O-bahn tunnel would be cheaper than rail and busses can the run to Glenelg, Marion etc from the Airport.
(you'd be amazed how many people drive to the airport or get dropped off/picked up because of a lack of services to the airport)

You'd be amazed at how impractical it is to take your 23-30kg of checked luggage plus your carry on luggage on the bus. You might also be amazed to learn that the bus also drops you at a remarkably greater distance from where you want to be than a car/taxi/Uber dropping you off, or a car parking. You will also be amazed to learn that whilst I don't have to commute by air all that often, when I do, it's already inconvenient enough for me to have waste a couple of hours checking and waiting for my flight, that if faced with the inconvenience of needing to wait for PT and double my home-airport travel time using PT I would resign rather than do the travel.

When you are a bit more grown up you won't find any of those things all that amazing at all.

A bit more grown up? Why the personal attack? You must be one of those uneducated bogans from the North I've heard about.

You get dropped of at the bus stop. You catch a bus to the airport, It drops you off pretty much where your uber or taxi would, Oh and it won't cost you... from Elizabeth to the Airport I'd guess $60+

Also smart*ss if you're heading on a longer holiday, I'd assume you wouldn't be catching the bus to the airport.
If you where heading interstate or coming from interstate you might want to save some cash and catch the bus to the airport.

The previous Labour government suggested a Tram to the airport. Both Henley Beach Rd and Sir Donald Bradman Drive are busy enough now with out trying to run a tram down either, it won't work. Which is why I suggesting a bus network.

For those wondering in the UK the Government took back control of most of the network that was "privatised".

How ever the services that are privatised are quite unique. The government allows operators to use their own trains on the lines. The Government set up timetables and opened them up for private companies to run the service, I don't know how much the Government makes any profit I'm assuming it's from "selling" the service.

Privatising it using this model works because if the private operator want's to keep their services they need to run on time with high customer satisfaction. there was one company that failed so badly that the government took back control of that service and it now runs fine.

I don't see exactly how the government will make that much money from privatising the train and tram networks. The only money they will save is not paying the wages of the staff who will be employed by a private company instead of the government.

The Labour government won't take the trains and trams back? Of course they will, it will fail spectacularly and will cot the Libs the next election.

You have a very interesting perspective of the British system.

For those wondering in the UK the Government took back control of most of the network that was "privatised".

The former British Rail network has never been truly privatised (i.e. deregulated) but only outsourced. Right from when franchising began in the 1990s, the government has been exercising control of the system by the way that it controls the franchise bidding.

How ever the services that are privatised are quite unique. The government allows operators to use their own trains on the lines.

In practice, the 'market' for leasing trains (franchise operators must lease their trains, not own them) is very tight due to the unique requirements of the former British Rail network. Selection of trains is not open, at the least it is subject to government approval during the franchising process and on a number of franchises it is specified as a condition of the franchise bids by the government.

Future operators of the Great Western Main Line and East Coast Main Line franchises, for example, will be stuck with using the InterCity Express Programme units whether they like them or not.

The Government set up timetables and opened them up for private companies to run the service,  

Quite the opposite. There is nothing open at all about the British franchising system, as the government grants exclusive rights to each franchise region and specifies what the franchisee is to do in that area.

Open access services are permitted, but only if they are not in competition with services run by the franchise operator for that region. There are only three open access services at the moment - London-Hull, London-Bradford, London-Sunderland.

I don't know how much the Government makes any profit I'm assuming it's from "selling" the service.

The government is not in it for a profit, just like ours will not be either.

Profitable operators pay a portion of their profits to the government. The amount of 'premium' paid is part of the bidding process.

Franchises which are not profitable are tendered on the basis of which bidder can operate that franchise and meet all the requirements with the smallest amount of subsidy. Broadly speaking, this is the model proposed for use in Adelaide.

The sum total of all the premiums and subsidies is still a net subsidy, but the average subsidy per passenger mile is much less than it was under British Rail and the quality of service far higher. This makes it a net improvement compared to the BR days.

Privatising it using this model works because if the private operator want's to keep their services they need to run on time with high customer satisfaction. there was one company that failed so badly that the government took back control of that service and it now runs fine.

Incorrect. The government of the UK controls the franchising process (not customers) and assesses the bids 'blind' on their merits rather than on opinions of previous performance.

A company only loses its franchise if it fails to meet the specified conditions of their contract with the government, not on whether the passengers hate them.

The three open access services mentioned above are different. They don't have any guaranteed deal from the government and can go bust if their parent companies let them.

I don't see exactly how the government will make that much money from privatising the train and tram networks. The only money they will save is not paying the wages of the staff who will be employed by a private company instead of the government.

Outsourcing operations is not about making a profit, but about reducing losses by paying a private company to operate it more efficiently than the public service can.

The way to ensure probity is to require that a publicly-owned bid be included in the competitive tender process, which is common in mainland Europe and was even done in Adelaide with the first two rounds of bus tenders run by the previous Liberal government in 1995 and 2000. If the public bid wins on merit (as it did with Hills Transit, a TransAdelaide owned company) then it stays in public hands, if a private bid wins then operations get transferred to the winning private operator.

The Labour government won't take the trains and trams back? Of course they will, it will fail spectacularly and will cot the Libs the next election.

Nonsense.

Labor re-tendered each of the bus areas when they expired, and did away with having a public bid included for each tender. Outside of the transit arena, they also privatised a number of other state agencies.

Why wouldn't they continue their same policy? They just need the Libs to do the dirty work for them and they'll carry on with it.

Whether it works will depend largely on the management who are hired to oversee it - just like a public owned service is not intrinsically good, it is only good if it is operated well. Anyone who remembers the STA era of buses in Adelaide will easily recognise that it is not black and white.

For those wondering in the UK the Government took back control of most of the network that was "privatised".

How ever the services that are privatised are quite unique. The government allows operators to use their own trains on the lines. The Government set up timetables and opened them up for private companies to run the service, I don't know how much the Government makes any profit I'm assuming it's from "selling" the service.

Privatising it using this model works because if the private operator want's to keep their services they need to run on time with high customer satisfaction. there was one company that failed so badly that the government took back control of that service and it now runs fine.

I don't see exactly how the government will make that much money from privatising the train and tram networks. The only money they will save is not paying the wages of the staff who will be employed by a private company instead of the government.

The Labour government won't take the trains and trams back? Of course they will, it will fail spectacularly and will cot the Libs the next election.

You have your head well and truely stuck in the sand on this. You have no idea of what is actually about to happen and ignoring comments by various posters of what IS REALLY HAPPENING. Your comment on wages is case in point.

Suggestion, before repeating unqualified comments of which are no relevance to Adelaide, why don't you ask. Justapassenger made an excellent post above, take your time to read it and understand it.

On the last paragraph, why would the ALP take it back? They didn't with the buses, if fact the opposite and they haven't in Melbourne except for V/line because it was dumped into their lab as too much of a basket case at the time. IF you haven't noticed the ALP is just as much about privatising, selling assets and contracting out as the LNP, just some areas are all too hard.

My only objection to this is that the Minister said specifically he wouldn't do it during the election campaign.

It would not be allowable to build a new rail tunnel like the narrow ones in the Adelaide Hills, certainly not for a passenger railway.

The Melbourne Metro tunnels being built at the moment will have a diameter of about 7.5 metres, in order to accomodate the evacuation/maintenance walkways, electrical equipment, signalling equipment, safety equipment and lighting.

The two running tunnels of the Channel Tunnel have diameters of over 8.5 metres, because they need to accomodate a much larger loading gauge than the restrictive loading gauge used in Melbourne.

A new road tunnel with two lanes and a shoulder on one side (e.g. one carriageway of a road like the North-South Motorway) would need to be much wider than one of these single track rail tunnels, and so the total cost would probably be quite similar given all the additional equipment which needs to be installed for a rail tunnel.


If an O-Bahn tunnel was built using a pair of single track bored tunnels (like you would do for a rail tunnel) then the configuration would be fairly similar to that of a modern rail tunnel.

Whats the Sydney Metro tunnels, 6m?

The Channel Tunnel's also need to accommodate space for a train moving at 160km/h for an extended period to still provide enough air for cooling the traction motors and other bits.

IF we use the ECRL as a guide from the pictures you can see the train fits in the tunnel, there is a section of walk way to the side and that pretty much it.

For a road tunnel, even a 1 lane tunnel you need the normal lane width plus location to the side for breakdown. So yes I suppose it all fits into roughly the same size hole although road is a non-controlled transport mode, rail is more controlled, I'm sure this has some baring on other parts of the design but overall the cost won't change a great deal. However they would also never get away with building a bus dedicated tunnel only, it would be an open road tunnel, thus making it bigger.

It won't happen either way as no way Adelaide can justify or need a road tunnel by-passing the CBD to go to the airport.

Bus from the CBD to the airport is sufficient, if you are on the O-bahn, simple, change buses. The airport buses tend to also have better and more spaces for bags than normal buses. Longer term I would envisage a tram extension to the airport, although the current minister seems to have his head stuck in the ground on future rail based tram extensions.

In the land of free enterprise, the USA, I am not aware of one urban system that is run privately. New York City Council had to take over the subways to keep them going. I think that tells you that public transport is best run by government. Your little toy railway in Dubai (I see the facist who rules the place wife and kids has escaped to London out of fear) is not comparable to other systems.

In the land of they think they are actually free, but actually not things are done a bit differently aren't they.

I'm not about to audit the entire USA public transport but I won't disagree. Meanwhile the Japanese systems are mostly private owned and operated with what sort of on time running performance?????

The Japanese Systems are Privatised yes, But they run on Heavy Government subsidies.

O-bahn tunnel would be cheaper than rail and busses can the run to Glenelg, Marion etc from the Airport.
(you'd be amazed how many people drive to the airport or get dropped off/picked up because of a lack of services to the airport)

Oh I have no faith in a privatised system working, No one will want to spend money running trains and trams when they get nothing back from it. the Government doesn't want to pay for our trains to run.

Mawsoonboli, DJpeters and Allan and anyone else who thinks the above is correct need to have a think.

THE RAILWAY ASSET IS NOT BEING PRIVATISED, NOTHING IS BEING SOLD - Got that!

The govt is contracting out the management and its day to day operation. Should the govt redraw funding do you know how many trains would run immediately after the cutoff date. ZERO. The operator would run the trains to the end of the service at the time and then terminate and return to depo immediately. The operators doesn't even get to keep the farebox.

If the govt didn't want to pay to run the trains then doing what they are doing IS THE LAST THING THEY WOULD DO! Why because a third party is now involved that could easily leak to the public or go public as needed if they felt they were being screwed by the govt who is actually paying for each train.

Train tunnels are likely cheaper, no exhaust fumes to deal with and you only need a 5-6m or so diameter bore and you can build the tunnel only a few cm larger than the train. No need breakdown lanes etc.

How many people would catch the O-bahn to the airport, SWFA? Extend the tram to the airport by all means to service the route on the way, but don't waste money building a bus tunnel at a cost $300-500M through a city that takes 5-8min to cross out of peak for a few people an hour to benefit from.  

How many people drive to the airport in one form or another is probably 90% of the 8mpa users.
How many people do you think do the same to Sydney with its 40mpa users. 8mpa use the train, probably same use other buses, leaves +20mpa use a car in some way. Adelaide has a long way to go to catch up.

I never said that the whole lot was being sold and understand how it operates similar to the buses most buses here are Govt owned but driven by drivers working for a private company and that was not a success either really. So we are to get more of the same on the trains and trams by the look of it.

David, you’re crazy.

Nope just a realist and stranger things have happened. But like I said Adelaide is seen by most as just a large country town and not much more.

I don't think realist is a word I would use in reference to yourself.

Strange things don't generally happen, many things happen, but that they're invariably not that strange.

That said, many strange things don't happen, for example a response to the final question in this post, maybe that's not such a strange thing after all.

There will of course be a tender, and you are not a realist if you think otherwise.

Aaron please keep your views and personal attacks to yourself you are only a youngster and really have a lot to learn at times. I have not had a go at you personally, so please keep the thread on the right track and not get into personal attacks on any one on here. We are all free to add our thoughts etc on here and we do not need to ask your permission to do it, even if you think so, so in future it might be best to stop these unwarranted attacks on people for no other reason than you have an inflated ego and it shows at times as well. You attack anyone who even dares say something against what you believe and I am not the only one on here you have attacked either, it is beyond a joke actually, so keep it civil.

One other person thinks the same as me about your personal attacks on people.

Bus from the CBD to the airport is sufficient, if you are on the O-bahn, simple, change buses.

The main airport bus routes have gone back to being through buses from the O-Bahn after a period under the previous government when they were only running to the city.

The best performing corridor in the entire Adelaide Metro multi-mode system and the airport being on roughly opposite sides of the city makes this a natural fit.

Some method of getting the buses to stop closer to the terminal shouldn't be beyond the best minds of this state though. Rising bollards maybe?

I never said that the whole lot was being sold and understand how it operates similar to the buses most buses here are Govt owned but driven by drivers working for a private company and that was not a success either really. So we are to get more of the same on the trains and trams by the look of it.

Every area I've lived in has a better bus service now than it did in the STA days.

I guess that's why the Labor government declared it was a winning move and completed the partial privatisation of the bus system which was started by the previous Liberal government.

In the land of free enterprise, the USA, I am not aware of one urban system that is run privately. New York City Council had to take over the subways to keep them going. I think that tells you that public transport is best run by government. Your little toy railway in Dubai (I see the facist who rules the place wife and kids has escaped to London out of fear) is not comparable to other systems.

In the land of they think they are actually free, but actually not things are done a bit differently aren't they.

I'm not about to audit the entire USA public transport but I won't disagree. Meanwhile the Japanese systems are mostly private owned and operated with what sort of on time running performance?????

The Japanese Systems are Privatised yes, But they run on Heavy Government subsidies.

So they are private but subsidised and maintain a punctuality that would leave every system in Australia for dead. Clearly their system works.

I never said that the whole lot was being sold and understand how it operates similar to the buses most buses here are Govt owned but driven by drivers working for a private company and that was not a success either really. So we are to get more of the same on the trains and trams by the look of it.

I saw you had agreed with our friend, so I went with it.

I never said that the whole lot was being sold and understand how it operates similar to the buses most buses here are Govt owned but driven by drivers working for a private company and that was not a success either really. So we are to get more of the same on the trains and trams by the look of it.

I saw you had agreed with our friend, so I went with it.

Well I agreed on some things but not all but the choice of things is very limited as to what you can do though with the like/ dislike etc buttons on here.

I never said that the whole lot was being sold and understand how it operates similar to the buses most buses here are Govt owned but driven by drivers working for a private company and that was not a success either really. So we are to get more of the same on the trains and trams by the look of it.

I saw you had agreed with our friend, so I went with it.

Well I agreed on some things but not all but the choice of things is very limited as to what you can do though with the like/ dislike etc buttons on here.

No fence sitting or picking or choosing, either all in or all out, just like voting.

No fence sitting or picking or choosing, either all in or all out, just like voting.

Or he could reply to the post properly and actually address the points instead of being lazy and hitting the button.

In an ideal world, hitting the button should require adding an explanation (minimum 25 words) to justify the vote.

No fence sitting or picking or choosing, either all in or all out, just like voting.

Or he could reply to the post properly and actually address the points instead of being lazy and hitting the button.

In an ideal world, hitting the button should require adding an explanation (minimum 25 words) to justify the vote.

Well until that comes in here then no one should hit the like buttons without explaining why then. Some of these threads are going to get very long and boring though.

No fence sitting or picking or choosing, either all in or all out, just like voting.

Or he could reply to the post properly and actually address the points instead of being lazy and hitting the button.

In an ideal world, hitting the button should require adding an explanation (minimum 25 words) to justify the vote.

Well until that comes in here then no one should hit the like buttons without explaining why then. Some of these threads are going to get very long and boring though.

I'm removing "reject" button at work without an explanation for the same reason.