Vision: Your ideas for a new Tram Network

[Patrick_27]

Pretty sure the South Morang line extension is a completely new track, not ex-V/Line track.

Could have sworn it was an existing track... Oh well! I know they've done similar to what I said above on other lines in the last two years.

[claybro]

Could have sworn it was an existing track... Oh well! I know they've done similar to what I said above on other lines in the last two years.

Sunbury electrification

[Heardy_101]

Technically (or Hypothetically, whichever way you want to go), South Morang is a rebuild of a former line that was ripped up (Part of the Whittlesea line I think).

[Grumpy293]

The foolishness of ripping up tram tracks and chucking out of the trams in preference of diesel buses is that trams do not support the fat cats with their greedy shares in rubber, automotive, oil/diesel, spare parts companies. The public has been conned for far to long and they are just starting to wake up to the fact that buses clog up the roads, damage the surroundings with exhaust gases and can not and never will be able to shift the vast amount of people required in capitol cities of today, only rail can do that. One has only to look at the tram system in Melbourne, Bolte when he was premier of Victoria wanted to close down the tram system and put buses on the roads but under pressure from the people of Melbourne he lost his argument. Look at what Australian National did to country rail in South Australia and Tasmania, they screwed the system with false allegations thus closing the systems. Now we have to pay for them to be replaced as people want the trains and trams back.

[monotonehell]

The foolishness of ripping up tram tracks and chucking out of the trams in preference of diesel buses is that trams do not support the fat cats with their greedy shares in rubber, automotive, oil/diesel, spare parts companies. The public has been conned for far to long and they are just starting to wake up to the fact that buses clog up the roads, damage the surroundings with exhaust gases and can not and never will be able to shift the vast amount of people required in capitol cities of today, only rail can do that. One has only to look at the tram system in Melbourne, Bolte when he was premier of Victoria wanted to close down the tram system and put buses on the roads but under pressure from the people of Melbourne he lost his argument. Look at what Australian National did to country rail in South Australia and Tasmania, they screwed the system with false allegations thus closing the systems. Now we have to pay for them to be replaced as people want the trains and trams back.

Welcome to the forum Grumpy.

I agree that the misguided actions of an automobile-happy society back mid last century have impacted us negatively and we would be better off with sensible rail solutions. But beware of thinking that rail is the panacea and only component for a solution for PT. Buses play their part in an integrated city-wide solution. Buses don't clog the roads, cars do. Take 50 people out of a bus and put them in cars and you have 50 cars on the road.

Buses and on-street rail are at the low end (buses right at the low end, crossing over with trams somewhere in the middle). When you quantify the journey of light rail and guided busways looking at all aspects from door to door, they cover pretty much the same passenger capacity.

Rail only comes into its own at the high end of the number of passengers spectrum. Heavy rail, running grade separated, with stations spaced far enough apart serving linearly between high population centres can shift extreme numbers of passengers; but must be fed by buses - not everyone lives next to a railway.

As you can imagine all this stuff has been discussed at length on these forums and while there's a few differing opinions, most agree that a properly integrated PT system consisting of several modes (mostly heavy rail, some light rail and feeder buses) is the answer.


But this is not the place for a general rant like ours. This thread is intended to discuss visions of a working tram system.

[Grumpy293]

I agree buses are not for the CBD be it capitol or regional centers, the tram network is for that purpose, buses have their places and that is in the outlying areas. For instance Ballarat like Bendigo had a good tram system, buses clog up the main roads of the CBD in Ballarat, Bendigo still have a reduced tram system be it tourist however the local council are suggesting the trams operate as a public system and buses are prohibited from the CBD as they are clogging up the main roads within the CBD.
As far as trams for Adelaide they should be put back to destinations as before they were removed, for instance the Mitcham line could continue up Taylors Road and join up with the line at Springfield, there could also be an extension up to Brownhill Creek taking in the caravan park. Prospect line extended (as it was to be) to Kilburn, the Unley line from the Torrens Arms Hotel (Mitcham Line) extended up Belair Road down Springbank Road to Goodwood Road then back in to the city. Just a few ideas.

[monotonehell]

As far as trams for Adelaide they should be put back to destinations as before they were removed...

I'd disagree there. I doubt that usage patterns would be the same as back when the system was dismantled. Suburbia is larger and more dense.

[Waewick]

As far as trams for Adelaide they should be put back to destinations as before they were removed...

I'd disagree there. I doubt that usage patterns would be the same as back when the system was dismantled. Suburbia is larger and more dense.

I agree.

They need to assess where the most number of cars come from taking into account how many people would actually use the service if it was put in.

[rubberman]

Before there are extensions of tramways to places like North Adelaide, there are a number of issues to be addressed - or the proposals will be dead in the water.

First, how to get around/past O'Connell St. Traffic has now built up through here that I cannot imagine how O'Connell St would cope with one lane each way being used for trams, plus consideration of space taken up for stops. It was feasible for O'Connell St to have trams when there was much less traffic coming in from the north in the 1950s, and for people to wait at the roadside for a tram to come along and then proceed to cross the road to catch the tram. I cannot see that happening now. That also applies to Prospect Road.

Next, tram speeds are actually quite woeful. The present tram system does not have coordinated traffic lights, so waiting times at, for example, South Terrace, and along North Terrace are nothing short of a disgrace. Then, there are signals that would never have existed during the MTT days (when they knew how to run trams safely), nor do they need to on much larger systems in Europe under well established guidelines. Finally, apparently trams cannot run fast on reserved track, but buses on the O-Bahn can go flat out. All in all, trams now take longer to get from Glenelg to the Railway Station than they did when there was a full tram system. (I am using the time to Victoria Square as per schedules, and the schedule travel time for trams from Vic Square to the Rly Stn to calculate that figure).

Next, at the moment, there is space for only one tram at a time in King Wm St and Nth Tce stops. Most systems require space for two trams to load and unload once the line gets busy enough. There is no problem now with the length of the centre loading stops, but once we have another service using any of that route, there will be trams sitting short of the stops waiting to get in.

All of these points can be addressed. In fact, they are elsewhere in the world, but we won't get anywhere with proposals for an extended tram system unless we can address them before we move on to the next stage. The reason it is so important to address them now, is that there will be objectors to any such project, and they will throw these items up as reasons why it can't be done. If they do that, and manage to convince enough politicians and members of the public that trams are a no-go, then those who want trams will be fighting against people who have had doubts put in their minds. If we nut out the problems, and have solutions before proposals are presented, then we pull the rug out from under the doubters' feet.

[Grumpy293]

Apparently trams cannot run fast on reserved track, that is debatable, have you ridden on many Melbourne trams? As the old saying goes "shot through like a Bondi tram"
Why is it then Sydney has put the tram back and now extending to Dulwich Hill http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/lightra ... -extension? (seen that name on a tram before) from Lilyfield plus they are (trams) going back to Randwick.
Buses as public transport are to be removed from Bendigo CBD as they clog up the roads with the tourist tram to be run as a public service. Buses have there places and that is in the outer areas as a feeder to rail transport.
Ballarat buses are a bloody menace as they slow down traffic no end even though Ballarat has a dual lane carriage way either side of a medium strip down the centre of Sturt Street.
Adelaide will never progress with out a good tram/rail system and as far as country towns progressing without rail, no hope.
Yes I grew up and lived in Adelaide and after ANR desecrated the country rail and made Keswick the country station that did not suit the travelling passengers one could see the writing on the wall.
Living now in Ballarat 150k from Melbourne I can get the train to Melbourne from Ballarat (express) in just over the hour. Ballarat is booming thanks to rail and not buses.

[claybro]

You raised some really good points here rubberman regarding the operation of our current tram. It is ridiculously over controlled and under speed, even on its dedicated track. You are also correct with your assessment that O'Connell Street would be gridlock under the current set up if a tram was to be extended along there. However, the problem of O'Connell street can be resolved if Adelaide motorists were encouraged to change their driving habits by a reconfiguration of roads leading into the city from the North. At present, Prospect and Main North funnel directly into O'Connell as does much of the traffic from Northeast road which is encouraged to turn right along Nottage terrace, then into Main North Road. NE Rd traffic, could be re-routed to continue along Northcote terrace by banning the right turn into Nottage and widening Northcote and enter the city via Melbourne Street/Hackney road etc. Prospect road could be cut off at the parklands and all traffic diverted right onto Park Terrace and left into Jeffcott Road. Jeffcott road could be widened through the parklands to cope with the extra traffic.This would discourage anyone except local residents using Prospect Road as a route into the city. A prospect road tram could have a right of way through the parklands at the end of Prospect road and continue along O'Connell Street. Traffic along Main Nth Road and O'Connell St should also decrease with the advent of an upgraded South road as some of the Main North Road traffic would use the Northern Expressway/Superway/South Rd and exit for the city at Torrens or Port Rds. Preventing right turns in O'Connell except at one major intersection would also assist.

[rubberman]

Grumpy, actually trams can run fast on reserved track. They can also run fast in the streets. My point is, that in Adelaide, they don't do that, and they should get all those issues that cause Adelaide's trams to run like tortoises sorted out before we try to extend the trams. At the moment, the trams have one hand tied behind their backs (well, one wheel tied to the pantograph) and are therefore at a disadvantage to, say, the O-bahn buses which have few such artificial restrictions. That means that whenever people start talking about tram extensions, others may, quite rightly as it stands at the moment, ask "Why not O-bahn?" If trams were run to their full potential, then that argument would be disposed of in many cases. I travel a lot, and am always depressed when I come back to Adelaide having been on trams in central Europe where they fly along and then travel, often on the same model of Flexity as I rode in Europe, and here it travels slower than a bib and bub a century ago.

You mentioned Sydney. I met a Sydneysider whilst in Europe last year, and he made the point that their tramway actually had a lower average speed than one hundred years ago as well. Yet the new Sydney tramway is almost all reserved track. What gives?

Trams will only be put in in token routes unless they can show good route speeds and relative economics. While we have slow route speeds and pay almost double for our trams compared to elsewhere, that is going to give the bus lobby a very great relative advantage. I almost cried when we paid what we did for the Citadis. That is like paying fifty percent more for a Yaris than the price of a new Lexus. (I have nothing against the Citadis mind you - for the shuttle, they are perfect - merely that we paid about three times what we should have).

Claybro, Other options for O'connell St are to put some big parking stations just past the intersection with Park Terrace/Main North Road, and have the trams terminate within the parking stations. Assuming that land prices there are less than in the city, commercial parking rates should be cheaper than in the city, and if the trams are allowed to run at their full potential, then they could deliver people from the parking stations quicker than driving.

[claybro]

Claybro, Other options for O'connell St are to put some big parking stations just past the intersection with Park Terrace/Main North Road, and have the trams terminate within the parking stations. Assuming that land prices there are less than in the city, commercial parking rates should be cheaper than in the city, and if the trams are allowed to run at their full potential, then they could deliver people from the parking stations quicker than driving.

I agree with this approach and I think the park and ride at the ent centre works well in conjunction with the tram. There surely would be areas at the city end of Main Nth Rd that would allow for a park and ride (over a caryard perhaps). I would take it further and extend the tram as far as Northpark/Sefton Park shopping centres and build some appartments over the shopping centre car parks there. If the combination of the car park fee and the ride into the city was comparable with the cost of city parking then it would be popular. However, we would have to ween the ACC off their addiction to car parking fees from their parking stations.

[rubberman]

Claybro, Other options for O'connell St are to put some big parking stations just past the intersection with Park Terrace/Main North Road, and have the trams terminate within the parking stations. Assuming that land prices there are less than in the city, commercial parking rates should be cheaper than in the city, and if the trams are allowed to run at their full potential, then they could deliver people from the parking stations quicker than driving.

I agree with this approach and I think the park and ride at the ent centre works well in conjunction with the tram. There surely would be areas at the city end of Main Nth Rd that would allow for a park and ride (over a caryard perhaps). I would take it further and extend the tram as far as Northpark/Sefton Park shopping centres and build some appartments over the shopping centre car parks there. If the combination of the car park fee and the ride into the city was comparable with the cost of city parking then it would be popular. However, we would have to ween the ACC off their addiction to car parking fees from their parking stations.

Perhaps freeze the number of car park spots allowed in the CBD and allow the ACC to collect revenue via a congestion tax. There is a case for that. ACC have to provide facilities for cars for non ratepayers that other councils do not have to spend nearly as much money on. So it would be fair for them to charge a tax like a congestion tax in any case. Sort of like a toll really. This would offset any revenue reduction if parking were curtailed, and also make it more viable for people to park and ride from North Adelaide by tram.

[claybro]

Perhaps freeze the number of car park spots allowed in the CBD and allow the ACC to collect revenue via a congestion tax. There is a case for that. ACC have to provide facilities for cars for non ratepayers that other councils do not have to spend nearly as much money on. So it would be fair for them to charge a tax like a congestion tax in any case. Sort of like a toll really. This would offset any revenue reduction if parking were curtailed, and also make it more viable for people to park and ride from North Adelaide by tram.

I thought the new car park tax was kind of a congestion charge by stealth. I am also not surprised by the negative response to this and the politicising of it. It seems the state Liberals, and some city councillors are content to see the CBD turned into some giant parking lot. I thought the car park tax was a good way to make the cost of bringing a car into the city, and the cost of encouraging this practise to be quite reasonable. Given the outrage this has generated, I would suggest a congestion tax would be less popular, and more difficult to introduce than the plague.