Sensational-Adelaide.com

That's a good thing to know.

I've read over it and I have come to the conclusion that the budget is shit because the negatives and missed opportunities outweigh the positives. Increased taxes, levies and government charges with barely anything good. It is a purely reactionary budget to counter the gains the opposition has made in the last year.

Random Thought: I would love to see these beauty's running on the Train Lines in Adelaide;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_train

Bulldozer wrote:I've read over it and I have come to the conclusion that the budget is shit because the negatives and missed opportunities outweigh the positives. Increased taxes, levies and government charges with barely anything good. It is a purely reactionary budget to counter the gains the opposition has made in the last year.
I've read over it and I have come to the conclusion that the budget is shit because the negatives and missed opportunities outweigh the positives. Increased taxes, levies and government charges with barely anything good. It is a purely reactionary budget to counter the gains the opposition has made in the last year.

That is a pretty standard way for someone living in Adelaide to respond to the most visionary plans for public transport in 50 years. Get over it.

muzzamo wrote:

Bulldozer wrote:I've read over it and I have come to the conclusion that the budget is shit because the negatives and missed opportunities outweigh the positives. Increased taxes, levies and government charges with barely anything good. It is a purely reactionary budget to counter the gains the opposition has made in the last year.
I've read over it and I have come to the conclusion that the budget is shit because the negatives and missed opportunities outweigh the positives. Increased taxes, levies and government charges with barely anything good. It is a purely reactionary budget to counter the gains the opposition has made in the last year.

That is a pretty standard way for someone living in Adelaide to respond to the most visionary plans for public transport in 50 years. Get over it.

um, Bulldozer doesn't live in Adelaide...

well maybe he should stop bitching and moaning then

muzzamo wrote:

Bulldozer wrote:I've read over it and I have come to the conclusion that the budget is shit because the negatives and missed opportunities outweigh the positives. Increased taxes, levies and government charges with barely anything good. It is a purely reactionary budget to counter the gains the opposition has made in the last year.
I've read over it and I have come to the conclusion that the budget is shit because the negatives and missed opportunities outweigh the positives. Increased taxes, levies and government charges with barely anything good. It is a purely reactionary budget to counter the gains the opposition has made in the last year.

That is a pretty standard way for someone living in Adelaide to respond to the most visionary plans for public transport in 50 years. Get over it.

The budget is not just the transport plan. Besides I wouldn't say it is visionary, just overdue.

Cheers

Bulldozer wrote:I've read over it and I have come to the conclusion that the budget is shit because the negatives and missed opportunities outweigh the positives. Increased taxes, levies and government charges with barely anything good. It is a purely reactionary budget to counter the gains the opposition has made in the last year.

I hate how people are "fans" of either Labor or as in Bulldozers case, Liberal.

Ho Really wrote:

Will wrote:You have contradicted yourself in your flawed arguement. In the first half of your arguement you state "Why has it taken until now for Rann and his party of clowns to finally come up with something? "

Public pressure!

but you end your arguement complaining about the extra "STATE ECONOMIC DEBT"

The bottom half of your post explains why it took Rann and his 'clowns' until now to announce the electrification of the rail system. They did not do it before because we had a weaker economy and simply could not afford it. They announced it this year, because as a state we are now in a position to afford it. Before, such spending would have been irresponsible.

That's incorrect. SA has had a AAA rating for several years now, and Kevin Foley has been boasting about it. This government could have easily done this earlier, in their first term. Interest rates are now much higher (not to include inflation, etc.). We may have a mining boom coming on, but it is not here yet and there are always uncertainties with the global economy, especially with energy costs going up all the time. Going into debt for infrastructure is not always bad, however they need to get things right and not waste money on projects we do not need (in some cases not giving SA a return).

Cheers

Sorry Ho, but it is you who is incorrect in their arguement.

You say that the Rann government could have instigated a $2 billion transport package in their first term. This idea is simply irresponsible.

The first term of the Rann government was between 2002-06. When Labor came to power in 2002, the state had a deficit of almost $200 million. Furthermore back in 2002-03 the state economy was nowhere near as strong as it is today. Back then the state was just coming out of the economic maladies of the 1990s. Furthermore SA only regained its AAA credit rating in 2004. I am sure you would appreciate how irresponsible it would have been for the state government at this stage to borrow almost $2 billion, just when their credit rating was improved. This would have sent a very alarming message to the credit rating agencies and could have resulted in SA losing its AAA rating. Furthermore you have to take into account that pre-2005 there was no mining boom on the horizon. Furthermore population growth back then was between 0.5-0.6%. Population projections at that stage indicated that SA's population would most likely decrease by 2050. I am sure that treasury figures at the stage indicated the same. As such there is no way any fiscally responsible government would have undertaken spending of $2 billion on just one project before 2006.

The new SA was born around late 2006. It is only recently that the state is in a position to responsibly borrow such a quantity of money. Furthermore take into account that there have been rather major announcements in every budget since 2005.

I am not saying that public pressure or the pressure applied by MHS did not play a role in forcing the government's hand. However it must be emphasized that the state has only been in a position to undertake such projects in only just the previous 2 years. And in the 2006 budget we got the new super schools and prisons and last year it was the $1.7 billion Marj. These are big and expensive projects. If the state government had announced the transport package last year we would not have got the Marj. And it would be equally irresponsible of the government had announced all the big projects it has announced in the last few years in a single budget. But also it would not be good politics. It would be like getting all your birthday presents for the next 5 years this year, and then not getting anything for the next 4.

Will said
The new SA was born around late 2006. It is only recently that the state is in a position to responsibly borrow such a quantity of money. Furthermore take into account that there have been rather major announcements in every budget since 2005.

[/quote]

I agree! SA really picked up from late 2006. As an anual visitor the 'vibrancy' Howie talks of was noticeable. I spoke of coming of age. (Noticed this with Brisbane in 1988 - an inexplicable change of drive, direction, excitement, vision, action in building etc etc). In 2004 I was very saddened about Adelaide - umbrella weed blowing down an empty Grenfell St symbolised it all.

It all continues. Late to this discussion, but sooooo excited by this budget for Adelaide and SA.- after all,it is home to me. As a long time rail fan of SA I am doubly impressed.

Trams to semaphore were explained to me by a Sempahore Rd businessman at start of 2006. Not much evidence could be found by me at the time. Now West Lakes and Pt Adelaide as well - in St Vincent St, up Causway Rd to Semaphore Rd?

Adelaide rail electrification - at last!! No longer a basket case and an embarrassment here in the east. On an aside, they actually had the copper cables for electrification 1973 and sold them off. Don't know why. Noarlunga line starts in 2008 - fantastic!

Can anyone tell me where the entertainment centre is on Pt Rd. How far from West Tce Nth Tce intersection? And, any clues as to where it would link up with the Port line?

VERY happy that Pt line will remain open for heavy rail. Though, as I understand, no goods traffic now uses it, who knows of the future demands.

Concerning debt - yes a risk has been taken, given the oil price rise and the US economy falling further into recession. BUT, all this makes rail transport more rational as the future way to go. Up here in QLD, they have proposed $9b of road investment and VERY little on rail. I think they have it all backwards - SA is showing the way of the future - and will be the most modern system in Aust.! Also, the resource boom will be gaining momentum as demand increases from China and India.

Will be hard to sleep tonight!

ADELAIDE - CITY ON THE MOVE

The Aldinga extension will be similar to the Manure ( ) Extension in WA.

skyliner wrote:Can anyone tell me where the entertainment centre is on Pt Rd. How far from West Tce Nth Tce intersection? And, any clues as to where it would link up with the Port line?

go an look on the Port Adelaide Tramline thread. lots of details and a pretty picture by will409...

Norman wrote:The Aldinga extension will be similar to the Manure ( ) Extension in WA.

If you have ever been to mandurah you would know its very nice.

Will wrote:...You say that the Rann government could have instigated a $2 billion transport package in their first term. This idea is simply irresponsible.

The first term of the Rann government was between 2002-06. When Labor came to power in 2002, the state had a deficit of almost $200 million. Furthermore back in 2002-03 the state economy was nowhere near as strong as it is today. Back then the state was just coming out of the economic maladies of the 1990s. Furthermore SA only regained its AAA credit rating in 2004. I am sure you would appreciate how irresponsible it would have been for the state government at this stage to borrow almost $2 billion, just when their credit rating was improved. This would have sent a very alarming message to the credit rating agencies and could have resulted in SA losing its AAA rating.

Furthermore you have to take into account that pre-2005 there was no mining boom on the horizon. Furthermore population growth back then was between 0.5-0.6%. Population projections at that stage indicated that SA's population would most likely decrease by 2050. I am sure that treasury figures at the stage indicated the same. As such there is no way any fiscally responsible government would have undertaken spending of $2 billion on just one project before 2006.

The new SA was born around late 2006. It is only recently that the state is in a position to responsibly borrow such a quantity of money. Furthermore take into account that there have been rather major announcements in every budget since 2005.

I’m from a different school of thought when it comes to public infrastructure and going into debt. I understand what you have said Will and it is all good, however, I didn't say today’s government should have spent $2 billion then. The state government could have invested a smaller amount (a third to half) and concentrated on the core maladies of our metro transport system. Expansion could have come at a latter date (in this term most probably). In Rann's first term this package (or a reduced one) would have costed less, regardless of the state debt and credit rating. It would have been even less under the previous Liberals and those before them (if they weren’t paying off even bigger debts). Now there is a high probability the current package will blow out because of higher interest rates and inflation. There are also external factors like the ever increasing price of fuel. We may well end up with a much larger debt to manage than we would have had several years ago.

I acknowledge the prospect of a mining boom and population plays a part, etc., but the job of governments is not to wait for a boom to start to invest, they are there to be proactive, to generate the right climate for business, etc., and to retain and increase population. If they cannot do that then I think they have failed.

I am not saying that public pressure or the pressure applied by MHS did not play a role in forcing the government's hand. However it must be emphasized that the state has only been in a position to undertake such projects in only just the previous 2 years. And in the 2006 budget we got the new super schools and prisons and last year it was the $1.7 billion Marj. These are big and expensive projects. If the state government had announced the transport package last year we would not have got the Marj. And it would be equally irresponsible of the government had announced all the big projects it has announced in the last few years in a single budget.

I’ve already made a comment elsewhere regarding the superschools and prisons, but I’ll add this about the superschools: why create them when we’re trying to consolidate our urban sprawl and when our population is about to grow? With higher density we need to keep those schools operating! If we get rid of those schools we may end up never getting them back. I think we could have saved the money here or at the least spent it on teachers.

But also it would not be good politics. It would be like getting all your birthday presents for the next 5 years this year, and then not getting anything for the next 4.

This is what I don’t like, whomever is in government.

Cheers

Wayno wrote:

skyliner wrote:Can anyone tell me where the entertainment centre is on Pt Rd. How far from West Tce Nth Tce intersection? And, any clues as to where it would link up with the Port line?

go an look on the Port Adelaide Tramline thread. lots of details and a pretty picture by will409...

Thanks mate - made all the difference.

ADELAIDE - CITY ON THE MOVE