Sensational-Adelaide.com

david.c-s wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote:

[Shuz] wrote:+3 for Charles Sturt Motorway. Should lodge a petition to DPTI for official renaming of the Northern & Southern Expressways, Torrens, Superway and Darlington sections all as one - with the M2 badge. I think it would help public perspective to see that all these pieces will connect together eventually.

Let's do it. Joint letter from S-A forum members

Great idea ... Let's face it the existing naming is a little haphazard and far from original .... And marketers say it's all in the brand and Charles Sturt has a ring to it

What's the point in having a strongly 'branded' name as opposed to a purely functional one for an untolled road?

SRW wrote:

david.c-s wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote: Let's do it. Joint letter from S-A forum members

Great idea ... Let's face it the existing naming is a little haphazard and far from original .... And marketers say it's all in the brand and Charles Sturt has a ring to it

What's the point in having a strongly 'branded' name as opposed to a purely functional one for an untolled road?

Rolls off the tongue better, helps create a distinction to other roads (particularly with South Road alongside it). So on. The name Charles Sturt Motorway/Expressway has a functional use too.

Article in yesterdays Guardian messenger alluding that the rail extension has now been put off by decades due to no forward planning in the darlington proposal.

Maybe they could rename the entire North/South Corridor the, "Flinders Freeway".

Just so you know the northern expressway has already been named after someone, Max Fatchen.

Hooligan wrote:Just so you know the northern expressway has already been named after someone, Max Fatchen.

Wasn't that the bike path? The Max Fatchen Bikeway?

EDIT: I forgot all about the renaming.

Further information, including the full alignment, can be found here: http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__d ... ochure.pdf

Norman wrote:Further information, including the full alignment, can be found here: http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__d ... ochure.pdf

Sadly and somewhat frustratingly there doesn't seem to be any provision for an extension of the Tonsley line.

There isnt any future proofing of anything - grade seperated junction access, flyovers, etc.

Cheap, cheap, cheap.

[Shuz] wrote:There isnt any future proofing of anything - grade seperated junction access, flyovers, etc.

Cheap, cheap, cheap.

Given the they rail link is never going to be extended probably better to save the money.
Edit sorry quoted wrong post

Given Abbott seems to have a strategy of doing things to get a reaction, do you think that this is a driver to get tolls introduced?

I mean the arguement being, sure it was nice to get it done, but we could have done it better with more money from private investors?

This seems to create more problems than it solves.

- Traffic coming from South Road/Flagstaff Hill Road will have all of the existing traffic lights, plus an additional set at Ayliffes road so that it can continue onto South Road.
- The Ayliffes Road intersection will become the new bottleneck. Traffic entering/exiting the trench will have to stop at traffic lights, along with the existing South Road and Shepherds Hill Rd traffic. The intersection effectively becomes a 5-way intersection now which will likely result in longer signal sequences and resulting in traffic needing to stop for longer.
The trench really should continue under the intersection. Obviously this would increase the cost but then at least the intersection would be partially functional.

I'm definitely not a fan of this proposal, the previous one being much better. I say retain the the old proposal, remove the tram extension and related elements from it, whilst allowing for this to be built in the future and you're done. It would be a million times better than this proposal..

I totally agree SouthAussie94.... and the same thing will happen with the Torrens to Torrens section - just swap Torrens Rd for Ayliffes Rd as the new major bottleneck.

I can't understand that after spending combined some $1.5billion that they haven't got the foresight to continue the trench under Torrens Rd and Ayliffes Rd respectively and do the job properly.

Is there anybody qualified to estimate this extra 100m - 200m trench for both projects? The point is I believe it will be a relatively marginal added expense which makes it even more ludicrous.

Make sure you guys send all your feedback to the guys at the DPTI... you never know, they might even take this path. That's what the community consultation process is for!

Norman wrote:Make sure you guys send all your feedback to the guys at the DPTI... you never know, they might even take this path. That's what the community consultation process is for!

Ahaha - the community consultation process is a joke, Norman. If you thought the era of announce and defend politics was over, you're dead set wrong. The State Government will still go ahead with Darlington in its current proposed form irrespective of what the community says. They've already made up their mind. What you see is what we'll get.

How many people here are actually qualified or educated(in the relevant fields) to be able to make submissions to community consultations?
Why would those experts, qualified and educated, who are paid, take the advice and opinions of members of the public into consideration if they aren't trained and just rambling on about how they don't want this and they want that, or they think this and that and blah blah blah..

We all have our opinions, views, ideas, thoughts, visions of what we'd like to see happen..but let's be honest, none of us are actual experts or people educated in urban transport planning or whatever. The only exception being Aidan I believe. Could be wrong.

It's one thing to object to an onramp being the view in your backyard, it's another to sit there and try and tell the experts who know what they've got to work with, and how much is in the budget, where there should be a tunnel, grade separation, extra lanes, etc.

Think about the fact that they actually have a complete picture of what's going on and what is possible and achievable. Then they have to work that within political constraints.