News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1021
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by Goodsy »

Eurostar wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:56 am
According to political letter Curtis Road is now State Government owned, the plan is to make it dual lane, underpass/overpass at level crossing and roundabout at the Heaslip Road intersection
Hopefully that roundabout is fast tracked... that intersection is horrific
Eurostar
Legendary Member!
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by Eurostar »

I know in the playford alive masterplan karri street will be extended into munno para (west) and a road between warooka drive and playford waters
SBD
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by SBD »

Goodsy wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:04 pm
Eurostar wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:56 am
According to political letter Curtis Road is now State Government owned, the plan is to make it dual lane, underpass/overpass at level crossing and roundabout at the Heaslip Road intersection
Hopefully that roundabout is fast tracked... that intersection is horrific
The SA BEST candidate for Taylor is pushing for fast track of the roundabout at Womma and Stebonheath Roads. There is a petition on change.org about that one.
https://www.change.org/p/coo-developmen ... u/22463493

I live in what is now the electorate of Elizabeth, and none of my candidates have shown interest in local safety projects. The ALP one mentioned removing seven level crossings, but the closest of those is Park Terrace in Salisbury, not the ones that abut his electorate (Commercial and Womma Roads) or that his potential voters cross every day (Curtis Road and Anderson Walk).
ChillyPhilly
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by ChillyPhilly »

Now we're never going to see a lot of these sorely needed separation projects happen.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.
User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3272
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by Nathan »

I was really hoping for the Torrens Rd level crossing removal. I know a lot of people get stuck at that one (although probably slightly improved now that the freight trains don't have to slow down and stop for Torrens Junction), but also as someone likely to send their kid to Brompton Primary, it would have given a safe separated pedestrian/bike path to cross Torrens Rd.
SBD
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by SBD »

Nathan wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 1:14 pm
I was really hoping for the Torrens Rd level crossing removal. I know a lot of people get stuck at that one (although probably slightly improved now that the freight trains don't have to slow down and stop for Torrens Junction), but also as someone likely to send their kid to Brompton Primary, it would have given a safe separated pedestrian/bike path to cross Torrens Rd.
So what is the appropriate time to maintain "it was the other side's election promise so we won't do it" before it is OK to change the tune to "this is a good idea that will help the state move forwards"? Maybe not this year's budget, but I think it should be OK to start to remove level crossings in the 2019 budget - especially if the new set is not exactly the same as Labor's seven. Victoria is doing 50 in seven years. A project of that scale could include all seven promised by ALP. Even a project of 20 over eight years could include most of them.
ml69
Legendary Member!
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:16 pm
Location: Adelaide SA

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by ml69 »

SBD wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:11 pm
Nathan wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 1:14 pm
I was really hoping for the Torrens Rd level crossing removal. I know a lot of people get stuck at that one (although probably slightly improved now that the freight trains don't have to slow down and stop for Torrens Junction), but also as someone likely to send their kid to Brompton Primary, it would have given a safe separated pedestrian/bike path to cross Torrens Rd.
So what is the appropriate time to maintain "it was the other side's election promise so we won't do it" before it is OK to change the tune to "this is a good idea that will help the state move forwards"? Maybe not this year's budget, but I think it should be OK to start to remove level crossings in the 2019 budget - especially if the new set is not exactly the same as Labor's seven. Victoria is doing 50 in seven years. A project of that scale could include all seven promised by ALP. Even a project of 20 over eight years could include most of them.
Why would an elected Liberal government proceed with the political opponent's agenda which clearly wasn't a major vote-winner? Unless it believed strongly in that agenda itself (which I don't think the Libs do), we can pretty much say goodbye level crossing removals.

Having said that, as Torrens Rd and the Salisbury level crossing are on the national freight route, maybe there is some chance that the removal of these level crossings could be federally-funded?
Last edited by ml69 on Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5996
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by Norman »

Level crossing removal is one of the 10 items being looked at by Infrastructure SA.
SBD
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by SBD »

ml69 wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:11 pm
SBD wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:11 pm
Nathan wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 1:14 pm
I was really hoping for the Torrens Rd level crossing removal. I know a lot of people get stuck at that one (although probably slightly improved now that the freight trains don't have to slow down and stop for Torrens Junction), but also as someone likely to send their kid to Brompton Primary, it would have given a safe separated pedestrian/bike path to cross Torrens Rd.
So what is the appropriate time to maintain "it was the other side's election promise so we won't do it" before it is OK to change the tune to "this is a good idea that will help the state move forwards"? Maybe not this year's budget, but I think it should be OK to start to remove level crossings in the 2019 budget - especially if the new set is not exactly the same as Labor's seven. Victoria is doing 50 in seven years. A project of that scale could include all seven promised by ALP. Even a project of 20 over eight years could include most of them.
Why would an elected Liberal government proceed with the political opponent's agenda which clearly wasn't a major vote-winner? Unless it believed strongly in that agenda itself (which I don't think the Libs do), we can pretty much say goodbye level crossing removals.

Having said that, as Torrens Rd and the Salisbury level crossing are on the national freight route, maybe there is some chance that the removal of these level crossings could be federally-funded?
The short answer to your question is "because it's a good idea and the right thing to do". The political answer is that if you announce to do it and set up the groundwork before the next election campaign, it stops being a potential point that your opponent can use to hit you.

Voters' decisions are made by weighing up a number of different considerations about a number of things that the candidates, leaders and parties have said and done. The ballot box gives no indication of whether any particular proposal was a net plus or minus for the majority of voters. There are still a number of metropolitan level crossings on the national rail freight network, and the ALP proposal did not remove them all either.
ChillyPhilly
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by ChillyPhilly »

AITPM's latest free event is up.

SA Technical Forum – City of Onkaparinga Precinct Traffic Study
AECOM, 91 King William Street, Level 28.
Wednesday, April 18.

City of Onkaparinga Precinct Traffic Plans – Aberfoyle Park

The City of Onkaparinga is moving away from Local Area Traffic Management plans to Precinct Traffic Plans. To achieve this the Council area was divided into 16 urban traffic precincts and Aberfoyle Park is the first precinct to have a precinct wide traffic study completed.

The presentation will focus on the methodology used for the study including the approach used to identifying and prioritising the Aberfoyle Park precinct as the first study.

Bill Cirocco, Traffic Engineer at the City of Onkaparinga will discuss the development of the precinct traffic plan and present the broader outcomes of the study. This will include the approach to community engagement, the results of the engagement and the approach that has been taken to implement the recommendations in the plan.

5.30pm for refreshments, 6-7pm presentation
Click here to register, all totally free and open to all: https://www.aitpm.com.au/events/sa-tech ... rum-apr18/
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.
rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by rubberman »

Looking at the detail of the Feral Budget, it seems that most of the $1.8bn for SA infrastructure is out past 2022. In other words, not even in the Forward Estimates.

In the meantime, there's $52m for South Road in the next 4 years. There's $50m for Gawler electrification. $60m for the Joy Baluch Bridge.

Looks like we are going to have a quiet time in this forum for the next four years at least.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-09/f ... ed/9743750
ChillyPhilly
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by ChillyPhilly »

rubberman wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 8:04 pm
Looking at the detail of the Feral Budget, it seems that most of the $1.8bn for SA infrastructure is out past 2022. In other words, not even in the Forward Estimates.

In the meantime, there's $52m for South Road in the next 4 years. There's $50m for Gawler electrification. $60m for the Joy Baluch Bridge.

Looks like we are going to have a quiet time in this forum for the next four years at least.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-09/f ... ed/9743750
Effectively conned by the Feds, and certainly screwed in the arse - now let's see if Marshall and Co. do the right thing and stand up for SA. I'm going to say no.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.
how good is he
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1146
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:26 am

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by how good is he »

SA is getting a higher % of GST revenue than previous years from the Fed. Govt. I know the Marshall/Lib Govt had an election policy to set up Infrastructure SA which is the state equivalent of Infrastructure Australia. It would be an independent body that assesses the business model/plan of infrastructure projects on its merits and cost to benefit return. The good thing is by being independent/not political it removes the risk of “pork barrelling” for votes by Govts big spending in certain electorates. So hypothetically this body and the infrastructure projects (esp. long term ones) could continue from govt to govt un-affected by who was in power.
Obviously the State Govt can also borrow more & increase debt if more infrastructure spending is justified.
User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5996
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by Norman »

how good is he wrote:SA is getting a higher % of GST revenue than previous years from the Fed. Govt. I know the Marshall/Lib Govt had an election policy to set up Infrastructure SA which is the state equivalent of Infrastructure Australia. It would be an independent body that assesses the business model/plan of infrastructure projects on its merits and cost to benefit return. The good thing is by being independent/not political it removes the risk of “pork barrelling” for votes by Govts big spending in certain electorates. So hypothetically this body and the infrastructure projects (esp. long term ones) could continue from govt to govt un-affected by who was in power.
Obviously the State Govt can also borrow more & increase debt if more infrastructure spending is justified.
Yes, Infrastructure Australia was designed to take the politics out of decision making, but in the last few years this has not been the case. Constantly moving goal posts for business cases and approving business cases at just the right time, just like Pym Street to Regency Road.

I spoke to an engineer at DPTI who said that they constantly have to resubmit business cases to IA as they keep changing the requirements.

And now the federal government are happy to pump money into projects without business cases, such as the Melbourne Airport Link and METRONET in Perth. What a shambles.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

Post by rubberman »

how good is he wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 1:06 am
SA is getting a higher % of GST revenue than previous years from the Fed. Govt. I know the Marshall/Lib Govt had an election policy to set up Infrastructure SA which is the state equivalent of Infrastructure Australia. It would be an independent body that assesses the business model/plan of infrastructure projects on its merits and cost to benefit return. The good thing is by being independent/not political it removes the risk of “pork barrelling” for votes by Govts big spending in certain electorates. So hypothetically this body and the infrastructure projects (esp. long term ones) could continue from govt to govt un-affected by who was in power.
Obviously the State Govt can also borrow more & increase debt if more infrastructure spending is justified.
It's a feature of the Australian financial system that the Feds collect more money than the States, and that even with GST revenue, States have a 20% shortfall in revenue. It's been this way since Federation. No State can make this up without massive increases in State charges. It's called vertical fiscal imbalance.
chart8-3-2.png
States revenue shortfall
chart8-3-2.png (23.04 KiB) Viewed 6919 times
chart8-3-1.png
Here's the imbalance over time
chart8-3-1.png (28.61 KiB) Viewed 6918 times
Post Reply