News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

[Goodsy]

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]

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]

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]

Now we're never going to see a lot of these sorely needed separation projects happen.

[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]

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]

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?

[Norman]

Level crossing removal is one of the 10 items being looked at by Infrastructure SA.

[SBD]

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]

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/

[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]

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.

[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.

[Norman]

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]

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.

States revenue shortfall

chart8-3-2.png (23.04 KiB) Viewed 9462 times

Here's the imbalance over time

chart8-3-1.png (28.61 KiB) Viewed 9461 times