Sensational-Adelaide.com

metro wrote:I agree the route has too many bends in it, but otherwise it's got pretty good coverage. But like has been said already, it seems like a very expensive item for just a city tram loop only, it really should be the central part of a larger Light-rail network with further possible routes shown on a map and indicate which of these routes will get priority. Obviously the Semaphore/West lakes lines are the priority, but then what? Airport? Norwood? Flinders University? I think they need to have a vision to return Light-Rail to parts of greater Adelaide. A good start would be to replace the busiest go-zone bus routes, which would free up buses for other services.

and yeah i can see an election issue out of this. Labor will be promoting its usual "lets build a tram loop and western suburbs light rail" and the Liberals will probably either say "No! we cant afford it!" or "No! we cant afford it! but we will promise to build a monorail or equally as useless piece of infrastructure instead".

I'm sure the liberals will be happy to know that only a infrastructure expert like yourself can find improvements in the plan and any ideas they could have are a stupid as a monorail through the dvds cbd

Waewick wrote:I'm sure the liberals will be happy to know that only a infrastructure expert like yourself can find improvements in the plan and any ideas they could have are a stupid as a monorail through the dvds cbd

I dont know what you're on about, I never said I was an expert.

I think that proposed route does a good job as it will encourage further urban development/density especially below Grote/Wakefield streets. Also it will connect (to) both Universities along North Terrace and will make the north part of the city more accessible from the south parts of the city and vice versa. Hope that will happen in the not so distant future but....

Of course I would like to see further tram extensions towards North Adelaide and the Parade or toward the south but at the moment I think the city circle should have priority as the city needs more urban density to become a bit more vibrant and not look empty like a disease hit the area after 6 PM. I don't count few shy pockets of life as significant. You can find something like that in every country town. At the moment the city “life” or something like that practically starts and finishes around Rundle Mall and/or area around the Central Market. I do understand that Adelaide will never become a burg type of city but at least we can have more people and create demand for a city life.

Medo

metro wrote:

Waewick wrote:I'm sure the liberals will be happy to know that only a infrastructure expert like yourself can find improvements in the plan and any ideas they could have are a stupid as a monorail through the dvds cbd

I dont know what you're on about, I never said I was an expert.

I was being sarcastic - trying to point out that you yourself have poked holes in it and have a different preference, but if the liberals dare do that they have no idea.

metro wrote: and yeah i can see an election issue out of this. Labor will be promoting its usual "lets build a tram loop and western suburbs light rail" and the Liberals will probably either say "No! we cant afford it!" or "No! we cant afford it! but we will promise to build a monorail or equally as useless piece of infrastructure instead".

I hope they do propose a monorail. Sydney is going to rip theirs down. Maybe they can propose to ship it over here.
Will really seal the deal for the basket case SA Liberal Party.

rev wrote:

metro wrote: and yeah i can see an election issue out of this. Labor will be promoting its usual "lets build a tram loop and western suburbs light rail" and the Liberals will probably either say "No! we cant afford it!" or "No! we cant afford it! but we will promise to build a monorail or equally as useless piece of infrastructure instead".

I hope they do propose a monorail. Sydney is going to rip theirs down. Maybe they can propose to ship it over here.
Will really seal the deal for the basket case SA Liberal Party.

Maybe they can make it a reversible, one-way monorail

I agree with the general sentiment - the route is too complicated, and thus too slow. Keep it simple! I think the saved time by a simple Frome Street to Morphett Street square would more than make up for the extra walking distance on Hindley Street.

I can't help thinking that an east-west line through the centre of the city would be more useful. It'll still provide light rail in the CBD frame and connect inner suburbs too. Norwood is more deserving of a tram line than Whitmore Square.

I think the parkland are a psychosocial barrier. In other cities, suburbs like Norwood or Unley are part of a continuous corridor of activity. I think light rail links from these inner suburbs can help bridge the void.

AtD wrote: I can't help thinking that an east-west line through the centre of the city would be more useful. It'll still provide light rail in the CBD frame and connect inner suburbs too.

+1

I'm fully supportive of a tram route, but I just see linking east as the next most important step. Certainly more impact in terms of patronage.

Definitely too many bends. There'd be a ton of stops looking at the location/path of that route, slowing it down even more.

Agree with a simple tramline that connects east to west via the CBD, and vice versa. Not sure linking a tramline to the Airport, I think we need something quicker and more physically practical than a tram - heavy rail?

I have already suggested this over at SSC. A new 9KM line, Airport - Norwood. Why not run the tram line up Grote Street straight through to the airport? Grote St is wide enough to support such a line and it would link the bus depot to the airport. It could then be extended east to service Hindmarsh Sq, Old RAH, Botanic Gardens, Wine Centre and on to the Parade via Magill Rd and Osmond Tce (also wide enough).

A revitalized Vic Square would truly benefit from becoming a transport hub if you made it a tram/pedestrian shared zone such as Bourke St Mall in Melbourne.




(Paste URL to view full size)

If you bridge the gap between KW st and Pultney as well as a connection of the lines at Vic Square you could have trams running a direct Norwood - EC route or from the Airport direct to the railway station via Victoria Square.

Sounds like we have a common idea. See dedicated thread about an East-West route I dreamed up last year:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2932

I like the idea of having a tram line from Norwood to the Airport.

However, having an east-west connection in addition to the north-south tramline running through Vic Square would ensure the fundamental problem of Vic Square, which is that it is criss-crossed by traffic remains.

I would rather diverge from your route at Grenfell Street and continue along Currie Street and then Henley Beach Road before coming down into the airport via the wide Airport Road.

Furthermore, from a psychological perspective, it is more attractive to come into the city via the cafes of Henley beach Road, the new Bakewell underpass and the high-rise buildings of Currie and Grenfell Streets, rather than the light industrial/bulky goods look of Sir Donald Bradman Blvd and the low-rise nature of Grote Street.

Will wrote:I like the idea of having a tram line from Norwood to the Airport.

However, having an east-west connection in addition to the north-south tramline running through Vic Square would ensure the fundamental problem of Vic Square, which is that it is criss-crossed by traffic remains.

I would rather diverge from your route at Grenfell Street and continue along Currie Street and then Henley Beach Road before coming down into the airport via the wide Airport Road.

Furthermore, from a psychological perspective, it is more attractive to come into the city via the cafes of Henley beach Road, the new Bakewell underpass and the high-rise buildings of Currie and Grenfell Streets, rather than the light industrial/bulky goods look of Sir Donald Bradman Blvd and the low-rise nature of Grote Street.

Hear, hear.

It’s hard to make everyone happy and I don’t see a “general sentiment” against bends. I do not think that a few bends will add significant time for travel. Bends or no bends I would like that circle line to happen. The tram net in my old home town is full of bends and no one would like to change that... and it running’s like that for more than 100 years. But, the city is a burg type so it has some justifications...

Sooner or later they will have to do something about Victoria square... tram line to the airport is good idea but taking into account present public state of mind... highly unlikely.

Medo

Will wrote:I like the idea of having a tram line from Norwood to the Airport.

However, having an east-west connection in addition to the north-south tramline running through Vic Square would ensure the fundamental problem of Vic Square, which is that it is criss-crossed by traffic remains.

I would rather diverge from your route at Grenfell Street and continue along Currie Street and then Henley Beach Road before coming down into the airport via the wide Airport Road.

Furthermore, from a psychological perspective, it is more attractive to come into the city via the cafes of Henley beach Road, the new Bakewell underpass and the high-rise buildings of Currie and Grenfell Streets, rather than the light industrial/bulky goods look of Sir Donald Bradman Blvd and the low-rise nature of Grote Street.

This.