Sensational-Adelaide.com

dbl96 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:56 pm

Are you suggesting that one of the options is that the ACC would actually build the tram line as part of the streetscape upgrade?

No, I would think any tram service is entirely dependent on State Govt and DIT. Pg 56 of the plans says "This concept allows for an interim planted median until the decision to install a tram line is made." So I don't think CoA would build it themselves, they would certainly want State Govt to do it. CoA are likely just throwing this concept out there to gain traction for the idea and to drum up public support for a tram extension while at the same time hoping to work closer with DIT, particularly on the planted median option, to ensure a future service could be rolled out easily and without barriers.

dbl96 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:56 pm

I don't think the proposed design precludes a later upgrade to a dual track tram line - all it would require is subsequent conversion of the northbound centre car lane to a tram lane, and the corresponding conversion of the northbound parking/car lane to a permanent car lane with clearway. Parking could be retained on the other side of the road.

I agree, although it may be easier, cheaper, quicker and less disruptive to properly plan for a dual track from the get-go -- even if it doesn't get implemented for another decade.

After a closer look at the plans, they note (also pg 56) that the design "Allows single- or two-way tram lines to be accommodated. However, the two-way tram solution reduces the street to one lane without parking at any time." Also: "The smaller space requirement of the single lane tram will allow protected tram stops with shelters and a platform... As well, it may lower cost to modify the heritage bridge over Karrawirra Parri on King William Street"

dbl96 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:56 pm

But I do find it funny, because currently the council has the old tram poles (or at least something looking like then) installed in the middle of O'Connell St for decoration.

I had to have a chuckle about this too. They yearn for a time the street had overhead wires, yet seemingly want anything but. Lol.

I'd love to know how much of O'Connell St traffic does not have the CBD as its destination or origin.

Having just moved to North Adelaide, I'd love to see O'Connell St transformed into something similar to Jetty Road Glenelg.

whatstheirnamesmom wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 14, 2023 1:25 pm

I agree, although it may be easier, cheaper, quicker and less disruptive to properly plan for a dual track from the get-go -- even if it doesn't get implemented for another decade.

After a closer look at the plans, they note (also pg 56) that the design "Allows single- or two-way tram lines to be accommodated. However, the two-way tram solution reduces the street to one lane without parking at any time." Also: "The smaller space requirement of the single lane tram will allow protected tram stops with shelters and a platform... As well, it may lower cost to modify the heritage bridge over Karrawirra Parri on King William Street"

dbl96 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:56 pm

But I do find it funny, because currently the council has the old tram poles (or at least something looking like then) installed in the middle of O'Connell St for decoration.

I had to have a chuckle about this too. They yearn for a time the street had overhead wires, yet seemingly want anything but. Lol.

The only way to do this is to use buses and trams in the same lane as a combined busway/tramway. Otherwise, every time a bus stopped, the traffic would stop. I can't see that ever getting up. The other point is that dual track using the previous tram alignment would be far faster to build than a new alignment for single track. Using the former alignment envelope ensures no undiscovered services to contend with, and most existing services designed for running under tram tracks.

The plans indicate one lane of traffic and one tram lane in each direction with no street parking. Quite practical.
Why would planners have a mixed tram/traffic lane with plenty of on street parking in the other lane?

Wild idea, but what would people think of a compromise where we can have dual tram lanes on O'Connell Street, that yes, would reduce it to one lane in each direction for traffic - but if LeFevre Terrace was duplicated and Main North Road redirected into LeFevre Terrace and then the road realigned to feed into King William Street through Brougham Gardens?

I get that the Parklands lobby will whinge about loss of Parklands, but it seems to me like a practical solution to managing both a potential tramline but also maintaining 2 lanes of traffic into KWS?

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 14, 2023 6:40 pm

Wild idea, but what would people think of a compromise where we can have dual tram lanes on O'Connell Street, that yes, would reduce it to one lane in each direction for traffic - but if LeFevre Terrace was duplicated and Main North Road redirected into LeFevre Terrace and then the road realigned to feed into King William Street through Brougham Gardens?

I get that the Parklands lobby will whinge about loss of Parklands, but it seems to me like a practical solution to managing both a potential tramline but also maintaining 2 lanes of traffic into KWS?

Or, turn Scotty's Corner into a huge parking complex served by trams (of Budapest/Sydney length) taking people to the city just like from the Entertainment Centre. This would also unjam King William Street at peak times.

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 14, 2023 6:40 pm

Wild idea, but what would people think of a compromise where we can have dual tram lanes on O'Connell Street, that yes, would reduce it to one lane in each direction for traffic - but if LeFevre Terrace was duplicated and Main North Road redirected into LeFevre Terrace and then the road realigned to feed into King William Street through Brougham Gardens?

I get that the Parklands lobby will whinge about loss of Parklands, but it seems to me like a practical solution to managing both a potential tramline but also maintaining 2 lanes of traffic into KWS?

Solid. Works for me.

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 14, 2023 6:40 pm

Wild idea, but what would people think of a compromise where we can have dual tram lanes on O'Connell Street, that yes, would reduce it to one lane in each direction for traffic - but if LeFevre Terrace was duplicated and Main North Road redirected into LeFevre Terrace and then the road realigned to feed into King William Street through Brougham Gardens?

I get that the Parklands lobby will whinge about loss of Parklands, but it seems to me like a practical solution to managing both a potential tramline but also maintaining 2 lanes of traffic into KWS?

Why couldn't the inner right lanes be shared by vehicles and trams like Jetty Road Glenelg? Leaving the outside left lanes open.

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 15, 2023 10:15 am

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 14, 2023 6:40 pm

Wild idea, but what would people think of a compromise where we can have dual tram lanes on O'Connell Street, that yes, would reduce it to one lane in each direction for traffic - but if LeFevre Terrace was duplicated and Main North Road redirected into LeFevre Terrace and then the road realigned to feed into King William Street through Brougham Gardens?

I get that the Parklands lobby will whinge about loss of Parklands, but it seems to me like a practical solution to managing both a potential tramline but also maintaining 2 lanes of traffic into KWS?

Why couldn't the inner right lanes be shared by vehicles and trams like Jetty Road Glenelg? Leaving the outside left lanes open.

They could. However, it should be buses only in this case. That's because if buses are on the tram tracks, they can use tram stops. That leaves the other lane free for cars etc without having to stop for buses at stops.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:03 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 15, 2023 10:15 am

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 14, 2023 6:40 pm

Wild idea, but what would people think of a compromise where we can have dual tram lanes on O'Connell Street, that yes, would reduce it to one lane in each direction for traffic - but if LeFevre Terrace was duplicated and Main North Road redirected into LeFevre Terrace and then the road realigned to feed into King William Street through Brougham Gardens?

I get that the Parklands lobby will whinge about loss of Parklands, but it seems to me like a practical solution to managing both a potential tramline but also maintaining 2 lanes of traffic into KWS?

Why couldn't the inner right lanes be shared by vehicles and trams like Jetty Road Glenelg? Leaving the outside left lanes open.

They could. However, it should be buses only in this case. That's because if buses are on the tram tracks, they can use tram stops. That leaves the other lane free for cars etc without having to stop for buses at stops.

But if they have centre stops it won’t work for buses that have left-hand doors? And O’Connell St isn’t wide enough to have left-hand tram stops like the eastern part of North Tce?

ml69 wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 16, 2023 1:12 am

rubberman wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:03 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 15, 2023 10:15 am

Why couldn't the inner right lanes be shared by vehicles and trams like Jetty Road Glenelg? Leaving the outside left lanes open.

They could. However, it should be buses only in this case. That's because if buses are on the tram tracks, they can use tram stops. That leaves the other lane free for cars etc without having to stop for buses at stops.

But if they have centre stops it won’t work for buses that have left-hand doors? And O’Connell St isn’t wide enough to have left-hand tram stops like the eastern part of North Tce?

Centre stops are never used for combined bus and tram service. It's why I think SA needs to take note of overseas practice. For example, if stops on the Port Road had been side loading, buses could have shared the tram reservation and stops, not only reducing travel time for the buses, but also taking buses from the car lanes would have helped motorists. Ok, rant over, back to O'Connell Street. While those huge stops are fine in the CBD, and cities round the world with busy tram routes use them, there's simply no reason for stops of that size in normal operation outside the CBD. Again, just get designs from cities with the right experience. Just because we don't know how to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. Now, deep breath. Let's say it is impossible for some reason. So be it. We can't have a tram down O'Connell Street. If it is as you say, and there's no solution elsewhere in the world, let's not pretend we can have a tram to Prospect. I mean, maybe you are right. If so, there's no feasible means of a tram extension there. Sometimes things are impossible. This may be one of them.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:18 am

ml69 wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 16, 2023 1:12 am

rubberman wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:03 pm

They could. However, it should be buses only in this case. That's because if buses are on the tram tracks, they can use tram stops. That leaves the other lane free for cars etc without having to stop for buses at stops.

But if they have centre stops it won’t work for buses that have left-hand doors? And O’Connell St isn’t wide enough to have left-hand tram stops like the eastern part of North Tce?

Centre stops are never used for combined bus and tram service. It's why I think SA needs to take note of overseas practice. For example, if stops on the Port Road had been side loading, buses could have shared the tram reservation and stops, not only reducing travel time for the buses, but also taking buses from the car lanes would have helped motorists. Ok, rant over, back to O'Connell Street. While those huge stops are fine in the CBD, and cities round the world with busy tram routes use them, there's simply no reason for stops of that size in normal operation outside the CBD. Again, just get designs from cities with the right experience. Just because we don't know how to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. Now, deep breath. Let's say it is impossible for some reason. So be it. We can't have a tram down O'Connell Street. If it is as you say, and there's no solution elsewhere in the world, let's not pretend we can have a tram to Prospect. I mean, maybe you are right. If so, there's no feasible means of a tram extension there. Sometimes things are impossible. This may be one of them.

Presume there is a fair bit of sarc re O'Connel street there rubberman? None of this is difficult. Port Road, O'connel,...center platforms, side platforms...none of it. As you previously mentioned- there is absolutely nothing in Adelaide that has not been encountered elsewhere- even in Australia. Trams are even used for short regional services in Europe to connect villages on the fringes of cities- on steep grades-in snow..over 30km distances and more..(looking at you Belair). It makes more sense where people demand short stopping such as Adelaide. Leave heavy rail for the North/ South corridor. I do think however- it makes no sense for a Port Road tram, when there is a functioning rail corridor just meters away. I also have always thought it should be light rail- to allow connection to the high density areas of West Lakes, and Port Adelaide. But the trams whould need to be run by people who know how to run them...at speed, not by a person with a red flag walking in front.

claybro wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 16, 2023 11:21 am

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:18 am

ml69 wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 16, 2023 1:12 am

But if they have centre stops it won’t work for buses that have left-hand doors? And O’Connell St isn’t wide enough to have left-hand tram stops like the eastern part of North Tce?

Centre stops are never used for combined bus and tram service. It's why I think SA needs to take note of overseas practice. For example, if stops on the Port Road had been side loading, buses could have shared the tram reservation and stops, not only reducing travel time for the buses, but also taking buses from the car lanes would have helped motorists. Ok, rant over, back to O'Connell Street. While those huge stops are fine in the CBD, and cities round the world with busy tram routes use them, there's simply no reason for stops of that size in normal operation outside the CBD. Again, just get designs from cities with the right experience. Just because we don't know how to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. Now, deep breath. Let's say it is impossible for some reason. So be it. We can't have a tram down O'Connell Street. If it is as you say, and there's no solution elsewhere in the world, let's not pretend we can have a tram to Prospect. I mean, maybe you are right. If so, there's no feasible means of a tram extension there. Sometimes things are impossible. This may be one of them.

Presume there is a fair bit of sarc re O'Connel street there rubberman? None of this is difficult. Port Road, O'connel,...center platforms, side platforms...none of it. As you previously mentioned- there is absolutely nothing in Adelaide that has not been encountered elsewhere- even in Australia. Trams are even used for short regional services in Europe to connect villages on the fringes of cities- on steep grades-in snow..over 30km distances and more..(looking at you Belair). It makes more sense where people demand short stopping such as Adelaide. Leave heavy rail for the North/ South corridor. I do think however- it makes no sense for a Port Road tram, when there is a functioning rail corridor just meters away. I also have always thought it should be light rail- to allow connection to the high density areas of West Lakes, and Port Adelaide. But the trams whould need to be run by people who know how to run them...at speed, not by a person with a red flag walking in front.

Neither West Lakes or Port Adelaide are high density - not yet at least.

gnrc_louis wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 16, 2023 11:52 am

Neither West Lakes or Port Adelaide are high density - not yet at least.

Sorry should have clarified " by Adelaide standards" high density, and rapidly developing. Even those already small 1970's blocks at West Lakes (by Adelaide standards) are being sub divided-let alone the ongoing apartment and unit construction. Same with the Port.

claybro wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 16, 2023 11:21 am

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:18 am

ml69 wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 16, 2023 1:12 am

But if they have centre stops it won’t work for buses that have left-hand doors? And O’Connell St isn’t wide enough to have left-hand tram stops like the eastern part of North Tce?

Centre stops are never used for combined bus and tram service. It's why I think SA needs to take note of overseas practice. For example, if stops on the Port Road had been side loading, buses could have shared the tram reservation and stops, not only reducing travel time for the buses, but also taking buses from the car lanes would have helped motorists. Ok, rant over, back to O'Connell Street. While those huge stops are fine in the CBD, and cities round the world with busy tram routes use them, there's simply no reason for stops of that size in normal operation outside the CBD. Again, just get designs from cities with the right experience. Just because we don't know how to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. Now, deep breath. Let's say it is impossible for some reason. So be it. We can't have a tram down O'Connell Street. If it is as you say, and there's no solution elsewhere in the world, let's not pretend we can have a tram to Prospect. I mean, maybe you are right. If so, there's no feasible means of a tram extension there. Sometimes things are impossible. This may be one of them.

Presume there is a fair bit of sarc re O'Connel street there rubberman? None of this is difficult. Port Road, O'connel,...center platforms, side platforms...none of it. As you previously mentioned- there is absolutely nothing in Adelaide that has not been encountered elsewhere- even in Australia. Trams are even used for short regional services in Europe to connect villages on the fringes of cities- on steep grades-in snow..over 30km distances and more..(looking at you Belair). It makes more sense where people demand short stopping such as Adelaide. Leave heavy rail for the North/ South corridor. I do think however- it makes no sense for a Port Road tram, when there is a functioning rail corridor just meters away. I also have always thought it should be light rail- to allow connection to the high density areas of West Lakes, and Port Adelaide. But the trams whould need to be run by people who know how to run them...at speed, not by a person with a red flag walking in front.

Haha. Not so much sarc, as that if people put enough restrictions on any project, they can make it impossible. That is, without sarcasm, legitimate. Sometimes projects simply cannot go ahead because stakeholder requirements don't allow it, and the stakeholders won't budge. It can be done technically as you point out. However, when you add in that it also must be done on the terms of the major stakeholders...hmmmm.

In the case of O'Connell Street, it is perilously close to that. The requirements for traffic, double track, stop infrastructure are hard. Then add in the RAA, North Adelaide Society, O'Connell Street traders, Adelaide City Council, State Government - each with legitimate points of view. It may just turn out to be all too hard if even one of those groups digs its heels in.

The outcome that's least offensive to every one of those may well be to leave things as they are, and continue with buses. It's one reason for looking at overseas experience. There's a chance that somewhere someone has overcome this problem...and we can learn from it.