News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#721 Post by rubberman » Mon Feb 10, 2025 1:42 pm

rev wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 11:57 am
rubberman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 11:34 am
Or...buy the commercial properties. (Bowl and supermarket etc)

Build parking station(s), including underground under the whole intersection.

Build tram from the parking stations along Goodwood Road to the City.

Allow only local traffic along Goodwood Rd from Cross Road to the Glenelg tram line.

This would, eliminate peak hour traffic along Goodwood Road. Provide a fast alternative to City commuters. Mean that Cross Road traffic would be given far higher priority than now.
...and basically create congestion on our roads/routes as a result.
How so? Peak through traffic on Goodwood Road would be replaced by trams taking commuters from car parks...just like at the Entertainment Centre. Imagine if those people currently riding on trams from the EC were in cars, the current Port Road bottleneck would be worse. How is that model not applicable 7kM away?

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#722 Post by rev » Mon Feb 10, 2025 2:03 pm

rubberman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 1:42 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 11:57 am
rubberman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 11:34 am
Or...buy the commercial properties. (Bowl and supermarket etc)

Build parking station(s), including underground under the whole intersection.

Build tram from the parking stations along Goodwood Road to the City.

Allow only local traffic along Goodwood Rd from Cross Road to the Glenelg tram line.

This would, eliminate peak hour traffic along Goodwood Road. Provide a fast alternative to City commuters. Mean that Cross Road traffic would be given far higher priority than now.
...and basically create congestion on our roads/routes as a result.
How so? Peak through traffic on Goodwood Road would be replaced by trams taking commuters from car parks...just like at the Entertainment Centre. Imagine if those people currently riding on trams from the EC were in cars, the current Port Road bottleneck would be worse. How is that model not applicable 7kM away?
Your idea is different, it isn't just trams, it is to restrict a major road to local traffic only. Port Road isn't restricted to local traffic only.
Seen Port Road during peak hours? There's a convenient tram going right through the heart of the CBD...yet peak hour is a nightmare both in the mornings and even worse in the afternoons.

Where will the traffic that isn't local go? You think they're going to opt for a tram? In your ideal scenario they might, bu in reality they wont. They'll find alternative roads, and that congestion you want to eliminate or reduce will spread elsewhere.

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3386
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#723 Post by [Shuz] » Mon Feb 10, 2025 3:01 pm

Terrible proposal.

The plan needs to be for an Esst West Tunnel from the NSM at Castle Plaza directly under Edwards and Grange Roads through to the final bend of the SE Freeway.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.

User avatar
SouthAussie94
Legendary Member!
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:03 pm
Location: Southern Suburbs

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#724 Post by SouthAussie94 » Mon Feb 10, 2025 3:43 pm

[Shuz] wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 3:01 pm
Terrible proposal.

The plan needs to be for an Esst West Tunnel from the NSM at Castle Plaza directly under Edwards and Grange Roads through to the final bend of the SE Freeway.
This would still have the problem of trucks decending from Crafers and instead of traffic lights at the bottom of the decent, they enter a tunnel. Probably a far from ideal scenario.

But to get acceptable gradients, you're suddenly starting your tunnel at Bridgewater or further east, so not exactly feasible.

Any solution is going to cost big dollars.
Last edited by SouthAussie94 on Mon Feb 10, 2025 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All we are is bags of bones pushing against a self imposed tide. Just be content with staying alive"

Views and opinions expressed are my own and don't necessarily reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation

rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#725 Post by rubberman » Mon Feb 10, 2025 3:46 pm

rev wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 2:03 pm
rubberman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 1:42 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 11:57 am


...and basically create congestion on our roads/routes as a result.
How so? Peak through traffic on Goodwood Road would be replaced by trams taking commuters from car parks...just like at the Entertainment Centre. Imagine if those people currently riding on trams from the EC were in cars, the current Port Road bottleneck would be worse. How is that model not applicable 7kM away?
Your idea is different, it isn't just trams, it is to restrict a major road to local traffic only. Port Road isn't restricted to local traffic only.
Seen Port Road during peak hours? There's a convenient tram going right through the heart of the CBD...yet peak hour is a nightmare both in the mornings and even worse in the afternoons.

Where will the traffic that isn't local go? You think they're going to opt for a tram? In your ideal scenario they might, bu in reality they wont. They'll find alternative roads, and that congestion you want to eliminate or reduce will spread elsewhere.
Funny how other countries and cities manage it. I heard exactly the same stuff from people on the Gold Coast about how trams couldn't possibly work, because, scary noise, "traffic". Now they're happy extending it.

If you think that the numbers of people on the Entertainment Centre trams wouldn't make congestion worse, I don't think it's possible to explain it to you more simply.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#726 Post by rev » Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:53 pm

rubberman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 3:46 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 2:03 pm
rubberman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 1:42 pm


How so? Peak through traffic on Goodwood Road would be replaced by trams taking commuters from car parks...just like at the Entertainment Centre. Imagine if those people currently riding on trams from the EC were in cars, the current Port Road bottleneck would be worse. How is that model not applicable 7kM away?
Your idea is different, it isn't just trams, it is to restrict a major road to local traffic only. Port Road isn't restricted to local traffic only.
Seen Port Road during peak hours? There's a convenient tram going right through the heart of the CBD...yet peak hour is a nightmare both in the mornings and even worse in the afternoons.

Where will the traffic that isn't local go? You think they're going to opt for a tram? In your ideal scenario they might, bu in reality they wont. They'll find alternative roads, and that congestion you want to eliminate or reduce will spread elsewhere.
Funny how other countries and cities manage it. I heard exactly the same stuff from people on the Gold Coast about how trams couldn't possibly work, because, scary noise, "traffic". Now they're happy extending it.

If you think that the numbers of people on the Entertainment Centre trams wouldn't make congestion worse, I don't think it's possible to explain it to you more simply.
I never said that congestion wouldn't be worse without the AEC tram line.

This is the real world, not Sim City.

rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#727 Post by rubberman » Mon Feb 10, 2025 6:37 pm

rev wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:53 pm
rubberman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 3:46 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 2:03 pm


Your idea is different, it isn't just trams, it is to restrict a major road to local traffic only. Port Road isn't restricted to local traffic only.
Seen Port Road during peak hours? There's a convenient tram going right through the heart of the CBD...yet peak hour is a nightmare both in the mornings and even worse in the afternoons.

Where will the traffic that isn't local go? You think they're going to opt for a tram? In your ideal scenario they might, bu in reality they wont. They'll find alternative roads, and that congestion you want to eliminate or reduce will spread elsewhere.
Funny how other countries and cities manage it. I heard exactly the same stuff from people on the Gold Coast about how trams couldn't possibly work, because, scary noise, "traffic". Now they're happy extending it.

If you think that the numbers of people on the Entertainment Centre trams wouldn't make congestion worse, I don't think it's possible to explain it to you more simply.
I never said that congestion wouldn't be worse without the AEC tram line.

This is the real world, not Sim City.
Sure. And in the real world, Goodwood Road is chockers. What's your alternative? A tunnel? Knock down one side to widen it?

Each of those has big problems.

Come up with something constructive and practical. I certainly won't discourage you from doing that.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#728 Post by rev » Mon Feb 10, 2025 7:12 pm

rubberman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 6:37 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:53 pm
rubberman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 3:46 pm


Funny how other countries and cities manage it. I heard exactly the same stuff from people on the Gold Coast about how trams couldn't possibly work, because, scary noise, "traffic". Now they're happy extending it.

If you think that the numbers of people on the Entertainment Centre trams wouldn't make congestion worse, I don't think it's possible to explain it to you more simply.
I never said that congestion wouldn't be worse without the AEC tram line.

This is the real world, not Sim City.
Sure. And in the real world, Goodwood Road is chockers. What's your alternative? A tunnel? Knock down one side to widen it?

Each of those has big problems.

Come up with something constructive and practical. I certainly won't discourage you from doing that.
And you actually think that making a section of it accessible to locals only is "practical"?

Maybe in Sim City.

rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#729 Post by rubberman » Tue Feb 11, 2025 9:15 am

rev wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 7:12 pm
rubberman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 6:37 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:53 pm


I never said that congestion wouldn't be worse without the AEC tram line.

This is the real world, not Sim City.
Sure. And in the real world, Goodwood Road is chockers. What's your alternative? A tunnel? Knock down one side to widen it?

Each of those has big problems.

Come up with something constructive and practical. I certainly won't discourage you from doing that.
And you actually think that making a section of it accessible to locals only is "practical"?

Maybe in Sim City.
Rev,

I notice you adroitly sidestepped providing a solution yourself.

Goodwood Road is chockers in peak hours. The aim is to get more people through it. Not cars, because it's not possible. People. A tram represents fewer cars, but more people.

Now, Goodwood Road has also been identified as a future development corridor for urban densification. That means more cars. On a road that's already bumper to bumper during peak hours.

So. Your task is to provide your solution.

Goodwood Road is chockers.

There's almost certainly going to be more cars legitimately coming from local residents who need and deserve road space.

So. Rev, please give us your real world solution to a need for transporting more people on an already chockers road.

If you can, I'm sure the State will be grateful. That's not sarcasm, by the way, since this is a problem for other roads. O'Connell Street is pretty full, and cars associated with 88 O'Connell will soon be hitting it. A similar situation exists on the Parade, and Prospect Road. So, any serious practical solution would be a real achievement. This isn't just limited to Goodwood Road.

Do you have any ideas or not?

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#730 Post by rev » Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:43 pm

rubberman wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2025 9:15 am
rev wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 7:12 pm
rubberman wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2025 6:37 pm


Sure. And in the real world, Goodwood Road is chockers. What's your alternative? A tunnel? Knock down one side to widen it?

Each of those has big problems.

Come up with something constructive and practical. I certainly won't discourage you from doing that.
And you actually think that making a section of it accessible to locals only is "practical"?

Maybe in Sim City.
Rev,

I notice you adroitly sidestepped providing a solution yourself.

Goodwood Road is chockers in peak hours. The aim is to get more people through it. Not cars, because it's not possible. People. A tram represents fewer cars, but more people.

Now, Goodwood Road has also been identified as a future development corridor for urban densification. That means more cars. On a road that's already bumper to bumper during peak hours.

So. Your task is to provide your solution.

Goodwood Road is chockers.

There's almost certainly going to be more cars legitimately coming from local residents who need and deserve road space.

So. Rev, please give us your real world solution to a need for transporting more people on an already chockers road.

If you can, I'm sure the State will be grateful. That's not sarcasm, by the way, since this is a problem for other roads. O'Connell Street is pretty full, and cars associated with 88 O'Connell will soon be hitting it. A similar situation exists on the Parade, and Prospect Road. So, any serious practical solution would be a real achievement. This isn't just limited to Goodwood Road.

Do you have any ideas or not?
I see it's utterly useless having you off ignore, because regardless of the topic, you are constantly hostile and argumentative, especially when someone disagrees with your ideas rather then praise you.

My task? ROFL. Just because I disagree with your sim city solution for another road, doesn't mean I'm obligated to post my own idea/solution.
Stick to playing sim city, the "state" doesn't care about your solutions (nor mine).

Back on ignore you go.

rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#731 Post by rubberman » Tue Feb 11, 2025 2:30 pm

One of the serious issues that SA has is that there are infrastructure problems, but because various groups dislike one or other of solutions proposed, nothing gets done.

I feel sympathy for our politicians here. People want to be able to drive everywhere, but politicians can't knock down houses to create wider roads. People demand extra housing in the inner suburbs, but try to put in a tram to carry the extra people, and some other group objects. If a tunnel would work, nobody wants to pay the tax increases required to build.

I don't blame politicians for just throwing up their hands and kicking the can down the road.

We have Goodwood Road, O'Connell Street, Norwood Parade, all full of cars at peak times, and all subject to development which makes the problem worse. Each and every solution is pooh poohed.

Well, I guess we just have to wait until the situation becomes intolerable.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests