Sensational-Adelaide.com

neoballmon wrote:

Phantom wrote:I also noticed not one car going along the Northbound lanes during the 3 minutes I was on it. (However there were a construction utes parked there). When I reached the offramp just past Days Rd, it looked as though cars were being diverted under the Superway. I dunno if this was just a one off, but it seemed a bit strange being the day it was meant to open!

At 7:00PM on Thursday the Northbound wasn't open yet, so that sounds about right. I went along it Friday night, around 10PM, and it was actually quite busy for that time of the night. There were a good dozen cars around, in both directions. It's a great road, and will be great to drive on it at 90!

I read it as being opened from midnight on Thursday, as in that like 12:01am on Thursday, not 12:01am on Friday, hence my confusion...

I wholeheartedly blame Port Adelaide Fan, and his collection of watermarked photos.

Calibration and commissioning of the ITS system still taking place, and the seal is of a type that requires a couple of weeks trafficking prior to reaching acceptable skid resistance for 90 kph.

There will be after hour diversion of traffic at grade to the north of Grand Junction Rd, simply because of the necessary activities when trying to landscape such a large area of old industrial land, drainage swales and the old South Road.

Also signals are being completed at Wing, South Terrace and final upgrade to Cormack, minor concrete activities etc...

When you think that at Grade was completed at the same time as elevated, a few minor activities at grade is to be expected.

Brucetiki wrote:

superway_sam wrote:

Port Adelaide Fan wrote:South Road Superway - northbound carriageway open midnight 13 March:
http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/sou ... on_updates

Well 10PM to be exact

12:40am was when it opened. Got there, workmen were just about to open it, so did a lap down Days Rd, came back and it was open. Is just as brilliant northbound as it is southbound. Can't wait for the variable speed signs to operate and we can travel along at 90 km/h.

Best laid schemes - linemarking delayed. Yes Northbound ride count slightly better than southbound.

It amazes me how this can cost nearly $900 million and yet there is still exposed plumbing visible while driving on south rd below. Looks ridiculous, as if plumbing and drainage was an after thought.

Even worse, when it rains, it leaks in sever spots onto south rd below.


Should we expect the torrens to torrens trench to have exposed stop water pipes and to flood when it rains?

rev wrote:It amazes me how this can cost nearly $900 million and yet there is still exposed plumbing visible while driving on south rd below. Looks ridiculous, as if plumbing and drainage was an after thought.

Even worse, when it rains, it leaks in sever spots onto south rd below.


Should we expect the torrens to torrens trench to have exposed stop water pipes and to flood when it rains?

No. We can expect it to be underwater at that rate.

rev wrote:It amazes me how this can cost nearly $900 million and yet there is still exposed plumbing visible while driving on south rd below. Looks ridiculous, as if plumbing and drainage was an after thought.

Even worse, when it rains, it leaks in sever spots onto south rd below.


Should we expect the torrens to torrens trench to have exposed stop water pipes and to flood when it rains?

There's also a gap in between two road segments, it's near the grand junction road exit

Just beacuse a road is open does not mean the project is complete. There is usually a grace period where any defects are identified and must be rectified before the road is handed over and project deemed complete. I suggest this is still some months away.

Westside wrote:Just beacuse a road is open does not mean the project is complete. There is usually a grace period where any defects are identified and must be rectified before the road is handed over and project deemed complete. I suggest this is still some months away.

I am aware that there is still some minor drainage works going on, but for general purpose and usage, it is at practical completion where the infrastructure is open for the key function it is designed to perform.

Westside wrote:Just beacuse a road is open does not mean the project is complete. There is usually a grace period where any defects are identified and must be rectified before the road is handed over and project deemed complete. I suggest this is still some months away.

Well, yeah, however those same sections that leak onto the road below, have been leaking for months already every time there is a bit of rain about.
Those pipes on the underside have been viewable for many more months then that as well.


I've also noticed the road surfaces are different.
Driving along south road north bound below, as you pass the BP and come up towards the precast yard, and up till the grand junction rd intersection, the surface is very noisy in particular as you slow down.
Never heard so much noise on a new road surface before.

rev wrote:...I've also noticed the road surfaces are different.
Driving along south road north bound below, as you pass the BP and come up towards the precast yard, and up till the grand junction rd intersection, the surface is very noisy in particular as you slow down.
Never heard so much noise on a new road surface before.

Is that possibly a "wake up" section to alert motorists?

Apparently On the Run want to erect a 25m high sign with their logo on it so drivers travelling along the motorway can see it (as being below the road, they cannot).

ChillyPhilly wrote:Apparently On the Run want to erect a 25m high sign with their logo on it so drivers travelling along the motorway can see it (as being below the road, they cannot).

Why? Motorists on the Motorway won't be able to access it anyway.

Brucetiki wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote:Apparently On the Run want to erect a 25m high sign with their logo on it so drivers travelling along the motorway can see it (as being below the road, they cannot).

Why? Motorists on the Motorway won't be able to access it anyway.

Seriously, Brucetiki? It's Advertising. Maybe the next time they're heading up that way they'll remember that it's there, and choose to fill up (with food, fuel, newspapers, whatever), take the old road instead of the Superway in order to do it.

rhino wrote: Seriously, Brucetiki? It's Advertising. Maybe the next time they're heading up that way they'll remember that it's there, and choose to fill up (with food, fuel, newspapers, whatever), take the old road instead of the Superway in order to do it.

But as advertising it would have a rather low benefit to cost ratio. A sign before the start of the superway would be much more effective.

Aidan wrote:

rhino wrote: Seriously, Brucetiki? It's Advertising. Maybe the next time they're heading up that way they'll remember that it's there, and choose to fill up (with food, fuel, newspapers, whatever), take the old road instead of the Superway in order to do it.

But as advertising it would have a rather low benefit to cost ratio. A sign before the start of the superway would be much more effective.

I guess they'd have to weigh that up against the rent for putting a sign on land that they don't own.