Sensational-Adelaide.com

Nort, this amount is the proposed Fed. Govt contribution with any state and council contribution to come on top of the $185m...

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:31 pm

rubberman wrote:

claybro wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:56 am

Once again, Melbourne I noted as ONE of the best tram systems in the word. Never said THE best in the world. Certainly there are things we could learn from the Cheqs or the Germans, but if it is fast construction, keeping costs down, with easily interchangeable and repairable parts, then surely sourcing them and expertise from Melbourne is the best option to achieve this? Not that my option matters, but I am yet to be convinced that sourcing specialised world best parts and systems from a single European model will not reduce costs, or construction time, or maintenance costs surely.

One single example. In hard figures, the O Bahn tunnel was estimated to have a benefit justifying $160m.

Those places in Europe I mentioned all use combined bus/tram lanes in places. So, if the stretch from North Terrace to the Entertainment Centre had been designed with that in mind, the delays for Port and Grange Road buses could have been cut by a similar amount. By.Doing.What.They.Do.In.Europe.

That's $160m in benefits blown down the toilet.

How much would a review by an operator from Prague or Warsaw cost? $200k? $300k?

But nah. Let's just blow the whole cost of the extension down the toilet because we possibly couldn't learn anything from anyone outside Australia.

When people see this cavalier attitude to their money, Mr Marshall's slogans of "Labor's Waste and Mismanagement" ring true. People might not get the detail of cases like this, but if they get up on election Saturdays all grumpy because they spent 15 useless minutes getting from North Terrace to Manton Street, guess who they take it out on...and rightly so.

Labor blew $160m in benefits by not spending a few hundred thousand on getting in the right expertise. If Labor supporters hand wave that away, then Mr Marshall will get a second term. (Not to imply you are a Labor supporter, rather that this is precisely the sort of big ticket item that could have been a big benefit to the previous government, and they blew it through wilful ignorance).

Usual horseshit post

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

There are better ways to respond to a post instead of calling it "horseshit."

Grow up ffs.

timtam20292 wrote:

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:31 pm

rubberman wrote: One single example. In hard figures, the O Bahn tunnel was estimated to have a benefit justifying $160m.

Those places in Europe I mentioned all use combined bus/tram lanes in places. So, if the stretch from North Terrace to the Entertainment Centre had been designed with that in mind, the delays for Port and Grange Road buses could have been cut by a similar amount. By.Doing.What.They.Do.In.Europe.

That's $160m in benefits blown down the toilet.

How much would a review by an operator from Prague or Warsaw cost? $200k? $300k?

But nah. Let's just blow the whole cost of the extension down the toilet because we possibly couldn't learn anything from anyone outside Australia.

When people see this cavalier attitude to their money, Mr Marshall's slogans of "Labor's Waste and Mismanagement" ring true. People might not get the detail of cases like this, but if they get up on election Saturdays all grumpy because they spent 15 useless minutes getting from North Terrace to Manton Street, guess who they take it out on...and rightly so.

Labor blew $160m in benefits by not spending a few hundred thousand on getting in the right expertise. If Labor supporters hand wave that away, then Mr Marshall will get a second term. (Not to imply you are a Labor supporter, rather that this is precisely the sort of big ticket item that could have been a big benefit to the previous government, and they blew it through wilful ignorance).

Usual horseshit post

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

There are better ways to respond to a post instead of calling it "horseshit."

Grow up ffs.

Get stuffed

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

**double post**

Nort wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:07 am

rubberman wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:46 am

Nort wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:40 am

So it's just been leaked that one of the unannounced infrastructure projects in the Federal budget is 185 million for the Adelink project.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victo ... 593043a086

It's paywalled. Can you give us an idea of the specifics. For example, is that the total cost (SA Gov plus Feds), or just the Feds contribution? Is it for North Adelaide or the City loop, or something else?

Also, note that if it's an election promise war chest, an incoming government doesn't have to honour it. Take a look at the polls.

It would be ironic if an ALP government promising trams got booted out in SA, and a Liberal Government promising trams got booted out in Canberra.

Nathan beat me to quoting the article, but not a lot more information was provided. The important part seems to be that these were already actually funded in this years Federal budget and the announcements were just delayed.

how good is he wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 10:58 am

So I gather it will chosen on the route/s with the best cost/benefit outcome but my guess is $185m would fund the city loop and an extension to AO and possibly North Adelaide?

I very much doubt $185m would cover all of that, so I imagine it would be either a North Adelaide connection or part of the city loop.

I have heard through various sources that the funding was earmarked for Westlink (Henley Beach Road including an Adelaide Airport link). By doing this they will also go some way to completing a West Terrace orientated loop. I was hoping for North Adelaide personally.

JAKJ wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:59 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:07 am

rubberman wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:46 am

It's paywalled. Can you give us an idea of the specifics. For example, is that the total cost (SA Gov plus Feds), or just the Feds contribution? Is it for North Adelaide or the City loop, or something else?

Also, note that if it's an election promise war chest, an incoming government doesn't have to honour it. Take a look at the polls.

It would be ironic if an ALP government promising trams got booted out in SA, and a Liberal Government promising trams got booted out in Canberra.

Nathan beat me to quoting the article, but not a lot more information was provided. The important part seems to be that these were already actually funded in this years Federal budget and the announcements were just delayed.

how good is he wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 10:58 am

So I gather it will chosen on the route/s with the best cost/benefit outcome but my guess is $185m would fund the city loop and an extension to AO and possibly North Adelaide?

I very much doubt $185m would cover all of that, so I imagine it would be either a North Adelaide connection or part of the city loop.

I have heard through various sources that the funding was earmarked for Westlink (Henley Beach Road including an Adelaide Airport link). By doing this they will also go some way to completing a West Terrace orientated loop. I was hoping for North Adelaide personally.

I'd dearly love to see the business case that went to Infrastructure Australia.

My guess, and it's purely speculation, is that the North Adelaide extension is way too expensive at the $200m plus estimate thrown around before the March election. For some reason, that's more than the cost of the North Terrace extension which included the crossing on North Terrace and King William Street intersection...and extensive night works. That had a benefit to cost ratio of 0.7. So, a far more expensive extension to North Adelaide would have to be much worse. I think the key is that extending North won't make any sense until it can service the Prospect area, AND increased urban backfill along Prospect Road. Just going to Barton Terrace won't gain enough passengers to make the numbers work. It won't eliminate Prospect Road buses from O'Connell Street, and it will cut lanes from that street, holding up other traffic. That really leaves the only option to do the Prospect extension in one go. I don't even know if that would work economically.

On the other hand, they could do the city link in stages: to connect with the O-Bahn, then Hutt Street, then King William via whatever, then the South-East corner of the CBD, then connect to West Terrace. Each stage has a traffic generator of some sort that's proportional to the cost. Similarly for Henley Beach Road. It could be staged to go to South Road, then the Airport spur, then Henley, and buses could use the tram right of way, giving motorists a free run.

Like I say, this is speculation, and seeing the actual business case would be nice.

I'd also like to see if they looked at conversion of the Outer Harbor line to trams. That would have a very high economic payoff...like the Port Melbourne and St Kilda conversions in Melbourne. Along with the possibilities of branches to Bowden, Semaphore, past Port Dock and West Lakes. With that plus these others, Adelaide would have a significant system with economies of scale.

Plenty of Infrastructure Australia business cases don't stack up and are done for political reasons. Then again cost-benefit analyses are limited by the assumptions made in developing them and are not very good at pricing in all positive externalities particularly in the mid to long-term.

Here is a little bit of "reality" in the tram debate (politicians at least saying something public about future plans)

From In Daily

No new tram money in state budget, but four small surpluses

Premier Steven Marshall says there won’t be any new funding for trams in tomorrow’s budget and doesn’t know anything about reports of a $185 million federal cash splash earmarked for extending Adelaide’s tram network.



At a news conference today, Marshall said there were “contingencies” in the budget for the Liberal Party’s promised King William Street to North Terrace tramline right-hand-turn, but identified no specific dollar amount, and denied any approach from the Federal Government about the reported trams funding.

Meanwhile, Treasurer Rob Lucas revealed that the budget would be in surplus.

Yesterday, News Corp masthead the Herald Sun reported leaked details of a $7.6 billion roads and rail package – included, but not publicly identified, in the May federal budget – which former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had planned to unveil ahead of the next election.

Full article : https://indaily.com.au/news/2018/09/03/ ... surpluses/

PeFe wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:02 pm

Here is a little bit of "reality" in the tram debate (politicians at least saying something public about future plans)

From In Daily

No new tram money in state budget, but four small surpluses

Premier Steven Marshall says there won’t be any new funding for trams in tomorrow’s budget and doesn’t know anything about reports of a $185 million federal cash splash earmarked for extending Adelaide’s tram network.



At a news conference today, Marshall said there were “contingencies” in the budget for the Liberal Party’s promised King William Street to North Terrace tramline right-hand-turn, but identified no specific dollar amount, and denied any approach from the Federal Government about the reported trams funding.

Meanwhile, Treasurer Rob Lucas revealed that the budget would be in surplus.

Yesterday, News Corp masthead the Herald Sun reported leaked details of a $7.6 billion roads and rail package – included, but not publicly identified, in the May federal budget – which former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had planned to unveil ahead of the next election.

Full article : https://indaily.com.au/news/2018/09/03/ ... surpluses/

I agree with the need to not get too excited by NewsCorp reports. Too true.

In addition, even if it were true, Stephen Marshall would be pretty stupid to confirm or deny anything. This is for his Federal counterparts to announce as part of an election campaign. He'd get taken behind the toilets and beaten up if he said anything.

IF it's true, then it's unlikely to happen before the next financial year, because, as a campaign item, it's not intended to happen before the election. So, it simply won't happen this financial year for that reason. Thus, it won't appear in the upcoming SA budget.

In any case. Chances of the Federal Coalition winning? Hmmm. Chances of an incoming Labor government pouring funds into a State that voted Labor out? Hmmmm. Maybe, if the business case is good. Hmmm.

After reading months of negative news and comments about the trams (many after the change of state government) one starts to believe there is no hope for any more lines, especially when the public are fed so much in the news.
Interestingly, before the NT event I perceived there was very different feel about the trams. Changing the culture re the trams is significant. I really believe this is a key factor in the issue. (votes potential).
Many have referred to the 'build it and they will come/use' concept before - we have seen how this is the case in other places like Portland. I remember the 'tram to nowhere' concept being put out re the western NT line. Over time look what has happened. See what has happened in sth. KWS. Construction with a view to the future is very important although in the short term may present a poor business case. The tram s will never get going with a short sighted and negative view. Possibility thinking essential.

Now I see the airport line is spoken of again. I wonder how they arrived at their business case?

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

skyliner wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:50 pm

After reading months of negative news and comments about the trams (many after the change of state government) one starts to believe there is no hope for any more lines, especially when the public are fed so much in the news.
Interestingly, before the NT event I perceived there was very different feel about the trams. Changing the culture re the trams is significant. I really believe this is a key factor in the issue. (votes potential).
Many have referred to the 'build it and they will come/use' concept before - we have seen how this is the case in other places like Portland. I remember the 'tram to nowhere' concept being put out re the western NT line. Over time look what has happened. See what has happened in sth. KWS. Construction with a view to the future is very important although in the short term may present a poor business case. The tram s will never get going with a short sighted and negative view. Possibility thinking essential.

Now I see the airport line is spoken of again. I wonder how they arrived at their business case?

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

The consortium wanting to build the line had a very simple business case: get the State Government to guarantee a nice profit. They wanted a nice government guarantee.

As far as the rest is concerned, perhaps the best way to look at it is this: do we accept $100m per km to North Adelaide, or do we try for a more economic $60m per Km and get an extension from North Terrace to Hutt Street FOR THE SAME PRICE?

Now, myself, I would like to have both if at all possible. If others want to just have the one small extension, fair enough. In that case, I'd still say get DPTI to justify every single cent, publicly, over $60m per km and put the savings into bike lanes. What's wrong with having both the North Adelaide extension AND an extension to Hutt St, or a spare $80m for bike lanes. If the latter, that amount of money could revolutionise cycling in Adelaide.

I also note that look what has happened to light rail in Sydney. The debacle of spending billions more than it should has probably done more to kill off any further trams in Sydney than anything. For the price they're paying for one line, they could have had a system. That's where spending uneconomically gets us.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:06 pm

skyliner wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:50 pm

After reading months of negative news and comments about the trams (many after the change of state government) one starts to believe there is no hope for any more lines, especially when the public are fed so much in the news.
Interestingly, before the NT event I perceived there was very different feel about the trams. Changing the culture re the trams is significant. I really believe this is a key factor in the issue. (votes potential).
Many have referred to the 'build it and they will come/use' concept before - we have seen how this is the case in other places like Portland. I remember the 'tram to nowhere' concept being put out re the western NT line. Over time look what has happened. See what has happened in sth. KWS. Construction with a view to the future is very important although in the short term may present a poor business case. The tram s will never get going with a short sighted and negative view. Possibility thinking essential.

Now I see the airport line is spoken of again. I wonder how they arrived at their business case?

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

The consortium wanting to build the line had a very simple business case: get the State Government to guarantee a nice profit. They wanted a nice government guarantee.

As far as the rest is concerned, perhaps the best way to look at it is this: do we accept $100m per km to North Adelaide, or do we try for a more economic $60m per Km and get an extension from North Terrace to Hutt Street FOR THE SAME PRICE?

Now, myself, I would like to have both if at all possible. If others want to just have the one small extension, fair enough. In that case, I'd still say get DPTI to justify every single cent, publicly, over $60m per km and put the savings into bike lanes. What's wrong with having both the North Adelaide extension AND an extension to Hutt St, or a spare $80m for bike lanes. If the latter, that amount of money could revolutionise cycling in Adelaide.

I also note that look what has happened to light rail in Sydney. The debacle of spending billions more than it should has probably done more to kill off any further trams in Sydney than anything. For the price they're paying for one line, they could have had a system. That's where spending uneconomically gets us.

Sydney's new tramlines are a bit more than mere economic infeasibility. They are a royal cock up that doesn't even compare to anything that could possibly go wrong here in Adelaide.

That aside, I'd love to see the egg on the face of Marshall and co. when this alleged Federal funding is announced for a tramline outside the CBD.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:37 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:06 pm

skyliner wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:50 pm

After reading months of negative news and comments about the trams (many after the change of state government) one starts to believe there is no hope for any more lines, especially when the public are fed so much in the news.
Interestingly, before the NT event I perceived there was very different feel about the trams. Changing the culture re the trams is significant. I really believe this is a key factor in the issue. (votes potential).
Many have referred to the 'build it and they will come/use' concept before - we have seen how this is the case in other places like Portland. I remember the 'tram to nowhere' concept being put out re the western NT line. Over time look what has happened. See what has happened in sth. KWS. Construction with a view to the future is very important although in the short term may present a poor business case. The tram s will never get going with a short sighted and negative view. Possibility thinking essential.

Now I see the airport line is spoken of again. I wonder how they arrived at their business case?

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

The consortium wanting to build the line had a very simple business case: get the State Government to guarantee a nice profit. They wanted a nice government guarantee.

As far as the rest is concerned, perhaps the best way to look at it is this: do we accept $100m per km to North Adelaide, or do we try for a more economic $60m per Km and get an extension from North Terrace to Hutt Street FOR THE SAME PRICE?

Now, myself, I would like to have both if at all possible. If others want to just have the one small extension, fair enough. In that case, I'd still say get DPTI to justify every single cent, publicly, over $60m per km and put the savings into bike lanes. What's wrong with having both the North Adelaide extension AND an extension to Hutt St, or a spare $80m for bike lanes. If the latter, that amount of money could revolutionise cycling in Adelaide.

I also note that look what has happened to light rail in Sydney. The debacle of spending billions more than it should has probably done more to kill off any further trams in Sydney than anything. For the price they're paying for one line, they could have had a system. That's where spending uneconomically gets us.

Sydney's new tramlines are a bit more than mere economic infeasibility. They are a royal cock up that doesn't even compare to anything that could possibly go wrong here in Adelaide.

That aside, I'd love to see the egg on the face of Marshall and co. when this alleged Federal funding is announced for a tramline outside the CBD.

Wot? Like the State Bank?

The lesson from that and Sydney's tram extension, is that public agencies need governments breathing down their necks all the time. Not assuming that the agencies know what they are doing.

I read that the Premier was quoted as saying that the state govt would seek to have the funding re-allocated to other projects if it proved to be forthcoming

The Libs have allocated $600,000 in today's budget to investigate expanding of tram services in the CBD. The budget also allocates $3.7M towards the the renewal of the City South Tram stop and $7.9M for replacing the tracks between Victoria Square and South Terrace.