Barossa tourist plan derailed as Supreme Court backs State Government

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 21 Apr 2020 21:15
  Upven Locomotive Fireman

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 The Ghost of George Stephenson

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.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: