[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[greenknight]

Better Quality here -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq8ESA1xGGg

[aceman]

Is there anything new in this new flyover video?

[muzzamo]

It corresponds to the newly released urban design strategy.

https://www.t2d.sa.gov.au/__data/assets ... rategy.pdf

It does read as a typical consultants report - rehashed filler from other reports they have produced, tailored from various stakeholder meetings and then glossed up into a report. But there are a few more detailed maps in there that are worth a gander.

[Eurostar]

Hmmm... wouldn't it be cheaper and achieve similar results to...

Controlled Access Highway with overpass at Daws Road, new bypass road alongside railway, existing Emerson Overpass, Controlled Acccess Highway (overpass at Richmond Road, Sir Donald Bradman Drive, short tunnel under Henley Beach Road (to protect Thebarton Theatre), continue tunnel to under Ashwin.

[Nort]

New overpasses aren't suitable for near residential areas

[SouthAussie94]

Works at Majors Rd have started. Lots of trees have been cleared. It looks like the shared us path between MSR and SEXY will be underway soon as well.

I'd be surprised if Major (sorry for the pun) works will start before Xmas but should be underway early in the New Year.

[aceman]

and meanwhile David spears is still campaigning to try and have the majors Rd interchange stopped (a project that he supported up until campaigning started before the last election) because apparently the locals are against it.

[Nort]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... QFduaLw144

Daily Mail, so god knows how legit a source it is, but apparently while the government is paying "market value" for land compulsorily acquired from businesses for the corridor, it isn't helping with relocation costs, which is pretty BS.

[Vasco]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... QFduaLw144

Daily Mail, so god knows how legit a source it is, but apparently while the government is paying "market value" for land compulsorily acquired from businesses for the corridor, it isn't helping with relocation costs, which is pretty BS.

From what I’ve heard they do pay relocation costs (of some sort). The business probably was not going to actually relocate within SA per the move to Sydney, so I assume this may be the reasons the costs weren’t paid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Listy]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... QFduaLw144

Daily Mail, so god knows how legit a source it is, but apparently while the government is paying "market value" for land compulsorily acquired from businesses for the corridor, it isn't helping with relocation costs, which is pretty BS.

It seems pretty clear that relocation costs are covered by the land acquisition act when appropriate:
https://dit.sa.gov.au/landacquisition/w ... businesses
There is a (reasonable) onus upon businesses to provide clear and accurate financial records, quotes, invoices etc to help assess what amount of compensation is appropriate.

[Nort]

Turns out doubting the Daily Mail is never a bad idea.

[Saltwater]

The Daily Mail were never going to leave a story that pulls at the heartstrings with an Xmas confectionary manufacturer being treated unfairly at this time of year...

[Listy]

It all seems very similar to the Peter Van Party Man shenanigans on Daws Rd a few years ago.

[rev]

The optics would be disastrous for the government.

[greenknight]

From the sounds of it, they are moving interstate... is that reasonable relocation costs? Moving interstate is not a necessity for their business as it managed to operate in Adelaide for so many years. I can understand moving to another location in Adelaide, but getting the government to up their operations interstate is a bit ridiculous.

It begs the question, whether it was their intention all along, then realised they could potentially get the government to pay for the move rather than pay it themselves.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... QFduaLw144

Daily Mail, so god knows how legit a source it is, but apparently while the government is paying "market value" for land compulsorily acquired from businesses for the corridor, it isn't helping with relocation costs, which is pretty BS.

It seems pretty clear that relocation costs are covered by the land acquisition act when appropriate:
https://dit.sa.gov.au/landacquisition/w ... businesses
There is a (reasonable) onus upon businesses to provide clear and accurate financial records, quotes, invoices etc to help assess what amount of compensation is appropriate.