News & Discussion: Trams

[rubberman]

This purely a votes grab approach from Labor. How many experts need to chime in and state that there's economic viability to an extended tram network for a sitting government to take it serious? It would be laughable if Labor were to bring into question the economic viability of trams seeing as most of their big ticket spends (past and present) don't usually stack up from an economics perspective.

The studies done for Adelink etc were very thorough. Plus, the Weatherill Government did a lot of good infrastructure. Much of it wasn't vote grabbing. For example, resleepering of the metro network was a $2bn spend that most people wouldn't have noticed. Yet it was necessary, given how decrepit it was.

The present government, not so much. Not really interested in public transport.

The problem is that the present Liberals are moving so far right as to be unelectable. Cory Bernardi, for example, was unelectable once he revealed he was conservative, rather than Liberal. Plus, of course, the infighting, branch stacking and backstabbing.

lol you're so far gone

no political parties in Australia are far right

the US democrats are farther right than any major political party in Australia

On the day when the Libs are introducing an anti-abortion bill in Parliament. Sure buddy, sure.

Now, back to trams. I asked you what you thought was the answer to the problem of having higher residential density along corridors like the Parade and O'Connell Street, but with no realistic hope of road widening.

How about doing that?

I must admit I am not optimistic that you will.

[abc]

The studies done for Adelink etc were very thorough. Plus, the Weatherill Government did a lot of good infrastructure. Much of it wasn't vote grabbing. For example, resleepering of the metro network was a $2bn spend that most people wouldn't have noticed. Yet it was necessary, given how decrepit it was.

The present government, not so much. Not really interested in public transport.

The problem is that the present Liberals are moving so far right as to be unelectable. Cory Bernardi, for example, was unelectable once he revealed he was conservative, rather than Liberal. Plus, of course, the infighting, branch stacking and backstabbing.

lol you're so far gone

no political parties in Australia are far right

the US democrats are farther right than any major political party in Australia

On the day when the Libs are introducing an anti-abortion bill in Parliament. Sure buddy, sure.

Now, back to trams. I asked you what you thought was the answer to the problem of having higher residential density along corridors like the Parade and O'Connell Street, but with no realistic hope of road widening.

How about doing that?

I must admit I am not optimistic that you will.

ridiculous comment with no basis in fact

neither the Parade nor O'Connell St are high density corridors

[Spotto]

Trams are old technology. They were superseded by buses and have no tangible advantage over buses other than capacity which isn't an issue in Adelaide. They are a gimmick form of public transport which give the centre of town a quaint look, which is why we only have 1 line. They create more congestion than buses too, they do anything but lower it.

Buses and trams have their advantages over each other and are useful in different cases. Buses are flexible and don’t usually require dedicated infrastructure, trams are a reliable service along routes that need to fill a gap between buses and heavy rail.

I’m interested how do you figure that trams create more congestion that buses? Modern systems favour tracks that are separated from traffic lanes, see Adelaide CBD, Sydney’s network and upgrades in Melbourne.

[rhino]

neither the Parade nor O'Connell St are high density corridors

The aim is to increase the density of homes in the suburbs through which these roads run.
With this increase in density will come an increase in people needing to move around.
These roads are already crowded, and traffic is relatively slow.

Do you have an idea regarding dealing with this issue before it happens, or should we just wait until it happens and deal with it then?

[abc]

neither the Parade nor O'Connell St are high density corridors

The aim is to increase the density of homes in the suburbs through which these roads run.
With this increase in density will come an increase in people needing to move around.
These roads are already crowded, and traffic is relatively slow.

Do you have an idea regarding dealing with this issue before it happens, or should we just wait until it happens and deal with it then?

you're literally putting the cart before the horse here

[rubberman]

neither the Parade nor O'Connell St are high density corridors

The aim is to increase the density of homes in the suburbs through which these roads run.
With this increase in density will come an increase in people needing to move around.
These roads are already crowded, and traffic is relatively slow.

Do you have an idea regarding dealing with this issue before it happens, or should we just wait until it happens and deal with it then?

you're literally putting the cart before the horse here

No.

Much of the excessive cost of road projects is waiting for excess traffic, then having to upgrade the roads. It's far cheaper to do the infrastructure first. If South Road had been upgraded earlier, as an example, it would have been far cheaper.

In this case, getting the infrastructure right before traffic completely snarls things up is the only practical approach.

However, even if it was approached the way you suggest, that still doesn't answer the question. What would your answer be to increased traffic? You still haven't answered that.

[abc]

The aim is to increase the density of homes in the suburbs through which these roads run.
With this increase in density will come an increase in people needing to move around.
These roads are already crowded, and traffic is relatively slow.

Do you have an idea regarding dealing with this issue before it happens, or should we just wait until it happens and deal with it then?

you're literally putting the cart before the horse here

No.

Much of the excessive cost of road projects is waiting for excess traffic, then having to upgrade the roads. It's far cheaper to do the infrastructure first. If South Road had been upgraded earlier, as an example, it would have been far cheaper.

In this case, getting the infrastructure right before traffic completely snarls things up is the only practical approach.

However, even if it was approached the way you suggest, that still doesn't answer the question. What would your answer be to increased traffic? You still haven't answered that.

I don't answer hypothetical questions as a policy

[Nort]

It's not hypothetical, unless you assert that people in new developments will never need to move back and forth from them.

[abc]

a tram would be no improvement on a bus... unless you decide to block an entire lane to accommodate the same amount of people as 2 buses then you double traffic congestion overnight

[rubberman]

you're literally putting the cart before the horse here

No.

Much of the excessive cost of road projects is waiting for excess traffic, then having to upgrade the roads. It's far cheaper to do the infrastructure first. If South Road had been upgraded earlier, as an example, it would have been far cheaper.

In this case, getting the infrastructure right before traffic completely snarls things up is the only practical approach.

However, even if it was approached the way you suggest, that still doesn't answer the question. What would your answer be to increased traffic? You still haven't answered that.

I don't answer hypothetical questions as a policy

I predicted you wouldn't answer.

I guess what's at issue is how seriously you expect anyone to take your comments. If you are ok with responses like "Sure abc. ", then fine.

If, otoh, you want to be taken seriously after you make silly comments about tramophiles, foamers and quaint trams, then you need to show you have a clue yourself.

At the moment, after asking you politely three times to justify your snide comments, I conclude that you cannot.

So. Sure abc

[abc]

a tram would be no improvement on a bus... unless you decide to block an entire lane to accommodate the same amount of people as 2 buses then you double traffic congestion overnight

No.

Much of the excessive cost of road projects is waiting for excess traffic, then having to upgrade the roads. It's far cheaper to do the infrastructure first. If South Road had been upgraded earlier, as an example, it would have been far cheaper.

In this case, getting the infrastructure right before traffic completely snarls things up is the only practical approach.

However, even if it was approached the way you suggest, that still doesn't answer the question. What would your answer be to increased traffic? You still haven't answered that.

I don't answer hypothetical questions as a policy

I predicted you wouldn't answer.

I guess what's at issue is how seriously you expect anyone to take your comments. If you are ok with responses like "Sure abc. ", then fine.

If, otoh, you want to be taken seriously after you make silly comments about tramophiles, foamers and quaint trams, then you need to show you have a clue yourself.

At the moment, after asking you politely three times to justify your snide comments, I conclude that you cannot.

So. Sure abc

see above

[rhino]

I don't answer hypothetical questions as a policy

The population is going to grow.
Urban infill and inner suburban apartment living are part of the plan.
Norwood and North Adelaide are inner suburbs ripe for development of this sort.
The people who live there are going to need to move around.
The roads in the inner suburbs are already crowded.

What is hypothetical here?
It seems, from your response, that it's all hypothetical until it happens. Ergo, your advice is to wait until it is needed, rather than plan for the future?

[rubberman]

I don't answer hypothetical questions as a policy

The population is going to grow.
Urban infill and inner suburban apartment living are part of the plan.
Norwood and North Adelaide are inner suburbs ripe for development of this sort.
The people who live there are going to need to move around.
The roads in the inner suburbs are already crowded.

What is hypothetical here?
It seems, from your response, that it's all hypothetical until it happens. Ergo, your advice is to wait until it is needed, rather than plan for the future?

Here's the latest official plan:

https://plan.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pd ... ummary.pdf

Here's Indaily's summary of the summary:

https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2024/09 ... ing-growth

They identify a number of roads likely to have extra housing, but pretty much no information on how that extra traffic generated will be able to be served.

[Saltwater]

but pretty much no information on how that extra traffic generated will be able to be served.

Well most of the inner city infill zones are along existing PT corridors (buses), so at least there's that.

The argument with trams is great for those that live or work along the line, but take Henley Beach Road for example, where you can't just remove a lane for trams without significantly impacting traffic flow. And most of that traffic isn't going anywhere when people still need to travel to or from areas the trams don't serve, like Lockleys, Fulham Gardens etc...

[rev]

I don't answer hypothetical questions as a policy

The population is going to grow.
Urban infill and inner suburban apartment living are part of the plan.
Norwood and North Adelaide are inner suburbs ripe for development of this sort.
The people who live there are going to need to move around.
The roads in the inner suburbs are already crowded.

What is hypothetical here?
It seems, from your response, that it's all hypothetical until it happens. Ergo, your advice is to wait until it is needed, rather than plan for the future?

Inner suburbs should be looked at for more high density housing as we have already seen happening.
But I think a bigger emphasis needs to be put on higher density housing in the City it self. So much of it is flat and under developed. Particularly south of Grote/Wakefield I think there is massive potential for apartment developments in the 50-100m range in general as a standard. I think more tram services there would help greatly.