PRO: CBD Tram Loop

[rubberman]

I have already suggested this over at SSC. A new 9KM line, Airport - Norwood. Why not run the tram line up Grote Street straight through to the airport? Grote St is wide enough to support such a line and it would link the bus depot to the airport. It could then be extended east to service Hindmarsh Sq, Old RAH, Botanic Gardens, Wine Centre and on to the Parade via Magill Rd and Osmond Tce (also wide enough).

A revitalized Vic Square would truly benefit from becoming a transport hub if you made it a tram/pedestrian shared zone such as Bourke St Mall in Melbourne.




(Paste URL to view full size)

If you bridge the gap between KW st and Pultney as well as a connection of the lines at Vic Square you could have trams running a direct Norwood - EC route or from the Airport direct to the railway station via Victoria Square.

The only thing I would suggest is that North Terrace is now quite congested, so adding a tramline at that end might be problematical.

Why not run the line to Norwood up Grenfell St as it originally did and through the parklands (as it originally did - the embankment is still there).

Since the embankment is already there, there are no earthworks required, and the track intrusion can be minimised as here:

Prague - Podbaba extension

599.JPG (620.21 KiB) Viewed 8117 times

[mattblack]

I agree with you but you'd have the Parkland Preservation Society on your arse as well as car lobbyists for reducing the roads to one lane in each direction.

One day we'll learn not to listen to these people.

[rubberman]

I agree with you but you'd have the Parkland Preservation Society on your arse as well as car lobbyists for reducing the roads to one lane in each direction.

One day we'll learn not to listen to these people.

Ah yes, but those loverly trams will take people and tourists direct to the parklands, and with that loverly grass between the rails, the impact will be less than a walking path...and not even the parklands preservation people object to walking paths do they?

Oh, and if they colour and shape the overhead poles like trees, what's not to like?

While my comments are somewhat tongue in cheek, it actually can be done like this: http://zjfosto.en.alibaba.com/product/4 ... Tower.html

Part of the problem what afflicts infrastructure is that most infrastructure providers are engineers who honestly have zero aesthetic appreciation. That means that over the years, people such as the parklands preservation society must object to proposals which will uglify the parklands. I suggest that if engineers actually thought for five minutes about making their structures aesthetically attractive as well as utilitarian, then they would have a much easier time getting things approved.

In this case, since the embankement is already there, use of grassed track showing only the rails, along with poles that are camouflaged might be sufficient to allow it to be built. What chance, however, that the perpetrators of ugliness would agree to such beautification as a concession to the parklands people?

[skyliner]

My preferred route would be down south along Morphett from Nth Tce to Grote and over to wakefield, up through Hindmarsh Sq to Nth Tce and back to KWS. I notice that the option 1 presented in the recent Adelaide development report is similar.

With the route presented here it seem out of the way ofany great numbers of potential users.

Not sure which way they will jump with ther final development.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[bay transit]

The Tram Loop/extension is based on using 4 spare trams-2 of which(Flexities) were delivered in the 2nd half of last year and 114-115 which are due some time this year.
At this stage irrespective of when they have money to build this CBD tram loop,the Government has no plans to but any more trams!

[Ben]

From the Messenger:

Tram plan leaves out Gouger and Grote streets

Business5 Apr 12 @ 07:30am by Alice Higgins

TRADERS’ groups have criticised plans for a tram loop through the city because it bypasses shopping and dining precincts and will not help bring people into the CBD.

The State Government last week revealed it wanted a tramline to continue east along North Tce, turn right at Frome St and head to Hurtle Square via Carrington St, continuing down Halifax and Sturt streets, around Whitmore Square and into Morphett St.

It would turn left into Currie St at Light Square, then right into West Tce before closing the loop at North Tce.

But Premier Jay Weatherill, who unveiled the route last week as part of new city planning guidelines, says the project is not a priority and there is no money to fund it.

The tramline would cross - rather than run along - Grote and Gouger streets, bypassing traders who have called for the extension to run down their roads.

“Running a tram through Grote St would have assisted with moving some of the focus from North Tce back toward the city centre,” Grote Business Precinct president Terry Peacock said.

“One of the big picture ideas we were looking at was if there was a tramline coming down Grote St you could go to the Keswick Train Station.”

Central Market Traders’ Association president Franz Knoll agreed: “Grote St would be good because it is a very wide street and it runs to Victoria Square.”

City South Association chair Ian Rutter said a tramline would drive up local property values.

“It would add to the vibrancy and diversity of the city but, more importantly, it would add to the mix of both residential and mixed business use in the area,” Mr Rutter said.

“It is really important the south-west and south is not just a residential dumping ground but where there is businesses and hotels and pizza places ... mixed with residential building development.”

Adelaide West End Association president Andrew Wallace said the tramline should instead link the city with the suburbs.

“We want to bring more people into the city before worrying about a city loop,” he said.

Mr Weatherill confirmed there was no timeline or money for the extension.

“What is crucial is to send a message to investors about what we think is the likely route of the tramline should there be investment in the future,” he said.

[AdelaideAlive]

dont bother with a keswick tram stop, just shut the place and move it all back to the adelaide railways station instead of making tourists arrive at a desserted isolated train station

[Tonsley213]

dont bother with a keswick tram stop, just shut the place and move it all back to the adelaide railways station instead of making tourists arrive at a desserted isolated train station

You, sir, are more than correct

[Tonsley213]

What do ya reckon, aye?

I actually drafted it up for my research project for my SACE last year. I proposed a tram to O'Connel street North Adelaide. The following two pictures are of the two different routes I proposed with tram stops.

Plan A:



Plan B:



I have a whole 1500 word report on this, PM me if you would like a copy.

[AdelaideAlive]

yeah i agree the tram route should go up to nth adelaide and the other end of nth tce first,but im guessing they want people to get off the tram at the railway station/casino entrance so everyone can utilize the bridge, festival square and riverbank etc

[jk1237]

ah, you would be mad to run the tram from North Adelaide down Frome Road, rather than past the Adelaide Oval

[dsriggs]

Yeah, you'd have to completely remove traffic from Frome Road to put the tram there.

[Tonsley213]

Trams don;t need dedicated corridors, but yes I would much prefer the tram to run past AO, the reason I focused on the route up frome road was that it would service a lot more attractions in the city.

[Vee]

It's good to see the city tram loop on the agenda and hopefully it will increase in priority for funding as the Riverbank precinct and Adelaide Oval redevelopments move along. It is a vital piece of the mix to add to the functionality and vibrancy of the city and tempt more people to get out of their cars.

I am not a fan of the official vision with its unduly complex route with the extra corners and I would like to see Grote Street included in the route.

Isn't the preferred tram loop just that - a route that can be discussed and debated with amendments yet to be made? Or is it set in stone with faux consultation? Any changes have huge implications for property values and potential developments along the route.

The tram loop will have a huge impact on our city, its liveability, regeneration, densification and appeal to residents and visitors. The increased appeal of public transport with greater tram access, cycling (via improved cycling lanes and lower speed limits) and pedestrianization with activated laneways makes for a city in tune with 21st century needs.

[Aidan]

Am I alone in thinking that proposed route actually is really good? It does a good job of ensuring that most of the CBD will be within five minutes walk of the tram line. If we are looking for the tram line to both be well used, as well as encourage development you couldn't pick a better route.

Actually I have picked a better route, via Angas Street, Victoria Square (with four track interchange) and Grote Street instead of Carrington, Sturt and Whitmore.

But the proposed route isn't bad, and even the Currie Street detour is more sensible than it first appears, as the loop's primary purpose wouldn't be to provide a city loop service (which buses could do far more cheaply) but rather to accommodate the huge number of trams that would enter the City if trams take over the Outer Harbour and Grange lines.