• Advertisement

[Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Perth / Western Australia Transport Discussion

Moderators: perthbus, Mr OC Benz

[Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Postby Mr OC Benz » Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:51 pm

Eight years in the making, the State Government will tomorrow, unveil it's $1m long term transport plan for Perth. Transport @ 3.5 million outlines the State Government's vision for public transport, freight networks, roads and cycling infrastructure. For once, a document that looks beyond several election cycles. Hopefully something that can form the basis of proper planning and decision making on the funding of major projects that will be needed over time.

This is the thread to be at for all discussion related to the document. Some of the details contained within are already known or are widely expected to be included, such as a new urban rail line underground from Perth to Morley, then surface onwards to Wanneroo and eventually Ellenbrook. New road tunnels, UWA-Curtin light rail and even a separate underground inner-city subway system are also expected to be included.

Have a read through all the available documents, discuss and comment. If you want your comments to have any weight in the plan, I'd suggest putting a submission in by 28 October 2016.

Now available here

Screenshots of public transport component maps:
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Mr OC Benz
Moderator
 
Posts: 5628
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW
Has thanked: 459 times
Been thanked: 1217 times
Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million

Postby theenglishguy » Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:39 pm

Looking forward to this coming out - have to say I have pretty high expectations though.

I'm really hoping for an ambitious, public-transport focused plan. If we are catering for Perth to grow by 1.5 million people we are going to need significant investment in transportation. A few things I'd really like to see:

  • Light or heavy rail connections to UWA, Curtin and ECU Mt Lawley. They were all on the MAX light rail route and will need better public transport in the near future
  • Thornlie-Cockburn railway. Extensions to the Airport or Fremantle lines would be great too
  • Light rail along Scarborough Beach Road - really needed if Osborne Park is ever going to be redeveloped.
  • More BRT proposals - and hopefully something better than just the random lines draw on the last public transport plan.
  • Introducing a congestion charge/tolling
  • Some mention of high density development around public transport would be great too. Not sure if this is within the scope of this plan though.
On the flip side, I hope they've ditched the road tunnels under Riverside Drive/Swan River. It's a very Liberal-oriented approach to transport and seriously threatens bi-partisan support for the plan. Anyone involved in planning/transport knows the inner city needs more public transport, not these tunnels.

Also don't want to see any mention of the East Wanneroo railway. It's a such a car-centric view of what public transport should do. We've learnt that building railways down the middle of freeways is usually a bad idea - yet this proposal suggests it's the best thing ever. Isolated stations with massive park-and-rides is just a shocking model to follow. (I doubt this idea will disappear though)
theenglishguy
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:38 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million

Postby PaxInfo » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:32 am

In conjunction with heavy infrastructure, I'd also like to see an emphasis on the following:

* Service frequency increases. 5 to 10 min off-peak daytime frequency on all train lines. 20 or 30 more 900-series routes including the Circle route and key cross-suburban routes. All 15 min routes upgraded to every 10 min and many 30 min frequency routes upgraded to every 20 min 7 days/week. Elimination of 120 min headways on all but semi-rural routes.
* Continuation of extensions to bus route hours to 11pm - midnight Sunday nights.
* 24/7 service on all 900 series routes operating approximately every 20 - 30 min overnight.
* Bus priority on all key corridors (including cross-suburban routes)
* Local pedestrian access upgrades with all bus stops easy to reach from both sides of the road at any time of day
* Frequent network information and promotion
* Road and parking pricing
* Freer planning regulations that allow homes and businesses near good public transport to be built without parking
* Upgraded TransWA coach services with most towns having at least 2 or 3 services per day the same times 7 days/week. More Summer services to coastal communities.

And, for infrastructure:

* Frequent regional rail to Busselton with trains at least every 30 minutes via a Bunbury CBD station (connecting to frequent coaches from Collie, Dunsborough, Margaret River and Manjimup)
* Frequent regional rail to Northam and the Swan Valley with trains at least every 30 min during commuter periods and hourly at other times (including weekends). Connecting buses from York & Beverley.
User avatar
PaxInfo
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million

Postby Merc1107 » Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:00 am

theenglishguy wrote: If we are catering for Perth to grow by 1.5 million people we are going to need significant investment in transportation.

And perhaps water security... Completely beyond the point of ATDB however :mrgreen:

Will be interesting to see what this contains.
This signature has been censored by the Grammatical Errors Moderation Bureau. Please direct any complaints to their filing cabinet, a nearby paper-shredder or perhaps the bin.

Thank-You.
Merc1107
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:38 pm
Location: Perth
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 53 times
Favourite Vehicle: 'All' High-Floor Units

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million

Postby Leyland B21 » Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:27 am

I like the proposals although I'm a big believer in reopening the Geraldton rail corridor. I believe like the Australind there is enough catchment to sustain a twice a day service. I'm surprised this never gets brought up.

Scarborough beach road has been a busy corridor for years. I however do not believe a tram should be utilised. Trust me. I live in Melbourne now and the tram system on an overall basis works. But a bus along Scarborough Beach Rd would still be quicker and more viable. I would simply try and increase the frequency still if it's really warranted.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
You can take the boy out of Armadale W.A but you cant take Armadale out of the boy!!!
User avatar
Leyland B21
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: Narre Warren!!!
Has thanked: 232 times
Been thanked: 72 times
Favourite Vehicle: Former Perth B21 /#32

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million

Postby Mr OC Benz » Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:46 am

Well, the Australind these days struggles to sustain itself even at only two services a day. Continually falling patronage due to better alternatives (i.e. Forrest Hwy) and lack of investment. Perth to Geraldton is a considerably longer distance with at present, even less of a population catchment.

Either way, I believe this (along with anything else outside the metropolitan area) is beyond the scope of the plan, although I hope there is some mention of how any regional rail links (most likely one in the foreseeable future is Bunbury) can be incorporated (reservation, required infrastructure etc) within the metropolitan area at least, as it's existence will potentially impact or undermine any effort on future proposals contained within the metropolitan area.

City of Stirling have been pushing for Scarborough Beach Rd to be a light rail corridor. Main objective would be for it to help support and regenerate the land surrounding for higher density mixed uses, however there is still significant bus capacity available. There hasn't even been any mention of it being in the plan, so I guess we'll see. Light rail investment should really start from within the inner-city first and naturally grow outwards. At least there is already passenger demand for short trips within the inner-city area which will help negate any impact on travel time whereas much like with the failed MAX, Scarborough Beach Rd and the like are still very much primarily commuter focused on getting people to and from the Perth CBD. This will change over time of course.
User avatar
Mr OC Benz
Moderator
 
Posts: 5628
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW
Has thanked: 459 times
Been thanked: 1217 times
Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million

Postby theenglishguy » Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:38 pm

Transport @ 3.5 million has been released:

http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/projects ... illion.asp
theenglishguy
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:38 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million

Postby Shoudy Chen » Fri Jul 29, 2016 1:21 pm

This would be my thoughts about the Transport at 3.5 million in Perth. As I am worried about Perth's booming population, Perth really need to make more changes to the network. I am hoping for better outcomes to public transport.
- Extend the Fremantle Line to South Fremantle
- A Light Rail from QEII to Morley - I wouldn't think of a railway tunnel from Perth to Morley as this would eventually cross the Graham Farmer Freeway. That would be way too difficult task for the construction.
- A spur line into Forrestfield from Armadale Line.
- Extension of the Armadale Line to Mundijong - hopefully we could see more buses departing to and from Byford and Mundijong
- Construction of a new bus depot at Armadale.
- A ferry connecting from Canning Bridge to UWA
- With the extension of Thornlie Line to Cockburn, it would be appreciated if they had a train station in Canning Vale because there is too much duplication between CV and Murdoch. E.g. 204, 205, 206, 207, 517, 518, 519 may need to be converted to a high frequency route.
User avatar
Shoudy Chen
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:55 am
Location: Perth
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million

Postby TP1462 » Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:17 pm

Plan will keep growing city connected and moving

Transport plan prepares Perth for a population of 3.5 million
Major plan to keep the city vibrant, connected and productive as it grows
A transport plan to ensure Perth's bus network, rail links, roads and cycleways grow in order to cater for a population of 3.5 million has been launched today by Transport Minister Dean Nalder.
The Perth Transport Plan for 3.5 million People and Beyond has been developed over two years by transport planning experts, based on extensive research and modelling. It is Perth's most comprehensive transport plan in two decades.
Mr Nalder said planning for transport options to accommodate an extra 1.4 million people would help maintain Perth's status as one of the most liveable cities in the world.
Under the plan, released for public comment, Perth's public transport system would be significantly expanded.
Key rail projects proposed include:
expanding the city's train network from 180 kilometres to 300km and including a new rail line to service Morley and East Wanneroo
extending existing rail lines to Yanchep, Bellevue and Byford to cater for growing suburbs
extending the Thornlie line to Cockburn Central.
The plan also recommends Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), where buses have a designated lane, to areas where the level of demand does not warrant heavy rail. BRT routes would connect Ellenbrook to Bassendean Station, Midland and the new East Wanneroo rail link. BRT or light rail would connect Glendalough Station to Scarborough Beach.
The Minister said road transport would remain the dominant way for people and freight to travel and the plan expanded the city's core system of freeways, mostly by upgrading existing highways to freeway standards. Key plans for roads included:
Stock Road to extend north from Leach Highway, linking with Stephenson Avenue at Jon Sanders Drive with an extension tying into the Mitchell Freeway. The extension will include tunnels
Fremantle-Rockingham Highway to serve the Western Trade Coast strategic industrial centre
an East-West City Link connecting Canning Highway at Berwick Street to Riverside Drive and a tunnel connecting Riverside Drive with the Narrows interchange.
The plan also recommends increasing Perth's cycleway network from the current 172km to more than 850km.
"Improved road and freight networks, tunnels and river crossings will play a part in our future network, keeping the city vibrant, connected and productive," Mr Nalder said.
"Aside from new infrastructure and expanded services, network efficiency measures and strategies to influence travel choices will make sure we get maximum value out of the transport system.
"With the cost of congestion in Perth currently estimated at $2 billion a year, the Liberal National Government has developed a comprehensive and smart plan that will keep Perth and our economy moving.
"This plan draws from expertise within the State's transport agencies, universities, recent research and global knowledge.
"While this is a plan prepared by transport planning experts, everyone has a right to have a say on what we aspire our city to look like. The State Government will be consulting with local governments, industry and the community during the next three months."

http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/news-and-media ... and-moving
User avatar
TP1462
 
Posts: 758
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:43 pm
Has thanked: 354 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Favourite Vehicle: B7RLE, OC500LE, 0305, B10M.

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million

Postby Mr OC Benz » Fri Jul 29, 2016 11:15 pm

My comments pertaining to the mass transit components below. I will come back to the on-road network and slightly touch on the general road and freight networks in a future post. In a nutshell, I think the overall plan, particularly the public transport component addresses most of the requirements of catering for a population of 3.5 million people in the metropolitan area.

Heavy Rail - Suburban
East Wanneroo Rail Link (EWRL)
I have generally supported a radial rail alignment through the north-east serving the busy Morley activity centre and opening up a new rail catchment area, but I had mixed feelings for the East Wanneroo segment. It's quite apparent now that beyond Marshall Road, the line's sole focus is to re-distribute passengers away from the Joondalup Line which would eventually reach maximum efficiency and capacity. So essentially, it's an opportunity to provide a faster express line to the far northern suburbs. Fast enough that in order to be more competitive than the Joondalup Line, has only a handful of stations between Clarkson-Butler and Perth (namely East Wanneroo, Gnangara, Marshall Road (Beechboro), Morley and ECU Mt Lawley). I wonder if this also presents the opportunity for track speeds higher than the current 130km/h limit? Of course, an Ellenbrook spur is thrown in for good measure, although gotta love the emphasis on "very long term"... in other words, you're dreaming.

Here's hoping that if Labor do get in at the next election, the worst they'll do is that they'll build the line to Ellenbrook (rather than East Wanneroo) first. Still better than whatever they are planning at the moment (or what they might be planning now this is out!). The general consensus in the document by my interpretation is that new rail links are only supported if they are able to offer high frequency services. Certainly something that Ellenbrook (and even East Wanneroo aside from the peaks) won't be able to achieve if they are built pre-2.7 million (2031).

Radial extensions
Yanchep, Bellevue, Byford and Thornlie Line are all logical extensions as growth and demand will justify over time.

Stirling-Murdoch Orbital
If there was any proposal from this plan to take me off guard, it would have to be this. In saying that, would have grounds of support as a logical part to the expansion of the rail system. Relieves pressure from the inner sections of the Joondalup and Mandurah Lines while providing access to key centres such as UWA/QEII and Booragoon. Enables more journeys to be completed without passing through the CBD, ensuring more capacity is available to serve those who are specifically travelling to the CBD. Bit baffled as to why the line doesn't connect Morley to Bayswater. Just make it a full ring route and be done with it. It would pretty much put the Airport precinct within arms reach of almost everywhere within the inner-metropolitan area. That whole area (including surrounding Kewdale that is) is a major employment generator. For what it's worth, no point building the line only for a shortfall of 2kms to have such a significant impact on mobility.

Heavy Rail - Inner-City Metro/Subway
A bit of a fantasy of mine, but also a logical progression of public transport development in Perth. I actually think the potential of a separate subway system is being underestimated here and commencement of such a network should be brought forward much earlier than proposed. Such a system would be a significant catalyst for improving the quality and level of infill development in the inner-city area. While such a system isn't immediately needed, planning should at least be started on determining the best locations for lines to be built in a similar fashion to the level of extensive planning that goes into metro lines in European cities. Ideally lines that will best meet the mobility needs of the inner-city while also maximising connections to the suburban network and serving areas with high development potential. Such a system would almost entirely relieve the CAT system of any capacity pressures it faces, even the Light Rail network once built too and ensure that any car trip within the inner-city is a ridiculous idea. Thus could also avoid the need for the East-West City Link tunnel and still allow for the closure of Riverside Dr as the Subway would ensure that the existing road network remains efficient and effective enough for bus and courier/freight vehicles to still use, with the bulk of other travel being on mass transit or by walking/cycling.

Light Rail - Perth Light Rail
Basically a reincarnation of the "Knowledge Arc" proposal. But one that holds strong ground and could form the basis for future use of Light Rail (as oppose to BRT) on other corridors in the future. Unfortunate for the tram lovers, but in general within this document, it appears that the transport portfolio has a stronger focus on squeezing efficiency out of the existing bus network first before committing to fancy light rail networks. And for what light rail can do to generate urban development, it would appear that either a metro or suburban line can do as well, but cover more ground and be multi-purpose at the same time.

Bus Rapid Transit (or Light Rail)
Ellenbrook to Bassendean, Midland and EWRL
As many would be aware, the first stage is already committed with the EBRT between Ellenbrook and Marshall Rd/Lord St (not the Marshall Rd on the EWRL!). So again this is just another logical expansion on that and will provide much improved connectivity.
Glendalough Station to Scarborough Beach
The high frequency bus route (990) is already there, but the supporting infrastructure isn't. I think buses will continue to be able to serve Scarborough Beach Rd effectively and handle increased intensity in land use along the corridor for the foreseeable future. I would say that a light rail linking Stirling to UWA (through Osborne Park) could be an option as was in the old plan, but again the orbital rail has snuck in and probably done it and done it better.
Canning Bridge to Booragoon
I'm not quite sure what the point of this bit is for. It should either be a part of an extension to the light rail (which could then perhaps curve towards Murdoch - perhaps questionable now given the Orbital line would also serve this purpose) or should be a part of the high priority transit corridor rather than an actual BRT proposal.
Murdoch Station to Cockburn Coast and Fremantle
Given the extensive development going on along Cockburn Coast, I suspect the framework for a BRT will be needed here sooner than what is proposed. The area will be predominantly high density and it'll be best to put the BRT infrastructure in as early as possible to ensure sustainable travel patterns are developed as soon as possible.

Heavy Rail - Commuter Transit
The only line to really qualify for this is the AvonLink. While starting to get out of scope, it would be good to see if one day a reasonable rail connection can be sustained for the Avon region. Services could continue to operate into Midland (skipping Belevue) where access to the activity centre or suburban rail network could be made. There might be some slight growth in the area to help support it (otherwise just relying on increase mode share like at present). There is also mention of Australind, but it really falls under Intercity more so.

Heavy Rail - Intercity Transit
This largely relates to the Prospector and Australind and future opportunities for a Bunbury fast train. As can be seen from the maps, there is still further work to be undertaken for a new southern rail alignment. The Mandurah Line is pretty much off the cards due to capacity constraints and aside from utilising the separate tracks along the Armadale Line corridor, any other option would be quite expensive. Probably the most sensible option would be to follow Forrest Hwy through to a station at Ravenswood Riverfront, then utilise Tonkin Highway through to Seaforth before joining the Armadale Line corridor on separate intercity tracks. This would probably be the best alignment for maximising potential for a high speed rail (i.e. potentially as high as 300km/h :shock: ) However if it becomes evident that there's a need for additional capacity in the south, then perhaps a line dissecting centrally between the Mandurah and Armadale Lines and connecting onwards to the EWRL would be a better option. Since the EWRL would already be optimised for higher speed running too and high station spacing, but would probably limit the potential for a service with speeds significantly higher than the current 130km/h given the line would eventually integrate with the suburban network near Clarkson-Butler. The other issue would be conflicting purposes - i.e. Suburban vs Intercity. But if EWRL trains could continue to serve the southern metropolitan area and terminate somewhere between Perth and Ravenswood Riverfront while fast trains from Bunbury operated as far north as the CBD, it could somehow work?
User avatar
Mr OC Benz
Moderator
 
Posts: 5628
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW
Has thanked: 459 times
Been thanked: 1217 times
Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million

Postby TP1173 » Sat Jul 30, 2016 12:57 am

A few criticisms of the plan on my end.

1. Why on earth did they stop at Morley with the plans for the Northern ring?... A couple of km short of a junction with two train lines and thus enabling a proper circle without having to take a bus or potentially having to detour via the city - the whole point of which the transport plan was to achieve the exact opposite. Also, that line needs to run via Mirrabooka - would be insanely silly to miss a metropolitan node like Mirrabooka.

2. The Subway beyond 3.5million seems like an after thought they slapped down at the last second. Makes absolutely no sense running it under the Swan. Either a) Don't run that segment or b) Run it via the Zoo/South Perth, and preferably Vic Park too.

3. The East Wanneroo Rail Link seems very much like a late after thought that went along the lines of "****, the Joondalup Line will be at capacity @ 3.5million, quick, think!" Perhaps we need a deadset Northern Rail Link that runs via Mirrabooka and then dead straight North along Mirra Ave. and then resumes course of the EWRL?

4. I'm also surprised not to see something to do with the Charles St/Wanneroo Road Corridor. Perhaps a bus priority option needs to be looked at from the City to Wanneroo with potential extension to Carramar - the main requirement being bypassing of the traffic lights that delay services.

5. I'm in a state of shock to not see any mention of the crisis that is Ranford Road. That needs to be sorted ASAP. South Street and Ranford are a suicide mission during peak hour and the bus lanes have cars having to use them to turn here and turn there. And the one spot they actually need bus priority - around Roe Highway and then from the freight rail line to at minimum, past Livingston - there is no bus priority.... :shock: The area is already a complete cluster**** and to think there will still be nothing done by 3.5 million - when there will be housing more than likely infilled all the way to Armadale leaves me speechless. They need to pull their heads out of the sand and build a segregated, above roadway, else underground BRT or LRT from Murdoch Uni (or at very minimum, before Vahland Avenue) to Armadale via South St and Livingston. It MUST be completely separate from the road and should be compatible with a train station at Canning Vale.

Unlike many things outlined in this plan. Ranford Road is already at capacity - and so this needs to be sorted and built ASAP.

6. I'm also surprised to only see the BRT ending at Cockburn Coast - should build it to Cockburn Central - and do it while they still have the room. Perhaps beyond 3.5 mil the proposed line terminating at Cockburn Central could be extended to Cockburn Coast - depending on whether the mass of development around the Old Power Station ever gets approved and design settled upon while I am alive.... :P
TP1173
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 8:56 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 33 times
Favourite Vehicle: High Floors!

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million

Postby PaxInfo » Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:32 am

My thoughts on the integrated mass transit network.

1. Agree with the radial extensions to Yanchep, Bellevue and Byford. Like concept of the Fremantle line extending south but there's poor catchment to justify something underground (plus engineering challenges etc). You won't necessarily save many bus kilometres as people will still want buses to go to Fremantle for local trips. So BRT down Cockburn Rd may be sensible.

2. The Butler - Marshall Rd may be justified on the grounds of improving peak capacity but at any other times it will be dead. And it's too far north to directly feed centres at Mirrabooka and Joondalup. But the north (@3.5 million) is probably populated and dense enough to require rail out to 20 or 30km north.

3. The subway loop. Not sure of the wisdom of this. It requires a change from any suburban line. There may be better means to achieve its coverage. See 6. below.

4. Core capacity. Not sure if the network plan does enough for this. An interesting exercise is the count the number of directions from which there are dedicated lines into the city (rail or exclusive bus eg busways). Perth has less than Brisbane now and Melbourne when it had 3.5 million population. The plan (black lines) increases this from five to six (with the extra to Morley/Marshall Rd etc). A city aspiring to double its population should increase this number to 8 if not 10 separate directions. The aim of this is to relieve stress on existing corridors and serve major central destinations remote from high capacity rail. An even number of separate directions allows all lines to be through-routed and not an inefficient stub like the Armadale line.

5. Busy inner areas that could justify heavy rail (including underground) include CBD east (Adelaide Tce area), UWA and QEII. Maybe even Curtin Uni. The pattern of inner rail should not simply converge at a single CBD station but form a grid to allow easy interchange between inner areas not on the same line. There also needs to be easy interchange with surface bus and light rail.

6. Some back-of-the-envelope thoughts on heavy rail corridors:

- Increase all lines to every 7.5 min or better off peak 7 days/week

- Extend Thornlie line through the CBD and underground to QEII. New station near Hay St/Thomas St (Stage 1). Extend underground to Claremont (Stage 2).

- Realign Armadale line in CBD and extend underground to UWA via Elizabeth Quay Station. Branch off Thornlie line at Victoria Park (which will become an interchange) and operate via new Plain St Station under Adelaide Tce with easy interchange to buses or light rail operating above. Plain St Station to include 24 hour CAT bus to Northbridge via East Perth and Claisebrook. Plain St will be a busy station for eastern CBD commuters, hotel guests and those going to WACA. Stage 2 could see this line extend under the river south with stations at Canning Hwy, Willagee and Hilton. This is ambitious but would provide a faster option than a Fremantle line extension for the Cockburn area.

- Butler - Marshall Rd portion would not be built. But the Marshall Rd - Morley portion could extend from Perth Station to Curtin Uni via stations at Plain St/Adelaide Tce and Victoria Park Transfer Station. Stage 2 could extend to Ellenbrook.

- Landsdale line. Roughly Alexander Dr alignment. Operates to Elizabeth Quay via Perth Station. Potential extension to South Perth (if it develops more like North Sydney) and beyond.
User avatar
PaxInfo
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million

Postby Mr OC Benz » Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:45 am

TP1173 wrote:2. The Subway beyond 3.5million seems like an after thought they slapped down at the last second. Makes absolutely no sense running it under the Swan. Either a) Don't run that segment or b) Run it via the Zoo/South Perth, and preferably Vic Park too.

PaxInfo wrote:3. The subway loop. Not sure of the wisdom of this. It requires a change from any suburban line. There may be better means to achieve its coverage. See 6. below.

FYI, that circle on the map is not an actual route or loop. But rather, the indicative area of where an inner-city Subway line (or lines which may not even be a loop) would run:
'Public Transport Plan wrote:Therefore, it is important that a comprehensive dialogue is started with stakeholders in the near to medium term, to decide on the future direction of the city, up to and beyond the 3.5 million horizon. If agreement can be reached amongst stakeholders that a dense and large enough core is in fact desirable (or inevitable), then significant work would need to be undertaken to investigate matters such as possible alignments, stations and depot locations. This work would have to be closely aligned with the future plans for not only the city, but the rest of the transport network and the metropolitan area as a whole.


TP1173 wrote:3. The East Wanneroo Rail Link seems very much like a late after thought that went along the lines of "****, the Joondalup Line will be at capacity @ 3.5million, quick, think!" Perhaps we need a deadset Northern Rail Link that runs via Mirrabooka and then dead straight North along Mirra Ave. and then resumes course of the EWRL?

Alignment options like this were also discussed in detail (see extract below), but not only for the issues below, it would completely miss out on Morley, which is already the biggest activity centre (excluding Perth CBD) by employment, but would also compromise the ability for any rail spur to be constructed to Ellenbrook and would also result in some catchment overlap with the Joondalup Line (which is considerably large compared to the Midland Line's catchment despite its closer proximity to EWRL).
Public Transport Plan wrote:For example, an alignment under Mirrabooka would be more direct, however the length of tunnelling required will be extensive (and therefore more costly). Opportunities for Park ‘n’ Ride and large bus transfer stations would also be limited by the current built up nature of the area.


Your other points on main corridors (e.g. Wanneroo Rd, Ranford Rd etc) are under the Public Transport On-Road Network (See Page 63 and onwards of Road Network Plan). Both of those in particular are highlighted as "High Priority Transport Corridor" and discusses the various measures that would need to be implemented. Also noting that the planned bus priority for Ranford Road is already starting to be implemented which will alleviate the issues in the peak occurring at the moment. Of course, I don't see it being a long-lasting improvement, but hence the Thornlie Link Extension (TLE) would help to more permanently alleviate the traffic woes surrounding South St and Ranford Rd. With a bit of luck, this project might be the next or second in line after FAL (either that or EWRL).

Also PS. Cockburn Coast development has already started. Shoreline is the first precinct to be commenced on. With the overall area (including the power station) set to be redeveloped over 15-20 years.

PaxInfo wrote:4. Core capacity. Not sure if the network plan does enough for this. An interesting exercise is the count the number of directions from which there are dedicated lines into the city (rail or exclusive bus eg busways). Perth has less than Brisbane now and Melbourne when it had 3.5 million population. The plan (black lines) increases this from five to six (with the extra to Morley/Marshall Rd etc). A city aspiring to double its population should increase this number to 8 if not 10 separate directions. The aim of this is to relieve stress on existing corridors and serve major central destinations remote from high capacity rail. An even number of separate directions allows all lines to be through-routed and not an inefficient stub like the Armadale line.

Don't forget that Perth where land mass constitutes it as one of the largest cities in the world, is a narrow stretch of 150km squeezed in between the Indian Ocean and Darling Scarp. If we had that many lines radiating from the city, the overlap would be massive :shock: But also, would still not do anything to alleviate pressure on the central area. Hence the orbital line and Subway to distribute passengers better within and around.

PaxInfo wrote:5. Busy inner areas that could justify heavy rail (including underground) include CBD east (Adelaide Tce area), UWA and QEII. Maybe even Curtin Uni. The pattern of inner rail should not simply converge at a single CBD station but form a grid to allow easy interchange between inner areas not on the same line. There also needs to be easy interchange with surface bus and light rail.

Interesting that it was mentioned the EWRL could extend further south, but another section mentioned it connecting onto the Armadale Line (to through-route). What you mention is what the basis of the Subway system (and Orbital) would cover (apart from Curtin University). But EWRL could also competently cover some of these areas too, although the main intent with that is for limited station spacing, so again, Subway would be able to provide all these of connections through high frequency trains and short station spacing ideal for these inner-city short trips (similar to how it's done overseas and not how Sydney has done it... :roll: )
User avatar
Mr OC Benz
Moderator
 
Posts: 5628
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW
Has thanked: 459 times
Been thanked: 1217 times
Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Postby Mr OC Benz » Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:42 pm

I've had a bit of a chance to look at the on-road public transport network component of Transport @ 3.5 million. This is probably the section that will tickle many members fancy here as it gives a better insight into the bus-based measures that are likely to be introduced.

Public transport corridors and bus priority measures
The range of measures included:
Partial bus priority - Signal priority and bus queue jump lanes
Full bus priority - Dedicated bus lanes

Nothing unexpected here. Figure 8.1 (Attached in first post) provides good detail into what we can expect the line-haul bus network (and some light rail) will look like @ 3.5 million. I've included some of the more interesting points raised:

Two Rocks transit way
This was largely expected and has been part of the long term plan supporting the region's growth and providing an appropriate connection to the Yanchep activity centre and Joondalup Line.

Wanneroo Road, Ocean Reef Road / Gnangara Road, Whitfords Avenue, Beach Road and Cedric Street
Again, logical improvements which mostly just consist of queue jump lanes, bus lanes for feeder services approaching the Joondalup Line interchanges etc.

Scarborough Beach Road
Dedicated bus lanes are planned for Scarborough Beach Road between Main Street east of the freeway and Hinderwell Street east of West Coast Highway, providing 4 lanes for general traffic with 2 bus lanes in the median for most of this section. Between Stephenson Avenue and Odin Road the existing 6 lanes for general traffic will be reduced to 4 lanes. Between St Brigids Terrace and Hinderwell Street the existing 4 lanes for general traffic will be reduced to 2 lanes.
I can't seem to find any timelines on this, but hopefully it'll happen sooner rather than later to support the volume of buses and infill growth expected. Note the lanes are planned for the median which should enable much more effective priority with signal control and limited conflicts with left in left out turns that currently affect kerbside bus lanes at present. Of course, the lanes in the median allow for easy conversion to light rail in the future too.

Charles Street Bus Bridge and Charles Street
The document just notes what is currently under construction. However it does also make mention of a southbound bus lane as far north as Scarborough Beach Road being provided to connect to the bus bridge.

Stirling Highway
Queue jump lanes planned at 13 intersections between Broadway at UWA and Alfred St, Fremantle. Sounds like it'll be a breeze after that!

Mounts Bay Road
The document assumes here that the Stirling-Murdoch orbital rail will significantly reduce demand along Mounts Bay Road. But until that happens, I presume that means demand will still be quite high on the 950. No mention on the impact of the Light Rail though interestingly as the impression I get is that will be constructed before the orbital rail is.

A brief mention that the street transit network, comprising buses running on local roads with stops closer together and coverage is out of scope in this plan. This would apply to most suburban feeder services and some line-haul.

Maylands Bus Bridge
This is something I have been dreaming for a while, but surprised to see in the plan. Again, hope this is a project that'll happen sooner than later. The efficiency benefits would be enormous. Currently the nearest bridges from here are at Garratt Road and Graham Farmer Freeway. In some respect, is similar to the Homebush Bay Bridge in Sydney which also prohibits car usage (with the journey to the other side by car taking as long as 20-25 minutes, making PT travel more attractive). Hopefully the same can happen here, removing a physical barrier and delivering enormous benefits to the local bus network. From the sounds of what is discussed in the document, a new orbital bus route that would connect Glendalough, Maylands and Oats Street via Belmont Forum would perhaps be in the form of the current 406 route? Bus bridge would also make it easier to provide connections from the north to the Burswood Peninsula and Perth Stadium.

Lake Joondalup Bridge
There appears to be conflicting information on whether this is to be a general traffic bridge, a bus bridge (similar to Maylands), or a green bridge only. If it's in the form of a bus bridge, would like the Maylands bus bridge, provide enormous efficiency benefits and public transport advantage to the area. The current route between Wanneroo and Joondalup is as direct as it can be, but for what is a straight line 2km distance, is 10km in travel distance.

Looking at figure 8.1 in more detail, the high priority and high frequency transport corridors are already resembled by existing bus routes in some parts. It does give us some insight, by corresponding this data with current routes, where to expect frequency improvements in the near future. Rather than list line-haul routes that are expected to have higher frequencies and/or operate with high priority in the future, see the attached closer view on the inner areas of Perth. Orange indicates high frequency transport corridor while green indicates high priority transport corridor (which is also assumed high frequency in most cases).
Image

Now, in terms of the other parts of the plans.

Cycling network
Significant proposals here to boost cycling as an active transport mode, and so there should be. The cycle only bridges, in the same way that bus only bridges would be, are a very attractive way to get more people to cycle, especially if it delivers time benefits compared to alternative modes. The Three Points Bridge in particular I think is a great idea. Hopefully there is the opportunity for excellent design to go into the bridges when constructed (similar to the Perth Stadium bridge, even though it may not be everyone's cup of tea, is still much more impressive than any other cycle bridge).

Freight network
My interest in freight is rather limited, and as a result, I remain rather neutral on the proposals, including the controversial Roe 8 project - of which contracts are supposed to be signed by the end of this year.

Freeway (and general road) network
The freeway network proposed @ 3.5 million is quite impressive. But at the same time also shows that Perth has still not shaken off its obsession with cars. While I understand the need for efficient freight road and rail networks, it seems that some of the proposals here just look at building more roads for cars rather than for people. For example, I'm not entirely convinced that the Stock Road tunnel is needed, but if it is, it certainly shouldn't be built before the orbital rail. Likewise with the East-West City Link. I'm of the opinion that Riverside Drive should be closed to enable greater activation of the waterfront, however I believe that the transport demand in the area could be catered for by an increase in mass transit projects. E.g. Subway system, southern extension of EWRL etc. By getting more people onto public transport within the inner-city area, even with the closure of Riverside Dr, the existing needs for efficient movement of freight within the city could still be catered for within the existing roads (sans Riverside Drive). Hopefully revisions in the plan over time will see the removal of these two tunnels and hopefully replaced with additional mass transit modes or more definitive research into the development of a Subway system that could help negate the need for the East-West City Link tunnel and for the Stirling-Murdoch orbital rail to negate/delay the need for the Stock Road tunnel.
User avatar
Mr OC Benz
Moderator
 
Posts: 5628
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW
Has thanked: 459 times
Been thanked: 1217 times
Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Postby TP1173 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 12:43 am

In reply to post above.

Park 'n Ride features are NOT important in an area of high density established residential like it is, most of the way to Mirrabooka. Wish we'd cut it with the park and ride crap. Sure, some parking may need to be allocated - but at a station out in the middle of nowhere at the northern end of Landsdale where people living outside of Perth and public transport reach can drive to - not halfway to the city therefore making no dent on congestion.

As much as it's all well and good to talk about costs etc, going via Morley simply will not alleviate capacity from the Joondalup Line. Because the people who live relatively close to either are more than likely to choose the Joondalup line if it means you don't have to dogleg halfway across Perth to get to the city. Only to end up with a full train of Ellenbrookians who are ALL (EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. NO CARS. ONLY TRAIN :| - Well at least they make it sound like that based on their right royal whinging about 'promises' :roll: :P ) going to catch the train and fill them rrriiiiggghhhtttt up! :twisted: :twisted:

It's all well and good to say it is in the Joondalup Line feeder zone overlap. But the one of the largest reasons for the EWRL is the fact that the Joondalup Line is AT capacity during peak by the time everything is built. So therefore, running a train line that slightly overlaps the catchment is exactly what you want? I'm not talking about running it up Charles St and Wanneroo Road. I'm talking Mirrabooka Ave - in which the further North you go, the further it gets from the Joondalup Line. Development will not expand much further to the East than the catchment of such a line due to NorthLink, Whiteman Park and the Water Catchment.

Whether it is close to the Joondalup Line and Morley Line is irrelevant South of Mirrabooka due to the high density nature of the established housing (as well as more high density apartments around the TV Station area to come (unless the council rejected the idea of multi storey apartments?). And lets not forget that even on a Saturday or a Sunday or any day of the week (ie. PEAK!!!!) the trains are full by time the serious overlapping of catchments take place.

Besides which, if I can ever get on an empty bus going limited stops to Mirrabooka, I'll let you know! :wink:
TP1173
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 8:56 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 33 times
Favourite Vehicle: High Floors!

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Postby Shoudy Chen » Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:28 am

An article based on extension of the Midland Line to Ellenbrook.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... ae5a7b5693
User avatar
Shoudy Chen
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:55 am
Location: Perth
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Postby Mr OC Benz » Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:20 pm

TP1173 wrote:Park 'n Ride features are NOT important in an area of high density established residential like it is, most of the way to Mirrabooka. Wish we'd cut it with the park and ride crap. Sure, some parking may need to be allocated - but at a station out in the middle of nowhere at the northern end of Landsdale where people living outside of Perth and public transport reach can drive to - not halfway to the city therefore making no dent on congestion.

I agree regarding park and ride. But that is Perth's love affair with the car for you. However I think it's a very far fetched claim to consider the area between Perth and Mirrabooka as high density. The majority of housing stock is still R20-R30 coded detached dwellings with a mixture of R40-R60 grouped dwellings and some multiple dwellings (particularly within City of Vincent) south of Woodrow Ave.

TP1173 wrote:As much as it's all well and good to talk about costs etc, going via Morley simply will not alleviate capacity from the Joondalup Line. Because the people who live relatively close to either are more than likely to choose the Joondalup line if it means you don't have to dogleg halfway across Perth to get to the city. Only to end up with a full train of Ellenbrookians who are ALL (EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. NO CARS. ONLY TRAIN :| - Well at least they make it sound like that based on their right royal whinging about 'promises' :roll: :P ) going to catch the train and fill them rrriiiiggghhhtttt up! :twisted: :twisted:

Well as mentioned in earlier posts, alleviating capacity from the Joondalup Line is only one factor. North-east quadrant is not currently served by rapid transit, there is limited space to increase capacity on existing roads within the inner north-east quadrant, Morley activity centre currently has and will further be reinforced in the future a significantly higher living population as well as working population (it already is a big employment base, higher than any other activity centre). Stage 1 which primarily focuses on Morley obviously does little to impact on Joondalup Line loadings, but will cater for and relieve the ever increasing pressure on bus services within the north-east quadrant (which has the highest number of bus boardings in the metropolitan area). A direct line up towards Mirrabooka will not alleviate any of this pressure, nor for the inner-part, impact on the Joondalup Line, but will continue to put pressure on existing north-east bus routes that do the heavy lifting for the region.

TP1173 wrote:It's all well and good to say it is in the Joondalup Line feeder zone overlap. But the one of the largest reasons for the EWRL is the fact that the Joondalup Line is AT capacity during peak by the time everything is built. So therefore, running a train line that slightly overlaps the catchment is exactly what you want? I'm not talking about running it up Charles St and Wanneroo Road. I'm talking Mirrabooka Ave - in which the further North you go, the further it gets from the Joondalup Line. Development will not expand much further to the East than the catchment of such a line due to NorthLink, Whiteman Park and the Water Catchment.

Don't forget that the northern and southern railway lines have a significantly higher catchment zone to the heritage lines due to the extensive feeder bus network and Park 'n' Ride. Yes, EWRL helps to relieve Joondalup Line, but it also needs to serve the purpose of relieving the north-east quadrant where everything is road-based. So a balance between the two is needed. Stage 2 of EWRL primarily focuses on relieving capacity from the Joondalup Line. For example, the areas surrounding Landsdale and Wanneroo are currently apart of the Joondalup Line catchment, but would also be overlapped by the EWRL catchment. Due to the longer station spacing on the EWRL and the shorter distance to travel to a station, the journey time will still be quicker than the current trek across to the Joondalup Line. Couple this with the fact that the majority of commuters (up to 75%) north of Clarkson (as far as Yanchep) will use EWRL because of the faster journey time to the CBD will ensure significant capacity is freed up for future commuters south of Clarkson.
Public Transport Plan wrote: In order to successfully attract passengers off the Joondalup Line, EWRL must offer competitive journey times, from door to door. As the railway would be less direct than the Joondalup Line in serving the CBD, it must focus on speed. By operating at a higher speed and with fewer stations than the Joondalup line, EWRL could successfully attract up to 75% of peak hour CBD bound patrons north of Clarkson Station.


TP1173 wrote:Whether it is close to the Joondalup Line and Morley Line is irrelevant South of Mirrabooka due to the high density nature of the established housing (as well as more high density apartments around the TV Station area to come (unless the council rejected the idea of multi storey apartments?). And lets not forget that even on a Saturday or a Sunday or any day of the week (ie. PEAK!!!!) the trains are full by time the serious overlapping of catchments take place.

Again, see top response regarding high density (or lack thereof). Also no, in typical Perth fashion, the TV station area is going to end up majority single R20-R30 lots with limited high density (and probably only because it's forced upon to meet "housing diversity" requirements). :roll: :twisted: Ridiculous, but you can blame property developers like Satterley for that...

In summary, a line directly north does help to alleviate capacity issues slightly more than the Morley alignment, but does not alleviate any capacity issues that exist with existing public transport in the north-east quadrant and Morley area nor does it provide a new catchment for residents living between Bassendean and Ellenbrook on the ever growing Swan north-east corridor to relieve pressure that would ultimately build up on the Midland Line. A route directly north would need more stations than the EWRL alignment which then also significantly reduces the attractiveness of the line for residents north of Clarkson which in turn reduces its ability to relieve capacity from the Joondalup Line as effectively as EWRL would. A line directly north also leaves Morley without any significant improvements, which would then mean another proposal would have to be developed to handle the transport requirements of the area. The document discusses exactly the above and why the EWRL alignment was chosen over any of the other possibilities.
User avatar
Mr OC Benz
Moderator
 
Posts: 5628
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW
Has thanked: 459 times
Been thanked: 1217 times
Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Postby mrobsessed » Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:30 am

Did someone say election?
User avatar
mrobsessed
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Perth WA
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 174 times
Favourite Vehicle: AEC Reliance

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Postby Shoudy Chen » Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:37 pm

mrobsessed wrote:Did someone say election?

The election will come up in 2017.
User avatar
Shoudy Chen
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:55 am
Location: Perth
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Postby TP1173 » Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:05 pm

Sorry, what I would quote is too long. Blame Satterly or blame the people who don't want their precious views spoilt? 8)

R20-R30, I'm a Perth boy. R20-R30 sounds like high density to me! :wink:

I wish we had all the money in the world and completely unlimited resources. Then I could be like the Old El Paso as girl... "Why don't we have both?" [Every cheers and music plays] :mrgreen:
TP1173
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 8:56 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 33 times
Favourite Vehicle: High Floors!

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Postby TP1173 » Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:11 pm

Shoudy Chen wrote:
mrobsessed wrote:Did someone say election?

The election will come up in 2017.

Hey it could be worse... Could be that kids crayon drawing... Er, I mean, Metronet. :P (I should go into hiding now... 8) )
TP1173
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 8:56 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 33 times
Favourite Vehicle: High Floors!

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Postby tbc1983 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:36 am

It's beyond me why the 955-6 have
survived/remain...surely 355-6 or whatever. The 920 and 940 are more
worthy yet have been downgra...er... renumbered.

oh yeah....Ellenbrook.....politics.


Cheers!
Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem.
User avatar
tbc1983
 
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 7:27 pm
Has thanked: 854 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Postby Mr OC Benz » Sat Aug 20, 2016 8:39 pm

A friend linked me an interesting presentation on the Perth Transport Plan @ 3.5 million. There's some key points and graphics not so obvious from within the actual suite of documents. I've attached some of the more interesting graphics.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Mr OC Benz
Moderator
 
Posts: 5628
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW
Has thanked: 459 times
Been thanked: 1217 times
Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Postby Shoudy Chen » Mon Aug 22, 2016 1:49 pm

There will be more upgrades to the rail network. The Thornlie Line will extend to Cockburn Central. But the only concern about this was that they need to upgrade the Mandurah Line and the Freight Line in Jandakot to allow a dual track.
User avatar
Shoudy Chen
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:55 am
Location: Perth
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: [Perth] Transport @ 3.5 million people

Postby theenglishguy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:11 pm

Mr OC Benz wrote:A friend linked me an interesting presentation on the Perth Transport Plan @ 3.5 million. There's some key points and graphics not so obvious from within the actual suite of documents. I've attached some of the more interesting graphics.

I was actually at this presentation - really interesting with lots of extra information that's not in the published documents. There were a few things in particular that stood out for me:

  • The PTA want the new Morley line to connect up with the Armadale line so they don't have to turn trains around at Perth. They didn't mention any specific alignments, but it will be interesting to see what they come up with. Work on choosing a route is starting now, so we should find out in the next couple of years.
  • The new Bellevue depot would solely service the Midland and Fremantle lines, allowing for Claisebrook to service the Armadale/Thornlie lines. With 27 trains/hr running past Claisebrook on the Armadale line, Midland trains won't be able to get to/from the depot, so another facility is needed.
  • Stirling-Murdoch orbital railway would be completely separate from the rest of the Transperth system - that way it's isolated from any delays/problems effecting other lines. Will be interesting to see if they choose to use automated trains - great opportunity to introduce Vancouver-style Skytrain technology. Would be really beneficial for passengers using this orbital line if there were small vehicles running at high frequencies.
  • Automated Train Control is likely to be implemented on all lines in the next 10 years or so. Even if frequencies don't need to be increased (which is unlikely), our current signaling system will need to be replaced. We are the only city still using Transperth's version of Alstom's signaling and getting replacement parts is taking longer and longer.
  • The inner city subway would be a series of lines - not a single circular one. It would start with a single short line, which would be gradually extended with additional lines constructed later on.
theenglishguy
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:38 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Next


  • Advertisement

Return to Discussion - Perth / WA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests