Page 72 of 340

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:19 pm
by PeFe
From the 'Tiser
AdeLINK: State Government, councils, transport experts meet to discuss Adelaide tram network
Image
THE first step to returning trams to the greater metropolitan area begins today as a light rail summit takes place between the State Government, councils and transport experts in Adelaide.
In a bid to secure a consensus on an expansion of South Australia’s tram network, mayors from every inner metropolitan council and business groups will have the chance to explore the benefits of returning a light rail network to Adelaide.
This follows the State Government spending $4 million on investigating the feasibility of a new network and the announcement by Federal MP Anthony Albanese earlier this month that an elected Labor Government would work with the state to ensure the project became a reality.
This AdeLINK plan includes:
EastLINK — extending east through Kent Town to The Parade;
WestLINK — following Henley Beach Road to Henley Square, with a branch line to
Adelaide Airport;
ProspectLINK — following O’Connell Street to Prospect Road;
UnleyLINK — following Unley Road and Belair Road to Mitcham;

CityLINK — following a continuous loop around the city; and
PortLINK — using the existing Outer Harbor line with services to Port Adelaide,
West Lakes and Semaphore.
http://www.news.com.au/national/south-a ... 3590f41caa
Huge gabfest about a future expansion of the tram network....
They could have all stayed home and read the last 30 pages of this forum.......
Thumbs down to the Advertiser for the choice of photo accompanying the article.....The heritage H-Class trams will never return to the streets of Adelaide as a continuing transport mode.....why use that photo?.....Would they have used a photo of a model T-Ford car to illustrate the future of cars? No no way...unless you want to influence your readers to reject a certain idea....

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:57 pm
by rubberman
It's a great idea to involve the municipal authorities in the initial concepts. Given the closeness of these municipal officials to the communities they serve, it might also be worth while having them represented as part of the ongoing system management. Perhaps we could set up a body with expertise in operating trams as part of the process? We could call it the Municipal Tramways Trust. :mrgreen:

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 4:47 pm
by [Shuz]
I see what you did there. :applause:

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:14 pm
by OlympusAnt
Where is the money going to come from?

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:49 pm
by skyliner
That's the point. If we cant come up with a significant amount of money, will the Feds be interested? I gather they said we will co fund. Nice safe 'promise' there. They know our plight re funds to start with . Great idea however.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 9:25 pm
by how good is he
I am all for trams and I know it has been discussed but still can't see how many of these routes can fit trams (and cars).Prospect Rd, Unley Rd, Henley Bch Rd are currently mostly one lane now (with the other lane used for parking). So what is the best option - no off street parking, one way/tracks or trams/cars sharing the road as per Jetty Rd Glenelg (for me the best outcome).

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:04 am
by SAR526
All three roads (and many others) had double tram tracks from the horse tram days and H class cars which are much wider than the current rolling stock ran along Henley Beach Road. Buses use the same routes. Driving close alongside a tram is much safer than dodging a bus manoeuvering to and from the kerb. I've had plenty of experience doing just that in both Adelaide and Melbourne.

When the crunch comes, people living in the two or three houses where one stood before will be restricted to one car to a house and street parking will be banned altogether, with businesses being required to provide off street parking on their own premises or rely on the passing tram trade just like the hundreds of once thriving shops that clustered around the old tram stops and railway stations and can still be seen.

The whole aim of tram and train centred housing developments is to get cars off the roads, yet I know of houses which have up to six cars using the street and blocking the footpaths (illegally) within five minutes walk of electric train stations. People from around the corner use my frontage for parking, inconveniencing me and my visitors, and once beautiful front gardens and trees have been replaced by parked cars. That story could be told by very many others in every suburb.

Cars are a great convenience, but the increase in the population density of large cities is rendering the disproportionate road space taken up by their (usually single) occupants an anachronism. European cities have very little inner city car use, but they have frequent trams and trains. I for one like the relative lack of poison gas belching behemoths jostling for ever decreasing road space which jam Australian cities.

Our large tram and trolley bus system was destroyed for the convenience of car owners. The wheel has now turned and it is the private car that will have to give way to more efficient means of transport.

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:08 am
by ChillyPhilly
how good is he wrote:I am all for trams and I know it has been discussed but still can't see how many of these routes can fit trams (and cars).Prospect Rd, Unley Rd, Henley Bch Rd are currently mostly one lane now (with the other lane used for parking). So what is the best option - no off street parking, one way/tracks or trams/cars sharing the road as per Jetty Rd Glenelg (for me the best outcome).
Road sharing. With any luck, demand to use that road will decline, and eventually, behaviour will change completely to that of using the tram instead of the car.

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:43 am
by [Shuz]
I can only envision that Prospect Road will be the only route where trams will share the roads with cars. All the others are likely to remove on street parking, implement clearways and be reduced to one lane of traffic each way. An efficient tram (and bus network) should have right-of-way on a dedicated corridor. Let's hope they plan this well and build left hand stops so that buses can use the tram tracks as well. (Think Stop 16 - Jetty Road) which serves as a dual tram and bus stop.

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 12:27 pm
by rev
Federal Labor has said they will provide funding. I don't know how much, or how little, or the split in state-federal funding, but Anthony Albanese shadow transport minister or whatever that portfolio is called these days under the Liberal government, announced it last week. A federal Labor government will fund AdeLink.

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:02 pm
by Spurdo
PeFe wrote:From the 'Tiser
AdeLINK: State Government, councils, transport experts meet to discuss Adelaide tram network
Image
THE first step to returning trams to the greater metropolitan area begins today as a light rail summit takes place between the State Government, councils and transport experts in Adelaide.
In a bid to secure a consensus on an expansion of South Australia’s tram network, mayors from every inner metropolitan council and business groups will have the chance to explore the benefits of returning a light rail network to Adelaide.
This follows the State Government spending $4 million on investigating the feasibility of a new network and the announcement by Federal MP Anthony Albanese earlier this month that an elected Labor Government would work with the state to ensure the project became a reality.
This AdeLINK plan includes:
EastLINK — extending east through Kent Town to The Parade;
WestLINK — following Henley Beach Road to Henley Square, with a branch line to
Adelaide Airport;
ProspectLINK — following O’Connell Street to Prospect Road;
UnleyLINK — following Unley Road and Belair Road to Mitcham;

CityLINK — following a continuous loop around the city; and
PortLINK — using the existing Outer Harbor line with services to Port Adelaide,
West Lakes and Semaphore.
http://www.news.com.au/national/south-a ... 3590f41caa
Huge gabfest about a future expansion of the tram network....
They could have all stayed home and read the last 30 pages of this forum.......
Thumbs down to the Advertiser for the choice of photo accompanying the article.....The heritage H-Class trams will never return to the streets of Adelaide as a continuing transport mode.....why use that photo?.....Would they have used a photo of a model T-Ford car to illustrate the future of cars? No no way...unless you want to influence your readers to reject a certain idea....
can't wait to see the cagers cry about this

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 8:34 am
by [Shuz]
Shortens budget reply reaffirmed their intentions to cofund the AdeLink tram network expansion. I didn't realise this meant the whole thing, I just thought AdeLink was the city loop bit.

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 8:37 am
by rubberman
In the Federal Opposition's Budget Speech in Reply, the alternative PM made the specific promise to fund the tram network expansion in Adelaide. No equivocation. :cheers:

A few comments:

1). It's a politician's promise, and
2). They ain't the government, and
3). There's no business case or feasibility study been done.

Personally, I can't see how a feasibility study can show much of that network being worth building. It really looks like a vanity project. If so, that gives the ALP wriggle room to slip out from building it.

Ha, "snap" shuz. :bow:

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 9:17 am
by Llessur2002
rubberman wrote:Personally, I can't see how a feasibility study can show much of that network being worth building.
I guess that's the point of the feasibility study :wink:

I can personally see merits in the vast majority of the proposed network - especially the airport, Norwood and Prospect lines. Still not 100% convinced about the Outer Harbor conversion - they'd really have to nail it to make sure the benefits outweighed the longer travel times.

It's pretty much a given that we have a necessity to significantly grow our inner metropolitan density over the next few decades, the tram lines should provide a perfect catalyst for this. Other than a few relatively minor issues such as who's going to drive on what bit of road I can't really see why a feasibility study wouldn't come down in favour of trams.

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 9:48 am
by rubberman
Llessur2002 wrote:
rubberman wrote:Personally, I can't see how a feasibility study can show much of that network being worth building.
I guess that's the point of the feasibility study :wink:

I can personally see merits in the vast majority of the proposed network - especially the airport, Norwood and Prospect lines. Still not 100% convinced about the Outer Harbor conversion - they'd really have to nail it to make sure the benefits outweighed the longer travel times.

It's pretty much a given that we have a necessity to significantly grow our inner metropolitan density over the next few decades, the tram lines should provide a perfect catalyst for this. Other than a few relatively minor issues such as who's going to drive on what bit of road I can't really see why a feasibility study wouldn't come down in favour of trams.
There's a few pretty obvious feasibility hurdles:

If Prospect Road/O'Connell, and the Parade section from Dequetteville to Portrush end up at the speed of trams in Jetty Road, then it's not feasible. Jetty Road is relatively short, so doesn't have a huge impact on trip times. Those other stretches, because of the length involved, need to be able to be worked somehow to improve route speed over buses, such as happened with the extension to the Entercentre. The sorts of workarounds needed are like no on-street parking, tram only lanes, median tree removal in the Parade. Riiiiight! You don't need a $4m feasibility study to work that out. (And a feasibility study that didn't point those issues out would be worthless imho). If you don't do those workarounds, the trip times down O'Connell, Prospect, and the Parade are going to be horrendous. You don't need a $4m feasibility study to work that out. You can check it out for $3.48 on a Metro ticket and a crawl down Jetty Road at 5pm weekdays. :sly: