Sensational-Adelaide.com

I would have thought R4 and R5 would be most important. Regardless of the likely issues we should get that done first.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

I came up with an alternative to the R4 and R5 sections. Most of the route follows James Congdon Drive from South Road, through to Port Road Thebarton, across diagonally to Cawthorne Tce up to the River Torrens, and again diagonally across with Adam Street to the existing start of the current Torrens to Torrens project.

Regards.
Ray.

GoodSmackUp wrote:add Port Wakefield bypass to that list

I second that. A staged build to suit demand over time with ultimate design to the same standard as section 3 of Northlink WA (northern section of the Swan Valley bypass) north of Perth would be ideal.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olhygH4-JtY]

A first stage for example could be a single carriageway bypass east of Port Wakefield without the interchange bridges but with the roundabouts where the new bypass intersects the existing arterial road network. This was the plan for the project above however the ultimate design was able to be contracted within the project budget in the current infrastructure contracting environment.

Do you mean that as an alternative route during construction or alternative for the motorway?

ChillyPhilly wrote:

Let's say best case scenario is we get R1 for $187 million and R3 for $312 million. For a total of $479 million, what are the odds that we could see a State and Federal matched funds deal?

Apart from these two sections, R4/R5 should be the dream.

Something else I find interesting in that table is the large relative cost differences between estimates A and B for R1 and R3.

It makes wonder if A and B represent substantially different design options for those two sections.

RayRichards wrote:I came up with an alternative to the R4 and R5 sections. Most of the route follows James Congdon Drive from South Road, through to Port Road Thebarton, across diagonally to Cawthorne Tce up to the River Torrens, and again diagonally across with Adam Street to the existing start of the current Torrens to Torrens project.

Regards.
Ray.

Creative, that's some serious deviation for nth-sth through traffic though. Probably would have been best to bring the sth traffic up Anzac highway for such a deviation to be worthwhile for city use, and that ships already sailed.

The thing is though, the motorway is primarily designed for freight, not for commuters driving to the city. It's best that the road stays as far away from the city as possible, while servicing the manufacturing areas.

RayRichards wrote:I came up with an alternative to the R4 and R5 sections. Most of the route follows James Congdon Drive from South Road, through to Port Road Thebarton, across diagonally to Cawthorne Tce up to the River Torrens, and again diagonally across with Adam Street to the existing start of the current Torrens to Torrens project.

Regards.
Ray.

Interesting. Most of this coincidentally follows part of the old MATS Plan's proposed route for the North-South Freeway.

But, as Norm said, this would service a need that the completed Motorway is not planned to address.

RayRichards wrote:I came up with an alternative to the R4 and R5 sections. Most of the route follows James Congdon Drive from South Road, through to Port Road Thebarton, across diagonally to Cawthorne Tce up to the River Torrens, and again diagonally across with Adam Street to the existing start of the current Torrens to Torrens project.

Regards.
Ray.

What an absolute dogs breakfast, there is no need for such a massive deviation which wouldn't be able to accommodate 100kph freeway speeds, not to mention the sheer amount of property acquisition required. This is exactly the sort of ridiculous fantasy thinking that killed the MATS.

RayRichards wrote:I came up with an alternative to the R4 and R5 sections. Most of the route follows James Congdon Drive from South Road, through to Port Road Thebarton, across diagonally to Cawthorne Tce up to the River Torrens, and again diagonally across with Adam Street to the existing start of the current Torrens to Torrens project.

Regards.
Ray.

Yeah, nah

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

RayRichards wrote:I came up with an alternative to the R4 and R5 sections. Most of the route follows James Congdon Drive from South Road, through to Port Road Thebarton, across diagonally to Cawthorne Tce up to the River Torrens, and again diagonally across with Adam Street to the existing start of the current Torrens to Torrens project.

Regards.
Ray.

If T2T hadn't been started, that would be an interesting idea. But rather then the route you chose to get to James Congdon Drive, it would be better to do up Port Road first.
Despite the negative nancy's above lol, I don't think it's a bad idea.
Look at Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney, their motorways either run through or past their City/CBD.
Look beyond Australia, at Shanghai..motorways/ring route..Tokyo same thing..Athens same thing..Paris same thing..

Most of those motorways were designed in the 1960s and 1970s, things have chanced since then in terms of city and transport planning.

As I said earlier, most freeways today are designed for freight purposes, not commuting to the city. Look at WestConnex (Airport/Port Botany), Roe8 (Fremantle Port), Western Distributor (Port of Melbourne), Northern Connector (Outer Harbor), etc...

Thought I'd throw this together just for curiosity. Approximate MATS Plan route of the N-S Freeway on the left in green, RayRichards' alignment on the right.

Norman wrote:Most of those motorways were designed in the 1960s and 1970s, things have chanced since then in terms of city and transport planning.

As I said earlier, most freeways today are designed for freight purposes, not commuting to the city. Look at WestConnex (Airport/Port Botany), Roe8 (Fremantle Port), Western Distributor (Port of Melbourne), Northern Connector (Outer Harbor), etc...

And what's being built in Adelaide is following along a very similar path/plan to what was laid out in the original MATS plan. So what point where you trying to make about their design being from a few decades ago?
We had an extensive tram network once in Adelaide, long before the MATS plan, and now we are trying to rebuild it small piece by small piece. Are you saying we shouldn't, because it's a decades old design/technology or something...?

The flavor of the month may be to try and get more commuters onto public transport, and more freight vehicles off suburban roads and eventually onto motorways, but that doesn't take away from the fact that private commuter vehicles will be the biggest users in terms of numbers of these new motorways/freeways being built.
And as long as there are cars to buy, they will continue being the biggest users of road infrastructure.

The case of motorways/freeways for freight is a separate issue and shouldn't detract from the fact that me, in my personal vehicle, and the tens of thousands of others in their personal vehicles, will outnumber the amount of trucks on these motorways by several times.

rev wrote:

Norman wrote:Most of those motorways were designed in the 1960s and 1970s, things have chanced since then in terms of city and transport planning.

As I said earlier, most freeways today are designed for freight purposes, not commuting to the city. Look at WestConnex (Airport/Port Botany), Roe8 (Fremantle Port), Western Distributor (Port of Melbourne), Northern Connector (Outer Harbor), etc...

And what's being built in Adelaide is following along a very similar path/plan to what was laid out in the original MATS plan. So what point where you trying to make about their design being from a few decades ago?
We had an extensive tram network once in Adelaide, long before the MATS plan, and now we are trying to rebuild it small piece by small piece. Are you saying we shouldn't, because it's a decades old design/technology or something...?

The flavor of the month may be to try and get more commuters onto public transport, and more freight vehicles off suburban roads and eventually onto motorways, but that doesn't take away from the fact that private commuter vehicles will be the biggest users in terms of numbers of these new motorways/freeways being built.
And as long as there are cars to buy, they will continue being the biggest users of road infrastructure.

The case of motorways/freeways for freight is a separate issue and shouldn't detract from the fact that me, in my personal vehicle, and the tens of thousands of others in their personal vehicles, will outnumber the amount of trucks on these motorways by several times.

The MATS plan was definitely a freeway system designed for city commuters, especially since a lot of its connections (except the North-South spine and the Dry Creek Expressway) went nowhere near freight-dominant areas, but were mostly poi8nted at the city. The cars were just the dominant choice of travel at the time, and there was little to no concern to the negative affects such as congestion, pollution and the abandonment of main streets. Today we need to continue to move to a multi-mode system of public transport, freight and commuters. Commuters should be given road space for cross-town commutes (where no efficient public transport option currently exists due to our low density and lack of activity centres), but not to the city. The city has plenty of options for going in without a car.

However, freight needs to get to ports and other manufacturing hubs quickly and efficiently. If there are a few cross-town commuters in the mix, then that's fine, as long as it does not get out of control and impede freight. That means making the best of land use policy to encourage commercial jobs, where possible, to be in the city.

I'm not saying the MATS plan was bad, but about half of the proposals are just not appropriate today given how the city has changed since then and how policy has developed to form the city we have today.