News & Discussion: Trams

[Ho Really]

I have come into this discussion very late but my opinion has always been (and I may have mentioned this eslewhere a long time ago) that putting a tram in the middle of Port Road is a waste of money. We've already got a rail system to Port Adelaide. With the money saved the Gov should improve the bus system feeding onto the Outer Harbor-Adelaide line. If you want a tram at Port Adelaide run that from Commercial Road to Semaphore with a loop at Port Adelaide. Then build up Port Adelaide with high rise apartments like the TOD at Bowden!

As for West Lakes. Connect the Grange line with a separate tram line or just improve the bus feeder system. Better still you could convert the heavy rail to light as some have suggested. You could also extend that along the coast from Grange to Henley Beach.

As for the city loop, run that along North Terrace, Frome (or Pulteney), Wakefield, Gouger and Morphett Streets. Go over the bridge onto Memorial Drive (Adelaide Oval), King William Road and back to North Terrace. From Adelaide Oval you can run another line up North Adelaide and further at a later date. On North Terrace you can go east onto Magill or Payneham Road if you wish. Or convert the O-bahn into a light rail and join that up.

The loop will connect the Adelaide Station with the Interstate Bus Terminal, North Terrace cultural precinct, Adelaide Oval (and tennis), Victoria Square, Central Market, Convention Centre extension and the myriad apartments that will spring up, etc. If the Gov wants to build a bus interchange on the railyards opposite the Convention Centre on Morphett Street that will be connected too, but this is my idea and may never happen.

The underground railway is another story and won't be mentioned here as this is only talk about trams.

Cheers

[rubberman]

I guess that depends on the relative cost of a light rail vs the present heavy rail going to the Port. That is the most critical question.

Further to the above, there still seems to be some confusion about what exactly is proposed in the scheme to put trams to the Port and beyond. Is it intended to have both trams and heavy rail (I have seen that touted, but never really with any of the practicalities explained), or is it just light rail (trams)? Is it going to use the best (and cheapest) of technology, or the 'Bib and Bub' Flexity/Citadis expensive option? Is it definitely going to go to West Lakes, or Grange, or both and where is it to go past the Port? What exactly are the proposed routes?

From the publicly available information, it does not seem to me that this has been thought through in anything more than a very broad concept.

Put another way - excellent questions Ho!

[claybro]

Details on the tram extension to the Port etc are sketchy because it is off the agenda. The state has recieved tens of millions $ for grade separtions at Bowden from the Federal Gov including an underground station adjacent to Bowden TOD and is therefore committed to heavy rail along this route. With the current focus on the CBD, the city tram loop will be next IMO, and unless suburban councils help fund tram connections, they will not extend into the suburbs for the forseeable future. It is a shame because I think the whole Grange/WestLakes/Semaphore/Port area really lends itself to high frequency light rail feeding into the existing outer harbour line, afterall, a large percent of the corridor is already there and under utilised, feeding into some of the broadest arterial roads in Adelaide.

[PeFe]

I believe that the Grange heavy rail line shouild be converted to light rail with an interchange at the Woodville Railway Station. The West Lakes tram would also connnect with the Outer Harbor line at Woodville. As other people have suggested the Grange light rail could be extended to Henley Beach.
As for light rail to Port Adelaide.....maybe in 50 years as part of a light rail line from the city to Semaphore (down Torrens Road).
The CBD tram loop and light rail to the airport are far higher priorities.

[claybro]

I believe that the Grange heavy rail line shouild be converted to light rail with an interchange at the Woodville Railway Station. The West Lakes tram would also connnect with the Outer Harbor line at Woodville. As other people have suggested the Grange light rail could be extended to Henley Beach.
As for light rail to Port Adelaide.....maybe in 50 years as part of a light rail line from the city to Semaphore (down Torrens Road).
The CBD tram loop and light rail to the airport are far higher priorities.

If they comitted to the expense of converting Grange to light rail and extending to West Lakes, then I dont think interchange at Woodville is a good idea. As there is room on the rail reserve to add tram tracks it would make sense to continue the tram services into the city. It will not be efficient for commuters to travel from West Lakes for 4km, wait for a train at Woodville for the 10km trip to city, to change again to tram at North Terrace. Given you are to travell the same corridor as the train,all that loading and unloading and waiting at Woodville would inefficient and add considerable time to an outherwise quick journey.

[PeFe]

Claybro wrote
If they comitted to the expense of converting Grange to light rail and extending to West Lakes, then I dont think interchange at Woodville is a good idea. As there is room on the rail reserve to add tram tracks it would make sense to continue the tram services into the city. It will not be efficient for commuters to travel from West Lakes for 4km, wait for a train at Woodville for the 10km trip to city, to change again to tram at North Terrace. Given you are to travell the same corridor as the train,all that loading and unloading and waiting at Woodville would inefficient and add considerable time to an outherwise quick journey.

In my perfect transport world Woodville Station would "undergrounded" (similar to what is about to happen to Bowden) eliminating the Woodville Road rail crossing. The tram tracks would be on top of the train station functioning as an interchange. I noticed about a year ago when the Grange train terminated at Woodville how easy the transfer was. The Outer Harbor line's frequency during the day was changed from 30 minutes to 15 minutes actuallly improving the service for everybody along the line. Train-trams are a flawed concept on the Outer Harbor line, they work well along low frequency freight lines, not a heavy rail transport corridor.

[claybro]

Further to discussions on this thread, apparently there was a "bushfire" adjacent to the Port road tram line this afternoon. Seems not only is the low maintenance fashionable dry grass unsightly, it is also a fire risk. Best the powers responsible either clean up the median and water it to make the scrub green, or rip the whole darn lot up and put something more attractive and less fire prone in.

[Tonsley213]

11/12/12 16:41 RESPOND GRASS FIRE, ALARM LEVEL: 1, PORT RD HINDMARSH,MAP:ADL 117 M 3,TG 182, ==MEDIUM STRIP INFRONT OF ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE
You appear to be correct about the fire

[BillD]

Here's H-Type 361 in place adjacent to the Buffalo Restaurant at Glenelg.
I understand that a display-case will follow.

Bill.

[Dvious]

Any plans to restore it before it gets cased?

[muzzamo]

[Waewick]

Monday, 11 February 2013
THE Entertainment Centre park-and-ride has reduced the total number of people catching public transport and increased the number of cars on the road, research has found.

More than half the people using the park-and-ride previously caught public transport from home all the way into the city.

Those people now drive to the park-and-ride and then catch a tram – meaning, in total, more cars are on the road.

The park-and-ride opened in 2010 and offers 700 car parking spaces next to a tram station. All-day parking costs $2 – substantially less than in the city – and the tram is free. The system was designed to encourage people to replace car trips with public transport.

Park and Ride: An Adelaide Case Study, published last year by a team from the University of Adelaide, raises questions about the State Government’s increased investment in park-and-ride facilities throughout the state. The data in the paper was gathered in the months after the Entertainment Centre park and ride was opened.

“These results show a disturbing increase in car use, which is demonstrated not only by the number of people shifting away from public transport but also by distances travelled,” the report said.

The study found 62.7 per cent of the park-and-ride’s users had replaced a public transport journey from home into the city with a car trip to the park-and-ride.

Because the tram from the Entertainment Centre was free, the government was actually losing revenue it would have recouped from those journeys.

The study suggested pricing may have some impact on this trend. Parking at the park-and-ride costs $2, which is less than the cost of a single-trip bus ticket, currently $4.90.

Location is also suggested as a factor. The Entertainment Centre is the closest park-and-ride to the city – about 4.5km. Nearly all of the other park-and-rides are in the outer suburbs.

Only 29.8 per cent of Entertainment Centre park-and-ride users previously drove the whole way into the city.

“[The park-and-ride] results in an overall increase of car-km travelled of approximately 753.6km per day,” the study said.

“The significant increase in car use demonstrates that although park-and-ride can reduce the number of cars in the city centre, in this instance it actually encouraged car use in suburbs, primarily by drawing people away from existing public transport services.”

“Further, there is an absolute increase in vehicle kilometres travelled on the transport network because the trains and buses that once carried these park-and-ride patrons continue to operate.”

The study was critical of the park-and-ride’s location, and the politics behind it.

“The tram extension was opened within a largely industrial area with few residents in easy walking distance of the terminus,” the study said.

“If no-one had turned up to use the tram when it commenced operation, the Labor Government and the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure would have come under heavy criticism for investing in the extension.

“Establishing a car parking station adjacent to the tram terminus has no doubt assisted in finding the tram’s first patrons—quieting public doubts about the project.”

Former Adelaide City Council senior transport planner Ian Radbone said the study highlighted the need to get the placement of park-and-rides correct.

“Essentially, the further from the CBD they are, the more effective they are in reducing car travel in the suburbs,” Radbone said.

“When I worked at Adelaide City Council I frequently heard arguments from councillors proposing park and ride just beyond council boundaries.

“I used to wonder what local councillors in the neighbouring councils would think of the proposals. While they would reduce cars in the CBD to some extent, they would add to traffic passing through the suburbs where they were located.”

The State Government’s mid-year budget announcement committed $21.1 million over two years for additional park-and-ride facilities in Adelaid and Mt Barker.

rather damning really, but probably not much more than what people expected.

[Norman]

Still, those 29% will now not clog up city streets, and the article also fails to mention urban renewal opportunities in Thebarton, Hindmarsh and Bowden.

Sent from my RM-821_im_mea3_306 using Board Express

[Waewick]

yep, that is true.

but I wonder how many cars it would have taken off the road if it was put elsewhere?

[Waewick]

ok questions for those interested in improving PT...

give we are 12 months from an election, does anyone see any value in trying to lobby the parties to recommit to a tram expansion program?

I realise the state is virtually broke, however I personally believe we need to ensure the topic is not lost and all avenues to undertake the program need to be explored.

the first issue is getting us all to agree which direction the tram should extend...then ask the Government