Sensational-Adelaide.com

Waewick wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:20 pm

Brucetiki wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:19 pm

Llessur2002 wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:10 pm

Is it me or has InDaily, which started off as a half-decent alternative to the standard Murdoch gutter press, gradually shifted to a similar, sensationalist and anti-progress agenda?

Something to do with the dreary Adelaide Now commentators becoming more and more prevalent in their comments section perhaps?

Yeah it's definitlely heading down that path, especially with calling the additional funding for the tram extension a 'cost blowout'.

the Indaily comment back from editor are pretty spot on thought.

sure you may not call it a cost blow out, but if it isn't a cost blow out what is it? if it is solely for political gain then is that a good use of $10M?

A cost blowout is when you have to pay more with no extra benefit.

In this case, there are two benefits:

1). There's more tramline. So those going to Adelaide Oval can travel closer to the Oval, that is correctly termed a "change of scope" in project management jargon, and

2). The construction program is accelerated by night working, meaning that disruptions to traffic along King William Street and North Terrace will be shortened. Program acceleration is the correct term.

Now, you might want to argue the point about whether that's worth spending extra money on. A valid debate. However, a cost blowout it isn't. The Government gets acceleration and increased project scope for paying extra.

"Blowout" isn't neutral language in any sense, so if the InDaily is printing that sort of language then they can be considered in someone's pocket until they prove otherwise.

Having been involved with "blow out" projects I can say that in most cases the cause of the "blowout" is incorrect costing in the first phase, not an actual change in the costs experienced during the project. Noticed this a few times with muppets who thought nothing of costing projects based on property values that were already 5 years out of date. It's not a blowout, it's someone who's actually competent testing the values against reliable data.

Rubberman's comments here are also valid for mine. If you're actually getting something extra then the costs go up. It's not a blowout of costs, it's an expansion of the scope of the project.

Algernon wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:12 pm

"Blowout" isn't neutral language in any sense, so if the InDaily is printing that sort of language then they can be considered in someone's pocket until they prove otherwise.

Having been involved with "blow out" projects I can say that in most cases the cause of the "blowout" is incorrect costing in the first phase, not an actual change in the costs experienced during the project. Noticed this a few times with muppets who thought nothing of costing projects based on property values that were already 5 years out of date. It's not a blowout, it's someone who's actually competent testing the values against reliable data.

Rubberman's comments here are also valid for mine. If you're actually getting something extra then the costs go up. It's not a blowout of costs, it's an expansion of the scope of the project.

I guess we have been conditioned to getting extra at no additional cost. Both Torrens to Torrens and Darlington yielded scope increases at no additional cost. Once you get something for nothing, you start to expect it, but if the estimations were done on costings that already took those scope gains into account in the first place, there is not as much fat to skim later.

Nathan wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:54 pm

With InDaily, you get a bit of a swing depending on who is writing the article. The comments section has definitely gone down hill though. It's gone from some reasonably informed discussion (from both sides politically) to a handful of regulars trying to find any angle to moan about Labor.

Refuges from the pay wall Murdoch erected.

Sound Trumpish, "Build a wall and the readers will pay for it!"

reading through the AdelaideNo comments , there was only one I didn't have a ready answer for in my mind. Why three stops? Would it have been better to combine the East End and University stops into a single super stop at Frome Road?

The only thing I could think of was the eventual extension to the Eastern suburbs would be better served by having a stop closer to the Botanic hotel?


thoughts?

Presumably there needs to be a stop right outside the old RAH to act as a catalyst for that development. There also needs to be one right outside the Uni to encourage students to use the system. I'm all for close stops in the CBD - makes it much easier to hop on and off.

There should be stops for both extensions just near the corner of North Terrace and King William Street to enable easier connection with the Glenelg tram(assuming the present route remains unchanged?) and also King William Road/King William Street buses..

adelaide transport wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:09 am

There should be stops for both extensions just near the corner of North Terrace and King William Street to enable easier connection with the Glenelg tram(assuming the present route remains unchanged?) and also King William Road/King William Street buses..

Possibly. However, the present Entercentre to City route doesn't need more trams, neither could they take trams from the City West to Vic Sq section either. Which means possibly using some sort of shuttle from West Terrace to East Terrace and/or the Festival Centre. Three extra trams could do that.

In that case, people could transfer at the Adelaide Railway Station, or West Terrace.

Pure speculation though. Your guess is as good as mine.

The advantage of interstate ticketing systems that require tap-on and tap-off is the data collection that shows where passengers actually start and finish their journeys. That would allow route planners to easily monitor times of day when it would be helpful to have some trams go in other directions at the big junction. The current system requires manual monitoring and collating information to discover if people choose to change trams/buses to finish their journey.

I imagine there might be a North Terrace Shuttle which will be described as running between old and new RAH, but will be just as significant for the other places near the stops - between the Unisa City East and City West, SAHMRI, Rundle Mall/Street etc.

The obvious transfer point initially would the the railway station stop, I think. I doubt there will be much regular demand for the Riverbank stop.

Has it been confirmed whether the plan is a full "grand union" junction allowing all tram movements (I believe that is what used to be on that intersection), or would there be some tracks left out for simplicity, limiting the possible tram routes?

1915 photo of the junction

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:19 pm

Back on topic. The 100m extension of the Festival Theatre leg of the tram line, have they simply moved the proposed tram stop 100m north, or is the proposed stop still remaining as it, with a 100m track extension beyond it to allow for turnbacks or tram parking during major events?

Anybody got an answer to this yet?

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:17 pm

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:19 pm

Back on topic. The 100m extension of the Festival Theatre leg of the tram line, have they simply moved the proposed tram stop 100m north, or is the proposed stop still remaining as it, with a 100m track extension beyond it to allow for turnbacks or tram parking during major events?

Anybody got an answer to this yet?

Not an answer, but they always had to have enough track past the stop to reverse trams, so that's not it. As for storage during major events, that would require a scissors crossover (like at the Entercentre) to work effectively. That's more expensive than the single turnout arrangement (like at Glenelg). So, while possible, it would be less likely than going the full distance.

There's also the question of where the traffic is going. For example, Adelaide Oval vs Festival Centre vs the riverbank precinct. Those would change depending on time of day and time of year. Over Summer, there's always a lot of events on the river bank, occasional Adelaide Oval stuff during the day and Festival Centre. Other times, it's different.

Having said that, it probably doesn’t make much difference. But am happy to be proven wrong if someone has better data.

One disadvantage of tap on tap off is if you forgot to tap off your credit disappears

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:41 am

One disadvantage of tap on tap off is if you forgot to tap off your credit disappears

No, the way most smart card systems work with forgetting to tap off, is to charge you the highest fare possible on that route, or a default fare (like a small fine for not tapping off)
Your entire credit does not disappear......its amazing how quickly people remember to tap off after 1 default fare....

PeFe wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:54 am

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:41 am

One disadvantage of tap on tap off is if you forgot to tap off your credit disappears

No, the way most smart card systems work with forgetting to tap off, is to charge you the highest fare possible on that route, or a default fare (like a small fine for not tapping off)
Your entire credit does not disappear......its amazing how quickly people remember to tap off after 1 default fare....

The introduction of tap-on tap-off would be entertaining for those of us that like to peruse the AdelaideNo comments on infrastructure because in my experience lots of people here already find it hard enough to remember to tap on to a train after using their card to get into a station.