Sensational-Adelaide.com

Wait, so is that nice big revamp of the whole area (the result of the Darlington Transport Study) being scrapped? Such things including the underpass beneath Sturt Road and Flinders Drive? And to really strike fear into the hearts of many, dare I say, the light rail extension to Flinders University from the Tonsley Line?
Or is that whole thing simply being re-assessed and scaled back?



I'm used to expecting the latter, so it won't hurt all that much; but if the former is true, that would be quite sad.

The dts is still a goer it's the interchange that is not on the ia list of prioritys and the southern expressway is a totally state responsibility and promise and the interchange was part of that .the problem I think is the cost blew out on the interchange to over 100 million and the state can't afford the extra money and embarrassment for the overrun.
Isn't it fair to say that project costs increase by 6percent per year so that means the 445million 2years ago is now
500 million or pretty close to it and that's why they took out the interchange

jase111 wrote:the problem I think is the cost blew out on the interchange to over 100 million and the state can't afford the extra money and embarrassment for the overrun.

Try reading the posts above. I don't believe this is the case, as I have explained at the top of this page.

jase111 wrote:Isn't it fair to say that project costs increase by 6percent per year so that means the 445million 2years ago is now
500 million or pretty close to it

Yes

jase111 wrote: and that's why they took out the interchange

No.

Scrapping interchange 'will cost $232m'

ONE of South Australia's industry bodies has condemned the decision to scrap the $75 million Darlington Interchange.

The Civil Contractors Federation of South Australia says the Government decision will cost the state as much as $232 million in lost productivity as a result.

Last week, the State Government revealed it was scrapping the $75 million interchange, but would divert its funding towards to the duplication of the expressway, previously costed at $370 million.

more

I think I'm failing to see the difference between the "Darlington Interchange" and the "recommendation of the Darlington Transport Study". What exactly is the difference and how will the scaling back/scrapping of one affect the other? :/

adam73837 wrote:I think I'm failing to see the difference between the "Darlington Interchange" and the "recommendation of the Darlington Transport Study". What exactly is the difference and how will the scaling back/scrapping of one affect the other? :/

Both are overpriced and misnamed!

The Darlington Interchange isn't really an interchange - 'tis an overpass they plan to put at the end of the Southern Expressway. Even when earthquake provision is factored in, the $75m pricetag looks unreasonably high.

The Darlington Transport Study doesn't have much to do with Darlington - it's about how South Road can be made non stop through Bedford Park. The plan DTEI came up with was absolutely ludicrous.

Aidan wrote:

adam73837 wrote:I think I'm failing to see the difference between the "Darlington Interchange" and the "recommendation of the Darlington Transport Study". What exactly is the difference and how will the scaling back/scrapping of one affect the other? :/

Both are overpriced and misnamed!

The Darlington Interchange isn't really an interchange - 'tis an overpass they plan to put at the end of the Southern Expressway. Even when earthquake provision is factored in, the $75m pricetag looks unreasonably high.

The Darlington Transport Study doesn't have much to do with Darlington - it's about how South Road can be made non stop through Bedford Park. The plan DTEI came up with was absolutely ludicrous.

What was so "ludicrous" about the plan?

cruel_world00 wrote:

Aidan wrote:

adam73837 wrote:I think I'm failing to see the difference between the "Darlington Interchange" and the "recommendation of the Darlington Transport Study". What exactly is the difference and how will the scaling back/scrapping of one affect the other? :/

Both are overpriced and misnamed!

The Darlington Interchange isn't really an interchange - 'tis an overpass they plan to put at the end of the Southern Expressway. Even when earthquake provision is factored in, the $75m pricetag looks unreasonably high.

The Darlington Transport Study doesn't have much to do with Darlington - it's about how South Road can be made non stop through Bedford Park. The plan DTEI came up with was absolutely ludicrous.

What was so "ludicrous" about the plan?

The road component was grossly overengineered, and would obliterate a row of houses despite the previous upgrade having reserved sufficient land for future widening. The rail component would eliminate operational flexibility and would prevent more useful extensions being constructed.

So is the rail component remaining - the above posts suggest some confusion re deductions from the info. \

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Aidan wrote: The rail component would eliminate operational flexibility and would prevent more useful extensions being constructed.

Some of your comments really are ridiculous. I'm not a transport strategist, but I don't believe that because Aiden can't see a way for it to work, it must surely fail.

rhino wrote:

Aidan wrote: The rail component would eliminate operational flexibility and would prevent more useful extensions being constructed.

Some of your comments really are ridiculous. I'm not a transport strategist, but I don't believe that because Aiden can't see a way for it to work, it must surely fail.

Having made well over a thousand posts here, it is quite likely that some of them really are ridiculous. However the one you just quoted is not.

'Tis not that I can't see a way for converting the Tonsley Line to tram-train operation to work, it's that I know enough about the technical issues involved to see the disadvantages. For example, the different platform heights mean that stations between Woodlands Park and Adelaide could serve Tonsley or Noarlunga trains but not both. The different performance characteristics of the trains sharing the line would limit the intensity of the service. And their plan for extending the line to Flinders would prevent it from being extended to Reynella and Hackham.

skyliner wrote:So is the rail component remaining - the above posts suggest some confusion re deductions from the info.

They haven't got rid of it yet. However it's unfunded, and there's a lot of opposition to tram-trains within DTEI.

Aidan wrote: And their plan for extending the line to Flinders would prevent it from being extended to Reynella and Hackham.

This was always my biggest problem with it. To me, an extension of tonsley up the hill to service a newly redeveloped glenthorn farm area (despite the opposition of the nimbies) and then an extension to hackham would be ideal, especially given the alignment has been preserved from panalatinga road all the way to seaford.

Aidan wrote:

skyliner wrote:So is the rail component remaining - the above posts suggest some confusion re deductions from the info.

They haven't got rid of it yet. However it's unfunded, and there's a lot of opposition to tram-trains within DTEI.

Thanks for that - I hope they do get a line through - would be greatly used IMO.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

A rumor delayed start on constuction till end of next year