News & Discussion: Trams

[how good is he]

I think the previous Govt originally did a cost/benefit analysis for the line to extend (for example) to North Adelaide but found it wasn’t feasible/not enough usage/demand to justify it. I know before the election this changed. Considering all the options/routes (East/West/Cityloop/airport etc), what tram extension/s does the forum think there would be enough demand ie a favourable cost/benefit analysis, now? Or is what we have now all that is needed for maybe the next 5 -10 years anyway?

[Goodsy]

I think the previous Govt originally did a cost/benefit analysis for the line to extend (for example) to North Adelaide but found it wasn’t feasible/not enough usage/demand to justify it. I know before the election this changed. Considering all the options/routes (East/West/Cityloop/airport etc), what tram extension/s does the forum think there would be enough demand ie a favourable cost/benefit analysis, now? Or is what we have now all that is needed for maybe the next 5 -10 years anyway?

a private company wants to build the airport line, that tells me they've done their homework and come to the conclusion that there is a chance for profit there

[how good is he]

Yes they also wanted a 30 year contract and as Mullighan said
“It is also unclear whether part of the funding model requires a new tax to be imposed on land owners along Henley Beach Rd, which the government would be opposed to.”
So based on the norm ie the Govt undertaking it, what routes have enough merit/profitability to warrant a tram extension?

[ChillyPhilly]

Yes they also wanted a 30 year contract and as Mullighan said
“It is also unclear whether part of the funding model requires a new tax to be imposed on land owners along Henley Beach Rd, which the government would be opposed to.”
So based on the norm ie the Govt undertaking it, what routes have enough merit/profitability to warrant a tram extension?

They all have fantastic merit - trams are a catalyst for future development, rather than a way of looking at what is profitable now (which is wrong anyway, as public transport shouldn't be seen as a vehicle for profit - pun intended).

[rubberman]

I think the previous Govt originally did a cost/benefit analysis for the line to extend (for example) to North Adelaide but found it wasn’t feasible/not enough usage/demand to justify it. I know before the election this changed. Considering all the options/routes (East/West/Cityloop/airport etc), what tram extension/s does the forum think there would be enough demand ie a favourable cost/benefit analysis, now? Or is what we have now all that is needed for maybe the next 5 -10 years anyway?

a private company wants to build the airport line, that tells me they've done their homework and come to the conclusion that there is a chance for profit there

There's always a chance for a profit if they get the government to guarantee it.

Next, they were asking for exclusive use of the track. That's a lot of free real estate.

There were only going to be three stops too. So, nobody else could get much use out of it.

Free real estate, and a government guarantee. Yeah, I can see why they might be interested.

[rubberman]

I think the previous Govt originally did a cost/benefit analysis for the line to extend (for example) to North Adelaide but found it wasn’t feasible/not enough usage/demand to justify it. I know before the election this changed. Considering all the options/routes (East/West/Cityloop/airport etc), what tram extension/s does the forum think there would be enough demand ie a favourable cost/benefit analysis, now? Or is what we have now all that is needed for maybe the next 5 -10 years anyway?

I keep banging my head against a brick wall on this. If everything is done in the most expensive way possible, of course there's a good chance it won't pass the cost benefit hurdle.

So, for me, before we talk routes, we need to get costs down to reasonable levels. We aren't even trying to do that at the moment. Since the costs are too high, the government has every opportunity to say: "No trams. Too expensive". And the average taxpayer would be right behind them. Good politics and good policy unless we get the prices down.

However, to answer the question, probably the city loop. No access problems, wide streets, no bridges to strengthen minimal special works, plus opportunities for stimulating the local economy, plus connection to the O-Bahn at East Tce and Grenfell.

[adelaide transport]

Neither of them have yet entered service.They are sitting down the back of the depot!

[ml69]

Yes they also wanted a 30 year contract and as Mullighan said
“It is also unclear whether part of the funding model requires a new tax to be imposed on land owners along Henley Beach Rd, which the government would be opposed to.”
So based on the norm ie the Govt undertaking it, what routes have enough merit/profitability to warrant a tram extension?

They all have fantastic merit - trams are a catalyst for future development, rather than a way of looking at what is profitable now (which is wrong anyway, as public transport shouldn't be seen as a vehicle for profit - pun intended).

I strongly believe the city loop offers the best upside for the investment put in. The city loop would require about 4 to 4.5km of track to complete (depending on finalised route) ... let's say an investment of approx $300M for round numbers.

However the development potential that this investment could unleash in the CBD is likely to be into the billions, particularly for residential apartments. One only needs to look at the southern part of KW Street and now the eastern part of North Tce to clearly see how trams can spur apartment development.

On the other hand, a tram line into the suburbs isn't likely to spur development of the same scale. Don't get me wrong, it certainly will spur development in desirable precincts such as The Parade cafe strip, but it just will never be at the scale of what could happen in the CBD. Also, you'd have to build a much longer length of track than 4 to 4.5km which would further dilute the economics.

A city loop would benefit many CBD workers, students, shoppers, tourists as well as residents, with usage spread throughout the day and weekends, rather than a suburban route where usage would be concentrated on the weekday morning and afternoon peaks.

[Bob]

As we all know, the new State Government election promises included the business case study for Trams (City Loop & North Adelaide).

They better do the study once and do it properly, then be transparent about it to the public.

And if either or both are given the go ahead, the implementation timeline, the Routes and proposed scheduling need to be confirmed and published up front, so everyone is clear what/where and plan accordingly long term. Labor let themselves down in this area, opening the door for constant public criticism.

[rubberman]

As we all know, the new State Government election promises included the business case study for Trams (City Loop & North Adelaide).

They better do the study once and do it properly, then be transparent about it to the public.

And if either or both are given the go ahead, the implementation timeline, the Routes and proposed scheduling need to be confirmed and published up front, so everyone is clear what/where and plan accordingly long term. Labor let themselves down in this area, opening the door for constant public criticism.

The study may well be done properly, but who is going to provide the basic costing data, and the design on which the costing data is based? For example, if it's going to be a $240m extension to North Adelaide, then I can't see how the numbers could stack up. The cost will go into the calculation, and come out as "not economic". Get the cost down to say $120m, and maybe.

The reason I say this is that we know the previous government has done a business case, but refused to release it. The only reason I can think of is that as the previous designs were presented, the costs outweighed the benefits. Otherwise, why would the ALP have kept it secret?

[Bob]

As we all know, the new State Government election promises included the business case study for Trams (City Loop & North Adelaide).

They better do the study once and do it properly, then be transparent about it to the public.

And if either or both are given the go ahead, the implementation timeline, the Routes and proposed scheduling need to be confirmed and published up front, so everyone is clear what/where and plan accordingly long term. Labor let themselves down in this area, opening the door for constant public criticism.

The study may well be done properly, but who is going to provide the basic costing data, and the design on which the costing data is based? For example, if it's going to be a $240m extension to North Adelaide, then I can't see how the numbers could stack up. The cost will go into the calculation, and come out as "not economic". Get the cost down to say $120m, and maybe.

The reason I say this is that we know the previous government has done a business case, but refused to release it. The only reason I can think of is that as the previous designs were presented, the costs outweighed the benefits. Otherwise, why would the ALP have kept it secret?

I agree with your comment Rubberman.

I can foresee an endless circular process continuing despite the chest pumping from the Lib’s during the Election campaign.

The deadlock has to be broken somewhere, the Premier has to step up and ensure the right skilled resources are doing the proper planning and costings. I think it is fair to say DPTI hasn’t met expectations, and didn’t the new Premier want to change that and have another/different group in infrastructure planning? Or is he just recycling same old with a political twist for perception? I don’t know the answer.

I hope the media run a fine tooth comb over the new Government at their first milestone, ‘the first 100 days’ which is due in a few weeks taking them to task on what they have actually done in the background in this time. Better not be waffle.

[claybro]

Trams/light rail will never stand up to a cost/benefit analysis as a stand alone project. Except maybe an airport connection, or where existing infrastructure is to be replaced. ie the OH corridor (heavy v's light rail). Unfortunately, the former government, whilst their ideas were admirable, really confused the issue with the miss handling of the OH corridor, and then very vague ideas of what inner suburban extensions might achieve. There appeared to be no consultation or buy in from the various councils involved, such as what land was available to be re-zoned for development or urbanisation in conjunction with the extensions, or private developers/land owners who might also wish to become involved in any of the proposed extensions. I understand that the former government extended bit by painful bit as spare money allowed, but they really could never sell the vision, and didn't really seek to involve others in the process. This is a get out of gaol free card for the Liberals...who are really only very reluctantly going to maintain what is already there, with perhaps some minor tinkering ie Adelaide Oval extension, the stupid waste of reworking the KWS junction or to give an airport extension over to a private consortium.

[how good is he]

I agree.. I can’t see much happening with the tram network in the next 4-5 years. Then it will depend on who’s in power.

[Haso]

We can’t always blame our politicians for what’s going on with our public transport or particulary with our trams. They usually mirror what majority of their voters would like to have, and as we know, there is no much love toward public transport and so on... It was amusing to read some objections from people who live around proposed tram line toward Parade…somehow they reminded me of objections toward first railway lines in UK. The train won the battle, but here, it looks to me there is no chance for trams.
When I commented how our new (unfinished) hotel at the airport looks (to me), it was enough to read good portion of comments to understand why we have building like that one… there is no big desire to have something better. There is no desire to have something which will stand out... and that applies generaly.
Our standards, understandings and visions are low and therefore we have what we have...and of course, we have adequate representation in the Parliament.
... just keep fighting on.

[rubberman]

We can’t always blame our politicians for what’s going on with our public transport or particulary with our trams. They usually mirror what majority of their voters would like to have, and as we know, there is no much love toward public transport and so on... It was amusing to read some objections from people who live around proposed tram line toward Parade…somehow they reminded me of objections toward first railway lines in UK. The train won the battle, but here, it looks to me there is no chance for trams.
When I commented how our new (unfinished) hotel at the airport looks (to me), it was enough to read good portion of comments to understand why we have building like that one… there is no big desire to have something better. There is no desire to have something which will stand out... and that applies generaly.
Our standards, understandings and visions are low and therefore we have what we have...and of course, we have adequate representation in the Parliament.
... just keep fighting on.

Some SA history of success.

In 1907 when the State government decided it neede to replace the horse trams, the previous operators lacked the ability to install and run a modern tramway. No criticism, it required a different level of knowledge. The government appointed William Goodman, who built a very good system in record time, and for a much smaller tax base than today, Success.

Similarly, in 1922, when the South Australian Railways were on the point of collapse from neglect and ignorance, the State government appointed WA Webb, who thoroughly modernised it, and set it up so that it did a great job during WW2. Success.

If a new or upgraded technology or system is to be introduced, and a multi-billion dollar tram system qualifies, then we have previously searched the world, and brought someone in who is both a leader, and who knows what they are doing.

This is the purview of governments. So far, it's not been up to the task.