Sensational-Adelaide.com

I didn't think the RAA was being anti tram at all, just pointing out some obvious pitfalls to manage properly. Seems they think things through more thoroughly than some of the thought bubbles from some transport planners. After all cars are not going away any time soon.

claybro wrote:I didn't think the RAA was being anti tram at all, just pointing out some obvious pitfalls to manage properly. Seems they think things through more thoroughly than some of the thought bubbles from some transport planners. After all cars are not going away any time soon.

Yes. It's far better to anticipate problems and provide solutions, rather than be blindly optimistic and then get caught out by overhead wires snapping and circuit breakers blowing. Or worse, with chaos on the Parade and Prospect Road, and with no way of doing anything about it with the tracks already concreted in.

Regarding The Parade, and Prospect road, I don't get why trams should create problems that can't be overcome. Prospect is not a major arterial to outer suburbs, and really surves as more of a local high street. It has arterial roads running parallel within 500m either side of it. If you find prospect road too conjested by trams, no biggie, just use Churchill or main North instead. Same for The Parade, which is not even directly connected to the city by road. Unley road is a different case. It really is the main arterial directly South from the city to the southern foothills, and is far busier than the other 2. It will require some very creative work arounds, although reducing right turns should free it up immensely.

Would it better to have the tramline run along King William Road instead?

Parade should be easy if you improve Kensington and Magill at the same time.

I reckon if you built it so it's opening coincided with Clipsal 500 you'd get a few thousand users off the bat.

crawf wrote:Would it better to have the tramline run along King William Road instead?

This would be much preferable to Unley Road. Tram could then go down Grove Street / Jervois Street and join up with the Belair line (replacing that as a light rail corridor). System would be mostly on its own right of way, serve a main / high street precinct, still connects to Mitcham, and doesn't impact on Unley Road at all. Plus saves costs of having to build 2km of tram tracks down Pulteney Street as it can just use the KWS corridor. Much more efficient and cheaper.

Isn't the problem with King William Road that it's relatively close to the existing Glenelg Tram? The southern section of Hyde Park is then only a few minutes walk from Millswood on the Belair Line. How about Duthy Street or even Fullarton Road? Might encourage some more development.

A tram to Duthy Street could go down the east end of North Tce, then East Tce and Hutt Street. Perfect, although I'd want to see some TODs among those 19th century Unley villas to get more people using the system

Duthy street really doesn't offer any real services or retail hubs, and really is too narrow. Fullarton road is a major thoroufare, but still does not really offer any opportunity to develope any higher density developement due to a lack of larger scale commercial property. King William road does offer the genuine high street, well suited to a tram, but much care would need to be given to any re developement to higher density, as it does have a destinct villiage feel which is unique to adelaide. Realisticly, trams should only be rolled out where there is a possibility of really ramping up density, such as Prospect road Kilburn, and the Eastern end of The Parade, around the Portrush intersection.

I wonder if putting the team along a side street like Rugby street could work - close enough to Unley road that it has all the Unley road advantages but doesn't disrupt traffic..?

But in seriousness I think Unley road's fine. Remove on street parking and no right turns except for hook turns and you're all good

claybro wrote: Fullarton road is a major thoroufare, but still does not really offer any opportunity to develope any higher density developement due to a lack of larger scale commercial property.

Glenside development maybe? There's potential for Fullarton Rd to develop opposite the development, down to just past the Arkaba, given the right conditions.

Glenside redevelopment should have a tram to it. It's absurd that it hasn't been proposed.

Glenside could be serviced by a tram via hutt street, and then Greenhill road to Burnside village.

claybro wrote:Regarding The Parade, and Prospect road, I don't get why trams should create problems that can't be overcome. Prospect is not a major arterial to outer suburbs, and really surves as more of a local high street. It has arterial roads running parallel within 500m either side of it. If you find prospect road too conjested by trams, no biggie, just use Churchill or main North instead. Same for The Parade, which is not even directly connected to the city by road. Unley road is a different case. It really is the main arterial directly South from the city to the southern foothills, and is far busier than the other 2. It will require some very creative work arounds, although reducing right turns should free it up immensely.

I'll agree with you on The Parade, but have you been down Prospect Road during peak hour? It's a nightmare... I'm all for trams along Prospect Road by the way, but they'd need to widen Churchill Road to allow for four lanes as opposed to two.

Whilst the inner-city south residents are very much users of public transport and the Mitcham/Unley area is an obvious choice for a tram-line (just look at how many bus routes could be removed if a tram went to Mitcham); with the Belair Line so close-by, I'm wondering if the money would be better spent electrifying the singular Belair Line and instead building a tram further south-east towards Linden Park/Beaumont way? This would also wipe off a lot of bus routes, it would sit almost halfway between the Belair Line and the The Parade line (just as the O-Bahn would sit halfway between The Parade line and the Prospect line) and (stereotyping here) it would encourage a lot of business people in the east who would usually drive their cars into work to perhaps use the 'ultra-modern' public transport...

Patrick_27 wrote:Whilst the inner-city south residents are very much users of public transport and the Mitcham/Unley area is an obvious choice for a tram-line (just look at how many bus routes could be removed if a tram went to Mitcham); with the Belair Line so close-by, I'm wondering if the money would be better spent electrifying the singular Belair Line and instead building a tram further south-east towards Linden Park/Beaumont way? This would also wipe off a lot of bus routes, it would sit almost halfway between the Belair Line and the The Parade line (just as the O-Bahn would sit halfway between The Parade line and the Prospect line) and (stereotyping here) it would encourage a lot of business people in the east who would usually drive their cars into work to perhaps use the 'ultra-modern' public transport...

Unley Road is being considered for a tram because it has a higher chance of being developed into an even more dense corridor of business and residential functions. The Beaumont area is fairly low density and, given its demographic and heritage, will likely remain so. The tram down Unley Road would be of a lot more use than one to Beaumont.