Sensational-Adelaide.com

SRW wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:10 am

SBD wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:35 am

SRW wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:29 pm

I think you're overselling the backlash locals will cause (presuming a tunnel proposal) and underselling the overwhelming desire of everyone else to see it done.

My evidence is the front-page photo of Tom Koutsantonis with his arms crossed a few months ago about building the next section south of the Torrens RIver, rather than him telling us how wonderful the Labor plan was and Liberal should just get on and follow his plans. His electorate will bear the pain of the construction phase while he is seeking re-election. Electorates further west (and north, south, everywhere else) will benefit from the project being completed. The assumption is that voters can't/won't look beyond the next election or the boundaries of their own seat to see the bigger long-term benefits.

I don't see how your 'evidence' supports your conclusion. Bear in mind the context and convention of the arms-crossed visual in news media, and also the role of the 'opposition' at this point of the electoral cycle. Again, providing a tunnel option, I suspect any NIMBYism will be minor and muted. This project has been a long time coming for too long a time, and people's attitudes will have appropriately adjusted and accepted the ultimate outcome.

I think the Labor Party's 2015-or-so vision looked reasonable, but it seemed to have stalled before the last election. Liberal is taking a long time to re-evaluate the plan. I was surprised that Labor didn't go in hard with "we've already done the planning, just build it", which suggests the planning was well behind the vision. Liberal is taking a long time to come out with either affirming the Labor plan (which will be portrayed by some as a back-down) or coming up with a viable alternative. In the mean time, it is proceeding with plans to grade-separate the intersection north of Port Wakefield and duplicate the Joy Baluch Bridge. It will also be interesting to see if any large chunks of work proceed towards GlobeLink (rail or road).

SBD wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:35 am

...It will also be interesting to see if any large chunks of work proceed towards GlobeLink (rail or road).

Globelink has been cancelled as of about two hours ago.

gnrc_louis wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:06 pm

SBD wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:35 am

...It will also be interesting to see if any large chunks of work proceed towards GlobeLink (rail or road).

Globelink has been cancelled as of about two hours ago.

I saw that just after my previous post.

I am still reading the report, but it seems part of the decline in value of the rail component of GlobeLink was the decline in demand for rail - which would include the decision of Viterra and GWA to move grain from rail to road. Our rail network is declining, therefore we have a reduced demand for a rail network

Viterra and GWA should never have been allowed to discontinue rail freight.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:16 pm

Viterra and GWA should never have been allowed to discontinue rail freight.

... and how do you compel them to continue?

Legislate.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:16 pm

Viterra and GWA should never have been allowed to discontinue rail freight.

Viterra is a corporate entity. Both shareholders and farmers benefit from Viterra sourcing the lowest cost transport. The failing is in the policy area somewhere, and enforced (or not) through the outsourcing contract(s).

Trucks don't pay full cost recovery on maintaining and upgrading roads (please don't read this as me saying they should). GWA had to pay full cost to maintain the rail corridor, as well as the trains to run on it, for only one customer. Once the tracks had been allowed to run down, GWA trains could not compete for business with road freight - it cost more and took longer, why would anyone want to use it?

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:03 pm

Legislate.

That’s a great way to create a competitive efficient economy. Not.

I totally agree with you SBD. So what is your/the forums thoughts on the Fed. Govt spending $9.3billion on inland rail from Melb (via NSW) to Brisbane for freight? ie why the inland rail will work here vs road and what do you think are the differences to our situation?https://inlandrail.artc.com.au/keyfacts
(The mod can move this debate to a different thread).

The way diesel prices are and possibly of a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme would it not be wise to transition to electric freight trains

Eurostar wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 6:16 pm

The way diesel prices are and possibly of a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme would it not be wise to transition to electric freight trains

(Is there a long-haul freight forum this should be in?)

I suspect that either the weight of sufficient batteries, or the cost and reliability of sufficiently heavy-gauge overhead wire would preclude that for quite a long time to come. Each current locomotive outputs over 3MW of power, and they are usually run in multiples.

Maybe electric trucks will tip the balance further towards road rather than rail freight as the power consumption is not as concentrated.

how good is he wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:48 pm

I totally agree with you SBD. So what is your/the forums thoughts on the Fed. Govt spending $9.3billion on inland rail from Melb (via NSW) to Brisbane for freight? ie why the inland rail will work here vs road and what do you think are the differences to our situation?https://inlandrail.artc.com.au/keyfacts
(The mod can move this debate to a different thread).

I would say demand. The amount of freight travelling along the eastern seaboard is massive.

how good is he wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:48 pm

I totally agree with you SBD. So what is your/the forums thoughts on the Fed. Govt spending $9.3billion on inland rail from Melb (via NSW) to Brisbane for freight? ie why the inland rail will work here vs road and what do you think are the differences to our situation?https://inlandrail.artc.com.au/keyfacts
(The mod can move this debate to a different thread).

Presumably the forecast freight load is closer to route capacity through Sydney than it is through Adelaide, so the alternative pays off. There is also already a large intermodal terminal at Parkes and possibly Toowoomba. I wonder if the NSW government has been investing in keeping rail competitive with road over the last half-century, while most of the SA rail network has been allowed to decline until it fails.

On a different slant, I was surprised to read there is still plenty of excess capacity in Port Adelaide, too.

ml69 wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:03 pm

Legislate.

That’s a great way to create a competitive efficient economy. Not.

Will the local history books write about the foolish decision to close railways, or will they write about the month of September 2019 when Viterra made a profit of $23.65?

ml69 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:44 pm

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:03 pm

Legislate.

That’s a great way to create a competitive efficient economy. Not.

You're really gonna freak out when you find out how the entire state economy was initially built.