Sensational-Adelaide.com

Latest Fly-through Animation.

https://youtu.be/0eTz1u5PfUo

Llessur2002 wrote:Would be nice if the money saved from the revised proposal goes towards improvements to public transport/cycling/walking infrastrucure

Agree with omada too.

The Federal Libs would never allow it - they're addicted to cars.

Fantastic plan.

But what happened to the bit of road next to Monroe's leading to the Mitsubishi site? This was underground before. This has all but disappeared now.

It would seem they have refocused more on the Flinders side, which is a definite positive as they have got all the ramps and entry up to scratch.

omada wrote:Great, another 1.8 billion on roads, just to save motorists a few minutes. No provision for an extended train line, probably little concession for cyclists. Imagine if 1.8 billion was spent on trams and bike / pedestrian lanes throughout the city? Just imagine the world class bike city we could become!

Whilst there is no-one who would argue against further investment in public transport and cycling/walking infrastructure, we can't pretend that urban sprawl hasn't happened.

Projects such as this are essential to those people living in faraway suburbs. Surely we can't expect someone living in Happy Valley or Morphett Vale to cycle or walk to work?

P.S. whilst I realise that urban sprawl is a dirty word on this forum, it is a consequence of the spiralling cost of property. For a significant proportion of the community, their dream of owning their own home can only happen if they move to the outer fringes of suburbia.

Will wrote:P.S. whilst I realise that urban sprawl is a dirty word on this forum, it is a consequence of the spiralling cost of property. For a significant proportion of the community, their dream of owning their own home can only happen if they move to the outer fringes of suburbia.

Partially. There's the desire (or the belief that they need) for larger and larger houses, which then drives people further out to places where they can afford the large house. If people could be more modest in their housing size, then they could probably afford to live closer than than the outer fringes. Culturally we've built up this ideal "Australian Dream" and that it's almost enshrined that everyone should strive to attain it.

Nathan wrote:

Will wrote:P.S. whilst I realise that urban sprawl is a dirty word on this forum, it is a consequence of the spiralling cost of property. For a significant proportion of the community, their dream of owning their own home can only happen if they move to the outer fringes of suburbia.

Partially. There's the desire (or the belief that they need) for larger and larger houses, which then drives people further out to places where they can afford the large house. If people could be more modest in their housing size, then they could probably afford to live closer than than the outer fringes. Culturally we've built up this ideal "Australian Dream" and that it's almost enshrined that everyone should strive to attain it.

People can be more modest? So you've done a survey of South Australians to determine that everyone who buys a big house doesn't need a big house, and they have a false belief that they need a big house?

Because everyone else is stupid, and only Nathan on Sensational-Adelaide knows what people need.

You are the pro-development version of a nimby.

rev wrote:

Nathan wrote:

Will wrote:P.S. whilst I realise that urban sprawl is a dirty word on this forum, it is a consequence of the spiralling cost of property. For a significant proportion of the community, their dream of owning their own home can only happen if they move to the outer fringes of suburbia.

Partially. There's the desire (or the belief that they need) for larger and larger houses, which then drives people further out to places where they can afford the large house. If people could be more modest in their housing size, then they could probably afford to live closer than than the outer fringes. Culturally we've built up this ideal "Australian Dream" and that it's almost enshrined that everyone should strive to attain it.

People can be more modest? So you've done a survey of South Australians to determine that everyone who buys a big house doesn't need a big house, and they have a false belief that they need a big house?

Because everyone else is stupid, and only Nathan on Sensational-Adelaide knows what people need.

You are the pro-development version of a nimby.

We have by far the largest houses, on the largest land, on average in the world. Per capita, only the US and Canada get close. Clearly, if every other country in the world can make a good life in (much) smaller housing, then it stands to reason that we're buying much more space than we genuinely need.

Nathan wrote:

rev wrote:

Nathan wrote: Partially. There's the desire (or the belief that they need) for larger and larger houses, which then drives people further out to places where they can afford the large house. If people could be more modest in their housing size, then they could probably afford to live closer than than the outer fringes. Culturally we've built up this ideal "Australian Dream" and that it's almost enshrined that everyone should strive to attain it.

People can be more modest? So you've done a survey of South Australians to determine that everyone who buys a big house doesn't need a big house, and they have a false belief that they need a big house?

Because everyone else is stupid, and only Nathan on Sensational-Adelaide knows what people need.

You are the pro-development version of a nimby.

We have by far the largest houses, on the largest land, on average in the world. Per capita, only the US and Canada get close. Clearly, if every other country in the world can make a good life in (much) smaller housing, then it stands to reason that we're buying much more space than we genuinely need.

And we should do what other countries do because...............?
I fail to see the logic or sense in doing something because others are doing it. As the old saying from our childhoods goes, if he/she jumped off a cliff, would you?

What about doing what we want to do, you know, what makes us unique?
What about finding ways to do what we do, better, with consideration for the environment? Such as using waste/recycled water for watering gardens, using solar power, etc..

What you again do not seem to want to acknowledge, is that not everyone wants to live tightly packed in like sardines. Some people, I know this might shock you so make sure you are sitting down, want some space.

Say I've got a German Shepherd. How am I going to accommodate it in the yuppy village that's developed in Brompton and is swallowing up Bowden now? That's just one example of many, many as to why people may want more space then inner city living may offer. What, are you going to suggest next that people should be limited to the size and type of their pets?

Rev, please take a moment to proofread your posts before submission. I'm tired of reading what appear as inflammatory statements, even if not intended as such.

Wayno wrote:Rev, please take a moment to proofread your posts before submission. I'm tired of reading what appear as inflammatory statements, even if not intended as such.

What specifically in my posts today looks inflammatory? I'll remove it so we can keep the civility in here.

rev wrote:And we should do what other countries do because...............?
I fail to see the logic or sense in doing something because others are doing it. As the old saying from our childhoods goes, if he/she jumped off a cliff, would you?

What about doing what we want to do, you know, what makes us unique?
What about finding ways to do what we do, better, with consideration for the environment? Such as using waste/recycled water for watering gardens, using solar power, etc..

What you again do not seem to want to acknowledge, is that not everyone wants to live tightly packed in like sardines. Some people, I know this might shock you so make sure you are sitting down, want some space.

Say I've got a German Shepherd. How am I going to accommodate it in the yuppy village that's developed in Brompton and is swallowing up Bowden now? That's just one example of many, many as to why people may want more space then inner city living may offer. What, are you going to suggest next that people should be limited to the size and type of their pets?

My point is Rev, that if people in every other country on Earth live in less space, then it demonstrates that the desire for space in Australia is a want, not a need. Owning a German Shepherd is also a want, not a need, and if you require a larger house/land to accommodate said want, then it's a bit rich to bemoan housing affordability because said larger house/land costs more.

There's also a huge middle ground between our large detached houses and being tightly packed in like sardines. I'd also suggest that part of the problem is that many homes here are poorly designed, and require more space to make up for their deficiencies (for which I blame those house & land package development companies which dominate the new build market).

Sticking a few solar panels up and using recycled water for your gardens is good, but I doubt that would begin to offset the larger scale environmental issues of low density living.

rev wrote:

Wayno wrote:Rev, please take a moment to proofread your posts before submission. I'm tired of reading what appear as inflammatory statements, even if not intended as such.

What specifically in my posts today looks inflammatory? I'll remove it so we can keep the civility in here.

let's chat offline.

omada wrote:

The way I read it, $1.8billion was the original figure. They're now proposing a more effective solution for $620million. This needs to be done, as well as your proposals Omada.

Thanks Rhino for the correction, I'm glad they at least scaled it back.

Would be nice if the money saved from the revised proposal goes towards improvements to public transport/cycling/walking infrastrucure

Haha we can only dream Llessur2002!

This isn't quite right.

The $1.8 billion figure mentioned was for the original 2010 Darlington Transport Study which also included plans to electrify, duplicate and extend the Tonsley line to FMC and Flinders University and build a public transport interchange. I don't believe that was ever funded (or it if was, funding was pulled many years ago). Here is a link to the original study http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__d ... or_Web.pdf

In mid 2014 it was announced that they would proceed with a fully funded $620 million Darlington upgrade project. This project upgrades South road and does not include the public transport features of the original 2010 study. Most noticeably absent is the Tonsley rail line duplication/extension and transport interchange and hence why it is some $1.2 billion "cheaper" than the original concept.

Initially this new proposal only had expressway traffic on the lowered road - South road traffic was to travel at grade and still encounter traffic lights. It also had changes to the South road/Ayliffes intersection (basically they were going to patch the expressway to that intersection).

This latest news is just a same cost update to the 2014 proposal. It now puts South road traffic on the lowered road as well and has no changes to the South road/Ayliffes intersection and is more like the proposed changes to South road made in the original 2010 study.

So there was no money "saved" with this announcement.

So a previous plan was to keep things "at grade" with traffic lights/intersections for a certain cost, and the new plan is to lower south road in that section, for the same cost as the plan from 5 years ago?

rev wrote:So a previous plan was to keep things "at grade" with traffic lights/intersections for a certain cost, and the new plan is to lower south road in that section, for the same cost as the plan from 5 years ago?

The "plan from 5 years ago" was only ever just a plan and was never funded (as far as I know). It was costed at $1.8 billion and included a rail extension and a public transport interchange. The South road upgrade in that plan allowed all traffic travelling through Darlington to travel non-stop in the lowered road thus bypassing the Sturt road and Flinders drive intersections.

The 2014 plan, costed (and this time funded) at $620 million had a lowered road to the west of south road that allowed non-stop flow for southern expressway traffic only. So if you were to travel through this section but were not headed for or coming from the Southern expressway (i.e. you wanted to travel on South road south of the current expressway entrance), you had to stay at grade and still travel though the Sturt road and Flinders drive intersections. In the 2010 plan you would have bypassed these intersections. The main reason this plan is so much cheaper than the 2010 plan is that it doesn't include the rail extension and public transport interchange.

The announcement last week is a redesign of the 2014 plan. It is still costed (and funded) at $620 million (so it is not "same cost as the plan from 5 years ago"). This revision now allows all through traffic to travel non-stop in the lowered roadway bypassing Sturt road and Flinders drive intersections. In that respect it is more like the original 2010 plan. The article suggest that an additional 15,000 commuters a day will now be able to travel non-stop through here with this revision.

My main point was that there was no cost saving with this announcement as some people alluded to. It is just a revision of the existing 2014 plan with the same cost - $620 million. The $1.8 billion figure mentioned in the article was for an older and much more comprehensive plan that was only ever just a plan and was not funded.