Sensational-Adelaide.com

rubberman wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 8:10 pm

I should also add that the Federal Budget allocation for SA infrastructure over the next four years is: $52m South Road, $50m Gawler electrification, and $60m for the Joy Baluch Bridge. That's it. The lot for SA in the next 4 years.

mawsonguy wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 2:19 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 8:10 pm

I should also add that the Federal Budget allocation for SA infrastructure over the next four years is: $52m South Road, $50m Gawler electrification, and $60m for the Joy Baluch Bridge. That's it. The lot for SA in the next 4 years.

That's a little bit mischievous. The Federal Government has committed $177 million for the Regency Rd-Pym St upgrade and $220 million for Stage 2 of the Gawler Electrification project. They are not included in the 2018 budget because they are not yet shovel ready, the SA Government has not committed to funding the other half and the projects will only start in the latter half of 2019 at best. Hopefully, they will be included in the 2019 budget. That's before the promised $1.2 billion for the Torrens to Anzac section of South Rd (althjough I concede that is a little less certain as it is subject to a business case being presented by the SA Government). It also doesn't include the funding during the 2018/2019 FY for the Northern Connector or the last of the T2T. So the funding over the next 4 years is likely to be well in excess of $162 million.

rubberman wrote:

mawsonguy wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 2:19 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 8:10 pm

I should also add that the Federal Budget allocation for SA infrastructure over the next four years is: $52m South Road, $50m Gawler electrification, and $60m for the Joy Baluch Bridge. That's it. The lot for SA in the next 4 years.

That's a little bit mischievous. The Federal Government has committed $177 million for the Regency Rd-Pym St upgrade and $220 million for Stage 2 of the Gawler Electrification project. They are not included in the 2018 budget because they are not yet shovel ready, the SA Government has not committed to funding the other half and the projects will only start in the latter half of 2019 at best. Hopefully, they will be included in the 2019 budget. That's before the promised $1.2 billion for the Torrens to Anzac section of South Rd (althjough I concede that is a little less certain as it is subject to a business case being presented by the SA Government). It also doesn't include the funding during the 2018/2019 FY for the Northern Connector or the last of the T2T. So the funding over the next 4 years is likely to be well in excess of $162 million.

I'm not sure what your point is. The fact is that the money is not planned to be released in the four year time frame of the forward estimates. That means at least one, possibly two elections away. No Government can "commit" a future Government to funding.

rubberman wrote:

mawsonguy wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 2:19 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 8:10 pm

I should also add that the Federal Budget allocation for SA infrastructure over the next four years is: $52m South Road, $50m Gawler electrification, and $60m for the Joy Baluch Bridge. That's it. The lot for SA in the next 4 years.

That's a little bit mischievous. The Federal Government has committed $177 million for the Regency Rd-Pym St upgrade and $220 million for Stage 2 of the Gawler Electrification project. They are not included in the 2018 budget because they are not yet shovel ready, the SA Government has not committed to funding the other half and the projects will only start in the latter half of 2019 at best. Hopefully, they will be included in the 2019 budget. That's before the promised $1.2 billion for the Torrens to Anzac section of South Rd (althjough I concede that is a little less certain as it is subject to a business case being presented by the SA Government). It also doesn't include the funding during the 2018/2019 FY for the Northern Connector or the last of the T2T. So the funding over the next 4 years is likely to be well in excess of $162 million.

I'm not sure what your point is. The fact is that the money is not planned to be released in the four year time frame of the forward estimates. That means at least one, possibly two elections away. No Government can "commit" a future Government to funding.

[Shuz] wrote:Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine tram ride
Electrified, three-car light rail
What'd I say?

Light rail
What's it called?
Light rail
That's right! Light rail!

Light rail
Light rail
Light rail

I hear those poles are awfully bent,
It leans just like its meant
Is there a chance the track could bend?
Not to the right, my online friend

What about us northern slobs?
You'll be given cushy jobs
Were you sent here by the Devil
No, good sir, the tracks pretty level

The tram came off the left turn, man
In the peak hour, well god damn
I swear it's Adelaide's only choice
Throw up your hands and raise your voice

Light rail
What's it called?
Light rail
Once again
Light rail

But North Terrace's still all cracked and broken
Sorry, mate, the mob has spoken

Light rail!
Light rail!
Light rail!
Light rail!

Light, d'oh!

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 5:15 pm

What tune should we sing this to?

Goodsy wrote:

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 5:15 pm

What tune should we sing this to?

what rock do you live under?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM

rubberman wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 6:50 pm

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 4:49 pm

Oh well that's it then
Engineer signing off

rubberman wrote:
They took tracks off, so when they replace them, the weight will be exactly the same. There's NO additional weight. Tracks same. Trams same. Bridge same.

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

I'm sort of hoping for some common sense.

If Melbourne didn't need to upgrade its bridges for new trams, and the load on this bridge isn't going to be any greater than it used to carry, doesn't that raise a question?

If, coincidentally, when this came up last time, and I checked the DPTI website, it had the design load for trams AND railcars as the same. That's changed after I pointed it out to them....the tram load disappeared, lol. Is it really sensible to design teack to take railcars? Common sense needed, not an engineering degree, surely?

Finally, whether we get a tram extension depends on it being economically viable. Using common sense, what is adding $10 million to the cost going to do? Common sense answer: It's going to make it less economic.

So, every common sense aspect of this says that DPTI needs to justify this work. No engineering or economics degrees required. Just common sense. The concern I have repeatedly raised is that if this work is needed for safety reasons because the bridge has deteriorated, what about the rest of the structure? Again, it's plain common sense.

prometheus2704 wrote: ↑

Sat May 12, 2018 8:31 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 6:50 pm

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 4:49 pm

Oh well that's it then
Engineer signing off

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

I'm sort of hoping for some common sense.

If Melbourne didn't need to upgrade its bridges for new trams, and the load on this bridge isn't going to be any greater than it used to carry, doesn't that raise a question?

If, coincidentally, when this came up last time, and I checked the DPTI website, it had the design load for trams AND railcars as the same. That's changed after I pointed it out to them....the tram load disappeared, lol. Is it really sensible to design teack to take railcars? Common sense needed, not an engineering degree, surely?

Finally, whether we get a tram extension depends on it being economically viable. Using common sense, what is adding $10 million to the cost going to do? Common sense answer: It's going to make it less economic.

So, every common sense aspect of this says that DPTI needs to justify this work. No engineering or economics degrees required. Just common sense. The concern I have repeatedly raised is that if this work is needed for safety reasons because the bridge has deteriorated, what about the rest of the structure? Again, it's plain common sense.

So you don't have an engineering qualification then, rubberman? But of course your common sense must be correct, because nothing in life when looked at with knowledge, experience and expertise ever turns out to defy "common sense."

AG wrote: ↑

Sun May 13, 2018 5:06 pm

AS5100 is your friend if you want to read up on Australian Standards for bridge loadings and design!