News & Discussion: Trams

[Patrick_27]

What a waste of residents money.
Seriously are they right in the head over there?

"We want trams down occonnel, butwe're also going to spend money upgrading oconnel without a tram track"

How about put their upgrade plans on the back burner, consult with the government on a tram line extension there, and then work around that and any possible time frame for a tram extension?

Or is that too hard for a bunch of people earning 6 figure salaries that are supposedly needed to "attract the best"...

Thankfully, the plan for O'Connell Street has provision for a tram.

Yes, but good town planning would see both happen at the same time, and not one after the other. The havoc of such project works should be minimised with it all happening in one go, it also means we get good design outcomes rather than the North Terrace extension where they were attaching tension wiring to street light poles that weren't designed to hold them.

[SouthAussie94]

Is it a case of ACC trying to force the hand of the state government?

ACC - "We're going to spend x upgrading OCS but we'll allow space for a future tram line if the state gov will fund it, hint hint, nudge nudge.."

[ChillyPhilly]

What a waste of residents money.
Seriously are they right in the head over there?

"We want trams down occonnel, butwe're also going to spend money upgrading oconnel without a tram track"

How about put their upgrade plans on the back burner, consult with the government on a tram line extension there, and then work around that and any possible time frame for a tram extension?

Or is that too hard for a bunch of people earning 6 figure salaries that are supposedly needed to "attract the best"...

Thankfully, the plan for O'Connell Street has provision for a tram.

Yes, but good town planning would see both happen at the same time, and not one after the other. The havoc of such project works should be minimised with it all happening in one go, it also means we get good design outcomes rather than the North Terrace extension where they were attaching tension wiring to street light poles that weren't designed to hold them.

I agree completely.

I still have a hunch we'll see more next year.

[Nort]

Is it a case of ACC trying to force the hand of the state government?

ACC - "We're going to spend x upgrading OCS but we'll allow space for a future tram line if the state gov will fund it, hint hint, nudge nudge.."

It's this. It's also them calling out that while the street upgrade needs to happen it would be better to do trams at the same time.

Yes it would be better for it to all happen at once, but since the state government is still publicly saying no more trams are on the agenda the ACC shouldn't hold off on doing things indefinitely waiting for it, perfect being the enemy of good and all that.

[rubberman]

Is it a case of ACC trying to force the hand of the state government?

ACC - "We're going to spend x upgrading OCS but we'll allow space for a future tram line if the state gov will fund it, hint hint, nudge nudge.."

And if the answer is that the Government won't, then that's the end of trams in OCS for the foreseeable future.

I'd also add that I seem to remember that the ACC's idea was for single track down OCS. Something that cannot work.

Now, take that with a spoon of salt, because it's only a hazy memory.

[SouthAussie94]

Several Super T Beams have been delivered to the South Rd Tram bridge.

Hard to tell driving past, but there doesn't seem to be a site compound or anything else setup there.

Meanwhile, the site compound at Morphett Rd is being put together.

[dbl96]

Is it a case of ACC trying to force the hand of the state government?

ACC - "We're going to spend x upgrading OCS but we'll allow space for a future tram line if the state gov will fund it, hint hint, nudge nudge.."

And if the answer is that the Government won't, then that's the end of trams in OCS for the foreseeable future.

I'd also add that I seem to remember that the ACC's idea was for single track down OCS. Something that cannot work.

Now, take that with a spoon of salt, because it's only a hazy memory.

Yes, there’s only provision for a single track in their plan. The current plan is for:
1x tram reserved lane,
2x general traffic lane,
2x on peak general traffic/off-peak parking lane,
2x separated bike lane.

It could be reconfigured after construction to:
2x tram lane,
2x general traffic lane,
1x parking lane,
2x separated bike lane.

This would result in the tram corridor being off-centre, but I guess that’s not a major issue.

[PD2/20]

Several Super T Beams have been delivered to the South Rd Tram bridge.

Hard to tell driving past, but there doesn't seem to be a site compound or anything else setup there.

...

First delivery of a beam was reported in media release from Premier's office on 22 March. As of Monday there were 8 beams in yard S of tram line and another 4 beams in yard N of Glengyle Tce. A number of cabins have been installed at N end of N yard near Gallipoli ramp.

[rubberman]

Is it a case of ACC trying to force the hand of the state government?

ACC - "We're going to spend x upgrading OCS but we'll allow space for a future tram line if the state gov will fund it, hint hint, nudge nudge.."

And if the answer is that the Government won't, then that's the end of trams in OCS for the foreseeable future.

I'd also add that I seem to remember that the ACC's idea was for single track down OCS. Something that cannot work.

Now, take that with a spoon of salt, because it's only a hazy memory.

Yes, there’s only provision for a single track in their plan. The current plan is for:
1x tram reserved lane,
2x general traffic lane,
2x on peak general traffic/off-peak parking lane,
2x separated bike lane.

It could be reconfigured after construction to:
2x tram lane,
2x general traffic lane,
1x parking lane,
2x separated bike lane.

This would result in the tram corridor being off-centre, but I guess that’s not a major issue.

The problem with a single tram lane is that the best service frequency is 30 minutes. That's based on the time taken to travel the same distance on North Terrace. Similar distance and similar number of traffic lights.

If there's only one lane, then a tram has to go along the single track, change ends, return before the next tram can enter the single track section. Thirty minutes likely.

The Entertainment Centre to Botanic Garden is ten minutes.

So, O'Connell Street would have thirty minutes between trams vs Botanic at ten. Hmmmm. Not happening.

[dbl96]

The problem with a single tram lane is that the best service frequency is 30 minutes. That's based on the time taken to travel the same distance on North Terrace. Similar distance and similar number of traffic lights.

If there's only one lane, then a tram has to go along the single track, change ends, return before the next tram can enter the single track section. Thirty minutes likely.

The Entertainment Centre to Botanic Garden is ten minutes.

So, O'Connell Street would have thirty minutes between trams vs Botanic at ten. Hmmmm. Not happening.

I don’t disagree - and it becomes even more unworkable if the line is ever extended into Prospect as envisaged by Adelink.

My point is that it’s not a barrier to the current street upgrade going ahead. If necessary, the a second tram lane can be built on one of the lanes currently reserved for general traffic, next to the ACC’s tram reservation. That would then mean that the parking lane on that side of the road would need to be replaced with a general traffic lane.

[[Shuz]]

Not as straightforward as that - another lane (or two) needs to be removed in the 100 metre sections where tram stops are placed. If you had a centre island platform, you only need to remove one lane, but if you had two side platforms, you need to remove two lanes.

The council, whilst its intentions are good to upgrade O'Connell Street, may just be jumping the gun a bit. Probably best to just limit the upgrades to the footpaths for now and then work with State Government on the road configuration allowing for trams / parking / lanes / etc.

There's also the issue of traffic congestion coming in from Prospect and Main North Roads, essentially funnelling 3-4 lanes into one. Hence the option to create a new bypass along Lefevre Terrace needs to be seriously looked at to mitigate traffic flows.

[dbl96]

Not as straightforward as that - another lane (or two) needs to be removed in the 100 metre sections where tram stops are placed. If you had a centre island platform, you only need to remove one lane, but if you had two side platforms, you need to remove two lanes.

The council, whilst its intentions are good to upgrade O'Connell Street, may just be jumping the gun a bit. Probably best to just limit the upgrades to the footpaths for now and then work with State Government on the road configuration allowing for trams / parking / lanes / etc.

There's also the issue of traffic congestion coming in from Prospect and Main North Roads, essentially funnelling 3-4 lanes into one. Hence the option to create a new bypass along Lefevre Terrace needs to be seriously looked at to mitigate traffic flows.

I think the diversion of Main North Rd into Lefevre Tce is a no-brainer. Besides the obvious traffic benefits of such a diversion if O’Connell St is to become less of a thoroughfare, it’s also one of the lowest hanging fruits in terms of reducing the fragmentation of the parklands by main roads which render smaller segments unusable.

Surely the single line reservation must include provision for platforms. The space required for an island platform wouldn’t be much more than that needed for a single track side platform.

I hope that DIT has realised the folly in their side-platform idea. A massive waste of space in most contexts - it has caused much of the congestion now experienced on North Tce, with no benefit to tram passengers. The platforms are much less convenient to use than the island ones, as passengers are deliberately funnelled to a single entry/exit point rather than being able to jaywalk from anywhere along the platform. They are also ugly, obstructing views across the street. This is particularly a problem at the Art Gallery stop, where the platforms obscure views of the King George statue and the historic library buildings. I can understand they might be a good idea in particularly high traffic locations, but even at Victoria Square and Rundle Mall stops, the platforms normally function alright as single island platforms. Anyway, if the policy going forward is to continue with the side platforms, it will severely limit options for expansion of the network, as there are so few places where there is the space to accomodate this.

Over-engineering

[Spotto]

I hope that DIT has realised the folly in their side-platform idea. A massive waste of space in most contexts - it has caused much of the congestion now experienced on North Tce, with no benefit to tram passengers. The platforms are much less convenient to use than the island ones, as passengers are deliberately funnelled to a single entry/exit point rather than being able to jaywalk from anywhere along the platform.

Until you look at the island platform stations during peak times and try to squeeze on shoulder-to-shoulder with everyone else.

The side platforms are a response to the popularity of the trams and help segregate passengers travelling in different directions. If anything, the island platforms at ARS and Rundle Mall should be rebuilt as side platforms at some stage.

Having more than one exit point for platforms of any type would be very useful and far more safe. Zebra crossings like you find in Melbourne could be an option.

[rubberman]

Not as straightforward as that - another lane (or two) needs to be removed in the 100 metre sections where tram stops are placed. If you had a centre island platform, you only need to remove one lane, but if you had two side platforms, you need to remove two lanes.

The council, whilst its intentions are good to upgrade O'Connell Street, may just be jumping the gun a bit. Probably best to just limit the upgrades to the footpaths for now and then work with State Government on the road configuration allowing for trams / parking / lanes / etc.

There's also the issue of traffic congestion coming in from Prospect and Main North Roads, essentially funnelling 3-4 lanes into one. Hence the option to create a new bypass along Lefevre Terrace needs to be seriously looked at to mitigate traffic flows.

I think the diversion of Main North Rd into Lefevre Tce is a no-brainer. Besides the obvious traffic benefits of such a diversion if O’Connell St is to become less of a thoroughfare, it’s also one of the lowest hanging fruits in terms of reducing the fragmentation of the parklands by main roads which render smaller segments unusable.

Surely the single line reservation must include provision for platforms. The space required for an island platform wouldn’t be much more than that needed for a single track side platform.

I hope that DIT has realised the folly in their side-platform idea. A massive waste of space in most contexts - it has caused much of the congestion now experienced on North Tce, with no benefit to tram passengers. The platforms are much less convenient to use than the island ones, as passengers are deliberately funnelled to a single entry/exit point rather than being able to jaywalk from anywhere along the platform. They are also ugly, obstructing views across the street. This is particularly a problem at the Art Gallery stop, where the platforms obscure views of the King George statue and the historic library buildings. I can understand they might be a good idea in particularly high traffic locations, but even at Victoria Square and Rundle Mall stops, the platforms normally function alright as single island platforms. Anyway, if the policy going forward is to continue with the side platforms, it will severely limit options for expansion of the network, as there are so few places where there is the space to accomodate this.

Over-engineering

Except that side platforms allow the combined use of that lane by buses and trams. For example, if side platforms had been installed on Port Road, buses could be taken from lanes used by cars and commercial traffic. The buses would run faster, and fewer buses competing with cars would benefit motorists as well.

There's no reason why some North Terrace buses couldn't be allowed to use the tram lane either. Personally, I can't see any other option for trams in O'Connell Street. Sharing a lane with buses is logical, but centre island platforms rule that out.

[rev]

Not as straightforward as that - another lane (or two) needs to be removed in the 100 metre sections where tram stops are placed. If you had a centre island platform, you only need to remove one lane, but if you had two side platforms, you need to remove two lanes.

The council, whilst its intentions are good to upgrade O'Connell Street, may just be jumping the gun a bit. Probably best to just limit the upgrades to the footpaths for now and then work with State Government on the road configuration allowing for trams / parking / lanes / etc.

There's also the issue of traffic congestion coming in from Prospect and Main North Roads, essentially funnelling 3-4 lanes into one. Hence the option to create a new bypass along Lefevre Terrace needs to be seriously looked at to mitigate traffic flows.

I think the diversion of Main North Rd into Lefevre Tce is a no-brainer. Besides the obvious traffic benefits of such a diversion if O’Connell St is to become less of a thoroughfare, it’s also one of the lowest hanging fruits in terms of reducing the fragmentation of the parklands by main roads which render smaller segments unusable.

Surely the single line reservation must include provision for platforms. The space required for an island platform wouldn’t be much more than that needed for a single track side platform.

I hope that DIT has realised the folly in their side-platform idea. A massive waste of space in most contexts - it has caused much of the congestion now experienced on North Tce, with no benefit to tram passengers. The platforms are much less convenient to use than the island ones, as passengers are deliberately funnelled to a single entry/exit point rather than being able to jaywalk from anywhere along the platform. They are also ugly, obstructing views across the street. This is particularly a problem at the Art Gallery stop, where the platforms obscure views of the King George statue and the historic library buildings. I can understand they might be a good idea in particularly high traffic locations, but even at Victoria Square and Rundle Mall stops, the platforms normally function alright as single island platforms. Anyway, if the policy going forward is to continue with the side platforms, it will severely limit options for expansion of the network, as there are so few places where there is the space to accomodate this.

Over-engineering

The bottom end of Lefevre may be a problem near Brougham place. Can it handle a substantial increase in traffic? Then to where, Sir Edwin Smith or Frome? How would it work going from 2 lanes each direction of Main North to a single lane on those roads mentioned?
I think an easier option would be to realign the bottom end of Main North road so it straightens up a bit more with Barton Tce west and Prospect/Oconnel intersection. Widen Barton Tce West up until the Jeffcott St intersection. Jeffcott is already two lanes in each direction.
Then Oconnel can be a single lane in each direction, tram lines, and I'm sure they could even widen the footpaths and allow for more outdoor dining with plenty of trees etc.