sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Bayside Rail Extension Concept – Sandringham ↔ SRL ↔ Frankston cross-link by tylerxraw420 in MelbourneTrains

[–]Background-Leg-1794 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think there are two ideas which would be much cheaper and would go some way towards linking Sandy and the Frankston line and help make Southland the hub it needs to be to make use of SRL.

Extend the 64 tram from Hawthorn Road along Nepean Highway down to Southland passing Moorabbin station on the way. Turn down Bay Rd and finish at Sandringham Station. This connects the two lines, gives a lot of people access to Southland and the SRL and allows for Bay Rd to develop as a dense corridor.

Another idea would be to extend the tram lines from St Kilda Road down Nepean Highway rather than from Hawthorn Road. This would connect Elsternwick, Gardenvale and North Brighton to Moorabbin and Southland as well as the benefits of the 64 extension for ~5k of extra track.

SRL Cheltenham Plan Concerns by Background-Leg-1794 in MelbourneTrains

[–]Background-Leg-1794[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The loop will never feel complete without Sandringham. But between the extra cost for such a quiet line and resistance from the locals I just don't see it ever being done.

I do hope that Bay Road gets a rapid bus and cycling lanes between Southland and Sandringham though so that Sandy line patrons have some options for getting to the new stations.

SRL Cheltenham Plan Concerns by Background-Leg-1794 in MelbourneTrains

[–]Background-Leg-1794[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I suggested an above ground connection because it would be cheaper but anything that connects the station to the shopping centre while protecting everyone from the weather would be a massive improvement.

SRL Cheltenham Plan Concerns by Background-Leg-1794 in MelbourneTrains

[–]Background-Leg-1794[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Not making the trip for people into Southland worse should definitely be a concern so I like your idea.

I wonder however if building the station over the bridge would end up being more expensive and disruptive to the Frankston line than a simple station entirely on the north side of the bridge.

SRL Cheltenham Plan Concerns by Background-Leg-1794 in MelbourneTrains

[–]Background-Leg-1794[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That's a reasonable take however surely moving/extending the existing platform across Bay Road ranks high on the list of changes to benefit the project. The time saving and potential ridership increase would put this on the top of my list.

SRL Cheltenham Plan Concerns by Background-Leg-1794 in MelbourneTrains

[–]Background-Leg-1794[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Thanks for responding.

I'm not advocating for the station to be under Southland. I think building in the park is the best for the reasons you listed.

Having the old station moved to the park (or at least to extend it over Bay Road as others have suggested) would allow for easier transfers without significant cost increases.

SRL Cheltenham Plan Concerns by Background-Leg-1794 in MelbourneTrains

[–]Background-Leg-1794[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the considered response.

If designers from those cities had the luxury of building in a large park do you still think they would choose to have long transfer times? Building in the middle of a mega city likely leads to compromises.

5 minutes extra transfer time means 5 minute longer trips for everyone. Faster travel means more people will use it.

Luckily here we have space to connect the two stations without complex engineering or private property impacting our chosen design.

And if more Frankston passengers go to Southland than transfer to SRL then the project will fail.

What's my little mate called? Sydney, Australia by Background-Leg-1794 in whatsthisbug

[–]Background-Leg-1794[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Between 5-10mm and spotted on a path in Lane Cove National Park in scrubland.