News & Discussion: Public Transport Contracts, Service & Policy

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1370
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by rubberman »

SouthAussie94 wrote:
rubberman wrote:
There's no reason why buses couldn't run on the tram track. Also, from East Terrace to Hindmarsh Square it's not as intensive bus wise as from the Square to West Terrace.

Having buses share tram tracks is common in Europe. It takes buses off the roads, makes them faster, and also makes it easier for car drivers and cyclists when buses are taken off car lanes and don't pull into the curb. Of course, they don't have centre islands either.
The issue with buses using the tram corridor in the CBD as it currently stands is the island stops. The platform is on the wrong side for a bus to use...
Which is one of the reasons tram systems in Australia and round the world don't use centre islands. One reason amongst many.

My impression is that the tram extension from Victoria Square to the Entercentre was designed by people with a heavy rail background. Hence massive overhead (Which they call OCS, Overhead Catenary System, rather a dead giveaway imho), track that could take a locomotive, signalling that is prudent for trains with long braking distances, but irrelevant for trams, and centre platforms. The idea that others might share the road space with trams was fundamental to tramway development, but completely foreign to railway usage, except for oddities (shared rail ad road bridges in NZ I have seen :). Hence, centre islands.
PD2/20
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by PD2/20 »

rubberman wrote:
Which is one of the reasons tram systems in Australia and round the world don't use centre islands. One reason amongst many.

My impression is that the tram extension from Victoria Square to the Entercentre was designed by people with a heavy rail background. Hence massive overhead (Which they call OCS, Overhead Catenary System, rather a dead giveaway imho), track that could take a locomotive, signalling that is prudent for trains with long braking distances, but irrelevant for trams, and centre platforms. The idea that others might share the road space with trams was fundamental to tramway development, but completely foreign to railway usage, except for oddities (shared rail ad road bridges in NZ I have seen :). Hence, centre islands.
The Adelaide tram system does not have catenary overhead in contrast to the contact/catenary wire configuration on the Seaford line. It is however tensioned which is an advantage in climates where there are significant temperature variations. The sleepered track from South Terrace to Brighton Rd uses conventional rail and sleepers made in Australia. Alternatives such as the grooved rail used in the street sections now has to be imported. What aspect of the signalling caters for long braking distances? When the level crossings were upgraded a few years ago, it was partly to alleviate problems with too short activation times. The alternatives to centre platforms are either kerbside running (which would be largely impracticable in King William St with its plethora of heavily used bus stops) or centre tracks with outside platforms (which then require fencing on the faces adjacent to the road lanes to protect passengers).
rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1370
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by rubberman »

PD2/20 wrote:
rubberman wrote:
Which is one of the reasons tram systems in Australia and round the world don't use centre islands. One reason amongst many.

My impression is that the tram extension from Victoria Square to the Entercentre was designed by people with a heavy rail background. Hence massive overhead (Which they call OCS, Overhead Catenary System, rather a dead giveaway imho), track that could take a locomotive, signalling that is prudent for trains with long braking distances, but irrelevant for trams, and centre platforms. The idea that others might share the road space with trams was fundamental to tramway development, but completely foreign to railway usage, except for oddities (shared rail ad road bridges in NZ I have seen :). Hence, centre islands.
The Adelaide tram system does not have catenary overhead in contrast to the contact/catenary wire configuration on the Seaford line. It is however tensioned which is an advantage in climates where there are significant temperature variations. The sleepered track from South Terrace to Brighton Rd uses conventional rail and sleepers made in Australia. Alternatives such as the grooved rail used in the street sections now has to be imported. What aspect of the signalling caters for long braking distances? When the level crossings were upgraded a few years ago, it was partly to alleviate problems with too short activation times. The alternatives to centre platforms are either kerbside running (which would be largely impracticable in King William St with its plethora of heavily used bus stops) or centre tracks with outside platforms (which then require fencing on the faces adjacent to the road lanes to protect passengers).
I apologise if my meaning was not clear. I was referring to the use of the acronym OCS as an example of the heavy rail mind set of present day Australian tram system designers. The dead giveaway being precisely for the reason you mentioned: most tram oriented designers would refer to it as simply "overhead", even more ancient types just say "trolley wire". Some people refer to OCS as Overhead Contact System too. However, because the wire still adopts a catenary shape, even though shallow, it is still correct too.

Well, as far as I know, there's no long braking distances, so why have the signals other than the crossing indicators ? That's my precise point. A permanent speed restriction at points, and drivers can see if it's safe to proceed. Or point indication at the outside. The former Victoria Square and Glenelg scissors termini and City depot junction had no signals and operated safely for decades. Why do identical usages now require signalling?

In King William St, if you had some of those buses running on the tramline as is commonly done overseas, you could eliminate the corresponding kerb bus stop, and use that extra room for standard tram stops. At the same time, taking those buses from King William St traffic lanes would help car, taxi and other bus users.
claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by claybro »

rubberman wrote:
PD2/20 wrote:
rubberman wrote:
Which is one of the reasons tram systems in Australia and round the world don't use centre islands. One reason amongst many.

My impression is that the tram extension from Victoria Square to the Entercentre was designed by people with a heavy rail background. Hence massive overhead (Which they call OCS, Overhead Catenary System, rather a dead giveaway imho), track that could take a locomotive, signalling that is prudent for trains with long braking distances, but irrelevant for trams, and centre platforms. The idea that others might share the road space with trams was fundamental to tramway development, but completely foreign to railway usage, except for oddities (shared rail ad road bridges in NZ I have seen :). Hence, centre islands.
The Adelaide tram system does not have catenary overhead in contrast to the contact/catenary wire configuration on the Seaford line. It is however tensioned which is an advantage in climates where there are significant temperature variations. The sleepered track from South Terrace to Brighton Rd uses conventional rail and sleepers made in Australia. Alternatives such as the grooved rail used in the street sections now has to be imported. What aspect of the signalling caters for long braking distances? When the level crossings were upgraded a few years ago, it was partly to alleviate problems with too short activation times. The alternatives to centre platforms are either kerbside running (which would be largely impracticable in King William St with its plethora of heavily used bus stops) or centre tracks with outside platforms (which then require fencing on the faces adjacent to the road lanes to protect passengers).
I apologise if my meaning was not clear. I was referring to the use of the acronym OCS as an example of the heavy rail mind set of present day Australian tram system designers. The dead giveaway being precisely for the reason you mentioned: most tram oriented designers would refer to it as simply "overhead", even more ancient types just say "trolley wire". Some people refer to OCS as Overhead Contact System too. However, because the wire still adopts a catenary shape, even though shallow, it is still correct too.

Well, as far as I know, there's no long braking distances, so why have the signals other than the crossing indicators ? That's my precise point. A permanent speed restriction at points, and drivers can see if it's safe to proceed. Or point indication at the outside. The former Victoria Square and Glenelg scissors termini and City depot junction had no signals and operated safely for decades. Why do identical usages now require signalling?

In King William St, if you had some of those buses running on the tramline as is commonly done overseas, you could eliminate the corresponding kerb bus stop, and use that extra room for standard tram stops. At the same time, taking those buses from King William St traffic lanes would help car, taxi and other bus users.

Moving the tram islands to the outside of the tracks and moving ALL buses to the tram corridor makes sense. Buses along KWS are an awful impediment to footpath activity along there due to crowding of cues, and noisy smelly diesel buses which literally deafen you as they drive off.
PD2/20
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by PD2/20 »

claybro wrote: Moving the tram islands to the outside of the tracks and moving ALL buses to the tram corridor makes sense. Buses along KWS are an awful impediment to footpath activity along there due to crowding of cues, and noisy smelly diesel buses which literally deafen you as they drive off.
Confining all buses to a single lane is a recipe for instant congestion. A characteristic of bus systems generally is that major arteries with multiple routes require multiple sets of stops with the ability to overtake buses loading at stops.
rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1370
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by rubberman »

PD2/20 wrote:
claybro wrote: Moving the tram islands to the outside of the tracks and moving ALL buses to the tram corridor makes sense. Buses along KWS are an awful impediment to footpath activity along there due to crowding of cues, and noisy smelly diesel buses which literally deafen you as they drive off.
Confining all buses to a single lane is a recipe for instant congestion. A characteristic of bus systems generally is that major arteries with multiple routes require multiple sets of stops with the ability to overtake buses loading at stops.
All buses might be a bit extreme, but there's a good case for taking some of the buses and running them on the tram line in King Wm St, North Tce, and Port Rd. The tram corridor is underutilised, while in each of those streets, the adjacent roadway is crammed. Easing congestion on the road, by using an adjacent underutilised corridor does have a certain logic to it. It would require the use of standard tram stops though. The fencing on the outside of those stops would also stop people charging across the road across the tram tracks too, as happens at Rundle Mall.
Eurostar
Legendary Member!
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by Eurostar »

Or you could make King William Street between North Terrace and Victoria Square a transit mall allowing buses, taxis, emergency vehicles and trams to use it only.
User avatar
PeFe
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1250
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:47 am

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by PeFe »

From In Daily
Buses and trams would be able to to “request priority” at traffic lights under a suite of changes to the state’s transport system announced by the government today.

The Operation Moving Traffic report, released this morning, flags a series of changes to the ways in which traffic is managed in Adelaide, including giving buses and trams the ability to “request priority” at traffic lights, “particularly when running late”.

“Bus priority integration into [the] traffic signals system” would begin in three to six months’ time, the report says.

It is unclear whether bus and tram drivers, or an automatic system would “request” priority.

State Government actions flagged in the report include:

Increasing the number of bus lanes, including piloting an extended Anzac Highway city-bound bus lane.
Banning more right-hand turns, including at the Anzac Highway/Greenhill Road/Richmond Road intersection.
Improving traffic light sequencing in the city, including an ongoing trial of altered sequencing on Hutt Street.
A Government-sponsored mobile app to verbally warn drivers of car accidents or road works up ahead.
Trialing a super-frequent express bus service on “a key route”.
Reducing the number of bus stops on “selected” routes.
Reviewing “inconsistent” enforcement of parking laws in clearways on major roads.
Considering the extension of bike lanes that are currently “discontinuous”.
Trialing reduced waiting times for pedestrians at selected crossings.
Exploring indented bus stop bays, to reduce incidents of traffic waiting behind stopped buses.
More here:
http://indaily.com.au/news/2016/04/18/t ... -overhaul/
OlympusAnt
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 7:31 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by OlympusAnt »

So they effectively have to spend double what they should have on that Oaklands crossing because some idiot didn't want to grade separate in 2009?

The South Australia method :applause: :applause:
Follow me on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
PD2/20
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by PD2/20 »

The Operation Moving Traffic report is accessible via http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/movingtraffic
User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by Wayno »

The moving Adelaide report says:
Longer travel times, particularly for freight and business travel, have a negative impact on South Australia’s economic productivity and competitiveness. In 2011 the cost of road congestion across Greater Adelaide was about $1 billion per year. Infrastructure Australia Audit estimated this to increase to $4 billion by 2031 without any improvements.
The effects of congestion are reflected in the average travel speeds experienced by car and truck drivers and passengers, which have steadily declined over the past ten years.
Of what is the $1b comprised? Slower goods delivery is clearly a % of the inefficiency. But how much and what else makes up the billion?

Clearly the throng of peak hour individual commuters impact overall road efficiency, but what about the time lost by these same individuals? Is that also part of the $1b?
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.
rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1370
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by rubberman »

Apropos of nothing, why is it that people wishing to sound posh use "trialing/trialling" when they really mean "trying". It means exactly the same thing.

Carry on chaps!
UrbanSG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:55 am

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by UrbanSG »

A bus lane along Anzac Highway Glenelg bound between South Road and Marion Road is what is really needed considering the gridlock every evening peak. Can sit waiting on a bus for more than 20 mins on that stretch alone. I'm sure such a lane would increase bus patronage considering the constant traffic jams in the area.
adelaide transport
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by adelaide transport »

Excellent idea Urban SG-why not suggest it to Michael Deegan head of DTPI,who is always seeking the public's feedback and ideas.
muzzamo
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1004
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:44 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Public Transport

Post by muzzamo »

UrbanSG wrote:A bus lane along Anzac Highway Glenelg bound between South Road and Marion Road is what is really needed considering the gridlock every evening peak. Can sit waiting on a bus for more than 20 mins on that stretch alone. I'm sure such a lane would increase bus patronage considering the constant traffic jams in the area.
I've considered this too. In my opinion a car pool lane (3+) would be good too, although some new bays for busses to stop in might be required.

A carpool lane would placate the car mob somewhat.
Post Reply