News & Discussion: Trams

[claybro]

That the removal of funding was a politically-motivated decision by the Abbott government, and that our state government's management of infrastructure priorities is questionable are not mutually exclusive things. I don't know why you are trying so hard to deny the circumstances of the defunding -- in the defence of whom? Tony Abbott?

I would argue there are fewer examples of Commonwealth project cancellations elsewhere in the federation because it's not as politically convenient. Even in the Qld floods budget re-profiling, SA's O-bahn project was about the only one cancelled while others around the country were simply deferred. That was Labor. Then the Coalition withdrew funding from this project, the car industry, and equivocates on building subs here.

The fact is all states are reliant on federal funds, but we in SA have too few and too predictable electorates in the house to matter (the corollary of a declining national share of population) and so have limited capacity to capture and defend politically-determined funding promises (pretty much any infrastructure). The only reason we recently gained traction against the feds was the dire unpopularity of Abbott and the then potent alternative of Xenophon in the house as well as the Senate.

Ah, and here we have it...trying our hardest to pin this back on the Abbott government? You let the state government off the hook so easily over there.
1. At no point in my initial question was this a Labour v Liberal discussion, just a question of state v's federal, as I think most folk are heartily sick of our state government incompetence and lazy populist rubbish regardless of who is in charge federally. SA is considered a basket case by Infrastructure Australia due to this internal politicking, lack of planning and ready to go plans.
2. At no point was Waewick making this a Labour v Liberal argument, merely pointing out a sequence of events, which I was only relying on memory of events which have seemed to prove correct. Again federal v state not Labour v Liberal.
Even when the Abbot government stated loud and clear they will NOT be funding urban rail (including tram/ light rail) and focusing on roads, but manages to get some money on the table for Gawler line...this still comes back to some blaming the abbot government for not funding something which was delayed?.
Federal governments of both persuasions will pork barrel in money for infrastructure all the time...it is a fact of life. The smart states run with the money and make it work to their best advantage. SA has become so reliant on lazy populist politics, it just wastes opportunity after opportunity.

[rubberman]

That the removal of funding was a politically-motivated decision by the Abbott government, and that our state government's management of infrastructure priorities is questionable are not mutually exclusive things. I don't know why you are trying so hard to deny the circumstances of the defunding -- in the defence of whom? Tony Abbott?

I would argue there are fewer examples of Commonwealth project cancellations elsewhere in the federation because it's not as politically convenient. Even in the Qld floods budget re-profiling, SA's O-bahn project was about the only one cancelled while others around the country were simply deferred. That was Labor. Then the Coalition withdrew funding from this project, the car industry, and equivocates on building subs here.

The fact is all states are reliant on federal funds, but we in SA have too few and too predictable electorates in the house to matter (the corollary of a declining national share of population) and so have limited capacity to capture and defend politically-determined funding promises (pretty much any infrastructure). The only reason we recently gained traction against the feds was the dire unpopularity of Abbott and the then potent alternative of Xenophon in the house as well as the Senate.

Ah, and here we have it...trying our hardest to pin this back on the Abbott government? You let the state government off the hook so easily over there.
1. At no point in my initial question was this a Labour v Liberal discussion, just a question of state v's federal, as I think most folk are heartily sick of our state government incompetence and lazy populist rubbish regardless of who is in charge federally. SA is considered a basket case by Infrastructure Australia due to this internal politicking, lack of planning and ready to go plans.
2. At no point was Waewick making this a Labour v Liberal argument, merely pointing out a sequence of events, which I was only relying on memory of events which have seemed to prove correct. Again federal v state not Labour v Liberal.
Even when the Abbot government stated loud and clear they will NOT be funding urban rail (including tram/ light rail) and focusing on roads, but manages to get some money on the table for Gawler line...this still comes back to some blaming the abbot government for not funding something which was delayed?.
Federal governments of both persuasions will pork barrel in money for infrastructure all the time...it is a fact of life. The smart states run with the money and make it work to their best advantage. SA has become so reliant on lazy populist politics, it just wastes opportunity after opportunity.

You are entitled to your opinion claybro, but not entitled to make up facts.

1). Infrastructure Australia said this? Is that a fact? I guess you can provide a link?
2). So waewick didn't say the Adelaide now article I referred to must have been written by a Labor staffer? Take another look. I'm not sure how you can conclude the sequence of events as asserted by waewick is correct or otherwise. He has not posted anything to back it up. Despite being asked to. Other than a reference to a political report....so much for no politics, lol.

Funding delayed projects is routine. It happens all the time. It is essential under Contract Law. Try not to pay a contractor who has suffered a legitimate delay, and you will get your butt sued off, plus liquidated damages. There's a whole body of law devoted to it. For a Federal Government to withdraw funding because of delays would lead to the State Government being liable under law for all sorts of financial damages.

As for the nasty criticisms of SA. Lol!

Take a look at what's happening in NSW with their infrastructure. SA is a beacon of integrity compared to that mob.

The previous Victorian Government pushing through a dodgy tunnel that would return only 45 cents per dollar spent. And with a corrupt process.

And WA and Queensland have been bywords for corruption in infrastructure for decades.

Maybe the reason that SA had the funding withdrawn is because certain people weren't making an exorbitant quid out of it?

[claybro]

And yet the proof is in the pudding so to speak. My reference to infrastructure Australia is only due to a conversation I had on a flight from Perth to Adelaide with a gentleman who was involved with infrastructure Australia. When I asked him why there was such little large transport projects in SA compared to other states his comment to me 3 years ago was that they are continually tearing their hair out with SA not being able to come up with coherent plans despite the money on offer.-Do I have his name -no. do I have a link-No. what I do know is that SA continues to be the worst performing economy and Adelaide has the worst infrastructure in Australia. Roads and public transport as seriously an embarrassment there. This cannot be blamed on federal governments Labour or Liberal. it is up to the state to manage these projects, and on all counts it is an absolute mess over there, and I'm sorry if that comes across as SA bashing, but I for once would like to be proud of my home state, instead of apologising for it. You however may be content just to sit back and blame Tony Abbot for the whole mess.

[Waewick]

Mines not a political position. I just object to the blame passing that goes on this state by people like rubberman.

If the State Govt had been diligent we'd have an electrified Gawker line.

People like rubberman are the ones that point to the numerous problems in this state and just blame someone else.

As a state we've become expert and being unaccountable and it's pathetic.

[SRW]

That the removal of funding was a politically-motivated decision by the Abbott government, and that our state government's management of infrastructure priorities is questionable are not mutually exclusive things. I don't know why you are trying so hard to deny the circumstances of the defunding -- in the defence of whom? Tony Abbott?

I would argue there are fewer examples of Commonwealth project cancellations elsewhere in the federation because it's not as politically convenient. Even in the Qld floods budget re-profiling, SA's O-bahn project was about the only one cancelled while others around the country were simply deferred. That was Labor. Then the Coalition withdrew funding from this project, the car industry, and equivocates on building subs here.

The fact is all states are reliant on federal funds, but we in SA have too few and too predictable electorates in the house to matter (the corollary of a declining national share of population) and so have limited capacity to capture and defend politically-determined funding promises (pretty much any infrastructure). The only reason we recently gained traction against the feds was the dire unpopularity of Abbott and the then potent alternative of Xenophon in the house as well as the Senate.

Ah, and here we have it...trying our hardest to pin this back on the Abbott government? You let the state government off the hook so easily over there.
1. At no point in my initial question was this a Labour v Liberal discussion, just a question of state v's federal, as I think most folk are heartily sick of our state government incompetence and lazy populist rubbish regardless of who is in charge federally. SA is considered a basket case by Infrastructure Australia due to this internal politicking, lack of planning and ready to go plans.
2. At no point was Waewick making this a Labour v Liberal argument, merely pointing out a sequence of events, which I was only relying on memory of events which have seemed to prove correct. Again federal v state not Labour v Liberal.
Even when the Abbot government stated loud and clear they will NOT be funding urban rail (including tram/ light rail) and focusing on roads, but manages to get some money on the table for Gawler line...this still comes back to some blaming the abbot government for not funding something which was delayed?.
Federal governments of both persuasions will pork barrel in money for infrastructure all the time...it is a fact of life. The smart states run with the money and make it work to their best advantage. SA has become so reliant on lazy populist politics, it just wastes opportunity after opportunity.

If anyone's straining to make this party political it's you with this particularly distorted reading of not only what I and rubberman have written, but of historical fact.

I quite preparedly admit that federal governments of either persuasion have screwed SA over. I've also conceded that our state Labor government has not been very consistent or strategic in its infrastructure planning for most of its 14-year history.

The reason I specifically named the Abbott government was because its anti-public transport motivated defunding was the most hopelessly ideological and egregious example I can remember and the one that prompted discussion here.

I don't know how what version of history leads you to think that the Coalition stumped up money for the Gawler electrification only to withdraw it because of state Labor incompetence, but the timeline of actual events plays very differently. In 2008, the state government announced the $2 billion, 10-year rail revitalisation project. In 2009, the federal government committed ~$585 million to co-funding the renewals of the Seaford and Galwer lines. In 2013, the federal election takes place in September with the newly-formed Abbott Government withdrawing remaining committed funding (owing to Gawler line works) in October. The SA government then defers project for several years.

Now I would argue that the SA government made an incorrect decision in deferring an active project, given that decision made effectively obsolete about ~$40 million worth of planning and tendering. But the fact remains that SA was short-handed.

But that's all aside to the main point I made, which was that this state doesn't usually have the clout to get much assistance for Canberra. And I don't view the expectation of such assistance as mendicancy, but rather:

• a consequence of systematic failure of long-term planning across all spheres of government.
• a consequence of the inequitable division of revenue resources in our federation.

All states play the game, and btw I would argue that until recently NSW was the worst player not SA (look at the decades-long Western Sydney rail saga).

[rubberman]

Hmm,

I point out that the Feds pulled money from a project for reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny. Apparently that's Abbott bashing?

All you have to do is provide some evidence that the reasons for the withdrawal of funding is reasonable. Delay is generally not a good reason, unless supported by some strong facts. I gave reasons, based in contract law why that is so.

If you want to bash SA, then we have free speech here, so go your hardest.

However, if the best you've got is "someone anonymous on a plane told me." Seriously? Someone told me? Perhaps it didn't occur to you that someone blabbing anonymously to a stranger on a plane might not be the most reliable of sources? Do you get your racing tips the same way? Or some political report, and that's the reason, then excuse me if I conclude that what you are saying is something to be filed...somewhere.

I ask again. Please give us some soundly based evidence of your accusations of incompetence in this matter. Keep in mind that I am on record here as being scathing of both political parties, the ALP for how it runs the trams, and the Coalition for destruction of our communications infrastructure federally.

So, frankly trying to portray me as denying incompetence or political partisanship is again an assertion made without regard to fact. If you can provide evidence of your assertions, just like I have criticised the State government for slow and expensive trams, IF someone provides evidence I am quite happy to change my mind.

By this stage, I am giving up hope that you have any evidence...other than that anonymous guy on the plane.

[SRW]

Also, mods, I'm happy for these posts to be moved to another thread as it's really not about trams any longer.

[rubberman]

Also, mods, I'm happy for these posts to be moved to another thread as it's really not about trams any longer.

Agreed.

The position is that because of the fact that the recently announced business case will take at least till after the Federal election, any announcement of Federal Funding of trams before then could only be a stunt.

Further, since Federal funding could not be relied on in any case (Quite apart from the issues discussed, trams for Adelaide are a State matter), my view is that the money could be raised by levying land tax in the areas served by the trams. That could be discounted at some future time if the Federal Government did decide to contribute, but would remove all doubt about funding, and would enable the State government to commence work without worrying about a hostile Federal Government pulling the plug.

The boom in developments and land values along the route of the new tram line on the Gold Coast shows that this could be a way forward without having to rely on promises from Canberra.

[Waewick]

Hmm,

I point out that the Feds pulled money from a project for reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny. Apparently that's Abbott bashing?

All you have to do is provide some evidence that the reasons for the withdrawal of funding is reasonable. Delay is generally not a good reason, unless supported by some strong facts. I gave reasons, based in contract law why that is so.

If you want to bash SA, then we have free speech here, so go your hardest.

However, if the best you've got is "someone anonymous on a plane told me." Seriously? Someone told me? Perhaps it didn't occur to you that someone blabbing anonymously to a stranger on a plane might not be the most reliable of sources? Do you get your racing tips the same way? Or some political report, and that's the reason, then excuse me if I conclude that what you are saying is something to be filed...somewhere.

I ask again. Please give us some soundly based evidence of your accusations of incompetence in this matter. Keep in mind that I am on record here as being scathing of both political parties, the ALP for how it runs the trams, and the Coalition for destruction of our communications infrastructure federally.

So, frankly trying to portray me as denying incompetence or political partisanship is again an assertion made without regard to fact. If you can provide evidence of your assertions, just like I have criticised the State government for slow and expensive trams, IF someone provides evidence I am quite happy to change my mind.

By this stage, I am giving up hope that you have any evidence...other than that anonymous guy on the plane.

So let's start another thread in which you show us the list of projects in which the Federal Government pulled funding.

I can accept that I have nothing at this time to back my assertion that SA are to blame for the feds pulling money due to constant time delays (apart from the fact it never happened and we never had funding for it)

But your assertion that the Feds are unreliable in their funding commitments is even more shaky as you can only provide 1 example of funding been pulled against the 1000's that have gone ahead.

[rubberman]

That's why I suggested the model of charging a land tax/levy on property in the tram corridor. If the Feds come through with funding as you seem to think they might, that can go to reducing the levy or eliminating it. If they don't come through, then the project can go on anyway. If the experience of the Gold Cost is anything to go by, increased land values will offset the levy in any event.

[Waewick]

That's why I suggested the model of charging a land tax/levy on property in the tram corridor. If the Feds come through with funding as you seem to think they might, that can go to reducing the levy or eliminating it. If they don't come through, then the project can go on anyway. If the experience of the Gold Cost is anything to go by, increased land values will offset the levy in any event.

I agree with that proposal - but as expected we already have residents in Norwood coming out (with a valuer non the less) saying prices won't go up because they already have buses

[Norman]

Federal Labor promising to make AdeLINK tram network a reality, if elected

LABOR has declared it will co-fund the multi-billion dollar AdeLINK tram network if it wins government.

Infrastructure spokesman Anthony Albanese told The Advertiser the huge public transport upgrade would “become a reality” if his party was elected.

He also recommitted Labor to funding electrification of the Gawler train line.

“An elected Federal Labor Government will work with the South Australian Labor Government to ensure key public transport projects including the Gawler line elec-trification and the AdeLINK tram network become a reality,” he said.

The State Government is preparing a detailed business case into the tram network at a cost of $4 million and could not yet provide an accurate estimate of its costs.

Story: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... ad77cc9b19

[Waewick]

Co fund means nothing given we don't have the funds in the first place

[rubberman]

Co fund means nothing given we don't have the funds in the first place

And the fact that the SA Government doesn't even know how much it will cost, nor is there a business case.

Political pie-in-the-sky.

[claybro]

Yep. The feds can promise to co fund anything they like, but if the state cannot match it, it is a hollow announcement. How many time has this federal funding for Gawler line been announced now anyway...2, or is it 3?