News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[EBG]

When electrification was first announced all the suburban lines were going to be standardised and all track work up grades have been laid with Gauge convertible sleepers, so trains to bolivar , two wells and restoring trains to mount barker is not impossible.

[ChillyPhilly]

When electrification was first announced all the suburban lines were going to be standardised and all track work up grades have been laid with Gauge convertible sleepers, so trains to bolivar , two wells and restoring trains to mount barker is not impossible.

Correct. It's also not a big deal to adjust the gauge of a dolly on rolling stock.

[OlympusAnt]

So, basically, build lots of suburbs like Bolivar, and no doubt develop the salt pans into housing eventually, but no rail or light rail or O-Bahn out there.

Sensational Adelaide, just sensational.

At least, given the ALP has been in power for so long, we know where to pin the blame.

Just like Los Angeles

[Norman]

Nothing has actually been proposed on the salt pans. We are getting upset about nothing.

[rev]

Nothing has actually been proposed on the salt pans. We are getting upset about nothing.

Wouldn't be South Australia otherwise.

[rubberman]

Nothing has actually been proposed on the salt pans. We are getting upset about nothing.

Actually, the point is that if we don't plan now for access to the potential development areas to the north of Adelaide, and reserve corridors for whatever technology is appropriate, then we will end up repeating the South Road debacle.

Just think, if we actually sat down, thought of a route for a public transport corridor out there, reserved it from development, we'd be able to install the infrastructure for a fraction of the cost of the usual procedure of having to buy back developed properties, tip people out, and having to do construction in cramped spaces.

Not only does the usual lack of planning cost more, but that extra cost is diverted from other areas, and usually extended over decades, as South Road has shown.

Why is it that people resist the concept of saving taxpayers money by thinking ahead a little bit? How difficult is it to identify a PT corridor to seve the North of the city?

[Norman]

Who needs to develop the salt pans or any other greenfield site when almost all new housing will (and should) be in the current footprint of Adelaide? We desperately need to increase density so we can avoid having to take more land from farmers and having to reserve any corridors in the first place. 60% will be within walking distance from high capacity public transport including train lines and trams.

[claybro]

Who needs to develop the salt pans or any other greenfield site when almost all new housing will (and should) be in the current footprint of Adelaide? We desperately need to increase density so we can avoid having to take more land from farmers and having to reserve any corridors in the first place. 60% will be within walking distance from high capacity public transport including train lines and trams.

Have to agree Norman. The population of Adelaide could easily be double within its current footprint and still not feel overcrowded. People need to be encouraged (educated/ incentivised?) to live in housing more suitable to their needs. If the number of single people I know of that live in 3 bedroom suburban houses is the normal, and I suspect it is, then we will continue to have the same issues. Try talking any of my friends into downsizing though, and I just get a shrug of the shoulders and "I like my space". Meanwhile they whinge about how fast the grass grows when its wet, or how brown it is in summer. Just crazy. Extending train lines and freeways on the perimeter rather than funding upgrades of what is already there will only encourage further sprawl.

[rubberman]

Who needs to develop the salt pans or any other greenfield site when almost all new housing will (and should) be in the current footprint of Adelaide? We desperately need to increase density so we can avoid having to take more land from farmers and having to reserve any corridors in the first place. 60% will be within walking distance from high capacity public transport including train lines and trams.

If that happens, well and good. However, the saying of "Hope for the best but plan for the worst" is appropriate, given our history.

When Dunstan killed the MATS Plan, he hoped for the best, sold off a lot of land which had to be bought back, and we ended up with years of South Road as a disaster.

Let's not repeat that.

[Norman]

Who needs to develop the salt pans or any other greenfield site when almost all new housing will (and should) be in the current footprint of Adelaide? We desperately need to increase density so we can avoid having to take more land from farmers and having to reserve any corridors in the first place. 60% will be within walking distance from high capacity public transport including train lines and trams.

If that happens, well and good. However, the saying of "Hope for the best but plan for the worst" is appropriate, given our history.

When Dunstan killed the MATS Plan, he hoped for the best, sold off a lot of land which had to be bought back, and we ended up with years of South Road as a disaster.

Let's not repeat that.

Greater Adelaide has already moved from 30% infill to 70% infill in the last 5 years, so it's already happening. Our lower population growth also makes this easier to manage.

[rubberman]

Who needs to develop the salt pans or any other greenfield site when almost all new housing will (and should) be in the current footprint of Adelaide? We desperately need to increase density so we can avoid having to take more land from farmers and having to reserve any corridors in the first place. 60% will be within walking distance from high capacity public transport including train lines and trams.

If that happens, well and good. However, the saying of "Hope for the best but plan for the worst" is appropriate, given our history.

When Dunstan killed the MATS Plan, he hoped for the best, sold off a lot of land which had to be bought back, and we ended up with years of South Road as a disaster.

Let's not repeat that.

Greater Adelaide has already moved from 30% infill to 70% infill in the last 5 years, so it's already happening. Our lower population growth also makes this easier to manage.

Have you got a source for that 70% figure?

The official figures from DPTI website indicate it's closer to 50%. But if there's something more up to date I'd be interested in seeing it.

[Norman]

Have you got a source for that 70% figure?

The official figures from DPTI website indicate it's closer to 50%. But if there's something more up to date I'd be interested in seeing it.

https://livingadelaide.sa.gov.au/conten ... ements.pdf

Check Page 3.

[Nathan]

When Dunstan killed the MATS Plan, he hoped for the best, sold off a lot of land which had to be bought back

I hear that furphy incredibly often. Dunstan mothballed the MATS plan, but he did not sell off any of the land. The majority of it was sold by Tonkin, and the last remaining bits by Bannon.

[ChillyPhilly]

When Dunstan killed the MATS Plan, he hoped for the best, sold off a lot of land which had to be bought back

I hear that furphy incredibly often. Dunstan mothballed the MATS plan, but he did not sell off any of the land. The majority of it was sold by Tonkin, and the last remaining bits by Bannon.

Correct. It was sold off throughout the 1980s due to the uncertainty it was creating for development.

[rubberman]

Have you got a source for that 70% figure?

The official figures from DPTI website indicate it's closer to 50%. But if there's something more up to date I'd be interested in seeing it.

https://livingadelaide.sa.gov.au/conten ... ements.pdf

Check Page 3.

Ok, thanks for that. Apologies for the tardy response...long weekend and all.

Interesting that there's an implied difference between those population figures, and the other figures from DPTI. However, as the report you quoted itself says, infill just stretches out the time frame. It does not eliminate the fringe growth. So, whether its 20 years, or 30 years, the issue still remains of how that area is to be serviced, and my question still remains of how hard is it for the government to identify a corridor to provide that service? Whether that's 20 or 30 or 50 years is not the point. SA Water, for example used to look 50 years ahead for planning dams and major infrastructure. Highways Dept used to as well. So, why the resistance for public transport planning?

I stand corrected on the matter of Don D not being the one to sell the South Road land.