Sensational-Adelaide.com

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 15, 2024 10:42 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 02, 2024 9:13 am

Keswick creek also isn't wide enough along a lot of it for more than one lane, so it would either have a relatively low max frequency as the direction swaps over, or would need a bunch of expensive and unpopular land acquisition.

Consider that cheap infrastructure is more likely to be built. So a one track O-Bahn is more likely to be built and it can easily cope with the existing J1/J2 frequency. No stops on the airport O-Bahn after Mile End because that adds cost and would slow it down. The length of the one track section would be 2.5 km at most, at 60 km/h that's 2.5 minutes, so the corridor could support a five minute frequency. An airport O-Bahn wouldn't need to support the same frequency as the existing O-Bahn because only J1/J2 buses would use it and the existing O-Bahn has many routes on it. If the airport O-Bahn floods, buses can just drive on Sir Donald Bradman Drive.

Trams on Henley Beach Road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive wouldn't be an improvement on existing bus routes. They would get stuck in traffic and cost more to build than a one track O-Bahn.

Why focus on the airport? Because a grade separated route already exists in Keswick Creek drain and coincidentally it can stop at HomeCo SuperCentre and Bunnings that are public transport black spots. There's no equivalent for Henley Beach Road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive.

A service that doesn't stop between Mile End and the Airport is probably a non starter because it would basically be an exclusively airport traffic service, so would have a higher cost, and find it hard to compete with relatively quick and cheap taxis and ride sharing services.

Never mind the political ramifications of taking a corridor from potential local residents use and instead having it just be contributing noise and obstruction with no useful purpose to them.

Correct. As I've said on this thread previously, Keswick Creek is not viable for an oBahn type route, primarily because a big chunk of it will hopefully be turned into open space. Something I really hope goes ahead, as there's very little open space in the inner west.:

https://yoursay.westtorrens.sa.gov.au/creekpark

Also as mentioned, inner west residents are not going to support a transport model that cuts through, further diminishes the amount of open space, and offers little value if it's not even going to stop between the city and the airport. I say this as someone that lives in the local area.

Even if the creek path was to be used, a few people might use stops near Richmond Oval or the Hamra library, but Cowandilla Primary that backs onto the creek is just a huge volume of open space, surrounded by low / medium density housing. At least the buses along Sir Don Bradman and Henley Beach roads are directly servicing the shops, medical facilities, offices and other activities focused on those routes, and I don't see why you'd now want to take PT options away from those areas given the intent was to build them up with the Go Zone initiatives.

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 15, 2024 11:10 pm

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 15, 2024 10:42 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 02, 2024 9:13 am

Keswick creek also isn't wide enough along a lot of it for more than one lane, so it would either have a relatively low max frequency as the direction swaps over, or would need a bunch of expensive and unpopular land acquisition.

Consider that cheap infrastructure is more likely to be built. So a one track O-Bahn is more likely to be built and it can easily cope with the existing J1/J2 frequency. No stops on the airport O-Bahn after Mile End because that adds cost and would slow it down. The length of the one track section would be 2.5 km at most, at 60 km/h that's 2.5 minutes, so the corridor could support a five minute frequency. An airport O-Bahn wouldn't need to support the same frequency as the existing O-Bahn because only J1/J2 buses would use it and the existing O-Bahn has many routes on it. If the airport O-Bahn floods, buses can just drive on Sir Donald Bradman Drive.

Trams on Henley Beach Road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive wouldn't be an improvement on existing bus routes. They would get stuck in traffic and cost more to build than a one track O-Bahn.

Why focus on the airport? Because a grade separated route already exists in Keswick Creek drain and coincidentally it can stop at HomeCo SuperCentre and Bunnings that are public transport black spots. There's no equivalent for Henley Beach Road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive.

A service that doesn't stop between Mile End and the Airport is probably a non starter because it would basically be an exclusively airport traffic service, so would have a higher cost, and find it hard to compete with relatively quick and cheap taxis and ride sharing services.

Never mind the political ramifications of taking a corridor from potential local residents use and instead having it just be contributing noise and obstruction with no useful purpose to them.

Given that the airport is so close to the CBD, and to North-South arterial corridors, it's hard to see a rail connection with the CBD as anything more than a vanity project.

Now that would be ok if every other aspect of the public transport system was top notch. However, that's far from the case. There are plenty of higher priority projects for trams, trains, O-Bahn.

In the case of the O-Bahn, conversion to trolleybus operation is required for reducing carbon emissions. It's underway in Europe. So, a practical improvement for the airport service would be for the J1/J2 to become a trolleybus route with wire operation on the O-Bahn track and down Sir Donald Bradman Drive, with battery operation through the CBD and South Road. The Airport stop could be vastly improved with a covered and airconditioned walkway from the terminal, a comfortable waiting area and sliding door access to buses.

Do that, and there's simply no need for rail to the airport.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2024 11:10 am

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 15, 2024 11:10 pm

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 15, 2024 10:42 pm

Consider that cheap infrastructure is more likely to be built. So a one track O-Bahn is more likely to be built and it can easily cope with the existing J1/J2 frequency. No stops on the airport O-Bahn after Mile End because that adds cost and would slow it down. The length of the one track section would be 2.5 km at most, at 60 km/h that's 2.5 minutes, so the corridor could support a five minute frequency. An airport O-Bahn wouldn't need to support the same frequency as the existing O-Bahn because only J1/J2 buses would use it and the existing O-Bahn has many routes on it. If the airport O-Bahn floods, buses can just drive on Sir Donald Bradman Drive.

Trams on Henley Beach Road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive wouldn't be an improvement on existing bus routes. They would get stuck in traffic and cost more to build than a one track O-Bahn.

Why focus on the airport? Because a grade separated route already exists in Keswick Creek drain and coincidentally it can stop at HomeCo SuperCentre and Bunnings that are public transport black spots. There's no equivalent for Henley Beach Road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive.

A service that doesn't stop between Mile End and the Airport is probably a non starter because it would basically be an exclusively airport traffic service, so would have a higher cost, and find it hard to compete with relatively quick and cheap taxis and ride sharing services.

Never mind the political ramifications of taking a corridor from potential local residents use and instead having it just be contributing noise and obstruction with no useful purpose to them.

Given that the airport is so close to the CBD, and to North-South arterial corridors, it's hard to see a rail connection with the CBD as anything more than a vanity project.

Now that would be ok if every other aspect of the public transport system was top notch. However, that's far from the case. There are plenty of higher priority projects for trams, trains, O-Bahn.

In the case of the O-Bahn, conversion to trolleybus operation is required for reducing carbon emissions. It's underway in Europe. So, a practical improvement for the airport service would be for the J1/J2 to become a trolleybus route with wire operation on the O-Bahn track and down Sir Donald Bradman Drive, with battery operation through the CBD and South Road. The Airport stop could be vastly improved with a covered and airconditioned walkway from the terminal, a comfortable waiting area and sliding door access to buses.

Do that, and there's simply no need for rail to the airport.

oh please, that's a massive rort we don't need here

abc wrote:

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2024 11:10 am

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 15, 2024 11:10 pm

A service that doesn't stop between Mile End and the Airport is probably a non starter because it would basically be an exclusively airport traffic service, so would have a higher cost, and find it hard to compete with relatively quick and cheap taxis and ride sharing services.

Never mind the political ramifications of taking a corridor from potential local residents use and instead having it just be contributing noise and obstruction with no useful purpose to them.

Given that the airport is so close to the CBD, and to North-South arterial corridors, it's hard to see a rail connection with the CBD as anything more than a vanity project.

Now that would be ok if every other aspect of the public transport system was top notch. However, that's far from the case. There are plenty of higher priority projects for trams, trains, O-Bahn.

In the case of the O-Bahn, conversion to trolleybus operation is required for reducing carbon emissions. It's underway in Europe. So, a practical improvement for the airport service would be for the J1/J2 to become a trolleybus route with wire operation on the O-Bahn track and down Sir Donald Bradman Drive, with battery operation through the CBD and South Road. The Airport stop could be vastly improved with a covered and airconditioned walkway from the terminal, a comfortable waiting area and sliding door access to buses.

Do that, and there's simply no need for rail to the airport.

oh please, that's a massive rort we don't need here

I see you are having difficulty understanding the post. Perhaps you should ask some clarifying questions before lashing out in anger again.

We get these topics are very difficult to understand for you, but it seems people here are happy to answer questions, so why not try that first?

rubberman wrote:

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 15, 2024 11:10 pm

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 15, 2024 10:42 pm

Consider that cheap infrastructure is more likely to be built. So a one track O-Bahn is more likely to be built and it can easily cope with the existing J1/J2 frequency. No stops on the airport O-Bahn after Mile End because that adds cost and would slow it down. The length of the one track section would be 2.5 km at most, at 60 km/h that's 2.5 minutes, so the corridor could support a five minute frequency. An airport O-Bahn wouldn't need to support the same frequency as the existing O-Bahn because only J1/J2 buses would use it and the existing O-Bahn has many routes on it. If the airport O-Bahn floods, buses can just drive on Sir Donald Bradman Drive.

Trams on Henley Beach Road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive wouldn't be an improvement on existing bus routes. They would get stuck in traffic and cost more to build than a one track O-Bahn.

Why focus on the airport? Because a grade separated route already exists in Keswick Creek drain and coincidentally it can stop at HomeCo SuperCentre and Bunnings that are public transport black spots. There's no equivalent for Henley Beach Road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive.

A service that doesn't stop between Mile End and the Airport is probably a non starter because it would basically be an exclusively airport traffic service, so would have a higher cost, and find it hard to compete with relatively quick and cheap taxis and ride sharing services.

Never mind the political ramifications of taking a corridor from potential local residents use and instead having it just be contributing noise and obstruction with no useful purpose to them.

Given that the airport is so close to the CBD, and to North-South arterial corridors, it's hard to see a rail connection with the CBD as anything more than a vanity project.

Now that would be ok if every other aspect of the public transport system was top notch. However, that's far from the case. There are plenty of higher priority projects for trams, trains, O-Bahn.

In the case of the O-Bahn, conversion to trolleybus operation is required for reducing carbon emissions. It's underway in Europe. So, a practical improvement for the airport service would be for the J1/J2 to become a trolleybus route with wire operation on the O-Bahn track and down Sir Donald Bradman Drive, with battery operation through the CBD and South Road. The Airport stop could be vastly improved with a covered and airconditioned walkway from the terminal, a comfortable waiting area and sliding door access to buses.

Do that, and there's simply no need for rail to the airport.

Don't you need dedicated lanes for Trolley buses?

I assume they need less infrastructure than Trams though, be interesting to see how they roll out in other jurisdictions.

Edit - I would be curious on the reduced pollution from desiel buses, i assume given how many buses go through the cbd their contribution to air pollution would be significant)

Waewick wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2024 11:33 am

rubberman wrote:

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 15, 2024 11:10 pm

A service that doesn't stop between Mile End and the Airport is probably a non starter because it would basically be an exclusively airport traffic service, so would have a higher cost, and find it hard to compete with relatively quick and cheap taxis and ride sharing services.

Never mind the political ramifications of taking a corridor from potential local residents use and instead having it just be contributing noise and obstruction with no useful purpose to them.

Given that the airport is so close to the CBD, and to North-South arterial corridors, it's hard to see a rail connection with the CBD as anything more than a vanity project.

Now that would be ok if every other aspect of the public transport system was top notch. However, that's far from the case. There are plenty of higher priority projects for trams, trains, O-Bahn.

In the case of the O-Bahn, conversion to trolleybus operation is required for reducing carbon emissions. It's underway in Europe. So, a practical improvement for the airport service would be for the J1/J2 to become a trolleybus route with wire operation on the O-Bahn track and down Sir Donald Bradman Drive, with battery operation through the CBD and South Road. The Airport stop could be vastly improved with a covered and airconditioned walkway from the terminal, a comfortable waiting area and sliding door access to buses.

Do that, and there's simply no need for rail to the airport.

Don't you need dedicated lanes for Trolley buses?

I assume they need less infrastructure than Trams though, be interesting to see how they roll out in other jurisdictions.

Edit - I would be curious on the reduced pollution from desiel buses, i assume given how many buses go through the cbd their contribution to air pollution would be significant)

Trolleybuses can be used on up to three laned roads. Further, they can run on sections without overhead wiring when combined with battery technology. So, in the urban transport setting, they can go anywhere that a diesel bus can go. Since they are 100% electric, they can use renewables. They also run mostly during the day, with night service being less frequent, so solar is a bigger share of the electricity mix.

Cheers for that, seems a good option for Bus dependant Adelaide.

Still woukd prefer some sort of dedicated lane or signallying that gets them in front of traffic.

ffs

we had trolley buses in Adelaide after they ripped up the tram network

they're old technology and they don't improve anything

abc wrote:ffs

we had trolley buses in Adelaide after they ripped up the tram network

they're old technology and they don't improve anything

So much anger.

Maybe go and have a lie down, we will be here when you get back and have something to contribute

Let's demand more than a bus to the airport. Let's not settle for mediocrity.

ChillyPhilly wrote:Let's demand more than a bus to the airport. Let's not settle for mediocrity.

From memory the AA did include a transport corridor in their last master plan.

I'd prefer train/tram as well, struggle to see the political will, feels like we need a Federal political to be engaged, make it a swing seat issue.

its already the most accessible capital city airport in Australia... there's never any traffic inside the airport, its just not that busy

the only bottleneck is at South Road and that's being addressed

abc wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2024 12:53 pm

its already the most accessible capital city airport in Australia...

If you’re travelling by car or taxi/ride share, yes. Public transport, not so much.

Dressing up the J1 and J2 under a “Jet Connector” brand and offering a simplified version of the bus map that shows only the main stops (in addition to the current map) and separates the full route buses from the partial route buses would make it much easier to understand at a glance. Especially if you’re not familiar with our bus network or how to read our maps and timetables.

Sometimes you don’t have to completely reinvent the wheel, it might just come down to some good simplified marketing!

Simply bringing back the Jet Express routes would be the more ideal solution, but we can still work with what we have.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2024 12:10 pm

Trolleybuses can be used on up to three laned roads. Further, they can run on sections without overhead wiring when combined with battery technology. So, in the urban transport setting, they can go anywhere that a diesel bus can go. Since they are 100% electric, they can use renewables. They also run mostly during the day, with night service being less frequent, so solar is a bigger share of the electricity mix.

Is there any advantage of trolley buses over pure battery electric buses these days? Quite a few places in China have switched their entire fleets across to battery electric, and even Adelaide is trialing one now: https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/about- ... ectric-bus . If the ones you are suggesting have got batteries anyway, why not just use the batteries the whole time?

And if you are going to go to the expense of putting up overhead wiring, why not just spend a bit more to add the tracks and build a proper tram line?

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2024 11:10 am

Given that the airport is so close to the CBD, and to North-South arterial corridors, it's hard to see a rail connection with the CBD as anything more than a vanity project.

Now that would be ok if every other aspect of the public transport system was top notch. However, that's far from the case. There are plenty of higher priority projects for trams, trains, O-Bahn.

Agreed that heavy rail would probably be overkill at this stage, but a light rail line via Henley Beach and Airport Rds, as envisioned in Adelink, would be very useful and not insanely expensive. This was actually government policy during the Wetherill years, and was only shelved because of Marshall and Koutsantonis' politicking.

In the distant future, when the population has increased a lot and the city has densified, it might be worth linking the airport with heavy rail. But if they were going to do this, we wouldn't get the maximum benefits by building it as just a stub line to the airport. It would have far greater benefits if it formed part of a bigger interconnector line linking the key activity centres in the south-western suburbs. City > Airport > Glenelg > Marion > Flinders.

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 15, 2024 10:42 pm

Trams on Henley Beach Road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive wouldn't be an improvement on existing bus routes. They would get stuck in traffic and cost more to build than a one track O-Bahn.

Trams would likely have dedicated lanes, so they wouldn't get stuck in traffic. That said, we could give buses dedicated lanes right now.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 07, 2024 10:07 am

Agree with all of this. The median of Airport Road is clearly a reserved corridor, and there is sufficient width in the Bakewell Underpass for a light rail corridor. There also seems to be some reserved space on the eastern side of James Congdon Drive north of Henley Beach Road, presumably for road widening but this can include light rail.

Ideally, I think an airport light rail link would meet a restored light rail corridor along a narrowed West Terrace. Unsure about sending light rail down Currie/Grenfell as this is better suited to being a semi-transit mall for the O-Bahn corridor in future, but the more, the merrier.

Originally, Adelink recommended the Airport Link tram running along Grenfell/Currie, with through running to the East Link line via the old tram embankment in Rymill Park. The preliminary works for the Rymil Park connection was going to be done along with the O-Bahn tunnel, but after the usual complaints about reduced on-street parking (Rundle Rd was going to be closed through the parklands) the O-Bahn city access project was reconfigured to what it is now.
I'm not sure what they were planning to do about finding space for trams as well as buses on Grenfell/Currie. I suppose King William St and North Tce already have to deal with this problem, to a slightly lesser as Grenfell/Currie has more buses that anywhere else.

Personally, I think the O-Bahn tunnel should be extended under the length of Grenfell/Currie, with platforms below street level like they have in Brisbane. That would free up a lot of space to narrow the above-ground streets and make them much more pleasant places to be in. As you suggest, the street could even be semi-pedestrianised as a transit mall similar to what George St in Sydney is like now, with trams and bikes allowed but the rest of the space allocated to pedestrians.

We really need to do something about Grenfell/Currie at some point. Its such a grotty, ugly environment to be in, despite arguably being Adelaide's main street. As it currently stands, and despite its excellent location, it is a place people only visit because they have to (to catch a bus or go to the office). The street is currently a real stain on the image of the city. It could be so much more than it is, and the main thing stopping it becoming that is the presence of large numbers of fast, noisy and unpredictably moving heavy vehicles (principally buses). Putting them below the surface would solve all of this.