News & Discussion: Trams

[rev]

Albanese, if elected, has guaranteed a coordination of state/commonwealth affairs when it comes to rail manufacturing. Reading between the lines, I interpret this as using Bombardier (Melbourne) as the manufacturing centre for trams for the whole of Australia. The Flexitys are made by Bombardier so would suspect if we expanded our network, expect to see new generation Flexities to support the system.

Lets hope that Australian manufacturing is prioritized again. Even if the tram line isn't expanded here.

[1NEEDS2POST]

I posted a tongue in cheek post in another thread about Adelaide's tram system being ripped up decades ago, knowing I was partially correct. I did a bit of actual research and was absolutely gobsmacked about how extensive our tram system was up until the 1950's. What a big shame on our fair city. Who okay'd this?

If you haven't come across it already, this interactive map shows the extent of the system and you can see old photos of it by clicking on the tram icons: https://www.trammuseumadelaide.com/interactive-map

The problem with trams is that it's expensive to maintain dedicated infrastructure, whereas buses use the roads. They're also incapable of driving around obstructions.

[Ben]

ACC are going to lobby the State government to extand the tram line to O'Connell street at tonights meeting.

[rubberman]

I posted a tongue in cheek post in another thread about Adelaide's tram system being ripped up decades ago, knowing I was partially correct. I did a bit of actual research and was absolutely gobsmacked about how extensive our tram system was up until the 1950's. What a big shame on our fair city. Who okay'd this?

If you haven't come across it already, this interactive map shows the extent of the system and you can see old photos of it by clicking on the tram icons: https://www.trammuseumadelaide.com/interactive-map

The problem with trams is that it's expensive to maintain dedicated infrastructure, whereas buses use the roads. They're also incapable of driving around obstructions.

I'd add to that the opposition in Adelaide to transfers. In other cities, such as Prague, you'd have trams and metro as a backbone, and buses feeding trams and metro stations. Heavy rail serves the outer suburbs mostly. (Think Two Wells, Gawler, Seaford, Mt Barker. High speed and very limited inner suburban coverage). If any party in Adelaide tried that, they'd be crucified. That means buses bound for lots of destinations, and trams, metro and heavy rail uneconomic because they aren't fed enough passengers.

[A-Town]

ACC are going to lobby the State government to extand the tram line to O'Connell street at tonights meeting.

Excellent. Can't see it happening unfortunately, Mali has made it pretty clear that infrastructure projects will be put on the backburner while he fulfils his election promises.
Given they've already pushed back the North-South Motorway by a year to clear space in the budget, it's unlikely we'll see a tram extension project up and running in this term.

[SBD]

I posted a tongue in cheek post in another thread about Adelaide's tram system being ripped up decades ago, knowing I was partially correct. I did a bit of actual research and was absolutely gobsmacked about how extensive our tram system was up until the 1950's. What a big shame on our fair city. Who okay'd this?

If you haven't come across it already, this interactive map shows the extent of the system and you can see old photos of it by clicking on the tram icons: https://www.trammuseumadelaide.com/interactive-map

The problem with trams is that it's expensive to maintain dedicated infrastructure, whereas buses use the roads. They're also incapable of driving around obstructions.

I'd add to that the opposition in Adelaide to transfers. In other cities, such as Prague, you'd have trams and metro as a backbone, and buses feeding trams and metro stations. Heavy rail serves the outer suburbs mostly. (Think Two Wells, Gawler, Seaford, Mt Barker. High speed and very limited inner suburban coverage). If any party in Adelaide tried that, they'd be crucified. That means buses bound for lots of destinations, and trams, metro and heavy rail uneconomic because they aren't fed enough passengers.

We need to understand and address why there is an Adelaide opposition to transfers. Vehicle journeys with a loose association with their timetable, infrequent services and tight scheduled connections mean there is (or has historically been) a high chance that a person trying to travel across town using several vehicles is going to end up significantly later than the timetable said they would. Once trust is lost (or never held), it will take a long time to build it up. Why would I decide to rely on multi-modal journeys when I've seen buses leaving the interchange as the train pulls in to the station, or had a 29 minute wait for a "connecting" train with 30-minute frequency because the bus missed the connection this morning. Increasing frequency to 15 minutes (and even better 5 minutes) will help, but it takes money to offer that service and time to make people trust it.

Some years ago, I had a work trip to a foreign city. My wife was able to come with me. We were staying in a suburban hotel a short walk from the business I was visiting. My wife enquired about the train timetable from a nearby station to the city centre. Initially she received a look of confusion, then a laugh, as the trains ran often enough that it would take longer to look up the time than to wait for the next train!

[1NEEDS2POST]

If you haven't come across it already, this interactive map shows the extent of the system and you can see old photos of it by clicking on the tram icons: https://www.trammuseumadelaide.com/interactive-map

The problem with trams is that it's expensive to maintain dedicated infrastructure, whereas buses use the roads. They're also incapable of driving around obstructions.

I'd add to that the opposition in Adelaide to transfers. In other cities, such as Prague, you'd have trams and metro as a backbone, and buses feeding trams and metro stations. Heavy rail serves the outer suburbs mostly. (Think Two Wells, Gawler, Seaford, Mt Barker. High speed and very limited inner suburban coverage). If any party in Adelaide tried that, they'd be crucified. That means buses bound for lots of destinations, and trams, metro and heavy rail uneconomic because they aren't fed enough passengers.

We need to understand and address why there is an Adelaide opposition to transfers. Vehicle journeys with a loose association with their timetable, infrequent services and tight scheduled connections mean there is (or has historically been) a high chance that a person trying to travel across town using several vehicles is going to end up significantly later than the timetable said they would. Once trust is lost (or never held), it will take a long time to build it up. Why would I decide to rely on multi-modal journeys when I've seen buses leaving the interchange as the train pulls in to the station, or had a 29 minute wait for a "connecting" train with 30-minute frequency because the bus missed the connection this morning. Increasing frequency to 15 minutes (and even better 5 minutes) will help, but it takes money to offer that service and time to make people trust it.

Some years ago, I had a work trip to a foreign city. My wife was able to come with me. We were staying in a suburban hotel a short walk from the business I was visiting. My wife enquired about the train timetable from a nearby station to the city centre. Initially she received a look of confusion, then a laugh, as the trains ran often enough that it would take longer to look up the time than to wait for the next train!

Doubling the frequency doubles the labour cost, so this only works in countries with cheap labour. The solution is automation; start with the trains because trains are automated in other cities. When the trains are automated, they can run every two minutes 24/7 and then fewer Adelaidians will be opposed to connections.

[whatstheirnamesmom]

An update on Adelaide City Council voting to advocate for trams to North Adelaide:
– the motion was amended twice, once to include a request for the consideration of trackless trams, and the second time to further stress the importance of an extension to North Adelaide
– the chamber seems to have a strong affinity for trackless tram technology
– Council's current plan to upgrade the bridge would result in an upgrade in 6–7 years time
– the motion passed unanimously

If interested, you can view the discussion (about 10 mins) here

While the motion adds weight to a chorus of voices asking for network expansion to North Adelaide, I can't help but feel like the trackless tram suggestion is a slight goose chase and a shot in their own foot. If anything, consideration of trackless trams will only lead to more expensive and longer consultation, wasted time, and at worse: a further fragmented transport network with higher running costs in the long-term.

Traditional trams would:

• integrate into the existing network seamlessly

• potentially have higher upfront capital costs, but lower operating costs in the long-term

• require less track/road infrastructure maintenance

• result in a simpler, easier to understand PT network

Regardless of technology, I would like to see a dedicated RoW corridor for any expansion to North Adelaide. Which means on-street parking will need to go, or the loss of a car lane in each direction. PT should be so attractive that people want to switch modes. Reliability, punctuality, frequency, speed — all attractive features. Reducing car lanes would help a tram in North Adelaide (and eventually beyond) to be more attractive while discouraging people from driving in peak times.

[gnrc_louis]

An update on Adelaide City Council voting to advocate for trams to North Adelaide:
– the motion was amended twice, once to include a request for the consideration of trackless trams, and the second time to further stress the importance of an extension to North Adelaide
– the chamber seems to have a strong affinity for trackless tram technology
– Council's current plan to upgrade the bridge would result in an upgrade in 6–7 years time
– the motion passed unanimously

If interested, you can view the discussion (about 10 mins) here

While the motion adds weight to a chorus of voices asking for network expansion to North Adelaide, I can't help but feel like the trackless tram suggestion is a slight goose chase and a shot in their own foot. If anything, consideration of trackless trams will only lead to more expensive and longer consultation, wasted time, and at worse: a further fragmented transport network with higher running costs in the long-term.

Traditional trams would:

• integrate into the existing network seamlessly

• potentially have higher upfront capital costs, but lower operating costs in the long-term

• require less track/road infrastructure maintenance

• result in a simpler, easier to understand PT network

Regardless of technology, I would like to see a dedicated RoW corridor for any expansion to North Adelaide. Which means on-street parking will need to go, or the loss of a car lane in each direction. PT should be so attractive that people want to switch modes. Reliability, punctuality, frequency, speed — all attractive features. Reducing car lanes would help a tram in North Adelaide (and eventually beyond) to be more attractive while discouraging people from driving in peak times.

"Trackless trams" brings me back to Knoll being Transport Minister. It sounds like something suitably moronic for "Team Adelaide" to advocate for.

[Spotto]

A bus… “trackless tram”… would be completely incompatible with the rest of the current network. Users would be forced to change modes in the middle of what should be a single journey, no different from right now.

They’re cutting off their noses to spite their own faces (or rather, the NIMBYs living there).

[whatstheirnamesmom]

"Trackless trams" brings me back to Knoll being Transport Minister. It sounds like something suitably moronic for "Team Adelaide" to advocate for.

Well his father is on the council, so that might explain it

I just don't see why the ACC would want this... do they want to look like they're taking action while simultaneously ensuring nothing happens? Trackless trams are a fad, no matter which way you skewer it.

[SRW]

"Trackless trams" brings me back to Knoll being Transport Minister. It sounds like something suitably moronic for "Team Adelaide" to advocate for.

Well his father is on the council, so that might explain it

I just don't see why the ACC would want this... do they want to look like they're taking action while simultaneously ensuring nothing happens? Trackless trams are a fad, no matter which way you skewer it.

This is the raison d'être of the dominant faction. See also their track record on cycling infrastructure. They have rendered this council utterly useless, with no resistance if not assistance from the Lord Mayor. One of the more progressive councillors Greg Mackie quit this week in frustration. The November election can't come soon enough — hopefully they are fully swept out.

[rubberman]

"Trackless trams" brings me back to Knoll being Transport Minister. It sounds like something suitably moronic for "Team Adelaide" to advocate for.

Well his father is on the council, so that might explain it

I just don't see why the ACC would want this... do they want to look like they're taking action while simultaneously ensuring nothing happens? Trackless trams are a fad, no matter which way you skewer it.

They are just O-Bahn buses using optical guides instead of training wheels.

Having said that, it is quite feasible to use them AND trams in the same corridor along O'Connell Street. Trams to Prospect, and buses to Main North Road, using optical guides to negotiate the tram stops.

[RetroGamer87]

Trackless trams? I thought the entire purpose of the currently uselessFestival Plaza stub was to serve as a connection point for a future North Adelaide line. If a conventional tram isn't built off that stub than the stub will be useless.

Also I'm not buying his lie that trackless "trams" will be lower maintenence. Rubber wheels on asphalt will always wear down both wheel and road surface faster than steel on steel.

[gnrc_louis]

Looks like the world's worst paper has again been reading this forum: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscrib ... our=append