PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

[PeFe]

Here is my personal response to the "30 year vision."

Yes to Gawler electrification

No to changing the Outer Harbor line to tram. There is already a high speed rail corridor (with some problems) that should be electrified in the future. Let the Grange and West Lakes lines be trams meeting a fast train at Woodville.

Yes to an underground train corridor through the Adelaide CBD (please don't let it be a loop increasing everyone's train journeys by 10 minutes)

No to an underground busway to the O-Bahn, but yes to an underground tram from Hackney Rd to the Grenfell/Currie transit street, with higher capacity trams than we have now.

Yes to a tram running to the Airport and Henley Beach.

No to the city Link tram...a bus will suffice for now, if density along the corridor increases 1000% in 30 years, then yes.

No to trams up Unley and Prospect Rds, low density areas with no real activity centres at either end.

Undecided about a tram up the Parade to Magill, where is the density? Maybe

[rev]

What does density have to do with a tram line? Is that what qualifies an area for a tram line?

If the old tram network which ran into the suburbs was still around, would you advocate it being ripped up and replaced with buses?


What we need is better transport infrastructure, both roads and public transport.


I really wish they would stop with this 30 year plan stuff, and just announce their plans, and start working on them immediately.
Enough with the plans, promises and visions. Just farkn get on with it!

[EBG]

Do mean to say that in the next 30 years there is no plan to upgrade the Gepps Cross intersection???
How about putting trains back to BridgeWater and extending to Mount Barker and also to the Barrossa Valley line???

[SAR526]

PeFe wrote:

No to trams up Unley and Prospect Rds, low density areas with no real activity centres at either end.
Undecided about a tram up the Parade to Magill, where is the density? Maybe

All of these destinations had double track lines and the trams themselves were wider. Parking was allowed and, as in Melbourne, busy local shopping strips lined them. Today, the best way to tell whether a street formerly carried trams is to note the groups of shops which clustered around each tram stop. People shopped locally for their daily necessities and went into the city only for major needs or the latest movies in the many big city theatres. Neighbours actually knew and looked out for each other. They didn't NEED cars which today are necessary for the commute to the suburban shopping malls while the convenient local shops still remain, but are mostly converted to other purposes. Family cars were once mainly reserved for the Sunday drive to the beach or country.

How very civilized and healthy, when people actually walked a few yards each day. How very European. How very Adelaide it all was – once!

[monotonehell]

... yes to an underground tram from Hackney Rd to the Grenfell/Currie transit street, with higher capacity trams than we have now.

Not sure I understand this point. What use would that serve?

[Xaragmata]

Dedicated web site with links to survey and community events:

Change the way South Australia moves

http://transportplan.sa.gov.au/

[Aidan]

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.

Do people think this shortened version would be a viable solution?

Ultimately no, but it could be a viable first stage.

[ml69]

Got a question about the Port Link tram extension ... Does anyone else think that it would be more effective to continue the tramlines from the Entertainment Centre along the Port Rd centre median, rather than link up to the existing rail line at Bowden?

The tram could run along Port Rd then turn right onto Woodville Rd where it would then join onto the existing rail line and continue along the existing route. Would this be much mor expensive than refurbishing the existing rail line?

A few benefits in doing this:
- improved tram access to QEH, one of the largest employers in the western suburbs
- can generate urban revitalisation of Port Rd
- improved visibility of the tramline
- the existing rail line can become a linear park and bikeway for the local community

I know there are drawbacks too ... The main one I think is the elimination of many of the Port Rd crossovers to enable the tram to have longer uninterrupted runs between major intersections. U-turns could then be permitted at major intersections as compensation. Also you'd have to cut down some trees ... Bit from memory those Port Rd median trees weren't particularly fantastic anyway.

[rubberman]

ml69,

From an economic and transport perspective, if one were to substitute the tram line for the rail line, then it certainly is feasible.

In fact, if that were done, it would mean that the trams would cross the various intersections with the existing lights, so there would be no extra involved there, and the cross streets would have the railway crossings eliminated, so it would be a pretty big win for motorists as well.

The real impediment would be from all the nimbys and bananas along the route where the various facilities on the existing median area would be removed. So, I am not sure if it would get up politically.

[rubberman]

What does density have to do with a tram line? Is that what qualifies an area for a tram line?

If the old tram network which ran into the suburbs was still around, would you advocate it being ripped up and replaced with buses?


What we need is better transport infrastructure, both roads and public transport.


I really wish they would stop with this 30 year plan stuff, and just announce their plans, and start working on them immediately.
Enough with the plans, promises and visions. Just farkn get on with it!

Density - trams have generally got a much higher capacity than buses, and certainly cost much more. To make them financially viable you have to run them near full. Density means that there are more people in walking/crawling distance to a tram stop who could potentially fill a tram. The less density, the less people potentially available as customers. Simple as.

If the old tram network was around, it would be pretty shot by now. So the answer would depend on what the cost of replacement was, and what the demand was. Zero point in running trams with an average of 20 people in for example, but if it were 100, then that is another matter. In the first case, buses would cope nicely and be cheaper, in the second, buses would not cope at the peaks and trams would be a better option.

As for stopping with the 30 year planning stuff, I would merely point out that we have gotten where we are today (in a total mess, not knowing what to effing build) because hitherto we have done NO planning. The 'just farkn get on with it' brigade has been running the place for years on a day to day basis, without planning for the future, or how things need to be done and in what order. We have no plan to tell us whether it should be Darlington or Torrens builds on Sth Rd first, or what is happening after that. We have no real plan for the tramline to the Port in terms of when it should be done, the planning for the rail upgrade has been a hodge podge, and has any consideration been given to how the railway might be extended or branched to the North? Is there any plan for a north - south corridor through the hills Victor Harbor - Mt Barker - Northern Adelaide, or are we just going to let another South Road develop there too?

So, just get on with what ffs? There are a whole lot of problems out there, nothing prioritised, all needy to some extent. So at the moment we lurch from one project to another without finishing anything trying to plug leaks in dykes.

Meh. We failed to plan, and thus we planned to fail.

[PeFe]

Monotonehell wrote

PeFe wrote:
... yes to an underground tram from Hackney Rd to the Grenfell/Currie transit street, with higher capacity trams than we have now.

Not sure I understand this point. What use would that serve?

Replace the O-Bahn with a high capacity light rail line, with an underground tunnel between Hackney Rd and Grenfell St (which is a transit only street) instead of having 30 buses clogging up city streets increasing the congestion. Buses can not be coupled together to increase passenger capacity. Commuters would transfer at TTP to their bus and in the city the tram would run so frequently during the day "looking at the timetable" would not be needed.

[Nathan]

There's actually some (very loose) timelines on the transport plan website:
http://transportplan.sa.gov.au/__data/a ... elaide.pdf
http://transportplan.sa.gov.au/__data/a ... elaide.pdf
http://transportplan.sa.gov.au/__data/a ... elaide.pdf

No years, just whether they're short, medium or long term timeframes.

[rubberman]

Interestingly enough nathan, the following link from a 'plan' done in 2009, shows that Darlington had a high priority.

That priority has disappeared for some, ahem, unexplained reason.

http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__d ... r_2009.pdf

The fact that such major priorities can change suspiciously in sync with political necessity merely increases my suspicions that these so-called plans are nothing more than nicely photoshopped wish lists. NOT PLANS at all.

I daresay that 2009 plan will be quickly dropt from the web, so I copy for you, the following paragraph:

"The strategy for upgrading South Road is to focus on eliminating the worst bottlenecks first. The graph
overleaf shows the modelled average peak hour delay at each of the signalised intersections along South
Road prior to recent investment in South Road. The first priority was to address the highest delay, at the
intersection with Anzac Highway, through the construction of the Gallipoli Underpass.

The second priority on South Road is at the northern end. The State Government has committed
$432 million towards the South Road Superway (along with matching Australian Government funding) over
five years and this will be used to create non-stop travel from Regency Road to the Port River Expressway.
This will address the delays to traffic and improve the accessibility for heavy freight vehicles on this section
of South Road.

The third priority on South Road is at Darlington.
The integrated Darlington transport and land use study,
which commenced in mid 2009, is investigating upgrades to key road and rail infrastructure in the area,
including grade separation of South and Sturt Road, extension of the Tonsley rail line and the potential for a
public transport interchange and a transit oriented development (TOD). This study has identified the
advantages of bringing forward the long term plan to duplicate the Southern Expressway. Construction of
the duplication of the Southern Expressway will commence in 2011 and will cost $445 million, opening for traffic in 2014."

[zippySA]

I do tend to agree with you Rubberman, priorities do seem to change mysteriously in line with their political masters.

But also, we do need to remember the level of detail (or lack thereof) that a lot of these policies and initial priority projects are based upon. That 2009 study for Darlington was also very much in line with the flavour of the day for Mike Rann's Labour - TODs. I believe the prospect of a major TOD in conjunction with the hospital, university and rail linkages, was simply too good to be true for the Government at the time not to state it was the next priority (I choose to ignore the scientific fact of delay times at traffic lights for this theory as it somewhat complicates my deductions, but there are other means to improve traffic signalling delays without throwing hundreds of millions at it hence I feel justified in being selective with my views!!)

The Darlington Study team also worked somewhat in parallel with the other study being conducted for the northern end of South Road - so perhaps the numbers changed, or perhaps with the loss of desire (or political focus) for TODs and a swing to much cheaper plan and political good news about rail to Tonsley only, the priorities have been refined.

What this does confirm though - we need to have public access to the documents so everyone can see what the facts are. It is utter crap to state these sorts of plans are commercial in confidence and give unfair advantage to potential tenderers for the works, the fact is it woudl be a level playing field if everyone has access, we the public have paid for them, we the public use and benefit (or not) from the projects, and we even give the politicians their damn jobs - so why cant we see what we pay for and participate in the decision making or at least understand better why one decision has merit over another.

Perhaps I live in a utopian world - but one day transparency will prevail.

[rev]

Density - trams have generally got a much higher capacity than buses, and certainly cost much more. To make them financially viable you have to run them near full. Density means that there are more people in walking/crawling distance to a tram stop who could potentially fill a tram. The less density, the less people potentially available as customers. Simple as.

Not so simple as. The tram from the entertainment center is pretty packed at peak. No density there.

If the old tram network was around, it would be pretty shot by now. So the answer would depend on what the cost of replacement was, and what the demand was. Zero point in running trams with an average of 20 people in for example, but if it were 100, then that is another matter. In the first case, buses would cope nicely and be cheaper, in the second, buses would not cope at the peaks and trams would be a better option.

Why would it be shot by now?
So if the tram network was kept decades ago, in the decades since till now, no government would have allocated funding for upgrades? I find that hard to believe.

As for stopping with the 30 year planning stuff, I would merely point out that we have gotten where we are today (in a total mess, not knowing what to effing build) because hitherto we have done NO planning. The 'just farkn get on with it' brigade has been running the place for years on a day to day basis, without planning for the future, or how things need to be done and in what order. We have no plan to tell us whether it should be Darlington or Torrens builds on Sth Rd first, or what is happening after that. We have no real plan for the tramline to the Port in terms of when it should be done, the planning for the rail upgrade has been a hodge podge, and has any consideration been given to how the railway might be extended or branched to the North? Is there any plan for a north - south corridor through the hills Victor Harbor - Mt Barker - Northern Adelaide, or are we just going to let another South Road develop there too?

If the just farkn get on it with brigade were running the show, we'd have our north south corridor, and a few others, we'd have a bigger tram network, we would have had electrified trains long ago.

So, just get on with what ffs?

Yep, just get on with it since they've obviously done their studies and got plans drawn up, as we saw with the south road saga during the federal election. Suddenly the state government was ready to proceed with the torrens-torrens section at the completion of the superway.

Do you think they don't have plans already for expanding the tram network? Of course they do.

The reason it's all come out now in a transport plan, is because we have an election next year and Labor wants to win.
Don't be surprised if shortly the Libs announce their own transport plan.

They've done the studies, they've got the plans..but they'd rather play politics.