[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[bits]

T2T started a year earlier as well from memory. It was originally a Labor(T2T) vs Liberal(Darlington) and Labor won. Later it was agreed Darlington would also start.
I think even before the election T2T had most its planning done, while Darlington had not.

[ChillyPhilly]

T2T started a year earlier as well from memory. It was originally a Labor(T2T) vs Liberal(Darlington) and Labor won. Later it was agreed Darlington would also start.
I think even before the election T2T had most its planning done, while Darlington had not.

Correct. It was good to go - 'shovel-ready' as Tom Koutsantonis said - but Abbott pulled funding, instead opting for Darlington. The State Government argued that T2T had a better cost-benefit ratio by far and after a bit of a stand off, Labor won.

[Norman]

Here's the latest drive-by of the T2T project.

You can see the new final road alignment for the surface road, the Torrens Road bridge beams and the start of the trench being excavated.

Any feedback would be appreciated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzLWmsLXcxo

[Ben]

So with no new funding for South Road, I guess we can assume the progress will stop next year unless the state funds it alone which it can not afford.

[Norman]

The Northern Connector will still be underway until the end of 2019, not sure about Darlington given that it seems to be running behind schedule, but yes, it's looking a bit bleak after that.

[rev]

Darlington, T2T, and NC will all still be under construction this time next year.

Has the state government finalized plans for the next stage or stages to begin on the NS corridor? Has the federal government seen those finalized plans?

It also probably doesn't help that the Labor state government has forced the Liberal federal government into the submarine/ship building deals, and pushed them for funding on T2T etc, and then went and gloated about it as if they had some big David vs Golliath moment. A little less back chat to Canberra and we might get more of what we want more often without having to wait for the election cycle.
But that's where I think our system is flawed. Federal politicians shouldn't be allowed to get involved in state/territory elections in any way. There should be a key set of rules and protocols that should be followed for infrastructure funding between state and federal levels. If a state gov. meets the requirements for funding from the feds, the funding should be granted. Trying to help piss ant state colleagues who have no policy plans and no vision shouldn't be allowed.
Just imagine if petty politics didn't come into play, how much stronger all our state/territory and national economies would be.

[Norman]

From what I heard, the Metronet proposal in WA does not have a business case, but got $1.4b in funding. Then again, that money came from the Perth Freight highway that was scrapped by the new government.

Hopefully, once the business case for the trams has been completed, we can get a slice of that $10b rail fund the federal government introduced last night.

[bits]

http://www.fiveaa.com.au/shows/leon-byn ... get-attack

Scott this morning talk including north south funds.
200mil next year is all within T2T, Darlington and NC?

[Spurdo]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 42276ec7ec

South Rd upgrade: Construction to start between Regency Rd and Pym St

A STRETCH of South Rd in Adelaide’s western suburbs is the target of a $400 million upgrade plan, in the next step towards the ambitious goal of a non-stop journey from Gawler to Old Noarlunga.

The State Government has released to The Advertiser its project proposal report for the Regency Rd to Pym St upgrade, which would add to three major South Rd upgrades already underway.

The plan builds on the current Torrens to Torrens works, which eliminates the South Rd intersection at Port Rd, and would add a new overpass to the north at Regency Rd.

The new upgrade would then connect to the already free-flowing South Rd Superway, with construction mooted to begin at the start of 2019 and completed by the middle of 2022.

It would also require compulsory acquisitions, totalling about $12 million, of nearby properties.

It comes amid a major Federal Budget bust up involving dual claims the state was “dudded” by a lack of new spending last week, and that it had failed to submit solid applications.

The State Government says the plan would remove two existing traffic light stops, create a continuous non-stop stretch of 47km and cut up to eight minutes from peak hour travelling times.

The report says the option of tolling passengers was investigated but rejected, because it is against SA Labor policy. A toll on commercial vehicles was also rejected on grounds that it would raise little money, as the State Government urges that it instead be funded from tax revenue.

SA Transport and Infrastructure Minister Stephen Mullighan said former prime minister Tony Abbott’s hope of a non-stop South Rd by 2023 was “in tatters” because of a lack of new funds.

“While the Pym St to Regency Rd stage is a smaller project compared to other sections, the benefits will be huge,” Mr Mullighan said. A quick decision from the Federal Government could have built on works already underway and secured hundreds of jobs until 2022, he said.

Mr Mullighan is seeking $332 million, about 85 per cent of the project cost, from Canberra.

The report warns of growing traffic snarls along a bottleneck that already has a high accident rate, low speeds and is forecast to have more vehicles than it can manage within five years.

The report finds average peak hour speeds in the project area fall to almost half the 60km/h limit during the afternoon.

The State Government has also claimed the on-again, off-again Gawler train line electrification is ready to start, despite independent federal experts saying its business case is out of date.

RAA senior manager road safety Charles Mountain said doing the Regency Rd upgrade at the same time as Torrens to Torrens could reduce the length of disruption for commuters.

“This section is the most advanced in terms of design and it would be better to effectively continue the existing project to complete this section, rather than to have two upgrade sections (Torrens and Superway) with a lower capacity section in between,” he said.

Opposition transport spokesman David Pisoni said the proposal was badly lacking in detail, not scheduled to get underway for several years and its release was an attempt to shift blame.

“Minister Mullighan hadn’t completed his work in time for the Federal Budget ... (and) is desperately trying to cover the fact he has been caught asleep at the wheel,” he said.

[drsmith]

Have the savings on the Northern Connector contract ($150m ??) been allocated to another project yet ?

[SBD]

The State Government has released to The Advertiser its project proposal report for the Regency Rd to Pym St upgrade, which would add to three major South Rd upgrades already underway.

Sounds like either "look! something shiny over there!", or an admission that he had a proposal but didn't bother to submit it to Infrastucture Australia in time. Expecting the Federal Government to stump up most of the cash the week after it announced its budget seems a little ambitious, so this is not really an announcement of very much.

I'm also a little puzzled about only claiming "a continuous non-stop stretch of 47km". That seems to be maybe as far as the Horrocks Highway interchange at Willaston on the north side of Gawler. Given the money spent in the last decade duplicating the Sturt Highway, why not measure all the way to Nuriootpa (or Truro)?

[[Shuz]]

This announcement one week after the Federal Budget? Seems like the State got caught with their pants down.

Also, the overpass at Regency - logic tells me it will essentially just be an extension of the Superway?

[SBD]

This announcement one week after the Federal Budget? Seems like the State got caught with their pants down.

Also, the overpass at Regency - logic tells me it will essentially just be an extension of the Superway?

I haven't checked if the master plan has that level of detail, but my guess would be that there will be an interchange at ground level where the superway currently comes down, rather than having the on and off ramps up to the elevated road. "The plan" is that the road will be at ground level at the ends of each construction stage to avoid having to rework bridges or trenches.

[rev]

The State Government has released to The Advertiser its project proposal report for the Regency Rd to Pym St upgrade, which would add to three major South Rd upgrades already underway.

Sounds like either "look! something shiny over there!", or an admission that he had a proposal but didn't bother to submit it to Infrastucture Australia in time. Expecting the Federal Government to stump up most of the cash the week after it announced its budget seems a little ambitious, so this is not really an announcement of very much.

I'm also a little puzzled about only claiming "a continuous non-stop stretch of 47km". That seems to be maybe as far as the Horrocks Highway interchange at Willaston on the north side of Gawler. Given the money spent in the last decade duplicating the Sturt Highway, why not measure all the way to Nuriootpa (or Truro)?

Why only 47km? Because it's the Advertiser, why else? The people who can't even get names of people in photos correct.
The whole north-south corridor is 107km in length, and obviously includes the Northern and Southern Expressways, and the dual carriageway section of the Sturt hwy to Nurioopta.
But the Advertiser's staff are too stupid, and too ignorant, because they are nothing more then tabloid writers, to actually do any proper research and include the correct facts.

Last week they said that they had submitted everything Infrastructure Australia had asked for.
But either way, whether they did or didn't, who cares as long as they get on with it and continue the work on this corridor. Who cares who pays for it, state or federal.

[claybro]

Last week they said that they had submitted everything Infrastructure Australia had asked for. But either way, whether they did or didn't, who cares as long as they get on with it and continue the work on this corridor. Who cares who pays for it, state or federal.

Because this is precisely the crux of the problem that is being discussed on multiple threads at present. State assumes feds should pay, but don't submit detailed plans. Feds already allocated money to states that get off their backside an lobby with detailed plans. How can there not have already been a plan for the section connecting T2T and the Superway?