News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[[Shuz]]

Thanks Maximus, for the others who ceebs reading it - basically the gist of the story is that in order to recieve Federal funding, the SA Government is to pay for the project itself, and upon completion of project milestones, the money is then reimbursed by the Feds. Because of the dire situation of the SA budget, the money which was to be expended on the project... we don't have, so therefore the Gawler line electrification is essentially on hold. We had recieved a sum in advance to carry out some works, but for whatever reason this hasn't happened and the Feds want their money back.

I don't get why the State doesn't just take out a new loan, expend the money, finish the project, get reimbursed by the Feds and then use that to repay the loan?

[Waewick]

I don't think it covers the entire works, I think it is a $1 for $1 thing

[Rene]

The Feds don't have any money, they're clawing back all they can

[rubberman]

The Feds don't have any money, they're clawing back all they can

The Feds have as much money as they want. The aim of a balanced budget, while politically expedient, is not really economically sound.

For example, when we pay for an asset like electrification of the railways here from a loan, the cost of the project is borne by future generations - precisely those who would be using it. If, however we paid for it out of existing savings (ie by higher taxes on us now), then many people (anyone over thirty) would never see the full benefit of it, because they would be dead before the end of the economic life of the asset. In other words, for long life capital projects such as electrification, taking out a loan is the nearest thing to 'user pays' you will ever get. Future and present generations should pay for it, since they will get the biggest benefit from it.

Having said all that, politics will always get in the way.

Nonetheless, if the SA Government isn't going to do its share, then why should the Australian Government let them have the money anyway. Even if the Commonwealth was rolling in money, if the SA Government could not undertake its share of the work, then it should still pay back funds that were not used in accordance with the original agreement?

[ChillyPhilly]

Interesting read! Certainly a fresh spin on the take I had on it, and how the funding model was to work.

[rubberman]

Interesting read! Certainly a fresh spin on the take I had on it, and how the funding model was to work.

LOL. "Fresh" is not the word I would use. This is the way, bog standard, it was supposed to work when I first heard of it in an economics lecture in the very early nineteen seventies. This was actually ultra-conservative Treasury-think developed from the previous century's British Civil Service model.

For a little completeness, the idea was that life insurance companies would invest in Government bonds and draw that money (plus interest) down to pay their retirees various sorts of annuities. Thus users of infrastructure would pay over the life of the asset, and retirees would draw income from their bond investments over the period of their retirement (and of course pay some of the money toward interest on the asset while they lived). Very neat. But most people, even economists, have forgotten what was a very clever and effective public infrastructure funding model. Of course, the end point was that there was always some public debt...and that was a good, financially conservative, well tried over a century practical idea.

I find it hilarious that people today discuss 'infrastructure bonds' with much wise head nodding and serious consideration, not realising that they are reinventing a very old wheel.

[claybro]

I'm no economist, but didnt the PPP model replace government bonds? Never really understood the PPP set up anyway.

[AG]

I'm no economist, but didnt the PPP model replace government bonds? Never really understood the PPP set up anyway.

It certainly hasn't... and the PPPs may not last much longer if they keep failing the way several of the toll road tunnels in Sydney and Brisbane have gone (including the Airport Link which went into receivership today!). The returns on some of these projects have been overestimated by some of the companies involved and too much risk borne by the investors involved.

[Waewick]

they really need to get laws changes so superfunds can invest in infrastructure.

[metro]

more info and images of the new trains:

http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets ... tsheet.pdf





http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/infrastructur ... _and_trams

[PeFe]

There has been some discussion in other topics about the possibility of reducing/altering the stations on the current Adelaide Metro train network due to the Seaford extension and electrification of the network and I thought I would throw out some ideas here for discussion.

SEAFORD LINE
REMOVE : Mile End, Goodwood (replaced by Wayville),Emerson and Marino.

TONSLEY LINE
All stations stay (future of line format still to be decided, train or tram)

OUTER HARBOR LINE
All stations between Glanville and Outer Harbor should be re-assessed. There are too many, and the quality of the station faciliites is poor. Maybe stations need to be rebuilt in different locations with things like grade separation and transit orientated development in mind.

GRANGE LINE
Retain all stations as the future of the line as train or tram needs to be resolved.

GAWLER LINE
Remove : Greenfields (and leave the North Adelaide station as a heritage building with no trains stopping there ever again)

BELAIR LINE
Remove : Mile End, Goodwood (replaced by Wayville) and rebuild Millswood (closer to Goodwood Rd)

And as for the connection between the Glenelg tram line and the current Goodwood station......I think it is just not meant to be. The current tram overpass really does separate the lines quite substantially. I doubt whether there are that many people who want to transfer from a Noarlunga or Belair train to get the tram into the city. The trams in the morning peak are full and really don't need any more passengers. If I wanted to get to my office in KWS south I think I would rather stay on the train and swith to the tram at North Tce, especially if I was on a brand new Seaford train.

[claybro]

Agree to most of this except Millswood. Is it really necessary to built a new station for Millswood closer to Goodwood road as Goodwood Road is already well seved by the tram? I also think If Goodwood and Keswick are amalgamated into the Wayville station, they should keep Mile End but have it serviced only by Belair and Tonsley trains which have less distance to travel than Seaford line trains, which should be more limited stops type of service.
Oh, and I would also amalgamate Woodlands and Edwardstown into a single station closer to Castle Plaza, and close Woodville Park which is too close to Woodville.

[PeFe]

I would love to see some patronage figures for the Mile End train station, I would imagine it would be very very low. I was on a allstops to Noarlunga train last year and not a single person boarded or alighted at Mile End.I agree about Woodville Park (forgot about that one) The idea of a rebuilt Millswood train station closer to Goodwood Rd is to gather a different group of commuters to the tram which is 400(?) metres away.

[SAR526]

The idea of a rebuilt Millswood train station closer to Goodwood Rd is to gather a different group of commuters to the tram which is 400(?) metres away.

Having used the Goodwood Station frequently for many years, I fail to see how the new Wayville Station could possibly benefit anyone who wishes to access the business and theatre area of Goodwood Road, or for that matter any residences either. The show grounds form a huge barrier to get around in any direction. In fact the station will be a white elephant serving nothing except the occasional crowds going to events at the show grounds until there is substantial office development on the Keswick Military Barracks site, and there is no sign of that occurring any time soon. It is even further away from Adelaide Parklands interstate station, the Anzac Highway bus stops, and the Richmond Road business district than Keswick, which with lifts to the pedestrian bridge over the railway and a pedestrian tunnel at the northern end directly to the GSR platform 1, would be much cheaper to upgrade.

The tram stops on either side of the Goodwood overpass are a LONG walk away. Millswood, though a goodly walk from the shopping district, couldn't possibly be closer to Goodwood Road. It is already immediately adjacent. The underpass is a deviation built for electric trams while the horse trams and road traffic continued directly along the original road which still exists – right to the platform.

Whether we like it or not, both Millswood and Goodwood are located in the only possible places. The railway, Goodwood Road and the tramway all diverge rapidly from each other, so a platform on the tram overpass connected with lifts to the Goodwood platforms below is the only viable amelioration of the situation. It is a pity that Surrey Street doesn't connect at least to Devon Street for more direct access to the places that people actually want to go, but that is the fault of the planners of the past. Goodwood needs upgrading with proper wind protection and new access ramps, but it is still by far the most useful station of the three for the quite large numbers who actually use it.

[muzzamo]

Brighton station has been upgraded with flatscreen tv passenger info units.

I wonder if they are completely getting rid of the "rail real time" units which were, in my opinion, an epic fail. I would hate to imagine how much money they blew as they installed them, changed the led color on them, then moved them so they were not blinding the drivers. This is government so each project would have required committees and studies at great expense..

image.jpg (77.75 KiB) Viewed 3111 times