Sensational-Adelaide.com

ChillyPhilly wrote: - Bus routes are a major offender to poor PT services: there is a lack of practical cross-city and inter-suburb travel options because of the above reason.
- On the other hand, the above issue of poor inter-suburb travel is not helped by suburbs in Adelaide's north and north-east, which are incredibly difficult to service given the car-centric design and layout and lack of walkability.

Bus routes are a major offender for lack of inter-suburb travel? Which tram or train line is not headed to/from the city?

North-east has the highest PT usage, how is the design of it difficult to service yet has better numbers than anywhere else?

Something does not add up. Seems suburbs in the South, East and West have some kind of design problem that leads to less users using PT.

What next we go back to arguing that the O-Bahn is a failure because it is not a train or tram?

Look to what works, eg the north-east, and do more of that.
Look to what has failed, eg South, East and West, and do less of that.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:58 pm

...
- Biggest of all, our public transport system is linear and built around an outdated idea. This outdated idea is that everyone travels from the suburbs to the city for work in 9-5 jobs. This is incorrect. Just 15% of all jobs in Adelaide are in the CBD, and many of these are outside traditional 9-5 hours.
- As a result, our PT layout follows this linear idea, with nearly all bus routes, all train lines and the tram line (soon lines) leading into/out of the CBD.
...

Are there any other significant concentrations of employment that could be the focus of employment-related public transport? I don't have data, so am just guessing:

• Elizabeth/Salisbury/Edinburgh - certainly used to be, but might not be now, and possibly too spread out to qualify as a concentration
• Port Adelaide/Osborne/Wingfield - probably used to be, but also might be too spread out
• Lonsdale?

I realised as I typed - I am picking places that used to have industrial train services. There used to be passenger trains running on the Dry Creek-Port Adelaide cross-suburban route, too.

Ultimately, buses or trams in hub-and-spoke feeding to high-frequency rail connecting the hubs would be an ideal model, if we had the density of travel to support it, but if the potential custom still only requires hourly services on the spokes, they aren't going to draw enough users. I imagine it takes 5-20 years to change people's behaviour significantly based on transport options - once the family has bought the second car, they won't reconsider using it until it either wears out or they are planning to move for other reasons.

The problem with Adelaide's infrastructure investments is that we are mostly only improving existing infrastructure, not creating major structural change (or this change is moving way too slow). We are reinforcing existing structures rather than changing them.

Where are the TODs except for Bowden? Oaklands had some potential, but it's moving very slowly. What happened to the development at Woodville, Tea Tree Plaza and Noarlunga?

If we want to become a city with a greater focus on public transport, the needs to be a change in how the city is structured. The way it is now and how the plan for greater Adelaide is written, the car will continue to dominate our city for decades to come.

The second problem is the lack for detailed plans and schedules. The government and DPTI are too secretive on their big projects. Take the tram extension. We knew nothing about routes and schedules until most of the track has been constructed. Why?

Then there is the overall plan for the network.
What's wrong with releasing preliminary information about possible construction schedules? Is it our sensationalist media? Politicians wanting more announcements for the media? Politicians not after political baggage?Some serious questions that need to be answered.

There is pretty much one sole reason why there is no detailed designs or schedules or anything of the like annouced so far in advance.

MATS Plan.

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:56 pm

There is pretty much one sole reason why there is no detailed designs or schedules or anything of the like annouced so far in advance.

MATS Plan.

That's actually a really good point (although it shouldn't be..)

Party A proposes a project that will be completed in stages. Party B opposes this. Party B gets into power and does everything they can to stop the project going ahead.

It really highlights the need for a state level independent infrastructure planning committee/organisation. It would (hypothetically at least) remove the politics from infrastructure development which could only be a good thing in the longer term.

SouthAussie94 wrote:

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:56 pm

There is pretty much one sole reason why there is no detailed designs or schedules or anything of the like annouced so far in advance.

MATS Plan.

That's actually a really good point (although it shouldn't be..)

Party A proposes a project that will be completed in stages. Party B opposes this. Party B gets into power and does everything they can to stop the project going ahead.

It really highlights the need for a state level independent infrastructure planning committee/organisation. It would (hypothetically at least) remove the politics from infrastructure development which could only be a good thing in the longer term.

It could work, but it didn't work on the case of Infrastructure Victoria where they still disagreed on the East West Link, Melbourne Metro route and so on. Politics sucks.

Electrification of the Gawler train line.

An extensive tram network around the city including North Adelaide, plus a line to Port Adelaide... plus an express tram line from city to airport.

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:56 pm

There is pretty much one sole reason why there is no detailed designs or schedules or anything of the like annouced so far in advance.

MATS Plan.

Learning about induced demand has me 100% glad the MATS plan died.

Kasey771 wrote:
Learning about induced demand has me 100% glad the MATS plan died.

I think you are over simplifying induced demand. There is a requirement for some amount roads and cars.
They improve quality of life and economic benefits. There is clearly a balance somewhere that needs to be found.

If you remove a road and cars reduce instead of filling up other roads that doesn't automatically mean everything is better. You would need to check if people are better off, happier and richer.
Forcing everyone to public transport does not automatically make people happier.
Just because people survive does not automatically make it a good outcome.

bits wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:38 am

Kasey771 wrote:
Learning about induced demand has me 100% glad the MATS plan died.

I think you are over simplifying induced demand. There is a requirement for some amount roads and cars.
They improve quality of life and economic benefits. There is clearly a balance somewhere that needs to be found.

If you remove a road and cars reduce instead of filling up other roads that doesn't automatically mean everything is better. You would need to check if people are better off, happier and richer.
Forcing everyone to public transport does not automatically make people happier.
Just because people survive does not automatically make it a good outcome.

Reduced demand is also a thing. Take away roads and make driving 'seem' harder and people re-assess their need to undertake a car journey.
My thought process also factors in the effect Freeways have on sprawl.

Of course roads will play a vital role in our transport mix for a very long time to come..Trucks deliver daily supplies to shops for example. I'm not against roads, just the roads first and only roads (everything else can have the scraps) mentality our transport department seems to be infected with.

Kasey771 wrote: Reduced demand is also a thing. Take away roads and make driving 'seem' harder and people re-assess their need to undertake a car journey.
My thought process also factors in the effect Freeways have on sprawl.

That assumes freeways and urban sprawl is bad for the quality of life of locals.
Australia has one of the highest levels of quality of life in basically every study, that is with urban sprawl and freeways.

bits wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:51 pm

Kasey771 wrote: Reduced demand is also a thing. Take away roads and make driving 'seem' harder and people re-assess their need to undertake a car journey.
My thought process also factors in the effect Freeways have on sprawl.

That assumes freeways and urban sprawl is bad for the quality of life of locals.
Australia has one of the highest levels of quality of life in basically every study, that is with urban sprawl and freeways.

We also don't have CBD's being cut in half and turned into islands by excessive freeways. Reduced Demand would work, if we actually had something to reduce

Here some good before and after photos here of American cities

https://www.vox.com/2014/12/29/7460557/ ... lider-maps

Its good to see areas like Gawler, Gawler East, Willaston, and recently parts of Roseworthy included in the Adelaide Metro Metroticket Area. The way Evanston, Gawler East and Hewett has expanded its kind of like they are suburbs of Gawler now. Many banks, super markets, medical centres, retail and offices are in Gawler nowadays so residents don't need to leave the city of Gawler that much. Would a Myer store, David Jones or Harris Scarfe work well in Gawler? The bus system in the city is not perfect but its a start, helps people like students, elderly and people who cant or don't always want to drive still be able to get around Gawler.

Eurostar wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:34 am

Would a Myer store, David Jones or Harris Scarfe work well in Gawler? The bus system in the city is not perfect but its a start, helps people like students, elderly and people who cant or don't always want to drive still be able to get around Gawler.

I doubt any major retailer is looking to setup a new brick and mortar store anywhere in the world

Better trained or vetted bus drivers who aren’t risk takers willing to put passengers lives at risk? Drivers who don’t pull out in front of cars when it’s unsafe to do so, just because they have a sticker on the back of their bus telling motorists to give way..
Bus drivers who don’t use public buses as their personal vehicles to run home and speak to the wife..I’ve actually seen this in Westwood.

But more seriously...

The train to Port Adelaide should not be converted to a tram.
The train line should terminate in Port Adelaide(build a fancy shiny station). From there the rest of the Port and peninsula up to North Haven, and the beach side should be serviced by a tram. maybe even build a decent bus terminal there.

If we ever were to get a subway or at least a single underground line in the cbd, the existing bus terminal should be expanded to included metro buses, while a station for the underground rail line built there as well.

Anyway it’s all well and good to dream of the wider train network being electrified and more trams around the place, but we need a stable and reliable electricity network to keep it all running.