Sensational-Adelaide.com

Norman wrote:As far as I'm aware the reason the grade changes is because of different environmental factors in different areas. In places like Wingfield having a lowered freeway is too costly because of soil contamination. Because it is all industrial, visual amenity factors don't come into play. In other areas like Croydon it is built lowered for visual amenity for the residential areas.

Exactly

Also I believe the trench gives better noise blocking and costs less to build and maintain.
Wingfield and Edwardstown areas have contaminated soil so will be/are elevated.

claybro wrote:For an expressway to keep changing grades every couple of kilometres is ridiculous, given trucks need noisy and costly acceleration and deceleration on gradients.

Pretty sure similar roads have gradient changes.
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/20 ... bridge.jpg

bits wrote:There is a publically released plan that has been linked a bunch of times.

http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/nsc ... y_strategy
http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__d ... rategy.pdf

Regency Road crossing is to be an elevated road/superway.
I do not see any reason for why this would have changed.

Yes, page 26 of the delivery strategy specifies as follows,

Elevated road over Regency Road
 Mostly commercial/industrial area with some residential properties;
 North-South Corridor over Regency Road requires less land acquisition than other options considered.

P50 costing from north of Regency Road to South of Torrens Road was also estimated to be $680m. That's obviously somewhat less now for the equivalent amount of road in the current infrastructure contracting environment but I wonder if $150m is still a stretch to get from south of Pym St to north of Regency Road.

Time may tell.

The following animation from December last year suggests to me that ultimate widening of the South Road corridor through Pym St will take place west of the existing road.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_SMN6G8xB8

drsmith wrote:

bits wrote:There is a publically released plan that has been linked a bunch of times.

http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/nsc ... y_strategy
http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__d ... rategy.pdf

Regency Road crossing is to be an elevated road/superway.
I do not see any reason for why this would have changed.

Yes, page 26 of the delivery strategy specifies as follows,

Elevated road over Regency Road
 Mostly commercial/industrial area with some residential properties;
 North-South Corridor over Regency Road requires less land acquisition than other options considered.

P50 costing from north of Regency Road to South of Torrens Road was also estimated to be $680m. That's obviously somewhat less now for the equivalent amount of road in the current infrastructure contracting environment but I wonder if $150m is still a stretch to get from south of Pym St to north of Regency Road.

Time may tell.

Once again I have to ask,- how can these details possibly not be known already, given it is likely to commence within the next 3-5 years? All this conjecture is not fair on adjacent land/home/business owners. It must play havoc with their planning, and also allows speculative development of properties that should have been long ago quarantined as is occurring still in the Southern section around Edwardstown. its not as if it has not been obvious for at least 5 years now that South Road was to become a freeway/expressway/motorway.

I don't think that it is necessary to upgrade the whole of the section from the end of the Superway to the start of the T2T to freeway standard. As a first step just put a bridge over Regency Road and close off right turns at Pym Street and do it in a way that allows an upgrade to freeway standard later. The only difference upgrading the 800m straight stretch between Regency Rd and Pym St to a 90kph zone would make is to save 11.5 sec of traveling time.

mawsonguy wrote:I don't think that it is necessary to upgrade the whole of the section from the end of the Superway to the start of the T2T to freeway standard. As a first step just put a bridge over Regency Road and close off right turns at Pym Street and do it in a way that allows an upgrade to freeway standard later. The only difference upgrading the 800m straight stretch between Regency Rd and Pym St to a 90kph zone would make is to save 11.5 sec of traveling time.

Merging lanes due to road narrowing, and braking due to reduced speed limits cause significant congestion on free flowing roads well over what the difference in speed limit over a given distance alone would indicate. This will become more evident the more of the corridor is upgraded. It will not soon be possible to plan this by leaving small sections in between the upgraded sections, as the congestion at the pinch points will reach back into the upgraded sections. A better approach might now be to start at the Northern and Southern ends at the same time, in stretches determined by funding until it meets in the middle.

I just want a motorway standard road to join the Superway to the T2T project because my OCD if flaring up over having two things of the same so close, but not touching.

claybro wrote:

drsmith wrote:

bits wrote:There is a publically released plan that has been linked a bunch of times.

http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/nsc ... y_strategy
http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__d ... rategy.pdf

Regency Road crossing is to be an elevated road/superway.
I do not see any reason for why this would have changed.

Yes, page 26 of the delivery strategy specifies as follows,

Elevated road over Regency Road
 Mostly commercial/industrial area with some residential properties;
 North-South Corridor over Regency Road requires less land acquisition than other options considered.

P50 costing from north of Regency Road to South of Torrens Road was also estimated to be $680m. That's obviously somewhat less now for the equivalent amount of road in the current infrastructure contracting environment but I wonder if $150m is still a stretch to get from south of Pym St to north of Regency Road.

Time may tell.

Once again I have to ask,- how can these details possibly not be known already, given it is likely to commence within the next 3-5 years? All this conjecture is not fair on adjacent land/home/business owners. It must play havoc with their planning, and also allows speculative development of properties that should have been long ago quarantined as is occurring still in the Southern section around Edwardstown. its not as if it has not been obvious for at least 5 years now that South Road was to become a freeway/expressway/motorway.

It looks like they are actually more-or-less following option 2 shown on page 137 of the "new delivery strategy" in the second link. If they continue to follow that plan, then the "little gap" and continuing South from T2T will be next. Emerson Crossing is noted as an "early works" public transport project to provide grade separation of the railway line.

SBD wrote:Emerson Crossing is noted as an "early works" public transport project to provide grade separation of the railway line.

Not sure why our state govt constantly refers to level-crossing removals as 'public transport projects' when train users suffer most of the inconvenience and disruption so that the cars get all the benefit.

Emerson crossing? Why is it even on a list of priorities at this point?

claybro wrote:Emerson crossing? Why is it even on a list of priorities at this point?

Because it crosses two very major roads, Cross and South Roads. High priority.

How does it cross South road? South road goes over Emerson already. Am I mussing something here?

claybro wrote:How does it cross South road? South road goes over Emerson already. Am I mussing something here?

The Emerson overpass will be demolished to make way for a raised roadway coming from the direction of Edwardstown... The plan (as I understood it) was to lower the Seaford train-line below Cross Road as part of this process. Believe me, if you've ever travelled through that section of Cross Road during peak times, it's hell (even off-peak it's not great).

metro wrote:
Not sure why our state govt constantly refers to level-crossing removals as 'public transport projects' when train users suffer most of the inconvenience and disruption so that the cars get all the benefit.

In theory level crossings shouldn't cause delay to rail traffic. However in the Seaford line resignalling many of the signals approaching crossings were changed from automatic to controllable. Where there is a station just before a crossing signals are generally not cleared until the train almost arrives at the station. This means the preceding signal remains at yellow and there is now a rule that a 40 kph restriction applies from the yellow signal to the next signal, thus causing slow running of trains. The delayed clearing of signals at crossings is intended to minimise the time that the crossing gates are down. This means at present road benefits and rail is disadvantaged.

At Emerson there are currently 16 trains per hour in the peak periods on Seaford and Tonsley lines. Leader Street sees the Belair traffic and the ARTC freight in addition!