Unley Road) - serving as the last stop before the line descends into a tunnel to navigate the hills, to bypass the existing alignment.

And yes, Wayno. Closure of Torrens Park is intentional. Having to repeat myself again, this is a rapid transit network vision. To achieve the sort of speeds, and therefore travel times across the network - you have to maximize distances between stations.

[Prince George]

Of course Mitcham has to be retained!
1. It's a designated TOD site - I would consider it more far more viable than one at Castle Plaza.

It is? Do you have a reference for that? I just don't see where it could be located that wouldn't involve relocating a stack of more-expensive-than-average houses.

[Wayno]

Of course Mitcham has to be retained!
1. It's a designated TOD site - I would consider it more far more viable than one at Castle Plaza.

It is? Do you have a reference for that? I just don't see where it could be located that wouldn't involve relocating a stack of more-expensive-than-average houses.

yep, a Mitcham TOD is/was planned (not sure of current status). Here's a copy of a pikkie i compiled many months back showing the basic target area (could end up being larger - i found it difficult to interpret the govt's TOD planning documents).

The primary target land is in red. Only involves purchase of ~11 private residence properties (most of which are nothing special), and a bunch of shops (KFC, HJ, Cafe, Hair Dresser, Pizza place, Building Supplies Yard, etc) which look dog ugly. The adjacent land surrounded in blue is the Mitcham Council chambers and newly built Mitcham Square Shopping Village.

So not a big TOD, but on the list...

mitcham-tod.JPG (84.41 KiB) Viewed 3345 times

[monotonehell]

I broadly support Shuz's concept of the need to eliminate stations along the heavy rail routes. Not sure about the details though. That would require a lot of investigation and planning regarding the various merits of certain locations over others.

If we're to move forward with transit in Adelaide, these are the kinds of decisions we need to make in order to use the correct transport methods in the correct ways. Like I've said many times before; heavy rail for long distances with sparse stations along high patronage routes, light rail for inner suburban linking routes not exceeding a half hour's journey time, buses linking everything else together to complete the web. And the occasional OBahn doesn't hurt where you have a narrow corridor that feeds into a large but nearby area. -- Horses for courses.


But did no one else catch that Shuz has also moved the airport to Dry Creek? Don't know how that will fly (pun intentional).

[Aidan]

Would much appreciate your feedback.

Railways should improve connectivity. Your vision actually makes things worse!

EDIT: I figure I should explain some things, before some people go "what the?"...
As part of the "vision", it would involve a heavy restructuring of how the train network would operate, shifting away from an intermediate travel-based system, to more of a rapid-transit system. Many existing stations would face closure to facilitate this effect.

Your "vision" removes some of the busiest stations (like Hallett Cove Beach and Gawler Central) for no great benefit. It removes the wrong Marino station. It's obvious you haven't even considered who you're doing it for - e.g. there's no way the closure of North Haven station would result in more passengers.

Some have been relocated, some have been renamed. Furthermore to add to this effect, in terms of maximizing operational speed, frequency and capacity, station distances are approximately 2-3 kilometers apart - with the exception of those within the CBD area.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it would be advantageous to have evenly spaced stations.

The rail network would be entirely grade-separated, thus - all level crossings would be eliminated.

How would you manage the Emerson crossing? What about Victoria Street (Goodwood)?

Some key features.
[*] Red Line and Blue line go through in a new underground tunnel from the Goodwood Junction to Adelaide Railway Station.

Why Goodwood?

[*] New Yellow Line, utilizing old Dry Creek rail corridor, serving as a dual-purpose cross-city and Airport Line route (to accommodate for my other vision, the relocation of Adelaide Airport to Dry Creek)

The only thing worse than the economic effects of your airport relocation would be the environmental effects. And the old Dry Creek rail corridor is actually a busy freight line.

[*] New Mitcham to Belair rail tunnel to bypass the existing Belair rail corridor, in order to maximise effective travel times to and from Mount Barker (Green Line). Existing Belair route would be converted to light-rail.

Why would you want to waste time detouring via Mile End?
How long do you imagine the journeys would take compared to the freeway?
Your route seems puzzling - it looks like you want to climb steeply to Belair and then descend into the Brownhill Creek valley. Why?

Who do you imagine would use your Onkaparinga station?
Why does your red line have a station sharing a name with a former station in the Belair National Park?

Also your Regional Express lines share much of the route of your suburban lines for no good reason.
And your purple line seems to have stations close together except where there's a reason to put them close together!

[Westside]

I agree with Aidan, to a point. This vision seems to be straight out of Mike Ranns pages - all flashy but doesn't achieve much. Your purple line with only one station in the CBD (Victoria Square) would have the same detrimental effects that the Glenelg tram had prior to it's extension into the city. The same can be said for the green, red and blue lines - why have tunnels through the city if you can't get out where the majority of people are travelling to (ie Rundle/Grenfell/Pirie area)? Just think about what you are trying to achieve and the reasons why this plan would not achieve them - then come back to us.