News & Discussion: Trams

[whatstheirnamesmom]

the reality would be that if you funnel Main North Rd traffic onto Le Fevere Tce, it would have to be widened to two lanes each way.

Why would that be the reality? Some car traffic would take Jeffcot, some would take Lefevre, some would continue to take O'Connell, some may choose the ring road, some would choose to drive to a train station, some would choose the bus, some would choose to bike.

[rev]

the reality would be that if you funnel Main North Rd traffic onto Le Fevere Tce, it would have to be widened to two lanes each way.

Why would that be the reality? Some car traffic would take Jeffcot, some would take Lefevre, some would continue to take O'Connell, some may choose the ring road, some would choose to drive to a train station, some would choose the bus, some would choose to bike.

Well it should be, if traffic from a main arterial road with multiple lanes in each direction was routed to a single lane road there'd likely be traffic chaos and congestion.

[MT269]

I'm a bit of a dreamer and also rarely use public transport, but I believe if Govts really want public transport to be utilised properly, then it should be FREE for everyone 24/7, 365 days a year. Makes me wonder how much revenue is reliant on fuel excise??

Making it free will morph it into a campaign for more disorderly/antisocial behaviour, and possibly put a small dent in the state budget.

Do you really fancy marketing of a mobile venue for these types, in which they will never be refused entry, no matter how unruly they are? As much as I hate the record high fares, I don't want even more deadbeats being encouraged to find their way on. A 25% fare reduction would be useful though.

[rhino]

As much as I hate the record high fares

Well, any fare hike is going to create a record high fare, isn't it?
I travel 39km on the bus (mostly express) twice a day and each trip (no concession) costs me $4.25. I really don't think that's a problem.

[ChillyPhilly]

I'm a bit of a dreamer and also rarely use public transport, but I believe if Govts really want public transport to be utilised properly, then it should be FREE for everyone 24/7, 365 days a year. Makes me wonder how much revenue is reliant on fuel excise??

Making it free will morph it into a campaign for more disorderly/antisocial behaviour, and possibly put a small dent in the state budget.

Do you really fancy marketing of a mobile venue for these types, in which they will never be refused entry, no matter how unruly they are? As much as I hate the record high fares, I don't want even more deadbeats being encouraged to find their way on. A 25% fare reduction would be useful though.

This is the fear mongering used by opponents of free public transport.

Money not spent on compliance could go on customer service, drivers, infrastructure and security.

[Saltwater]

The thing is, free isn't really free though is it, because the taxpayer still pays, and a fare-based system is the fairest method we have of balancing supply and demand.

Just look at NSW, where transport operators risk having service contracts ripped up because they're unable to provide services due to a shortage of drivers. Or on the northern beaches where timetables were recently rationalised, with around 10% or something like that of services cut on the timetables, so they could provide services more reliably based on driver availability.

If you make something free, you end up with people with nothing better to do taking up a seat that may be needed by someone going to a job, to education, healthcare, any number of things that serve a purpose. And as I said, charging a fare is the best balance this supply and demand. There are already a number of subsides for the disadvantaged, such as pensioner cards, student cards etc.

I do think we should consider distance based ticketing in SA. The recent ads on how PT is better financially don't cut it when passengers pay full fare to travel four or five stops.

[cocoiadrop]

The thing is, free isn't really free though is it, because the taxpayer still pays, and a fare-based system is the fairest method we have of balancing supply and demand.

Just look at NSW, where transport operators risk having service contracts ripped up because they're unable to provide services due to a shortage of drivers. Or on the northern beaches where timetables were recently rationalised, with around 10% or something like that of services cut on the timetables, so they could provide services more reliably based on driver availability.

If you make something free, you end up with people with nothing better to do taking up a seat that may be needed by someone going to a job, to education, healthcare, any number of things that serve a purpose. And as I said, charging a fare is the best balance this supply and demand. There are already a number of subsides for the disadvantaged, such as pensioner cards, student cards etc.

I do think we should consider distance based ticketing in SA. The recent ads on how PT is better financially don't cut it when passengers pay full fare to travel four or five stops.

Do you know of any evidence from jurisdictions that make fares free that indicates people take up seats for no reason ?
Are we seeing seniors card holders doing it here?

As an aside I don’t really see it occurring as a problem anyway. I’d wager it doesn’t or wouldn’t happen in numbers enough to impact loadings, and in my opinion these leisure trips made possible by the scheme would be just as worthy as any other.

[bits]

I do think we should consider distance based ticketing in SA. The recent ads on how PT is better financially don't cut it when passengers pay full fare to travel four or five stops.

My understanding is PT gets a great deal of large subsidy because it pays for itself by reducing congestion.

If you end up driving for 2 minutes 1km down the road it is less impact on the road network than several people deciding to drive 20km for 40 minutes on the roads.

The 20km users being on PT saved the tax payer/state more money than the 1km user.
The business case may stack up for the 20km fare to be made cheaper than the 1km fare.

[Saltwater]

Long distance travel is already discounted, by virtue of it being the same fare as shorter distance trips.

The counterargument to shorter distance trips is that although the trips may be shorter, they are more likely to be to nodes that are already generating significant amounts of traffic. So you end up with those that have driven longer distances, AND those that are only travelling for a short distance, leading to congestion around areas like the CBD, Marion, Glenelg, Norwood etc. Using the city as an example, if you could incentivise some of the travellers closer to the city to switch to PT through a lower, distance based fare, there would be an overall decrease in congestion in areas where it matters.

[1NEEDS2POST]

Adelaide Metro is designed to transport people in the morning peak from 8 am to 9 am and the afternoon peak from 5 pm to 6 pm. This means Adelaide Metro hires drivers for two shifts and they have excess capacity in the middle of the day. If we want to introduce free fares, the first place to introduce them is in the middle of the day when we have drivers from the morning and afternoon shifts driving empty vehicles around.

[ml69]

Adelaide Metro is designed to transport people in the morning peak from 8 am to 9 am and the afternoon peak from 5 pm to 6 pm. This means Adelaide Metro hires drivers for two shifts and they have excess capacity in the middle of the day. If we want to introduce free fares, the first place to introduce them is in the middle of the day when we have drivers from the morning and afternoon shifts driving empty vehicles around.

Then we should make it free travel between 9-5pm or something similar to that. Those people with flexible hours may choose to start later or finish earlier to take advantage of this, possibly reducing rush hour traffic. Could work?

[1NEEDS2POST]

Adelaide Metro is designed to transport people in the morning peak from 8 am to 9 am and the afternoon peak from 5 pm to 6 pm. This means Adelaide Metro hires drivers for two shifts and they have excess capacity in the middle of the day. If we want to introduce free fares, the first place to introduce them is in the middle of the day when we have drivers from the morning and afternoon shifts driving empty vehicles around.

Then we should make it free travel between 9-5pm or something similar to that. Those people with flexible hours may choose to start later or finish earlier to take advantage of this, possibly reducing rush hour traffic. Could work?

Currently off-peak fares are 9 am to 3 pm, so it's similar to what we have now, just free.

[SRW]

Adelaide Bridge needs significant strengthening or replacement within the next five years at a cost the council will be unable to bear on its own, so hopefully it becomes the catalyst for the State Government to renew the push for trams to North Adelaide:
https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/09/04/ ... rd-bridge/

[HeapsGood]

Labor really needs to bring back its plans to extend the Tram lines.

A tram line loop through the city going through East Tce / Hutt / Wakefield / Grote / West Tce or Morphett would be ideal. Would service new developments being the Arcade and hotels/apartments.

An extension of the line to O'Connell st.

Extend the Nth Tce line to the Parade.

[Spotto]

A tram line loop through the city going through East Tce / Hutt / Wakefield / Grote / West Tce or Morphett would be ideal. Would service new developments being the Arcade and hotels/apartments.

A loop tram via Wakefield/Grote would leave the southern half of the city with nothing. Routing along Halifax/Sturt would not only make most of the city grid walkable to a tram or the Grenfell/Currie bus corridor, both those streets are very wide making modifications easier than other routes.