Sensational-Adelaide.com

neoballmon wrote:

superway_sam wrote:It is not at practical completion at this point in time. It is operating in a limited capacity, at lower speeds and without the ITS - Intelligent Transport System - operational.

Saw a post on DPTI's Facebook informing that the southbound carriageway would be closed overnight on Friday for signal testing. Does that mean if the signals are working fine, they'll be switched on permanently with the new 90 limit?

They were doing more ITS testing on the northbound track last night. Shouldn't be too much longer before it's operational

Brucetiki wrote:

neoballmon wrote:

superway_sam wrote:It is not at practical completion at this point in time. It is operating in a limited capacity, at lower speeds and without the ITS - Intelligent Transport System - operational.

Saw a post on DPTI's Facebook informing that the southbound carriageway would be closed overnight on Friday for signal testing. Does that mean if the signals are working fine, they'll be switched on permanently with the new 90 limit?

They were doing more ITS testing on the northbound track last night. Shouldn't be too much longer before it's operational

Yes more complex testing last couple of nights. Next step is to keep it on permanently (the ITS) and gradually tweak the faults. Have a little issue in a small section with skid resistance - northbound needs a little more traffic, nothing major but enough to stay at 60 for a little longer. I would be surprised and a little disappointed if ITS and skid is not sorted on both carriageways and we are not at 90kph by Monday. This includes the PREXY/Salisbury Highway interchange, where we are still finishing minor bits and pieces.

rhino wrote:Superway Sam, thankyou for your posts, they are very informative and clear up a lot of speculation. Much appreciated.

Thanks, Your welcome.

spiller wrote:

neoballmon wrote:

spiller wrote:I use this once per week in both directions on a commute between business locations. Yesterday whilst heading north, it appears this has created a large bottle neck where traffic merges from the Port River expressway onto Port Wakefield Road in a northerly direction. It is a single lane merge. I'm not sure if this has always been a bit of a bottle neck but my thoughts are that the superway is now delivering traffic to Pt.WR at a much faster rate than the old system, and this basic merger cannot keep up. bring on the northern connector?

Hopefully this will accelerate the approval and construction of the northern connector! Although I'm sure DPTI would go for a quick fix and just add an extra Lane on the northern side of Salisbury Highway for the 300 or so metres before the turnoff and gave a second Lane feeding into PWR.

How is traffic coming the other way, after turning off from PWR and having to merge to one Lane so soon after the lights? Has this increased a lot as well, because this was always a pretty busy section to begin with.

Its not too bad coming back the other way because there is a traffic light there and there are two merging lanes onto the Sailsbury Highway (sorry this is what I meant in my earlier post, not Port River Expwy (aren,t they basically the same road anyway?).

Traffic is still only at 8000 VPD each way which is still no where near the traffic prior to works. Astute deduction about the rate of delivery, with such a long section now without lights thanks to the superway, the breaks between groups of vehicles is not as pronounced so the merging becomes less controlled.

Aidan wrote:

neoballmon wrote:

alexczarn wrote:What I don't get is, why didn't they extend the superway over the Regency Road intersection? I know it was a big money thing; but, *IF* and *WHEN* they do the Torrens to Torrens, the Regency Road intersection is going to just become the new bottleneck. Especially if they want a non-stop South Road.

It has been mentioned, either earlier in this thread or the other North-South Corridor one, that this intersection was left out of this and the Torrens-Torrens project, (as well as Torrens Road) because in the final plan, they will not be interchanges, and they will simply tunnel under these roads without access points. But they aren't going to close off access to these roads until they have a better local road section of South Road, separated from the 'North South Motorway'

That's the first I've heard of leaving out the Regency Road intersection for that reason, and I don't believe it. Regency Road is vital for accessing the rail terminal. They wouldn't quite be stupid enough to leave an intersection with it out of the plans like they intend to with Torrens Road.

I suppose though if they have an at grade section of South Road connecting to Regency and Torrens, it won't be as big a problem.

On the other note, the new electronic speed limit signs are functioning as of today, speed limit is still 60km/h though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Been on the new 'North-South Motorway' (as we now officially call it) last week!
Liked the decorative transparent colour panels, seeing the city skyline and the industrial rooftops of Wingfield!

Speed limit is (finally) going up to 90 on the Superway today

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6887770239

Hopefully they'll restore Salisbury Highway back up to 90, which has unnecessarily been stuck at 60 for months now, causing all sorts of traffic chaos in the morning peak.

As you come off the superway and on to Salsibury Hwy, around that descending bend the speed limit is 70km/h, then back up to 90km/h on Sals. Hwy.
Does anyone know why it's 70km/h? I remember it was 70 before the superway. But it doesn't make much sense to go from 90-70-90.
If it has something to do with the bend/road it self, why didn't they fix it while doing the superway? It was closed for as long as the superway was being built in that area.

rev wrote:As you come off the superway and on to Salsibury Hwy, around that descending bend the speed limit is 70km/h, then back up to 90km/h on Sals. Hwy.
Does anyone know why it's 70km/h? I remember it was 70 before the superway. But it doesn't make much sense to go from 90-70-90.
If it has something to do with the bend/road it self, why didn't they fix it while doing the superway? It was closed for as long as the superway was being built in that area.

Before the limit raised to 90km/h, I recall seeing a yellow sign stating that the recommended speed for the bend was 65km/h, (although possible at a greater speed) which I would have thought was sufficient, and kept the road at 90km/h. I didn't see the 65km/h sign when I went on last night, and only saw the lit up sign saying 70km/h, and the metal sign stating to go 70km/h if the above signs were off. I don't know if I missed it or it was taken down and they just lowered the limit. I thought the drop to 70 was quite stupid as well.

I guess we have to wait until the Northern Connector is built for them to build the new loop, with a wider turn, to be raised to 90km/h for the whole road.

Otherwise, I don't really have any complaints about driving 90km/h along the Superway last night, although it was very quiet, may be more congested during busier times.

neoballmon wrote:

rev wrote:As you come off the superway and on to Salsibury Hwy, around that descending bend the speed limit is 70km/h, then back up to 90km/h on Sals. Hwy.
Does anyone know why it's 70km/h? I remember it was 70 before the superway. But it doesn't make much sense to go from 90-70-90.
If it has something to do with the bend/road it self, why didn't they fix it while doing the superway? It was closed for as long as the superway was being built in that area.

Before the limit raised to 90km/h, I recall seeing a yellow sign stating that the recommended speed for the bend was 65km/h, (although possible at a greater speed) which I would have thought was sufficient, and kept the road at 90km/h. I didn't see the 65km/h sign when I went on last night, and only saw the lit up sign saying 70km/h, and the metal sign stating to go 70km/h if the above signs were off. I don't know if I missed it or it was taken down and they just lowered the limit. I thought the drop to 70 was quite stupid as well.

I guess we have to wait until the Northern Connector is built for them to build the new loop, with a wider turn, to be raised to 90km/h for the whole road.

Otherwise, I don't really have any complaints about driving 90km/h along the Superway last night, although it was very quiet, may be more congested during busier times.

I think this will bump up that trumpet interchange from 70km to 90km.

The 70 kph limit is moot, you'll never get a policeman sitting on that bend looking to catch people out. An advisory sign would have been more appropriate.

spiller wrote:The 70 kph limit is moot, you'll never get a policeman sitting on that bend looking to catch people out.

Fixed cameras. You never see a policeman in the Bakewell Underpass either, but there are plenty of people been fined for speeding through there as they go down the ramp. The speed limit sign allows revenue to be raised. It's not about policing or safety.

rhino wrote:

spiller wrote:The 70 kph limit is moot, you'll never get a policeman sitting on that bend looking to catch people out.

Fixed cameras. You never see a policeman in the Bakewell Underpass either, but there are plenty of people been fined for speeding through there as they go down the ramp. The speed limit sign allows revenue to be raised. It's not about policing or safety.

Why can't it be for both? As a deterrent for speeders, and as a revenue stream.

^^ Being a deterrent for speeding and improving road safety do not always go hand in hand. in fact most of the time they dont.

spiller wrote:^^ Being a deterrent for speeding and improving road safety do not always go hand in hand. in fact most of the time they dont.

What part of "slow the eff down"* doesn't help with safety?

(*ie. driving within a safe speed for the conditions.)