Sensational-Adelaide.com

InDaily asked Transport Minister Tom Koutsantonis’ office whether the state government was investigating an Adelaide Airport rail link.

A government spokesperson responded: “The State Government is not currently investigating a rail link between Adelaide Airport and the city, and has no plans to do so.”

Nort wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 2:12 pm

nothing will happen because it "isn't needed" right until the point where the traffic situation becomes so bad it is gridlocking the area

Saltwater wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 4:21 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 2:12 pm

nothing will happen because it "isn't needed" right until the point where the traffic situation becomes so bad it is gridlocking the area

I live in the area between SDB, HBR and South Road, and trust me when I say it's already gridlocked for much of the day.

A government spokesperson responded: “The State Government is not currently investigating a rail link between Adelaide Airport and the city, and has no plans to do so.”

Saltwater wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 4:58 pm

It was a few years ago now, but back in 2022 Federal Money was earmarked for an "Airport Link" from Torrensville to the Airport. It's not a train, or a tram, but in my opinion would have been better than nothing.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 520a016666

"The second, $4.48bn stage, of which the latest Commonwealth funding is earmarked for, will construct an Airport link and more than 2km of tunnels from Torrensville from 2026."

A change of government at Federal and State level since, and it's now been placed squarely in the forgettery. It's almost a bit of a shame, because given the overall cost of the NSM, a short link to the airport would not have been a huge increase in scope. It's such a short distance as compared to most other airports it's not unusual to see people walking to it towing suitcases down Don Bradman Drive.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 4:36 pm

Ahh, never change, Adelaide:

A government spokesperson responded: “The State Government is not currently investigating a rail link between Adelaide Airport and the city, and has no plans to do so.”

Big Country Town Mentality.

mattblack wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 5:55 pm

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 4:36 pm

Ahh, never change, Adelaide:

A government spokesperson responded: “The State Government is not currently investigating a rail link between Adelaide Airport and the city, and has no plans to do so.”

Big Country Town Mentality.

Go to line isn't it chilli. Used multiple times now on the tram thread and train thread and again on the parlands thread. Priorities change over time which require greater focus and more importantly $$$ (such as ramping). I'm sure Labour would love to have enuff to revisit Adelink but we don't. With the amount of massive infrastructure projects including defence in the works can we finally drop this crap about 'big country town'. It demeans what Adelaide has become and south australia as a state over the last 15yrs.

mattblack wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 5:55 pm

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 4:36 pm

Ahh, never change, Adelaide:

A government spokesperson responded: “The State Government is not currently investigating a rail link between Adelaide Airport and the city, and has no plans to do so.”

Big Country Town Mentality.

Go to line isn't it chilli. Used multiple times now on the tram thread and train thread and again on the parlands thread. Priorities change over time which require greater focus and more importantly $$$ (such as ramping). I'm sure Labour would love to have enuff to revisit Adelink but we don't. With the amount of massive infrastructure projects including defence in the works can we finally drop this crap about 'big country town'. It demeans what Adelaide has become and south australia as a state over the last 15yrs.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 11:54 pm

mattblack wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 5:55 pm

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 4:36 pm

Ahh, never change, Adelaide:



Big Country Town Mentality.

Go to line isn't it chilli. Used multiple times now on the tram thread and train thread and again on the parlands thread. Priorities change over time which require greater focus and more importantly $$$ (such as ramping). I'm sure Labour would love to have enuff to revisit Adelink but we don't. With the amount of massive infrastructure projects including defence in the works can we finally drop this crap about 'big country town'. It demeans what Adelaide has become and south australia as a state over the last 15yrs.

The Weatherill Labor govt spent several millions in extremely detailed studies for a tram system. Then, based on these studies proposed to build said tramline.

Now, as far as has ever been revealed, none of the facts that led to the conclusion to build the system have ever been refuted. Not by either political party.

So, having spent millions to conclude that we should build a tram system, both parties decide to ignore all that work...without any explanation whatever.

A professional approach might be for the government to explain why it no longer wishes to proceed. A small town approach would be to decide there's not enough votes, so let's drop it.

If SA wants to be treated seriously, it needs to act seriously. Putting up projects for Commonwealth funding and then just letting them slide without justification is amateurish. BTW, the Commonwealth has just announced it is putting funding into the Canberra Light Rail extension.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 11:54 pm

mattblack wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 5:55 pm

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 4:36 pm

Ahh, never change, Adelaide:



Big Country Town Mentality.

Go to line isn't it chilli. Used multiple times now on the tram thread and train thread and again on the parlands thread. Priorities change over time which require greater focus and more importantly $$$ (such as ramping). I'm sure Labour would love to have enuff to revisit Adelink but we don't. With the amount of massive infrastructure projects including defence in the works can we finally drop this crap about 'big country town'. It demeans what Adelaide has become and south australia as a state over the last 15yrs.

The Weatherill Labor govt spent several millions in extremely detailed studies for a tram system. Then, based on these studies proposed to build said tramline.

Now, as far as has ever been revealed, none of the facts that led to the conclusion to build the system have ever been refuted. Not by either political party.

So, having spent millions to conclude that we should build a tram system, both parties decide to ignore all that work...without any explanation whatever.

A professional approach might be for the government to explain why it no longer wishes to proceed. A small town approach would be to decide there's not enough votes, so let's drop it.

If SA wants to be treated seriously, it needs to act seriously. Putting up projects for Commonwealth funding and then just letting them slide without justification is amateurish. BTW, the Commonwealth has just announced it is putting funding into the Canberra Light Rail extension.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 4:36 pm

Ahh, never change, Adelaide:

A government spokesperson responded: “The State Government is not currently investigating a rail link between Adelaide Airport and the city, and has no plans to do so.”

Big Country Town Mentality.

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2024 8:28 am

The explanation was very clear.
In 2018 Labor went to the election with a large vision for expanding the Tram network as one of their centerpiece policies.
The Liberals were against an expansion, and criticised the already built tram lines as being poorly planned.
SA elected the Liberals.

rev wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2024 12:19 am

Blaming money imo is on par with the big country town mentality.
Our state debt ratio is relatively low still. Next to no government, anywhere in the world, pays for large infrastructure out of their own pockets. It's borrowed money, debt.
Obviously lets not run up a state debt like Victoria has, but if they really wanted to, they'd be building the the larger tram network.
This state, and this country suffer from a major flaw in the way our governments do things.
On a state level, we've had how many plans and revisions for the remainder of the NSM? Before finally the current government got work underway.
On a federal level, the submarines debacle is ongoing, who knows if a change in government will see another plan drawn up.

dbl96 wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2024 10:54 am

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2024 4:36 pm

Ahh, never change, Adelaide:

A government spokesperson responded: “The State Government is not currently investigating a rail link between Adelaide Airport and the city, and has no plans to do so.”

Big Country Town Mentality.

It is disappointing to see such a categorical refusal to even consider building what is one of the most obvious and logical expansions of Adelaide's public transport network. Not only that, but one that the government already has detailed, shelved plans for. Koutsantonis should ask himself what impression the lack of a proper transport connection to the city creates of Adelaide for visitors arriving at the airport.

My question for Koutsantonis is, what do you actually plan to do? It seems like the current Labor party's policy towards the public transport network is to do precisely nothing, and to turn a blind eye towards, and even exacerbate car dependence and the congestion it causes.

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2024 8:28 am

The explanation was very clear.
In 2018 Labor went to the election with a large vision for expanding the Tram network as one of their centerpiece policies.
The Liberals were against an expansion, and criticised the already built tram lines as being poorly planned.
SA elected the Liberals.

I don't think trams were a major issue in the 2018 election. Yes, the Malinauskas government seems to have made the association you mention above, but the election was not fought on this issue. It was a very tight contest, but the Liberals were elected primarily because the media kept telling everyone it was time for a change after 16 years of Labor. Assisted by some electoral boundary changes, this got the Liberals across the line.

The Liberals didn't actually take a hard-line position against trams at the election and its immediate aftermath. They knew there was considerable support from the electorate for expanding the network, so they kept the idea of building the North Adelaide line and City loop alive for quite some time. They actually campaigned at the election on the issue of adding a right-hand turn to the "grand junction" at KWS/NT. Of course, it became clear they never had any intention of building any of this - Marshall himself was very much opposed to trams due to his connections with the ill-informed business owners of Norwood who opposed the tram on the basis that it would result in reduced on-street parking (never mind the thousands of potential customers that it would have dropped off at their doorsteps).

rev wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2024 12:19 am

Blaming money imo is on par with the big country town mentality.
Our state debt ratio is relatively low still. Next to no government, anywhere in the world, pays for large infrastructure out of their own pockets. It's borrowed money, debt.
Obviously lets not run up a state debt like Victoria has, but if they really wanted to, they'd be building the the larger tram network.
This state, and this country suffer from a major flaw in the way our governments do things.
On a state level, we've had how many plans and revisions for the remainder of the NSM? Before finally the current government got work underway.
On a federal level, the submarines debacle is ongoing, who knows if a change in government will see another plan drawn up.

Also, tram extensions cost peanuts compared to major road infrastructure projects like the North South Motorway. The cost of everything has gone up now, of course, but back in the Wetherill era when the NSM completion and tram extensions were both on the table, the NSM was costed at approximately $1 billion/km, versus around $100 million/km for probably the most complex bit of tramline on the entire proposed network (North Terrace and the "grand junction"). I would imagine that while the price has now gone up substantially, the cost differential with the NSM should be roughly the same, meaning you should be able to build 100km of tram lines for the price of completing the NSM. Adelink only proposed around 35km of new lines (not including the Port network, which was never resolved).

We got a pretty good hint at Koutsantonis' reasoning for not pursuing tram line extensions last year in this article: https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2023/02 ... -transport

"I think the public liked the idea of trams – they don’t necessarily want to pay for the rollout and it would be a very expensive exercise.” Also, he reckons voters “won’t come at the tram line extensions because of the inconvenience they believe it causes them while they’re driving”.

Reading between the lines, while the government knows something has to be done about public transport at some point, they are sticking their heads in the sand and kicking the can down the road because they are terrified of pissing off motorists with extensive road works and by taking away car lanes, and they are terrified of embarking on any major project that doesn't have close to 100% support because they run the risk of it being labelled a "white elephant" and weaponised to discredit them at the next election.

But at the end of the day, the fact is that if we don't want Adelaide to come to a complete standstill in the coming years, something has to be done to get people out of their cars and onto public and active transport. Despite a hangover perception from previous generations that we are the "20 minute city", Adelaide actually already has the second worst traffic of any city in Australia (https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/ ... /103063660). Yes, that's right, worse than Sydney. Every day our population is increasing, and because for most people driving is the most convenient and effective option, traffic congestion keeps getting worse.

Traffic congestion is caused primarily by private cars. The amount of space required to move a given number of people by single occupant vehicle is vastly more than by any other mode of transport. You can't fix traffic congestion unless you get people out of cars and onto more space-efficient modes of transport.

picoftheday0012-space-60people (1).jpg

But people are not going to get out of their cars if it means sitting on a bus which gets stuck behind all the other people who did not get out of their cars. For public transport to become popular and reduce the number of cars on the road, it needs to be fast enough, relative to cars, to incentive people to give up the convenience of travelling by private car. There are really only three options for how this can be done:

1. Put public transport in tunnels. This has the advantage of not ticking off motorists with changes to surface roads, and also allows for very fast public transport travel times. However, it is extremely expensive and difficult to justify outside of very dense urban centres.

2. Put public transport on viaducts. Similar to (1), but much noisier and uglier. Expensive, but cheaper than (1).

3. Reserve surface level traffic lanes for public transport. Cheap and quick to implement. The main disadvantage is that it is strongly resisted from ill-informed motorists who mistakenly believe that it will cause congestion, and from ill-informed business owners who think their businesses will fail if their customers lose access to on-street parking.

Koutsantonis can pursue a bus-centric public transport policy if that is what he now sees as the best way forward. But he can't get away from the fundamental problem that it isn't possible to create a well functioning network without either taking away space from private cars (extensive bus lanes), or spending vast amounts of money to put it underground or on viaducts.

dbl96 wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2024 10:54 am

rev wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2024 12:19 am

Blaming money imo is on par with the big country town mentality.
Our state debt ratio is relatively low still. Next to no government, anywhere in the world, pays for large infrastructure out of their own pockets. It's borrowed money, debt.
Obviously lets not run up a state debt like Victoria has, but if they really wanted to, they'd be building the the larger tram network.
This state, and this country suffer from a major flaw in the way our governments do things.
On a state level, we've had how many plans and revisions for the remainder of the NSM? Before finally the current government got work underway.
On a federal level, the submarines debacle is ongoing, who knows if a change in government will see another plan drawn up.

Also, tram extensions cost peanuts compared to major road infrastructure projects like the North South Motorway. The cost of everything has gone up now, of course, but back in the Wetherill era when the NSM completion and tram extensions were both on the table, the NSM was costed at approximately $1 billion/km, versus around $100 million/km for probably the most complex bit of tramline on the entire proposed network (North Terrace and the "grand junction"). I would imagine that while the price has now gone up substantially, the cost differential with the NSM should be roughly the same, meaning you should be able to build 100km of tram lines for the price of completing the NSM. Adelink only proposed around 35km of new lines (not including the Port network, which was never resolved).

We got a pretty good hint at Koutsantonis' reasoning for not pursuing tram line extensions last year in this article: https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2023/02 ... -transport

"I think the public liked the idea of trams – they don’t necessarily want to pay for the rollout and it would be a very expensive exercise.” Also, he reckons voters “won’t come at the tram line extensions because of the inconvenience they believe it causes them while they’re driving”.

Reading between the lines, while the government knows something has to be done about public transport at some point, they are sticking their heads in the sand and kicking the can down the road because they are terrified of pissing off motorists with extensive road works and by taking away car lanes, and they are terrified of embarking on any major project that doesn't have close to 100% support because they run the risk of it being labelled a "white elephant" and weaponised to discredit them at the next election.

But at the end of the day, the fact is that if we don't want Adelaide to come to a complete standstill in the coming years, something has to be done to get people out of their cars and onto public and active transport. Despite a hangover perception from previous generations that we are the "20 minute city", Adelaide actually already has the second worst traffic of any city in Australia (https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/ ... /103063660). Yes, that's right, worse than Sydney. Every day our population is increasing, and because for most people driving is the most convenient and effective option, traffic congestion keeps getting worse.

Traffic congestion is caused primarily by private cars. The amount of space required to move a given number of people by single occupant vehicle is vastly more than by any other mode of transport. You can't fix traffic congestion unless you get people out of cars and onto more space-efficient modes of transport.

picoftheday0012-space-60people (1).jpg

But people are not going to get out of their cars if it means sitting on a bus which gets stuck behind all the other people who did not get out of their cars. For public transport to become popular and reduce the number of cars on the road, it needs to be fast enough, relative to cars, to incentive people to give up the convenience of travelling by private car. There are really only three options for how this can be done:

1. Put public transport in tunnels. This has the advantage of not ticking off motorists with changes to surface roads, and also allows for very fast public transport travel times. However, it is extremely expensive and difficult to justify outside of very dense urban centres.

2. Put public transport on viaducts. Similar to (1), but much noisier and uglier. Expensive, but cheaper than (1).

3. Reserve surface level traffic lanes for public transport. Cheap and quick to implement. The main disadvantage is that it is strongly resisted from ill-informed motorists who mistakenly believe that it will cause congestion, and from ill-informed business owners who think their businesses will fail if their customers lose access to on-street parking.

Koutsantonis can pursue a bus-centric public transport policy if that is what he now sees as the best way forward. But he can't get away from the fundamental problem that it isn't possible to create a well functioning network without either taking away space from private cars (extensive bus lanes), or spending vast amounts of money to put it underground or on viaducts.