Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://www.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://www.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4803
The Liberals plan is to establish Infrastructure SA, which will more than likely recommend a large portion of what has already been proposed by Labor. It will just ensure that the projects which have a good cost-benefit ratio (CBR) and higher priority gets done first, and allow projects with a lower CBR to accumulate a better CBR over time.Phantom wrote:I think we've all forgotten to liken this to MATS and ask for a massive turnpike at Hindmarsh!
I really don't know what to think of this! It sounds awesome and a lot of the work needs to be done, but as was said before, if the Libs get into power, what pre-election promises will they make and will they be comparative to what Cptn Weatherill and co. have announced? I really do hope they can come up with something that shows just as much foresight.
Cars sharing lanes with trams might be better for the cars, but it certainly isn't better for the trams, as they get stuck in traffic. And if stepfree access is needed, fewer options are available for stops.how good is he wrote:I think a tram network [using up at least 2 lanes] down Unley Rd, Henley Beach Rd, The Parade , Prospect Rd etc would work a lot better if cars can share the same road as the trams [like Jetty Rd Glenelg] yet in Adelaide they seem now to be built with there own exclusive lanes...any reason why?
Because trams that have to share the street with cars suffer from delays and bunching and are just as bad as buses. If you're not going to give them a reserve then you may as well use buses as they are more flexible in those circumstances. (This isn't just an opinion, I have references I can cite.)how good is he wrote:I think a tram network [using up at least 2 lanes] down Unley Rd, Henley Beach Rd, The Parade , Prospect Rd etc would work a lot better if cars can share the same road as the trams [like Jetty Rd Glenelg] yet in Adelaide they seem now to be built with there own exclusive lanes...any reason why?
Just seen the video and am surprised by a couple of its features which the full policy document did not mention.Nathan wrote:Here's the full policy document: http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/strongersa ... nsport.pdf
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_sxRi23wu0
And a grab of the CBD map:
Yes, but the travel times in those streets are abysmal. If there were not trams there already, they would be better off with buses.bay transit wrote:Melbourne has many roads that are just as narrow or in some cases even narrower than ours,so that should not be an impediment,mind you the chances of these plans getting off the ground are very slim.
Easy of construction? Would be much easier to go under the road corridor then cutting beneath the botanic gardens. Not as much excuse for Rundle Rd though. Personally I think they should close Rundle Rd to traffic (have it as a grand walkway, with cycle access), and use the old tram ridge through Rymill Park for the new trams, and run the O-Bahn along there as well, eliminating the left right weave on East Tce for both buses and trams. Car traffic can use Botanic Rd and Bartels Rd.Aidan wrote:The second is an underground O-bahn extension to the City - I'd very much approve of that if it ran direct, but the video shows it as following the road route - what's the point of that??
+1Nathan wrote:Easy of construction? Would be much easier to go under the road corridor then cutting beneath the botanic gardens. Not as much excuse for Rundle Rd though. Personally I think they should close Rundle Rd to traffic (have it as a grand walkway, with cycle access), and use the old tram ridge through Rymill Park for the new trams, and run the O-Bahn along there as well, eliminating the left right weave on East Tce for both buses and trams. Car traffic can use Botanic Rd and Bartels Rd.Aidan wrote:The second is an underground O-bahn extension to the City - I'd very much approve of that if it ran direct, but the video shows it as following the road route - what's the point of that??
On what basis do you say that?bay transit wrote:Buses would be even slower!
That doesn't actually sound that bad! I'm glad their policy is quite similar. Once again, Shuz saves the day.[Shuz] wrote:The Liberals plan is to establish Infrastructure SA, which will more than likely recommend a large portion of what has already been proposed by Labor. It will just ensure that the projects which have a good cost-benefit ratio (CBR) and higher priority gets done first, and allow projects with a lower CBR to accumulate a better CBR over time.
If ease of construction's the prime consideration then why go into tunnel in the first place?Nathan wrote:Easy of construction? Would be much easier to go under the road corridor then cutting beneath the botanic gardens.Aidan wrote:The second is an underground O-bahn extension to the City - I'd very much approve of that if it ran direct, but the video shows it as following the road route - what's the point of that??
I think this must surely be a mistake in the video. If you look at the original shot of the N/S corridor in the video (0:20), it appears to show the Northern Connector continuing all the way to the Northern Expressway unlike the close up later on which stops at Port Wakefield Road.Aidan wrote:Just seen the video and am surprised by a couple of its features which the full policy document did not mention.Nathan wrote:Here's the full policy document: http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/strongersa ... nsport.pdf
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_sxRi23wu0
And a grab of the CBD map:
The first is the shorter Northern Connector - the pdf shows it full length. The second is an underground O-bahn extension to the City - I'd very much approve of that if it ran direct, but the video shows it as following the road route - what's the point of that??