Sensational-Adelaide.com

omada wrote:Rann also mentioned that the tramline would go down to Westlakes in the future, Westlakes!! wtf, why??? especially since football will be relocated to the AO, and really who give's a tinkers cuss about SANFL at Football Park these days anyway.

Not only has the redevelopment oval ment that the CBD will get a boost but also a massive ammount of land will be opened up for development at West Lakes. One word, TOD. They can probaly make the arguement that there is sufficient economic activity there at the moment to justify this, and beside this it wont get built in the next few years anyway. The Gov. has enough big ticket items U/C, once these start to thin back a bit then we'll c a anouncement, a year before the election is my guess.

Waewick wrote:

Will wrote:

believesinadsy wrote:cheers for that. any time line given or was that it?

No timeline was given although the premier did say something like "it will happen". There was suggestion that a CBD tram-loop may represent the next tram extension, delaying the extension to West lakes and Semaphore.

you would think with the AO debate finally over a city loop would be a more useful addition.


Down Morphett and Gouger sounds great but I'm still dreaming of one down to Hutt Street!

IMO a CBD tram loop would be a massive boost to residential apartment living in the Adelaide CBD. It would be a compelling lifestyle choice for young professionals working in the city or downsizing baby-boomers to live within short walking distance of a tram that can take you to all the major destinations in the CBD (Gouger St, Central Market, Rundle Mall, Riverbank, East End, Hutt St etc) for free.

I've been thinking about a proposed CBD tram route for a while, my thoughts are:

- from North Tce, extend down Morphett St (stop at Light Sq). Depending on feasibility may need to run down Gray St and Currie St to meet up with Morphett St at Light Sq.
- from Morphett St, turn into Gouger St (stop at Moonta St, Chinatown). Could be congested, but it's done at Jetty Rd Glenelg.
- continue along Angas St (stops near existing Victoria Sq stop, also stop near Pulteney St intersection and stop near Hutt St intersection). Hutt St stop would service the restaurant precinct in that part of the CBD, as well as residents in the SE part of the CBD.
- from Angas St, turn into Hutt St continuing onto East Tce (stop near Rundle St intersection). This stop would service the East End and Botanic Gardens.
- from East Tce, turn into North Tce extending to King William St to connect to existing line (stop near Bonython Hall @ Adelaide Uni and stop near Gawler Pl intersection). Hence the entire length of North Tce would be serviced by tram.

Not sure if Hutt St or East Tce are viable for a tramline because of the Clipsal 500. Pultney st may be an option to head towards Noth Tce. You dont go into the guts of the Hutt St precinct but its only a 5 minute walk and still service the eastend and Rundle St.

perhaps down frome and linking up with Hutt street?

Here's the CBD tram proposal from our previous Thinker in Residence (Fred Hanson):

What's with all the fancy turns and alignments and servicing areas of no value?

I really do not see what is so wrong with a very simple route, along North Terrace, down Pulteney Street, Angus and Gouger Streets and Morphett Street?

Such a loop 'hugs' the area between what is defined as the traditional CBD core, and is accessible to several areas of interest, yet also offers oppurtunity for the areas just outside the traditional CBD core to undergo urban renewal and sustain healthy economic development.

Agrre Shuz, After a bit more of a think about it Grote wouldnt be a great option because if the plans for Vic Sq go through they are planning to shut Wakefield when they have large events, having a tram go through that wouldnt be safe. So Gouger - Angus leading into Frome would be better as it is minutes from Hutt St and then also have the option of continuing on to the zoo and Nth Adelaide from there.

Before the mods kick in and have a whinge; I realise this conversation is best left for the Visions and Suggestions forums. But, until you lot execute your powers and move these posts where they belong, I'll just continue on for now.

Mattblack; While I agree Frome Street captures a bigger area of commuters from the surrounding 'urban fabric', It's narrow nature would actually serve as an impediment to traffic flows for the area than as an improvement.

I say this, as such a route would likely require trams to share the road with cars, which is something that I am historically against; having observe the issues that this can create in Melbourne, and note Jetty Road as an example for something closer to home. Public transport should have a bigger role in the movement of people around the city, especially in the CBD, but it is important to note that such solutions must be considered which takes into account of all affected parties involved - especially, unfortunately, to try not to piss off motorists in a very car dependent city. Slowly, but surely is the best way to resolve things.

Trams should always have right of way and I believe that what the State Government has done with the extension to the Entertainment Centre has proven to be such a success because they are not impeded by traffic at all. Although concedinglty, still face some issues as they are currently not being given priority at traffic lights due to poor sequencing.

I think motorists would rather concede an entire lane of traffic for public transport (be it bus or tram) on an existing 2 or three lane throughfare, than have to share (or forsake entirely) a road with buses and trams on a narrow 1 lane throughfare. As many options should be provided, and as little eliminated.

ml69 wrote:- from Morphett St, turn into Gouger St (stop at Moonta St, Chinatown). Could be congested, but it's done at Jetty Rd Glenelg.

If a tram went down Gouger Street the street could be made one way. We could then have two lanes, one for traffic and one a dedicated tram lane - both travelling the same direction.

This assumes a tram loop would be a one lane, one direction loop, which would be the way to go anyway, I think.

[Shuz] wrote: While I agree Frome Street captures a bigger area of commuters from the surrounding 'urban fabric', It's narrow nature would actually serve as an impediment to traffic flows for the area than as an improvement.

Frome St is only 1 lane narrower than Pulteney St (6 lanes vs 7 lanes) and carries far less traffic. The centre 2 lanes could be given over to trams with far less impact than putting them on Pulteney St.

I'm not saying I want trams on Frome St (or that I don't), but I want the arguments to be valid.

rhino wrote:

[Shuz] wrote: While I agree Frome Street captures a bigger area of commuters from the surrounding 'urban fabric', It's narrow nature would actually serve as an impediment to traffic flows for the area than as an improvement.

Frome St is only 1 lane narrower than Pulteney St (6 lanes vs 7 lanes) and carries far less traffic. The centre 2 lanes could be given over to trams with far less impact than putting them on Pulteney St.

I'm not saying I want trams on Frome St (or that I don't), but I want the arguments to be valid.

Well it would definetly make an impact where the tram stops would be located, as you would have to do a setup similar to Stop 16, Jetty Road Glenelg, forcing cars to share with the tram tracks. And that is a big no-no.

Personally, I think that we should be focussing on getting people into and out of the CBD, rather than worrying about transporting them within the CBD. With the majority of the popular CBD destinations being in the northern half of the CBD, you can probably walk between them in less than 20mins. There doesnt seem the necessity for a loop at this stage. And for the cost and effort of building the lines within the CBD (considering existing services, traffic management, community engagement, etc), and considering it will be a free service and has potential to cause extra traffic congestion, I dont think you would be getting value for money.

[Shuz] wrote:

rhino wrote:

[Shuz] wrote: While I agree Frome Street captures a bigger area of commuters from the surrounding 'urban fabric', It's narrow nature would actually serve as an impediment to traffic flows for the area than as an improvement.

Frome St is only 1 lane narrower than Pulteney St (6 lanes vs 7 lanes) and carries far less traffic. The centre 2 lanes could be given over to trams with far less impact than putting them on Pulteney St.

I'm not saying I want trams on Frome St (or that I don't), but I want the arguments to be valid.

Well it would definetly make an impact where the tram stops would be located, as you would have to do a setup similar to Stop 16, Jetty Road Glenelg, forcing cars to share with the tram tracks. And that is a big no-no.

If tram stops are located at intersections, this will be a problem, but if they are located mid-block, an island platform in the middle of Frome St will allow two lanes of traffic on either side. And Frome St does not carry enough vehicle traffic for light-controlled pedestrian crossings to be a necessity. A zebra crossing would suffice.