Super Schools

So apparently I have never blogged here about how much I loath super schools. Time to do that, then.
Super schools require a larger catchment to justify the larger size. Thus, the average distance of a home from its school will increase. Quite apart from social and governance issues (which the government either thinks are irrelvant or beneficial, neither of which convinces me) this leads to transport issues. In time-poor households with two working parents, or single parents working full time, even on flexitime, an increase in travelling distance, particularly in the younger years, leads directly to an increase in people being driven to school.
No one lets a 6-y-o loose on public transport alone, and if schools are situated on main roads with large car parks (because of the daily traffic, suburban side-streets cease to be an option) walking or cycling, even in a group, will be less favoured. Besides the obvious environmental damage- the most polluting part of a car's journey is the first kilometre or so as it warms up- this ingrains into children an expectation that being driven, or driving, is the only way to get around.

On almost every front, I am against the new superschools policy, and ultimately this contributed to how I cast my vote in the recent election.

~Proximate Mega-Destinations

An article by Ben Sandilands in today's Crikey argues that Very Large Airplanes will still be better than Very Fast Trains over the short distances between mega-destinations such as Melbourne-Sydney.

The logic appears to be: in Australia's car-based sprawling cities, door-to-door travel times are still quicker with a plane since a taxi to inner-city Southern Cross Railway Station is as long a drive as a taxi to Melbourne Airport. Since we don't have a good public transport system, it's better for private money to go into planes than public money (which could be spent building hospitals, says Mr. Sandilands in an attempt at moral high ground) spent building inter- and intra-city train lines.

There are so many things wrong with this argument. For a start, I want to invest my private money in train lines. And then the government can lower taxes and keep spending on hospitals steady. Nor do I accept a car-based sprawling city. However environmentally friendly the planes become, there is far too much car-generated air pollution in our cities as it is. Not to mention the environmental effects of urban sprawl- lost habitat, disrupted water catchments, lost farmland and so on.

The spurious claim that trains run on electricity- in Australia generated by coal- and that trains therefore also operate on fossil-fuels is also unfair. This neglects the hope- as with planes and algae fuel- that in the future this will change. Solar panels on train-station rooves, anyone?

Finally, the VLA thesis does not allow for people living between Sydney and Melbourne. (Nor outside their boundaries, which presumably would require either air connections or a car- requiring further airports or more fossil-fueled driving.) They're big cities, but they don't run into each other, and people between them also need transport options. If all the take-off slots are being sold to Syd-Mel runs, there'll be no time left for Canberra, Newcastle, Albury-Wodonga, and a thousand other little towns and villages which could get train service but for whom an airport simply will never be viable.

I'm still for trains.

A First Class Rail Service Needs First Class Carriages

I have just read a report by the Centre for Independent Studies which defends First-Class ("Business Class") sections as necessary to encourage longer-distance travel by train. As you can see by the title of this post, they convinced me.
My personal memories of the NSW rail system date to 2000 and can be considered "outliers", since that was the Olympics and we were staying at our cousins' house in the Blue Mountains. Thus I claim no personal expertise on that side of this issue.

But I do know Western Europe's rail well. For a long time, travelling on weekends and suburban routes, I had often asked myself why German Rail spent so much time and energy on first class carriages: they have separate ticketing windows and lounges at big stations, they have much more space when things are quite crowded in cattle-class, they have newspapers and are served at their seats. It's even the little things: the first class carriage is always positioned to be right next to where you're standing if you've just got onto the platform. It's always me who walks kilometres to a free seat at the far ends of the train. But I suppose, for them to keep doing it for so many years, it's obviously paying off.

Maybe it's an egalitarian thing we have in Australia. But let's be honest: if I am sitting in traffic in my un-airconditioned Mazda 121 (older than I am) and my father is next to me in his late-model Holden which is so modern it doesn't even have a tape deck, is that really equal? Perhaps that is why first class was abolished in 1974, a time when it became clear that in the future, everyone would have a car and trains would become superfluous. HA! They didn't think that one through, did they?

Most importantly, and a way for the company to generate carbon-credits is: it is obviously better for the environment if we're whipping through towns at villages on an electric train at 70km/h than if we're both sitting in traffic. And the inequality of the road is just mirrored while he's sitting in first class sipping his complimentary coffee and I'm cramped in second-class.

One final thing. My favourite quote from that paper, given what I read daily in Crikey about the start of NSW politics, is this: "High-speed rail connections may well be desirable but are beyond the scope of this paper. Nor do we seek to explore better organisational structures for delivering rail transport services in NSW."

Maybe I'm NOT Alone?

There has been much debate in Crikey over the last couple of days about how to encourage high-speed trains in Australia, and their necessity or not for climate change prevention.
Guy Rundle, in particular, enjoys throwing out absolutely crazy plans with no hope of having them realised in his lifetime.

But what if he weren't the only one?
What if, enough of us wanted the crazy plan to happen?
Would it happen?

Michael James thought he was against Mr. Rundle's theory, but in fact I can join them together. Mr. Rundle is only against trains because they were badly represented in the interview to which he is reacting, and Mr. James is only against more cities because he doesn't understand Mr. Rundle is correct about exburbs.

In any case, I think it might be time to dust this off and start taking note of developments in field again.

German Rail

While I am spending a year studying in Germany, I shall research as much as I can about the railways there.
How they are marketed, the cost of high-speed tracks, freight options, the optimum frequency-cost balance, and anything else that comes to mind.

It must be kept in mind that DB is a private company, and some records may be difficult to get from them. But I will try.

Anything interesting I find will be posted here, but I expect this to be infrequent. This blog is in pseudo-recess until Feb '10.

Airport Line

After closer observation of the Tonsley Line, and an acceptance of how the rail system is at the moment, I have come to the conclusion that a branch after the Mile End station following roughly James Congdon Drive, and then crossing South Road (read: passing over a new underpass) immediately south of Albert St. (To be renamed Albert Tce in recognition of its new status along side a railway.)

Now, with tumbling house prices and an economy in recession, is the time to make these investments in our long-term future.

Seaford Extension

Ah, the trials and tribulations. For some reason, the State Govt. wants to put the bridge at arguably the widest point on the Onkaparinga, while the Council organised an independent report which found an alternative and much cheaper place to build the bridge. The State Govt. has shown no signs of acknowledging the Council's report, let alone acting on it.

An extension to Seaford, Aldinga and even Victor Harbor is only to be desired- tourism and commuters can only benefit. An alternative route to Willunga would also not go astray, but would either have to transfer into Noarlunga line trains, or the route from Noarlunga to Adelaide would have to become actually independent from the road system: the volume of trains would otherwise mean, for example Cross Rd, would be closed most of the time. (I have long thought Cross Road should pass under the rail line at South Rd- then you have three significant arterials moving independent of each other.)

You may point out the inconsistency of that compared to my position on the Anzac Hwy/South Rd intersection, but the two are fundamentally different: the Cross Road underpass would allow an increase in **rail** traffic, whereas the Anzac Hwy underpass allows, presupposes, encourages an increase in **road** traffic.

In any case, it is to be hoped that the Federal Govt. sees Seaford of worthy of money, because in this climate where even AAMI is neglected, I have diminishing hopes for a rail extension.

Allan Scott

Yesterday a man died who will continue to play a large role in my life, even as I have never met him.

Allan Scott, trucking magnate, was the man I wanted to make poor by the increasing use of rail freight in interstate transportation. While never doubting for a moment the man's motives and good nature, it must be observed that he presided over unprecedented expenditure on road infrastructure at a time when environmental science (and economics!) would contra-indicate.

Trucks cause by far the most damage to highways, and highways must be built extra strong to withstand the stress placed upon them by frighters. Had Scott been a rail magnate, not only would Australia be spending less on its highways (which is a good thing, given their length!) but our CO2 emissions would be significantly lower, too. Road freight causes a large percentage of our greenhouse gas emissions- rail freight causes much less, even on a tonne/km basis.

So while I mourn the man, I hope that his legacy is a Port Adelaide Premiership and a fantastic Spring Racing Carnival, rather than an enduring reliance on motor transportation for Australia's ever-increasing interstate freight needs.

Train windows

It really bugs me that TransAdelaide is so proud of itself for finally replacing the windows in the 3000-class train carriages. In a private enterprise, this sort of presentation and commitment to customer service would be paramount. When I worked at Hungry Jack's, if a customer left a tray on their table after leaving, we had precisely 2 minutes to clean it up, as a matter of policy. It was immaterial if they had been the only person in the store: the place must be kept clean. Case in point: windows were cleaned professionally twice a week, and maintained by staff all day, everyday.

The trumpeting of this "upgrade" is disturbing spin on what is actually a backlog of basic maintenance work.

Trams and Advertising

I have spent months considering this, and have come to a conclusion, which I back today, tomorrow and for ever. I like advertising on trams.

Which is to say, I do not have a problem with it. Since the decision was made to allow advertising on the new trams, letters appear regularly in the Advertiser deploring this crass commercialisation of the public transport system. The arguments include that it makes it difficult to see into the trams, that they are a tourist attraction, and that they mess up the streetscape.

I genuinely don't know which is the dumbest argument. Why do you need to see into the trams? What streetscape would that be: King William St with its tall grey squares, or Jetty Road with its (advertising-covered) buses? And for the love of all that is logical: trams are not a friggin' tourist attraction! They should be a basic part of every major city's public transport infrastructure- have been since they were invented. I can count on the fingers of one stump the number of people who have flown from Japan to Melbourne to marvel at this modern wonder, which, incidentally, are less comfortable and more covered in advertising than our own meagre offerings.

Further, that trams be exempt from interstate advertising, as Eldert Hoebee of Torrens Park would wish in today's Advertiser, is practically a trade embargo within a nation! A ridiculous idea, as anyone studying economics would be able to tell you.

Recent Discoveries

Since I moved to Ascot Park, I have noticed an old tram corridor which crosses Marion Rd at Mooringe St. I assume a lot of other people knew it was there, but sometimes you have to see these things for yourself before they make sense. While there are obviously other priorities, such as the electrification of current tracks, and expanding into lesser-serviced areas, I would like to see this tram line in use again in my lifetime.

I also have been thinking a lot about Adelaide Station, and how it's a dead-end. I'd like to see a Melbourne-style ring, but that could perhaps be part of a CBD subway. In any case, through-stations are much more efficient than dead-ends.

I love that they build Wayville Station each year for the Royal Show. But I wonder they don't build a permanent one and use it on all expo days. (Like Cheltenham Park Race Course used to be only on race days) I fully support the shuttle, though. Brilliant idea.

South Road Tram Flyway

It is a really, really stupid idea to have an on-demand pedestrian crossing rather than widen the tram flyway enough to have a bike path through it.

I, for one, will spend its second day crossing South Road incessantly. If they haven't programmed the lights properly, traffic might bank up further than during peak hour!

The Tram Extension

I fully support the tram extension, this is known. I wish they would build more to North Adelaide, Norwood and Unley. This is also not a surprise. But there is one thing they did wrong on the tram extension.

Pirie St stop is as far away from Waymouth St, yet it gets no mention. Rundle Mall stop is also Hindley St station, yet there is no mention. I think this should be rectified, and signs changed to show both names. If Victoria Squ can be known by its aboriginal name, then both streets should be equally noted further north.

TODs and the All-You-Can-Drink Theory

"Transport-Oriented Developments" are high-density developments within walking distance of rail (or other) public transport. They are the centrepeice of the government's new urban development policy, and are to be applauded. They are, in my view, the first steps towards a more European-style of development, higher-density living and a more public-transport oriented society.

Having said that, public transport will not be effective if it is used only during the two peaks- it will be costly and inefficient to use all that space and capital for a service that runs essentially twice a day. People need to begin to consider the possibility that PT will replace, to a large degree, the use of cars. Not just augment traditional traffic flows or assist at the margins, when poorer people drop out of the car market for lack of funds, but actually to replace, significantly, cars as a form of transport.

While on the subject, the state budget included an announcement that registration fees for vehicles are again going up. I would argue this is negative policy, and will, at least to a certain degree, counter-act the Government's good PT policy.

Cars ought to be cheap to own but expensive to run. Everyone should know how to drive, and everyone will have need, sometimes, to drive. Perhaps you slept in and there's an important meeting in 20 minutes. Perhaps it's a Sunday night and you want to go to Church. Perhaps it's a Wednesday night and you need to cross town to go to a friend's birthday gathering. For this reason, cars ought to be cheap to own. This means low registration, competition among sellers, low stamp duty etc., etc..

But the price of petrol ought to be high, representing the cost of each additional journey. Then people will begin to ask, "is this journey necessary, could I make it on public transport?" It might be worth saving the job to spend $20 to drive into and park in town that day. It might be worth $10 to visit your friend on her 30th birthday- just in time to watch her cut the cake. It's all about free choice and market forces. If the price of petrol is high, people will consider making the journey by bus or train, leaving more time.

But if people are committed, but way of expensive registration, exorbitant taxes and a variety of other costs, to a year's worth of driving, PT will be less attractive at any given price of fuel.

So, Mr. Foley. Drop your registration increases and instead slap a little extra on the petrol excise. Use the funds to pay for your PT improvements, and everybody wins.

The Budget

Last night was budget night. And a large, ridiculously so, sum of money has been set aside for transport.

I shall get back to you on this: it looks, on the surface, as though the government is hearing its people's cries for trains. I am looking forward to the future.

QR

Exciting news in the paper today: FreightLink is in trouble, and is to be sold!

FreightLink, as I understand it, owns/operates the track from just north of Adelaide to Darwin. Aparently it's having trouble paying back the money it borrowed to build the track, so even though transport is doing well, the arm of the company which administers the track is losing money. But I say to that: there are tracks in Queensland which, 120 years after they were built, continue to carry grain from farms to ports. Apparently rail is a very, very long term investment.

The Australian tips Queensland Rail as a key stakeholder in the company, should the private sector indeed step in to bail out FreightLink. It also says that QR is branding itself as a national carrier, so I'm thinking a visit to Brisbane may be in order. I want to have ultimate responsibility for a company which runs all of Australia's rail operations. I will purchase shares in QR if it is a listed company (fingers crossed) and I am also looking out for the other companies named in the article on page 19-20 of today's Australian, and will look into purchasing some of their stock too.

Life is getting exciting!

Trams and the wet

The big issue in the paper tomorrow will be that trains were unable to operate in rain this morning. Which is fair.

There are lots of legitimate concerns about the choice of tram that was made: narrow despite wide roads, uncouplable despite large variation in traffic volume, and apparently we got the cheap version which doesn't include a sand box to made tracks less slippery in the rail.

I know we live in Adelaide, but it does sometimes rain and that's when you need the trams the most!

I hope that when I become manager of Australia's rail system, I take notice of these lessons and do things properly.

SAR

So I recieved an unsolicited e-mail this morning from one Brian Leedham which fills me with hope and expectation. In it, he told me he was interested in my blog, in what I am banging on about, and has similar ideas himself. There is a link to his site on the edge of this page, "South Australian Rail"

While I am concentrating (perhaps too much, given my preferred mode of urban development) on rail lines within the metropolitan region, he has plans concerning the Barossa Valley and rural rail generally. I think we may complement each other, and I hope that I will be able to meet him and Trevor at some point in the near future.

I was just discussing with Sandy yesterday how hard it is to drive a wedge into the rail industry and build profitably from that. He suggested that I need a few friends, either on board or as silent partners, to set up a company and get into the business. It sounds like I'm part of the way there!

Building Australia Fund

It had better include, at the least, a high-speed rail link from Canberra to Sydney. I have lots of other plans for it, and I hope some of it would go towards purchasing houses between the city and the airport so the land can be made a railway.

As Sandy so eloquently texted:

BUILDING AUSTRALIA FUND? Better get to work on some plans!

City <-> Airport Route

I can't get pictures yet, but when I do, I'll add a link. This is the proposed route of my City-Airport link, with stations included. It would require the purchase of around 120 properties plus land north of Scotland Rd, as well as getting permission from the Airport and some pedestrian foot paths for safety etc..

All in all, a massive development, I know.

Adelaide

Extant

Mile End

Extant

Keswick

Extant

ETSA Park

From GoogleEarth, there appears to be a space between the stadium and the outdoor courts which, with a pedestrian underpass, would allow for a station. It would serve sports fans, netballers, and people working in the nearby industries.

Richmond Oval

How precisely it interacts with James Congdon Dve and South Rd is a tricky one, but essentially the station would be on the NW cnr of the oval, on the south side of Albert St. This would serve footballers, local residents and match-goers.

Cowandilla Pmy

I would prefer, in this order: Milner Rd underpass, Milner Rd being blocked and renamed on one side or a Milner Rd level crossing. The train would continue on the South side of the drain reserve (which would, at the same time, be beautified similar to what is occurring at Breakout Creek) and stop approximately equal to the western end of Fenner Ave so that the kiddies don't have far to walk and the librarians don't have far to walk.

Marion Rd

My preference is N of Craig St (E side) but I could easily be swayed to south of Guy St (W side). In either case an underpass is absolutely necessary. Space, I feel, will not allow a fly way, and the slope from a flyway into a creek on the northern edge will not be possible. Although it might help with flood prevention, who knows. Anyway the route is fairly straight forward, and Weaver Ave would in future form a T-junction with Craig St.

?Morley St?

As the train line continues toward Export Park, then western end of Morley St sppears to be a good place to put an extra station. However, this would be subject to cost-benefit analysis, and I suspect it would not be viable just now. However, land should be acquired now for the possibility.

Export Park

From Morley St, head due west to the southern end of Clifford and swing north. The station would be at Comley St- fairly convenient for people seeing of friends and families who don't want to park, people who work at Export Park and, if pathways were made available and safe, local residents.

[Spur line] [Terminal Foyer/Hotel Lobby]

Not part of the main line, this would be a dedicated track for a dedicated City-Airport express train painted and fitted out specifically for tourists rather than commuters. I'm thinking something along the lines of the KI Ferry with televisions playing a short tape about South Australia (Episodes of Postcards?), information booklets and hotel location information. It would be attractive, and the station would be actually inside the terminal or the hotel lobby for ease of access.

?Business Park?

Meanwhile, on the main track, it would kep going north through Export Park and run parallel with Sir Donald Bradman Drive to a station close to the intersection of that road with Tapleys Hill Road. This would support the new Business Park and local residents. It is in question marks because I don't know how far away the Business Park is, or where it's at with planning etc., and I don't want to pre-emptively put the station where their is going to be a building.

Harbour Town

The train would then continue south along Tapleys Hill Road to Harbour Town and, for the time being, terminate there. However, this is the beginning of a long-term plan to have trains run not only to and from the city, but straight up and down the coast, too.