Suburban Rail Loop (Election promise)

 
  justarider Chief Train Controller

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.
"How many ministers are needed for PT?"

Aparently a lot. Just this week we found out the Feds have an "assistant minister for roads" FFS.

Cheers
John

Sponsored advertisement

  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Assuming Mike meant state ministers, I’ll guess:

1. Minister for Transport Infrastructure Jacinta Allan

2. Minister for Public Transport Melissa Horne

3. Treasurer Tim Pallas (Treasury must be involved on High Value High Risk projects)

4. Minister for Planning Richard Wynne (involved by Transport Integration Act)
  penguin2233 Locomotive Driver

Location: Craigieburn, Melbourne VIC
Don't forget the Premier as he/her gets voters voting for election promises that might get passed on to the ministers
  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville
@ngarner, while I think I’ve made my opinion of @ptvcommuter’s thought bubbles pretty clear, I think we can safely expect to see some tweaks to the SRL once it emerges from the Department/MTIA. They will be keen to make it work as well as possible for existing traffic flows, compared to Development Vic who would have been largely focused on, well, driving development.

The other thing is that there is a massive 12 months ahead for transport planning, including a number of projects that will have a direct impact on the final SRL concept. We are expecting business cases, and thus detailed plans, for Airport Rail, Wyndham Vale and Melton sparking/quadding, new Sunshine-City access, and the Somerton link; and final plans for the Cranbourne-Clyde and Pakenham third platform works. All of these will have a huge impact on service patterns and detailed considerations for the SRL, and will give the DOT a much clearer idea of whether the SRL will in fact be a single system or a number of independent lines.
potatoinmymouth
Oh, I have no doubt that there will be tweaks, especially in the west, but those 'thought bubbles; as you quite aptly phrase them, are not likely to gain much traction due to their cost,, as pointed out by @justarider, and/or impracticality.

Neil
  chomper Junior Train Controller

"How many ministers are needed for PT?"

Aparently a lot. Just this week we found out the Feds have an "assistant minister for roads" FFS.

Cheers
John
justarider
How many ministers does it take to change a lightbulb?

Depends on how much of a media presence there is.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Politicians have a track record of breaking promises, but Andrews has kept most of his PT ones.

I thought the $300 million was for planning and EIS?

How many ministers are needed for PT?
chomper

Minister for Priority Precincts
Treasurer
Minister for Transport Infrastructure
Minister for Public Transport
Minister for Suburban Development
Minister for Roads
Assistant Treasurer
Minister for Planning
Minister for Fishing and Boating

Well maybe not the last one... Smile

Mike.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Love how my requests for any sort of justification of figures are ignored by those who've swallowed the Koolaid.
  chomper Junior Train Controller

Love how my requests for any sort of justification of figures are ignored by those who've swallowed the Koolaid.
ZH836301

Okay, so what would you propose as a means of rapid cross city PT instead of the SRL?
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Love how my requests for any sort of justification of figures are ignored by those who've swallowed the Koolaid.
ZH836301

I think the reverse is the case.

As it's government policy to proceed with the project and the supporters are already on-board, it behoves yourself to come up with the argument as to why it should NOT proceed.

Mike.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Okay, so what would you propose as a means of rapid cross city PT instead of the SRL?
chomper
A bus.

Demand for 'rapid cross city PT' is not high, as anybody who has bothered to check census data would quickly realise.


As it's government policy to proceed with the project and the supporters are already on-board, it behoves yourself to come up with the argument as to why it should NOT proceed.
Vinelander

That's not how reality works - the one proposing a project should provide the business case.

You're instead claiming guilt without facts then expecting one to prove their innocence.
  penguin2233 Locomotive Driver

Location: Craigieburn, Melbourne VIC
Okay, so what would you propose as a means of rapid cross city PT instead of the SRL?
A bus.

Demand for 'rapid cross city PT' is not high, as anybody who has bothered to check census data would quickly realise.
ZH836301
I don't think "A bus" will improve the PT system in Melbourne. Either improve SmartBus and clog up the roads as demand increases, or build a underground system independent of all the chaos on the roads.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Don't you think the demand isn't high enough because there is lack of capacity along the corridor?

Or do you think there is lack of jobs/schools/hospitals/services in one particular area in the route of the SRL to be served by the rapid transit option?

Or is it because there is a lack of residential developments (when compared with the city), that could use this rail loop?

And the cost from the project can't justify it's current demand (excluding any potential demand), so it's not worth building now.

Don't you think this project would be viable in the future?

Or you think that buses can sustain the demand forever?
  chomper Junior Train Controller

Okay, so what would you propose as a means of rapid cross city PT instead of the SRL?
A bus.

Demand for 'rapid cross city PT' is not high, as anybody who has bothered to check census data would quickly realise.


As it's government policy to proceed with the project and the supporters are already on-board, it behoves yourself to come up with the argument as to why it should NOT proceed.

That's not how reality works - the one proposing a project should provide the business case.

You're instead claiming guilt without facts then expecting one to prove their innocence.
ZH836301

Have you actually been on a bus and seen the traffic that they have to contend with in Melbourne???
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
I don't think "A bus" will improve the PT system in Melbourne. Either improve SmartBus and clog up the roads as demand increases, or build a underground system independent of all the chaos on the roads.
penguin
There is little demand for 'rapid cross city PT', and a single route will be irrelevant for the majority of travellers.


Don't you think the demand isn't high enough because there is lack of capacity along the corridor?

Or do you think there is lack of jobs/schools/hospitals/services in one particular area in the route of the SRL to be served by the rapid transit option?

Or is it because there is a lack of residential developments (when compared with the city), that could use this rail loop?

And the cost from the project can't justify it's current demand (excluding any potential demand), so it's not worth building now.

Don't you think this project would be viable in the future?

Or you think that buses can sustain the demand forever?
True Believers
Demand is not high because most people work locally, which is clear from Journey-to-Work statistics.

Rail works for those working in the city because you have so many journeys to a focused area, and also because using roads for such journeys is untenable due to noncompetitive journey times and expenses.  Much of the traffic heading towards the city ends up in the inner suburbs,  since such places are much harder to reach using public transport.

One can't expect the SRL to have much relevance for those few travellers making longer cross-suburban journeys from low density suburbia to widely dispersed places of employment.  Even for the limited few who happen to both live and work along its path, the chance of being close to a station at both ends is limited.

Supplementing a grid-based bus network with higher frequencies, dedicated lanes, and signal priority to benefit the majority working close to home, and those travelling to or from a railway station, would also help the few making longer cross-suburban journeys.


Have you actually been on a bus and seen the traffic that they have to contend with in Melbourne??
chomper

How's a budget-busting train most can't use going to change that?
  chomper Junior Train Controller


How's a budget-busting train most can't use going to change that?
ZH836301

Answer my question, have you actually been on a bus in Melbourne during the peaks?
  penguin2233 Locomotive Driver

Location: Craigieburn, Melbourne VIC
Demand is not high because most people work locally, which is clear from Journey-to-Work statistics..
ZH836301
You sure? The bus I take to school is filled with people who take the train to work. Living in the city is really expensive, and so living in the outer suburbs is a more viable solution. It's also the other way around as well, some teachers at my school take the train towards the outer suburbs and it's not only work, it's also school students
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Pretty certain the journey to work stats don't account for people's routes taken
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Okay, so what would you propose as a means of rapid cross city PT instead of the SRL?
A bus.

Demand for 'rapid cross city PT' is not high, as anybody who has bothered to check census data would quickly realise.


As it's government policy to proceed with the project and the supporters are already on-board, it behoves yourself to come up with the argument as to why it should NOT proceed.

That's not how reality works - the one proposing a project should provide the business case.

You're instead claiming guilt without facts then expecting one to prove their innocence.
ZH836301


Like everyone else, you'll have to be patient and wait for the business case.

M.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

Okay, so what would you propose as a means of rapid cross city PT instead of the SRL?
A bus.

Demand for 'rapid cross city PT' is not high, as anybody who has bothered to check census data would quickly realise.
I don't think "A bus" will improve the PT system in Melbourne. Either improve SmartBus and clog up the roads as demand increases, or build a underground system independent of all the chaos on the roads.
penguin2233
I like the way that everyone is so dimissive of the Bus. No wonder when cheap buses are built and 70% of the routes offer only a bus every 30 mins Monday to Friday and Hourly on weekends.

A good Bus Network integrated with a good train and trams network is what is needed. An SRL is not pressing and I fail to see how a rail loop through low to medium density suburbs is going to solve Melbourne's PT system, and $50 Billion there is no justification of providing it.

Michael
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner


How's a budget-busting train most can't use going to change that?
Answer my question, have you actually been on a bus in Melbourne during the peaks?
chomper
@Chomper, that statement only makes sense if you are talking about Bus Journeys along the SRL corridor. If you simply talking about Bus routes in general then that is irrelevant. Yeah the 630 gets packed, 703 gets packed, the Doncaster Bus Network routes gets packed, the 401 and the 601 gets packed. Using those as examples for an argument to spend $50 Billion on an SRL, totally irrelevant.

Michael
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

I made this copy of the SRL with the Sydney metro one



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=335JT0PDh4A&t=1s
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

50 Billion to spend
Biggest project in Australian and Victorian History
Let’s get it right and make it a fast, reliable services that connects to retail, education, employment and suburbs that are not served by rail yet. Let’s get it right. The cost will be very large but it’s the chance to transform our rail network and city. It will still have rapid travel times that will rival and beat cars. Who cares about tunneling deviations and cost for it, this needs to be the project that connects all the big suburbs and is done properly

Sandringham (Connceting to the Sandringham Line)
Beaumaris (Large population and area with poor access to heavy rail)
Cheltenham (Southland area has plenty of development and connection with Frankston Line)
Clayton
Monash (Connection with University, suburb and Rowville Project)
Wheelers Hill (Line is deviating to Glen Waverley and it has a very large population)
Glen Waverley
Burwood (Serving Deakin and Connection to eastern suburbs via route 75)
Box Hill
Doncaster
Bulleen (Very large area and catchment)
Heidelberg
Reservoir (Large area, Potential here and good connecting point to Mernda Line)
Coburg (Huge area with retail and residential better than anything else on Upfield)
Broadmeadows
Melbourne Airport
Keilor East
Sunshine
Tarneit
Wyndham Vale
East Werribee (potential development area)
Werribee
Point Cook (Huge population)
  Lockie91 Train Controller

@ptvcommuter

Cleary you have ignored everything that has been said in this forum.

“Large populations and poor rail access” do not make good arguments for deviating the SRL at astronomical costs.

Places like sandy and reservoir already have excellent access to rail and are not at all worth the additional expense.

Bulleen is not high density and never will be, waste of money. Is on close proximity to Doncaster and the Burnley Group. Buses do an excellent job cover the “last mile”

Your list has doubled the cost of the project for very little Benefit. SRL is not a magic solution for areas of Melbourne that don’t have rail and are of your opinion in needing one.

As has been said before SRL will more likely that not be a high capacity, high speed metro service. High frequency, stations at major employment and educational clusters only. Moving people to major destinations around Melbourne while complimenting that “hub and spoke” system we have.

It will not be some fanciful suburban line trundling through half of Melbourne covering all the black spots in one go.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

@ptvcommuter Who cares about the cost. The taxpayer that's who. $50 Billion won't cover what you are proposing.

Increased capacity to the Centre of Melbourne is what's needed.

Michael
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

"Who cares about tunneling deviations and cost for it"
Ok so you don't care if it costs 75-100 billion instead to make it your particular route. And at what benefit will it have by making these pointless extensions?

Honestly the SRL is already nearly perfect in the South East and North. Only change there would be the Location of Faulkner, maybe up to Gowrie at least. Western side can include a few stations, like Kelior East and a few RRL stations. (these areas don't have good PT currently)

Anyways unlike your wish-list the locations of the actual SRL project, have been justified for the most part in the strategic document.

If anything, Sandringham connection was probably discussed about and taken out due to the complexity of it and how Sandringham line isn't much a loss, it's basically like the Williamstown/Altona line. I don't see anyone complaining (ooo it doesn't connect the Williamstown/Altona line, it should connect to Newport not Werribee). The SRL isn't meant to connect with 100% of the rail network, it's intention is the allow bypass to the city and connect the major centres, universities, etc.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: