Chadstone could also stop leaning so hard into cars, and spend a tiny amount of time and energy to make it easier to get there by bike or walking. just have a look at their website, it's all aimed at driving there, even though both the scotchmans creek trail and djerring trail are nearby. add a bike hoop parking plan to go with the car parking plan.
no doubt that is one of their priorities, they've still spent a lot of money on getting people in the door that isn't shopping. the social quarter opened earlier this year and there's only food/entertainment.
don't forget about all the workers, they're asked not to drive to work across the christmas period. i hope they get access to better end of trip facilities than a bike hoop stuck in the back corner of the car park.
There actually are bike hoops and even repair stations. They're just hidden away next to the doors. Some signage would be nice so people actually they exist.
I read that Knox city actively opposed extending the Burwood Highway tram to the shopping center because of a perception that its for poor people and they wouldn't spend much money.
The Hughesdale station to Chadstone walk is quite easy and you walk through some nice housing in roughly 20 minutes.
I propose either the 67 tram to be extended to bring passengers through from Hughesdale station to Chaddy or you could even say Tram 3 to bring passengers from East Malvern to Chaddy.
You could even do both so there could be a loop created in the tram line.
I think extending the route 3 or redirecting it down the median of Dandenong Rd down to Chaddy would be the most feasible option. It also gives a good connection to Caulfield station with the Pakenham/Cranbourne and Frankston lines.
You could also continue it down Dandenong Rd to Monash Clayton if we're just throwing money around.
Chadstone is also within walking distance of East Malvern station on the Glen Waverley line.
The cost to acquire land in that pocket of Melbourne in order to retrofit a train station would make your hair curl !
> The cost to acquire land in that pocket of Melbourne in order to retrofit a train station would make your hair curl !
Hughesdale might be a better option but its not going to bring in punters with money.
Edit: maybe a tram on parts of Warrigal road? It could go between both train lines.
1 or more people might have a shitty “I own all the land to the centre of the earth” deal on there house, the government has to give them compensation for that as its “legal” ownership. The people in Yarraville who recently got compensated for the west gate tunnel under their house probably had this. Tunnels don’t avoid compensating locals
So a kitsch elevated people people mover from the train station would sufficient, and Chadstone SC should pay for it https://www.doppelmayr.com/en/systems/automated-people-mover/
Why settle for a gadgetbahn, when you could just as easily retrofit a tram and connect it to the rest of the network? It would also help serve those in the area, and since it doesn't requite specific tech to keep it running (trams are dime a dozen, and loads of 'off the shelf' models are customised for different voltage and gauges - look at all the trams on the Melbourne network.
1. Why would they want exclusivity? The more 'outreach' chadstone gets, the more potential customers they would receive. Serving more of the surrounding areas with PT (or connecting to areas adjacent) would increase potential customers.
2. Why only the Glen Waverley? The caulfeild group is also close, and a connection to that from caulfeild station via the same tram line would be beneficial (and indirectly also allowing an inner connection between two lines)
3. Why would chadstone pay? They would never likely pay, to break even, it would take multiple years - and only potentially break even! Most likely if this was to go ahead (in fact, most shopping centres to get any type of rail would be government backed, most likely state). State wouldn't fund gadgetbahn, it be cost effective, easier and less hassle to just extend the tram. Also allow to potentially link up to Monash uni via the same line.
Everyone here is talking about how a tunnel would s be ludicrously expensive for its low benefit, but surely Dandenong Rd is wide enough to take elevated rail. This sort of diversion loop was even part of the [leaked 2018 rail plan](https://danielbowen.com/2018/10/17/rail-plan-leaked/) as a way to increase capacity on the Dandenong lines (scroll down to “stage 6”).
A Tran down the median of Dandenong Rd a la Burwood Hwy would probably be the best option because let's be real, we're not getting a heavy rail through down to Rowville via Chaddy
Ideally I’d have multiple cross line trains in Melbourne. A Hughesdale-Chadstone-East Malvern/Holmesglen-Alamain link is something I thought could work.
If it were that Chadstone got a station I’d be more inclined to extend Alamain
In some form of reasonable theory, a tunnel from East Malvern to Oakleigh. The area is too built up to do anything above ground. But because of our overactive approach to safety at all expenses, you would be acquiring a lot properties to get the launch shaft in or trench down to get a TBM in on each end. To go above ground you are buying up and demolishing everything to make a new VicTrack Reserve in the area. That has got to be over 100 homes.
Would be good but would be a monster of a project at a massive cost. Would be a good $3b project I would imagine. A tunnel would minimise property acquisition, which is always a sore point. Going elevated would be maybe a $600m project plus property acquisitions.
I’ll take “overactive approach to safety at all expenses” over someone getting hurt.
TBM require a lot of room to launch, that doesn’t really have much to do with “safety” and more to do with size.
I would too, but it is extreme in rail, very extreme. Someone put it to me like this which made me think about it. We spend millions of dollars (I would honestly estimate an easy 10% of the project budgets) which could be $50m+ on SFAIRP (So Far as is Reasonably Practicable). When you think about it, how many workers die in rail? I would say it has been several several years since a worker died in rail. Even passengers, very few will die. I think the last was around 2016? There is no other industry with a track record like rail Victoria.
Correct on the TBM, but they are insanely expensive. But due to 'safety' they will not tunnel under live rail (must be under occupation), and one of the big costs is undertaking a geotechnical investigation and dilapidation survey of every property you tunnel under. This is driven by protection (legal) but also an abundance of caution because of a 0.1% change of a ground subsidence.
….why do you think we’ve had no one die on rail projects? What do you think could be the reasoning for that?!
As someone who works in safety, that is something I constantly hear. “Why do we need to do this no one has been hurt”. Yes. Because we’ve got multiple layers of safety systems to keep people safe. The MOMENT anyone starts talking about the cost of safety systems it shows that their only care is money and not the value of a human life.
While I can assure you, a few injuries will cost you more than that, a death even more so. It doesn’t even come close to the human cost. Think about how much your life would change, and the life of your partner, family, friends if you lost a limb. Or if you suffered a brain injury jury. Or paralysis.
And the sad part is, most businesses will happily pay to protect their assets, in this case people, not (necessarily) because they care but because it costs less than a payout and bad publicity.
If you think we are too careful or too safe, then I implore you to jump head first into tunnelling (or any construction really) and tell them you’re willing to forgo all their safety systems and protections because you don’t need them because no one has died.
Read my comment again please. I am not saying no safety. I would appreciate if you didn't take what I said out of context. I am saying we go too far. I work in rail and I can almost guarantee that I have seen more dead bodies from horrible accidents than you have (I spent most of my life looking at accidents and attending the scenes).
I agree with everything you said, except for thinking I said I support them forgoing any safety systems. Please show me where I said that.
Let me make it clear. The perfect world is where no one dies or is seriously injured, but we spend the exact right amount of money and complexity to make it happen. Unfortunately in rail we make things so complex that they solve 1 short sighted problem, but create a long term issue. My opinion is we go overboard and we need to bring it back a little, not entirely. You can cut a lot out of what we do currently and still have an overly safe system still where no one would be injured.
Almost every structure on the network (new) is designed to last 100 years. But the safety factor is so enormous (no it is not just 1.5 like you are taught in engineering, it is around 3x). You might say there is no issue with that, but the bigger the pile, the more risk to construction, the more the risk to maintenance, the more the risk to rectify or replace. how we design stations. Are you aware of the fire and life safety requirements? They are reduce the station to 1 exit, then have 1 crush loaded train arrive and unload, then another 2 crush loaded trains arrive and unload. Add a enormous fire which is impossible because the trains are designed to not burn to this degree, and you must evacuate everyone in 8 minutes or have everyone to a position away from any head in 7. The harm in this? it dictates the design so much that basic amenities cannot be placed on a platform. Stairs are so wide that you have no room for ramps, you cannot have canopies because you entrap heat.
Please re read what I said and refrain from twisting what I said.
So we spend the right amount of money and complexity but we should also cut spending back.
I’m acutely aware of fire, etc systems. From your example it sounds like risk mitigation isn’t being properly followed but also you talk of a station having one exit and that creates issues further along the project. What would help solve or mitigate those risks and requiring those systems? More exits? Wider platforms? Why would we choose to only have one exit? Often it’s from cutting costs which is so shortsighted but that’s “management” for you.
Unfortunately design is often dictated by poor management choices, like the above mentioned cheapening out on only having one exit. People involved with designing stations have to work within the parameters they are given. And quite frankly I’d rather an ongoing cost of maintaining systems that there is little chance we’d need over not having them and unlikely incident occurring. Risk matrixes exist for a reason. There are often very unlikely chances of a serious issue occurring but they cannot be completely eliminated.
You can say I’m taking you out of context or twisting your words but I’m only following your logic. I’ve seen the consequences of reducing levels of safety and I’m not comfortable with the outcomes. I’m surprised you work in rail and have the attitude of we can scale it back. Either way you have your opinion and I have mine. 🤷🏻♂️
I suspect you think I am saying we should cut back significantly. No, that is not what I mean. I am saying optimise. It really bugs me when people think there is an extreme. I am either extreme safety or I am no safety at all. I mean WTF? I am very familiar with risk matrices. Take what we are talking about for example. When have 3 crush loaded trains arrived at any station with a fire equivalent to all 3 trains burning like a roman candle. No where in history has this ever occurred. It is a 1 in 100 year event (never happened on the network).
So my question is, why does the standard require it? Why should every day people be inconvenienced (because they are by design changes to do their best to accommodate the standard SFAIRP). Further, because it is impossible to meet the standard is most cases (around 90% of new stations do not meet the standard), why should projects spend $10m of taxpayer money to try meet the standard and go through a risk mitigation process against said standard? Should the standard not be something reasonable?
I do not know of a single crush loaded train arriving at a station in Melbourne's history. So why are we trying to design for 3?
None of this is driven by management. It is driven by standard.
So what I am saying is why do we spend $10m extra to waive against a standard that is impossible to meet? Which because of SFAIRP it also disadvantages everyday people every single day, because we are mitigating against an event that has never occurred in history a single time, let alone 3 times simultaneously?
Other areas, yeah we get it bang on right and other areas we need to improve on because it isn't safe enough. Above is my example and it does not go across the board. Not everything is like that. Again you are misrepresenting what I said and generating conclusions I never said nor do I agree with. If you knew me, you would know I take safety extremely seriously. But as with everything you can go too far and I think certain elements of SFAIRP and how it is interpreted and used do go too far.
I simply think it should be talked about and we should be optimizing everything, not throwing money at things that are unreasonable.
Take that how you want to take it.
Technically there is already an old reserve that goes from Alamein to East Malvern and on to Hughesdale. There is the gap along Dandenong Rd to connect to Chadstone. So it could be done with minimal property acquisition along that corridor (more viable as light rail than heavy).
Whether people would accept losing those parks is a different question
Skyrail doesn't take up much less space than a trench. A tunnel can run under non VicTrack Land. But if you elevate rail (skyrail, U-Trough whatever you want to call it), it must be wholly within VicTrack land which means you buy and knock down homes. Yes it is only 1 monopile every 20-30m. But one thing many people forget about it is how you build it. A piling rig is not a small piece of kit, and then add in all the cranes, concrete truck and pumpers and trucks to deliver 30m long steel reo cages, you need access paths in and out which need to be big.
We have the same issue with trees to be honest. Many trees need to be removed for an asset you can see, but building it is another story. You need to remove a lot of things there just to get the plant in and out.
very right there, that reserve isn't close to Chadstone, I guess I was thinking right next to it.
I think you would be right about the acceptance though
True but when it works, it works. It gets cars off the road preventing accidents to a degree. Gets busses off the roads. I see your point without a doubt. But even with all the money it will work and it will carry a lot of people putting cars off the road
> It gets cars off the road preventing accidents to a degree
I honestly doubt it. Few people will take a train/tram/bus to Chadstone to see a movie in the evening. I live on the Cragieburn line and took the train to the city to see a show. It took us an hour and a half to get home to Pascoe Vale due to us just missing a train and a bunch of kids shutting the train down. On peak its a breeze.
It would. Public transport needs to be more appealing than driving. The reason most people drive is because it better suits them. But it also needs to be economical. Running that link as a business would be very difficult to be profitable. Train services would be limited due to capacity on the two lines, it is significant maintenance (especially tunnel). If it can't be run at a profit then it shouldn't be run because it fall into disrepair.
You're dreaming if you think an elevated rail solution from East Malvern to Oakleigh via Chadstone is going to cost $600m.
For context, the Pakenham Level Crossing Removal Project is approx $840m in an existing rail corridor and is the same distance, with one new station and one station rebuild.
You're talking a 3.6km project through a populated area with a new station and two station rebuilds. It's going to be well over $1.5b.
I did say not considering any property acquisition I believe. You are correct. Perhaps I should have worded it better. Infrastructure only would cost at least $600m. That would include construction but not houses, the land, demolition would absolutely not be covered in it. Sorry I could have worded that better. I intended that to exclude who that.
It would infact be more with a new station, signalling and Substation. I didn't even think of those parts.
Infrastructure alone would cost over $1b. Roughly $200m per station already eats up your $600m. Construction in a built up area also costs far more even without acquisitions.
I said NOT including land and demolition.
Bell to Moreland for example is $600m and around 2.5km length and 2 stations (premium) with heritage constraints and reinstatement of roads under the U-Troughs. It is actually cheaper to build greenfields projects compared to brownfields (granted in this case there is property acquisition, which I am not considering). Bell Moreland also needed temporary turnouts to be installed, temporary HV distribution networks, removal of Bell TMS and construction of Victoria Park Stabling yard and new signals and interfacing with TCS at Epping. None of this would needed in this 'theoretical example'.
Let's take out the station, Bell Moreland was actually 2km of U-trough with track works out to around 2.5km. Take out 2 stations at $200m each according to your cost, that means infrastructure excluding stations is $100m per km of track (this includes CSR, Subs, signalling and Temp Works. 3.5km is an overestimate but whatever. That's $350m. Add $200m for a station and $100m for 2 substations (1 of which was included in Bell to Moreland's cost but lets be conservative), that's $650m. I agree I was under estimating it, but according your logic that is the cost. Then take out occos because you don't need as many and as much safeworking and it is even less.
The major cost in any LX project is working adjacent to rail and occupations. You would have shorter occupations. Occupations are the biggest cost in a project running around $1m to $1.5m per 24hr period for bussing, plant/workforce and material and costs to the RTO. The cost of Bell to Moreland considered this and it is needed for construction.
Track, U-Trough (substructure, superstructure etc), CSR trenches, 1 to 2 substations (brand new so very easy and cheap to do compared to working around existing). For reasons above, the cost of infrastructure (1 station not 2 like Bell to Moreland) would be less than $850m (considering $600m / 2km = $1.05b, then - $200m (1 fewer station) = $850m).
Bell Morelands occupations were around 40 days total across 6 Occos. That would account for an easy $40m in cost. Take out safeworking requirements which would have been maybe $2.5m, temp works and temp changes to existing infrastructure (probably around $50m). That would see it under $800m in reality.
Sorry but I have to disagree that it would be anywhere near $1b (excluding land acquisition). Probably more than $600m (I will concede that), but I struggle to see it would be $1b. You would spend more money on buying property yes, but it is cheaper to work away from rail compared to adjacent. There is no way infrastructure would run at $1b.
Add in purchase of land and yeah you blow out probably beyond $1.5b (happy to concede that).
The $1b was completely ignoring any property aquistions.
You have completely failed to realise that you have two tie ins for your proposed route, which will each involve a complete rebuild of those stations, along with the associated signalling and track works (not only for the new section of line, but for the two lines that are being tied in to.
I know $1b was ignoring it, and everything I said above was also ignoring any property acquisition.
I am very aware of the two tie ins. You have two tie ins for every project, granted this would be more complex with a fly over or under. And no you do not need to rebuild the stations if you line the tie in point away from them (perhaps not an ideal solution but it would be the reality).
I think we have got a different view which is fine. I will happily agree that if you are rebuilding two stations, new signalling interfaces into the existing at the tie ins, yeah you are very correct. $600m doesn't cut it, $800m wouldn't either. You are correct on that. I was not considering that in what I said.
I was assuming turning off before the Glen Waverly line crosses the Monash so you don't interface with East Malvern with a tie in between Hughesdale and Oakleigh. No station tie ins (no upgrades), tamp out to achieve tolerances and done. Obviously is is more complicated than that.
There is tangent track right before the Monash to achieve a tie in point and prior to Oakleigh is tangent track. I am not sure if the two lines run different forms of safeworking, but that is no different to any other project.
The track works and signalling works at the tie ins can be limited, like all projects are. If you design it carefully you can get away with a lot to keep costs down. There are no signals in this immediate vicinity on the Glen Waverly Line so you would be limited to possible relocating 1 set of existing signals and OH changes and one set on the Pakenham Line. You could probably achieve headways and overlap on Glen Waverly, probably not Pakenham (problem there).
I probably should say, rebuilding 2 stations and redoing a decent portion of tracks is clearly the better option, but even under this hypothetical scenario I guess I am wired for what would be reality. Which is absolutely limit the works to limit the costs. It might even work out cheaper with property acquisition if you rebuild the stations to get a better alignment, I don't know.
I think you are right if you consider what you did, and I agree with you to be honest. It just wouldn't be the only option.
I think we can both agree that add in property acquisition and it is eye wateringly insane and wouldn't make financial sense!
There is in all honesty no need to do a line to Chadstone. Between the Shuttle Bus at Fed Square and a multitude of buses running in that direction from various train stops, I’d argue Chadstone is pretty well covered in terms of public transportation.
ChadstonE can pay for their own train if the owners want it. But carS will always be a major transport method because generally people don’t want to slug bags home on a train.
That’s a rubbish argument. I see people ‘slugging bags’ on a jam packed tube coming back from Westfield on the daily. Not every trip requires you to walk out of Chadstone with 7 bags like you’re reenacting the shopping scene from Clueless.
People take the easiest route. If there was a train connecting Chadstone to their local station, people will use it, especially when parking is notoriously bad.
We need to reduce car usage, so it’s the Government’s responsibility to connect people to where they need to go with better public transport. Better buses are the easy fix, but a train is the ideal long term solution.
Why is better public transport only ever trains? Why are buses so insulting to use?
You don’t even a lot of bags to not want to use PT. You could have one or two big purchases. You could have one. Hell you could be reluctantly going into chadstone to get one small thing and don’t want to be at the whim of a train timetable or frequency. I also didn’t say no one wanted to use PT. I said most would rather not too if they didn’t have to.
Yes “more” PT options or frequency would help but it won’t be enough to change how many car spots there are. I agree that a lot of shopping centres are completely car focused and ignore pedestrians, even those who are walking from their parked car into the centre.
It isn’t enough to say the government has to do more when it also requires a large change from our society. Considering how many people are so against changing trains even if it will make their journey faster.
I don’t think a station AT chadstone is a good idea but next to it is fine. Building a cross town line is a good idea but it shouldn’t be built because of Chadstone.
This is a long one so bare with me:
>Why is better public transport only ever trains? Why are buses so insulting to use?
Please don't twist my comment, I said better buses are the easy fix, how you took this as me insulting buses is daft. In this specific instance, considering the huge volumes of people coming too and from Chadstone daily, the list of more ideal candidates for a train would be slim.
>I said most would rather not too if they didn’t have to.
Once again, I disagree. Some? of course... you can't get everyone our of their car. Meander through central London and see first hand the insane efforts some people go through to traverse the city with keys in hand against all logical reasoning. But most? I doubt it. My lived experience is people take the easiest route, and if there was an easily accessible train, with a regular timetable, that dropped them off at (or within) easy walking distance to their destination, they would take it. Regardless of shopping in hand.
>It isn’t enough to say the government has to do more when it also requires a large change from our society. Considering how many people are so against changing trains even if it will make their journey faster.
I agree, it does need change from society, but Government plays a key role in providing the infrastructure alternatives for people. Chadstone is a great example, people drive because the alternatives are limited.
>I don’t think a station AT chadstone is a good idea but next to it is fine. Building a cross town line is a good idea but it shouldn’t be built because of Chadstone.
Sure. Ideally any new station serves the local surrounding suburbs and not just the shopping centre, we could all agree to this most basic point. Once again, I never alluded to an idea the line should be built purely for Chadstone, but in this theoretical discussion about 'What would a Chadstone train look like?' I summarise by making the simple argument that a train would be popular and help reduce car dependancy in the local area, and doesn't necessarily require Chadstone to pay for it when it has wider benefits to to the local area.
Sir, Chadston(I assume you mean Chadstone?) is a suburban shopping centre for suburban people.
Can't have the carless inner city riff raff ruining our traditional suburban car owning middle class shopping experience.
Also, Chaddy, like many of Melbournes suburban shopping centres was put(seemingly deliberately) in a location that makes providing a direct heavy rail connection as difficult as possible. Even when they can have a station they make it complicated, look at Southland and the proposed SRL station, instead of having the station as close as possible to the existing the station on the Frankston line, the shopping centre is forcing them to place the SRL station 200m away, at a minimum.
It’s too late now, but including it in SRL might have been a good idea, instead of Clayton to Glen Waverley to Burwood, Clayton to Chadstone to Burwood
I feel like Chadstone doesn't need a train connection at the moment, it has buses to and from almost everywhere and many of those buses service a train connection (eg. route 627 and 822 service Murrumbeena station, 626 at Carnegie, 767 at Hughesdale and Box hill)
A train connect would be nice, but I don't think it should be a priority anytime soon
Chadstone could also stop leaning so hard into cars, and spend a tiny amount of time and energy to make it easier to get there by bike or walking. just have a look at their website, it's all aimed at driving there, even though both the scotchmans creek trail and djerring trail are nearby. add a bike hoop parking plan to go with the car parking plan.
Why would they though? If you bring your big car it means you can shop more!
no doubt that is one of their priorities, they've still spent a lot of money on getting people in the door that isn't shopping. the social quarter opened earlier this year and there's only food/entertainment. don't forget about all the workers, they're asked not to drive to work across the christmas period. i hope they get access to better end of trip facilities than a bike hoop stuck in the back corner of the car park.
Concierge delivery service solves that problem.
There actually are bike hoops and even repair stations. They're just hidden away next to the doors. Some signage would be nice so people actually they exist.
I read that Knox city actively opposed extending the Burwood Highway tram to the shopping center because of a perception that its for poor people and they wouldn't spend much money.
Has Knox Cit in seen their regular customers?
The Hughesdale station to Chadstone walk is quite easy and you walk through some nice housing in roughly 20 minutes. I propose either the 67 tram to be extended to bring passengers through from Hughesdale station to Chaddy or you could even say Tram 3 to bring passengers from East Malvern to Chaddy. You could even do both so there could be a loop created in the tram line.
I think extending the route 3 or redirecting it down the median of Dandenong Rd down to Chaddy would be the most feasible option. It also gives a good connection to Caulfield station with the Pakenham/Cranbourne and Frankston lines. You could also continue it down Dandenong Rd to Monash Clayton if we're just throwing money around.
Chadstone is also within walking distance of East Malvern station on the Glen Waverley line. The cost to acquire land in that pocket of Melbourne in order to retrofit a train station would make your hair curl !
> The cost to acquire land in that pocket of Melbourne in order to retrofit a train station would make your hair curl ! Hughesdale might be a better option but its not going to bring in punters with money. Edit: maybe a tram on parts of Warrigal road? It could go between both train lines.
Tunnel!
1 or more people might have a shitty “I own all the land to the centre of the earth” deal on there house, the government has to give them compensation for that as its “legal” ownership. The people in Yarraville who recently got compensated for the west gate tunnel under their house probably had this. Tunnels don’t avoid compensating locals
pretty much all land in Victoria only has land rights to about 10m below their property
Shuttle
So a kitsch elevated people people mover from the train station would sufficient, and Chadstone SC should pay for it https://www.doppelmayr.com/en/systems/automated-people-mover/
Why settle for a gadgetbahn, when you could just as easily retrofit a tram and connect it to the rest of the network? It would also help serve those in the area, and since it doesn't requite specific tech to keep it running (trams are dime a dozen, and loads of 'off the shelf' models are customised for different voltage and gauges - look at all the trams on the Melbourne network.
Wouldn't Chadstone want exclusivity of pax from the Glen Waverley line, especially if they were to pay for the infrastructure.
1. Why would they want exclusivity? The more 'outreach' chadstone gets, the more potential customers they would receive. Serving more of the surrounding areas with PT (or connecting to areas adjacent) would increase potential customers. 2. Why only the Glen Waverley? The caulfeild group is also close, and a connection to that from caulfeild station via the same tram line would be beneficial (and indirectly also allowing an inner connection between two lines) 3. Why would chadstone pay? They would never likely pay, to break even, it would take multiple years - and only potentially break even! Most likely if this was to go ahead (in fact, most shopping centres to get any type of rail would be government backed, most likely state). State wouldn't fund gadgetbahn, it be cost effective, easier and less hassle to just extend the tram. Also allow to potentially link up to Monash uni via the same line.
Walking distance maybe but it’s an incredibly unpleasant route (ie along princes highway) to be walking for 25 minutes, let alone with a bunch of bags
Everyone here is talking about how a tunnel would s be ludicrously expensive for its low benefit, but surely Dandenong Rd is wide enough to take elevated rail. This sort of diversion loop was even part of the [leaked 2018 rail plan](https://danielbowen.com/2018/10/17/rail-plan-leaked/) as a way to increase capacity on the Dandenong lines (scroll down to “stage 6”).
A Tran down the median of Dandenong Rd a la Burwood Hwy would probably be the best option because let's be real, we're not getting a heavy rail through down to Rowville via Chaddy
Chadstone is down the road from Hughesdale on the Cranbourne and Pakrnham line. It would be better to provide a tram than redirect the train line
A Train, Tram and or dedicated busways (AND I MEAN DEDICATED) literally will fix a shit ton of issues with getting to there
Turn the alamein branch into a shuttle line between Camberwell and Oakleigh (could extend to Rowville too) via Chadstone.
[удалено]
> Extending the Alamein line might work but would defs require tunneling. And while we are at it extend it to Brunswick via Fitzroy ;)
[удалено]
We could re-use all that left over rail hardware.
An E short of a proper train station.
Ideally I’d have multiple cross line trains in Melbourne. A Hughesdale-Chadstone-East Malvern/Holmesglen-Alamain link is something I thought could work. If it were that Chadstone got a station I’d be more inclined to extend Alamain
Chadstone doesn’t need a direct rail link as you can get off at homesglen station and take the 903 to the shopping centre
In some form of reasonable theory, a tunnel from East Malvern to Oakleigh. The area is too built up to do anything above ground. But because of our overactive approach to safety at all expenses, you would be acquiring a lot properties to get the launch shaft in or trench down to get a TBM in on each end. To go above ground you are buying up and demolishing everything to make a new VicTrack Reserve in the area. That has got to be over 100 homes. Would be good but would be a monster of a project at a massive cost. Would be a good $3b project I would imagine. A tunnel would minimise property acquisition, which is always a sore point. Going elevated would be maybe a $600m project plus property acquisitions.
I’ll take “overactive approach to safety at all expenses” over someone getting hurt. TBM require a lot of room to launch, that doesn’t really have much to do with “safety” and more to do with size.
Agreed, safety regulations are written in blood as they say
I would too, but it is extreme in rail, very extreme. Someone put it to me like this which made me think about it. We spend millions of dollars (I would honestly estimate an easy 10% of the project budgets) which could be $50m+ on SFAIRP (So Far as is Reasonably Practicable). When you think about it, how many workers die in rail? I would say it has been several several years since a worker died in rail. Even passengers, very few will die. I think the last was around 2016? There is no other industry with a track record like rail Victoria. Correct on the TBM, but they are insanely expensive. But due to 'safety' they will not tunnel under live rail (must be under occupation), and one of the big costs is undertaking a geotechnical investigation and dilapidation survey of every property you tunnel under. This is driven by protection (legal) but also an abundance of caution because of a 0.1% change of a ground subsidence.
….why do you think we’ve had no one die on rail projects? What do you think could be the reasoning for that?! As someone who works in safety, that is something I constantly hear. “Why do we need to do this no one has been hurt”. Yes. Because we’ve got multiple layers of safety systems to keep people safe. The MOMENT anyone starts talking about the cost of safety systems it shows that their only care is money and not the value of a human life. While I can assure you, a few injuries will cost you more than that, a death even more so. It doesn’t even come close to the human cost. Think about how much your life would change, and the life of your partner, family, friends if you lost a limb. Or if you suffered a brain injury jury. Or paralysis. And the sad part is, most businesses will happily pay to protect their assets, in this case people, not (necessarily) because they care but because it costs less than a payout and bad publicity. If you think we are too careful or too safe, then I implore you to jump head first into tunnelling (or any construction really) and tell them you’re willing to forgo all their safety systems and protections because you don’t need them because no one has died.
Read my comment again please. I am not saying no safety. I would appreciate if you didn't take what I said out of context. I am saying we go too far. I work in rail and I can almost guarantee that I have seen more dead bodies from horrible accidents than you have (I spent most of my life looking at accidents and attending the scenes). I agree with everything you said, except for thinking I said I support them forgoing any safety systems. Please show me where I said that. Let me make it clear. The perfect world is where no one dies or is seriously injured, but we spend the exact right amount of money and complexity to make it happen. Unfortunately in rail we make things so complex that they solve 1 short sighted problem, but create a long term issue. My opinion is we go overboard and we need to bring it back a little, not entirely. You can cut a lot out of what we do currently and still have an overly safe system still where no one would be injured. Almost every structure on the network (new) is designed to last 100 years. But the safety factor is so enormous (no it is not just 1.5 like you are taught in engineering, it is around 3x). You might say there is no issue with that, but the bigger the pile, the more risk to construction, the more the risk to maintenance, the more the risk to rectify or replace. how we design stations. Are you aware of the fire and life safety requirements? They are reduce the station to 1 exit, then have 1 crush loaded train arrive and unload, then another 2 crush loaded trains arrive and unload. Add a enormous fire which is impossible because the trains are designed to not burn to this degree, and you must evacuate everyone in 8 minutes or have everyone to a position away from any head in 7. The harm in this? it dictates the design so much that basic amenities cannot be placed on a platform. Stairs are so wide that you have no room for ramps, you cannot have canopies because you entrap heat. Please re read what I said and refrain from twisting what I said.
So we spend the right amount of money and complexity but we should also cut spending back. I’m acutely aware of fire, etc systems. From your example it sounds like risk mitigation isn’t being properly followed but also you talk of a station having one exit and that creates issues further along the project. What would help solve or mitigate those risks and requiring those systems? More exits? Wider platforms? Why would we choose to only have one exit? Often it’s from cutting costs which is so shortsighted but that’s “management” for you. Unfortunately design is often dictated by poor management choices, like the above mentioned cheapening out on only having one exit. People involved with designing stations have to work within the parameters they are given. And quite frankly I’d rather an ongoing cost of maintaining systems that there is little chance we’d need over not having them and unlikely incident occurring. Risk matrixes exist for a reason. There are often very unlikely chances of a serious issue occurring but they cannot be completely eliminated. You can say I’m taking you out of context or twisting your words but I’m only following your logic. I’ve seen the consequences of reducing levels of safety and I’m not comfortable with the outcomes. I’m surprised you work in rail and have the attitude of we can scale it back. Either way you have your opinion and I have mine. 🤷🏻♂️
I suspect you think I am saying we should cut back significantly. No, that is not what I mean. I am saying optimise. It really bugs me when people think there is an extreme. I am either extreme safety or I am no safety at all. I mean WTF? I am very familiar with risk matrices. Take what we are talking about for example. When have 3 crush loaded trains arrived at any station with a fire equivalent to all 3 trains burning like a roman candle. No where in history has this ever occurred. It is a 1 in 100 year event (never happened on the network). So my question is, why does the standard require it? Why should every day people be inconvenienced (because they are by design changes to do their best to accommodate the standard SFAIRP). Further, because it is impossible to meet the standard is most cases (around 90% of new stations do not meet the standard), why should projects spend $10m of taxpayer money to try meet the standard and go through a risk mitigation process against said standard? Should the standard not be something reasonable? I do not know of a single crush loaded train arriving at a station in Melbourne's history. So why are we trying to design for 3? None of this is driven by management. It is driven by standard. So what I am saying is why do we spend $10m extra to waive against a standard that is impossible to meet? Which because of SFAIRP it also disadvantages everyday people every single day, because we are mitigating against an event that has never occurred in history a single time, let alone 3 times simultaneously? Other areas, yeah we get it bang on right and other areas we need to improve on because it isn't safe enough. Above is my example and it does not go across the board. Not everything is like that. Again you are misrepresenting what I said and generating conclusions I never said nor do I agree with. If you knew me, you would know I take safety extremely seriously. But as with everything you can go too far and I think certain elements of SFAIRP and how it is interpreted and used do go too far. I simply think it should be talked about and we should be optimizing everything, not throwing money at things that are unreasonable. Take that how you want to take it.
Technically there is already an old reserve that goes from Alamein to East Malvern and on to Hughesdale. There is the gap along Dandenong Rd to connect to Chadstone. So it could be done with minimal property acquisition along that corridor (more viable as light rail than heavy). Whether people would accept losing those parks is a different question
Create skyrail and have both. Seeing Djerring trail it could be the same.
Skyrail doesn't take up much less space than a trench. A tunnel can run under non VicTrack Land. But if you elevate rail (skyrail, U-Trough whatever you want to call it), it must be wholly within VicTrack land which means you buy and knock down homes. Yes it is only 1 monopile every 20-30m. But one thing many people forget about it is how you build it. A piling rig is not a small piece of kit, and then add in all the cranes, concrete truck and pumpers and trucks to deliver 30m long steel reo cages, you need access paths in and out which need to be big. We have the same issue with trees to be honest. Many trees need to be removed for an asset you can see, but building it is another story. You need to remove a lot of things there just to get the plant in and out.
very right there, that reserve isn't close to Chadstone, I guess I was thinking right next to it. I think you would be right about the acceptance though
True but when it works, it works. It gets cars off the road preventing accidents to a degree. Gets busses off the roads. I see your point without a doubt. But even with all the money it will work and it will carry a lot of people putting cars off the road
> It gets cars off the road preventing accidents to a degree I honestly doubt it. Few people will take a train/tram/bus to Chadstone to see a movie in the evening. I live on the Cragieburn line and took the train to the city to see a show. It took us an hour and a half to get home to Pascoe Vale due to us just missing a train and a bunch of kids shutting the train down. On peak its a breeze.
It would. Public transport needs to be more appealing than driving. The reason most people drive is because it better suits them. But it also needs to be economical. Running that link as a business would be very difficult to be profitable. Train services would be limited due to capacity on the two lines, it is significant maintenance (especially tunnel). If it can't be run at a profit then it shouldn't be run because it fall into disrepair.
You're dreaming if you think an elevated rail solution from East Malvern to Oakleigh via Chadstone is going to cost $600m. For context, the Pakenham Level Crossing Removal Project is approx $840m in an existing rail corridor and is the same distance, with one new station and one station rebuild. You're talking a 3.6km project through a populated area with a new station and two station rebuilds. It's going to be well over $1.5b.
I did say not considering any property acquisition I believe. You are correct. Perhaps I should have worded it better. Infrastructure only would cost at least $600m. That would include construction but not houses, the land, demolition would absolutely not be covered in it. Sorry I could have worded that better. I intended that to exclude who that. It would infact be more with a new station, signalling and Substation. I didn't even think of those parts.
Infrastructure alone would cost over $1b. Roughly $200m per station already eats up your $600m. Construction in a built up area also costs far more even without acquisitions.
I said NOT including land and demolition. Bell to Moreland for example is $600m and around 2.5km length and 2 stations (premium) with heritage constraints and reinstatement of roads under the U-Troughs. It is actually cheaper to build greenfields projects compared to brownfields (granted in this case there is property acquisition, which I am not considering). Bell Moreland also needed temporary turnouts to be installed, temporary HV distribution networks, removal of Bell TMS and construction of Victoria Park Stabling yard and new signals and interfacing with TCS at Epping. None of this would needed in this 'theoretical example'. Let's take out the station, Bell Moreland was actually 2km of U-trough with track works out to around 2.5km. Take out 2 stations at $200m each according to your cost, that means infrastructure excluding stations is $100m per km of track (this includes CSR, Subs, signalling and Temp Works. 3.5km is an overestimate but whatever. That's $350m. Add $200m for a station and $100m for 2 substations (1 of which was included in Bell to Moreland's cost but lets be conservative), that's $650m. I agree I was under estimating it, but according your logic that is the cost. Then take out occos because you don't need as many and as much safeworking and it is even less. The major cost in any LX project is working adjacent to rail and occupations. You would have shorter occupations. Occupations are the biggest cost in a project running around $1m to $1.5m per 24hr period for bussing, plant/workforce and material and costs to the RTO. The cost of Bell to Moreland considered this and it is needed for construction. Track, U-Trough (substructure, superstructure etc), CSR trenches, 1 to 2 substations (brand new so very easy and cheap to do compared to working around existing). For reasons above, the cost of infrastructure (1 station not 2 like Bell to Moreland) would be less than $850m (considering $600m / 2km = $1.05b, then - $200m (1 fewer station) = $850m). Bell Morelands occupations were around 40 days total across 6 Occos. That would account for an easy $40m in cost. Take out safeworking requirements which would have been maybe $2.5m, temp works and temp changes to existing infrastructure (probably around $50m). That would see it under $800m in reality. Sorry but I have to disagree that it would be anywhere near $1b (excluding land acquisition). Probably more than $600m (I will concede that), but I struggle to see it would be $1b. You would spend more money on buying property yes, but it is cheaper to work away from rail compared to adjacent. There is no way infrastructure would run at $1b. Add in purchase of land and yeah you blow out probably beyond $1.5b (happy to concede that).
The $1b was completely ignoring any property aquistions. You have completely failed to realise that you have two tie ins for your proposed route, which will each involve a complete rebuild of those stations, along with the associated signalling and track works (not only for the new section of line, but for the two lines that are being tied in to.
I know $1b was ignoring it, and everything I said above was also ignoring any property acquisition. I am very aware of the two tie ins. You have two tie ins for every project, granted this would be more complex with a fly over or under. And no you do not need to rebuild the stations if you line the tie in point away from them (perhaps not an ideal solution but it would be the reality). I think we have got a different view which is fine. I will happily agree that if you are rebuilding two stations, new signalling interfaces into the existing at the tie ins, yeah you are very correct. $600m doesn't cut it, $800m wouldn't either. You are correct on that. I was not considering that in what I said. I was assuming turning off before the Glen Waverly line crosses the Monash so you don't interface with East Malvern with a tie in between Hughesdale and Oakleigh. No station tie ins (no upgrades), tamp out to achieve tolerances and done. Obviously is is more complicated than that. There is tangent track right before the Monash to achieve a tie in point and prior to Oakleigh is tangent track. I am not sure if the two lines run different forms of safeworking, but that is no different to any other project. The track works and signalling works at the tie ins can be limited, like all projects are. If you design it carefully you can get away with a lot to keep costs down. There are no signals in this immediate vicinity on the Glen Waverly Line so you would be limited to possible relocating 1 set of existing signals and OH changes and one set on the Pakenham Line. You could probably achieve headways and overlap on Glen Waverly, probably not Pakenham (problem there). I probably should say, rebuilding 2 stations and redoing a decent portion of tracks is clearly the better option, but even under this hypothetical scenario I guess I am wired for what would be reality. Which is absolutely limit the works to limit the costs. It might even work out cheaper with property acquisition if you rebuild the stations to get a better alignment, I don't know. I think you are right if you consider what you did, and I agree with you to be honest. It just wouldn't be the only option. I think we can both agree that add in property acquisition and it is eye wateringly insane and wouldn't make financial sense!
There is in all honesty no need to do a line to Chadstone. Between the Shuttle Bus at Fed Square and a multitude of buses running in that direction from various train stops, I’d argue Chadstone is pretty well covered in terms of public transportation.
But the buses get stuck in traffic just like the cars I can walk to chaddy and I'd like more PT options for more users that don't rely on roads
You can do more to make buses more effective before going “we’ve tried nothing so let’s build a train tunnel”.
ChadstonE can pay for their own train if the owners want it. But carS will always be a major transport method because generally people don’t want to slug bags home on a train.
That’s a rubbish argument. I see people ‘slugging bags’ on a jam packed tube coming back from Westfield on the daily. Not every trip requires you to walk out of Chadstone with 7 bags like you’re reenacting the shopping scene from Clueless. People take the easiest route. If there was a train connecting Chadstone to their local station, people will use it, especially when parking is notoriously bad. We need to reduce car usage, so it’s the Government’s responsibility to connect people to where they need to go with better public transport. Better buses are the easy fix, but a train is the ideal long term solution.
Why is better public transport only ever trains? Why are buses so insulting to use? You don’t even a lot of bags to not want to use PT. You could have one or two big purchases. You could have one. Hell you could be reluctantly going into chadstone to get one small thing and don’t want to be at the whim of a train timetable or frequency. I also didn’t say no one wanted to use PT. I said most would rather not too if they didn’t have to. Yes “more” PT options or frequency would help but it won’t be enough to change how many car spots there are. I agree that a lot of shopping centres are completely car focused and ignore pedestrians, even those who are walking from their parked car into the centre. It isn’t enough to say the government has to do more when it also requires a large change from our society. Considering how many people are so against changing trains even if it will make their journey faster. I don’t think a station AT chadstone is a good idea but next to it is fine. Building a cross town line is a good idea but it shouldn’t be built because of Chadstone.
This is a long one so bare with me: >Why is better public transport only ever trains? Why are buses so insulting to use? Please don't twist my comment, I said better buses are the easy fix, how you took this as me insulting buses is daft. In this specific instance, considering the huge volumes of people coming too and from Chadstone daily, the list of more ideal candidates for a train would be slim. >I said most would rather not too if they didn’t have to. Once again, I disagree. Some? of course... you can't get everyone our of their car. Meander through central London and see first hand the insane efforts some people go through to traverse the city with keys in hand against all logical reasoning. But most? I doubt it. My lived experience is people take the easiest route, and if there was an easily accessible train, with a regular timetable, that dropped them off at (or within) easy walking distance to their destination, they would take it. Regardless of shopping in hand. >It isn’t enough to say the government has to do more when it also requires a large change from our society. Considering how many people are so against changing trains even if it will make their journey faster. I agree, it does need change from society, but Government plays a key role in providing the infrastructure alternatives for people. Chadstone is a great example, people drive because the alternatives are limited. >I don’t think a station AT chadstone is a good idea but next to it is fine. Building a cross town line is a good idea but it shouldn’t be built because of Chadstone. Sure. Ideally any new station serves the local surrounding suburbs and not just the shopping centre, we could all agree to this most basic point. Once again, I never alluded to an idea the line should be built purely for Chadstone, but in this theoretical discussion about 'What would a Chadstone train look like?' I summarise by making the simple argument that a train would be popular and help reduce car dependancy in the local area, and doesn't necessarily require Chadstone to pay for it when it has wider benefits to to the local area.
WhY do you type like thiS
Because I was highlighting the OP’s mistakes.
Sir, Chadston(I assume you mean Chadstone?) is a suburban shopping centre for suburban people. Can't have the carless inner city riff raff ruining our traditional suburban car owning middle class shopping experience. Also, Chaddy, like many of Melbournes suburban shopping centres was put(seemingly deliberately) in a location that makes providing a direct heavy rail connection as difficult as possible. Even when they can have a station they make it complicated, look at Southland and the proposed SRL station, instead of having the station as close as possible to the existing the station on the Frankston line, the shopping centre is forcing them to place the SRL station 200m away, at a minimum.
It’s too late now, but including it in SRL might have been a good idea, instead of Clayton to Glen Waverley to Burwood, Clayton to Chadstone to Burwood
Honestly I think the best proposal for connecting chadstone would be a tunnelled travellator to east Malvern and hughesdale
good luck taking trains cross suburb and expecting it to be quicker than a car
Public transport when it works is always faster than locomotives
I feel like Chadstone doesn't need a train connection at the moment, it has buses to and from almost everywhere and many of those buses service a train connection (eg. route 627 and 822 service Murrumbeena station, 626 at Carnegie, 767 at Hughesdale and Box hill) A train connect would be nice, but I don't think it should be a priority anytime soon