Sensational-Adelaide.com

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an existing freight rail link would hit capacity in the 2030s, a major reason for launching the business case, are no longer valid as trucks are taking more goods.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

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an existing freight rail link would hit capacity in the 2030s, a major reason for launching the business case, are no longer valid as trucks are taking more goods.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





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?

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

You are referring to this plan, correct?


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...

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.

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.

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.

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.