Sensational-Adelaide.com

kymbosa wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:23 pm

Let’s look at the two plans.

Labor clearly shows Peter Van and Caltex still in place.

Liberals are just cutting right through this.

Is this another moment of stupidly, party politics, we can’t be seen doing what the other side has planned. Instead of doing what is best!

This state is so “french word” sometimes!!

88A3ECD2-4089-4AF9-8BEE-75771C1D6E57.png

14828366-2C7C-48CB-BEEE-ABEA1858294D.jpeg

You realise that the government (whether it be Labor or Liberal) merely fund the project... The design work is that of the DPTI... This latest plan is their work with it to be funded by the current government. I suspect the original proposal was a cost saving measure because it was going to be cheaper to acquire and relocate Bedford Industries than to buy a almost new petrol station, houses and a retail building.

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:36 pm

kymbosa wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:23 pm

Let’s look at the two plans.

Labor clearly shows Peter Van and Caltex still in place.

Liberals are just cutting right through this.

Is this another moment of stupidly, party politics, we can’t be seen doing what the other side has planned. Instead of doing what is best!

This state is so “french word” sometimes!!

88A3ECD2-4089-4AF9-8BEE-75771C1D6E57.png

14828366-2C7C-48CB-BEEE-ABEA1858294D.jpeg

You realise that the government (whether it be Labor or Liberal) merely fund the project... The design work is that of the DPTI... This latest plan is their work with it to be funded by the current government. I suspect the original proposal was a cost saving measure because it was going to be cheaper to acquire and relocate Bedford Industries than to buy a almost new petrol station, houses and a retail building.

I am aware of that; and what DPTI do is come up with a couple of options each time.

All based on different concepts, costs and design.

Now the question is; which one is more cost effective, bang for your buck, quicker to be built and simpler design?

And if it was a cost saving measure, than the original labor proposed idea is better for the tax payer/community and road uses, due to one fact; less expense.

kymbosa wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:57 am

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:36 pm

kymbosa wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:23 pm

Let’s look at the two plans.

Labor clearly shows Peter Van and Caltex still in place.

Liberals are just cutting right through this.

Is this another moment of stupidly, party politics, we can’t be seen doing what the other side has planned. Instead of doing what is best!

This state is so “french word” sometimes!!

88A3ECD2-4089-4AF9-8BEE-75771C1D6E57.png

14828366-2C7C-48CB-BEEE-ABEA1858294D.jpeg

You realise that the government (whether it be Labor or Liberal) merely fund the project... The design work is that of the DPTI... This latest plan is their work with it to be funded by the current government. I suspect the original proposal was a cost saving measure because it was going to be cheaper to acquire and relocate Bedford Industries than to buy a almost new petrol station, houses and a retail building.

I am aware of that; and what DPTI do is come up with a couple of options each time.

All based on different concepts, costs and design.

Now the question is; which one is more cost effective, bang for your buck, quicker to be built and simpler design?

And if it was a cost saving measure, than the original labor proposed idea is better for the tax payer/community and road uses, due to one fact; less expense.

I’m willing to bet it’s the Libs plan that ends up being cheaper because they now don’t have to acquire and demolish all of Bedford Industries.

Spotto wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:56 pm

I’m willing to bet it’s the Libs plan that ends up being cheaper because they now don’t have to acquire and demolish all of Bedford Industries.

Wasn't Bedford Industries happy to be sold, so that they could move to more appropriate facilities? I would have thought that would have been cheaper than compulsory aquisition of trading businesses that would have to be compensated for lack of business. Further, much of the left-over Bedford Industries land could have been sold down the track and recouped some of the costs.

The only advantage I can see with the new configuration is that it becomes a 90-degree intersection, rather than an angled one under Labor's plans, but I don't know how important that is at a signalised intersection anyway.

rhino wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:53 pm

Spotto wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:56 pm

I’m willing to bet it’s the Libs plan that ends up being cheaper because they now don’t have to acquire and demolish all of Bedford Industries.

Wasn't Bedford Industries happy to be sold, so that they could move to more appropriate facilities? I would have thought that would have been cheaper than compulsory aquisition of trading businesses that would have to be compensated for lack of business. Further, much of the left-over Bedford Industries land could have been sold down the track and recouped some of the costs.

The only advantage I can see with the new configuration is that it becomes a 90-degree intersection, rather than an angled one under Labor's plans, but I don't know how important that is at a signalised intersection anyway.

Yes, Bedford entered into talks with the government (not sure if it was this government or the previous government) hoping to be acquired since they've outgrown their current site and wanted to upgrade facilities.

Spotto wrote:

rhino wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:53 pm

Spotto wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:56 pm

I’m willing to bet it’s the Libs plan that ends up being cheaper because they now don’t have to acquire and demolish all of Bedford Industries.

Wasn't Bedford Industries happy to be sold, so that they could move to more appropriate facilities? I would have thought that would have been cheaper than compulsory aquisition of trading businesses that would have to be compensated for lack of business. Further, much of the left-over Bedford Industries land could have been sold down the track and recouped some of the costs.

The only advantage I can see with the new configuration is that it becomes a 90-degree intersection, rather than an angled one under Labor's plans, but I don't know how important that is at a signalised intersection anyway.

Yes, Bedford entered into talks with the government (not sure if it was this government or the previous government) hoping to be acquired since they've outgrown their current site and wanted to upgrade facilities.

That's all well and good, but the Govt isn't a charity, if it wasn't the right route then it shouldn't have gone ahead.

There is also houses behind Bedford they may have been impacted.

Waewick wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:15 pm

Spotto wrote:

rhino wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:53 pm

Wasn't Bedford Industries happy to be sold, so that they could move to more appropriate facilities? I would have thought that would have been cheaper than compulsory aquisition of trading businesses that would have to be compensated for lack of business. Further, much of the left-over Bedford Industries land could have been sold down the track and recouped some of the costs.

The only advantage I can see with the new configuration is that it becomes a 90-degree intersection, rather than an angled one under Labor's plans, but I don't know how important that is at a signalised intersection anyway.

Yes, Bedford entered into talks with the government (not sure if it was this government or the previous government) hoping to be acquired since they've outgrown their current site and wanted to upgrade facilities.

That's all well and good, but the Govt isn't a charity, if it wasn't the right route then it shouldn't have gone ahead.

There is also houses behind Bedford they may have been impacted.

I suspect the only reason it wasn't the right route was because it was Labor's route. I honestly think it would have been the cheaper option too, for the reasons I stated above.

Bedford Industries would not have been giving away their land.
They likely wanted a bunch of money for their land and to have a new facility built. It may have been far more costly to move them.

bits wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:32 am

Bedford Industries would not have been giving away their land.
They likely wanted a bunch of money for their land and to have a new facility built. It may have been far more costly to move them.

Of course BI would not have been giving it away, but I believe they are Government subsidized? In which case Govt is going to have to help them with new more appropriate facilities anyway. Feel free to correct this if I'm wrong there.
The new roadway would not have used all of the land - the remainder could have been sold off, and if it was re-zoned residential it would have brought in a tidy sum.

The Caltex servo from what I saw was basic and only had the bare minimum no bells and whistles like a Boost Juice, Cibo or a fast food joint which would of made it more costly for the government to acquire.

rhino wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 20, 2019 8:44 am

Waewick wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:15 pm

Spotto wrote:
Yes, Bedford entered into talks with the government (not sure if it was this government or the previous government) hoping to be acquired since they've outgrown their current site and wanted to upgrade facilities.

That's all well and good, but the Govt isn't a charity, if it wasn't the right route then it shouldn't have gone ahead.

There is also houses behind Bedford they may have been impacted.

I suspect the only reason it wasn't the right route was because it was Labor's route. I honestly think it would have been the cheaper option too, for the reasons I stated above.

Option 1: Acquire all of BI, demolish the entire thing, use a tiny portion of it and wait forever to find a developer for the rest of it.
Option 2: Use vacant lots on Springbank Road that we already own and acquire a tiny handful of houses plus two small businesses.

Tell me again which one is the cheaper option...

(This must be one of few instances where I agree with the Liberal plan because it makes more sense. But their old plan to keep the intersection was 100% a stupid partisan idea.)

Spotto wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 20, 2019 1:28 pm

Option 1: Acquire all of BI, demolish the entire thing, use a tiny portion of it and wait forever to find a developer for the rest of it.

LOL wait forever! Re-zone it residential and developers will queue up for it.

Spotto wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 20, 2019 1:28 pm

Option 2: Use vacant lots on Springbank Road that we already own and acquire a tiny handful of houses plus two small businesses.

LOL again! "a tiny handfull of houses pluss two small businesses" The businesses are going concerns, vs a business that is currently looking to re-locate. There will be no unused land to put on the market and recoup costs.

Can Bedford Industries afford to upgrade to new premises? Considering the nature of what they do, it wouldn't surprise me if the Govt have to help them find new digs and re-jig the set-up anyway.

Anyway, it is what it is, there are obviously arguments for and against both options. I still believe they just didn't want to use Labor's plan. Reminds me of the north-east rail corridor they turned into a busway, just to be different. And the flip-flop freeway that was going to be cheaper but ended up costing a bucketload more when the population outgrew it within 20 years.

It's pretty clear to all but the wilfully opbtuse at this point that the Labor plan was the best one, and the only reason we have the current Liberal plan is because of how badly their half measure was shot down, and this option was the only way they could move forward without having to back track and use the cootie infested Labor plan.

NTRabbit wrote:It's pretty clear to all but the wilfully opbtuse at this point that the Labor plan was the best one, and the only reason we have the current Liberal plan is because of how badly their half measure was shot down, and this option was the only way they could move forward without having to back track and use the cootie infested Labor plan.

At this stage the only thing being provided is that the Labor plan would have helped Bedford Industries move, I'm still not sure how that makes the road better.

Me thinks you just like complaining about anything not Labor as looking at this pictures above I'm genuinely unsure how any reasonable person could suggest one is better than the other.

Edit - i would say the Liberals one looks more detailed, as I assume DPTI have done more work, given how similar they are anyway, what is to suggest that they wouldn't have ended up the same anyway?

The Labor plan was good, the original Liberal plan was shit, the new Liberal plan is the best of the 3.