News & Discussion: Trams

[claybro]

wonder when this new infrastructure board is being setup and when they will make their first submission. You would hope someone is still working on something to submit to the feds for the May Budget.

Hmm. Even if the new board is operational, I doubt there will be a submission based on trams/light rail. As much as I am for the trams, the ad hock nature of the previous extensions make it difficult to prove a business case for them. ie. With the city loop, are there any plans by the ACC for village centres within the square mile, which would facilitate higher density/denstinations, which would then prove a business case for the city loop? Has there been a provable increase in value of the former RAH site as a result of the North Terrace east extension? Was there any cost benefit of the Festival centre stop, other than being part of the North terrace junction? Without being too critical of the former government, without which the tram extensions would never have begun, it demonstrates the folly of not having fully costed, planned and publicised plans for the objectives of the whole system other than glossy thought bubbles. I think the priority in this term for the infrastructure board should be those of imperative economic nature, ie completion of the N/S corridor, electrification of Gawler and OH including station modernisation, and fixing the mess that is Port Wakefield. And maybe some more upgrades of major regional highways, and track upgrades for what grain lines are left.

[rubberman]

wonder when this new infrastructure board is being setup and when they will make their first submission. You would hope someone is still working on something to submit to the feds for the May Budget.

Hmm. Even if the new board is operational, I doubt there will be a submission based on trams/light rail. As much as I am for the trams, the ad hock nature of the previous extensions make it difficult to prove a business case for them. ie. With the city loop, are there any plans by the ACC for village centres within the square mile, which would facilitate higher density/denstinations, which would then prove a business case for the city loop? Has there been a provable increase in value of the former RAH site as a result of the North Terrace east extension? Was there any cost benefit of the Festival centre stop, other than being part of the North terrace junction? Without being too critical of the former government, without which the tram extensions would never have begun, it demonstrates the folly of not having fully costed, planned and publicised plans for the objectives of the whole system other than glossy thought bubbles. I think the priority in this term for the infrastructure board should be those of imperative economic nature, ie completion of the N/S corridor, electrification of Gawler and OH including station modernisation, and fixing the mess that is Port Wakefield. And maybe some more upgrades of major regional highways, and track upgrades for what grain lines are left.

There was a very deep multi factor analysis undertaken for several of the loop options. It was very detailed and available to the public. Who read it?

The reason the glossies come out is because that's about all the public reads.

What didn't come out was the subsequent business case. But you do wonder if the public doesn't read the multi factor analysis, would they even glance at the business case.

I've been critical of plenty of decisions here (hello Citadis, centre island stops and bendy poles), but I am sure it's also quite disheartening to public servants that quite detailed studies like the MFA analysis never get read, and they don’t get credit for what IS done right.

[claybro]

There was a very deep multi factor analysis undertaken for several of the loop options. It was very detailed and available to the public. Who read it?

Probably only some transport nerds on here. Most of the SA public is only luke warm on the trams. They see it as a waste of money, and too much disruption during construction. Also, most of the public don't live in the city, and the only commuters from the suburbs that really benefit in any great numbers are those on the Glenelg line. It has to be sold on a much larger detailed vision. There is still confusion, even here about the eventual route of the citylink. but what is not explained is what developments are planned/possible on a tram route along say prospect road? If the public where shown, for example, Prospect council has land use plans for medium density based around stops on specific locations through Blair Athol, and the tram would be in place by 2025, then people/developers in those areas might be more engaged, and more supportive. They would then understand that the little nib on KWR is just the starting point. The confusion and mess surrounding the Entertainment Centre extension and its eventual destination, which seemed to change with every term of government has just added to the PERCEPTION that it was a waste of money rather than just the beginning of something more. Most of the suburban public, could care less if the tram within the CBD went to the South East corner or south west...or wherever , but if the ACC had clear community centres in mind, with developers on board, and actual plans to grow population in those specific locations, then people from outside the CBD, might buy in a bit more, and property developers would demand the trams as part of the deal. As it stands, momentum is lost and with it an opportunity to showcase what is really possible.

[rubberman]

There was a very deep multi factor analysis undertaken for several of the loop options. It was very detailed and available to the public. Who read it?

Probably only some transport nerds on here. Most of the SA public is only luke warm on the trams. They see it as a waste of money, and too much disruption during construction. Also, most of the public don't live in the city, and the only commuters from the suburbs that really benefit in any great numbers are those on the Glenelg line. It has to be sold on a much larger detailed vision. There is still confusion, even here about the eventual route of the citylink. but what is not explained is what developments are planned/possible on a tram route along say prospect road? If the public where shown, for example, Prospect council has land use plans for medium density based around stops on specific locations through Blair Athol, and the tram would be in place by 2025, then people/developers in those areas might be more engaged, and more supportive. They would then understand that the little nib on KWR is just the starting point. The confusion and mess surrounding the Entertainment Centre extension and its eventual destination, which seemed to change with every term of government has just added to the PERCEPTION that it was a waste of money rather than just the beginning of something more. Most of the suburban public, could care less if the tram within the CBD went to the South East corner or south west...or wherever , but if the ACC had clear community centres in mind, with developers on board, and actual plans to grow population in those specific locations, then people from outside the CBD, might buy in a bit more, and property developers would demand the trams as part of the deal. As it stands, momentum is lost and with it an opportunity to showcase what is really possible.

I guess that's a lot of the reason I prefer the Citylink to go first. The MFA showed a lot of potential present and future beneficiaries in this project. This compared to relatively few till the North Adelaide line got well into Prospect Road.

By doing the Citylink, it would make (or break) the business case. There's the Hutt Street strip needing a boost, transfers off the O-bahn to North and South, and development in the South East corner. If this is a success, it can be used to sell the tramline to traders along other routes. Hard evidence of increased profits is far better than any government promises imho. Similarly, if there's a successful effect on development, developers will add weight, where now they might be skeptical. Similarly, if a city loop doesn't work, then definitely it puts a real question mark over other lines.

In short. A city loop would prove or disprove the benefits of tram extensions in a way that part extensions to North Adelaide or Norwood cannot.

[SBD]

The Commonwealth already has an Infrastructure Priority List. I would think that if SA wants to get money from this year's federal budget, it needs to finish off compelling business cases for things that are already on the list, but noted to have incomplete business cases. Then it can have its own board consider a larger set of possibilities for our state budget and future federal funding rounds.

* Projects are potential infrastructure solutions for which a full business case has been completed by the proponent and positively assessed by the Infrastructure Australia Board.
* Initiatives are potential infrastructure solutions for which a business case has not yet been completed. Initiatives are identified through a collaborative process between proponents and the Infrastructure Australia Board, using the Australian Infrastructure Audit and other data as evidence.

Darlington Upgrade and Adelaide-Tarcoola Rail Upgrade Acceleration are listed as under way. Neither T2T nor Northern Connector appear to be on the lists at all. Regency to Pym street is under evaluation and Gawler rail electrification is awaiting further information from the state government. We appear to have no high priority projects, and the only Priority Project in SA is Eyre Peninsula Infrastructure for Iron Road (mine railway and port).

There are a few "national" proposed initiatives that could be leveraged to provide some development in SA at a push. Gawler rail upgrade is High Priority and near-term (<5 years). The rest of the north-south corridor is Priority and near-term), as is the Strzelecki Track. AdeLINK is medium (5-10) year timeframe along with a regional port and the Sturt Highway including Truro bypass.

If I want money (and hence jobs) quickly, I'd be asking for money to fund the things the giver has already identified that they want to pay for quickly. I would also flag other things I expect to want money for, with good reasons why they want to pay for it.

There seem to be plenty of things that we would like, most of the arguments are over who might pay, how much it would cost, and which ones should be bought first. The more things we have on the wish list, the more likely it is that one of them will be flavour of the month for whoever is holding the purse strings.

[Patrick_27]

So its pretty clear that this was a last ditch effort by Labor to win the seat of Adelaide.

Given we are all fans of trams are we happy with this spur?

Given we know the Libs are only really keen on North Adelaide and the rubbish around the right hand turn. Do you think the money would have been better spent (and perhaps a better vote getter) just going up Oconnell?

The Adelink proposal has been out there for a couple of years now. If the Liberals do something, which is part of a bigger plan, before the next election, can we quote you?

I think the spur as it is has some defects. Bendy poles for one. Citadis for two. However, I would give completion of the Citylink a higher priority than the North Adelaide line. The Citylink route actually opens up the South East quadrant of the city to development. North Adelaide residents won't allow any development there. There's a huge difference in development potential in favour of Citylink. Then there’s the ability of people to get off the O-bahn at the tunnel entry and transfer to trams going to the RAH and Adelaide Railway Station in one way, and Hutt Street and King Wm Street South as well. North Adelaide has no such connectivity. Finally, I dislike the bits and pieces approach here. Why not do all of the Citylink, or all of the Prospect line, not bits of one and bits of another? With the bits and pieces approach, we end up with expensive crossovers at the end of each bit. What happens when we get to North Adelaide? Another scissors crossover? Or do we pull the one at Riverside out and move it? Same at East End. Messy.

You seem to think that the people living in small blue stone character cottages want high-rise development butting right up against their boundary... It's easy for you and many others to say: "Well, tough luck, that's the price you pay for progress and living in the city" however you need to remember that a lot of people have bought into the south side of the CBD thinking they were safe from this kind of development (then the planning laws changed), furthermore, until one has been disturbed by the noise, dust and lack of privacy that comes from the construction and eventual high rise development being built next to a small cottage, you shouldn't really be able to comment so adamantly. Also, that's not even to mention the decline in value these developments cause for smaller property.

So in saying that, if your only reason for expanding the city loop is to encourage these kinds of developments on streets like Gilles and Halifax Streets then I say no, send the trams to North Adelaide where there is already these kinds of developments built, planned or happening on O'Connell Street. OR limit the depth of the city loop to the Angas Street (the unflavoured proposal if I recall).

[rubberman]

So its pretty clear that this was a last ditch effort by Labor to win the seat of Adelaide.

Given we are all fans of trams are we happy with this spur?

Given we know the Libs are only really keen on North Adelaide and the rubbish around the right hand turn. Do you think the money would have been better spent (and perhaps a better vote getter) just going up Oconnell?

The Adelink proposal has been out there for a couple of years now. If the Liberals do something, which is part of a bigger plan, before the next election, can we quote you?

I think the spur as it is has some defects. Bendy poles for one. Citadis for two. However, I would give completion of the Citylink a higher priority than the North Adelaide line. The Citylink route actually opens up the South East quadrant of the city to development. North Adelaide residents won't allow any development there. There's a huge difference in development potential in favour of Citylink. Then there’s the ability of people to get off the O-bahn at the tunnel entry and transfer to trams going to the RAH and Adelaide Railway Station in one way, and Hutt Street and King Wm Street South as well. North Adelaide has no such connectivity. Finally, I dislike the bits and pieces approach here. Why not do all of the Citylink, or all of the Prospect line, not bits of one and bits of another? With the bits and pieces approach, we end up with expensive crossovers at the end of each bit. What happens when we get to North Adelaide? Another scissors crossover? Or do we pull the one at Riverside out and move it? Same at East End. Messy.

You seem to think that the people living in small blue stone character cottages want high-rise development butting right up against their boundary... It's easy for you and many others to say: "Well, tough luck, that's the price you pay for progress and living in the city" however you need to remember that a lot of people have bought into the south side of the CBD thinking they were safe from this kind of development (then the planning laws changed), furthermore, until one has been disturbed by the noise, dust and lack of privacy that comes from the construction and eventual high rise development being built next to a small cottage, you shouldn't really be able to comment so adamantly. Also, that's not even to mention the decline in value these developments cause for smaller property.

So in saying that, if your only reason for expanding the city loop is to encourage these kinds of developments on streets like Gilles and Halifax Streets then I say no, send the trams to North Adelaide where there is already these kinds of developments built, planned or happening on O'Connell Street. OR limit the depth of the city loop to the Angas Street (the unflavoured proposal if I recall).

That's not quite what I am saying Patrick.

I am looking at the existing proposals and saying that out of the existing proposals that the city loop should go first.

You are arguing that one of the proposals shouldn't exist. That's a slightly different argument, and one you should be running independent of tram proposals. I see the tram as merely accelerating development that is already happening in the south east corner. That's happening, tram or not. To me, it's a question whether the tram loop comes in at the same time as development, or whether it comes in later, or whether there's an extra high rise car park or two there because there's no tram loop.

If you don't want that to happen, I'd suggest you need to stop developments, full stop. The North Adelaide residents have done it, so it's not impossible.

[claybro]

That's not quite what I am saying Patrick.

I am looking at the existing proposals and saying that out of the existing proposals that the city loop should go first.

You are arguing that one of the proposals shouldn't exist. That's a slightly different argument, and one you should be running independent of tram proposals. I see the tram as merely accelerating development that is already happening in the south east corner. That's happening, tram or not. To me, it's a question whether the tram loop comes in at the same time as development, or whether it comes in later, or whether there's an extra high rise car park or two there because there's no tram loop.

If you don't want that to happen, I'd suggest you need to stop developments, full stop. The North Adelaide residents have done it, so it's not impossible.

'you've touched on an interesting aspect here. loop v's inner suburban links and car use. Since the loop really only benefits connections within the CBD and those within it, the loop is unlikely to discourage people driving into the city anyway. The inner suburban links will be more likely to prevent commuters from the inner suburbs driving in. The links will also facilitate higher density development in the near city suburbs, spreading the pressure, creating less need for high-rise blocks of carparks and appartments, and better utilising the facilities in the CBD for those in the inner suburbs. There is an issue in Adelaide that exists in no other capital, being the parklands. they act as a barrier to people living even in areas like Mile End or prospect who will probably be more likely to drive to a local suburban centre, than use the CBD for dining/cinema/entertainment etc. The suburban links will go some way to reducing perception of this barrier, and there will be many people residing within the CBD that will go to a local strip say the Parade, and vice versa if they are easily accessible by tram.

[[Shuz]]

I agree Claybro. A tram to North Adelaide, Norwood or elsewhere other than the CBD will make it more attractive to visit those areas.

I don't go to Glenelg often, but when I do, it's because the tram takes me there. There's an accessibility factor about trams that buses can't match. Glenelg would be nothing if it wasn't for the tram.

[Eurostar]

I agree Claybro. A tram to North Adelaide, Norwood or elsewhere other than the CBD will make it more attractive to visit those areas.

I don't go to Glenelg often, but when I do, it's because the tram takes me there. There's an accessibility factor about trams that buses can't match. Glenelg would be nothing if it wasn't for the tram.

Henley Beach, Semaphore dont have trams or trains yet are popular precincts

[rubberman]

That's not quite what I am saying Patrick.

I am looking at the existing proposals and saying that out of the existing proposals that the city loop should go first.

You are arguing that one of the proposals shouldn't exist. That's a slightly different argument, and one you should be running independent of tram proposals. I see the tram as merely accelerating development that is already happening in the south east corner. That's happening, tram or not. To me, it's a question whether the tram loop comes in at the same time as development, or whether it comes in later, or whether there's an extra high rise car park or two there because there's no tram loop.

If you don't want that to happen, I'd suggest you need to stop developments, full stop. The North Adelaide residents have done it, so it's not impossible.

'you've touched on an interesting aspect here. loop v's inner suburban links and car use. Since the loop really only benefits connections within the CBD and those within it, the loop is unlikely to discourage people driving into the city anyway. The inner suburban links will be more likely to prevent commuters from the inner suburbs driving in. The links will also facilitate higher density development in the near city suburbs, spreading the pressure, creating less need for high-rise blocks of carparks and appartments, and better utilising the facilities in the CBD for those in the inner suburbs. There is an issue in Adelaide that exists in no other capital, being the parklands. they act as a barrier to people living even in areas like Mile End or prospect who will probably be more likely to drive to a local suburban centre, than use the CBD for dining/cinema/entertainment etc. The suburban links will go some way to reducing perception of this barrier, and there will be many people residing within the CBD that will go to a local strip say the Parade, and vice versa if they are easily accessible by tram.

I would have no problen with this approach if the alternatives were a line to Prospect vs Citylink. However, a line only to North Adelaide will not attract more development, it will attract a lot of criticism from O'Connell Street traders, and really, how many people want to go only as far as North Adelaide? I can see a lot of pain during construction on O'Connell Street. Then, because it doesn't go to Prospect, the Prospect Road buses are still going to be going down O'Connell Street. It's going to be a nightmare with two lanes taken up with trams only going to the Picadilly, but all the rest of the traffic having to deal with less lanes.

I refer back to your post a bit further back. If trams are ever to come back, it's got to be on the basis of a success story in the early stages. I can't see one going to North Adelaide. That's just a high risk of traffic chaos, no development, traders going beserk during construction. Can someone explain to me what benefit there is just going to North Adelaide?

In contrast, the potential in the City link is big via development (NA has low potential only), and interchange with the O-bahn (NA has none) and wider streets for construction.

By all means, go all the way to Prospect as the alternative, but mark my words, a North Adelaide-only extension will kill any further extensions. All pain, no gain.

[jorcoga]

I agree Claybro. A tram to North Adelaide, Norwood or elsewhere other than the CBD will make it more attractive to visit those areas.

I don't go to Glenelg often, but when I do, it's because the tram takes me there. There's an accessibility factor about trams that buses can't match. Glenelg would be nothing if it wasn't for the tram.

Henley Beach, Semaphore dont have trams or trains yet are popular precincts

Henley and Semaphore also both have cheap and plentiful parking. Norwood is not an easy place to park in if you don't know the area and North Adelaide is a maze of weird parking restrictions and paid car parks, not to mention that it's within the ACC area which is, as far as Adelaide goes, very strongly associated with very heavy parking enforcement.

[claybro]

For mine, I think the link to Prospect road ticks a number of boxes. There is a large under developed areanorth of Rgency Road, which is perfect for low rise medium density development. Also such a link would be a bonus to the already built up strip in Prospect itself. It would also have the benefit of connecting the inner north and North Adelaide to Adelaide Oval Festival Centre and the central CBD. The link to Norwood.., not so much, and the developement oportunitirs are not as great, and will be met with much more resistance. The link to Adelaide airport would probably be the next best of suburban option, provided it takes in either Henley beach or SDB drive. The roumoured route using the Keswick drain reserve will not serve to encourage higher density residential and commercial development along the route. In any of these options though, it is imperative to get developers, local councils and resident on board with a properly planned vision for urban renewal.

[rubberman]

One of the things that the new Liberal Government is proposing, Infrastructure SA, is a good idea.

Hopefully, it will throw some light on the relative business cases, if any, for proposed tram extensions.

The refusal of the previous government to release the business case strikes me as being suspicious, especially the Norwood line.

I also have my suspicions that maybe none of the extensions are economically viable - if they were, surely the previous government would have published the business case report.

So, I am of the opinion that while we may chatter on here about the various options, it might turn out that Infrastructure SA might reveal that there's NO economic case for ANY tram extension. Or, maybe the best might be to Unley - something nobody seems to consider here.

I don't see a tram extension being a foregone conclusion.

[Waewick]

It depends on what the definition of viable is.

It maybe on here but apparently PT costs are split 75% Govt and 25% fares, so if that is the measure then you'd hope that is what makes a Tram route viable.

The issue i see is that within the Adelaide CBD the tram is known to be free, so the loop fails that test.

I believe that the trams will extend, but where they can go and attract fare paying patrons is the question.

I've been trying to think of incentives to attract patrons, one of my ideas would be bit drawn out, broadly it would be working with the council who wants the trams to sign up to say a 5 yr program where by annual ticket is bought through your council rates. The incentive being your council rates are lower by the amount. Perhaps a max of 2 tickets?

People then have an incentive to use it and the Government gets the money regardless.

Haven't through the issues which i am sure there are many.