Tram to Prospect & Grand Junction Rd

 
  Sojourner Train Controller

Interesting article in the Advertiser today on the ProspectLINK tram extention down Prospect Rd and through to Grand Junction Rd.

No mention is made though of Prospect rd being returned to being a dual lane rd after the local council had it made into a single lane rd. In its current format it is hard to see how it would work with the contra flow of traffic?

It is however mentioned that it is in the governments 30 year plan and remains unfunded. Anyway here is the article if you would like to have a look. - http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger/west-beaches/tram-to-prospect-would-create-800-jobs-boost-economy/story-fni9llx9-1227556862262

Sponsored advertisement

  patsstuffnow Junior Train Controller

Interesting to see that the government has RE ANNOUNCED this project when just over 1 km away running parallel and much further distance is a partly completed, funded, and approved project they can not finish. The Gawler rail line would carry a lot more new passengers than the total patronage on this new tram line. It seems to be that someone has half an idea and it is used to override a better , already funded idea.


This seems to be like the idea to convert the Grange and outer harbor lines to trams for a NETT gain of no new catchment area at a huge cost.
Why not consider extending the tram to Hindmarsh Stadium, along Grange Road, Past the Basketball stadium then to West Lakes to gain thousands of new customers onto trams as the current bus services in these areas are quite slow.
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
Interesting to see that the government has RE ANNOUNCED this project ................
patsstuffnow
The government has not re announced the project ...........
The proposed project is outlined in a document from the Western Regional Alliance

The Western Regional Alliance is formed by Prospect, Charles Sturt, West Torrens, Holdfast Bay and Port Adelaide Enfield councils.
It is also unfunded.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
As I've said before I feel Airport to the Parade Norwood via the City would be a better bet, the numbers would almost certainly be better.
  patsstuffnow Junior Train Controller

Prospect council mayor was a candidate for the ALP at the last state election. Charles Sturt mayor was installed by ALP to remove an independent mayor with significant support from ALP.  John Trainer is mayor of west Torrens and former ALP state polly. Only possibly independent person in this group is the Port Adelaide, Enfield mayor who stood against the ALP at the last election.  Not sure about new mayor of Holdfast Bay.
The concept of a North South and East west tram corridor makes much more sense than the current thought of coast to coast. Who would want to ride a tram from Glenelg to Semaphore or wherever via the city when you can ride a bike there faster?  Gepps X via Main North Road would likely be a better destination from Glenelg. But the theory of the current government never seems to coincide with sensible ideas.  
Recently released results say that the current expensive service using a double decker bus to the airport is averaging four passengers per trip. That would justify the state government spending to put a tram line in.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
That's disappointing and surprising; I've caught AdMet buses from the airport in the past and from what I saw they were very well patronised.
  patsstuffnow Junior Train Controller

The services J1 and J2 were regularly full because they also serviced locals and Harbour Town.  The new service with DOUBLE DECKER bus uses a different route and think about a 47kg Asian female tourist trying to get her 50 kg backpack up the stairs on a double decker stair case. Or should she leave it unattended downstairs so the drug runners can load it up for her? A long bus with wide doors and extra storage space or greater spacing between seats would in my humble opinion have been a more practical option. Apparently the bus is stabled at Aldgate depot and in the event of a dangerous fire situation there is only one exit from the depot because I think the rail overpass at Aldgate is too low to let the bus through.
  nscaler69 Deputy Commissioner

Location: There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
The 'J1X' Jet route is the double deck bus service that is mentioned at only averaging 4 passengers (only makes 10 return trips each M - F work day).

I don't think this bus would be depot-ed up at Aldgate, I think you are confusing this DD bus with the DD bus being trialed between Mt Barker and Adelaide  by a different operator.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

That's disappointing and surprising; I've caught AdMet buses from the airport in the past and from what I saw they were very well patronised.
don_dunstan

The services J1 and J2 were regularly full because they also serviced locals and Harbour Town.  
patsstuffnow
The J1/J2 still are very well used by both locals and airport users - primarily because they operate to what is almost a 'turn up and go' frequency and they run on the Grenfell-Currie axis which is still the principal east-west axis of the bus network.

The J1/J2 routes would be improved if they returned to running through to the O-Bahn, but at least it's still a change at the same stop in the city - unlike the J1X which does an anti-clockwise loop around Grote St and North Tce.

The J1X is poorly used because it is even more of a non-service than all the trains are after 6:00pm. That double-decker would be better off being redeployed to peak commuter buses on the S-E Freeway to Mt Barker (like the other one) or the Southern Expressway to Reynella/Woodcroft.

I support light rail to Adelaide Airport and onwards to Henley Beach, so long as the right vehicles are ordered - i.e. more of the same Alstom Citadis trams we have now, and no more of the bodged Flexity Classic which rides badly and has too much wasted capacity.
  patsstuffnow Junior Train Controller

Thanks for the clarification as I have not used either service.
It is interesting to consider the extra twenty seats but also interesting to consider travellers with luggage trying to get up the stairs for a twenty minute ride. But your point with the J1X raises more absurdities. If it is only operating Monday to Friday and only doing ten trips a day, why did they get a special bus for it ?

The poorly conceived bus type just makes it more of a waste of money. With airport operating 5am till 11 pm there does not seem to be a pattern for a regular interval service. In fact what does the bus do on the seven hour layover?
  nm39 Chief Commissioner

Location: By a road taking pictures
With airport operating 5am till 11 pm there does not seem to be a pattern for a regular interval service. In fact what does the bus do on the seven hour layover?
patsstuffnow
The same as what the rest of the public transport system does between midnight an 6am- nothing.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

Thanks for the clarification as I have not used either service.
It is interesting to consider the extra twenty seats but also interesting to consider travellers with luggage trying to get up the stairs for a twenty minute ride. But your point with the J1X raises more absurdities. If it is only operating Monday to Friday and only doing ten trips a day, why did they get a special bus for it ?
patsstuffnow
The two DD buses are here as a technology trial, with one being used on an inner suburban route (the airport express) and one on a long commuter route (express runs to/from Mt Barker).

So far it would appear that the inner suburban part of the trial has not produced any conclusive results regarding the technology, because it is not being deployed on a route where it can be compared with the existing baseline of the conventional buses.

It has proven quite conclusively what everyone already knew - that the key to encouraging public transport uptake is not speed but dependability and frequency. It doesn't matter if the J1/J2 might be a couple of minutes slower at certain times of the day, the wait between services (a good quantifier of convenience) of 15 minutes is far closer to the wait between services of a private car or bike (0 minutes) than it is to the wait between J1X services (at least 60 minutes).

I have no idea of how well received the express commuter runs have been.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

With airport operating 5am till 11 pm there does not seem to be a pattern for a regular interval service. In fact what does the bus do on the seven hour layover?
The same as what the rest of the public transport system does between midnight an 6am- nothing.
nm39
And a fair chunk of the system between 9am and 3pm too.

If things keep going the way they are currently with yearly price increases in excess of CPI, this proportion will start to shrink as fare-paying commuters switch to cheaper methods of transport such as bicycles and private motor vehicles. The seniors who have their fares 100% subsidised won't be affected, and will still need just as many buses in the off-peak times as they do currently.
  mclaren2007 Assistant Commissioner

Location: recharging my myki
government's got no money

ok, lets put back the trams that we tore up in the 50's

#irony
  greasyrhys Chief Commissioner

Location: MacDonald Park, SA
Why not electrify the Gawler line first? Far more people use that than Prospect road.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

Why not electrify the Gawler line first? Far more people use that than Prospect road.
greasyrhys
Because there is no need to at this time, with the existing oversupply (or latent capacity ready for future patronage increases) of world class DEMUs which have another 20+ years of service before they need to be replaced. The people of South Australia deserve to get the best value for money out of the DEMUs instead of throwing them away early.

Upgrading the Prospect Road corridor from buses to trams will be a significant improvement, much more so than electrifying the Gawler line will be at this time. Trams increase the confidence in public transport (and therefore the usage) because the rails in the streets demonstrate permanence, where a bus route can be here today and gone tomorrow.
  Sojourner Train Controller

It would be interesting to see the reasoning behind using Prospect road as opposed to the much wider Churchill Rd? If the goal is to get people to a park and ride at Grand Junction rd, then Churchill Rd may be a better option. I suspect the reason may actually be about increased property values..

Churchill Rd is close to the rail line at the top but prior to Regency road veers away and to the rear of the industrial estate. With the increased developments at Islington, the tram line going through could well pick those areas up with the increased values with more space to set it up properly as opposed to having to try to retro fit infrastructure into an already infilled Prospect rd.

Perhaps interesting as an aside is that I was also told that the power station on the corner of Churchill / Cavan Rd and Grand Junction Rd was put there to supply electricity for a proposed electrification of the rail network. As far as I know it has been used largely as a peaking plant, but have not heard it working for several years now.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
The tram down Prospect Rd to Kilburn terminating at Grand Junction makes sense from a future development point of view; there's not a lot of residents there but developers are moving in. There's a lot of industry located around there that's moving away or closing - what they did with the Clipsal site in Bowden is probably an indication of the future of those sites.

It's been a bull market for housing for the last fifteen years though - and Adelaide has no shortage of medium-density infill sites (Cheltenham Racecourse, Daw Park Repat Hospital). Even Holden is earmarked for future housing development along the lines of Dry Creek/Mawson Lakes although where the jobs are going to come from to support the people in the apartments I'm not really sure!
  nscaler69 Deputy Commissioner

Location: There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
Personally I wouldn't use Churchill Rd, to many heavy vehicles use it, where as Prospect Rd has been converted to be like King Willam Rd, slower traffic supposedly more resident / neighborhood friendly.
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
It would be interesting to see the reasoning behind using Prospect road as opposed to the much wider Churchill Rd? If the goal is to get people to a park and ride at Grand Junction rd, then Churchill Rd may be a better option. I suspect the reason may actually be about increased property values..
Sojourner

The Local Council purely wants it to get more people into the shopping precincts' along Prospect Road.

Churchill Rd is close to the rail line at the top but prior to Regency road veers away and to the rear of the industrial estate. With the increased developments at Islington, the tram line going through could well pick those areas up with the increased values with more space to set it up properly as opposed to having to try to retro fit infrastructure into an already infilled Prospect rd.
Sojourner

Churchill Road is not the area the Local Council wants to attract shoppers too.

Perhaps interesting as an aside is that I was also told that the power station on the corner of Churchill / Cavan Rd and Grand Junction Rd was put there to supply electricity for a proposed electrification of the rail network. As far as I know it has been used largely as a peaking plant, but have not heard it working for several years now.
Sojourner
That Power Plant has been there for some 30 to 40 years.
There was never was any thought of rail electrification when it was built.
It was built purely as a Peak Loading Plant.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
It would be interesting to see the reasoning behind using Prospect road as opposed to the much wider Churchill Rd? If the goal is to get people to a park and ride at Grand Junction rd, then Churchill Rd may be a better option. I suspect the reason may actually be about increased property values..
The Local Council purely wants it to get more people into the shopping precincts' along Prospect Road.
Pressman
Having witnessed how these things work for many years in Melbourne I have to agree with the local council's reasoning - trams greatly improve pubic transport access and make a shopping strip more pedestrian-friendly. Prospect Rd is not the widest throughfare in Adelaide though, again, I think the Parade at Norwood is the logical next step if only because the wider road won't restrict traffic flow while the tram is stopped.

I suspect that if they build a modern tram line down Prospect Rd that cars would have to remain stopped behind the trams as we have here on the modern Box Hill tram extension whereas the Parade would probably lend itself better to island or platform stops.
  Sojourner Train Controller

     That Power Plant has been there for some 30 to 40 years.
There was never was any thought of rail electrification when it was built.
It was built purely as a Peak Loading Plant.
"Pressman"


I am not disagreeing with you there, but was the Electrification of the Noarlunga line first proposed at some time during the 1970's with 'The News' devoting the front page to the announcement at some stage?
  steam4ian Chief Commissioner

     That Power Plant has been there for some 30 to 40 years.
There was never was any thought of rail electrification when it was built.
It was built purely as a Peak Loading Plant.


I am not disagreeing with you there, but was the Electrification of the Noarlunga line first proposed at some time during the 1970's with 'The News' devoting the front page to the announcement at some stage?
Sojourner
The gas turbine power plant at Dry Creek was built by the then ETSA as a peak plant, rail electrification was not a prime issue (if at all) in its being built.
  steam4ian Chief Commissioner

There must be a marginal seat or two through which Prospect Road runs, No other justification for a tram to Grand Junction Road over other routes.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
There must be a marginal seat or two through which Prospect Road runs, No other justification for a tram to Grand Junction Road over other routes.
steam4ian
Developers pushing heavily for it - 'projected users, increasing density'.  Same thing happens in Melbourne.

Have a look at the satellite images around Kilburn/Dry Creek, it's only 5km from the city and a developer's paradise.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Pressman, SAR526, Tonsley213

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.