Napthine's Grand Dandy Plans

 
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
By "Bomb" you mean remove? Removing Carnegie, Murrubeena and Hugesdale makes the system more "Metro" how? Metros tend to have closely spaced stations (and lines!) that are within walking distances of the patrons that use them.
Mr Lane

That section would be for express trains, ie. not a metro line (which would go via Chadstone), there's plenty of alternative surrounding stations.

The idea is to get something out of building more tunnels, rather than just building more trackwork straight up South Yarra and having no extra connectivity to show for it.

Which would be the equivalent of running the Metro Tunnel as instead an extra viaduct track pair.

Sponsored advertisement

  gobillino Junior Train Controller

Location: Melbourne
I'm cynical for a few reasons mainly because I simply don't believe that $2 Billion will cover all of this. My reasoning is that in 2007 there was a plan to remove level crossings along the Glen Waverly line from High St to Glenferrie Rd called 'Operation Double Fault'. This plan to remove 5 level crossings was priced at $4 Billion (according to media reports). So between 2007 & 2014 have the costs for level crossing removals really dropped that much? I travel along the Dandy line each week, I know how constrained it is land wise - these are not going to be cheap removals.
jdekorte

Sorry, i'm a bit late to reply to this, but from memory the Glen Waverly line proposal involved line sinking, effectively funded by air rights/redundant rail reserve development. I suspect that the $4B figure you've cited was the total cost of works in teh corridor - sinking rail AND air rights residential development. $2.5B for the Dandy project seems about right to me.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Operation Double Fault (which was the project for that Glen Waverley sinking between Burnley and Glen Iris) ended up being shelved for a number of reasons. It was supposed to be 'cost neutral' to the government with the developers getting the land created by sinking the line in exchange for paying to engineer the whole project.

As I recall the biggest problem was that the Glen Waverley line would have to have been completely closed for at least 18 months while the line was sunk and the government of the day (Brumby) baulked at the prospect of such a long closure. I think the private proponents also got cold feet when the final costs tallyed up to multi-billions.

As others have observed, the Dandy line has a much more pressing need - and it's for multiple trackage, not new apartments on top.

Given the space restrictions along the line (in some areas there's barely enough room for the existing two tracks) I wonder if cut and cover might be an option for four tracks? Elevated tracks could also be an option but I'm guessing the locals wouldn't be happy.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
MOST of the existing corridor can easily accommodate an extra track or two.

I am also cynical about the proposal but it at least indicates that some thought has been put into capacity improvements there. I am disappointed that any form of amplification has not been considerd at this stage, and cannot see how the completion of the project in its current form will result in a better service for V-Line customers. How could a 3 minute peak hour headway result in anything but purely local Metro services and associated timetabled V-Line pathing behind those trains?

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Boss, Edith, fogcv, jdekorte, Nightfire, rbalse

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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