News & Discussion: Trams

[abc]

The city loop bus is separate.

And the city loop bus didn't get scrapped - it's still running. I'm surprised someone who claims to live in the city doesn't realise this.

I never claimed the city loop was scrapped. I'm surprised someone with access to the internet has such poor comprehension skills.

[rhino]

The city loop bus is separate.

And the city loop bus didn't get scrapped - it's still running. I'm surprised someone who claims to live in the city doesn't realise this.

I never claimed the city loop was scrapped. I'm surprised someone with access to the internet has such poor comprehension skills.

The BeeLine at least did a loop of the city.

Nice try. No cigar.

[abc]

And the city loop bus didn't get scrapped - it's still running. I'm surprised someone who claims to live in the city doesn't realise this.

I never claimed the city loop was scrapped. I'm surprised someone with access to the internet has such poor comprehension skills.

The BeeLine at least did a loop of the city.

Nice try. No cigar.

99C 99B is the difference here. You're splitting hairs. I never said the 99C was scrapped and it remains a superior service to the tram. The 99B was too as it moved faster and more frequently.

[rubberman]

I never claimed the city loop was scrapped. I'm surprised someone with access to the internet has such poor comprehension skills.

The BeeLine at least did a loop of the city.

Nice try. No cigar.

99C 99B is the difference here. You're splitting hairs. I never said the 99C was scrapped and it remains a superior service to the tram. The 99B was too as it moved faster and more frequently.

99B was the Bee line. B.

Still no cigar.

Since there's no tram loop, it's pretty daft to suggest that the bus is better.

As for your assertion about it being faster and more frequently, your previous inaccuracies and wrong statements lead me to say that unless you have evidence I'd suggest that nobody is likely to believe you.

What is a fact that after the route was converted to a tramway, patronage went up so much the Government had to scramble to get more trams.

The anti tram brigade was wrong then. Seriously wrong. And with zero reliable evidence, they are just as likely to be wrong today.

[Saltwater]

Zero credible evidence?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -years-ago?

As stated previously, trams in Adelaide CBD run so slowly many people prefer to walk. And that's running on their own tracks, with their own lanes, throughout the CBD.

Barring removing all other traffic from the road, or tinkering with traffic light timings, what other options are there to speed them up? And where else in Adelaide other than Port Road does a median strip exist that's wide enough to fit a tram line without significantly impacting traffic?

[rubberman]

Zero credible evidence?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -years-ago?

As stated previously, trams in Adelaide CBD run so slowly many people prefer to walk. And that's running on their own tracks, with their own lanes, throughout the CBD.

Barring removing all other traffic from the road, or tinkering with traffic light timings, what other options are there to speed them up? And where else in Adelaide other than Port Road does a median strip exist that's wide enough to fit a tram line without significantly impacting traffic?

They run that slowly because of the artificial speed limits they run under. Just allow trams the same speed limits as buses. Like they do in Melbourne or Prague or pretty much anywhere that knows how to run trams.


It's pretty silly to limit trams to 30kph, and then criticise them because they only go 30kph.

If the government limited bus speeds in the CBD to 30 kph, but trams could go up to 50kph, would anyone seriously regard that as proof that buses were inferior?

Rather than state the obvious, that if you impose a low speed limit on a vehicle, it'll go slower...doh, why not make the observation that other cities have identical speed limits for trams and buses, so why can't Adelaide?

It's almost as if Adelaide Metro goes out of its way to make trams inefficient.

The second issue is interesting. Let's say that we can't restrict cars. So, if a tram takes away a car lane, that makes it unacceptable. Ok. Assuming that, then with streets like the Parade and O'Connell Street which are already at capacity during the peaks, how do you cope with the extra cars generated by urban densification? The 88 O'Connell development has over 300 car spaces. Many of those cars will want to enter O'Connell Street during the peak. How exactly are they going to fit? Plus, many of the residents are two car families.

We now get back to your point. If we haven't got room for trams, as you say, how do we have room for extra cars? If there's no room for extra trams, there's no room for extra cars. Your reasons apply to any extra vehicles, be those trams or cars. I tend to agree with you. If you can't fit ten trams an hour down O'Connell Street, then how is it remotely possible to fit 300 or more extra cars?

My conclusion is, if as you say, and I tend to agree, ten trams during peak hour won't fit, then 300 cars won't. If those extra cars won't we shouldn't be building denser dwellings there.

[A-Town]

Trams are slow in the CBD because they're not prioritised at intersections. It wouldn't take a whole lot of tinkering with traffic light systems to speed up trips.

[abc]

Zero credible evidence?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -years-ago?

As stated previously, trams in Adelaide CBD run so slowly many people prefer to walk. And that's running on their own tracks, with their own lanes, throughout the CBD.

Barring removing all other traffic from the road, or tinkering with traffic light timings, what other options are there to speed them up? And where else in Adelaide other than Port Road does a median strip exist that's wide enough to fit a tram line without significantly impacting traffic?

They run that slowly because of the artificial speed limits they run under. Just allow trams the same speed limits as buses. Like they do in Melbourne or Prague or pretty much anywhere that knows how to run trams.


It's pretty silly to limit trams to 30kph, and then criticise them because they only go 30kph.

If the government limited bus speeds in the CBD to 30 kph, but trams could go up to 50kph, would anyone seriously regard that as proof that buses were inferior?

Rather than state the obvious, that if you impose a low speed limit on a vehicle, it'll go slower...doh, why not make the observation that other cities have identical speed limits for trams and buses, so why can't Adelaide?

It's almost as if Adelaide Metro goes out of its way to make trams inefficient.

The second issue is interesting. Let's say that we can't restrict cars. So, if a tram takes away a car lane, that makes it unacceptable. Ok. Assuming that, then with streets like the Parade and O'Connell Street which are already at capacity during the peaks, how do you cope with the extra cars generated by urban densification? The 88 O'Connell development has over 300 car spaces. Many of those cars will want to enter O'Connell Street during the peak. How exactly are they going to fit? Plus, many of the residents are two car families.

We now get back to your point. If we haven't got room for trams, as you say, how do we have room for extra cars? If there's no room for extra trams, there's no room for extra cars. Your reasons apply to any extra vehicles, be those trams or cars. I tend to agree with you. If you can't fit ten trams an hour down O'Connell Street, then how is it remotely possible to fit 300 or more extra cars?

My conclusion is, if as you say, and I tend to agree, ten trams during peak hour won't fit, then 300 cars won't. If those extra cars won't we shouldn't be building denser dwellings there.

oh boy we've reached peak denial here

[[Shuz]]

Actually the reason the trams run so slow is because they operate under heavy rail signalling guidelines. It's just copied and pasted over from the train network. Effectively the back end of government considers them to be trains on streets. They just sell it to the public as light rail and trams.

Why? Because Adelaide literally has no light rail expertise in house that knows how trams are actually work. And the maybe two people that do are constrained by a long standing entrenched culture and piss poor management lacking innovation, that it is just the way it is and it will never change.

[abc]

they run slow because:

- it takes ages for people to get on and off and the driver waits for ages at each stop
- there are several sets of traffic lights
- they're infrequent

a frequent bus service would do a better job of covering the same route, but doesn't look as quaint or hold interest for on the spectrum rail enthusiasts

[rubberman]

they run slow because:

- it takes ages for people to get on and off and the driver waits for ages at each stop
- there are several sets of traffic lights
- they're infrequent

a frequent bus service would do a better job of covering the same route, but doesn't look as quaint or hold interest for on the spectrum rail enthusiasts

The people who use them disagree.

The government had to buy extra trams to cover the unexpected extra demand.

Given that the people voting with their feet disagree with you, I'm going to have to say:

Sure, abc.

[dbl96]

Abc, the trams are not particularly fast, for all kinds of reasons including the ones you and the others have mentioned. But the fact is that the trams are almost always packed regardless. In my experience, the most common reason people give for not wanting to catch the tram is not because it is too slow, but because it is too crowded. They've become a victim of their own success, and they are often packed like sardines to the point where people feel claustrophobic. This is sometimes the case even on the relatively useless incomplete stub lines to the Botanic Gardens and the Festival Plaza (when it is open), but it was almost never true of the "B-line" bus and its ilk. The fact is, people prefer the tram, and it gets people onto public transport who would never have used it if there were only buses.

According to your analysis, the only logical reason people would want to catch a tram rather than a bus is because they are "spectrum rail enthusiasts". Given how crowded the trams typically are, there must be an awful lot of autists in Adelaide.

I'd like to suggest a more probable reason for the preference for trams - they are simply more legible than buses. The steel tracks in the ground make it blindingly obvious where you are going, and create a physical sense of connection between your point of departure and your destination. Bus networks are confusing to people, especially those who haven't taken the time to familiarise themselves with complex network maps (a more likely hobby for the "spectrum enthusiasts"), precisely because they don't have much physical infrastructure.

Whether this behaviour is logical is neither here nor there. The fact is that the trams have encouraged people to use public transport where they otherwise would not have used it. As Adelaide densifies, we need to replicate this transition to public transport across the metro area, and trams are the best placed and most cost-effective way to effect such a transition.

If we don't switch the population over to public transport, the city will come to a literal standstill. Contrary to the cliches about the "20 minute city" that the old-timers love to throw about, we already have some of the worst traffic congestion of any city in the country. This is because Adelaide is dominated by car use, and cars are an extremely space-inefficient way of moving people around a city. There are only so many cars that you can fit on a given section of road. It is logical that unless something is done to encourage people out of their cars, congestion is only going to get worse as the city densifies. Abc, you've said that the proposed tram corridors are not particularly dense by world standards. That may be true, but the fact is that by world standards, Adelaide's car dependency is particularly high, and because of the space-inefficient nature of cars, this means that the capacity of these road corridors is getting maxed out at a much lower level of density as would be the case in some other parts of the world. Roads like Unley Rd and the Parade are already at a standstill during peak times. It is only going to get worse as the density increases. Other than a program of mass demolition and road widening, the only solution is reallocation of road space to space-efficient public transport. That could take the form of bus lanes, or of tram lanes. Because of the magnetism that trams seem to have for the population, I am in favour of an extensive tram network. That said, in the interim, a network of dedicated bus lanes would be a massive improvement on what we have currently.

On that point, I think the core reason for the current government's resistance to investment in trams is that they don't want to annoy motorists by reallocating road space to public transport. I would just note that any meaningful improvement to the bus network will also require reallocating road space away from private vehicles to create bus lanes. You can't have an attractive and functional bus network if a bus carrying 30+ people is forced to wait in line behind a traffic jam formed of and caused by single occupant cars. Whether it is trams or buses, the government needs to bite the bullet and fairly allocate road space along key corridors to maximise the efficient use of the space, rather than continuing to pander to entitled motorists who think the only fair outcome is for cars to have 100% of the road space.

[abc]

the only reason they're packed is because of the park and ride facility which has shifted carparking from the CBD to Hindmarsh + their infrequency

[rubberman]

the only reason they're packed is because of the park and ride facility which has shifted carparking from the CBD to Hindmarsh + their infrequency

They were packed when they went to City West. They had to buy the Citadis because they, like you, didn't get the numbers right.

So, sure abc.

[rubberman]

Abc, the trams are not particularly fast, for all kinds of reasons including the ones you and the others have mentioned. But the fact is that the trams are almost always packed regardless. In my experience, the most common reason people give for not wanting to catch the tram is not because it is too slow, but because it is too crowded. They've become a victim of their own success, and they are often packed like sardines to the point where people feel claustrophobic. This is sometimes the case even on the relatively useless incomplete stub lines to the Botanic Gardens and the Festival Plaza (when it is open), but it was almost never true of the "B-line" bus and its ilk. The fact is, people prefer the tram, and it gets people onto public transport who would never have used it if there were only buses.

According to your analysis, the only logical reason people would want to catch a tram rather than a bus is because they are "spectrum rail enthusiasts". Given how crowded the trams typically are, there must be an awful lot of autists in Adelaide.

I'd like to suggest a more probable reason for the preference for trams - they are simply more legible than buses. The steel tracks in the ground make it blindingly obvious where you are going, and create a physical sense of connection between your point of departure and your destination. Bus networks are confusing to people, especially those who haven't taken the time to familiarise themselves with complex network maps (a more likely hobby for the "spectrum enthusiasts"), precisely because they don't have much physical infrastructure.

Whether this behaviour is logical is neither here nor there. The fact is that the trams have encouraged people to use public transport where they otherwise would not have used it. As Adelaide densifies, we need to replicate this transition to public transport across the metro area, and trams are the best placed and most cost-effective way to effect such a transition.

If we don't switch the population over to public transport, the city will come to a literal standstill. Contrary to the cliches about the "20 minute city" that the old-timers love to throw about, we already have some of the worst traffic congestion of any city in the country. This is because Adelaide is dominated by car use, and cars are an extremely space-inefficient way of moving people around a city. There are only so many cars that you can fit on a given section of road. It is logical that unless something is done to encourage people out of their cars, congestion is only going to get worse as the city densifies. Abc, you've said that the proposed tram corridors are not particularly dense by world standards. That may be true, but the fact is that by world standards, Adelaide's car dependency is particularly high, and because of the space-inefficient nature of cars, this means that the capacity of these road corridors is getting maxed out at a much lower level of density as would be the case in some other parts of the world. Roads like Unley Rd and the Parade are already at a standstill during peak times. It is only going to get worse as the density increases. Other than a program of mass demolition and road widening, the only solution is reallocation of road space to space-efficient public transport. That could take the form of bus lanes, or of tram lanes. Because of the magnetism that trams seem to have for the population, I am in favour of an extensive tram network. That said, in the interim, a network of dedicated bus lanes would be a massive improvement on what we have currently.

On that point, I think the core reason for the current government's resistance to investment in trams is that they don't want to annoy motorists by reallocating road space to public transport. I would just note that any meaningful improvement to the bus network will also require reallocating road space away from private vehicles to create bus lanes. You can't have an attractive and functional bus network if a bus carrying 30+ people is forced to wait in line behind a traffic jam formed of and caused by single occupant cars. Whether it is trams or buses, the government needs to bite the bullet and fairly allocate road space along key corridors to maximise the efficient use of the space, rather than continuing to pander to entitled motorists who think the only fair outcome is for cars to have 100% of the road space.

Excellent summary.