In 20 years of Growth throughout the Barossa wouldn't a train be more viable then before???The real question is how many of those that have ‘grown’ the Barossa need to commute to Adelaide? Of those that need to commute, all of them are either accustomed to driving into the city, or to Gawler and catching the train.
Would anyone living in say Tanunda catch the train from Tanunda to the city? Unlikely, clearly I don’t do this, but should I wish to drive from Chateau Tanunda to the city I can do so in the time it takes the train to get from Gawler to the city. A train from Tanunda to Gawler would cost at least an extra half hour.
I just spoke with a mate that lives in Marananga which by some metric is the largest town in the Barossa, and I asked him if he would ditch the car for a train. He said ‘Nah’. He drives to Adelaide most days of the week.
So what you are saying Aaron is that there is no point in extending any Commuter rail network anywhere because the target audience is "accustomed to driving", fortunately the numbers elsewhere show a different story.
When went through the numbers on a comparable basis some time back comparing to actual driving time from the Valley to the CBD, expected rail journey time and how this compares to the Sydney Outer Richmond line where the local population is similar to the valley and distance from the Sydney CBD. Note the Richmond line is sparked and has what a 20min peak frequency using trains with a seated capacity of over 1000 people. So I'm sure a few Adelaide DMU's might fill more than a few seats. Yes the catchment to rail in lower density Greater Adelaide is likely to be lower the Barossa is itself a tourist/day trip destination which provide a reverse peak flow of traffic.
While the will is not there, it will not happen, but I doubt its due to the potential numbers. Hell the current SA govt has stated it won't invest in any more tram expansion as it believes the technology is out of date.
In Victoria, if the same question was asked around 20 years ago of the typical commuter driving their car from say Ballarat to Melbourne, around 200+Km a day, the answer would also have been 'nar'. This is only one example.
Move forward 20 years and a generational change. Ballarat hosted, before COVID-19 a commuter base of around 1500+ pax per morning commute, growing strongly, each pax travelling AND working or sleeping/relaxing whilst travelling, something that remains impossible in a car.
Moreover the train is FAR cheaper than driving and works out to little more than the daily parking cost in the City. Obviously this doesn't include vehicle running costs AND the wear and tear on the driver.
The progressive government in Victoria knows that public transport is more capable of moving large numbers of people around than building more and more roads and widening others, except where necessary. In addition an unexpected bonus for the investment in public transport is the generational change that comes with utilising PT as a first option as a mode of transport, not an afterthought and the proof of that is the many 'young' people in their early 20's who utilise PT to travel to venues for their social activities, whose parents would have driven cars. The blood alcohol and drug testing has also had a significant impact of the travel options young people utilise.
As the Marshall government continues its downward trajectory on public transport, it will be to its detriment and electoral oblivion if its thinking continues in such a misguided way.
Comment to the contrary as you may, but the facts here speak for themselves.