Suburban Rail Loop (Election promise)

 
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
Definitely a good opportunity to do so. If there was a station somewhere just north around where McIntyre Road crosses the rail reserve, it could be a good opportunity for land redevelopment. Might also be a good opportunity to add another road bridge over the Maribyrnong and drastically change how buses and people move about.

Sponsored advertisement

  True Believers Chief Commissioner

I made a video discussing it, I'm planning to make more videos discussing other transport project announcements as we head towards the state election.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f5A1CLOggI
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
This is the dumbest thing I've seen in years - no wonder the Railpage foamers are frothing over it.

It doesn't take much thought to see such a thing is useless for the vast majority of suburban trips.

What we really need is a proper grid bus network, not a thoughtless budget breaking wet dream.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

This is the dumbest thing I've seen in years - no wonder the Railpage foamers are frothing over it.

It doesn't take much thought to see such a thing is useless for the vast majority of suburban trips.

What we really need is a proper grid bus network, not a thoughtless budget breaking wet dream.
ZH836301
Looks like most people disagree with ur stance on the Suburban rail loop.

A proper grid bus network would complement the rail loop not be a suitable replacement for a city growing to a population of 8 million.

Using the argument that no-one would use it, the reason why minority trips on public transport are just through the suburbs is cause there isn't already a high transit link connecting all those economic hubs outside the CBD. If they built that quick connection, people would use it and not need to travel through the CBD. It's called decentralising the CBD, many metro rail systems around the world use a grid network and which is why their cities are quite dense and Australian cities are so spread out with sprawl.

A grid bus network would be great for shorter trips, but for longer trips it ain't gonna cut it.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Looks like most people disagree with ur stance on the Suburban rail loop.
True Believers

'Most people' don't put any thought into things, especially on this site.

The idea is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons, a major one being the geography of the city.  Due to the restrictions of the bay and the Yarra, the shortest distance for cross-city trips naturally pass through the city's centre.  The topology of the suburbs is also far more conducive to a simple grid-based network offering travel to most destinations with a single change.

Take a simple trip from Epping to Coburg - they're suggesting one makes two changes via a suburban rail loop (Epping -> Reservoir -> Fawkner -> Coburg).  This would result in a existing rail journey time of 16min, plus maybe 6min on new line (22min total), versus 16min via train and 8min via bus (24min total) to transfer via Preston.  Not looking good already, but when we also consider that mean wait time per change is half the service frequency, at 6tph the mean journey would be slower via a new rail loop compared with the grid style approach at 32min vs 29min.

But such practicalities aside, the largest impediment is of course cost.  What possible reason do we have for a project 10x the length of the current Metro tunnel when we don't have express tracks on major trunks, or segregation/metrofication of existing lines and resolution of the clusterfrack at our core including the City Loop?  There is no demand at all for rail levels of capacity along any of the sections that make up the proposed loop.


The people who think this is a good idea just like having more lines on the map, the reality is it would do squat for increasing modal share and suck limited funds from far more important projects.


A proper grid bus network would complement the rail loop not be a suitable replacement for a city growing to a population of 8 million.

Using the argument that no-one would use it, the reason why minority trips on public transport are just through the suburbs is cause there isn't already a high transit link connecting all those economic hubs outside the CBD. If they built that quick connection, people would use it and not need to travel through the CBD. It's called decentralising the CBD, many metro rail systems around the world use a grid network and which is why their cities are quite dense and Australian cities are so spread out with sprawl.

A grid bus network would be great for shorter trips, but for longer trips it ain't gonna cut it.
True Believers
Like most, it seems you're arguing from a position of ignorance, which is frustrating given the accessibility of relevant data.

Firstly, the vast majority of people work in their own or an immediately adjacent municipality.  A sizeable proportion also work in the CBD, up to a quarter in inner city areas, dropping to ~15% at 10km and ~10% at 20km (Charting Transport).  Public transport use to the CBD is 65-75% for most locations, which means for the majority of work trips, being within or adjacent the residents municipality, the modal share is worse than suggested by census data.


For example, around 18% of those in Monash work in the CoM (11% in the CBD), with about 80% using PT.  Another 30% work within Monash, and 32% in the adjacent municipalities, leaving only 20% working elsewhere (6% in Port Phillip and Yarra).  PT modal share is 17% for the entire municipality, but the 80% share to the 11% working in the CBD leaves average use to other locations at ~10%.  As you could imagine, PT use will be higher than this to inner city locations (like CoM ex. CBD) so modal share for those working nearby (which accounts for the majority of workers) would be closer to 5%.

So how exactly is a budget melting orbital loop going to do anything for that majority of workers?  

The Labor pamphlet (not plan, pamphlet) tries to use London as a comparison, which unfortunately works since most Australians take pride in uneducated insularity, but should appear ludicrous to anyone with half a brain. In reality, there's no point making any sort of comparison, since most of London would fit within the 20km radius of the proposed Melbourne loop, not bulging outward like a muffin top beyond it in our case, with most London Underground termini like Edgware, Chingford and Winbledon falling inside such a radius.  

Only two of London's routes could be considered close to orbitals, however the Circle line is closer to a usefully sized City Loop (around twice the length/width), with the Overground forming a loop a mere 5km, more akin in distance to Hawthorn or Brunswick.  An intensive, grid-based network giving access to most locations with a single change is the only method of achieving any sort of change in modal share.  It is the intensity of London's network, not just rail but buses also, which gives it it's high modal share.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Everything you say about the current state of the network and the city is more or less true. But the point of the SRL is not to deal with present demand - it’s to drive future demand for employment and travel outside the CBD.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

Location: Banned
This is the dumbest thing I've seen in years - no wonder the Railpage foamers are frothing over it.

It doesn't take much thought to see such a thing is useless for the vast majority of suburban trips.

What we really need is a proper grid bus network, not a thoughtless budget breaking wet dream.
ZH836301
Totally agree. The Bus Network must do more of the heavy lifting and the radial journeys to and from the CBD is must be improved. It is as if these posters do not read about the overcrowding on some lines.

Spending $50 Billion on a pipe dream whilst consigning my daughters generation to pay for it is not my idea of good transit policy.

Michael
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

Location: Banned
This is the dumbest thing I've seen in years - no wonder the Railpage foamers are frothing over it.

It doesn't take much thought to see such a thing is useless for the vast majority of suburban trips.

What we really need is a proper grid bus network, not a thoughtless budget breaking wet dream.
Looks like most people disagree with ur stance on the Suburban rail loop.

A proper grid bus network would complement the rail loop not be a suitable replacement for a city growing to a population of 8 million.

Using the argument that no-one would use it, the reason why minority trips on public transport are just through the suburbs is cause there isn't already a high transit link connecting all those economic hubs outside the CBD. If they built that quick connection, people would use it and not need to travel through the CBD. It's called decentralising the CBD, many metro rail systems around the world use a grid network and which is why their cities are quite dense and Australian cities are so spread out with sprawl.

A grid bus network would be great for shorter trips, but for longer trips it ain't gonna cut it.
True Believers
In no way would enough people use it to justify $50 Billion. The sooner is stupid idea is put to bed the better.

Michael
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Totally agree. The Bus Network must do more of the heavy lifting and the radial journeys to and from the CBD is must be improved. It is as if these posters do not read about the overcrowding on some lines.

Spending $50 Billion on a pipe dream whilst consigning my daughters generation to pay for it is not my idea of good transit policy.

In no way would enough people use it to justify $50 Billion. The sooner is stupid idea is put to bed the better.
mejhammers1

I know you’re intractably opposed to this idea Michael, and I know I’m not going to be able to convince you of its merits, but I do think you’re ignoring a couple of very important concepts behind it.

Firstly, to justifying the cost. The $50 billion headline figure has turned many people away, and yet we’ve spent easily that much on the last 30 years of road-building projects - including the long-term construction of a complete Ring Road. In fact, I suggest that the Ring Road would almost certainly have cost $50 billion if adjusted to 2018 dollars; I will do some research later for my own interest. We simply don’t hear this number bandied around because the road lobby is so good at talking about “congestion-busting” and the like. And yet, it’s very difficult to imagine how traffic in the west in particular would cope without the ring road, and how different the city would be as a result.

An additional average annual expenditure of $1.5 billion is not particularly unusual for a project of this scale and more than likely manageable in the long run.

In any case, expenditure can be justified if it brings substantial benefit with it, so I turn to my second point.

By improving radial journeys, we simply reinforce existing travel patterns. I do read about overcrowding, and I catch overcrowded trains on a daily basis, taking in several lines in any given week. I know we’ve got issues.

The problem is that no transport system in the world would be able to effectively manage a city of 5 million people based on a single-CBD model. No matter how quickly and massively radial modes are upgraded, they will remain under pressure if the number of CBD journeys continues to increase. Worse, by adding capacity that is immediately taken up by existing routes, we lose the opportunity to serve new areas with heavy rail, because there’s no room for the additional services. Increasing core and radial corridor capacity is exactly the same as adding lanes to freeways - it is a self-perpetuating cycle.

The SRL stems from contemporary theories of urban planning which reject the single-CBD model and the concept of continually reinforcing existing corridors, because they are unsustainable in a mega-city. The idea is to build new infrastructure which encourages sustainable development, creation of new employment centres, and, in doing so, reducing pressure on exisiting networks. This is not fringe science; it’s the majority view, and I’ll happily supply evidence in support of that if you (or anyone else) wish.

The SRL, therefore, does not need to cater for today’s demand, but rather to drive tomorrow’s. The existing universities along the route represent, in any case, a massive and stable ongoing user base, and the basis for further development. (Don’t believe me? Melbourne Uni has the world’s busiest tram stop and Melbourne’s busiest bus route, for 50,000 students very few of whom use cars. The three universities on the SRL route have nearly 150,000 students, and nearly all drive.)

The SRL also provides the means to access new areas without demanding additional central connections. That’s a big deal on its own.

I encourage those who are writing this off as a “stupid” idea to open their minds to a totally different way of thinking.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
$50b over a project that could take 50 years seems reasonable to me. For once, this is a potential rail project that is more than reactive to how people are moving about the city now, and trying to shape how people will move, especially as Melbourne's population continues expanding.

A long term project also helps keep skill levels up so that the smaller efficiency projects like duplication and signal works become easier as there are more skilled people in the state with experience to deliver them.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

The people who think this is a good idea just like having more lines on the map, the reality is it would do squat for increasing modal share and suck limited funds from far more important projects.


A proper grid bus network would complement the rail loop not be a suitable replacement for a city growing to a population of 8 million.

Using the argument that no-one would use it, the reason why minority trips on public transport are just through the suburbs is cause there isn't already a high transit link connecting all those economic hubs outside the CBD. If they built that quick connection, people would use it and not need to travel through the CBD. It's called decentralising the CBD, many metro rail systems around the world use a grid network and which is why their cities are quite dense and Australian cities are so spread out with sprawl.

A grid bus network would be great for shorter trips, but for longer trips it ain't gonna cut it.
Like most, it seems you're arguing from a position of ignorance, which is frustrating given the accessibility of relevant data.


So how exactly is a budget melting orbital loop going to do anything for that majority of workers?  

The Labor pamphlet (not plan, pamphlet) tries to use London as a comparison, which unfortunately works since most Australians take pride in uneducated insularity, but should appear ludicrous to anyone with half a brain. In reality, there's no point making any sort of comparison, since most of London would fit within the 20km radius of the proposed Melbourne loop, not bulging outward like a muffin top beyond it in our case, with most London Underground termini like Edgware, Chingford and Winbledon falling inside such a radius.  

Only two of London's routes could be considered close to orbitals, however the Circle line is closer to a usefully sized City Loop (around twice the length/width), with the Overground forming a loop a mere 5km, more akin in distance to Hawthorn or Brunswick.  An intensive, grid-based network giving access to most locations with a single change is the only method of achieving any sort of change in modal share.  It is the intensity of London's network, not just rail but buses also, which gives it it's high modal share.
ZH836301
Ok you got me there, I forgot to put evidence to back my claims. Ok I was trying to show that the buses on longer trips on the Smartbus system is slower than using rail into the CBD and back out. On shorter trips buses would be quicker as you pointed out in your example. Here's the source: https://www.danielbowen.com/2018/03/25/smartbus-vs-train-crosstown/

Now there just isn't any real proper data available to show modal shift in transit after the rail loop is completed with exception to a demand map on the government page, which isn't a good indicator.

Now we actually do have an intensive compact grid like tram network, maybe you'll find that gets a high modal share. But I'm curious how many trips on the tram network are into the CBD and how many criss-cross outside the CBD? Are you suggesting we should build an inner light-rail loop instead?

Anyways it's approximately 5 times the cost of the Metro Tunnel and 10 times the length so why the major difference. Now that's cause there is less demolishing, relocating service, disrupting traffic, managing vibration on major high rises, etc. As well as that there's less stations which generally are quite expensive to install since involves a huge hole to be dug out. And not all of it is underground.

It's doesn't suck out of existing projects, let's put this myth to bed. Only a 1.75 billion each year that's if the state government went alone . With the incoming Labor Fed government in 2019, private funding and a strong budget, it won't dent the budget harshly to stop other projects going ahead. It would delay Metro Tunnel 2 for sure, but it won't stop the upgrades on the existing network. So anyways it's not like we haven't tackled major projects to this scale before, the city loop was ambitious at the time and yeah had been controversial at the time. It started back as far back as 1929 as just a concept and took till 1984 to be completed. https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/about-ptv/victorias-public-transport-network/history/city-loop-history/. Metro Tunnel faced the same criticisms back in 2008 when it was announced and how that was a waste of money too.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

Location: Banned
@potatoinmymouth (Don’t believe me? Melbourne Uni has the world’s busiest tram stop and Melbourne’s busiest bus route, for 50,000 students very few of whom use cars. The three universities on the SRL route have nearly 150,000 students, and nearly all drive.)

Which universities are you talking about? La Trobe has 39,000 people including admin and teachers, Monash has 77,000 but it is a multi campus University with at least 15 to 20,000 at Caulfield, so I think that you are exaggerating there.

Yes you are right about one thing. You will not convince me of this at all.



Michael
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

Location: Banned
The people who think this is a good idea just like having more lines on the map, the reality is it would do squat for increasing modal share and suck limited funds from far more important projects.


A proper grid bus network would complement the rail loop not be a suitable replacement for a city growing to a population of 8 million.

Using the argument that no-one would use it, the reason why minority trips on public transport are just through the suburbs is cause there isn't already a high transit link connecting all those economic hubs outside the CBD. If they built that quick connection, people would use it and not need to travel through the CBD. It's called decentralising the CBD, many metro rail systems around the world use a grid network and which is why their cities are quite dense and Australian cities are so spread out with sprawl.

A grid bus network would be great for shorter trips, but for longer trips it ain't gonna cut it.
Like most, it seems you're arguing from a position of ignorance, which is frustrating given the accessibility of relevant data.


So how exactly is a budget melting orbital loop going to do anything for that majority of workers?  

The Labor pamphlet (not plan, pamphlet) tries to use London as a comparison, which unfortunately works since most Australians take pride in uneducated insularity, but should appear ludicrous to anyone with half a brain. In reality, there's no point making any sort of comparison, since most of London would fit within the 20km radius of the proposed Melbourne loop, not bulging outward like a muffin top beyond it in our case, with most London Underground termini like Edgware, Chingford and Winbledon falling inside such a radius.  

Only two of London's routes could be considered close to orbitals, however the Circle line is closer to a usefully sized City Loop (around twice the length/width), with the Overground forming a loop a mere 5km, more akin in distance to Hawthorn or Brunswick.  An intensive, grid-based network giving access to most locations with a single change is the only method of achieving any sort of change in modal share.  It is the intensity of London's network, not just rail but buses also, which gives it it's high modal share.
Ok you got me there, I forgot to put evidence to back my claims. Ok I was trying to show that the buses on longer trips on the Smartbus system is slower than using rail into the CBD and back out. On shorter trips buses would be quicker as you pointed out in your example. Here's the source: https://www.danielbowen.com/2018/03/25/smartbus-vs-train-crosstown/

Now there just isn't any real proper data available to show modal shift in transit after the rail loop is completed with exception to a demand map on the government page, which isn't a good indicator.

Now we actually do have an intensive compact grid like tram network, maybe you'll find that gets a high modal share. But I'm curious how many trips on the tram network are into the CBD and how many criss-cross outside the CBD? Are you suggesting we should build an inner light-rail loop instead?

Anyways it's approximately 5 times the cost of the Metro Tunnel and 10 times the length so why the major difference. Now that's cause there is less demolishing, relocating service, disrupting traffic, managing vibration on major high rises, etc. As well as that there's less stations which generally are quite expensive to install since involves a huge hole to be dug out. And not all of it is underground.

It's doesn't suck out of existing projects, let's put this myth to bed. Only a 1.75 billion each year that's if the state government went alone . With the incoming Labor Fed government in 2019, private funding and a strong budget, it won't dent the budget harshly to stop other projects going ahead. It would delay Metro Tunnel 2 for sure, but it won't stop the upgrades on the existing network. So anyways it's not like we haven't tackled major projects to this scale before, the city loop was ambitious at the time and yeah had been controversial at the time. It started back as far back as 1929 as just a concept and took till 1984 to be completed. https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/about-ptv/victorias-public-transport-network/history/city-loop-history/. Metro Tunnel faced the same criticisms back in 2008 when it was announced and how that was a waste of money too.
True Believers
Melbourne Metro is a great project, providing extra capacity to and from the CBD, where it is needed. The SRL is not needed pure and simple.

Michael
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

Deakin University Burwood Campus:
28,000 students plus staff.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
t's doesn't suck out of existing projects, let's put this myth to bed.
True Believer

Always great to see someone so fluent in doublethink that they don't even realise it.

Maybe I should do a Riccardo-esque list of higher priorities than a foamy loop that could be achieved for the same amount.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

The only commitment thus far is, assuming Labor wins this election, to spend $300 million on the business case development, detailed design and community consultation. If it stacks up, construction won’t commence until after the next election in 2022. Money well spent.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Still waiting for any real attempt at explaining just how this loop would achieve any real impact on modal share.

It's clear those in support have no clue as to the transport task, and are clutching at straws to justify their fantasy.

For starters, what relevance are long suburban journeys when most people work relatively close to where they live?
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

Why are you and another poster who I will not mention clearly opposed to this revolutionary concept that will change the way Melbourians commute. First of all, orbital connectivity is non existent in Melbourne, you have to travel to the city to connect with another line. All of the best rail systems in the world: London, Tokyo, Athens, Stockholm, Moscow, they all have orbital connectivity and connect commuters to different areas in quick time.

Michaels, busses are under-utilised but to say that they would cater for what the SRL will do is ridiculous. Priority and more services would not cover the demand that the SRL does. To say that nobody would use it is ridiculous. Here are some examples of trips that would occur with a SRL.

Train from Ringwood to Box Hill- SRL To Monash
Train from Coburg to Fawkner - SRL To Bundoora
Train from Mordialloc to Cheltenham - SRL To Airport
Train from Eltham to Heidelberg - SRL To Werribee

Busses would not do the same for orbital travel, period. And fantasy now, come on: the Project is rough and that’s why a business case is being done, to fill the gaps in the project, nothing is concrete. Roads cannot keep getting built tell me now that we need the East West Link and intersection Removals now, come on.
  ngarner Deputy Commissioner

Location: Seville
It's an understatement to say that there are major differences of opinion over this and it is fairly clear that no-one is changing anyone else's opinion, which is as it should be. This is a democracy after all, for all of the faults that they have and everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if you, personally, disagree with it; a concept that is thrown around really freely nowadays labelled "tolerance".

Andrews & his (caretaker) government have a variety of documents outlining the thought process behind this proposal. Anyone who wants to go to the source of what information is available to the public, see https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/suburban-rail-loop

If the Coalition win then it is going to be dumped really quickly (without any huge payouts) and instead we will get the resurrected EastWest Link (with its BCR of 0.45) at an estimated $10 billion for stage one which is probably all that is going to be needed now that the $6.7 (up from $5.5 already) billion Westgate Tunnel is happening. There would have to be additional costs incurred to link the two projects for a total somewhere above $16.7 billion; all incurred within something like a decade, which works out to be a similar amount per year to the SRL.
If you don't want SRL, vote for Guy (and get the EastWest Link instead).

If Andrews gets back in then he'll start work on it, whether we as individuals want it or not, because he'll use the good old political catchphrase "I have a mandate".

To my knowledge neither party has committed anything to improving bus services (ready to be corrected on that one if I've missed something). I agree that improving bus routes and frequency would be a boon. The 683 which runs to Warburton is hourly during the day and not much better in the peak. For that reason if I'm going into the CBD I drive to Lilydale and train it from there, which brings up the question of people working near their residence and not making long commutes.
The crowding on public transport and the congestion on all roads leading to the CBD would suggest that a substantial number do live a decent distance from their place of employment. I'd be interested to see some documented support for that statement because I don't recall seeing any in this thread. I have been working since I left school in 1979 and only in the last 6 years have I lived relatively close to my place of employment and that still takes a 20 minute drive, due to absolutely zero public transport options, and that's because I 'm going against peak traffic on back roads on the eastern side of Mt Dandenong. Earlier I trained in from Rosanna to the CBD and later Bayswater to the CBD, then Box Hill. Other jobs I had to drive again due to poor public transport (and tools to carry) and many jobs were over an hour with the shortest being 30-40 minutes so none close to home.

Neil
  Crossover Train Controller

Location: St. Albans Victoria
You and michael are clearly opposed to this revolutionary concept that will change the way Melbourians commute. First of all, orbital connectivity is non existent in Melbourne, you have to travel to the city to connect with another line. All of the best rail systems in the world: London, Tokyo, Athens, Stockholm, Moscow, they all have orbital connectivity and connect commuters to different areas in quick time.

Michaels, busses are under-utilised but to say that they would cater for what the SRL will do is ridiculous. Priority and more services would not cover the demand that the SRL does. To say that nobody would use it is ridiculous. Here are some examples of trips that would occur with a SRL.

Train from Ringwood to Box Hill- SRL To Monash
Train from Coburg to Fawkner - SRL To Bundoora
Train from Mordialloc to Cheltenham - SRL To Airport
Train from Eltham to Heidelberg - SRL To Werribee

Busses would not do the same for orbital travel, period. And fantasy now, come on: the Project is rough and that’s why a business case is being done, to fill the gaps in the project, nothing is concrete. Roads cannot keep getting built tell me now that we need the East West Link and intersection Removals now, come on.
ptvcommuter
And I would like to add using words like "Stupid "in this discussion is disrespectful and counterproductive .
It does nothing to add to the discussion
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

And I would like to add using words like "Stupid "in this discussion is disrespectful and counterproductive . It does nothing to add to the discussion
Crossover

Add “foam” to that. There’s been a lot of evidence and rational argument for both sides in this thread and it would be a pity for it to devolve to name-calling.
  chomper Junior Train Controller

To those so against the SRL, why is it that engineers in the employ of the MMBW and Vicroads in the 80's and 90's saw the need for an orbital (or part thereof) rail line? Why is it that they saw feeding every single train line into the CBD was not sustainable long term and would cause problems across the entire network that would become insurmountable?
  justarider Chief Commissioner

Location: Released again, maybe for the last time??
Still waiting for any real attempt at explaining just how this loop would achieve any real impact on modal share.

It's clear those in support have no clue as to the transport task, and are clutching at straws to justify their fantasy.

For starters, what relevance are long suburban journeys when most people work relatively close to where they live?
ZH836301
calling other posters with opinions and suggestion different than you own "no clue" "stupid" etc.. might make you feel superior. However, rudeness is not a scoring point in debate.

"most people work relatively close to where they live"

and the "evidence" that you based your proposition on is a document that measures the movement of people to the CBD - extrapolating an assumption (yours) that
If not going to CBD then MUST be going local.
If going local there is a pattern that precludes SRL
NO measures of inter zones movement, just wild guess.
I call BS.

SRL document does actually include superficial traffic studies that are the complete opposite of your thesis.
The SRL business case will need better evidence to prove their point, but I'd trust a more thorough study any day.
As for "nobody will use it - YM" , the SRL study says 400,000. That's a start point for scientific study to verify or otherwise.

cheers
John
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

A couple of independent expert commentaries already emerging on the SRL.

Buxton, Paul. "Suburban Rail Loop benefits Activity Centres and NEICs". Planning News, Vol. 44, No. 9, Oct 2018: 20-21.

The SRL proposal has the potential to fundamentally reshape metropolitan Melbourne and deal with many of the challenges being faced by the city. It supports activity centres policy outlined in Plan Melbourne 2017-2050, previously in Melbourne 2030 and even going back to the 1954 Plan. The lack of real investment in public transport infrastructure to, and between, activity centres has been a key factor in hindering their success... If we are serious about achieving a poly-centric city with successful activity centres and NEICs, city shaping infrastructure on the scale of the SRL is absolutely essential...  It’s possible; it just needs vision, planning, implementation and funding focused on public benefit.

And an SGS Economics report found here:
If the Suburban Rail Loop were in operation today, the station catchments [2km radius] would have roughly:
• 270,600 jobs
• 416,100 residents
• 212,300 workers, and
• 112,600 higher education students (based on place of
enrolment)

...

Using this patronage for the Epping and Chatswood Rail Link as a very rough guide, if the South East Section of the Suburban Rail Loop was in operation today it could carry approximately 30,000-50,000 passengers each day.

...

Melbourne generates almost $100 billion of tax revenue every year so funding a project of this scale over a long period of time is not an issue.


So, two independent analyses from different disciplines strongly in favour of the proposal. The latter is particularly interesting as it shows sections of the line to be viable regardless of whether they stimulate further growth.

Further evidence for my position is provided above at: https://Railpage.com.au/f-p2118314.htm#2118314

I now challenge those commenters accusing SRL supporters of being irrational and without evidence to provide some evidence of their own.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Why are you and another poster who I will not mention clearly opposed to this revolutionary concept that will change the way Melbourians commute. First of all, orbital connectivity is non existent in Melbourne, you have to travel to the city to connect with another line. All of the best rail systems in the world: London, Tokyo, Athens, Stockholm, Moscow, they all have orbital connectivity and connect commuters to different areas in quick time.
ptvcommuter

Buzzwords and smeg.

Have you ever been to London, let alone looked at a map of it?  There is nothing similar to the SRL in London.


calling other posters with opinions and suggestion different than you own "no clue" "stupid" etc.. might make you feel superior. However, rudeness is not a scoring point in debate.
justarider

How else would you describe posts without any basis in logic, evidence or rationality?


the SRL study says 400,000.
justarider

And I can say the moon is made out of cheese.  

Journey to Work census data clearly indicates most live relatively close to their place of employment, with long cross-suburban trips an irregularity.  This information is not hard to obtain, and I have deliberately chosen not to post it in this thread to give all these buzzword spilling frothy types enough rope to hang themselves with.  Which they have clearly done with great joy, spouting nonsense about such trips being the norm and generally demonstrating their support of this lunacy to be baseless.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: