[COM] M2 Northern Connector | 15.5km | $867m

[rhino]

Wow-whee. Ain't this somethin' pretty for this lil' ol' town. 4 lanes seems a bit much, no? Given that the Nexy has 2 lanes and the Prexy has 2 lanes as well, why the need for 4?

Because at the northern end of this stretch of road, traffic will diverge north (via Pt Wakefield Rd) and north east (via Nexy).
At the south end of this road traffic will diverge sout (via South Road) and west (via Prexy).
In effect, if the road was only 2 lanes in either direction, it would become a bottle neck. It's good forward planning.

[bm7500]

Wow-whee. Ain't this somethin' pretty for this lil' ol' town. 4 lanes seems a bit much, no? Given that the Nexy has 2 lanes and the Prexy has 2 lanes as well, why the need for 4?

Because for once in this state's history they are actually planning for the future.

If you travel down Salisbury Highway / Port River Expressway any night in peak hour you will soon see that 2 lanes is not enough!

[drsmith]

That bridge over the Port River Expressway is massive. What are they smoking at dtei ?

If the Northern Connector needs 8 (or even 6) lanes in 2017 I hate to think what Port Wakefield Road will be like in 2016. If built to that standard in one go there is also the question of how much it will cost and how much the middle P an any PPP contributes.

In Perth the development strategy for suburban arterials like Reid/Roe/Tonkin highways has been to allow for an ultimate capacity of 6 lanes but built initially to 4 lanes. Some bridge structures such as those of the Tonkin and Roe highways over the Canning River have been built to ultimate capacity (3 lanes each way) but others such as on interchanges will ultimately be duplicated. The Roe Highway bridge over Welshpool Road is displaced to one side of the diamond interchange to allow for the construction of the second bridge. The interchange of Roe/Tonkin highways (currently a diamond) is to be upgraded (that bridge too will ultimately be duplicated) as part of the Tonkin Highway upgrade past Perth Ariport but not to it's ultimate (LA style) interchange.

It would be good to see something as extravagant as that across the Dry Creek salt pans by 2017 but I have my doubts.

[rev]

http://paper.messengernews.com.au/messenger/map.PDF

here's another view of the route in it's entirety.

[raulduke]

according to infrastructure australia this project has a projected cost of $2.2 billion

it will be interesting to see how they get this road over that salt flat

the bridge at south road prexy is part of the viaduct that will be kicking off next year as part of the south road upgrade

it does beg the question why port wakefield road was not just upgraded to a non-stop route, seems a bit of a waste

[rhino]

it does beg the question why port wakefield road was not just upgraded to a non-stop route, seems a bit of a waste

Port Wakefield Road is lined with businesses which would have to be bought or relocated. At best, if there is enough room, service roads would have to be built paralleling Port Wakefield Road. As with the Gallipoli Underpass, buying properties and relocating businesses is about the biggest expense of a project, so the less properties you have to buy, the cheaper the project. From this point of view, building a new freeway across the salt pans does not seem like a waste at all.

[rogue]

^ I agree. Also less inconvenience for roads users if a new corridor is built. Could you imagine the traffic chaos of building overpasses/ underpasses all along Port Wakefield Rd to Taylors Rd?

[Splashmo]

I do think four lanes is a lot when I can't see a whole lot of the existing regular vehicle traffic from Port Wakefield to Adelaide and vice versa using the Northern Connector. If you're travelling on Port Wakefield road and you're heading into the city or anywhere on the eastern half of Adelaide then why would you exit that road, get onto the Northern Connector and then get dumped onto South Road?

The SE Fwy is three lanes and that carries a lot of traffic. I don't see the Northern Connector being packed with its four lanes. Three would be plenty IMO, even in the future if there were a South Road freeway.

[Norman]

Actually, the Port River Expressway and South Road feed from the south, and the Northern Expressway and Port Wakefield Road feed from the north, and Port Wakefield Road does get busy at times.

[Brando]

according to infrastructure australia this project has a projected cost of $2.2 billion

it will be interesting to see how they get this road over that salt flat

the bridge at south road prexy is part of the viaduct that will be kicking off next year as part of the south road upgrade

it does beg the question why port wakefield road was not just upgraded to a non-stop route, seems a bit of a waste

Your right, it will be interesting because it is speculated the salt plains may become an extention of Mawson Lakes according to Delfin.

[drsmith]

http://paper.messengernews.com.au/messenger/map.PDF

here's another view of the route in it's entirety.

The cost of the Perth/Mandurah railway (~70km) and the new Perth/Bunbury Highway combined (also ~70km) is not more than than $2.2bn when i last looked but that was a while ago.

The map above shows some significant changes from the earlier version of several months ago. Firstly, the Northern Connector is now a direct extension of South Road instead of commencing further east. Given that the resultant interchange with the Port River Expressway is much more complex it would be interesting to know the reasons for this. Another curiosity is why such a long bridge at this interchange instead of individual bridges for the roadways passing underneath. One thought that came to mind was in case of flooding but then any water from the east of the connector would still run over the ramps to/from Port Adelaide that pass under the bridge to/from the Northern Connector.

The Globe Derby interchange seems somewhat redundant given access to that area from Port Wakefield Road. The interchange at Bolivar makes more sense given the underlying requirement for a bridge at that location to access the treatment plant (I hope there's a public naming competition for this interchange).

The connection with Port Wakefield Road has been upgraded somewhat with free flowing access for northbound Port Wakefield Road Traffic across the expressway. This was not part of the earlier plan. Perhaps in the absence of this a more complex interchange design with a wider bridge deck would have been required at the Waterloo Corner Road (extension) interchange to cater for this northbound traffic and therefore the Port Wakefield Road northbound ramp with it's two extra bridges was overall a better economic solution.

With regard to 4 lanes wach way that may make sense when South Road is a free flowing expressway but until then there's only so much traffic that South Road can take. Also, Port Wakefield Road/Sailsbury highway (to the west) will still be able to take a lot of traffic (assuming it's left as-is). That plus 2x2 lanes for the connector may be sufficient initially with additional capacity in the Northern Connector road reserve for up to 4x2 lanes to cater for growth.

Thoughts ?

[adam73837]

With regard to 4 lanes wach way that may make sense when South Road is a free flowing expressway but until then there's only so much traffic that South Road can take. Also, Port Wakefield Road/Sailsbury highway (to the west) will still be able to take a lot of traffic (assuming it's left as-is). That plus 2x2 lanes for the connector may be sufficient initially with additional capacity in the Northern Connector road reserve for up to 4x2 lanes to cater for growth.

I agree with you drsmith. Before I begin, I want to state here and now that I am very, VERY happy with what I've been reading on this forum regarding the Northern Connector and the way in which it is being planned. The fact that they want to make it 4 lanes to prevent it from being a bottleneck... it's all very good. I (for once) congratulate the Government on this. It seems they are taking a leaf out of their Victorian Counterparts' book and taking this option: http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonl ... ityMap.pdf
However drsmith's point that "until South Road becomes a free-flowing expressway, there's only so much it can take" is a fantastic one. We drove down most of South Road last night (specifically from Mitsubishi to Mile-End) and although there was no one else there (seeing as it was about 12:30), you can see that it is an incredibly narrow stretch of road when you consider its importance to the city. The NorthernConnector should go ahead as planned because let's face it, we don't want to make the same mistakes as we did in the past ; however we must then conduct a PROPER study into South Road. With the Northern Connector feeding, most likely, the equivalent of 3 of its 4 lanes of traffic into South Road, the 2-lane route (one either side) that already has trouble, won't be able to cope. I don't mean to necessarily construct a Tollway, but if that's the best option, then let's do it. I've stated that South Road goes through Commercial Zones and past school zones, so before we really decide that that (South Road)'s the best option to carry freight and large amounts of traffic through Adelaide, perhaps we should consider these sorts of things...
More food for thought...

[King_Kong]

The alinment seems quite good- There are bigger things at play around building a new connector then just upgrading PWR. The Future 2030 Greater Adelaide plan requires an additional housing for SA to increase its population to over 2mil by 2027. Where are you going to build inner metropolitan housing apart from mostly in the north. Delfin and Ridley are in talks to sell off the salt lakes and build an additional 20k homes on site, City of salisbury is looking to try and relocate Boliver further north and build an additional 48k home on site. City of Salisbury also has future plans for St Kilda and potentially a new marina and development running along the northern side of outer harbour. All this land between salibury hwy/PWR and as far as Buckland Park is prime development land.

Thus you would need the future connector to have exists at Globe Derby and Dry Creek and Boliver, secondly PWR would be used to transport all the new micro suburbs to be constructed on the southern side of PWR without converging everyone onto one or the other ie PWR or connector.

All this has been in the making and planning of this new connector- and all i can say is good on you current Rann Government.
The north is a booming metropolis that will need to cater to an additional 100k residents, and additional 45k new jobs all within the next 20 years(just around Salisbury)

Building long term sustainable infrastructure to meet the needs of future generations is whats needed now.

PS if the only way to get this off the ground is to build a Toll- I would pay it.

[bm7500]

The alinment seems quite good- There are bigger things at play around building a new connector then just upgrading PWR. The Future 2030 Greater Adelaide plan requires an additional housing for SA to increase its population to over 2mil by 2027. Where are you going to build inner metropolitan housing apart from mostly in the north. Delfin and Ridley are in talks to sell off the salt lakes and build an additional 20k homes on site, City of salisbury is looking to try and relocate Boliver further north and build an additional 48k home on site. City of Salisbury also has future plans for St Kilda and potentially a new marina and development running along the northern side of outer harbour. All this land between salibury hwy/PWR and as far as Buckland Park is prime development land.

Thus you would need the future connector to have exists at Globe Derby and Dry Creek and Boliver, secondly PWR would be used to transport all the new micro suburbs to be constructed on the southern side of PWR without converging everyone onto one or the other ie PWR or connector.

All this has been in the making and planning of this new connector- and all i can say is good on you current Rann Government.
The north is a booming metropolis that will need to cater to an additional 100k residents, and additional 45k new jobs all within the next 20 years(just around Salisbury)

Building long term sustainable infrastructure to meet the needs of future generations is whats needed now.

PS if the only way to get this off the ground is to build a Toll- I would pay it.

My thoughts exactly. In addition to this it would be good to see the deviation of the rail freight line also incorporate space for a future passenger service line(s). therefore if the abovementioned developmenst go ahead, there will already be a passenger rail corridor set aside to serve these burgeoning suburbs.

[King_Kong]

Yes that would be great to see, but unlikely any additional infrastructure works would be added to the existing proposal. Currently Dry creek station and Mawson Station could handle the flows for the closer potential subdivisions, with maybe an upgrade to Dry creek. Further down the existing bus services could handle the Boliver developement with a short walk to the 411 I guess. Buckland Park is another story all together.

One of the greater aspects of the connector project is taking the transport rail off the suburban lines, this increases safety, decreases noise levels, but most importanly looking at the big picture- will slightly increase property values along the rail strip. making for a more pleasent place to live. We already suffer with plane noise at Mawson lakes, moving the freight line gives us one less thing to complain about lol.

But like most of you I find it hard to swallow at the cost of this extention. $1 Billion, the northern express way- double the size of this proposal was just under half that cost thats over $7mil / KM of road ok then halved as it will be dual way so $3.5mil / KM - I think im going to invest in Bitumen lol.