VIS: Tram on O'Connell St and Prospect Rd

[rhino]

As someone else said, there is no reason that tram lanes have to be exclusive. Why can't trams and traffic share a lane along O'Connell Street?

[rubberman]

Because basically it slows the trams down so much that nobody wants to ride on them as an alternative to using the car.

It is the relative speed of the reserved track that makes the tram alternative viable. No reserved track, no advantage for trams, no patronage.

Sad but true.

Melbourne (and Adelaide in the 'good old days') used to have the mixed trams/cars model. However, Melbourne abandoned it in favour of the reserved track model due to the catastrophically falling travel times.

[fabricator]

Because basically it slows the trams down so much that nobody wants to ride on them as an alternative to using the car.

It is the relative speed of the reserved track that makes the tram alternative viable. No reserved track, no advantage for trams, no patronage.

Sad but true.

Melbourne (and Adelaide in the 'good old days') used to have the mixed trams/cars model. However, Melbourne abandoned it in favour of the reserved track model due to the catastrophically falling travel times.

I saw lots of shared tram/car lanes, not everywhere but enough of it to be obvious.

[rubberman]

Firstly, removing traffic lights from O'Connell Street would dramatically reduce pedestrian access and safety. It is a public space full of shops and cafes. It is not a highway and serves a far greater purpose than catering to commuters for just a few hours per day.

Secondly, park-and-rides is not good public transport policy because the land they consume is phenomenal compared to the measly amount of commuters they provide for. The 700 spaces at the Entertainment Centre (at 1.2 persons per car) wouldn't fill 5 Citadis trams per day.* That's a dismal return considering the huge amount of land it consumes. Multi-levels cost considerably more to build.

Could you imagine such a beast in Thorngate? Me neither.

*It wouldn't even fill a single typical Sydney commuter train

So basically we have to forget about trams going to or through North Adelaide.

I did not mean to suggest that I think it is a good idea particularly to have trams through North Adelaide, merely that it is about the only way that such a tramway would be viable in any economic or transport sense. Anything else will basically foul up the whole of O'Connell St. *shrug*

However, I will make the following comments: The economics of parking stations are such that plenty are built in the CBD where land prices are much higher. So a parking station that serves the CBD but on somewhat cheaper land on the fringes is just as economic. The question of whether or not a tram service is worth while to take commuters to the CBD from the fringe park then becomes an economic one taking into account the reduction in traffic on the inner city streets, the cost of the tramway and the cost of the parking stations. The economics would have to be worked out, and are beyond the scope of this board I figure.

You are right when you say that 700 car slots is five flexitys. However, that traffic is pretty much confined to the peak hour - so you are talking one tram every twelve minutes - just for the commuters. A parking station with two or three times that size implies a tram every four to six minutes - not a bad service really in the scheme of things, and if replicated through several bottleneck roads such as South, Marion, Main North and Port Roads - the numbers add up significantly. Just do the sums, and just that number of parks if translated to trips actually makes a number that is significant. Just think if the first three had 1500 parks each and the last one 700, means 5000 one way trips in the morning - ie 10,000 single trips per day. ie 50000 trips per week (ignoring Saturdays so as not to be optimistic) and for fifty weeks per year (ignoring the Chrissy period) that comes to 2.5 Million single trip riders per year. However, this is also 'extra' patronage won from cars. Now I emphasise that maybe this is not really economic - but the numbers do seem worth while crunching.

I guess the problem with O'Connell St is the conflict between the fact that it tries to be both a highway and a local shopping street. Like it or not, a huge proportion of the traffic IS through highway traffic and it IS also a local shopping st. The alternatives are to leave it as it is and watch the street die as more and more commuters try to get into town through it, or to try to stop commuters using it to get to town. The third way is to try to reduce the through traffic impact through infrastructure such as trams reducing car numbers - five flexities vs 700 or 800 cars for example, and pedestrian overpasses from one side of Makris Towers to the other. Again, I stress that this is not necessarily what I would like to see, but at the moment, traffic is getting worse and worse and neither residents nor commuters are happy, and putting our heads in the sand will only make the final outcome either more expensive or more gut wrenching for one side or the other - along with the political angst it will cause. One can see the death of Melbourne St as an example of the futility of Council and Government sitting on their hands and just hoping it will all go away.

This is why I say that the Government should be applauded for the entertainment centre experiment, since it will demonstrate at very low marginal cost whether or not such a concept will do any good.

If it fails, it is only the cost of a few parking machines. If it succeeds, it will speed things up along Port Rd, North and West Terrace during peak hour for that same really trivial cost.

We can talk about this endlessly - by undertaking an experiment the Government will prove a point one way or the other. Just do it.

[Aidan]

So basically we have to forget about trams going to or through North Adelaide.
I did not mean to suggest that I think it is a good idea particularly to have trams through North Adelaide, merely that it is about the only way that such a tramway would be viable in any economic or transport sense. Anything else will basically foul up the whole of O'Connell St. *shrug*

I think trams through North Adelaide will eventually make sense, but only if the line goes all the way up Prospect Road and to Mawson Lakes.

I think you're worrying a bit too much about street running. Yes there are clear advantages of reserved track, but the presence of shared sections need not be a major problem if the trams have priority at the traffic lights.

The economics of parking stations are such that plenty are built in the CBD where land prices are much higher. So a parking station that serves the CBD but on somewhat cheaper land on the fringes is just as economic.

No it isn't. The reason parking stations in the CBD are economic is that they can charge a lot for parking. A parking station on the fringe is less convenient, so they won't be able to charge anywhere near as much.

I guess the problem with O'Connell St is the conflict between the fact that it tries to be both a highway and a local shopping street. Like it or not, a huge proportion of the traffic IS through highway traffic and it IS also a local shopping st. The alternatives are to leave it as it is and watch the street die as more and more commuters try to get into town through it, or to try to stop commuters using it to get to town.

I disagree. As long as there's still parking, more commuters using the street is a very good thing for the shops there, as more people notice them. When the computer shop from North Adelaide Village (trading under the dual names of Mac Solutions and PC Emergency) moved to O'Connell Street, its trade doubled. And while that wasn't enough to get them through the economic downturn, most of the other shops in the vicinity seem to be doing OK.

[rubberman]

I think you're worrying a bit too much about street running. Yes there are clear advantages of reserved track, but the presence of shared sections need not be a major problem if the trams have priority at the traffic lights.

It is not just priority at the traffic lights, there is also the banking up at right turns. It is also the fact that while buses duck into the bus stop and cars can then pass, cars behind trams cannot do the same. ie there is a significant negative traffic effect.

"The economics of parking stations are such that plenty are built in the CBD where land prices are much higher. So a parking station that serves the CBD but on somewhat cheaper land on the fringes is just as economic."

No it isn't. The reason parking stations in the CBD are economic is that they can charge a lot for parking. A parking station on the fringe is less convenient, so they won't be able to charge anywhere near as much.

Well, obviously if the tram cannot provide a quicker trip into town than driving, there is no point in having the tram. Full stop. People may as well stay in their cars. However, IF the tram can be made faster than driving, then it is more convenient - not less - because the total time is less. ie if parking plus tram time is less than driving plus parking time, then is not parking plus tram more convenient. I am sure the car does not have an opinion about where it gets parked, merely the total time to get to the CBD.

I disagree. As long as there's still parking, more commuters using the street is a very good thing for the shops there, as more people notice them. When the computer shop from North Adelaide Village (trading under the dual names of Mac Solutions and PC Emergency) moved to O'Connell Street, its trade doubled. And while that wasn't enough to get them through the economic downturn, most of the other shops in the vicinity seem to be doing OK.

That is quite correct up to the point where the section of road reaches its capacity - at that point travel times dive and the point I made becomes painfully obvious. However, by that time it is too late to stop the angst and loss of revenue.

But let's just wait and see how the experiment at the Entertainment Centre goes. If it works a treat, then we can look at what it might take to make a tram along O'Connell St viable. If it does not work all that well, then forget trams along O'Connell St - they will just remain a tramfan's dream with no hope of ever getting off the ground while people prefer using cars. Till we see how the EC experiment goes, we are all just speculating really.

[monotonehell]

I think you're worrying a bit too much about street running. Yes there are clear advantages of reserved track, but the presence of shared sections need not be a major problem if the trams have priority at the traffic lights.

Trams would only benefit from priority at traffic lights if they had a reserved track. If there's even one car in front of a tram, it still cant advance. Just as bus priority lights only work where the bus has a bus lane to sit in to get a jump on the other vehicles.

Go sit on Jetty road for a while to see how traffic affects a tram's progress.
(Edit: perhaps you should sit NEAR Jetty rd rather than on it...)

[drsmith]

What about King William Road/Pennington Tce/Jeffcott St as an alternative tram route to Nth Adelaide ?

[fkj]

what about this route,
it would be fast, as it has more dedicated sections,
but i dont know what parklands enthusiasts would think :p
http://maps.google.com/maps/user?uid=11 ... 3696&hl=en

[ChrisRT]

Although running a Tram to North-Adelaide would be nice and convenient, I don't think it would provide a good return on investment and there would, I suspect, be extreme opposition among North Adelaide residents.

I think a better investment option would a be a spur line from the Gawler line running right into the heart of Mawson Lakes. Couple that with an extension of the Tonsley Line to Flinders Med Centre and you could have a full light rail service running North-South between Flinders Med Centre, the city and Mawson Lakes. No having to deal with North Adelaide NIMBYs, and high potential ridership. I think such a service should be called something like the 'University Connector'

[rubberman]

what about this route,
it would be fast, as it has more dedicated sections,
but i dont know what parklands enthusiasts would think :p
http://maps.google.com/maps/user?uid=11 ... 3696&hl=en

Still might have objections from the nimbys on LeFevre Terrace - but would be quicker than O'Connell St for sure.

Just to throw in something completely uneconomical and will never happen. But I can dream can I not?

How about a tunnel under North Adelaide from King Wm St just south of the Hospital to the edge of the parklands near Main Nth Road? The tunnel could accommodate trams and the through buses that do not stop on their way to Elizabeth and Salisbury.

That would leave the Nimbys alone, take some buses off O'Connell St and massively decrease the travel time for through public transport coming along Main North Road. It might take eight or nine minutes of the trip for each vehicle at least.

Just a thought - I know it would never happen.

[fkj]

Although running a Tram to North-Adelaide would be nice and convenient, I don't think it would provide a good return on investment and there would, I suspect, be extreme opposition among North Adelaide residents.

I think a better investment option would a be a spur line from the Gawler line running right into the heart of Mawson Lakes. Couple that with an extension of the Tonsley Line to Flinders Med Centre and you could have a full light rail service running North-South between Flinders Med Centre, the city and Mawson Lakes. No having to deal with North Adelaide NIMBYs, and high potential ridership. I think such a service should be called something like the 'University Connector'

I dont know about making tonsley-flinders light rail, id much rather just electric rail
and with the west lakes plan, id prefer not to use the grange line, because personally, i am opposed to dual voltages, despite the benefits they bring, but i would just want to be able to see Citadis's and Flexity's on every rail extension we make, and really dont like the idea of having them only going to entertainment ctr. then having to transfer to a different tram, as such, i believe the west lakes line could run in between West Lakes Blvd and the Grange line, then in the centre of WL Blvd. where the bus lane currently is.

/EDIT:
there are maps of my preferred routes on my google maps, http://maps.google.com/maps/user?uid=11 ... 3696&hl=en

[skyliner]

Agree about the Finders line staying electic heavy rail.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE

[Aidan]

I think you're worrying a bit too much about street running. Yes there are clear advantages of reserved track, but the presence of shared sections need not be a major problem if the trams have priority at the traffic lights.

Trams would only benefit from priority at traffic lights if they had a reserved track. If there's even one car in front of a tram, it still cant advance.

No, that would only be true if the trams were on a separate phase. If they're on the same phase, the car and tram can both advance.

Just as bus priority lights only work where the bus has a bus lane to sit in to get a jump on the other vehicles.

But B lights are not the only way of giving priority to buses. There's also the option of keeping the light green until the bus has gone through. Similarly with trams, you can ensure they're at either the front or the back of the traffic platoon, and if the tram stop is before the traffic lights you can time the red phase to coincide with the time the tram is picking up passengers.

Go sit on Jetty road for a while to see how traffic affects a tram's progress.
(Edit: perhaps you should sit NEAR Jetty rd rather than on it...)

Obviously Jetty Road's not a good example of how to do it. There are probably some much better examples in Melbourne, though I admit its a while since I've been there.

It is not just priority at the traffic lights, there is also the banking up at right turns.

There are two solutions for this: either put sufficient space for right turning traffic to the right of the trams, or allow hook turns.

It is also the fact that while buses duck into the bus stop and cars can then pass, cars behind trams cannot do the same. ie there is a significant negative traffic effect.

Yes. This also means that while buses keep getting overtaken then held back by regular traffic, trams would not and may be able to catch up with the cars in front.

"The economics of parking stations are such that plenty are built in the CBD where land prices are much higher. So a parking station that serves the CBD but on somewhat cheaper land on the fringes is just as economic."

No it isn't. The reason parking stations in the CBD are economic is that they can charge a lot for parking. A parking station on the fringe is less convenient, so they won't be able to charge anywhere near as much.

Well, obviously if the tram cannot provide a quicker trip into town than driving, there is no point in having the tram. Full stop.

I strongly disagree, and refer you to the Glenelg tram as a counterexample - the daytime offpeak journey times are much quicker on Anzac Highway, yet the trams run full!

People may as well stay in their cars. However, IF the tram can be made faster than driving, then it is more convenient - not less - because the total time is less. ie if parking plus tram time is less than driving plus parking time, then is not parking plus tram more convenient. I am sure the car does not have an opinion about where it gets parked, merely the total time to get to the CBD.

The car doesn't, but the driver does, and there's a lot more to modal choice than either journey time or convenience (which is not the same at all).

A car is often more convenient because you don't have to walk so far at the end. But that's not its only advantage - you can carry a lot more in a car than on a tram, and that can be a major factor in people's decisions. Where there's a time advantage to park and ride, it usually disappears if you have to make intermediate trips to your car.

But often it doesn't even provide a time advantage for single journeys. Nor does it provide a comfort advantage, especially our trams are usually overcrowded, and some idiot in TransAdelaide insisted on having hard seats.

But the trams are very competitive on cost.

I disagree. As long as there's still parking, more commuters using the street is a very good thing for the shops there, as more people notice them. When the computer shop from North Adelaide Village (trading under the dual names of Mac Solutions and PC Emergency) moved to O'Connell Street, its trade doubled. And while that wasn't enough to get them through the economic downturn, most of the other shops in the vicinity seem to be doing OK.

That is quite correct up to the point where the section of road reaches its capacity - at that point travel times dive and the point I made becomes painfully obvious. However, by that time it is too late to stop the angst and loss of revenue.

Why would there be a loss of revenue? You still have just as much traffic, even if it does move much more slowly.

But let's just wait and see how the experiment at the Entertainment Centre goes. If it works a treat, then we can look at what it might take to make a tram along O'Connell St viable. If it does not work all that well, then forget trams along O'Connell St - they will just remain a tramfan's dream with no hope of ever getting off the ground while people prefer using cars. Till we see how the EC experiment goes, we are all just speculating really.

What do you expect the EnterCentre experiment to tell you? A route on reserved track in road medians to a park and ride site would be totally different to an on street route serving the homes and businesses within walking distance.

[mattblack]

Ok, Aidan, Im not sure if Im the only one but can I just request that you dont break up responses so much. I dont think there is a need to argue every single point that people make. Readability of these reponses are next to nill and you loose the point that you are trying to make because I dont think that anybody sits and reads all of your argument. It really has got beyond a joke. Tell me if Im the only one feeeling like . If you really want to persue some of these argements in detail maybe you should take it up in 'the pub', I think these threads are for actual development not argueing points of difference.