Vision: Your ideas for a new Tram Network

[metro]

I just will never understand the sheer stupidity of the decision to rip up the network. Why?

At least Adelaide held on to the Glenelg line, Brisbane and Sydney werent so lucky. Sydney once had a network that made Melbourne's look small

In Adelaide, I think there should be light rail vision to have trams running on every main road heading out of the city for at least a 10-15km radius.

[Wayno]

I just will never understand the sheer stupidity of the decision to rip up the network. Why?

It's my understanding that competition from buses (which can travel other than where tracks exist) and a growth in private car ownership took patrons away from trams. I also believe the 'great depression' had an impact - although not sure how exactly (cost of materials?)

I also believe track removal was part of a GM/Govt deal to bring the holden car plant into SA, but i could be wrong.

[monotonehell]

Looks a bit like the Adelaide Tramway System Map dated 24/5/1952 I have showing the all the system, including partly built and abandon lines.

It's a photo I rescued from a now defunct website, for posterity. It was taken by <I forget who sorry, please step forward>. It's a model-map of the tram system, as it stood, at its peak. I've been told that this model used to be at the tramways museum, I've not verified if it's still on display there.

(Fixed -- sorry monotonehell, couldn't resist!)

That map is truly awe-inspiring, though. Good save.

Never happened move away from the keyboard...

[Will]

I just will never understand the sheer stupidity of the decision to rip up the network. Why?

It's my understanding that competition from buses (which can travel other than where tracks exist) and a growth in private car ownership took patrons away from trams. I also believe the 'great depression' had an impact - although not sure how exactly (cost of materials?)

I also believe track removal was part of a GM/Govt deal to bring the holden car plant into SA, but i could be wrong.

The great depression as well as the impact of wartime austerity ensured that the Adelaide tram network by the 1950s was dilapidated and in desperate need of maintenance. Furthermore, in the 50's trams were viewed as old-fashioned. These factors all conspired to seal the fate of the tram network.

[claybro]

Just wondering what everyone here thinks the next priority is for furthering the tram network. As a summary these are some the proposals/suggestions so far.
1. Proposed extension of existing line to West Lakes/ Semaphore, under the now defunct "Coast to Coast Light Rail" plan.
2. A West End city loop.
3. An Airport line using Richmond Road as per the Airport expansion plan.
4. Commence a Northen line through O'Connel St (Moran Boulevarde) and on to PRospect Road.
5. A line East to Norwood.
It is my concern that tram extension plans have stalled in the current economic climate, and if we loose traction with this, we may not see any further action for another 20 years-if any. Should the Libs win the next election, this would be all but guaranteed as would the electrification projects as they have a peculiar aversion to rail of any kind.

[[Shuz]]

City Loop & North Adelaide should be the priorities.

[Aidan]

City Loop & North Adelaide should be the priorities.

Why?

North Adelaide's already well served by buses, and running trams that way as well won't reduce the number of buses needed.

Tripling the operating frequency of City Loop buses would do far more to make it easier to get around the CBD than a City Loop tramway. The latter could be very useful once we have lots of suburban tramways, but until then there's really not much point.

[[Shuz]]

Because I said so.

[Waewick]

personally I'd be using an integrated tram and bus network more efficiently - basically removing buses from the city all together.

If we had a broad enough train/tram network you could simply use buses to transport people who live between stations, to train stations, with dedicated lines you would improve the travel times (IMO of course)

you would be able to reduce the size of the buses operating in the streets (as you wouldn't need to pick as many people up) and manage the lines better between buses and trains.

problem is, we don't have a broad enough train/tram system.

[Aidan]

personally I'd be using an integrated tram and bus network more efficiently - basically removing buses from the city all together.

If we had a broad enough train/tram network you could simply use buses to transport people who live between stations, to train stations, with dedicated lines you would improve the travel times (IMO of course)

you would be able to reduce the size of the buses operating in the streets (as you wouldn't need to pick as many people up) and manage the lines better between buses and trains.

problem is, we don't have a broad enough train/tram system.

Not even Melbourne does. And aside from the main disadvantage of trams (the infrastructure cost), buses are less disruptive on busy roads than trams, and cheaper to operate on lightly loaded routes.

[Waewick]

personally I'd be using an integrated tram and bus network more efficiently - basically removing buses from the city all together.

If we had a broad enough train/tram network you could simply use buses to transport people who live between stations, to train stations, with dedicated lines you would improve the travel times (IMO of course)

you would be able to reduce the size of the buses operating in the streets (as you wouldn't need to pick as many people up) and manage the lines better between buses and trains.

problem is, we don't have a broad enough train/tram system.

Not even Melbourne does. And aside from the main disadvantage of trams (the infrastructure cost), buses are less disruptive on busy roads than trams, and cheaper to operate on lightly loaded routes.

I really don't care what Melbourne does.

I base this strategy on trams and trains outside the roadways, similar to the Obahn or the existing rail network - the buses would operate mainly on side streets picking up people to get to the trains.

I realise the infrastructure costs are high, but that is still my idea and personally I think it beats having a CBD full of buses. (I'm not suggesting they are worse than cars, just that my setup would make PT much more accepted by the people IMO)

I'm sure I can think of something more realistic if I had a strict budget

[monotonehell]

I really don't care what Melbourne does.

I base this strategy on trams and trains outside the roadways, similar to the Obahn or the existing rail network - the buses would operate mainly on side streets picking up people to get to the trains.

I realise the infrastructure costs are high, but that is still my idea and personally I think it beats having a CBD full of buses. (I'm not suggesting they are worse than cars, just that my setup would make PT much more accepted by the people IMO)

I'm sure I can think of something more realistic if I had a strict budget

Also remember to factor in the fact that passengers hate to transfer vehicles. Door to door services are better patronised than connecting services. Perceived problems like missing a connection or delays while waiting for a connection put people off. But of course you need the passenger numbers to get a door to door service to be worth it. PT is chicken and egg sometimes, because of this feeder services can be hard to get going.

I favour trams as a short journey, hop on hop off service for the inner, higher density suburbs and CBD. In my opinion the Glenelg line is too far by a short way, for this reason I call it a "Traim"
Trains should be for longer haul linear journeys connecting suburban centres. Stops should not be as frequent as we have on our lines. Trams or buses should run feeder services or cross connections. And buses should service sprawl (sprawl should be discouraged).

[Waewick]

I see what you are saying.

I think in terms of the confidence to transfer is largely due to the huge wait you have if you miss it.

If we have structure like I proposed, you would be better able to manage trains into the city, since everyone is taking it, making it more frequent and people less likely to be significantly impacted by missing a connector.

by having say, 4 trainlines in, fed by trams and buses you will have a pretty good indication of the number of people and get the set up right.

I reckon this strategy would also increase development within the areas close to the stations.

the odd express train from the extremities would also be required - such as a traim on the Glenelg line

[monotonehell]

The regularity is a good point. Take the Los Angeles greater area (including Orange County) as an example. Most of that area is a grid pattern. Most of their bus routes generally travel either north-south or east-west. If you want to go diagonally in many cases you need to travel one way on one service then transfer at an intersection to go the other. Services need to come regularly otherwise people are left waiting. I noticed this works okay during the weekday, but on a weekend it fails.

[Heardy_101]

Not even Melbourne does. And aside from the main disadvantage of trams (the infrastructure cost), buses are less disruptive on busy roads than trams, and cheaper to operate on lightly loaded routes.

Actually, from my last visit to Melbourne, and this is only an observation, a vast majority of Bus services didn't go to the city, they terminate at Railway Stations/Termini, and Tram Termini. While there are quite a few Bus services that do terminate in the Melbourne CBD, they are are only a majority.