Sensational-Adelaide.com

fifty wrote:Dog's breakfast! So no exit/entry for Sheps/Sturt?

I haven't looked at the video. But I suspect that in the long run, when the rest of south road is finally upgraded, that the final configuration at Darlington will be different to what you see in the video and image above.

I don't use South Road regularly so perhaps I'm not in a position to comment - but surely I'm not the only one who thinks this looks like some kind of Los Angeles freeway monstrosity. It looks like as much road as the Sydney Harbour Bridge - there's got to be a better way?

kingy wrote:

So this is what one of Abbott's "roads of the future" looks like

This is what was proposed a few years back..

http://video.news.com.au/v/1883/Road-pl ... ides-south

EDIT: The Executive Summary: http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__d ... or_Web.pdf

I notice they use the same wall design as Gallipoli Underpass. I hope if they use this for Darlington and TtT, they don't decide to change pattern in a decade and make the corridor mix n match. It could look really quite amazing if they're consistent!

Having only quickly watched the video and not yet viewed the document, I must say I like the look of this newer proposal. Let's just hope they do something decent at Ayliffes intersection, and that they accommodate the future rail to Flinders.
An exit at Flinders seems much more fitting than what's presently there though, helping ambulances greatly, as well as providing a faster 722 (? 721?) Bus route, as it goes via the hospital.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

The new route looks like a perfect opportunity to toll the southern expressway to me. A clear alternative route through which would keep the wingers and moaners at bay.

Planning for a future rail link is a MUST. I cannot stress this more.

A large percentage of traffic (I would guess close to 50%) that travels through Darlington of a morning and afternoon comes down the hill from either Main South Rd or Flagstaff Hill Rd and this upgrade is going to make absolutely no difference to this traffic. Currently a major bottle neck occurs at the South/Flagstaff/Marion Rd intersection as the two lots of traffic meet. This often results in traffic banking up to Seacombe Rd and a fair way up Flagstaff Hill Rd.

This traffic then banks up further at the SEXY traffic lights when the SEXY traffic joins. Quite often the section from South/Flagstaff/Marion intersection to SEXY is at a complete standstill, taking several light sequences to get through.

Flinders Dr and Sturt Rd cause a further build up with traffic from all three roads taking several light sequences to clear. Once past Sturt Rd, traffic for South Rd generally clears quite well until closer to Daws Rd. Ayliffes Rd traffic often causes the right hand lanes to bank up, again taking several light changes to clear.

While this upgrade will obviously benefit those who travel along the SEXY, those who have no option but to travel South Rd/Flagstaff Hill Rd will experience minimal benefit. There will still be traffic lights at SEXY, Flinders Dr and Sturt Rds which will most likely require stopping at. When this traffic merges with the SEXY traffic closer to Ayliffes Rd I imagine a bottle neck similar to that which occurs now will occur just in another location.

The previous plan had an overpass at the SEXY, with Flagstaff Hill/South Road traffic merging with the SEXY traffic to travel through the sunken road, with only the traffic needing access to Flinders Dr and Sturt Rd needing to travel along the at-grade road. Would this not be a better solution?

I envisage South Rd through Clovelly Park and St Marys will become a major issue once this is complete. Thousands of cars being funneled into a section of road two lanes wide at a rate much faster than present surely cannot end well. This section of road struggles to cope now, I don't know how it will cope once this upgrade is functional.

In the pdf it states upgrades to Marion and Sturt road intersection and Daws and South road intersection as well as localised improvements along south road through to edwardstown. Interesting.

I think DTEI have purposely left out (in the video and pictures) the intersection(s) North of Sturt rd because you'll probably find they are at grade traffic light controlled intersections. which everybody here knows will just move the issue along the road.

I think this has been a hasty move just to secure the funding from the Fed's because they don't want to fork out anymore $$

The original plan solves the problem better than the new 'cheap' option

Looking at the original flythrough, I think having the trench to the west of the at-grade road is a better option than having it down the middle, with the northbound and southbound carriageways on opposite sides, because is means only one set of traffic lights at the intersections with roads that cross over, instead of two. This, I imagine, would be a big timesaver on Sturt Road and Flinders Drive, from the original plan.

SouthAussie94 wrote:A large percentage of traffic (I would guess close to 50%) that travels through Darlington of a morning and afternoon comes down the hill from either Main South Rd or Flagstaff Hill Rd and this upgrade is going to make absolutely no difference to this traffic. Currently a major bottle neck occurs at the South/Flagstaff/Marion Rd intersection as the two lots of traffic meet. This often results in traffic banking up to Seacombe Rd and a fair way up Flagstaff Hill Rd.

In the future this could be fixed by possibly building on/off ramps on the eastern side of Marion Road onto SEXY. A further upgrade could then be having an underpass of Flagstaff/Marion under South Road if required, but possibly reducing the right turn vehicles from Flagstaff onto South Rd would improve this intersection enough to not warrant it (right turns from Marion to southbound South Road would also be reduced with the new 2 way SEXY). It seems short-sighted however that both the proposed upgrades leave future fixes to be done such as Hawker Street and this intersection.

Still, I am at least happy we will continue working on 2 fronts as we have been with the Superway/SEXY duplication, if the Liberal party won the state election we might have just ended up with Darlington.

This is a shocking proposal and absolutely cheap and nasty way of doing the Darlington section. There were a number of options which I have seen - all of which would have cost at least $1b -$1.5b and actually solved traffic problems in the area, with a considerable number of free-flowing on and off ramps to major intersections - no traffic lights. This option just simply exacerbates the Flagstaff Hill / Marion Road bottleneck moves the Southern Expressway bottleneck down to the Ayliffes Road intersection.

At least if the State Liberals had been elected, we would have got a 'gold-plated' Darlington, instead of this shocking proposal.

Not happy at all.

[Shuz] wrote:This is a shocking proposal and absolutely cheap and nasty way of doing the Darlington section. There were a number of options which I have seen - all of which would have cost at least $1b -$1.5b and actually solved traffic problems in the area, with a considerable number of free-flowing on and off ramps to major intersections - no traffic lights. This option just simply exacerbates the Flagstaff Hill / Marion Road bottleneck moves the Southern Expressway bottleneck down to the Ayliffes Road intersection.

At least if the State Liberals had been elected, we would have got a 'gold-plated' Darlington, instead of this shocking proposal.

Not happy at all.

Maybe if the State Liberals had been elected, we would have got a 'gold-plated' Darlington .... but we'd have no Torrens to Torrens.
Given fiscal realities .... I'd rather have both TtT and Darlington (even if Darlington is dumbed down) instead of a gold-plated Darlington only.

Do it once, do it right. I'd rather have a gold plated Darlington and no Torrens to Torrens than a cheap, nasty Darlington and a questionable Torrens to Torrens section (trenches, seriously?)