[U/C] Magill/Portrush Road Intersection Upgrade | $98m

[Vasco]

Can anyone post the text to this article? I find this very difficult to imagine...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Goodsy]

Since no existing thread exists, and I’m not sure that intersection each upgrade warrants one / since they are relatively close together.

Can anyone send a link to this article? I find this very difficult to imagine...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SBD]

Almost 50 properties to be demolished for $98m Portrush and Magill Rd intersection upgrade
Ben Cameron, The Messenger
March 4, 2020 3:50pm

The State Government will demolish 47 homes, units and buildings to make way for the $98 million upgrade of the Magill and Portrush Rd intersection – and residents are fuming.

Many provided heartfelt deputations at a Norwood, Payneham & St Peters Council meeting earlier this week about not wanting to lose their homes and anger at compensation offers.

Portrush Rd resident Vivien Loo said she and her husband had spent six years restoring her 110-year-old property which is set to be acquired for the upgrade.

“We spent all our free time and sacrificed all our holidays to do this,” Ms Loo told elected members.

“We poured our heart and soul into creating this, our forever home”.

She said she first received notification about the upgrade in March last year.

Then in October, a Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) official showed her an aerial photograph of her property “with a line running through it”.

“We were shocked and distraught,” she said.

“This project is fait accompli without consultation. Our community deserves better than this.”
Vivien Loo (centre) outside her property with other residents set to be affected by a $98 million Portrush and Magill Rd intersection upgrade. Picture: AAP/ Keryn Stevens.

Ms Loo, who has to be out of her property by June, also said the State Government’s offer of compensation for her property was “shocking”.

Portrush Rd resident of 37 years Barbara Rogers told The Messenger there had been a “lack of useful communication and consultation” from DPTI.

“The project appears as though it’s a fait accompli,” Ms Rogers said.

“Residents in surrounding streets will have their amenity significantly altered by having their backyards fronting Portrush Rd.”

A DPTI map provided by Ms Loo highlights properties, which includes units, on the western side of Portrush Rd for approximately 550m that will be acquired.

The homes are between Dover St and several properties short of Beulah Rd.

Some properties on the northern side of Magill Rd, between Portrush Rd and Adelaide St, will also need to be acquired.

Two images highlighting properties to be demolished for the upgrade. The top image is Portrush Rd running horizontally. The bottom is Magill Rd running horizontally. Picture: DPTI.

The upgrade, announced in March last year, will feature two right-hand turn lanes and three straight lanes in each direction on Portrush Rd, longer right-hand turn lanes on Magill Rd and a longer left-hand turn lane from Magill Rd on to Portrush Rd, heading north.

Meanwhile, the council’s chief executive officer Mario Barone met with Premier Steven Marshall on Wednesday over concerns with a lack of consultation from DPTI with the council and affected property owners.

It comes as Cr Mike Stock said the council meeting earlier this week an “urgent audience” was needed with the Premier to represent residents’ growing concerns.

“The council is dead against this project. We’ve got to get political about this. We’ve got to get the message out there,” Cr Stock said.

However, Infrastructure Minister Stephan Knoll said DPTI had briefed the council twice about the upgrade which would benefit around 62,000 motorists who use the intersection each day.

“Our priority is now working directly with those property owners affected by this intersection upgrade that aims to improve safety and reduce travel times,” Mr Knoll said.

Cr Kevin Duke said at the council meeting earlier this week the upgrade was a “major issue”.

“It utterly destroys the amenity and built form of the location. It will never be replaced,” Cr Duke said.

“It just doesn’t make any common sense. The council is committed to representing the community.”

Cr Scott Sims said “the whole process has been crap from top to bottom” while Cr Sue Whitington said DPTI was “not known for their active consultation”.

“The way they’ve gone about this has been absolutely appalling,” Cr Whitington said.

Cr Evonne Moore said it was a shame 50 street trees would be removed.

“Neither the community nor the council was consulted about this project,” Cr Moore said.

“It was a done deal by the time we were fully advised of the proposal.

“I saw a sign on the back of a bus once, it said: ‘Jesus wept’. I believe it fits this issue.”

Cr Kester Moorhouse said the council was livid with the loss of properties.

“We are angry, we are upset with this,” Cr Moorhouse said.

“I don’t know anybody who supports this. It’s so obviously a bad idea and needs to be thrown out.

“Kicking people out of their homes, loss of trees, turning us into this concrete jungle… more room for more cars

“It’s backwards thinking about how to deal with traffic congestion. We shouldn’t be doing it.”

The State Government will acquire 47 properties for the Portrush and Magill Rd intersection upgrade.

[Waewick]

I bet these guys also voted against trams and bus lanes

The intersection needs an upgrade, its unfortunate but needed.

Move on.

[Honey of a City]

I bet these guys also voted against trams and bus lanes

The intersection needs an upgrade, its unfortunate but needed.

Move on.

Great. Move on. If it was your home and you were not adequately compensated for it’s destruction would you be happy to “move on”?

[NTRabbit]

I bet these guys also voted against trams and bus lanes

The intersection needs an upgrade, its unfortunate but needed.

Move on.

It's an intersection upgrade priced 3 times higher than it should be that doesn't solve any problems. It's not opposing trams and bus lanes, it's opposing obvious government rorts.

[SRW]

Mods, can we merge this discussion with the rest on the same issue - either in its own thread or within the Roads & Traffic one.

[SRW]

I would like the see exactly what benefits they expect to arise from this intersection expansion. In particular, I'd like to know that it's not going to surge commuter traffic to the CBD.

[bits]

Portrush Rd is a major freight route.
I assume the benefit is reduced wait times to cross the intersection.

[SRW]

Portrush Rd is a major freight route.
I assume the benefit is reduced wait times to cross the intersection.

Yeah, I agree Portush Rd should be as efficient as possible until a freight alternative is built (e.g. a SE-FWY to NS-MW tunnel). But my experience of the intersection is the bottleneck is turning onto or from Magill Road rather than travelling straight through on Portrush. I appreciate those two are connected, and maybe data indicates a worsening problem. But I just wonder whether traffic modelling considers the impact investing in public transport could have in reducing commuter traffic and improving the intersection's flow. The budget of $100 million could do a lot.

[SBD]

Portrush Rd is a major freight route.
I assume the benefit is reduced wait times to cross the intersection.

Yeah, I agree Portush Rd should be as efficient as possible until a freight alternative is built (e.g. a SE-FWY to NS-MW tunnel). But my experience of the intersection is the bottleneck is turning onto or from Magill Road rather than travelling straight through on Portrush. I appreciate those two are connected, and maybe data indicates a worsening problem. But I just wonder whether traffic modelling considers the impact investing in public transport could have in reducing commuter traffic and improving the intersection's flow. The budget of $100 million could do a lot.

Given the amount of property to be acquired, I wonder how much more expensive it would be to build a bridge/interchange instead of just a wider at-grade intersection.

Construction cost could be minimised by completely closing the intersection for a few weeks/months of round-the-clock work. Heavy/long distance traffic can detour via Cross Road/North South Motorway. More local traffic via city ring route, and more local still on Osmond Terrace. East-west traffic diverts to The Parade or Payneham Road. That would have to be cheaper and more efficient in the long term than the efforts to not work in the corridor during daylight hours, and maintain a through route in every direction at all times.

[Aidan]

Construction cost could be minimised by completely closing the intersection for a few weeks/months of round-the-clock work.

Did you work for DPTI's rail division??

[SBD]

Construction cost could be minimised by completely closing the intersection for a few weeks/months of round-the-clock work.

Did you work for DPTI's rail division??

LOL. No, but I used to commute along Portrush Road back when it was only one lane each way between Kensington and Magill Roads.

My solution to the problem was to move closer to work. It's already much nicer to drive on than it used to be. Which party was in government when Portrush Road got the last upgrade?

[ml69]

Construction cost could be minimised by completely closing the intersection for a few weeks/months of round-the-clock work.

Did you work for DPTI's rail division??

LOL. No, but I used to commute along Portrush Road back when it was only one lane each way between Kensington and Magill Roads.

My solution to the problem was to move closer to work. It's already much nicer to drive on than it used to be. Which party was in government when Portrush Road got the last upgrade?

Labor. I just moved into the area in 2002 and the work was going on then. Possibly the design was developed whilst Liberal was in government.

[dbl96]

If we accept Portrush Road needs to be widened, why can it not be widened along the eastern side of the road? This would be far less disruptive. Most of the land that would need to be acquired is currently occupied by unattractive, open air car parking.

Its interesting that Peregrine was busy rebuilding their service station on the north-east corner of the intersection, after the upgrade was announced, but before the map of planned property acquisitions was announced. Did they know something the homeowners didn't? ...