http://youtu.be/mYwu7WoxQlM
And this brochure
http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/99907/Tonsley_Park_brochure.pdf
That's a nice pretty picture, but did nobody think putting the bus interchange near the train station might be a good idea?The problem is the lack of space at Tonsley station. To put in an interchange then size shown in the brochure they would need to acquire a number of homes and remove them.
The problem is the lack of space at Tonsley station. To put in an interchange then size shown in the brochure they would need to acquire a number of homes and remove them.I know the area, and I can verify that this picture shows the buses as being not only across the road, but a fair way along to the east as well. Done this way, the 15 minute train frequency will be a useless white elephant.
One way to greatly improve the situation is to build a covered walkway and bridge across Sturt Rd.
Matt
I know the area, and I can verify that this picture shows the buses as being not only across the road, but a fair way along to the east as well. Done this way, the 15 minute train frequency will be a useless white elephant.
A perfect example of how local knowledge can be the answer to the planning mistakes of government departments. I use buses through the convoluted approaches to Flinders Hospital and University frequently. Having to turn right into South Road to get to or from Flinders Drive is a time and fuel wasting pain when a simple extension across South Road to Laffers Drive would obviate it in one stroke. No rail extension to Flinders, with bridges and steep grades to overcome, would be necessary. There are already traffic lights at the intersection so nothing would be lost while the intersection is at grade, and a future road bridge feeding into Flinders Drive part way up the hill would be very much cheaper than a road/rail one. There are already shuttle buses serving the University. With a direct interchange to the Sturt Station proposed in this scheme, there would be no need ever to extend the railway further. This solution is neat and far cheaper than any other and that is a major advantage, as would for instance the retention and platform lengthening of the present convenient Oaklands station under the roads, using the ample open space available. This would be greatly preferable to passengers who would not have to climb stairs or wait for lifts while they miss the train as they would with the departmental 'solution'. (Any replies to this to the Oaklands Station thread please.)
In my opinion this would be a perfect spot to break the current policy to not build any new level crossings, and to put the new Sturt Interchange station inside the Sturt/South road triangle...
Hear! Hear! Congratulations Justapassenger.
I know the area, and I can verify that this picture shows the buses as being not only across the road, but a fair way along to the east as well. Done this way, the 15 minute train frequency will be a useless white elephant.
In my opinion this would be a perfect spot to break the current policy to not build any new level crossings, and to put the new Sturt Interchange station inside the Sturt/South road triangle...
But are you familiar with the Salisbury level crossing accident (2002) where the ghan demolished a bus and car trapped at a level crossing and killed 4 people ?
Obviously not if you're considering any form of intersection that close to a level crossing. There is just no way the government would approve this plan, the risk of vehicles getting trapped or delayed at the crossing is all too real.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2002/rair/rair2002002.aspx
Given the limited space, it would make more sense to put the entire station on a bridge over sturt road, that way some of the bus interchange could be located underneath and the remainder would be closer to the station.
If the rail platform is not immediately adjacent the bus drop off point forget it, save the money.
Having it across the road and down the footpath gives the wrong message.
Regards
Ian
But are you familiar with the Salisbury level crossing accident (2002) where the ghan demolished a bus and car trapped at a level crossing and killed 4 people ?I am aware of that collision, but I don't think it's fair to call it an accident (it was caused by drivers recklessly choosing not to obey the road rules - see the first conclusion of the investigation) or to use the active tense when referring to the train and its driver (the action causing the collision was that of the bus driver).
Refitting level crossings with armoured gates or rising bollards should be considered before banning level crossings.The Salisbury collision occurred because vehicles including the Bus had queued across the crossing and could not exit because of the Salisbury Highway intersection traffic lights. Armoured gates or rising bollards would have done nothing (useful) in that incident as the vehicles were stuck on the crossing before it activated. Changes have been made at this and many other crossings near intersections (eg South Road on the OH line) to alleviate such queuing.
....
A a 200-300m walk for an interchange is not that bad. You would walk longer at Sydney Central or Melbourne Spenser Street doing an interchange or even changing trains. but a covered walk way would be nice.
- 1min down the track the boom gates which are also traffic lights are triggered, (Boom gates and flashing bells and lights on their own are a waste of time, traffic lights stop traffic!).Agreed. This is why lots of Adelaide level crossings (especially on the Glenelg tram route) have been retro-fitted with traffic lights in recent years.
Also driver has access to incab CCTV of LX from same location via wireless connection (Mel has same I believe on stations to aid DOO).
On a 15min timetable, the road will be closed for about 1min every 7.5min, no worse than traffic lights.
A a 200-300m walk for an interchange is not that bad. You would walk longer at Sydney Central or Melbourne Spenser Street doing an interchange or even changing trains. but a covered walk way would be nice.
Subscribers: BBattarbee, BillD, kipioneer, phower, Pressman, RTT_Rules, SAR526, sar602, Tonsley213, witsend
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.