[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[SBD]

Victoria is gradually extending the dual-carriageway part of the Western Highway out towards SA. I think they still have about 280km of single carriageway, with plans to duplicate/replace more of it (but only as far as Stawell, 200km from the border). Our side of the border still has about 190km single, plus the Swanport Bridge.

The sections with the wide painted/rumble median are almost as good to drive on as dual carriageway, and have frequent overtaking lanes.

I'd like to see the Swanport Bridge duplicated

Swanport Bridge is a strange anomaly created by cost-cutting; an 80kph single-lane each way bridge flanked on either side by a 110kph dual carriageway two lanes each way. Duplication would obviously mean another two-lane bridge built next to the current one which gets changed into one way both lanes, but it would be a nice little touch if they dug up the original plans and built a lookalike to have two twin bridges.

It did not look so anomalous when there was only one lane each way on the east side of the bridge too. Now, the bridge is narrower than the sealed surface of much of the Dukes Highway, and feels quite tight to drive over. There is a sign to say the footpath is now for emergency use only, but as far as I can tell, it is legal to cycle across, and expect other traffic to slow down until it can safely give a metre and a half clearance.

[how good is he]

By all means finish the North-South corridor & link it to the SE freeway etc. However why isn’t there any regard or State Govt policy for trying to get SA’s long haul freight onto the rail network? Why aren’t we part of or even trying to join the inland rail? Are there any plans for double stacked freight trains to make it far more efficient & cost effective? The main Fed Govt policy is to spend billions along the Eastern seaboard on getting freight off our roads. Why isn’t this our big picture goal also?

[SBD]

By all means finish the North-South corridor & link it to the SE freeway etc. However why isn’t there any regard or State Govt policy for trying to getting SA’s long haul freight onto the rail network? Why aren’t we part of or even trying to join the inland rail? Are there any plans for double stacked freight trains to make it far more efficient & cost effective? The main Fed Govt policy is to spend billions along the Eastern seaboard on getting freight off our roads. Why isn’t this our big picture goal also?

GWA is majority owned by G&W that should be good at running these kinds of railways. The list of non-operational railways leased by GWA is quite disappointing. History says they actually bought the lease form the Federal government, but neither state nor federal governments over the years have done much to maintain and improve the services or encourage new customers. Every little step on the way has probably been quite reasonable at the time, but the net result is that the remainder of SA's intrastate rail has quietly closed. It started well before GWA took over (Morgan closed 1969, not sure about Mallee lines other than Loxton), and has continued.

[Spotto]

By all means finish the North-South corridor & link it to the SE freeway etc. However why isn’t there any regard or State Govt policy for trying to getting SA’s long haul freight onto the rail network? Why aren’t we part of or even trying to join the inland rail? Are there any plans for double stacked freight trains to make it far more efficient & cost effective? The main Fed Govt policy is to spend billions along the Eastern seaboard on getting freight off our roads. Why isn’t this our big picture goal also?

GWA is majority owned by G&W that should be good at running these kinds of railways. The list of non-operational railways leased by GWA is quite disappointing. History says they actually bought the lease form the Federal government, but neither state nor federal governments over the years have done much to maintain and improve the services or encourage new customers. Every little step on the way has probably been quite reasonable at the time, but the net result is that the remainder of SA's intrastate rail has quietly closed. It started well before GWA took over (Morgan closed 1969, not sure about Mallee lines other than Loxton), and has continued.

I know that investment for repairing the railways alone won't be enough to make companies magically transfer back to rail unless there's an incentive for them to abandon road transport. Introducing a tax/levy on road freight transport per-container where rail transport is an available option (once key routes have been repaired and restored to an acceptable operating standard) could be one way. Obviously if there's no option for rail transport then the freight won't be charged. Could there be any other ways?

[how good is he]

The freight train alternative has to end up being competitive with time and money against the road alternative. It is also naturally more expensive to deliver and unload containers & use trains. So the transport companies need to also be incentivized to use rail. For example when Northline [transport and logistics company] moved to their new inter-modal hub [they moved adjacent to and with their yard connected to a freight train line], I think the State Govt offered some sort of grant/support.

[croweater888]

https://dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pd ... s_Case.pdf

[mawsonguy]

Below is taken from the KPMG Globelink study and sets out the options for the connection of the SE Freeway to the North-South Corridor. It is unclear if their suggestion of a two lane "Short Souht" link as an interim measure is grade separated. If it was, with controlled access and built so it can be easily upgraded to 4 lanes then it appears to be worthwhile. The idea of a tunnel to Cross Rd is clearly a pipe dream.

Road options: Despite the safety and efficiency benefits, making a new road stack up would require integrated land use planning and significant development to increase demand.
BCR and NPV calculations for the three shortlisted road options provided sobering results. The appraisal assumes a four-lane, national standard motorway grade connections and uses direct conventional benefits, reflecting national and SA Government economic appraisal guidelines.
Alternate M1 route – ‘Short South’
BCR: 0.20 NPV: -$1,006 million
‘+ planning’ BCR: 1.26
This option proposes a new 25 km road, with two lanes in each direction connecting the South Eastern Freeway at Mount Barker to the North-South Corridor (South Road) at St Marys in the south of Adelaide. The road includes motorway connections, with tunnelling through the Adelaide Hills, before connecting into the planned North-South Corridor, providing connectivity to Adelaide Airport, Outer Harbor and Adelaide’s industrial north. The capital expenditure for construction of the road is $1.4bn, with operational costs of $23m per annum. The alignment of the road avoids residential areas, seeking to minimise safety and amenity impacts on existing communities, and, to the extent possible, avoid construction complexities through the Adelaide Hills.
Alternate M1 route – ‘Short North’
BCR: 0.12 NPV: - $1,694 million
‘+ planning’ BCR: 0.80
This option proposes a new 37km road connecting the South Eastern Freeway at Mount Barker to Grand Junction Road at Hope Valley, in Adelaide’s north. The proposed new road will have two lanes in each direction, providing connection from the south-east of the state to the industrial north of Adelaide. The capital expenditure for construction of the road is $2.1bn, with operational costs of $34m per annum. The alignment of the road avoids residential areas, seeking to minimise safety and amenity impacts on existing communities, and avoid construction complexities through the Adelaide Hills.
Cross Road Tunnel – M1 to North-South Corridor
BCR: 0.09 NPV: -$12,950 million
This option proposes to construct a new, dedicated 16.6km tunnel connection between the South Eastern Freeway east of Crafers and the North-South Corridor. The proposed tunnel would incorporate boring from past Crafers to the intersection at the South Eastern Freeway and Cross Road, and a cut and cover construction below Cross Road to the North-South Corridor. By starting the tunnel east of Crafers, the slowest and most dangerous sections of the South Eastern Freeway are avoided. The capital expenditure for construction of the road and tunnel is $18.2bn, with operational costs of $43m per annum.

Despite the need for road transport improvements between the South Eastern Freeway and Adelaide’s motorway network identified in the problem and opportunity statement, each road option struggled to achieve a positive BCR or NPV; because of low levels of forecast demand. Transport project benefits accrue largely via time and vehicle operating cost savings, reflecting faster, more direct and efficient journeys. This sees the scale of benefits driven by freight and passenger journeys. Fewer journeys sees lower benefits, in turn making net benefits difficult to achieve.
The muted results reflect the objectives and problems identified in the Scoping Study, slow population growth and subdued economic activity.
However, our sensitivity analysis does find that the ‘Short South’ road sees promise; as shown above as the ‘+planning’ BCR scenario calculation. This reflects a scenario with a reduced scope, from four lanes to two lanes, with appropriate passing lanes, noting that this level of capacity will be sufficient to cater for projected demand. We also assumed complementary land use changes equivalent to 10,000 new housing lots. Once these were factored in, the BCR improved substantially, to reach 1.26.
This sensitivity analysis combined with the safety and other impacts of the existing road alignment suggests that a case for a new, safer and more efficient road could become economical, but would require integrated land use planning and significant development to increase corridor demand for the ‘Short South’ option.
The ‘+planning ‘ BCR scenario reflects the sensitivity analysis considering integrated land use planning and significant development, however no investigation of the potential to accommodate such a level of housing was performed, therefore the results require further investigation.

[SBD]

(Maybe we should move to the "Roads and Traffic" forum)
The valuation is based on cost savings for current traffic, without appearing to account for any induced demand. I grew up in that area, and my university choice was constrained by the fact that even though Flinders was closer, it was impossible to get to without driving all the way every day, so I only applied for Adelaide degrees. A freeway from Mount Barker to the southern suburbs (assuming interchanges near Echunga and Coromandel at least) would change the commuting patterns over time.

[how good is he]

The short South option to connect the N-S Motorway with the SE freeway for $1.4bn seems very achievable. If they start planning sooner rather than later it could get Federal funding before the next election. It would certainly attract the voters that want the semis out of the residential areas etc that I think some pollies were campaigning for.

[ml69]

The short South option to connect the N-S Motorway with the SE freeway for $1.4bn seems very achievable. If they start planning sooner rather than later it could get Federal funding before the next election. It would certainly attract the voters that want the semis out of the residential areas etc that I think some pollies were campaigning for.

Surely building a 23km road for $1.4B through the Adelaide Hills which is suitable for freight traffic is totally fanciful. It will cost way, way more than that.

The Northern Connector cost $1.0B for a 14km section through dead flat salt pans.

The “Short South” route through the hills will require a massive amount of earthworks, tunnelling, viaducts and flyovers in order to build a road suitable for a significant amount of freight traffic. We’re not building a little country road here.

[how good is he]

KPMG prepared a comprehensive report and that was their figure. Maybe email them & ask them to show you/us how they came to this ie show their workings?

[dbl96]

Viterra and GWA should never have been allowed to discontinue rail freight.

Viterra is a corporate entity. Both shareholders and farmers benefit from Viterra sourcing the lowest cost transport. The failing is in the policy area somewhere, and enforced (or not) through the outsourcing contract(s).

Trucks don't pay full cost recovery on maintaining and upgrading roads (please don't read this as me saying they should). GWA had to pay full cost to maintain the rail corridor, as well as the trains to run on it, for only one customer. Once the tracks had been allowed to run down, GWA trains could not compete for business with road freight - it cost more and took longer, why would anyone want to use it?

The central problem is that the rail track network was privatised. Its a classic problem of externalities. Grain lines don't generate enough profit to directly pay for their upkeep. But functioning grain lines have overall positive benefit for the state's economy and society. It is the same story for most roads. In cases like this, it doesn't make sense economically for businesses to own and maintain these assets. But because of the overall positive benefit to South Australia's economy and society of having a functioning rail network, the network should not be allowed to decay simply because a company can't make a buck out of it. Instead, like roads, the rail network should be owned and maintained as a public asset, so that South Australia's economy and society can benefit from the safety and efficiency it provides.

[rhino]

The central problem is that the rail track network was privatised. Its a classic problem of externalities. Grain lines don't generate enough profit to directly pay for their upkeep. But functioning grain lines have overall positive benefit for the state's economy and society. It is the same story for most roads. In cases like this, it doesn't make sense economically for businesses to own and maintain these assets. But because of the overall positive benefit to South Australia's economy and society of having a functioning rail network, the network should not be allowed to decay simply because a company can't make a buck out of it. Instead, like roads, the rail network should be owned and maintained as a public asset, so that South Australia's economy and society can benefit from the safety and efficiency it provides.

Hooray for Common Sense!

There is a desperate need to recognise the value of such things. Rather than look at the cost, look at the cost saving and the other benefits - e.g. less trucks on the road, leading to less traffic density, leading to safer roads, a healthier environment, less greenhouse gas, etc etc

[HeapsGood]

So the traffic build up and delay at the end of the expressway outside Tonsley is bloody horrible in the morning...

[Spotto]

So the traffic build up and delay at the end of the expressway outside Tonsley is bloody horrible in the morning...

Which is why the central section, or at least part of it, should’ve been long under construction to progressively complete the corridor with overlapping projects. Waterloo Corner through to the River Torrens can be separated into construction “phases” of overlapping projects. But once Darlington is complete the only construction zone is R2P with zero concrete plans for the central section not even breaking it into smaller portions.

Phase 1:
South Road Superway - 2011-13
Southern Expwy Duplication - 2011-14

Phase 2:
Torrens to Torrens - 2015-18
Darlington Upgrade - 2016-20
Northern Connector - 2016-20

Phase 3:
Regency to Pym - 2019-22 (projected)
Torrens to Anzac - nothing
Anzac to Darlington - nothing