Vision: Your ideas for a new Tram Network

[rubberman]

I guess the question of a congestion tax and how to implement one is a discussion for another forum. However, picking out the bits that are relevant to tram extensions there are some interesting slants.

First, if we look at the interests of the various groups who are actually City of Adelaide Ratepayers. The first of the major interest groups are the residents, who presumably would be exempt from a tax, and would ride the trams and be quite happy to see less cars coming in from outside. The second major interest groups are the traders, and if there was a scheme whereby those who shopped in the City of Adelaide did not have to pay the tax, and such a tax reduced congestion on the roads allowing local and out of the city residents to get in more easily, I think the traders would come on board. The third major interest groups would be the business chiefs with the corner offices - of course their taxes would be paid by the company.

In other words, if a congestion tax were targeted at people who come in, don't shop, clog the streets for residents and aren't up the business totem pole, there is no major lobby group within Council which would object. Nor within the ratepayers of the City of Adelaide.

For the rest, that is, people who congest the roads during peak hours, and pay heavily at city parking stations, there would be cheaper parking on the fringes, as well as faster access to their place of work via a fast tram network. This also does not cut off the possibility that many will still want to drive in the whole way and park in the CBD. Good. People should have a choice, but they should also pay for the use of the Council roads in some way too, which at the moment they are not doing.

Thus, the trick would be for the Council to levy the tax, with the above provisos, rather than the State Government. In that way, those who yell, kick and scream, would not be Adelaide City Council voters.

Having said all that, I am not wedded to the idea of a congestion tax, merely pointing out how it could be made politically practical. The alternative though is to build the tram line, and watch the yelling and screaming as people try to drive through North Adelaide. (I read your alternatives Claybro, and while they will help, they need the parking stations to work too, and that will only happen if enough people give up their cars into town).

[monotonehell]

For the fringe parking station via tram idea to work, the trams would have to begin and terminate at the parking stations. The other end of the route could continue on (as the Ent Cent to Glenelg does). But to have a parking station on the same service as a suburban route would crowd the tram too much. That's assuming you want inner suburbanites to catch it.

[rubberman]

For the fringe parking station via tram idea to work, the trams would have to begin and terminate at the parking stations. The other end of the route could continue on (as the Ent Cent to Glenelg does). But to have a parking station on the same service as a suburban route would crowd the tram too much. That's assuming you want inner suburbanites to catch it.

More trams?

[monotonehell]

For the fringe parking station via tram idea to work, the trams would have to begin and terminate at the parking stations. The other end of the route could continue on (as the Ent Cent to Glenelg does). But to have a parking station on the same service as a suburban route would crowd the tram too much. That's assuming you want inner suburbanites to catch it.

More trams?

If you're at the point where you need to run that many trams then you're past the point where on street light rail is useful. You'd need to look at a dedicated corridor and something other than light rail. Dig up Walt Disney, he had some good ideas about this kind of thing.

[[Shuz]]

Public transport is just exactly that. Public. It should never have to rely on private vehicles (i.e. cars and car parking stations) to ensure its viability. All this talk of park and rides is just pure nonsense. A tram down O'Connell Street and Prospect Road will suffice just fine without all this rabble about new roads, widening, etc.

[monotonehell]

Public transport is just exactly that. Public. It should never have to rely on private vehicles (i.e. cars and car parking stations) to ensure its viability. All this talk of park and rides is just pure nonsense. A tram down O'Connell Street and Prospect Road will suffice just fine without all this rabble about new roads, widening, etc.

I tend to agree with you there Shuz, I've always said if your system needs park and rides, it's not working correctly.

There will always be a few pockets of people who need such a thing, but generally PT should be as door to door and non-transfer as possible.

[rubberman]

Seriously folks.

Stand in O'Connell St some day during peak hours, simply use your own eyes, and then come back with a straight face and say that there is room for both cars and a tramway.

There is no way that the existing number of cars, and a tramway will work in O'Connell St. You can have one, or the other, but not both. If people want a tramway down O'Connell St, then many of the cars must be excluded somehow. If anyone has a better idea than park and ride, bring it on. But please don't do it without having a look at O'Connell St in peak hour now and imagining that you can just plonk a tramway down there and it will all be hunky dory.

A tunnel would work too, but at whose cost? A toll on a tunnel under North Adelaide would effectively be a congestion tax. (Narsty things).

Yes, everyone would like to have a door to door air conditioned service to work. We can have it too, if and only if we are willing to pay. It is that unwillingness to pay that means we have to accept less than our most comfortable desires. At the moment, if we want to have city parking AND a tramway down O'Connell St we need to be building more than a tramway, we need to be building park and ride, or a tunnel, or {Add your own suggestion}, but whatever it is, it will have disadvantages for some. Sorry.

The point I was trying to make originally is that if we do not address this issue up front, then the anti-tram lobby will pick it up and run with it. Then, before you know it, there will be residents and commercial interests and car lobbies all stacked up against the tramway and it will get nowhere other than in the dreams of people here. If, however, we have addressed it and are able to defuse any of these other lobbies before they get up a head of steam, we have a good chance of getting somewhere.

[Nathan]

Seriously folks.

Stand in O'Connell St some day during peak hours, simply use your own eyes, and then come back with a straight face and say that there is room for both cars and a tramway.

There is no way that the existing number of cars, and a tramway will work in O'Connell St. You can have one, or the other, but not both. If people want a tramway down O'Connell St, then many of the cars must be excluded somehow. If anyone has a better idea than park and ride, bring it on. But please don't do it without having a look at O'Connell St in peak hour now and imagining that you can just plonk a tramway down there and it will all be hunky dory.

What if we just removed on-steet parking? That way you could keep the same number of traffic lanes as there are currently, and a tramline.

[metro]

Public transport is just exactly that. Public. It should never have to rely on private vehicles (i.e. cars and car parking stations) to ensure its viability. All this talk of park and rides is just pure nonsense. A tram down O'Connell Street and Prospect Road will suffice just fine without all this rabble about new roads, widening, etc.

hear hear!

There is no way that the existing number of cars, and a tramway will work in O'Connell St.

Someone probably said the same thing about King William Street back in 2006 when the tram line was proposed. People in cars do have the option to drive down another road if necessary. Also, buses and trams carry hundreds/thousands of people and should therefore have the right to more space on the roads than the single occupant cars.

[claybro]

Someone probably said the same thing about King William Street back in 2006 when the tram line was proposed. People in cars do have the option to drive down another road if necessary. Also, buses and trams carry hundreds/thousands of people and should therefore have the right to more space on the roads than the single occupant cars.

Unfortunately, those that drive down O'Connell street do not necessarily have the option to take another route. The Northern roads of Prospect/Main North and Northeast are all designed to funnel into O'Connell street as previously mentioned. Comparison with the tram in KWS is not correct as KWS is wider than O'Connell street, and the traders on O'Connell will not be happy with a permanent clearway. Until cars have another designated route to travel, O'Connell Street would be gridlock with trams. As for the park and rides, agree a tram should not be developed just for the park and rides, but that the park and rides be developed to give commuters an option to driving into the city in the first place. It has proved very successful on the Ent Centre extension.

[rubberman]

Public transport is just exactly that. Public. It should never have to rely on private vehicles (i.e. cars and car parking stations) to ensure its viability.

So coordination of public and private transport should not happen? Are we going to sell off car parks next to railway stations? Er can you explain why we should not coordinate public transport with private? The idea is, that if we have a section of street where cars are becoming bottlenecked, then by providing a car park at that point, and high capacity public transport from that point, you can actually transport more people.

All this talk of park and rides is just pure nonsense. A tram down O'Connell Street and Prospect Road will suffice just fine without all this rabble about new roads, widening, etc.

Do you think that North Adelaide residents, North Adelaide Traders and people who drive through O'Connell St daily will accept your assurances unless you have the figures to back this up? I know trams up O'Connell St and Prospect Road sounds like music to the ears of tram gunzels, but the flinty hearted traders are going to need a lot of convincing than a hand wave. I suspect that the traders will also kill off any suggestion that parking be removed too.

[Nathan]

What if on-street parking was removed, and replaced 1 to 1 by off-street parks? Surely there couldn't be any rational objection then. Really, how many on-street parks are there any way. 70 maybe? That could *easily* be replaced by a fairly modest off-street park. Just the roof level alone of the North Adelaide village car park covers that amount.

[rubberman]

Over the years, if looking at the difference between failed and successful projects, one thing stands out clearly that divides the MATS Plans, the Lecornu site project from the tramway extension to Hindmarsh and the various underpasses/overpasses round the place is that successful projects anticipate negative reactions and have all the ammunition lined up ready to fire when the negative nellies and nimbys start to rant.

So Nathan, yes, yours is the sort of thinking that needs to be done before a tramline can be put up as a proposal in the public arena. If suitable parking can be found, and it does not cost the traders money, and it delivers customers and stock as close as it does now, then they will go away and be happy. If we take your idea and then these other details can be covered, then the traders can be crossed off the list of possible opponents with the ability to stop the project.

The next group that would have to be addressed are the residents. Their problem is a little less, but don't underestimate the nimbys. We might not like nimby-ism, but the number of projects that have died in the butt in North Adelaide because of them means that their influence is real and powerful. If we want trams through North Adelaide, we have to convince them. Their problem is going to be that they will now have to cross two lanes of traffic and a tramline as well to get to the median, whereas before trams they have to only cross two lanes of traffic to get to the median. I am sure there is a solution - but we need to find it. I know several residents who will bridle at the fact that their trip to Perryman's Bakery is going to be a little more fraught. Silly it is. But these people are deadly to projects if one has not thought about their issues. From their point of view, when they first moved into the area, it was safe to walk across the road at any time, and if there is a need to widen the road for the benefit of non-ratepayers, then why should it be the ratepayers who suffer so that out of towners get a better ride in?

The point is, that if we don't have all our ducks in a row, with well thought out answers in advance, we will share the same fate as the LeCornu's site.

[monotonehell]

Rubberman, you're giving too much credit to NIMBYs. When you examine history, most projects don't die due to NIMBY noise, most are cancelled due to the economic decisions of their developers.

But yes having all your ducks in a row is a good idea.

[rubberman]

Rubberman, you're giving too much credit to NIMBYs. When you examine history, most projects don't die due to NIMBY noise, most are cancelled due to the economic decisions of their developers.

But yes having all your ducks in a row is a good idea.

I am not disagreeing with the idea that the final effect is cancellation due to the economic decisions of the developers. However, in the case of the LeCornu site, the residents forced conditions on the developer that meant the economics were poor. So, was it the economics? Or the nimbys that forced the project to be modified so that it became uneconomic? Same with the Village development - how long did that take before the development was ok-ed? The constraints on the developer which made this economically touch and go for years were nimby made.

So, I agree wholeheartedly that in the end, it is often the economic unviability that makes projects unviable. However, it is often the nimby vote that makes governments and councils put such onerous conditions on developers that then drives the economics.

In the case of the tram. I have no doubt that resident and traders could kill the economics by eliminating economically viable options. I am sure that the residents and traders would be happy to totally eliminate through traffic enabling them to have a nice quiet little village where only residents and customers could go...oh, and a tram for residents to then go to town would be nice too. That may well kill the project.

That's why some practical ideas like Nathan has should be developed. Similarly, we should look at putting parking stations at the end of the tramline as an option for reducing North Adelaide car traffic. And any other ideas to head off the nay sayers.