News & Discussion: Trams

[rev]

Business travellers and inbound tourists might mostly want the CBD, but if they are not prepared to walk to SDBD to catch a passing tram, they probably don't want to walk far the other end either. The Melbourne Airport Bus system takes you right to the door of almost any CBD hotel you need, but not down St Kilda Rd, and only to the set list of places they go (I needed to name a hotel to use it to visit my Dad in hospital as they would not drop off at the hospital, but would happily drop me at the hotel opposite once I worked out its name). Many business travellers will use taxis as it saves them having to learn to navigate in a strange city at all.

An airport tram link would more then likely go as close as possible to the terminal. The tram in the city already passes several of the city’s major hotels. Hilton, a whole host of hotels on north terrace, and several along king William st. A city loop would bring more hotels within the tram network.

Outbound passengers don't typically start from the Adelaide CBD, so having luggage support for the spoke from the CBD to the airport is only useful in our hub-and-spoke transport network if all the other spokes can handle us bringing our luggage to the CBD and transferring to the airport line. Adelaide doesn't generally deal well with bringing a big suitcase on our public transport, so nobody tries. We drive to the airport or lean on a friend to drop us off/pick us up if we don't like the taxi fares from home.

How many of what kinds of people might use a tram with a dead-end stop at the airport plaza/hotel? I doubt it's a whole tramload per day!

A lot of what I’m reading here amounts to “change, therefore locals won’t like it”. That’s exactly what’s wrong with this town. Too many scared of change too scared of moving an inch out of their comfort zone and daily routine. I’m surprised we even have any need for an international airport lol.

We need big bold projects to shock the towns folk out of their country town slumber.

[rubberman]

Business travellers and inbound tourists might mostly want the CBD, but if they are not prepared to walk to SDBD to catch a passing tram, they probably don't want to walk far the other end either. The Melbourne Airport Bus system takes you right to the door of almost any CBD hotel you need, but not down St Kilda Rd, and only to the set list of places they go (I needed to name a hotel to use it to visit my Dad in hospital as they would not drop off at the hospital, but would happily drop me at the hotel opposite once I worked out its name). Many business travellers will use taxis as it saves them having to learn to navigate in a strange city at all.

An airport tram link would more then likely go as close as possible to the terminal. The tram in the city already passes several of the city’s major hotels. Hilton, a whole host of hotels on north terrace, and several along king William st. A city loop would bring more hotels within the tram network.

Outbound passengers don't typically start from the Adelaide CBD, so having luggage support for the spoke from the CBD to the airport is only useful in our hub-and-spoke transport network if all the other spokes can handle us bringing our luggage to the CBD and transferring to the airport line. Adelaide doesn't generally deal well with bringing a big suitcase on our public transport, so nobody tries. We drive to the airport or lean on a friend to drop us off/pick us up if we don't like the taxi fares from home.

How many of what kinds of people might use a tram with a dead-end stop at the airport plaza/hotel? I doubt it's a whole tramload per day!

A lot of what I’m reading here amounts to “change, therefore locals won’t like it”. That’s exactly what’s wrong with this town. Too many scared of change too scared of moving an inch out of their comfort zone and daily routine. I’m surprised we even have any need for an international airport lol.

We need big bold projects to shock the towns folk out of their country town slumber.

In one sense I agree. However, just look on the steel wheel on rail forums on this site:

A new tram system likely to cost $4bn based on the $100m/kM quoted for the North Adelaide extension.

Electrifying Gawler. Say half a billion?

City Loop underground. Got to be a couple of billion?


Regional rail. A billion?

This proposal. Half a billion? Paid for by excessive interest charges.

That's eight billion.

Then there’s plenty of other groups with their hands out as well. I bet the RAA has a wish list of another eight billion. Bank on it.

Then there’s bikeways and more schools, and more sports grounds, and and.

There's people out there saying they want twenty billion dollars worth of projects. Many of them quite worthy, and some arguably more worthy than a line to the airport. In fact, the previous government spent something like $2.7bn on heavy rail. How bold is that? A new Adelaide Oval plus bridge. If that wasn't half a billion, I'd be surprised.



I have no problem with the State undertaking big, bold projects, like you say. But I can't see them spending $20bn. In that case, someone will miss out unless we all agree to some hefty tax rises. Hahaha.

It doesn't take much imagination to work out that the money will go to either something economically viable, or which gets a lot of votes. That second is your big, bold project classification.

I don't see the average punter out there thinking trams or heavy rail as being big, bold vote getters. So, unless the steel wheel on rail projects are economic, they realistically don't sit at the top of the pile.

I just don't see that the state can pay for most of these things without big tax rises. Can you really see that happening?

I mentioned the possibility of cyclists paying for cycleways a couple of years back here. I was howled down. So, what chance anyone being willing to pay for these big bold projects?

[SBD]

Business travellers and inbound tourists might mostly want the CBD, but if they are not prepared to walk to SDBD to catch a passing tram, they probably don't want to walk far the other end either. The Melbourne Airport Bus system takes you right to the door of almost any CBD hotel you need, but not down St Kilda Rd, and only to the set list of places they go (I needed to name a hotel to use it to visit my Dad in hospital as they would not drop off at the hospital, but would happily drop me at the hotel opposite once I worked out its name). Many business travellers will use taxis as it saves them having to learn to navigate in a strange city at all.

An airport tram link would more then likely go as close as possible to the terminal. The tram in the city already passes several of the city’s major hotels. Hilton, a whole host of hotels on north terrace, and several along king William st. A city loop would bring more hotels within the tram network.

If it's a dead-end tram terminus, then it needs enough passengers to justify its existence. My San Jose experience was that the airport was just one stop along a through route to other areas of the suburbs. Sir Donald Bradman Drive is no further than the long-stay car park. The successful examples in other cities are Sydney where the train also services other suburbs further out, and Brisbane, which is a dead-end but on a much longer route than just the Adelaide airport to CBD (it goes through Brisbane to the Gold Coast, and pre-booked trips get free transfers to the Gold Coast hotels and venues).

Outbound passengers don't typically start from the Adelaide CBD, so having luggage support for the spoke from the CBD to the airport is only useful in our hub-and-spoke transport network if all the other spokes can handle us bringing our luggage to the CBD and transferring to the airport line. Adelaide doesn't generally deal well with bringing a big suitcase on our public transport, so nobody tries. We drive to the airport or lean on a friend to drop us off/pick us up if we don't like the taxi fares from home.

How many of what kinds of people might use a tram with a dead-end stop at the airport plaza/hotel? I doubt it's a whole tramload per day!

A lot of what I’m reading here amounts to “change, therefore locals won’t like it”. That’s exactly what’s wrong with this town. Too many scared of change too scared of moving an inch out of their comfort zone and daily routine. I’m surprised we even have any need for an international airport lol.

We need big bold projects to shock the towns folk out of their country town slumber.

I was not trying to say that at all - i was trying to say that just making a dedicated CBD to airport tram line is not going to instantly make Adelaide a desirable tourist or business destination, nor get much local use. It needs to be integrated with the rest of the system. Me being able to get my suitcase from the city to the airport is not much help if I can't get it from my suburb to the CBD first. Do many of the regular suburban buses or trains have space for a family with their suitcases? If not, to make a tram to the airport attractive to locals, we need to make and advertise space for luggage on all the connecting buses.

[ml69]

In one sense I agree. However, just look on the steel wheel on rail forums on this site:

A new tram system likely to cost $4bn based on the $100m/kM quoted for the North Adelaide extension.

Electrifying Gawler. Say half a billion?

City Loop underground. Got to be a couple of billion?

Regional rail. A billion?

This proposal. Half a billion? Paid for by excessive interest charges.

That's eight billion.

Electrify Gawler + then City Underground rail has the most potential to benefit the most people by providing a true rapid transit system to the southern, north-western and northern suburbs of Adelaide, which complements the Obahn to the north-east. I mean rapid transit that actually makes people want to shift from cars into public transport because it is a much faster way to get into the CBD.

Trams running on roads can never truly be rapid transit.

[Ho Really]

[...]

Trams running on roads can never truly be rapid transit.

Music to my ears.

Cheers

[rubberman]

In one sense I agree. However, just look on the steel wheel on rail forums on this site:

A new tram system likely to cost $4bn based on the $100m/kM quoted for the North Adelaide extension.

Electrifying Gawler. Say half a billion?

City Loop underground. Got to be a couple of billion?

Regional rail. A billion?

This proposal. Half a billion? Paid for by excessive interest charges.

That's eight billion.

Electrify Gawler + then City Underground rail has the most potential to benefit the most people by providing a true rapid transit system to the southern, north-western and northern suburbs of Adelaide, which complements the Obahn to the north-east. I mean rapid transit that actually makes people want to shift from cars into public transport because it is a much faster way to get into the CBD.

Trams running on roads can never truly be rapid transit.

The problem is that there are as many opinions on this as there are people. Well over ten times as much has been spent on heavy rail as trams over the past ten years. Yet the increase in ridership has been on trams, hugely.

Looking at the figures, and not "the vibe" would logically have money spent on trams rather than heavy rail. In fact, a rapid tram system to Outer Harbor could do a better job and cheaper. Far cheaper. So watch this space when the present railcars come up for replacement.

Having said that, this is pretty academic. The chances of the present government spending any more than it has to on either of those is pretty low.

[Nort]

I mentioned the possibility of cyclists paying for cycleways a couple of years back here. I was howled down. So, what chance anyone being willing to pay for these big bold projects?

I think many cyclists would happily pay for cycleways if that is partnered with getting a tax refund on the part of their tax going towards normal roads.

[Waewick]

I mentioned the possibility of cyclists paying for cycleways a couple of years back here. I was howled down. So, what chance anyone being willing to pay for these big bold projects?

I think many cyclists would happily pay for cycleways if that is partnered with getting a tax refund on the part of their tax going towards normal roads.

It is insane how many people imagine cyclists get this free hit on a road.

[Nort]

I mentioned the possibility of cyclists paying for cycleways a couple of years back here. I was howled down. So, what chance anyone being willing to pay for these big bold projects?

I think many cyclists would happily pay for cycleways if that is partnered with getting a tax refund on the part of their tax going towards normal roads.

It is insane how many people imagine cyclists get this free hit on a road.

Free hit?

[Waewick]

I think many cyclists would happily pay for cycleways if that is partnered with getting a tax refund on the part of their tax going towards normal roads.

It is insane how many people imagine cyclists get this free hit on a road.

Free hit?

haha, sorry that is poorly worded.

I mean it is insane how many people think Cyclists do not contribute to road infrastructure and drivers are some how subsidising roads for cyclists.

[rubberman]

I mentioned the possibility of cyclists paying for cycleways a couple of years back here. I was howled down. So, what chance anyone being willing to pay for these big bold projects?

I think many cyclists would happily pay for cycleways if that is partnered with getting a tax refund on the part of their tax going towards normal roads.

The context of my comment was this:

There's a whole lot of worthy projects, including cycleways, out there. At least $20bn worth by the rough listing I gave.

Realistically, there's simply not the ability to do them all. Anyone can dream, of course, and I hope people can dream of things they want done with their tax money. However, the fact remains that some things are higher on the list than others. Being willing to pay more pushes something higher up the list and more likely to get something done.

So, if it's a choice of saying, "Nup, I'm not paying a cent more, because I already pay my taxes.", or "Yup, I'll pay some more to push this project up the priority list." Which do you choose?

If you keep saying the first, then governments will take note and act accordingly. Which is EXACTLY what is happening.

This is the same for other projects as well. I've said that making tram projects more expensive, and less beneficial than they could be just pushes them down the priority list, giving governments the economic evidence to divert funds elsewhere. As is happening.

If we keep doing things the same way as we always have, we should be unsurprised that we keep getting the same results.

[rev]

Business travellers and inbound tourists might mostly want the CBD, but if they are not prepared to walk to SDBD to catch a passing tram, they probably don't want to walk far the other end either. The Melbourne Airport Bus system takes you right to the door of almost any CBD hotel you need, but not down St Kilda Rd, and only to the set list of places they go (I needed to name a hotel to use it to visit my Dad in hospital as they would not drop off at the hospital, but would happily drop me at the hotel opposite once I worked out its name). Many business travellers will use taxis as it saves them having to learn to navigate in a strange city at all.

An airport tram link would more then likely go as close as possible to the terminal. The tram in the city already passes several of the city’s major hotels. Hilton, a whole host of hotels on north terrace, and several along king William st. A city loop would bring more hotels within the tram network.

Outbound passengers don't typically start from the Adelaide CBD, so having luggage support for the spoke from the CBD to the airport is only useful in our hub-and-spoke transport network if all the other spokes can handle us bringing our luggage to the CBD and transferring to the airport line. Adelaide doesn't generally deal well with bringing a big suitcase on our public transport, so nobody tries. We drive to the airport or lean on a friend to drop us off/pick us up if we don't like the taxi fares from home.

How many of what kinds of people might use a tram with a dead-end stop at the airport plaza/hotel? I doubt it's a whole tramload per day!

A lot of what I’m reading here amounts to “change, therefore locals won’t like it”. That’s exactly what’s wrong with this town. Too many scared of change too scared of moving an inch out of their comfort zone and daily routine. I’m surprised we even have any need for an international airport lol.

We need big bold projects to shock the towns folk out of their country town slumber.

In one sense I agree. However, just look on the steel wheel on rail forums on this site:

A new tram system likely to cost $4bn based on the $100m/kM quoted for the North Adelaide extension.

Electrifying Gawler. Say half a billion?

City Loop underground. Got to be a couple of billion?


Regional rail. A billion?

This proposal. Half a billion? Paid for by excessive interest charges.

That's eight billion.

Then there’s plenty of other groups with their hands out as well. I bet the RAA has a wish list of another eight billion. Bank on it.

Then there’s bikeways and more schools, and more sports grounds, and and.

There's people out there saying they want twenty billion dollars worth of projects. Many of them quite worthy, and some arguably more worthy than a line to the airport. In fact, the previous government spent something like $2.7bn on heavy rail. How bold is that? A new Adelaide Oval plus bridge. If that wasn't half a billion, I'd be surprised.



I have no problem with the State undertaking big, bold projects, like you say. But I can't see them spending $20bn. In that case, someone will miss out unless we all agree to some hefty tax rises. Hahaha.

It doesn't take much imagination to work out that the money will go to either something economically viable, or which gets a lot of votes. That second is your big, bold project classification.

I don't see the average punter out there thinking trams or heavy rail as being big, bold vote getters. So, unless the steel wheel on rail projects are economic, they realistically don't sit at the top of the pile.

I just don't see that the state can pay for most of these things without big tax rises. Can you really see that happening?

I mentioned the possibility of cyclists paying for cycleways a couple of years back here. I was howled down. So, what chance anyone being willing to pay for these big bold projects?

So needed infrastructure to improve our city shouldn’t be built because it cost too much, instead we should compromise(like they did with the one way southern expressway), and then one day in the future pay more to fix or adjust those things to the standard they should have been done originally?

The demands and whinging of various interest groups shouldn’t be what dictates policy and what gets done or how.

Big tax increases can be avoided or minimised by creating new industries and/or expanding existing industries to create jobs. More people working = more people paying taxes, levies, etc. A growing economy/jobs will attract new residents, therefore also growing the revenue pie for government.

[rev]

If it's a dead-end tram terminus, then it needs enough passengers to justify its existence. My San Jose experience was that the airport was just one stop along a through route to other areas of the suburbs. Sir Donald Bradman Drive is no further than the long-stay car park. The successful examples in other cities are Sydney where the train also services other suburbs further out, and Brisbane, which is a dead-end but on a much longer route than just the Adelaide airport to CBD (it goes through Brisbane to the Gold Coast, and pre-booked trips get free transfers to the Gold Coast hotels and venues).

Would it necessarily need to run only to the airport? Why not run down to West Beach and head north to Henley Beach and Grange, or even to Semaphore?

[rubberman]

An airport tram link would more then likely go as close as possible to the terminal. The tram in the city already passes several of the city’s major hotels. Hilton, a whole host of hotels on north terrace, and several along king William st. A city loop would bring more hotels within the tram network.



A lot of what I’m reading here amounts to “change, therefore locals won’t like it”. That’s exactly what’s wrong with this town. Too many scared of change too scared of moving an inch out of their comfort zone and daily routine. I’m surprised we even have any need for an international airport lol.

We need big bold projects to shock the towns folk out of their country town slumber.

In one sense I agree. However, just look on the steel wheel on rail forums on this site:

A new tram system likely to cost $4bn based on the $100m/kM quoted for the North Adelaide extension.

Electrifying Gawler. Say half a billion?

City Loop underground. Got to be a couple of billion?


Regional rail. A billion?

This proposal. Half a billion? Paid for by excessive interest charges.

That's eight billion.

Then there’s plenty of other groups with their hands out as well. I bet the RAA has a wish list of another eight billion. Bank on it.

Then there’s bikeways and more schools, and more sports grounds, and and.

There's people out there saying they want twenty billion dollars worth of projects. Many of them quite worthy, and some arguably more worthy than a line to the airport. In fact, the previous government spent something like $2.7bn on heavy rail. How bold is that? A new Adelaide Oval plus bridge. If that wasn't half a billion, I'd be surprised.



I have no problem with the State undertaking big, bold projects, like you say. But I can't see them spending $20bn. In that case, someone will miss out unless we all agree to some hefty tax rises. Hahaha.

It doesn't take much imagination to work out that the money will go to either something economically viable, or which gets a lot of votes. That second is your big, bold project classification.

I don't see the average punter out there thinking trams or heavy rail as being big, bold vote getters. So, unless the steel wheel on rail projects are economic, they realistically don't sit at the top of the pile.

I just don't see that the state can pay for most of these things without big tax rises. Can you really see that happening?

I mentioned the possibility of cyclists paying for cycleways a couple of years back here. I was howled down. So, what chance anyone being willing to pay for these big bold projects?

So needed infrastructure to improve our city shouldn’t be built because it cost too much, instead we should compromise(like they did with the one way southern expressway), and then one day in the future pay more to fix or adjust those things to the standard they should have been done originally?

The demands and whinging of various interest groups shouldn’t be what dictates policy and what gets done or how.

Big tax increases can be avoided or minimised by creating new industries and/or expanding existing industries to create jobs. More people working = more people paying taxes, levies, etc. A growing economy/jobs will attract new residents, therefore also growing the revenue pie for government.

What you are saying is very virtuous rev.

There's an old saying, going back to Roman times: "Virtue is praised, and starves."

So, by all means, tell us the way things should be. But in a practical sense, I think all that will happen is you will get high blood pressure.

Furthermore, I'm not sure what the real objection is to my saying that we should be actively eliminating gold plating, and maximising benefits for projects. What's wrong with that? Or people putting in a bit more to get the things they want. It works for private schools and private health. Even if you hate both of those things, you have to admit that by people putting in extra, they get what they want.

I want strategies that work. Sitting back getting outraged because the government won't do everything on my wish list will just give me high blood pressure.

[SBD]

If it's a dead-end tram terminus, then it needs enough passengers to justify its existence. My San Jose experience was that the airport was just one stop along a through route to other areas of the suburbs. Sir Donald Bradman Drive is no further than the long-stay car park. The successful examples in other cities are Sydney where the train also services other suburbs further out, and Brisbane, which is a dead-end but on a much longer route than just the Adelaide airport to CBD (it goes through Brisbane to the Gold Coast, and pre-booked trips get free transfers to the Gold Coast hotels and venues).

Would it necessarily need to run only to the airport? Why not run down to West Beach and head north to Henley Beach and Grange, or even to Semaphore?

I think you are agreeing with me (or I with you). I have not seen any proposal for "the tram to the airport" that doesn't have a terminus right in front of the door. I'm suggesting that it is more likely to stack up economically if it runs past the airport to somewhere else, and there is suitable signage, paths, lighting etc to make the tram stop "feel like" it is part of the airport.

I don't much care if the solution is a straight line on SDBD or a loop nearer the main terminal, then past the general aviation and Harbourtown. I just don't think the airport represents an economic destination on its own. Luggage trams, trains and buses might be a boon for Ikea too