Parliamentary Committees

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: SOUTH ROAD UPGRADE—GLENELG TRAM OVERPASS

Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (11:04): I move:

That the 308^th report of the committee, entitled South Road Upgrade—Glenelg Tram Overpass, be noted.

I guess everyone is aware that an underpass is being constructed on South Road at the Anzac Highway intersection to relieve congestion at this key bottleneck on the South Road corridor. It will be completed by the end of 2009. Originally, traffic was expected to be using the underpass by mid-2009, but we heard from the Premier earlier this week that traffic will actually start to use the underpass next month. Planning work for the underpass highlighted operational and safety benefits for the Glenelg tram to overpass South Road and for this work to also be completed by the end of 2009. The project will include tram embankments and facilities for pedestrian movement along the tram reserve, including lifts and stairs on each side of South Road. A platform at South Road will also be incorporated within the overpass structure.

The vertical alignment of the tracks over South Road and the platform area will be constructed to cater for trams that may be longer than the current Flexity units. At the ground level, a structure will be constructed to span South Road and avoid existing services in each footpath. There will also be a 'pedestrian friendly' area to the east of South Road, with good access to lifts and stairs, as well as improved local road access to and from South Road.

There will be a similar 'pedestrian friendly' area to the west of South Road, as well as sufficient span width to cater for any future widening of South Road. The tram overpass structure is to be constructed within the existing 20-metre wide tram corridor, and the new tram tracks will divert around the central platform, which will incorporate passenger shelters, lighting, timetable and local information, and stop identifiers as required. Detailed planning and design work will determine the most effective construction method and ensure tram operation continues safely on two temporary tracks during the construction period. The overhead system will be designed to minimise visual intrusion.

Mr PENGILLY: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is an enormous amount of noise in the chamber and I am having trouble understanding and hearing the member for Norwood.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Finniss is a timid chap and does not like excessive noise in the chamber. I do ask members to keep conversation in the chamber to an absolute minimum.

Ms CICCARELLO: This includes minimising the number of overhead pole locations as well as maximising joint use pole arrangements. Any new freestanding poles will be multipurpose wherever possible so that they can support street lighting, traffic signage, cameras and other local requirements. Throw screens or similar measures will prevent objects being thrown from the platform onto South Road, and the design will be integrated with the visual impact of the overpass. They must also not adversely impact upon lines of sight. The screens will also be required where the cycle overpass crosses South Road and will ensure privacy to the backyards abutting the tram corridor. The removal of the at-grade tram crossing on South Road will reduce delays for traffic as well as reduce the risk of rear-end accidents. A car park for 20 vehicles is proposed on the western side of South Road underneath the structure. This area will be lit to discourage inappropriate behaviour.

The most significant constraint for the project is the need to retain two temporary tram tracks in operation during construction. Two temporary tram tracks require a width of eight metres in which trams can operate safely. These can be located to the north of the existing tram corridor, with the city bound track located on the local street and the Glenelg bound track on the adjacent footpath and verge area. This requires the local streets to become one-way while the trams are operating on the local street but allows the tram overpass and platform to be located centrally within the existing tram corridor. Trams can then be moved onto the new structure so that the space which has been used for the Glenelg bound service can be used for the cycle overpass facility. This option also minimises the potential for damage to the trees on the southern side of the tram corridor and should avoid the need to relocate a major stormwater drain adjacent to the corridor.

Modelling of tram noise has been undertaken and has indicated that the tram will not add to overall noise levels. The trams will not adversely contribute to air quality at this location. In fact, the project will remove the at-grade crossing on South Road, resulting in an improvement in air quality in the immediate vicinity of the crossing because vehicles will not be forced to idle for long periods while trams cross this busy arterial road.

Up to 14 significant trees may need to be removed for this project. The majority of other trees likely to be removed is located along the southern boundaries of Glengyle Terrace and Norman Terrace to allow the construction of the temporary tracks. Providing the cycle overpass on the northern side of the corridor and locating the overpass centrally within the tram corridor minimises the overall impact on trees around the site. Sufficient space is available for new vegetation to be provided at the completion of the works. This will reduce the visual impact of the structure.

The community strongly prefers an extensive landscaping scheme to ensure that the overpass structure does not resemble the Emerson overpass, where no landscaping exists adjacent to the walls. The tram overpass project has an estimated capital cost of $28 million and an estimated net present value of approximately $5.6 million, with a benefit cost ratio of 1.23. If a cycle overpass is included to cater for the current low number of cyclists at an estimated additional cost of $4 million, the net present value becomes $2.14 million and the benefit cost ratio becomes 1.1.

Based upon experience with the operation and maintenance of the Mawson Lakes bus route interchange, it is estimated that the additional annual maintenance cost will be in the order of $148,000 indexed and commencing in 2009-10. The new platform replaces two existing platforms; however, energy and maintenance costs are expected to increase. Other costs include security, lift maintenance and inspection services, and passenger information. The security systems included within the overpass structure will be provided to meet TransAdelaide requirements.

It is expected that the high level of connectivity between South Road buses and the Glenelg tram stop adjacent to South Road will encourage public transport movements and thereby reduce demand for private car travel. Safety benefits include the cycle overpass, which will provide a safer crossing facility for cyclists who use the city to Glenelg tramway cycling route, and the lifts and stairs, which will cater for pedestrian access across South Road.

Based upon the evidence it has considered, and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee recommends the proposed public work.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:12): I rise to support this project. The Public Works Committee had an on-site inspection and gleaned quite a bit of information from it. As the member for Norwood indicated, the bike track was a welcome addition to the project to enable cyclists to get across busy South Road.

The cost of the project is fairly substantial at $28 million, but I think the long-term benefits to the arterial road network are far in excess of the costs, and for that reason we support the project. The only problem that Patrick might have is getting his trams operating so that they can get up the incline—but that is another story. However, it is welcome; there was absolutely no point in doing the underpass at South Road/Anzac Highway if this overpass for the trams was not put in place over South Road and the Glengyle Terrace area.

It is an interesting project. Among the things that members of the opposition asked about at the time was the access that tram passengers would have and the intrusion on people's privacy in their homes through their windows. We have been given reasonable assurance that that will not take place, and it is something we will monitor into the future. The other issue that concerned us was the impact on traffic flows coming out of the side streets during the construction phase; however, at this stage we are reasonably confident that will be accommodated.

We look forward to the project being completed on cost, and the Public Works Committee will monitor the project to ensure that it does indeed come in on cost. Furthermore, we are also very interested to see that the Anzac Highway underpass (that we approved, I suppose, a couple of years ago now) is nearing completion. Indeed, on the weekend the 'Premier for Good News' was down there getting his photo taken and extolling its virtues. He singularly forgot about the businesses there which have suffered and which have had signs hanging up for some years now. However, we on this side of the chamber do support the project, and we will be pleased to see it go ahead.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:14): I will be very brief. I am pleased to support this project. Notwithstanding that there are some technical issues that people could be critical about (for example, air-conditioning, and so on), I think the improvement to the tram system, the extension and this whole project, is one of the best things the Rann government has done. It will be remembered when we are all out of here—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I do not think that is fair; but in my view it is probably the best thing it has done. It will be remembered and recognised long after we have all moved out of this place into other illustrious pastures.

The extension of the tram service and the overpass provision—which this is about—is fantastic. I urge the government not to hesitate, but to expand the tram network further. It is going to extend it down to the Entertainment Centre, but I would like to see it extended out to areas like Norwood, Prospect, Mitcham and even Happy Valley. I commend this project, and I commend the government—in particular, the Minister for Transport—for having the foresight to get this project underway.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:15): It is good that the tram was running late to enable me to get on. As the member for Finniss has indicated, the opposition supports the project; however, there are questions about the management of infrastructure projects in South Australia and the management of this project, in particular.

The first thing that comes to mind for me—being a fairly practical person, I must say—is why it did not occur to the designers of the South Road underpass at Anzac Highway that they would need to deal with the tram crossing at the same time. The Public Works Committee heard that it was only a month or two later that the designers realised that, once the underpass at Anzac Highway was completed, there would be a bottleneck caused by the boom gates coming down at the tram crossing.

What is even more surprising is that the decision to make the tram overpass over South Road was made after the tram line had been closed down for six months to re-lay existing track on the new rubble and upgrade tram stations for the new Bombardier trams that needed to arrive prior to the 2006 election. I was surprised to hear that the new trams may not, in fact, be the same trams; in other words, they may be trams designed for those particular tram stops. They may in actual fact be wider trams, or they may be of a slightly different design, which means that the step onto the tram from the tram platform itself may not line up, making it more difficult for those in wheelchairs, of course.

I was surprised to hear Rod Hook actually say that the trams may be slightly higher and that, if they are wider, they will actually come in over the tram platforms. This shocked me, because a very good friend of mine uses a wheelchair, and one of the criteria that he needs to know whenever he travels around the world is just how accessible cities are for people in wheelchairs. All this work went into providing tram stops to suit the trams that we have, and we were told at the Public Works Committee that they might not necessarily be the trams that will continue to run on that stop. So, consequently, the advantage that we had with wheeling a wheelchair on or off may very well be lost.

What is even more surprising, of course, is that those particular trams—which were rushed to arrive before the 2006 election—require the manual operation of any sort of a ramp for a wheelchair. It requires something that I think was invented about 1,000 years ago—a hinge and a handle—to pull the ramp up to enable a wheelchair to go on. Whereas that very same brand that I saw in Minneapolis last year had a flat entry for wheelchairs. It was a slightly different model, of course, but still from Bombardier. It enabled a wheelchair user just to simply move straight into position on the tram without the fuss of using a manually operated ramp that would need to be operated by a conductor. I think this reflects the lack of organisation in this whole infrastructure upgrade program under this minister.

We heard the member for Norwood explain that dozens of 80 year old trees will be knocked down to put in temporary tracks so that the tram can continue to run while the overpass is being built, yet three years ago we closed that whole system down for six months to enable a re-laying of the track. A second-hand track was put down and, of course, they are now going through that process again and replacing the second-hand track with new track, even though they were advised to use new track for the original replacement program. Again, that is another story for another day.

The management of infrastructure under this government is a comedy of errors that is turning into a tragedy. Dozens of 80 year old trees will be removed simply so that a temporary track can be laid on the footpath on the road adjacent to the existing tramline in order to keep the trains running. If this project had been part of the original upgrade of that track three-odd years ago, there would be no need for residents to lose the amenity and the benefit of having those beautiful and established trees in their street. It is another major error by this government. People coming to Adelaide 10 years down the track will say it is a wonderful project with a good flow of traffic, but I am sure they would be horrified to hear about the comedy of errors that occurred in getting to this stage.

Motion carried.