[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[Aidan]

Rubberman you seem to have forgotten that there were three reasons why the MATS plan was abandoned. As well as cost and public opposition to the destructive effects of new roads through existing suburbs (both of which are as valid now as then) there was the realisation that it wasn't needed. You assume, as the MATS plan did, that mode choice was based primarily on people wanting to use their cars, but the reality is very different: the low standard of public transport provision effectively forces people to use their cars. Where public transport is better, it will be used more.

It was revolutionary then, but it's something we take for granted now. It's what enabled us to build the O-bahn instead of a freeway. But successive governments have underinvested in public transport. They've often relied on increasing driving times to boost its usage, but then not even provided the extra vehicles to accommodate the higher demand.

[claybro]

Aidan, I don't think anyone here would begrudge extra spending on PT, however the upgrades to PT you propose to solve some of the road conjestion assumes most of the conjestion comes from city bound commuters...it does not. Very little of South Road traffic is in fact city bound and one has only to travell along South Road during the day when school/office commuter traffic is not an issue to realise there is still a great deal of conjestion by trucks, vans and private cars. I don't think that Rubberman was advocating a return to the full MATS plan, rather the part of it that should never have been cancelled being the NTH/STH freeway based on the South Road alignment.

[Hooligan]

why were these threads merged? i keep opening this thread thinking I'm going to get some news and instead i see you lot just talking shit.

So that if someone thinks that when we are discussing the South Road / North-South Corridor we were not on topic about "News & Discussion...", they could scurry off to the mods.

The mods can then politely tell us where we should be posting if we are wrong, and if we should not be discussing the corridor in the thread that says 'News & Discussion'.

We will, of course, do as the mods request.

I could go to the mods but I'm not a dobber.
I liked it better when we had a discussion thread and a news thread. At least then i knew what thread was full of news and what thread was full of complete bullshit.

[rubberman]

Rubberman you seem to have forgotten that there were three reasons why the MATS plan was abandoned. As well as cost and public opposition to the destructive effects of new roads through existing suburbs (both of which are as valid now as then) there was the realisation that it wasn't needed.

Well, something is needed. And nothing is being done. That is my point. If there is a viable alternative to MATS, then why have we not seen it implemented in the past forty years? Perhaps that alternative is not any more palatable to the voters than the MATS Plan? I don't care to speculate. My complaint is not that the MATS Plan was not implemented, rather that nothing was done in its place.

You assume, as the MATS plan did, that mode choice was based primarily on people wanting to use their cars, but the reality is very different: the low standard of public transport provision effectively forces people to use their cars. Where public transport is better, it will be used more.

Whose reality Aidan? Funny, I could have sworn that I postulated the 'Prague' option as a possibility in my post. You know, the one that had trains plus metro plus trams. The reason I used Prague is that it is a city that is the same size as Adelaide, and therefore if we were serious about an alternative to the MATS Plan, that is the level of infrastructure (in terms of modes, frequency and areal coverage) needed to transport an equivalent number of people round the city. When you see what is required to have most people in a city with the population of Adelaide use public transport as the main means of city transport, then one or more rail lines and a few grade separations here and there falls so far short of what is required as to be laughable.

It was revolutionary then, but it's something we take for granted now. It's what enabled us to build the O-bahn instead of a freeway. But successive governments have underinvested in public transport. They've often relied on increasing driving times to boost its usage, but then not even provided the extra vehicles to accommodate the higher demand.

Er, yes Aidan. You are getting there. My point was exactly that. There are other options than the MATS Plan. My point is and was that having decided that we didn't want the MATS Plan (for whatever reasons), we did not invest in any of the alternatives, rather we have undertaken piecemeal and peripheral tarting up - and the results are there for all of us to see and endure. ie, We either invest in an option that is going to do us some good, or we stop whining. Piecemeal and scant infrastructure (and what is going on along the N/S corridor is just that compared to the traffic load) isn't going to solve our problems.

Let me put it another way. If we really want to solve those problems, the costs are going to be huge, and we are going to either have to have a MATS - alike plan, or a revolution in public transport, yet most people wrongly think that some minor tarting up, grade separation and a railway or to are going to do the trick. I have demonstrated that what is required for a viable PT option (in Prague), do you know of anywhere in the world that has managed to provide good public transport to a city the size of Adelaide without that level of commitment

[Aidan]

Aidan, I don't think anyone here would begrudge extra spending on PT, however the upgrades to PT you propose to solve some of the road conjestion assumes most of the conjestion comes from city bound commuters...it does not. Very little of South Road traffic is in fact city bound and one has only to travell along South Road during the day when school/office commuter traffic is not an issue to realise there is still a great deal of conjestion by trucks, vans and private cars. I don't think that Rubberman was advocating a return to the full MATS plan, rather the part of it that should never have been cancelled being the NTH/STH freeway based on the South Road alignment.

I've seen the MATS Plan, and a NTH/STH freeway based on the South Road alignment was never part of it. And had such a freeway been constructed, it would by now be gridlocked in the peaks by City commuters - and if nothing else were done, in the next few years they'd've gridlocked it off peak too, for the City is the most popular destination at any time of day.

A lot of congestion on South Road is caused by City commuters, especially south of Anzac Highway. Regardless of whether it's the majority (which I didn't assume), City commuters are a significant proportion of the traffic, and any solution which fails to accommodate them will not solve the congestion problem.

Grade separating South Road would improve it a lot (if in doubt, compare it with Marion Road where the daytime congestion is far worse, particularly around the tram crossing and Anzac Highway).

And I remind you that the tunnel I propose would make it far easier to commute beyond the City by train.

[rubberman]

Aidan, I don't think anyone here would begrudge extra spending on PT, however the upgrades to PT you propose to solve some of the road conjestion assumes most of the conjestion comes from city bound commuters...it does not. Very little of South Road traffic is in fact city bound and one has only to travell along South Road during the day when school/office commuter traffic is not an issue to realise there is still a great deal of conjestion by trucks, vans and private cars. I don't think that Rubberman was advocating a return to the full MATS plan, rather the part of it that should never have been cancelled being the NTH/STH freeway based on the South Road alignment.

I've seen the MATS Plan, and a NTH/STH freeway based on the South Road alignment was never part of it. And had such a freeway been constructed, it would by now be gridlocked in the peaks by City commuters - and if nothing else were done, in the next few years they'd've gridlocked it off peak too, for the City is the most popular destination at any time of day.

A lot of congestion on South Road is caused by City commuters, especially south of Anzac Highway. Regardless of whether it's the majority (which I didn't assume), City commuters are a significant proportion of the traffic, and any solution which fails to accommodate them will not solve the congestion problem.

Grade separating South Road would improve it a lot (if in doubt, compare it with Marion Road where the daytime congestion is far worse, particularly around the tram crossing and Anzac Highway).

And I remind you that the tunnel I propose would make it far easier to commute beyond the City by train.

Are you suggesting that a freeway would be worse than the present South Road set up? Or are you saying that there would be a back up from the connections into the city as city roads would cause choke points. If the latter, then that is an argument for car parks near the freeway exits and then trams or metro to the city rather than an argument against a freeway. The real problem with the MATS Plan was that it funnelled cars into the city where there would have been almighty traffic gridlock there, backing up and then locking up the freeway. The north south freeway(s) would have functioned quite well had there been a clean exit which was not allowed to back up from them.

[claybro]

The discussion of Nth/Sth freeway should not be hijacked by the "city commuters would only block it up" argument. City commuters would be one of the easiest problems to solve by greatly increased rail services and accociated park and ride facilities even if only using existing lines and carfully controlling where any off ramps are located in relation to the CBD..The city is already well catered for in transport alternatives. Also arguing the point about an alternative tunnel is pointless as the government is already planning the North/South alignment based on South road (the merrits of this are also questionable but we are now stuck with it.) The Superway and the Southern Expy have been designed with the South road alignment in mind. My only concern is that it has sufficient lane capacity, speed and controlled access to prevent traffic hold ups, and we should be discussing the best way to achieve this utilising the already proposed alignment.

[mattblack]

You assume, as the MATS plan did, that mode choice was based primarily on people wanting to use their cars, but the reality is very different: the low standard of public transport provision effectively forces people to use their cars. Where public transport is better, it will be used more.

Whose reality Aidan? Funny, I could have sworn that I postulated the 'Prague' option as a possibility in my post. You know, the one that had trains plus metro plus trams. The reason I used Prague is that it is a city that is the same size as Adelaide, and therefore if we were serious about an alternative to the MATS Plan, that is the level of infrastructure (in terms of modes, frequency and areal coverage) needed to transport an equivalent number of people round the city. When you see what is required to have most people in a city with the population of Adelaide use public transport as the main means of city transport, then one or more rail lines and a few grade separations here and there falls so far short of what is required as to be laughable.

What is laughable is that you are using Prague as an equivalent to Adelaide. Although we have a comparable population, the area of Adelaide is about 1800km2 while Prague is about 500km2, additionally the housing density in Adelaide averages about 33 p/Ha (persons per Hectare) while Prague is about 71 p/Ha with half the city between 60-120 p/Ha. With such a condensed urban area and high population densities mass public transit is much more viable. You might want to look at cities in the U.S. that are based on the same low density urban landscapes to make your argument convincing.

[[Shuz]]

Compared to Richmond, Virginia - population 1.25 million, they have no rail network. But lots of freeways!

I think we have it pretty good compared to them.

[claybro]

So seems most agree that a decent North/South expressway is required to facilitate commercial traffic, with a more streamlined ring route and much improved rail services to improve commuter access to the inner city, with trams to provide access for inner suburbs as they become more densly populated..The cost of all this..probably 10 Billion.From a commercal economic position probably the Nth/Sth route is most critical (thus the superway). Seems like the current government was sort of on the way there (albeit a bit sketchy on the Darlington to Regency bit.) Pity we have run out of money to maintain the momentum.

[rubberman]

What is laughable is that you are using Prague as an equivalent to Adelaide. Although we have a comparable population, the area of Adelaide is about 1800km2 while Prague is about 500km2, additionally the housing density in Adelaide averages about 33 p/Ha (persons per Hectare) while Prague is about 71 p/Ha with half the city between 60-120 p/Ha. With such a condensed urban area and high population densities mass public transit is much more viable. You might want to look at cities in the U.S. that are based on the same low density urban landscapes to make your argument convincing.

Matt, I think you are misunderstanding the point I was trying to make. Perhaps my explanation was unclear - I was trying to be brief.

1). We had a MATS Plan, which
2). Was rejected, with one of the reasons being given that,
3). By improving public transport,
4). We didn't need such a freeway intensive Plan to solve our transport worries. (Read Aidan's posts to see what I am talking about here).

That is what I was responding to.

My contention is that:

1). There has been no such alternative plan produced, and that
2). The works proposed by various governments, and alluded to in Aidan's posts are totally inadequate to get people to travel by public transport, or help the North South transport issues, so that,
3). Either we build freeways, or
4). We build PT infrastructure to the frequency and areal coverage of Prague, or
5). We put up with our north / south problems and stop whinging.

To demonstrate that, I used Prague because it has the same population as Adelaide, and it does have the frequency and areal spread of public transport to make serious inroads into car traffic. The size of the city is not the issue, it is the fact that this is the frequency and coverage needed to get people out of their cars, and gives us enough of an idea of the amount of infrastructure required to completely debunk the nonsense about a few grade separations and a couple of rail lines being the answer to our north south problems - when one sees what is done elsewhere, it becomes clear how inadequate our present traffic planning has been.

I am not saying we should do as Prague has done (for the reasons you point out), rather that those who advocate public transport as the alternative to freeways, need to realise the magnitude of the task required. Alternatively, if they are not going to come up with the goods to provide better public transport, they need to accept freeways. Or stop whinging about how long it takes to get along South Road.

The upshot of all this is that Prague has 3 Metro lines, about 900 trams, more rail lines than Adelaide, and some ring route expressways. As you quite rightly point out, Adelaide is much more spread out than Prague. Which means that to provide the same frequency and areal spread of public transport as Prague, the infrastructure requirement is much much greater.

My aim was to show that some grade separation of South Road, a couple of rail lines and a tunnel was grossly inadequate for the task. So therefore because, as you point out, Adelaide is much more spread out than Prague, we would need more than 3 Metro lines, More than 900 trams, More rail lines and more expressways and a fleet of buses to provide the same frequency and spread of services for those who want PT to have any hope of getting people out of their cars. I am trying to drum into people's heads that we have so woefully underinvested in transport infrastructure, that a few grade separations and a couple of rail lines does not even begin to address the problem. People have been pushing the line of this piecemeal approach now for forty year since the MATS Plan was trashed - that is longer than the lifetime of some posters here. If it was not so damaging to the ability of Adelaide to progress as a city, it would be a huge joke.

You are reinforcing the point Matt that Adelaide's response to its north / south traffic problems is just underwhelming.

[adam73837]

Not sure where this belonged, so I decided to create a new topic. This works on two levels, because it will also likely attract people's attention.

Does everyone remember that Planning Study we were promised? You know, the one that was to focus on the portion of South Road between Regency Park and the Gallipoli Underpass? As in, the section of South Road that is one of the most incapable of handling its daily traffic volumes?

Well, although I'm not sure about the accuracy of this article, it is still quite a concerning thought that it has been put on ice.

http://www.indaily.com.au/?iid=71853&sr=0#folio=2

I can understand that money is an issue, so can I ask; who is it on the Federal level that is responsible for determining how much money to allocate and to where? It's one thing for the State to not be able to afford large projects, but it's another thing when the Feds throw us money towards projects like the South Road Superway rather than providing funding for the busier section(s) of South Road.

From the link posted above:

“A great deal of planning is well advanced, particularly on the section of South Road from Regency Road to the River Torrens,” Conlon said in a statement.

“However, given the current financial circumstances, there is no project that we intend to propose to the community at this point in time.

“I will continue to talk to the Commonwealth about the likelihood of future funding and the timing of it.”

Without knowing precisely what goes on behind the scenes, I don't think I'm in any position to comment; but I'm still amazed that, for the time being at least, it appears very little (if nothing at all) will be done to fix this section of South Road that desperately needs fixing.

[neoballmon]

I'm a little disappointed that after 2 years, only 4 major intersections (Port, Grange, Torrens and Regency) and a rail line have been well planned out. I would have to say that (although Port Road-Grange is second), Richmond Road to Henley Beach Road is by far the worst for traffic queues, and this should be more important.

I also dont like that they're against releasing the report. Im really curious as to what they think they'll do there, but it could also save a lot of time when money is available, as public consultation will have happened, and the NIMBY's will have already removed the elements they're strongly against..

As said in the article, “At the end of the day, the work has to happen – it’s not a case of if but when”. So it will happen. It's just the 'when' that worries me. Could be until after 2030 that they even start to think about it...

P.S. Im pretty sure there was a 'news and discussion' thread for South Road and the N/S Corridor. But as you said, might bring more attention. Caught my eye instantly!

[claybro]

None of this is very surprising, and why is the lack of money for construction preventing a detailed plan of THE WHOLE ROUTE. No wonder the feds dont give us money when we dont even have a comprehensive plan for our North/South corridor. The entire length should be fully planned, fully costed and stages of construction with timelines planned. It is almost as though the State uses no money as an excuse to not even tackle getting started on planning the hard parts. I think it is just too hard for our timid populist politicians in this state.

[SouthAussie94]

I've been thinking for a while, why does South Road HAVE to be the North/South corridor?

Now this may be a REALLY stupid suggestion, but why not consider Tapleys Hill Road (THR) as the North-South Corridor, with an upgraded ANZAC Highway and Port Road linking it into the city. This corridor would also have the bonus of going right past the airport. Using this corridor it should be possible to link both Northern and Southern areas to the CBD and each other.

- Link the Northern end of THR with the Port River Expressway. This would then open up the corridor to the Northern suburbs such as Mawson Lakes, Salisbury, etc and would surely be quicker than the congested Main North Road, even if a much longer distance.
- Upgrade of Brighton Road, making it a clearway 24/7, grade separating the railway crossing and major intersections where necessary. This would then better link the Southern Suburbs to the corridor, decreasing travelling times and increasing capacity. By upgrading Sherriffs road it would then be possible to link the Lonsdale Highway to the SEXY, decreasing travelling time to the Flurieau Peninsular.

While I know I may be looking at this in an overly simplistic manner and most likely missing a few key points which would severely impact the viability of this plan, I believe that it could potentially be possible and be a viable alternative..

Please be nice to me..