Sensational-Adelaide.com

Waewick wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:58 am

It depends on what the definition of viable is.

It maybe on here but apparently PT costs are split 75% Govt and 25% fares, so if that is the measure then you'd hope that is what makes a Tram route viable.

The issue i see is that within the Adelaide CBD the tram is known to be free, so the loop fails that test.

I believe that the trams will extend, but where they can go and attract fare paying patrons is the question.

I've been trying to think of incentives to attract patrons, one of my ideas would be bit drawn out, broadly it would be working with the council who wants the trams to sign up to say a 5 yr program where by annual ticket is bought through your council rates. The incentive being your council rates are lower by the amount. Perhaps a max of 2 tickets?

People then have an incentive to use it and the Government gets the money regardless.

Haven't through the issues which i am sure there are many.

The viability of projects is usually done via cost benefit analysis. That may include fares, increases in revenue from extra economic activity, be that extra value of rates, higher business profits from businesses along the route, higher density inner city housing replacing much more expensive to service outer suburbs ( for example, a tram going past high density housing might be cheaper than several buses needed for running round dispersed outer suburbs).

The other aspect is the cost. The prices quoted here for trams are waaay over what is paid in Europe. The construction of tracks is waaay more expensive than was used in Melbourne and Sydney in the fifties and sixties. Rather than become cheaper and better, it's become far more expensive to do exactly the same thing. Apparently we have to spend millions on strengthening the Adelaide Bridge which happily carried full coupled H cars to Adelaide Oval and beyond. And don't get me started on bendy light poles.

Excessive cost, quite rightly, is a good reason for governments to scrap projects. What's sad though, is we could have better trams running on proven track for a lot less than we have spent. If we insist on expensive options, we risk getting nothing.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:06 am

Excessive cost, quite rightly, is a good reason for governments to scrap projects. What's sad though, is we could have better trams running on proven track for a lot less than we have spent. If we insist on expensive options, we risk getting nothing.

Agree with this Rubberman, and the debacle going on in Sydney at present with their tram extension, does not bode well, when Infrastructure Australia are looking at these things. Also couple with the fact that in Adelaide, we cant seem to even run our expensive trams on expensive tracks at any sort of reasonable speed to show how fast and efficient trams can actually be. We will happily throw a flimsy bus, along a bumpy concrete tack at 90km/h...but getting a solid tram on smooth tracks even up to 60km/h seems beyond the operators. You have also touched on another vital point, being that trams within the CBD are free, so unless there is some sort of co-ordinated buy in from developers...ie cold hard cash, it is very difficult to prove the case. Once again, the previous government had exactly the right sentiment with the trams, but the implementation was ad hock, and could prove detrimental in the long run.

What is this debacle going on with the Sydney tram people keep mentioning

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:18 pm

What is this debacle going on with the Sydney tram people keep mentioning

In summary, the Spanish company that won the contract to construct the light rail from CBD to Randwick are on a go slow, and have entered legal action with the state government, as apparently the NSW government, and their various utilities did not adequately disclose the type and location of underground services. They provided a summary only, and assured the company there would be no nasty surprises, nor any specified methods of relocation. Within hours of winning the contract, all of a sudden, the utilities released detailed plans of the location and methods they required to move their underground services. This was way outside f the scope of works outlined in the tender process, and subsequently the builder of the light rail is out of pocket to the tune of multi millions of dollars. They have virtually stopped work to try and force the governments to agree to extra payments, but is ending up in court.

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:18 pm

What is this debacle going on with the Sydney tram people keep mentioning

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Everyone else designs tram tracks with a 450mm depth so that most services which are lower than 600mm can stay where they are.

Sydney designs tracks for the same trams at about 1000mm deep, ensuring all services have to be relocated.

End point. Adelaide delivers a tram extension for $80m/kM, Sydney looks like delivering it for $200m/kM, maybe. Adelaide does it while keeping North Terrace open, while Sydney shuts down George Street for more than a year, so far.

Glazing going into one of the new platforms today and some new tarmac near the pedestrian crossing.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

claybro wrote:

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:18 pm

What is this debacle going on with the Sydney tram people keep mentioning

In summary, the Spanish company that won the contract to construct the light rail from CBD to Randwick are on a go slow, and have entered legal action with the state government, as apparently the NSW government, and their various utilities did not adequately disclose the type and location of underground services. They provided a summary only, and assured the company there would be no nasty surprises, nor any specified methods of relocation. Within hours of winning the contract, all of a sudden, the utilities released detailed plans of the location and methods they required to move their underground services. This was way outside f the scope of works outlined in the tender process, and subsequently the builder of the light rail is out of pocket to the tune of multi millions of dollars. They have virtually stopped work to try and force the governments to agree to extra payments, but is ending up in court.

Oops


Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Regarding fares and the lack of from the trams. The sooner the Adelaide completes a city loop, the sooner we can adopt a system similar to Melbourne with a free city loop and then start charging for the Entertainment Centre right through to Glenelg...

AndyWelsh wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:09 pm

Glazing going into one of the new platforms today and some new tarmac near the pedestrian crossing.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why have they put down bitumen where there was once footpath pavers?

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:02 am

Regarding fares and the lack of from the trams. The sooner the Adelaide completes a city loop, the sooner we can adopt a system similar to Melbourne with a free city loop and then start charging for the Entertainment Centre right through to Glenelg...

If you do this you're gonna see ridership on that section plummet, outside of events at the AEC/Hindmarsh/The Gov the majority of the ridership is people who want to drive most of their commute but don't want to pay for city parking. Park and ride aside the streets of Thebarton are always crammed with cars belonging to people who've decided they're onto something parking for free and sitting on a free tram for 10 minutes to get to work.

I'd venture that the revenue the government gets from the AEC car park is far, far greater than what they'd gain by charging $3 or so for the ride whilst scaring off all the people who've decided they've stumbled upon the best scam ever.

jorcoga wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:42 am

I'd venture that the revenue the government gets from the AEC car park is far, far greater than what they'd gain by charging $3 or so for the ride whilst scaring off all the people who've decided they've stumbled upon the best scam ever.

If the people are paying for their car park, then if the tram stopped being free, the parking price could be set to include a free ride when you buy your parking permit there.

And that is why Adelaide doesn't have the steadiest PT revenue, because the people o this city are entitled and feel as though they should get a leg up at the expense of the government/its services. If people want better and more efficient PT, pay for it. If people complain that "Oh, I have to pay for the tram now? But I already pay for the parking" remind them how much they're still saving by not parking all day in the city. Let a city loop be there for tourists and inner city commutes and slap the fares back onto the remainder of the network, I say.

The Gawler Place stop is now ironically the most complete out of all of them.

Disappointing to see some of the lights on North Terrace are still not on. There are a lot of dark patches that are a blight to the area.

The curbs almong North Terrace are completely destroyed and the tram tracks themselves look smashed, as though they are
already needing repair. Wtf is with extension? I pray they do something to fix it because it looks like a dogs breakfeast atm.