HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: RIVERBANK PRECINCT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (16:31): I move:

That the 470th report of the committee, entitled Riverbank Precinct Pedestrian Bridge, be noted.

The Public Works Committee has received a proposal to construct the Riverbank Precinct Pedestrian Bridge across the Torrens Lake at a cost of $39.527 million. The bridge forms part of the master plan for Adelaide's Riverbank Precinct. The government announced its commitment to the development of the pedestrian bridge in 2010 as part of a $394.208 million investment to revitalise the Riverbank Precinct. The proposed site (and land where associated works will occur) consists of portions of land in the area known as Tarndanya Womma (Park 26) directly south of the proposed southern entrance to Adelaide Oval abutting War Memorial Drive. At the southern bank, the bridge landing will be situated immediately west of the Dunstan Playhouse.

The pedestrian bridge and associated works will largely be constructed on portions of Parkland under the care, control and management of the Corporation of the City of Adelaide (the council) and on relatively smaller portions of property under the ownership of the Minister for the Arts and the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. There is in-principle agreement by the state government to accept the council's request to take ownership of the completed bridge on the proviso that council accepts responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the bridge.

Mr Venning: Who is going to paint it?

Mr SIBBONS: The member for Schubert, obviously. Following consultancies into pedestrian demand—

Ms Bedford: Is he a licensed painter?

Mr SIBBONS: Is he a union member?—and appropriate design solutions, the proposed bridge will consist of an eight-metre wide structure with: superstructure; bridge deck including soffit; piers and footings; abutments and retaining walls; barriers, parapets and handrails; and a bridge cladding system incorporating large 10 millimetre thick hardened glass panels with a white interlay.

Bridge associated works include on-ground extension of the bridge at the northern landing point to enable access to and from the Adelaide Oval Southern Plaza across Memorial Drive, a viewing platform projected over the River Torrens and waterfall feature on the northern river bank, direct connection to the bridge from Festival Drive on the southern river bank, and stairs incorporating a water feature and associated infrastructure on the southern bank adjacent to the bridge.

Civil and enabling structures include: feature lighting; way-finding and interpretive signage; bollards and vehicular barriers; street furniture; retaining walls; paving and decking; steps and footpaths; a lift structure to provide access on the southern bridge landing; and War Memorial Drive pavement modifications between the bridge extension and Adelaide Oval southern entry.

Modifications to existing buildings include: Dunstan Playhouse Plaza modifications to accommodate the bridge southern landing; Adelaide Festival Centre Bistro modifications, including a new outdoor terrace area; provisions for future extensions of Adelaide Festival Centre administration space; and Adelaide Railway Station northern entry modifications, including improved access from the southern landing.

It is estimated that the annual cost to operate and maintain the bridge is in the order of $320,000. This includes an allowance of $155,000 for power and lighting, $145,000 for cleaning and $20,000 for landscape maintenance. The council has indicated it is prepared to meet all ongoing costs associated with the operations and maintenance of the pedestrian bridge subject to a transfer of the asset ownership to the council on completion of the works.

It is proposed that the bridge be available for pedestrian use in November 2013 for the Ashes Test, with final works complete by February 2014. Given this is pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (16:36): In order that we may get through as many of the agenda items on committees and subordinate legislation today, I will again be brief. Just to again recommend to the casual reader of Hansard, the member for Mitchell's speech for those looking for an executive summary, and, for those more interested in the in-depth, the entire report. I particularly commend to such a casual reader the fine work of the members for Waite and Finniss and the contributions that they have made to this report, and I am sure that that will be identified in the report. The opposition supports that this report be noted.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:37): I take more than a casual interest in this bridge. I did support the bridge from the outset, but not one so lavish and so expensive and of doubtful design that we are now talking about. Firstly, this bridge has been designed on the curve, so to speak. Why this design? Because it looks good and it is very groovy, and it is supposed to blend in with the situation there. Well, I would ask the question as to why, because why do you need to have a curved bridge there when everything else around the place is on the square anyway? The city is on the square, so why put a bent bridge in the middle of a square city?

Of course, my biggest concern—and as one with some structural experience—is that this design compromises the inherent design. Its structural strength is substantially weakened by being curved, and adds largely to the cost to build the thing in the first place. Obviously, if we look at a reservoir wall, that is built on the round because of the strength that is inherently built into it. In this instance, if we build a bridge which is flat but on the curve, full span, you do not have to be an Einstein to work out there are some areas of weakness in the bridge. You cannot beat one span straight up and down for strength. So, I can see that whether it is in five years or 10 years, this bridge will crack because of movements on both sides of the—

Mrs Geraghty: Is this your engineering degree coming out?

Mr VENNING: Absolutely. Building on the square keeps it strong. I just cannot believe that the orders given to the architect were, 'We want a bridge to fit this beautiful area that we are building.' It is a lovely spot, but I cannot understand why it had to be curved, because it does add hugely to the cost—$40 million is a huge amount of money.

I inspected the site approximately 12 months ago with a business friend of mine, Mr Bob Ahrens of Ahrens Ltd, and we both considered that $5 million to $10 million should have been enough for a strong, basic bridge. Also, there are high-cost features incorporated in this—very high cost—that not only add to the building costs but also add hugely to the maintenance. I expect it will fall into disrepair, when a basic bridge would not. How much a day is the cost of $320,000 per year? It is not quite $1,000 a day just to maintain it. We presume that the city council will be picking up the bill.

Because of the glass, the fountain, and everything else, it will decline within five to 10 years, and it will take a lot of maintenance and a lot of money to keep it looking pristine because of where it is. The extra cost of this Rolls-Royce bridge is not warranted and we cannot afford it. The state is cash-strapped. Finally, I cannot believe that we designed a bridge where the exit end at the oval drops to the same level as the road. Why? If you are crossing a river, why would you not continue to cross the road before you descend to ground level? There is going to be a bottleneck. I know they are talking about closing the road when people are leaving the oval.

We saw what happened to the Adelaide Airport. I was amazed. We had these highly qualified architects design Adelaide Airport. When you came out of Adelaide Airport, as a pedestrian you had the taxi rank right there, and taxis could not get past because we were all going across the pedestrian crossing. Who designed that? Well, the same is going to happen here. You are going to have a huge number of people surging out of the stadium, and you have that road which really ought to be open for our buses and taxis to exit from; but no, you are going to close it. Why? Because we have dropped down the bridge so that people have to cross the road.

I think that is crazy. For the amount of money we are spending, why did they not elevate the bridge to the point of going over the road and dropping the road a metre—and I have already spoken to Mr Rod Hook about it—and then there would be no interaction between cars and pedestrians. I cannot understand how a project that costs this amount of money is flawed before we even pour the first bit of concrete.

I am quite disturbed that it costs $40 million; $40 million would almost buy a new Barossa hospital, and I know that is by the by. Yes, I support the idea of a bridge, but I would not have spent the money on the Oval either. I would have built the bridge, I would have upgraded the facilities—new toilets, new catering facilities—and then waited to see how the public responded to having the football code back in the city and, if it was all good, then we would spend the money.

I am a cautious person, but I think we have really exposed the state to a lot of money that we are going to be paying back for many years to come. Long after I am dead, you are still going to be paying for this bridge and for this Oval. I am very cautious about it. I think it is probably too late to change the design. That is how I see it, but I understand that we are supporting the project.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT