Sensational-Adelaide.com

I've split this from Port Adelaide tram thread just to keep things more organised. There's 1,000 posts in the other thread!

'zills likes this'

hi 5 matt

An option for a tramline down oconnell street would be a single dedicated tramline with every second or so stop having a secondary track. This would allow a dedicated tramline (dual direction), one lane of vehicle traffic each way; and the remaining space could be used for a wider pedestrian/nature strip, bike lanes, parking, dedicated out of traffic bus stops, and turning lanes.

BTW I remember Melbourne having many sections of shared tram/ vehicle lanes. There are a few extra rules that keep things flowing reasonably in these cases: hook turns, no turning from the lane etc.

Sorry if somebody has already put a similar idea forward.

Hi Fishinajar,

Single track working with loops is done elsewhere - however, normally only for lightly trafficked routes. It becomes a nightmare once frequencies get up a bit. It was very often used on start up of new routes, and when the traffic picked up, the line would be duplicated.

Similarly with tram and car on the same lane operation. As the street gets narrower, the more the concept becomes impractical. For example in King William St, with several lanes, the disruption has not been that severe (although to hear some of the motoring lobby complain, that is not a universal opinion), however in Jetty Road, it is just a locked up traffic joke - saved only by the fact that when things get really bad you can terminate at Brighton Road. That is not a solution when there is through traffic and terminating short of the bottleneck is not possible.

Wherever tram authorities can have a dedicated lane, they do. That tells us all something.

So, while it can be done, I am not sure it can be done optimally, or even done in a way that can make an improvement unless there is some way to divert car traffic away from O'Connell St.

I have suggested car parks on the fringes, others have suggested other routes through North Adelaide. Personally I think that the experiment with the entertainment centre is an excellent idea of the State Government. It will enable us to see if drivers are willing to abandon cars and travel by tram to the city. If not, then I cannot see that there is any prospect (or enfield) of O'connell st being able to take trams. If they won't abandon their cars at the Entertainment Centre, they won't do it for a carpark north of O'connell St, if they don't do it there, then there won't be any dimunition of car travel along that street, and without dimunition of car travel along that street, it will gum up - just like Jetty Road, or Chapel St in Melbourne. Perhaps someone can think of a similar width street somewhere in the world where it works - but I cannot bring one to mind myself. If it gums up, the road lobby and the street traders in North Adelaide will combine to kill it stone dead.

Have a check on the widths of Chapel St in Melbourne where the trams run, and O'connell st. Unless the car parking is removed (hair raising electorally damaging screams from feral shopkeepers) the width of both is about the same (my google earth ruler says there is about a metre in it). You DON'T want to be on a tram on Chapel St in peak hour unless you are a tram fan. And that would not be as busy as O'connell st in terms of numbers of trams imo.

In previous debates on this people have expressed a contrary view (which is their right of course), but unsupported by evidence on travel times and the reaction of potential travellers, it remains just another opinion.

I meant diminution of course.

*sigh*



Just the obvious mistake to see if you were really paying attention.

rubberman wrote:I meant diminution of course.

*sigh*



Just the obvious mistake to see if you were really paying attention.

This is why we have an EDIT button!
(Double posting in some forums will get you e-slapped)

Monotone, I merely observe that some people have zero sense of humour.

I am sure that is not the case in this forum.

However, if I have offended the moderators, my sincere apologies.

Erm, did you wish to actually post on the content of the forum? You know, present a cogently argued case for or against trams in O'Connell St?

I mean in some fora people get e-slapped for that.

rubberman wrote:However, if I have offended the moderators, my sincere apologies.

Nah S-A doesn't care about double posts.

monotonehell wrote:

rubberman wrote:However, if I have offended the moderators, my sincere apologies.

Nah S-A doesn't care about double posts.

LOL, if we keep this up, we are both going to get e-slapped.

Happy Australia Day!!

monotonehell wrote:

rubberman wrote:However, if I have offended the moderators, my sincere apologies.

Nah S-A doesn't care about double posts.

What about Micheal Jackson jokes?

From my observation; the consensus seems to be that for any tram to run down O'Connell Street and Prospect Road, that it must share the lane with traffic. However, I do beleive that with the introduction of "priority slip" before traffic lights for trams - as is done on the citybound track of the Glenelg line, at Jetty Road's intersection with Brighton Road, then I think travel would work out quite efficiently.

I think these roads are comparable to Clarendon st in South Melbourne. Perhaps something similar to what is in place there, which is basically hook turns for the most part and reducing the number of right hand turns - possibly by implementing some one way streets.

SJ; I know Clarendon Street very well, actually, as I often use the 96/112 when I go visit Melbourne.

It's a much wider street than either of the two roads in question; however, I do think on the whole, hook turns should only be permitted at traffic lights - and perhaps even, not all of them, especially within North Adelaide where they should just be allowed at War Memorial, Kermode and every 2nd block onto Ward, Tynte and Childers Streets.

Right hand turn bans on all side streets otherwise is a good idea; would require a physical separation of lanes though to maximise effectiveness. No right hand turn onto Fitzroy Terrace; as all eastbound traffic can just use the Main North Road alignment to do so to access Robe Terrace and surrounds.

For Prospect Road; I'd advocate hook turns/traffic lights (assuming the tram line terminates at Regency Road for now) at Albert/Percy Streets, Gladstone/Alpha Streets, Rose/Labrina streets and Audley/Te Anau streets - all of which are 4-way intersections (no T-junctions, as most of Prospect Road and its associating side streets meet at) all roughly evenly spaced apart from each other.

There was a recent study done in Sydney which has some relevance to Adelaide's transport planning.

Specifically for North Adelaide, it makes the point that it gets to a point where there is simply not enough space for all the people that need to get to the city, so that radial transport to and from the city should concentrate on public transport, with park and ride at stations along the way.

In other words, put parking stations at the edges of the city and radiate public transport to those park and ride facilities - simply because there is just not enough room as you get closer in.

http://www.transportpublicinquiry.com.a ... ations.pdf

It also heavily criticises the tendency of the NSW Government to fail to plan an overall system, but degenerate into announcing 'solutions' to individual problems as they arise.

Sounds familiar.

rubberman: It also heavily criticises the tendency of the NSW Government to fail to plan an overall system, but degenerate into announcing 'solutions' to individual problems as they arise.

Sounds familiar.

Yup, it's called the election cycle.