Sensational-Adelaide.com

AG wrote:Anyone here ever heard of engineering limitations? Cut and cover (bottom-up method) is impractical because it is too disruptive.

That's not an engineering limitation, it's a politicial issue. Apart from the usual NIMBY regressives who complain about the drop of a hat, most people would realise that a few months of inconveniece would far outweigh the decades of benefit.

Here in Brisbane with the northern busway tunnel the government announced it and then a couple of weeks later they'd blocked off the streets and parks in the CBD and were in there working 24/7 carving it out and pouring concrete in.

It was finished months ahead of schedule. You can get things done at least 2x faster if you work 24/7.

Yeah bulldoser is completely right, the government is as tight as a jew.

If they can find a cheaper way to get anything done, then that will be their favored option. Who cares what we want and what is best for our growing state is their attitude.

The possibilities of what we could do to this city is endless, and it shows with all these wicked ideas that people bring to governments attention....but time after time, they constantly get rejected.

Our government sets a bad example of our state which is why we get humiliated and mocked by other states.

The only other option is if they are squeezing their pennies for something huge for this state.

Can we have the "lets draw lines on a map" discussion separated from the serious stuff?

jimmy_2486 wrote:Yeah bulldoser is completely right, the government is as tight as a jew...

They are spending more money on upgrading and improving more projects than any previous SA govt in my lifetime

jimmy_2486 wrote:If they can find a cheaper way to get anything done, then that will be their favored option.

Then why are they building tunnels on South Road instead of the cheaper but more visually disruptive option of bridges? Why are they building a new state of the art hospital instead of the cheaper option of upgrading the existing one? Why are they buying land to build a new Northern Freeway instead of the cheaper but more disruptive option of converting Heaslip and Angle Vale Roads to controlled access roads? Why are they building opening bridges over the Port River instead of the cheaper option of closing the inner harbour to tall vessels? I could go on.

jimmy_2486 wrote:Our government sets a bad example of our state which is why we get humiliated and mocked by other states..

What decade are you living in? We're mocked less and less interstate as we keep winning contracts over the richer eastern states.

AG wrote:One that I produced a while back, but has been sitting and gathering dust until I found it:



If anyone can work out what is going on in what I produced, I will pull out something else more detailed.

AG, I suggest you get hold of a topographic map (one with contours) and re-think your Noarlunga-McCracken line. Too many steep grades for a railway unfortunately. The cost and amount of tunnelling required would prohibit this from ever happening I'm afraid.

rhino wrote:Then why are they building tunnels on South Road instead of the cheaper but more visually disruptive option of bridges? Why are they building a new state of the art hospital instead of the cheaper option of upgrading the existing one? Why are they buying land to build a new Northern Freeway instead of the cheaper but more disruptive option of converting Heaslip and Angle Vale Roads to controlled access roads? Why are they building opening bridges over the Port River instead of the cheaper option of closing the inner harbour to tall vessels? I could go on.

I know this isn't the right thread to talk about this but your questions pose more questions.

The South Road upgrade is a patch-up job. Look at what they have to do with the tram line over South Road. The tunnel should have continued under the tram line. I know buying extra land would have cost a lot more, and I concede that, but why disrupt the tram for nearly a year (as was mentioned this week in the Messenger) while a bridge is built? Cars and trucks can take alternative routes, the tram not. Maybe the government will supply a shuttle bus in that time, who knows. Also gaining a few minutes at two or three junctions is not going to make South Road our north-south freeway. Hopefully they have planned to incorporate these underpasses into a future freeway when state and federal governments come to an agreement.

The new hospital is great, but I really wonder whether it has been projected properly. It will be built on a fault line and will have problems with air space restrictions. The emergency helicopter may have issues with planes landing at ADL. Access could also be an issue. They should include a bridge where the weir is for emergency services. I know that's an extra but there's a good purpose to it.

The Northern Expressway should have been built 30 years ago with a more direct route. It's another patch-up job. Port Wakefield Road in my opinion should get priority before we even contemplate this project. Also they need to extend this up to as far as they can go into the metro area without interfering with people's homes, up to Regency Road at Islington.

Another patch-up job are the opening bridges at Port Adelaide. Although they are badly needed, they are a farce with opening times restricted to 15 minute intervals morning and evening. Why not build under the shipping channel. Sections of tunnel could have been dropped into the channel. They've done things like this in Holland with no problems.

rhino wrote:

jimmy_2486 wrote:Our government sets a bad example of our state which is why we get humiliated and mocked by other states..

What decade are you living in? We're mocked less and less interstate as we keep winning contracts over the richer eastern states.

Some of those big contracts you need to thank our SA Federal Liberal senators. As for mocking us, I'm not sure about that. The current state government is not all bad, they are trying their best. Let's see how they handle the water issue, which in my opinion, is the most important of all.

Cheers

Ho Really wrote: The South Road upgrade is a patch-up job. Look at what they have to do with the tram line over South Road. The tunnel should have continued under the tram line. I know buying extra land would have cost a lot more, and I concede that, but why disrupt the tram for nearly a year (as was mentioned this week in the Messenger) while a bridge is built? Cars and trucks can take alternative routes, the tram not. Maybe the government will supply a shuttle bus in that time, who knows. Also gaining a few minutes at two or three junctions is not going to make South Road our north-south freeway. Hopefully they have planned to incorporate these underpasses into a future freeway when state and federal governments come to an agreement..

I think this is a case of getting the most bang for your buck. A longer tunnel would definately have been dearer, so what alternatives are there? a) Disrupt tram services while we build a bridge, but offer a bus service in lieu of it, and spend the money saved on tunnelling, on the next tunnel. b) Spend more money making the tunnel longer, and delay the next step of the project (probably the tunnel under Port and Grange Roads) by a few years. You're not going to please everyone, but there's more bang for your buck this way.

Ho Really wrote:The new hospital is great, but I really wonder whether it has been projected properly. It will be built on a fault line and will have problems with air space restrictions. The emergency helicopter may have issues with planes landing at ADL. Access could also be an issue. .

So you're also saying it's possible that it has been projected properly,there may not be issues with the emergency helo, and access might not be an issue. I was not aware of any fault line on that site, I will look that up.

Ho Really wrote: The Northern Expressway should have been built 30 years ago with a more direct route. .

There is hardly anything this government can do about that.

Ho Really wrote:Port Wakefield Road in my opinion should get priority before we even contemplate this project. .

Well I disagree strongly with that point. The idea of the Northern Expressway is not for getting traffic into Adelaide, but for getting heavy freight transport bound for the port, out of Elizabeth and Salibury.

Ho Really wrote:Another patch-up job are the opening bridges at Port Adelaide. Although they are badly needed, they are a farce with opening times restricted to 15 minute intervals morning and evening. Why not build under the shipping channel. Sections of tunnel could have been dropped into the channel. They've done things like this in Holland with no problems..

There is no need for the bridges to open more than 15 minutes twice a day, as I have explained in the thread on that issue. The inner harbor is going to be used mainly for private pleasure craft, the owners of which can easily plan their outings to match the opening times of the bridges. Remember this is primarily a major freight route, and as such the bridges are far more important than the river craft. Making a tunnel so that these craft could get in and out of the inner harbor more often would, in my view, be a waste of money.

Ho Really wrote:Some of those big contracts you need to thank our SA Federal Liberal senators.

And even for those, we can thank the SA govt for pushing the SA barrow at them - they didn't just get thrown to us.

Cheers[/quote]

jimmy_2486 wrote:Yeah bulldoser is completely right, the government is as tight as a jew.

If they can find a cheaper way to get anything done, then that will be their favored option. Who cares what we want and what is best for our growing state is their attitude.

The possibilities of what we could do to this city is endless, and it shows with all these wicked ideas that people bring to governments attention....but time after time, they constantly get rejected.

Our government sets a bad example of our state which is why we get humiliated and mocked by other states.

The only other option is if they are squeezing their pennies for something huge for this state.

It would be irresponsible for the state governemnt to spend more than it earns. Although I would never classify myself as an 'economic conservative' I realize how irresponsible it would be for the state to do this.

There are a lot of people on this thread who forget that money does not grow on trees.

rhino wrote:

Ho Really wrote:Port Wakefield Road in my opinion should get priority before we even contemplate this project. .

Well I disagree strongly with that point. The idea of the Northern Expressway is not for getting traffic into Adelaide, but for getting heavy freight transport bound for the port, out of Elizabeth and Salibury.

I'm not against the Northern Expressway if it helps manage traffic (of all kinds). I understand and grant you that, but what governments should be doing is getting heavy traffic off roads and onto rail. A lot of the traffic coming into Adelaide from the Sturt Highway should be on rail, even the wine traffic from the Barossa. Port Wakefield Road seems to have been neglected. At least the section between Two Wells and Grand Junction Road (or Salisbury Highway junction) should have been a freeway years ago.

rhino wrote:

Ho Really wrote:Another patch-up job are the opening bridges at Port Adelaide. Although they are badly needed, they are a farce with opening times restricted to 15 minute intervals morning and evening. Why not build under the shipping channel. Sections of tunnel could have been dropped into the channel. They've done things like this in Holland with no problems..

There is no need for the bridges to open more than 15 minutes twice a day, as I have explained in the thread on that issue. The inner harbor is going to be used mainly for private pleasure craft, the owners of which can easily plan their outings to match the opening times of the bridges. Remember this is primarily a major freight route, and as such the bridges are far more important than the river craft. Making a tunnel so that these craft could get in and out of the inner harbor more often would, in my view, be a waste of money.

You forget that the Inner Harbour has a large tourism potential, and tourism is also money. A time-limited opening bridge, like a fixed bridge, is death to this part of the port. It will now become just a pond with only small pleasure craft able to use the channel. Honestly, they should have considered the option I mentioned. It wasn't going to cost them much more. The Inner Harbour I think had a depth of about 8.5metres. They could have dug a trench if they wanted to keep the 8.5metre depth and dropped these prefabricated sections down, or simply reduced the depth to 4 or 5metres which would have been plenty for any tall ship or megayacht.

rhino wrote:

Ho Really wrote:Some of those big contracts you need to thank our SA Federal Liberal senators.

And even for those, we can thank the SA govt for pushing the SA barrow at them - they didn't just get thrown to us.

Yes, pushing the barrow. ASC needed all the lobbying it could get as Tenix was better. If we had a Labor Federal government we would've kissed the AWD contract goodbye.

Cheers

Will wrote:It would be irresponsible for the state governemnt to spend more than it earns. Although I would never classify myself as an 'economic conservative' I realize how irresponsible it would be for the state to do this.

There are a lot of people on this thread who forget that money does not grow on trees.

I agree about spending more than what you earn. Borrowing for infrastructure projects that eventually will make you money is not bad, they are investments as you know. State and Federal governments need to work together on these issues and forget politics, and let's hope this happens regardless who wins office soon.

Cheers

Ho Really wrote: but what governments should be doing is getting heavy traffic off roads and onto rail. A lot of the traffic coming into Adelaide from the Sturt Highway should be on rail, even the wine traffic from the Barossa.

I agree that heavy transport should be moved by rail, not road, but how is a government going to make that happen? The only ways I can think of are by heavily subsidizing rail transport or by operating it themselves at a loss. Unfortunately, short haul rail infrastructure has been run down and/or dismantled to the point where, timewise, it is either not worth shippers using rail, or impossible for them to use it. In today's economic climate, goods are needed at their arrival point ASAP, and the double-handling (at both ends) required by rail works to the advantage or road haulage. Long haul freight haulage is different.

rhino wrote:I agree that heavy transport should be moved by rail, not road, but how is a government going to make that happen? The only ways I can think of are by heavily subsidizing rail transport or by operating it themselves at a loss. Unfortunately, short haul rail infrastructure has been run down and/or dismantled to the point where, timewise, it is either not worth shippers using rail, or impossible for them to use it. In today's economic climate, goods are needed at their arrival point ASAP, and the double-handling (at both ends) required by rail works to the advantage or road haulage. Long haul freight haulage is different.

A terminal up in the Barossa for the wine exports would be a good start. As for the rest there are issues as you say.

Cheers

rhino wrote:In today's economic climate, goods are needed at their arrival point ASAP, and the double-handling (at both ends) required by rail works to the advantage or road haulage. Long haul freight haulage is different.

Barossa to Adelaide isn't very far really, so I dont' see it working. Although there are those semi-trailers that can be hooked up onto a train.... probably a good option to freight things between cities. The way to make rail more cost-effective relative to road transport is to up the cost of registration for heavy vehicles to more accurately reflect the cost of the wear and tear they inflict on roads, but that's not going to work unless efficient rail infrastructure is in place.

How about a Truck O-Bahn... then the truckies wouldn't need all those drugs to stay awake

normangerman wrote:How about a Truck O-Bahn... then the truckies wouldn't need all those drugs to stay awake

A de-facto auto-pilot!

Cheers