Question for BISA, or any DPTI contacts...

I can imagine Transport and the engineers who built the bridge are locked in a long running liability dispute to work out who pays for the repairs, but meanwhile the bridge sits there untouched.

If it was infrastructure for cars I'm sure the work would have been done immediately and the court case would follow later..

Can anyone here contribute some news or a date for re-opening?

Views: 572

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

My experience going NE last night:

Wait 2 minutes at the crossing before it goes green. I'm about to step onto the road when a ute blatantly runs the red, almost hitting me. I cross, head north slowly on the footpath. Two cars drive out of driveways onto the footpath as I am approaching, one of them is a near miss - luckily I was not traveling very fast. I then have to stop behind a pole to give way to another cyclist coming in the opposite direction as the path is not very wide. I then head on my way after reaching Aroha Terrace.

This experience reinforced my preference to cross from Nottingham Terrace to Forest Avenue and avoid the pedestrian crossing altogether.

I've asked Paul Gelston (Chief Operating Officer, Safety and Service Division) for any news.  

He tells me that the fix is currently being designed, that they are "moving as quickly as possible" but that design, verification and delivery will take "several months".  

Thanks Ian, I have no doubt its a big job.

     (where 'several' means - we're frightened to admit even to ourselves how long this could take)

Yes, in a nutshell.

Because the extent of the damage to the piers won't be known until the current shared path bridge is removed, it is currently not possible to know if it can be repaired at all, let alone the length of time required.

That it is so open-ended will also make it a rather interesting project to even get started, thanks to normal tendering processes being so inadequate for the situation. The noises being made by the government about going after the original contractor will not serve to make that process any smoother, and could serve to inflate the price of every single new infrastructure project in the state.

As much as the government's preferred option is to have the shared path bridge restored, the unknown nature of the project means that simply leaving it alone until the whole lot needs to be replaced as part of the next sector of the North-South Corridor (from Tonsley to Anzac Highway) is an option which will still be on the table.

Leaving it alone for years? You've got to be kidding me.

They could get on with it right away if they wanted to, get out a crane and inspect. It's not rocket science, it doesn't require months of dithering, before any work can be done.

But I guess we're living in a country where this sort of incompetence is the norm.

If the damage is found to be such that replacing the shared path bridge would require full replacement of the piers (and the tram bridge which sits on top) for just 3-4 years of service, yes.

I agree that a contract for the removal of the old shared path bridge should have been put out to tender ages ago, then the way would be clear for one plan to be made and a second set of tenders called for the construction of the replacement. Keep it simple.

If "the work" is going to require removing the existing bridge even temporarily, then that seems like a credible first step, then call for tenders to build a new shared path bridge, with the option to use (or not) the existing piers if they are suitable. If they are not used, then they either get left sticking out, or a relatively small job to cut them off flush with the rest of the bridge.

For sale: one concrete footbridge, barely used. Piers not included.

I was also under the impression that previous reports said the piers were fine, with cosmetic damage only.

RSS



MidSeason wk20 - 120x600

Support our Sponsors

© 2017   Created by Gus K.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service