[COM] South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
User avatar
Phantom
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:49 pm
Location: Northern suburbs

[COM] Re: U/C: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1621 Post by Phantom » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:23 am

neoballmon wrote:
Phantom wrote:I also noticed not one car going along the Northbound lanes during the 3 minutes I was on it. (However there were a construction utes parked there). When I reached the offramp just past Days Rd, it looked as though cars were being diverted under the Superway. I dunno if this was just a one off, but it seemed a bit strange being the day it was meant to open! :?
At 7:00PM on Thursday the Northbound wasn't open yet, so that sounds about right. I went along it Friday night, around 10PM, and it was actually quite busy for that time of the night. There were a good dozen cars around, in both directions. It's a great road, and will be great to drive on it at 90!
I read it as being opened from midnight on Thursday, as in that like 12:01am on Thursday, not 12:01am on Friday, hence my confusion...

I wholeheartedly blame Port Adelaide Fan, and his collection of watermarked photos. :P
"Mono, you're a knob. <3"

superway_sam
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:30 pm

[COM] Re: COM: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1622 Post by superway_sam » Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:32 am

Calibration and commissioning of the ITS system still taking place, and the seal is of a type that requires a couple of weeks trafficking prior to reaching acceptable skid resistance for 90 kph.

There will be after hour diversion of traffic at grade to the north of Grand Junction Rd, simply because of the necessary activities when trying to landscape such a large area of old industrial land, drainage swales and the old South Road.

Also signals are being completed at Wing, South Terrace and final upgrade to Cormack, minor concrete activities etc...

When you think that at Grade was completed at the same time as elevated, a few minor activities at grade is to be expected.

superway_sam
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:30 pm

[COM] Re: U/C: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1623 Post by superway_sam » Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:36 am

Brucetiki wrote:
superway_sam wrote:
Port Adelaide Fan wrote:South Road Superway - northbound carriageway open midnight 13 March:
http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/sou ... on_updates
Well 10PM to be exact :wink:
12:40am was when it opened. Got there, workmen were just about to open it, so did a lap down Days Rd, came back and it was open. Is just as brilliant northbound as it is southbound. Can't wait for the variable speed signs to operate and we can travel along at 90 km/h.
Best laid schemes - linemarking delayed. Yes Northbound ride count slightly better than southbound.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6032
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

[COM] Re: COM: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1624 Post by rev » Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:41 pm

It amazes me how this can cost nearly $900 million and yet there is still exposed plumbing visible while driving on south rd below. Looks ridiculous, as if plumbing and drainage was an after thought.

Even worse, when it rains, it leaks in sever spots onto south rd below.


Should we expect the torrens to torrens trench to have exposed stop water pipes and to flood when it rains?

User avatar
Phantom
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:49 pm
Location: Northern suburbs

[COM] Re: COM: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1625 Post by Phantom » Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:27 pm

rev wrote:It amazes me how this can cost nearly $900 million and yet there is still exposed plumbing visible while driving on south rd below. Looks ridiculous, as if plumbing and drainage was an after thought.

Even worse, when it rains, it leaks in sever spots onto south rd below.


Should we expect the torrens to torrens trench to have exposed stop water pipes and to flood when it rains?
No. We can expect it to be underwater at that rate. :P
"Mono, you're a knob. <3"

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am

[COM] Re: COM: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1626 Post by Goodsy » Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:53 pm

rev wrote:It amazes me how this can cost nearly $900 million and yet there is still exposed plumbing visible while driving on south rd below. Looks ridiculous, as if plumbing and drainage was an after thought.

Even worse, when it rains, it leaks in sever spots onto south rd below.


Should we expect the torrens to torrens trench to have exposed stop water pipes and to flood when it rains?
There's also a gap in between two road segments, it's near the grand junction road exit

Westside
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 4:30 pm

[COM] Re: COM: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1627 Post by Westside » Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:36 pm

Just beacuse a road is open does not mean the project is complete. There is usually a grace period where any defects are identified and must be rectified before the road is handed over and project deemed complete. I suggest this is still some months away.

User avatar
AG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:44 am
Location: Adelaide SA

[COM] Re: COM: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1628 Post by AG » Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:42 pm

Westside wrote:Just beacuse a road is open does not mean the project is complete. There is usually a grace period where any defects are identified and must be rectified before the road is handed over and project deemed complete. I suggest this is still some months away.
I am aware that there is still some minor drainage works going on, but for general purpose and usage, it is at practical completion where the infrastructure is open for the key function it is designed to perform.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6032
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

[COM] Re: COM: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1629 Post by rev » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:25 am

Westside wrote:Just beacuse a road is open does not mean the project is complete. There is usually a grace period where any defects are identified and must be rectified before the road is handed over and project deemed complete. I suggest this is still some months away.
Well, yeah, however those same sections that leak onto the road below, have been leaking for months already every time there is a bit of rain about.
Those pipes on the underside have been viewable for many more months then that as well.


I've also noticed the road surfaces are different.
Driving along south road north bound below, as you pass the BP and come up towards the precast yard, and up till the grand junction rd intersection, the surface is very noisy in particular as you slow down.
Never heard so much noise on a new road surface before.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

[COM] Re: COM: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1630 Post by monotonehell » Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:27 pm

rev wrote:...I've also noticed the road surfaces are different.
Driving along south road north bound below, as you pass the BP and come up towards the precast yard, and up till the grand junction rd intersection, the surface is very noisy in particular as you slow down.
Never heard so much noise on a new road surface before.
Is that possibly a "wake up" section to alert motorists?
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Kaurna Land.
Contact:

[COM] Re: COM: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1631 Post by ChillyPhilly » Sun Mar 23, 2014 11:17 pm

Apparently On the Run want to erect a 25m high sign with their logo on it so drivers travelling along the motorway can see it (as being below the road, they cannot).
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

Brucetiki
Legendary Member!
Posts: 985
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:20 pm

[COM] Re: COM: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1632 Post by Brucetiki » Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:37 pm

ChillyPhilly wrote:Apparently On the Run want to erect a 25m high sign with their logo on it so drivers travelling along the motorway can see it (as being below the road, they cannot).
Why? Motorists on the Motorway won't be able to access it anyway.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3064
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne

[COM] Re: COM: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1633 Post by rhino » Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:42 pm

Brucetiki wrote:
ChillyPhilly wrote:Apparently On the Run want to erect a 25m high sign with their logo on it so drivers travelling along the motorway can see it (as being below the road, they cannot).
Why? Motorists on the Motorway won't be able to access it anyway.
Seriously, Brucetiki? It's Advertising. Maybe the next time they're heading up that way they'll remember that it's there, and choose to fill up (with food, fuel, newspapers, whatever), take the old road instead of the Superway in order to do it.
cheers,
Rhino

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Location: Christies Beach

[COM] Re: COM: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1634 Post by Aidan » Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:21 pm

rhino wrote: Seriously, Brucetiki? It's Advertising. Maybe the next time they're heading up that way they'll remember that it's there, and choose to fill up (with food, fuel, newspapers, whatever), take the old road instead of the Superway in order to do it.
But as advertising it would have a rather low benefit to cost ratio. A sign before the start of the superway would be much more effective.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3064
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne

[COM] Re: COM: South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

#1635 Post by rhino » Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:00 pm

Aidan wrote:
rhino wrote: Seriously, Brucetiki? It's Advertising. Maybe the next time they're heading up that way they'll remember that it's there, and choose to fill up (with food, fuel, newspapers, whatever), take the old road instead of the Superway in order to do it.
But as advertising it would have a rather low benefit to cost ratio. A sign before the start of the superway would be much more effective.
I guess they'd have to weigh that up against the rent for putting a sign on land that they don't own.
cheers,
Rhino

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Archer and 29 guests