[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[bits]

There's no new sporting complex, it's a community center.

Whoops, even says right there in the image I was drawing in. Thanks for the clarification!

[shaun]

Would the South Road tunnel section between Anzac and Port Road absolutely have to be 6 lanes? Seems like there would be less demand on this section with a large amount of CBD traffic entering/exiting at these pints for/from the South and North respectively.

Yes it should. Currently over 40,000 vehicles use this stretch of South Road daily, and this will only continue to increase especially once the T2T project is complete. Adelaide already made the mistake decades ago by not implementing a long term transport solution. It would be unwise to go down a similar path and build an expensive roadway that will not be able to cope with current growth.

The entire corridor needs to be at minimum six lanes, with the exception of the outer suburbs (Gawler, Aldinga Beach etc)

[SBD]

It would not surprise me to see more traffic between Glen Osmond and Wingfield using the new motorway and Cross Road, too. It is not currently "national highway", but it is B-double approved.

[fishinajar]

Would the South Road tunnel section between Anzac and Port Road absolutely have to be 6 lanes? Seems like there would be less demand on this section with a large amount of CBD traffic entering/exiting at these pints for/from the South and North respectively.

Yes it should. Currently over 40,000 vehicles use this stretch of South Road daily, and this will only continue to increase especially once the T2T project is complete. Adelaide already made the mistake decades ago by not implementing a long term transport solution. It would be unwise to go down a similar path and build an expensive roadway that will not be able to cope with current growth.

The entire corridor needs to be at minimum six lanes, with the exception of the outer suburbs (Gawler, Aldinga Beach etc)

Crawf I'm still not 100% convinced. What is the traffic volume north and south of the section? If its say 60,000 or above my suggestion deserves some consideration. 4 express lanes cut and covered under an additional 4 lanes of local and Sir Don/Henley Beach Rd bound traffic would mean through traffic (presumably mainly industry and freight) could bypass the area entirely. Other traffic would have greatly reduced congestion over what we have now. The inner metro suburbs of Hilton and Mile End would not have a huge gash bulldozed through it. Not to mention I would imagine a much reduced price tag and far less impacting construction phase.
I fail to believe that the traffic volume demands would remain equal for the entire length of the corridor from north to south.

[SBD]

Crawf I'm still not 100% convinced. What is the traffic volume north and south of the section? If its say 60,000 or above my suggestion deserves some consideration. 4 express lanes cut and covered under an additional 4 lanes of local and Sir Don/Henley Beach Rd bound traffic would mean through traffic (presumably mainly industry and freight) could bypass the area entirely. Other traffic would have greatly reduced congestion over what we have now. The inner metro suburbs of Hilton and Mile End would not have a huge gash bulldozed through it. Not to mention I would imagine a much reduced price tag and far less impacting construction phase.
I fail to believe that the traffic volume demands would remain equal for the entire length of the corridor from north to south.

Does anyone know what the ultimate Labor plan is for road freight to move the bottom of the freeway at Glen Osmond and the Wingfield/Port Adelaide/Edinburgh/Dry Creek/Nuriootpa/Bowmans areas? Liberal have told us they would solve the problem starting from Monarto and go round the north (presumably using part of the Sturt Highway), but I haven't heard if Labor's plan involves a North-South Corridor-style plan on either Portrush or Cross Road. If it's Cross Road, then the section of the NS-corridor north of Emerson will pick up traffic that currently used Portrush and Hampstead Roads. It certainly seems likely that it will be the main road for a while in any scenario.

[[Shuz]]

Quite frankly, there would be little or no planning done yet because the of the MATS plan. Remember the backlash from that?

Also, inner city residents in Unley, Mitcham and Burnside are just not going to tolerate a freeway along Cross Road. That's never going to happen.

An expensive solution would be to tunnel - with what money?

Or maybe revisit the Hills Expressway concept? But then there's a huge Greens and environmental activism influence in the Hills.

Politically there is no winning scenario, and therefore its of no consideration.

[how good is he]

Is there any reason why a tunnel bored deep enough couldn't take any path it wanted and pass under existing buildings/homes etc? This would save a fortune in property resumptions. Think the Clem Jones tunnel, Brisbane. The distance from say Brickworks, Torrensville to Tonsley is about 10kms. This would complete the south-north rd corridor in one hit (with just a bypass/tunnel needed at Regency Rd) and save major disruption and property resumptions.

[fishinajar]

Is there any reason why a tunnel bored deep enough couldn't take any path it wanted and pass under existing buildings/homes etc? This would save a fortune in property resumptions. Think the Clem Jones tunnel, Brisbane. The distance from say Brickworks, Torrensville to Tonsley is about 10kms. This would complete the south-north rd corridor in one hit (with just a bypass/tunnel needed at Regency Rd) and save major disruption and property resumptions.

Not sure how much $ it would save. Those machines and process is expen$ive.

[mawsonguy]

Brisbane’s Airport Link (completed 2012) cost $747 million a kilometre and Sydney’s Cross City Tunnel (finished in 2005) was constructed at a capital cost per kilometre at $476 million. So a 10km tunnel for South Road would cost about $7.5 billion. Where is that money going to come from? At a modest 5%, it would have to generate about $325 million pa in savings to justify it's construction. That is unlikely. And then there are the inevitable fights over the location of the exhaust vents.

[claybro]

Tunnels are not an ideal soloution in routes carrying large volumes of frieght, as many toxic loads are not permitted in long tunnels. Think, chemicals, certain gasses, hospital and industrial waste all would be banned in a 10km tunnel. The only section that would really warrant the expense of a tunnel is possibly in the vicinity of Henley Beach road, and then only about 1.5 kms max. The rest of south road through Glandore, Edwardstown , st Mary's , there is nothing of note that is not tealtively cheap to acquire and bulldoze. Would be even better if they had not permitted developement in the last decade, as many in the transport industry knew, this route had been decided on for at least that long.

[drsmith]

On the cost of road tunnelling, twin 12m wide road tunnels ~3 km long have been priced for a road project on Perth's coastal plain at ~$900m (Roe 9). That project of 5km included a trench at the northern end perhaps 1km long passing under 2 further roads.

https://www.waliberal.org.au/latest-new ... el-option/

A twin bore 8km Perth coastal plain rail tunnel project including 3 stations was awarded last year for $1.176bn.

http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/forrestfieldai ... ct-awarded

IIRC these rail tunnels are to be 6.5m wide.

We won't know if the Roe 9 project above could have been delivered for that as the government proposing it lost office in yesterday's WA state election but we'll find out whether the rail project can be delivered for the contract price as that's presently under construction and supported by both sides of politics.

[how good is he]

Ok anyone guess/know the minimum cost/spend/budget needed to finish the corridor allowing for property resumptions and everything else?

[Norman]

Forgot to post this yesterday, the Port Road bridge was being concreted yesterday. The surface road between Port Road and the rail overpass was also being worked on. Should be ready to open in 2-4 weeks.

[SBD]

Quite frankly, there would be little or no planning done yet because the of the MATS plan. Remember the backlash from that?

Also, inner city residents in Unley, Mitcham and Burnside are just not going to tolerate a freeway along Cross Road. That's never going to happen.

An expensive solution would be to tunnel - with what money?

Or maybe revisit the Hills Expressway concept? But then there's a huge Greens and environmental activism influence in the Hills.

Politically there is no winning scenario, and therefore its of no consideration.

I think we could hear quite a bit at the next two elections of "vote for me and I will spend gobloads of money on infrastructure in somebody else's electorate."

[fishinajar]

Tunnels are not an ideal soloution in routes carrying large volumes of frieght, as many toxic loads are not permitted in long tunnels. Think, chemicals, certain gasses, hospital and industrial waste all would be banned in a 10km tunnel. The only section that would really warrant the expense of a tunnel is possibly in the vicinity of Henley Beach road, and then only about 1.5 kms max. The rest of south road through Glandore, Edwardstown , st Mary's , there is nothing of note that is not tealtively cheap to acquire and bulldoze. Would be even better if they had not permitted developement in the last decade, as many in the transport industry knew, this route had been decided on for at least that long.

Good insight claybro. 1.5km could get under Henley Beach and Sir Don. That would be a good outcome.