Sensational-Adelaide.com

Aidan wrote:

adam73837 wrote:I hate to be a pest (well sometimes I find it slightly amusing that everyone's against me on the issue, but only sometimes ), but do people see what I meant when i said South Road wouldn't be able to cope? Maybe (or rather hopefully ) once they have completely finished the work, the traffic will be smoother, but to people see, by those select photos, what I meant when I said a two-lane-each-way-with bike-lanes,-etc.-road wouldn't be able to cope as the North-South Corridor of a city with a population of (according to the government's hopes) 2 million people by 2040 or whatever it is?

I absolutely see what you mean. However your conclusion may be incorrect, for two reasons: firstly I've seen roads in England upgraded in that way, and they can cope with a lot. Secondly, there are alternatives to South Road. In both the northern and southern suburbs there are a lot of parallel roads.

Yes there are a lot of roads in the Northern and Southern Suburbs that are parallel to South Road. Just on your comment about English Roads being upgraded in a similar way, do you think that since Adelaide is such a North-South Orientated city, it would be a good idea to include grade separations on the East-West Routes, then have the Tollway(s ) (which I'll discuss later in my post) serving the North-South Route?

Aidan wrote:that's the reason why a tunnel under the City is so important.

I definitely agree that a railway tunnel under the city, like you put forward in your plan is VERY important. The benefits that it would give to the City Square Mile would be incredible. I also agree that:

Aidan wrote:the nation is in no danger whatsoever of going bankrupt. If anything it's not investing enough in infrastructure.

I agree with you 100%. My dad went to a conference several months ago where one of ANZs top bankers gave a presentation about going into debt (... or something like that ). He said that there is nothing wrong with going into debt with infrastructure which you will get a return from. An underground railway and a tollway would both generate such revenue (...eventually ).

Aidan wrote:There was a long term plan to link Marion Road with Hanson Road. Obviously this would involve aligning it and Holbrooks Road, though quite how Holbrooks and Hanson Roads would be linked I don't know. Nor do I know if the plan is still on the official long term agenda, but it could be done if necessary.

Aidan wrote:If we do ever need an underground tollway, I now think it would be better to construct it under Morphett Road and Findon Road, serving Adelaide Airport directly.

Speaking of which, since my last 'era of posts' I took your suggestions on board and have been doing sketches looking at different routes for such a thing. I have also been looking at books about European Cities and if there's one thing I've noticed that cities like London, Manchester, Paris, Munich and Stuttgart (which I just finished a project on in SACE Stage 1 German Continuers) is that the all have ring roads, etc. Building a tollway like the one you mention to go beneath Marion Road, serve the airport, etc. then head towards Dry Creek via Holbrooks Road, East Terrace, Rosetta Street, Days Road and South Road wouldn't be such a bad idea. it would also serve well in bypassing freight from the city and, if built in conjunction with a connection to the S-E Freeway, would serve Adelaide very well. Other than these two, I don't think that Adelaide needs to be overrun with freeways like in cities such as LA and Dallas. An extensive and efficient PT System would 'fill in the gaps' ensuring that Adelaide comes close to regaining its status as a 20 minute city.

Aidan wrote:

adam73837 wrote:I hate to be a pest (well sometimes I find it slightly amusing that everyone's against me on the issue, but only sometimes ), but do people see what I meant when i said South Road wouldn't be able to cope? Maybe (or rather hopefully ) once they have completely finished the work, the traffic will be smoother, but to people see, by those select photos, what I meant when I said a two-lane-each-way-with bike-lanes,-etc.-road wouldn't be able to cope as the North-South Corridor of a city with a population of (according to the government's hopes) 2 million people by 2040 or whatever it is?

I absolutely see what you mean. However your conclusion may be incorrect, for two reasons: firstly I've seen roads in England upgraded in that way, and they can cope with a lot. Secondly, there are alternatives to South Road. In both the northern and southern suburbs there are a lot of parallel roads.

Yes there are a lot of roads in the Northern and Southern Suburbs that are parallel to South Road. Just on your comment about English Roads being upgraded in a similar way, do you think that since Adelaide is such a North-South Orientated city, it would be a good idea to include grade separations on the East-West Routes, then have the Tollway(s ) (which I'll discuss later in my post) serving the North-South Route?

Aidan wrote:that's the reason why a tunnel under the City is so important.

I definitely agree that a railway tunnel under the city, like you put forward in your plan is VERY important. The benefits that it would give to the City Square Mile would be incredible. I also agree that:

Aidan wrote:the nation is in no danger whatsoever of going bankrupt. If anything it's not investing enough in infrastructure.

I agree with you 100%. My dad went to a conference several months ago where one of ANZs top bankers gave a presentation about going into debt (... or something like that ). He said that there is nothing wrong with going into debt with infrastructure which you will get a return from. An underground railway and a tollway would both generate such revenue (...eventually ).

Aidan wrote:There was a long term plan to link Marion Road with Hanson Road. Obviously this would involve aligning it and Holbrooks Road, though quite how Holbrooks and Hanson Roads would be linked I don't know. Nor do I know if the plan is still on the official long term agenda, but it could be done if necessary.

Aidan wrote:If we do ever need an underground tollway, I now think it would be better to construct it under Morphett Road and Findon Road, serving Adelaide Airport directly.

Speaking of which, since my last 'era of posts' I took your suggestions on board and have been doing sketches looking at different routes for such a thing. I have also been looking at books about European Cities and if there's one thing I've noticed that cities like London, Manchester, Paris, Munich and Stuttgart (which I just finished a project on in SACE Stage 1 German Continuers) is that the all have ring roads, etc. Building a tollway like the one you mention to go beneath Marion Road, serve the airport, etc. then head towards Dry Creek via Holbrooks Road, East Terrace, Rosetta Street, Days Road and South Road wouldn't be such a bad idea. it would also serve well in bypassing freight from the city and, if built in conjunction with a connection to the S-E Freeway, would serve Adelaide very well. Other than these two, I don't think that Adelaide needs to be overrun with freeways like in cities such as LA and Dallas. An extensive and efficient PT System would 'fill in the gaps' ensuring that Adelaide comes close to regaining its status as a 20 minute city.
Just as an after thought, do you think it would be a good idea to have 'exits' from this North-South Corridor to go along the old Glenelg Railway Corridor for the Traffic to/from the South to access the city and from the North-South Corridor to have something along Port Road for the Traffic to/from the North to access the city?

I accept AtD's criticism (below) that my earlier posting was off topic for this thread. Therefore I have removed it from here and reposted it in the North South Corridor thread in the Visions & Suggestions section.

Can you please keep "the government should build xyz" type discussion in the visions forum.
http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... m.php?f=17
Feel free to start a new thread.

This thread is for discussions on what is actually proposed.

Thanks.

Repost of what Deano posted in the State budget thread.

SA State Budget 2009 - arterial roads focus of spending
Article from: The Advertiser
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 06,00.html

LAUREN NOVAK

June 04, 2009 03:00pm

SOUTH Rd and the Northern Expressway will be the focus of roads spending over the next four years.

The creation of a north-south corridor along South Rd from the Southern Expressway to the Port River Expressway has attracted $683 million while $267 million has been allocated to the Northern Expressway link between the Gawler Bypass and Pt Wakefield Rd.

Together, the projects are expected to create 2750 jobs by mid-2011.

Land acquisition for the Northern Expressway is predicted to cost $7.5 million next financial year.

The process of land acquisition for the South Rd upgrade and an underpass at the intersection of South Rd and Sturt Rd also will begin next financial year.

A final completion date of November has been set for the South Rd/Anzac Highway underpass and $5.8 million allocated to finish the project.

About $3.25 million will be spent next financial year on the Victor Harbor Rd/South Rd intersection ahead of completion in June 2011.

Further expansion of the state’s red light and speed camera network will cost almost $2.2 million and $2.5 million will be spent on creating roadside rest areas on long-distance arterial roads.

A $7.9 million injection from the Commonwealth will expand the Black Spot road safety program.

In regional South Australia, the continuing Dukes Highway upgrade involving rest areas and additional overtaking lanes has received $16.5 million and is due to be completed in June 2014.

The five-year upgrade of the Sturt Highway is expected to be finished by June next year and has received $3.7 million for next financial year.

Slightly off topic i know (and its probably been discussed before) but what is SA's obsession with building UNDERPASSES along South Road as opposed to OVERPASSES.
I spent about 20 minutes this morning at the Emerson Overpass (South/Cross Roads waiting for train after train) and was thinking that overpasses would be cheaper, quicker and take up less land acquisition then underpasses (e.g Galipoli underpass).
I guess that the main reason is aesthetics but the Emerson overpass doesnt look that bad for its era and nowadays modern designs dramatically improve the look of them. Surely two overpasses equates to roughly one underpass in cost measures in half the time.
I was also talking to an engineering mate and he said that underpasses/tunnels on the Adelaide plain cost so much to build (compared to similar sized projects in Sydney) because they are constructing them in clay/soil as opposed to bedrock which acts as a natural tunnel when dug out (if that makes sense). If this is the case then surely overpasses for Adelaide make much more sense economically speaking due to the engineering and design of them.
If this North/South corridor ever gets built (and i have my doubts) in the next 10 years with underpasses the costs are going to be massive compared with overpasses which we could complete in half the time with a lot less disruption.
I am aware that some overpasses are being planned up near Wingfield but surely at intersections such as Sir Donald Bradman, Henley Beach and Richmond Roads underpasses will ruled out.
Any suggestions?????

Hi Waz, I replied to this post yesterday, but when I hit "submit" my PC had a dummy spit and that was it. Since then, Aiden has answered this question in another thread, with similar comments to my own. While an overpass may be cheaper economically, what cost is paid by the local community?

Basically, an underpass does not take up any more room than an overpass. There are the same number of through lanes, and the same number of slip lanes, and the same ammount of real estate has to be bought up.

Also, you mention Adelaide's clay soils. This affects the cost of an overpass in much the same way as it affects the cost of an underpass, when comparing it to building on bedrock.

Aesthetically, while an overpass can be made to look good from the road passing under it, it is also permanently visible from the residences around it, and, thus, the residences nearby are in constant view by people using the overpass. This includes their back yards and other areas most of us consider to be our private space.

Noise is another factor - people living near a previously noisy main road will have that noise amplified once the road is on a flyover, because there is nothing between them and the noise.

This combination of visual intrusion and noise drives down property values in the area, not great when you've just spent the last year doing a renno and you see your property value decrease.

These underpasses on South Road are in basically residential areas. North of Grand Junction Road, in the industrial areas, we are more likely to see overpasses, because their impact on the community will not have the same effect.

One thing that's not been mentioned on this thread yet is Hawker Street. It runs into South Road rather than crossing it, but there are currently buses turning right from Hawker Street onto South Road. Realigning it with Hurtle Street would be possible, but is that what they're planning to do?

Some pics from Sunday, with the underpass closed for the tram works, and heavy rain:

that fence in the median strip of the underpass really does look shithouse...

muzzamo wrote:that fence in the median strip of the underpass really does look shithouse...

yep very cheap and tacky.

muzzamo wrote:that fence in the median strip of the underpass really does look shithouse...

On site, I think it looks fine. In some photos from some angles it doesn't look as good, but, when it comes down to it, it's a divider heading into an underpass - how good does it need to look?

I've moved the posts by camaro68 and the subsequent replies to the link below, in the interests of archival neatness.

http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... 852#p62852

Feel free to continue the debate there.

Cheers.

How very Adelaide of us to focus on something so small to make a negative point. It's like saying that you don't like your new house because of the light fitting in the toilet.

I do wonder what else they could have used. Any ideas?