News & Discussion: Trams

[Llessur2002]

Here's the Advertiser story if anyone cares:

Labor to fund $500 million citywide tram network across Adelaide

LABOR is to promise half a billion dollars for a citywide Adelaide tram network it says it will create 2000 jobs, as Opposition Leader Bill Shorten moves to outdo Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on public transport.

Mr Shorten is set to announce the pledge today, putting pressure on Mr Turnbull to match or better the offer to invest in the State Government’s AdeLINK project.

Infrastructure Australia has listed the AdeLINK network as a priority project, and the State Government has been working on a $4 million business case to determine the overall cost of trams to go from the city to The Parade, Henley Square, Mitcham, Port Adelaide, and around the city.

The final cost of the project is estimated to be around $3 billion.



The Labor investment to be announced today will fund the initial stages. The State Government will also pitch in, and it is hoped the project will be able to attract private sector investment.

Mr Shorten told The Advertiser that the investment was “about creating jobs and investing in the skills of South Australians”.

“This investment will create 2000 jobs in SA and give the local economy a much-needed boost,” he said.

“Just as we did when we forced the Liberals to backflip and build the submarines in Adelaide, Labor will always fight for decent jobs for South Australians.”

Premier Jay Weatherill said AdeLINK was a “key element” of the State Government’s larger transport plans.

“The AdeLINK tram network is a key element in the transformation of our public transport system which we know will deliver enormous economic benefits, continue to improve Adelaide’s vibrancy and will also create jobs,” he said.

“This is an exciting announcement which addresses two of our federal election priorities, to grow our public transport network and to support our sovereign steel industry.”

The pledge will up the election ante on public transport. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was in Adelaide last week to announce the Coalition would fund the extension of the Tonsley rail line to deliver a train from the city to Flinders Medical Centre.

Mr Turnbull’s support for public transport has been a shift from former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who preferred investment in roads.

Mr Turnbull said that rail extension and other developments could create almost 2000 jobs and drive more than $800 million in investment.

Labor denounced the announcement as the mere rerouting of other money.

Labor’s plan, if elected on July 2, is to spend the $500 million over four years, while maximising the use of Australian steel and electrifying the Gawler rail line.

The Advertiser revealed in April that federal infrastructure and transport spokesman Anthony Albanese was keen to support the project, but Mr Shorten will announce the specific investment today.

It could become a bipartisan promise. A Government source told The Advertiser recently that the network was also on its radar as a “nationally significant” project.

Mr Turnbull has unveiled a plan to leverage increased land values to build more infrastructure, such as light rail.

When he was in Adelaide earlier this year, he discussed light rail with Premier Jay Weatherill.

“I’ve been saying to the premiers, if you want to build light rail, fair enough, (it) can add a lot of value to your city,” he said.

“But look at it on the basis of how it will build amenity, improve livability, improve housing affordability, improve housing supply.”

An alliance of Adelaide’s leaders is pushing for a 1km tram extension from King William St along North Tce to East Tce to be the first project.

The group, which includes Lord Mayor Martin Haese and the Rundle Mall Management Authority’s chairman Eric Granger, argue it would boost economic growth and jobs, and would bring more people into the city centre.

“I think a tram is exactly what the doctor ordered,” Mr Haese said.

The business plan being prepared by the State Government will identify the precise routes and stops, as well as planning, design, and value capture benefits.

That business case will be assessed by Infrastructure Australia, and the funding will need IA’s approval to go ahead.

It is planned that the business case will be released before the election.

[rubberman]

prey short on detail- looks like $500M to throw at something the state doesn't have funding for.

hopefully more detail soon - if its a loop/tram to Norwood I'd be keen, if its unfunded pie perhaps not.

I wonder what the State prefers, this or the flinders train extension?

The worst aspect of it is that they are promising $500m without having done a feasibility study.

Again, the State Government is negligent here. They've been banging on about this for years, and all we've got is a few texta lines on a map. The State Government should have had the feasibility study done five years ago. IF, and I say IF that had shown the proposal to be feasible, then they should have done all the design and planning ready to go. If one thing should have been learnt from the "Pink Batts" episode, it is that governments need shovel ready projects in their back pockets to put into place when there's a downturn. Otherwise it's pink batts, or projects that have not been evaluated...like this.

[Waewick]

I tend to agre.

but look if Labor promise the$500M even if it for the bit up KWS to East Terrace (essentilally linkging the O-Bahn to the tram) I'd be keen for it as it is a step closer to getting to Norwood.

[phenom]

The tram development is probably as far as it can go without funding. Generally the plan for these things is not supposed to be worked out in detail in advance, that's sorted out when final funding constraints are known and a builder has been selected. You can see this is how it works by looking at Torrens to Torrens etc.

The fact this is with InfrastructureAustralia (albeit at options assessment level) is a good sign and the SA govt is working on a $4m business case. How much more should they spend in absence of having assured funds? Spend $50m on a full work up to sit on a dusty shelf and have the Advertiser running headlines claiming people are dying in hospitals because the government spent money on a plan for no reason?

[fishinajar]

The tram development is probably as far as it can go without funding. Generally the plan for these things is not supposed to be worked out in detail in advance, that's sorted out when final funding constraints are known and a builder has been selected. You can see this is how it works by looking at Torrens to Torrens etc.

The fact this is with InfrastructureAustralia (albeit at options assessment level) is a good sign and the SA govt is working on a $4m business case. How much more should they spend in absence of having assured funds? Spend $50m on a full work up to sit on a dusty shelf and have the Advertiser running headlines claiming people are dying in hospitals because the government spent money on a plan for no reason?

What phenom said. Full detailed business case and plans are expensive and have a short use by date. It would be irresponsible to do it until you know you're going to have the money.

...They've been banging on about this for years, and all we've got is a few texta lines on a map...

As for texta lines on a map, like the current government or not, don't pretend that zero research and analysis have occurred, or that other details such have stop spacing have not been considered at all. They have been.

[mshagg]

I love the idea of an extensive tram network, but have concerns when the focus is entirely on jobs during the construction phase.

Someone has to pay to run the thing once its built. That someone isn't the Commonwealth. As it stands our public transport is heavily subsidized by expiations paid by motorists - which is fine (pardon the pun) - but how much more blood can they squeeze from that stone?

[Goodsy]

I love the idea of an extensive tram network, but have concerns when the focus is entirely on jobs during the construction phase.

Someone has to pay to run the thing once its built. That someone isn't the Commonwealth. As it stands our public transport is heavily subsidized by expiations paid by motorists - which is fine (pardon the pun) - but how much more blood can they squeeze from that stone?

That's why the preliminary design phase usually has a cost-benefit analysis

[Norman]

The business case is currently being written by the department, and should be released before the election. The $4m report was commissioned in February.

[Spurdo]

I love the idea of an extensive tram network, but have concerns when the focus is entirely on jobs during the construction phase.

Someone has to pay to run the thing once its built. That someone isn't the Commonwealth. As it stands our public transport is heavily subsidized by expiations paid by motorists - which is fine (pardon the pun) - but how much more blood can they squeeze from that stone?

Car tax?

[rhino]

The general consensus is that more people will use a tram service than a bus service. Therefore the Govt will not have to subsidise the bus service that will no longer be running because of the tram service, and the tram service should need less subsidising because more people will be using it.

[zippySA]

I was told the other day that Melbourne's trams only generate one third of their own revenue from ticket sales - the other two thirds comes from the government as part of a performance payment to meet certain KPI's. It's a good point - great to roll these out, but ensure they factor in the ongoing operational costs - these end up being much larger than the up-front build over the life of the asset.

[rubberman]

The tram development is probably as far as it can go without funding. Generally the plan for these things is not supposed to be worked out in detail in advance, that's sorted out when final funding constraints are known and a builder has been selected. You can see this is how it works by looking at Torrens to Torrens etc.

The fact this is with InfrastructureAustralia (albeit at options assessment level) is a good sign and the SA govt is working on a $4m business case. How much more should they spend in absence of having assured funds? Spend $50m on a full work up to sit on a dusty shelf and have the Advertiser running headlines claiming people are dying in hospitals because the government spent money on a plan for no reason?

What phenom said. Full detailed business case and plans are expensive and have a short use by date. It would be irresponsible to do it until you know you're going to have the money.

...They've been banging on about this for years, and all we've got is a few texta lines on a map...

As for texta lines on a map, like the current government or not, don't pretend that zero research and analysis have occurred, or that other details such have stop spacing have not been considered at all. They have been.

Ok, a couple of things here. Yes, it would mean spending the money for detailed design ahead of time. But how much did the pink batts cost compared to the alternative of having a project with a full business case ready to go? I think having a few major well costed, well designed projects with good business cases up and ready to go would have been a far better option than the pink batts. We have recessions every 8-10 years in this country: 1961, 74, 83, 87, 91, 2001, 2008. So, there's no case to say that pre-planning for the next one is a bad idea.

As for pre-planning before having assured funds. Well, how can you assure the funds if you haven't done enough design to have an accurate estimate? Perhaps some of the cost overruns wouldn't happen?

Frankly, I don't believe that anything other than back of envelope stuff has been done...the major inputs are after the feasibility studies are done. Up to then, it's really just concepts.

Finally, the only reason it couldn't be done is if SA is bereft of competent project management skills. I hope that is not so.

[Goodsy]

I was told the other day that Melbourne's trams only generate one third of their own revenue from ticket sales - the other two thirds comes from the government as part of a performance payment to meet certain KPI's. It's a good point - great to roll these out, but ensure they factor in the ongoing operational costs - these end up being much larger than the up-front build over the life of the asset.

Also consider that the tram network within the Melbourne CBD is free

[mshagg]

That's why the preliminary design phase usually has a cost-benefit analysis

Oh for sure, im not suggesting either state or federal labor are reckless or anything along those lines, just that it's clearly a bit of an election puff.

It seems it's an attempt by shorten to out-tram Turnbull, made somewhat easier by a sympathetic state government. That said, this isn't Melbourne where there's swathes of inner city green votes to capture. I'm not even sure if announcing trams plays well in the affected electorates given Adelaide's hostility towards anything which might occupy a square metre of space that someone could otherwise jam a single occupant vehicle into. This may well be why it's being sold as "jobs" rather than "infrastructure". I think Nick X's party is running in these divisions so might be an attempt to divert votes away from him as well.

[Goodsy]

That's why the preliminary design phase usually has a cost-benefit analysis

Oh for sure, im not suggesting either state or federal labor are reckless or anything along those lines, just that it's clearly a bit of an election puff.

It seems it's an attempt by shorten to out-tram Turnbull, made somewhat easier by a sympathetic state government. That said, this isn't Melbourne where there's swathes of inner city green votes to capture. I'm not even sure if announcing trams plays well in the affected electorates given Adelaide's hostility towards anything which might occupy a square meter of space that someone could otherwise jam a single occupant vehicle into. This may well be why it's being sold as "jobs" rather than "infrastructure". I think Nick X's party is running in these divisions so might be an attempt to divert votes away from him as well.

Nah, the people living in the those divisions simply remember fondly the days of Adelaide having a full scale tram network, So it's still a vote grabber for them