[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[ChillyPhilly]

And once again the stop start non planning of this project has left the state wide open to the whims of various federal governments. I still strongly believe the whole tunnel thing was primarily to allow the previous gov to just kick the can down the road and delay the start of a this most difficult section. Then the new government "investigates the options"-when in their previous incarnation Labor had already settled on an option-further delaying actual planning Very poor form from both sides of politics in SA and entirely predictable.

Totally agree with all of this, in particular the 'fantasy' tunnel solution being nothing more than a con trick to avoid actually doing anything.
At least Mulligan is showing a shred of honesty by flagging the obvious reality than the state simply does not have the funding to build this Disneyland solution.
The T2T, Darlington and Regency to Pym solutions seem to work fine and breaking the project down into 4-6 smaller sections would seem the best way forward as we have a proven record in doing it successfully in this fashion.
Essentially, we have just wasted the best part of 5 years and meanwhile South Rd is becoming even more of a nightmare.....

Agree. The piece-by-piece approach was wise; it managed construction impacts well, and best of all, it ensured a steady flow of construction jobs.

[Saltwater]

I still think it would be very unlikely tunnels would be scrapped entirely, especially through the inner west sections of Thebarton / Mile End. The local FB groups and Save the Thebby would become very loud very quickly and I don't think its a fight the government would want to take on. The section from Anzac Highway south would be a better candidate for cut & cover, given its mostly strip mall that could be replaced.

[Eurostar]

An overpass over Daws Road would be quickest to construct. Ala like Regency

[claybro]

I still think it would be very unlikely tunnels would be scrapped entirely, especially through the inner west sections of Thebarton / Mile End. The local FB groups and Save the Thebby would become very loud very quickly and I don't think its a fight the government would want to take on. The section from Anzac Highway south would be a better candidate for cut & cover, given its mostly strip mall that could be replaced.

Here's the thing though. No option of any proposal has ever put the Thebby at risk. It was a straw man whipped up by various political interests to muddy the waters and cause trouble. If Labor prior had given more specific details of the trench and short tunnel option when they were still in power...it would never have become an issue-allowing the Libs to feign the need for the long tunnel option to "save the Thebby, or the kebab shop in Richmond .yay" and getting them out of doing something. So here we are-as said-another 5 years wasted, and still no commitment while the new government "investigates options". LAbor were already on a roll during the last decade with their ongoing section by section trench methods. The results north of the Torrens show what is possible even when presented with difficulty like the OH train and Port Road intersection. It actually works and looks great through there-a vast improvement to the suburbs it goes through. FFS..forget the fnaciful long tunnel plan. figure out what is will cost and start the next section even if it is a 1km section- just keep the work going. If its $5 billion.. or $10 billiion over 10 years for the whole lot-so be it....just get on with it now, It will be a lot more in 20 years time and cause a lot more disruption and congestion.

[Llessur2002]

It actually works and looks great through there-a vast improvement to the suburbs it goes through.

That's subjective and I tend to disagree. The only reason the giant trench improved the T2T area is because so many South Road fronting properties had been compulsory purchased and lay derelict for years. Plus the standard of properties along that stretch was pretty poor to begin with.

The SDBD to Torrens section doesn't have that problem - it's a nice, well maintained, tree lined heritage area. A giant trench is absolutely not going to look great or be an improvement here.

Maybe things change further south but a trench is always going to result in an inferior visual outcome in a suburban area than a tunnel would.

[[Shuz]]

So... would you rather an elevated freeway then?

[Mr Smith]

It actually works and looks great through there-a vast improvement to the suburbs it goes through.

That's subjective and I tend to disagree. The only reason the giant trench improved the T2T area is because so many South Road fronting properties had been compulsory purchased and lay deralict for years. Plus the standard of properties along that stretch was pretty poor to begin with.

The SDBD to Torrens section doesn't have that problem - it's a nice, well maintained, tree lined heritage area. A giant trench is absolutely not going to look great or be an improvement here.

Maybe things change further south but a trench is always going to result in an inferior visual outcome in a suburban area than a tunnel would.

Look there is no argument that a tunnel is the most desired option in that section, however we need to deal with the reality of cost v return, and the need to get this done.
We have been told that SA citizens are violently oppossed to tolls, or is this just a political tool being used to justify delays/ not doing anything for years....
If we are not up for an adult discussion about tolls, then we need to accept a less palitable, but more affordable option, that is just the reality of it.
And if it is accepted that the area between SDBD and Tonsley does not justify a tunnel as there is minimal loss of heritage etc (which IMO is the reality), it becomes difficult to justify a TBM just for 1 short section.

[dbl96]

It actually works and looks great through there-a vast improvement to the suburbs it goes through.

That's subjective and I tend to disagree. The only reason the giant trench improved the T2T area is because so many South Road fronting properties had been compulsory purchased and lay deralict for years. Plus the standard of properties along that stretch was pretty poor to begin with.

The SDBD to Torrens section doesn't have that problem - it's a nice, well maintained, tree lined heritage area. A giant trench is absolutely not going to look great or be an improvement here.

Maybe things change further south but a trench is always going to result in an inferior visual outcome in a suburban area than a tunnel would.

Look there is no argument that a tunnel is the most desired option in that section, however we need to deal with the reality of cost v return, and the need to get this done.
We have been told that SA citizens are violently oppossed to tolls, or is this just a political tool being used to justify delays/ not doing anything for years....
If we are not up for an adult discussion about tolls, then we need to accept a less palitable, but more affordable option, that is just the reality of it.
And if it is accepted that the area between SDBD and Tonsley does not justify a tunnel as there is minimal loss of heritage etc (which IMO is the reality), it becomes difficult to justify a TBM just for 1 short section.

And herein lies the problem with Australia's obsession with TBMs as the only way of tunelling. Elsewhere in the world, where the tunnel corridor runs directly under an existing road, cut and cover is used to great effect and at much lower cost. Yes, of course it will cause some disruption during construction, but there are also clear benefits to the cut and cover option that should not be ignored.

As for the long tunnels, I agree that they are a bit excessive. As suggested previously, a transition after Tonsley to an elevated road crossing Daws Road would be fine in that area - an area of mostly industrial sites and car yards. The southern tunnel portal would be better located just south of Castle Plaza in my opinion. Castle Plaza and north is the section of South Rd that has the potential to take on an inner city main street feel once traffic is removed and streetscape improvements are made.

[cocoiadrop]

I appreciate the cut and cover idea. May mean a less disruptive adjustment to the Galipoli IC too.

[Goodsy]

cut and cover means complete service relocation, a TBM would go deep enough to avoid it all

[JCK98]

New concept design for Majors Road after community consultation.



Early works to commence late 2022, completion expected by the end of 2025.

https://dit.sa.gov.au/infrastructure/ro ... ect_update

[MT269]

I didn't really want to create a separate thread for this question. But would anyone know of the approximate gap between the road surface at ground level, and the bottom of the overpass (bottom of the concrete) at the Cross Rd/South Rd intersection? I'm assuming it's around 10 metres or near enough.

I notice that the overhead wires are lowered across the intersection, and these are usually under 10 metres above the ground. But they still look to be very high up.

Reason I ask is because I'm doing a little research.

Cheers

[dbl96]

cut and cover means complete service relocation, a TBM would go deep enough to avoid it all

That may well be the case, but a TBM is still more expensive, especially if we have to buy one for just a short section of tunnel.

Trenching, as done elsewhere on South Road requires service relocation as well. Cut and cover is the same thing - except that they would be laying concrete beams over the trench, on which the surface road would be reconstructed. It is basically the same idea as the bridges over the trench on the existing Torrens to Torrens - except much wider.

[RetroGamer87]

New concept design for Majors Road after community consultation.



Early works to commence late 2022, completion expected by the end of 2025.

https://dit.sa.gov.au/infrastructure/ro ... ect_update

I'm not so keen on those interchanges that use two separate sets of traffic lights for what is essentially a single intersection. It will be just as bad as the interchange on Beach Road.

[PD2/20]

I didn't really want to create a separate thread for this question. But would anyone know of the approximate gap between the road surface at ground level, and the bottom of the overpass (bottom of the concrete) at the Cross Rd/South Rd intersection? I'm assuming it's around 10 metres or near enough.

I notice that the overhead wires are lowered across the intersection, and these are usually under 10 metres above the ground. But they still look to be very high up.

Reason I ask is because I'm doing a little research.

Cheers

In SA where safe clearance is less than or equal to 4.6m Low Clearance signs are required; where safe clearnce is greater than 4.6m but less than or equal to 5.0m Clearance signs are required. Where clearance is greater than 5.0m the bridge or structure is not signed.