News & Discussion: Regional Transport

[rubberman]

Why do we want an airport located further away? If anything, we should be buying up land round the airport for a second runway. What earthly purpose is served by having an airport remote from the biggest area of economic activity?

I am quite happy not having to get up at an ungodly hour to get to the airport, and I cannot imagine tourists would appreciate a longer trip to the CBD. Obviously, if there's an economic case for a second airport for rural exports, fair enough, but if there's $5bn to spend, then a second runway and improved connection to the Freeway is more likely the best bet.

What's the preferred mode of transport for exporting chilled meat (such as might come from Thomas Foods International or Big River Pork at Murray Bridge)? Fresh fruit from the Riverland? Vegetables from the upper south east? Presumably there would also be rail access direct to the freight terminal, so it is possible that air freight from a bit further away might also come by rail, such as from the Treasury Wines huge warehouse by the intermodal depot at Penfield or from Western Victoria.

The Liberal plan did not include passenger flights from the new airport. The purpose is to reduce road freight (and remove that cost) over the Adelaide Hills. It is of course possible that if the airport is established, a low-cost carrier might schedule a few flights, like Avalon between Melbourne and Geelong.

Depends on how many full cargo planes per day of produce for export. Depends on whether spending $5bn on an airport is more effective than spending that same amount on other projects which could also reduce traffic. Depends on whether there are higher priorities. $5bn would probably build the CBD rail tunnels and electrify the whole rail system, or build a tram network and freeway, sorry, "expressway" system. Obviously, if someone thinks a new airport is of higher priority than any of those, then naturally they will agree with the government's vision.

[SBD]

Why do we want an airport located further away? If anything, we should be buying up land round the airport for a second runway. What earthly purpose is served by having an airport remote from the biggest area of economic activity?

I am quite happy not having to get up at an ungodly hour to get to the airport, and I cannot imagine tourists would appreciate a longer trip to the CBD. Obviously, if there's an economic case for a second airport for rural exports, fair enough, but if there's $5bn to spend, then a second runway and improved connection to the Freeway is more likely the best bet.

What's the preferred mode of transport for exporting chilled meat (such as might come from Thomas Foods International or Big River Pork at Murray Bridge)? Fresh fruit from the Riverland? Vegetables from the upper south east? Presumably there would also be rail access direct to the freight terminal, so it is possible that air freight from a bit further away might also come by rail, such as from the Treasury Wines huge warehouse by the intermodal depot at Penfield or from Western Victoria.

The Liberal plan did not include passenger flights from the new airport. The purpose is to reduce road freight (and remove that cost) over the Adelaide Hills. It is of course possible that if the airport is established, a low-cost carrier might schedule a few flights, like Avalon between Melbourne and Geelong.

Depends on how many full cargo planes per day of produce for export. Depends on whether spending $5bn on an airport is more effective than spending that same amount on other projects which could also reduce traffic. Depends on whether there are higher priorities. $5bn would probably build the CBD rail tunnels and electrify the whole rail system, or build a tram network and freeway, sorry, "expressway" system. Obviously, if someone thinks a new airport is of higher priority than any of those, then naturally they will agree with the government's vision.

I wasn't responding to whether $5b was economically viable, I was responding for what the purpose would be if it existed. I doubt it would be the first or the last government-funded infrastructure where at least one of the purposes of building it was to "create jobs" during the construction. I'll also be very surprised to see it built (the road and railway are far more likely).

I agree the airport seems unlikely to be viable as a pure freight airport based on the current exports. Who knows what new industry might spring up if there was an opportunity. What could a daily plane-load of organic parsley (or mixed fresh herbs) grown on the Murray Flats be worth to the state!

[1NEEDS2POST]

Depends on how many full cargo planes per day of produce for export. Depends on whether spending $5bn on an airport is more effective than spending that same amount on other projects which could also reduce traffic. Depends on whether there are higher priorities. $5bn would probably build the CBD rail tunnels and electrify the whole rail system, or build a tram network and freeway, sorry, "expressway" system. Obviously, if someone thinks a new airport is of higher priority than any of those, then naturally they will agree with the government's vision.

It won't take that many trucks off the road. Adelaide airport moves 25 722 tonnes per year. Let's say it all goes to the new airport, it's all exports and it's all arriving by trucks that can carry 30 t. That's 857 trucks per year or three per day.

I understand that the goal is to increase exports, but aircraft are light, they can't carry as much cargo as you might think. A 747-8F can only carry 140 t, which is only three B-doubles. Most cargo aircraft are smaller than that. It also means there is no point in building a new railway just for a cargo airport.

[SBD]

Depends on how many full cargo planes per day of produce for export. Depends on whether spending $5bn on an airport is more effective than spending that same amount on other projects which could also reduce traffic. Depends on whether there are higher priorities. $5bn would probably build the CBD rail tunnels and electrify the whole rail system, or build a tram network and freeway, sorry, "expressway" system. Obviously, if someone thinks a new airport is of higher priority than any of those, then naturally they will agree with the government's vision.

It won't take that many trucks off the road. Adelaide airport moves 25 722 tonnes per year. Let's say it all goes to the new airport, it's all exports and it's all arriving by trucks that can carry 30 t. That's 857 trucks per year or three per day.

I understand that the goal is to increase exports, but aircraft are light, they can't carry as much cargo as you might think. A 747-8F can only carry 140 t, which is only three B-doubles. Most cargo aircraft are smaller than that. It also means there is no point in building a new railway just for a cargo airport.

I don't think the railway is "to service the airport" except for possibly a spur into the airport itself. The purpose of the railway is to reduce the extra motive power required to haul heavy trains over the Mount Lofty Ranges, enable double-stacking of containers, and improve the amenity of living near the railway in the inner southern suburbs.

None of the road, railway and airport are directly dependent on the others, but there would be some synergies gained by building them all. I have trouble imagining the business case would stack up for the airport on pure economic grounds, but having a second large airport runway with international customs services and no curfew in South Australia can't be a completely bad outcome, either.

[Listy]

The 2014 masterplan for Adelaide Airport https://www.adelaideairport.com.au/corp ... ster-plan/ has a range of future growth scenarios modeled that show how far away the realistic need for a second airport is - the existing airport wont reach its passenger or freight movement capacity until around 2045-2050, at the current rate of growth (which is currently about a 5% increase in aircraft movements & freight volume per annum).

According to the plan Adelaide airport currently sees about 100,000 movements per year, but it can comfortably operate in its existing configuration (with some changes to taxiways and other 'small' infrastructure) until it gets to about 220,000-280,000 flights per year - at which point relaxing the curfew or building a 2nd long runway will have to be considered.

Of the current 100,000 movements per year, half are small aircraft - general aviation & regional flights with approx 30 pax or less, so extra capacity could also be added simply by moving alot of that elsewhere & perhaps this would be the best, most cost effective option for a new airport. Rather than spend billions on an international airport that will sit under utilised for decades, begin by building it as a regional / GA hub, but with the space and layout to gradually accommodate international freight / pax terminals etc as the need eventually arises).

The new airport masterplan is due out in Dec 2019 so it will be interesting to see how things have changed.

[PeFe]

Is this the end of The Overland?

From The ABC

Overland train service between Melbourne and Adelaide in doubt



The future of the passenger train service between Melbourne and Adelaide is up in the air.

The South Australian Opposition claims passengers have been told that Overland bookings have been halted from January next year.

The previous state government provided a $1 million three-year package to Great Southern Rail to help support the service in 2015.

Acting Premier Vickie Chapman said the Government would review the funding model but was not making any guarantees that the train service would continue.

"[There's been] diminishing patronage of trains and the increased patronage to planes and of course car travel has had an impact in relation to that service," Ms Chapman said.

"Probably the best way to deal with that is to have a look at that long term rather than just these annual supplements."

Opposition Leader Peter Malinauskas said more funding was needed to keep the 130-year-old service running.

"Once they stop operating, they rarely come back, so it is critical to keep continuity of this service," Mr Malinauskas said.

"It is an important feeder into The Ghan, which we know is an iconic tourism destination for our state, so this is a service that needs to continue into the future for the tourism sector but also to serve regional communities as well."

The Overland runs twice a week between Adelaide and Melbourne, carrying about 30,000 passengers per year.

Trips take 10.5 hours compared with 1.5 hours flying.

Full article : https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-26/ ... t/10166190

[Waewick]

Surely this needs to be looked at in context of the Liberals other plans globelink.

Seems odd thing to stop funding

[SBD]

Surely this needs to be looked at in context of the Liberals other plans globelink.

Seems odd thing to stop funding

Tom Koutsantonis went on about how vital the Overland is for people living in Regional South Australia on the radio this morning. As far as I can tell, the only places the Overland is scheduled to stop in SA are Murray Bridge and Bordertown - twice a week each way.

Are the interstate tracks suitable (including considerations of spacing between freight trains) to buy/rent a few XPT-like trains or railcars and run twice-daily services between Adelaide and Bordertown (stops at least Keith, Tailem Bend, Murray Bridge, Monarto (connecting bus to the zoo), Nairne, Balhannah), Broken Hill (Mallala, Snowtown, Crystal Brook, Gladstone, Jamestown, Peterborough) and Whyalla (Two Wells, Bowmans, Crystal Brook, Port Pirie, Port Augusta)?

[Eurostar]

The current The Overland is useless. It needs to have services twice daily 7 days a week.

[claybro]

The demise of the overland really seemed to accelerate once they started diverting through Geelong. It is just too slow and indirect. I cant understand why a city of 5 million and a city of 1.3 million only 700km apart cannot make a regular daily service work, or even twice daily especially in football season, using smaller/faster cheaper to run V/Locity trains. And no- the Labor idea of just throwing a million here and there at the dinosoar Overland is not the way to go either.

[PeFe]

The demise of the overland really seemed to accelerate once they started diverting through Geelong. It is just too slow and indirect. I cant understand why a city of 5 million and a city of 1.3 million only 700km apart cannot make a regular daily service work, or even twice daily especially in football season, using smaller/faster cheaper to run V/Locity trains. And no- the Labor idea of just throwing a million here and there at the dinosoar Overland is not the way to go either.

Beecause the train takes 10 HOURS and the plane takes 50 MINUTES.......

Inter-city train travel works well in small densely populated areas.....this is definitely not South Australia nor Victoria.

[claybro]

The demise of the overland really seemed to accelerate once they started diverting through Geelong. It is just too slow and indirect. I cant understand why a city of 5 million and a city of 1.3 million only 700km apart cannot make a regular daily service work, or even twice daily especially in football season, using smaller/faster cheaper to run V/Locity trains. And no- the Labor idea of just throwing a million here and there at the dinosoar Overland is not the way to go either.

Beecause the train takes 10 HOURS and the plane takes 50 MINUTES.......

Inter-city train travel works well in small densely populated areas.....this is definitely not South Australia nor Victoria.

A train does not need to take 10 hours. a V/locity train could do it in 7-8 even with stops, which is about the same as bus/car.
The 50 minute flight does not include travel to and from Tulla or Adelaide airport from the CBD, nor check in, nor frequent flight delays and circling Melbourne due to fickle East Coast weather.
A plane is not capable of stopping at Murray Bridge, Bordertown, Horsham, Ararat and Ballarat.
A diesel electric train puts out far less emissions than does a plane.

[PeFe]

Murray Bridge and Bordertown do not deserve rail services, based on their population and therefore the number of people travelling to Adelaide.

Regional South Australia does not have the population to justify any regional rail. Maybe, just maybe in 2150 when Port Pirie, Port Augusta all have poulations over 50,000 then a regional rail service to the Iron Triangle could be considered.

The best approach to the closure of the Overland (in my opinion) is just to "suck it up" and hope the state government use that money for something positive.

[claybro]

Murray Bridge and Bordertown do not deserve rail services, based on their population and therefore the number of people travelling to Adelaide.

Regional South Australia does not have the population to justify any regional rail. Maybe, just maybe in 2150 when Port Pirie, Port Augusta all have poulations over 50,000 then a regional rail service to the Iron Triangle could be considered.

The best approach to the closure of the Overland (in my opinion) is just to "suck it up" and hope the state government use that money for something positive.

As I have mentioned here many times, if WA can manage to run a daily train service Perth to Kalgoorlie which is 700km of practically flies and dust in between, then surely SA can manage to run a service to Melbourne which has multiples of large regional towns over the same distance and AFL tourism to assist with patronage. Yes it is heavily subsidised, but then all public transport is.

[rubberman]

Murray Bridge and Bordertown do not deserve rail services, based on their population and therefore the number of people travelling to Adelaide.

Regional South Australia does not have the population to justify any regional rail. Maybe, just maybe in 2150 when Port Pirie, Port Augusta all have poulations over 50,000 then a regional rail service to the Iron Triangle could be considered.

The best approach to the closure of the Overland (in my opinion) is just to "suck it up" and hope the state government use that money for something positive.

As I have mentioned here many times, if WA can manage to run a daily train service Perth to Kalgoorlie which is 700km of practically flies and dust in between, then surely SA can manage to run a service to Melbourne which has multiples of large regional towns over the same distance and AFL tourism to assist with patronage. Yes it is heavily subsidised, but then all public transport is.

The killer issue is the Adelaide Hills. It means that it takes a bus on the Freeway about an hour less to Murray Bridge. Perth doesn't really have that issue.

I'm not sure why there's a need for a train when buses do it faster for local and regional trips, and planes for direct connection. There's no case for a train.