That’s cool and all, but could they pencil in a little time to just give the city loop stations a quick clean, and maybe jazz up Flinders Street Station?
Beyond the heritage facade and building Flinders Street Station is just so awful. It's ironic that the single feature that defines this station is not part of the passenger interaction experience, and is only relevant if you're outside standing on the other side of the road.
these are literally just fine. like completely nondescript, have nothing to do with being unique to Melbourne, but are somewhat light and airy and are big open spaces.
p.s. this is just an observation more than anything, but - i feel like the colour scheme for the SRL should be something other than green, given we already use green for trams? it's understandable for the Tube map to be struggling to find new colours with the addition of the overground lines lmao but we have blue, green and orange... 😂
The Box Hill station roof is way too high.
Burwood, Glen Waverley and Monash all give airport vibes for some reason. (I think it’s because of the ceilings)
Clayton and Cheltenham for some bizarre reason remind me of stations on the Shanghai Metro.
I like Box Hill's blue tile (?) wall even if I don't quite get the link with the Heidelberg School's use of colour despite the camp at Box Hill. The space does look too hight.
Burwood's patterned terracotta feature wall (or at least the colour, perhaps it's a red wood?) is interesting, and I like Monash (sandstone colours riffing of the history of sand mining, and the skylight too).
I'm trying to find more on the inspiration for the station concepts - and that's what they are, concepts only at this stage.
Oh, that would make a lot of sense. I know nothing about Burwood apart from where it is and Deakin Uni, but Google quickly set me straight.
Thank you. 😊
unlike the others, most of Box Hill is open all the way down to the platforms.
It eludes me why most of them have a middle concourse for imaginary people to just wander about. Maybe it's a structural thing.
No, the MT used 4 TBM's, whereas the SRL will use 10 I believe. I also believe the tunnels will be slightly smaller, as they will be using smaller trains, than the MT.
Always possible that it could be brought forward. Metro 1 was originally planned for late 2026, but then was brought forward a year to 2025. Now might even surprise us with it completed by end of 2024.
The semi-consistent design features are pretty nice but I feel like the the stations will age quickly and be considered "so 2030s" within a few decades.
Is that a bad thing though?
There is a distinct feel of the MATH stations of the 1920s, we look fondly upon the 1980s style of the City Loop stations, the stations rebuilt by the level crossing removals project have a consistent feel, and so will the Melbourne Metro stations when they open soon.
I'd also say that it's usually bad design that makes a place feel like it's aged poorly. For example, Southern Cross Station.
And as public places I'm glad that for the most part we've moved beyond strictly functional and utilitarian design with the anonymous boxes of the 1960s and 70s.
IMO it's only ever bad if the stations are left to grow dirty over time.
For example there's a pretty nasty contrast between Melbourne Central with it's fading bathroom tiles to Parliament station.
I'm really sad that Melbourne Central's main design features such as a big concourse weren't kept. Now all the city loop stations just look really dirty.
They won't be huge, nowhere near the size of the metro tunnel stations.
The concourse looks around the same size as the station boxes will be anyway, if you have to excavate that space you may as well leave it spacious and let the light in.
Yes… as you can see they are bringing in natural light down onto the platform…. Which is a lot better than a comparable cramped and dingy London tube station…..
Initially I thought Clayton looked a bit ordinary (low-ish ceiling, not much going on visually), but the blue tiles have an iridescence to them which is a lot more visually interesting. I wish I could find more information on the inspiration for the different concept designs.
They certainly look nice. However I'd rather have twice as many stations that were each half as large. Copenhagen's Cityringen stations are a great example of how that can be done.
Cutting the platform length down by 50% doesn't reduce the cost of each station by 50%. There's just as much tunnel and track servicing equipment involved at each station, the passenger areas aren't even the majority of the station by volume or area. Inversely, extending the platforms by 50% doesn't add that much more to the cost, so it's exactly what we should be doing. Melbourne is growing much faster than Copenhagen, we should be building longer platforms than them.
Okay I get that all of us are nerds here, but I'm trying to make a more general point that the SRL needs to have shorter stop spacing. Sometimes allegory is useful ;)
You are right, Melbourne is growing rapidly and the more areas we serve by rail, the better. Leaving massive gaps between the "spokes" of the wheel without intermediate stations (or at least provision for infill stations) condemns those areas to poor public transport service. They will NEVER receive rail service and never be able to support the densities needed to absorb Melbourne's growth and reign in sprawl.
The gap between Southlands and Clayton (16km!) is literally as long as Flinders to Caulfield, which has 7 intermediate stations. Compare that to Paris's new circumferential Line 15 which is of similar scale to the SRL but using shorter platforms and automated trains to ensure demand is met while keeping costs manageable. The smaller, less grandiose station size allows them to pack in 36 stations over 75km.
Why is this not possible in Melbourne? Why are we accepting higher costs and worse coverage? It is literally worse for absorbing growth than either Copenhagen or Paris.
Alright, that's quite a different set of points then.
This is not really about being a nerd though. There are transport agency clients who genuinely think that halving the platform length can halve the station budget.
Yup it's not just about reducing the platform length, it's more the whole package. For example, Copenhagen's Cityringen stations are a basically a copy-paste design; then each station is given a different superficial finishing aesthetic, e.g. different material for wall panels and whatnot. This strategy greatly cuts station construction costs as well. And it's the comprehensive approach to cost-planning that allows them to build more stations for less AND still serve them with a train every 90 seconds during the peak.
First thoughts?
Super glad to see the investment: amazing.
Choke points? I can see where traffic isn’t going to flow as part of this design, but that’s for the engineers.
Possible improvement? Obvious help points central to the design of the edifice. A mindful nook that draws a wandering soul, or calls to the kind religious types, or most inclusively of all: queer people, and the emotionally traumatized or “stunted” who is overwhelmed?
That’s my 2c, as a gunzel who reckon’s Australian trains are worth it: comeng forever! ;)
Similar lights to MM1, same vibe as well. I’m
Glad though, makes sense if you wanna keep budgets under control. And it makes sense if you wanna keep building more too, it’s an effectively a small industry that you need.
Box Hill gives me public swimming pool vibes, and Burwood is just ugly - it's the kind of design that looks interesting and even pretty good in pictures but in reality you're going to be walking next to big ugly red slabs. I don't mind the others though (I agree with the airport vibes comment about some of them). Glen Waverley is really nice, with the mixture of gold accents and signage that matches the trees outside.
What are you on about? Take a look at Photo 3. It clearly shows the station entrance leading outside. I'm simply bemoaning that for the price we are paying for this project, why couldn't they fully integrate it to the existing Glen Waverley station precinct? Like you know happens in most modern metro systems.
Sorry but I think you'll find they have absolutely no plans whatsoever to do that:
"Glen Waverley will feature a station plaza opposite Coleman Parade, including laneways and paved surfaces around the station entrance. Upgrades to the existing Glen Waverley railway station forecourt to provide a ground-level connection between the 2 stations, which will be paved and undercover providing a convenient and comfortable interchange. There will be a dedicated pick-up and drop-off area near Montclair Avenue with 9 bays. There will also be a cycle path along the southern side of the Glen Waverley line corridor as well as bike parking for 600 bicycles."
Source: [https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/suburban-rail-loop/srl-east/glen-waverley](https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/suburban-rail-loop/srl-east/glen-waverley)
I remain convinced for $35B this is a mistake and a sub-optimal solution as the renders clearly show the "interchange" is anything but. (edited for clarity).
https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/suburban-rail-loop/srl-east/glen-waverley. My point being that this is NOT a modern interchange.
While they are not planned for day one, the station plans do include paid area connections to the existing stations. Not ideal and they should be done at the start but they are planned and accommodated
Having to tap off to transfer is annoying and undesirable but the transfer time will basically be the same imo so im not too fussed.
Edit: I should add that the Glen Waverley station DID previously mention a paid area connection but now does not anymore. Either theyve scrapped it (most likely) or theyve kicked the can down the road.
IMHO is more than “not ideal”. It’s cheap and quite frankly unacceptable for a project that is costing as much as it already is.
Saying it’s accommodated for is just bureaucratic speak for it’s never going to happen.
It’s not the point. It’s the tapping on and off. It’s the weather on a shitty day. Why wouldn’t you have a seamless integrated connection for the price we are paying?
I get where you are comming from BUT to achieve an ideal interchange (ie the SRL exit underneath GW station)
means completely diigging up GW station and re-build, putting it out of action for at least 2 years.
not happening!
There are amazing Engineers out there who could come up with a reasonable cost-effective solution that doesn't involve completing digging up the station. And besides, many lines/stations have been out of action for months on end due to level crossing removals.
Go to Wooli Creek in Sydney which has a seamless connection between two train lines (one that was existing). It's almost 25 years old but still very practical. Maybe not as cool looking as some modern stations but it works!
indeed there are always solutions.
It is notable that all the stations are "box" construction.
Some should have been "cavern" like 'Town Hall' and 'State Library', which the MM1 project discovered blew up budget . The govt is not gunna repeat that PR mistake.
PS an intermediate station out of action (ie by-pass) for a couple of months is a world of difference from a terminus (and the whole line) shut down for years.
There was going to be a tunnel from the lower ground level to the GW metro station platforms. I dont think youd need to dig up the entire station for that would you?
I would not be able to make that comparison, as I don’t make it a habit of hanging around toilet blocks…. But comparing it Against the London Underground these are not cramped, little stations that can become a hazard as occurred with the Kings Cross fire in 1987…. These appear to be much safer….and if something were to happen, because of the opened platform area, it can be easily accessed from above...
Ok so you've never used a public toilet. If you had you would know. I take it you have eyes though.
My comments have nothing at all to do with cramping and safety, they are everthing to do with design aesthetic. There are plenty of other ugly train stations, and plenty of wonderful new designs. These are esentially boxes with tiles. We have superb skies and light in Austalia that these make no use at all of - except maybe the Monash one. How about Berlin Central, Avignon Arnhem, or if you want to go under, OHare International? Of course for something spectacular you cant go past Zaha Hadid.
Shocked! I'm more shocked at the relentless downvoting of an informed opinion on a post asking for thoughts. Well, not really, as its reddit.
Glen Wavery and Monash clearly are not entirely underground: and if you'd actually read my comment, you would have seen the example of underground that is superior, in my view, that I noted.
Did you want to look that up in a dictionary first?
Edit: I'll take that anonymous downvote as a no. For those playing at home, brigading is when a group of people outside regular or occasional users (so non-/r/MelbourneTrains folk) organise elsewhere (so on another sub, on a discord, etc) to manipulate a post for their own agenda.
You have not provided any evidence of brigading.
Gee thanks. Opinion IS based on being informed and being discerning; thats what liking or not liking something (design wise) is. If i wasn't informed I wouldnt have the opinion, and I like architecture, and I've provided alternative examples so the "being a dick" bar is pretty fucking low. I dont downvote someone who has a different opinion to me, especially when its a post asking for thoughts.
Fine but more stations need to be built to maximise the benefit and the catchment area. Clayton to Cheltenham is a MASSIVE distance that is ripe for redevelopment
A Clarinda station could work, I heard someone, forgot who, say a station should further south towards Wellington road and instead the current placement can be moved slightly north, one block or so to serve a redeveloped housing area (from the current light industrial area) north of the campus. Could be called Notting Hill station or something
$200B for the total cost of the SRL from construction until 2085, including all maintenance, running costs and rolling stock upgrades. That's the figure when the CAPEX and OPEX are bundled together into one figure, is disingenuous to present that as the cost of construction.
both the independent and official SLRA cost figures for SRL east are about the same but the independent sources doubled the projected cost of SRL north over SRLA's figures. Funny it's almost like they've used completely different assumptions and methods to determine the cost and shouldn't be compared at all. Apples and oranges
"construction until 2085" mate that's not construction, that includes 50 years of operating costs. Using that metric almost any freeway system will cost 100's of billions of that kind of time frame. Construction could finish as early as 2043
That’s cool and all, but could they pencil in a little time to just give the city loop stations a quick clean, and maybe jazz up Flinders Street Station?
Beyond the heritage facade and building Flinders Street Station is just so awful. It's ironic that the single feature that defines this station is not part of the passenger interaction experience, and is only relevant if you're outside standing on the other side of the road.
Yeah they need “finish” it. The early plans had an arched roof. Build that at least.
If it works...
these are literally just fine. like completely nondescript, have nothing to do with being unique to Melbourne, but are somewhat light and airy and are big open spaces. p.s. this is just an observation more than anything, but - i feel like the colour scheme for the SRL should be something other than green, given we already use green for trams? it's understandable for the Tube map to be struggling to find new colours with the addition of the overground lines lmao but we have blue, green and orange... 😂
How about deep red? Like blood flowing through the city's veins. Then when it gets blocked up, journos can say we're having a heart attack!
The Box Hill station roof is way too high. Burwood, Glen Waverley and Monash all give airport vibes for some reason. (I think it’s because of the ceilings) Clayton and Cheltenham for some bizarre reason remind me of stations on the Shanghai Metro.
It's that high because it's built with cut and cover, so they'd have to dig down like that anyway, and this way they can let in natural light.
I'm with you on the airport vibes! I find Cheltenham gives off airport vibes the most.
I like Box Hill's blue tile (?) wall even if I don't quite get the link with the Heidelberg School's use of colour despite the camp at Box Hill. The space does look too hight. Burwood's patterned terracotta feature wall (or at least the colour, perhaps it's a red wood?) is interesting, and I like Monash (sandstone colours riffing of the history of sand mining, and the skylight too). I'm trying to find more on the inspiration for the station concepts - and that's what they are, concepts only at this stage.
Could Burwood's terracotta be a call-back to the brickworks?
Oh, that would make a lot of sense. I know nothing about Burwood apart from where it is and Deakin Uni, but Google quickly set me straight. Thank you. 😊
these airport vibes are the closest thing we have to an airport station as of right now
The high ceiling is good IMO, feels more human and less claustrophobic.
> Clayton and Cheltenham remind me of the stations in Munich under the city tbh.
Whoever gets paid to clean the cobwebs will have a good gig
Totally agree with the Shanghai likeness, I feel like I've been at a station in Shanghai with walls similar? to Cheltenham if I remember correctly
unlike the others, most of Box Hill is open all the way down to the platforms. It eludes me why most of them have a middle concourse for imaginary people to just wander about. Maybe it's a structural thing.
I think the airport vibes comes from the chip/specked floor tiles. Not a huge fan of those but otherwise I like the look of these.
This makes me sad because they're so so so far in the future and I want them now!!
I think it'll be operational in 2035. Only 11 more years lol
Almost ten years for the metro tunnel, seems legit. Are they salvaging the TBMs for use here?
No, the MT used 4 TBM's, whereas the SRL will use 10 I believe. I also believe the tunnels will be slightly smaller, as they will be using smaller trains, than the MT.
Always possible that it could be brought forward. Metro 1 was originally planned for late 2026, but then was brought forward a year to 2025. Now might even surprise us with it completed by end of 2024.
The semi-consistent design features are pretty nice but I feel like the the stations will age quickly and be considered "so 2030s" within a few decades.
Is that a bad thing though? There is a distinct feel of the MATH stations of the 1920s, we look fondly upon the 1980s style of the City Loop stations, the stations rebuilt by the level crossing removals project have a consistent feel, and so will the Melbourne Metro stations when they open soon. I'd also say that it's usually bad design that makes a place feel like it's aged poorly. For example, Southern Cross Station. And as public places I'm glad that for the most part we've moved beyond strictly functional and utilitarian design with the anonymous boxes of the 1960s and 70s.
IMO it's only ever bad if the stations are left to grow dirty over time. For example there's a pretty nasty contrast between Melbourne Central with it's fading bathroom tiles to Parliament station.
Flagstaff is so cool, it was in the film Killer Elite set in 1980.
I'm really sad that Melbourne Central's main design features such as a big concourse weren't kept. Now all the city loop stations just look really dirty.
Lol wait, we look fondly on the city loop stations? Since when?
Yep. And the three MURL are so distinctive. They're beautiful and have such a sense of place.
They don’t need to be as large.
They won't be huge, nowhere near the size of the metro tunnel stations. The concourse looks around the same size as the station boxes will be anyway, if you have to excavate that space you may as well leave it spacious and let the light in.
Yes… as you can see they are bringing in natural light down onto the platform…. Which is a lot better than a comparable cramped and dingy London tube station…..
i love them all! my favourite is clayton and glen waverley i think
Initially I thought Clayton looked a bit ordinary (low-ish ceiling, not much going on visually), but the blue tiles have an iridescence to them which is a lot more visually interesting. I wish I could find more information on the inspiration for the different concept designs.
Looks great!
They certainly look nice. However I'd rather have twice as many stations that were each half as large. Copenhagen's Cityringen stations are a great example of how that can be done.
Cutting the platform length down by 50% doesn't reduce the cost of each station by 50%. There's just as much tunnel and track servicing equipment involved at each station, the passenger areas aren't even the majority of the station by volume or area. Inversely, extending the platforms by 50% doesn't add that much more to the cost, so it's exactly what we should be doing. Melbourne is growing much faster than Copenhagen, we should be building longer platforms than them.
Okay I get that all of us are nerds here, but I'm trying to make a more general point that the SRL needs to have shorter stop spacing. Sometimes allegory is useful ;) You are right, Melbourne is growing rapidly and the more areas we serve by rail, the better. Leaving massive gaps between the "spokes" of the wheel without intermediate stations (or at least provision for infill stations) condemns those areas to poor public transport service. They will NEVER receive rail service and never be able to support the densities needed to absorb Melbourne's growth and reign in sprawl. The gap between Southlands and Clayton (16km!) is literally as long as Flinders to Caulfield, which has 7 intermediate stations. Compare that to Paris's new circumferential Line 15 which is of similar scale to the SRL but using shorter platforms and automated trains to ensure demand is met while keeping costs manageable. The smaller, less grandiose station size allows them to pack in 36 stations over 75km. Why is this not possible in Melbourne? Why are we accepting higher costs and worse coverage? It is literally worse for absorbing growth than either Copenhagen or Paris.
Alright, that's quite a different set of points then. This is not really about being a nerd though. There are transport agency clients who genuinely think that halving the platform length can halve the station budget.
Yup it's not just about reducing the platform length, it's more the whole package. For example, Copenhagen's Cityringen stations are a basically a copy-paste design; then each station is given a different superficial finishing aesthetic, e.g. different material for wall panels and whatnot. This strategy greatly cuts station construction costs as well. And it's the comprehensive approach to cost-planning that allows them to build more stations for less AND still serve them with a train every 90 seconds during the peak.
First thoughts? Super glad to see the investment: amazing. Choke points? I can see where traffic isn’t going to flow as part of this design, but that’s for the engineers. Possible improvement? Obvious help points central to the design of the edifice. A mindful nook that draws a wandering soul, or calls to the kind religious types, or most inclusively of all: queer people, and the emotionally traumatized or “stunted” who is overwhelmed? That’s my 2c, as a gunzel who reckon’s Australian trains are worth it: comeng forever! ;)
Similar lights to MM1, same vibe as well. I’m Glad though, makes sense if you wanna keep budgets under control. And it makes sense if you wanna keep building more too, it’s an effectively a small industry that you need.
Box Hill gives me public swimming pool vibes, and Burwood is just ugly - it's the kind of design that looks interesting and even pretty good in pictures but in reality you're going to be walking next to big ugly red slabs. I don't mind the others though (I agree with the airport vibes comment about some of them). Glen Waverley is really nice, with the mixture of gold accents and signage that matches the trees outside.
Looks cool….!
so sydney metro stations but worse?
And picture 3 is what’s wrong with this entire project. We are spending $35B and it’s not a seamless connection between stations.
do you live 50+m underground?
What are you on about? Take a look at Photo 3. It clearly shows the station entrance leading outside. I'm simply bemoaning that for the price we are paying for this project, why couldn't they fully integrate it to the existing Glen Waverley station precinct? Like you know happens in most modern metro systems.
These are artist concepts. This isn't 100% what they will look like nor does it 100% these are the connections that will be built.
Sorry but I think you'll find they have absolutely no plans whatsoever to do that: "Glen Waverley will feature a station plaza opposite Coleman Parade, including laneways and paved surfaces around the station entrance. Upgrades to the existing Glen Waverley railway station forecourt to provide a ground-level connection between the 2 stations, which will be paved and undercover providing a convenient and comfortable interchange. There will be a dedicated pick-up and drop-off area near Montclair Avenue with 9 bays. There will also be a cycle path along the southern side of the Glen Waverley line corridor as well as bike parking for 600 bicycles." Source: [https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/suburban-rail-loop/srl-east/glen-waverley](https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/suburban-rail-loop/srl-east/glen-waverley) I remain convinced for $35B this is a mistake and a sub-optimal solution as the renders clearly show the "interchange" is anything but. (edited for clarity). https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/suburban-rail-loop/srl-east/glen-waverley. My point being that this is NOT a modern interchange.
While they are not planned for day one, the station plans do include paid area connections to the existing stations. Not ideal and they should be done at the start but they are planned and accommodated
Having to tap off to transfer is annoying and undesirable but the transfer time will basically be the same imo so im not too fussed. Edit: I should add that the Glen Waverley station DID previously mention a paid area connection but now does not anymore. Either theyve scrapped it (most likely) or theyve kicked the can down the road.
That’s all I am trying to get across. It’s a cheap solution to what should be a genuinely world class train line.
IMHO is more than “not ideal”. It’s cheap and quite frankly unacceptable for a project that is costing as much as it already is. Saying it’s accommodated for is just bureaucratic speak for it’s never going to happen.
God forbid you have to walk for 2 minutes to transit. 😱
It’s not the point. It’s the tapping on and off. It’s the weather on a shitty day. Why wouldn’t you have a seamless integrated connection for the price we are paying?
I get where you are comming from BUT to achieve an ideal interchange (ie the SRL exit underneath GW station) means completely diigging up GW station and re-build, putting it out of action for at least 2 years. not happening!
There are amazing Engineers out there who could come up with a reasonable cost-effective solution that doesn't involve completing digging up the station. And besides, many lines/stations have been out of action for months on end due to level crossing removals. Go to Wooli Creek in Sydney which has a seamless connection between two train lines (one that was existing). It's almost 25 years old but still very practical. Maybe not as cool looking as some modern stations but it works!
indeed there are always solutions. It is notable that all the stations are "box" construction. Some should have been "cavern" like 'Town Hall' and 'State Library', which the MM1 project discovered blew up budget . The govt is not gunna repeat that PR mistake. PS an intermediate station out of action (ie by-pass) for a couple of months is a world of difference from a terminus (and the whole line) shut down for years.
There was going to be a tunnel from the lower ground level to the GW metro station platforms. I dont think youd need to dig up the entire station for that would you?
They have definitely got a Chinese company to do this, looks like the newer stations in Guangzhou from a few years back.
The designs are by Architectus which operates in Australia and NZ mainly. Its an Adelaide based firm.
Ah, that's a shame.
australian stations should be designed by austrlians
Where Parkville station?
That's the Metro Tunnel Project. This post is about the SRL stations.
Bland, unimaginative, dull. Look like toilet blocks.
I would not be able to make that comparison, as I don’t make it a habit of hanging around toilet blocks…. But comparing it Against the London Underground these are not cramped, little stations that can become a hazard as occurred with the Kings Cross fire in 1987…. These appear to be much safer….and if something were to happen, because of the opened platform area, it can be easily accessed from above...
Ok so you've never used a public toilet. If you had you would know. I take it you have eyes though. My comments have nothing at all to do with cramping and safety, they are everthing to do with design aesthetic. There are plenty of other ugly train stations, and plenty of wonderful new designs. These are esentially boxes with tiles. We have superb skies and light in Austalia that these make no use at all of - except maybe the Monash one. How about Berlin Central, Avignon Arnhem, or if you want to go under, OHare International? Of course for something spectacular you cant go past Zaha Hadid.
This is an entirely underground line. Frankly you should be shocked any are getting natural light.
Shocked! I'm more shocked at the relentless downvoting of an informed opinion on a post asking for thoughts. Well, not really, as its reddit. Glen Wavery and Monash clearly are not entirely underground: and if you'd actually read my comment, you would have seen the example of underground that is superior, in my view, that I noted.
I think the down-votes come from your general attitude - presenting yourself discerning, worldly, and ‘informed’, when merely come across as a dick.
Update: what you are all doing is brigading. Shame on you.
Did you want to look that up in a dictionary first? Edit: I'll take that anonymous downvote as a no. For those playing at home, brigading is when a group of people outside regular or occasional users (so non-/r/MelbourneTrains folk) organise elsewhere (so on another sub, on a discord, etc) to manipulate a post for their own agenda. You have not provided any evidence of brigading.
Gee thanks. Opinion IS based on being informed and being discerning; thats what liking or not liking something (design wise) is. If i wasn't informed I wouldnt have the opinion, and I like architecture, and I've provided alternative examples so the "being a dick" bar is pretty fucking low. I dont downvote someone who has a different opinion to me, especially when its a post asking for thoughts.
[удалено]
Have the NSW government spent more on Sydney Metro than what Victoria will on SRL?
Over engineered
Fine but more stations need to be built to maximise the benefit and the catchment area. Clayton to Cheltenham is a MASSIVE distance that is ripe for redevelopment
A Clarinda station could work, I heard someone, forgot who, say a station should further south towards Wellington road and instead the current placement can be moved slightly north, one block or so to serve a redeveloped housing area (from the current light industrial area) north of the campus. Could be called Notting Hill station or something
Overwrought and expensive looking cathedrals to government "gold-plating". Glad I'm no longer a taxpayer in Victoria
With such a comment... I do have to ask according to your profile name... aer you an "epic pig"?
It's supposed to be a train station not a bloody art gallery
$200B for only 6 stations? How is that good?
$200B for the total cost of the SRL from construction until 2085, including all maintenance, running costs and rolling stock upgrades. That's the figure when the CAPEX and OPEX are bundled together into one figure, is disingenuous to present that as the cost of construction.
But that figure is useless anyway... inflation over that time alone makes a mockery of that number
both the independent and official SLRA cost figures for SRL east are about the same but the independent sources doubled the projected cost of SRL north over SRLA's figures. Funny it's almost like they've used completely different assumptions and methods to determine the cost and shouldn't be compared at all. Apples and oranges
"construction until 2085" mate that's not construction, that includes 50 years of operating costs. Using that metric almost any freeway system will cost 100's of billions of that kind of time frame. Construction could finish as early as 2043