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

[rubberman]

Of course it isn't simple rev. However, that does not make a general point invalid. Trams are more expensive per unit and carry more people, so therefore in general you would expect to need more people per area per vehicle to make it economic. That does not mean that in certain circumstances (eg putting a stop near a big carpark with cheap parking) that you do not get exceptions.

If government allocates money for upgrades of the tram network as you point out rev, then say when it came time to upgrade the Prospect Road route, any sensible person would say: "How much will it cost to relay this road? How much will it cost to replace the trams running on it?" They would then compare that cost with the cost of buses and look at both of those costs versus the likely patronage. What might have made sense in 1913 may not still make sense in 2013.

Well the just farkn get on it with brigade have been running the show, and we don't have our north south corridor etc because when it comes time to actually farkn get on with it there are so many projects needing to be done they do little bits of each to keep it looking like they are farkn getting on with it. Just look round, an overpass here, a tram extension there, a widening somewhere else, a building of some sort somewhere else again and a pipeline smack dab through the middle of it all. There is plenty of stuff going on, it is just not planned or coordinated and since it is all going on at once, not much gets totally completed. It's like those people who jump in their trucks in the morning to farkn do something and when they get to the job they expend a lot of effort, but its all disorganised and unplanned. What is far better is that at the start of the day they plan what they are going to do, and work according to the plan.

And I am getting increasingly confident that I can call bullshit on them having actually done any planning. Most plans are not just glossy brochures like this, but hefty documents with lots of supporting data behind them. For example, what are the numbers of passengers they expect on the various tram routes, what are the numbers of trams (rough estimates are fine), what are the growth or decline projections, where are these figures from, was there a sensitivity analysis? I bet they don't exist. Having said that, nobody will be happier than me if I am proven wrong. Happy as a pig in a pile of Newscorp publications I will be.

[how good is he]

These points I want explained in the 30 year transport plan... With the Torrens to Torrens, why couldn't they have just gone overhead as they have done with the next section (NExy) and saved hundreds of millions in all the property purchases and also why not go over (or even under) bloody Torrens Rd after spending all those billions to just come to another bottleneck....for such a little more distance? Also you could do a ramp up and over Regency Rd and thus it's all non stop and cost effective...seems so simple .... what am I missing?
Also why cant the Darlington section and the rest of South Rd be similarly addressed this way?
With the trams I believe one of the reasons they got rid of them was to make room for all the cars coming onto the roads... Is there any facts or studies that show that increasing public transport or trams will lower car use and consumption materially? I also think another reason for trams going was they were not profitable against the cost to run/service/maintain them....is there any costings done/released to actually maintain this new tram network after the billions are spent to potentially build it?
Most international cities have their public transport systems underground yet here there is no plans in the next 30 years that I can see to even consider this....is this short-sighted and should this be a plan we should consider first before spending many more billions to further congest our roads?

[MessiahAndrw]

I think a tram network [using up at least 2 lanes] down Unley Rd, Henley Beach Rd, The Parade , Prospect Rd etc would work a lot better if cars can share the same road as the trams [like Jetty Rd Glenelg] yet in Adelaide they seem now to be built with there own exclusive lanes...any reason why?

Because our streets are so wide, we have that luxury. (The benefit is slightly increase efficiency since there's less cars in their lane.) Jetty Rd is relatively narrow that they must share.

[MessiahAndrw]

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

Many Adelaidians can still do that. Took me 50 minutes to walk from Kilburn into the city. Any farther out, and it becomes much more of a burden. It all has to do with the scale at which we build things. As long as we keep supporting low density sprawl (which requires things to be spaced out at an automobile-scale density) then we are going to continue to rely on our automobiles to get around.

[muzzamo]

These points I want explained in the 30 year transport plan... With the Torrens to Torrens, why couldn't they have just gone overhead as they have done with the next section (NExy) and saved hundreds of millions in all the property purchases and also why not go over (or even under) bloody Torrens Rd after spending all those billions to just come to another bottleneck....for such a little more distance? Also you could do a ramp up and over Regency Rd and thus it's all non stop and cost effective...seems so simple .... what am I missing?
Also why cant the Darlington section and the rest of South Rd be similarly addressed this way?
With the trams I believe one of the reasons they got rid of them was to make room for all the cars coming onto the roads... Is there any facts or studies that show that increasing public transport or trams will lower car use and consumption materially? I also think another reason for trams going was they were not profitable against the cost to run/service/maintain them....is there any costings done/released to actually maintain this new tram network after the billions are spent to potentially build it?
Most international cities have their public transport systems underground yet here there is no plans in the next 30 years that I can see to even consider this....is this short-sighted and should this be a plan we should consider first before spending many more billions to further congest our roads?

In terms of overhead vs underhead, the overhead section is in an industrial area where a concrete road in the sky is likely to bother few. I think in the past 15 years there have been few to none major surburban road projects that are overhead and go through heavily residential areas - its all been tunneled, or where land is plenty it has been done at surface or slightly below surface and walled (eg Southern Expressway). Citylink in melbourne comes to mind as one exception - even then they had to build that noise barrier tunnel thing:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=melbourn ... 7,,0,-2.57

Its safe to say that there would be major opposition to an elevated road through a suburban area. My views are a bit extreme in the matter in that I think that when someone buys a house then they should take on the risk of adverse developments near their property - if they can't handle the risk they should de-risk and rent instead. But thats an extreme view and that given the majority of aussies buy property then their opinion wins out.

[drsmith]

Here's the full policy document: http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/strongersa ... nsport.pdf

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_sxRi23wu0

And a grab of the CBD map:

building_a_stronger_sa--transport-22.jpg

Just seen the video and am surprised by a couple of its features which the full policy document did not mention.
The first is the shorter Northern Connector - the pdf shows it full length. The second is an underground O-bahn extension to the City - I'd very much approve of that if it ran direct, but the video shows it as following the road route - what's the point of that??

In relation to the Northern Connector, there's an update from Infrastructure Australia which now proposes the road component as a 2-stage project.

Details are in the Northern Connector thread.

[how good is he]

To messiah I don't think these roads are wide at all especially If you were to loose 2 lanes for trams...i think you would be probably forced to share the roads with cars with tram ...You would also need to get rid of all off street parking to just have a single car lane in many of these roads...and forget turning right unless its a major intersection with lights.
To muzzamo I accept tunnelled is preferred in resi. areas but the govt has already bought half the properties on the torrens to torrens section and many of the remaining ones are businesses...further you could hardly call any part of South Rd a home owners delight now anyway....and I agree there are inherent risks to buying along here in the first place.

[MessiahAndrw]

To messiah I don't think these roads are wide at all especially If you were to loose 2 lanes for trams...i think you would be probably forced to share the roads with cars with tram ...You would also need to get rid of all off street parking to just have a single car lane in many of these roads...and forget turning right unless its a major intersection with lights.

I was specifically referring to the ultrawide North Terrace, King William Street, Port Road. They gave the tram the middle lane. Jetty Road is relatively narrow, that is why the trams share the street with cars. They chose the optimal solution for each road width.

[rubberman]

I was specifically referring to the ultrawide North Terrace, King William Street, Port Road. They gave the tram the middle lane. Jetty Road is relatively narrow, that is why the trams share the street with cars. They chose the optimal solution for each road width.

Yes, but the problem is that in Jetty Road, the trams are so slow as to not warrant their use in anything other than a short stretch. A road the length of Prospect Road with trams travelling at the speed they do along Jetty Road is just not feasible. In fact, it would be better that trams were removed from Jetty Rd and instead travelled along Brighton Rd to Anzac Highway, turned left and continued to the end of Anzac Highway. It would certainly be quicker.

[Norman]

And remove the high street feel of Jetty Road? The tram running through is an attraction in itself, otherwise it may just as well be another Unley Road thoroughfare as it stands now. Sometimes a bit of congestion is needed to liven an area.

[[Shuz]]

I was specifically referring to the ultrawide North Terrace, King William Street, Port Road. They gave the tram the middle lane. Jetty Road is relatively narrow, that is why the trams share the street with cars. They chose the optimal solution for each road width.

Yes, but the problem is that in Jetty Road, the trams are so slow as to not warrant their use in anything other than a short stretch. A road the length of Prospect Road with trams travelling at the speed they do along Jetty Road is just not feasible. In fact, it would be better that trams were removed from Jetty Rd and instead travelled along Brighton Rd to Anzac Highway, turned left and continued to the end of Anzac Highway. It would certainly be quicker.

/facepalm

[Aidan]

I was specifically referring to the ultrawide North Terrace, King William Street, Port Road. They gave the tram the middle lane. Jetty Road is relatively narrow, that is why the trams share the street with cars. They chose the optimal solution for each road width.

Yes, but the problem is that in Jetty Road, the trams are so slow as to not warrant their use in anything other than a short stretch. A road the length of Prospect Road with trams travelling at the speed they do along Jetty Road is just not feasible. In fact, it would be better that trams were removed from Jetty Rd and instead travelled along Brighton Rd to Anzac Highway, turned left and continued to the end of Anzac Highway. It would certainly be quicker.

The reason the trams are so slow on Jetty Road is because the other traffic is so slow on Jetty Road. And considering how bad the traffic is on Brighton Road between Jetty Road and Anzac Highway, it would rarely be quicker. It certainly wouldn't be better, as the trams are a significant part of why Jetty Road is such an attractive shopping location. All narrow very busy roads can be slow at times, with or without trams.

[rubberman]

Er, yes, well, Aidan, that is all true.

However, the point is that buses have opportunities on narrow streets that trams do not. For example, they can pull into a kerb and maybe a car or two can get past - especially if there is space between cars coming in the opposite direction. The tram in Jetty Road has the kerb extended out to meet it at the mid point stop. No-one is getting past that. A bus can move to the left lane at a traffic light if the right hand lane is blocked by a right turner. A bus can get past a stationary car by going to the opposite side of the road if there is space between cars coming the opposite way.

In a wide street, where the trams have their own right of way, these advantages are of little consequence, but on a narrow street, they make all the difference, both to trams and other road users.

[Aidan]

Er, yes, well, Aidan, that is all true.

However, the point is that buses have opportunities on narrow streets that trams do not. For example, they can pull into a kerb and maybe a car or two can get past - especially if there is space between cars coming in the opposite direction.

That's not an opportunity for the bus, that's an opportunity for the cars to get ahead of the bus and possibly delay it.

The tram in Jetty Road has the kerb extended out to meet it at the mid point stop. No-one is getting past that.

And that's likely to be good for tram speeds because it creates a gap they can accelerate into.

A bus can move to the left lane at a traffic light if the right hand lane is blocked by a right turner. A bus can get past a stationary car by going to the opposite side of the road if there is space between cars coming the opposite way.

So obviously any new tramway should be designed to prevent that problem from occurring. In the context of Unley Road this probably means trams should use the left lane,

In a wide street, where the trams have their own right of way, these advantages are of little consequence, but on a narrow street, they make all the difference, both to trams and other road users.

That depends what purpose the roads serve and were designed for. I certainly wouldn't want trams disrupting traffic flow on South Road or North Road. I'd be quite wary of reinstalling tram tracks on Henley Beach Road for that reason. But Prospect Road doesn't carry that much traffic, so it shouldn't pose any major problems.

[rubberman]

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.

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. 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.