YOUR solutions: How should we fix Glen Osmond Road?

[Geoscientist]

Perhaps the stretch of Glen Osmond road between Fullarton and Greenhill Roads could be made single lane in either direction, with a lane given over to parking bays on each side.
Then, the majority of traffic would have to be diverted via Fullarton and Greenhill Roads.
The intersection of Greenhill and Fullarton would need to be overhauled to allow it, but it could probably do with a face lift anyhow.

[Maximus]

NEWS FLASH! For once, I agree with most of the Adelaide Now comments...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6456480800

Particularly love comment #28:

Here's a few words that are applicable to this: Compulsory, Acquisition, Bulldozer, Freeway.

[claybro]

perfect opportunity to relocate the shops, cafes etc into the new precinct they are setting up in the Glenside (SA film corp/Glenside hospital ) redevelopement.There will be plenty of vacant space in there OFF the main road. then widen the road, landscape the verges and include service lanes for the Foodland/ Servo local shops etc. add right turn lanes and ban on street parking.That strip in Parkside really is a bit sad.

[Vee]

NEWS FLASH! For once, I agree with most of the Adelaide Now comments...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6456480800

Agree.
Glen Osmond Road is a major traffic artery in/out of the city to the burgeoning population in the Hills and beyond. It is crazy that on street parking is allowed to add to traffic congestion and compromise safety. The road should be an extended clearway eg from 6am to 7pm or even 24/7 and parking could be provided behind the shops/businesses.

Norwood Parade is an example where major parking options are provided at the rear of shops and people don't expect to find or use the few on street parks that exist. Parking needs to be accessible (not down a narrow lane) and well signposted. Many shops/businesses on Unley Road have done this where rear yards are connected to provide a large space for car parking.

The expanded Frewville Shopping Centre in the Glenside complex will likely provide some competition. However, the charm of some of the old style buildings along Glen Osmond Road cannot be replicated in a new complex. These older style buildings are highly prized by some business owners to provide character, ambience and style that a new, bland building cannot easily provide.

A new, improved and more accessible "Parking at the Rear" solution seems the only way to preserve the viability of the precinct or see more empty shops or worsening traffic congestion.

[Waewick]

found out something interesting the other day.

you might notice that certain buildings along Glen Osmond (newish ones) are built with a large set back - primarily for the purpose of widening Glen Osmond Road - so building owners effectively own land they cannot use.

The problem is, other government departments have heritage listed buildings along side the same properties forced to set back from the road to allow for widening....

thought that was a fair representation of the infrastructure planning.

[Splashmo]

It's a bit late to shift back heritage-listed buildings...

[Waewick]

It's a bit late to shift back heritage-listed buildings...

my point was more than if you are planning on increasing the size of the road....why heritage list them in the first place.

[Aidan]

It's a bit late to shift back heritage-listed buildings...

my point was more than if you are planning on increasing the size of the road....why heritage list them in the first place.

Because they have heritage value. Should we ignore it to advance some plans that might never reach fruition anyway?

[Waewick]

It's a bit late to shift back heritage-listed buildings...

my point was more than if you are planning on increasing the size of the road....why heritage list them in the first place.

Because they have heritage value. Should we ignore it to advance some plans that might never reach fruition anyway?

Well that really isn't the attitude of forward planning now is it, because in reality, no plan you make for the future is guaranteed to come to fruition.

But I guess the heritage listing is probably another topic all together I guess.

Perhaps we need to point the government in the direction of a good building moving firm so we can just re-locate such buildings elsewhere?

[ChillyPhilly]

Wow, this topic is still going!

Glen Osmond Road does need fixing - to an extent. However, one needs to look at its purposes; of which as a road, it has more than one. Herein lies the road's issue, as well as the source of its traffic. It tries to do too much, and be all at once.

* It provides a direct link between the CBD and the South Eastern Freeway (Murray Bridge and Melbourne beyond).
* It serves and connects its surrounding area(s) to the CBD and hills.
* It provides a location for land uses not suited or practical for other nearby areas and road corridors, such as Portrush Road (clearway with no stopping) and Cross Road (environmentally sensitive and residential areas) for example.

How can these problems be addressed, and fixed?

It provides a direct link between the CBD and the South Eastern Freeway (Murray Bridge and Melbourne beyond).
Unfortunately, Glen Osmond Road is the only such dedicated, direct link. The majority of road freight currently uses Cross and Portrush Roads to access the Freeway, so much traffic using the road to get between both destinations is made up of private or commercial and utility traffic; commuters especially. To fix this, there are two solutions.
Plan A: improve public transport services and connections between relevant destinations for each. Develop large transport interchanges and hubs in the Hills towns could be an alternative: locals can drive from their properties and homes to Park 'n' Ride facilities in town, and catch a slick, dedicated bus straight to the CBD, with only one or two stops on Glen Osmond Road.
Plan B: secondly, create a new dedicated road link between the CBD and the Freeway entrance. A tunnel could solve this, but is a rather costly option for what's ultimately an issue of selfish choice/convenience and can be relatively fixed with use of Plan A (car use). Glen Osmond Road is not suitable for widening or massive physical upgrades, and any actions that lean towards car dependency should be avoided (e.g. bulldozing everything to add a few lanes).

One thing remains, however. There needs to be less cars on Glen Osmond Road!

It serves and connects its surrounding area(s) to the CBD and hills.
Glen Osmond Road is surrounded by and pretty close to some damn wealthy areas, including South Australia's wealthiest! It'd be no easy task of convincing people to step out of their cars and onto a bus. But if they could be successfully persuaded...
The road links locals to the CBD and to other major routes like Cross Road, Portrush Road, Fullarton Road and a number of smaller, local connectors. Thus, it is a pretty vital arterial route for that part of the city. Keep in mind that practically all car journeys on major roads at some point end as movements between local streets, this applies to Glen Osmond Road as well.
How can it be addressed to 'fix' the road?
If public transport services can be improved and thus lower the number of cars on the road significantly enough, then Glen Osmond Road should still be able to perform this function for its locals. Although, it's probably wise to introduce some more traffic control measures, like lengthy clearways, banning on-road parking or stopping altogether during peak hour and flexible speed limits during certain times of day to maintain maximum road capacity.

It provides a location for land uses not suited or practical for other nearby areas and road corridors, such as Portrush Road (clearway with no stopping) and Cross Road (environmentally sensitive and residential areas) for example.
Land uses along Glen Osmond are pretty much all commercial, with some residential. For perhaps obvious reasons, much of this activity cannot be located on other nearby major roads. Portrush Road is not a practical location as it is used predominantly as an important through-route by road freight. Cross Road is not practical because of environmentally sensitive areas around Urrbrae.

[[Shuz]]

If it were up to me, I'd restore Glen Osmond Road into a 1x1 local-traffic only throughfare from the South Parklands to the Conygham Street intersection with shared tram tracks to restore the 'main street' appeal of the road and a central median along its length for tree plantations, right-hard turn lanes where required and tram stops. The footpaths would be widened, and indented bus bays introduced to improve public transport amenity, and eliminate most, but retain key parking bays for small businesses only.

To cater for the freeway and freight traffic, a tunnel would go beneath the road, with on/off ramps at/onto Fullarton Road.

Small problem... the gradient between the intersection of Glen Osmond/Portrush/Cross Roads and the Freeway, to Conygham Street is relatively steep - I don't know what it is, but looks to be as steep as some sections of the freeway that requires trucks to go 40kph.

It would be quite difficult to be able to create a ramp into the tunnel portal from the freeway intersection to Conygham Street (I presume this is more than enough distance) that is at a gradient suitable enough for freight trucks.... seeing as the gradient of the road is already the maximum gradient suitable! :/ This is where I hope an engineer/experts is able to take over at this point?

[ChillyPhilly]

Is there an alternative corridor that can be used?

[Aidan]

If it were up to me, I'd restore Glen Osmond Road into a 1x1 local-traffic only throughfare from the South Parklands to the Conygham Street intersection with shared tram tracks to restore the 'main street' appeal of the road and a central median along its length for tree plantations, right-hard turn lanes where required and tram stops. The footpaths would be widened, and indented bus bays introduced to improve public transport amenity, and eliminate most, but retain key parking bays for small businesses only.

1x1 would not be practical, as you need a lane for each direction. BTW, use of x is rare except when describing tunnels (the Heysen Tunnels are 2x3 lanes).

But assuming you're using x to mean + (a mistake very common on this board but actually quite rare elsewhere), I'm a bit puzzled as to why you'd want both bus bays and tram tracks - one or the other should suffice!

To cater for the freeway and freight traffic, a tunnel would go beneath the road, with on/off ramps at/onto Fullarton Road.

What, if anything, would you do about the increasing congestion on Fullarton Road?

Small problem... the gradient between the intersection of Glen Osmond/Portrush/Cross Roads and the Freeway, to Conygham Street is relatively steep - I don't know what it is, but looks to be as steep as some sections of the freeway that requires trucks to go 40kph.

It would be quite difficult to be able to create a ramp into the tunnel portal from the freeway intersection to Conygham Street (I presume this is more than enough distance) that is at a gradient suitable enough for freight trucks.... seeing as the gradient of the road is already the maximum gradient suitable! :/ This is where I hope an engineer/experts is able to take over at this point?

I used to think it was an insurmountable problem and an elevated highway was the only effective solution. Then I realised that was not the case at all, as the portal could instead be moved back to near the old tollgate. Even so, there would probably need to be some restrictions on what trucks could use it.

[claybro]

As is evident by this weeks "wishlist" in the toll roads lobby group, Glen Osmond road is not even on their radar. As far as freight is concerned, Portrush and Cross roads still seem to be the preferred option for transport, going by their crude maps, with both these routes connecting to the upgraded South Road corridor. That leaves the problem of commuter traffic from/to the hills. This can be much reduced by improved public transport. Our infastructure spending on roads should only be to improve freight and business efficiency and alow spending on public transport to take up the increased commuter demand, as well as better local services and residential options so people dont have to travel so far.

[ChillyPhilly]

As is evident by this weeks "wishlist" in the toll roads lobby group, Glen Osmond road is not even on their radar. As far as freight is concerned, Portrush and Cross roads still seem to be the preferred option for transport, going by their crude maps, with both these routes connecting to the upgraded South Road corridor. That leaves the problem of commuter traffic from/to the hills. This can be much reduced by improved public transport. Our infastructure spending on roads should only be to improve freight and business efficiency and alow spending on public transport to take up the increased commuter demand, as well as better local services and residential options so people dont have to travel so far.

Spot on. Exactly as I said in my 'essay' above.