Barossa tourist plan derailed as Supreme Court backs State Government

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 21 Apr 2020 21:15
  Upven Junior Train Controller

Here’s a fact for you Vinelander, so Ballarat manages to contribute 1.5% of its population per day to rail. To get to 1500 people per day at 1.5% of the population South Australia would need to build a station and line at EVERY LOCALE within 100km of Adelaide (yes even Marananga), not just one regional city. You contribute some tax to that, because I don’t intend to.
Aaron
I'm not sure where you thought of that strange theory.

Adelaide Metro (train) is already utilised by more than 1.5% of Adelaide's population on an average day. Approximately 15.6 million "journeys" a year. 15.6/365 = 42,739 "journeys" a day. Yeah, I know the data doesn't show if someone's making multiple trips and relies on a few assumptions. Assuming South Australia has around 1.4 million people, 1.5% is 21,000. Which would give 2 journeys a day, bringing you to the average daily journeys of ~42,000.

The South Australian Tourism Plan 2020 even identified that improving access by rail and public transport was important.

I found it funny that a private investor working on a plan for a tourist train, that would create jobs and add to tourism, is publicly derided by the Government for blocking job-creation. A small $4.8 million roundabout isn't going to create long-term employment for anyone.

Sponsored advertisement

  justapassenger Minister for Railways

I found it funny that a private investor working on a plan for a tourist train, that would create jobs and add to tourism, is publicly derided by the Government for blocking job-creation. A small $4.8 million roundabout isn't going to create long-term employment for anyone.
Upven
He wasn't actually working on a plan and certainly wasn't planning on investing any of his own money, he was just kicking up a stink over a project that provided a benefit to some of his competitors.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Here’s a fact for you Vinelander, so Ballarat manages to contribute 1.5% of its population per day to rail. To get to 1500 people per day at 1.5% of the population South Australia would need to build a station and line at EVERY LOCALE within 100km of Adelaide (yes even Marananga), not just one regional city. You contribute some tax to that, because I don’t intend to.
Aaron

And it's precisely this attitude from the Marshall government ra-ra gallery that will continue to suffocate PT provision and expansion in SA.

Thankyou for reinforcing my comments.

Mike.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
1500+ pax per morning commute
The Vinelander
Here’s a fact for you Vinelander, so Ballarat manages to contribute 1.5% of its population per day to rail. To get to 1500 people per day at 1.5% of the population South Australia would need to build a station and line at EVERY LOCALE within 100km of Adelaide (yes even Marananga), not just one regional city. You contribute some tax to that, because I don’t intend to.
I'm not sure where you thought of that strange theory.

Adelaide Metro (train) is already utilised by more than 1.5% of Adelaide's population on an average day. Approximately 15.6 million "journeys" a year. 15.6/365 = 42,739 "journeys" a day. Yeah, I know the data doesn't show if someone's making multiple trips and relies on a few assumptions. Assuming South Australia has around 1.4 million people, 1.5% is 21,000. Which would give 2 journeys a day, bringing you to the average daily journeys of ~42,000.
Upven
You serially dislike posts, but I want to know where there is a 'WTF' button, because that is the standard reaction I have when you do finally post.

The 1500 figure I am referring to was in 'getting to' the additional provided against Ballarat in SA, I made no reference to existing patron usage in Adelaide, because none was made to existing patron numbers in Melbourne...

If we are going to use Ballarat 'adding' 1500 pax per day (approx 1.5% of it's population) 100km from Melbourne, to Victoria's network then you need to acknowledge that a single line extension in SA would need to serve EVERY LOCALE not currently served within 100km of Adelaide to gain 1500 pax at 1.5% usage.

I just don't know how to be more clear for you.

Pull out a population density map of the state and take a look - there really is no additional information you need.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
I found it funny that a private investor working on a plan for a tourist train, that would create jobs and add to tourism, is publicly derided by the Government for blocking job-creation. A small $4.8 million roundabout isn't going to create long-term employment for anyone.
He wasn't actually working on a plan and certainly wasn't planning on investing any of his own money, he was just kicking up a stink over a project that provided a benefit to some of his competitors.
justapassenger
Precisely correct.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Here’s a fact for you Vinelander, so Ballarat manages to contribute 1.5% of its population per day to rail. To get to 1500 people per day at 1.5% of the population South Australia would need to build a station and line at EVERY LOCALE within 100km of Adelaide (yes even Marananga), not just one regional city. You contribute some tax to that, because I don’t intend to.

And it's precisely this attitude from the Marshall government ra-ra gallery that will continue to suffocate PT provision and expansion in SA.

Thankyou for reinforcing my comments.

Mike.
The Vinelander
You don't get it do you? It's not any government that suffocates PT provision or expansion in SA, it's a complete lack of any decent size population centre outside of the existing metro service that prevents expansion of PT.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
What gives  with these Liberal governments? It reminds me when the Bjelke Jo government closed the Gold Coast railway claiming that it was outdated and huge helicopters would soon be transporting passengers to this location. Why don't they just come out and say they are anti-public transport.[/font][/size][/color]
"nswtrains"


There is no overall link with political persuasion and support of PT in Aust.

Joe probably did more for Qld Rail than all other state Premiers put together did for their own states. He was also correct, the GC line was outdated, badly. Today the GC has the fastest interurban railway line in Australia, although yes I don't agree with original closing.

Then you have NSW LNP who has spent how much on rail based PT in NSW? Now compare that with all the other states put together since 2011? Including reintroducing the Bathurst Bullet and doubled its frequency, given the Lithgow O/H a future many thought it didn't have and ordered replacements for the aging XPT, XPL and V-sets. Plus like it or hate it the Sydney SE tram and did something with the failing Carlingford Line and of course the NWRL and duplication of the Lower NSL and harbour crossing.

Marshall is out of touch, not the first or last Premier to do so, but SA hardly has the budget to throw at large scale rail projects very often either and most are joint funded. Note I think he did support extension of the tram into Nth Adelaide.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The Barossa Wine Train was, in my opinion, doomed from Day One.  For a start, the return train fare between Adelaide and Tanunda alone was $55.00.  Well and truly beyond my budget.  Bus tours to wineries incurred additional costs.  Tourists were able to do bus tours for less.  Not surprisingly, BWT was a failure.  I remember posting more than once on this forum that the next time Bluebirds went to the Barossa would be as crew cars on the Stonie.  That never happened.  I stand justified.

"4BJ"


I actually caught it once, it was more than just a train ride, but the market clearly wasn't strong enough. Without a subsidy the price they charged was a commercial rate.

Overall I cannot see neither commuter rail nor tourism rail being viable enough to justify the 30-40km of track and station upgrades to introduce a modern service, but combined, yes!
  steam4ian Chief Commissioner

Interesting discussions here regarding population density.

SA has two things going against rail PT when compared to the Eastern states.

It has already been stated that Adelaide does not have large satellite centres nearby like Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo each with populations well over 100,000 to generate say 1500 pax per day as quoted by one correspondent.

As Central Business Districts Melbourne and Sydney have reasonably defined CBDs, People actually work in these CBDs or nearby. In Melbourne, even the nearby areas are well served by trams and easily reached, see St Kilda Road.
Fewer and fewer people work in Adelaide's CBD, many former office buildings have become student apartments, the CBD has become the Central Bed District.  Apartments don't generate passenger traffic to the CBD.

With the de-development of Adelaide CBD one has to question the long term viability of public transport systems focused on the CBD.
Employment possibilities in Greater Adelaide are highly decentralised which does not make PT viable for commuting.
The good burgers of Tanunda (even the silly burgers), if commuting, will be going to Wingfield, Osborne, Regency Park or any other place not convenient to rail.

The present situation hardly generates justification for enthusiastic expansions of the rail network.

Ian
  normangerman Junior Train Controller

You seriously cannot compare Geelong, Ballarat or Bendigo with the Barossa Valley. Sprawl and housing development is encouraged in Melbourne's satellite cities, while Adelaide's strategic plan is all about urban infill with only 15% of new housing from greenfield development at the edges of the metro area.



Add on top of that the protective zoning of the Barossa Valley (and McLaren Vale) and you have almost zero chance of significant population growth in the Barossa. And why should that productive land be destroyed? There are much better opportunities for housing in the existing footprint of Adelaide, close to existing public transport corridors, which would allow our existing rail network to become more efficient.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
You seriously cannot compare Geelong, Ballarat or Bendigo with the Barossa Valley. Sprawl and housing development is encouraged in Melbourne's satellite cities, while Adelaide's strategic plan is all about urban infill with only 15% of new housing from greenfield development at the edges of the metro area.



Add on top of that the protective zoning of the Barossa Valley (and McLaren Vale) and you have almost zero chance of significant population growth in the Barossa. And why should that productive land be destroyed? There are much better opportunities for housing in the existing footprint of Adelaide, close to existing public transport corridors, which would allow our existing rail network to become more efficient.
normangerman
Adelaide in fill is occurring because its cheaper and developing new estates struggles on cost.

Growth in SA is a term used but not well understood. The rate of population growth in SA is barely 1%. There are lots of options in the valley that doesn't require vineyards to be flattened.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland


I found it funny that a private investor working on a plan for a tourist train, that would create jobs and add to tourism, is publicly derided by the Government for blocking job-creation. A small $4.8 million roundabout isn't going to create long-term employment for anyone.
Upven
These tourist trains / railway proposals pop up from time to time, claiming their proposal will bring job-creation, tourism cash cow, etc.

Than the proponents have a big whinge and mone (mostly on social media) when the Government departments give them the cold shoulder.

Had the proponents had a viable plan (with their own resources) that would cerate jobs and prosperity, the Governments would be rolling out the red carpet for them, but as It turns out In just about all cases Is the proponents have nothing more than a plan to bring their dream alive, that they want others to pay for (Government, Local Business)
  normangerman Junior Train Controller

You seriously cannot compare Geelong, Ballarat or Bendigo with the Barossa Valley. Sprawl and housing development is encouraged in Melbourne's satellite cities, while Adelaide's strategic plan is all about urban infill with only 15% of new housing from greenfield development at the edges of the metro area.



Add on top of that the protective zoning of the Barossa Valley (and McLaren Vale) and you have almost zero chance of significant population growth in the Barossa. And why should that productive land be destroyed? There are much better opportunities for housing in the existing footprint of Adelaide, close to existing public transport corridors, which would allow our existing rail network to become more efficient.
Adelaide in fill is occurring because its cheaper and developing new estates struggles on cost.

Growth in SA is a term used but not well understood. The rate of population growth in SA is barely 1%. There are lots of options in the valley that doesn't require vineyards to be flattened.
RTT_Rules
What are those options that don't affect heritage and the character of the area?

And even with a growth rate at 1%, that is still 17,000 people that need to be accomodated every year. Add on top of that the ever decreasing people per dwelling, you find that you have to build about 15,000-20,000 new dwellings each year.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
You seriously cannot compare Geelong, Ballarat or Bendigo with the Barossa Valley. Sprawl and housing development is encouraged in Melbourne's satellite cities, while Adelaide's strategic plan is all about urban infill with only 15% of new housing from greenfield development at the edges of the metro area.



Add on top of that the protective zoning of the Barossa Valley (and McLaren Vale) and you have almost zero chance of significant population growth in the Barossa. And why should that productive land be destroyed? There are much better opportunities for housing in the existing footprint of Adelaide, close to existing public transport corridors, which would allow our existing rail network to become more efficient.
Adelaide in fill is occurring because its cheaper and developing new estates struggles on cost.

Growth in SA is a term used but not well understood. The rate of population growth in SA is barely 1%. There are lots of options in the valley that doesn't require vineyards to be flattened.
What are those options that don't affect heritage and the character of the area?

And even with a growth rate at 1%, that is still 17,000 people that need to be accomodated every year. Add on top of that the ever decreasing people per dwelling, you find that you have to build about 15,000-20,000 new dwellings each year.
normangerman
Melbourne was adding a new MCG every single year until COVID19 derailed it. Imagine the pressure that puts on every single service, all the roads, all the public transport.
  SinickleBird Assistant Commissioner

Location: Qantas Club at Mudgee International Airport
Measuring population by MCG’s now?

There’s another thread about random measurement systems.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
What are those options that don't affect heritage and the character of the area?

And even with a growth rate at 1%, that is still 17,000 people that need to be accomodated every year. Add on top of that the ever decreasing people per dwelling, you find that you have to build about 15,000-20,000 new dwellings each year.
normangerman
Well like one area I stayed in in Adelaide, they built new houses to look like old ones.

Much of which is taken up through increasing trend for downsizing of post children couples + DINK's to townhouses and apartments although the later isn't a big industry in SA. Blocks that used to have one house, now have two or three.

Anyway, no one is proposing the Valley is required to take on this growth, what I and others are saying is that there is demand there today combined between commuter and tourism to support a service with something like ~6 trips a day. No need for passing loops beyond the extent of the existing duplicated track to Gawler.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud

...

Marshall is out of touch, not the first or last Premier to do so, but SA hardly has the budget to throw at large scale rail projects very often either and most are joint funded. Note I think he did support extension of the tram into Nth Adelaide.
RTT_Rules
We don't have the money in this state that Victoria does - we didn't have the property boom that Melbourne had that delivered a river of money into our coffers - it simply didn't happen.

One of the few things that Weatherill did that made sense was installing a grand junction at North Terrace and King William - it at least allows the possibility of an extension to O'Connell Street in the future. The core problem is that the bridge over the Torrens is historical and not capable of taking heavy trams any longer and it was going to be some ten million plus just to modify it for trams.

Anyway the option is there in the future should Steve Marshall decide - and I think eventually they will. That and the tram to the airport which is a no-brainer in my opinion, even if there's a 'special' surcharge for it.
  kipioneer Chief Commissioner

Location: Aberfoyle Park
A question:   assuming a train runs beyond the Gawler Central station how is the Murray Street level crossing triggered?

Presumably the normal operation is for the  crossing to be switched out, and only switched in when a down train approaches.    Up trains present no problems with the crossing triggered on their approach.
  62430 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Metro Adelaide
A question:   assuming a train runs beyond the Gawler Central station how is the Murray Street level crossing triggered?

Presumably the normal operation is for the  crossing to be switched out, and only switched in when a down train approaches.    Up trains present no problems with the crossing triggered on their approach.
kipioneer
I would assume that the crossing is activated by track circuit occupation only if a route is set and the down signal cleared.

A similar situation arises in regular service with the Osborne terminating trains, which do not activate the level crossing there.

Other examples are terminating services at Brighton (down), Woodville (up) and Salisbury (up).
  djukinX1016 Deputy Commissioner

Have a look at what’s happening with Metronet in WA many of these projects are underway. In the 1980’s Perth was behind Adelaide with its rail system, look under the projects section:   https://www.metronet.wa.gov.au/
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
Have a look at what’s happening with Metronet in WA many of these projects are underway. In the 1980’s Perth was behind Adelaide with its rail system, look under the projects section:   https://www.metronet.wa.gov.au/
"djukinX1016"

What has that got to with this thread?

The Barossa is a regional area in SA, not a Perth suburb.
  djukinX1016 Deputy Commissioner

Byford and Mundijong are similar distances as Adelaide to the Barossa and have no where near the tourism pull of the Barossa yet are being included in the electrified network, Population is actually similar and Mundijong has a lot of constraints on development especially into the hills. Simple comparison in different approaches on transport planning. The Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale call themselves outer metro, and in reality that is what the Barossa is, over here I struggle with the way Mandurah is referred to as a Regional Centre and is classified as in the Peel Region!
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Byford and Mundijong are similar distances as Adelaide to the Barossa and have no where near the tourism pull of the Barossa yet are being included in the electrified network, Population is actually similar and Mundijong has a lot of constraints on development especially into the hills. Simple comparison in different approaches on transport planning. The Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale call themselves outer metro, and in reality that is what the Barossa is, over here I struggle with the way Mandurah is referred to as a Regional Centre and is classified as in the Peel Region!
djukinX1016
Population.

NO ONE living in the Barossa would so lower their standards so as to regard it as ‘outer metro’. NO ONE in South Australia ‘struggles’ with the way that the Barossa is referred to as a region, even the Barossa Council call it a ‘region’. My very good friends that live there are exceptionally proud ‘to not be’ Adelaide, when I last travelled with a mate from there I was introducing myself as ‘from Adelaide, South Australia’, he introduced himself as ‘from Greenock, Barossa Valley’. Why? Because everyone he met, next time they went to a bottle shop would hopefully see a bottle labelled ‘Barossa Valley’ remember him or at least that they had heard of the place and hopefully buy it, unlike many of friends he had no links to the wine industry at all, he merely does that in the hope it will somehow boost the region - and not because he wants more people to move there.

Byford has DOUBLE the population of Nuri and Tanunda, FIVE TIMES the population of Angaston and Williamstown.

Byford is a suburb, Mundijong is labelled an ‘outer suburb’, there are no suburbs in the Barossa, the four towns I mentioned just above are gazetted ‘town’ for a reason.

‘Tourism pull’ has nothing to do with it, in case you missed it the BWT which was near exclusively a ‘tourist’ train couldn’t survive.

Tourists to the valley, especially those planning on sampling the wines get hire cars or mini busses because it is much easier to plan a day around the needs of your 2 to 12 friends rather than a time table for a train that needs to carry a hundred people AND you do not need to deal with the likely annoyance of Mr Chateau Cardboard complaining about all the tour operators crowding ‘his’ car park at the station waiting for the train.
  DJPeters Deputy Commissioner

Unfortunately the Barossa Valley although non metro is just too close to Adelaide itself to warrant running a train. Now for those really interested the whole track needs to be relaid to be safe to travel on. It has only had bandaid's applied ever since AN was disbanded and before that I don't think AN did any real work on the track. It got to the point where stone trains in a lot of places were travelling walking pace or less than what the Hasler speedo could register anyway, so once past Gawler Central it was a very slow trip, now the stone in the hoppers will not complain about it being slow but passengers most certainly would. By the time you took the train to the Barossa and paid extra to be taken to a couple of wineries at that slow speed you might get to have a taste at the first winery before you had to go back and get on the train to go back to Adelaide.  But as someone pointed out you can drive by car or luxury type bus a lot quicker, see more from the bus actually and visit a lot more places to sample the wine and then come home, again more quickly.

But who is going to pay for the track to be fixed even if it is more bandaid's applied. It is not the State Governments problem now to relay that track as all above ground was sold off virtually way back when Don Dunstan sold our country railways to the Commonwealth Govt.  The Commonwealth Govt are not going to relay a railway line simply because one operator wants to run a tourist type train as even they could see it would not be a wise investment. They might if some metal deposit or such like was found up that way, but there is nothing like that at all that is known there other than the Limestone.

So if the new operator has to relay the track what will be the cost of a ticket. If it was $55 dollars years back when it could be used what would be the cost today $100, $200 or probably a lot more than that. A car load could do that miles cheaper and faster, so could a bus.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

But who is going to pay for the track to be fixed even if it is more bandaid's applied. It is not the State Governments problem now to relay that track as all above ground was sold off virtually way back when Don Dunstan sold our country railways to the Commonwealth Govt.  The Commonwealth Govt are not going to relay a railway line simply because one operator wants to run a tourist type train as even they could see it would not be a wise investment. They might if some metal deposit or such like was found up that way, but there is nothing like that at all that is known there other than the Limestone.
DJPeters
The line is owned by DIT, not the Commonwealth.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: