News & Discussion: Trams

[rubberman]

Aidan,

I did point out that the buses were being used as substitutes for the Prague Metro (Line C). That is, about 12600 passengers per hour during the off peak. I would not argue the point that if buses carrying that number of people were interpolated into the Glenelg line, there might be something of a delay. However, I am not proposing anything that absurd. My point is that, if Prague can run buses between trams and get an extra 12600 passengers per hour through with modest delays, then it should be a no brainer for Adelaide to run a fraction of that, and take some pressure off the other lanes in King Wm St, Nth Tce, and down to the Port Road with almost no delays.

The main impediments to this are, those nutty centre island stops, and front door only bus loading. However, it should not be beyond the capabilites of Adelaide to rectify both of those gaffes.

Or perhaps we should just get some people here on 457 visas who actually know wtf they are doing to run the show.

[Aidan]

rubberman, I'm well aware of what you pointed out, but you seem to have failed to comprehend what I pointed out. The vast majority of those passengers were not getting on at that stop.

Our centre island tram stops aren't nutty, they're the most sensible option. Gutter running trams would have been severely delayed by buses and probably also caused a lot of delays to buses. And side platforms in the middle of the road (like Melbourne's Swanston Street) would require more room (much more if buses were sharing the stops).

We should be running more trams, not clogging the tram stops up with buses.

[rubberman]

Aidan,

You are not thinking. First of all, the problem we have with our buses is that they are slow to load. What the people who run buses in Prague (and just about any other place where they know what they are doing) is have multiple entry/exit doors with card readers on each door. Just like the MTT did here years ago (The MTT called 'em conductors). Then your point about the video showing people exiting vs entering becomes entirely irrelevant.

So, step 1, make Adelaide's buses multiple door entry/exit.

Second, you completely miss the point that King Wm St, North Terrace, and down to Port Road, during peak hours the tram lane is grossly underutilised, and the other lanes are packed. If you can't see that relieving the pressure on the overstressed lanes by transferring some traffic to lightly stressed lanes, then don't go into a job where network optimisation of any sort is required as a career choice. Now, as you do point out, that could be done by putting more trams on. But that might be in twenty years, or never, so how about we be a tiny bit practical and do something now. Such as getting the Port Road bound buses, or some of them, onto the tram lines, and out of the traffic, to everyone's benefit. There is also the little matter of economic evaluation. If more people via buses can use that space, then the cost benefit becomes more favorable to its construction.

So, step 2, get some buses onto the tramline, and get some more utilisation of that rather expensive asset.

[Vee]

Why it’s time to get Norwood tram plan on track...
Local Council puts its case for prioritizing the next tram extension from the city to the eastern suburbs, along Norwood Parade.

A LOCAL council and businesses are urging the State Government to fast-track a new tram line to link the city with the eastern suburbs.
Norwood, Payneham & St Peters Council says a tram line connecting the city with The Parade must be made a priority and the government should plan for it as part of its proposal to extend the O-Bahn to the city through Rymill Park.

Mayor Robert Bria said last week he wanted the government to carry out its plan to create a tram corridor through Kent Town and Norwood to The Parade shopping district and the University of South Australia’s Magill campus as soon as possible.
Mr Bria said it was the next “logical step” for Adelaide’s public transport system.

“We want the tram extension to travel around The Parade and do a dog leg around Magill Rd and stop at the Magill UniSA campus,” Mr Bria said.
“At a very minimum, the government must fast-track a tram extension through The Parade and have it stop at Pembroke School.

“If the State Government is serious about creating vibrant, mix-used precincts in inner-suburban areas, then the tram down The Parade must be at the top of the list.”

His comments come 18 months after the council first made a plea for the State Government to make creating a tram line connecting the east with the city a priority.

“Now that the O-Bahn project is being rolled out for feedback, the next logical step is for the tram line to be incorporated into the O-Bahn project so that work on the east link tram line can begin,” Mr Bria said.

Eastern Messenger:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger ... 7301852644

[Llessur2002]

I've always been a bit confused as to why the PortLINK is shown in the 30 year transport plan as being short-medium term whilst the other lines are medium-long term as this route's already well-served by the Grange/Outer Harbor rail line. I agree with the long-term transition to light rail on this route but I would have thought that introducing a new transport line into the CBD such as the ProspectLINK would be of greater overall benefit to the transport system. I guess cost might be something to do with it - cheaper to convert an existing line that create an entirely new one.

[Waewick]

I've always been a bit confused as to why the PortLINK is shown in the 30 year transport plan as being short-medium term whilst the other lines are medium-long term as this route's already well-served by the Grange/Outer Harbour rail line. I agree with the long-term transition to light rail on this route but I would have thought that introducing a new transport line into the CBD such as the ProspectLINK would be of greater overall benefit to the transport system. I guess cost might be something to do with it - cheaper to convert an existing line that create an entirely new one.

votes

[Nathan]

I've always been a bit confused as to why the PortLINK is shown in the 30 year transport plan as being short-medium term whilst the other lines are medium-long term as this route's already well-served by the Grange/Outer Harbour rail line. I agree with the long-term transition to light rail on this route but I would have thought that introducing a new transport line into the CBD such as the ProspectLINK would be of greater overall benefit to the transport system. I guess cost might be something to do with it - cheaper to convert an existing line that create an entirely new one.

Because of Torrens Junction. The federal money for the junction is apparently for next financial year, but the state government still hasn't made up their mind on whether they'll electrify the outer harbour line as heavy rail and underground the line under the freight line, Park Tce and Bowden; or to convert the line to light rail, deleting the existing line from Bowden to Adelaide Railway Station, and connecting the rest of the line through Bowden to the tram line. Obviously, a decision is going to have to be made somewhat soon, or they'll forfeit the funding.

[Llessur2002]

Obviously, a decision is going to have to be made somewhat soon, or they'll forfeit the funding.

Cheers - I didn't know about that funding. So, one way or the other, something has to happen with the line starting next year? Either electrification (presumably meaning the line will remain as heavy rail for the foreseeable future) or conversion to light rail?

I had wondered why the Bowden development renders seemed to show an underground station...

[rhino]

Is it practical to have light rail all the way to Outer Harbor? I was of the understanding that, from a commuting point of view, there is a distance beyond which light rail becomes too slow, and which is therefore better suited to heavy rail.

I also understand that Garry Johansson was after light rail radiating out from Port Adelaide, to try to draw life back into the Port, but I don't think this necessarily means light rail from Adelaide to Outer Harbor for regular commuters.

[Llessur2002]

One of the technical documents attached to the 30 year transport plan suggested conversion to light rail would add 10 minutes onto an end-to-end journey along the Outer Harbor line. It also mentioned that disadvantage would be balanced by increased frequency of services along the line.

Everywhere south of the Outer Harbor/Grange line split has 15 minute services at present so any increase on this would be fantastic - not sure it would be viable for Adelaide Metro to run that many trams though...

[Llessur2002]

Cheers - I didn't know about that funding. So, one way or the other, something has to happen with the line starting next year? Either electrification (presumably meaning the line will remain as heavy rail for the foreseeable future) or conversion to light rail?

Actually, I guess I’ve got this slightly wrong. Presumably the options are:

1) Build the underpass – effectively killing the PortLINK tram proposal for the medium/long-term as a conversion to light rail and connecting to the existing tram line would make the new underpass redundant. I presume this wouldn’t require immediate electrification of the line.

2) Don’t build the underpass – convert to light rail now.

3) Don’t build the underpass – retain potential for light rail conversion in the future but junction would not be improved.

If the State Government is committed to the PortLINK proposal, they'll have to chose between options 2 and 3. Therefore, I guess the question is: Can the Federal funding be used for light rail conversion works relating to this junction or is it specifically for a heavy rail underpass?

So could this mean we might actually have a new tram line coming our way within the next couple of years?

[Nathan]

I don't think the federal funds can be used for conversion to light rail. The aim of the federal funding is to benefit the freight line. Any benefit to the Outer Harbour line from it is just a bonus (and I'd assume any work beyond immediately eliminating the crossover would have to be paid for by the state government, although there's probably an argument for funding to put it under Park Tce given that it is also a freight route, particularly so when the Torrens to Torrens South Rd project is in progress).

I do have reservations about trams on a route that long too. Doesn't strike me as the most efficient option. The only justification I can see is so it can run through Port Adelaide and Semaphore, rather than over the viaduct that, let's face it, is far too removed from the centre of Port Adelaide. Is it worth it though?

[Llessur2002]

I don't think the federal funds can be used for conversion to light rail. The aim of the federal funding is to benefit the freight line.

I just wondered if the total removal of the Outer harbor line due to rerouting as part of a light rail conversion would be seen as resulting in the same benefit to the freight line. Although, given the Federal Government's stance on public transport I'm sure it wouldn't be.

So in that case the Government's faced with the stark decision of whether to take the money, improve the junction (which would fit in nicely with the Bowden masterplan of the underground station allowing the route directly above the line to be used as a more sensible and direct route for the Outer Harbour Greenway/cycle path rather than the current detour that's in place at the moment) or turn down the money with no certainty that the funds would be found for the PortLINK project in the near future, leaving the Torrens Junction unimproved.

Given that choice I think I'd take the $100-odd million, build the underpass, put the PortLINK project on the long-term list and prioritise either the Prospect or Airport tram lines or the City Loop when the funds become available. The Prospect line might make sense given the OBahn project's about to get started and an extension along North Terrace and down East Terrace would effectively kick-start the City Loop anyway...

[Nathan]

I'm in full agreement there. I wish they'd just bite the bullet, underground it, and get it done at the same time as they're doing the South Rd overpass to minimise the disruption on users of the line.

The issue of Port Adelaide doesn't have to be solved by a tram. It's not actually that far from the train station to the centre of PA, it just feels like it. Having the Port Canal Shopping Centre and Port Mall carparks on route to St Vincent St just kills the connection, and makes that stretch of Commercial Rd a very unfriendly place on foot.

On a side note, the pedestrian/cycle bridge over Park Tce is separately funded (by RenewalSA) and will be built regardless of what happens to the train line (although it will affect the design and exact position of it).

[Llessur2002]

Presumably a decision would have to be made soon - by the state budget maybe?