Sensational-Adelaide.com

rooshooter wrote:I can't understand why it's been suggested that the proposed city loop would go down gray st.
it's way too narrow and would require an extra set of lights on north tce going into gray st... surely extending down to west tce and running down the very wide median strip would make far more sense?

Imagine parking and driving down this street with two tram lines. Maybe there won't be any parking allowed. Someone post an image of the street so we can work things out?

Cheers

I wouldn't be surprised if Grey St is closed to vehicular traffic. The advantage of Grey St over West Tce is that there in a pulling area on either side of the road, for at least one block west and several to the east. If West Tce is used, there is only one side of the road to draw passengers from, except for Adelaide High School and the occasional event held in the West Parklands.

the problem of having another set of lights on north tce for trams to turn into gray st would suck big biccies...

running trams down grote st seems the most sensible option (with stops in front of the bus station and the markets) but makes a waste out of the ACC plopping those flag poles down the middle... what were they thinking???
currie st would be nuts due to all the obahn buses / congestion etc...

i wonder whether the loop could come back down franklin st? it's wide, low on congestion and still can service the bus station...

What about Gouger Street? It would seem the most logical place for a tram.

Norman wrote:What about Gouger Street? It would seem the most logical place for a tram.

it'd work well if you could make it a car-free zone - at least ban on street parking... which the gouger st traders will NEVER allow!
otherwise it'd be a very very tight fit...

rooshooter wrote:

Norman wrote:What about Gouger Street? It would seem the most logical place for a tram.

it'd work well if you could make it a car-free zone - at least ban on street parking... which the gouger st traders will NEVER allow!
otherwise it'd be a very very tight fit...

It's no wider than Jetty road Glenelg, Gouger street is a good option i recon.

rhino wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if Grey St is closed to vehicular traffic. The advantage of Grey St over West Tce is that there in a pulling area on either side of the road, for at least one block west and several to the east. If West Tce is used, there is only one side of the road to draw passengers from, except for Adelaide High School and the occasional event held in the West Parklands.

That's a very good point you make about pulling area, especially considering that West Tce is essentially a highway. Also, I think it'd be more of an inconvenience to traffic to have it turn onto West Tce than it would be to have another set of lights at Gray/Nth Tce.

As for traffic on Gray St, there'd have to be an allowance for local traffic at the least. Though, I've always thought that Gray St ought to serve as a north-south passageway in the way Frome St does in the East. Does anyone know how its width compares to Frome St?

From memory, the length of Gray St from North Tce to Currie St could be easily widened, but less easily so from Currie to Grote. But of course, that's an expense not likely to be swallowed with any extension.

I personally envisage the tram network in the square mile looping to Victoria Square via Gray and Grote in the West, and Frome and Wakefield in the East. Perhaps further down the track (no pun), the lines could connect down Currie/Grenfell, then possibly even extend from those streets down Morphett and Pulteney and up Sturt/Halifax.

Mike,

When are you going to realise that many speaking out do not oppose progress, they do not wish for Adelaide's decline, they want true Vision.

Not some media spin aimed at the greater majority and in the face of the rest. Not a door stop saying we are gunna do this and gunna do that and then when you actually stumble onto a project that can actually be delivered, do so regardless of the public sentiment.

Lets face it, your tram to nowhere has served you well. It really does go nowhere in more ways than one. We already need to extend the trams and the track 400m to the proposed Marg noone but you seems to want!

You talk gushingly about trams all over Adelaide, how about a real plan, like with real designs and research and budgets and stuff, not guesses.

Leave Pat's white board for the after lunch presentation, South Australia deserves vision extending beyond the next election!

PhilM wrote:Lets face it, your tram to nowhere has served you well. It really does go nowhere in more ways than one. We already need to extend the trams and the track 400m to the proposed Marg noone but you seems to want!

Please explain what you mean by 'tram to nowhere' because none of the anti-tram people seem to be able to. Apparently our city is 'nowhere,' UniSA is 'nowhere,' the rail station and convention centre are 'nowher.' Need I go on?

AtD wrote:Please explain what you mean by 'tram to nowhere' because none of the anti-tram people seem to be able to. Apparently our city is 'nowhere,' UniSA is 'nowhere,' the rail station and convention centre are 'nowher.' Need I go on?

What annoys people is the goverments attitude towards voters. They make up these decitions without consultation or communication to the public. They simple say we are going to build a tramline here and it is the best thing for all south autralian and all south australians like it. For over 90% of South Australia the tramline extention is of little use transport wise. People say "well if you dont like the traffic then catch the tram", well not everyone can use it because the glenelg tram corridor only covers a very small area of metropolitain Adelaide and only takes you to the CBD.

I am still for the tramline extention for it increasing enjoyability of visitors to Adelaide and just making Adelaide more "exciting". We are the only state not to have a transport plan. The goverment begain wrting a draft one when they were first elected but scrapped it because there was no political gain. We sort of get hints here and there that the goverment want to make "a non stop road" along south road and electrify the rail network but never in any detail. The goverment has no vision for the future transport of the state. The only real improvements being done are a single underpass on south road and a tramline extention. They also say they might build another underpass on southroad after 2010. Other transport projects are more then not maintanance backlogs, though the neglect is not all of there fault.

Yeh but if everyone had that attitude the tram only serves 10% of adelaides population, then no PT would get built. I live in athelstone (NE suburbs) and i would never use south road or northern expressway, bakewell underpass, north south coridor,etc but i don't complain because i realise their importance for the rest of adelaide commuters. The same goes for the tram extension.

The_Q915 wrote:They make up these decitions without consultation or communication to the public.
...
The goverment begain wrting a [transport plan] draft one when they were first elected but scrapped it because there was no political gain.

You've answered your own question, of sorts. Public consultation generally ends up with far too much mud-slinging, and not enough clear thought. I'd much prefer important decisions be left to qualified experts than the media machine in the court of public opinion.

One thing I've noticed that in SA, when the government puts forward an infrastructure plan, the opposition will criticise it as an unnecessary waste, whist in NSW, the opposition will criticise it for not going far enough.

whats the point in public consultation anyway. Most of the public have no idea, and all the public think about is 'whats in it for me'. Im not going to use the northern expressway, but that doesnt mean Im going to be selfish and protest against it because it wont directly benefit me. How absurd. And saying that the Glenelg tramline only serves 5% of Adelaide is almost like saying, dont build a primary school at Seaford or Craigmore, caus it would only serve less than 1% of Adelaide.
The various govt departments and agencies advise on policies and projects that the state should work on. You cant be so dumb as to think that Mike Rann woke up 1 morning and wanted trams, so thats the only reason why it was built. The cost benefit analysis would have been done by dept of Transport, who knew it would work and be successful, which is why the project was given funding, and went ahead.

what people forget is that the tram links king william street to the train station. Years ago as part of the MATS plan they suggested a king william st subway, now we have something that is 80% as good, for a fraction of the cost.

Go to melbourne or Sydney and they have an underground city loop, we will never have anything like that but extending the tram line is a very cheap and effective alternative.

In regards to the tram situation. Gray Street is too small to accomodate such project, but again West Terrace is essentially a 'highway'. My solution would be to cut down on the amount of traffic lanes West Tce holds from 5x5 to 4x4, shift the southbound lanes right up against the northbound (.5m median) and deisgnate the tram corridor alongside the southbound lanes right up against the shop fronts. That way, it is served on its own corridor, covers its designated area of patrons and relieves the inconvience it poses to the 'highway' like nature of West Terrace. As for looping back to Victoria Square, Franklin Street I believe is the best option for the short-term (whilst taking into account long term benefits) as it directly serves the rejuvenated 'Precient area' and new city bus station. Grote Street should remain a designated east-west traffic corridor, as it is a primary throughfare basically, and should not be disrupted with the presence of trams. Victoria Square would be able to be made whole, as no trams on Grote St would allow the construction of an underpass.