[COM] South Road Superway | $842m | 3km
[COM]
Are you serious?bdm wrote:Because Rann is pandering to those in the state that don't want it to move forward (lots of people, and because we're ageing - there'll simply be more in years to come).
I have analysed the election campaign and it is obvious that the Liberals are the party that doesn't want the state to move ahead.
Think about it, the Liberals have told us what they won't do (tram extensions, South Road tunnels, Port River Expressway stage 3, and the Bakewell Bridge), but what are their announcements? none from what i can remember. And I am been fair to them, I saw the debate and Kerin promised to improve roads and everthing else, and whilst people at home will sit in their lounge and say "wow! that sounds good" he did not give details. Talk is cheap, I want, and the state deserves details.
[COM]
Howie wrote:
Additionally, i wasn't too happy to read today that Rann is signing a decree never to install tolls while he's leading the government. How does he expect to pay for freeways and/or our backlog of maintenance?
On the contrary, I am happy that SA will not be getting any toll roads. Toll roads are mechanisms the rich use to oppress the working class. The only toll I would support is one where a person driving a BMW pays more than a person in a Camira. The ALP is a party for the working class and as such it should not support roads for the rich. Everyone deserves to drive on good quality roads not just the rich. And I feel the same about health and education. The size of your wallet should not determine the quality of healthcare or education a person gets.
[COM]
Well i agree with healthcare and education but toll roads are effective on a number of fronts in helping to reduce fatalities, and improve access to more remote areas. I'm still in favour of a userpays system, there are always different models - tollroads where they stay in place only as long as it takes to recover costs of building (like the new airport terminal). So it's probably not a good idea for the ALP to rule out every option they have in front of them.
[COM]
I support tolls or levies for such items like the airport, simply due to the fact that the people who fly are generally not 'battlers'. Therefore the people who use the airport can afford to pay the $5 levy.Howie wrote:Well i agree with healthcare and education but toll roads are effective on a number of fronts in helping to reduce fatalities, and improve access to more remote areas. I'm still in favour of a userpays system, there are always different models - tollroads where they stay in place only as long as it takes to recover costs of building (like the new airport terminal). So it's probably not a good idea for the ALP to rule out every option they have in front of them.
However I feel toll roads will create second class roads for the poor. Someone who has a $28 000 salary to support a family will not be able to afford a toll every day to go to work. For example if a toll was $3 to use a road, a person would therefore have to fork out $6 a day to get to work. Multiply this by 5 and you have $30 and then multiply this by 47 weeks and you have $1410 per annum. A battler will not be able to afford this, and as a result will have to use second class roads with pot-holes and cracks. This will then help create a society of haves and have-nots. And this is definately not a pleasant thing, as the poor will eventually grow resentful and resort more and more to crime.
[COM]
A motorway toll doesn't need to be fixed. It can vary according to the length of motorway used by using an e-tag. A levy for those using the airport should have the fee added to their airfare ticket.
There are a lot of families who live in the outer southern and northern suburbs where there is only 1 car at most. These people usually have it far more difficult to access the CBD because of higher petrol costs due to long distances travelled. Adding more roads doesn't exactly help the situation that many outer suburban families face, and tolled roads definitely don't.
There are a lot of families who live in the outer southern and northern suburbs where there is only 1 car at most. These people usually have it far more difficult to access the CBD because of higher petrol costs due to long distances travelled. Adding more roads doesn't exactly help the situation that many outer suburban families face, and tolled roads definitely don't.
[COM]
I'm all for a toll (provided it is a government-administered road) but there should be some bus lanes on a N/S freeway to aid public transport (to make it attractive too).
The anti-toll message is something that the NIMBY's would use. A fairly-priced toll to pay off a good peice of infrastructure is a top idea.
The anti-toll message is something that the NIMBY's would use. A fairly-priced toll to pay off a good peice of infrastructure is a top idea.
[COM]
bdm wrote:I'm all for a toll (provided it is a government-administered road) but there should be some bus lanes on a N/S freeway to aid public transport (to make it attractive too).
The anti-toll message is something that the NIMBY's would use. A fairly-priced toll to pay off a good peice of infrastructure is a top idea.
A toll cannot be fair, unless those who drive big 4 Wheel drives, and expensive cars pay more.
And the people who oppose private roads do not do so because they are afraid of progress, they do it because they have a social conscience.
[COM]
If this olympic dam expansion does happen (and hopefully it does), and SA to reap bucket loads of money from this
Do you's think Adelaide could finally gets it fully north-south freeway and a better improved public transport system (including eletricfying suburban train network) in the near future???
Do you's think Adelaide could finally gets it fully north-south freeway and a better improved public transport system (including eletricfying suburban train network) in the near future???
[COM]
Has anyone really realised amongst this debate over the N/S freeway, that there is simply no land to build upon apart from existing roads to construct this. And people who live near South Road wouldnt want to live near a freeway thats so close to their homes, unlike most freeways which have significant green space around them to curb noise and air pollutions. The only available land is for the extension and duplication of Southern Expressway to the edge of the Tonsley rail line, and Victor Harbor, as well as the Northern Expressway which has Port River Expressway on it, and goes through land corridors set aside as part of urban sprawl.
The Goverment really needs to bring out a MATS II, to adress the future of Metropolitian adelaide and its road/rail networks to accomodate the needs of the future.
Just to clarify - The urban boundaries I belive are the Gawler River (North) Adelaide HIlls (East) the sea (West), and The Adelaide hills in the far south - not the Flagstaff hills bit, but the hills after the McLaren Vale plains... this right?
The Goverment really needs to bring out a MATS II, to adress the future of Metropolitian adelaide and its road/rail networks to accomodate the needs of the future.
Just to clarify - The urban boundaries I belive are the Gawler River (North) Adelaide HIlls (East) the sea (West), and The Adelaide hills in the far south - not the Flagstaff hills bit, but the hills after the McLaren Vale plains... this right?
[COM]
And this is why we tunnel. In any situation some properties will have to be demolished. Take a look at Sydney freeway tunnelling projects. The Lane Cove Tunnel forms a link between the M2 and the Gore Hill Freeway. The only land above ground used are the tunnel portals at each end (which end at Epping Road and at the eastern end in the middle of the M2).starman wrote:Has anyone really realised amongst this debate over the N/S freeway, that there is simply no land to build upon apart from existing roads to construct this.
[COM]
You start off lecturing us about nearby houses, then propose a MATS II.starman wrote:Has anyone really realised amongst this debate over the N/S freeway, that there is simply no land to build upon apart from existing roads to construct this. And people who live near South Road wouldnt want to live near a freeway thats so close to their homes, unlike most freeways which have significant green space around them to curb noise and air pollutions. The only available land is for the extension and duplication of Southern Expressway to the edge of the Tonsley rail line, and Victor Harbor, as well as the Northern Expressway which has Port River Expressway on it, and goes through land corridors set aside as part of urban sprawl.
The Goverment really needs to bring out a MATS II, to adress the future of Metropolitian adelaide and its road/rail networks to accomodate the needs of the future.
Just to clarify - The urban boundaries I belive are the Gawler River (North) Adelaide HIlls (East) the sea (West), and The Adelaide hills in the far south - not the Flagstaff hills bit, but the hills after the McLaren Vale plains... this right?
Yep, you thought your stuff out...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests