News & Discussion: Trams

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
User avatar
PeFe
Legendary Member!
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:47 am
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#661 Post by PeFe » Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:11 am

If I were transport God, I would...
1) Keep the Outer Harbor a high speed rail (not light rail) line with increased grade separation, fewer stations with more transit orientated development along the line
2) The Grange and West Lakes line would be light rail terminating at the Woodville railway station, co-ordinated in every aspect to provide seemless servive with the speedier trains into the Adelaide CBD.

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#662 Post by Waewick » Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:02 am

If I was looking for density I'd be looking at the most densely populated areas.

Inner South and inner East. But I can bet that isn't even close to a focus

ml69
Legendary Member!
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:16 pm
Location: Adelaide SA
Has thanked: 90 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#663 Post by ml69 » Sun May 24, 2015 10:40 am

claybro wrote:Conversion of the Outer Harbour line to light rail would be viable if
1. Grange Line also converted.
2. West Lakes extension completed.
3. Semaphore and Port Adelaide extension completed.
This would bring the business centres of Port Adelaide, Semaphore and West Lakes into the system, and better utilise the Woodvill/City corridor.
It would greatly increase frequency along the Woodville/City section (the current train frequency is poorly patronsied and the frequency is pathetic)
The only downside...Those commuters on the LeFevre pensinsula would have a much longer journey than is currently the case.
The other question is if the operators have the balls to speed the system up to get best efficiency as they are far from having it right even on the Glenelg Line.
The existing heavy rail is not really viable in its current setup.
[Shuz] wrote:As a daily user of the Outer Harbour line, it really should be light rail. There simply isnt the patronage to support heavy rail. Ever. Better to have tram lines branched off to Grange, Semaphore, and West Lakes.
I'm a little surprised that people only talk about light rail as the solution for the Outer Harbour line. I've been reading a lot about the topic of light rail transit vs bus rapid transit/busways (BRT), and I'm increasingly convinced that a BRT system is the most practical and cost-effective option to provide a modern transport service for the north-western suburbs (which are low-density and will always be low-density by global standards).

This web link below shows the key features of a BRT system:
https://www.itdp.org/library/standards- ... at-is-brt/

You will notice that these are the exact same features you would expect to find in a modern light rail/tram system. Hence a well-designed BRT offers the same benefits of light rail at a fraction of the cost.

Granted the ride may not be quite as comfortable as light rail, but is it worth paying 2 or 3 times the cost for a slightly better ride? Or additional passenger capacity (an advantage of light rail) which may never be required?

Example of application ... WestLINK and EastLINK (described below) would probably look like this:
Image

The two biggest advantages of BRT are cost and route flexibility.

Cost: With the spiralling cost of light rail over the past decade, capital costs of BRT's are typically between 30-50% of those of light rail …. a huge saving of hundreds of millions for our cash-strapped state. Increased affordability of the system means we most likely won't have to wait decades for it to be implemented.
Interesting in Perth, their light rail project now looks likely to be abandoned in favour of a more cost -effective BRT system. The cost of their 22km light rail project was expected to be $2.5B. The BRT system is expected to be half the cost. If Perth can’t afford light rail of decent length, Adelaide has even less hope.

Flexibility: On the Outer Harbour line, multiple bus routes from other locations such as Addison Rd, Hanson Rd, Days Rd etc can feed into the busway alignment to provide a fast service into the city, with NO TRANSFERS required. In effect, it would operate with a similar level of flexibility as the O-bahn.

PortLINK busway
The PortLINK busway would basically utilise the existing railway alignment to Outer Harbour, the major exception being in Port Adelaide where it would deviate onto Commercial Rd and St Vincent St to provide a better located stations in the heart of Port Adelaide.

There would also be a busway alignment to Grange (along existing railway alignment), West Lakes (in median of West Lakes Blvd … partly in place already) and Semaphore (new alignment in median of Semaphore Rd).

Bus stops/platforms would be located roughly where the existing railway stations are, but would have similar design to the existing tram stops in the city. Passing lanes could be created at stops between Woodville and the city, thereby allowing the possibility of express services to the city with Port Adelaide-Woodville-Bowden being the high-service express stops.

At the city end, the busway would continue from Bowden through the parklands (along the existing rail corridor), however then divert onto Gaol Rd (next to Adelaide Gaol) and then link into Port Rd, thereby avoiding the major intersections of Port Rd/Park Tce and Port Rd/James Congdon Dr. Then along North Tce, it can use the existing tram lane, thereby making more efficient use of this lane.

WestLINK and EastLINK busway
For similar reasons to the above, I believe the proposed WestLINK (to Henley Beach) and EastLINK (to Uni SA at Magill) would work better as median-aligned busways as they serve low-density suburbs with no major activity centres along the route.
The busway would then be a higher-speed portal to the CBD for other surrounding bus services in the catchment area. Eg Magill and Rostrevor bus routes could also feed into the EastLINK busway rather than go along Magill Rd to the city (as they currently do). This would be a much faster service into the CBD.
These buses would also need to be fitted with left and right-side opening doors (like a tram) so they can used along the busway as well as ‘normal’ bus stops beyond the busway. Bus stops/platforms would have similar design to the existing tram stops in the city, and be spaced approx. 800m - 1km apart to speed up service.

NorthLINK busway
Finally, I’d propose a median-aligned NorthLINK busway along Main North Rd to Gepps Cross, instead of the tramline along Prospect Rd. This would then provide a higher-speed portal to the CBD for other surrounding bus services in the catchment area such as Ingle Farm, Pooraka, Para Hills etc.
In addition, the road width of Main North Rd is more capable of absorbing a bus lane in each direction than Prospect Rd.
Last edited by ml69 on Sun May 24, 2015 6:32 pm, edited 3 times in total.

muzzamo
Legendary Member!
Posts: 986
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:44 pm
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#664 Post by muzzamo » Sun May 24, 2015 2:58 pm

The main problem with busways is the level of congestion at CBD bus stops. Its not insurmountable though - "smart stops" with validators at the stop and busses that open all doors to let people on would speed things up, as would an underground city bus station.

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5681
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm
Has thanked: 768 times
Been thanked: 1387 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#665 Post by Norman » Sun May 24, 2015 4:06 pm

I think this section of the discussion should be moved to the Visions area.

User avatar
jk1237
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:22 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#666 Post by jk1237 » Sun May 24, 2015 10:09 pm

muzzamo wrote:The main problem with busways is the level of congestion at CBD bus stops. Its not insurmountable though - "smart stops" with validators at the stop and busses that open all doors to let people on would speed things up, as would an underground city bus station.
the main problem with busways is that they use buses, and buses do not attract patronage. Adelaide and Perth had an important transport corridor built in the late 80s/early 90s. Ironically our original proposal for the NE corridor was for light rail, and the original proposal for Perth's northern line was a busway. The reverse happened and Perth's northern train line carries quite a lot more people than our o'bahn. If we had have gone with a train line, there would also be a lot more patronage than our current obahn. Busways are cheap and nasty short term solutions. Maybe if it were trolley buses it may have been better, but 1 after the other of noisy, polluting, diesel internal combustion engine buses running one after the other is not what Adelaide needs more of

zippySA
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:29 pm
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#667 Post by zippySA » Mon May 25, 2015 10:06 am

I wouldn't dismiss the Bus vs Tram argument off-hand. There are a range of really interesting projects in UK and elsewhere around electric busses and busways, such as:
http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/streets ... ectric-bus

As always - there is no silver bullet solution - Adelaide needs an innovative, multi-transport type solution that links in to a long term vision - something I'm afraid Governments are crap at delivering - so it's up to the public and private sector to force positive outcomes through broad debate and creation of ideas and projects.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#668 Post by monotonehell » Mon May 25, 2015 10:59 am

jk1237 wrote:the main problem with busways is that they use buses, and buses do not attract patronage. Adelaide and Perth had an important transport corridor built in the late 80s/early 90s. Ironically our original proposal for the NE corridor was for light rail, and the original proposal for Perth's northern line was a busway. The reverse happened and Perth's northern train line carries quite a lot more people than our o'bahn. If we had have gone with a train line, there would also be a lot more patronage than our current obahn. Busways are cheap and nasty short term solutions. Maybe if it were trolley buses it may have been better, but 1 after the other of noisy, polluting, diesel internal combustion engine buses running one after the other is not what Adelaide needs more of
This is a common misconception which I debunked in a post a year or two ago (I can't find it now). A few years ago the OBahn was seeing more patronage than any one of the rail lines in Adelaide.

tl;dr It's not the transport mode (bus/rail) which attracts or discourages passengers. It's the perceived delays or discomfort of the facilities and features of the corridor. For example a corridor with clean and functional trainstation-like stops, a clearly defined route, frequent reliable services, and so on will attract more patronage regardless of mode.

(If I find my old post I'll link to it - it had citations and research and stuff... mmm stuff)
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
Llessur2002
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1482
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
Location: West Croydon
Has thanked: 445 times
Been thanked: 671 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#669 Post by Llessur2002 » Mon May 25, 2015 11:41 am

As a regular user of the Outer Harbor line I’d be happy with any mode of transport as long as it used a dedicated corridor and, most importantly, didn’t get held up by other traffic or intersections whilst heading into the CBD. I think the latter is more likely to put people off using public transport as reducing journey times and avoiding traffic is one of the main incentives over private car use. If you’re going to sit in the same traffic jam regardless then I people would be much less likely to move away from their private cars.

As the OH line already has a dedicated intersection-free corridor into the heart of the CBD any replacement would have to be pretty special to attract higher patronage than the existing solution. I’d be more than happy with either a light rail or a bus solution providing that the tram was given priority over cars at intersections into/out of the City or a bus would have a dedicated priority lane all the way into the CBD (i.e. not just to the end of Port Road but all the way to the Station or Victoria Square etc). That’s the part of the route that would significantly add to the journey time if only catered for half-heartedly…

Westside
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 4:30 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#670 Post by Westside » Mon May 25, 2015 12:25 pm

ml69 wrote: Hence a well-designed BRT offers the same benefits of light rail at a fraction of the cost.
That may be true of a greenfields site, but the cost of converting a dedicated heavy rail corridor to BRT will be significantly higher than converting it to LRT. Notice the O-bahn is grade separated the whole distance? For a Port BRT to be grade separated, it would involve ridiculous costs to remove each intersection. If you don't remove the intersections, then you add either delays to the BRT as they sit at a red light at every crossing or you would cause a traffic nightmare at each intersection for other road users if the lights were automated for the buses, with lights turning red every 10-20 seconds.

User avatar
Llessur2002
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1482
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
Location: West Croydon
Has thanked: 445 times
Been thanked: 671 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#671 Post by Llessur2002 » Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:29 pm

So the Grenfell Street route's formally been axed. I quite like the idea of a tram along North Terrace to serve the Uni Campus though:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-06/t ... atenews_sa
The South Australian Government has unveiled plans to extend the tram line down North Terrace past the old Royal Adelaide Hospital to Adelaide's eastern suburbs.

The plan has been detailed as part of the redevelopment of the hospital site, with the Government to open expressions of interest from developers and consortia tomorrow.

It said the existing line at North Terrace would connect to East Terrace and onto the Parade at Norwood and Magill.

The Government has set a five to 15-year timeframe for the project.
A 5-15 year timeframe. Hmmmm.

I hope we'll see at least the beginning of an extension along North Terrace to the RAH site before the Government's term of office is finished. If the libs get in next time round then we're unlikely to see any public transport action during their time in power. Would be good to cement the network a little more just to make it harder for anyone to rip it up...

A new version of the Integrated Transport Plan has been released - can't see any other major differences from the first skim, although the Outer Harbour tramline conversion is now in the 5-15 year bucket when I'm sure the last plan showed it in the short term bucket. I thought they might have dropped that one in favour of electrification of heavy rail.
Last edited by Llessur2002 on Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#672 Post by Waewick » Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:42 pm

Llessur2002 wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-06/t ... atenews_sa
The South Australian Government has unveiled plans to extend the tram line down North Terrace past the old Royal Adelaide Hospital to Adelaide's eastern suburbs.

The plan has been detailed as part of the redevelopment of the hospital site, with the Government to open expressions of interest from developers and consortia tomorrow.

It said the existing line at North Terrace would connect to East Terrace and onto the Parade at Norwood and Magill.

The Government has set a five to 15-year timeframe for the project.
A 5-15 year timeframe. Hmmmm.

I hope we'll see at least the beginning of an extension along North Terrace to the RAH site before the Government's term of office is finished. If the libs get in next time round then we're unlikely to see any public transport action during their time in power...
mark it down as won't happen

User avatar
Llessur2002
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1482
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
Location: West Croydon
Has thanked: 445 times
Been thanked: 671 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#673 Post by Llessur2002 » Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:44 pm

Waewick wrote:mark it down as won't happen
The tramline or the libs getting into office?

Boom boom! :banana:

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2586
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm
Has thanked: 1051 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#674 Post by [Shuz] » Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:44 pm

It'll happen in.... 2024.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#675 Post by Waewick » Mon Jul 06, 2015 3:24 pm

Llessur2002 wrote:
Waewick wrote:mark it down as won't happen
The tramline or the libs getting into office?

Boom boom! :banana:
probably both... :wallbash:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JCK98, Llessur2002 and 10 guests