SOS Alternative Proposal

This comes under two headings:

The SOS Ballarat Alternative Plan for the Ballarat
Station Redevelopment

SOS Ballarat came up with an alternative development to the one put forward by Pellicano. This was done to show that for the same money ($25m at that stage) we could deliver something much better for commuters and for Ballarat. It was conceived over a couple of weeks at the end of 2016 and done without access to buildings or people employed by the Government, both of which were out of bounds for SOS Ballarat.

Westress that our alternative plan is not THE SOLUTION. It shows what might be possible if people thought more carefully about this project.

Is there a Better Alternative?

It is all too easy to be a critic and not offer an alternative, but the Save
Our Station SOS Ballarat group has considered the Andrews Government
Proposal and has developed an alternative that ticks many of the boxes when
it comes to delivering a Good Alternative Proposal that would really benefit
Ballarat.  It is at the very least a good starting point for achieving something better.

However, attempts to merely discuss this alternative with the Andrews
Government have been 100% unsuccessful as they are intent on going ahead
with their plans, regardless, appearing to effectively give property
developers a greater priority than that of ordinary commuters (ie.People)
who have a genuine need to access the Station.
sos_alternative.png
The SOS Ballarat possible alternative proposal included:

  • Bus Interchange located in the Bluestone Goods Shed – catering for 12
    local, 8 regional and 1 Airport
  • Car Parking – All Day – 540 formalised places
  • Pedestrian Zone
  • Pedestrian Underpass – DDA Lift and Stairs
  • Kiss & Ride Zones
  • Residential Terraces (Private development)

The Pre-Election Political Objectives for the SOS
Ballarat Campaign

What do we want?

The SOS Agenda between now and the election:
Our aim is to get commitments from all political parties prior to the election that aligns with community priorities. It is time they listened to the people, not just those with vested interests.  We want the contract with the developer renegotiated, not ripped up:

  • The sale of land and the historic Goods Shed should not proceed.
  • The proposed apartments should be built on another site entirely.
  • The developer needs to complete the already started multi-level car
    park and to create another 500+ car park spaces.
  • The developer is the only one in a position to speedily do the urgent
    works to make the Goods Shed structurally sound, environmentally safe
    and water-tight.
  • Plan and fund the Precinct to fulfil its purpose of being a 21st
    Century transport hub (albeit, in a unique heritage setting).
  • Design and delivery of local and regional bus interchanges within the
    site.
  • Making all new and existing facilities accessible to people of all
    abilities.
  • A traffic management plan and works that minimise risks and limits
    impacts on nearby residents are essential.