adam73837 wrote:Aidan wrote:camaro68 wrote:Hmm, So it's good for freight vehicles, excellent, then how do we get them from the corner of Portrush and cross roads to the new super way???
By road, of course!
Where have people got this idea that freeways are the only kinds of road that can carry traffic?
And why do you assume the end of the freeway is where the freight vehicles will be?
I think I can... make a statement (since the word "answer" isn't the best word to use here) regarding the first question. Camaro68 and several others here, (myself included) don't have "this idea" that freeways are the only roads that can carry traffic.
Then why do you automatically assume that every road that isn't a freeway is inadequate?
However, when it comes to freight, getting them onto transport corridors such as freeways is the best option because it means greater safety in suburban areas and less pollution (seeing as there is no stop-start-stop-start thing going on). Now, as for private vehicles, who says that all the vehicles utilising the freeways will enter the CBD? Quite frankly, if you're stupid enough to do that; you DESERVE to suffer through traffic jams!
Do you seriously imagine those motorists who are entering the CBD
wouldn't use the freeways? Or that their crowding onto the freeways wouldn't delay the non CBD traffic?
The pollution issue is a bit more complicated. Diesel engines do tend to clag when their load is higher, and while this applies more to older engines than newer designs, generally stop start traffic does produce more pollution even in these. However, nobody's planning to build a road entirely for freight vehicles, so the environmental benefit of less pollution per vehicle would probably be negated by the increase in the number of cars using the road.
As for greater safety, there are some benefits from separating fast moving vehicles from pedestrians. But if safety's the most important issue, shouldn't upgrading the notorious Victor Harbor Road take priority?
Besides, what about all the people that need to bypass the CBD? Remember that not everyone works there; there are major employment hubs at places such as Edinburgh and Outer Harbour.
What made you think anyone had forgotten those?
As for your second question, I think that the answer is pretty simple and I'm surprised someone like you asked something so basic. The reason that the freight vehicles will be at the end of the freeway is because of the fact that they have utilised them in order to get to Adelaide from wherever they came from and hence they are searching for the quickest way to get to their destination.
Your answer includes the assumption that
wherever they came from is somewhere from where they could utilize the freeway. The reason I asked the question is to highlight the fact that it usually isn't. Country SA is sparsely populated, so most of the road freight originates within the metropolitan area. And not all the freight goes to Adelaide - some goes to Victorian ports instead.
Of course Adelaide does get trucks from Victoria as well, but you can expect their numbers to decline once the Hills Bypass Railway is built.
Anyway, don't just take my word for it that the SE Freeway isn't where all the trucks are - check
the map. Despite the lack of parallel roads, it carries only 3500 commercial vehicles each way per day. And yes, I know that's a higher figure than most Adelaide roads - but it's nowhere near the highest.
Besides for those of you out there that are critical of any vision to bypass Portrush Road, I ask why you are supporting the concept of the Northern Expressway/ Northern Connector? It's the same basic idea for goodness sake!
OH!
That's right!
If it's an idea of Media Mike's then it's bound to be good for us all, isn't it?
Actually it's got nothing to do with Media Mike - and you can't've been paying much attention here, because I'm against many of his plans.
You may consider it to be the same basic idea, but I see huge differences. For a start, the Northern Expressway and Northern Connector locations are outside the metropolitan area, so building them doesn't require extensive demolition, isn't provoking the opposition that turning Portrush Road into a freeway would, and is likely to be far better value for money.
Also, look again at that map: Portrush Road gets 2600 commercial vehicles per day each way - if you think that's high, consider parts of South Road get double that. Of the roads that the Northern Expressway would relieve, Main North Road gets 2700, Salisbury Highway 3800, and Healsip Road 2900. And as for the roads that the Northern Connector will relieve, there's already 5700 on Port Wakefield Road before the Northern Expressway has even opened. And I think the figure of 6500 on the eastern end of the Port River Expressway is currently the highest in Adelaide.
Aidan wrote:What's the point of spending almost $1 Billion dollars to make a 1% improvement, trucks and cars (dare i say it) still need to travel down the pre WW 1 south road
And it's just a matter of time before that too is upgraded.
But I thought things are too expensive for Adelaide....
Yes, that's why it will take time! Money's likely to be more readily available in the future, but we're not a rich state yet - we can only afford to do it a bit at a time.
Aidan wrote:or weave their way down Portrush along regency road to get to it.
Weave? Last time I looked, Portrush and Regency roads had been upgraded to a high standard and did not require any weaving.
He doesn't mean to literally 'weave', but rather the fact that they need to move through suburban areas and relatively narrow roads compared to that of what freight trucks usually travel on through
metro areas.
Really? How wide do you think the roads usually are?
Aidan wrote:About as useful as a tram extension!!!
We could do with a few more of those as well...
Where to? Other than going within the CBD and North Adelaide, at the moment I really can't see where we could extend the trams to, but even then, I think the cost outweighs the benefits. We already have a bus service (that admittedly does need to be much more efficient
), so if people aren't utilising the buses, who's to say they utilise the trams? Is it because people see them as a novelty?
No, it's because they see them as better than buses.
As for where to, the best idea would be to convert the Outer Harbour Line (including the Grange Line) to light rail. Likewise with the Belair Line. Other useful branches would be Adelaide Airport (via SDBD), Mitcham (via Duthy Street) then joining the converted Belair Line to terminate at Sleeps Hill, Mawson Lakes (via Prospect Road), Marion Shopping Centre (via Morphett Road from Glengowrie), Henley (via Grange Road) and the eastern suburbs (tunnelling under the parklands then taking over existing bus routes).
Of course the usefulness of these routes varies, and I'm certainly not suggesting constructing them all before finishing upgrading South Road - but with the projected population increase, we will need much better public transport to avoid road congestion problems, and people generally prefer trams.
Aidan wrote:Another Rann pearler maybe he should have got smacked over the head with a rolled up how to build freeways text book.
Why? What's wrong with the Northern Expressway?
There's nothing wrong with the route, but I personally think that it's ridiculous to build it with 2 lanes in each direction. Build it with at least 3 lanes now, instead of having this stupid "if and when" mentality that they also had with South Rd in the 60s and more recently, the City West Bypass.
I don't see how three lanes plus a huge bottleneck where it meets Port Wakefield Road would be any better than two lanes. The important thing is that the structures such as bridges have been built to accommodate three lanes each way - plus we've saved some money from not having to do so much immediately.
Anyway, I don't think he's necessarily referring to the Northern Expressway here. Media Mike seems to have this mentality of building underpasses at every intersection on our N-S Corridor. It's probably due to the fact that it means more project announcements over a larger period of time so that it LOOKS LIKE he's consistently doing something about the problem. However it would have made much more sense to announce it as one big project because essentially, we're going to be spending the same amount of money; possibly
more when you consider inflation and the rate at which these underpasses are built
.
Inflation isn't constant, and technological advances can in some cases bring the cost of major civil works down. Even so, I think we should be doing much more during this economic downturn - but there would be no great advantage in announcing the South Road upgrade as one big project rather than lots of smaller ones. The public know it's all going to be upgraded eventually, but doing it in stages means it's not an obstacle to getting other things done as well. And I disagree about Media Mike's obsession with underpasses - sometimes overpasses are better, but in the locations where underpasses have been constructed, they were the right option.
