City Loop

[fishinajar]

I thought it might be interesting to start a discussion on potential alignments for a city tram loop, taking into consideration future additions etc.

My current thought are that I like the Hutt St-Sturt/Halifax concept, though I would prefer the NW return from West Tce to run along Franklin instead of Currie as is generally proposed. Reasons being are:
a) trams and stops clashing with Henley Beach Rd traffic and O-Bahn busses
b) future optimal tram grid as included below
Walking distance from anywhere in the city to a tram stop: ~275m to NS line stops; ~300m to EW line stops
(Shaded area is ~400m walking zone)

Capture_Harrys_Cityloop1s.PNG (177.23 KiB) Viewed 23577 times

Current lines, extension and my proposed city loop alignment.

Capture_Harrys_Cityloop2s.PNG (179.19 KiB) Viewed 23577 times

My reasoning.

[Norman]

Thanks for your post. We already have a Trams thread where some discussion about the tram loop has already started. There has also been some consultation by DPTI about the route, which broadly follows your proposal.

Can a moderator merge the threads?

[fishinajar]

Thanks for your post. We already have a Trams thread where some discussion about the tram loop has already started. There has also been some consultation by DPTI about the route, which broadly follows your proposal.

Can a moderator merge the threads?

Happy for discussion to occur over on Trams. Just thought that as it relates to different personal concepts as opposed to official proposals...

[Norman]

Thanks for your post. We already have a Trams thread where some discussion about the tram loop has already started. There has also been some consultation by DPTI about the route, which broadly follows your proposal.

Can a moderator merge the threads?

Happy for discussion to occur over on Trams. Just thought that as it relates to different personal concepts as opposed to official proposals...

Gotcha. No issues from me then.

[MelBrandle]

I think this proposal does look feasible in the sense that it would definitely help ease the traffic especially during the peak periods. It looks like not much changes need to be implemented onto the current layout too except several add-ons. Thus, it would mean lesser finances would need to be involved.

[rev]

I think this proposal does look feasible in the sense that it would definitely help ease the traffic especially during the peak periods. It looks like not much changes need to be implemented onto the current layout too except several add-ons. Thus, it would mean lesser finances would need to be involved.

Why would a tram on that section of West Tce be feasible? One side is unused park lands. Do the kids at Adelaide High School need to get to and from Rundle Mall quicker? So ripping up all those city streets, altering over two dozen intersections, including altering part of the existing tram line at certain points, is not much work?

[[Shuz]]

The western leg of the loop is the sticking point. Makes sense to go either down Morphett Street from North Terrace via on road sharing down the two slip lanes either side of the Morphett Street bridge and either through or around the sides of Light Square; or, alternatively down Gray Street through to Gouger Street. West Terrace is a bad idea for a tram route.

[fishinajar]

Indeed Morphet St over West Tce would have many benefits. I was mainly attempting to tweak the current proposal to be a little better.
It should be noted however the West Tce alignment would pick up on the nRAH, Adelaide HS and would run adjacent to the nicer (non graveyard) section of the western parklands-this might open West Tce up for some increased development, and the parklands may become more activated over time etc.

[fishinajar]

The western leg of the loop is the sticking point. Makes sense to go either down Morphett Street from North Terrace via on road sharing down the two slip lanes either side of the Morphett Street bridge and either through or around the sides of Light Square; or, alternatively down Gray Street through to Gouger Street. West Terrace is a bad idea for a tram route.

Gray St would be tiiight. I know they make it work in Europe etc though. If it could be done then I like your suggestion.

[ml69]

Indeed Morphet St over West Tce would have many benefits. I was mainly attempting to tweak the current proposal to be a little better.
It should be noted however the West Tce alignment would pick up on the nRAH, Adelaide HS and would run adjacent to the nicer (non graveyard) section of the western parklands-this might open West Tce up for some increased development, and the parklands may become more activated over time etc.

This is my preferred route for the CBD tram loop. I think current proposals that take in Hurtle and Whitmore Square are missing one CRITICAL ELEMENT … they don’t pass the key destination of the Central Market/Gouger St precinct.



Here are my reasons for this preferred route:

1. All key destinations in the CBD are connected.
The proposed route serves all key destinations such as new RAH, North Tce, Old RAH/East End and Central Market/Gouger St which are connected in a compact efficient loop. This will make it quicker to get to/from these key destinations without detouring to lower patronage areas of the CBD.
What about the far SE and far SW corners of the CBD which would be beyond walking distance to a tram stop? These corners of the CBD are not high-priority redevelopment areas. The SE corner in particular consists mainly of detached/semi-detached dwellings and cottages which contribute to an attractive urban streetscape which should be preserved.
In addition, the Market to Riverbank link could well become the next major CBD precinct in the future. The proposed route serves this well with the Central Market stop.
2. Route Simplicity.
Really simple route that can be easily understood. Everywhere north of Grote/Wakefield St is within 400m walk of a tram stop. Sturt/Halifax St and Whitmore/Hurtle Sq are all within 500m walk of a tram stop.
3. Encourages future residential development along Grote/Wakefield St.
Imagine if the key CBD entry route from the airport (Grote St) and from the eastern suburbs (Wakefield St) were transformed from the current big country town appearance to that of a street lined with 10-20 storey apartments with a tramline down the middle? It would certainly dramatically improve the presentation of these key city streets. Frankin/Flinders St and Gouger/Angas St would also be big winners with this route.
4. Minimises traffic disruption in the CBD.
The proposed route runs down the widest streets in the CBD, thereby minimising traffic impacts on other more narrow streets. Morphett, Pulteney and Frome St are unaffected by the route. Currie/Grenfell St is freed up to become a bus route with no trams.
5. West Tce would have a right-of-way for Emergency Service vehicles to new RAH.
A useful by-product of the proposed route is that it provides right-of-way along West Tce for ambulances to new RAH from the southern and western suburbs during heavy traffic.

[monotonehell]

...stuff...

Have you considered Halifax/Sturt instead of Wakefield/Grote? Going down Halifax would mean all the residential between Angas and South Tce would be better served, and it would avoid a complicated intersection in Victoria Sq.

Also, Kindom Chinese hey? Any good?

[fishinajar]

Indeed Morphet St over West Tce would have many benefits. I was mainly attempting to tweak the current proposal to be a little better.
It should be noted however the West Tce alignment would pick up on the nRAH, Adelaide HS and would run adjacent to the nicer (non graveyard) section of the western parklands-this might open West Tce up for some increased development, and the parklands may become more activated over time etc.

This is my preferred route for the CBD tram loop. I think current proposals that take in Hurtle and Whitmore Square are missing one CRITICAL ELEMENT … they don’t pass the key destination of the Central Market/Gouger St precinct.



Here are my reasons for this preferred route:

1. All key destinations in the CBD are connected.
The proposed route serves all key destinations such as new RAH, North Tce, Old RAH/East End and Central Market/Gouger St which are connected in a compact efficient loop. This will make it quicker to get to/from these key destinations without detouring to lower patronage areas of the CBD.
What about the far SE and far SW corners of the CBD which would be beyond walking distance to a tram stop? These corners of the CBD are not high-priority redevelopment areas. The SE corner in particular consists mainly of detached/semi-detached dwellings and cottages which contribute to an attractive urban streetscape which should be preserved.
In addition, the Market to Riverbank link could well become the next major CBD precinct in the future. The proposed route serves this well with the Central Market stop.
2. Route Simplicity.
Really simple route that can be easily understood. Everywhere north of Grote/Wakefield St is within 400m walk of a tram stop. Sturt/Halifax St and Whitmore/Hurtle Sq are all within 500m walk of a tram stop.
3. Encourages future residential development along Grote/Wakefield St.
Imagine if the key CBD entry route from the airport (Grote St) and from the eastern suburbs (Wakefield St) were transformed from the current big country town appearance to that of a street lined with 10-20 storey apartments with a tramline down the middle? It would certainly dramatically improve the presentation of these key city streets. Frankin/Flinders St and Gouger/Angas St would also be big winners with this route.
4. Minimises traffic disruption in the CBD.
The proposed route runs down the widest streets in the CBD, thereby minimising traffic impacts on other more narrow streets. Morphett, Pulteney and Frome St are unaffected by the route. Currie/Grenfell St is freed up to become a bus route with no trams.
5. West Tce would have a right-of-way for Emergency Service vehicles to new RAH.
A useful by-product of the proposed route is that it provides right-of-way along West Tce for ambulances to new RAH from the southern and western suburbs during heavy traffic.

Nice suggestion ml69, and some great thoughts including emergency right-of-way and Central Market precinct. The main advantage I see from your proposal is the servicing of the area around the Pulteney/Wakefield stop. The southern city though would still require the city bus loop- a duplication of service. Though maybe a future "big" loop could run Nth Tce to Sth Tce? A "Terrace to Terrace" loop would sound very Adelaide. I also would be weary of cutting Vic Sq in half- festivals and such.

[thecityguy]

Very logical and well thought out ml69


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rev]

A loop that links the squares would be better imo.
The squares should become key zones of high rise residential development.
North Tce, Currie St, Waymouth/Pirrie Streets, Franklin/Flinders, Vic Square, and a spine down Pultney should be the 'main' high rise commercial zones. Linked by the loop. The "cultural" stuff would be linked by the line down North Tce.
Gouger, Hindley, Hutt and Rundle would be connected with the loop/stops as well.

[Aidan]

ml69,
Your preferred route is in some ways similar to mine. But from Central Market I'd rather it turn into Victoria Square (giving it cross platform interchange with the Glenelg line) then run via Angas Street and Frome Street.

I would regard the Adelaide High stop as essential not optional, though I'd probably move it closer to Currie Street.