News & Discussion: Trams

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
normh
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 226 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3811 Post by normh » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:42 am

how good is he wrote:It was madness to promise it at $37m let alone now at $117m.
Well if I work from my belief that public txp is where we should be going, I could wear a one off cost of 117m. The impact on the rest of then network is not acceptable however. This really should have been done at the spur build time.

I think now, it needs to be postponed until the spur is extended and usage can justify it.


Sent from my iPad

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1445
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 109 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3812 Post by SBD » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:43 am

normh wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:42 am
how good is he wrote:It was madness to promise it at $37m let alone now at $117m.
Well if I work from my belief that public txp is where we should be going, I could wear a one off cost of 117m. The impact on the rest of then network is not acceptable however. This really should have been done at the spur build time.

I think now, it needs to be postponed until the spur is extended and usage can justify it.


Sent from my iPad
$70million of that extra cost is replacing Citadis trams. Isn't that a project that people on this forum have been advocating for anyway?

I don't understand the sources of traffic delays at times when that line is not used, or does the report assume routes that use it regularly as well?

normh
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 226 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3813 Post by normh » Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:52 am

SBD wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:43 am
normh wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:42 am
how good is he wrote:It was madness to promise it at $37m let alone now at $117m.
Well if I work from my belief that public txp is where we should be going, I could wear a one off cost of 117m. The impact on the rest of then network is not acceptable however. This really should have been done at the spur build time.

I think now, it needs to be postponed until the spur is extended and usage can justify it.


Sent from my iPad
$70million of that extra cost is replacing Citadis trams. Isn't that a project that people on this forum have been advocating for anyway?

I don't understand the sources of traffic delays at times when that line is not used, or does the report assume routes that use it regularly as well?
I agree and, it could be argued, a portion of the $70m could be clawed back by selling the existing rolling stock. I would love to read the actual report - anyone? rather than the Advertiser headline pump up.

I suspect the tram queuing is exacerbated due to the spur being so short and once it is extended there is a greater capacity for buffering and the queuing issue should disappear.

However the increased car congestion on North Terrace will add to the tram delays with motorists "entering blocked intersections" as evidenced by what "Norman" posted, link here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQUnm7iKdfI look at the 2:08 marker, this behaviour will just get worse.

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3534
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 143 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3814 Post by Waewick » Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:02 am

I wish they would release the report.

I don't like questioning experts so i assume they are spot on, but i wonder if the question was put so as to make it look as expensive as possible.

They talk traffic time as well, couldn't that be a precursor to improving the ring route to remove some of the non critical traffic through King William and North Terrace?

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1340
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 244 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3815 Post by rubberman » Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:41 am

Waewick wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:02 am
I wish they would release the report.

I don't like questioning experts so i assume they are spot on, but i wonder if the question was put so as to make it look as expensive as possible.

They talk traffic time as well, couldn't that be a precursor to improving the ring route to remove some of the non critical traffic through King William and North Terrace?
I would agree with your supposition that the idea was to make this look as expensive as possible. However, the points about trams banking up and traffic delays have been made here before, and flogged to death without the need for expensive consultants.

I imagine that the approach the government will take is to say that the election promise of a curve installation will be honoured when the tram routes that need it are constructed. That, of course, will happen when and if those routes are economic. Add a hundred million to the cost, and they are not economic. So they won't be built.

The government then can put construction of further tram extensions on hold "until they are economic", at which point "we will honour our election promise".

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1340
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 244 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3816 Post by rubberman » Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:46 am

SBD wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:43 am
normh wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:42 am
how good is he wrote:It was madness to promise it at $37m let alone now at $117m.
Well if I work from my belief that public txp is where we should be going, I could wear a one off cost of 117m. The impact on the rest of then network is not acceptable however. This really should have been done at the spur build time.

I think now, it needs to be postponed until the spur is extended and usage can justify it.


Sent from my iPad
$70million of that extra cost is replacing Citadis trams. Isn't that a project that people on this forum have been advocating for anyway?

I don't understand the sources of traffic delays at times when that line is not used, or does the report assume routes that use it regularly as well?
I have said that the Citadis were a big mistake, and still hold that opinion. However, having bought them, it's quite another matter to chuck them out. Further, whether the whole of that cost should be attributed to the proposed curve is another matter. I mean, if they can get round a left and right turn West into North Terrace now, why couldn't they do it going East?

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3534
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 143 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3817 Post by Waewick » Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:30 am

I guess this is a also a test for infrastructure SA?

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1006
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3818 Post by Goodsy » Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:15 pm


Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3534
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 143 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3819 Post by Waewick » Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:17 pm

So Knoll reckons tram fleet upgrade a big part of the cost.

Be nice if they proved that

citywatcher
Legendary Member!
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:51 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3820 Post by citywatcher » Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:17 pm


On Sunday, Transport Minister Stephan Knoll said the right-hand turn would post an “unacceptable risk to safety, cause unnecessary traffic delays and negatively impact existing tram services”.


Which is basically the same reasons the previous govt gave for not building the right hand turn in the first place


Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk


Brucetiki
Legendary Member!
Posts: 825
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:20 pm
Has thanked: 538 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3821 Post by Brucetiki » Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:48 pm

A wise, if not highly embarrassing, decision from the state government.

I think many of us on here can safely say 'I told you so' to the government.

Hybrid
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 8:14 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3822 Post by Hybrid » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:11 pm

At the end of the article, it claims in 1950 you could turn right onto North Tce. Some 68 years later we can't figure out how to do it again in a safe manner.

Just seems so wrong lol

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 2720
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: City
Has thanked: 714 times
Been thanked: 342 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3823 Post by SRW » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:27 pm

What an avoidable debacle.

I only hope that the $37 million supposedly reserved in the state budget, in combination with the $185 secretly reserved for AdeLink in the federal budget, might actually be used to get us to North Adelaide.
Keep Adelaide Weird

A-Town
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:14 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3824 Post by A-Town » Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:40 pm

Good decision to axe it. They should use the money initially promised for the right hand turn into extending the service to North Adelaide.

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1288
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 282 times
Been thanked: 173 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3825 Post by Nort » Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:01 pm

Hybrid wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:11 pm
At the end of the article, it claims in 1950 you could turn right onto North Tce. Some 68 years later we can't figure out how to do it again in a safe manner.

Just seems so wrong lol
I have no doubt we could do it if you are happy with that area of the city having the same amount of road traffic it did in 1950.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests