There's more to the story of 'Globelink' than is obvious, you probably don't know that being interstate -
Curious then, why have the Marshall government committed to matching the $5M?
With all of the usual smeg slinging, Don has missed the BIG announcement that $5M has been allocated to the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass Planning Study.Premier Marshall isn't interested in that any more so it's $5 million wasted.
I am sure that the below thread can be revived so we can all discuss this fantastic announcement
There's been a long-campaign to get the interstate freight off the Adelaide Hills line driven by the councils and vocal residents - I think "Globelink" was cooked up around 2015 to try and appease those people as it included a railway by-pass of the Adelaide Hills. Then it was quietly buried about 18 months after the election when they announced 'too expensive' (to the surprise of no-one).
I think Marshall keeps dangling the promise of a Hills by-pass for both truck and rail as an election issue but they just don't want to deliver it because its simply took expensive.
Alot of valid reasons why it will probably never happen or need to happenhttps://rdahc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Northern-Rail-Bypass-Scoping-Study-Aug2018.pdf
Key Findings Key outcomes and findings of the Scoping Study include:
1. Costs continue to be more competitive for road freight rather than rail when moving goods between Adelaide and Melbourne.
2. Changes to the Adelaide Hills Rail Alignment since 2010 have enabled a 20% increase in the carrying capacity of the existing rail line. This indicates that today, the rail line has a maximum capacity in the order of 12.8M tonnes.
3. In 2015-16, statistical data indicates that 8.11M gross tonnes was carried over this section of line, indicating the spare capacity of the line is in the order of 37%.
4. Rail freight costs and increased competition by the Port of Adelaide have largely contributed to a reduction in rail volumes traveling between Adelaide and Melbourne.
5. A windy, steep alignment continues to prevent the Adelaide Hills rail line from catering for double stacked trains, although double stacking could achieve in the order of 25% savings for rail customers, and significant time savings for the movement of goods. Double stacking will require significant infrastructure works to be undertaken to achieve vertical clearances, including tunnels and a new rail bridge over the River Murray.
6. Population growth through the Adelaide Hills has occurred at a greater rate than expected, particularly through the Mount Barker District Council region.
7. Accelerated population growth and a greater desire for the road freight task will see the South Eastern Freeway reach its capacity sooner than expected.
8. Significant changes are both planned and currently under construction for the National Rail Freight network (i.e. Inland Rail and a new rail freight terminal in Melbourne) which have the ability to fundamentally change the movement of rail freight through South Australia, and the role of the Adelaide to Melbourne link in the national rail freight network. These changes are expected to be complete and in operation by 2025 and will potentially enable double stacked rail freight to move between Perth and Melbourne without passing through (or near) Adelaide, with Parkes likely to become the geographic centre of national rail freight activities. Less freight rail services will potentially stop near or in the vicinity of Adelaide, reducing the modal choice for freight movement. There is a very real possibility that South Australia and Adelaide in particular may be ‘forgotten’ in the national rail picture.
[ I expect that with DS capacity from Melbourne to Parkes, we will see WA/NT bound freight head via Parkes ]
9. The original cost benefit analysis of the rail freight diversion in the 2010 RFMS is now outdated. Costs have escalated, and the analysis does not address some significant economic benefits. While only providing an estimation of the broad value of these benefits, they have been found to potentially be quite large, notwithstanding the application of conservative assumptions wherever possible. Non-quantifiable benefits are still to be fully analysed. Further, the base case in the 2010 RFMS assumed a ‘Do Nothing’ scenario; this is considered unrealistic and a ‘Do Minimum’ scenario should be used for more appropriate comparison.
10. The estimated cost of the Northern Rail Bypass has been calculated between $3.84 and $4.96 billion.
[ If the inland costing is anything to go by, it won't be the lower number and the higher number is likely around 50 - 67% of the final number ]