Sensational-Adelaide.com

mm42 wrote:With only 15 duel-voltage tram-trains, holding perhaps 180 people each, this means a maximum capacity to AAMI Stadium of 2700 passengers, or 5% of the capacity of the stadium. Should more trams be converted to duel-voltage ?

The Footy Express will still exist, the trams will only be complimentary.

As for the Port Boulevard: it would *be* a boulevard, not just named one. Think of the boulevards in Paris: one lane each way, road-side parking, wide poot paths and an enourmous park, perhaps four lanes wide, in the middle. Or Amsterdam's streets: one lane each way, on-street parking and a canal in the middle. Perhaps it is time we revisited the Port Canal idea. I would prefer a wetlands/linear park, though. In any case, the name change would be a result not of a desire to increase property values, but of an actual change in the nature of the street.

So you want to turn Port Road from a 4 late road each way into a one lane road each way? You're insane. What you have to understand is that not everything can be done with Public Transport. There are still thousands of commercial vehicles and freight trucks going down that road... will they be satisfied with one lane? Absolutely not! And then there are a lot of people who don't want to catch public transport. Even in a perfect PT system, most people will still rely on their cars to work, for the luxuries in their car and their own space for themselves. In Germany, I read about 80% or so still travel to work or around by car, not Public Transport. And they have a very respectable system if you ask me.

As for the Port Boulevard: it would *be* a boulevard, not just named one. Think of the boulevards in Paris: one lane each way, road-side parking, wide poot paths and an enourmous park, perhaps four lanes wide, in the middle. Or Amsterdam's streets: one lane each way, on-street parking and a canal in the middle. Perhaps it is time we revisited the Port Canal idea. I would prefer a wetlands/linear park, though. In any case, the name change would be a result not of a desire to increase property values, but of an actual change in the nature of the street.

The Canals of Amsterdam were once the main way of transporting frieght thoughout the city over 600 years ago. The road system has evolved around these canals wich is one of the reasons it is such a beautiful city and also the reason it is such a nightmare to traffic.

Why would you build a canal costing mega bucks that would end up serving what exactally? It will never end up being used for anything and be a stagnant swamp in no time. There is no through flow of water to keep it in a healthy state. Yes there are things that can be done to improve Port Rd such as the bicycle lane suggestion but a canal or wetlands is not one of them.

There is also no reason for a tram to be constructed down the centre all the way to the port considering there is a perfectly viable (soon to be dual - electic) line about spiting distance to the east. What a waste of money. Some of you are already talking about scapping a system that you haven't even seen yet Clearly none of us are exactally sure about how its going to function with platforms, times between trams/trains, level crossings etc etc........ I am almost positive that people that are paid quite a bit of cash will beable to figure these issues out.

After so many years of neglect I for one am over the bloody moon and cant wait to bee stepping onto a tram/train or train/tram on a fully electrified system

A few more facts I got about the Flexity Link:
- Maximum speed is 90km/h
- There are 96 seats, with a further 147 stading places, making crush load 243 people. (243x15 = 3645 people for the fleet)
- Maximum grade it can go up at is 8%.

Also spoke to Rod Hook today. He said that the extension from the Entertainment Centre to the Outer Harbor line has not been determined yet, but "if there is land aquisition required for the line, they will do it".

Norman wrote:A few more facts I got about the Flexity Link:
- Maximum speed is 90km/h
- There are 96 seats, with a further 147 stading places, making crush load 243 people. (243x15 = 3645 people for the fleet)
- Maximum grade it can go up at is 8%.

Also spoke to Rod Hook today. He said that the extension from the Entertainment Centre to the Outer Harbor line has not been determined yet, but "if there is land aquisition required for the line, they will do it".

The flexity link for Saarbrucken looks very ordinary, I'd luv to see some flexity swifts like the ones for Porto, Portugal which have a similar layout with the middle section and similar stats as the flexity link too but look a million times better :

how_good_is_he wrote:I expect the the bus interchange at Aami to become the tram interchange and its route down the middle of the Boulevard to the stadium to become the route for the tram.

The tram will go down the middle of West Lakes Boulevard where the bus lane currently is. And on game days the buses will share the tram lane. I think it's obvious this will happen. The tram will go to the shopping centre though, maybe with an AAMI stadium stop too.

While they do look great, run at a high enough speed to make their use practicle on suburban lines, good seating capacity and other details, there is one major issue for their use in Adelaide and that is the total width of the body which is 2.65m. The current tramway platforms are designed to take the width of a Flexi which is 2.4m wide over the body. Bar that, they would be an ideal design for Adelaide use.

I suppose if the SA Government was going to spend the money, they could always have the width narrowed down to 2.4m without losing any of the seating capacity (2+2 seating like in the Flexis).

Aidan wrote:

Ho Really wrote:...I would rather see the tram line on North Terrace loop back into the city.

Why? It already serves the City quite well, and there's no good route for looping back (as Gray Street is too narrow for two way operation, and West Terrace is too busy).

I also questioned Gray Street somewhere else on this forum. My first preference would be Morphett Street on each side of the bridge ramp so that it could service many of the new apartments at the Precinct. West Terrace may be busy, but it would be ideal with its wide median strip. West Terrace could also be re-aligned so that the tram lines are on the east side adjacent to the footpath and not in the middle of the road. From here you would have several possibilities, returning to Victoria Square by either Grote or Gouger Streets or you could veer off to Sir Donald Bradman Drive to the Airport or the Interstate Railway Terminal.

If they want to connect the two systems they could probably do it as Aidan explained (via Gaol Road or around that area) as the rest of the line down Port Road to Bowden doesn’t really serve any extra purpose. They could also join the two systems at Goodwood.

Joining up with the Noarlunga line would be a bad idea, but taking over the Belair Line from Goodwood is a possibility I will be investigating further.

I guess it is also possible to loop it back to the north to join up with what I mentioned above at Keswick.

If the state government needs to acquire land down there then they should do it asap. In future who knows they could join up in many other places where the current rail system has accessible corridors from main roads (Mile End, Keswick...). I think the government should look at saving money where it can and not duplicate if possible.

Having many low capacity branches with a sparse service is not the way to improve Adelaide's transport!

Maybe now it is but areas around Keswick could be developed further with high density housing.

In another post somewhere Norman mentioned AUFC’s proposed new stadium at Thebarton (Adelaide Police Barracks). If they build it there then the tram as suggested by Aidan will probably circumvent it.

Circumvent is really the wrong word. It would serve it very well. But the stadium proposal's already been rejected once, so is there still much enthusiasm for it?

Bad choice of a word, yes. What I really meant was to go around, but not underneath or avoiding it at distance. I would rather see it built elsewhere as I don't really quite see it as going ahead on this site.

Cheers

West Terrace could also be re-aligned so that the tram lines are on the east side adjacent to the footpath and not in the middle of the road. From here you would have several possibilities, returning to Victoria Square by either Grote or Gouger Streets or you could veer off to Sir Donald Bradman Drive to the Airport or the Interstate Railway Terminal.

Someone took a hint from my light rail visions did they?

Why do you people want to use the median strips so badly!?!?!
With petrol prices the way they are, with people opting out of driving if they can, why would you not simply replace a lane of traffic with a tram? That way, you retain the aesthetics and you still have a fast tram service.
Putting the whole tram on the east of West Tce is an interesting idea- I like it better than building on the median strip, in any case.

Shuz wrote:

West Terrace could also be re-aligned so that the tram lines are on the east side adjacent to the footpath and not in the middle of the road. From here you would have several possibilities, returning to Victoria Square by either Grote or Gouger Streets or you could veer off to Sir Donald Bradman Drive to the Airport or the Interstate Railway Terminal.

Someone took a hint from my light rail visions did they?

Sorry Shuz, I didn't know it was your idea. I just used logic.

Cheers

cleverick wrote:Why do you people want to use the median strips so badly!?!?!
With petrol prices the way they are, with people opting out of driving if they can, why would you not simply replace a lane of traffic with a tram? That way, you retain the aesthetics and you still have a fast tram service.
Putting the whole tram on the east of West Tce is an interesting idea- I like it better than building on the median strip, in any case.

So you want a road with 43 000 cars daily (close to South Road's figure) to only have 2 lanes each way? It's a disaster waiting to happen.

Norman wrote:

cleverick wrote:Why do you people want to use the median strips so badly!?!?!
With petrol prices the way they are, with people opting out of driving if they can, why would you not simply replace a lane of traffic with a tram? That way, you retain the aesthetics and you still have a fast tram service.
Putting the whole tram on the east of West Tce is an interesting idea- I like it better than building on the median strip, in any case.

So you want a road with 43 000 cars daily (close to South Road's figure) to only have 2 lanes each way? It's a disaster waiting to happen.

He probably means the two lanes taken up by the tram lines can still be used by traffic. Better still is the idea mentioned above with the tram lines along the city (eastern) side. The median strip then would be narrowed to its minimum. It is also possible that the road may have to be widened fractionally on the western side to allow for those two lanes (but I'm not sure).

Cheers

I don't think you guys get the changing nature of public transport. It's no longer to provide a service for those who can't afford a car. It's becoming some (more and more) people's main form of transport. It is not augmenting cars anymore, it's actually replacing them in significant numbers. (Or it should be, and people wish it could, if it were only fast, frequent and efficient enough!)

On the other hand, I'm always prepared for compromise, and if letting cars in the tram lane get the tram built, I'm all for it.

Just quit narrowing and building on my median strips all the time! That's as valuable a park space as any other, in its own water-absorbing, CO2 sink, pretty way.

cleverick wrote:I don't think you guys get the changing nature of public transport. It's no longer to provide a service for those who can't afford a car. It's becoming some (more and more) people's main form of transport. It is not augmenting cars anymore, it's actually replacing them in significant numbers. (Or it should be, and people wish it could, if it were only fast, frequent and efficient enough!)

On the other hand, I'm always prepared for compromise, and if letting cars in the tram lane get the tram built, I'm all for it.

Just quit narrowing and building on my median strips all the time! That's as valuable a park space as any other, in its own water-absorbing, CO2 sink, pretty way.

As much as public transport should be having a greater influence over travel habits within urban areas, there will always be a need for roads and private transportation. Even in the largest cities in the world, such as Tokyo, only up to 60% of all trips are achieved by public transportation. It's not feasible to be covering every single possible travel pattern just to get every single off the road.

Change isn't an event, it's a process, and it's going to take years before any current investment in public transport makes a significant impact on our travel patterns. Even if the price of oil significantly increased, there would still be almost as many vehicles on the road considering that oil is price inelastic. The price of a barrel of crude oil in the past year has more than doubled and yet the demand for this energy doesn't seem to have dropped.

Hahaha, only 60% of trips?

Jeez, way to play down the huge emphasis on PT there is in Japan. I consider 30% a good usage of a PT system, let alone 60%!