VIS: Tram on O'Connell St and Prospect Rd

[Port Adelaide Fan]

Run tram to Adelaide Oval

THE city’s tramline should be extended to Adelaide Oval and beyond to draw more people to the area, mayors and traders say.

Lord Mayor Michael Harbison said the oval’s planned $450 million upgrade, which would increase the oval’s capacity to 50,000 and bring AFL football to the ground by 2014, was a good reason to extend the tramline 300m north.

“I think it would make sense to extend the line down King William Rd to Victor Richardson Drive,” Mr Harbison said.

“People could then catch the tram from the city directly to the ground.”

O’Connell St Traders’ Association president Jacqui Clarke went one step further, calling on the State Government to extend the tramline to O’Connell St.

“I’ve seen the amount of people that are on O’Connell St during the cricket and when there are concerts or events,” Ms Clarke said.

“If you had a tram running along here it would bring even more people here on those days, which personally I think could only be a good thing for O’Connell St.”

North Adelaide Society chairman Ed Briedis also liked the idea of bringing trams back to O’Connell St but said it would need to be supported by most residents.

Prospect Mayor David O’Loughlin last week repeated his call for a report on running trams out to Prospect Rd.

“But we would need to look at what it would look like, where it would stop, the impact on traffic and whether local residents would want it,” he said.

The government’s 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide, released last year, made no mention of taking trams north of the city.

Acting Transport Minister Paul Holloway’s spokesman Sam Ion last week played down the idea, saying Adelaide Oval was already “ideally” located close to the Adelaide Railway Station.

He said a plan to build a $20 million footbridge over the River Torrens, linking the station and the oval, would make the ground even more accessible.

City of Adelaide Minister Jane Lomax-Smith, who as a city councillor lobbied hard for the tram to be extended to Prospect, declined to comment.

http://city-north-messenger.whereilive. ... e-to-oval/

[Waewick]

I agree send it to prospect

the only condition that the old Le cornu site becomes a state of the art bus stop/trasfer point for people to park and get the tram into the city

[Hooligan]

He wants a 300m extension?

How fucking lazy are people? JUST WALK!

sorry about that

[rubberman]

He wants a 300m extension?

How (snip) lazy are people? JUST WALK!

sorry about that

Well, since 1958, that's what successive Governments said to people who had to walk from Vic Square to the Railway Station or to workplaces or shops further north of the Square. I thought we had gotten over that given the success of the extension to City West.

The reason perhaps you might have advanced for not bothering with the Adelaide Oval extension is that it would only be used on days when something was on at the Oval - hardly an economic argument for going there when there are buses that could run special services if it were found necessary on those days.

[Archer]

I would have thought that if you were considering an extension of the tram line to Adelaide Oval, you wouldn't stop there, but run it right through past the cathedral and the Hospital to O'Connel Street to service the businesses and residents in that area and provide them with a direct and efficient link to the City Centre. That way Adelaide Oval is stop on the way, while the primary benefit of the service is to the Businesses and residents further down the line.

[rubberman]

The problem with a tram up O'connell St is that there would only be one lane left for traffic unless either the traffic was allowed to use the tramline area and/or the parking on the street was prohibited. The first would make the trams so slow as to make it useless, the second would send the North Adelaide traders and residents into conniptions. It might work if there were a major parking station somewhere near Scotty's Motel (or thereabouts) which would divert traffic from O'Connell St and into the trams....Plus a rehash of the traffic along O'Connell St eliminating most of the traffic lights by banning traffic crossing O'Connell St except say at Barton Tce and Ward St. It might just work then...but even then, I would like to see a decent traffic analysis.

[how_good_is_he]

Really darlings, does anybody who lives in North Adelaide catch public transport anyway [or really want any more users of public transport to come into their dignified village society .... [sarcasm].

[AtD]

I would be in favour of maintaining on-street parking on O'Connell street simply because it creates a "permeable" barrier between traffic and the footpath.

[shiftaling]

The problem with a tram up O'connell St is that there would only be one lane left for traffic unless either the traffic was allowed to use the tramline area and/or the parking on the street was prohibited. The first would make the trams so slow as to make it useless, the second would send the North Adelaide traders and residents into conniptions. It might work if there were a major parking station somewhere near Scotty's Motel (or thereabouts) which would divert traffic from O'Connell St and into the trams....Plus a rehash of the traffic along O'Connell St eliminating most of the traffic lights by banning traffic crossing O'Connell St except say at Barton Tce and Ward St. It might just work then...but even then, I would like to see a decent traffic analysis.

I agree that those two options seem unworkable which is a shame because I think a tram to O'Connell Street would be great. Option 2 of removing the parking would not only turn the traders against the project, but if it were removed it would also change the atmosphere of the street too much, with traffic whizzing by next to the footpath.

The first option might not be as bad as you think because people may be willing to accept a slow tram ride on the Northern section if O'Connell Street were the end of the line. It would be unacceptable for the first part of a Prospect Road tram however. There would need to be improvements to parallel roads (Jeffcott St perhaps?) to take the traffic discouraged from using O'Connell.

I know that I would definitely use even a slow tram to get to North Adelaide if it was there, however I never use the bus to go to that destination and I don't even know what bus number goes there! I only ever visit Nth Adelaide by car which is sad.

Unfortunately the same problems apply to Prospect Road which is very narrow. I have long thought a tram up Prospect Road would be fantastic, and would have the added advantage of having a lot of residents in close proximity on either side of the line - which is one of my concerns about the Port Road line which has a row of factories on one side and parklands on the other. Nonetheless I am in favour of the Port Road tram line because as has been said on this forum, 300m is not too far to walk to a tram stop.

[mattblack]

Why cant there be only one lane for traffic in either direction on O'connell? It would deter people from driving through North Adelaide to get into the city and thus be diverted onto the Adelaide ring route. The atmosphere of the area would also be enhanced with a tram and make in more attractive and accessible for people in the city to head up there for some shopping or cafe action for something different. Dont say it cant be done or its too busy. Most of the roads in London are one lane each direction through the city, even the busiest of roads have a 1 lane for traffic and the second lane is usually a bus lane. Amsterdam is the same with trams and 1 lane of traffic through the city centre. We need to have a change of attitude to tansport on its integration into the city not hold onto these ideals of keeping our roads to two lanes in each direction to traffic.

[AG]

Alternatively, the city bound lanes of O'Connell Street (between Childers Street and Brougham Place) could become the tram lines with the north bound lanes and parking on the west side retained while Le Fevre Terrace is upgraded to carry more city bound lanes while retaining a single north bound lane to maintain local access. That would require directing Main North Road traffic down Le Fevre Road (or alternatively continuing down Barton Terrace West to use Jeffcott Street) and forcing Prospect Road traffic to turn left at Barton Terrace East to Le Fevre Terrace or right at Childers Street to use Jeffcott Street. Some residents wouldn't be happy about increased traffic down their streets though.

[rhino]

Interesting ideas there, AG. Care to post a map?

[rubberman]

Mattblack - The problem is that putting people on the ring route does not solve the problem that they need to get to the city somehow. So wherever they get off the ring route to get to the city, they will increase traffic on roads already congested.

Therefore, the only way that it makes sense is if there is a park and ride at the tram terminus with enough capacity to reduce the traffic that needs to get into the city. Any other way comes up with merely a rearrangement of the congestion from one road to another. So the experiment at the entertainment centre is actually a brilliant one by the Govt imo. If it works for the 700 spots existing, and it looks like those 700 cars are now no longer going to the city, the next stage might be to actually increase the car parking at the entertainment centre by building a larger car park - perhaps associated with retail redevelopment of the whole precinct (that's for the next election though ). At that point, if there were a much larger car park, along with associated commercial and retail development, then there might be a 1500-2000 car reduction along Port Road and into the City. Since most of this happens within the hours of 0800-0900, that is quite significant in terms of traffic easing.

IF that were then to work, it would then give confidence to the Government to develop a similar set up, say at the Scotty's corner, to collect a similar number of cars from the Main Nth Rd and Nottage Tce and run a tramline through North Adelaide. The reduction of cars might, under this scenario, enable trams to run at full speed. Such a redevelopment of the Scotty's corner - again with commercial and retail adjuncts to revitalise the area could be the election after .

Similarly at South Road intersection with the tramline maybe...just dreaming here.

Oh, and if the O'Connell St traffic were adjusted so that cross traffic only happened at Barton Tce and Ward St, then several sets of lights could also be eliminated making the street even quicker to traverse....of course that could happen now.

AG - good idea, but looking at the mansions on LeFevre Tce, can you imagine them not using whatever considerable influence they have to make sure that their nice sleepy street does NOT get any more traffic. I am pretty sure it would work well though.

[AtD]

Firstly, removing traffic lights from O'Connell Street would dramatically reduce pedestrian access and safety. It is a public space full of shops and cafes. It is not a highway and serves a far greater purpose than catering to commuters for just a few hours per day.

Secondly, park-and-rides is not good public transport policy because the land they consume is phenomenal compared to the measly amount of commuters they provide for. The 700 spaces at the Entertainment Centre (at 1.2 persons per car) wouldn't fill 5 Citadis trams per day.* That's a dismal return considering the huge amount of land it consumes. Multi-levels cost considerably more to build.

Could you imagine such a beast in Thorngate? Me neither.

*It wouldn't even fill a single typical Sydney commuter train

[Straze]

O Connell Street currently has 2 lanes in each direction, if a tram was to go down the middle that would leave buses with just one lane in each direction. I am a regular bus commuter who will tell you its bad enough getting through King William Street let alone getting through O Connell Street if a tram was to run the corridor. Anyway how hard is it to go to a bus stop and check the timetable and routes that travel via O Connell Street. Buses can benefit an area just as much as trams.