News & Discussion: Trams

[rubberman]

I think the idea of network expansion is unpopular among those along, and partially beyond, the route. EastLink had many vocal opponents in the form of traders, locals, and those who lived near the foothills adjacent The Parade and Magill Road (and therefore drive along the route).

The demographic of that area rely heavily on private cars for transport, and the idea of a tram line is disruptive, congestion-causing, and unsightly — in their minds.

I can understand why Labor has avoided all talk of network expansion — because some (not all) residents and businesses in inner-city areas are resistant to the idea (even though I bet they would love it after implementation).

I am hoping, however, that Labor gets it underway if they are elected. But not holding my breath.

That's why I prefer Adelink: it extends an existing popular route. Plus O'Connell Street would be a difficult project as proposed by the ALP. They should have used Melbourne standard design. It's much faster and less disruption for the traders.

[Spotto]

I can understand why Labor has avoided all talk of network expansion — because some (not all) residents and businesses in inner-city areas are resistant to the idea (even though I bet they would love it after implementation).

This. Even though they should at least be talking about the logical bare minimum of a city loop tram and to North Adelaide, after how wonderfully successful and runing-to-schedule the Botanic Gardens and Festival Plaza extensions went the public might not be overly keen to hear about another one in the works.

[1NEEDS2POST]

I can understand why Labor has avoided all talk of network expansion — because some (not all) residents and businesses in inner-city areas are resistant to the idea (even though I bet they would love it after implementation).

This. Even though they should at least be talking about the logical bare minimum of a city loop tram and to North Adelaide, after how wonderfully successful and runing-to-schedule the Botanic Gardens and Festival Plaza extensions went the public might not be overly keen to hear about another one in the works.

Festival Plaza was just a stub so they could extend the tram line past the intersection. I don't think anyone thought it would be highly used. Botanic Gardens is used by lots of passengers, so I don't understand the sarcasm here.

Adelink was too big to be built in a short time. The next extension should be a stub from Botanic Gardens into Hutt St with a plan for a city loop.

[Spotto]

I can understand why Labor has avoided all talk of network expansion — because some (not all) residents and businesses in inner-city areas are resistant to the idea (even though I bet they would love it after implementation).

This. Even though they should at least be talking about the logical bare minimum of a city loop tram and to North Adelaide, after how wonderfully successful and runing-to-schedule the Botanic Gardens and Festival Plaza extensions went the public might not be overly keen to hear about another one in the works.

Festival Plaza was just a stub so they could extend the tram line past the intersection. I don't think anyone thought it would be highly used. Botanic Gardens is used by lots of passengers, so I don't understand the sarcasm here.

Adelink was too big to be built in a short time. The next extension should be a stub from Botanic Gardens into Hutt St with a plan for a city loop.

My sarcasm referred to the setbacks and repairs they had during construction and before the line even opened, certainly not at any perceived uselessness of the line itself. Every tram extension has been successfully used by passengers and once Lot Fourteen becomes more substantial it will be even more useful.

The point I was trying to make was that people might perceive it as a bad idea due to surface-level reasons. But if Labor win the next election, hopefully they'll resume where they left off regardless.

[Benm16]

I was reading online what the Greens are promising in this years election and they have said they would be investing $1 billion to improve public transport. Surely with $1 billions you could improve the tram network and electrify all the remaining train lines

[Nathan]

I was reading online what the Greens are promising in this years election and they have said they would be investing $1 billion to improve public transport. Surely with $1 billions you could improve the tram network and electrify all the remaining train lines

A big chunk of that would be their proposal to make all public transport free.

[Benm16]

When you check out their website it’s writing in a way that seems like this is $1 billion is just for upgrades, on top of the $433 million to make public transport free.

[Spotto]

I don’t know what to think about $433 million per four years ($108 million per year) being the cost to run the entire transport network for free.

KD’s contract to run only the trains was $2.14 billion for eight years, or $260 million per year.

But if the Greens can show the numbers that by making transport free and not spending money on fare evasion and recovery the costs would balance out, then I’d be for it.

[Nort]

I don’t know what to think about $433 million per four years ($108 million per year) being the cost to run the entire transport network for free.

KD’s contract to run only the trains was $2.14 billion for eight years, or $260 million per year.

But if the Greens can show the numbers that by making transport free and not spending money on fare evasion and recovery the costs would balance out, then I’d be for it.

Public transport is already subsidized, and that stated cost is on top of the existing cost.

In 2018-2019 the total patronage of Adelaide Metro system was around 80 million boardings between bus, tram, and train. When you account for cheap student/concession tickets, free trips such as the tram north of South Terrace, and people using multiple vehicles off one fare then I could see that figure being in the right ballpark of what it would cost to just scrap fares entirely.

[[Shuz]]

Excuse my ignorance... but why does it cost money to make something free? There wouldn't be a need for validators anymore.

It's poorly worded. Basically they're just saying that public transport would be fully subsidised by the government rather than partially subsidised.

It's nice to know they're coming up with policies even though they have very little chance of winning a lower house seat, but they could certainly hold the incoming Labor Government to account as part of the crossbench.

I can't see Labor agreeing to free public transport but their policies on deprivatization are pretty much in lockstep. I'd expect to see some change on this front.

[SBD]

Excuse my ignorance... but why does it cost money to make something free? There wouldn't be a need for validators anymore.

It's poorly worded. Basically they're just saying that public transport would be fully subsidised by the government rather than partially subsidised.

It's nice to know they're coming up with policies even though they have very little chance of winning a lower house seat, but they could certainly hold the incoming Labor Government to account as part of the crossbench.

I can't see Labor agreeing to free public transport but their policies on deprivatization are pretty much in lockstep. I'd expect to see some change on this front.

The “cost” is the revenue that would not be earned from ticket sales. There would also be a small offset from not maintaining or replacing validators etc.

Does Labor propose to take back bus management, or only trains and trams?

[[Shuz]]

To be clear, Labor is promising to investigate, via a committee, the viability of bringing back trains and trams, and potentially, buses back under state control.

My understanding with the trams and trains is that they will, but will find the most economically viable solution to do so. Ergo, they may well just wait until the current contracts expire and then it'll be back in public hands, otherwise there will be a cost, and likely court case, involved by terminating it sooner without fair reason.

[Nort]

Excuse my ignorance... but why does it cost money to make something free? There wouldn't be a need for validators anymore.

It's poorly worded. Basically they're just saying that public transport would be fully subsidised by the government rather than partially subsidised.

That's basically what they say on their site. https://greens.org.au/sa/platform/public-transport

It's standard practice for parties and governments to refer to lost revenue as a cost, The Greens are trying to get ahead of any "Well that's a nice idea but how will you pay for it?" attacks by putting costings in (which is a fairly standard practice for them).

[rubberman]

I must admit to being a little puzzled by the fact that no political party is pushing Adelink at all.

Adelaide is a very marginal seat. A few hundred votes could swing it. Even for the Greens it could mean the difference between losing their deposit and gaining that $3/vote election funding.

Given that the Fringe is now on, letterboxing the apartment complexes along the city loop route with thousands of people ought to bring in a few hundred votes from people who now don't have an obvious direct access to the Fringe. Yes, buses exist, but the loop is direct.

I wonder if both parties have polling showing that the seat of Adelaide is now safe for one side or the other, and hence the money is better spent elsewhere.. like a stadium...

[Nathan]

I'm very disappointed there's been nothing in that regard. Has there been any non-road transport announcements other than reversing the public transport privatisation?