Shuz's Google Maps Visions Compilation

[Shuz]

http://maps.google.com/maps/mm?ie=UTF8& ... 1&t=h&z=13

There's 5 maps or "layers" to preview.

Trams
Adelaide Metro (Trains)
Stations (Train Stations)
Freeways
Adelaide International Airport.

Check them out in Google Earth, it's so much better.

Feedback welcome!

[Aidan]

The link isn't working properly - it shows the map but not your layers.

[fabricator]

Just give us a link to your google maps profile page to start with.

[Shuz]

Try this?

http://maps.google.com/maps/user?uid=11 ... =en&ptab=2

[Aidan]

http://maps.google.com/maps/mm?ie=UTF8& ... 1&t=h&z=13

There's 5 maps or "layers" to preview.

Trams
Adelaide Metro (Trains)
Stations (Train Stations)
Freeways
Adelaide International Airport.

Check them out in Google Earth, it's so much better.

Feedback welcome!

Some of your visions are just plain weird! Take the Freeways section: you've got two of them ending in Glen Osmond, even though Glen Osmond Road is congested enough as it is - yet you then also want to put trams on it! Meanwhile South Road S of Regency Road seems to have been ignored (and also has trams on a stretch of it). You're not showing any freeway to Victor Harbor (even though the Victor Harbor Road is dangerous and should be upgraded to one) yet you deem it worthy of a railway even though the line would be far less direct and would require major earthworks and the destruction of several houses in Victor Harbor. You've replaced the O-bahn with a railway and freeway for no apparent reason - 'tis as mysterious as why you want the Lefevre Peninsula to only have four stations or why you want to put a station in Unley and call it Wayville!

I think I've already said all that's worth saying about your airport plan, but meanwhile I notice you don't even consider the existing airport worthy of a tramway, even with one running straight past it! And seven of your 13 railways are conspicuously absent.

For a vision to work it has to be more than just a collection of plans that take your fancy - it also has to meet future needs. What you've mapped would be expensive, but would completely fail to do that.

[Shuz]

Aidan, it's still a works in progress for starters! I haven't finished.

The freeways segment of the plan is quite hard to work with, in determining a suitable route. For what I have created so far, I would say with 90% certainity, is what I'd intend to put forth as a visionary proposal.

The train network is finalised, excepting station locations (still to be determined) it has since been extensively modified from what I first worked on. I've since revised the statement, reflecting the newer proposal.

And trams, the least of my worries just at this moment (even though its the part I really want put forth), but again it is hard to determine the suitability of routes, taking into consideration demand, cross-city adaptability, etc. Will be a while off before that's finalised.

[fkj]

Freeways
In regards to your proposed "line 8" why would you end it on War Memorial Drive, why not connect it to Port Road, which will inevitably have to be upgraded sooner or later anyway. Not only this but it is also a much more convenient place, inner city, closer to peoples destinations, honestly who needs to go to war memorial drive?
The foothills expressway is one thing i object too, as running it through brown hill creek will scar one of the nicest areas in the inner suburbs, plus i hope you plan on a big upgrade of Glen Osmond Road if you had it ending there.
Whats the idea with the south coast freeway? it wont serve much of a benefit to anyone, the roads down there allready suffice to their needs.
City link IS a good idea, but i think it should connect into the city, if your gonna calll it citylink, maybe connect onto west terrace?

Trams
Wow, thats a lot of trams.
Why do we need a henley and a west beach line, i would say use the west beach line, run it closer to the airport, then across to henley.
I like the grid of trams in the cbd, thats what id like too see.
The kings park branch seems like a waste of money too me, i live near kings park, and it wouldnt be used much.
I'm going to assume your city to belair line follows the belair lines current path from mitcham onwards, am i right?
Ditch the glen osmond idea in my opinion.
Also ditch the Roslyn park line, instead having a line connect between line 15 and line 9 to service Roslyn Park

I cant say much about the lines in the north as i dont live anywhere near there. One thing i do have to say is, the three lines around port road, couldnt they all use port road then branch off?

Airport
We all wish we could put an airport there, but the terrain just isnt suitable

Stations
Are these for trains or busses?

[Shuz]

I've put together a map of the tram network as it were in 1949.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8& ... 2&t=h&z=12

And I've reconfigured my tram network vision again;
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8& ... 2&t=h&z=12

[Will]

I've put together a map of the tram network as it were in 1949.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8& ... 2&t=h&z=12

And I've reconfigured my tram network vision again;
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8& ... 2&t=h&z=12

Great work Shuz!

However, I cannot help to feel but sad that we lost such an extensive network.

[Aidan]

And I've reconfigured my tram network vision again;
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8& ... 2&t=h&z=12

That's a bit better than before, but still there are bits of it that don't make sense. Why would you want a Greenhill Road line that bypasses the City? Why have a Mawson Lakes line so close to the railway but never actually interchanging with it? What's the point of finishing Line 9 in a remote residential area of Athelstone when it's quicker to get from there to the City via the O-bahn? Why end your Route 2 short of anywhere useful? And what's the point of the Diagonal Road line?

Don't forget that when you take over part of a bus route, you still have to find a way of running buses on the rest of it!

[Norman]

And I've reconfigured my tram network vision again;
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8& ... 2&t=h&z=12

That's a bit better than before, but still there are bits of it that don't make sense. Why would you want a Greenhill Road line that bypasses the City? Why have a Mawson Lakes line so close to the railway but never actually interchanging with it? What's the point of finishing Line 9 in a remote residential area of Athelstone when it's quicker to get from there to the City via the O-bahn? Why end your Route 2 short of anywhere useful? And what's the point of the Diagonal Road line?

Don't forget that when you take over part of a bus route, you still have to find a way of running buses on the rest of it!

That's South Terrace, not Greenhill Road.

[Aidan]

That's South Terrace, not Greenhill Road.

It was Greenhill Road. Shuz subsequently updated the map again.