PRO: Port Adelaide Tramline | $260m

[Shuz]

Just when I was starting to hold them in high regard and with a bit of respect, and they set themselves back to square one.

They are such an incompetent bunch at times. Can I asked they be removed out of power altogether?

[monotonehell]

...and here comes the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth. You guys are practically bipolar on these issues. When they make a decision you agree with they are WONDERFUL, but when they don't they are "...out of touch and out of control." Seriously, how about a bit of balance and enquiry in your responses instead of kneejerk reactions?


I'd like a bit more information before I hurl abuse to all quarters. All I've seen of the proposed route is a big red line down Port Road. Does anyone have the detail that the DAP are working from? Where are these trees in question? Port Road is a very wide road in places, do we need to cut across parklands, considering the lack of destinations there?

[SRW]

...and here comes the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth. You guys are practically bipolar on these issues. When they make a decision you agree with they are WONDERFUL, but when they don't they are "...out of touch and out of control." Seriously, how about a bit of balance and enquiry in your responses instead of kneejerk reactions?


I'd like a bit more information before I hurl abuse to all quarters. All I've seen of the proposed route is a big red line down Port Road. Does anyone have the detail that the DAP are working from? Where are these trees in question? Port Road is a very wide road in places, do we need to cut across parklands, considering the lack of destinations there?

Hear hear.

I'd also like to see more detailed plans of the proposed route and some information about which trees are affected. It may seem trivial, but trees can have an important role in an area's character and environment, and those deemed significant should not be felled lightly. I'd hope that all possible routes were considered rather than just taking the easy route through what might mistakenly be viewed as virgin land. That said, if it is the only suitable route, it's too important a project and must proceed, trees notwithstanding (or not left standing [/bad pun]).

[fishinajar]

I would also like to see exactly which sections they are planning on separating from the road. Surely it would be better to keep the tramline running centrally on the road for the sake of future tram stops (and associated pedestrian crossings), as well as future tramline additions, ie. West Tce, possibly East Tce (James Congdon Rd).

On the other hand they may have calculated very specifically optimal traffic flow and future stops and additional lines- 25 significant trees may sound like a lot, but it can be amazing just what constitutes a significant tree, also I wonder how many significant trees there are in total in adelaides parklands? Not that this would at all justify the removal of 25 healthy specimens.

Also the government may just be being tight asses and trying to save some cash. IMO I think the greater puplic good should always pervail. If two lanes of rail can save multiple additional lanes of roadway cutting through the parklands in the future then so be it. BTW - do you know we can plant more trees?

[omada]

I am not sure why our State Government has to get approval from the ACC in the first place, but as mentioned before, it doesn't matter! Go jump ACC!

[Will]

...and here comes the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth. You guys are practically bipolar on these issues. When they make a decision you agree with they are WONDERFUL, but when they don't they are "...out of touch and out of control." Seriously, how about a bit of balance and enquiry in your responses instead of kneejerk reactions?


I'd like a bit more information before I hurl abuse to all quarters. All I've seen of the proposed route is a big red line down Port Road. Does anyone have the detail that the DAP are working from? Where are these trees in question? Port Road is a very wide road in places, do we need to cut across parklands, considering the lack of destinations there?

We are talking about 25 trees. 25 trees should not be used to hold us back. And yes I stand by my comments because this city has really bad PR and the council is essentially serving up the city on a silver platter with such silly decisions. Sometimes progress requires that a few trees are felled, big deal. There are probaably more than 1 million trees in the parklands.

Remember how everyone else in Australia laughed at us when we failed to fix the Britannia roundabout because of a few trees? Why do we keep doing this to ourselves?

[Wayno]

we have to remember we are relying on an AdelaideNow article, and the "journalist" decided to focus on the tree issue for obvious reasons.

[raulduke]

not that I agree with the ACC - the end justifies the means

this has got to be the biggest white elephant ever - a tram line that runs parallel to a run down train line (it seems Adelaide has never heard of a suburban train station, they all seem to be dodgy concrete platforms?).

why do we need the tram to shadow the train route?

why are we building this?

[Wayno]

i believe the trees in question are on the portion of port rd directly adjacent to the city, and not along the section of port rd opposite the brewery. The little stone cottage on SA Water grounds is also targeted for demolition.

[Will]

we have to remember we are relying on an AdelaideNow article, and the "journalist" decided to focus on the tree issue for obvious reasons.

That is what worries me. The masochists down at News Ltd love this kind of thing. They take evry opportunity possible to bash Adelaide. I don't understand why the ACC does this. Such decisions are akin to giving our detractors a penalty kick whilst also bribbing the goalkeeper to jump the other way.

[Shuz]

I'm fairly sure that the Government decided with a central alignment for the tramline. The 'enroachment' of the parklands is to widen the road so to accomodate its existing capacity and the new tramline. The loss of 25 trees would surely have to be the ones that currently exist on the Port Road median. No big loss.

[No Clever Alias]

As I understand it, the proposed tramline will run along the edge of Bonython Park... 6 lanes of traffic away from the current and future population in Thebarton. How will this tramline drive regeneration along Port Road if the tram is on the far side of the road and cannot be easily accessed.

From where I sit this is not a well thought out plan... more disjointed, ad hoc decision making that ultimately leads to inferior solutions.

[Shuz]

As I understand it, the proposed tramline will run along the edge of Bonython Park... 6 lanes of traffic away from the current and future population in Thebarton. How will this tramline drive regeneration along Port Road if the tram is on the far side of the road and cannot be easily accessed.

From where I sit this is not a well thought out plan... more disjointed, ad hoc decision making that ultimately leads to inferior solutions.

Would you believe me if I told you that one of Melbourne's most patronised lines, Route 96, operates in a similar fashion? As it runs along the edge of Albert Park, 4 lanes of traffic away from the population of the surrounding area? And only one station is 'convieniently' accessible with the aid of a pedestrian crossing.

As I know it, every station will be accessed with the aid of a traffic intersection (doubled as a pedestrian crossing).

[crawf]

Mono makes a good point, and well well....

Council committee rejects tramline extension plan
Article from: The Advertiser

GREG KELTON, STATE EDITOR

February 17, 2009 12:15pm

ADELAIDE City councillors not involved in a vote against a tramline extension say colleagues against it are outnumbered and that it will go ahead.

Both the State Government and senior members of the council said today that there was nothing to stop the 2.8km extenion from West Tce to the Entertainment Centre proceeding and the project had the support of the full council.

A furore has erupted today after it was revealed that the council's Development Assessment Panel had rejected plans for the extension that "eat into the parklands" and require removal of 25 significant trees.

AdelaideNow readers have pounced on the issue, most attacking the council as anti-development (see comments below).

Councillor Anne Moran said it was scandalous that the council was being asked to cut down significant trees because of encroachment on the parklands.

However, the Government's chief of major projects, Rod Hook, said the Government had road-widening approval for the project and there were a few trees that would have to go.

But, he said, the Premier had pledged that for every tree taken out, he would plant 100 new trees.

Mr Hook said he had been to meetings of the Adelaide Parklands Authority and they had passed a resolution supporting the project.

"So have the full Council of the Adelaide City Council, the City of Charles Sturt, so has the City of West Torrens," he said.

"There was a suggestion we should put the tramline in the centre of the road. Well, thats exactly what the proposal is.

"We have actually located a bike path in the parklands at the request of both the Parklands Authority and the council so weve taken that out of the road pavement and put a separate bike path in the parklands."

Councillor Ralph Clarke said he could understand there might be some confusion, but the full council had voted overwhelmingly in support of the tram extension.

He said he did not know why the Development Assessment Panel had taken the decision they did.

"The panel consists of four city councillors and five independent members and they have to give a recommendation to the Development Assessment Commission which is a State Government body," Mr Clarke said.

"The council is not anti development, were not anti the tramline.

[Will]

^^^The damage has already been done. Look at AdelaideNow...over 250 comments all joining the Adelaide is a backwater conga line.