Sensational-Adelaide.com

So, what new information have we gathered?

IMO, the proposed route is poor. I agree that trams should extend down North Terrace, but as part of a city loop. I still feel the tram should either go down Grenfell or even Wakefield Street(s). A tram to Norwood down North Terrace will cause utter chaos at the Hackney Road intersection, unless of-course they intend to take it down Rundle Street.

But I still feel the neatest option was down the extended Grenfell Street aligned with the bus tunnel.

Either way, this project is a long way off; if the O'Bahn tunnel weren't a thing I could see it happening sooner but at this point the government has no money to finance such infrastructure, they haven't actually got a clear plan for the old RAH site and I feel this is simply a measure to push the NP&SP council off of their back whilst also encouraging UniSA to uphold their courses at Magill campus.

With saying all that, I definitely see the train-electrification process as a higher priority; they put the Hindmarsh extension ahead of the electrification which by this point we could have seen both Gawler and Seaford electrified.

Patrick_27 wrote:So, what new information have we gathered?

IMO, the proposed route is poor. I agree that trams should extend down North Terrace, but as part of a city loop. I still feel the tram should either go down Grenfell or even Wakefield Street(s). A tram to Norwood down North Terrace will cause utter chaos at the Hackney Road intersection, unless of-course they intend to take it down Rundle Street.

The plan shows it doing a dogleg from North Tce to East Tce to Rundle Rd.

I agree, a Grenfell St route as per the previous O-Bahn tunnel plan would have worked much better for the Norwood line, leaving North Tce/East Tce for a city loop.

Also odd — they still show a city loop route using Frome St. Given the bikeway, I'm not sure how viable that route would be...

A tram line along North Terrace will help drive interest inthe old RAH site, and drive up the sale price. Good plan. But why go to the eastern suburbs? We first need a CITY tram network, or at least 2 large loops. Drive more construction and density into the city population - the mother of all TODs. Surely this makes the most sense?!?

Trams into the suburbs is secondary. By comparison it will foster only a moderate uptick in construction activity, and I doubt it's a vote winner.

Wayno wrote:...Trams into the suburbs is secondary. By comparison it will foster only a moderate uptick in construction activity, and I doubt it's a vote winner.

A tram network should consist of a load of short expeditions into the inner suburbs. The Glenelg route is just outside how far a tram should go. twenty minutes end to end is a good route. Outside of that limited stop, heavy(er) rail or busways should be employed (depending on the destination's suburban makeup).

Yep. Eastern suburbs fits the short destination criterion. I still question the economic business sense prioritised against a comprehensive city network...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

monotonehell wrote:A tram network should consist of a load of short expeditions into the inner suburbs. The Glenelg route is just outside how far a tram should go. twenty minutes end to end is a good route.

Not sure i understand the logic that a tram route should only be about 10k's and 20 min journey? There are many examples in Melbourne, and certainly Europe where trams operate quite successfully over longer distances. Adequate capacity and frequency is an issue, but given our trams are generally running on designated track or right of way, running more-longer trams with some express services should not be an issue.

Wayno wrote:Yep. Eastern suburbs fits the short destination criterion. I still question the economic business sense prioritised against a comprehensive city network...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does it matter in which order it's done?

Yes I think so, and mainly because there's more benefit for SA in fully activating the square mile than a new tram line to a (insert compass direction here) suburb and maybe getting the odd 5 storey development in established leafy areas because of it...

Waewick wrote:

Llessur2002 wrote:

Waewick wrote:mark it down as won't happen

The tramline or the libs getting into office?

Boom boom!

probably both...

Whilst Labor have Gerry Mander the God of Electioneering on their side, the Libs can't win. Popular vote be damned they all say
Whilst we have an idiot who only believes 'infrastructure' means roads roads and more roads in the Lodge this project won't happen. Stubborn transport Minister says we want to deliver it all at once, not piece by piece. Probably anticipates the endless Advertiser headlines of a "Tram to Nowhere" dogging that approach

Patrick_27 wrote:So, what new information have we gathered?

IMO, the proposed route is poor. I agree that trams should extend down North Terrace, but as part of a city loop. I still feel the tram should either go down Grenfell or even Wakefield Street(s). A tram to Norwood down North Terrace will cause utter chaos at the Hackney Road intersection, unless of-course they intend to take it down Rundle Street.

But I still feel the neatest option was down the extended Grenfell Street aligned with the bus tunnel.

Either way, this project is a long way off; if the O'Bahn tunnel weren't a thing I could see it happening sooner but at this point the government has no money to finance such infrastructure, they haven't actually got a clear plan for the old RAH site and I feel this is simply a measure to push the NP&SP council off of their back whilst also encouraging UniSA to uphold their courses at Magill campus.

With saying all that, I definitely see the train-electrification process as a higher priority; they put the Hindmarsh extension ahead of the electrification which by this point we could have seen both Gawler and Seaford electrified.

Is there a route map to go with this ALP dream? I thought I caught a brief glimpse of one on the news? Can it be posted here?

Really don't get why it can't be a staged project?

The logical thing to do would be to have the route go down North Terrace to Frome Street, Grenfell, realigned Rundle Road, into Rundle Street, the Parade West and then down the Parade.

First stage could easily just be two stops on North Terrace - Gawler Place and Adelaide University, as a shuttle along North Terrace to City West.

The next stage could then be down Frome Street with a stop at Rundle Street and Rymill Park on Grenfell Street.

Third stage could then be another 3 stops along a realigned Rundle Road (I'm hoping they'll change their mind, yet again, about that) to Prince Alfred College. You'd have one at the Brewery Apartments, intersection of Rundle and Parade West in Kent Town and another at the intersection of Flinders and Fullarton Roads.

Fourth stage is the 4 stops along the Parade at Sydenham Road, Osmond Terrace, George Street and Portrush Roads.

That's logic anyway. But if this Government wants to continue to defy logic - God help them.

Kasey771 wrote:Is there a route map to go with this ALP dream? I thought I caught a brief glimpse of one on the news? Can it be posted here?

It's all in the Integrated Transport Plan:

http://www.transportplan.sa.gov.au/__da ... e_Plan.pdf

[Shuz] wrote:Really don't get why it can't be a staged project?

The logical thing to do would be to have the route go down North Terrace to Frome Street, Grenfell, realigned Rundle Road, into Rundle Street, the Parade West and then down the Parade.

First stage could easily just be two stops on North Terrace - Gawler Place and Adelaide University, as a shuttle along North Terrace to City West.

The next stage could then be down Frome Street with a stop at Rundle Street and Rymill Park on Grenfell Street.

Third stage could then be another 3 stops along a realigned Rundle Road (I'm hoping they'll change their mind, yet again, about that) to Prince Alfred College. You'd have one at the Brewery Apartments, intersection of Rundle and Parade West in Kent Town and another at the intersection of Flinders and Fullarton Roads.

Fourth stage is the 4 stops along the Parade at Sydenham Road, Osmond Terrace, George Street and Portrush Roads.

That's logic anyway. But if this Government wants to continue to defy logic - God help them.

My thoughts exactly - I understand that it probably saves some money by undertaking one massive project instead of multiple small ones - but then with a 15 year timeframe I would have thought it would be worth the extra cost to at least be seen to delivering something as opposed to nothing. Besides, any CBD-based extensions are much less likely to be seen as 'trams to nowhere' due to the plethora of destinations within the City.

I think it would make great sense to announce a definite extension to the old RAH site in this term of office to not only service the Unis but also the new development on the hospital site. Plus, this extension would help to service the East End - would be great to hop on a tram after a meal on Rundle Street and head back towards the station or Glenelg tram route...

Segment on 9 news last night that said Turnbull is likely to fund one of the Tram extensions and also the electrification of the Gawler line.

Ben wrote:Segment on 9 news last night that said Turnbull is likely to fund one of the Tram extensions and also the electrification of the Gawler line.

bet its the one to juicy marginal seat, not the one that would actually benefit PT usage.