News & Discussion: Trams

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 62 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3916 Post by SBD » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:43 pm

rubberman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:16 pm

Just some random thoughts in response. I should imagine that if the Outer Harbor and Grange trains were converted to trams the trams would run to Adelaide Railway Station as the trains do at the moment. The money invested in the grade separation from both the Gawler line and the standard gauge also works for trams to ARS. That means the existing line to the Entertainment Centre could be extended past the Hindmarsh Town Hall, the soccer stadium and up Grange Road. That's an option, rather than a proposal. I figure that just a short extension to the soccer stadium is probably worth it. That's just a guess, mind you.

As far as details in the Port ars concerned, I'd imagine that the tram to Outer Harbor would still use the overpass, and that the idea of Commercial Road would be an extension of the new Port Dock terminus. That is, rather than terminate at Port Dock, trams could continue further into the Port area, possibly terminating in the tourist areas, or maybe residential areas. Similarly, trams could spur off at Largs and/or Semaphore. The Grange tram could also extend to Henley Square and have a spur to West Lakes. Thus, a substantial tram network, far cheaper than the train, encompassing termini at Outer Harbor, Semaphore, Henley Square, West Lakes, central Port Adelaide to the Adelaide Railway Station is quite feasible. These other options simply aren't possible for heavy rail.
The soccer extension makes sense.

That range of spurs past Port Adelaide seems like an inefficient solution if most of the vehicles continue through to Adelaide. If they are actually going to feed in to aggregate to a smaller number of larger vehicles, it might as well be the existing railcar solution (upgraded to electric). That is essentially the same model as we had over a hundred years ago with a Port Adelaide tram network connecting to the trains to Adelaide.

An alternative to service all those branches would be to replace the rails with O-Bahn track from Port Adelaide to Adelaide - that also benefits from the viaduct, South Road bridge and Torrens Junction underpass but makes it easier to manage branched routes at the outer end. I'm not sure how many other level crossings would need to be managed or configured with some kind of busway/road interface (tiny little drawbridges linked with the boom gates?). Lifting the road a bit and lowering the busway a bit might not be too hard, either.

Gawler also had a tram up the main street from the railway station with a couple of spurs off it.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1781
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3917 Post by claybro » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:20 am

SBD wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:43 pm
rubberman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:16 pm

Just some random thoughts in response. I should imagine that if the Outer Harbor and Grange trains were converted to trams the trams would run to Adelaide Railway Station as the trains do at the moment. The money invested in the grade separation from both the Gawler line and the standard gauge also works for trams to ARS. That means the existing line to the Entertainment Centre could be extended past the Hindmarsh Town Hall, the soccer stadium and up Grange Road. That's an option, rather than a proposal. I figure that just a short extension to the soccer stadium is probably worth it. That's just a guess, mind you.

As far as details in the Port ars concerned, I'd imagine that the tram to Outer Harbor would still use the overpass, and that the idea of Commercial Road would be an extension of the new Port Dock terminus. That is, rather than terminate at Port Dock, trams could continue further into the Port area, possibly terminating in the tourist areas, or maybe residential areas. Similarly, trams could spur off at Largs and/or Semaphore. The Grange tram could also extend to Henley Square and have a spur to West Lakes. Thus, a substantial tram network, far cheaper than the train, encompassing termini at Outer Harbor, Semaphore, Henley Square, West Lakes, central Port Adelaide to the Adelaide Railway Station is quite feasible. These other options simply aren't possible for heavy rail.
The soccer extension makes sense.

That range of spurs past Port Adelaide seems like an inefficient solution if most of the vehicles continue through to Adelaide. If they are actually going to feed in to aggregate to a smaller number of larger vehicles, it might as well be the existing railcar solution (upgraded to electric). That is essentially the same model as we had over a hundred years ago with a Port Adelaide tram network connecting to the trains to Adelaide.

An alternative to service all those branches would be to replace the rails with O-Bahn track from Port Adelaide to Adelaide - that also benefits from the viaduct, South Road bridge and Torrens Junction underpass but makes it easier to manage branched routes at the outer end. I'm not sure how many other level crossings would need to be managed or configured with some kind of busway/road interface (tiny little drawbridges linked with the boom gates?). Lifting the road a bit and lowering the busway a bit might not be too hard, either.

Gawler also had a tram up the main street from the railway station with a couple of spurs off it.
I'm a bit confused by your post. You suggest multiple trams from the various branches would be inefficient, but then go on to suggest converting the rails to an OBahn. OBahn is virtually identical to light rail, using buses instead of trams. Converting the rail to an Obahn track however would have the added issue of grade separating the whole line.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 62 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3918 Post by SBD » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:11 am

claybro wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:20 am
SBD wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:43 pm
rubberman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:16 pm

Just some random thoughts in response. I should imagine that if the Outer Harbor and Grange trains were converted to trams the trams would run to Adelaide Railway Station as the trains do at the moment. The money invested in the grade separation from both the Gawler line and the standard gauge also works for trams to ARS. That means the existing line to the Entertainment Centre could be extended past the Hindmarsh Town Hall, the soccer stadium and up Grange Road. That's an option, rather than a proposal. I figure that just a short extension to the soccer stadium is probably worth it. That's just a guess, mind you.

As far as details in the Port ars concerned, I'd imagine that the tram to Outer Harbor would still use the overpass, and that the idea of Commercial Road would be an extension of the new Port Dock terminus. That is, rather than terminate at Port Dock, trams could continue further into the Port area, possibly terminating in the tourist areas, or maybe residential areas. Similarly, trams could spur off at Largs and/or Semaphore. The Grange tram could also extend to Henley Square and have a spur to West Lakes. Thus, a substantial tram network, far cheaper than the train, encompassing termini at Outer Harbor, Semaphore, Henley Square, West Lakes, central Port Adelaide to the Adelaide Railway Station is quite feasible. These other options simply aren't possible for heavy rail.
The soccer extension makes sense.

That range of spurs past Port Adelaide seems like an inefficient solution if most of the vehicles continue through to Adelaide. If they are actually going to feed in to aggregate to a smaller number of larger vehicles, it might as well be the existing railcar solution (upgraded to electric). That is essentially the same model as we had over a hundred years ago with a Port Adelaide tram network connecting to the trains to Adelaide.

An alternative to service all those branches would be to replace the rails with O-Bahn track from Port Adelaide to Adelaide - that also benefits from the viaduct, South Road bridge and Torrens Junction underpass but makes it easier to manage branched routes at the outer end. I'm not sure how many other level crossings would need to be managed or configured with some kind of busway/road interface (tiny little drawbridges linked with the boom gates?). Lifting the road a bit and lowering the busway a bit might not be too hard, either.

Gawler also had a tram up the main street from the railway station with a couple of spurs off it.
I'm a bit confused by your post. You suggest multiple trams from the various branches would be inefficient, but then go on to suggest converting the rails to an OBahn. OBahn is virtually identical to light rail, using buses instead of trams. Converting the rail to an Obahn track however would have the added issue of grade separating the whole line.
Your proposal appears to either:
  • require laying tram tracks on lots of spurs, then running trams on each one of them all the way to the city or
  • laying tram tracks on lots of spurs, running regular shuttle trams to a central point and only some of the trams continue to the city
My point is that option 1 is similar to O-bahn, with the additional cost of laying tracks for the spurs rather than running them as busses at the outer end. Option 2 might as well stick with the higher-capacity trains for the spine.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1224
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Has thanked: 133 times
Been thanked: 215 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3919 Post by rubberman » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:30 am

SBD wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:11 am
claybro wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:20 am
SBD wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:43 pm


The soccer extension makes sense.

That range of spurs past Port Adelaide seems like an inefficient solution if most of the vehicles continue through to Adelaide. If they are actually going to feed in to aggregate to a smaller number of larger vehicles, it might as well be the existing railcar solution (upgraded to electric). That is essentially the same model as we had over a hundred years ago with a Port Adelaide tram network connecting to the trains to Adelaide.

An alternative to service all those branches would be to replace the rails with O-Bahn track from Port Adelaide to Adelaide - that also benefits from the viaduct, South Road bridge and Torrens Junction underpass but makes it easier to manage branched routes at the outer end. I'm not sure how many other level crossings would need to be managed or configured with some kind of busway/road interface (tiny little drawbridges linked with the boom gates?). Lifting the road a bit and lowering the busway a bit might not be too hard, either.

Gawler also had a tram up the main street from the railway station with a couple of spurs off it.
I'm a bit confused by your post. You suggest multiple trams from the various branches would be inefficient, but then go on to suggest converting the rails to an OBahn. OBahn is virtually identical to light rail, using buses instead of trams. Converting the rail to an Obahn track however would have the added issue of grade separating the whole line.
Your proposal appears to either:
  • require laying tram tracks on lots of spurs, then running trams on each one of them all the way to the city or
  • laying tram tracks on lots of spurs, running regular shuttle trams to a central point and only some of the trams continue to the city
My point is that option 1 is similar to O-bahn, with the additional cost of laying tracks for the spurs rather than running them as busses at the outer end. Option 2 might as well stick with the higher-capacity trains for the spine.
Except you simply cannot run trains for anything near the cost of trams or an O-Bahn/busway. You could run a battery tram shuttle down Semaphore Road to Port Adelaide. There's no way heavy rail can operate wire free in Semaphore - I can imagine the local traders having a fit. Similarly, even electric heavy rail is slower unless station spacings are much higher. I agree with you that heavy rail has a higher capacity, but the capacity isn't anywhere near being used. It's like buying a truck to deliver small parcels when a small van could do the job. Then wondering why the business is going broke.

Personally, I think the economics and operational issues clearly favour trams. However, that probably makes no difference in decision making here. If the ALP is in power when the diesel railcars come up for renewal, it will be heavy rail because the rail unions will dictate it, and who cares about the cost. Similarly, if the Liberals are in power, it will be O-Bahn or trams because that will shaft the rail unions, and who cares about the cost.

User avatar
1NEEDS2POST
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3920 Post by 1NEEDS2POST » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:31 pm

rubberman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:30 am
SBD wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:11 am
claybro wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:20 am


I'm a bit confused by your post. You suggest multiple trams from the various branches would be inefficient, but then go on to suggest converting the rails to an OBahn. OBahn is virtually identical to light rail, using buses instead of trams. Converting the rail to an Obahn track however would have the added issue of grade separating the whole line.
Your proposal appears to either:
  • require laying tram tracks on lots of spurs, then running trams on each one of them all the way to the city or
  • laying tram tracks on lots of spurs, running regular shuttle trams to a central point and only some of the trams continue to the city
My point is that option 1 is similar to O-bahn, with the additional cost of laying tracks for the spurs rather than running them as busses at the outer end. Option 2 might as well stick with the higher-capacity trains for the spine.
Except you simply cannot run trains for anything near the cost of trams or an O-Bahn/busway. You could run a battery tram shuttle down Semaphore Road to Port Adelaide. There's no way heavy rail can operate wire free in Semaphore - I can imagine the local traders having a fit. Similarly, even electric heavy rail is slower unless station spacings are much higher. I agree with you that heavy rail has a higher capacity, but the capacity isn't anywhere near being used. It's like buying a truck to deliver small parcels when a small van could do the job. Then wondering why the business is going broke.

Personally, I think the economics and operational issues clearly favour trams. However, that probably makes no difference in decision making here. If the ALP is in power when the diesel railcars come up for renewal, it will be heavy rail because the rail unions will dictate it, and who cares about the cost. Similarly, if the Liberals are in power, it will be O-Bahn or trams because that will shaft the rail unions, and who cares about the cost.
If we're going with option 2, are you suggesting a tram conversion not just for the feeders but also the spine? I don't see the problem with the existing railcars for the spine. During peak hour, they can fill all seats.

Semaphore tram extension

The Semaphore tram hasn't even been built, but I'd like to speculate on its extension! If it's going through Semaphore and Port Adelaide, then it's an east-west route. It will be easy to keep building it east. The Northern Connector project will move the railway to the north over the old evaporation ponds. This will leave the Port Adelaide-Dry Creek railway unused. Converting this to light rail and also the old Northfield line to light rail will give an extensive east-west route across Adelaide.

Green being street running and red being disused (and soon to be disused) railways.

Image

At Northfield, it might be possible to continue the light rail in the reservation besides Wright Rd. Then it's a short street running section to Modbury. The whole route will connect three hubs in Adelaide (Semaphore, Port Adelaide and Modbury) without going through the city.

ml69
Legendary Member!
Posts: 755
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:16 pm
Location: Adelaide SA
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 59 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3921 Post by ml69 » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:57 pm

1NEEDS2POST wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:31 pm
rubberman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:30 am
SBD wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:11 am


Your proposal appears to either:
  • require laying tram tracks on lots of spurs, then running trams on each one of them all the way to the city or
  • laying tram tracks on lots of spurs, running regular shuttle trams to a central point and only some of the trams continue to the city
My point is that option 1 is similar to O-bahn, with the additional cost of laying tracks for the spurs rather than running them as busses at the outer end. Option 2 might as well stick with the higher-capacity trains for the spine.
Except you simply cannot run trains for anything near the cost of trams or an O-Bahn/busway. You could run a battery tram shuttle down Semaphore Road to Port Adelaide. There's no way heavy rail can operate wire free in Semaphore - I can imagine the local traders having a fit. Similarly, even electric heavy rail is slower unless station spacings are much higher. I agree with you that heavy rail has a higher capacity, but the capacity isn't anywhere near being used. It's like buying a truck to deliver small parcels when a small van could do the job. Then wondering why the business is going broke.

Personally, I think the economics and operational issues clearly favour trams. However, that probably makes no difference in decision making here. If the ALP is in power when the diesel railcars come up for renewal, it will be heavy rail because the rail unions will dictate it, and who cares about the cost. Similarly, if the Liberals are in power, it will be O-Bahn or trams because that will shaft the rail unions, and who cares about the cost.
If we're going with option 2, are you suggesting a tram conversion not just for the feeders but also the spine? I don't see the problem with the existing railcars for the spine. During peak hour, they can fill all seats.

Semaphore tram extension

The Semaphore tram hasn't even been built, but I'd like to speculate on its extension! If it's going through Semaphore and Port Adelaide, then it's an east-west route. It will be easy to keep building it east. The Northern Connector project will move the railway to the north over the old evaporation ponds. This will leave the Port Adelaide-Dry Creek railway unused. Converting this to light rail and also the old Northfield line to light rail will give an extensive east-west route across Adelaide.

Green being street running and red being disused (and soon to be disused) railways.

Image

At Northfield, it might be possible to continue the light rail in the reservation besides Wright Rd. Then it's a short street running section to Modbury. The whole route will connect three hubs in Adelaide (Semaphore, Port Adelaide and Modbury) without going through the city.
A Semaphore - Port Adel - Modbury light rail will simply never happen. Would never have a strong enough business case.

User avatar
1NEEDS2POST
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3922 Post by 1NEEDS2POST » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:26 am

ml69 wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:57 pm
A Semaphore - Port Adel - Modbury light rail will simply never happen. Would never have a strong enough business case.
Until 1988, there was a Port Dock to Dry Creek passenger service. There's also the 361 bus route that covers a similar route.

It will be a bit like Melbourne's Suburban Rail Loop, except it's straight and much cheaper because it uses the former railway alignment.

Westside
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 4:30 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3923 Post by Westside » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:36 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:31 pm
I read somewhere there was a proposal to repurpose the underpass to get trams from the existing Entertainment Centre station into North Adelaide. This would imply the tram would still run up Port Road and then turn back East. This seems like a very indirect route. Extending from the Festival Plaza stop straight up to O'Connell Street would be a more direct route into North Adelaide's commercial heart.
Not exactly. The Torrens junction will be used to send the OH trams to King William St via War memorial drive, following the existing alignment from Bowden through the underpass. The existing Entertainment Centre trams will continue to use Port Road. An extension of this route down Grange Rd via the Soccer Stadium is one of the preferred routes for the WestLink proposal.

What I'd like to see is some action on these plans. Unfortunately Norwood got scrapped, but I think there needs to be some dedicated political will to start prioritising this work and actually getting on with it! Libs love value capture and private partnerships, so start canvassing ways to increase revenue (rates/value) along these routes and award the jobs to the councils who are willing to start serious densification along these spines.

Eurostar
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3924 Post by Eurostar » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:48 pm

Westside wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:36 pm
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:31 pm
I read somewhere there was a proposal to repurpose the underpass to get trams from the existing Entertainment Centre station into North Adelaide. This would imply the tram would still run up Port Road and then turn back East. This seems like a very indirect route. Extending from the Festival Plaza stop straight up to O'Connell Street would be a more direct route into North Adelaide's commercial heart.
Not exactly. The Torrens junction will be used to send the OH trams to King William St via War memorial drive, following the existing alignment from Bowden through the underpass. The existing Entertainment Centre trams will continue to use Port Road. An extension of this route down Grange Rd via the Soccer Stadium is one of the preferred routes for the WestLink proposal.

What I'd like to see is some action on these plans. Unfortunately Norwood got scrapped, but I think there needs to be some dedicated political will to start prioritising this work and actually getting on with it! Libs love value capture and private partnerships, so start canvassing ways to increase revenue (rates/value) along these routes and award the jobs to the councils who are willing to start serious densification along these spines.
A Norwood Tram would be good at getting footy fans to and from SANFL games

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3329
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 97 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3925 Post by Waewick » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:38 pm

Eurostar wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:48 pm
Westside wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:36 pm
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:31 pm
I read somewhere there was a proposal to repurpose the underpass to get trams from the existing Entertainment Centre station into North Adelaide. This would imply the tram would still run up Port Road and then turn back East. This seems like a very indirect route. Extending from the Festival Plaza stop straight up to O'Connell Street would be a more direct route into North Adelaide's commercial heart.
Not exactly. The Torrens junction will be used to send the OH trams to King William St via War memorial drive, following the existing alignment from Bowden through the underpass. The existing Entertainment Centre trams will continue to use Port Road. An extension of this route down Grange Rd via the Soccer Stadium is one of the preferred routes for the WestLink proposal.

What I'd like to see is some action on these plans. Unfortunately Norwood got scrapped, but I think there needs to be some dedicated political will to start prioritising this work and actually getting on with it! Libs love value capture and private partnerships, so start canvassing ways to increase revenue (rates/value) along these routes and award the jobs to the councils who are willing to start serious densification along these spines.
A Norwood Tram would be good at getting footy fans to and from SANFL games
I disagree. Norwood is one of the more popular suburban strips in Adelaide. I think you would find it would be a great link between CBD and the suburb (not even mentioning the amount of schools in the area)

I personally think Norwood should be the first cab off the rank (and Norwood and surrounds is not an exclusive suburb for rich people but there is no rail alternative in that direction and I believe it will be popular - but the Libs and the local community have apparently disagreed)

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1781
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3926 Post by claybro » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:05 pm

I agree Norwood is ideal for light rail, however, I think there would be more public and local council support from Prospect. It has the benefit of linking North Adelaide via O'Connell Street, and ample opportunity for value adding by increasing density North of Regency Road, which is developing its own resurgence. It also creates a direct link from inner north to events at Adelaide Oval. It is also more adaptable to being done in shorter stages ie North Adelaide first then Prospect, then Blair Athol. Norwood probably a bit more complex.

Eurostar
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3927 Post by Eurostar » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:28 pm

claybro wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:05 pm
I agree Norwood is ideal for light rail, however, I think there would be more public and local council support from Prospect. It has the benefit of linking North Adelaide via O'Connell Street, and ample opportunity for value adding by increasing density North of Regency Road, which is developing its own resurgence. It also creates a direct link from inner north to events at Adelaide Oval. It is also more adaptable to being done in shorter stages ie North Adelaide first then Prospect, then Blair Athol. Norwood probably a bit more complex.
Prospect Road is within walking distance to Prospect Footy Oval so would be good for getting spectators and SANFL snackbar workers to and from the North Adelaide Roosters games. If trams were regular it means spectators can chill after games at a cafe or restaurant in Prospect.

how good is he
Legendary Member!
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:26 am
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3928 Post by how good is he » Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:30 am

The most basic problem with Prospect Rd, The Parade, Henley Bch Rd etc etc is actually fitting trams (with cars/ traffic). Probably all off street parking would need to go. So what do you think the traders will say? Only maybe if trams share the road with cars/traffic as they do on Jetty Rd Glenelg may it work.

User avatar
1NEEDS2POST
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3929 Post by 1NEEDS2POST » Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:32 pm

how good is he wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:30 am
The most basic problem with Prospect Rd, The Parade, Henley Bch Rd etc etc is actually fitting trams (with cars/ traffic). Probably all off street parking would need to go. So what do you think the traders will say? Only maybe if trams share the road with cars/traffic as they do on Jetty Rd Glenelg may it work.
Trams need to be segregated from traffic for most of their route, otherwise there is no point. Where trams are put on the road with traffic, there is no benefit over buses. In fact, trams are slower than buses because buses can change lanes!

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1781
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3930 Post by claybro » Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:02 pm

how good is he wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:30 am
The most basic problem with Prospect Rd, The Parade, Henley Bch Rd etc etc is actually fitting trams (with cars/ traffic). Probably all off street parking would need to go. So what do you think the traders will say? Only maybe if trams share the road with cars/traffic as they do on Jetty Rd Glenelg may it work.
Interestingly enough, these strips are attractive to traders because they are destinations in their own right, and should not be just treated as arterial roads. Construction of trams/light rail allows for higher capacity public transport, away from footpaths (outdoor dining), and generally should lead to higher density living, bringing in even more customers. Traders need to get over the idea of rows of cars parked in front of their shops, and the trams themselves have a traffic calming effect-(yes they do slow down cars!), which in turn discourages people using these routes as a thoroughfare. The traders should realise, that 90% of the single occupant traffic passing them by does not stop in their shop/café.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests