PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
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: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#91 Post by jk1237 » Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:34 am

its been argued that Melbourne has more successful inner suburban shopping streets than Sydney because of the fact that trams act as a traffic calming device (because they run down the middle). They are also quieter. One bad thing about old high streets is if it acts an arterial road (hi Unley Rd), making it quite dangerous, noisy and unpleasant for pedestrians to cross. Jetty Road is fairly successful because cars generally travel at 40km or less and get banked up, making it far more pedestrian friendly. K W Rd is good in this matter also

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2040
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#92 Post by Aidan » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:20 pm

rubberman wrote:Aidan,

I suggest you hie yourself down to Jetty Road and observe. Jetty Road is a disaster and tram travel times down there have caused a ballooning out of the travel time of the line overall to the point where despite more modern trams, grade separation at Sth Road, boom gates elsewhere, a relay of track, and an absence of other tram routes in King William St, it takes longer now than it did in the fifties...a large portion of which extra time taken is Jetty Road.
Instead of labelling it a disaster, I suggest you look at why the trams are so slow in Jetty Road, because at the moment it looks as if you're arguing that trams are slow because of cars which are slow because of trams!

Jetty Road traffic is held up by vehicles turning right. Prospect Road has pocket lanes for right turns so that problem rarely arises.
I similarly suggest you observe Prospect Road in the peak hours - it is absurd to suggest that trams are going to work in such a narrow road unless you can eliminate most of the cars during those peaks.
The lack of overtaking opportunities, meaning that every vehicle including trams would have the same journey time, should itself be sufficient to deter some of the through traffic. The upgrading to 4 lanes of one of the parallel roads less than a kilometre away should help. So while imposing route restrictions is certainly an option, I doubt it would be necessary.
If that does not convince you, then go over to Melbourne and observe similarly narrow streets of similar character and observe the actual speeds of trams. What may have worked in 1913 simply does not in 2013, and no hand waving assurances can make it so. There are places in the world where it happens, but usually they restrict motor vehicle access to commercial vehicles loading or unloading and emergency services to achieve it. If that is your condition, then fair enough, it might work.
Melbourne has lots of different solutions, some of which would work in Adelaide and some of it wouldn't (and some of which don't even work properly in Melbourne). 'Tis just a matter of finding the appropriate solution for each situation.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#93 Post by rubberman » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:04 pm

Aidan, I am arguing no such thing as 'trams are slow because of cars which are slow because of trams!' Please go back and read what I have said. I am arguing that buses have advantages over trams in situations like Jetty and Prospect Roads, and I have stated my reasons why. A little more care in one's pronouncements, as always is quite wise. Much better to think a little before one jumps in Aidan. :oops:

And sorry, you are simply hand waving the Melbourne experience away as if it does not matter. The point of bringing up Melbourne and the abysmal performance of trams in such streets is to show that there is reasonable cause for concern were trams to be introduced to similar streets in Adelaide. Given that there is reasonable cause, the response should be one with plenty of hard data and at least draft proposals. If this were a real plan, then such hard data would be available. Whatever one thought of the MATS Plan for example, there was plenty of hard data and reasonable projections upon which it based its recommendations. Where is that data that supports this latest 30 year "plan"? Without data, assertions that this or that route is viable, or even possible given traffic conditions are mere puffery. :roll:

Like I say, it is a wish list of projects lumped together with some nice graphics - not a strategic plan. As I said before, no-one will be happier than I should I be proven wrong, and a few hundred pages of traffic projections, detailed costings, consideration of issues such as how trams will get down the narrow streets turns up in the next month or so. However, I believe at the moment that I will be disappointed. :sly:

If I see even some data, I am happy to be convinced. :bow: But I have a tendency to laugh off handwaving and nice graphics as an alternative to data and analysis. :lol:

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1983
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 213 times

Re: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#94 Post by claybro » Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:16 pm

Arent we missing the point here that the trams will replace many of the buses on the likes of prospect road and therefore reduce the impact of buses.. as for Jetty road, the travel times of buses is equally as slow as the tram, and buses also hold up cars in this stretch. at least the tram then has the benefit of then joining its own dedicated corridor to speed up the journey. What I dont really get is why buses have to run along Jetty road as well as the tram. surely buses could use a different approach to Glenelg ie Anzac highway etc. As for prospect road, many of the buses along Prospect road would have the optiion of Churchill or Main North road, with the Prospect road tram used ot service the immediate catchment of Prospect road only, thereby removing many of the buses from that road also?

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2040
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#95 Post by Aidan » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:37 pm

claybro wrote:Arent we missing the point here that the trams will replace many of the buses on the likes of prospect road and therefore reduce the impact of buses.. as for Jetty road, the travel times of buses is equally as slow as the tram, and buses also hold up cars in this stretch. at least the tram then has the benefit of then joining its own dedicated corridor to speed up the journey. What I dont really get is why buses have to run along Jetty road as well as the tram. surely buses could use a different approach to Glenelg ie Anzac highway etc. As for prospect road, many of the buses along Prospect road would have the optiion of Churchill or Main North road, with the Prospect road tram used ot service the immediate catchment of Prospect road only, thereby removing many of the buses from that road also?
Do country and interstate buses still use Prospect Road? I didn't think they did any more. And there are currently no Metroticket bus services on Prospect Road other than the what the trams would directly replace.

Buses don't run the entire length of Jetty Road, but have to run along part of it to access the terminus/interchange in Moseley Street. I don't know why they all run via Gordon Street though - I'd have expected it to be preferable to run some vis Colley Terrace instead.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2040
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#96 Post by Aidan » Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:12 pm

rubberman wrote:Aidan, I am arguing no such thing as 'trams are slow because of cars which are slow because of trams!' Please go back and read what I have said. I am arguing that buses have advantages over trams in situations like Jetty and Prospect Roads, and I have stated my reasons why. A little more care in one's pronouncements, as always is quite wise. Much better to think a little before one jumps in Aidan. :oops:
Then perhaps you could clarify: what user advantages to buses have in those situations?
And sorry, you are simply hand waving the Melbourne experience away as if it does not matter. The point of bringing up Melbourne and the abysmal performance of trams in such streets is to show that there is reasonable cause for concern were trams to be introduced to similar streets in Adelaide.
But there's not one Melbourne experience, there's many! There are different stop layouts, different street widths, different amounts of traffic and different alternative traffic routes available. Of course we should look at what works and what doesn't, but we shouldn't oversimplify it.
Given that there is reasonable cause, the response should be one with plenty of hard data and at least draft proposals. If this were a real plan, then such hard data would be available. Whatever one thought of the MATS Plan for example, there was plenty of hard data and reasonable projections upon which it based its recommendations. Where is that data that supports this latest 30 year "plan"? Without data, assertions that this or that route is viable, or even possible given traffic conditions are mere puffery. :roll:

Like I say, it is a wish list of projects lumped together with some nice graphics - not a strategic plan. As I said before, no-one will be happier than I should I be proven wrong, and a few hundred pages of traffic projections, detailed costings, consideration of issues such as how trams will get down the narrow streets turns up in the next month or so. However, I believe at the moment that I will be disappointed. :sly:

If I see even some data, I am happy to be convinced. :bow: But I have a tendency to laugh off handwaving and nice graphics as an alternative to data and analysis. :lol:
Hard data can certainly be useful, but a few changes in the assumptions can quickly invalidate a lot of the conclusions. The MATS Plan is a case in point - we did not (and still don't) need so many freeways.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#97 Post by rubberman » Sun Oct 27, 2013 10:10 pm

Aidan wrote: Hard data can certainly be useful, but a few changes in the assumptions can quickly invalidate a lot of the conclusions. The MATS Plan is a case in point - we did not (and still don't) need so many freeways.
LOL. Yep, just change the assumption that we need to solve the problems of traffic on South Road to 'we will just stick our heads in the sand and ignore it' and hey presto! No need for freeways!. Assuming we don't need to solve the problem, or that no problem exists certainly invalidates any conclusion coming from real data. :roll:

A cheap graphics program, some video with a few lines drawn on a map, and whoopee, no need to employ anyone to do planning. Ah well, with Australian industry going the way it is, perhaps you are right, and zero industry in the State will ensure that there really is no problem along South Road that a piecemeal approach will not fix.

*shakes head*

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 258 times
Been thanked: 323 times
Contact:

Re: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#98 Post by ChillyPhilly » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:46 am

I'm glad there are no bus routes proposed like this epic one:

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel- ... 2w8py.html
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 258 times
Been thanked: 323 times
Contact:

Re: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#99 Post by ChillyPhilly » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:11 am

SAR526 wrote:PeFe wrote:
No to trams up Unley and Prospect Rds, low density areas with no real activity centres at either end.
Undecided about a tram up the Parade to Magill, where is the density? Maybe
All of these destinations had double track lines and the trams themselves were wider. Parking was allowed and, as in Melbourne, busy local shopping strips lined them. Today, the best way to tell whether a street formerly carried trams is to note the groups of shops which clustered around each tram stop. People shopped locally for their daily necessities and went into the city only for major needs or the latest movies in the many big city theatres. Neighbours actually knew and looked out for each other. They didn't NEED cars which today are necessary for the commute to the suburban shopping malls while the convenient local shops still remain, but are mostly converted to other purposes. Family cars were once mainly reserved for the Sunday drive to the beach or country.

How very civilized and healthy, when people actually walked a few yards each day. How very European. How very Adelaide it all was – once!
Spot on.

Re PeFe's comment: Land use doesn't always necessarily and shouldn't determine transport infrastructure. Instead, transport infrastructure can and should be used as a mechanism to change land uses. A perfect example is the Urbanest student accommodation on North Tce, private investment and development resultant of the tramline extension.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#100 Post by rubberman » Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:41 am

Quite true Chilly.

There are ways in which, for example, along Prospect Road, trams could be made viable.

These might be:

An increase in urban density along the route - lots more apartments and flats (not necessarily stalinesqe monsters, but certainly many more people than there at the moment.

A decrease in the number of cars along the route.

An increase in the 'tram friendliness' of the street - for example, phasing of traffic lights whenever trams approach.

The problem is that in Adelaide there is a history of nimbyism that makes the first of these very difficult to achieve on a large scale, the car culture makes the second hard to achieve as well, and as for the third, it hasn't happened anywhere along the street sections of the Glenelg line in the past 80 years, so don't hold your breath.

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: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#101 Post by monotonehell » Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:30 am

ChillyPhilly wrote:I'm glad there are no bus routes proposed like this epic one:

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel- ... 2w8py.html
Interesting read. I note that Professor Graham Currie is quoted a few times. Having read a few of his papers, I regard him as someone who knows what he's on about.
The three orbital routes are the most heavily used bus services in Melbourne. On an average weekday, 15,000 people catch the 901. In 2011-12, the first full financial year in which it operated, it carried 4.3 million people. The only route that had higher patronage was the route 903 orbital, from Altona to Mordialloc.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

MessiahAndrw
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:05 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#102 Post by MessiahAndrw » Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:41 am

rubberman wrote:The problem is that in Adelaide there is a history of nimbyism that makes the first of these very difficult to achieve on a large scale, the car culture makes the second hard to achieve as well, and as for the third, it hasn't happened anywhere along the street sections of the Glenelg line in the past 80 years, so don't hold your breath.
The ironic thing is, car culture is modern. It didn't really exist before the mid-1940s. (Yes, we had suburbs, but they were highly walkable, connected together with a dense tram network. We had cars, but most that owned a car only used them on the weekend.)

If only NIMBYism existed back then...

"Pulling out trams? NOT IN MY BACKYARD!"

"No more walking to the grocery store? NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!"

"Everyone driving? NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:"
My blog on urban design: http://www.andrewalexanderprice.com/blog.php

User avatar
drsmith
Legendary Member!
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:35 pm
Location: Perth
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#103 Post by drsmith » Sat Nov 02, 2013 5:45 pm

Another crumb on the Port Wakefield Bypass,
The Government says a bypass will be built in the next five to 15 years but Mr Kipling says he has heard the idea before.
I don't know why John Kipling is banging on against it. He's long since sold his business and the big BP now gets the lions share of the trade from what I see when I go through the place. I wonder whether he's driven past Dublin in recent years. IIRC, the big BP there went up there after that town was bypassed.

I don't think anything extravagant needs to be built to deal with what is largely congestion of tourist traffic flow over holiday periods and other long weekends. As an initial stage, a new single carriageway national highway bypass east of the existing road would suffice in conjunction with a realigned Balaklava Road arranged into two T junctions into the new road. The second T west of the new road could provide a new northern access to the town just north of the BP.

The new intersection south of the town could be restricted to the major movements only and/or even partially signalised for traffic management during the busy holiday periods. The primary YP traffic flows would still be through the town as they are now with national highway access to/from the BP from the new northern access road.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-25/p ... ns/5045758

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2040
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#104 Post by Aidan » Sun Nov 03, 2013 6:26 pm

drsmith wrote:Another crumb on the Port Wakefield Bypass,
The Government says a bypass will be built in the next five to 15 years but Mr Kipling says he has heard the idea before.
I don't know why John Kipling is banging on against it. He's long since sold his business and the big BP now gets the lions share of the trade from what I see when I go through the place. I wonder whether he's driven past Dublin in recent years. IIRC, the big BP there went up there after that town was bypassed.
You recall correctly. But the old petrol station it replaced (just across the street from the new one) lost nearly all its trade during the construction of the bypass. They sued the contractors who built the bypass, but I don't know the outcome nor how long after the completion it took for trade to recover to its pre bypass levels.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

User avatar
drsmith
Legendary Member!
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:35 pm
Location: Perth
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: PRO: 30-year Transport Plan PRO | $36b

#105 Post by drsmith » Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:10 pm

Aidan wrote: You recall correctly. But the old petrol station it replaced (just across the street from the new one) lost nearly all its trade during the construction of the bypass. They sued the contractors who built the bypass, but I don't know the outcome nor how long after the completion it took for trade to recover to its pre bypass levels.
Are you referring to Dublin Motors ?

It's a credit to them that they survived both the bypass and the big BP (I don't want to say new BP because Dublin was bypassed as part of the road duplication project about 20 years ago), and it still looks like that old petrol station.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests