I have Google Earthed Dudley's concept, and am convinced that it is doomed.
Bulleen Rd has only four lanes, and there is no way that two will be released for a fast tram.
Manningham Rd has six lanes, but too much traffic to release two for a project which will not re reducing traffic.
The whole lot is too circuitous, and hence too slow to tempt suburbs built for cars to switch thinking.
I have just poured cold water on my extension via Doncaster Rd and Blackburn road to the Pines.
IMHO, the only road which can spare the space is Doncaster Rd, and it still suffers from lack of carparking.
Returning to the Perth examples, the only hope will be freeway based.
Tram solution: Docklands - Bourke St - Nicholson St - Alexandra Pde then freeway as far as you want to go: ground level to Bulleen; elevated elswhere. This is no worse urban blight than exists already. Carparks at every tram stop to be built on rafts above the freeway. The main drawback is the time taken to exit from the city centre. Thereafter it is fast: look at Manila, or even Bangkok (bothof which have stations on closer spacings than will apply here).
Rail solution: faster city exit, but go only to Bulleen and terminate, with a major bus interchange there (bigger than Bondi Jn, more like the superseded one in Hong Kong, linking to Tuen Mun). The interchange would also be built on a raft above the freeway. That gets the buses out of Hoddle St and Victoria Pde.
Anything else is doomed on cost for likely patronage, and political problems with the implementation. Ted was quite astute in gambling on an investition to win the election, but knowing that nothing will have to follow.
Now to look for Rowville ideas. I investigated last year: much of the planned median alignment has gone to road widening. It won't be cheap either, but has the potential to be more useful (even after losing Waverley Park). There will have to be substantial elevation or lowering. Tram is useless: what will they change into at Huntingdale? It would also be isolated. Tram to Doncaster can be connected.
DoT will push that Rowville can't happen without Eddington II, which can't happen without Eddinton I. That isn't necessarily true: Rowville could pick up all of the paths intended for the Westall locals.
Roderick B Smith
Rail News Victoria Editor
--- InTramsDownUnder@..., "Dudley Horscroft" <transitconsult@....> wrote:
>
> The original rail proposal was from Princes Bridge Station via Jolimont, etc, to Victoria Park Station, then a curve to gain the median of the Eastern Freeway. IIRC, Victoria Park Station was resited some distance to the south to permit the curve - the original station was too far north for this. The curve would have aligned with the median strip at the site of the footbridge linking Trenerry Cres and Groom Street.
>
> The line would have remained in the median to about one mile east of the Bulleen St bridge, at Alfreda Avenue. and then gone into tunnel. It was to cross under Manningham Rd at Riviera Av, then under High St at John St. It crossed Williamsons Rd at King St, with a station a few yards east. It crosses Church Rd a few yards north of Mintaro Court, Then Tuckers Rd a bit north of Beavis Court, then surfaces and has a station in the NW quadrant of King St and Blackburn Road. This is presumably the terminus as no route is shown thereafter. At the time that area was open country, with only a few yards of Tarparoo Road in existence. It is now densely populated and the station would have to be underground as well. Only two stations are shown - not much traffic then, but the line would have been fast!
>
> If you check Nearmap, you will see that the actual crunch point for the tram from Alexandra Parade to the Eastern Freeway median is at Alexander St, a short way to the west of Hoddle St, where the median narrows to little more than a New Jersey barrier. There should be sufficient room there for pillars for an elevated section, preferably double track, but a short single track section if necessary - what frequency are we talking about? There is of course no reason why the westbound trams should not be diverted from the median into the T2 road lane, the latter being suitably protected by traffic signals, while the eastbound trams run in the narrow median, with suitable barriers.
>
> Along the freeway median should be no problem till after the Bulleen Road bridge, where the median decreases to zero. Here the railway was supposed to transfer via a bridge to the northern side of the highway, and run on reservation there till it entered the tunnel. The light rail can do the same, except that it would be better to cross into Thompsons Road. I suggest that the tramway run either side of the median in Thompsons, Manningham and Williamsons Roads to Doncaster Shoppingtown. Stops only at the intersections, which would be arranged for interchange with the various bus routes that otherwise would enter the Freeway for the trip to the CBD. Effectively, a high speed tramway, speed at full road speed limit, and the stops in the median, as far as possible. DST is already a suitable point for feeder buses.
>
> Rather than extend the North Balwyn line past Greythorn (which it should go to now), consider a branch from the freeway along Chandler Highway, Earl St, Asquith St to Kew High Street, to link with the 48 and provide a fast service to the CBD that way?
>
> Regards
>
> Dudley Horscroft
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roderick Smith
> To:vicrail-news@... ; 'TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com'
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:09 PM
> Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Re: Election
>
>
> Rod W had an offlist exchange a few years ago regarding a monorail for
> Doncaster East. IIRC, he was advocating running it above Punt Rd / Hoddle
> St from an interchange at Richmond.
>
> I have never found any monorail which confers any advantage compared with
> elevated 'light rail'. The overhead structures are equally cumbersome and
> obstrusive, and monorails are slower.
>
> I posted the other day a concept for doing the route as an elevated tram,
> compatible with the rest of the Melbourne network. I have now checked the
> alignment with Google Earth.
>
> There is a lot about the original Doncaster concept by googling, but no
> clear map. One may exist in Electric Traction, but I can't find an index to
> hasten searching.
>
> The original concept was via the Clifton Hill loop tunnel to a curved ramp
> near Victoria Park; freeway median to Bulleen Rd, then tunnel under
> Doncaster to somewhere.
>
> Sure enough, the median space runs only to Bulleen Rd.
>
> Tunnelling is way too expensive for the traffic potential: these are mature
> car-based suburbs.
>
> The problem with tram extensions is that they are too slow to tempt people
> out of cars.
>
> The problem with any fixed-rail extension to Doncaster is that there is not
> the carparking space to attract people to drive to the rail, be it
> light/heavy, mono/duo, surface/elevated/subway.
>
> The fastest for a realistic spend which I can see is a tram which is on a
> mixture of road and segregated alignment:
> * Docklands - Bourke St - Nicholson St to Alexandra Pde.
> * Trench or surface or elevated along the Alexandra Pde median. Something
> has to be done at Hoddle St, as the road lanes leave no gap. Probably go
> below (not cheap).
> * Median in the freeway to Bulleen Rd.
> * Elevated along the freeway to Doncaster Rd.
> * Median easement along Doncaster Rd to Shoppingtown (the road can survive
> with four lanes instead of the six today, the result of extending the
> freeway).
> Lots of choice thereafter:
> * Romantic choice: along Tram Rd and back to the freeway. Probably
> impractical, with insufficient traffic potential; the freeway gets closer
> and closer to the existing Ringwood line.
> * Stay on Doncaster Rd most of the way to Ringwood. Probably impractical,
> for reduced catchment.
> * Doncaster Rd & Blackburn Rd to the Pines shopping centre (would involve
> shared space with motor vehicles, but not as slow as in the inner city)..
> The problem with any of these is that very few people are within a walking
> catchment zone, and the land doesn't exist for big carparks of the style of
> the interchange to freeway buses at North Balwyn / Bulleen.
> Shopping centres are today's key interchange nodes bus to bus
> My feeling is that a Pines terminus provides the best catchment, traffic
> potential and speed for the money needed.
> Extending route 48 North Balwyn to join the fast line at the freeway
> interchange would be a logical infill. Would it be faster for Greythorn
> residents to travel outbound to the interchange, and then join a fast
> service to the city?
>
> Roderick B Smith
> Rail News Victoria Editor
>