[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[victorious80]

Shuz, this is a fairly standard process for most major construction contracts (not only government). Client gets the design to a fairly advanced level (anywhere from 50% to 90%), gets funding approval from Cabinet, then goes to market for the remainder of the detailed design and the construction of the project. Outsourcing of the detailed design passes the design risk to the contractor, and outsourcing construction passes construction risk to contractor. Generally the last 10% of the design is also the most complex and where the most can go wrong, so is best left to dedicated design consultants.

The other advantage in going to market for the final design is that you give opportunity for the bidding contractors (who are large companies with plenty of experience on these sorts of projects) to provide innovation to the design and perhaps end up with a slightly better or most cost effective design. That is why DPTI went to numerous bidders - they effectively get many variations on their design for minimal cost, and can pick the best solution.

This is how most major projects are delivered worldwide - from DPTI, to Dept of Health, to BHP, Santos, etc.

Rev, your process is certainly simpler. The only issue is that for DPTI to get any state / federal funding, they need a very robust design and some certainty that the project is going ahead (including endorsement from other stakeholders), so that treasury can commit the money. DPTI cannot go to tender until funding is confirmed. No different to if you were building a house - the bank would not commit funds unless they can see and endorse the design, and can be confident that their money will be used responsibly. On these major infrastructure projects, there is too much risk committing funding before the design and cost estimate are presented, and accepted by the stakeholders.

Note, I do not work for DPTI or any government department, nor am I trying to defend their processes. I have been fortunate enough to work on major projects for both government and non-government entities, and just wanted to give a few facts before we all point the finger at DPTI so early in the project. Happy to continue updating you all on the project (for as long as I stay on the project of course!).

I don't get this.

You come up with a concept design... then you come up with a design... you take into account community concerns... you refine that design... you come up with the detailed design.... and then build it. That's what we're taught in planning at least anyway.

But it seems DPTI likes to put all this work into putting in a detailed design, only to present it as a concept design, spend 6 months on community consultation, coming up with a completely different detailed design, only to refine that detailed design with a whole new detailed design, and then call for tenders to commence building work based on detailed designs from 2 other organisations which have not involved in the whole process that DPTI have been through, spend months evaluating those two detailed designs, meanwhile coming up with a completely new detailed design to make it look like they're doing something and soothe the Murdoch press into regurgitating the same story under a different headline... announce the winner of the tender process by going with the detailed design that that one of the organisations came up with, and leave the 6 detailed designs that the department came up with themselves in the meantime to collect dust on an archive filing shelf somewhere, only to work out that by the time they've got to this point, they don't have enough money to go through with that design, and then rush the whole process in 6 weeks again, based on a few notes and drawings on the back of an envelope, as a result of a meeting of collective brain farts, which is a child's version of one of the detailed designs they came up with 2 years beforehand... only to build it and blow out the cost by double the budget.

Yep. That's DPTI and State Government incompetence for you.

[how good is he]

One better result I am hoping for is the road to go under Torrens Road to stop potential bottlenecks and keep the free flow of traffic continue to almost the Northern expressway. It looks possible with homes being resumed and demolished around Torrens Rd esp. around that wicked bend.
Still curious to see if the big paver centre will go as I have heard the bridge over the River Torrens will be widened to 3 lanes each way to tie in with the new 3 lanes in front of the Brickworks site.
Anyone also know if the head office of this project on the corner of South and Torrens Rd (former car yard and pool shop) is owned by the DPTI now and will be demolished at the end?

[Brando]

The site office appears to be getting set up on demolished Industrial land on the cnr of Ridley St and South Rd. Just north of the old car wash. The old pool site, which was the project office for a while, is vacant and surrounding properties North have temporary fencing. Approx 8 house's.

All, including the old pool site, are to be demolished from plans I have seen.

[Norman]

The lowered South Road has been extended to pass under the pedestrian crossing and Hawker Street! Great news!

Updated plans are here:
http://dpti.sa.gov.au/tr2rt

[ChillyPhilly]

Do prefer the updated plan somewhat.

Uncertainly over Croydon station is cleared up: it's staying.

[alexczarn]

Still disappointed the lowered motorway is not continuing under Torrens Road.

[how good is he]

Totally agree...and it would be only a small increase in the cost compared to/in proportion to what they are already spending....

[phenom]

Still disappointed the lowered motorway is not continuing under Torrens Road.

Agreed - I honestly believe the $160m earmarked for the O-Bahn extension would have been better directed to finishing the section between where the lowered highway now ends and connecting it to the Superway. The O-Bahn extension could just be delayed another couple of years. Obviously everything has to be prioritised against all sorts of criteria but still...

[jase111]

A lot better than the original concept just one thought why is south road going from ashwin parade being 3 lanes in each direction up to the bridge to just past the paving centre back to 2 lanes in each direction it seems not thought through .what is the point also the bend in South road past Torrens road is it less of a curve than it is right now or is more property required in the future to smooth out the bend to make it 80 or 90 km when Torrens to super way is upgraded ?
Will they ever releases the full plan for South road now in its 9 th year of planning

[rev]

We all know that the section between Torrens and Regency Roads will be upgraded as well in the future. So what does it matter if they do it now or later? I think of it this way..we've waited so many decades for this road to be fixed and upgraded..what's as few more years?

The Obahn money should be spent on expanding the trams, not on roads.

[fifty]

Whoever is doing the reviews of the initial designs and turning them in to these more sensible and practical versions - at no additional cost - is doing a great job!

Much prefer this version of T2T, but not sure why they are trying to enginner traffic at Hurtle and Hawker intersection so much. If they're going to the trouble of tunneling under it, they may as well allow for a simple signalized intersection allowing all turns? The current approach unecessarily prevents cross traffic and rips the suburb apart on either side of the ditch.

[SouthAussie94]

Whoever is doing the reviews of the initial designs and turning them in to these more sensible and practical versions - at no additional cost - is doing a great job!

Much prefer this version of T2T, but not sure why they are trying to enginner traffic at Hurtle and Hawker intersection so much. If they're going to the trouble of tunneling under it, they may as well allow for a simple signalized intersection allowing all turns? The current approach unecessarily prevents cross traffic and rips the suburb apart on either side of the ditch.

My guess is that they're doing this to discourage through traffic using this route to get to the city. Limiting cross traffic will divert these cars to either Torrens or Port Rds.

[claybro]

Much prefer this version of T2T, but not sure why they are trying to enginner traffic at Hurtle and Hawker intersection so much. If they're going to the trouble of tunneling under it, they may as well allow for a simple signalized intersection allowing all turns? The current approach unecessarily prevents cross traffic and rips the suburb apart on either side of the ditch.

It puzzles me why we are so obsessed with the divide this project will create between suburbs on either side of South Road. In reality the cusrrent South road and cross street set up have provided a major obstacle for at least 30 years.

[Nathan]

Much prefer this version of T2T, but not sure why they are trying to enginner traffic at Hurtle and Hawker intersection so much. If they're going to the trouble of tunneling under it, they may as well allow for a simple signalized intersection allowing all turns? The current approach unecessarily prevents cross traffic and rips the suburb apart on either side of the ditch.

It puzzles me why we are so obsessed with the divide this project will create between suburbs on either side of South Road. In reality the cusrrent South road and cross street set up have provided a major obstacle for at least 30 years.

Because there's an opportunity to fix it.

[claybro]

Much prefer this version of T2T, but not sure why they are trying to enginner traffic at Hurtle and Hawker intersection so much. If they're going to the trouble of tunneling under it, they may as well allow for a simple signalized intersection allowing all turns? The current approach unecessarily prevents cross traffic and rips the suburb apart on either side of the ditch.

It puzzles me why we are so obsessed with the divide this project will create between suburbs on either side of South Road. In reality the cusrrent South road and cross street set up have provided a major obstacle for at least 30 years.

Because there's an opportunity to fix it.

What is to be fixed? If people living in Brompton for the last 30 years have had difficulty getting over to Croydon, I doubt wasting the resources to allow them to do so now is going to make life infinately better for those involved. If you choose to live close to a MAJOR transport corridor, then expect some driving around that barrier. For the last few decades, the adjacent suburbs have developed with the barrier in place, so spending additional funds to alter that now seems a bit of an over complication to an already difficult and costly project.