News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
bdm
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:58 pm

Re: South Road Upgrade

#241 Post by bdm » Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:19 am

You bring up an odd example of someone who lives in Port Adelaide but works in the Hills (I know someone who did the opposite). If a freeway is built it acts as a gigantic subsidy to his commute, making a journey that be unprofitable, profitable. It subsidises sprawl and this kind of activity. If you want a natural outcome, don't build the freeway, or wait for the private sector to offer. But building it is a subsidy to activities that would not naturally occur, with unpredictable, costly consequences.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2950
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: South Road Upgrade

#242 Post by rhino » Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:36 am

Professor wrote:The Dunstan government came into power and scrapped the MATS plan...
Well Professor - I see you are obviously not a professor of local political history. The Dunstan Government seems to get hammered over this issue on this board - it's getting tiring. As I've noted before, the Dunstan Government shelved the MATS plan because at the time it was unwarranted and unaffordable. The Tonkin Govenment scrapped the plan and made sure it would never happen by selling off the land.
cheers,
Rhino

TooFar
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:24 am
Location: A long way from Adelaide

Re: South Road Upgrade

#243 Post by TooFar » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:02 am

rhino wrote:
Professor wrote:The Dunstan government came into power and scrapped the MATS plan...
Well Professor - I see you are obviously not a professor of local political history. The Dunstan Government seems to get hammered over this issue on this board - it's getting tiring. As I've noted before, the Dunstan Government shelved the MATS plan because at the time it was unwarranted and unaffordable. The Tonkin Govenment scrapped the plan and made sure it would never happen by selling off the land.
I believe it was the Banon government that sold the most import pieces of land. The entertainment center area, and Lafaters triangle spring to mind.

TooFar
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:24 am
Location: A long way from Adelaide

Re: South Road Upgrade

#244 Post by TooFar » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:19 am

bdm wrote:You bring up an odd example of someone who lives in Port Adelaide but works in the Hills (I know someone who did the opposite).
Then why is it odd? The point was someone traveling from one end of the city to another.
bdm wrote: If a freeway is built it acts as a gigantic subsidy to his commute, making a journey that be unprofitable, profitable.
What is wrong with reducing the cost of business? In this example, the tradesman would save on petrol and time, thus lowering his costs and increasing his productivity. And as a bonus he would emit less green house gases, thus reducing the cities pollution levels.
bdm wrote:It subsidises sprawl and this kind of activity.
In Adelaide the sprawl is already in place it doesn’t need any subsidy.
bdm wrote:If you want a natural outcome, don't build the freeway, or wait for the private sector to offer. But building it is a subsidy to activities that would not naturally occur, with unpredictable, costly consequences.
Why do you say activities that would not naturally occur, they are already occurring. Do you things tradesmen just work in their local suburb? Do manufactures or wholesalers just deliver locally? How do goods get from the docks of the port to their end destination?

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2950
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: South Road Upgrade

#245 Post by rhino » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:24 am

From "A History from MATS to the Port River Expressway" http://www.ozroads.com.au/SA/freeways.htm

"In Early 1980 the Tonkin Government won office and the Minister for Transport, Michael Wilson, announced a commitment by his Government to sell off much of the land acquired for possible transport corridors. Shortly afterwards he announced the abandonement of the idea of a connector between Hindmarsh and North Adelaide and the sale of land in the Hindmarsh area.

Much debate continued about the other proposed freeways in MATS, particularly the North-South Freeway. In February 1982 Wilson announced that the corridor would be halved in width and truncated south of Darlington. The idea of a high speed freeway was abandoned, although a corridor from Dry Creek to Darlington was to remain as a concept pending consideration of a redesigned, narrower road. In the immdeiate term, extra traffic was to be accommodated by the widening of South Road between Torrens Road and Daws Road.

Then, in June 1983, the North-South Corridor was completely abandoned - the disposal of land eesnetial to the project making it impossible to revivie should the need emerge. The abandonement of this freeway, the last surviving element of MATS, had a tremendous impact on the Highways Department as it was the first time in their history that the Government had rejected the strong recommendations of the Commissioner. It undermind the key elemt of what had been the Department's plans for Adelaide's future transport needs and struck at the Department's proud record of independence from politics. In a morbid coincidence Commissioner for Highways, Keith Johinke, suffered a heart attack and stroke two days later, causing his abrupt retirement.

Thus, with the death of MATS talk of freeways went somewhat quiet in the ensuing years. "
cheers,
Rhino

DM8
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Melbourne (Adelaide expat)

Re: South Road Upgrade

#246 Post by DM8 » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:58 am

I've ended up on that OzRoads page a couple of times.... it makes my blood boil to read that section.
"You pay for good roads, whether you have them or not! And it's not the wealth of a nation that builds the roads, but the roads that build the wealth of a nation." ...John F. Kennedy

User avatar
jk1237
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:22 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: South Road Upgrade

#247 Post by jk1237 » Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:23 am

TooFar wrote: I too get frustrated on Freeways, I have been stuck on the Pennsylvania Turnpike for over 2 hours once without moving an inch. And you should see the New Jersey Turnpike on a summer Sunday – one word – Gridlock. It happens, and it sucks. However for most of the time when I drive, the road is flowing and I get where I want with minimum of fuss – it’s great. The benefits of living in an area where there are over 40 Million people within a 2 hour radius, and yet so much natural beauty, far out way the negatives. Sure transport options could be better, but at least I have an option.

The problem with Adelaide is there are no options. If you need to transport goods from Elizabeth to Noarlunga, you need to stop at 40 odd sets of traffic lights. Should B-doubles really be rolling down residential streets like South or Marion Road? If you are a tradesman living in Port Adelaide yet have a job in the Hills, how many set of light do you need to negotiate? What does that lost time cost? It is pathetic to think that Adelaide calls is self a modern prosperous city, yet has third world standard roads.

If Adelaide does not bite the bullet and plan for a full length north-south freeway now, then the city will only fall further behind its competitors.
So what is worse, a clogged up, gridlocked freeway, or a road with 40 sets of traffic lights where the traffic actually moves.
Just some other problems with freeways is when they end near the city. There is a relentless flow of traffic that then tries to feed into the traditional road - traffic lights setup. It causes major traffic jams, as the flows off the freeways cant be controlled. The eastern freeway in Melb is the worst. This huge 10 laned freeway suddenly ends at Clifton Hill, and then complete and utter congestion takes place around Hoddle St, causing the freeway behind it to clogg up for kms and kms. (Im not sure if its now part of citylink, will check)
You may think we're backwards, but Adelaides traffic seems to flow better than cities with freeways, caus the system of traffic lights keeps a network of traffic flow in line everywhere, if what Im trying to say makes sense.

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: South Road Upgrade

#248 Post by Shuz » Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:52 am

Would anyone know how much it would cost today to reimplement the North-South Corridor as it was in the MATS plan, but without the Hindmarsh Interchange and all those road diversions? I'm guessing $3.5b?

drwaddles
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:12 pm
Location: EAS Bay 1

Re: South Road Upgrade

#249 Post by drwaddles » Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:09 am

DM8 wrote:I've ended up on that OzRoads page a couple of times.... it makes my blood boil to read that section.
Not quite the reaction I was hoping for :lol:

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5737
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm
Has thanked: 786 times
Been thanked: 1446 times

Re: South Road Upgrade

#250 Post by Norman » Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:23 am

TooFar wrote:
bdm wrote:If you want a natural outcome, don't build the freeway, or wait for the private sector to offer. But building it is a subsidy to activities that would not naturally occur, with unpredictable, costly consequences.
Why do you say activities that would not naturally occur, they are already occurring. Do you things tradesmen just work in their local suburb? Do manufactures or wholesalers just deliver locally? How do goods get from the docks of the port to their end destination?
But most jobs would be within the local area. Why would you call a, say, carport maker in Port Adelaide when you live in the hills? You would call someone who is a lot closer.

You also mention freight to the port. That's what the NEXY and PREXY are for, and South Road is getting upgraded to be a bit more separated from the local communities to what the other main, but local roads are.

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5420
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: South Road Upgrade

#251 Post by crawf » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:04 pm

TooFar wrote: I would love to see some high density living around PT hubs. But it is not going to happen any time soon for a number of reasons. First and foremost Adelaide is just not growing fast enough. Second, trying to build any mid (or God forbid, High) rise developments in the suburbs will never happen, to many NIMBY’s.
Well they are having no trouble with building mid-high rises at West Lakes...

The attitude towards mid-high rises in Adelaide & SA is changing....
If Adelaide does not bite the bullet and plan for a full length north-south freeway now, then the city will only fall further behind its competitors.
I would rather this city get its Public Transport system up to scratch first.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#252 Post by AtD » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:56 pm

Hey guys. I've split this out of the South Road Upgrade thread. This is a really great debate, and I'm really enjoying it, but I'd just like to keep the other thread for construction updates, etc. Sorry if I split a post I shouldn't have. I haven't deleted anything.

Prince George: I also merged in your Induced Demand thread. Hope that's OK.

Carry on. :)

Cheers.

User avatar
adam73837
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: The wilderness being sustained by nutrients in the air and powering my laptop with positive energy

Re: South Road Upgrade

#253 Post by adam73837 » Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:27 pm

Shuz wrote:Would anyone know how much it would cost today to reimplement the North-South Corridor as it was in the MATS plan, but without the Hindmarsh Interchange and all those road diversions? I'm guessing $3.5b?
According to Wikipedia (which is not necessarily the most reliable source, but a decent source nonetheless), if the MATS Plan were to be built in 2006, it would cost approx. $4b including inflation. Due to the current economic crisis, you'd expect that to have risen to $4 1/2b to $5b, but remember that that includes the entire MATS Plan, not just the North-South Freeway. Therefore, you'd expect the North-South Freeway (which was the largest Freeway of the plan) to cost around $2b at the most, hence why I believe that the $2b that the State Government is asking for should be spent on the construction of the North-South Freeway (Remember that the North-South Freeway was to go from Old Noarlunga to Salisbury, so if the route that we want now -which would go from around Darlington to Dry Creek, would be slightly less, not a considerable amount, but an amount nonetheless.).

Going slightly further into the future, the next on our list should be a freeway similar to that of the Hills Freeway to take all the growing traffic away from the hills as well as the S-E Freight, from A17 (which, like South Road, is a suburban road). Then we could focus on things like the Modbury Freeway (which would provide an appropriate corridor for the N-E Suburbs) and the Foothills Expressway (providing a link from the Southern Suburbs to the Hills Freeway -and subsequently the city, and the S-E Freeway -and subsequently the South East of the State!) -Remember this is well into the future, but we would benefit from them. Isn't it great, the MATS Plan was conceived in the 1960s, yet it would still be appropriate if it were constructed today. Good ol' Highways Department! 8) 8) 8)

Oh and Norman, sorry for not specifying what I meant by building freeways; I didn't mean to have them all above ground as huge bridge structures going above suburbs, I meant to have them below ground level, but not underground if you now what I mean.

BTW, it also makes my blood boil when I read http://www.ozroads.com.au/SA/freeways.htm , <shakes head miserably> such a wasted opportunity! Oh well, all that we need is a Kennet or Playford to come in and bring it back to life! :D :D :D
I take back many of the things I said before 2010; particularly my anti-Rann rants. While I still maintain some of said opinions, I feel I could have been less arrogant. I also apologise to people I offended; while knowing I can't fully take much back. :)

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2054
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: South Road Upgrade

#254 Post by Aidan » Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:15 pm

adam73837 wrote:
Shuz wrote:Would anyone know how much it would cost today to reimplement the North-South Corridor as it was in the MATS plan, but without the Hindmarsh Interchange and all those road diversions? I'm guessing $3.5b?
According to Wikipedia (which is not necessarily the most reliable source, but a decent source nonetheless), if the MATS Plan were to be built in 2006, it would cost approx. $4b including inflation.
No, it doesn't say that at all! It says that the original 1965 cost of $436 million equates to about $4bn in 2006. But the cost to construct it would be much higher, because land prices have risen at a much higher rate than general inflation. I'd also expect civil engineering cost inflation to be higher than general inflation, although I don't have the figures to prove it.
Going slightly further into the future, the next on our list should be a freeway similar to that of the Hills Freeway to take all the growing traffic away from the hills as well as the S-E Freight, from A17 (which, like South Road, is a suburban road).
A17 (more commonly known as Portrush Road) is an urban arterial in the inner suburbs, and is quite capable of carrying all the traffic that uses it. What do you imagine the value of building another road to handle its traffic would be?
Then we could focus on things like the Modbury Freeway (which would provide an appropriate corridor for the N-E Suburbs)
Appropriate corridor??? On the contrary, it would be most inappropriate, and cause more congestion than at present! Currently the O-bahn is a faster alternative for most passengers, while most freight is on a completely different axis.

Having said that, there might actually be a bit of MATSPlan that could benefit the NE suburbs: extending Montague Road to link with the Port River Expressway.
and the Foothills Expressway (providing a link from the Southern Suburbs to the Hills Freeway -and subsequently the city, and the S-E Freeway -and subsequently the South East of the State!)
We already have links - this would merely be a slightly faster link. It's just not what's needed.
-Remember this is well into the future, but we would benefit from them. Isn't it great, the MATS Plan was conceived in the 1960s, yet it would still be appropriate if it were constructed today. Good ol' Highways Department! 8) 8) 8)
Remember the MATS plan was shelved in the 1970s, but shelving it would still be appropriate if it were proposed today! It's good to have freeways in sensible locations, but that's not what the MATS Plan proposed at all.
Oh and Norman, sorry for not specifying what I meant by building freeways; I didn't mean to have them all above ground as huge bridge structures going above suburbs, I meant to have them below ground level, but not underground if you now what I mean.
Considering the effects that this would have, underground may well be easier than in cutting!
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

Re: South Road Upgrade

#255 Post by Omicron » Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm

bdm wrote:You bring up an odd example of someone who lives in Port Adelaide but works in the Hills (I know someone who did the opposite). If a freeway is built it acts as a gigantic subsidy to his commute, making a journey that be unprofitable, profitable. It subsidises sprawl and this kind of activity. If you want a natural outcome, don't build the freeway, or wait for the private sector to offer. But building it is a subsidy to activities that would not naturally occur, with unpredictable, costly consequences.
Oh, bless you!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Galdun and 39 guests