News & Discussion: Trams

[ml69]

Why can’t they just have a two-track tram with the tram lane also a normal traffic lane on the North Adelaide section of the route? Like what they used to have on King William St South? Like Jetty Rd Glenelg now?

That way, no loss of traffic lanes or parking. No one loses anything. I know the tram will be slower than exclusive right-of-way, but it’s only, what, a 1km section? Yes the tram will need to stop at tram stops but this happens on Jetty Rd now. The wider King William St section leading to Adelaide Oval can still be exclusive right-of-way.

[rubberman]

Why can’t they just have a two-track tram with the tram lane also a normal traffic lane on the North Adelaide section of the route? Like what they used to have on King William St South? Like Jetty Rd Glenelg now?

That way, no loss of traffic lanes or parking. No one loses anything. I know the tram will be slower than exclusive right-of-way, but it’s only, what, a 1km section? Yes the tram will need to stop at tram stops but this happens on Jetty Rd now. The wider King William St section leading to Adelaide Oval can still be exclusive right-of-way.

If you do that, it slows everything down to the point where you have to ask whether it's worth having trams at all. If the taxpayer has to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, then riding in a slower vehicle is something fairly hard to sell. Or, put another way, there's plenty of places to spend that same amount of money and provide real benefits and/or votes. If a government puts this up, and there's no benefit, any half decent opposition is going to put up the "waste of money" card. Heck, I'm a long term tram fan, and I'd find it hard to justify spending that sort of money for effectively slowing the trams down.

This is what I was getting at previously. If there's a lot of doubters or opponents for any project, it's got to have clear benefits to ever get up. Trams down O'Connell Street mixed in traffic? Sure we can do it, but why would we want to? That's the problem.

[prometheus2704]

Scrap on-street parking down O'Connell. There's what, 100 car parks at the most? Probably less because of current bus stops and laneways and entrances. Trams run down the existing parking lanes and have the stops directly onto the footpaths. The benefit is that the buses can use the same stops and O'Connell Street retail gets much more foot traffic than 100 people in parked cars can ever bring!

Extra benefits, you don't have traffic being jammed up by someone taking 15 attempts to reverse parallel park. You don't need to have "unsightly wires" strung across the centre of the street.

[Spotto]

All the talk about “ugly wires” and underground power supply or batteries being needed, take a glance at King William Street South. How much of a visual impact do the wires make, really?

If the centre median is nicely manicured, and you’re got the trees lining O’Connell Street already, you’re barely going to notice the wires.

Alternative power supplies would be great to investigate, but on a branch line where you have some freedom to experiment (i.e. if Norwood Parade or Mitcham Square ever happened) not on the trunk route of the tram network.

[Nathan]

The funny thing about the "ugly wires" is that they then show renders of O'Connell St with catenary lighting strung across the street.

[[Shuz]]

Look I agree with trams sharing the road with cars but only on D, C or B grade classification routes. Main North Road (A route) feeds into O'Connell. It's not doable. There's far too much traffic for that to be a practical solution. Traders will kick up a shit storm if on street parking is removed (archaic I know) but if you want to appease people, sensible solutions have to be found. A one way tram track is not that.

I'm all for trams down O'Connell, but it needs to be matched with a practical alternative (see below post about my LeFevre Terrace idea) that presents a win-win for both trams and cars.

[A-Town]

It would be short-sighted for traders to complain about a loss of car parks when you consider the amount of additional visitors that an tram extension will bring to the area, especially if it's an extension of the free CBD service.

[rubberman]

Look I agree with trams sharing the road with cars but only on D, C or B grade classification routes. Main North Road (A route) feeds into O'Connell. It's not doable. There's far too much traffic for that to be a practical solution. Traders will kick up a shit storm if on street parking is removed (archaic I know) but if you want to appease people, sensible solutions have to be found. A one way tram track is not that.

I'm all for trams down O'Connell, but it needs to be matched with a practical alternative (see below post about my LeFevre Terrace idea) that presents a win-win for both trams and cars.

Let's keep in mind that one of the Indaily articles posted here had the State Treasurer explicitly saying trams are out. So, this is a pretty theoretical debate, imho.

So, in the spirit of theoretical debate, let me be the devil's advocate here. I agree that the Shuz approach could work in practice. However, if the Government proposed it, I'm certain that the North Adelaide Society would oppose it. They'd run a good campaign on it too, based on pointing out that the government has been nibbling away at the Parklands over time. While each nibble hasn't been much, over time, a lot of Parkland has been alienated. My guess is that the Liberals would look round for an alternative. They have a history of doing so successfully for election wins. The O-Bahn, and NBN come to mind. (I'm not talking about how good the ideas are, rather they are successful in winning elections). In this case, it is likely to be "trackless trams".

So, as a voter, I'm offered trackless trams down O'Connell Street, very little disruption, much lower cost, no cutting into Parklands. Vs an expensive tram needing to slice into Parklands.

I'd count that as having the Seat of Adelaide in the Liberals' bag at the next election.

If I were the Government, I wouldn't touch it. Which is what the Treasurer said.

As an aside, the City Loop has fewer problems. It would make far more sense to start there and learn up on an easier project before trying to deal with O'Connell Street.

[claybro]

Look I agree with trams sharing the road with cars but only on D, C or B grade classification routes. Main North Road (A route) feeds into O'Connell. It's not doable. There's far too much traffic for that to be a practical solution. Traders will kick up a shit storm if on street parking is removed (archaic I know) but if you want to appease people, sensible solutions have to be found. A one way tram track is not that.

I'm all for trams down O'Connell, but it needs to be matched with a practical alternative (see below post about my LeFevre Terrace idea) that presents a win-win for both trams and cars.

Problem is, the reason O'Connell Street is so congested, is that are still way too many private vehicles using it, and KWS for that matter. It should not be a cars v tram thing, many of the cars should not be there in the first place. They should be doing more to find out why the cars are there, and then how to get motorists to use workable alternative routes. To that end there are still way too many carparking stations in the CBD, and still no decent ring route around the CBD

[rhino]

there are still way too many carparking stations in the CBD, and still no decent ring route around the CBD

You make it sound like other cities have a decent ring route around them, but do they? I don't think Australian cities do. Happy to be proven wrong.

[claybro]

there are still way too many carparking stations in the CBD, and still no decent ring route around the CBD

You make it sound like other cities have a decent ring route around them, but do they? I don't think Australian cities do. Happy to be proven wrong.

I guess I can only comment from the Perth context,where North/South skirts around the edge of the CBD on the Mitchel freeway, and East West via the Northbridge tunnel. No traffic lights. Melbourne is similar in that North/South and East/ West is diverted around the CBD by the freeways. In those cases, no one in their right mind would leave the freeway to rat run through the CBD. In Adelaide- from my experience-this is not so clear cut, and very many people still appear to be using KWS, and Currie/Grenfell. Adelaide CBD traffic to me seems busier than Perth despite the much wider streets- and adding more trams could be problematic if this is not addressed.

[rev]

there are still way too many carparking stations in the CBD, and still no decent ring route around the CBD

You make it sound like other cities have a decent ring route around them, but do they? I don't think Australian cities do. Happy to be proven wrong.

I guess I can only comment from the Perth context,where North/South skirts around the edge of the CBD on the Mitchel freeway, and East West via the Northbridge tunnel. No traffic lights. Melbourne is similar in that North/South and East/ West is diverted around the CBD by the freeways. In those cases, no one in their right mind would leave the freeway to rat run through the CBD. In Adelaide- from my experience-this is not so clear cut, and very many people still appear to be using KWS, and Currie/Grenfell. Adelaide CBD traffic to me seems busier than Perth despite the much wider streets- and adding more trams could be problematic if this is not addressed.

We actually could have a decent ring route around the city, an inner ring route and outer ring route too.
The problem in Adelaide, is Adelaideans them selves.

Everybody wants the best, but nobody is willing to accept that THEY may need to be inconvenienced for the greater good of our city.
Just look at the property acquisitions for the north south corridor, suddenly many residents are property valuation experts when they see the government's at market offer.

South Road/NSM passed within throwing distance of the CBD anyway.
It could form part of an outer ring route, connected to the CBD and a proper inner ring route. Not just the ring route we have here that's just a bunch of signs saying so.

Public transport in Adelaide is shit. Most people don't want to use it. It is not convenient in the slightest unless you live near a train station or tram stop. And the majority do not.

[ChillyPhilly]

Build the tramline down O'Connell Street and beyond to Prospect Road, ditch the kerbside parking, improve cycling opportunities, and the traffic will figure itself out.

[Llessur2002]

We actually could have a decent ring route around the city, an inner ring route and outer ring route too.
The problem in Adelaide, is Adelaideans them selves.

Everybody wants the best, but nobody is willing to accept that THEY may need to be inconvenienced for the greater good of our city.
Just look at the property acquisitions for the north south corridor, suddenly many residents are property valuation experts when they see the government's at market offer.

South Road/NSM passed within throwing distance of the CBD anyway.
It could form part of an outer ring route, connected to the CBD and a proper inner ring route. Not just the ring route we have here that's just a bunch of signs saying so.

Public transport in Adelaide is shit. Most people don't want to use it. It is not convenient in the slightest unless you live near a train station or tram stop. And the majority do not.

I have heard hundred times more arguments from Adelaideans against trams than I ever have about building a new ring road and yet this would help solving the underlying problem of too many cars whereas a new ring road would just kick that can a bit further down that ring road.

Public sentiment was overwhelming against the MATS plan because it would ultimately have increased the drivability of Adelaide at the expense of livability. Nothing's changed on that front because still 50 years later no one wants to live near a big road. Building these inner and outer ring roads plus whatever feeder roads would be required in from the suburbs would mean that half the population metropolitan area would live near a big road. Yes it would be easier to drive around Adelaide but actually living in Adelaide would become an order of magnitude shitter for a huge number of people and they would, quite rightly, moan about it. It would look shitter, it would sound shitter and the air quality would be shitter. Then in 30 years time the same problems would come back to haunt us and it would be shitter to drive (or be driven by futuristic robots) again.

There are better ways (in my opinion).

[claybro]

Public sentiment was overwhelming against the MATS plan because it would ultimately have increased the drivability of Adelaide at the expense of livability. Nothing's changed on that front because still 50 years later no one wants to live near a big road. Building these inner and outer ring roads plus whatever feeder roads would be required in from the suburbs would mean that half the population metropolitan area would live near a big road. Yes it would be easier to drive around Adelaide but actually living in Adelaide would become an order of magnitude shitter for a huge number of people and they would, quite rightly, moan about it. It would look shitter, it would sound shitter and the air quality would be shitter. Then in 30 years time the same problems would come back to haunt us and it would be shitter to drive (or be driven by futuristic robots) again.

There are better ways (in my opinion).

Build the tramline down O'Connell Street and beyond to Prospect Road, ditch the kerbside parking, improve cycling opportunities, and the traffic will figure itself out.

Somewhat agree with point 1, but a decent ring road doesn't have to be a gigantic elevated MATS style freeway, just some grade separated intersections on the Eastern flank(there is ample room adjacent to the parklands for these, and an upgraded Port/ james Congdon drive with some intersections grade separated on the western side.
These roads even now do not seem particularly congested during normal hours when I have been over there, with the exception of maybe peak times.... so this could be a slow progessive upgrade.

so to point 2. If motorists stop using O'Connel street due to trams and preceived extra congestion, it will then revert to a local high street, serving a more urbanised denser population, with links to the CBD via good public transport, and minus some of the through traffic that use it now. A very European boulevard befitting North Adelaide.