[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[ChillyPhilly]

i know this is looking further ahead but what do u guys think will happen at the cross road south road intersection where u have to factor in the railway line? I drive through there almost daily and everytime I go onto the overpass I try to work out how it will work there.

The plan is to duplicate the existing overpass, likely to the west.

[Patrick_27]

i know this is looking further ahead but what do u guys think will happen at the cross road south road intersection where u have to factor in the railway line? I drive through there almost daily and everytime I go onto the overpass I try to work out how it will work there.

The plan is to duplicate the existing overpass, likely to the west.

Impossible because the tramline runs diagonally, I'm of the understanding that the elevated road planned from Daws Road will run over this section then come down before the tramline.

[Archer]

i know this is looking further ahead but what do u guys think will happen at the cross road south road intersection where u have to factor in the railway line? I drive through there almost daily and everytime I go onto the overpass I try to work out how it will work there.

The plan is to duplicate the existing overpass, likely to the west.

Impossible because the tramline runs diagonally, I'm of the understanding that the elevated road planned from Daws Road will run over this section then come down before the tramline.

It would hardly be impossible, It would just need to be offset against the existing overpass to account for the angle of the train line and have the overall bridge spans be longer to account for the greater length required to cross the angle of the train line and Cross road. Everything I've read (all from these forums) has suggested the overpass be duplicated, whether that's incorporated into an elevated road way from Dawes road as well.... who knows at this point?

I think the better question is will there also be a grade separation of Cross road and the train line at the same time. I imagine this could potentially be more difficult/costly to do after the works for the North-South corridor are completed.

[alexczarn]

The plan is to duplicate the existing overpass, likely to the west.

Impossible because the tramline runs diagonally, I'm of the understanding that the elevated road planned from Daws Road will run over this section then come down before the tramline.

It would hardly be impossible, It would just need to be offset against the existing overpass to account for the angle of the train line and have the overall bridge spans be longer to account for the greater length required to cross the angle of the train line and Cross road. Everything I've read (all from these forums) has suggested the overpass be duplicated, whether that's incorporated into an elevated road way from Dawes road as well.... who knows at this point?

I think the better question is will there also be a grade separation of Cross road and the train line at the same time. I imagine this could potentially be more difficult/costly to do after the works for the North-South corridor are completed.

Drop the Seaford line into a tunnel underneath the whole interchange so there's only the Sth Rd/Cross Rd diamond?

[Norman]

The plan includes putting the Seaford and Tonsley lines into a trench. I think the cost for that was about $200m, not sure if that includes the duplicated bridge though.

[claybro]

The plan includes putting the Seaford and Tonsley lines into a trench. I think the cost for that was about $200m, not sure if that includes the duplicated bridge though.

As Cross road is the preferred option for eventual connection of the Mount Barker freeway and the North/Sourh motorway, this intersection will eventually be a major interchange. This probably is 20 years away, but it highlights the usual SA folly of not having a long term plan, as it will probably not be taken into consideration during this part of upgrades.

[SBD]

The plan includes putting the Seaford and Tonsley lines into a trench. I think the cost for that was about $200m, not sure if that includes the duplicated bridge though.

As Cross road is the preferred option for eventual connection of the Mount Barker freeway and the North/South motorway, this intersection will eventually be a major interchange. This probably is 20 years away, but it highlights the usual SA folly of not having a long term plan, as it will probably not be taken into consideration during this part of upgrades.

What do you think is an acceptable long-term plan?

A high-speed interchange the size of the intersection of Northern Connector and Port River Expressway translated to South and Cross Roads looks like it would consume about 50 houses, as well as the businesses fronting the main roads. The MATS Plan was killed off in part for proposing an intersection that size in Hindmarsh. It didn't put one in Clarence Gardens because the connections would have all been in different places. I think the connection might have been closer to Upper Sturt Road.

By the time that the North-South Corridor is almost complete, we could well have a few elections fought on NIMBY where the Portrush Road corridor and Cross Road corridor are both supporting whoever promises them "somewhere else".

I doubt many people are good enough at future technology forecasting to know what transport will look like by the time we can afford to buy that much property and build the interchange anyway. It might not be using internal combustion engines burning fossil fuel to tow one or two trailers per truck. By then, the preferred solution for heavy freight might not be the long smooth climb/descent through the Heysen Tunnels. We might well decide the East-of-the-hills bypass is a better solution, or that freight should all move on the electric railway through the tunnel from Monarto to Pooraka.

[rev]

The plan includes putting the Seaford and Tonsley lines into a trench. I think the cost for that was about $200m, not sure if that includes the duplicated bridge though.

As Cross road is the preferred option for eventual connection of the Mount Barker freeway and the North/South motorway, this intersection will eventually be a major interchange. This probably is 20 years away, but it highlights the usual SA folly of not having a long term plan, as it will probably not be taken into consideration during this part of upgrades.

What do you think is an acceptable long-term plan?

A high-speed interchange the size of the intersection of Northern Connector and Port River Expressway translated to South and Cross Roads looks like it would consume about 50 houses, as well as the businesses fronting the main roads. The MATS Plan was killed off in part for proposing an intersection that size in Hindmarsh. It didn't put one in Clarence Gardens because the connections would have all been in different places. I think the connection might have been closer to Upper Sturt Road.

By the time that the North-South Corridor is almost complete, we could well have a few elections fought on NIMBY where the Portrush Road corridor and Cross Road corridor are both supporting whoever promises them "somewhere else".

I doubt many people are good enough at future technology forecasting to know what transport will look like by the time we can afford to buy that much property and build the interchange anyway. It might not be using internal combustion engines burning fossil fuel to tow one or two trailers per truck. By then, the preferred solution for heavy freight might not be the long smooth climb/descent through the Heysen Tunnels. We might well decide the East-of-the-hills bypass is a better solution, or that freight should all move on the electric railway through the tunnel from Monarto to Pooraka.

The problem isn't that the state can't afford to do it, they very much can by borrowing. The problem is we do not have politicians who are competent enough to run this state, to build this states infrastructure and manage the economy.

[Goodsy]

As Cross road is the preferred option for eventual connection of the Mount Barker freeway and the North/South motorway, this intersection will eventually be a major interchange. This probably is 20 years away, but it highlights the usual SA folly of not having a long term plan, as it will probably not be taken into consideration during this part of upgrades.

What do you think is an acceptable long-term plan?

A high-speed interchange the size of the intersection of Northern Connector and Port River Expressway translated to South and Cross Roads looks like it would consume about 50 houses, as well as the businesses fronting the main roads. The MATS Plan was killed off in part for proposing an intersection that size in Hindmarsh. It didn't put one in Clarence Gardens because the connections would have all been in different places. I think the connection might have been closer to Upper Sturt Road.

By the time that the North-South Corridor is almost complete, we could well have a few elections fought on NIMBY where the Portrush Road corridor and Cross Road corridor are both supporting whoever promises them "somewhere else".

I doubt many people are good enough at future technology forecasting to know what transport will look like by the time we can afford to buy that much property and build the interchange anyway. It might not be using internal combustion engines burning fossil fuel to tow one or two trailers per truck. By then, the preferred solution for heavy freight might not be the long smooth climb/descent through the Heysen Tunnels. We might well decide the East-of-the-hills bypass is a better solution, or that freight should all move on the electric railway through the tunnel from Monarto to Pooraka.

The problem isn't that the state can't afford to do it, they very much can by borrowing. The problem is we do not have politicians who are competent enough to run this state, to build this states infrastructure and manage the economy.

The funding will be, 50% federal, 25% state and 25% Transurban with a 100 year lease and $7.50 toll

[Spurdo]

Hold up, I think I've got a solution

[Patrick_27]

What do you think is an acceptable long-term plan?

A high-speed interchange the size of the intersection of Northern Connector and Port River Expressway translated to South and Cross Roads looks like it would consume about 50 houses, as well as the businesses fronting the main roads. The MATS Plan was killed off in part for proposing an intersection that size in Hindmarsh. It didn't put one in Clarence Gardens because the connections would have all been in different places. I think the connection might have been closer to Upper Sturt Road.

By the time that the North-South Corridor is almost complete, we could well have a few elections fought on NIMBY where the Portrush Road corridor and Cross Road corridor are both supporting whoever promises them "somewhere else".

I doubt many people are good enough at future technology forecasting to know what transport will look like by the time we can afford to buy that much property and build the interchange anyway. It might not be using internal combustion engines burning fossil fuel to tow one or two trailers per truck. By then, the preferred solution for heavy freight might not be the long smooth climb/descent through the Heysen Tunnels. We might well decide the East-of-the-hills bypass is a better solution, or that freight should all move on the electric railway through the tunnel from Monarto to Pooraka.

The problem isn't that the state can't afford to do it, they very much can by borrowing. The problem is we do not have politicians who are competent enough to run this state, to build this states infrastructure and manage the economy.

The funding will be, 50% federal, 25% state and 25% Transurban with a 100 year lease and $7.50 toll

Since when was tolls a thing in all of this?

[Patrick_27]

Cross Road doesn't even need to be a consideration, freeway grade city ring route, trench freeway up Glen Osmond Road, problem solved.

[Goodsy]

Since when was tolls a thing in all of this?

It's not yet, but if I was a betting man I'd say they're going to atleast try it

[SBD]

Cross Road doesn't even need to be a consideration, freeway grade city ring route, trench freeway up Glen Osmond Road, problem solved.

That plan still extends the long descent even further, and means that when a truck or bus with failing brakes eventually hits something, it's in a tunnel. Maybe the off-ramp exits can be built with gravel pits next to them as emergency stopping ramps, but that sounds like a challenge to build and maintain, as well as needing more width in a constrained corridor.

[SRW]

Since when was tolls a thing in all of this?

It's not yet, but if I was a betting man I'd say they're going to atleast try it

Tolls will very much be a part of the thinking now. The prohibition on their use was State Labor's; the federal Libs support them, and their state colleagues are naturally inclined to let private money get their hands on public goods. The only barrier will be how pissed off South Australians get, having never had to deal with tolls. For the record, I think tolls are reasonable in specific circumstances. I think the Southern Expressway duplication, as an example, should have been paid for by making it a tollway.