News & Discussion: Trams

[Waewick]

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?

Because Labor is apparently focusing solely on health and Libs on shoring up seats it needs to hold.

It's really disappointing.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Llessur2002]

I suspect that other than health, Labor is adopting the small target approach. Hopefully this doesn't mean they won't have some non-health announcements ready should they take government.

[ChillyPhilly]

I did see that Labor are still to announce their transport policy, so let's watch this space. Clock is ticking.

[[Shuz]]

Seat of Adelaide is firm favourite for Labor to win.

[rubberman]

Seat of Adelaide is firm favourite for Labor to win.

That may be so. However, if true, why wouldn't the Libs promise to build the city loop? If it gets them over the line, it's a small price (and a worthwhile project). If they lose, it hasn't cost them anything.

All upside and no downside for the government.

I must be missing something.

[[Shuz]]

Liberals have had 4 years to do something and they didn't. Their track record on public transport is shocking. People can't trust their word. That's what you're missing.

[rubberman]

Liberals have had 4 years to do something and they didn't. Their track record on public transport is shocking. People can't trust their word. That's what you're missing.

You might be right, but there are forums, even now, that take Federal Government announcements seriously. Everything from NBN, Murray Darling Basin Plan, vaccine rollout, Robodebt, bushfires, floods, submarines...and yet if they announce something, people still take it seriously. The lack of follow-up hardly rates a mention.

The Liberals in SA are nowhere near as bare faced as that...and the local ALP nowhere near as good as their Federal counterparts.

Whichever. However, the question remains: why not try it?

[whatstheirnamesmom]

Probably because it was a promise Marshall took to the last election, so to re-commit now would leave an opening for Labor to spruik the Liberal's broken promise. I.e., you promised it last time and didn't deliver, why should we trust you now? My guess is it opens too much risk in an electorate they really can't afford to take risks in right now.

[rubberman]

Probably because it was a promise Marshall took to the last election, so to re-commit now would leave an opening for Labor to spruik the Liberal's broken promise. I.e., you promised it last time and didn't deliver, why should we trust you now? My guess is it opens too much risk in an electorate they really can't afford to take risks in right now.

Possibly. Although the right turn to North Terrace was a daft idea, and they did kludge up the "too expensive" excuse.

Proposing an extension from the Bot Gdns along East Terrace (connecting with the O-Bahn), Hutt St, Halifax to just West of King Wm St (or turning into King Wm and terminating at South Terr), would have been a good workaround. But, if they figure it's not worth their while, it's a political calculation I guess they've made. Still, you'd think if they've lost the nimby vote with that stadium, and the WCH construction in the parkland and that highrise on East Terrace, they'd want to try to claw some of it back. Oh well, at least if Labor gets in the parkland doesn't get stadiumised.

[SBD]

Probably because it was a promise Marshall took to the last election, so to re-commit now would leave an opening for Labor to spruik the Liberal's broken promise. I.e., you promised it last time and didn't deliver, why should we trust you now? My guess is it opens too much risk in an electorate they really can't afford to take risks in right now.

Possibly. Although the right turn to North Terrace was a daft idea, and they did kludge up the "too expensive" excuse.

Proposing an extension from the Bot Gdns along East Terrace (connecting with the O-Bahn), Hutt St, Halifax to just West of King Wm St (or turning into King Wm and terminating at South Terr), would have been a good workaround. But, if they figure it's not worth their while, it's a political calculation I guess they've made. Still, you'd think if they've lost the nimby vote with that stadium, and the WCH construction in the parkland and that highrise on East Terrace, they'd want to try to claw some of it back. Oh well, at least if Labor gets in the parkland doesn't get stadiumised.

An openair railyard is such an excellent use of parkland compared to covering it over with a sports and entertainment stadium --- NOT!!!

[rubberman]

Probably because it was a promise Marshall took to the last election, so to re-commit now would leave an opening for Labor to spruik the Liberal's broken promise. I.e., you promised it last time and didn't deliver, why should we trust you now? My guess is it opens too much risk in an electorate they really can't afford to take risks in right now.

Possibly. Although the right turn to North Terrace was a daft idea, and they did kludge up the "too expensive" excuse.

Proposing an extension from the Bot Gdns along East Terrace (connecting with the O-Bahn), Hutt St, Halifax to just West of King Wm St (or turning into King Wm and terminating at South Terr), would have been a good workaround. But, if they figure it's not worth their while, it's a political calculation I guess they've made. Still, you'd think if they've lost the nimby vote with that stadium, and the WCH construction in the parkland and that highrise on East Terrace, they'd want to try to claw some of it back. Oh well, at least if Labor gets in the parkland doesn't get stadiumised.

An openair railyard is such an excellent use of parkland compared to covering it over with a sports and entertainment stadium --- NOT!!!

A sports and entertainment stadium is such an excellent use of parkland compared to...PARKland - NOT!!!

The material point being that if you are in a marginal electorate, and you are going to use parkland for ANYTHING other than parkland, you are going to cop it from a range of voters. In this case, it's the entertainment centre...and we already have one. Plus relocation of the WCH - great for developers in North Adelaide of course. Voters, not so much. So, if there's a likely loss of votes in a marginal electorate, why aren't they putting up projects that WILL be popular as offsets? If it's a calculation that trams are not that popular, that's a judgement, sure. However, there's nothing proposed to offset the vote losing parkland loss.

[gnrc_louis]

Probably because it was a promise Marshall took to the last election, so to re-commit now would leave an opening for Labor to spruik the Liberal's broken promise. I.e., you promised it last time and didn't deliver, why should we trust you now? My guess is it opens too much risk in an electorate they really can't afford to take risks in right now.

Possibly. Although the right turn to North Terrace was a daft idea, and they did kludge up the "too expensive" excuse.

Proposing an extension from the Bot Gdns along East Terrace (connecting with the O-Bahn), Hutt St, Halifax to just West of King Wm St (or turning into King Wm and terminating at South Terr), would have been a good workaround. But, if they figure it's not worth their while, it's a political calculation I guess they've made. Still, you'd think if they've lost the nimby vote with that stadium, and the WCH construction in the parkland and that highrise on East Terrace, they'd want to try to claw some of it back. Oh well, at least if Labor gets in the parkland doesn't get stadiumised.

An openair railyard is such an excellent use of parkland compared to covering it over with a sports and entertainment stadium --- NOT!!!

The "open air railyward" ceased to exist when the new RAH was built on it.

[aaronjameslange]

Possibly. Although the right turn to North Terrace was a daft idea, and they did kludge up the "too expensive" excuse.

Proposing an extension from the Bot Gdns along East Terrace (connecting with the O-Bahn), Hutt St, Halifax to just West of King Wm St (or turning into King Wm and terminating at South Terr), would have been a good workaround. But, if they figure it's not worth their while, it's a political calculation I guess they've made. Still, you'd think if they've lost the nimby vote with that stadium, and the WCH construction in the parkland and that highrise on East Terrace, they'd want to try to claw some of it back. Oh well, at least if Labor gets in the parkland doesn't get stadiumised.

An openair railyard is such an excellent use of parkland compared to covering it over with a sports and entertainment stadium --- NOT!!!

The "open air railyward" ceased to exist when the new RAH was built on it.

The maintenance facility moved to dry creek when the RAH was built, but the yard is still very much there and very much 'open air', and will still be 'open air' regardless of whether or not the stadium gets built on the parkland*, between the rail yard and the river.

*I use the term parkland loosely, as majority of the site proposed for the stadium in carpark and council storage.

[SBD]

An openair railyard is such an excellent use of parkland compared to covering it over with a sports and entertainment stadium --- NOT!!!

The "open air railyward" ceased to exist when the new RAH was built on it.

The maintenance facility moved to dry creek when the RAH was built, but the yard is still very much there and very much 'open air', and will still be 'open air' regardless of whether or not the stadium gets built on the parkland*, between the rail yard and the river.

*I use the term parkland loosely, as majority of the site proposed for the stadium in carpark and council storage.

If more trams are acquired to run extended or more frequent services, a new tram maintenance and storage facility will also be required. There are precedents for having that on parkland (Hackney Road) and CBD warehouse (Angas Street). I imagine that somewhere along Port Road at Thebarton might be a good area for the next one - maybe even on the "old" Entertainment Centre site!

[1NEEDS2POST]

If more trams are acquired to run extended or more frequent services, a new tram maintenance and storage facility will also be required. There are precedents for having that on parkland (Hackney Road) and CBD warehouse (Angas Street). I imagine that somewhere along Port Road at Thebarton might be a good area for the next one - maybe even on the "old" Entertainment Centre site!

If AdeLINK is revisted, the EastLINK part should use Magill Road for two reasons:
1. Trams from North Terrace won't have to turn any corners and the route is shorter, making it faster and cheaper to construct.
2. There is an old tram depot at 179 Magill Road. It could become a tram depot again! All of the Magill to Entertainment Centre trams could be stored there.