Sensational-Adelaide.com

Aidan wrote:

Nort wrote:Am I alone in thinking that proposed route actually is really good? It does a good job of ensuring that most of the CBD will be within five minutes walk of the tram line. If we are looking for the tram line to both be well used, as well as encourage development you couldn't pick a better route.

Actually I have picked a better route, via Angas Street, Victoria Square (with four track interchange) and Grote Street instead of Carrington, Sturt and Whitmore.

But the proposed route isn't bad, and even the Currie Street detour is more sensible than it first appears, as the loop's primary purpose wouldn't be to provide a city loop service (which buses could do far more cheaply) but rather to accommodate the huge number of trams that would enter the City if trams take over the Outer Harbour and Grange lines.

I beg to differ, I think the primary purposes of the city tram loop are: a) to connect the key precincts within the CBD; b) act as a catalyst for urban redevelopment (especially residential).

In that regard, I think the proposed route successfully addresses both objectives.

ml69 wrote:

Aidan wrote:

Nort wrote:Am I alone in thinking that proposed route actually is really good? It does a good job of ensuring that most of the CBD will be within five minutes walk of the tram line. If we are looking for the tram line to both be well used, as well as encourage development you couldn't pick a better route.

Actually I have picked a better route, via Angas Street, Victoria Square (with four track interchange) and Grote Street instead of Carrington, Sturt and Whitmore.

But the proposed route isn't bad, and even the Currie Street detour is more sensible than it first appears, as the loop's primary purpose wouldn't be to provide a city loop service (which buses could do far more cheaply) but rather to accommodate the huge number of trams that would enter the City if trams take over the Outer Harbour and Grange lines.

I beg to differ, I think the primary purposes of the city tram loop are: a) to connect the key precincts within the CBD; b) act as a catalyst for urban redevelopment (especially residential).

In that regard, I think the proposed route successfully addresses both objectives.

Unless and until it's built, we can't really say whether it successfully addresses both objectives. What we can say is that it is a very expensive way of addressing those objectives. A frequent free bus service would be much better value. 'Tis only with through routing that trams become a superior option.

Aidan wrote: Unless and until it's built, we can't really say whether it successfully addresses both objectives. What we can say is that it is a very expensive way of addressing those objectives. A frequent free bus service would be much better value. 'Tis only with through routing that trams become a superior option.

But its not as sexy is it !

Agree with Aidan
A loop for a loop sake would be sexy and I would love it to happen but would be mammothly expensive.
A loop made up primarily of through or even connecting lines becomes more cost effective and will inherently have better tram frequency.
I expect to see additional lines happen first, likely a western line that would come in as the bottom west to kwrd section.

So, is this tram loop plan still up and running?

ColdChameleon wrote:So, is this tram loop plan still up and running?

It is in the works. Expect an announcement in the lead up to the election.

The electrification of the Gawler and Outer Harbor/Grange lines need to happen first before any proposal of a city tram loop.

crawf wrote:The electrification of the Gawler and Outer Harbor/Grange lines need to happen first before any proposal of a city tram loop.

Yep, agreed. But also, i believe the CBD loop should also be completed before any Port Adelaide/Semaphore tram line malarkey.

Hear hear. Although I would digress that the priority should be electrification of the Gawler line, then the CBD tram loop, then the electrification of the remainder of the rail network.

I'm of the understanding that the Feds are likely to stump up the money for the electrification of the Gawler line as originally intended before they withdrew it to support reconstruction work of the Queensland floods; whether this is through an pre-election commitment or as part of the 2nd round of submissions for funding to Infrastructure Australia, I'm not sure.

[Shuz] wrote:Hear hear. Although I would digress that the priority should be electrification of the Gawler line, then the CBD tram loop, then the electrification of the remainder of the rail network.

Bingo.

[Shuz] wrote:Hear hear. Although I would digress that the priority should be electrification of the Gawler line, then the CBD tram loop, then the electrification of the remainder of the rail network.

I'm of the understanding that the Feds are likely to stump up the money for the electrification of the Gawler line as originally intended before they withdrew it to support reconstruction work of the Queensland floods; whether this is through an pre-election commitment or as part of the 2nd round of submissions for funding to Infrastructure Australia, I'm not sure.

Considering there is plans for a one kilometre railway tunnel underneath Bowden, including Adelaide's first underground train station. It's more than likely Outer Harbor will be the next line to be electrificated. Unless they do both the Outer Harbor and Gawler lines at the same time, which would be fantastic.

I'm sure over the next twelfth months we will hear more about electrification, eg state election

crawf wrote:

[Shuz] wrote:Hear hear. Although I would digress that the priority should be electrification of the Gawler line, then the CBD tram loop, then the electrification of the remainder of the rail network.

I'm of the understanding that the Feds are likely to stump up the money for the electrification of the Gawler line as originally intended before they withdrew it to support reconstruction work of the Queensland floods; whether this is through an pre-election commitment or as part of the 2nd round of submissions for funding to Infrastructure Australia, I'm not sure.

Considering there is plans for a one kilometre railway tunnel underneath Bowden, including Adelaide's first underground train station. It's more than likely Outer Harbor will be the next line to be electrificated. Unless they do both the Outer Harbor and Gawler lines at the same time, which would be fantastic.

I'm sure over the next twelfth months we will hear more about electrification, eg state election

I reckon the Gawler line would have to be done before the Outer Harbour/Grange lines, due to the fact that the rail depot is at Dry Creek. there isn't much point in electrifying the Outer Harbour/Grange lines till the parklands and Bowden Station tunnel is complete anyway. I'd imagine that the tunnel at the Torrens Junction will be built soon after the Goodwood Junction is complete due to the money already being pledged by the feds for that project.

I'd say you're about right buildit. It makes little sense to electrify the Outer Harbor line before Gawler, especially given the far, far greater patronage of the Gawler line. If it weren't for the Seaford extension, the Gawler line would have been completed first.

The fact that these forums are discussing various options for loops and/or other related transport modes tells me that there is some pretty deficient planning out there.

Surely there is some master plan within the State Government which outlines what is going where and in what order, with the time scale depending on funding.

If all that is being done is people throwing up ideas of a line or loop here or there without an overall coherent plan, then we are just going to make fools of ourselves.

A coherent plan of a listing of possible lines and an order in which they should be built would be a start. Linking such a plan into other transport modes and issues is also essential. A study of transport needs and economics likewise. That would feed into possible routes, passenger numbers, service frequencies, tram types and stop layouts.

Without that sort of basic information, a forum like this is reduced to people (from time to time) saying "Why don't we build a line from X to Y?" Nice to get it off one's chest, but not going to put a foot of track on the ground, I am afraid. I mean, a city loop would look nice on a map, but where is the study showing how many people would use it, what are the best types of tram for those people?

Wrong.

The City Loop, Port Adelaide, Semaphore, West Lakes and Grange tram lines are all pretty much shovel-ready, bar the fine details like station design and vegetation choices. They just need the funding.

Prospect and Norwood tram lines are very much being discussed and planned for by their respective local councils. But local councils don't have the money and resources to go it alone and will wait on State Government support and funding.