Sensational-Adelaide.com

Kasey771 wrote:

Waewick wrote:

rev wrote:Some premises along South Road in the Croydon/Ridleyton area are being compulsorily acquired, some closing by the end of the month I believe.

sounds promising.

Amused wrote:

Kasey771 wrote:

I can't believe the size of the expansion joints... they must be expecting the bridge to get really hot...

Amused wrote:

Kasey771 wrote:

I can't believe the size of the expansion joints... they must be expecting the bridge to get really hot...

rev wrote:

Waewick wrote:

rev wrote:Some premises along South Road in the Croydon/Ridleyton area are being compulsorily acquired, some closing by the end of the month I believe.

sounds promising.

I hope we are close to an announcement on what's going to happen with that section of south road.

Aidan wrote:But while we're on the subject,does anyone know how big the real expansion joints are/will be?

jase111 wrote:South Road (South Australian Government)
The proponent has provided a discussion paper on the South Road corridor, which is part of Adelaide’s north- south corridor. The South Australian Government is requesting feedback and engagement from the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator to develop an agreed understanding of the problem and appropriate solutions.
The submission’s objective is to implement a plan that addresses the ‘north-south transport task’ and protects this key economic corridor. The specific planning objectives along the corridor are to: protect and provide freight priority consistent with a National Network Transport Link; improve travel time, reliability and vehicle operating costs; improve accessibility to employment, leisure and service opportunities; help achieve public transport mode share targets; and provide safety and environmental benefits.
Given the early stage of the investigations, no capital cost estimate has been provided at this time.

This was on the 2012 infrastructure priority list

South road is 15 to 20 years away before it will ever look like a urban motorway /freeway

jase111 wrote:South Road (South Australian Government)
The proponent has provided a discussion paper on the South Road corridor, which is part of Adelaide’s north- south corridor. The South Australian Government is requesting feedback and engagement from the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator to develop an agreed understanding of the problem and appropriate solutions.
The submission’s objective is to implement a plan that addresses the ‘north-south transport task’ and protects this key economic corridor. The specific planning objectives along the corridor are to: protect and provide freight priority consistent with a National Network Transport Link; improve travel time, reliability and vehicle operating costs; improve accessibility to employment, leisure and service opportunities; help achieve public transport mode share targets; and provide safety and environmental benefits.
Given the early stage of the investigations, no capital cost estimate has been provided at this time.

This was on the 2012 infrastructure priority list

South road is 15 to 20 years away before it will ever look like a urban motorway /freeway

Wednesday, 18 July 2012
South Road opportunity paved over

Daniel Bennett

As work on the $812 million South Road Superway reaches the halfway mark, landscape architect and urban designer Daniel Bennett questions whether we really need all that concrete, steel and bitumen.

THE South Road Superway is an interesting project. For those of you who don’t know, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) is currently building 3km of elevated expressway, Bladerunner style, between Regency Road and the Port River Expressway.

It will loom up to 20m high, over the existing South Road, and will be completed by the end of next year.

The aim is to shift traffic more efficiently as part of the greater South Road problem, but I’m still scratching my head about this – we could’ve had 23km of light rail to Port Adelaide for the same price. There are supposed economic benefits, no doubt, but I question the need for so much more concrete, so much more steel reinforcement and so much more bitumen – and little else – over a more traditional road solution.

Some might say the solution picks the low-hanging fruit, by ignoring more important and problematic parts of South Road – the intersections with Port Road, Richmond Road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive, for example.

The strategy might be there, but I’ve yet to see it or be convinced by the broader road network planning.

I will point out that I was involved in a large tender for the project a year or two ago. Our consortia made it to the final two in an exhausting and expensive State Government procurement process. We lost.

So at the outset, I state that this is not about losing the job. Often you’ve got to be in it to win it, to sustain the employment of consultants and builders in SA. This one was different, and my goal was to try to make this giant pig look like a delicious roast. With all the trimmings.

The Superway project will be lauded by some (mostly in Government) as the best thing since sliced bread. An economic salvation for the state, as if building more roads will somehow save us all. Perhaps 10 years ago this may have been the case. In fact, 10 years ago this state had no investment in our infrastructure, so any investment is perhaps a good thing … or is it?

The Superway project burst onto the scene a few years back as the mea culpa for Adelaide – creating a “non-stop South Road”, whatever that is supposed to mean (don’t say South Road Expressway for fear of scaring off voters in all the Labor seats living along the route).

My commentary is based on the rationale for the project, and how it was procured. I must have spent 18 months planning, designing and selling a design that I thought would be a “ying” to the “yang” of all that carbon-emitting concrete, steel and bitumen.

The consortia I was part of liked our integrated concept of promoting good opportunities associated with the project, including the creation of green infrastructure (a collaborative process working with engineers, landscape architects, ecologists and water experts), which provided a net environmental benefit to offset all that construction as well as the future vehicle miles.

We designed our concept with time and environmental impact in mind. We even utilised a new North American “sustainable development” ratings tool called the Sustainable Sites Initiative, aimed at measuring our design through the tendering process as well as the constructed outcome. This included calculating absolute measurements, metrics, and the benefits of our aligned and integrated landscape and open-space-focused design. We proposed a reinvented street and parklets under the new structure.

We proposed reporting the environmental benefits of the project as the years rolled by, so we could calculate the value-added benefits. In this way, our concept could be assessed in dollar terms.

To say this was difficult to sell is an understatement. Not from a consortia side; they saw the benefits immediately. It was difficult to sell in a procurement process that really valued only time, money and process over what it calls “valued-added” ideas.

We proved at one point that, over time, the net cost to the community, workers, environment and overall water quality would be more if we didn’t implement our simple green initiatives. I believe this aspect was never fairly assessed or acknowledged by those deciding who should build the thing.

A road you can reseal, a bridge can be inspected, a drain cleared, lightbulbs replaced and potholes fixed. A living, breathing, changing landscape is simply not in the game in this revered company of engineering elements. They can ask for a 100-year design life for a bridge and give it specifications, but for some reason those who write these briefs cannot do the same for anything that might live or breath within the “scope of works”.

It is extraordinary.

So my beef isn’t with the project’s successful builders, or even those within government who are managing the project. I remain disappointed that a-once-in-a-generation opportunity to lead the way with infrastructure development in Australia was simply paved over.

What we’ll gain instead are some very nice-looking noise walls, elegantly designed piers and well-thought-out light poles. It was billed by Ministers Albanese and Conlon as a true nation-building project. Pity it ignores the bit underneath.

Daniel Bennett is a registered landscape architect and urban designer, and is vice-president of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, SA Chapter.