News & Discussion: Trams

[how good is he]

So then the likely connection points from Henley Bch Rd are West Tce then to either join North Tce or continue down Currie St & join at KW St. If SBD, then Grote St and continue to join at Victoria Square. What’s the better or likely outcome of the options?

[Waewick]

surely if they do this airport, they make it part of the city loop?

[EBG]

113 on driver training & 209 Testing near Frome Rd. lunch time 12/9/2018

[1NEEDS2POST]

Henley Beach Road was the preferred option, followed by Sir Donald Bradman Drive. Richmond Road was considered but rejected.

Putting trams in congested roads is not going to make the journey any faster than a bus. In fact, it will be slower than a bus, which can change lanes. May as well spend more on the existing bus service. If they are going to go with dedicated tram lanes, it's also cheaper to paint bus lanes.

The only solutions that will improve the service over the existing bus service is either a tunnel or put the tram in Keswick Creek drain.

[Brando]

If Trams & cars can work down Brunswick St Melbourne, I'm sure they can coexist down Henley Beach Rd.

[rubberman]

If Trams & cars can work down Brunswick St Melbourne, I'm sure they can coexist down Henley Beach Rd.

They can, but they are slow. Very slow. It might work if buses and trams had their own exclusive lanes, thus getting bus stops and buses eliminated from mixing with motor vehicles.

[rubberman]

surely if they do this airport, they make it part of the city loop?

The logical route for a tram from the airport would cover the areas with the greatest concentration of hotels. Thus, Victoria Square, King William Street and North Terrace West. The Liberals' route doesn't cover the last one because they have to use their "right turn".

So, maybe up SDBD to Vic Square, turn left to King William Street then left again to Terminate at the RAH? But so much "left" sounds socialist.

In any case, I don't think this government is going to do anything, and I hope they don’t get conned into giving government guarantees of profit to private consortia. I can't see private money coming in without a government guarantee. If the government does that, it would be cheaper to borrow the money at 1.75%, than effectively pay a private consortium the 10-12% they'd want.

So, absent economic madness/corription, it's not likely to happen.

[Llessur2002]

So, maybe up SDBD to Vic Square, turn left to King William Street then left again to Terminate at the RAH? But so much "left" sounds socialist.

Why not left again from the RAH to turn down West Terrace and re-join SDB?

[rubberman]

So, maybe up SDBD to Vic Square, turn left to King William Street then left again to Terminate at the RAH? But so much "left" sounds socialist.

Why not left again from the RAH to turn down West Terrace and re-join SDB?

So much "left" socialist Comrade. Is like being back in USSR. Da.

Going down West Terrace doesn't go past any hotels or real passenger sources, whereas going back via Nth. Tce. King Wm. Vic. Sq. goes past them all. It might work if there was already a line there for the City Loop, so no extra cost. However, the Liberals' loop doesn't do that because they need to justify that $37m right wing reactionary capitalist right turn.

[claybro]

Henley Beach Road was the preferred option, followed by Sir Donald Bradman Drive. Richmond Road was considered but rejected.

Putting trams in congested roads is not going to make the journey any faster than a bus. In fact, it will be slower than a bus, which can change lanes. May as well spend more on the existing bus service. If they are going to go with dedicated tram lanes, it's also cheaper to paint bus lanes.

The only solutions that will improve the service over the existing bus service is either a tunnel or put the tram in Keswick Creek drain.

The only way these airport links attract either private or government investment is if they are able to value add, and capture commuters from existing intermediate areas. The whole Tullamarine link is based on the premise of getting to link new and existing suburbs, from the existing network, as is the Perth underground link, which is now seeing local council, private investor and landcorp investment and re-generation around Bayswater and Forrestfield. A route using Keswick creek will not connect to any areas of activity (it traverses peoples backyards) and therefore will not be considered. A good compromise would appear to be SDB as it is wider, has a local shopping centre and council offices, along with the opportunity for consolidation and medium density housing to replace ageing stock. Henley Beach road may be a bit congested for the reasons given.

[rubberman]

Henley Beach Road was the preferred option, followed by Sir Donald Bradman Drive. Richmond Road was considered but rejected.

Putting trams in congested roads is not going to make the journey any faster than a bus. In fact, it will be slower than a bus, which can change lanes. May as well spend more on the existing bus service. If they are going to go with dedicated tram lanes, it's also cheaper to paint bus lanes.

The only solutions that will improve the service over the existing bus service is either a tunnel or put the tram in Keswick Creek drain.

The only way these airport links attract either private or government investment is if they are able to value add, and capture commuters from existing intermediate areas. The whole Tullamarine link is based on the premise of getting to link new and existing suburbs, from the existing network, as is the Perth underground link, which is now seeing local council, private investor and landcorp investment and re-generation around Bayswater and Forrestfield. A route using Keswick creek will not connect to any areas of activity (it traverses peoples backyards) and therefore will not be considered. A good compromise would appear to be SDB as it is wider, has a local shopping centre and council offices, along with the opportunity for consolidation and medium density housing to replace ageing stock. Henley Beach road may be a bit congested for the reasons given.

The pirate, er, private consortium was only having three stops. So, going via Keswick Creek would probably have a similar number of stops. In that case, is there a disadvantage going down the creek?

In fact, since it wouldn't take up valuable real estate, for the private proposal, it might be the best option. As long as the consortium takes the risk, not the taxpayer.

[Nort]

In fact, since it wouldn't take up valuable real estate, for the private proposal, it might be the best option. As long as the consortium takes the risk, not the taxpayer.

I would bet money that will never happen. Can't see any way a private consortium makes back the money without a taxpayer guarantee or it being the first step in a wide-scale privatisation of public transport.

[claybro]

The pirate, er, private consortium was only having three stops. So, going via Keswick Creek would probably have a similar number of stops. In that case, is there a disadvantage going down the creek?

Using Keswick creek will traverse mainly peoples rear of properties, along quiet, low density suburban streets, with no services, retail or offices. Even putting stops at crossing streets ie at Bagot Ave, still does not place the stop immediately adjacent to any area of high density activity. It will be several hundred metres from the shopping centre. We already have enough rail corridors which do not directly service the areas where people need to be, and enough stations tucked away in back streets. The suburban streets fronting the properties along Keswick creek are not suitable for conversion to the 3-5 stories that would be possible along SBD.

[rubberman]

In fact, since it wouldn't take up valuable real estate, for the private proposal, it might be the best option. As long as the consortium takes the risk, not the taxpayer.

I would bet money that will never happen. Can't see any way a private consortium makes back the money without a taxpayer guarantee or it being the first step in a wide-scale privatisation of public transport.

I reckon you would win that bet. However, if a consortium wants a guarantee, that's about 10-12% at commercial rates. So, having the taxpayer guarantee a 10-12% return, when they could borrow at 1.75% is either stupid or corrupt. While I have low expectations of both parties, such stupidity and corruption is surely too blatant? Surely? Also, if the government were to guarantee it, then the consortium has a perverse incentive to make it as costly as possible. If they built it for a cost of $300m, they get $36m per year interest on capital. If they build it for $500m, the taxpayer is screwed over for another $24m per year...nice!

I can see that if that happens, the public is going to think trams stink.

[rubberman]

The pirate, er, private consortium was only having three stops. So, going via Keswick Creek would probably have a similar number of stops. In that case, is there a disadvantage going down the creek?

Using Keswick creek will traverse mainly peoples rear of properties, along quiet, low density suburban streets, with no services, retail or offices. Even putting stops at crossing streets ie at Bagot Ave, still does not place the stop immediately adjacent to any area of high density activity. It will be several hundred metres from the shopping centre. We already have enough rail corridors which do not directly service the areas where people need to be, and enough stations tucked away in back streets. The suburban streets fronting the properties along Keswick creek are not suitable for conversion to the 3-5 stories that would be possible along SBD.

Yeah, but is taking two lanes off Henley Beach Road for just serving three stops even an option? Probably not. Is it worth it for SDBD? Just for three stops? The answer to that is to make the consortium pay for the infrastructure, pay for the road real estate and take the risk. Taking two lanes out of a major road is a big cost and inconvenience. Unless the cost and inconvenience of taking two lanes out of SDBD is exceeded by the benefit of the extra traffic down SDBD, it's simply not worth it.

I'm not saying you are wrong btw, because we don’t have the numbers. However, it's certainly not clear enough to be definite either way unless we know if the benefit of extra traffic to the three stops in SDBD is greater than the cost of that lost two lanes. It's simply not possible to decide without having those numbers.