SA Footy

Good to see it all taking shape along North Tce.
I wonder whether in years to come it will be extended down Port Rd, North Tce (through to the East end), & down towards Adelaide Oval- maybe into North Adelaide.
I would not be surpeised if the Governmant is testing the water with this one, for future tram development.
I am all for it, & I think the (Liberal?) Government that removed our tram infrastructure has a lot to answer for- what was the public opinion at the time of it's removal for older posters?

I think you could be spot on re: future development, it's a pity we have to foot the bill to replace something that should never have been removed in the first place. I'm all for the extension if it is the start of a new light rail system spreading out into the suburbs, but if it were to remain finished in the City West precinct, IMHO, it would be a total waste.

Punk Rooster wrote:Good to see it all taking shape along North Tce.
I wonder whether in years to come it will be extended down Port Rd, North Tce (through to the East end), & down towards Adelaide Oval- maybe into North Adelaide.
I would not be surpeised if the Governmant is testing the water with this one, for future tram development.
I am all for it, & I think the (Liberal?) Government that removed our tram infrastructure has a lot to answer for- what was the public opinion at the time of it's removal for older posters?

I'm not sure it wasn't Donny Dunstan, the same guy who first spent the state superannuation funds, saying it didn't matter as the state government would put it back as needed - but of course John Bannon found he couldn't. [He also sacked the Commissioner of Police on spurious grounds, and exempted the SA Housing Trust from the Housing & Tenancies Act on the grounds that a government department would always treat its tenants fairly! HAHAHA]

There were huge protests and that's why the Glenelg tram was saved as a token to placate the protesters to some extent, as it was the least run down and in what was then a relatively low traffic region and occupied its own land instead of sharing the roads.

In inner Melbourne the trams are an assett. In Melbourne there are two classes of public transport. Trams in the inner wealthier suburbs, and trains you wouldn't use without your own armed guard from the outer areas. Buses are buses and about the same everywhere. When the premier Bracks first stood for the Labor party he promised to extend the tram service but it proved to be a non-core promise, and we got Tollways for cars instead.

I'm all for it. We live close to the Tramline and often catch it down to Glenelg or to the City. Besides that, it is a quick and efficient way to travel and it will be used a lot more than the nay-sayers would have us believe.

If its going to be expanded I have no issue with it.
If its merely going to be etended to where the plans say now and never extended further it'll be the biggest waste of money of all time.
Honestly, how hard is it to walk half a mile or catch a Bee line if you're elderly or frail?

I have had several letters in the paper (Advertiser) in support of the Tram Extension and am glad to see that Rann and his cronies decided to stand against public pressure and go ahead with it, the so called "protest" on the steps of Parliment house - Scrap the tram, build a dam, turned out to be a massive fizzer and I think the organisers of it knew at that point that they were beaten.

It amazes me that anytime someone attempts to invest into South Australia that it is usually howled down immediantly, Lecornu Site North Adelaide is a good example, CMI Toyota's redevelopment on West Terrace another example of why there should not be an Adelaide Council at all.

Most likely the plan will be to loop the tram around back to Victoria Square going along West Terrace then back to the Square. Yet I have also heard it suggested that the developers of the Newport Quays development are keen to have the tram running around down there, if that could be done and branched off to Football Park that would be great!

Psyber wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:Good to see it all taking shape along North Tce.
I wonder whether in years to come it will be extended down Port Rd, North Tce (through to the East end), & down towards Adelaide Oval- maybe into North Adelaide.
I would not be surpeised if the Governmant is testing the water with this one, for future tram development.
I am all for it, & I think the (Liberal?) Government that removed our tram infrastructure has a lot to answer for- what was the public opinion at the time of it's removal for older posters?

I'm not sure it wasn't Donny Dunstan, the same guy who first spent the state superannuation funds, saying it didn't matter as the state government would put it back as needed - but of course John Bannon found he couldn't. [He also sacked the Commissioner of Police on spurious grounds, and exempted the SA Housing Trust from the Housing & Tenancies Act on the grounds that a government department would always treat its tenants fairly! HAHAHA]

There were huge protests and that's why the Glenelg tram was saved as a token to placate the protesters to some extent, as it was the least run down and in what was then a relatively low traffic region and occupied its own land instead of sharing the roads.

In inner Melbourne the trams are an assett. In Melbourne there are two classes of public transport. Trams in the inner wealthier suburbs, and trains you wouldn't use without your own armed guard from the outer areas. Buses are buses and about the same everywhere. When the premier Bracks first stood for the Labor party he promised to extend the tram service but it proved to be a non-core promise, and we got Tollways for cars instead.

You're right. You can't be sure. It was done in 1958 under the Playford Government.

I remember the tram depot with lines going everywhere in town (Wakefield St I think??) still in the 70s but was that just to accomodate the Glenelg tram?

<edit>

Found this and Im assuming the answer to my question above was yes it was only open for the Glenelg tram:

In 1929 the MTT ran its first tram to Glenelg, having taken over a heavy rail line, converted it to 1435 mm gauge, and electrified it. (See also: more detailed history.) For this service, the type H tram was introduced. This line is the only one to survive: all other lines closed by 22 November 1958. The type H trams are still running today, which, since the retirement of Melbourne's W2 trams, makes them the oldest trams serving in the country.

In the late 1970s, it was planned to extend the Glenelg tram line through to the north-eastern suburbs along the Torrens river valley. The plan would have required tunnels under King William St in the central city extending from the current terminus to the river parklands. The plans got as far as commencement of trial borings in 1979. However, there was a change of government and the project was replaced with the O-bahn guided busway

Psyber wrote:In inner Melbourne the trams are an assett. In Melbourne there are two classes of public transport. Trams in the inner wealthier suburbs, and trains you wouldn't use without your own armed guard from the outer areas. Buses are buses and about the same everywhere. When the premier Bracks first stood for the Labor party he promised to extend the tram service but it proved to be a non-core promise, and we got Tollways for cars instead.

I'm not sure there's a lot of affluence along the number 55 route to West Maribyrnong.

Buses aren't all the same - sit on an old rattler that Ventura runs on the 737 Mitcham-Croydon route.

Trams have indeed been extended on the the 75 to Vermont South (which I believe will eventually get to Knox City), as well as the 109 route to Box Hill (although only small, a handy one).

Jeff Kennett first introduced tollways.

Wedgie wrote:I remember the tram depot with lines going everywhere in town (Wakefield St I think??) still in the 70s but was that just to accomodate the Glenelg tram?

Acroos the road from the old Police HQ in Vic Square, they were still there until recentley (SA Govt. building new SA Water offices there now). They only stopped using the old tram barns much later than the '70's, when the new barns were built on Morpett Rd. They originaly accomadated much more than the Glenelg trams, but that would have been all since the others were closed.

Pity to see the old building go, but it is being replaced with a building that is seeking a 6 star energy rating.

..

PhilG wrote:Ummm, Mac - 55 goes to West Coburg. West Maribyrnong is 57.

Er, yeah. But same theorem there too! And the 86 to Bundoora.

McAlmanac wrote:

Psyber wrote:In inner Melbourne the trams are an assett. In Melbourne there are two classes of public transport. Trams in the inner wealthier suburbs, and trains you wouldn't use without your own armed guard from the outer areas. Buses are buses and about the same everywhere. When the premier Bracks first stood for the Labor party he promised to extend the tram service but it proved to be a non-core promise, and we got Tollways for cars instead.

I'm not sure there's a lot of affluence along the number 55 route to West Maribyrnong.

Buses aren't all the same - sit on an old rattler that Ventura runs on the 737 Mitcham-Croydon route.

Trams have indeed been extended on the the 75 to Vermont South (which I believe will eventually get to Knox City), as well as the 109 route to Box Hill (although only small, a handy one).

Jeff Kennett first introduced tollways.

He also got rid of conductors on Trams. And you'd never believe it vandalism and incidents have gone up - particularly at night. Hard to believe. And for some reason fare revenue seems to have dropped.

Bloody Victorians hijacking our topic about our tramline, you'd think they had more tramlines than us the way they carry on!

Leaping Lindner wrote:

Psyber wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:Good to see it all taking shape along North Tce.
I wonder whether in years to come it will be

I'm not sure it wasn't Donny Dunstan....

You're right. You can't be sure. It was done in 1958 under the Playford Government.

Thank you - I hadn't realised it went back that far - I knew it was before last post-Dunstan Liberal state government.

Wedgie wrote:Bloody Victorians hijacking our topic about our tramline, you'd think they had more tramlines than us the way they carry on!

In Victoria they have trams - plural , in South Australia they have tram - singular

McAlmanac wrote:

Psyber wrote:In inner Melbourne the trams are an assett. In Melbourne there are two classes of public transport. Trams in the inner wealthier suburbs, and trains you wouldn't use without your own armed guard from the outer areas. Buses are buses and about the same everywhere. When the premier Bracks first stood for the Labor party he promised to extend the tram service but it proved to be a non-core promise, and we got Tollways for cars instead.

I'm not sure there's a lot of affluence along the number 55 route to West Maribyrnong.

Buses aren't all the same - sit on an old rattler that Ventura runs on the 737 Mitcham-Croydon route.

Trams have indeed been extended on the the 75 to Vermont South (which I believe will eventually get to Knox City), as well as the 109 route to Box Hill (although only small, a handy one).

Jeff Kennett first introduced tollways.

I must admit, being an Adelaide boy only living in Melbourne a few years, I am really only familiar with the eastern suburbs, where what I said applies. I have occasionally driven up Mitcham Rd in Melbourne's outer east, but I rarely go that far north either. I tend to go up the Burwood Highway.

Bracks promised to extend the trams to Upper Ferntree Gully - much further than Vermont South - at the same time there was not going to be a toll on the "freeway" running North-South in the outer east. [I forget what it is called this week.] I am aware Jeff Kennet introduced tollways first, but he didn't say they were going to be freeways as far as I know - it was before I came to Melbourne.

this is from transportSA website

Its a 5 minute walk you lazy people. Even if its raining, its 80% under cover

pafc1870 wrote:Its a 5 minute walk you lazy people. Even if its raining, its 80% under cover

Yes, but if you're going to offer a tram service it should at least go to where you want to go. It doesn't actually get to the CBD or shopping precinct, which is puzzling for out of towners.