Sensational-Adelaide.com

Ovingham is already in the process of revitalisation... that is the area between Hawker Street, South Road and Port Road.

If that line was done, mind if I make a couple of ammendments? Have the terminus of the line located on the north western side of South Road so you can't use the excuse of "South Road's in the way". Second, have the North Terrace - Port Road section on it's own reservation in the parklands to allow for a faster section running time. So the NIMBYs don't winge too much, construct the track like what we already have in Victoria Square. Someone a while ago suggested that if a tramline was built all the way to Port Adelaide using the Port Road alignment, close a few of the smaller stations along the Outer Harbour line to decrease journey times on heavy rail and let the almost parallel tramline carry the slower, stopping all load.

AG wrote:

Hindley Street Alley wrote: ALSO, if we need to add more trams to the glenelg line now (because apparently it's so popular...
Why not have the new trams and the old 'heritage' trams running at the same time? can we not increase the number of trams and reduce waiting time? or is there no need for this or is it not practical for some other reason?

TransAdelaide claims it is not able to run any more trams than it currently does during peak hour due to the limiting traffic flow to road users at level crossings on major roads such as South Road and Marion Road if they were to operate more frequently.

Which is a fairly good argument for public transport that is grade separated from the road system. Like what was done with the O-Bahn back in the 1980s. Yes it is more expensive, but when a system like the Glenelg line is standing room only (or worse) we need more capacity now, let alone looking toward the future.

Let's get the Glenelg tram system working well first before extending it !

More trams: Before extending the tram service to other parts of the CBD, it's far more important to get the current route working well. During the daytime, the 10 trams can only service the terrace-to-terrace sector once every 7.5 minutes, and to Glenelg once every 15 minutes. TransAdelaide instead needs 15 trams, so terrace-to-terrace can be every 5 minutes, and Glenelg every 10 minutes. A CBD service every 7.5 minutes is too infrequent, and will probably quickly encounter capacity constraints. Melbourne's trams run every 6 minutes in peak times, and when multiple routes converge they can be every minute. Within tMelbourne's CBD, people will get on a tram to travel 1-2 blocks. While I'd rather get the exercise of walking, it's better a tram service be available than that the users drive, or conduct their business at car-dominated shopping centres outside the CBD. The current 10 trams are barely coping with current demand - there's no room for growth.

Goodwood connection to rail service: A tramstop at Goodwood station would allow better public transport connections with the rail system, particularly to access the southern part of the CBD. Such a tramstop would require 2 lifts for anti-discrimination compliance. More trams would be required to cope with extra demand !

Park-and-ride: Moving the tram reservation fence a couple of metres into the tram reservation would open up much more room for parking, and attract users whoe are beyond walking distance from tram stops. Again, more trams would be required to cope with demand from park-and-ride passengers.

There is currently a limitation that TransAdelaide can only close the boomgates every 5 minutes on the tram reservation. This means a frequency of 1 tram every 10 minutes in each direction. The critical roads and South Rd (which will soon have a tram overpass), Goodwood Rd, and Marion Rd. At the latter 2, why not have stop lights so trams travelling in the non-peak direction need to wait until a peak direction tram triggers the boomgates, or until traffic light sequencing allows traffic on cross streets to cross ? This way, a peak tram frequency of 5 minutes could be mainatined. Eventually, an overpass should be constructed at Goodwood Road. How are pedestrians expected to cross the road with a continual line of traffic ? The tramstop heading one direction is the other side of the road to that of the other direction, so each passenger needs to cross the road once each day if using the Goodwood Road stop.

Extension to Port line ? If tramline were extended up the Port line, trams from the Port would come into the Adelaide station stop full of passengers, with little room to take new passengers into the CBD. In Melbourne, the cost of a tram per seated passenger is about double that of a tram, so it would be a retrograde step to change a rail line into a tramline, unless there were some other reason (such as allowing on-street running to AAMI Stadium). Trains are more of a commodity than trams, so they're cheaper to purchase.

Wha?

Trains cheaper than trams? Surely you meant the other way round?

In fact the lower capital cost is one of the attractions of light rail such as the Glenelg line (and one of the reasons it was converted from train to tram in the late nineteen twenties).

However, I am happy to be proven wrong if you can substantiate that building trains is cheaper than trams.

rubberman wrote:Wha?

Trains cheaper than trams? Surely you meant the other way round?

In fact the lower capital cost is one of the attractions of light rail such as the Glenelg line (and one of the reasons it was converted from train to tram in the late nineteen twenties).

However, I am happy to be proven wrong if you can substantiate that building trains is cheaper than trams.

Actually a system of buses and busways costs considerably less to run, can move more passengers more conveniently and is more flexible than rail. But because trains are sexy and buses are not, many cities have been making the mistake of installing rail for the past 20 years.

Will409 wrote:If that line was done, mind if I make a couple of ammendments? Have the terminus of the line located on the north western side of South Road so you can't use the excuse of "South Road's in the way". Second, have the North Terrace - Port Road section on it's own reservation in the parklands to allow for a faster section running time. So the NIMBYs don't winge too much, construct the track like what we already have in Victoria Square. Someone a while ago suggested that if a tramline was built all the way to Port Adelaide using the Port Road alignment, close a few of the smaller stations along the Outer Harbour line to decrease journey times on heavy rail and let the almost parallel tramline carry the slower, stopping all load.

Unfortunately it looks like any use of the Port Road corridor for tram use can be ruled out. If you have a look at the Port Road Rejuvenation & Stormwater Management plans on the Charles Sturt Website http://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/ the diagrams show large wetlands to be placed down the Port Road corridor and there does not seem to be any allowance made for future tram use. The only way it could happen would be to reclaim one of the Port Road lanes for conversion at a later stage.

sidler wrote: Unfortunately it looks like any use of the Port Road corridor for tram use can be ruled out. If you have a look at the Port Road Rejuvenation & Stormwater Management plans on the Charles Sturt Website http://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/ the diagrams show large wetlands to be placed down the Port Road corridor and there does not seem to be any allowance made for future tram use. The only way it could happen would be to reclaim one of the Port Road lanes for conversion at a later stage.

I heard recently that the Port Rd wetlands project is being scrapped. Anyone else hear this? Wetlands attracts heaps of birds. A startled flock of birds entering 3 lanes of heavy traffic is a bad idea - flap, splat, swerve, thud...followed by wailing ambulance sirens

pretty everything in that long description was right i reckon.

I still believe that the outer harbor/grange lines should be converted to light rail, with a possible extension to aami stadium and west lakes, and a 5 min interval as you described. We would then have 3 "world class" transport links (Glenelg, Outer harbor/Aami, and the o-bahn)

muzzamo wrote:pretty everything in that long description was right i reckon.

I still believe that the outer harbor/grange lines should be converted to light rail, with a possible extension to aami stadium and west lakes, and a 5 min interval as you described. We would then have 3 "world class" transport links (Glenelg, Outer harbor/Aami, and the o-bahn)

( There's a U in harbour... OMG you're an American spy! - I've outed you! )

Would light rail be the best answer out that way considering the current developments and their placement? Or would a door to door transport service be better?

There is no U in Harbour in South Australian place names - it's Victor Harbor, Outer Harbor. It's because back in the colonial days, the government maps were made by an American company.

They have been gazetted (about as official as you can get) without the U. Pity, though.

AtD wrote:There is no U in Harbour in South Australian place names - it's Victor Harbor, Outer Harbor. It's because back in the colonial days, the government maps were made by an American company.

I know, it's annoying isn't it? Like how Labor spell their name without the U. Ignorant swine

(I'm just joking by the way)

I think that it would be a good idea to extend the tramline down Gray Street, onto Hindley, over the Morphett Street Bridge, past Adelaide Oval and up to Wellington Square. Rann had stated a few months ago that he has heard of other cities that have put trams in 'lower' areas and after a while, the tram has rejuvinated the area. A classic example would be the tram going down Hindley Street.
As for the rail network, it needs to be elctrified, because we are the only city in the country with trains running off of diesel fuel, yet here we are striving towards becoming a 'greener city'.

The last point particularly relevant adam.

You probably realise also that road transport is responsible for 25% of air pollution in Australia. All the thermal power stations in Australia produce over 70%. Now if we have electric trains run off thermal stations in SA we will need more power and make more atmospheric problems. (or bypass with nuclear - very 'dirty' in installation process only). There would be an interesting tradoff environmentally.

Now to the transport issue - With all this in mind understand from SAR railway history in the metro area that a little deal went on between the railways, the government and Mobil to get a refinery here if the railways used diesel propulsion and used the refinery products. Hence we now have a very outdated legacy of an environmentally unfriendly diesel orientated system. (and no refinery).Now we have to get out of the hole and electrify as the whole system is thus more expensive to run as well as antiquated. On the side, consider also the 'peak oil' concept recently publicised.

Time to make the moves, publically, even if only step by laborious step. It must happen to alleviate the stresses on the roads as well. Projected into the future, the strain is only going to get worse, particularly if no widepread changes take place in other that south Rd, or if road improvements take place at the rate they have until now metro wide.
Road or rail expense, that is the question. (considering long term gains and losses). Note - to me there is no question - rail must happen. Trams likewise. Same overall pros and cons but to varying degrees.

ADELAIDE - CITY ON THE MOVE