The SA Politics Thread

[claybro]

Isn't it a sad state of affairs that between say about 200 odd of us who are regulars on this forum, despite our disagreements, but more or less, can come up with a better plan and idea of transport network integration than the whole of DPTI?

we don't have property developers and self centered council members breathing down our necks

Property developers generally work within the various guidelines as they exist. However , where local laws, guidelines and limits appear to be outdated, confused or just plain silly, developers will push the envelope to try to create a new normal. The DPTI are always playing catchup, cobbling together projects, after a pressing need presents itself, due to ad hock planning creating blockages in transport, logistics and housing. Planning of Adelaide metro area is very much a state government responsibility, but how often is the 30 year plan changed, re-announced, or forgotten. DPTI projects should not be looked at in isolation from local planning, but complimentary to its planning, however as Adelaide appears to be developing by accident, (look at the history of how Marion SC came into being) then DPTI will always be dragged from pillar to post, trying to keep everyone happy.

[Norman]

Hopefully with the new ITLUP (Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan), things will now change. But that will be up to government funding decisions and DPTI management decisions, hopefully they can work together (as they should really).

[rev]

With all the apartments going up in the city, and the changes in the metro area such as Churchill Road with higher density housing, now would be an ideal time for either major party to come up with a "grand vision" for Adelaide as whole.
People's mentalities and attitudes to these things have changed, that ten years ago would have been unheard of or caused anger and the typical bitching and moaning.

Come up with a total transport infrastructure plan for the whole of the metropolitan and greater metropolitan area. A plan that includes upgraded roads and intersections, a series of connected motorways, removal of as many rail crossings as possible, a full detailed plan for an expanded tram network, commitment to finishing the electrification of the rail network, an underground rail loop in the CBD, pass legislation so that development can not occur along identified corridors for transport upgrades that are scheduled to take place within the next ten years or something(such as south road).
There needs to be a commitment to rural South Australia as well. The road to Victor Harbor, and to the River Land right through Blachetown up to Renmark and the SA-VIC border, need to be motorway/freeway standard. Same with highways heading north out of Adelaide to the Barossa and beyond.
There needs to be a commitment to grow rural SA as well, to create 'secondary cities'. It'll be good for the state's economy, and population growth.
Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Lincoln, Mt Gambier. Victor Harbor, Murray Bridge. Take your pick.
Why don't we have rural rail links to these cities/towns? Why aren't there better roads linking them to the capital? Why aren't there better air links, or in some cases any at all? The benefits those better transport links will have for tourism industry would be massive, not to mention the thousands of jobs that will be created building all that infrastructure.

Unfortunately I think we will get more of the same shitty politics from both major parties, and the Greens will play their usual game of picking the winning side to tag along with, and Family First have merged into Bernardis Australian Conservatives party. So mehhh to the 2018 state election.

[Norman]

What you have described is an integrated transport and land use plan... Which we have. The government just needs to add funding for detailed design and construction.

[claybro]

In the scheme of things, the planning alone should not bankrupt the state. Funding alone should not have prevented a comprehensive land use plan. It's just politically lazy to allow developers endless land on fringes, rather than upset vested interest groups with consolidation plans, level crossing removal, freeway reservations and the like. Far more sexy and safe to announce a small section of tram extension, another couple of K's racked on to South Road, or a few more wires on the Gawler line. There is still no resolution to the OH electrification.. there is no planning for the light rail network, even possible destinations are sketchy. How is the SE freeway and the N/s motorway going to connect? How is Castle Plaza going to be affected by N/s motorway, how is West Lakes going to connect to the rail network? Why does StClaire have its back facing its train station, why was the town centre of Mawson Lakes built AWAY from the train station? Why was a new oaklands station completed 10 years ago, when the bus interchange is in the shopping centre 1km away? Why are we now contemplating a station that still does not service the shopping centre or the bus interchange? These are just a few issues that with adequate forward planning would never have eventuated. Developers just make the most money from the land on offer. The government should plan the infrastructure before or with... and not after the event. And we keep failing to hold them accountable.

[rev]

What you have described is an integrated transport and land use plan... Which we have. The government just needs to add funding for detailed design and construction.

Ah sorry I didn't read your post before mine, my bad.
Well, if the state has a wider 'grand' plan like I've described, why don't they release it? Show us what they have come up with. That would then put pressure on the Libs to come up with something better. And then the Feds would at least see that the state gov. has it's shit together and have something to work with.

[Nathan]

What you have described is an integrated transport and land use plan... Which we have. The government just needs to add funding for detailed design and construction.

Ah sorry I didn't read your post before mine, my bad.
Well, if the state has a wider 'grand' plan like I've described, why don't they release it? Show us what they have come up with. That would then put pressure on the Libs to come up with something better. And then the Feds would at least see that the state gov. has it's shit together and have something to work with.

> 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide
> Integrated Land Use & Infrastructure Plan
> Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia

[SouthAussie94]

In the scheme of things, the planning alone should not bankrupt the state. Funding alone should not have prevented a comprehensive land use plan. It's just politically lazy to allow developers endless land on fringes, rather than upset vested interest groups with consolidation plans, level crossing removal, freeway reservations and the like. Far more sexy and safe to announce a small section of tram extension, another couple of K's racked on to South Road, or a few more wires on the Gawler line. There is still no resolution to the OH electrification.. there is no planning for the light rail network, even possible destinations are sketchy. How is the SE freeway and the N/s motorway going to connect? How is Castle Plaza going to be affected by N/s motorway, how is West Lakes going to connect to the rail network? Why does StClaire have its back facing its train station, why was the town centre of Mawson Lakes built AWAY from the train station? Why was a new oaklands station completed 10 years ago, when the bus interchange is in the shopping centre 1km away? Why are we now contemplating a station that still does not service the shopping centre or the bus interchange? These are just a few issues that with adequate forward planning would never have eventuated. Developers just make the most money from the land on offer. The government should plan the infrastructure before or with... and not after the event. And we keep failing to hold them accountable.

The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, and indeed the Integrated Transport Plan don't go into this kind of depth. To paraphrase the Land Use Planning courses I've studied, these kinds of documents are just meant to provide a guiding philosophy of where the city is envisaged to go in the future.

The kinds of details you're describing are discussed and eventually solved in the plans for individual projects. The Castle Plaza problem will be discussed within the plan for the North South corridor, with the finite details discussed (and solved) in the plan for that particular section of the corridor.

West Lakes and how it will connect to the rail network (who actually says it ever will?) is discussed in the Integrated Transport Plan. I imagine this idea will be further discussed in the AdeLINK study which is currently underway.

There is a major difference between the kind of strategic planning needed for a city which talks about broad ideas and plans, and the specific planning for a specific project which explores problems in great depth, eventually solving them.

Yes, there needs to be a plan for the state (And there is, as Nathan linked above), but it will forever be limited in its scope and the level of detail it can provide. It will remain limited until funding is allocated to a specific project.

Can you imagine how much it would cost to develop detailed plans about every single project which is proposed to occur in Adelaide now and into the future? This planning would be out of date within months of it being finalised, necessitating more planning to occur when the project is eventually funded.

Example: There is no point developing a "Final" plan for the West Lakes rail at this point in time when funding for this hypothetical project is years (if not decades) away. Imagine if a final plan was developed now. This would include route discussions, hypothetical usage figures, etc. The AAMI stadium redevelopment is currently underway. 5 years from now, the population in this area will be significantly different to what it is today. Suddenly the usage figures which are in the "final" plan are out dated. New study needed. 5 years down the track, new usage model needed. See where I'm going with this? There is no point having highly detailed plans in place before funding is in place (or at least close to being in place) because as soon as they are developed and finalised, they're out of date.

This is obviously a really simplistic example and some level of planning would need to be undertaken before the project is funded, however the point still stands. There is a difference between strategic planning for a region and the specific planning needed for a particular project.

If the state government haven't undertaken enough planning to enable them to receive federal finding for a project then this is poor on their part. However, its unfair to criticise them for a 'lack' of planning for projects which won't be completed until long into the future.


Sorry for the rant..

[ghs]

South Australia has retained the worst jobless rate in the country, with unemployment increasing on both trend and seasonally adjusted terms.

This is despite the national unemployment rate falling from 5.9 per cent to 5.7 per cent on seasonally adjusted terms.

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed SA's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 7 to 7.3 per cent in April, easily eclipsing Queensland, the next highest state at 6.3 per cent.

SA's trend rate of unemployment — used to smooth out seasonally adjusted estimates — also ticked up from 6.9 to 7 per cent, demonstrating that SA's unemployment situation is getting worse.

SA was the only state to record a decrease in employment, with 5,000 fewer people in work.

It also recorded the highest underutilisation rate, which combines those unemployed with those that are underemployed, and recorded 17 per cent on seasonally adjusted terms.

The job outlook for South Australia remains bleak, with major employer Holden set to close its doors on October 20, prompting further job losses in the automotive manufacturing industry.

Unemployment 'spike' disappointing

SA Employment Minister Kyam Maher said the situation had to improve in order to attract people to SA.

"We have been heading in the right direction but it is disappointing to see a spike this month in the unemployment rate," he said.
"It just means that we need to keep working as hard as we can as a State Government, and also working with the Federal Government, to make sure projects like the naval shipbuilding come on as quickly as possible, so those people such as those in the auto industry who have skills, can find jobs as soon as possible."

Opposition employment spokesperson Corey Wingard said more needed to be done to increase the performance of SA's economy.

"We need to grow exports and we need to reduce the costs of doing business," he said.

"They are two key factors to enable people to generate jobs and employ more people."

[claybro]

If the state government haven't undertaken enough planning to enable them to receive federal finding for a project then this is poor on their part. However, its unfair to criticise them for a 'lack' of planning for projects which won't be completed until long into the future.

Yes I understand the difference between individual detailed plans for various precincts as opposed the general 30 year plan, but you cant seriously say that the state Government has not been negligent in detailed planning of projects even already underway. For example, dividing the North/South corridor into "stages" should not mean at least land reservation and preliminary plans for the remaining stages is not done, along with a time lines. This is common in other states, and while no city/state is perfect, they seem to have a much better track record of integrating major road/metro rail, with shopping, business and housing precincts that provide better accessibility, logistics and amenity. Tying urban renewal to an infrastructure project is a much better way of selling the various proposals to the Feds to tip the funding Sa's way. If for example, the State had a plan for revitalisation of the whole Salisbury town centre, increasing population by 20000 in the vicinity of Salisbury station and reducing the need for outer suburban sprawl, then the argument for funds from the Feds for electrification of Gawler line is much stronger. As it stands SA goes cap in hand for funds to upgrade a line with no cohesive objectives other than "to make the trains go faster" and "shiny new trains attract more people to public transport"-Yes, I have actually heard politicians say this. We need to have a much more inclusive approach to push for these funds and suburban Adelaide really is looking a bit tired and shabby.

[[Shuz]]

InDaily & Advertiser news articles yesterday both seemed to hint at the suggestions of State Government ramping up infrastructure investment in State Budget. Looks like they are willing to go back into deficit this financial year.

On a $1b spend; projects I can think of - Oaklands overpass, extending Gawler line electrification to Gawler, Pym to Regency N-S corridor, another tram extension.

Fingers crossed they do.

[claybro]

InDaily & Advertiser news articles yesterday both seemed to hint at the suggestions of State Government ramping up infrastructure investment in State Budget. Looks like they are willing to go back into deficit this financial year.

Provided the increased debt is spent on infrastructure such as mentioned, this is a time where it is prudent for the state to take on extra debt. With the highest unemployment in the country, the imminent demise of Holden, and even Tasmania now out-performing SA, money should be poured into job creating projects. Provided also the jobs don't go to imported workers, and interstate construction companies where possible. Some targeted subsidies for business immigrants, to set up in SA should also be considered to ramp up population growth.

[crawf]

According to the Advertiser today, the metropolitan suburbs will see a major increase in infrastructure funding in this Thursday's State Budget.

So far announced:
$1.1 billion towards the Health System
- $250 million expansion of QEH
- $52.5 million expansion of Lyell McEwin Hospital
- Minor projects for Modbury and Flinders Hospitals


Here's my predictions..
- Funding towards the new Women's & Children's Hospital (adjacent NRAH)
- Funding towards Oaklands Interchange
- Stage 2 of the Gawler Line Electrification (Salisbury to Gawler Central)
- North-South Motorway Project (Regency Road to Pym Street)
- Suburban tramline extension. E.g. O'Connell Street or Norwood Parade

Wild predictions
- More North-South Motorway Projects. E.g. Henley Beach / Sir Donald Bradman Roads
- Full electrification of the Outer Harbor and Grange Lines
- More tramline expansions. E.g. City Loop, Airport
- Major upgrade of Main North & Grand Junction Roads (under or overpass)
- New country supermax prison to replace Yatala
- New multipurpose arena (replacing Memorial Drive and Ent Centre) - wishful thinking

Thoughts?

[monotonehell]

...
- Stage 2 of the Gawler Line Electrification (Salisbury to Gawler Central)
...

Now now, careful there, whoa.

[Norman]

I would expect:


-NSM - Regency to Pym (maybe design work, but will be contingent on federal funds)
-More digital bus stops
-New art gallery
-Another small tram extension
-New Women's and Children's Hospital
-Small intersection and road upgrades


Maybe?
-Large tram extension
-Upgrade of Grenfell and Currie Street
-Duplication of Elder Smith Drive and Curtis Road
-Extension of Gawler Line electrification