Light Rail Visions

[bs]

All the tram proposals are great. Once the government fixes the rail system then it should turn its attention to building tram routes in the inner city. Trams will really improve the streets which they go down and make them much more accessible

[AG]

I've merged several threads relating to visions about expanding the light rail system together.

[Shuz]

Thanks AG. Much appreciated.

[urban]

Shuz,
Is there any particular reason your Mitcham plan does not use the old tram route from the end of King William road straight through Heywood Park along Whistler St, Denning St to meet the existing Hawthorn train station then up to Mitcham Girls High?

[Shuz]

Shuz,
Is there any particular reason your Mitcham plan does not use the old tram route from the end of King William road straight through Heywood Park along Whistler St, Denning St to meet the existing Hawthorn train station then up to Mitcham Girls High?

I try and take into long-term planning as much as possible.

The alignment that I have chosen tries to avoid disruption to main roads, with exception to the small section on Unley Road adjacent to the Torrens Arms. There is a medical facility, a pizzeria and some other shops on the western side of Unley Road here, whose carparks could be acquired to widen Unley Road, so that it retains its 2x2 lane formation, whilst allowing a median for the trams to travel on when entering or exiting Unley Road from Angus Street or Princes Road. The old line took a westerly course through Heywood Park down Whistler Street, and should I run the line down Denning St would cause significant disruption to the traffic flow of Cross Road, hence why I opted to use the eastern deviation down Grove Street, which runs directly across Cross Rd into Jervois Street, therefore minimising Cross Road traffic flow, with the use of traffic lights to sequentiate movement of trams. The new alignment down Jervois Street allows the tram to run parallel to the train line, in which a more fairly located Hawthorn station would go (to render it useful) and thus creating a PT mini-interchange of sort from train to tram.

Now some of you may argue that KWR is a 'major' traffic throughfare. I believe with the village ambience that it has, it should be promoted as a pedestrian friendly locality, with the provision of tram services running down the street fixed with side platforms similarly used on Jetty Road. Car-parking should be banned, footpaths widened and restrict traffic flow to a meagre 1x1 along the tram course. The aim of this would be to promote KWR as an environmentally friendly and pedestrian friendly location in which more businesses would be able to thrive because it has access to the CBD via the tram route. In an extremist measure, I wouldn't object to a complete ban on traffic movement along KWR on weekends, allowing only east-west traffic flow.

[urban]

Relocating the Train stop as you suggest has the advantage of being roughly equi-distant from the Unley Pk and Mitcham train stops. Reopening Hawthorn will of course rely on the proposed rerouting of the interstate rail line.

[frank1]

I know this project is would never happen, but i was thinking the other day about what they can do with the O-Bahn. They could convert it into light electrified rail (not trams, but more like high speed shuttles) and instead of stopping at Hackney Road, they could build a tunnel that goes into the city. The tunnel could have 2-3 stops in the city and then the line should link up with the existing Adelaide rail station. They could also extend the line further north than teatree plaza. The government already has bought transport corridor land almost to Elizabeth (originally i think it was future O-Bahn extension land). Thoughts anyone?

[monotonehell]

I know this project is would never happen, but i was thinking the other day about what they can do with the O-Bahn. They could convert it into light electrified rail (not trams, but more like high speed shuttles) and instead of stopping at Hackney Road, they could build a tunnel that goes into the city. The tunnel could have 2-3 stops in the city and then the line should link up with the existing Adelaide rail station. They could also extend the line further north than teatree plaza. The government already has bought transport corridor land almost to Elizabeth (originally i think it was future O-Bahn extension land). Thoughts anyone?

A train is less suitable in the urban sprawl areas than a busway. Buses can fan out from the obahn and provide door to door services in peak times. Where as trains require feeder buses and transfers, adding time to a journey and discouraging potential passengers (people don't like transfers).

Why go to the expense of ripping up the obahn and installing a light rail that would be less patronised and cost more per passenger trip to operate? Trains are only good for moving lots of people from one point to another. They only provide a corridor service, and are slowed by having to constantly stop.

Now, on the other hand, if you were to suggest replacing some of the shorter the train routes with obahn...

[frank1]

I know this project is would never happen, but i was thinking the other day about what they can do with the O-Bahn. They could convert it into light electrified rail (not trams, but more like high speed shuttles) and instead of stopping at Hackney Road, they could build a tunnel that goes into the city. The tunnel could have 2-3 stops in the city and then the line should link up with the existing Adelaide rail station. They could also extend the line further north than teatree plaza. The government already has bought transport corridor land almost to Elizabeth (originally i think it was future O-Bahn extension land). Thoughts anyone?

A train is less suitable in the urban sprawl areas than a busway. Buses can fan out from the obahn and provide door to door services in peak times. Where as trains require feeder buses and transfers, adding time to a journey and discouraging potential passengers (people don't like transfers).

Why go to the expense of ripping up the obahn and installing a light rail that would be less patronised and cost more per passenger trip to operate? Trains are only good for moving lots of people from one point to another. They only provide a corridor service, and are slowed by having to constantly stop.

Now, on the other hand, if you were to suggest replacing some of the shorter the train routes with obahn...

You say that people don't like transfers, so why do i have to transfer from one bus to another at paradise interchange ( the city bound buses are always full and i have to wait for ages). What's the difference between changing from a bus to a train and a bus to another bus and trains can carry more people. Transfers from a bus to a train works well and is efficient and used in many large cities e.g. Melbourne, Sydney

[monotonehell]

You say that people don't like transfers, so why do i have to transfer from one bus to another at paradise interchange ( the city bound buses are always full and i have to wait for ages). What's the difference between changing from a bus to a train and a bus to another bus and trains can carry more people. Transfers from a bus to a train works well and is efficient and used in many large cities e.g. Melbourne, Sydney

See? You don't like transfers either.

That's the versatility and flexibility of a busway. Where as a train always needs to have supporting feeder buses, a busway can either run well patronised routes directly or where a service only carries a small number of passengers they can then be transferred. Trains can't leave their tracks to collect passengers at all and buses cost less to run.

[frank1]

You say that people don't like transfers, so why do i have to transfer from one bus to another at paradise interchange ( the city bound buses are always full and i have to wait for ages). What's the difference between changing from a bus to a train and a bus to another bus and trains can carry more people. Transfers from a bus to a train works well and is efficient and used in many large cities e.g. Melbourne, Sydney

See? You don't like transfers either.

That's the versatility and flexibility of a busway. Where as a train always needs to have supporting feeder buses, a busway can either run well patronised routes directly or where a service only carries a small number of passengers they can then be transferred. Trains can't leave their tracks to collect passengers at all and buses cost less to run.

True, but the O-Bahn isn't flawless either. The teatree plaza bound buses i.e 540's terminate at TTP and also in the city. So they act as a sort of train anyway. If you don't live near the O-Bahn, you need to catch a bus that drops you off at the interchange. You end up waiting for one of these 540's anyway, so there really isn't much difference. A train could easily act in the same manner as one of these 540 buses.

Anyway cheers for your thoughts.

[Will409]

In addition, if you want to increase carrying capacity, you need to pile on extra buses which means extra bus drivers. If you had a heavy rail service, you just need to add an extra railcar. As for transfers, as long as the transfer times are reasonable (ie less then 10 minutes) and the services run close to time, I don't have a problem with them and nor to most other people (or atleast people I know, I obviously cannot speak for the entire population).

[Cruise]

In addition, if you want to increase carrying capacity, you need to pile on extra buses which means extra bus drivers. If you had a heavy rail service, you just need to add an extra railcar. As for transfers, as long as the transfer times are reasonable (ie less then 10 minutes) and the services run close to time, I don't have a problem with them and nor to most other people (or atleast people I know, I obviously cannot speak for the entire population).

and if you want extra trains, you add an extra driver. whats your point?

[Will409]

What I was meaning was, if the capacity of say 2 railcars was reached on a certain run, it is possible via some re rostering of rollingstock to add an extra railcar to that same train making a 3 car set. Only if you wanted to increase the service frequency would you need an extra driver.

[Cruise]

What I was meaning was, if the capacity of say 2 railcars was reached on a certain run, it is possible via some re rostering of rollingstock to add an extra railcar to that same train making a 3 car set. Only if you wanted to increase the service frequency would you need an extra driver.

Thus making buses tangible