Sensational-Adelaide.com

really, the heavy rail situation must be dealt with.

i have caught trains along the noarlunga line twice in the past year.

the first time, i had to go to seacliff station, and the doors wouldnt open, so i was forced to wait until the next stop. the second time i caught a train from noarlunga to the city. the noarlunga route is quite a scenic route along the sea. a pity i couldnt even see out the windows of the train!
i also noticed that many of the stations were vandalised and in need of repair. thankfully oaklands is being done up, but this is just one out of many atrocious stations along the line.

although, i fully support any future tram extensions, except if they ever decide to run it down the mall!!
trams add character to our streets and create a more "urban" environment.

i would like to see trams run down king william road, the parade and o'connell street; similar routes that others have mentioned. a tram down henley beach road to henley square could also greatly improve the area, as it is already a very popular spot, but is difficult to get to by public transport. this extention would also service venues such as the thebbie.

yeah, bring on more tramlines.
Shuz, theres just no point putting a tramline down Port Rd, think about all the traffic lights. There is already a reserved track 25-50 mtrs away. Either turn the Outer Harbor line into light rail, or leave it as heavy rail and upgrade the stations so they look like they're in use. Once the Port Adelaide newport quays is close to finished, a lot more people may use the Outer Harbor line. We may have to spend more than $5.99 on upgrading Ethelton and Glanville stations though.

Mants wrote:the first time, i had to go to seacliff station, and the doors wouldnt open, so i was forced to wait until the next stop.

Sorry, I just have to ask!, but you did realise you have to open the door yourself? I've seen a few people not realise you have to open the door yourself, on bus, tram and train.

jk1237 wrote:yeah, bring on more tramlines.
Shuz, theres just no point putting a tramline down Port Rd, think about all the traffic lights.

Underpasses? Grade seperation?

Norman wrote:

jk1237 wrote:yeah, bring on more tramlines.
Shuz, theres just no point putting a tramline down Port Rd, think about all the traffic lights.

Underpasses? Grade seperation?

Cost?

AG wrote:

Cruise wrote:Yeah more trams will be great. who cares about doing something serious about the heavy rail network?

Hint of sarcasm?

Just a wee bit

AtD wrote:

Mants wrote:the first time, i had to go to seacliff station, and the doors wouldnt open, so i was forced to wait until the next stop.

Sorry, I just have to ask!, but you did realise you have to open the door yourself? I've seen a few people not realise you have to open the door yourself, on bus, tram and train.

haha. it's the same as in melbourne.

however, in this case, i pulled the handle, but the door wouldnt budge.

AtD wrote:Heavy rail to light rail is a downgrade, which ever way you look at it - smaller vehicles, slower vehicles.

Lightrail does not always mean trams, TransPerth classifies its system as lightrail.

Tom wrote:

AtD wrote:Heavy rail to light rail is a downgrade, which ever way you look at it - smaller vehicles, slower vehicles.

Lightrail does not always mean trams, TransPerth classifies its system as lightrail.

Less expensive vehicles, more vehicles, better frequency ...

I think there is more to the tram routes than putting them to where people currently want to go (North Adelaide, Norwood, Henley etc). While I believe these routes will be great in the fututre, the thing that is driving the project at the moment is development. Rann wanted the CBD to expand outward as well as up, and taking the tram to the railway station has done that - already we are seeing the south end of KWS developing because suddenly it is more accessible. Watch the west end do the same thing when the tram loop is completed. Real estate is cheaper there, and if it's accessible via free, efficient public transport, the developers will go for it. This won't happen in the suburbs. They're going to have to wait a little longer for their trams, I'm afraid.

Will409 wrote:Rebuilding the old link to Adelaide Oval might by an idea too

I highly doubt it. Think about how often people travel to Adelaide Oval.

If the tram track continued down KWS to north adelaide, adelaide oval could be a tram stop.

There was a plan on the ACC's books to build a foot-bridge linking the railway station and the Oval directly. It was shelved a few years ago, unfortunately.

If the tram loop goes east onto East Terrace, Grenfell or even Hutt Streets it may end up hindering the Clipsal 500 or even itself. You can't run trams while there's a motor car race on those streets. It's one or the other. If the lines go out of the city that's a different proposition. On the other side of the city the loop west will have to contend with the narrowing of Grote Street at the intersection with Victoria Square. Since the council has extended the footpath you now have two lanes on the Hilton side. I definitely see this as a traffic problem if they decide to come down Grote Street.

Cheers

I can't understand why it's been suggested that the proposed city loop would go down gray st.
it's way too narrow and would require an extra set of lights on north tce going into gray st... surely extending down to west tce and running down the very wide median strip would make far more sense?

I am not sure, but I am assuming this is because if you drive along Gray st, you would notice there are a lot of residential townhouses located along Gray St, you probably won't notice because they are so small and cramped packed, but they are homes to student accommodations, international and local.

While I do agree that running down West terrace serves more purposes, and Gray St is just one street off anyway.