The future of rail transport in Adelaide

[Will409]

Somebody, the main advantage of a tram is that the total passenger carrying capacity of a tram is greater then that of a bus, especially in regards to standing capacity.

We can learn from Melbourne's system for a way improving our system. On major roads such as Henley Beach Road (for example), dedicated tram lanes like the ones in King William Street (north) and North Terrace. While some peoeple still drive their cars down the lane, trams still have a near uninterrupted run through the northern half of the city. The only thing that delays the trams at the present time is the traffic light sequencing. I agree that it is not possible to run trams down reserve lines like the Glenelg line everywhere but we can atleast improve tramway running times where possible.

[Somebody]

Somebody, the main advantage of a tram is that the total passenger carrying capacity of a tram is greater then that of a bus, especially in regards to standing capacity.

Can't say that for Melbourne's puny Z classes.

A lot (not all) light rail proposals seem to be based on the romance of it and being 'better' than buses, not logical reasons. Of course there's some corridors where you couldn't imagine it as a bus service (Glenelg tram, for example) there are others where buses are better.

dedicated tram lanes like the ones in King William Street (north) and North Terrace. While some peoeple still drive their cars down the lane

Are they allowed to? If not, why aren't they being fined?

[Norman]

Underground tunnels are good for express running, but underground stations are very expensive to construct, and have high operating costs because they need to be staffed for safety reasons.

Not necessarily, in Europe a lot of underground stations are not staffed.

[Will409]

Somebody, the only road vehicles allowed down the tram lanes are emergency service (fire, ambo and police). Other vehicles are not permitted at all and are fined although I am not sure as to the amount. Since the line opened, I have only seen two people use the tram lanes illegally so people here are very law abiding when it comes to the tram lanes.

[jk1237]

Somebody, the main advantage of a tram is that the total passenger carrying capacity of a tram is greater then that of a bus, especially in regards to standing capacity.

Can't say that for Melbourne's puny Z classes.

A lot (not all) light rail proposals seem to be based on the romance of it and being 'better' than buses, not logical reasons. Of course there's some corridors where you couldn't imagine it as a bus service (Glenelg tram, for example) there are others where buses are better.

dedicated tram lanes like the ones in King William Street (north) and North Terrace. While some peoeple still drive their cars down the lane

Are they allowed to? If not, why aren't they being fined?

I havent seen any cars drive down the tram only lane, which has surprised me actually. That section has worked well.

Yes, its not logical to put in tram lines along roads, where buses can do it fine. However, trams are more attractive to commuters than the bus, and if Melb ripped up its lines overnight and replaced them with diesel buses, what a dull city Melbourne would become. Apart from the cool Melb CBD's laneways, the CBD grid of Melbourne is horrible IMO (at street level), and if werent for its trams, it would be even worse. Its so dark and depressing

[Aidan]

Underground tunnels are good for express running, but underground stations are very expensive to construct, and have high operating costs because they need to be staffed for safety reasons.

Not necessarily, in Europe a lot of underground stations are not staffed.

Are you sure about that? The staff aren't always where the passengers can see them, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

[monotonehell]

Everybody needs to take a step back from their compounded current views and re-examine the merits and uses of each form of PT.

(By compounded current views, I mean the place you are now, from layers and layers of thought regarding PT, accumulating without complete reason. once in a while you need to step back and ask yourself if it's going to work.)

In rough order of capital cost...

Underground rail (Eg London's Tube)
Ideal for super high density metropolis with MAJOR patronage. High Capacity, High Frequency, High running costs. High capital cost. You really need to be London or Manhattan to warrant a proper underground. For short sections under CBDs it may be useful, but again there needs to be the patronage to warrant the capital expenditure and a good reason like high congestion on tiny roads.

A lot of people favour it for the 'cool factor'. "Let's be just like Manhattan." :wank:

If Adelaide's population density approaches 20k/km^2 let's think about it (we're at 0.6k/km^2).


Heavy rail on reservation and grade separated where possible (Eg most of Tokyo's rail network)
REALLY VERY good at moving a LOT of people from one point to another in a cost effective manner. Not so good at serving sprawl as it needs a network of buses or similar to support it via transfers. Stops being cost efficient outside of peak periods. It's 24% cheaper than a fleet of articulated buses, but only for 16% of the day. High capacity, High/Low frequency, High running costs, High capital costs. The running costs mean that high frequency is only possible during peak periods when the patronage is there to support it.

Stations should be more than 5Km apart. This form of PT is for shifting large loads, long distances. In Adelaide we use our heavy rail poorly. It should be reserved for connecting distant population centres (eg Adelaide to Elizabeth).

Heavy rail on reservation at grade (Eg Gawler Line)
Pretty much the same as above, except that being at grade reduces the construction costs, but increases the headway so during peak the frequency is reduced.

This kind of system should be converted to a proper heavy rail line, with distance between stations and grade separation.


Light rail on streets with express reservation corridor (Eg Glenelg line)
Not really that good for anything. Doesn't have the capacity to serve as a connector between two population centres. Its duplicitous nature also means that its usefulness as a 'proper tram' is reduced by the heavy loads trying to use it as a train service (see trams below).


Buses on streets with O-Bahn grade separated express reservation corridor (NE O-Bahn!)
Ideal for servicing sprawl. Has the capacity to deal with both the peak period, as well as the ability to be scaled back in quiet times, while still maintaining a high frequency.

During peak period buses service multiple routes inside the sprawl, converging on the corridor to express into the CBD (and beyond) -- negating transfers. Train style buses can also be run along just the corridor to service those who chose to park and ride.

During off peak, the train style services can be run with a high frequency, fed by synchronised sprawl routes whose passengers transfer to the train style services. These sprawl routes can still be relatively high frequency in most cases (15 minutes during the day).

High frequency. High capacity. Low capital cost. Low running costs. With the added bonus that if the corridor needs to be serviced or if there's a breakdown the buses can easily divert onto the roads (unlike rail).

Trams - Light rail on streets only (Eg what a TRAM is supposed to be)
A light rail that NEVER leaves the streets, allows people to make quick hops from any point along its route to any other point, does NOT travel more than 20 minutes away, and DOES interface with the urban fabric. Ideal for high and medium density areas as an alternative to cars. Many stops, close together, something akin to a horizontal elevator. NEVER tries to be what it's not *shakes fist at Glenelg line*.


Buses on streets (possibly with supporting on street bus lanes)
Lowest capital cost of the lot. Serves sprawl well, but doesn't have the romance of rail. Still suffers from on road congestion. Shouldn't be used for runs longer than 40 minutes (take a train!)


Walking at grade!
Slow but healthy -- as long as you don't get hit by a train, tram, bus or car (or get wet in the rain)


Of course there's additional social considerations. For example a fixed line (rail or obahn track) can encourage ToD. Careful PT planning and development encouragement can lead to higher density ToDs along PT lines that are less dependant on cars. The ability for electrification is an important step away from fossil fuels. On street short route buses, trams and trains can all be electrified, where as at this time it's hard to engineer overhead electrification for the O-Bahn that would generate the power needed for the speed and trolley buses can't venture into suburbia. However dual mode vehicles have been successfully used on busways overseas, only switching to diesel when off track. So who knows?

[Norman]

Underground tunnels are good for express running, but underground stations are very expensive to construct, and have high operating costs because they need to be staffed for safety reasons.

Not necessarily, in Europe a lot of underground stations are not staffed.

Are you sure about that? The staff aren't always where the passengers can see them, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

Out of the many light rail stops that are underground, 80% or more are not staffed. At least that was the case where I lived. The ones that were staffed were more shops or kiosks with staff in them. The staffed station were mostly the city ones.

[jk1237]

Everybody needs to take a step back from their compounded current views and re-examine the merits and uses of each form of PT.

(By compounded current views, I mean the place you are now, from layers and layers of thought regarding PT, accumulating without complete reason. once in a while you need to step back and ask yourself if it's going to work.)

well you can't deny that your pro-o'bahn bus though

A lot of people favour it for the 'cool factor'. "Let's be just like Manhattan." :wank:

This is exactly what this city of ours needs to do, and rid ourselves of this conservative image. All other Oz and western cities (especially Melbourne) and have spent billions on 'wank' and 'cool' projects to make an image that this place is 'happening'. And its worked. Huge art sculptures, towers, sinking of railway lines (ie Subiaco), tarting up train systems, developing waterfront precincts, new sports stadiums, entertainment precincts, encouraging daring architecture, large scale streetscape projects, development of TOD's. None of this is necessary at all, but it all creates civic pride and a feeling that this is the place to be and encourages further investment.
This kind of stuff is almost non-existent in Adelaide. We are told we are a stagnant little city, and we can only support boring diesel buses running around everywhere, whereas trains are only for big cities. However its worked in Perth. It just compounds this smalltown image of ours. Thankfully, this thinking which began from the late 1960s to 2006, seems to be changing.

And another reason for the original development of light rail, is so PT can benefit from right of way rail corridors, but then run through CBD streets to bring people closer to their destination, rather than terminating at your traditonal railway station on the edge/perimeter of the CBD

[Somebody]

I'm surprised that you didn't explain the distinction between metro/subway trains (which don't necessarily have to be underground) and commuter rail (ala Gawler/Noarlunga for SA examples) differently monotonehell.

Adelaide doesn't have the kind of density nor layout for a metro. I don't see the distinction between at grade/not at grade for commuter rail lines, only difference is that one has railway crossings and the other doesn't. Look at Sydney for example - hardly a level crossing in sight anywhere in the Sydney Basin (minus the single track semi-rural Richmond branch).

What exactly do you propose for Glenelg if the tramway isn't working? O-Bahn? Lolita.

At least that was the case where I lived

Ummm, Adelaide doesn't have underground light rail stops.

[Norman]

At least that was the case where I lived

Ummm, Adelaide doesn't have underground light rail stops.

Are you being sarcastic again or are you being serious?

In case you're serious, I lived in Stuttgart, Germany for the first 10 years of my life.

[monotonehell]

well you can't deny that your pro-o'bahn bus though

You could say I'm "PrO-bahn!"

I'm that way because the O-Bahn fits its purpose. There's no way a HRT or LRT could serve the NE Sprawl like the OBahn, the conditions out here just don't favour rail. You'd have major bottleneck bunching at the transfer points from feeders to rail, a reduced service at greater cost outside of peak periods and longer travel times. There's something like 30 routes that connect at Tea Tree Plaza, 40 at Paradise -- compared to around 16 that connect to the train at Elizabeth, and 16 at Salisbury. Some people just don't understand the amount of services and passengers that come off the sprawl and onto the O-Bahn during peak periods. There's a bus less than every minute!

A lot of people favour it for the 'cool factor'. "Let's be just like Manhattan." :wank:

This is exactly what this city of ours needs to do, and rid ourselves of this conservative image. All other Oz and western cities (especially Melbourne) and have spent billions on 'wank' and 'cool' projects to make an image that this place is 'happening'. And its worked. Huge art sculptures, towers, sinking of railway lines (ie Subiaco), tarting up train systems, developing waterfront precincts, new sports stadiums, entertainment precincts, encouraging daring architecture, large scale streetscape projects, development of TOD's. None of this is necessary at all, but it all creates civic pride and a feeling that this is the place to be and encourages further investment.
This kind of stuff is almost non-existent in Adelaide. We are told we are a stagnant little city, and we can only support boring diesel buses running around everywhere, whereas trains are only for big cities. However its worked in Perth. It just compounds this smalltown image of ours. Thankfully, this thinking which began from the late 1960s to 2006, seems to be changing.

And another reason for the original development of light rail, is so PT can benefit from right of way rail corridors, but then run through CBD streets to bring people closer to their destination, rather than terminating at your traditonal railway station on the edge/perimeter of the CBD

Yeah okay, you misunderstood what I was wanking at there. I'm all for interesting stuff like you list. What I meant was Adelaide is not the kind of place that would ever benefit from an underground system. We're way too spread out and low rise (remember we're not just talking about the CBD here). Underground has several negatives in Adelaide's context:
* With regards to the CBD; it's isolated, that is it doesn't interface with the street level. To bring vibrancy to a place you need to engage people in their environment -- not stick them underground or up on an eL. Trams are great at this as you're always at street level, noticing things, checking out stuff. All the businesses the tram passes get free advertising; "Check out that funky restaurant there! I'll have to come back (on the tram) and check it out later."
* With regards to the suburbs, there's just no reason for undergrounding -- we have the space. Except for the occasional tunnel there's no justification.

As I mentioned above - trams are much better suited to getting about in the CBD and inner suburbs, while grade separated trains are for getting to distant places. An underground in the CBD does nothing to enliven the sense of place and is stupidly expensive as well as near impossible to retro-fit to Adelaide's layout.

Additionally we don't have the kinds of rail lines that lend themselves to a through line. You'd have people trying to get onto a train that's full of people trying to get off due to the multiple stations. You only need to look at how that happens on the Jetbuses and other through routes on a much smaller scale to realise that it would be chaos on large capacity trains. Adelaide's CBD is fairly concentrated in terms of passenger destinations, you wouldn't get the diluting effect that other cities have from multiple stations.

I too used to think that undergrounding would be a neat idea -- but the more I looked into it the less appealing it became.

Civic pride follies are all very good, but PT is a serious business.

I'm surprised that you didn't explain the distinction between metro/subway trains (which don't necessarily have to be underground) and commuter rail (ala Gawler/Noarlunga for SA examples) differently monotonehell.

Well that was all off the top of my head so there's a lot left out I'm sure. A lot of metro systems have underground components. And London's underground has a lot of ground level components. It's only where the density and congestion is at its highest that undergrounding is usually performed. Adelaide has wonderfully wide streets that are laid out in a uniform grid. We don't have the wiggly street problems that most old metropoli have. We don't really need undergrounding, unless we reposition the railway station in the centre of the CBD.

I think I did touch on the differences between commuter rail and underground/metro (the distance, capacity, frequency, space between stations things). How differently do you mean?

Adelaide doesn't have the kind of density nor layout for a metro. I don't see the distinction between at grade/not at grade for commuter rail lines, only difference is that one has railway crossings and the other doesn't. Look at Sydney for example - hardly a level crossing in sight anywhere in the Sydney Basin (minus the single track semi-rural Richmond branch).

The grade issue dictates headway, which dictates frequency. It's a major factor in the frequency of the Glenelg line ATM.

What exactly do you propose for Glenelg if the tramway isn't working? O-Bahn?

YES YES YES!

No The Glenelg line suffers from trying to be a tram at both ends and trying to be a train in the reserve. It suffers in two ways; firstly during busy and peak periods (which is pretty much all day in my experience) people trying to use it as a train crowd on and make it difficult to use it as a tram on the street portions of the route (short hops); secondly it's just outside the sweet range for light rail (which is around under a 20 minute trip) so it fails as a train due to too many stops.

Don't get me wrong, I have a soft spot (or should that be a hard spot? ) for the Glenelg line, especially for the H class. Also I don't think an O-Bahn would serve that route well at all. Eliminating the at grade crossings on the busy intersections might bring the trip time down to below the light rail sweet spot, AND allow a shorter headway therefore increasing capacity to what's required considering its popularity.

We have it now, converting one system to another is usually cost/benefit prohibitive, so we need to improve it and make it work for the pubic. Otherwise we could have just stuck with the old H's.