Box Hill station, transport interchange nightmare

 
  EvanC Chief Plonker

Location: Bayswater, Victoria
That's the conundrum - do you provide a high level of convenience, and hope that utilisation will increase because of it, or do you take the economically safe option and do next-to-nothing?
"EvanC"


A.

And I'd replace your "economically safe" with "economically conservative".
"drwaddles"
As someone wiser than I once said to me, "You don't hold the purse strings."

Sponsored advertisement

  xtrap_heaven Chief Train Controller

Location: Melbourne's Train Network
Dandenong bus interchange is set out well, it is about 1 minute to get from the Grenda/Morrabbin/Invicta/SmartBus stops to platform 1/2. 30 seconds to platform 3. And about 2 minutes from the Cranbourne Transit stops. But most buses arriving into the interchange are Not Taking Passengers which conviniently nearly always pulls up next to the stairs.

Ringwood would work out better if the platforms and tracks were sunken down so they would be underground. Directly above would be the bus terminal. Directly above that, Taxi and drop off zone. Lifts would be installed going to all three levels, and escalators from bus interchange to train platforms. All tickets would be valited at the bus interchange level, when entering and exiting. This would also be installed at the foot of escalators going up and lifts.
  Somebody in the WWW Banned

Location: Banned
Ringwood would work out better if the platforms and tracks were sunken down so they would be underground. Directly above would be the bus terminal. Directly above that, Taxi and drop off zone.
"xtrap_heaven"

Why would you need a special elevated taxi rank? Why would it not be next to the buses as it is now? Because you think it would look cool or something? Question
  843M Junior Train Controller

There is nothing wrong with Ringwood but something needs to be done about Box Hill
  Turbo Thomas Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Thanks for all the responses, find some quite interesting, some I agree with, some I don't.
To the best of my knowledge of Box Hill Central, I don't think it would be all that hard to build elevators and esculators that could take you directly from the bus terminal to the down end of the platforms. But what would the management of the shopping centre think of such an idea ? I think that they would be quite happy with the current set up where the esculator from the bus station lands you right in the middle of the food court ??
The other thing that I think sounds amusing is that apparently when they were building Box Hill Central, the local council started blowing their trumpet about the fact that the Station St crossing was going to be eliminated and that the traffic on flow on Station St would improve (I remember someone posting a picture of a street sign).
Could someone tell me if this turned out to be a fact, or did the series of traffic lights put in in it's place make things worse on Station St.
  RoderickSmith Banned

Location: Banned
Three recent posts are being covered with this response.

I was a regular car driver over the double-gated Station St level crossing.  Yes, at the time everyone was deluded.  The council assumed that traffic flow would improve, and it didn't.  Unlike Chadstone etc, which were shopping-centre developments on greenfields sites, Box Hill was touted as a transport interchange, with some commercial development paying the bill.  That was never true.  It was never designed as a transport interchange.  It was a blatant shopping centre, with the developer placing a bus deck on the roof as a grudging penalty condition.  Narrow and slow escalators are a Melbourne phenomenon: look at the rebuilt Flinders St, and even the new Melbourne Southern Cross.  Retrofitting decent escalators would now be the only feasible fix at Box Hill until the roof collapses into the vegetable market.  As I have posted to other forums, the platform arrangement was designed wrongly, but it is too hard to retrofix without demolishing the whole complex.

Whoever posted that there is 'nothing wrong with Ringwood' was misguided.  There are two levels of separation between the bus zone and the platforms as well as a choke-point entry; Connex replacement buses can't & don't use the bus zone.  There is no point having a taxi rank on a third level.  A properly-designed second level can hold buses, taxis and kiss & ride.  My suggestions were for a feasible and affordable short-term solution.  Pedestrian crossings work at Lara (with 160 km/h trains), and so can't be riskier at Ringwood.

Roderick B Smith
Rail News Victoria Editor
  xtrap_heaven Chief Train Controller

Location: Melbourne's Train Network
Ringwood would work out better if the platforms and tracks were sunken down so they would be underground. Directly above would be the bus terminal. Directly above that, Taxi and drop off zone.
"xtrap_heaven"

Why would you need a special elevated taxi rank? Why would it not be next to the buses as it is now? Because you think it would look cool or something? Question
"Somebody in the WWW"


Gee your nice  Rolling EyesRolling Eyes
  tjejojyj Station Master

Location: Sydney
They don't say what they are going to do but they are going to do something.  [see link and extract below]

I thought they should figure out a way to get the buses down underneath in the platform 1 area but on reflection seems to be operationally impractical, aside from lacking space.  However if the ramp up to the bus interchange went down, instead of up, it would come out right on the down end of the platform; if you look on Google Earth you can see this clearly Google Earth of Box Hill Surely they will never use platform one again.

Tim


PS One thing I find strange is the after hours access to the station is via the old V/Line goods dock on the roof near the bus interchange.  

PPS Sorry to bump another old thread but the context clearly shows this is the best place for it.


-------------------------------------


Following taken from: Box Hill bus interchange

Box Hill bus interchange
The Box Hill bus interchange is a major public transport hub.

The interchange opened in 1987 as part of the Box Hill Central shopping centre, which sits above the train station and near the terminus for the 109 tram.

Box Hill has experienced substantial commercial and residential growth in recent years and with this growth expected to continue, the Victorian Government has committed to explore the options available to improve the Box Hill bus interchange.

Ministerial Advisory Group

The Victorian Government established a Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG)  to provide recommendations to the Minister for Public Transport on options for the interchange. The MAG includes local community representatives and is chaired by the Member for Eastern Metropolitan Region and Parliamentary Secretary for Public Transport, Shaun Leane.

What's happening

The MAG has established working groups and a program for developing options for the future of the bus interchange.

The working groups are reviewing previous work by the City of Whitehorse and transport agencies and will report to the MAG on current issues and outcomes of previous work.

The MAG will also undertake a workshop to consolidate the broad range of stakeholder needs and visions for the interchange.

The MAG will provide its recommendations to the Minister for Public Transport by the end of 2016.

Publications

June 2015 – Box Hill Interchange Terms of Reference (DOC 51.5 KB)

Contact

For more information about the Box Hill bus interchange, email: transportprojects@ecodev.vic.gov.au
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
@tjejojyj Are you aware this thread is 8 years old?
  Carnot Minister for Railways

And here I am thinking it was a new thread regarding the chaos that is Box Hill station at peak hour due to current bus replacement between Box Hill and Ringwood.

Incidentally, queues for express buses are extending from Whitehorse Rd back to station entrance in the afternoon peak...
  drunkill Junior Train Controller

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Demolish Box Hill Central and start again, nothing of value will be lost in the process as the place is a dump.

Many apartment towers have been approved surrounding the shopping centre so help fund a rebuild by placing 4-6 towers ontop of it, flogging off the air rights. You get to kill a flock of birds with one stone, redesigning the layout of the place, the station rebuild and bus interchange closer together and a more direct path from the 109 to the station as well.
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
Box Hill station could still work in its current form underneath the shopping centre, just buy up and flatten the entire block of shops opposite the shopping centre and put the bus interchange there; they are much more of an eyesore than Box Hill Central. The platforms simply need bringing into the 21st century with some better lighting, new PIDs, removal of pigeons and the smeg they are constantly producing all over the place, and some new lifts at the down end, especially in the case of platform 4. The only way I see platform 1 reopening there is if three tracks end up going as far as Ringwood (with a few express trains as well). Good luck doing that now that Mitcham has been set in stone as two tracks with seemingly no room for expansion, despite leaving room at Laburnum and Nunawading.
  trainbrain Chief Commissioner

provision has been made at Mitcham for a third track
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
provision has been made at Mitcham for a third track
trainbrain
How? All I can see is miles of shotcrete-lined trench that has space only for duplicated track. That's not even passive provisioning!
  billjohnston Station Master

Passive provision would have at least made Nunawading side platforms and mitcham an island platform. This is because the third track needs to be on the up side at Nunawading and down side at Mitcham so up trains used by most joining passengers can share an island platform. How can they stuff it up so well.
Bill Johnston
  trainbrain Chief Commissioner

Once again, the provision has been made. Mitcham. on the Maroondah Hwy side, where the new car park is, the bike path between Mitcham and Nunawading will cease to exist if a third track is required. The south side of Nunawading where the embankment has been left will be a new up track and platform. One only has to look at the width of the railway reservation to Blackburn. Say no more
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Once again, the provision has been made. Mitcham. on the Maroondah Hwy side, where the new car park is, the bike path between Mitcham and Nunawading will cease to exist if a third track is required. The south side of Nunawading where the embankment has been left will be a new up track and platform. One only has to look at the width of the railway reservation to Blackburn. Say no more
trainbrain
Rubbish. If they had made provisions they would have dug the trench wide enough.
  trainbrain Chief Commissioner

Once again, the provision has been made. Mitcham. on the Maroondah Hwy side, where the new car park is, the bike path between Mitcham and Nunawading will cease to exist if a third track is required. The south side of Nunawading where the embankment has been left will be a new up track and platform. One only has to look at the width of the railway reservation to Blackburn. Say no more
Rubbish. If they had made provisions they would have dug the trench wide enough.
railblogger
Disagree all you like, this came from an engineer that worked on the project
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
While the reservation is wide enough, it would be far better if the trench was dug wide enough in the first place. 'Passive' provision is hardly provision at all.
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
The odds of Mitcham receiving even a third track (note that the thread dates back to 2008, back when Mitcham had ample room and already had a third track in the form of a siding heading towards Rooks Rd) without a platform these days would be about the same as Burnley to Camberwell having four tracks. That would make a good mess of the stations - Hawthorn only has room on the down side for a narrow platform but the other three stations would require a platform on a new up line. I have no idea how they would shoehorn in both a track and platform at Glenferrie or Auburn.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
The odds of Mitcham receiving even a third track (note that the thread dates back to 2008, back when Mitcham had ample room and already had a third track in the form of a siding heading towards Rooks Rd) without a platform these days would be about the same as Burnley to Camberwell having four tracks. That would make a good mess of the stations - Hawthorn only has room on the down side for a narrow platform but the other three stations would require a platform on a new up line. I have no idea how they would shoehorn in both a track and platform at Glenferrie or Auburn.
Heihachi_73
Re: quadding Burnley-Camberwell - Hawthorn's the only tricky station that would require a rebuild. Glenferrie and Auburn can get an extra platform on the Up side (i.e southern side) by replacing the tree-lined embankments with cantilevered decks that form the side platforms. It's not pretty, but it's simple.
(Not that Auburn really needs another platform considering its current service level... but I digress)

For Camberwell, replace the stabling yards on the up side with a side platform. Better still, eliminate the existing carpark as well and put in some sort of mixed-use value-capture buzzword bingo development on the spot to help pay down the whole project. That land at Camberwell is way too valuable to be used as train stabling and open-air car parking.
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
... For Camberwell,... eliminate the existing carpark as well and put in some sort of mixed-use value-capture buzzword bingo development on the spot to help pay down the whole project. That land at Camberwell is way too valuable to be used as train stabling and open-air car parking.

Wasn't there a proposal to do exactly that about 10~ish years ago? From memory the bog standard station building wouldn't have been touched, but a bunch of wealthy NIMBYs ran around in small circles with their arms above their heads, screaming that the sky was falling and the heritage values [of the car park and train stabling area] would be destroyed.

They must have got to someone with influence, because the cowardly, lame-@rse government took fright and backed away, grovelling to the NIMBYs and profusely apologising for even thinking of doing such a thing. Rolling Eyes
  mrmoopt Chief Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Okay with trying not to demolish current structures in mind in mind, and totally if budget and construction methods are not taken into account, then this is what I would do with the Box Hill interchange.

Leave existing train platforms as it is. Convert up track to tram terminating platform. Used disused platform on south side as the new up track. Fill in gap between current disused platform and new tram track - creates cross platform interchange.

Extend the new combined tram/train platform west, to cater for longer trains.

Extend bus deck westwards over the new combined train/tram platform. A centre bus platform will be used with the existing interchange used to provide entry/exit access to this new bus platform- with new portals leading to streets somewhere in the west. This long new bus deck will allow for buses travelling in opposing directions to continue on their journeys without making loops through the side streets.

This bus deck will have direct access from the train platform using lifts and escalators (as platforms for rail now extended). New customer entry points from bus deck to street level.

(Think Perth style interchanges).

Problems:
Gradient for tram to acesss current train platform/tunelling issues
Skybus deck issues- general noise, visual pollution, construction noise
streets not seen buses may see increase in traffic
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
Wasn't there a proposal to do exactly that about 10~ish years ago? From memory the bog standard station building wouldn't have been touched, but a bunch of wealthy NIMBYs ran around in small circles with their arms above their heads, screaming that the sky was falling and the heritage values [of the car park and train stabling area] would be destroyed
Bogong
I'm pretty sure you're talking about the 'The Place' redevelopment proposal, which was to be a pair of buildings - one smaller one abutting Burke Rd next to the road-over bridge and a second big one where the carpark and stabling yards would be. Judge for yourself whether it was appropriate or not, I'm not too sure that it was.
Supposedly the railway station buildings would've been untouched, but there'd be a honking great deck over the top of the platforms.
I still think there's a good opportunity for an architecturally-sensitive development on the south side of the station though.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Okay with trying not to demolish current structures in mind in mind, and totally if budget and construction methods are not taken into account, then this is what I would do with the Box Hill interchange.

Leave existing train platforms as it is. Convert up track to tram terminating platform. Used disused platform on south side as the new up track. Fill in gap between current disused platform and new tram track - creates cross platform interchange.

Extend the new combined tram/train platform west, to cater for longer trains.

Extend bus deck westwards over the new combined train/tram platform. A centre bus platform will be used with the existing interchange used to provide entry/exit access to this new bus platform- with new portals leading to streets somewhere in the west. This long new bus deck will allow for buses travelling in opposing directions to continue on their journeys without making loops through the side streets.

This bus deck will have direct access from the train platform using lifts and escalators (as platforms for rail now extended). New customer entry points from bus deck to street level.

(Think Perth style interchanges).

Problems:
Gradient for tram to acesss current train platform/tunelling issues
Skybus deck issues- general noise, visual pollution, construction noise
streets not seen buses may see increase in traffic
calt
If I were going to convert a platform for tram use, I would do the down platform and leave the island platform as-is. This way you avoid a train-tram crossover.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.