Roads & Rail

[AG]

It's a good plan there Shuz, and very detailed as well. A few things to consider:

- Should there be a southbound exit to Days Road?
- I don't think the freeway needs to curve and emerge above ground to serve Bowden, it would be better off as straight twin bored tunnels beginning south of the Torrens (might have to be a bit further south than you've marked to avoid the river bed) and ending just north of Torrens Road as you've marked.
- The road lanes should be separated from the freeway lanes. If you don't understand what I mean, here is an example from Sydney:



- Maybe some tolled sections, possibly between the northern end of the tunnel at Torrens Road and the Anzac Highway intersection?
- It'd be interesting to see how you'd fit a 4x4 in the underpass currently under construction at Anzac Highway, maybe a bit of a squeeze could do a 3x3?
- Once again, at Main South Road between South Road and the Southern Expressway the freeway and road lanes could be separated. The northbound freeway lanes should pass underneath the road lanes at the South Road intersection.

[AtD]

I'd prefer if it followed the current South Road alignment, otherwise it'll just clog up with city-bound commuters. Other than that, looks good (if we're ignoring money )

[Shuz]

Well I'd say this plan would cost somewhere around $2.2-$2.5billion. A bit more if you had direct tunnels between Torrens Rd and Port Road (not serving Bowden) to cost between $2.4-$2.7 billion. The Bowden alignment was only done so that traffic from the North could exit and enter on Torrens Road (where the longer tunnel is)

A.G - Which road is Days Road? I can't seem to locate which one it is, regarding your question in need of a southbound tunnel?
At both the Park Terrace and Main South Roads sections, that was the intention that the freeway lanes would be seperated from the road lanes (I was thinking more like the method used on the Tullamarine Fwy at Essendon Airport) but yes, your Sydney model answers the same principle correctly.
A 4x4 underpass would fit under Anzac Hwy, given that the continuation of property acquistion on the western side of South Road followed suit along the remainder of the South Road corridor.

ATD - the alignment of South Road between Torrens Road and H.B.R was never intended to serve as a major road like it is now. With heritage properties along this stretch, not to mention the cost of property acquisitions to redevelop the current alignment in the sunken freeway method like proposed would factor in a much larger cost, easily upwards of $3b. I believe the ETSA substation which currently sits in the way of the proposed Port Rd tunnel will cost more than $50m alone to relocate.

[AG]

Days Road is two bridges south of Grand Junction Road.

[jimmy_2486]

Can I ask why it is nessasary to force people to use public transport. Saying it will add to traffic congestion seems like an excuse . You people sound like a group of Sydney tunnel owner plotting to rip off motorists.

What a great thing to say, considering all of the climate problems we are facing atm!!
I think sydney is doing alot more good with its tunnels and expensive 2 laned freeways then Melbourne is with its 11+ monster freeways.

In responce to Atd saying that alot of city bound commuters will use it. I believe if the city bypass section of the new south road was tolled then I think there will not be that many commuters using it, and will be used mostly by cross city (Elizabeth to Noarlunga) traffic and commercial vehicles. I belive commuters should have the right to a good freeway bypassing through the city, but being tolled will seriously limit the number of them. This will keep the car lovers/PT haters happy, who will pay the toll, that will fund a possible awesome PT system for the rest of us!!

[The_Q915]

Comparing Hong Kong and New York to Adelaide is like, well, comparing Los Angeles to Adelaide.

I was not trying to compare Adeliade to Hong Kong I was trying to explain the logic behind the idea that Freeways will cause ghettos and urban decay. because you see citys with bothe ghettos and Freeways does not mean the two are linked. Using the same logic I can say Adeliade will have slumb areas where there is poor PT.

I think sydney is doing alot more good with its tunnels and expensive 2 laned freeways then Melbourne

You have obviously never spoken to a sydneysider about what they think of there transport system.

his issue is more about trying to meet the needs of the people, economy and environment at the same time. It is what we call sustainable development. Urban sprawl on a large scale is not sustainable, it is detrimental to the environment and creates inefficiency in services and infrastructure. You'll also find that most outer suburbs are less well off than inner suburban areas because of the imbalance of services and also social isolation created by the lack of services.

I agreed that continued economic growth is not sustainable, it puts a strain on natural resources including land, water... but people may still chose to live in an outer suburb knowing of the potential lack of services as opposed to say living in an inner city appartment.

Another point I would like to make about PT is that it is already massivly subsidised. Cars more then pay for there own, infact contribute about 1.1 billion to the state budget a year. Ticket sales only returned 63m while the cost of running public transport was 170m, this isent including capital investment. so we have a public transport system that is subsidised by up to 75%. Where is the money going to come from if we increase its share to 20%, 40%, 100%?


Shuz you plan is a work of art well done

[AG]

I agreed that continued economic growth is not sustainable, it puts a strain on natural resources including land, water... but people may still chose to live in an outer suburb knowing of the potential lack of services as opposed to say living in an inner city appartment.

Another point I would like to make about PT is that it is already massivly subsidised. Cars more then pay for there own, infact contribute about 1.1 billion to the state budget a year. Ticket sales only returned 63m while the cost of running public transport was 170m, this isent including capital investment. so we have a public transport system that is subsidised by up to 75%. Where is the money going to come from if we increase its share to 20%, 40%, 100%?

It isn't the economic growth that isn't sustainable, it's the pattern of urban growth that we continue to follow to accomodate new residents that is unsustainable. Sure, some people do choose to live in the outer suburbs, but many people who live out there cannot afford locations closer to the city and really don't have a whole lot of choices. A lot of these families live in areas where the bus services hardly cover the area and don't come anywhere near frequent enough, and many only have one car.

Most public transport systems in the developed world are subsidised, very few make a profit. We need to look at transport from a perspective beyond simply moving people from A to B. They are also there to promote economic growth and urban renewal. Congestion on Adelaide's road costs the economy in excess of $1 billion a year, encouraging a shift to public transport would reduce or limit the growth of that figure. So it shouldn't really matter so much whether the public transport service itself is making a profit, but whether the value it adds to the economy of the regions it serves is significant.

[AtD]

Using the same logic I can say Adeliade will have slumb areas where there is poor PT.

It does, the outer north and outer south. And ironically it's in these areas where PT is most beneficial, because the set costs of car ownership are a greater proportion of income.

I agreed that continued economic growth is not sustainable, it puts a strain on natural resources including land, water... but people may still chose to live in an outer suburb knowing of the potential lack of services as opposed to say living in an inner city appartment.

Land is worth more the closer to urban centres it is for that very reason. The thing that annoys me is people move into the outer suburbs knowing fully well the services don't exist, then expect taxpayers to foot the bill for them. When population density is lower, the costs per person are higher, there's a cost of distance and an economies of scale effects.

Another point I would like to make about PT is that it is already massivly subsidised. Cars more then pay for there own, infact contribute about 1.1 billion to the state budget a year. Ticket sales only returned 63m while the cost of running public transport was 170m, this isent including capital investment. so we have a public transport system that is subsidised by up to 75%. Where is the money going to come from if we increase its share to 20%, 40%, 100%?

The economic rational behind that argument is flawed for many reasons.

Firstly, you're treating it as if it should be a for profit enterprise, which it isn't. Transport infrastructure is, in many instances, a natural monopoly and thus shouldn't be run for a profit. It's a social service, like health and education, that creates many social benefits.

Second, you're not actually considering what the funds represent. Ticket prices, for example, are not set with the goal of offsetting operation costs but allowing people be able to use the system. Ticket sales are a marginal (per unit) source of revenue, and the system has high average (fixed) and low marginal costs. Car registration is entirely a revenue raising exercise and is a fixed revenue. The high marginal costs of operation are left mostly to the consumer and the lower average costs mostly to the public sector.

Thirdly, you're only considering it from the perspective of the Treasury. There are public and private costs imposed by both forms of transport, and some are monetary and some are not. Your analysis does not include the high private costs of car ownership, being the cost of the vehicle, fuel, insurance and ongoing maintenance, yet it includes all these costs for PT. The non-monetary costs from private transport are far greater than those from public transport, being pollution, noise, health and safety, etc. You're assuming that the state pays for all roads, which it doesn't. Much of the costs are left to LGAs and covered by ratepayers.

[LAT]

First ever post, so go easy on me... Thought I would put my two bobs in about a potential route for a North/South Freeway. I believe this route would minimise required land acquisition and subsequently contain costs (At least to some degree) as well as being more politically digestable.

In summary, route (from the north) utilises land available through the Islington Railway Yards. Runs either side of the railway from Regency Road to Park Terrace (This section would require land acquistion along this section). From Park Terrace to Anzac Hwy would not require land acquisiton either utilising land available from existing roads or railway yards . From Anzac Hwy to Milswood would require some land acquisition. Then from Milswood I would suggest it breaks into 2 directions. The first would run either side of the Belair railway line until Cross Road where a tunnel would be required from their to Urbrae and then use the land available from Urbrae to the South Eastern Freeway (Understand a tunnel would cost a bit but cant think of any other way that may be potenitally politically acceptable to connect South Eastern to a North South coridoor). The second would also run either side of the railway Tonsley rail route to eventually connect with the Southern expressway.

Green= 1st Stage
Blue= 2nd Stage

[jimmy_2486]

I think sydney is doing alot more good with its tunnels and expensive 2 laned freeways then Melbourne

You have obviously never spoken to a sydneysider about what they think of there transport system.

Yeah, Sydneysiders think the same thing that Melbourne do about their PT System....it sucks!!

However the NSW government has lately been allocating more money to focus on PT rather than freeways. It shows with their limited amount of lanes, and scarcity, compared to Melbourne who have heaps of 6-10 lane freeways going all over the joint.

NSW are in the process of spending billions on IMPROVING their rail lines to reduce late trains, and are also looking at spending billions more on a inner suburban metro system.

VICTORIA from what ive heard are only spending money on a few more trains to reduce some service cancellations, but have committed to eastlink, and have proposed an east-west tunnel.

So who is doing a better job at reducing emissions for our climate, which is the point I was trying to make?....... The facts show that Melbourne have more cars on the road than Sydney.... need I say more.

[Norman]

LAT, the thing is a LOT of land would have to be aquired to go with the rail line between Goodwood and Tonsley. Remember as well that the Tonsley line is also single track only, so even more would have to be aquired there.

It would probably be cheaper to buy land along the existing South Road path.

[Cruise]

Land is worth more the closer to urban centres it is for that very reason. The thing that annoys me is people move into the outer suburbs knowing fully well the services don't exist, then expect taxpayers to foot the bill for them. When population density is lower, the costs per person are higher, there's a cost of distance and an economies of scale effects.

You are aware the outer areas of Adelaide aren't full of "1/4 acre blocks" don't you?

[AG]

Yeah, Sydneysiders think the same thing that Melbourne do about their PT System....it sucks!!

However the NSW government has lately been allocating more money to focus on PT rather than freeways. It shows with their limited amount of lanes, and scarcity, compared to Melbourne who have heaps of 6-10 lane freeways going all over the joint.

NSW are in the process of spending billions on IMPROVING their rail lines to reduce late trains, and are also looking at spending billions more on a inner suburban metro system.

VICTORIA from what ive heard are only spending money on a few more trains to reduce some service cancellations, but have committed to eastlink, and have proposed an east-west tunnel.

So who is doing a better job at reducing emissions for our climate, which is the point I was trying to make?....... The facts show that Melbourne have more cars on the road than Sydney.... need I say more.

The NSW Government is still committing quite a lot of money to new road projects as well. In the past two years the Lane Cove Tunnel and the M7 Motorway have been opened (both delivered under PPPs), and there's still discussion floating about the place for the M4 East project.

The Victorian Government does have a few rail projects on it's agenda, although the spending still isn't as great as what it is committing to roads. The triplication of the rail lines between Caulfield and Dandenong is one project, also the recent completion of electrification to Craigieburn. Most of the works going on on the Melbourne rail network are improvements to the existing network rather than expansions, such as the Middleborough Road and Taylors Road grade separations.

[jimmy_2486]

Yes they have done the M7 and the LC tunnel, however the M7 is only 4 lanes along (Both directions) with almost every other freeway built in Sydney, on top they are all tolled. Because of this, they are not really attractive for commuters, but more for freight, commercial vehicles, and cross city traffic. Melbourne's freeways are more attractive for commuters. They are also used for commercial use and cross city traffic, however due to the free usage (except city/eastlink) and large capacities, it is ensuring that Melbourne has such a high percentage of drivers compared to Sydney.

If south road were to be made to be 4 lanes (both ways) and tolled for cross city traffic, this could lower the percentage of drivers and the funds could go to a better PT system, maybe even another link to SE freeway. Also it would help out commercial traffic and cross city travelers by cutting driving times.

[The_Q915]

Thought I would put my two bobs in about a potential route for a North/South Freeway. I believe this route would minimise required land acquisition and subsequently contain costs (At least to some degree) as well as being more politically digestable.

Good idea LAT, lets hope we get more people with good ideas. Particularly about roads.

Firstly, you're treating it as if it should be a for profit enterprise, which it isn't. Transport infrastructure is, in many instances, a natural monopoly and thus shouldn't be run for a profit. It's a social service, like health and education, that creates many social benefits.

I am aware it exists primarily as a social justice tool. I question the mentality behind the idea that others must be forced onto a form of transport when they may of choosen another.

It isn't the economic growth that isn't sustainable, it's the pattern of urban growth that we continue to follow to accomodate new residents that is unsustainable.

New populations are more consumers then producers. Australia relies on its surplus natural resources for its wealth. There is little benefit of continuing to grow our population rapidly. Slow sustained growth is best.

some people do choose to live in the outer suburbs, but many people who live out there cannot afford locations closer to the city and really don't have a whole lot of choices. A lot of these families live in areas where the bus services hardly cover the area and don't come anywhere near frequent enough, and many only have one car.

How does attempting to force people into higher density inner city living environments help affordability. If transport cost to the outer suburbs are so detrimental why are people continuing to move there instead of flocking to inner city high density areas. Australians do not want to live in an apartment they want to live in a house, particularly those with a family. They don’t need or want someone telling them what type of housing will provide a better living condition and be a morally superior place to live.

Second, you're not actually considering what the funds represent. Ticket prices, for example, are not set with the goal of offsetting operation costs but allowing people be able to use the system. Ticket sales are a marginal (per unit) source of revenue, and the system has high average (fixed) and low marginal costs. Car registration is entirely a revenue raising exercise and is a fixed revenue. The high marginal costs of operation are left mostly to the consumer and the lower average costs mostly to the public sector.

Thirdly, you're only considering it from the perspective of the Treasury. There are public and private costs imposed by both forms of transport, and some are monetary and some are not. Your analysis does not include the high private costs of car ownership, being the cost of the vehicle, fuel, insurance and ongoing maintenance, yet it includes all these costs for PT. The non-monetary costs from private transport are far greater than those from public transport, being pollution, noise, health and safety, etc. You're assuming that the state pays for all roads, which it doesn't. Much of the costs are left to LGAs and covered by ratepayers.

Yes the are private costs to both forms of transport. It is up to the individual to decide what is the best form of transport. People are not "wrapped in the cocoon environment of the car", as one of my formal lecturers said. People choose the car as the preferred form of transport because it is extremely quick, continent and reliable all of which public transport is not. Taxes on motorist offsets any potential harm they may bring such as this smog problem no one realised existed until the advertiser reported it. Not that there is great a difference if pollution comes from cars of Torrens Island power station.

Congestion on Adelaide's road costs the economy in excess of $1 billion a year, encouraging a shift to public transport would reduce or limit the growth of that figure.

The increase in travel time the public transport would bring would far outweigh the economic cost of traffic congestion, not that I know how this billion dollar number could of come up. You need to look at the whole picture.

I am not entirely against public transport improvements, but for Adelaide roads and in particular a north-south freeway should be a priority. Adelaide will never have an a comprehensive public transport system. For public transport to work effectively high density and centralised environments are needed, while Adelaide is low density and spread over a large area. Southern and northern areas will continue to grow and there is a need to provide them with infrastructure of both road and rail regardless if you think they don’t deserve it of not. What if Mitsubishi is to decline in the south what industry will they fall back on? I dont have much confidence in the current goverment deliving improvement in any forms of transport. They are more preoccupied persueing popularist policies with the top priority of re-election. But the loger it is left the more difficult and costly it will become.