Sensational-Adelaide.com

crawf wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:48 pm

Whatever they do, it's crucial it's at least 3x3 lanes.

We already made the mistake decades ago with not implementing the MATS plan, let's not repeat history by not future proofing this motorway.

Videos seem to have 2x3 lanes in a trench, but only 2x2lanes in tunnels.

I might accept that more water could flow through a pipe than a drain, but I don’t think the same logic applies to cars, ev n if you can model traffic as a fluid.

crawf wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:48 pm

Whatever they do, it's crucial it's at least 3x3 lanes.

We already made the mistake decades ago with not implementing the MATS plan, let's not repeat history by not future proofing this motorway.

Not implementing the MATS plan was definitely not a mistake, I"m pretty sure the residents of Hindmarsh can vouch for that...

Pistol wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:46 pm

crawf wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:48 pm

Whatever they do, it's crucial it's at least 3x3 lanes.

We already made the mistake decades ago with not implementing the MATS plan, let's not repeat history by not future proofing this motorway.

Not implementing the MATS plan was definitely not a mistake, I"m pretty sure the residents of Hindmarsh can vouch for that...

abandoning it was not a mistake, but selling off all the land was

SBD wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:17 pm

crawf wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:48 pm

Whatever they do, it's crucial it's at least 3x3 lanes.

We already made the mistake decades ago with not implementing the MATS plan, let's not repeat history by not future proofing this motorway.

Videos seem to have 2x3 lanes in a trench, but only 2x2lanes in tunnels.

I might accept that more water could flow through a pipe than a drain, but I don’t think the same logic applies to cars, ev n if you can model traffic as a fluid.

Surely if we are to future proof the motorway, the tunnels will be 3x3 lanes. Hoping they were just slack with the video concept (which wouldn't be unusual).

aceman wrote:so does this funding include the pym st - superway section or is that funded separately?

That is funded separately.

Im getting confused by everyone's number multiplication.

We want 3 lanes both directions right? ( in my head that is 2 x 3 or 3 + 3).

I would have thought that would be minimum in that part of the roadway.

Regency to Pym is a separate package of works which is currently in tender phase.

aceman wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:13 pm

so does this funding include the pym st - superway section or is that funded separately?

Yes very concerned that the PR clips showing only 2 lanes each way. There’s a bit of a track record repeating here (remember the “one way freeway”) but this time not the sort of stuff up that can easily be fixed later.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Would is save money and ensure the more lanes if they tunnelled 3 lanes in one direction and 3 lanes on the surface in the other? So, have northbound traffic underground and southbound on ground level?

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:42 pm

Would is save money and ensure the more lanes if they tunnelled 3 lanes in one direction and 3 lanes on the surface in the other? So, have northbound traffic underground and southbound on ground level?

No. Because to have even a one way expressway on the surface would still require separation from local traffic and properly managed entry/exit points and overpasses of other roads anyway. Property acquisition would still be required, although maybe slightly less...but you cant buy half a block fronting a main road, so I doubt even to acquisition would be that much less. If anything it would be more expensive doing it this way.

Norman wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:03 pm

So that's both major parties committing the same amount of money. Now it's up to the engineers to come up with the solutions on which option should be taken. Exciting times!

The Federal Libs have now promised a total of 2.7b and Federal Labor only 1.2b. The State Libs will match the 2.7b with a loan from the taxpayers of SA giving a total of 5.4b.

This should be enough to complete this corridor hopefully.

It will be interesting to see if Federal Labor will also make the same commitment before the coming election.

Furyan wrote:

Norman wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:03 pm

So that's both major parties committing the same amount of money. Now it's up to the engineers to come up with the solutions on which option should be taken. Exciting times!

The Federal Libs have now promised a total of 2.7b and Federal Labor only 1.2b. The State Libs will match the 2.7b with a loan from the taxpayers of SA giving a total of 5.4b.

This should be enough to complete this corridor hopefully.

It will be interesting to see if Federal Labor will also make the same commitment before the coming election.

They will, just closer to state elections as there are plenty of close seats down south.

A-Town wrote:

SBD wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:17 pm

crawf wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:48 pm

Whatever they do, it's crucial it's at least 3x3 lanes.

We already made the mistake decades ago with not implementing the MATS plan, let's not repeat history by not future proofing this motorway.

Videos seem to have 2x3 lanes in a trench, but only 2x2lanes in tunnels.

I might accept that more water could flow through a pipe than a drain, but I don’t think the same logic applies to cars, ev n if you can model traffic as a fluid.

Surely if we are to future proof the motorway, the tunnels will be 3x3 lanes. Hoping they were just slack with the video concept (which wouldn't be unusual).

Lets hope so, I am a regular user of the south eastern freeway, tonight was a prime example for the need for an extra lane a simple breakdown, once attended by police completely brought to the road to a crawl. Other nights minor accidents attended by police, fire brigade, and Ambulance and there is grid lock.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pistol wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:46 pm

crawf wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:48 pm

Whatever they do, it's crucial it's at least 3x3 lanes.

We already made the mistake decades ago with not implementing the MATS plan, let's not repeat history by not future proofing this motorway.

Not implementing the MATS plan was definitely not a mistake, I"m pretty sure the residents of Hindmarsh can vouch for that...

I mean the N-S Freeway. The rest of the MATS plan was overkill.

This entire stretch of road is going to cost nearly ten billion dollars. If this was built decades ago or the land wasn't sold off, we could be instead allocating that large sum of billions towards a much needed overhaul of our PT network including an underground loop.

Neverthless it's long in the past. I just hope with whatever option they proceed with they plan for long term growth.

Furyan wrote:

Norman wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:03 pm

So that's both major parties committing the same amount of money. Now it's up to the engineers to come up with the solutions on which option should be taken. Exciting times!

The Federal Libs have now promised a total of 2.7b and Federal Labor only 1.2b. The State Libs will match the 2.7b with a loan from the taxpayers of SA giving a total of 5.4b.

This should be enough to complete this corridor hopefully.

It will be interesting to see if Federal Labor will also make the same commitment before the coming election.

Bill Shorten has already promised the extra $1.5b on top of the already announced $1.2b.

Both parties are offering the same money. $1.2b for Anzac to Torrens and $1.5b for Anzac to Darlington.