Sensational-Adelaide.com

Maybe they should try putting on more ferries first.. did next year's April fools joke get leaked early?

Splashmo wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:16 pm

We'd be better off duplicating the Victor Harbor Road and the Dukes Highway... and reducing the costs of the ferry.

It was also mentioned in the paper a bridge might threaten the island's biodiversity.

Dukes Highway (including the Swanport Bridge which is actually Princes Highway), and the rest of the Sturt Highway with a Truro bypass and probably on a changed alignment through the Riverland.

SBD wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 23, 2018 5:22 pm

Dukes Highway (including the Swanport Bridge which is actually Princes Highway), and the rest of the Sturt Highway with a Truro bypass and probably on a changed alignment through the Riverland.

And speaking of Kangaroo Island... Main South Road between Myponga and Cape Jervis isn't much fun. I'm guessing the cost of this bridge doesn't factor in the upgrade of the road either.

Almost impossible to mount a positive business case for this bridge, as much as I'd love to see it go ahead. Other similar length bridges connect significantly larger populations (eg Copenhagen, Denmark and Malmö, Sweden).

As KI is one of South Australia's most iconic tourist destinations, further efforts are required to make it more accessible.

We should pursue the federal and state governments to subsidise ferry services in the same way that Tasmanian ferry services are subsidised.

And clear any regulatory hurdles and build terminal infrastructure for a Glenelg-KI fast ferry, which should also be subsidised. Such a service would be well-suited to daytrippers and overnighters, appealing to time-poor international tourists (would be hit with the Chinese) and interstate tourists to a lesser extent. Could also be popular with Adelaide residents on the weekend.

Pipe dream. In my opinion not feasible. Several important factors to consider.

1. Depth or water. Most is over 30 metres deep.
2. The tides. How strong are they?
3. The roughness of the sea. The ferry has been cancelled many times in bad weather. That tells you it can get rough.
4. The strong winds. Crossing the bridge won't be fun.
5. Minimum height above water at high tide needs to be 65m for ships to pass safely in the channel. See cruise ships and ocean liner QM2 for example.
6. There could be other factors besides cost and ROI.

Cheers

I think the bridge risks the reintroduction of foxes onto the island. BAD idea.

timtam20292 wrote:I think the bridge risks the reintroduction of foxes onto the island. BAD idea.

You're not the only one to think so - MacMullin (the cartoonist in the Sunday Mail) had the same idea. But it's not a very difficult problem to monitor and control.

how good is he wrote:Wouldn't a tunnel be far more expensive?

Not necessarily. The Norwegians are building a longer undersea tunnel for less — see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogfast

There are significant differences of course — for a start they have intermediate islands which makes ventilation easier. But there is much we can learn from the world leaders in tunnelling.

$5 billion dollars to service a permanent population of about 4000, only to ruin the very isolation that is the reason tourists visit the island in the first place. Never even mind about ROI. It has even been reported in the West Australian paper here in Perth as if it is a serious proposal. Why is this even being discussed?!

Splashmo wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 23, 2018 8:01 pm

SBD wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 23, 2018 5:22 pm

Dukes Highway (including the Swanport Bridge which is actually Princes Highway), and the rest of the Sturt Highway with a Truro bypass and probably on a changed alignment through the Riverland.

And speaking of Kangaroo Island... Main South Road between Myponga and Cape Jervis isn't much fun. I'm guessing the cost of this bridge doesn't factor in the upgrade of the road either.

What are the issues with Main South Road between Myponga and Cape Jervis?

Terrible, terrible idea. What purpose does it serve, besides ruining KI.

The money could be better utilised elsewhere

Pangallo said basically start the discussion as it would be a min. of 20+ years away (10 years for planning/funding & another 10 years to build.)
What if the total cost was paid by a private consortium (no taxpayer money) & they charged a toll (so its up to the consumer to decide if they want to use it & pay), would many people still object?

how good is he wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:13 am

Pangallo said basically start the discussion as it would be a min. of 20+ years away (10 years for planning/funding & another 10 years to build.)
What if the total cost was paid by a private consortium (no taxpayer money) & they charged a toll (so its up to the consumer to decide if they want to use it & pay), would many people still object?

If you crunch the numbers with the potential traffic volumes it still wouldn't stack up.

how good is he wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:13 am

Pangallo said basically start the discussion as it would be a min. of 20+ years away (10 years for planning/funding & another 10 years to build.)
What if the total cost was paid by a private consortium (no taxpayer money) & they charged a toll (so its up to the consumer to decide if they want to use it & pay), would many people still object?

I'I'd object to the amount of development it would see emerge on Kangaroo Island.

ml69 I totally agree it may not stack up but that would be the private consortiums problem. Nort (over) development on KI could happen regardless of a bridge so it’s up to Govt/council/planners to put policies/zoning etc in place to protect KI from this.