Interesting discussion today at Town Hall about reinstating the tram network across Adelaide: ABC News.
Obviously they're insinuating that Norwood/St Peters/Payneham and Mitcham Councils should help foot the bill towards their new tram lines (if they want them).

I don't see a problem with part of a tram line's funding coming from a levy of perhaps 10-15 dollars a year on residents and 40-50 on businesses located near a new tram line. The deal could be sweetened a bit by giving them a voucher for a free trip or two every year so they could be encouraged to see the benefits for themselves.

No need to get councils involved in transport policy though, let them focus on picking up bins and fixing potholes. The state government could charge the levy by putting it on the same notice as the emergency services levy, and simply select all premises within a 2000m radius of each tram stop.

I object to the PortLink proposal though, it would be a significant downgrade compared to the proper trains they have at the moment.

I object to the PortLink proposal though, it would be a significant downgrade compared to the proper trains they have at the moment.

How so? Do Outer Harbor services go over 80kph at any stage? Are they filled to capacity on the pox-boxes during peak hour and is the line at maximum train capacity during that time?

Trams running as light rail can get up to 80 kph on dedicated rights-of-way that have longer spacing between stops and can run with 3 minute headways perfectly well. I see no reason why even a line as long as Outer Harbor could be a problem for a proper light rail implementation.

And getting local councils to contribute towards the cost is an excellent idea.

I don't see a problem with part of a tram line's funding coming from a levy of perhaps 10-15 dollars a year on residents and 40-50 on businesses located near a new tram line.

Melbourne's City Loop was funded in part by a special levy on rates in the CBD; I think as a property owner if you benefit from increased values as a result of public transport improvements in your area then fair enough.

My other thought is that the proposed line to the airport via Henley Beach Rd could be subject to a special fare - Skybus in Melbourne shows how people are prepared to pay a premium for public transport that goes direct to an airport.

I object to the PortLink proposal though, it would be a significant downgrade compared to the proper trains they have at the moment.

How so?

Adelaide's heavy rail services suffer from not serving the CBD directly, rather depositing passengers at the edge.

Converting the Outer Harbor line to light rail would overcome this.

A longer run like this should probably use more suitable vehicles than the current trams which are essentially short distance high capacity vehicles.

I object to the PortLink proposal though, it would be a significant downgrade compared to the proper trains they have at the moment.

How so? Do Outer Harbor services go over 80kph at any stage? Are they filled to capacity on the pox-boxes during peak hour and is the line at maximum train capacity during that time?

Trams running as light rail can get up to 80 kph on dedicated rights-of-way that have longer spacing between stops and can run with 3 minute headways perfectly well. I see no reason why even a line as long as Outer Harbor could be a problem for a proper light rail implementation.

And getting local councils to contribute towards the cost is an excellent idea.

Yes, OH trains reach 80 on the express from Woodville except at narrow platforms where the 40 km/h restriction is a hangover from Jumbo days.
Yes, I have been unable to board a train in the peak because it was packed.
The tram from Vermont South to Melbourne is just about the same length as Outer Harbor and takes 61 minutes as opposed to the train 40. The tram now from Bowden takes several minutes longer than the train. Diverting through Port Adelaide would add much more.
Converting to light rail would mean a total shutdown of the line for several months, at the end of which we have a much slower, less comfortable ride. We use the timetable to meet our needs, a 10 minute service would not bring in much new business, Woodville to town already has 15 minute service all day and Osborne has a 15 minute service in the peak.

And any greater frequency would create serious issues with the multiple level crossings on the Port Line.

The biggest flaw with shutting down and rebuilding the Port line for trams is that it is terrible value for money!

If you have a big bundle of cash to spend on a light rail line, it's better to spend it on another route which does not currently have a rail route of any kind, so that when you're done you have one brand new light rail line and the Port line continuing to operate - a net change of +1 rail line.

If you instead spend it on rebuilding the Port line, you would lose a whole bunch of passengers due to them discovering better options during the 1-2 year shutdown, and at the end of the exercise you have spent the same money and ended up with no net change in the number of rail lines (actually a negative change temporarily) to show for it. It would barely even make sense in SimCity!

Pulling up and rebuilding (let's not kid ourselves with talking about 'conversion' as if you just need to apply some sort of adapter) the Port line should be the absolute last priority in any Adelaide tram network, and only if the SA economy is so great that government debt is being paid off, all the other more worthy projects are done and they still have more money than they know what to do with. The best way to improve the Port line will be to get on with the electrification of the Gawler line which appears to be dead in the water once again, so that additional DEMUs can be cascaded to provide additional capacity on the Port line.

And getting local councils to contribute towards the cost is an excellent idea.

Amalgamating or even abolishing councils (there's no need for any more than six in Adelaide - Onkaparinga, Adelaide Hills, Playford could all be expanded and the rest merged into three inner suburban councils for the east, north-west and south-west) and using the money saved to contribute towards the cost of tram projects would be an even better idea. A bunch of the councils in the eastern and inner southern suburbs already use a shared waste collection service to cut down on overheads, so they are already well on the way.

There are two major problems with getting councils involved in this sort of project - the first is the opportunity for petty issues to grind the process to a halt, and the second is that the money's journey from ratepayers (councils do not have a magic pot of gold, 'their' money does come from somewhere) to the state government via a convoluted detour through the council's coffers is completely unnecessary when the state government already has the power to directly levy residents and businesses.

The best way to improve the Port line will be to get on with the electrification of the Gawler line which appears to be dead in the water once again, so that additional DEMUs can be cascaded to provide additional capacity on the Port line.
...

White paint patches or white crosses with survey marks have appeared on overhead masts on the Gawler line.  Is this electrification related or associated with the recent track maintenance work that was carried out over the past couple of weeks?

Alex C

The best way to improve the Port line will be to get on with the electrification of the Gawler line which appears to be dead in the water once again, so that additional DEMUs can be cascaded to provide additional capacity on the Port line.
...

White paint patches or white crosses with survey marks have appeared on overhead masts on the Gawler line.  Is this electrification related or associated with the recent track maintenance work that was carried out over the past couple of weeks?

Alex C

I don't think it would be related to electrification. The current proposal for the next round of electrification (put back to at least 2017-18) is only for Adelaide-Salisbury, not the bits further north where masts were put up during the Rail Revitalisation project five years ago.

The best way to improve the Port line will be to get on with the electrification of the Gawler line which appears to be dead in the water once again, so that additional DEMUs can be cascaded to provide additional capacity on the Port line.
...

White paint patches or white crosses with survey marks have appeared on overhead masts on the Gawler line.  Is this electrification related or associated with the recent track maintenance work that was carried out over the past couple of weeks?

Alex C

Probably just marking which masts they can pull out and reuse

I don't think it would be related to electrification. The current proposal for the next round of electrification (put back to at least 2017-18) is only for Adelaide-Salisbury, not the bits further north where masts were put up during the Rail Revitalisation project five years ago.

I should have realised that, of course.  As you say, the current proposal is for Adelaide to Salisbury.

Alex C

The best way to improve the Port line will be to get on with the electrification of the Gawler line which appears to be dead in the water once again, so that additional DEMUs can be cascaded to provide additional capacity on the Port line.
...

White paint patches or white crosses with survey marks have appeared on overhead masts on the Gawler line.  Is this electrification related or associated with the recent track maintenance work that was carried out over the past couple of weeks?

Alex C

Probably just marking which masts they can pull out and reuse

This is all a terrible shame - that they didn't press on with Gawler electrification after Gillard reallocated the money to that cyclone in Queensland. It was one of things I was hoping would change with the elevation of Malcolm Turnbull to the top job but alas...

]This is all a terrible shame - that they didn't press on with Gawler electrification after Gillard reallocated the money to that cyclone in Queensland. It was one of things I was hoping would change with the elevation of Malcolm Turnbull to the top job but alas...

The money reallocated to Queensland was for the original O-Bahn city extension, not for the Gawler electrification.

Alex C

Seems you are right - Tony Abbott is the more likely culprit for withdrawing money shortly after his election according to this article. Either way it's been dragging on for ages now and it's an embarrassment.

The money reallocated to Queensland was for the original O-Bahn city extension, not for the Gawler electrification.

Alex C

And those funds would not have been reallocated elsewhere if the Rann government had showed some sign of committing to the project. If work on the project had proceeded any further beyond making posters, it would not have presented such a convenient target for cancellation.

Seems you are right - Tony Abbott is the more likely culprit for withdrawing money shortly after his election according to this article. Either way it's been dragging on for ages now and it's an embarrassment.

Mike Rann is the real culprit. The Rudd (1st) government allocated money for electrifying Adelaide-Gawler in 2009, but then cancelled the allocation once it became clear Rann only wanted the PR benefits and not the actual project.

Funds were never actually allocated on the second attempt in 2013, the Gillard government only made an election year promise that they would allocate funds to Adelaide-Salisbury electrification in the following budget. Even if the Rudd (2nd) government had won the 2013 federal election, there's still no guarantee that it would have been allocated in 2014 if the Rudd cabinet had decided it was a non-core promise.

I agree it's time that the Weatherill state government actually does something about it, federal funds or not. Unfortunately Jay Weatherill doesn't seem to be any different to Mike Rann - his 2014 announcement of Adelaide-Salisbury electrification works starting over three full years later in 2017-18 was just taking the piss. Until then, I thought it was still a realistic chance of being quietly included in the 2014 federal budget despite the post-election bluster from the Abbott camp.

The poor use of federal money by this state ALP government is not limited to rail projects - the Torrens to Torrens project was also at risk of having the federal money withdrawn at one stage, thanks to DPTI spinning their tyres for too long before making any progress.

It was one of things I was hoping would change with the elevation of Malcolm Turnbull to the top job but alas...

How do you know this won't change? The Turnbull government has not yet had a chance to present its first budget!

With the works due to start next year, this pre-election budget would be an excellent opportunity for an announcement of the rail component of the Northern Connector being put back on the table, or for the feds to pay for part of the difference to extend the Salisbury electrification to Gawler. Even if they don't win those seats due to the large ALP margin, there's enough people living close enough to the line that it could swing an extra Senate seat their way.

Limited value in converting a line. Money spent for a slower trip and even if OH now has light rail to city, what about the other HR lines?

Better off to actually fix the city problem for HR and extend a tunnel either as a stub or through to southern lines. The later is expensive so maybe a loop line so trains don't actully terminate as such.

A levy sounds nice but even if every man woman and child in Adelaide paid $20 a year each that's barely $30m dollars. This doesn't buy you much LR track. 300 metres?

How do you know this won't change? The Turnbull government has not yet had a chance to present its first budget!

Bet it ain't on the list.

A levy sounds nice but even if every man woman and child in Adelaide paid $20 a year each that's barely $30m dollars. This doesn't buy you much LR track. 300 metres?

Let's be honest - the amount that councils can pay would only be a symbolic contribution. Councils don't have a magic money tree which sheds its leaves at the start of every financial year, their money comes from rates which are paid by property owners.

If the government only wants a symbolic contribution, better to bypass the councils and have the state government collect it directly. Councils handling money which the state government needs to handle again is not a productive use of money, it's shrinkage!

A levy sounds nice but even if every man woman and child in Adelaide paid $20 a year each that's barely $30m dollars. This doesn't buy you much LR track. 300 metres?

Let's be honest - the amount that councils can pay would only be a symbolic contribution. Councils don't have a magic money tree which sheds its leaves at the start of every financial year, their money comes from rates which are paid by property owners.

If the government only wants a symbolic contribution, better to bypass the councils and have the state government collect it directly. Councils handling money which the state government needs to handle again is not a productive use of money, it's shrinkage!

Looking at the map, assuming nothing in the way, a pair of tunnels curving around to the right from Adelaide station after allowing for points etc would line up with Victoria Square quite nicely, its about 950m away by a rail alignment.

Each track at Victoria Square would have a platform either side to allow for rapid dwel times. In the short time you then have a turn back shunt neck and storage beyond the station and with plans to extend in future as funds become available.

From Victoria Square its another 3.5km to Goodwood Junction. Another station at South Terrace and one nth of Hyde Park/East Goodwood.

If this was completed the BG route via the Keswick could possibly be closed and with it the closure of the following stations, Goodwood, Showground and Mile End. Goodwood has the LR option nearby and Mile End may one day get a LR station for a line to the airport, Showground maybe missed? Its unlikely there would be sufficient usage to retain these stations, track and services, however diesel hauled Belair may have to continue on this route until sparked.

You could I suppose hit CBD property owners with a PT levy, but it would be a token amount but better than nothing.

I saw part of a news item where some Adelaidian politician or something quoted the price of a tramway at $30,000,000 per km, which is consistent with the most recent light rail project in Sydney - would anyone have a link to that report, or know who it was?

M

I saw part of a news item where some Adelaidian politician or something quoted the price of a tramway at $30,000,000 per km, which is consistent with the most recent light rail project in Sydney - would anyone have a link to that report, or know who it was?

M

Thats about as cheap as it gets, the GC LR was $60-80m/km.

You could I suppose hit CBD property owners with a PT levy, but it would be a token amount but better than nothing.

How about making those that use it pay a levy for it, rather than those who just happen to own something nearby (and likely don't/won't use it)?

The SA govt is very much sitting on its hands around Bowden. There was Fed money for grade separation from both sides which has national benefits as it leads to an instant increase in train length of 20% between ADE-MEL. The line would stay under Park Terrace, eliminating the level crossing and provide a low level platform slightly further south, offering air space for development. It can be built beside the existing for minimal disruption and connects two lots of parkland, lots of wins. It could emerge clear of Chief St bridge.
Procrastination is not helping anybody, including the Bowden developers who are prevented from doing anything until somebody makes a decision.
Seems to be an "if we connect the tram to the railway, we won't need it" attitude.
5 minute tram headways to Grange and Harbor lines will stuff up the Park Terrace tram crossing somewhat, as well as the other intersections.

I think it would make sense if trams ended up replacing alpha-numeric bus routes- H30, B10, W90, G10, H20, etc., then keep the same "numbers" for the trams. That way it wouldn't confuse bus/tram users. This would cover tram services to Marion and St Mary's via Winston Ave (W90/W91), Marden via Sixth Ave (W90/W90, potentially to Paradise via W90), West Lakes via Henley Beach (H30) and Grange (B10) Roads, Henley Beach/South via Henley Beach Rd (H22/H32/H33), Glenelg via Stonehouse Ave (H20), Wattle Pk and Auldana via The Parade (H22, H24), Paradise via The Parade and St Bearnards Rd (H20) and Glynburn Rd (H21), Blair Athol via Prospect Rd (G10) and Marion via Goodwood Rd (G10). Even extensions to Aberfoyle Pk via Goodwood Rd (G20/G21/G22).

Obviously this is looking very far into the future, as getting trams to all these places would be very costly and time consuming, but it's good to have a master plan.