News & Discussion: Trams

[rubberman]

Would be worthwhile bundling up the next order of new trams for Adelaide with the Bombardier E-Class batch being built at Melbourne's Dandendong factory. The money and jobs stay in Australia and we get trams designed for Australian conditions, not European conditions.

The Flexitys being built at Dandenong were first delivered in 2012, and there's about 32 (or so) in service. So 8 per year. That might be ok if we only had the city loop in service in 2020. In fact it would be just about the time the extended Melbourne order would finish. However, if we had the city loop plus a couple of lines to the suburbs, that would not be enough trams.

Next, the Melbourne E class Flexity trams cost a lot more than the 100% European built trams. So, the Commonwealth would have to chip in some more. If the economics of savings on unemployment benefits plus more tax receipts made it worth while, then fair enough. However, states don't really have enough money for this. Victoria is buying 70 E class, for example, but they could have had 100 Skoda 15T for that money. So, they have sacrificed a lot of replacement for that decision.

Then, considering that the Flexity's technical gear all comes from Europe, it's only the bodywork design and maybe the air conditioning that is for "Australian conditions". The air conditioning issues and upgrades have been solved in Adelaide already, so that's not a problem. I'm not sure what other Australian issues are relevant. I have ridden both the E class tram and Skoda 15T (and a lot of other Euro trams as well), and I don't really think that those who want to use Flexitys from Dandenong should rely on technical or design advantage claims. The E class Flexity is a good tram, no doubt, but it's not able to argue technical or design superiority. There might be an advantage if there were lots of common spares with our existing Flexity trams in Adelaide of course. But that boils down to economics too.

So, in summary, it's really economics and the ability of Bombardier to supply the number of trams required in the time frame that will make the decision for us.

[Norman]

This is a vision I drew up a few years ago, almost got South Road's T2T project correct haha. But it's another idea for what to do with the current Hindmarsh Stadium and Tram terminus.



(Dark blue indicates heritage buildings, light green is open spaces)

[PeFe]

Why not continue the tram down Grange Road?
Even if there is an increase of density around Hindmarsh Stadium there is no need to stop the tram there.

[crawf]

Nice work Norman!

Once Bowden Village is near completion, I can see Hindmarsh becoming the next development hotspot. So much potential.

[Norman]

Why not continue the tram down Grange Road?
Even if there is an increase of density around Hindmarsh Stadium there is no need to stop the tram there.

The concept plan at the time was more a focus on the stadium rather than a tram network. It was just something I made out of the blue.

[claybro]

Looks great Norman. As far as the tram, makes something useful from the current dead end. Also extracts this line from confusing the issue of how to tie it in with a possible OH light rail, as this could be kept seperate on a dedicated track through the parklands as per the other concept and simultaneously making good use of the existing line.

[fishinajar]

Nice concept Norman and neat presentation. Most of it could still be achieved with the tramline running through the precinct and up Grange Rd as PeFe suggested however, or even just terminating on Manton St (a dead end is a future opportunity Claybro).

[Llessur2002]

More Adelaide trams would worsen road congestion, RAA warns

Peak-hour traffic congestion could worsen if Adelaide's tram network is expanded, motoring organisation the RAA has warned.

New lines are being proposed to Unley, Norwood, Prospect, Henley Beach and Semaphore.

But Charles Mountain of the RAA said near-city thoroughfares including Unley and Prospect roads and The Parade would struggle to manage with the addition of trams, as they were already busy with buses and cars.

"While we're broadly supportive of the whole idea of extending the tram network, some of the proposed corridors would present more challenges than others," he said.

"If you look at the case of Unley Road, that carries a lot of traffic up to the hills — there's a lot of activity along the corridor itself in terms of turning movements and also managing the existing bus network."

Mr Mountain said trams would replace some cars and buses using the roads, but said those arterial corridors still carried traffic from suburbs beyond those where tram lines were being proposed.

"Do we end up with a park-and-ride facility up at Mitcham, where people can transfer, or do we still have a combination of buses and trams operating on the same corridor, all of which will be competing for reduced road space?" he asked.

"Some of the turns that [drivers] currently undertake will have to be restricted or in some cases banned to ensure the trams can operate safely. That has flow-on impacts in terms of access."

The AdeLINK tram network plan was last week promised $500 million from Labor if it wins the federal election.

Adelaide mayors have called on the Coalition to match the ALP tram funding pledge.

The network could cost $3 billion overall, so the South Australian Government said it would have to prioritise which new tram lines to build first.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-23/m ... ns/7436510

[Nathan]

So the congestion issues on Unley Rd have nothing to do with parked cars and turning movements?

[claybro]

So a spokesperson for our peak motoring group suggests a park and ride transfer at Mitchum? Great idea for foothills commuters, but why haven't we ever heard such a suggestion from our public transport spokespeople? Is it time to get the RAA to run PT? They seem to have more of a grip about an overall approach.

[Waewick]

The thing I like about Normans idea is it could have been funded via sales of redevelopment in the area. But opportunity missed I guess.

[Llessur2002]

An interesting snippet from the end of the Advertiser article regarding the RAA's predictable comments re: congestion caused by trams.

For or against?

Messenger Community News polled 500 people across Adelaide on their support for an extension of a tram network.

■ Unley: 60 per cent for, 40 per cent against

■ Norwood: 43 per cent for, 42 per cent against, 15 per cent undecided

■ North Adelaide and Prospect: 69 per cent for, 28 per cent against, 3 per cent against

■ Western Adelaide: 71 per cent for, 21 per cent against, 8 per cent undecided

■ Outer Harbor: 83 per cent for, 15 per cent against, 2 per cent undecided

■ Total: 65.2 per cent for, 29.2 per cent against, 5.6 per cent undecided

Good to see there is a good level of support for the trams amongst the general Adelaide population - even when the pool of survey participants is chosen by NewsCorp. I sometimes despair when I read the comments on the Advertiser website (yeah I know I shouldn't do that) but it's good to have it reaffirmed that it's just a small bunch of backward folk with nothing better to do than to whip each other up into a frenzy about trams, cyclists or the Royal Croquet Club...

[monotonehell]

...but it's good to have it reaffirmed that it's just a small bunch of backward folk with nothing better to do than to whip each other up into a frenzy about trams, cyclists or the Royal Croquet Club...

The squeaky wheel gets the cheese.

[Spurdo]

As if anyone would take the RAA seriously, they're a bunch of petrolheaded Murdoch news media shills

[mattwinter]

They make some fair points, and just emphasizes the importance of doing this well, following the ideas that some people have suggested on here e.g. dedicated tram lanes which buses can also use, removing all on-street parking, tram signal priority, bringing in hook turns where right turns still need to be an option.