What I found most interesting in this debate last night …

Comment on Engineers rule? by Hal Duell.

What I found most interesting in this debate last night was the assertion that bollards would not protect the child care centre from erratic traffic.
How can that be? Surely a heavy-duty crash bollard would keep any amount of traffic from the children playing within the fence. After all, something similar is used to protect stores from ram raiders and our embassies from suicide car-bombers.
But, no. The engineers said not, so not it is.
And now what? It seems we are to get a roundabout to direct traffic during the half-hour or so when the intersection gets busy in the morning, a speed limit on the causeway which will simply not be observed without a permanent speed camera, one or two wombats to help pedestrians (and bicycles?), and have I missed anything?
Oh yes. The roundabout will help traffic turn around when cars find the causeway closed due to flooding.
But couldn’t that turnaround be effected at the Lindsay St. intersection with a simple sign directing traffic and only unveiled during times of Todd flooding?
But, no. The engineers said not, so not it is.
Will this Council admit they got this one wrong? Will they even countenance the possibility?
I don’t think so. I think we will get a roundabout that at least some engineers want, engineers that may or may not live on the Old Eastside.
Meanwhile, has anyone tested the traffic at the Larapinta and Lovegrove intersection, or at the Larapinta and Bradshaw intersection? I wonder what the engineers would make of those two beauties.

Hal Duell Also Commented

Engineers rule?
It is a relief to read that at least Cr Brown, and Cr Booth from a comment he made during the debate, will question engineers’ reports.
I hope they all do, or will in the future. That’s why we elected them.
Just because an expert, in this case an engineer, has been asked to submit a report and has been paid for his work, and even when that report comes with executive approval, this still does not mean it must be accepted.
When considering the infallibility of engineers, we need look no further than the culverts under the Taffy Pick crossing. No doubt an engineer signed off on that idea at some point, and look what it got us.
About the Stuart Highway – isn’t that something for Darwin? Perhaps questions could be asked at the coming public forums prior to voting on the 25th.


Recent Comments by Hal Duell

Confusion over gallery leadership: government’s fault
“I have no idea what the Member for Araluen is talking about …”
And that comment is true.


Gallery: Gunner sticks with ANZAC Oval
“Every consultation we have done shows the CBD location is the preferred location, and that’s the only location that offers a sense of place and has the space to be able to do it.”
That comment is simply not true.


No sign of council playing ball on Anzac Oval
This is beginning to feel like stalking. What part of “no” doesn’t this man understand?


Wakefield insists on Anzac Oval, ignores majority
Once again it seems to be a case of our way or the highway.
When this location debate first came up, I was of the opinion that the Desert Park was the right choice. But then the traditional owners spoke up at the council meeting debating to MOU or not to MOU, and the TOs seemed to be united in wanting any gallery to be south of The Gap.
So what’s the problem?
If revitalising the CBD is truly the aim, build flats there, and build a skate park at the river end of Parsons Street, and make the area vibrant again.


Wakefield insists on Anzac Oval, ignores majority
Any update from Alex Nelson on the heritage application for the Anzac site?


Be Sociable, Share!