[U/C] North-South Motorway

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5539
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 682 times
Been thanked: 152 times

[U/C] North-South Motorway

#1 Post by Will » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:43 pm

From the Advertiser:


OVERPASSES COULD
SLASH $133m
FROM ROAD COSTS
By CAMERON ENGLAND and KARA PHILLIPS
05jun06
EXCLUSIVE
BUILDING overpasses rather than tunnels on South Rd could shave $133 million off the bill on the blowout-plagued projects, the state's peak resources body said yesterday.

The South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy said engineers in its membership believed the State Government had chosen the most expensive solution to traffic congestion on the city's major north-south thoroughfare.
They were not surprised at the cost blowouts, chamber chief executive Phil Sutherland said.
He said building overpasses could reduce the cost of the proposed road upgrades by a third from the estimates released by the Government during the election. Those have since ballooned.
Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon last week announced costings for the planned South Rd-Anzac Highway underpass had blown out to more than $100 million from $65 million.

He failed to deny claims from Opposition Leader Iain Evans that the combined cost for that project and a tunnel under Port and Grange Rds had blown out from $187 million to $400 million.
Based on the $400 million estimate, the chamber said the State Government could save more than $130 million from that cost if they chose overpasses.
"The State Government goes for the most expensive option every time, presumably for aesthetic reasons or so it won't upset anyone," Mr Sutherland said. "There are already fly-overs at Cross Rd and over Port Wakefield Rd and nobody seems to have an issue with them."
Mr Sutherland has been lobbying the state and federal governments to permanently fix South Rd traffic congestion problems by building an elevated carriageway along its entire length, at a cost of about $600 million.
"At the moment, traffic problems are just being shunted from one place to another," he said.
Mr Sutherland said SA was short-changed on infrastructure spending in the Federal Budget, and the State Government should pressure it to commit money to South Rd.
"People living in other capital cities, including Canberra, would be up in arms over a road like South Rd. This road is so very important to the social and economic fabric of our city. It should have been upgraded years ago," he said.
"The cost of the proposed underpasses and the tunnel could be reduced by as much as a third if replaced by fly-overs. They could also be built a lot quicker and would reduce the necessity of demolishing so many houses and businesses. Fly-overs do not have to be unattractive."
Mr Sutherland said every time a bold infrastructure plan was proposed, it was scuttled because of a lack of vision or funding. But Mr Conlon said the State Government would proceed with the planned underpasses and would not revisit overpasses as an option.
"It would be very unlikely the community would accept overpasses," Mr Conlon said.
"It would look like Sydney Harbour Bridge without the harbour."
Liberal leader Iain Evans said the chamber raised "a very valid point" in light of the huge budget bungles on transport projects.
"Given the level of cost blowouts, and the fact the government now says it is revisiting scope and design on some projects, it needs to explain whether it will consider overpasses and, if not, why not," Mr Evans said.
"It is time it started being open and accountable."

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5539
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 682 times
Been thanked: 152 times

[U/C]

#2 Post by Will » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:49 pm

I am dissapointed and shocked that transport minister Pat Conlon has refused to consider this idea. Although the state is strong economically, we are not exactly the United Arab Emirates, and in light of the huge budget blowouts it would be wise and prudent for the minister to accept reality and save the state $133 million.

The excuse that overpasses are ugly is weak and arrogant, when $133 million could be saved. $133 Million is a huge amount of cash, which could be better spent on other infraestructure projects, improving the state's public transport or on health and education.

The refusal by the minister to change his mind shows that he is living in a fantasy world, and he should resign or be sacked.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

[U/C]

#3 Post by AtD » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:36 pm

Will wrote:The refusal by the minister to change his mind shows that he is living in a fantasy world, and he should resign or be sacked.
You seem to do everything the 'Tiser tells you. That’s the sort of attitude that discourages the government from even attempting major projects.

If he goes for an overpass rather than an underpass, he'll be branded as flip-flopping, and they'll call for him to be sacked. It's politics! If a government minister said the sky is blue, the opposition would disagree, call for a senate inquiry and demand the minister be sacked.

bdm
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:58 pm

[U/C]

#4 Post by bdm » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:14 pm

They should just invest in a south road fund and plan to progressively upgrade the thing to a freeway over a 25-year period.

User avatar
Al
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Wild Wild West
Been thanked: 1 time

[U/C]

#5 Post by Al » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:12 pm

Is there a whiff of "tolls" in the air?

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5539
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 682 times
Been thanked: 152 times

[U/C]

#6 Post by Will » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:44 pm

AtD wrote:
Will wrote:The refusal by the minister to change his mind shows that he is living in a fantasy world, and he should resign or be sacked.
You seem to do everything the 'Tiser tells you. That’s the sort of attitude that discourages the government from even attempting major projects.

If he goes for an overpass rather than an underpass, he'll be branded as flip-flopping, and they'll call for him to be sacked. It's politics! If a government minister said the sky is blue, the opposition would disagree, call for a senate inquiry and demand the minister be sacked.
I just think that saving the state $133 million is more important than a minister's pride.

However that is just my opinion and I realize that the government will not be changing its opinion because as you said it, if he changes his mind he will be branded as backflip Pat.

Just out of curiosty what is your opinion on this topic?

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

[U/C]

#7 Post by AtD » Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:21 pm

^ That every cent should be thrown into commuter rail, but that's not gonna happen.

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4792
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 41 times

[U/C] #article: PM hints at South Rd funding

#8 Post by Howie » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:01 am

PM hints at South Rd funding
Article from: The Advertiser

MARK KENNY, POLITICAL EDITOR, CANBERRA

August 03, 2007 02:15am

THE FEDERAL Government is considering major road funding projects in South Australia with announcements possible in the next two to three months.

Prime Minister John Howard revealed a $2 billion proposal to link the Southern Expressway at Darlington with the Port River Expressway at Wingfield was among a number of projects under consideration, raising the possibility they could be approved as part of the Government's re-election bid.

"We're examining a number of those projects," he said in an exclusive interview with The Advertiser . He said the Government was looking at what could be done to help SA and this would include projects of critical economic value.

With the election only months away, Mr Howard confirmed a South Rd expressway plan and others were being looked at.

"I think it's fair to say that a number of those are being examined. I'm not making any commitments at present but we've got to see what capacity we have and we have a lot a funding requests from all over the country and we have to try an marry them up fairly and evenly," he said.

The comments signalled the Government may be prepared to change its opposition to the extension of the AusLink network to include South Rd, which traverses the western side of the city from north to south.

The proposed road would be particularly popular with voters in two of the Government's most marginal seats, Kingston in the south and Wakefield in the north.

The State Government recently joined a group of organisations to lobby the Federal Government to have the project funded under the AusLink program.

That group included the RAA, the SA Freight Council, Business SA, and the SA Road Transport Association.

Mr Howard's comments signalled he was gearing up for a series of funding announcements ahead of the election.

User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

[U/C] Re: #article: PM hints at South Rd funding

#9 Post by Cruise » Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:14 pm

-fingers crossed-

i wonder what they would call this the Western Expressway perhaps? the WEXY 8)

User avatar
Pistol
Legendary Member!
Posts: 910
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 33 times

[U/C] Re: #article: PM hints at South Rd funding

#10 Post by Pistol » Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:16 pm

No I think it would be more like the Howard Expressway. It's a shame that an election promise is the only way that we have of securing funding for such a vital piece of infrastructure.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken

User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

[U/C] Re: #article: PM hints at South Rd funding

#11 Post by Cruise » Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:17 pm

maybe the majorie jackson nelson expressway?

User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

[U/C] Re: #article: PM hints at South Rd funding

#12 Post by Cruise » Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:42 pm

Is there a plan we can see of what they would do to the road? or is it based on the raa recomendations?
or did they just pull the 2 billion number out of the air?

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5539
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 682 times
Been thanked: 152 times

[U/C] Re: #article: PM hints at South Rd funding

#13 Post by Will » Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:48 pm

This must be an election year. :idea:

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5707
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm
Has thanked: 778 times
Been thanked: 1415 times

[U/C] Re: #article: PM hints at South Rd funding

#14 Post by Norman » Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:08 pm

Pistol78 wrote:No I think it would be more like the Howard Expressway. It's a shame that an election promise is the only way that we have of securing funding for such a vital piece of infrastructure.
I'd prefer the Adelaide Expressway or Adelaide Highway...

Punishment466
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:06 am
Been thanked: 2 times

[U/C] Re: #article: PM hints at South Rd funding

#15 Post by Punishment466 » Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:56 pm

I was going to say 'Just call it the Southern Expressway', then I realised how stupid I am.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests