News & Discussion: Trams

[Ho Really]

Ho Really, what's with all of your going against the grain of late? Time has been saved by the implementation of the O-Bahn tunnel, whether they needed to spend that much to make that happen is another story but there is no denying it has saved travel time for buses.

Patrick_27, since day one I've never really been in favour of the tunnel. I think the previous government and many of the past and the one currently aren't looking at the bigger picture regarding public transport infrastructure and this tunnel is one of them. I just don't see the value. We will continue to disagree until Adelaide realises what its priorities are. That day Adelaide will grow up.

Cheers

I havent been on the obahn in probably 20 years but i drive the hackney road ring route most days. From seeing dozens of busses clogging up the north terrace/hackney road intersection every morning, i now forget that theres a major bus route travelling under there. I cant comment on the project from a obahn users perspective, but as a motorist it has made a huge improvement

That's fine. It has improved traffic connditions in some aspects and I agree with that.

Cheers

[Ho Really]

There is nothing about the o-bahn corridor that makes it suitable for light rail. It's a brt, one of the most successful brts in the world, so it's not changing any time soon. You can't call spending money on it a waste just because you personally think that it should be a tram line. In terms of what the tunnel has done for the commute times on the o-bahn it's hard to say it hasn't been a success.

Explain why the corridor is not suitable for light rail?

Cheers

Light rail is best when it links many high density stops relatively close together for the length of the line. Ie like pearls on a necklace. The o-bahn is a highly dispersed line travelling through low density suburbs to funnel passengers to outer urban sprawl. It's mainnfunction is getting people from one end to the other with just 2 stops in between. If it's ever going to be turned into a rail line it will be heavy rail. I'm not a fan of brt, but the results speak for themselves, the north eastern suburbs have much higher public transport use than equivalent neighbouring suburbs. And the tunnel saves at least 5 mins per bus in peak. Given how many vehicles and how busy they are in that time, thats a huge saving. What would need to be spent to find 5 mins of time saved on the Gawler line? Because that's a similar comparison.

I don't think that's enough of an explanation why it couldn't be light rail. Two stops or ten stop makes no difference. You'll still have your buses supplying commuters to the light rail. Light rail also has the advantage in carrying larger numbers. Perhaps also maintenance of the track and longevity. There could be other advantages.

Heavy rail is another argument. Perhaps it could've been heavy rail if they never built the tunnel at Hackney Road and Rymill Park etc., but instead underground it from Gilberton into the city. Of course if it was part of a wider plan for Metro-style rail it would be perfect. I'm not against BRT. It seems to work fine. Perhaps the Liberals will expand this. However my preference is for light rail so that it can be integrated the existing system and join up with the Glenelg tram to form a northeast-southwest (and vice versa) corridor.

Cheers

[Ho Really]

Ho Really, what's with all of your going against the grain of late? Time has been saved by the implementation of the O-Bahn tunnel, whether they needed to spend that much to make that happen is another story but there is no denying it has saved travel time for buses.

Patrick_27, since day one I've never really been in favour of the tunnel. I think the previous government and many of the past and the one currently aren't looking at the bigger picture regarding public transport infrastructure and this tunnel is one of them. I just don't see the value. We will continue to disagree until Adelaide realises what its priorities are. That day Adelaide will grow up.

Cheers

I think you're confusing "value" with "vision". The project will pay itself off in the short to medium term (value), but what you are talking about is your long-term vision of turning it into a rail corridor.

Yes long-term vision. That's how all projects should be looked at. Of course the tunnel and any improvement or expansion of the O-Bahn in time will pay for itself, commuters and price hikes permitting. Thanks Norman.

Cheers

[rhino]

Yes long-term vision. That's how all projects should be looked at. Of course the tunnel and any improvement or expansion of the O-Bahn in time will pay for itself, commuters and price hikes permitting. Thanks

Long-term vision is a good thing, but that does not mean it needs to be acted on from the word go.

A sports arena is a good example of this - while a soccer stadium seating 25000 fans is a good long term plan, building it at a time when only 12000 people turn up to games is folly - it's a large expense for an asset that will be half empty for many years, and may need replacing before it reaches its intended purpose.

With the O'Bahn, it's built, whether you like it or not. You have to weigh the cost of improving the system for the foreseeable future against your long term vision for light rail. The corridor is there, reserved, and a light rail system can be laid when concrete cancer renders the busway obsolete and it has to be dismantled. If this happens in the foreseeable future, the existing bus tunnel can be utilised as a road tunnel and take city traffic on to Hackney Road avoiding several sets of traffic lights. In the meantime we have a big saving (cumulatively) in public transport transit time from the northeast.

[Ho Really]

Long-term vision is a good thing, but that does not mean it needs to be acted on from the word go.

Of course some projects have to be done short term. However the way I see it if you have a vision look for the long term and build what you can with the money you have.

A sports arena is a good example of this - while a soccer stadium seating 25000 fans is a good long term plan, building it at a time when only 12000 people turn up to games is folly - it's a large expense for an asset that will be half empty for many years, and may need replacing before it reaches its intended purpose.

Well then plan for a 25,000 seater and build it as a 12,000 so it is expandable to the 25,000 limit. No need to replace but expand. This argument can also apply to the Adelaide Oval if they win the right to stage the Commonwealth Games or an Olympiad (a bit far fetched but something to aim for).

With the O'Bahn, it's built, whether you like it or not. You have to weigh the cost of improving the system for the foreseeable future against your long term vision for light rail. The corridor is there, reserved, and a light rail system can be laid when concrete cancer renders the busway obsolete and it has to be dismantled. If this happens in the foreseeable future, the existing bus tunnel can be utilised as a road tunnel and take city traffic on to Hackney Road avoiding several sets of traffic lights. In the meantime we have a big saving (cumulatively) in public transport transit time from the northeast.

I don't dislike the O-Bahn. It's doing its job fine. As you've read I prefer light rail though. It would be great if in future they do consider converting it. I think it will. As far as I know the tunnel is not suitable for car traffic. You only have one lane each way. There should be double carriageways and an emergency lane each side. The emergency lane is very important. Also I'm not sure if there are any exits should there be an accident, a pile up or worse still a head on.

Does anyone here know if the tunnel is suitable for light rail? If the gradients in and out are within the limits?

Cheers

[rubberman]

Long-term vision is a good thing, but that does not mean it needs to be acted on from the word go.

Of course some projects have to be done short term. However the way I see it if you have a vision look for the long term and build what you can with the money you have.

A sports arena is a good example of this - while a soccer stadium seating 25000 fans is a good long term plan, building it at a time when only 12000 people turn up to games is folly - it's a large expense for an asset that will be half empty for many years, and may need replacing before it reaches its intended purpose.

Well then plan for a 25,000 seater and build it as a 12,000 so it is expandable to the 25,000 limit. No need to replace but expand. This argument can also apply to the Adelaide Oval if they win the right to stage the Commonwealth Games or an Olympiad (a bit far fetched but something to aim for).

With the O'Bahn, it's built, whether you like it or not. You have to weigh the cost of improving the system for the foreseeable future against your long term vision for light rail. The corridor is there, reserved, and a light rail system can be laid when concrete cancer renders the busway obsolete and it has to be dismantled. If this happens in the foreseeable future, the existing bus tunnel can be utilised as a road tunnel and take city traffic on to Hackney Road avoiding several sets of traffic lights. In the meantime we have a big saving (cumulatively) in public transport transit time from the northeast.

I don't dislike the O-Bahn. It's doing its job fine. As you've read I prefer light rail though. It would be great if in future they do consider converting it. I think it will. As far as I know the tunnel is not suitable for car traffic. You only have one lane each way. There should be double carriageways and an emergency lane each side. The emergency lane is very important. Also I'm not sure if there are any exits should there be an accident, a pile up or worse still a head on.

Does anyone here know if the tunnel is suitable for light rail? If the gradients in and out are within the limits?

Cheers

Trams easily negotiated the Millswood railway underpass and the overpass at Goodwood. By eye, the O-Bahn tunnel doesn't look that steep by comparison.

Long 8% grades for trams are not uncommon, and 10% on short sections ought to be doable.

[rhino]

As far as I know the tunnel is not suitable for car traffic. You only have one lane each way. There should be double carriageways and an emergency lane each side. The emergency lane is very important. Also I'm not sure if there are any exits should there be an accident, a pile up or worse still a head on.
Cheers

Thinking into the future here, but at a future time when there is less car traffic in the city, the tunnel could be two lanes bringing traffic in in the morning, and taking it out in the evening.

I agree the preferable future option would be for trams, if they can negotiate the ramp slopes.

[Nort]

As far as I know the tunnel is not suitable for car traffic. You only have one lane each way. There should be double carriageways and an emergency lane each side. The emergency lane is very important. Also I'm not sure if there are any exits should there be an accident, a pile up or worse still a head on.
Cheers

Thinking into the future here, but at a future time when there is less car traffic in the city, the tunnel could be two lanes bringing traffic in in the morning, and taking it out in the evening.

I agree the preferable future option would be for trams, if they can negotiate the ramp slopes.

If there is less car traffic it's probably because of initiatives like turning Currie St/Grenfell St into a dedicated PT corridor. In that situation the tunnel would be badly placed for car traffic, but would still make a great bus tunnel.

[Ho Really]

Thinking into the future here, but at a future time when there is less car traffic in the city, the tunnel could be two lanes bringing traffic in in the morning, and taking it out in the evening

Yikes!

Cheers

[Llessur2002]

Just on our rolled-gold Botanic Garden extension, the planted medians have already become overgrown with metre-high thistles.

The same can be said for the Elder Park stop, the big garden beds at the end of the tracks have no plants whatsoever and have exposed sprinkler piping... Been this way for weeks.

A timely article...

Landscaping at two city tram stops not up to scratch

‘Untidy’ landscaping at two city tram stops to be fixed after failing to meet Adelaide City Council standards.

The State Government has to repair landscaping at two new CBD tram stops because it is “defective”, Adelaide City Council staff have revealed.

At a meeting on Tuesday night, Adelaide City Council director place Klinton Devenish told elected members landscaping at the stops, one opposite Lot Fourteen and the other on King William St near Elder Park, was not up to scratch.


A tram stop on King William Rd, opposite Elder Park.

Mr Devenish was providing an answer to Cr Arman Abrahimzadeh’s question about the “untidy” state of the stops, which were built as part of the North Tce tram extension.

He said there were issues with the condition of soil, planting and irrigation.

“The tram project is complete, but we have identified the work as being defective and not accepting of our standards,” Mr Devenish said.

“We are working with DPTI at the moment … and, once they have achieved landscaping outcomes, we will assume care and control of that landscape.”

Cr Abrahimzadeh agreed the standard was not up to scratch.

“For visitors of our city to bring it to our attention, I do find it slightly embarrassing,” Cr Abrahimzadeh said.

The Transport Department declined to answer questions of corrective work costs.

“Discussions are continuing with council officers, with the aim to finalise arrangements with council around late September,” a spokesman for the department said.

From: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... a18819a70b


Plus, finally, it looks like the Entertainment Centre tram stop landscaping is finally being addressed

We have scheduled new planting at the 'gateway' of Port Road median from the intersection of Port Road and Park Terrace to the Adelaide Entertainment Centre tram stop.

See attached 'Tram median Landscape Plan and Plant Species' document in the document library.

https://www.yoursaycharlessturt.com.au/ ... nts/114000

This work is proposed for commencement in September 2019.

Any existing trees in good health, structure and vigour will be retained with all new plantings to be mulched and connected to an automatic drip irrigation system.

From: https://www.yoursaycharlessturt.com.au/ ... andscaping

[NTRabbit]

"We won't have to pay for any more line extensions if we pull out of the Commonwealth Games bid " is some real 11 dimensional chess from the state Liberals

[ChillyPhilly]

I'm not sure if it's already been said here, but the State Government has already put contracts up to privately operate the trams. There are already a number of applicants, and they are all overseas-based. Trains to come later. The union is furious.

[SBD]

I'm not sure if it's already been said here, but the State Government has already put contracts up to privately operate the trams. There are already a number of applicants, and they are all overseas-based. Trains to come later. The union is furious.

Are the workers/union allowed to organise themselves to offer an in-house bid?

I wonder how committed the government is to the outsourcing if no (South) Australian bids are received. With all the comments on this forum though, I suppose that many foreign companies would be able to run it much better than DPTI or Australian companies would.

[ChillyPhilly]

Probably not, given they have basically been gagged from even commenting on it. Some PSAs (Passenger Service Assistants) found out about the privatisation through word of mouth - some even from passengers.

The debate over privatisation of Adelaide's light and heavy rail will not so much be about the taxpayer cost, but about jobs. An example is London's North Eastern Railway. A public asset, it was sold off to 'Virgin Trains East Coast'. Customer satisfaction dropped and prices rose. About 60% of jobs were axed. Virgin asked for more money to run it, which they got, but soon afterward walked away from the contract. Customer satisfaction predictably rose sharply following the return to government hands.

[muzzamo]

robably not, given they have basically been gagged from even commenting on it. Some PSAs (Passenger Service Assistants) found out about the privatisation through word of mouth - some even from passengers.

The debate over privatisation of Adelaide's light and heavy rail will not so much be about the taxpayer cost, but about jobs. An example is London's North Eastern Railway. A public asset, it was sold off to 'Virgin Trains East Coast'. Customer satisfaction dropped and prices rose. About 60% of jobs were axed. Virgin asked for more money to run it, which they got, but soon afterward walked away from the contract. Customer satisfaction predictably rose sharply following the return to government hands.

You are still missing the point

The trains and trams are not being sold off. The trains and trams are not being sold off.

The management of the trains and trams is being outsourced. The better place to look would be the privately managed but government owned busses within SA. The government will define the services, how much they will cost, when they will run, collect the ticket revenue, define the SLAs, and will own the infrastructure and rolling stock.

Jobs will probably be lost. And the management will be by private companies that are accountable under a contract with the government, rather than unaccountable public servants ("sorry mate, i'm on a flexi.")