Sensational-Adelaide.com

rubberman wrote:An ABC piece about Labor abandoning further tram extensions. With a bit about trackless trams thrown in.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-23/ ... /104377552

First thought. From a political perspective, voters had a choice in 2018. Either Labor with a solid plan, or the Liberal's 'promise to look at trams'. We voted Liberal, meaning that tram extensions were dead. No proposals were made at the 2022 election, so no promises were broken.

Politically, we made our choice. No trams.

Second thought. If trams were truly economic, as Labor stated in 2018, then they are even more so today, given traffic increases and residential buildup along proposed tram routes. So Labor should be doing something to address transport issues on those routes. OR, trams were just an election stunt by Labor in 2018, weren't economic, and Labor was lying about the economics.

The real problem is that neither party can really be trusted on this.

The implementation of trams needs to be done as a holistic transport discussion.

We have built the city around the car, so people see that as the preferred and dominant form of transport that all decisions need to consider first.

I think , especially given the increase in density Norwood should have a tram.

But the role out of the tram needs to be done in conjunction with telling people where all the cars are meant to go.(because Magill Rd and Kensington Rd are already very congested)

I understand the counter argument that the PT should theoretically decrease car usage, but until people see it, they aren't going to believe it.

Do that successfully, you'll then create a template for the future and an example of how PT can improve congestion.

rubberman wrote:

abc wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 10:35 am

rubberman wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 9:13 am

An ABC piece about Labor abandoning further tram extensions. With a bit about trackless trams thrown in.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-23/ ... /104377552

First thought. From a political perspective, voters had a choice in 2018. Either Labor with a solid plan, or the Liberal's 'promise to look at trams'. We voted Liberal, meaning that tram extensions were dead. No proposals were made at the 2022 election, so no promises were broken.

Politically, we made our choice. No trams.

Second thought. If trams were truly economic, as Labor stated in 2018, then they are even more so today, given traffic increases and residential buildup along proposed tram routes. So Labor should be doing something to address transport issues on those routes. OR, trams were just an election stunt by Labor in 2018, weren't economic, and Labor was lying about the economics.

The real problem is that neither party can really be trusted on this.

or maybe they're just not economic

I said that was a possibility. So, er, yes.

Public transport is a service. The only real economics at play is what service is cheaper or more likely to be used.

I was driving down a back street of suburban Noarlunga yesterday. At no point did i question if it was economic to have a bitumen road servicing 4 houses instead of a dirt track....somethings are just expected in a city.

rubberman wrote:An ABC piece about Labor abandoning further tram extensions. With a bit about trackless trams thrown in.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-23/ ... /104377552

First thought. From a political perspective, voters had a choice in 2018. Either Labor with a solid plan, or the Liberal's 'promise to look at trams'. We voted Liberal, meaning that tram extensions were dead. No proposals were made at the 2022 election, so no promises were broken.

Politically, we made our choice. No trams.

Second thought. If trams were truly economic, as Labor stated in 2018, then they are even more so today, given traffic increases and residential buildup along proposed tram routes. So Labor should be doing something to address transport issues on those routes. OR, trams were just an election stunt by Labor in 2018, weren't economic, and Labor was lying about the economics.

The real problem is that neither party can really be trusted on this.

Embarrassing.

Waewick wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 10:59 am

rubberman wrote:

abc wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 10:35 am

or maybe they're just not economic

I said that was a possibility. So, er, yes.

Public transport is a service. The only real economics at play is what service is cheaper or more likely to be used.

I was driving down a back street of suburban Noarlunga yesterday. At no point did i question if it was economic to have a bitumen road servicing 4 houses instead of a dirt track....somethings are just expected in a city.

"Economic" isn't limited to simply dollars and cents. There's a huge amount of literature on how you incorporate intangible benefits into rigorous analysis. Even without that, politicians often use a gut feeling approach to ask themselves whether people are prepared to pay the extra tax in order to have some facility.

In this case, the ALP and the Liberals have decided that people will put up with the congestion rather than pay extra for trams. IF that's so, then we have only ourselves to blame for not being prepared to pay extra tax to achieve something. If that political calculation is wrong, of course, the politicians suffer.

At the moment, how many people in Adelaide are complaining to Lucy Hood or Cressida O'Hanlon about no tram extensions? Zero would be my bet. If anyone in those electorates cares, they need to be tyre kicking the likely Liberal and Green candidates and thinking about not voting ALP. I bet they won't though.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:12 pm

Waewick wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 10:59 am

rubberman wrote:
I said that was a possibility. So, er, yes.

Public transport is a service. The only real economics at play is what service is cheaper or more likely to be used.

I was driving down a back street of suburban Noarlunga yesterday. At no point did i question if it was economic to have a bitumen road servicing 4 houses instead of a dirt track....somethings are just expected in a city.

"Economic" isn't limited to simply dollars and cents. There's a huge amount of literature on how you incorporate intangible benefits into rigorous analysis. Even without that, politicians often use a gut feeling approach to ask themselves whether people are prepared to pay the extra tax in order to have some facility.

In this case, the ALP and the Liberals have decided that people will put up with the congestion rather than pay extra for trams. IF that's so, then we have only ourselves to blame for not being prepared to pay extra tax to achieve something. If that political calculation is wrong, of course, the politicians suffer.

At the moment, how many people in Adelaide are complaining to Lucy Hood or Cressida O'Hanlon about no tram extensions? Zero would be my bet. If anyone in those electorates cares, they need to be tyre kicking the likely Liberal and Green candidates and thinking about not voting ALP. I bet they won't though.

Trams are old technology. They were superseded by buses and have no tangible advantage over buses other than capacity which isn't an issue in Adelaide. They are a gimmick form of public transport which give the centre of town a quaint look, which is why we only have 1 line. They create more congestion than buses too, they do anything but lower it.

rubberman wrote:

Waewick wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 10:59 am

rubberman wrote: I said that was a possibility. So, er, yes.

Public transport is a service. The only real economics at play is what service is cheaper or more likely to be used.

I was driving down a back street of suburban Noarlunga yesterday. At no point did i question if it was economic to have a bitumen road servicing 4 houses instead of a dirt track....somethings are just expected in a city.

"Economic" isn't limited to simply dollars and cents. There's a huge amount of literature on how you incorporate intangible benefits into rigorous analysis. Even without that, politicians often use a gut feeling approach to ask themselves whether people are prepared to pay the extra tax in order to have some facility.

In this case, the ALP and the Liberals have decided that people will put up with the congestion rather than pay extra for trams. IF that's so, then we have only ourselves to blame for not being prepared to pay extra tax to achieve something. If that political calculation is wrong, of course, the politicians suffer.

At the moment, how many people in Adelaide are complaining to Lucy Hood or Cressida O'Hanlon about no tram extensions? Zero would be my bet. If anyone in those electorates cares, they need to be tyre kicking the likely Liberal and Green candidates and thinking about not voting ALP. I bet they won't though.

That's a fair point, i do often think that when stuck in traffic during the Adelaide 500 as the Govt does nothing to improve flow elsewhere.

I think the improvement of PT would be a popular one if explained well, especially now if you framed it as helping with the cost of living.

But you are right, that may not be number 1 on peoples minds at the moment.

The other point I'll make, the Tramophiles here love trams not only because of their quaintness and foamer tendencies, but in Adelaide the Glenelg line is mostly an off road corridor so its a pleasant experience between Jetty and Greenhill roads. That's not the reality of any proposed tram extension which would occupy a shared road and is the reality of much of Melbourne's quaint tram network.

abc wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 2:49 pm

The other point I'll make, the Tramophiles here love trams not only because of their quaintness and foamer tendencies, but in Adelaide the Glenelg line is mostly an off road corridor so its a pleasant experience between Jetty and Greenhill roads. That's not the reality of any proposed tram extension which would occupy a shared road and is the reality of much of Melbourne's quaint tram network.

The trams in the city are pretty full all the time. I doubt most people riding are tramophiles.

Further, when the tram was extended to City West, the original Flexity numbers were bought on the basis that their capacity would replace the old Bee Line Bus. Trams were so crowded that they had to buy the extra Citadis in a big hurry.

Next, before the Gold Coast tram was being proposed, businesses had the same attitude as yourself and opposed it vocally. Same rhetoric about quaint trams. After it was built, their businesses got a huge increase in turnover. They are now the biggest supporters of extended trams there.

Just a couple of real life examples.

Now, with proposed densification of residences along Norwood Parade and O'Connell Street, there's no real attempt to do anything about the ability to get people along those streets. It's going to be a shit show. Trams have the capacity. They aren't going to be able to widen the streets. So, what are they going to do?

At the moment, the government is making a big deal about urban densification, fair enough, given the housing situation. However, without doing something to increase the capacity of the roads...and without widening them...I'd have to say you don't have to be a tramophile or foamer to think that maybe they have to do something.

If you have to get another thirty percent of people down a street that's already chock-a-block and you can't widen it, what are you going to do?

Ignore it, or deflect? Well, that's what the Liberals and Labor are doing.

Trams? Well, I don't see an alternative.

Something else? Let's hear it.

abc wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:22 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:12 pm

Waewick wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 10:59 am

Public transport is a service. The only real economics at play is what service is cheaper or more likely to be used.

I was driving down a back street of suburban Noarlunga yesterday. At no point did i question if it was economic to have a bitumen road servicing 4 houses instead of a dirt track....somethings are just expected in a city.

"Economic" isn't limited to simply dollars and cents. There's a huge amount of literature on how you incorporate intangible benefits into rigorous analysis. Even without that, politicians often use a gut feeling approach to ask themselves whether people are prepared to pay the extra tax in order to have some facility.

In this case, the ALP and the Liberals have decided that people will put up with the congestion rather than pay extra for trams. IF that's so, then we have only ourselves to blame for not being prepared to pay extra tax to achieve something. If that political calculation is wrong, of course, the politicians suffer.

At the moment, how many people in Adelaide are complaining to Lucy Hood or Cressida O'Hanlon about no tram extensions? Zero would be my bet. If anyone in those electorates cares, they need to be tyre kicking the likely Liberal and Green candidates and thinking about not voting ALP. I bet they won't though.

Trams are old technology. They were superseded by buses and have no tangible advantage over buses other than capacity which isn't an issue in Adelaide. They are a gimmick form of public transport which give the centre of town a quaint look, which is why we only have 1 line. They create more congestion than buses too, they do anything but lower it.

Trains are also old technology, and yet they still have their place in providing public transport. If trams are such a redundant feature to a city's PT network, why are other major cities reinstating light rail? Because they can move scores more people than a bus, they are typically more reliable from a timetabling point of view and they tend to offer more user confidence by result of that.

This purely a votes grab approach from Labor. How many experts need to chime in and state that there's economic viability to an extended tram network for a sitting government to take it serious? It would be laughable if Labor were to bring into question the economic viability of trams seeing as most of their big ticket spends (past and present) don't usually stack up from an economics perspective.

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 4:20 pm

This purely a votes grab approach from Labor. How many experts need to chime in and state that there's economic viability to an extended tram network for a sitting government to take it serious? It would be laughable if Labor were to bring into question the economic viability of trams seeing as most of their big ticket spends (past and present) don't usually stack up from an economics perspective.

The studies done for Adelink etc were very thorough. Plus, the Weatherill Government did a lot of good infrastructure. Much of it wasn't vote grabbing. For example, resleepering of the metro network was a $2bn spend that most people wouldn't have noticed. Yet it was necessary, given how decrepit it was.

The present government, not so much. Not really interested in public transport.

The problem is that the present Liberals are moving so far right as to be unelectable. Cory Bernardi, for example, was unelectable once he revealed he was conservative, rather than Liberal. Plus, of course, the infighting, branch stacking and backstabbing.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 4:41 pm

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 4:20 pm

This purely a votes grab approach from Labor. How many experts need to chime in and state that there's economic viability to an extended tram network for a sitting government to take it serious? It would be laughable if Labor were to bring into question the economic viability of trams seeing as most of their big ticket spends (past and present) don't usually stack up from an economics perspective.

The studies done for Adelink etc were very thorough. Plus, the Weatherill Government did a lot of good infrastructure. Much of it wasn't vote grabbing. For example, resleepering of the metro network was a $2bn spend that most people wouldn't have noticed. Yet it was necessary, given how decrepit it was.

The present government, not so much. Not really interested in public transport.

The problem is that the present Liberals are moving so far right as to be unelectable. Cory Bernardi, for example, was unelectable once he revealed he was conservative, rather than Liberal. Plus, of course, the infighting, branch stacking and backstabbing.

Weatherill did a lot of good for Labor, there's no denying that (I suspect due to his non-factual position). However, I've always felt that rather than do less and do it better his government (and Rann's before him) spread themselves very thin, almost in an attempt to force a need for future governments to invest further in what his government were starting, or give people visual insight into what good some of their spends had further potential to bring. In the case of trams, the North Terrace extension seemed to be purely a show home for what ADELink could bring for our CBD and inner city suburbs but sold to the public and the opposition as a necessity to the viability of Lot 14.

.....as a necessity to the viability of Lot 14.
The only activity at lot 14 is the 5 gate keepers in their new hi vis jackets having a coffe break. They must have jobs for life.

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 6:33 pm

Weatherill did a lot of good for Labor, there's no denying that (I suspect due to his non-factual position).

Non-factual? I suspect non-factional

rubberman wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 4:41 pm

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 4:20 pm

This purely a votes grab approach from Labor. How many experts need to chime in and state that there's economic viability to an extended tram network for a sitting government to take it serious? It would be laughable if Labor were to bring into question the economic viability of trams seeing as most of their big ticket spends (past and present) don't usually stack up from an economics perspective.

The studies done for Adelink etc were very thorough. Plus, the Weatherill Government did a lot of good infrastructure. Much of it wasn't vote grabbing. For example, resleepering of the metro network was a $2bn spend that most people wouldn't have noticed. Yet it was necessary, given how decrepit it was.

The present government, not so much. Not really interested in public transport.

The problem is that the present Liberals are moving so far right as to be unelectable. Cory Bernardi, for example, was unelectable once he revealed he was conservative, rather than Liberal. Plus, of course, the infighting, branch stacking and backstabbing.

lol you're so far gone

no political parties in Australia are far right

the US democrats are farther right than any major political party in Australia