[COM] M2 Northern Connector | 15.5km | $867m

[neoballmon]

An earlier plan had a direct northbound Port Wakefield Road/Northern Expressway connection which IIRC, involved two extra bridges, but not stacked on top of one another as you have shown. Ramps stacked one on top of the other is minimised as much as possible to reduce visual impact and the sheer amount of raw materials required for longer and higher ramps. The old USA way of doing it is not considered cool here.

I didn't know this earlier plan had existed. That sounds like it would have been quite effective though. I posted this option, thinking it was the only feasable way to achieve it. I never thought for a second something like this would be in Adelaide (let alone the out-skirts of Metro Adelaide).

Whilst I was initially concerned that a double merge would be problematic, I don't think the volume of southbound traffic attemptin to head east on the Northern Expressway would be that great and hence wouldn't be too concerning.

I would say it would be fine, and given they built the southbound access after the initial project, there's always hope for them to add something to the Connector for added acces.

Either way, we'll just have to accept that we will see another half arsed go at road infrastructure to save money. Considering the light and medium industrial along the southern aspects of Port Wakefield, I'll be very interested if there is not some attempt to streamline road freight onto the northern expressway somehow. Right now the expectation is that semi trailers will happilly take a left turn from Pt Wakefield, travel over the connector and then a sharp right at the Waterloo Corner exchange.
This doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence but having said that, I'm just content that anything is being done to upgrade our road infrastructure at the moment.

Although access would be highly beneficial at the Connector/NExy, assuming a northbound access ramp is still at the Waterloo interchange, this would be useful to most road-users. There is quite little between Waterloo Corner Road and the NExy (with exception to St Kild Road, which will be closed and re-directed to Pt Wakefield Road via the new Waterloo interchange.

but I am still at a loss to understand why the Northern connector is considered to need 6 lanes and the superway?, when planning for South Road is for limited upgrades, 4 lanes and low speed limits.

Keep in mind that the Northern Connector will draw in from and spit out to both the South Road Superway (which will be 6 lanes at this end) AND the PRExy (4 lanes). As well as Salisbury Highway taking it's fair share of traffic, I think the Connector will still have sufficient traffic to justify 6 lanes.

I am also not filled with confidence that the end result of the "non stop south road" will be an adequate result even when it is finished, particularly given the high volume high speed roads tacked onto either end, but my thoughts on this are at length on other threads.

It will still be better than we have..

Reckon South Road will go 3+3 between Torrens and Port Roads?

Hope so, there will be plenty of room when the buildings on the Western side are all removed (I believe these have already been aquired). Be interesting to see how they handle the Hawker street intersection. I also wonder how they will handle the Regency to Torrens Road section, specially the sharp bend near the Torrens Road end of that stretch. The RAA flythrough from a couple of years back looks a bit un-realistic in this section unless one side of this is also aquired and cleared. Perhaps this sharp bend can be straightened out altogether by removing houses on the Western side of this bend and align it with the intersection. (suppose we have moved off the Northern Connector topic)

I can't see why they wouldn't, with their progress with the land aquisition.
That bend will definately pose a problem. I can clear it at 60km/h (just) but they can't encourage that unless the curve is re-aligned. Which would require more houses to be demolished than just those fronting South Road. This would have to be a tunnel or something similar that can be dug out straight under the properties. That, or retaining a 45km/h turn..

[claybro]

That bend will definately pose a problem. I can clear it at 60km/h (just) but they can't encourage that unless the curve is re-aligned. Which would require more houses to be demolished than just those fronting South Road. This would have to be a tunnel or something similar that can be dug out straight under the properties. That, or retaining a 45km/h turn..

Could they aquire 40 odd properties on the inside of that curve . 40 properties @ say $500K = $20MIL for a nice straight path to make an open trench to pass under Torrens Road intersection..surely a cheaper option than a tunnel. Would also allow a wider space for an exit lane onto Torrens Road as you travel south and allow for some noise buffer landscaping etc.

[Aidan]

That bend will definately pose a problem. I can clear it at 60km/h (just) but they can't encourage that unless the curve is re-aligned. Which would require more houses to be demolished than just those fronting South Road. This would have to be a tunnel or something similar that can be dug out straight under the properties. That, or retaining a 45km/h turn..

How large do you think the curve has to be? It looks to me as if the properties fronting South Road would provide sufficient space. If not, a lot more could be provided by demolishing just two additional houses (specifically 44 and 46 Lamont Street).

[claybro]

[
How large do you think the curve has to be? It looks to me as if the properties fronting South Road would provide sufficient space. If not, a lot more could be provided by demolishing just two additional houses (specifically 44 and 46 Lamont Street).

Fair call. Those blocks facing South Road at that spot are very deep.

[claybro]

Aidan, I'm a bit confused. In a former post on another thread when I was suggesting removing properties in one side of South Road Melrose Park, to provide a decent width corridor to provide adequate road width and speed, you were critical, and yet here you seem to endorse this approach. This stretch of South Road at Croydon Park is no worse than further South.

[Aidan]

Aidan, I'm a bit confused. In a former post on another thread when I was suggesting removing properties in one side of South Road Melrose Park, to provide a decent width corridor to provide adequate road width and speed, you were critical, and yet here you seem to endorse this approach. This stretch of South Road at Croydon Park is no worse than further South.

The stretch of South Road at Croydon Park is much worse than further south, for two reasons: stobie poles too close to the road, and the bend tight enough to restrict the speeds of some vehicles to less than 60km/h. And if (as others have said) the government has already acquired a lot of the properties along this stretch, there doesn't seem to be much point expressing opposition.

[Mr Smith]

The last few posts have absolutely NO RELEVANCE to the Northern Connector

[drsmith]

An earlier plan had a direct northbound Port Wakefield Road/Northern Expressway connection which IIRC, involved two extra bridges, but not stacked on top of one another as you have shown. Ramps stacked one on top of the other is minimised as much as possible to reduce visual impact and the sheer amount of raw materials required for longer and higher ramps. The old USA way of doing it is not considered cool here.

I didn't know this earlier plan had existed. That sounds like it would have been quite effective though. I posted this option, thinking it was the only feasable way to achieve it. I never thought for a second something like this would be in Adelaide (let alone the out-skirts of Metro Adelaide).

I did a bit of digging and found earlier plans for the Port Wakefield Road interchange as follows,

http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets ... web-nc.pdf

This was the first version with dual rail lines in the centre and only had a southbound connection for Port Wakefield Road over the Northern Expressway. Northbound traffic on Port Wakefield Road would have had to use the Waterloo Corner interchange to continue along Port Wakefield Road and the Northern Expressway. This was the version that started the Northern Connector from the Sailsbury Highway east of the current South Road interchange.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/9083813/MIS ... 4-Juneindd

This later version had more bridges, but not the northbound connection from Port Wakefield Road to the Northern Expressway that I thought. You need to scroll down through the document to view the interchange. This was the $2bn version with 4-lanes of expressway glory in each direction on seperate carriageways, dual rail tracks and and an emergency lane in the central median and all intermediate interchanges built in full.

Still, it wasn't quiet US style (image below) and has been scaled back somewhat in the current version.

[drsmith]

The last few posts have absolutely NO RELEVANCE to the Northern Connector

You are an imposter.

Everybody knows the real Smith was from the first series in glorious B&W.

[peas_and_corn]

"But my hair is still soapy!" heh. Vintage Smith.

[Mr Smith]

Sorry Dr, but my back is very delicate today

[AtD]

From Newcastle that's true, though a tunnel is likely to be constructed to solve the problem. Likewise from the Illawarra where this week's announcement that the Southern Freeway would be extended into Sydney was met witth skepticism by those who had heard it all before. But the Hume Highway (The main route in from Adelaide, Canberra and Melburne) links onto other motorways, while from the Blue Mountains the situation is almost the exact opposite, with a narrow rural road turning into a freeway.

My point was you rare get the same quality of road between a rural and suburban highways. The M5 East and ED (80km/h and 4 lanes) are nowhere near as high quality as the Hume (110km/h and 8 lanes). The M4 ends at Parramatta Road. Likewise any South Road upgrate or replacement would probably never be as fast or wide as the Northern and Southern Expressways.

[drsmith]

One side of politics at least has promised to fund the lion's share of Perth's own northern connector road project.

At a press conference drowned out by traffic from nearby Roe Highway this morning, Mr Abbott has trumped Labor by announcing $615 million for the Swan Valley bypass.

The bypass is part of the Perth to Darwin Highway and scheduled to begin construction in 2016.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/mp ... rth-roads/

Adelaide's version was of course first considered during the resources boom and in light of the then potential Olympic Dam expansion. It may be the prospect of those glory days that SA needs to recapture for this project to go ahead.

I suspect the talk of a toll road is just a means of putting on the backburner.

[drsmith]

The recent 30-year transport plan released by the SA Government contained an inconsistency in relation to the Northern Connector in that a map showed the full road project from end to end on the new alignment whereas a video clip showed the existing Port Wakefield Road alignment being used from just north of the Little Para River.



A June 2013 update from Infrastructure Australia will help clear up the confusion.

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov. ... _Brief.pdf

Essentially, it's now proposed to construct the road component in two stages. The first stage is from the South Road Superway to Bolivar Road in 2017/18 and the second stage from Bolivar Road to the Northern Expressway in 2020/21.

The connection to Port Wakefield for stage 1 between the Little Para River and Bolivar Road (as shown in the video) could be as simple as a 2-phase traffic signal allowing only major north-south movements.

In relation to the rail component, only land acquisition is considered. There's no timetable for construction.

[drsmith]

Further to the above is this, also from Infrastructure Australia,

Northern Connector (South Australian Government; $1.1 billion)

The Port of Adelaide is expected to experience continuing growth in freight volumes, placing pressure on the efficiency of freight movements to and from the port by road and rail. The roads that the Northern Connector will join – Port Wakefield Road and the Northern Expressway – are part of the National Land Transport Network.

The South Australian Government is proposing a road and rail link between the port and intermodal terminals at Penfield in the north of Adelaide.

The current proposal is to deliver the Northern Connector in two stages, and to include the rail solution as corridor preservation only:

• a 15.6 kilometre six lane (three lanes in each direction) Northern Connector road joining the Northern Expressway to the Port River Expressway. It is proposed to construct the Northern Connector in two stages:

• Stage 1 south of Bolivar Road to meet congestion modelled from 2016;

• Stage 2 north of Bolivar Road to meet congestion modelled from 2021; and

• land acquisition to preserve the future option of re-routing the interstate rail line to the west of Port Wakefield Road.

It is suggested that any project funding be conditional on the provision of an updated, detailed cost benefit analysis. In addition, the South Australian Government should also be asked to provide demand models to determine whether the project would still be economically viable in the presence of efficient road pricing, and include user charging at a rate that reflects efficient pricing as part of any road based solution.

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov. ... lan_LR.pdf

Infrastructure Australia's June 2013 Report to COAG and Assessments main page,

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/coag/