News & Discussion: Trams

[abc]

the government were probably looking for an out because of spiralling inflation in the building market this project would've almost certainly gone way over budget

Given that you could buy around 60 house and land packages for that much, you wonder if it's made of gold.

Or, put another way, house 60 families during a housing crisis, or build a bike overpass? Hmmm. Decisions, decisions.

Speaking generally, we need to have a really deep look into why infrastructure is costing so much. Some projects, like various tram extensions seem to have a lot of gold plating without any obvious benefit.

Government always pay over the odds because its not their money and the contractors know it.
Then there's other factors like high migration rates, sanctions on countries that previously provided us cheap materials, higher energy costs... a lot of endorsed corruption.
We'll never see a proper inquiry into why any of this costs so much because it would expose the wrong people and organisations.

[bits]

Governments and corporates have extensive red tape.
They would prefer to spend quite large amounts of money to make sure they could not be liable for even larger amounts of money.
Safety, documenting, certifying, competency and such that simply isn't done in smaller work places.
As these liability limiting paperwork grows the costs grow.

Eg Workers are filling out forms multiple times a day about how they will prevent injuries by stretching and drinking water. Perhaps a couple of bigger risks and their controls were also written down.
Pages of description of what the job will be, the risks that may occur and what controls to use.
Pages of description of every product that will be used and what to do if you ate some.
Daily meetings about the jobs and how to do them safely.
They are building scaffolding because they do not have people working from ladders.
They are checking concrete density because "Blake is a good concreter" isn't a good enough guarantee. Even though Blake actually is a good concreter and it will pass.

[abc]

Governments and corporates have extensive red tape.
They would prefer to spend quite large amounts of money to make sure they could not be liable for even larger amounts of money.
Safety, documenting, certifying, competency and such that simply isn't done in smaller work places.
As these liability limiting paperwork grows the costs grow.

Eg Workers are filling out forms multiple times a day about how they will prevent injuries by stretching and drinking water. Perhaps a couple of bigger risks and their controls were also written down.
Pages of description of what the job will be, the risks that may occur and what controls to use.
Pages of description of every product that will be used and what to do if you ate some.
Daily meetings about the jobs and how to do them safely.
They are building scaffolding because they do not have people working from ladders.
They are checking concrete density because "Blake is a good concreter" isn't a good enough guarantee. Even though Blake actually is a good concreter and it will pass.

This is a moot point. I was comparing government projects vs corporate projects. Of course all the same compliances apply to both.
Not vs domestic level projects.

[SBD]

So the Weatherill Government proposed to spend $10M to build a new overpass with a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists with lifts to the platforms and visual safety, and fix the worst part of the bikeway from Glenelg to the city.

Ten years later, the Malinauskas Government is going to spend $35M to NOT build a new overpass, continue to divert through the underpass, but paint it and make it legal for the cyclists to ride through, but preserve the blind junction with pedestrians coming down from the platforms.

Jayne Stinson was allowed to announce the "win for the local community" over the weekend. Is that because the transport and infrastructure minister and premier know it's a step back for the rest of the community?

[abc]

So the Weatherill Government proposed to spend $10M to build a new overpass with a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists with lifts to the platforms and visual safety, and fix the worst part of the bikeway from Glenelg to the city.

Ten years later, the Malinauskas Government is going to spend $35M to NOT build a new overpass, continue to divert through the underpass, but paint it and make it legal for the cyclists to ride through, but preserve the blind junction with pedestrians coming down from the platforms.

Jayne Stinson was allowed to announce the "win for the local community" over the weekend. Is that because the transport and infrastructure minister and premier know it's a step back for the rest of the community?

straight out of the Yes Minister handbook

politics 101

[Nort]

Governments and corporates have extensive red tape.
They would prefer to spend quite large amounts of money to make sure they could not be liable for even larger amounts of money.
Safety, documenting, certifying, competency and such that simply isn't done in smaller work places.
As these liability limiting paperwork grows the costs grow.

Eg Workers are filling out forms multiple times a day about how they will prevent injuries by stretching and drinking water. Perhaps a couple of bigger risks and their controls were also written down.
Pages of description of what the job will be, the risks that may occur and what controls to use.
Pages of description of every product that will be used and what to do if you ate some.
Daily meetings about the jobs and how to do them safely.
They are building scaffolding because they do not have people working from ladders.
They are checking concrete density because "Blake is a good concreter" isn't a good enough guarantee. Even though Blake actually is a good concreter and it will pass.

Everyone is all in favour of streamlining checks and approvals until something goes wrong, and then it's "How could they have possibly not caught this?!"

[ChillyPhilly]

This is a very disappointing decision. While I do value the need to avoid cutting down trees where possible this $35m spend just polishes a turd, and does not benefit cyclists. Existing dangers and poor infrastructure beyond the overpass exist.

I have started calling these decisions/outcomes 'Big Country Town Mentality'. It is a glaring cultural issue in the city and state, and is starting to show in the media whenever ministers speak about transport or planning matters.

[[Shuz]]

Am I missing something here?

How in the hell is this costing $35m?

[victorious80]

Having been intimately involved in the planning, consultation and design of this project, it is a little disappointing that it's been formally dropped (again). Some of the key benefits of this project have also been ignored - in particular DDA access to platforms. Much of the cost of the project (and in fact a lot of the vegetation removal) was in constructing appropriately graded ramps, a sufficiently wide bridge, and construction of elevators, to get down to the platforms.

There was also a significant cost allocated to improving the community's facilities in the reserve (as many of the existing facilities would have been impacted by construction). I really believe this would have provided a net benefit to the community (which also includes local rail users, DDA passengers, pedestrians, cyclists) but the vocal minority strikes again.

[SRW]

This and the axed Hove railway overpass project are examples of chicken shit government.

[rubberman]

This and the axed Hove railway overpass project are examples of chicken shit government.

The costs are for construction by private enterprise.

For the cost of a bike overpass, the government could house 60-80 families during a housing and rental crisis. It's a bit far fetched to say that a government looking at an outrageous cost and choosing to put its money elsewhere is chicken shit.

How about private enterprise put up a realistic cost instead of what looks like a rort?

[abc]

I'd rather the government save our money than spend it on these vanity projects in this current environment.

[rubberman]

the government were probably looking for an out because of spiralling inflation in the building market this project would've almost certainly gone way over budget

Given that you could buy around 60 house and land packages for that much, you wonder if it's made of gold.

Or, put another way, house 60 families during a housing crisis, or build a bike overpass? Hmmm. Decisions, decisions.

Speaking generally, we need to have a really deep look into why infrastructure is costing so much. Some projects, like various tram extensions seem to have a lot of gold plating without any obvious benefit.

Government always pay over the odds because its not their money and the contractors know it.
Then there's other factors like high migration rates, sanctions on countries that previously provided us cheap materials, higher energy costs... a lot of endorsed corruption.
We'll never see a proper inquiry into why any of this costs so much because it would expose the wrong people and organisations.

In this case, the government is refusing to pay over the odds. Guess what? People are still whinging.

A lot of those cheap materials ended up killing people in apartment fires. Then, of course, people expect the government to "do something". Of course, when the government does something, the usual suspects pipe up about how the government should get out of the way of the private sector. Plenty of people in Sydney and Melbourne dealing with the costs of defective buildings built during times of "light" regulation and "self certification" blaming the government of course.

[rev]

A Labor government is going to ensure there is a unionised construction work force on public projects. If the government mucks around, the union will hold them over a barrel, and Labor know this. Without Union support/involvement, we would have a very different Labor party.
So who in the government is going to stand up the CFMEU when their members on a construction site a fucking around like they did at the nRAH build? If any of you can cast your minds that far back and recall the shenanigans workers got up to on site..

[rubberman]

A Labor government is going to ensure there is a unionised construction work force on public projects. If the government mucks around, the union will hold them over a barrel, and Labor know this. Without Union support/involvement, we would have a very different Labor party.
So who in the government is going to stand up the CFMEU when their members on a construction site a fucking around like they did at the nRAH build? If any of you can cast your minds that far back and recall the shenanigans workers got up to on site..

Well, the previous Liberal Government just scrapped the proposed tram extension altogether. So, there's no alternative there, either.

Of course, there's an alternative. Use tried and true tramway construction methods rather than gold plating. Fewer and less expensive signals as in the past. Less elaborate stops. Minimal use of centre island stops, allowing buses to share the tram right of way. Where it's not appropriate for lane sharing with buses, use open ballast track (far, far cheaper than concrete). Where concrete track is required, use traditional designs that are cheaper than the latest extensions in Adelaide. Use trams with swivelling bogies to minimise track wear and tear.