News & Discussion: Trams

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2469
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head
Has thanked: 1263 times
Been thanked: 163 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4441 Post by Ho Really » Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:17 pm

claybro wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:07 am
All the options being discussed were covered off previously under the previous Labor government, including the Grange Road option. It just got put in the too hard basket. What people still don't seem to understand is that once OH is electrified as heavy rail, there will be no light rail of any type for the NW, and Grange spur will close. That is pretty much where it is currently at.
...and...
how good is he wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:01 am
Also the Charles Sturt council has just spent tens of millions on new stormwater, car parking, lighting & landscaping etc down the centre of Port Rd. There’s no way they are going to want or allow this to just get ripped up.
The idea of a light rail up Port Road is a waste of money. Let's hope these are the nails in that coffin so it is laid to rest. Buses do a good enough job. What they need to do is supply the railway stations with feeder buses and build up areas around the rail line. Stations should also be covered not slabs of bitumen with small sheds!

A tram up Grange Road is still a good idea. The heavy rail to Grange from Woodville can be retained if commuters still want it otherwise it should be converted to a tram line to connect to the Grange line as shown by Goodsy servicing West Lakes but also the QE Hospital and Arndale. No need to double up with the Outer Habor line. Also if converted to a tram line it should circumvent the Royal Adelaide Golf Course possibly by Trimmer Parade and Frederick Road.

At Hindmarsh the tram line should run along Manton Street to Adam Street into Port Road and not through the current terminus. When Hindmarsh (Coopers) Stadium disappears build high density housing. Same if the Entertainment Centre goes one day. All serviced by the tram.

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

User avatar
madelaide
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:13 pm
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4442 Post by madelaide » Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:29 pm

Just brainstorming some possible routes...

Route 1: Glenelg to Kilburn (via KWS and Prospect Rd) - 20kms

Route 2: Camden Park to Magill Uni (via Mooringe Ave, KWS, North Tce and Magill Rd) - 17kms

Route 3: Airport to Northfield (via SDB Drive, Grote St, KWS, Melbourne St, NthEast Rd and Hamstead Rd) - 16kms

Route 4: West Beach Resorts to Holden Hill (via SDB Drive, Gouger St, KWS, Melbourne St, NthEast Rd) - 22kms

Route 5a: Henley Beach to Adelaide Uni Waite Campus (via Grote St, Wakefield St, Hutt St, Fullarton Rd) - 18kms

Route 5b: Henley Beach to Burnside (via Grote St, Wakefield St, Hutt St, Greenhill Rd) - 18kms

Route 6: Grange Beach to Penfolds aka 'Penfolds Grange Line' (via Grange Rd, Manton St, Port Rd, Nth Tce, Magill Rd, Osmond Tce, The Parade) - 19kms

Route 7: Mitcham to Newton (via Unley Rd, Hutt St, Nth Tce, Lower NE Rd, Montacute Rd) - 17kms
Attachments
trams adelaide concept v2.jpg

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3540
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 147 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4443 Post by Waewick » Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:46 pm


I'm probably like a broken record, but city loop to Norwood is a no brainer.

Did whatever it takes to get it down the parade.

Paying customers and we also fill a glaring gap in our rail based transport.

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1750
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 302 times
Been thanked: 633 times
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4444 Post by ChillyPhilly » Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:34 pm

madelaide wrote:Just brainstorming some possible routes...

Route 1: Glenelg to Kilburn (via KWS and Prospect Rd) - 20kms

Route 2: Camden Park to Magill Uni (via Mooringe Ave, KWS, North Tce and Magill Rd) - 17kms

Route 3: Airport to Northfield (via SDB Drive, Grote St, KWS, Melbourne St, NthEast Rd and Hamstead Rd) - 16kms

Route 4: West Beach Resorts to Holden Hill (via SDB Drive, Gouger St, KWS, Melbourne St, NthEast Rd) - 22kms

Route 5a: Henley Beach to Adelaide Uni Waite Campus (via Grote St, Wakefield St, Hutt St, Fullarton Rd) - 18kms

Route 5b: Henley Beach to Burnside (via Grote St, Wakefield St, Hutt St, Greenhill Rd) - 18kms

Route 6: Grange Beach to Penfolds aka 'Penfolds Grange Line' (via Grange Rd, Manton St, Port Rd, Nth Tce, Magill Rd, Osmond Tce, The Parade) - 19kms

Route 7: Mitcham to Newton (via Unley Rd, Hutt St, Nth Tce, Lower NE Rd, Montacute Rd) - 17kms
Love this. If I have one constructive criticism, it's that there should be more interconnection between lines (eg, north to south along the coast, Airport Road to Henley Beach Road, James Congdon Drive).
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

Mpol03
Legendary Member!
Posts: 726
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:39 am
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4445 Post by Mpol03 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:23 pm

I’m sure this has been discussed before but what about a tram down vic square through to Henley beach road, with a service to the airport and then another that continues down Sir Don to military toad that could loop up with a grange line that’s been converted to tram, and link up at West Lakes up West Lakes Boulevard. The loop could link up the at the end of the grange line too.

North of Vic Square it could then extend through to the parade. So you have a service that connects the east to the beach.

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5944
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm
Has thanked: 842 times
Been thanked: 1620 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4446 Post by Norman » Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:32 pm

madelaide wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:29 pm
Just brainstorming some possible routes...

Route 1: Glenelg to Kilburn (via KWS and Prospect Rd) - 20kms

Route 2: Camden Park to Magill Uni (via Mooringe Ave, KWS, North Tce and Magill Rd) - 17kms

Route 3: Airport to Northfield (via SDB Drive, Grote St, KWS, Melbourne St, NthEast Rd and Hamstead Rd) - 16kms

Route 4: West Beach Resorts to Holden Hill (via SDB Drive, Gouger St, KWS, Melbourne St, NthEast Rd) - 22kms

Route 5a: Henley Beach to Adelaide Uni Waite Campus (via Grote St, Wakefield St, Hutt St, Fullarton Rd) - 18kms

Route 5b: Henley Beach to Burnside (via Grote St, Wakefield St, Hutt St, Greenhill Rd) - 18kms

Route 6: Grange Beach to Penfolds aka 'Penfolds Grange Line' (via Grange Rd, Manton St, Port Rd, Nth Tce, Magill Rd, Osmond Tce, The Parade) - 19kms

Route 7: Mitcham to Newton (via Unley Rd, Hutt St, Nth Tce, Lower NE Rd, Montacute Rd) - 17kms
A few points about some of the lines:
  • 1: No issues
  • 2: No issues
  • 3: The northern section is problematic. North-East Road is a major inbound road connecting to the Ring Road. Hampstead Road is a major freight route, there isn't much space for its own dedicated corridor.
  • 4: Past Adelaide Airport there would be insufficient demand at West Beach, where higher density development would be difficult due to the proximity to the runways. Buses can do the job just fine, and currently run at a low frequency. To the east, there would be problems with North-East Road.
  • 5: The line should go further south to Carrick Hill to also service Mercedes College
  • 6: I would route the line along the full length of The Parade and Rundle Road.
  • 7: Should be extended to Mitcham Station to interchange with the train network.

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 311 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4447 Post by Nort » Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:58 am

how good is he wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:01 am
Also the Charles Sturt council has just spent tens of millions on new stormwater, car parking, lighting & landscaping etc down the centre of Port Rd. There’s no way they are going to want or allow this to just get ripped up.
Raised rail tram.

Pros:
1. Extra expensive, so can have lots of money funneled through it to companies that make favourable political donations.
2. Visually resembles a monorail.

Honey of a City
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:42 pm
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: News & Discussion: Tram

#4448 Post by Honey of a City » Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:35 am

We don’t need light rail all the way down Port Rd, as there’s already a heavy line close by and parallel. Very expensive exercise too, now that it’s all been re-landscaped. It would be worth a business case though on converting the Outer Harbour heavy rail line to light, and feeding off that to the hotspots (e.g. Grange, West Lakes, Semaphore, Port Dock, Dock 2 etc) using street-based light rail. And also worth a look at the trackless trams for the streets which are much cheaper and less disruptive to build, and potentially more efficient.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1348
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 245 times

Re: News & Discussion: Tram

#4449 Post by rubberman » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:28 pm

Honey of a City wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:35 am
We don’t need light rail all the way down Port Rd, as there’s already a heavy line close by and parallel. Very expensive exercise too, now that it’s all been re-landscaped. It would be worth a business case though on converting the Outer Harbour heavy rail line to light, and feeding off that to the hotspots (e.g. Grange, West Lakes, Semaphore, Port Dock, Dock 2 etc) using street-based light rail. And also worth a look at the trackless trams for the streets which are much cheaper and less disruptive to build, and potentially more efficient.
I agree that conversion of the Outer Harbor line should be looked at as an option. Perhaps shortened to Woodville with a light rail system to various termini on the LeFevre Peninsula. Outer Harbour, Largs, Semaphore, Port Dock and the wharf, Port Adelaide services could feed to Woodville, and then a fast heavy rail to Adelaide Railway Station with only two or three stops.

The problem with the reckless tram is that, contrary to the claims of its promoters, there is extensive strengthening of the pavement required. You can see in areas where buses run exclusively, that ruts develop quickly. Parts of Grenfell and Currie Streets are regularly being resurfaced where buses pound that lane exclusively. The trackless tram is much harder because it makes those wheels track exactly the same alignment. What is required are those longitudinal stringers as used on the O-bahn. Effective, but not cheap.

Edit. My autocorrect changed "trackless" to "reckless". But I think I'll leave it.

EBG
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2412
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:49 pm
Has thanked: 846 times
Been thanked: 1699 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4450 Post by EBG » Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:32 pm

The proposed routes have a lot going for them and an enlightened government would seriously consider them as part of a medium term plan. One serious problem I know that the Adelaide city council would never allow a direct l route from Hutt St to the corner of Greenhill Rd and Fullarton Rd even though this is the shortest route. Adelaide has no medium to long term transport plan at all.
Last edited by EBG on Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TorrensSA
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:45 am
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4451 Post by TorrensSA » Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:44 am

A few things I would fix about that fantasy plan: Change route 2 to follow old alignment to Stonehouse Ave than Morphett road and take it to Glenelg on current alignment, route 2 would turn right onto Colley Terrace terminate at Wigley Reserve, route 1 would turn left onto Moseley Street and terminate at Broadway. Remove the 4 to West Beach, new route 4 to West Lakes from Grange Road up Crittenden Rd, Trimmer Pde and Frederick Road. 5 and 6 terminate at a new interchange in Grange, new route 8 to Athol Park from Light Square, Wellington Square, Hawker Street, Torrens Road, Arndale and Hanson Road. Route 6 would run via Rundle Road and Parade to Rosslyn Park. Route 3 should go via Walkerville and Galway Avenue, Route 4 should terminate at Paradise, Route 7 terminate at Morialta and Mitcham Station, Route 5 to Fullarton Road change number to route 8 to Athol Park and terminate at Mitcham Station / shops.
Routes: 1 Glenelg South to Kilburn; Route 2 Glenelg Beach to Magill; Route 3 Airport to Clearview; Route 4 West Lakes to Paradise; Route 5 Burnside to Grange via HBR; Route 6 Rosslyn Park to Grange via Grange Road; Route 7 Morialta to Mitcham Station; Route 8 Athol Park to Mitcham Station. A few tweaks and fill in the gaps and less random terminals. Potential extensions route 2 to Morialta from Magill and Route 4 to Thorndon Park. A Route 9 to Semaphore from Pasadena Shops via ??? Winston and East Ave ??? City ??? than Arndale, Port Adelaide and Semaphore.

User avatar
AndyWelsh
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:44 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 681 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4452 Post by AndyWelsh » Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:17 pm

https://the-riotact.com/light-rail-stag ... ase/357853

Some interesting news about the next phase of light rail in Canberra, being wire-free. This means that new and existing light rail vehicles will need to be fitted with onboard energy storage with regenerative braking capability, but one advantage will be that it takes up less space as the tracks will be narrower and built in the middle of the road.

Westside
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 4:30 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4453 Post by Westside » Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:56 pm

AndyWelsh wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:17 pm
https://the-riotact.com/light-rail-stag ... ase/357853

Some interesting news about the next phase of light rail in Canberra, being wire-free. This means that new and existing light rail vehicles will need to be fitted with onboard energy storage with regenerative braking capability, but one advantage will be that it takes up less space as the tracks will be narrower and built in the middle of the road.
And if you read the comments and the rhetoric on that site, you realise the same nimby mentality here in Canberra as you have in Adelaide.

Note also that the first stage of light rail saw more than 2.2 million trips in the first 6 months. From what I can determine, that's about the same as the Glenelg tram does in a full year (not counting the free trips in the city)! Invest in good infrastructure and it does pay off. Yet people still look at it as a 'white elephant' :wallbash:

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1348
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 245 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4454 Post by rubberman » Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:00 pm

Westside wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:56 pm
AndyWelsh wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:17 pm
https://the-riotact.com/light-rail-stag ... ase/357853

Some interesting news about the next phase of light rail in Canberra, being wire-free. This means that new and existing light rail vehicles will need to be fitted with onboard energy storage with regenerative braking capability, but one advantage will be that it takes up less space as the tracks will be narrower and built in the middle of the road.
And if you read the comments and the rhetoric on that site, you realise the same nimby mentality here in Canberra as you have in Adelaide.

Note also that the first stage of light rail saw more than 2.2 million trips in the first 6 months. From what I can determine, that's about the same as the Glenelg tram does in a full year (not counting the free trips in the city)! Invest in good infrastructure and it does pay off. Yet people still look at it as a 'white elephant' :wallbash:
It's not a white elephant. It's merely twice as expensive as it needs to be, and a third slower than it should be.

With the money they spent, they could have had twice the length of tramway, and much faster travel times.

That's different from it being a white elephant.

User avatar
AndyWelsh
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:44 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 681 times

News & Discussion: Trams

#4455 Post by AndyWelsh » Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:11 pm

I lived in Gungahlin, Canberra before moving to Adelaide which is where their new tram starts and stops. It probably still is one of the fastest growing suburbs in Australia and they’ve had the luxury of being able to turn lots of empty space into high density living right next to the new line e.g through Gungahlin and down into Harrison and Mitchell.

Maybe that could explain the higher patronage over our own?

I’m seeing a lot more medium and high density popping up along our own Anzac Highway at the minute, which ironically isn’t served by tram or train.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gnrc_louis, Stefan P and 8 guests