News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyWelsh
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:44 pm
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 634 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#646 Post by AndyWelsh » Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:11 pm

Transport Minister Stephan Knoll announced during the Monday public holiday:
“The State Government will not be progressing with the original GlobeLink proposal. The Government is clearly disappointed with the results of the business case.”

The business case report finds that:

- current air freight in SA is only around 10 per cent of the amount needed to make GlobeLink viable.

- fears an existing freight rail link would hit capacity in the 2030s, a major reason for launching the business case, are no longer valid as trucks are taking more goods.

- the project would cost about $7 billion.

- neither the airport, planned freeway connection or even the freight rail upgrade would deliver a benefit that justified the immense costs involved.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Pistol
Legendary Member!
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#647 Post by Pistol » Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:08 am

AndyWelsh wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:11 pm
Transport Minister Stephan Knoll announced during the Monday public holiday:
“The State Government will not be progressing with the original GlobeLink proposal. The Government is clearly disappointed with the results of the business case.”

The business case report finds that:

- current air freight in SA is only around 10 per cent of the amount needed to make GlobeLink viable.

- fears an existing freight rail link would hit capacity in the 2030s, a major reason for launching the business case, are no longer valid as trucks are taking more goods.

- the project would cost about $7 billion.

- neither the airport, planned freeway connection or even the freight rail upgrade would deliver a benefit that justified the immense costs involved.

Image



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m pretty sure they would’ve known that information prior to making Globelink their cornerstone election piece.

Does this remind anyone of an episode of Utopia?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken

Bob
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:16 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#648 Post by Bob » Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:14 am

The positives out of this:

The study reinforces a need for a NS MW to SE FW connection – that should be added to Infrastructure SA’s list of priorities and now be part of the NS MW project planning.

If trucks are carrying more of the freight, that further supports the argument for a continual duplication process for highways from Pt Wakefield to Pt Augusta, Tailem Bend to Vic border and Barossa to Riverland. May take decades but could do piece by piece as funding allows.

Adelaide Airport can get on with executing against their Masterplan without worrying about losing freight business.

The rail alignment staying via Adelaide instead of bypassing Adelaide removes uncertainty about GSR staying with their HQ & operational base in Adelaide, through freight trains from Melbourne to Perth can still drop off/pick up containers enroute at Adelaide (Islington).

If a future realigned freight route is still required, then planning should go back to the 2010 study and seriously reconsider the Mt Bold detour option (Southern Alignment option), the most expensive but the most effective operationally for the long term. That could be a 20 year plan, long distance intermodal freight demand is still growing, hence the $10 Billion investment in the inland rail line from Melbourne to Brisbane, so one day Adelaide will still need the new rail alignment, just not now, according to the KPMG report.

Here is the KPMG Globelink report & the 2010 Rail Alignment Study

https://dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pd ... s_Case.pdf

https://investment.infrastructure.gov.a ... Report.pdf

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: City
Has thanked: 737 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#649 Post by SRW » Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:53 am

Bob wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:14 am
The positives out of this:

The study reinforces a need for a NS MW to SE FW connection – that should be added to Infrastructure SA’s list of priorities and now be part of the NS MW project planning.

If trucks are carrying more of the freight, that further supports the argument for a continual duplication process for highways from Pt Wakefield to Pt Augusta, Tailem Bend to Vic border and Barossa to Riverland. May take decades but could do piece by piece as funding allows.

Adelaide Airport can get on with executing against their Masterplan without worrying about losing freight business.

The rail alignment staying via Adelaide instead of bypassing Adelaide removes uncertainty about GSR staying with their HQ & operational base in Adelaide, through freight trains from Melbourne to Perth can still drop off/pick up containers enroute at Adelaide (Islington).

If a future realigned freight route is still required, then planning should go back to the 2010 study and seriously reconsider the Mt Bold detour option (Southern Alignment option), the most expensive but the most effective operationally for the long term. That could be a 20 year plan, long distance intermodal freight demand is still growing, hence the $10 Billion investment in the inland rail line from Melbourne to Brisbane, so one day Adelaide will still need the new rail alignment, just not now, according to the KPMG report.
Good points, and agreed re: southern alignment. Given the Torrens and Goodwood junction upgrades were a significant proportion of the original cost estimation for this alignment, it'd be interesting to see where that estimate sits now that they're completed. And any future study should consider broader transport network implications.
Keep Adelaide Weird

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1499
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 458 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#650 Post by SBD » Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:26 pm

Both reports appear to calculate the economic benefits of a proposed upgrade/alternative route against the current freight trend. A quick glance does not reveal that either report appears to consider the possibility that a better rail corridor would attract freight from the road (back) onto rails.

The Inland Rail project will raise the capacity between Melbourne and Parkes, where it crosses the Sydney-Perth corridor. That could become the "east of the hills" bypass on the Melbourne-Perth and Melbourne-Darwin routes. A New South Wales upgrade/reopening of the link from Junee through Griffith to Roto on the Broken Hill line would shorten that route a little more.

mattwinter
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 3:21 pm
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#651 Post by mattwinter » Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:44 pm

Report makes interesting reading...

Shame they didn't seem to consider the SA Freight Council's south-east link idea (connecting the SE Freeway to the N-S Motorway via Brownhill Creek route)... which was obviously only put forward recently but it's my favourite of the options so far

Eurostar
Legendary Member!
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#652 Post by Eurostar » Tue Jan 28, 2020 6:12 pm

SBD wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:26 pm
Both reports appear to calculate the economic benefits of a proposed upgrade/alternative route against the current freight trend. A quick glance does not reveal that either report appears to consider the possibility that a better rail corridor would attract freight from the road (back) onto rails.

The Inland Rail project will raise the capacity between Melbourne and Parkes, where it crosses the Sydney-Perth corridor. That could become the "east of the hills" bypass on the Melbourne-Perth and Melbourne-Darwin routes. A New South Wales upgrade/reopening of the link from Junee through Griffith to Roto on the Broken Hill line would shorten that route a little more.
Speaking of freight trains, has bio diesel been trialled on freight trains as an alternative fuel source?

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: City
Has thanked: 737 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#653 Post by SRW » Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:08 pm

mattwinter wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:44 pm
Report makes interesting reading...

Shame they didn't seem to consider the SA Freight Council's south-east link idea (connecting the SE Freeway to the N-S Motorway via Brownhill Creek route)... which was obviously only put forward recently but it's my favourite of the options so far
It's fairly similar in aim to the 'Short South' link proposed in KPMG's report.
Keep Adelaide Weird

mattwinter
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 3:21 pm
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#654 Post by mattwinter » Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:50 am

SRW wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:08 pm
mattwinter wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:44 pm
Report makes interesting reading...

Shame they didn't seem to consider the SA Freight Council's south-east link idea (connecting the SE Freeway to the N-S Motorway via Brownhill Creek route)... which was obviously only put forward recently but it's my favourite of the options so far
It's fairly similar in aim to the 'Short South' link proposed in KPMG's report.
Similar in concept, but the big difference is the 'Short South' idea starts at Mount Barker... I would have thought starting the tunnel at the arrester bed near the freeway toll gate would make for a much cheaper solution... The distance for the Mount Barker option would have to be at least triple. Globelink's suggestion was that the 'Short South' link won't be viable for a while, but it may well be that doing the link from near the toll gate is a much more immediately ready solution.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1499
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 458 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#655 Post by SBD » Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:27 pm

mattwinter wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:50 am
SRW wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:08 pm
mattwinter wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:44 pm
Report makes interesting reading...

Shame they didn't seem to consider the SA Freight Council's south-east link idea (connecting the SE Freeway to the N-S Motorway via Brownhill Creek route)... which was obviously only put forward recently but it's my favourite of the options so far
It's fairly similar in aim to the 'Short South' link proposed in KPMG's report.
Similar in concept, but the big difference is the 'Short South' idea starts at Mount Barker... I would have thought starting the tunnel at the arrester bed near the freeway toll gate would make for a much cheaper solution... The distance for the Mount Barker option would have to be at least triple. Globelink's suggestion was that the 'Short South' link won't be viable for a while, but it may well be that doing the link from near the toll gate is a much more immediately ready solution.
The arrestor bed solution addresses the safety aspect of the traffic lights at Glen Osmond, but is effectively an upgrade of Cross Road.

Short South provides a completely new route which would significantly change access from Mount Barker and beyond to the industrial and commercial (and educational) areas of southern Adelaide, for "normal" traffic as well as freight.

I cannot guess whether it would be a "bold vision" (and vote winner) or "industrial blight on the landscape" (and vote loser). I don't live in that area any more, and don't know which way I would view it if I did.

mattwinter
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 3:21 pm
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#656 Post by mattwinter » Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:21 pm

You are referring to this plan, correct?
Image

I guess in some ways this isn't much different to upgrading Cross Road except that it avoids lots of problems like the massive amount of compulsory aquisition that a Cross Road upgrade would require.

For me starting a link to the N-S motorway at Mount Barker is really just duplicating the S-E freeway except further South. I'm thinking that this plan would have similar benefits for much less money. Freight could go straight down the freeway, through the new tunnel and come out right in the heart of the industrial areas of the southern suburbs...

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: City
Has thanked: 737 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#657 Post by SRW » Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:06 pm

I think one of the arguments that KPMG gave for the Short South option was that it met the Globelink objective of providing a contingency for freight, which currently has to follow a diversion of 127kms at a cost of $230 per trip if the freeway closes.
Keep Adelaide Weird

mattwinter
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 3:21 pm
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#658 Post by mattwinter » Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:44 pm

Yeah okay - interesting. Still I'd like to see the arrester bed v short south options both properly considered and costed in the next couple of years.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1499
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 458 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#659 Post by SBD » Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:06 pm

mattwinter wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:44 pm
Yeah okay - interesting. Still I'd like to see the arrester bed v short south options both properly considered and costed in the next couple of years.
Yes, that would be an interesting comparison, using two different sets of criteria. The Globelink study appeared to be based solely on cheaper/more efficient transport of the freight on the current demand projected forward from (recent) historic demand. It did not appear to consider any (freight or passenger) demand induced from the existence of a new route. I imagine there is more to gain from Short South than from Arrestor Bed option in that respect.

When I said southern suburbs industry, I was thinking of the Port Stanvac/Lonsdale area, not (just) the St Marys/Tonsley area.

ml69
Legendary Member!
Posts: 934
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:16 pm
Location: Adelaide SA
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 92 times

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

#660 Post by ml69 » Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:52 am

SBD wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:06 pm
mattwinter wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:44 pm
Yeah okay - interesting. Still I'd like to see the arrester bed v short south options both properly considered and costed in the next couple of years.
Yes, that would be an interesting comparison, using two different sets of criteria. The Globelink study appeared to be based solely on cheaper/more efficient transport of the freight on the current demand projected forward from (recent) historic demand. It did not appear to consider any (freight or passenger) demand induced from the existence of a new route. I imagine there is more to gain from Short South than from Arrestor Bed option in that respect.

When I said southern suburbs industry, I was thinking of the Port Stanvac/Lonsdale area, not (just) the St Marys/Tonsley area.
I’m absolutely confident that the vast majority of freight which arrives from the SE Freeway is bound for the northern suburbs of Adelaide, not the south. And same in the opposite direction.

So therefore we wouldn’t want a connection too far south.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests