Sensational-Adelaide.com

Did'nt that end up with a grand tram junction right in the middle. Interesting tramline configuration.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Omicron wrote:I have little doubt that the city would continue to function as normal without a Grote/Wakefield thoroughfare - the horses and carts of simpletons trying to find their way from one side of town to the other would still make it to the vacuum bag store on Wakefield (or whatever limited-patronage stores are hidden down there) or to the Markets.

When there's a proper study done that shows conclusively the effect on customer numbers along Grote/Wakefield we might restore some sense to the debate rather than have shouty types bleating about purely anecdotal or non-existent evidence of their trade-ending concerns.

Sure the city (and the businesses concerned) will continue to function, but what about those who want to traverse the city east-west and vice versa? Why waste such a direct route (and being wide and all) by sending traffic around what will end up as a traffic-congested square? I know undergrounding will cost millions (see: Bakewell Underpass $41m), but it's the best solution for the future, surely?

Cheers

Ho Really wrote:Sure the city (and the businesses concerned) will continue to function, but what about those who want to traverse the city east-west and vice versa? Why waste such a direct route (and being wide and all) by sending traffic around what will end up as a traffic-congested square? I know undergrounding will cost millions (see: Bakewell Underpass $41m), but it's the best solution for the future, surely?

Cheers

It's just one route. If you need to cross the city, there's plenty of other east-west roads you can take.

Ho Really wrote:I know undergrounding will cost millions (see: Bakewell Underpass $41m), but it's the best solution for the future, surely?

The best solution for who? Cross-city drivers? The long ramps that a tunnel would need certainly wouldn't make it any easier or attractive for people actually using the area -- and surely they're for whom we should want to design the city?

Nathan wrote:

Ho Really wrote:Sure the city (and the businesses concerned) will continue to function, but what about those who want to traverse the city east-west and vice versa? Why waste such a direct route (and being wide and all) by sending traffic around what will end up as a traffic-congested square? I know undergrounding will cost millions (see: Bakewell Underpass $41m), but it's the best solution for the future, surely?

Cheers

It's just one route. If you need to cross the city, there's plenty of other east-west roads you can take.

Sure. North Terrace is the only other east-west street that goes right through. Not even Currie-Grenfell. which is heavily used, goes directly through as it ends at East Terrace. All the other streets including Franklin-Flinders, which could take heavy traffic easily because of their width, terminate at T-junctions. You know what I am saying? Why not keep one of the few direct routes open?

Cheers

SRW wrote:

Ho Really wrote:I know undergrounding will cost millions (see: Bakewell Underpass $41m), but it's the best solution for the future, surely?

The best solution for who? Cross-city drivers? The long ramps that a tunnel would need certainly wouldn't make it any easier or attractive for people actually using the area -- and surely they're for whom we should want to design the city?

I agree, it won't be attractive but you need to design the city for everyone and still consider private vehicle use and traffic issues.

Cheers

Ho Really wrote:I agree, it won't be attractive but you need to design the city for everyone and still consider private vehicle use and traffic issues.

1. There's not enough room to fit a ramp down and then up again, you'd have to start way back 100m either side of the square, and for what gain?
2. People traversing through the CBD is to be discouraged. If people want to go from one side of the city to the other they should be using the outer ring roads.
3. Even if you could justify it, it's expensive enough just to construct without factoring in all the services that would need to be rerouted (telecoms, electric, water, gas, storm water and sewerage)

I don't think adelaides biggest problem is its traffic, even though it is important. making the city more attractive, and getting people to go there is much more important. the new oval will bring people into Adelaide, but it will cost nearly $1billion. Victoria square will be much cheaper, and give Adelaide another place to go to. in my opinion, Adelaide is not spread out enough, you can see all the sights around the cbd in a day. If you went to Sydney or Singapore ( or another big city) it would take you much longer to see the sights.Victoria square would be another attraction, which can only be good for the city. So if Victoria square is redeveloped, it has to be done properly, with no traffic getting in the way.

Roflcopter wrote:But that's exactly the design flaw with Victoria Square - you have to cross traffic to get there. At present, we have to cross 4 lanes of traffic. The design change will only remove one lane, but the problem remains the same in terms of accessibility.

It's a lost cause. We should stop wasting money on this.

Are you talking about driving or walking? If you're walking along the busiest route through that part of town (between the Mall and the Markets), you will find yourself crossing far far more[/i] than four lanes of traffic. Start from the corner of King William and Flinders Street, in front of the Treasury: to get into the square requires crossing two streets and a total of 11 lanes (9 driving lanes + 2 parking). That is the most significant change for pedestrian access, removing the two 5-way intersections at the north and south of the square better than halves the distance that pedestrians will have to cross.

Ho Really wrote:I agree, it won't be attractive but you need to design the city for everyone and still consider private vehicle use and traffic issues.

Cheers

They haven't actually stopped people getting through; it will be harder, certainly, but not impossible. People would need to ask themselves "how badly do I want to make this trip?", and the ones that are less valuable to us are the ones that we'll stop taking. If there's some really strong reason to get somewhere, we put up with the trouble, and when there isn't we don't bother.

By foot, by car, by bus, the same thing is true. That's why there's so few people in Vic Square at the moment - there isn't anything in the square that's worth the trouble of getting in there.

Having a look at the new proposal I gotta say that I really like it. The only thing that that REALLY bugs me is Grote/Wakefield St. Goes without saying that an underpass is a huge no no.

I was wondering though; would an elegant bridge/tunnel design work? It could have grass/vegetation on top and have a smooth incline to provide a high up view of the amphitheater - you wouldn't even know you're on top of a road. I can't actually think of anything like this, but in the Museumplein in Amsterdam there is a little hill to conceal a supermarket underneath. http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1328/127 ... a4.jpg?v=0 - It ALWAYS is full of people on it. It's fun to run down and provides a nice vantage to people watch the day away.

No?

Why can't we lift all the roads up through and around the square, they would provide cover and shelter during winter to further utilise the space and if intergrated into the design and soundproofed to an extent would make for far less traffic related intrusion on the area.

They could instead of running the roads around Vic square make for cross roads in the middle of the square, then the big screen would be sheltered from the weather and make for much better viewing when the sun is above/behind it.

With only pedestrian traffic underneath they wouldn't have to be elevated all that high.

Now i expect to be told a bunch of reasons why it's impractical and impossible.

First make two lists: one, all the bridges you can think of; the other, all the bridges that people like to spend time underneath. Which one is longer, and by how much?

Spend some time at the South Rd / Cross Rd overpass and try to imagine that transported into Vic Square. Note how long the ramps on either end need to be and consider what that would be like on Grote or Wakefield street. Stand under the bridge section and listen to how much noise comes down from there.

And it can't be a low bridge, as it still has to cross the traffic lanes and tram lines on either side of the square itself.

The project proposal talks about traffic calming, shared space and reducing the impact of traffic on the square. Turning the square into a giant interchange isn't going to achieve this.

Through traffic does not belong in the CBD.

monotonehell wrote:

Ho Really wrote:I agree, it won't be attractive but you need to design the city for everyone and still consider private vehicle use and traffic issues.

1. There's not enough room to fit a ramp down and then up again, you'd have to start way back 100m either side of the square, and for what gain?
2. People traversing through the CBD is to be discouraged. If people want to go from one side of the city to the other they should be using the outer ring roads.
3. Even if you could justify it, it's expensive enough just to construct without factoring in all the services that would need to be rerouted (telecoms, electric, water, gas, storm water and sewerage)

Room and re-engineering are not the real problems, it’s whether in future they want to run a tram along either Grote or Wakefield or both and whether it's linked with the Glenelg line from the square. Also there may be access issues at Gawler Place (off Wakefield) and the Victoria Square market car park in Grote Street. As for redirecting (all) traffic from the city onto a ring route, won’t that also create its own problems?

Cheers