Sensational-Adelaide.com

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:19 pm

or what?

Extend it up Prospect Rd.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:19 pm

I agree largely. However, the problem is that if there's a tram down O'Connell Street, it presents a restriction on bus and car traffic thereby increasing congestion at that point. If there's no parking, the tram just becomes a local service for North Adelaide. Nice for the residents, but hardly practical since a tram service must carry far more than local traffic to be viable. Point is, how do you get enough passengers onto the tram unless there's a parking spot nearby?

I am surprised you are using car congestion as a "problem" relating to trams in O'Connel street. Much of the traffic in O'Connel Street is not local, it is just Main North road traffic that is funnelled in to North Adelaide due to a poor bypass setup/ lazy drivers. As for on street parking, there is ample parking at the rear of many of the businesses.

Nathan wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:48 pm

Extend it up Prospect Rd.

Yes, that should be the eventual aim. I wasn't implying that the tram should only service North Adelaide, just that at this stage of the game, with an anti tram state government and momentum and expertise likely to be lost, the North Adelaide extension is really the only likely choice at the moment. Once extended to Prospect road it should further reduce buses and some through traffic on O'Connel street. The city bypass should also have a major upgrade to stop single occupant cars trundling into the city by habit.

Maybe the issue is the term "Park-n-ride" and what (some people) think it means. Maybe that term should be reserved for outer suburbs connected to the CBD by heavy rail. Then we need a new term for city parking within walking, loan bike or (possibly free) tram rides to ultimate destinations. Who owns the parking at the Entertainment Centre, and what does it cost?

If the tram is extended to the northern edge of North Adelaide, and the city council closed 400 U-park spaces in the CBD and built 400 U-park spaces near the tram that opened on the day the CBD one closed, it gets 400 less cars in the CBD, neutral revenue, and a new development site in the CBD. That's not encouraging 400 extra cars onto inner Main North Road - they were there anyway. It's discouraging 400 cars from driving through North Adelaide to the old U-Park.

Maybe close the Frome Street U-park, and introduce a North Parklands to Botanic tram service.

Trams up Prospect Rd, are you serious? That road is so busy at the best of times.

OlympusAnt wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:24 pm

Trams up Prospect Rd, are you serious? That road is so busy at the best of times.

Prospect road is not a through road. It ends at Grand Junction. Yes it is busy, but not with local traffic. I know. I used to be one of them, avoiding the peak hour car park of Main North Road. if a tram on Prospect road were to discourage commuter traffic, and removed a bus route, while also encouraging local residents to use PT, all well and good.

claybro wrote:

OlympusAnt wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:24 pm

Trams up Prospect Rd, are you serious? That road is so busy at the best of times.

Prospect road is not a through road. It ends at Grand Junction. Yes it is busy, but not with local traffic. I know. I used to be one of them, avoiding the peak hour car park of Main North Road. if a tram on Prospect road were to discourage commuter traffic, and removed a bus route, while also encouraging local residents to use PT, all well and good.

This is where i hope the Government implemented the trams along with improvements to MNR and Churchill Rd.

They can then advertise the fact that you can catch the tram, or if you don't want to the roads have been improved to suit the increase in road traffic.

It seems only North Adelside seems likely in Marshall’s first 4 year term. He has said the tram to AO is a no brainer and I expect it to also stop at WCH & 88 O’Connell. The city loop should happen next but I would expect it to be in the next term or with the next govt. Its great to have the aspirations of better network including heavy rail but at the slow pace (and money spent) in the past, it seems it will be on-going piecemeal extensions. While I would love say all Adelink committed/finished in the next 5 -10 years, I can’t see it happening.

how good is he wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:11 pm

It seems only North Adelaide seems likely in Marshall’s first 4 year term. He has said the tram to AO is a no brainer and I expect it to also stop at WCH & 88 O’Connell. The city loop should happen next but I would expect it to be in the next term or with the next govt. Its great to have the aspirations of better network including heavy rail but at the slow pace (and money spent) in the past, it seems it will be on-going piecemeal extensions. While I would love say all Adelink committed/finished in the next 5 -10 years, I can’t see it happening.

The Liberals have noticed that South Australia extends further than Gepps Cross and Glen Osmond. For those who want more development in the inner suburbs, things like duplicating the Joy Baluch Bridge and building an overpass north of Port Wakefield are taking money away from spending more on things like more trams. Trams might be nice, but there are a number of road bottlenecks and safety upgrades that need major works, whether or not regional rail can be reinstated in a meaningful manner.

It's a shame that the transport development levy was so cynically opposed back in 2013, as that would have provided an ongoing revenue source to make improvements to public transport for the people who should be using it. I think it was meant to raise something like $30 million a year, which certainly would've helped dent some of the AdeLink cost. Adelaide has long had far more and far cheaper carparking than the other capitals, and they've all seen fit to introduce their own car park levies.

SBD wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:19 pm

If the tram is extended to the northern edge of North Adelaide, and the city council closed 400 U-park spaces in the CBD and built 400 U-park spaces near the tram that opened on the day the CBD one closed, it gets 400 less cars in the CBD, neutral revenue, and a new development site in the CBD. That's not encouraging 400 extra cars onto inner Main North Road - they were there anyway. It's discouraging 400 cars from driving through North Adelaide to the old U-Park.

This is a great idea. Also, it should be a temporary car park, demolished and a new one built further out when the tramline is extended further, until it is in a location where Park'n'Rides make more sense. If it is made apparent that it is a temporary measure right from the outset (perhaps it could be called Temporary Park'n'Ride) there shouldn't be too much outrage when it closes (but I know there will be).

With the T20 World Cup in Oct 20 what’s the chances they will announce a tram extension to AO and ready by then?

Will they need more trams?

SRW wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:48 pm

Will they need more trams?

They had to buy 3 for the North Terrace extension, so probably yes.

Raises some interesting questions though. Morphetville Depot is chock-a-block, so where would they put more trams? How big a depot would they need? I mean if they needed four new trams, would they just build it big enough for four trams. Or would they make it big enough for other extensions?

Then, where would they get four trams? More Flexitys? Or something like the Melbourne Flexitys?

If they got new trams, would they specify a smaller turning circle to enable a right turn into North Terrace? (The reason given for abandoning the Right Turn was that the Citadis can't get round, so the intersection needs to be rebuilt to allow that). If they buy new trams, why not buy ones that can right turn into North Terrace? I'll say right now that the Right Turn is a completely nutty impractical idea, but I am trying to guess what the government's thinking might be.

how good is he wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:37 pm

With the T20 World Cup in Oct 20 what’s the chances they will announce a tram extension to AO and ready by then?

I recall reading somewhere that extensive re-work of the King William street bridge would be needed to run trams over it due to modern engineering standards and hence why it stopped short of AO in the first place. If this is the case it might take some time and a lot of money to get over that bridge.

Also with the modern low-floor trams I wonder if they will struggle up the hill to O'Connell street given the angle and curve in the road? Hopefully neither of these are real issues as the quicker they can get the extension up to O'Connell street the better.

JAKJ wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:38 pm

how good is he wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:37 pm

With the T20 World Cup in Oct 20 what’s the chances they will announce a tram extension to AO and ready by then?

I recall reading somewhere that extensive re-work of the King William street bridge would be needed to run trams over it due to modern engineering standards and hence why it stopped short of AO in the first place. If this is the case it might take some time and a lot of money to get over that bridge.

Also with the modern low-floor trams I wonder if they will struggle up the hill to O'Connell street given the angle and curve in the road? Hopefully neither of these are real issues as the quicker they can get the extension up to O'Connell street the better.

If the City Bridge could take coupled H Class trams up till the 1950s, and bridges across the Yarra built in similar eras can take modern trams, I'd suggest that strengthening proposals based on "modern engineering standards" be critically examined. For example, as an alternative, undertake proof testing using appropriate loads to see what the bridge's safe loads are. Or, get the previous calculations double checked to make sure an arithmetic error hasn't crept in. (For example, old drawings were converted from imperial to metric, then digitised from paper to computer. Each of these leaves the possibility of an error creeping in that could cause a big financial penalty). Then there’s a possibility that the "new standards" might be someone deciding to say all bridges must be designed to take railcars, as has happened, whoops.

As for getting trams up the hill, it's a matter of specifying the minimum curve radius required when ordering trams. Citadis can't do better than a 25m radius (hence all those expensive concrete ramps at the North Terrace intersection). Trams like the Škoda 15T Forcity are rated for 18m radius, and can do 16m at a pinch.

These are important points you've raised, because if every single bridge along all the Adelink routes need to be upgraded (Unley Road and Henley Beach Road have a few), then there’s a big cost penalty. Similarly, if huge turning circles are required to get round corners, what about Henley to Seaview Roads, or Seaview Rd to connect with the Grange train/tram, or turning from/to the Parade?

Of course, I'd hope that DPTI has covered this in its planning.

Edit. I should also add that if partial low floor trams (like the Flexitys) are acceptable, then partial low floor variants of the Tatra T3 (the VW of the tram world), or creative solutions such as the Moderus Beta are also possible. This gives a very wide range of options where SA is not locked in to a single provider. Getting locked in to a single provider is a recipe for being gouged.