Sensational-Adelaide.com

Wayno wrote:

capitalist wrote: Now one to Unley would be really appreciated

yes - simply run it up the centre of that expansive boulevard known as Unley Rd! imagine the traffic chaos...

Would it still be really appreciated if it went via 172nd Avenue instead?

As I understand they had one down KW Rd into Hyde Park and that was the same width as Unley Rd - admittedly traffic flows were a lot less in the 1950's though.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE

skyliner wrote:As I understand they had one down KW Rd into Hyde Park and that was the same width as Unley Rd - admittedly traffic flows were a lot less in the 1950's though.

They were on five parallel roads - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adela ... _1950s.png

Though I still haven't got the full report, a summary including a map can be found at http://www.wtcc.sa.gov.au/webdata/resou ... rt17-2.pdf

Well personally I would close down Hut Street at the cnr of Hutt and Glen Osmond for Cars and make Duthy back to a tram line

Cost estimates put that roughly to about $12m per kilometre of tram track laid, $5.5m per tram, and roughly one tram each kilometre of track. I'll be able to churn out some cost estimates now with my own tram visions.

Shuz wrote:Cost estimates put that roughly to about $12m per kilometre of tram track laid, $5.5m per tram, and roughly one tram each kilometre of track. I'll be able to churn out some cost estimates now with my own tram visions.

More track means more substations so that is probably about right.

I made a google map of the current tram network, and all the proposed extensions.
http://maps.google.com.au/maps/ms?ie=UT ... 4&t=h&z=13
Should help a lot more than the drawn on a wet napkin map from the council.

The Grange Road tram is the almost same distance, and hence the same costs as the two proposed extensions (west lakes and semaphore). Its 7.2km for the Rann ones, and 8km for Grange road. I know which one I'd prefer.

fabricator wrote:I made a google map of the current tram network, and all the proposed extensions.
http://maps.google.com.au/maps/ms?ie=UT ... 4&t=h&z=13

i love the Deacon Ave, etc line proposal. This corridor is wasted space at present...

Before anyone jumps down my throat after the comment which I make, know that I am all for such Tram Extensions such as the ones mentioned.

Wayno wrote:

capitalist wrote: Now one to Unley would be really appreciated

yes - simply run it up the centre of that expansive boulevard known as Unley Rd! imagine the traffic chaos...

Yes, that is precisely what I was thinking when they mentioned Prospect Road, which, I hear, is similar to Unley Road in terms of traffic prblems. A better (but, granted, more expensive) option would be to run it underneath, similar to what Norman's vision had. That way, the tram is still there, but the road remains undisturbed. Take a look at Unley Road, it is basically 4 lanes wide and when people park on the side of the road, it essentially takes up half a lane, leaving only 1 1/2 lanes for drivers. Now what would happen if we added a tram there? (Think Prospect Road now) I haven't been to Prospect Road for a while now, however from memory, parts of (or most of) it has a median that shrinks for right-turn lanes. Can you imagine the chaos from putting a tram along such roads? Port Road, KWS, etc. were wider before trams went there, hence they could still cope afterwards.
Unless an alternate route is offered (awaits e-slapping ), the better option for the tram would be to run it beneath the road.

adam73837 wrote:awaits e-slapping

Holy smoke batman!

adam73837 wrote: Yes, that is precisely what I was thinking when they mentioned Prospect Road, which, I hear, is similar to Unley Road in terms of traffic problems. A better (but, granted, more expensive) option would be to run it underneath, similar to what Norman's vision had. That way, the tram is still there, but the road remains undisturbed. Take a look at Unley Road, it is basically 4 lanes wide and when people park on the side of the road, it essentially takes up half a lane, leaving only 1 1/2 lanes for drivers.

And because of this, Prospect Road is not similar to Unley Road at all. AIUI they used to be similar, but four lanes were squeezed into Unley Road, whereas Prospect Road is now just two lanes except around major intersections.

Now what would happen if we added a tram there? (Think Prospect Road now) I haven't been to Prospect Road for a while now, however from memory, parts of (or most of) it has a median that shrinks for right-turn lanes. Can you imagine the chaos from putting a tram along such roads? Port Road, KWS, etc. were wider before trams went there, hence they could still cope afterwards.

You're making the mistake of assuming the tram would be like the recent tram extensions, but that need not be the case. There is no need to segregate it from the rest of the traffic, nor to make it centre running (though if it were gutter running, the cycle lane would have to be removed).

Unless an alternate route is offered (awaits e-slapping ), the better option for the tram would be to run it beneath the road.

That would be needlessly expensive. There are many situations where tunnels are economically justified, but do you seriously think replacing a bus route with a tramway would be one of them?

Aidan wrote:You're making the mistake of assuming the tram would be like the recent tram extensions, but that need not be the case. There is no need to segregate it from the rest of the traffic...

A street running tram like that, without a right-of-way in the form of a Tram lane, wouldn't it be slower than a bus? Unless it's a sufficiently busy commuter line where multiple door loading becomes a big time saver (that is, large crowds at few stops vs one or two people per stop at many stops).

adam73837 wrote: Yes, that is precisely what I was thinking when they mentioned Prospect Road, which, I hear, is similar to Unley Road in terms of traffic problems. A better (but, granted, more expensive) option would be to run it underneath, similar to what Norman's vision had. That way, the tram is still there, but the road remains undisturbed. Take a look at Unley Road, it is basically 4 lanes wide and when people park on the side of the road, it essentially takes up half a lane, leaving only 1 1/2 lanes for drivers.

I just realised that I made a mess up with the wording. I will edit the underlined sentence so that I can explain what I really meant:
Take a look at Unley Road, it is basically four lanes wide and when people park on the side of the road, it essentially takes up half a lane, leaving the road with a 3-lane width, with cars only being able to utilise 1 1/2 lanes on each side.

Aidan wrote:And because of this, Prospect Road is not similar to Unley Road at all. AIUI they used to be similar, but four lanes were squeezed into Unley Road, whereas Prospect Road is now just two lanes except around major intersections.

Hold on, do you mean that the entire length of Prospect Road has only one lane in each direction? I'm sure that that is not the case, but your wording there confused me. If you mean that it is two lanes in each direction (which I assume is the case) on the other hand, then I don't see what you're trying to say when you state the Prospect and Unley aren't the same, because Unley is two lanes in each direction.

adam73837, it is the case that Prospect Rd is only 1 lane each way all the way to Grand Junction Rd. The only spots where its not is the few metres around the intersections at Fitzroy Tce and Regency Rd. All through Prospect there is now a median strip for turning lanes and for pedestrians to cross the road safely. Its the best thing thats happened for the shopping strip in Prospect caus its calmed the traffic significantly