Sensational-Adelaide.com

This will be a one term government. No doubt about it.

If even their backers (business who donate their money to support their campaign) can't support the Liberals, then they have buckley's chance of mounting an effective electoral campaign. And even the most experienced political pundits would tell you Labor mount more effective campaigns, so they will romp the next one home.

Tram extensions will come. We just will have to wait until 2022-2026.

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:52 pm

This will be a one term government. No doubt about it.

If even their backers (business who donate their money to support their campaign) can't support the Liberals, then they have buckley's chance of mounting an effective electoral campaign. And even the most experienced political pundits would tell you Labor mount more effective campaigns, so they will romp the next one home.

Tram extensions will come. We just will have to wait until 2022-2026.

We're hoping hard. Labor simply give us more stuff (and positive at that) to talk about here on S-A!

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:36 pm

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:52 pm

This will be a one term government. No doubt about it.

If even their backers (business who donate their money to support their campaign) can't support the Liberals, then they have buckley's chance of mounting an effective electoral campaign. And even the most experienced political pundits would tell you Labor mount more effective campaigns, so they will romp the next one home.

Tram extensions will come. We just will have to wait until 2022-2026.

We're hoping hard. Labor simply give us more stuff (and positive at that) to talk about here on S-A!

Perhaps. But they also know how to waste money.

Cheers

Ho Really wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:55 am

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:36 pm

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:52 pm

This will be a one term government. No doubt about it.

If even their backers (business who donate their money to support their campaign) can't support the Liberals, then they have buckley's chance of mounting an effective electoral campaign. And even the most experienced political pundits would tell you Labor mount more effective campaigns, so they will romp the next one home.

Tram extensions will come. We just will have to wait until 2022-2026.

We're hoping hard. Labor simply give us more stuff (and positive at that) to talk about here on S-A!

Perhaps. But they also know how to waste money.

Cheers

every party wastes money, we either waste money and get nothing done, or waste money and get something done

Ho Really wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:55 am

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:36 pm

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:52 pm

This will be a one term government. No doubt about it.

If even their backers (business who donate their money to support their campaign) can't support the Liberals, then they have buckley's chance of mounting an effective electoral campaign. And even the most experienced political pundits would tell you Labor mount more effective campaigns, so they will romp the next one home.

Tram extensions will come. We just will have to wait until 2022-2026.

We're hoping hard. Labor simply give us more stuff (and positive at that) to talk about here on S-A!

Perhaps. But they also know how to waste money.

Cheers

The stereotype that Labor are worse economic managers than the Liberals is plainly absurd and not backed up by any evidence. The Liberals are spending more money on upgrading a single signalised intersection (Magill/Portrush Rd) ($98 million), than Labor spent on the entire North Terrace tram extension ($90 million) (which included, among other things, the complete reconstruction of 4 signalised intersections). If that's not poor use of government funds, I don't know what is.

The myth of the Liberals somehow being better economic managers is just something they use to justify their ideological opposition to investing in the public sphere.

Goodsy wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:16 am

every party wastes money, we either waste money and get nothing done, or waste money and get something done

Yes they all do. But we're talking about trams here and what has recently transpired.

Cheers

dbl96 wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:26 am

The stereotype that Labor are worse economic managers than the Liberals is plainly absurd and not backed up by any evidence. The Liberals are spending more money on upgrading a single signalised intersection (Magill/Portrush Rd) ($98 million), than Labor spent on the entire North Terrace tram extension ($90 million) (which included, among other things, the complete reconstruction of 4 signalised intersections). If that's not poor use of government funds, I don't know what is.

The myth of the Liberals somehow being better economic managers is just something they use to justify their ideological opposition to investing in the public sphere.

I’m not sure why you brought up the stereotype comment. I wasn’t commenting on stereotypes and who is the better money manager. They seem to all like to waste our money in one way or another.

My remark was aimed at Labor's waste of money on public transport in general, but specifically the North Terrace extension and the O-Bahn tunnel. The former delayed and over budget, the latter an unnecessary spend to win votes from the north east. Money that could've been spent better. Perhaps on our Emergency Department at the new RAH, etc. But of course many of you here don't see it that way.

As for what the Liberals are spending for upgrades that's not the issue here, none of it has been built yet. Also whether it will cost more than Labor's North Terrace extension that depends on what work has to be done and not because the Liberals want to save or waste money on it.

Will extending trams all over Adelaide be the right thing? At least the Liberals (good or bad) are looking at alternatives. Yes, we all love trams here, including me, but if they are going to cost too much and will not deliver the benefits then why waste time and money on it? So that's the answer to Shuz and ChillyPhilly.

As for the the Liberals' ideology and their lack of spending in the “public sphere”, that too is not factual. It's just they may spend less. On public transport or in this case trams, which is the topic here, they’re hesitant. Their priorities lie with the driving public, private and commercial.

Cheers

I completely disagree with the comment that the tram extension and especially the O-Bahn tunnel were wasteful spending. The tram line may have been poorly managed in some aspects, but it provides much better access to the eastern side of Adelaide. I know this because I use it on at least a weekly basis.

Regarding the O-Bahn, this has seriously improved travel times, especially during peak hour, and provided a much more reliable service at all hours of the day. I know because I use the O-Bahn bus almost daily.

dbl96 wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:26 am

Ho Really wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:55 am

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:36 pm

We're hoping hard. Labor simply give us more stuff (and positive at that) to talk about here on S-A!

Perhaps. But they also know how to waste money.

Cheers

The stereotype that Labor are worse economic managers than the Liberals is plainly absurd and not backed up by any evidence. The Liberals are spending more money on upgrading a single signalised intersection (Magill/Portrush Rd) ($98 million), than Labor spent on the entire North Terrace tram extension ($90 million) (which included, among other things, the complete reconstruction of 4 signalised intersections). If that's not poor use of government funds, I don't know what is.

The myth of the Liberals somehow being better economic managers is just something they use to justify their ideological opposition to investing in the public sphere.

No property acquisition was required for the North Terrace extensions, and they deliberately did not do enough to require the new depot, so of course it was cheaper than an intersection that will require expensive underground or overhead utility service relocations and possibly property acquisitions.

I have not studied the plans - do they fit in the existing public land footprint (not counting the electricity substation)?

I agree with ho really when he said "but if they are going to cost too much and will not deliver the benefits then why waste time and money on it? So that's the answer to Shuz and ChillyPhilly".

This is why I have banged on repeatedly about what I have seen as suspiciously high costs in the past: Citadis, the Adelaide Bridge, not allowing for buses to use the tram tracks.

One other glaring point is that most of the proposed tram extensions are on former tram routes, so that the track laying part of the work shouldn't cost any more than, or take longer than track re-lays in Melbourne. The track subgrade is there, an no legal services will be in the way, so any service relocation should be at the cost of the utility that put the service in at the wrong depth. How Cheap should that be?

Now, if those wanting trams allow all sorts of gold plating and profiteering, they shouldn't be surprised if the general public pushes back via politicians and says: "Yeah, nah".

Just on our rolled-gold Botanic Garden extension, the planted medians have already become overgrown with metre-high thistles.

SRW wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:52 pm

Just on our rolled-gold Botanic Garden extension, the planted medians have already become overgrown with metre-high thistles.

Are you complaining about the National Flower of Scotland?

Seriously though. In Europe, this would only be concrete if buses were to use the track as well, OR if the track was fully utilised by trams. Otherwise, it would be grassed track. Grassed track down North Terrace, through the Parklands and past Parliament/Government Houses would not only look great, grass track is usually about 40% cheaper than concrete.

Norman wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:58 pm

I completely disagree with the comment that the tram extension and especially the O-Bahn tunnel were wasteful spending. The tram line may have been poorly managed in some aspects, but it provides much better access to the eastern side of Adelaide. I know this because I use it on at least a weekly basis.

Regarding the O-Bahn, this has seriously improved travel times, especially during peak hour, and provided a much more reliable service at all hours of the day. I know because I use the O-Bahn bus almost daily.

Yes the tram extension was badly managed, that's where the money was wasted. The tram line itself I am happy with as I've said previously somewhere under this topic or perhaps elsewhere regarding the hospitals. However this tram line should've replaced the O-Bahn. So making the O-Bahn tunnel unnecessary. You would still have had a reliable service. A service that could have taken you from Modbury to Glenelg in its own corridor.

The North Terrace extension will also form part of the city loop, which I hope will be constructed, but only if done right. It has to work in tandem with other forms of public transport especially if they ever go ahead with one or two underground rail lines through the city. This is another reason why the O-Bahn should have never gone underground in an area where it may be possible for any future underground rail. Whether it is east-west, north-south or circular around the city.

I don't use the O-Bahn and when I did the tunnel wasn't completed. My wife does though. Regularly. Perhaps not every day as you as she also catches other buses to and from work. She's OK with the outcome, however she doesn't believe the time saved equates to the money spent. We all have our opinions. We can disagree.

Cheers

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:15 pm

SRW wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:52 pm

Just on our rolled-gold Botanic Garden extension, the planted medians have already become overgrown with metre-high thistles.

Are you complaining about the National Flower of Scotland?

Seriously though. In Europe, this would only be concrete if buses were to use the track as well, OR if the track was fully utilised by trams. Otherwise, it would be grassed track. Grassed track down North Terrace, through the Parklands and past Parliament/Government Houses would not only look great, grass track is usually about 40% cheaper than concrete.

As a Scot, not at all. Only that less than a year after opening neglect has already set it. Which doesn't much encourage your grass proposal.

SRW wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:57 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:15 pm

SRW wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:52 pm

Just on our rolled-gold Botanic Garden extension, the planted medians have already become overgrown with metre-high thistles.

Are you complaining about the National Flower of Scotland?

Seriously though. In Europe, this would only be concrete if buses were to use the track as well, OR if the track was fully utilised by trams. Otherwise, it would be grassed track. Grassed track down North Terrace, through the Parklands and past Parliament/Government Houses would not only look great, grass track is usually about 40% cheaper than concrete.

As a Scot, not at all. Only that less than a year after opening neglect has already set it. Which doesn't much encourage your grass proposal.

The idea is that you let whoever runs the parklands take care of the grass, rather than those with no interest in greenery. The purpose is for it to become part of the greenscape of the city, leveraged off a substantial cost saving. I mean, imagine if we allowed DPTI to run the Parklands or Botanic Garden. Thistles would be the least of our problems.