[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[NTRabbit]

Not a strong rumour, it’s actually happening. They need to widen the road corridor beneath the overpass to accomodate the massive corridor for the motorway ramps and tunnel portal. You can see the sheer scale on the interactive T2D map.

The Marion/Cross Road overpass is going to be built at the same time to take advantage of the tram line closure.

Such a shame, having observed the design of the overpass in the 10,000 times or so I've been under it, it's always appeared to me to consist of 3 spans that are high enough for cars to pass under, with the middle span currently in use by South Road and the other two reserved for the future motorway. It struck me as good planning....

sr2.jpgsr1.jpg

What I heard is that it was supposed to be, but it's turned out not to be, whether that's because the goal posts for the motorway moved too far or they just fucked it up like they did with the footpath addition I don't know

[AG]

Not a strong rumour, it’s actually happening. They need to widen the road corridor beneath the overpass to accomodate the massive corridor for the motorway ramps and tunnel portal. You can see the sheer scale on the interactive T2D map.

The Marion/Cross Road overpass is going to be built at the same time to take advantage of the tram line closure.

Such a shame, having observed the design of the overpass in the 10,000 times or so I've been under it, it's always appeared to me to consist of 3 spans that are high enough for cars to pass under, with the middle span currently in use by South Road and the other two reserved for the future motorway. It struck me as good planning....

sr2.jpgsr1.jpg

What I heard is that it was supposed to be, but it's turned out not to be, whether that's because the goal posts for the motorway moved too far or they just fucked it up like they did with the footpath addition I don't know

My understanding is that the overpass was designed for the scenario where the north-south corridor was upgraded into a surface non-stop road. However, with the new open cut motorway leading to southern tunnel entrances now passing in close proximity to the bridge foundations of the overpass, perhaps there was concern about the structural stability of the overpass and obstructed access to the tram stop as a result of the tunnels.

[[Shuz]]

Overpass was scrapped for two reasons:

Inability to provide safe access to the tram depot. The turn into the depot is already very tight as it is. Secondly, they need to build a new depot anyway so there's no point in providing access to the current one while they scope options for a new one.

[SBD]

Overpass was scrapped for two reasons:

Inability to provide safe access to the tram depot. The turn into the depot is already very tight as it is. Secondly, they need to build a new depot anyway so there's no point in providing access to the current one while they scope options for a new one.

So the idea of an overpass has been scrapped because it wouldn't support access to somewhere they won't want to go anyway???

[Norman]

I think it has been put on hold rather than scrapped until they can find a suitable place for a new tram depot.

[SRW]

It would be foolish to not address Morphett Rd while they're closing the tram line for at least 9 months. Not only that, but Morphettville is due to be redeveloped with housing so this needs to happen sooner rather than later.

Port Road is surely the most feasible location for a new depot. The government has just bought one large chunk of it, and has compulsory acquisition power for other parts (say, the former Coca Cola site). Get it done.

[rhino]

Port Road is surely the most feasible location for a new depot. The government has just bought one large chunk of it, and has compulsory acquisition power for other parts (say, the former Coca Cola site). Get it done.

I honestly can't see them using prime inner suburban land for a tram depot that could be housed in an industrial suburb a little further out.

[rev]

Before building tram depots, how about they decide where, if at all, any more tram lines will run?

[dbl96]

Port Road is surely the most feasible location for a new depot. The government has just bought one large chunk of it, and has compulsory acquisition power for other parts (say, the former Coca Cola site). Get it done.

I honestly can't see them using prime inner suburban land for a tram depot that could be housed in an industrial suburb a little further out.

Before building tram depots, how about they decide where, if at all, any more tram lines will run?

The best option would be to build a new depot in an industrial area as part of a network extension project. Probably the best candidate for this would be the planned Prospect Road line. All that would be required is a short extension over Grand Junction Road to a new depot in the Gepps Cross/Dry Creek/Pooraka industrial area. It could even potentially be co-located with the train depot area at Dry Creek.

Thinking outside the scope of the AdeLink planning studies, another good option would be a depot in the Wingfield industrial area, linked by a new line from the city via Arndale along Hawker St - Chief St - Torrens Road - Hanson Rd. The Hawker/Chief/Torrens alignment was an important line on the old network and avoids the hill (and now bridge over the railway) on the Fitzroy section of Torrens Rd.

Depending on the medium-term layout of the network, it might be efficient to have a number of smaller depots, serving particular zones of the network, rather than just one giant depot. There are obviously issues with expanding Glengowrie to cater for network expansion, but it would be worth keeping it to serve the Glenelg line, rather than having to run Glenelg trams in and out of a distant centralised location.

[Saltwater]

Maybe this belongs in the Trams thread, but I don't really understand the push to put trams back down thoroughfares like Prospect Road, where they're just going to sit in traffic and get stuck at traffic lights, negating the benefit of building the line when it's still just as fast for people to drive. Also, one accident along that section of road and the entire network grinds to a halt if trams can't get in and out of the depot.

There's quite a bit of land around Beverley if the network could be extended up Port Road slightly. Or just find a way to get them in and out of a new depot near Adelaide Parklands Terminal.

[rhino]

Maybe this belongs in the Trams thread, but I don't really understand the push to put trams back down thoroughfares like Prospect Road, where they're just going to sit in traffic and get stuck at traffic lights, negating the benefit of building the line when it's still just as fast for people to drive. Also, one accident along that section of road and the entire network grinds to a halt if trams can't get in and out of the depot.

There's quite a bit of land around Beverley if the network could be extended up Port Road slightly. Or just find a way to get them in and out of a new depot near Adelaide Parklands Terminal.

One of the big bonuses is not having to park your car somewhere. Another is the cost - public transport vs fuel, wear and tear, parking - even with the same travel time you come out way in front on a tram. And your time is yours to read a book or magazine, scroll through your socials or the news. it doesn't have to be quicker to be better.

[dbl96]

Maybe this belongs in the Trams thread, but I don't really understand the push to put trams back down thoroughfares like Prospect Road, where they're just going to sit in traffic and get stuck at traffic lights, negating the benefit of building the line when it's still just as fast for people to drive. Also, one accident along that section of road and the entire network grinds to a halt if trams can't get in and out of the depot.

There's quite a bit of land around Beverley if the network could be extended up Port Road slightly. Or just find a way to get them in and out of a new depot near Adelaide Parklands Terminal.

Yes, this convo should definitely be migrated across to the trams thread.

The Parklands Terminal area would be easy to serve - a line straight down Grote St from Victoria Sq, which in itself would be quite useful and could drive development in the run-down south western areas of the city. But I don't think a tram barn is the best use of that space - at least not a large-scale one. Keswick/Mile End South is the biggest, most strategically located infill site remaining in metropolitan Adelaide. We need to think carefully about how we can best take advantage of its location for the advancement of the city. I don't think what is there currently (open air car parking, warehouses, big box stores) is achieving that outcome. It all needs to be masterplanned, but I think the best use of the space would be to turn it into something like Bowden but on a larger scale, with more of a retail/commercial/employment focus than purely residential. A tramline, extending from Grote St, through the area, perhaps along what is now Railway Terrace could be part of that, but a large-scale tram barn would likely take up too much valuable space, unless it was cleverly placed.

One of the big bonuses is not having to park your car somewhere. Another is the cost - public transport vs fuel, wear and tear, parking - even with the same travel time you come out way in front on a tram. And your time is yours to read a book or magazine, scroll through your socials or the news. it doesn't have to be quicker to be better.

I think the rationale behind the Prospect Road tram idea is much like that behind the idea of trams in the CBD itself - it is primarily about providing convenient, short-distance connectivity, rather than a long-distance commuter service. Yes, it is often a comparable speed or quicker to drive (or even to walk in parts of the CBD), but the trams are always packed, because they are so convenient and user-friendly. Some of the people packing out the trams would have driven if there were no trams. But plenty more would have never made the trip in the first place if it wasn't for the tram. In that way, the trams not only take traffic off the road, but they have an amplifying effect on the liveliness and commerce of the areas they serve, and this effect only grows as areas become denser and finding car parking become less convenient.

A tram along Prospect Road and through North Adelaide would cement the connectivity between those areas and the CBD and allow them to function as extensions of the CBD. Nobody thinks twice about heading down to the Markets area for a bite to eat if they are already in the CBD (Rundle Mall area etc) because they can just hop on the tram. This wouldn't happen to nearly the same extent if they had to walk, or move a car down there with scarce free parking. You could expect the same kind of phenomenon if tram connectivity to North Adelaide/Prospect was re-introduced.

For longer distance, higher-speed commuting in this area, you have the train line, which is slightly less than a kilometre away. I don't think a Prospect Road tram would necessarily need to be ridiculously slow though - at least no slower than existing tram operations on Jetty Road, or on any of the inner suburban Melbourne lines which operate on roads of a similar width. It would obviously require some reorganisation of the road layout. I'm not sure what was proposed with that - I don't think we ever got to the stage where that information was made public before the new government came in and put AdeLink on ice. The traffic light problem can be dealt with using tram-priority sequencing. I'm not sure why we haven't already done this - it would massively improve travel times in the CBD itself.

Agreed on your point about potential bottlenecks for other trams coming out of the depot if there was a breakdown on Prospect Road though.

Beverly could be a good option, but it would require duplicating the Outer Harbor line with a tram along Port Road at the point where it would be most useless - the route would be a maximum of about 300m from the Outer Harbor line.

[Eurostar]

A Prospect tram would also allow Torrens Transit to redistribute buses elsewhere currently required on G10 north of city. The G10 could through run as 222-229 or 253X/254X.