News & Discussion: Trams

[rubberman]

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...

The issue is more fundamental, it seems to me.

Existing roads such as O'Connell Street, the Parade, and Magill Road, are already packed at peak hours. If the planners put an extra 380 parking spots in 88 O'Connell without thinking of how the extra people are going to get around, all I can see is that it's going to be very interesting in peak hours. That's just ONE development. Add in those extra developments on Prospect and Main North Roads, and how can it possibly work?

Obviously, in Adelaide, 90% of people want to drive. So, surely the first question planners should ask is whether it's physically possible to fit those cars on the road. Given that those roads are already choked during the peaks, surely that's a reasonable question?

At the moment, it looks like the planners have just said they are going to allow a development free for all, and let DTI figure it out somehow.

So. Now to your point. If you need to get 2000 people per hour along a street, and that street can only take 1000 per hour in cars, your choices are limited:

Tell the voters, tough luck, suck it up, or

Put in tunnels to bypass the choke point and increase taxes to pay for it, or

Put in trams to move people, and limit cars.

When the roads simply cannot take all the cars, then unless you build tunnels, you have to limit cars. If you limit cars, then how do you get everyone where they want to go?

Maybe the planners have an answer. However, they certainly didn't discuss it.

[Spotto]

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

Cart before the horse is half the point of good public transport planning. Build not only current demand but futureproof for anticipated growth.

[SBD]

So in "the good old days", we had a tram network that covered the entire metropolitan area (Regency Road to Cross Road or so), with trains connecting more far-flung places like Salisbury, Gawler, Port Adelaide, Reynella. The trams were removed, replaced by cars on roads and people stopped working locally and commuted to the CBD to work instead.

Now, the inner-city employment lands are being converted to denser residential development, and we're worrying about how all the cars will fit. Where are these residents intended to want to drive to? They live where their antecedents used to work, and walk or short bike ride distance to the CBD. Do we intend that they'll all need to drive to the new employment precincts on the suburban fringes that have replaced all the industrial lands that these people now live on? Or will those precincts employ people who also live in nearby outer suburbs, and the people in the new inner developments will either work locally or be retired and enjoy the cafe and theatre culture they didn't have when they lived in the suburbs?

[rubberman]

So in "the good old days", we had a tram network that covered the entire metropolitan area (Regency Road to Cross Road or so), with trains connecting more far-flung places like Salisbury, Gawler, Port Adelaide, Reynella. The trams were removed, replaced by cars on roads and people stopped working locally and commuted to the CBD to work instead.

Now, the inner-city employment lands are being converted to denser residential development, and we're worrying about how all the cars will fit. Where are these residents intended to want to drive to? They live where their antecedents used to work, and walk or short bike ride distance to the CBD. Do we intend that they'll all need to drive to the new employment precincts on the suburban fringes that have replaced all the industrial lands that these people now live on? Or will those precincts employ people who also live in nearby outer suburbs, and the people in the new inner developments will either work locally or be retired and enjoy the cafe and theatre culture they didn't have when they lived in the suburbs?

Those are the exact questions that need to be asked and the answers properly analysed before deciding how many extra residences can be built without causing problems.

[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

Cart before the horse is half the point of good public transport planning. Build not only current demand but futureproof for anticipated growth.

I'm not suggesting we don't plan for public transport, however my point relates to trams and this is a truth that cannot be denied...

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

[rev]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but from the info I can find the Citadis type can carry 182 passengers and the Flexity 179 passengers?
Buses take what, 50-60 people?
Buses are start stop, uncomfortable rides especially if the driver is incompetent and jumps on the breaks or cant steer smoothly, stuck in traffic, compared to a smoother dedicated route for trams.
Taking some buses off roads and replacing them with trams, which would hopefully result in better designed roads/intersections as part of building the tram lines, would create a more liveable city with less congestion, more suitable public transport options. We don't have many options for new train lines in already built up/existing areas not with out large amounts of property acquisitions or building a subway network into the suburbs and that aint gonna happen due to cost, trams are the next best thing.

If it's not back on the agenda at the next state election, if Labor wins I'd expect them to start getting people used to the idea slowly.

[rubberman]

you're literally putting the cart before the horse here

Cart before the horse is half the point of good public transport planning. Build not only current demand but futureproof for anticipated growth.

I'm not suggesting we don't plan for public transport, however my point relates to trams and this is a truth that cannot be denied...

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

It depends on whether you want to move people or vehicles.

You'll certainly move fewer vehicles with trams and cars on streets like the Parade or Magill Road. However, you move more people that way. That is a truth that cannot be denied.

At some point, the streets cannot take any more cars. If you have built more dwellings with cars, what do you do then? At some point, the cars won't fit. Now, where's that point? Unless you know what that is, it's pretty pointless building dwellings whose owners simply can't travel down their own street at peak hours.