Sensational-Adelaide.com

Aidan, large, high signs along elevated highways are common practice all over the world.

spiller wrote:Aidan, large, high signs along elevated highways are common practice all over the world.

In the form of billboards, yes. And many office blocks have corporate logos on them visible from elevated highways. But putting up signs to alert motorists on the elevated highway to the presence of a fuel station they can't access is not common practice!

Aidan wrote:

spiller wrote:Aidan, large, high signs along elevated highways are common practice all over the world.

In the form of billboards, yes. And many office blocks have corporate logos on them visible from elevated highways. But putting up signs to alert motorists on the elevated highway to the presence of a fuel station they can't access is not common practice!

I disagree. Plenty of gas stations in the US utilise similar signage along their highways. Maybe not as much in built up areas as opposed to rural areas but they exist, and quite commonly. What's the big deal with it anyway? Not as if that stretch of road is particularly easy on the eye such that a big sign will spoil the view.

Let's not do this. One nice thing about having an elevated motorway is the view.

monotonehell wrote:Let's not do this. One nice thing about having an elevated motorway is the view.

I agree, but unless it becomes a council by-law, I can't see it stopping. Advertising - it's ugly but it works.

While the upper level is now open in both directions and I tried out the going north direction on the week end , the lower level north of of Grand junction Road is far from complete. It was not possible to drive north from grand junction road to Cormack road last Sunday without numerous detours.

GoodSmackUp wrote:

rev wrote:It amazes me how this can cost nearly $900 million and yet there is still exposed plumbing visible while driving on south rd below. Looks ridiculous, as if plumbing and drainage was an after thought.

Even worse, when it rains, it leaks in sever spots onto south rd below.


Should we expect the torrens to torrens trench to have exposed stop water pipes and to flood when it rains?

There's also a gap in between two road segments, it's near the grand junction road exit

Yes those nuisance leaks will be sealed. Still have shrouds at the piers to erect to hide the plumbing, but the longitudinal stuff will be visible, although they tuck behind the parapet.

850 million included accommodation works and the precast yard. Believe me, the state has well and truly got its moneys worth.

Gap in segments will be completed.

EBG wrote:While the upper level is now open in both directions and I tried out the going north direction on the week end , the lower level north of of Grand junction Road is far from complete. It was not possible to drive north from grand junction road to Cormack road last Sunday without numerous detours.

Yes as I indicated in a previous post, at grade is still being completed. Weekends and nights are utilised to carry out this work.

Remember you cant reach Salisbury Highway at grade. In fact if you head north from Grand Junction Rd and want to stay at grade, the final design does not allow a direct route as per the old south Rd. That has now disappeared, and you will need to turn left at the Caltex, travel along Brabham circuit, right at Francis Rd, then left on the alignment which resembles the old at Grade South Rd. Even then you will arrive at Wing Street and can not go any further north.

rev wrote:

Westside wrote:Just beacuse a road is open does not mean the project is complete. There is usually a grace period where any defects are identified and must be rectified before the road is handed over and project deemed complete. I suggest this is still some months away.

Well, yeah, however those same sections that leak onto the road below, have been leaking for months already every time there is a bit of rain about.
Those pipes on the underside have been viewable for many more months then that as well.


I've also noticed the road surfaces are different.
Driving along south road north bound below, as you pass the BP and come up towards the precast yard, and up till the grand junction rd intersection, the surface is very noisy in particular as you slow down.
Never heard so much noise on a new road surface before.

No, the asphaltic wearing course is the same, from the same batch plant, same process, same mix design; just laid on a different shift but under very similar conditions. Bog standard AC10 modified binder dense grade mix.

How quiet is it on the deck though, the Open Grade really keeps the noise down.

In regards to the leaks, the sumps have not been in for very long, so before that there were sheets of ply over the penetrations. Some sumps are fine, others need some extra sealing, and at others its the connection to the plumbing. Will be fixed.

AG wrote:

Westside wrote:Just beacuse a road is open does not mean the project is complete. There is usually a grace period where any defects are identified and must be rectified before the road is handed over and project deemed complete. I suggest this is still some months away.

I am aware that there is still some minor drainage works going on, but for general purpose and usage, it is at practical completion where the infrastructure is open for the key function it is designed to perform.

It is not at practical completion at this point in time. It is operating in a limited capacity, at lower speeds and without the ITS - Intelligent Transport System - operational. Signals at grade are also still being completed, amongst other things. However we are getting there.

superway_sam wrote:It is not at practical completion at this point in time. It is operating in a limited capacity, at lower speeds and without the ITS - Intelligent Transport System - operational.

Saw a post on DPTI's Facebook informing that the southbound carriageway would be closed overnight on Friday for signal testing. Does that mean if the signals are working fine, they'll be switched on permanently with the new 90 limit?

Superway Sam, thankyou for your posts, they are very informative and clear up a lot of speculation. Much appreciated.

I use this once per week in both directions on a commute between business locations. Yesterday whilst heading north, it appears this has created a large bottle neck where traffic merges from the Port River expressway onto Port Wakefield Road in a northerly direction. It is a single lane merge. I'm not sure if this has always been a bit of a bottle neck but my thoughts are that the superway is now delivering traffic to Pt.WR at a much faster rate than the old system, and this basic merger cannot keep up. bring on the northern connector?

rhino wrote:Superway Sam, thankyou for your posts, they are very informative and clear up a lot of speculation. Much appreciated.

x2 thanks Sam, appreciate you clearing up the things I posted about.

spiller wrote:I use this once per week in both directions on a commute between business locations. Yesterday whilst heading north, it appears this has created a large bottle neck where traffic merges from the Port River expressway onto Port Wakefield Road in a northerly direction. It is a single lane merge. I'm not sure if this has always been a bit of a bottle neck but my thoughts are that the superway is now delivering traffic to Pt.WR at a much faster rate than the old system, and this basic merger cannot keep up. bring on the northern connector?

Port River Expressway doesn't connect to Port Wakefield Rd