News & Discussion: Trams

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#766 Post by rubberman » Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:25 pm

Yes, it is quite interesting. :cheers:

But most likely no trams till 2036! Oh well. :wink:

I'm not sure what the idea of the route to West Lakes and Grange is either. Surely there's a shorter route? Also, why not stage the Grange and West Lakes lines as a separate system going to Woodville Station, thence heavy rail to Adelaide. Build the connections from the Entercentre to Woodville if and when it's justified.

There's a one line mention of a line to Magill/Henley. Anyone have a link to more info?

I note that the travel times and intervals between trams used for planning are way behind international best practice. This is not a criticism. In fact, it is good policy to under promise, so that when the project finally happens, it should run far better than planned. Much better to do this than over promise, and then duck and weave as the blame game starts for poorer performance than planned. :mrgreen: This also does not affect the ranking of the proposals.

User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3770
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Contact:

News & Discussion: Trams

#767 Post by Nathan » Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:37 pm

That's a good point. Why does it have to be all one or the other? The reluctance to have transfers is a cultural thing, and can be overcome if done well. Have trams feed into large stations with frequent services and there shouldn't be a problem.

Or hell, why not bring back the idea of dual running? Use trams for local services, stopping at all stops, and reserve trains for high speed, high capacity rapid services stopping only at larger stations. Don't live near a large station? Take the local service 1-3 stops then transfer to the rapid service to take you the rest of the way. Or you can stay on the local the whole way if you want to keep your seat and have a bit more time up your sleeve.

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Glenelg

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#768 Post by SRW » Sun Nov 08, 2015 2:31 pm

When I lived in Stockholm, I commuted via a local tram line to a station with interchanges to either the Tunnelbanan (Metro) and Tvärbanan (cross-suburban tramway). Granted, that specific local tram was a legacy line that used to run direct to the city, but it does show that such arrangements (tram to train) exist elsewhere and the psychological reluctance to transfer can be overcome if the connections are good enough.
Keep Adelaide Weird

User avatar
metro
Legendary Member!
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:11 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#769 Post by metro » Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:15 pm

SRW wrote:When I lived in Stockholm, I commuted via a local tram line to a station with interchanges to either the Tunnelbanan (Metro) and Tvärbanan (cross-suburban tramway). Granted, that specific local tram was a legacy line that used to run direct to the city, but it does show that such arrangements (tram to train) exist elsewhere and the psychological reluctance to transfer can be overcome if the connections are good enough.
When the frequency is good enough people are willing to transfer, like in Adelaide from bus to bus on the Obahn. Not as many Obahn buses run straight through to the city anymore, when I caught the Obahn back in 2008-2011 every day the bus to the city would get to Paradise empty and fill up with people's tickets making the transfer sound, would be packed then between Paradise and the City, and in the afternoon it was the reverse bus would be packed upto Paradise and everyone jumps out and boards the local feeder service. Now the bus I used to catch terminates at Paradise too, so i'm glad I moved.

User avatar
medo
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 3:46 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#770 Post by medo » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:38 pm

Image

Just one example of pure ignorance when comes to the trams...
Today article in The Advertiser - $60k electric tram could transport tourists around Port Adelaide. It's nice but I can't see the tram. -http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger ... y-comments

Medo

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#771 Post by monotonehell » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:09 pm

medo wrote:Image

Just one example of pure ignorance when comes to the trams...
Today article in The Advertiser - $60k electric tram could transport tourists around Port Adelaide. It's nice but I can't see the tram. -http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger ... y-comments

Medo
They're not talking about a tram-tram. They are talking about a Disneyland style Tram...
TramDisneyland.jpg
TramDisneyland.jpg (215.06 KiB) Viewed 3153 times
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
medo
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 3:46 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#772 Post by medo » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:38 pm

monotonehell wrote: They're not talking about a tram-tram. They are talking about a Disneyland style Tram...
TramDisneyland.jpg
Thank you. I do understand that, but when comes to naming we do not have to copy everything coming from there. Tram-tram will be always the tram.
Sorry if I stir up. That was not my intention. I am just sick of the Advertiser and their "quality".
If they had have "electric tram" that might indicate something different. There are some rules and conventions which helps us to understand what is what.

Medo

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 6393
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#773 Post by Norman » Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:21 pm

I just had a thought... maybe they are not upgrading the City South tram stop until the City Loop is being constructed, so they can position the stop better. I would assume they will add tracks leading from the city loop to the Glenelg main line to allow stabling in Morphettville.

Just a random thought I had, could be nothing...

User avatar
Llessur2002
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
Location: Inner West

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#774 Post by Llessur2002 » Mon Jan 25, 2016 12:42 pm

Summit aims to fast-track Adelaide's tram expansion

Lord Mayor Martin Haese will call a Town Hall summit to push for the expansion of Adelaide's light rail network, InDaily can reveal.

Image

Haese told InDaily he would be inviting state and federal government representatives, mayors from every inner metropolitan council and business groups to the summit before the middle of the year, in an attempt to secure consensus on an expansion of South Australia’s tram network.

He said that while increasing the reach of the tram network around the CBD would meet several of the city council’s objectives – including its carbon neutral city, business and residential growth goals – it was “premature to suggest” Adelaide City Council would be willing to part with cash to achieve it.

“I don’t want to suggest at this time that Adelaide City Council will be funding light rail across the city,” Haese told InDaily.

“Light rail is a very capital-intensive endeavour,” he said, adding that railway tracks, poles and wires can cost “tens of millions of dollars per kilometre”.

He rejected any accusation, however, that the summit would amount to merely talk.

“If we don’t at least start this discussion together how do we know (the benefits of light rail),” he said.

“I’d like to see the benefits of light rail quantified.”

Haese said some of the councils surrounding the city had yet to decide on an official position regarding light rail, and much of the evidence he was aware of regarding the benefits of light rail for Adelaide remained “anecdotal”.

The summit, he said, would help solidify light rail policy in local government, and consolidate evidence for the efficacy of expanding the network and encourage commitments from all levels of government.

Haese said that, at the very least, the summit would be a “fact-finding mission”, but hoped it could produce “a strategic plan, a business scenario … or a business case” for expanding the network.

He said a “city loop” and “spurs” of railway tracks emanating from the CBD was the long-term goal.

“It would be a success if there was full participation by all surrounding mayors … if there was a consensus (and) specific ‘actionables’.”

An expanded tram network was the centrepiece of the Government’s Integrated Transport Plan, released in 2013, but little has happened since on the plans to restore Adelaide’s light rail network.

Transport Minister Stephen Mullighan welcomed the summit, and said the State Government had been encouraging local government to help expand the network.

“The State Government is committed to expanding our tram network, following the successful extensions both to the Adelaide Railway station and the Adelaide Entertainment Centre,” Mullighan said.

“I welcome the Lord Mayor’s proposal and look forward to further engaging with the Adelaide city Council and other councils … to progress our plans.”

Property Council SA boss Daniel Gannon told InDaily that “any forum (promoting) light rail infrastructure needs to be welcomed”.

He said that “if we can get local government on the same page as the federal and state government,” it would be an important first step towards light rail growth.

Gannon told InDaily that Adelaide needed a light rail network similar to that which criss-crosses Melbourne.

“Adelaide right now really is at a junction (where) we can embrace … infrastructure or we can ignore it and let things fester,” he said.

Gannon said the Federal Government had a large role to play in funding the expansion of the network since the Turnbull Government had “made it very clear that cities are at its policy forefront”.

Haese said he hoped the Prime Minister’s regular support for public transport on social media indicated a willingness to back public transport projects.

Though both men were hesitant to recommend any particular funding model, Gannon suggested that an approach based on the UK City Deals program – where local regions that exceed growth targets are rewarded with financial incentives – could be a viable way forward.
http://indaily.com.au/news/2016/01/25/s ... expansion/

eslampar
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:52 am

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#775 Post by eslampar » Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:02 pm

Another proposal for the outer harbor tram:
http://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/webda ... 01-25a.pdf

User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3770
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#776 Post by Nathan » Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:21 pm

Running the tram up the Port Rd median all the way to Kilkenny Rd? Thereby requiring all stops to have passengers alighting to pedestrian crossings across a wide road to a mostly pedestrian unfriendly streetscape, and with the exception of Welland shopping centre and an On The Run / Krispy Kreme, has no destination retail or significant residential development? All while requiring the tram to stop at more intersections, having drivers stop at more pedestrian crossings, and the removal of the median car parking (meaning more provision will have to be made for on-street parking).

Absolute nonsense.

User avatar
Llessur2002
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
Location: Inner West

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#777 Post by Llessur2002 » Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:01 pm

Agree. I'm not really sure where I sit in terms of the heavy to light rail conversion but the one thing that can't seem to be done in Adelaide is to give a tram any sort of priority at intersections. I can't believe the journey from the Entertainment Centre to the Station takes 15 minutes. Factor in the 20 or so crossings of the Port Road median strip between Kilkenny Road and the Entertainmant Centre and God only knows how long the journey would take. When a dedicated intersection-free corridor exists, why on earth would you route it up the middle of a major road which is a bit of a nightmare for pedestrians to cross at peak times (when most people will be using the tram)?

I wonder how much this little snippet of the report has to do with it...
Potential for creating a greenway or medium density development of the redundant existing rail corridor from Bowden to Kilkenny realising approximately 200 - 500 residential allotments.
It's a failed plan as far as I'm concerned. The tram needs to be fast and convenient to attract patronage. This proposed route will be neither.

Hopefully this is just local government folly. If there's any delay to the construction of the South Road rail overpass (scheduled to start in March I believe) then I'll start worrying...

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2588
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Kaurna Land.
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#778 Post by ChillyPhilly » Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:29 pm

The Charles Sturt report says only 3.5km of the route would be in the Port Road median, from the Entertainment Centre to Kilkenny Road/David Terrace. There are exactly 20 trafficable crossings of the road, which also includes a few carparks and pedestrian crossings.

It's just not practical. The merit in converting the Grange line to light rail is strong, as aside from peak hour, there is hardly any serious patronage.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

User avatar
PeFe
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1624
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:47 am

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#779 Post by PeFe » Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:12 pm

It really is time for the South Australian government to make a decision on the Outer harbor corridor, either upgrade the heavy rail infrastructure or turn it into a light rail corridor.
The Bowden/Brompton renewal project is entering a stage where significant numbers of people are moving into the area and deserve
decent rail transport/amenities.
I have made my views known plenty of times in this forum (retain the heavy rail corridor with less stations and increase the residential development substantially around the larger stations, Grange and West Lakes would be light rail to Woodville station)

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#780 Post by Goodsy » Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:41 pm

It's probably not feasible and far too expensive but what if they sunk a tramline under the Port road median? A cut and cover wouldn't be too difficult although they'd be removing hundreds of trees

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 128 guests