[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway
Posted: 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."
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."
