[U/C] Port Adelaide Dock Spur Line

[Bob]

The Woodville-Grange branch line will be the next likely target as not viable from some inside the Liberal party.

There will try on an argument that buses do the job and the $$$ required to keep this branch line open are too high.

I wonder how many Liberal donors and party executives are members of the Royal Adelaide

Well they (the Golfers) did have their own railway station in the middle of the golf course once, naturally named 'Golf Links' but it was closed in the 1960's.

Also being a single line with no passing loops, being truncated from its original route to Henley Beach along with multiple stations going in the process wouldn't have helped its patronage as the years have gone by, and along with too much competition, first from the Henley Beach Rd tram, then the direct bus service to the City, and nowadays almost everyone drives their own car to the beach instead of using PT. That leaves for the most part some weekday commuters. Passenger number trends would be helpful if we could get hold of them to get a better idea. Now add in the current State Govt who will play the 'its not economical' card if they need an excuse to close it down...

[claybro]

with regard to the rail spur, I'm not sure many still understand that a heavy rail OH will lead to no other spurs. Grange is completely unsustainable, with West Lakes and Semaphore unsuitable for heavy rail due to street running. There will be no isolated tram system in the Port area, as local transport to rail hub can just as easily be handled by bus at a fraction of the cost. These spurs are only viable as light rail, even then, only with much greater population density. There is no way the tram museum could afford on street running-as romantic as that would be, and no government would fund it-let alone all the compliance issues that would need to be addressed. This is a shame for those wanting to see trams along Semaphore road, or West Lakes, as indeed the traders. Semaphore would have had the potential to match Glenelg. Unfortunately, as exciting as the Port dock spur idea is/was, it was a bit of a late brain fart by the previous government, and actually locked the whole OH corridor into a heavy rail future.-It was almost a complete FU to their previous idea of light rail. That being the case, it was an easy flick off for this government, as will be the Grange spur in future. Once these are closed off, there is a risk of the corridors being developed, as with the Glanville station surplus land. With all of this in mind, it would be great to see, at least the existing Port Adelaide station on the viaduct, be developed into a proper station and interchange with buses underneath, lifts to the platforms and some shops and air conditioned waiting areas. All buses from the peninsula and the new developments could feed into this station, instead of going all the way to the CBD.

[Goodsy]

How about this.

Loop the line back around through Wingfield
Build a new station at the back of the Woolsheds, use Commonwealth games as an excuse to redevelop them, Athletes Village could go there
convert the Outer Harbour line from the current Port Adelaide station to light rail with a Port Adelaide loop

[1NEEDS2POST]

Why did developers (and the government enable) this residential development? We should only be building high density around existing railway stations. This is why we can't have high quality public transport in Adelaide.

[PD2/20]

Why did developers (and the government enable) this residential development? We should only be building high density around existing railway stations. This is why we can't have high quality public transport in Adelaide.

It's not clear which residential development you are referring to? Port Dock? Glanville?

[Bob]

with regard to the rail spur, I'm not sure many still understand that a heavy rail OH will lead to no other spurs. Grange is completely unsustainable, with West Lakes and Semaphore unsuitable for heavy rail due to street running. There will be no isolated tram system in the Port area, as local transport to rail hub can just as easily be handled by bus at a fraction of the cost. These spurs are only viable as light rail, even then, only with much greater population density. There is no way the tram museum could afford on street running-as romantic as that would be, and no government would fund it-let alone all the compliance issues that would need to be addressed. This is a shame for those wanting to see trams along Semaphore road, or West Lakes, as indeed the traders. Semaphore would have had the potential to match Glenelg. Unfortunately, as exciting as the Port dock spur idea is/was, it was a bit of a late brain fart by the previous government, and actually locked the whole OH corridor into a heavy rail future.-It was almost a complete FU to their previous idea of light rail. That being the case, it was an easy flick off for this government, as will be the Grange spur in future. Once these are closed off, there is a risk of the corridors being developed, as with the Glanville station surplus land. With all of this in mind, it would be great to see, at least the existing Port Adelaide station on the viaduct, be developed into a proper station and interchange with buses underneath, lifts to the platforms and some shops and air conditioned waiting areas. All buses from the peninsula and the new developments could feed into this station, instead of going all the way to the CBD.

At the end of the day the aim is to have the entire suburban rail network electrified. But defining the ‘entire’ is the key to what will be there at the end of the day. Infrastructure SA has the CBD rail loop on its priority list for review as we all now, however the bigger picture is that review will take into account the ‘entire’ rail network and potential passenger numbers & benefits.

And here’s the problem, where best to spend the $$$, if you can get the $$$?

After the Gawler line electrification, what will ISA do? Will they recommend that we next spend on a CBD rail loop and electrify the OH line and long term extend Seaford & Gawler lines, but at the expense of closing both the Grange and Belair lines?

If/when the main interstate line moves away from the current Adelaide Hills alignment that leaves the Belair line alone, which if updated will require at least half a dozen level crossing removals, restored to duplicate Broad gauge, stations and platforms reinstated, and electrification to fit in with the rest of the network, but at what cost, 1 – 2 Billion $$$?

The decision might be to drop the Belair line and use Park and Ride Bus services from Blackwood – Adelaide and Belair – Adelaide & maybe Blackwood-Coromandel-Flinders Hub to save the $$$.

Lucky Flinders Link got underway previously or like Port Dock might have also been shelved under this State Govt.

Closing Adelaide suburban rail lines has occurred regularly over the years and it is quite probable to be left with only the major NS line via CBD loop and the OH line one day.

[Llessur2002]

I don't see any reason why the Belair line can't continue in its current form using diesel-electric trains - I was under the impression that these would be required anyway due to the gradient and tunnels?

There are still main lines in the UK which are served by diesel-electrics so it's not necessarily the case that the two technologies can't co-exist on the same network.

[claybro]

I don't see any reason why the Belair line can't continue in its current form using diesel-electric trains - I was under the impression that these would be required anyway due to the gradient and tunnels?

There are still main lines in the UK which are served by diesel-electrics so it's not necessarily the case that the two technologies can't co-exist on the same network.

While I am one that hates to see rail closed, for any reason, Belair line,-like Grange, is really not economically viable long term. There is very little provision for major population increase along Belair corridor, and the population at the top end is sparsely spread. Grange is also sparsely populated, and there appears no major plans at present to change this, with extending the lines or with high density developments. The one location on the Grange line to have any higher density development, Woodville West, adjacent Albert Park station, has really struggled to get off the ground, and for some strange reason, has no focal point at the station.

After the Gawler line electrification, what will ISA do? Will they recommend that we next spend on a CBD rail loop and electrify the OH line and long term extend Seaford & Gawler lines, but at the expense of closing both the Grange and Belair lines?

This has been on the cards for about 30 years now. What is surprising is that Grange and Belair have survived so long. As previously pointed out, the amount of money to be spent even on getting stations along these lines up to a reasonable modern standard is not warranted given their use, when compared to other priorities on the system.
Once closed, I seriously doubt a future Labor government will re-open these lines, except maybe the Port spur, given it is so short, serves a high density area, and as a matter of principal.

[Joelmark]

Improving and expanding the rail system comes down to a lack of political willpower - pure and simple. The money to fund the electrification of the Outer Harbor line and to stick with the Port Dock Spur could easily be sourced from the combined total going towards the Torrens Road and Brighton Road grade separation projects. Instead, the State Government has decided to save motorists four or five minutes' driving time rather than invest in a cleaner, greener rail system that has the potential to benefit tens of thousands of commuters. The Suburban Rail Loop in Melbourne and Metronet in Perth have shown that you can do this - I worry that here we argue over a one kilometre extension to a diesel rail line whilst interstate billions are being on spent on hundreds of kilometres of electrified rail extensions. Our population is growing, albeit at a more moderate pace, and the vehicle capacity of these road intersection upgrades and lane widening projects will simply be back to how they were originally in twenty or thirty years' time.

[gnrc_louis]

with regard to the rail spur, I'm not sure many still understand that a heavy rail OH will lead to no other spurs. Grange is completely unsustainable, with West Lakes and Semaphore unsuitable for heavy rail due to street running. There will be no isolated tram system in the Port area, as local transport to rail hub can just as easily be handled by bus at a fraction of the cost. These spurs are only viable as light rail, even then, only with much greater population density. There is no way the tram museum could afford on street running-as romantic as that would be, and no government would fund it-let alone all the compliance issues that would need to be addressed. This is a shame for those wanting to see trams along Semaphore road, or West Lakes, as indeed the traders. Semaphore would have had the potential to match Glenelg. Unfortunately, as exciting as the Port dock spur idea is/was, it was a bit of a late brain fart by the previous government, and actually locked the whole OH corridor into a heavy rail future.-It was almost a complete FU to their previous idea of light rail. That being the case, it was an easy flick off for this government, as will be the Grange spur in future. Once these are closed off, there is a risk of the corridors being developed, as with the Glanville station surplus land. With all of this in mind, it would be great to see, at least the existing Port Adelaide station on the viaduct, be developed into a proper station and interchange with buses underneath, lifts to the platforms and some shops and air conditioned waiting areas. All buses from the peninsula and the new developments could feed into this station, instead of going all the way to the CBD.

Any chance you get, you have a dig at the Grange line. Why? How often do you even catch it? Regularly? Have you caught it frequently over the past few years?

It is regularly near full during peak times, and with continuing mid-level development in Grange and surrounds, will only be patronized further - particularly due to it having a fairly large park and ride facility. Also, during football/cricket/major concerts at AO, it's heavily patronized. Even if the current Liberal State Government were to close it, if Labor were re-elected at the 2022 State Election, they would almost certainly reopen it.

[Patrick_27]

While I am one that hates to see rail closed, for any reason, Belair line,-like Grange, is really not economically viable long term. There is very little provision for major population increase along Belair corridor, and the population at the top end is sparsely spread.

I beg to differ. For one, I don't believe that any comparison can be drawn between Grange and Belair Line(s), there should be no question that Belair is better patronised. I think the Belair Line suffers from a knock-on effect that can only be resolved with a lot of money. To maximise it's potential trains servicing the line need to increase in speed and to do this you would need to electrify and re-duplicate the line; the latter of those can't be done until the freight rail bypass is complete. I think the Belair Line in it's current form would benefit from further station closures/consolidation and limited the services in areas. For example, limit stops at Goodwood Station, close Torrens Park and Lyndon and reopen Clapham (incorporate local bus services into this) alternatively build a bus interchange at Mitcham Station; limit services beyond Blackwood to weekends only but extend the line to Belair National Park and replace weekday services between Blackwood and Belair with a bus.

[gnrc_louis]

This has been on the cards for about 30 years now. What is surprising is that Grange and Belair have survived so long. As previously pointed out, the amount of money to be spent even on getting stations along these lines up to a reasonable modern standard is not warranted given their use, when compared to other priorities on the system.
Once closed, I seriously doubt a future Labor government will re-open these lines, except maybe the Port spur, given it is so short, serves a high density area, and as a matter of principal.

This just shows your current ignorance of South Australian politics - the Grange line sits within the Electorate of both the Labor Leader and the Shadow Treasurer.

[claybro]

[quote=claybro post_id=181849 time=<a href="tel:1561611910">1561611910</a> user_id=5463]


This has been on the cards for about 30 years now. What is surprising is that Grange and Belair have survived so long. As previously pointed out, the amount of money to be spent even on getting stations along these lines up to a reasonable modern standard is not warranted given their use, when compared to other priorities on the system.
Once closed, I seriously doubt a future Labor government will re-open these lines, except maybe the Port spur, given it is so short, serves a high density area, and as a matter of principal.
[/quote

This just shows your current ignorance of South Australian politics - the Grange line sits within the Electorate of both the Labor Leader and the Shadow Treasurer.

So you're suggesting that any closure of Grange and the cancellation of Port Dock is a personal up yours to the opposition? Are you suggesting that the line is actually viable in its current form? Are you suggesting Port Dock was a well thought out, vital PT asset? The Libs dislike rail in general, but Remember, Dry Creek spur was shut and is squarely in a Labor seat, the line then ripped up with no Labor government even considering re instating the line since. It had a very similar profile to Grange. The economics eventually killed it regardless of the politics.

[gnrc_louis]

So you're suggesting that any closure of Grange and the cancellation of Port Dock is a personal up yours to the opposition? Are you suggesting that the line is actually viable in its current form? Are you suggesting Port Dock was a well thought out, vital PT asset? The Libs dislike rail in general, but Remember, Dry Creek spur was shut and is squarely in a Labor seat, the line then ripped up with no Labor government even considering re instating the line since. It had a very similar profile to Grange. The economics eventually killed it regardless of the politics.

What? No - I'm saying a Labor Government is not going to advocate closure of a trainline which runs through electorates of their two most prominent MPs. Even more so because Lee is very marginal and is heavily serviced by the Grange train.

"Dry Creek spur" (by which I presume you mean Dry Creek to Port Adelaide) and Grange are not comparable lines imo - the former didn't have an end destination of the city. As I mentioned in my other post, the Grange line has actually had seemingly greater patronage in recent years (admittedly mostly at certain times/events), with continuing higher density development to come around Grange likely to encourage this further. If more people are to regularly catch public transport (a goal any decent State government should have) in this part of the western suburbs, this growth will absolutely not happen from buses. Hence, why rail is crucial.

[SRW]

I think it's worth questioning claims of rail lines being 'uneconomic' or 'not viable'. Of course patronage is low when 1) rail does not receive adequate investment and maintenance, and 2) road investment as a Good Thing is the prevailing orthodoxy (at the expense of public transport). When road supply is lavishly funded, commuter demand follows. Equally, when public transport is ramshackle, commuters choose roads. But there are a whole range of negative externalities that are not accounted for with road commuting (not least pollution and congestion, and thereby productivity) that allow a rosier picture of their viability to predominate. In addition, public transport is a public service and consideration of its viability needs to consider its social value. An herein lies the complexity of all the road upgrades the Liberals are pursuing instead of public transport upgrades -- what makes such investments 'economic' and are they the best option for servicing the community's mobility, productivity and strategic plan? Adelaide is planning 80% of its growth to be infill, and these people can't all hop into cars and share the same few roads. We need to get serious about compact development and public transport needs to be an increasingly large share of our commute. It's just not credible that less than 10% of us do so currently -- it's not because public transport is inherently inferior, only that it's inferior in the eyes of politicians and the public purse.