PRO: Port Adelaide Tramline | $260m

[AG]

Options open on Port Rd tram
MICHAEL OWEN, POLITICAL REPORTER
June 07, 2007 02:15am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
AN engineering firm contracted for a $40 million stormwater management plan on Port Rd is keeping alive the prospect of a tram extension to Port Adelaide.

The project involves transforming the Port and Old Port roads' median strips into landscaped environmental boulevards to reduce flooding risks.

Charles Sturt Council has contracted engineering firm Connell Wagner to look at design options, leaving open any future tram line down to the Port.

The firm's principal engineer, David Johnson, made mention of the project in a briefing to the South Australian National Football League on the redevelopment of AAMI Stadium.

SANFL sources said the football league has had discussions with Connell Wagner and the State Government about including a 3km tramline branch to AAMI Stadium.

Mr Johnson said of the stormwater project: "As we are doing that work, we are doing it so that we don't exclude any possibility of future tram works."

He stressed the State Government had never given the firm any direction to do so. Charles Sturt Council chief Mark Withers said: "The Port Rd section of the project is being done in a way that it wouldn't prevent you doing future tram works."

Transport Minister Patrick Conlon is understood to have been "pleasantly surprised" by positive reaction to a $224 million tramline extension proposal put to him by Port Adelaide Enfield Council last October.

[sidler]

Its interesting to here that there has been positive reaction to this extension.

Now that we have gotten over the initial hurdle of the extension through the city hopefully these other proposals can cruise through.
Apparantly the same thing happended in Portland when they first developed and expanded their light-rail system. The 1st stage was slaughtered by the media
and once it opened everyone loved it and their network has gone from strength to strength.

Hopefully we see a similar pattern here

[Will409]

Bit of a history lesson here about this proposal, it is older then you may think. Back in the 1930s when the MTT (Municipal Tramways Trust) under the control of Sir William Goodman, it was proposed to convert the rail line to Port Adelaide into a tramline of the same pattern as the Glenelg line which as we all know was converted in 1929 and was a former heavy rail route. The plan was however put to rest because the MTT and the SAR (South Australian Railways) were 'competing interests' even though they were both Government departments. The great depression, closure of the small Port Adelaide tram system and the introduction of trolley buses along Port Road all came together to put this plan to rest.

Because of the largely side street nature of the line like the Glenelg line, it would do well as a tramline. With open reservation running for a vast majority of the line, that would mean a very fast service. The track infrastructure on the Outer Harbour line was actually designed with this in mind when the line was resleepered in 1999 and then 2001-2002 with gauge convertable concrete sleepers.

My one critism is that for this to work, the Government will need a much larger fleet of trams to handle a more frequent service. Something like another 15 Flexis would be sufficient. This would also allow for tighter scheduling on the Glenelg line and less use for the H class which are officially designated for weekend heritage servidces only although are regularly used on morning peak services.

[AtD]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why a heavy rail line is less desirable than a tram line, despite the former being faster and having a higher capacity.

[rhino]

Heavy rail cannot safely run on suburban streets, and the vehicles cannot negotiate as tight turns as light rail. This restricts the trains to rail corridors. Also the vehicles are more expensive to build and operate, so you get more bang for your buck with light rail.

[Norman]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why a heavy rail line is less desirable than a tram line, despite the former being faster and having a higher capacity.

Because the Flexies are more modern and cheaper to run, plus they are less noisy and don't require as much room as a train line.

[AtD]

But the corridor is already there, already heavy rail. I think the issue is more general neglect of the rail network which makes the tram line look better than it really is. A single car 3000 train holds as many pax as a flexy, so imagine a six car train! If the services were more frequent and reliable and stations were built up better with more services such as parking and connections to be made more attractive, I believe TA can get bums on seats to warrant such capacity.

[rhino]

The rail is not where the public wants to use it. That is why, while there is a perfectly good train to the port, the people along the route choose to use the bus on Port Road, or on Churchill Road instead of the rail which paralles it. The advantage of light rail is that it can travel on the roads, where the public wants to get on and off, and a tram or light rail vehicle can carry many many more people than a bus.

[AtD]

...Even though the furthest rail station from Port Road is just 600m, with most being 100m. I think it's the general state of dis-repair of the stations.

Are you sure more people take the Port Rd buses then the train line?

[crawf]

Plus the Port Adelaide station isn't in the main hub, so that would play a major factor to the proposed tram line

[bdm]

Why would we replace a heavy rail line? This proposal is a delusional trip for trendies and port parochials.

Why not upgrade the heavy rail line, upgrade the stations, and promote dense development around them? Would make a lot more sense than this idiocy. There's lots of places for new stations/apartments along the line near the port.

Send the current tram line up the Parade, past Penfolds winery, and to Magill uni.

[jk1237]

Is the Port Adl/Enfield council on drugs. Im quite certain that the proposed extension to the Port is to use the existing Outer Harbour train line. The new concrete sleepers are easibly convertible to the tram guage, which is why that type of sleeper were put in. They are not going to use the middle of Port road, and Im bewildered that the council doesnt know this

[Will409]

There is every chance that the extension along the port line may actually work. As I have already said, the Glenelg line was one such conversion from a railway to a tramway and it's success over the years is obvious. The distance from Adelaide to Port Adelaide is about the same as the Glenelg line (roughly 11 kms) and the street layout is roughly the same on the port line as it is on the Glenelg line. There is every chance that this could work. Not only that but you can very easily make the tram go to places where the train can't such as into the heritage district of Port Adelaide.

[AtD]

And what of those commuters between Port Adelaide and Outer Harbor? All the new apartments on the other side of the river are right on top of the existing stations.

[Froggy]

It's clear that hardly any of you tramlovers have live or have ever had to catch the Port Adelaide line train. The line needs to be done up, like the Grange line, the whole SA rail network needs to be done up ffs. Sticking a Tram where a train gets people home very fast is just plain stupid. I can only imagine the great joy that all the people who get off near the end would have when it's announced their trip to work and home is going to take another 40 minutes.