Sensational-Adelaide.com

toby1 wrote:I came to work today via south rd and was surprised at the demolition progress(?) in the south/anzac area. the space that has been cleared is huge and extends further each side of anzac than i thought it would. there appears to be lots of space now available except for the red brick building right on the corner - i can only guess that that will go but has been kept for a little longer for whatever reason ... or will it be tunneled under? anyone know?

momentkiller wrote:While you lot are brainstorming ideas, how about we turn South Road into the worlds first reversible main road, much to the dismay of the Southern Expressway. :wank:

Bus lanes are needed and if that happens....also more go zones....and maybe at least 10 min ones...not 15....thats still crap.

Ho Really wrote:Couple of questions guys regarding the South Road upgrade:

1. If South Road were to become a North-South freeway would the work being done now on the underpasses be sufficient for incorporation?

2. Will the bridge planned for the tram line only span South Road in its current configuration? If South Road were to be widened into a freeway this bridge would be obsolete if not planned right. Thoughts?

Cheers

$122m South Rd tunnel on hold

GREG KELTON, STATE EDITOR
October 11, 2007 02:15am
CONSTRUCTION on a key section of the South Rd redevelopment will be delayed until after the next state election unless it gets federal funding.

The planned 600m tunnel under Port and Grange roads - originally costed at $122 million - has been replaced as a priority project by a $28 million tram overpass on South Rd.

Transport and Infrastructure Department officials have told a parliamentary committee the tunnel project was going to cost "considerably more".

The Opposition says it is obvious there has been a massive blowout in costs for the project - the third major transport plan to be hit in this way after the Bakewell Bridge, the South Rd-Anzac Highway underpass and the Northern Expressway.

Blowouts on these projects total more than $300 million and the latest blowout could add another $180 million to that total.

The underpass was originally announced in April, 2005, by Transport Minister Patrick Conlon with construction starting in August this year and being completed by early 2010. In the Budget handed down in July, the Government refused to give a figure for the full cost of the project saying this was because "one of the contracts is in the final stages of negotiation".

Office of Major Projects chief executive Rod Hook told the Budget and Finance Committee this week that "we are three years away from being in a position to commit to construction in that area". He said the Government was going to "revisit it with our Commonwealth counterparts".

Opposition transport spokesman Duncan McFetridge said it was obvious the Government had seriously underestimated the cost. "This is real pie-in-the-sky stuff and they are now looking for a life raft," he said.

normangerman wrote:Underpasses look better because they are more hidden from view that an ugly huge concrete bridge like at the South/Cross Road intersection.

Cruise Control wrote:

normangerman wrote:Underpasses look better because they are more hidden from view that an ugly huge concrete bridge like at the South/Cross Road intersection.

so that justifies spending twice as much then?