News & Discussion: O-Bahn

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#556 Post by rev » Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:39 am

realstretts wrote:I find it hilarious that the minority were lobbying to save a few trees. No doubt they all drive their cars everywhere or have caught a plane recently and are doing just as much damage to the environment. Cognitive dissonance writ large.
The irony is that they would have seen a net gain in parklands.

And east end traders should worry about actually running their businesses competitively instead of how many car parks there are on surrounding streets.
There's at least four damn multi-storey car parks in or just off Rundle Street.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#557 Post by rev » Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:41 am

Waewick wrote:So I know alot people who were agaisnt it, none who read the advertiser. they were made aware by the groups exceptionally good and misleading social media campaign.
Exactly my point about needing to counter these lunatics.
It might be more difficult for us though as we aren't retired pensioners with nothing better to do.

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3774
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#558 Post by Waewick » Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:46 am

rev wrote:
Waewick wrote:So I know alot people who were agaisnt it, none who read the advertiser. they were made aware by the groups exceptionally good and misleading social media campaign.
Exactly my point about needing to counter these lunatics.
It might be more difficult for us though as we aren't retired pensioners with nothing better to do.
Its an interesting one really. Whilst I thing the $180M could be better spent so was pretty amvilious to the whole thing I was quite suprised at the push back - Overall, it was just poorly handled by the Government, they shouldn't have allowed the focus to be on the cutting down of plnated trees.

but as I said, its a shit proposal and it wouldn't suprise me anyone outside Wetherill and the planning guy are doing nothing on it becuase they think so too.

citywatcher
Legendary Member!
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:51 pm

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#559 Post by citywatcher » Thu Jun 11, 2015 11:56 am

Just a thought. Could this have been the proposal all along?
The initial proposal was thrown out there so all the baby boomersscum
could jump up and down. Now they will look even more idiotic if they whinge.

User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3816
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#560 Post by Nathan » Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:30 pm

rev wrote:And east end traders should worry about actually running their businesses competitively instead of how many car parks there are on surrounding streets.
There's at least four damn multi-storey car parks in or just off Rundle Street.
It's actually seven. Seven!

UPark Rundle, UPark Frome St, Wilson Centrepoint, Wilson Union St, Wilson Bent St, Wilson Frome St & Wilson North Tce. Then of course there's also the nearby carparks around the mall. I get that the Wilson carparks can be pretty pricey, but the UParks are very reasonable, particularly the Rundle one.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#561 Post by claybro » Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:46 pm

Torrens_5022 wrote:This is clearly a terrible idea and making the tunnel obahn buses only is stupid.
This is part I definately dont get....why make the tunnel a guided busway thereby prventing use by "normal" busses and any possible future tram use. Busways and tunnels in Brisbane and the one under condtruction in Perth use a standard road surface (they obviously dont have O Bahns) but still do the same job of getting busses into the BBD away from main roads.
Otherwise, I have no problem with the proposal, and why cant they just close Rundle road anyway?

User avatar
Kasey771
Legendary Member!
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:56 am

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#562 Post by Kasey771 » Thu Jun 11, 2015 3:33 pm

claybro wrote:
Torrens_5022 wrote:This is clearly a terrible idea and making the tunnel obahn buses only is stupid.
This is part I definately dont get....why make the tunnel a guided busway thereby prventing use by "normal" busses and any possible future tram use. Busways and tunnels in Brisbane and the one under condtruction in Perth use a standard road surface (they obviously dont have O Bahns) but still do the same job of getting busses into the BBD away from main roads.
Otherwise, I have no problem with the proposal, and why cant they just close Rundle road anyway?
Am I the only one who wonders why we're even debating this...this state govt has a terrible track record on (non carfocused) transport infrastructure building..I won't believe this is going to get built until I see shovels in the ground.
Big infrastructure investments are usually under-valued and & over-criticized while in the planning stage. It's much easier to envision the here and now costs and inconveniences, and far more difficult to imagine fully the eventual benefits.

citywatcher
Legendary Member!
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:51 pm

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#563 Post by citywatcher » Thu Jun 11, 2015 4:46 pm

You're statement needs qualified evidence to back it up. I certainly
believe their track record would be miles in front of
Mr. Wok in a box , under whom NOTHING would get done.
For the record , as an O-Bahn user, I look fwd to opening
day.

User avatar
Kasey771
Legendary Member!
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:56 am

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#564 Post by Kasey771 » Thu Jun 11, 2015 7:01 pm

citywatcher wrote:You're statement needs qualified evidence to back it up. I certainly
believe their track record would be miles in front of
Mr. Wok in a box , under whom NOTHING would get done.
For the record , as an O-Bahn user, I look fwd to opening
day.
I'm at para hills. Right at the point where I choose the faster method of travel to the city when I want to go into the city. Bus via o-bahn(enters at paradise) or park n ride at Mawson Lakes train station. The Gawler line not being electrified really annoys me.i work at DSTO so every day I pass the pylons that were supposed to hang the catenary for the Gawler line. Arfur. Arfur job:( :wallbash: :wallbash: if this tunnel gets built I'll be pleasantly surprised and will use the o-Bahn a lot more.
Big infrastructure investments are usually under-valued and & over-criticized while in the planning stage. It's much easier to envision the here and now costs and inconveniences, and far more difficult to imagine fully the eventual benefits.

Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2559
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#565 Post by Patrick_27 » Thu Jun 11, 2015 7:39 pm

Nathan wrote:
rev wrote:And east end traders should worry about actually running their businesses competitively instead of how many car parks there are on surrounding streets.
There's at least four damn multi-storey car parks in or just off Rundle Street.
It's actually seven. Seven!

UPark Rundle, UPark Frome St, Wilson Centrepoint, Wilson Union St, Wilson Bent St, Wilson Frome St & Wilson North Tce. Then of course there's also the nearby carparks around the mall. I get that the Wilson carparks can be pretty pricey, but the UParks are very reasonable, particularly the Rundle one.
And wouldn't you believe it, generally the cheapest and safest place to park during the day is in one of the multi-story car-parks.

Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2559
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#566 Post by Patrick_27 » Thu Jun 11, 2015 7:42 pm

Kasey771 wrote:
claybro wrote:
Torrens_5022 wrote:This is clearly a terrible idea and making the tunnel obahn buses only is stupid.
This is part I definately dont get....why make the tunnel a guided busway thereby prventing use by "normal" busses and any possible future tram use. Busways and tunnels in Brisbane and the one under condtruction in Perth use a standard road surface (they obviously dont have O Bahns) but still do the same job of getting busses into the BBD away from main roads.
Otherwise, I have no problem with the proposal, and why cant they just close Rundle road anyway?
Am I the only one who wonders why we're even debating this...this state govt has a terrible track record on (non carfocused) transport infrastructure building..I won't believe this is going to get built until I see shovels in the ground.
Ahhh, because guided bus-ways ensure that private cars don't use and clog up the system.

Personally, I feel a Modbury freeway would make more sense along the O'Bahn channel with designated bus-lanes on the side.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2141
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Location: Christies Beach

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#567 Post by Aidan » Thu Jun 11, 2015 7:55 pm

claybro wrote:
Torrens_5022 wrote:This is clearly a terrible idea and making the tunnel obahn buses only is stupid.
This is part I definately dont get....why make the tunnel a guided busway thereby prventing use by "normal" busses and any possible future tram use. Busways and tunnels in Brisbane and the one under condtruction in Perth use a standard road surface (they obviously dont have O Bahns) but still do the same job of getting busses into the BBD away from main roads.
Otherwise, I have no problem with the proposal, and why cant they just close Rundle road anyway?
An O-bahn tunnel would be narrower (hence cheaper to construct) and would probably be faster. There are no normal bus routes going from Grenfell Street to Hackney Road, there's unlikely to be any in the future, and hypothetically if one were to be introduced, putting O-bahn buses on it wouldn't be too difficult.

There are other bus routes (such as the Prospect Road one) that should be a higher priority for conversion to tramways than those on The Parade. And when trams do finally come to The Parade, there's no good reason why they'd have to go to Grenfell Street.

I fully support this version of the plan.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3774
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#568 Post by Waewick » Thu Jun 11, 2015 8:05 pm

We want trams going to people the parade is already medium density and a tram would be used immediately rather than a subsidy to grow Density which it would be to Prospect.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2141
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Location: Christies Beach

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#569 Post by Aidan » Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:02 pm

Waewick wrote:We want trams going to people the parade is already medium density and a tram would be used immediately rather than a subsidy to grow Density which it would be to Prospect.
Only around Norwood is The Parade significantly higher density. And there are parallel bus routes on each side about 500m away from The Parade, whereas they're about 800m from Prospect Road.

The existing bus service on Prospect Road is sufficiently well used to show the demand is there. And if trams are ever going to go to Mawson Lakes, Prospect Road is the best route for it.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3774
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm

Re: News & Discussion: O-Bahn

#570 Post by Waewick » Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:03 pm

Aidan wrote:
Waewick wrote:We want trams going to people the parade is already medium density and a tram would be used immediately rather than a subsidy to grow Density which it would be to Prospect.
Only around Norwood is The Parade significantly higher density. And there are parallel bus routes on each side about 500m away from The Parade, whereas they're about 800m from Prospect Road.

The existing bus service on Prospect Road is sufficiently well used to show the demand is there. And if trams are ever going to go to Mawson Lakes, Prospect Road is the best route for it.
I think we are coming at the problwem from different perspectives.

sure, the parade has higher density which is the point, higer density is accepted (and will continue) if you put a tram down to the parade and stopped the buses it would be utilised 7 days a week as the parade is in itself a destination, rather than simply putting it somewhere for something else in the future.

I might add, Magill Rd and Kensignton are around 700 metres from the Parade , so that difference is also fairly minimal. we are talking 100 metres difference to a bus noting its about 1km from a train, where as the parade is miles from any rail link.

If you really wanted to extend, you could go down the parade to Magill Uni, you pass nearly 6 schools and a Uni, so even more reason to go down the parade and get those users onto the network to provide critical mass for future extension

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest