Sensational-Adelaide.com

cleverick wrote:This is getting very interesting.

It would be more interesting still if you had a better understanding of the issues. I apologise if this sounds rude - I'm not trying to offend or annoy you, but because you've declared your intention to go into local government, I think it's important that you understand the opposing argument. From what you've written, it is clear that currently you do not.

I know you are at uni, though I don't know which one or how flexible your program is. But if you can, I strongly recommend you study Urban Economics (ECON1005) at UniSA.

Firstly, I would like to say that people misinterpret me when they hear me say I want to restrict the urban boundary. I'm not advocating we compulsorily acquire entire suburbs, just slowly cut them off from enormous government subsidies in the form of free roads and subsidised sewerage, water, phone, gas, electricity and water connections.

You are assuming there are enormous subsidies, but that doesn't mean there actually are!

As others have already pointed out, people pay for roads. People also pay for their sewerage, water, phone, gas, electricity and water connections.

And of course there is value in having Gawler, Elizabeth and Adelaide as discrete urban boundaries: there is space for farmland between them.

There is negligible value in having discrete urban boundaries. And even if there's space to convert the suburbia in between them to farmland, it would be totally idiotic to do so. That doesn't mean there won't be farms within the suburbia - there probably will, and aquaponics has great potential: see http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1776276.htm

If we want to be a state which makes things, we shouldn't be buying our food from overseas.

We export far more food than we import. We'd export far more if we had more rain, as it is water, not land, that is the limiting factor to how much we can grow.

In a world where transport costs are increasing and the price of food skyrocketing, it makes sense to grow our own really close to the population centre. Like everyone in Europe does. (Which is why PT in Adelaide sucks in comparison to PT in Europe.)

No, the real reason is that we haven't invested enough in rail infrastructure and our services are not frequent enough.

Suburban infrastructure is much more costly than urban. To supply the same number of dwellings, a much larger area must be covered. As for the costs associated with its upkeep: I can see your point about density making it more costly, but I don't think you're right. (I have no evidence.)

I think you should read this. I'm not suggesting you take it at face value - the reviewer's as biased against high density development as you are for it - but you should consider why the findings did not match your assumptions.

Aidan, the government recoups the costs from the subsidies to suburbia by taxing corporations' profits, with payroll tax, the GST, petrol excise and so on and so forth. Taxes generally would be much lower if people lived more densely. This is what I mean by the CBD subsidising the suburbs.

When I said redcoup I meant regain it from those who directly benefit so that no subsidy is needed. They recoup a lot through the Land Management Corporation, which buys up land around the urban fringes while it's cheap, leases it back to farmers, and then gradually releases it for housing at an enormous profit.

Omicron, Jetty Rd is in Glenelg, which, in more extreme moments of despair, I advocate should also be a discrete urban boundary of its own. That would make Jetty Rd its own CBD, and actually goes further to proving my point than disproving. I am all for such shopping strips, and completely against malls. Malls require cars because you're meant to buy so much at one it's impractical to use PT, even if it were provided. And while shopping strips develop along local lines to serve a community, malls are designed to serve as the CBD of a large area of suburbs- some of which will be a long way away, and since they're not the CBD, public transport cannot efficiently serve them. (In the sense that the density of traffic is not enough, and the routes will not go there.)

Others have already pointed out how reality contradicts that claim. But there's more to it than that. Firstly, shopping strips are no more likely to serve a community than malls are - those shopping strips are often situated along urban arterials and rely on the passing trade of motorists.

Secondly, you can usually buy just as much at shopping strips than malls, but for equivalent functionality you may have to reposition the car occasionally! And just because you can buy more in one go at a mall doesn't mean you have to. But when you do have a car with you, as most people do, it makes sense to use it as efficiently as possible - if you buy more this time, you won't have to make so many trips in future.

Thirdly, public transport must serve more than just the CBD, because people want to go to places other than the CBD.

Fourthly, having bus routes converge on malls facilitates cross suburban travel.

Fifthly, bus routes are much better utilized when they have major destinations at both ends, as otherwise they'd always be nearly empty near the outer end of the route. And that's another reason why having discreet urban boundaries between self contained suburbs is not such a good idea!

Aidan, developing more land *is* a mistake of the past.

No it isn't, it's a historical advantage of Adelaide! We've had the space and cheap public transport to give working class people the opportunity to escape from the cramped, expensive and often unhealthy City, while still being able to easily access it.

Are you advocating TODs outside the outer suburbs,

Not as the term is generally taken to mean. I think it's important that transit serves the entire conurbation including exurbs and surrounding country towns, but this could be in the form of ensuring new development is in existing towns and along bus routes.

a band of low-density outer suburbs, the dense inner suburbs and the CBD?

Mostly right, except that some outer suburbs are suitable for high density development (think of Noarlunga Centre: it has the second biggest mall in the southern suburbs, but if housing is developed there as is now planned, residents would have no need for a car at all) and some inner suburbs are not (as they were built as low density, and changing that would destroy the character of the area).

And this is meant not to isolate people?

Whether or not people are isolated depends on the quality of public transport and the location of services.

To consider expanding the urban boundary results in speculation and land banking.

...Mostly by the state government, and there's nothing wrong with that. And I'm not advocating unconstrained urban growth.

To do it intensifies the problem and starts the cycle again. It endagers some native species,

Changing land use is likely to disadvantage some species but benefit others. We do have control over what is done, so we can ensure that whatever development is done accommodates the needs of threatened species.

it puts suburbia too close to the bushfire line,

That is a serious issue that needs to be kept in mind when deciding what development can go ahead, but it is not necessarily a reason to disallow development.

it results in a loss of productive land for farming. While not everywhere on the plains gets enough water for fruit trees, that's no reason not to plant them where they will get enough!

And that is part of the reason for having the Hills Face Zone where development is severely restricted. Similarly it's a reason why the sprawl is not being allowed to engulf McLaren Vale. But there's a big difference between protecting high value agricultural areas and halting the encroachment into low value agricultural areas.

Even with fast, efficient transportation, someone in Aldinga will never be able to say they are not isolated from Gawler.

With a direct train service between these two places, many in Aldinga would be able to say that they are not isolated from Gawler! It's rather a long journey, but that isn't a problem because those from Aldinga will seldom want to go to Gawler - it's Adelaide that's important to not be isolated from.

Our city has lost all human scale, and is developing a monstrous life of its own, fed at times by Rann and others acceptance of developers' claims that to build a few houses out at Playford will ease the housing affordability crisis.
/rant for now

But allowing more houses to be built will ease the affordability crisis, even if they're not subsidized at all. And making a conurbation bigger does not damage the city on a human scale at all - it just means there's more of it. And you may not have noticed it, but not all of suburbia is the same!

Our city still has its human scale. Replacing it all with a few small high density cities would change all that..

I have been advised by my member of Parliament that the electrification of the Perth rail system was funded federally, why is it then that the South Australian electrification is being funded by the state budget ? would this then not be seen as playing favouritism.?

Yes, I've heard a similar story. Apparently, some states were given a pre-GST sweetener to bolster support for the tax system. WA wisely invested their windfall into the railways. SA Liberals spent it on building Mawson Lakes.

But that's just a rumour. I have no evidence to support this.

The electrification of the Transperth suburban network (existing lines and Joondalup-Currambine) opening was in 1992-1993.

I fail to see how that was GST related.

More recent projects were Currambine to Clarkson and Nowergup City extension (2005), Thornlie Spur Line (2005), Mandurah Line (2007).

William wrote:I have been advised by my member of Parliament that the electrification of the Perth rail system was funded federally, why is it then that the South Australian electrification is being funded by the state budget ? would this then not be seen as playing favouritism.?

Brisbane's system which was electrified in the 1970s was also federally funded. Just another piece of useless info from me

Will409 wrote:I have been advised by my member of Parliament that the electrification of the Perth rail system was funded federally, why is it then that the South Australian electrification is being funded by the state budget ? would this then not be seen as playing favouritism.?

If we didn't have any federal funding for comparable projects then yes. But we are quite likely to attract federal funding in future.

William wrote:Brisbane's system which was electrified in the 1970s was also federally funded. Just another piece of useless info from me

Adelaide also received federal funding for our railways at that time, but used it to double track the line from Brighton to Port Stanvac and extend it to Noarlunga Centre.

You and your Buses...

It is a refreshing change to see someone who does not have a "Rail rocks, buses suck, run trains everywhere" agenda like a lot of dribblers on Railpage and a few on SkyscraperCity, and one member of this board.

Somebody wrote:It is a refreshing change to see someone who does not have a "Rail rocks, buses suck, run trains everywhere" agenda like a lot of dribblers on Railpage and a few on SkyscraperCity, and one member of this board.

I wouldn't put it quite as bluntly.

But yes I believe that trains, trams, guided busways and buses all have a part to play in a well connected PT system.

My manifesto:
Point one: Trains need feeder buses. And until we all live in ToDs there's no getting around that.

Point two: Trains should only be used for long distance centre to centre transport. Additionally their stations should be far apart. All of our rail lines have too many stations.

Point three: Trams should only be used for short routes, with trip times less than 30 minutes. They should be on road for the most part and have many close stops. They should not be in a transport corridor. I believe that the Glenelg line isn't doing it correctly - it's trying to be a train and a tram. (a traim? )

Point four: Where there exists a pocket of suburban sprawl, trams are not going to cut it. You need buses. If that pocket of sprawl is at the other end of a short distance road corridor (eg NE suburbs) you need to get the buses off the roads to ease congestion. This is were a guided busway comes in. If that pocket of sprawl is a long way away you should use buses to concentrate toward a major rail line (but see point two regarding distance between stops).

Point five: I'm hungry, I'm going to get some dinner...

but the o'bahn is now loaded with feeder buses also. It never started that way, but it is now

jk1237 wrote:but the o'bahn is now loaded with feeder buses also. It never started that way, but it is now

Another Furphy.

When the OBahn started, yes there was door to door service on all routes from early am to almost 1am.
BUT most of those services only came once an hour at night (and only every half hour during peak!). There was only around a dozen routes using the OBahn after the last section opened in 1989 (in its first year providing around 4million trips).

NOW there's over 26 routes on the OBahn most at a 15 minute frequency or better, the majority of which operate a door to door service during peak period. Only reverting to a feeder service during off peak times. plus a load of little feeder routes that pick up only 1 to 6 people each run (now the system provides around 8million trips a year).

The best of both worlds, during peak the OBahn can operate a door to door service, meaning that most passengers don't have to transfer at all. And off peak it can revert to a rail kind of operation with less patronised services feeding into more patronised services. It's also worth pointing out that most of the services that the feeders feed into also continue off the track and provide door to door services.

Trains can't leave their tracks at all.

I've said all this before, several times. Stop just regurgitating poorly thought out non arguments.

From what I've seen though most people still transfer at TTP to their bus, regardless if it's peak or not. Many also get off to go to their cars. I think a rail service is still viable in this area, because people often don't catch their local bus in the city, they just go to TTP/Klemzig/Paradise and then hope their local bus comes along soon after.

monotonehell wrote:

jk1237 wrote:but the o'bahn is now loaded with feeder buses also. It never started that way, but it is now

Another Furphy.

When the OBahn started, yes there was door to door service on all routes from early am to almost 1am.
BUT most of those services only came once an hour at night (and only every half hour during peak!). There was only around a dozen routes using the OBahn after the last section opened in 1989 (in its first year providing around 4million trips).

NOW there's over 26 routes on the OBahn most at a 15 minute frequency or better, the majority of which operate a door to door service during peak period. Only reverting to a feeder service during off peak times. plus a load of little feeder routes that pick up only 1 to 6 people each run (now the system provides around 8million trips a year).

The best of both worlds, during peak the OBahn can operate a door to door service, meaning that most passengers don't have to transfer at all. And off peak it can revert to a rail kind of operation with less patronised services feeding into more patronised services. It's also worth pointing out that most of the services that the feeders feed into also continue off the track and provide door to door services.

Trains can't leave their tracks at all.

I've said all this before, several times. Stop just regurgitating poorly thought out non arguments.

Oh my god. You keep saying how its a problem that trains rely on feeder buses (which I cant find a problem with at all), yet you have now turned it right around saying the o'bahn has the best of both worlds caus it has feeder buses in non-peak, even though it was said just before that was a furphy that the o'bahn has loads of feeder buses. Now Im confused.

Therefore, a train line to the NE suburbs would have worked almost identical to this current o'bahn, except in peak hour

Deepest apologies for my poorly thought out non arguments. I am very stupid

Norman wrote:From what I've seen though most people still transfer at TTP to their bus, regardless if it's peak or not. Many also get off to go to their cars. I think a rail service is still viable in this area, because people often don't catch their local bus in the city, they just go to TTP/Klemzig/Paradise and then hope their local bus comes along soon after.

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't jive with the facts me hearty. Quite a few people do use the park and ride at TTP but only for a brief portion of peak period (around 8:30). But wait, your argument is some people transfer at TTP onto the OBahn, where as with a train everyone would need to transfer. That's not much of an argument in favour of a train now is it?

"Some people wear wigs, so everyone should have their head shaved." Logical fallacy.


I really don't think a rail service could keep up with the frequency and headway that the current OBahn provides during peak. If you stand at the Hackney Road exit in the morning (or entrance in the afternoon) you'll see a full bus cruise by every few seconds. That's way more than a train could hope to get through in that time.

It's like the difference between a conveyor belt and a big bucket on an overhead line. The conveyor belt can only take a small load at any once point, but has a constant flow of product. Whilst the bucket has a bigger load at any one point, but must wait to be filled and has a much lesser frequency.

A train's headway at best would be 3 minutes (more like 10 but I'm being generous). Let's be generous and put on a train with the absolute max of 6 BIG cars.

On the OBahn the headway is something like 6 seconds. Let's be conservative and say every 15 seconds...

Now which can shift more seated passengers in an hour?

Train: 3mins X 110pax x 6 cars = 13200
Obahn: 15secs X 100pax X 1 artic = 24000

Even being very biased toward the train they still have around half the capacity of the OBahn (whose theoretical max is 60000).


A rail line down the NE corridor would also take up much more room and cost more to maintain (due to the soil conditions) not to mention the capital cost of replacing the track Mil$230 - for no real gain. And you'd still need to run all those buses for feeders. Which on the OBahn in peak are a door to door service. Outside of peak, you'd need to drop the train's frequency otherwise it costs too much to run. Trains are only cheaper than buses to run when they are at full capacity (Ave cost of a train pax=$7, Ave cost of a bus pax=$12.90 - 2006 figures). Also if the OBahn is blocked by a breakdown, the buses can just divert onto roads. Whereas if a rail line is blocked, extra buses need to be organised from somewhere...

Big cost + no gain = no cost benefit.


The only valid argument against the OBahn I've seen so far is an environmental one, if you have an electrified train system compared to diesel buses. But I suppose you could electrify the OBahn, it's supposed to have provision for overhead wires, and run hybrid buses.

Well, you have your position, and I have mine. I won't argue more into this topic as it's getting too complex. I guess it just comes down to preference, and I just prefer trains because I think they are cleaner, more comfortable and encourage higher localised density close to stations. They are also easier to drive and handle for the staff.