Sensational-Adelaide.com

ChrisRT wrote:

Aidan wrote: At the moment there are too many passengers per tram, and because of this it takes longer than it should for the passengers to get on and off.

Too many per shuttle tram or Glenelg tram or both?

Glenelg tram, of course.

Get on and off in the city or on the way to Glenelg somewhere?

Both.

I think a fast and frequent shuttle service in the city is more important than a marginally faster Glenelg service, if I am understanding your argument correctly.

The marginally speed improvements to the Glenelg service would be a very minor benefit - the reason for running more trams there is that the existing service doesn't have sufficient seating capacity. Passengers shouldn't have to stand for half an hour at a time!

Now, a fast and frequent shuttle service in the City would indeed be nice. We used to have that in the form of the 99B. It was faster than the trams, because the traffic light sequencing does not give the trams priority. And more importantly, it ran every 5 minutes. The shuttle trams only run every 15 minutes. The Terrace to Terrace service is (at least theoretically) every 7 and a half minutes, but half of these are the overcrowded Glenelg trams that are so full that passengers often have trouble squeezing on. Sending all the trams to Glenelg would mean that the loadings in the City would be more evenly spread, so the passengers wouldn't have to put up with conditions quite as cramped as some of them get now. Admittedly it would also mean that passengers in the City would be less likely to get a seat all the way, but as they won't be on the trams for so long, that's not so important.

Aidan wrote: The marginally speed improvements to the Glenelg service would be a very minor benefit - the reason for running more trams there is that the existing service doesn't have sufficient seating capacity. Passengers shouldn't have to stand for half an hour at a time!

Why shouldn't they? It's still a relatively short journey, and the majority aren't riding it from terminus to terminus (so it's not a half hour trip). If you catch public transport, of any kind, during peak periods - then expect to stand, and if you get a seat that's a bonus. Or are Adelaide people too soft?

Nathan wrote: If you catch public transport, of any kind, during peak periods - then expect to stand, and if you get a seat that's a bonus.

Totally agree.

Nathan wrote:

Aidan wrote: The marginally speed improvements to the Glenelg service would be a very minor benefit - the reason for running more trams there is that the existing service doesn't have sufficient seating capacity. Passengers shouldn't have to stand for half an hour at a time!

Why shouldn't they?

Because comfort is important. It's something public transport must have to compete against cars. But even if there was no competition, a comfortable service is better than an uncomfortable one.

It's still a relatively short journey,

Short in distance, long in time. And it is the time it takes that matters, not the distance. It wouldn't be a problem if people had to stand on the trains between Oaklands and Adelaide.

and the majority aren't riding it from terminus to terminus (so it's not a half hour trip).

Do you have any evidence that most of the passengers from Glenelg aren't going to the City? Unlike the train services, the tram doesn't directly serve any other major commercial areas on the way. I know it serves some minor ones, but how much demand do they really generate?

If you catch public transport, of any kind, during peak periods - then expect to stand, and if you get a seat that's a bonus. Or are Adelaide people too soft?

Too soft for what? And are motorists too soft???
No, the problem is the attitude of people like you who think we should have to put up with substandard public transport.

Anyway, as I said before, it's not just in the peaks when there are standing passengers all the way from Glenelg.

and the majority aren't riding it from terminus to terminus (so it's not a half hour trip).

Do you have any evidence that most of the passengers from Glenelg aren't going to the City? Unlike the train services, the tram doesn't directly serve any other major commercial areas on the way. I know it serves some minor ones, but how much demand do they really generate?

Yes, passengers getting on at Glenelg are probably going somewhere in the city. But that's just the start of the line. The majority of tram passengers are getting on at a stop somewhere along the line, between Glenelg and the City. And if you're getting on at Moseley Sq, and still can't get a seat, then you're obviously not trying very hard.

If you catch public transport, of any kind, during peak periods - then expect to stand, and if you get a seat that's a bonus. Or are Adelaide people too soft?

Too soft for what? And are motorists too soft???
No, the problem is the attitude of people like you who think we should have to put up with substandard public transport.

Compared to elsewhere in the world, yes - soft. In other cities where public transport is the norm, people don't complain about having to stand. There's no inflated sense of entitlement to a seat. They just sit down if there happens to be one free. Having to stand does not equal substandard public transport. Catch a train anywhere in Tokyo during peak - I guarantee that you'll be standing. Does that mean their transport system is substandard?

Aidan wrote: Now, a fast and frequent shuttle service in the City would indeed be nice. We used to have that in the form of the 99B. It was faster than the trams, because the traffic light sequencing does not give the trams priority. And more importantly, it ran every 5 minutes

- when it didn't get behind from being stuck in traffic.

You can't seriously be arguing that the 99B service was superior to the Tram shuttle service we have now.

A few points off the top of my head-
1) Although I can't point you to studies, I'm quite certain there is strong evidence to show people are willing to wait longer for Trams than they are for buses
2) A tram service is easier to navigate for a "newbie" than a bus service; it's highly visible and the route is easier to understand
3) People who would never take buses, for social 'image' type reasons, will happily take the Tram
4) The Tram has it's own right-of-way in the city, thus it does not get stuck in traffic unlike buses
5) The tram service has 'proven', if you will, the concept of expanding the Tram network to the public who are now, generally, supportive of further extensions
6) Bus services do not attract property investment; rail services can and do

Another point - if we didn't do the extension to North Terrace, would we now be getting 6 sweet new trams from Spain - hell no.

It is spatially small but strategic projects like the first Tram line extension that will allow us to slowly but inevitably take our city back from the automobile. They demonstrate to the media, politicians and senior bureaucrats that many people are willing to leave the car at home and take public transport, if you give them a reliable, high-quality alternative.

It is a process Jane Jacobs described as attrition of automobiles, which I hope we are seeing the beginnings of in Adelaide now.

ChrisRT wrote:

Aidan wrote: Now, a fast and frequent shuttle service in the City would indeed be nice. We used to have that in the form of the 99B. It was faster than the trams, because the traffic light sequencing does not give the trams priority. And more importantly, it ran every 5 minutes

- when it didn't get behind from being stuck in traffic.

You can't seriously be arguing that the 99B service was superior to the Tram shuttle service we have now.

Not in every way, but in some ways it was. The level of service between Victoria Square and City West was superior in terms of comfort, time taken and waiting times in the weekday offpeak. These are not problems intrinsic to trams - indeed a well designed tram service can do much better than buses on these issues, so I'm confident they will eventually be corrected. But meanwhile I don't see any advantage in pretending the problems don't exist.

A few points off the top of my head-
1) Although I can't point you to studies, I'm quite certain there is strong evidence to show people are willing to wait longer for Trams than they are for buses

Agreed - but it doesn't mean we should have to.

2) A tram service is easier to navigate for a "newbie" than a bus service; it's highly visible and the route is easier to understand

True.

3) People who would never take buses, for social 'image' type reasons, will happily take the Tram

That's true as well, though I don't think there are as many of those people as most people imagine.

4) The Tram has it's own right-of-way in the city, thus it does not get stuck in traffic unlike buses

That should be a huge advantage, but the way it's currently running, it isn't - they're just getting stuck at the traffic lights instead.

5) The tram service has 'proven', if you will, the concept of expanding the Tram network to the public who are now, generally, supportive of further extensions

I agree completely... and just imagine how much more supportive the public would be if the trams had decent seat padding, the stops had real time service information, the trams got signal priority and they ran more frequently!

6) Bus services do not attract property investment; rail services can and do

Usually true. But good rail services attract far more investment than bad ones.

ChrisRT wrote:Another point - if we didn't do the extension to North Terrace, would we now be getting 6 sweet new trams from Spain - hell no.

Again I agree, and I was strongly in favour of it from the start. But I assumed they'd cope with the crowds in a more sensible way (such as putting all the new trams on the Glenelg service and using the Hs for the shuttle). As for the trams from Spain, we should've bid for more than 6.

It is spatially small but strategic projects like the first Tram line extension that will allow us to slowly but inevitably take our city back from the automobile. They demonstrate to the media, politicians and senior bureaucrats that many people are willing to leave the car at home and take public transport, if you give them a reliable, high-quality alternative.
It is a process Jane Jacobs described as attrition of automobiles, which I hope we are seeing the beginnings of in Adelaide now.

So do I, but so far we're only seeing a low quality alternative.

rhino wrote:

Nathan wrote: If you catch public transport, of any kind, during peak periods - then expect to stand, and if you get a seat that's a bonus.

Totally agree.

Also agree. To expect everyone to have a seat during peak periods is ludicrous and would require a lot more money to be spent on vehicles and operators. As long as there is adequate seating for the young, elderly and disabled and enough standing space for everyone else then that should be enough .

Briggzy_03 wrote:

rhino wrote:

Nathan wrote: If you catch public transport, of any kind, during peak periods - then expect to stand, and if you get a seat that's a bonus.

Totally agree.

Also agree. To expect everyone to have a seat during peak periods is ludicrous and would require a lot more money to be spent on vehicles and operators. As long as there is adequate seating for the young, elderly and disabled and enough standing space for everyone else then that should be enough .

And There's the key bit, "enough standing space for everyone else". From my experience today, in peak time (5pm) catching the tram in mosely square, there isn't enough standing room on the current trams, particularly if you take that to mean that people, regardless of there location on the tram, should be able to exit the tram at any given stop. Quite simply, that's not an easy thing to do, if you're a single adult trying to sqeeze through. Try getting through with a pusher and a couple of kids or someone with a disability, it's just not going to happen. Rundle Mall was the first stop I would have been able to get off with the kids, with a bit of pushing, Adelaide Railway Station was easy, before that? Not a chance.

There are, I beleive, 3 problems casuing this, 1). the design of the space on the trams, 2). Peoples general inability to move for than a few inches to let someone else off (as observed today), & 3). Drivers who don't wait to ensure all passengers have alighted and gotten on at busy stations, although this is probably something they're forced into to try and keep the timetable.

So While I agree that it's ridiculous tp expect everyone to get a seat, and people should expect to stand, people should also expect to be able to get on and off the tram at any station they need to, regardless of the time of day. At present, this is at least very difficult, if not impossible.

I gotta say that a tram where every seat is taken and there are no standing passengers is still only a half full tram. They need to be used to their capacity, standing room included. If you want to ride on a public transport system that has a seat for everyone all the time, expect to pay triple for it.

I also disagree that there hasn't been significant increases to the amount of patrons using the trams for intra-city travel than the existing 99B bus service. How many people used to park their car around city west or Victoria Sq and catch the Bee Line into Rundle mall - none. But I know so many that do this now with the tram to avoid the worst of the inner city traffic.

You cannot blame a system for working too well and attracting too many passengers. In any case we will soon have 6 new trams to cater for 4 more stations - I think there will be enough extra capacity to cater for extra peak loadings.

Are they going to do something about the ramps to get up to Port Adelaide station? It's a lot of extra walking around and around when you could get up and down much faster with a set of stairs. There should also be a lift for easy access. I wish they'd release some more information on the website, it hasn't been updated for ages. Love to see some pictures of the station design.

Edited for Tonsley213

Westside wrote:I gotta say that a tram where every seat is taken and there are no standing passengers is still only a half full tram. They need to be used to their capacity, standing room included. If you want to ride on a public transport system that has a seat for everyone all the time, expect to pay triple for it.

You're never going to have every tram full all the time. And they don't need to be used to their capacity at all - in fact they're more attractive to passengers when they're not. Realistically there will always be situations where passengers have to stand, but they shouldn't have to do so for more than a few minutes - especially at offpeak times.

I also disagree that there hasn't been significant increases to the amount of patrons using the trams for intra-city travel than the existing 99B bus service. How many people used to park their car around city west or Victoria Sq and catch the Bee Line into Rundle mall - none. But I know so many that do this now with the tram to avoid the worst of the inner city traffic.

Nobody said otherwise. I think you misunderstood my earlier post: the tram service quality is inferior, but that's a totally different issue. Trams are more attractive to passengers.

You cannot blame a system for working too well and attracting too many passengers. In any case we will soon have 6 new trams to cater for 4 more stations - I think there will be enough extra capacity to cater for extra peak loadings.

It's not working too well - it's not working anywhere near as well as it should be, and that's partly due to inadequate capacity.
I'd like to also deny that it's attracting too many passengers - but alas, I can't. Though the increased number of passengers was easily predictable, (and indeed predicted) the government skimped on the tram order as if the line were a tram to nowhere!
And the fact that someone who can't see the inadequacies of the current system now believes just 6 new trams will be adequate despite the longer line doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Nathan wrote:

and the majority aren't riding it from terminus to terminus (so it's not a half hour trip).

Do you have any evidence that most of the passengers from Glenelg aren't going to the City? Unlike the train services, the tram doesn't directly serve any other major commercial areas on the way. I know it serves some minor ones, but how much demand do they really generate?

Yes, passengers getting on at Glenelg are probably going somewhere in the city. But that's just the start of the line. The majority of tram passengers are getting on at a stop somewhere along the line, between Glenelg and the City. And if you're getting on at Moseley Sq, and still can't get a seat, then you're obviously not trying very hard.

There's far more to Glenelg than Moseley Square. Getting on at Brighton Road and being unable to get a seat indicates there's a problem.

If you catch public transport, of any kind, during peak periods - then expect to stand, and if you get a seat that's a bonus. Or are Adelaide people too soft?

Too soft for what? And are motorists too soft???
No, the problem is the attitude of people like you who think we should have to put up with substandard public transport.

Compared to elsewhere in the world, yes - soft. In other cities where public transport is the norm, people don't complain about having to stand. There's no inflated sense of entitlement to a seat. They just sit down if there happens to be one free. Having to stand does not equal substandard public transport. Catch a train anywhere in Tokyo during peak - I guarantee that you'll be standing. Does that mean their transport system is substandard?

If that is genuinely the case, the yes, it does in this aspect. I suspect there are actually plenty of seats available outside the central area, but I don't know for sure.

Anyway, you're missing the point. People in the world's biggest cities where passengers have to stand are forced onto public transport because there's no practical alternative - the road system's far too congested so using it would be too slow. And the rail systems are often so busy that increasing passenger capacity is not possible without expensive new infrastructure.

But most cities are not so big, and the roads not so congested. People commuting into Leeds would demand a seat where people commuting into London would put up with standing. The roads are better and it's far easier to increase capacity on the railways.

Do we really want our public transport to have a high market share solely because of the inadequacies of our road system? Don't you want a public transport system that increases the quality of life?

Aidan wrote:just 6 new trams.

And the 4 new Flexitys on order.