News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
mawsonguy
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:11 am
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#586 Post by mawsonguy » Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:31 pm

According to RAVNET (http://maps.sa.gov.au/ravnet/) the road from the Port Wakefield turnoff to Ardrossan/Kadina (which is the road connected to the overpass) is rated for 26m B Doubles - exactly the same rating for both roads at the McLaren Vale overpass so Labor's explanation doesn't stack up. Interestingly, Mulligan didn't state what he says it will cost. Perhaps he should put the cost out there together with a clear explanation as to why Labor thinks there is insufficient cost/benefit or a better alternative.

User avatar
Joelmark
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:03 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#587 Post by Joelmark » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:45 am

Why can't the state Liberals also then talk to their Canberra mates about reinstating the money that was supposed to be allocated to the Gawler line electrification?
Vee wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:04 pm
ABC News carried this item on the row over suitability and costings of the proposed Port Wakefield Road single lane overpass.
Marshall - Mullighan spat.

Port Wakefield overpass proposed by SA Liberals, but Labor slams costing.
A road overpass would be built just north of Port Wakefield to improve safety and traffic flows if South Australia's Liberal Opposition wins the March 17 election.

Leader Steven Marshall today promised $12.1 million toward putting a single lane overpass at the intersection of the Augusta and Copper Coast highways, but Labor said that was too little money.

"On a normal day the intersection is used by about 3,000 vehicles, but during holiday weekends this soars to as many as 10,000, creating jams as long as 10 kilometres as vehicles travelling from Yorke Peninsula attempt to merge with traffic travelling south," Mr Marshall said.

Site has history of crashes
The Opposition Leader said the busy intersection had a history of serious and fatal crashes, and the planned improvement would also improve freight transport and tourist access to the area.
Costings?
Transport Minister Stephen Mullighan accused the Liberals of massively underestimating the cost.
"There is no way this project could be delivered for the cost that they have outlined," he said.

The Minister said the Opposition had based its costings on a much smaller overpass project which had improved road safety at McLaren Vale, just south of Adelaide.

"This overpass is proposed to be built on the national highway network [and] needs to accommodate large, higher-productivity trucks at high speeds, which is completely different from what the situation is at McLaren Vale," Mr Mullighan said.

He said Parliament's independent budgeting office could have given the Liberals an accurate costing.

"This is a major embarrassment for Steven Marshall and the Liberals, saying they can deliver this project for only a fraction of what it would actually cost," he said.
Mr Marshall took a swipe at Labor for criticising the costing.
"I'm not going to be lectured to by Stephen Mullighan or anyone else in the Labor Party, they just presided over a $600 million blowout on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital," he said.

The SA Liberals indicated they had spoken with the federal Liberals about matching the state commitment.
ABCNews:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-28/p ... ls/9368086

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#588 Post by SBD » Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:24 pm

Joelmark wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:45 am
Why can't the state Liberals also then talk to their Canberra mates about reinstating the money that was supposed to be allocated to the Gawler line electrification?
Perhaps they will if enough of us vote for them in March. Elizabeth and Taylor don't have Liberal candidates (yet?) so at the moment, we don't have that option.

User avatar
Vee
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1105
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Eastern Suburbs
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#589 Post by Vee » Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:46 pm

Joelmark wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:45 am
Why can't the state Liberals also then talk to their Canberra mates about reinstating the money that was supposed to be allocated to the Gawler line electrification?
Tragic that the Gawler line electrification has been left in limbo.

Federal Liberals have dudded SA on infrastructure funding, especially for public transport, and the State Liberals don’t seem to care about public transport. Who knows what Xenophon has in mind?

I worry about funding for Adelaide’s tram extension too.
When Albanese visited Adelaide earlier this month, he talked about Federal funding cuts for SA infrastructure.

Guess we don’t have enough seats to worry about. 2% of the National infrastructure budget is too awful to contemplate.
See below.

SA suffering from infrastructure funding bias (Albanese)
South Australia is suffering from a "massive" infrastructure funding bias on the part of the federal coalition government, opposition frontbencher Anthony Albanese says.

... South Australia will receive $921 million this year from the Commonwealth for infrastructure projects. But .. in four year's time that will slump to just $95 million, or a cut of around 90 per cent.
"In 2020/21, South Australia will get two per cent of the national infrastructure budget ...

Mr Albanese said Labor had already committed to help fund a proposed major expansion of Adelaide's tram network and backed continued work on the city's north-south road corridor, which had been fully funded by the previous federal Labor government.
...
"We have something like 45 per cent of this year's federal infrastructure budget going to NSW.
MSN:
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... ar-BBHNA2M

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#590 Post by Goodsy » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:00 pm

Nick has always spruiked the O-Bahn extension to Golden Grove, So expect that to happen

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#591 Post by SBD » Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:05 pm

Vee wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:46 pm
Joelmark wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:45 am
Why can't the state Liberals also then talk to their Canberra mates about reinstating the money that was supposed to be allocated to the Gawler line electrification?
Tragic that the Gawler line electrification has been left in limbo.

Federal Liberals have dudded SA on infrastructure funding, especially for public transport, and the State Liberals don’t seem to care about public transport. Who knows what Xenophon has in mind?

I worry about funding for Adelaide’s tram extension too.
When Albanese visited Adelaide earlier this month, he talked about Federal funding cuts for SA infrastructure.

Guess we don’t have enough seats to worry about. 2% of the National infrastructure budget is too awful to contemplate.
See below.

SA suffering from infrastructure funding bias (Albanese)
South Australia is suffering from a "massive" infrastructure funding bias on the part of the federal coalition government, opposition frontbencher Anthony Albanese says.

... South Australia will receive $921 million this year from the Commonwealth for infrastructure projects. But .. in four year's time that will slump to just $95 million, or a cut of around 90 per cent.
"In 2020/21, South Australia will get two per cent of the national infrastructure budget ...

Mr Albanese said Labor had already committed to help fund a proposed major expansion of Adelaide's tram network and backed continued work on the city's north-south road corridor, which had been fully funded by the previous federal Labor government.
...
"We have something like 45 per cent of this year's federal infrastructure budget going to NSW.
MSN:
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... ar-BBHNA2M
If the Labor member for Grayndler (an inner Sydney electorate) is crtical that the federal Liberal government is spending more on New South Wales than South Australia, I doubt he is saying that for our benefit. Part of his spiel appears to relate to the extent of Forward Estimates.

I don't recall if the Federal government routinely funds upgrades to urban public transport in any state capitals. That seems to be a state issue to me. It would make more sense to me for the state government to be funding its own urban commuter facilities, and presenting good business cases to inprove the national rail freight network and national highway network. Recent examples include the Goodwood and Torrens junctions and Northern Expressway/Connector. Future examples could be Truro, Port Wakefield and Port Augusta bypasses, Port Augusta and Swanport Bridge upgrades, duplication of the Sturt and Dukes Highways, including a different route through the Riverland avoiding the Paringa Bridge.

I don't know if the current government has a long term vision or strategy that it fails to publicise, or if there is no vision beyond the next election. We don't hear visionary statements like grade-separating the standard gauge railway through metropolitan Adelaide or providing dual-carriageway road-train capable highways to the Victorian border (Dukes and Sturt highways) and Port Augusta West.

We can choose to laugh at the Liberal propoosal to replace the railway through the Adelaide Hills if we wish, but it at least shows a vision of a change bigger than tinkering at the edges and asking someone else to pay for it.

how good is he
Legendary Member!
Posts: 963
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:26 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#592 Post by how good is he » Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:56 pm

From infrastructureaustralia.gov.au

OUR ROLE
Infrastructure Australia is an independent statutory body with a mandate to prioritise and progress nationally significant infrastructure.

We provide independent research and advice to all levels of government as well as investors and owners of infrastructure.

Infrastructure Australia is responsible for strategically auditing Australia's nationally significant infrastructure, and developing 15-year rolling Infrastructure Plans that specify national and state level priorities.

Our role is defined in the amended Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 which states that the Minister must not give directions about the content of any audit, list, evaluation, plan or advice provided by Infrastructure Australia.

The major reports we publish regularly are outlined below.

INFRASTRUCTURE AUDITS

The Northern Australia Audit, released on 8 May 2015, was the first ever audit of Northern Australia's infrastructure, identifying key challenges, and opportunities to support the region's projected growth over the next 15 years.
The first Australian Infrastructure Audit was released on 22 May 2015. It was the first ever independent, comprehensive review of Australia's infrastructure and our future needs across transport, water, energy and telecommunications. The next audit is due for publication in 2019.
AUSTRALIAN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS

The first Australian Infrastructure Plan was released on 17 February 2016. It is Australia's first 15-year rolling infrastructure plan. Developed following consultation on the Australian Infrastructure Audit, the Plan recommends fundamental changes to way we plan, fund, deliver and use our infrastructure through reforming the funding and operation of transport infrastructure, completing the national electricity market, improving the quality and competiveness of the water sector and delivering a telecommunications network that responds to user demand.
The next plan is due for publication in 2021.

INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITY LIST

We also determines which nationally significant projects should be included on the Infrastructure Priority List. This is a rigorous prioritisation process that ensures there is a highly credible pipeline of nationally significant infrastructure projects. The latest Infrastructure Priority List was delivered on 25 February 2017. The revised version is due to be published in March 2018.
Throughout the year we publish in-depth project evaluations of business cases that we have assessed.
MORE INFORMATION

For more detailed information on our role, see:

Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 (No.17, 2008 as amended)
Statement of Expectations issued to Infrastructure Australia by the Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects—1 July 2017 to 30 June 2019 PDF: 132 KB ReadSpeaker
Statement of Intent, 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2019 PDF: 105 KB ReadSpeaker

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#593 Post by rubberman » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:27 am

SBD wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:05 pm
Vee wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:46 pm
Joelmark wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:45 am
Why can't the state Liberals also then talk to their Canberra mates about reinstating the money that was supposed to be allocated to the Gawler line electrification?
Tragic that the Gawler line electrification has been left in limbo.

Federal Liberals have dudded SA on infrastructure funding, especially for public transport, and the State Liberals don’t seem to care about public transport. Who knows what Xenophon has in mind?

I worry about funding for Adelaide’s tram extension too.
When Albanese visited Adelaide earlier this month, he talked about Federal funding cuts for SA infrastructure.

Guess we don’t have enough seats to worry about. 2% of the National infrastructure budget is too awful to contemplate.
See below.

SA suffering from infrastructure funding bias (Albanese)
South Australia is suffering from a "massive" infrastructure funding bias on the part of the federal coalition government, opposition frontbencher Anthony Albanese says.

... South Australia will receive $921 million this year from the Commonwealth for infrastructure projects. But .. in four year's time that will slump to just $95 million, or a cut of around 90 per cent.
"In 2020/21, South Australia will get two per cent of the national infrastructure budget ...

Mr Albanese said Labor had already committed to help fund a proposed major expansion of Adelaide's tram network and backed continued work on the city's north-south road corridor, which had been fully funded by the previous federal Labor government.
...
"We have something like 45 per cent of this year's federal infrastructure budget going to NSW.
MSN:
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... ar-BBHNA2M
If the Labor member for Grayndler (an inner Sydney electorate) is crtical that the federal Liberal government is spending more on New South Wales than South Australia, I doubt he is saying that for our benefit. Part of his spiel appears to relate to the extent of Forward Estimates.

I don't recall if the Federal government routinely funds upgrades to urban public transport in any state capitals. That seems to be a state issue to me. It would make more sense to me for the state government to be funding its own urban commuter facilities, and presenting good business cases to inprove the national rail freight network and national highway network. Recent examples include the Goodwood and Torrens junctions and Northern Expressway/Connector. Future examples could be Truro, Port Wakefield and Port Augusta bypasses, Port Augusta and Swanport Bridge upgrades, duplication of the Sturt and Dukes Highways, including a different route through the Riverland avoiding the Paringa Bridge.

I don't know if the current government has a long term vision or strategy that it fails to publicise, or if there is no vision beyond the next election. We don't hear visionary statements like grade-separating the standard gauge railway through metropolitan Adelaide or providing dual-carriageway road-train capable highways to the Victorian border (Dukes and Sturt highways) and Port Augusta West.

We can choose to laugh at the Liberal propoosal to replace the railway through the Adelaide Hills if we wish, but it at least shows a vision of a change bigger than tinkering at the edges and asking someone else to pay for it.
The Federal government can and has funded urban transport projects in the past. A big reason for it needing to do so is the fact that immigration has increased over long term levels. That's a Federal government policy that directly impacts the need for State infrastructure. The next big reason is Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance - states have less taxing power and more expenditure than the Commonwealth. There's no level of cutting services that can make up the difference. State taxes are generally very inefficient as well, so raising those would gather revenue, but the cost of raising them would mean they would need to be set higher as to recover costs.

From a SA perspective, the immigration argument doesn't help much, because Sydney and Melbourne take the brunt of that.

I have no problem with looking at relocation of the railway, but it needs economic justification. Anyone can make a promise, and then repudiate it if the economics don't turn out right, and blame the Feds. The Liberals also want to build a second airport near Murray Bridge/Tailem Bend. I cannot see how anyone would off load at Tailem Bend and truck stuff a couple of hours by road or rail, when an extra 15 minutes flying would get it to the heart of Adelaide. It passes no common sense test whatsoever. Unless Mr Marshall can put some reasoning behind that, it would be enough to enable Labor to point to a huge waste of money. I certainly hope Mr Marshall has done his homework.

User avatar
drsmith
Legendary Member!
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:35 pm
Location: Perth
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#594 Post by drsmith » Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:29 am

The Liberal opposition have committed to part funding a single lane southbound overpass from Copper coast Highway to PW Road at the intersection north of the town.

https://www.theflindersnews.com.au/stor ... ss-pledge/

The Wakefield Regional Council has since weighed in suggesting in addition, "a dual lane carriageway from the end of the existing dual lane carriageway, through Port Wakefield to the intersection of the Augusta and Copper Coast Highways".

http://www.wakefieldrc.sa.gov.au/page.a ... 16&c=10057

A long time opponent of a proper bypass east of the town, WRC also suggests, "A bypass would be unlikely to be funded by the State and Federal Governments anytime in the next three to five decades".

If two lanes in each direction can be made to work along the existing alignment through the town then this is a solution that would work for many years.

The design for the overpass at the intersection as published by the Libs in the image is less than ideal. One obvious flaw is to build a bridge and yet retain a right turn movement at grade across PWR northbound. Make the bridge 2 lanes wide and build a proper trumpet. Better still, link the Balaklava Road to the Copper Coast Highway at the interchange site with either a dog-bone diamond or a roundabout interchange. This would also grade separate those movements from PWR including heavy vehicles to/from Bowmans.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#595 Post by SBD » Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:26 pm

I guess that the Liberal Party had the choice ot promise everything and risk discovering they couldn't afford it, or promise something, and hope that popularity and funding extend to make it bigger. A leaf out of the Jay Weatherill playbook - the proposal to end up with a full interchange including the Balaklava Road could be a total of four anouncements instead of just one. It also allows for caution at this stage. As the writs have not been issued, the ALP is still in government (not just as caretakers), and the Liberal Party does not yet have a full picture of the state of the finacial books. Under-promise and over-deliver is usually better than the opposite.

User avatar
drsmith
Legendary Member!
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:35 pm
Location: Perth
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#596 Post by drsmith » Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:23 pm

I wonder if the state Libs went to their federal counterparts asking for part funding for the bypass and the feds said no hence the cheaper option of the CCH overpass over the existing PWR. I note the render shows 2-lanes in each direction for PWR under the bridge but the impression I get is that extending this through the town to the existing dual carriageway would be part of a later project and is unfunded in that sense. This would render the overpass practically useless as an improved traffic flow measure given existing holiday congestion through the town itself.

I also wonder how much it would cost for an additional lane in each direction from the intersection through the town to the dual carriageway. It may be as simple as widening the existing carriageway to add an extra lane on both sides south of the town but through the town and to the north, it's more complex. Street parking could be converted into traffic lanes along that part of the section past the service stations however this would remove that parking from in front of the businesses. The additional lanes would also make turning at the existing Balaklava Road intersection more difficult. At the southern end, it 'looks like property acquisition would be required and possibly the demolition of the bakery building to provide the space. Space may also be a constraint northbound at the northern end of the town due to the proximity of a local street.

North of the town, a second carriageway could be built for southbound traffic but this would require a more substantive bridge and approaches than the existing which is subject to flooding. All up, a very expensive way to have all the traffic still doing 50km/h through the town.

Grade separation at the intersection north of the town only makes sense to me if it's compatible with a future eastern bypass. Otherwise, replace the existing T-junction with a metered roundabout as an interim solution that includes slip-lanes for the higher volume left movements. This should improve capacity to some extent at the intersection and also safety, at a much lower cost.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 300 times
Been thanked: 431 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#597 Post by rev » Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:17 am

There's an article on AdelaideNow about some transport expert called Luigi Rossi proposing a $1 billion 'superfast train' between Adelaide to Mt Barker.
Cant seem to get around the pay wall.

User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3161
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 629 times
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#598 Post by Nathan » Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:42 am

Should probably go in Visions though:
SA transport expert Luigi Rossi proposes $1bn superfast train from Adelaide to Mt Barker
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 8869ba275b

A SUPERFAST rail link from Adelaide to Mt Barker would relieve travel woes for motorists, capitalise on tourism and prepare for population growth, according to a South Australian transport expert.

Former senior Transport Department bureaucrat Luigi Rossi, who has guided some of the state’s biggest infrastructure projects, has proposed a $1 billion fast rail connecting the city to the Hills, taking just 22 minutes and reaching a maximum speed of 160km/h.

Mr Rossi spoke at Mount Barker Council on Monday night about the renaissance of rail needed as the South Eastern Freeway neared its capacity.

“We see this as far more than a just a public transport project, we see this driving economic growth, housing affordability and lifestyle,” he said.

There were two options proposed for a rail link to Mt Barker. The first included using the existing rail corridor from Belair to Mt Barker and removing freight trains.

It would cost $50-$100 million with a travel time of 50 minutes. That cheapest option would be reliant on the Northern Freight Bypass being completed.

If it was upgraded to allow for tilting trains it would cost $250-$300 million, although speeds would still be restricted because of bends in the route.

The second and more beneficial option, according to Mr Rossi, was for a new rail corridor to deviate after Mitcham station and follow Brownhill Creek, including construction of viaducts.

The South Eastern Freeway’s median strip would then be used from Stirling right through to Mt Barker, with a total project cost estimated at $1 billion.

Engineer and project proponent Edwin Michell told the meeting: “This is a very achievable engineering project and well within the capability of what has been achieved already in Australia and SA”.

The council will consider funding a feasibility study for the project in the next two months.

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm
Has thanked: 778 times
Been thanked: 1417 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#599 Post by Norman » Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:47 am

Good luck to them. 160km/h is not a super fast train, but it makes a nice headline I guess.

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: News & Discussion: Transport Projects

#600 Post by Waewick » Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:36 pm

how many $1B projects has the State got going on at the moment?

I can't see how this would ever get funding, but I think it is always great to have ideas floated.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests