[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[Bacon]

Pym-Regency draft plan has been uploaded-

https://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__ ... y_2019.pdf

If this plan goes ahead there’s a brand new house on pym that has just been completed which will be knocked down, that would be a bit of a stuff up!

[SBD]

Does anyone else find it funny that Sturt Highway goes nowhere near Sturt?

Not really. After all, the Sturt footy team is based at Unley, nowhere near the Sturt Highway, nor Sturt Road, nor Sturt Street, nor the Sturt River, nor the suburb of Sturt, nor the City of Charles Sturt...

Captain Charles Sturt played a very big role in the exploration and settlement of South Australia. His exploration team were the first non-Aboriginal people to find the Murray River, and they rowed along it from NSW all the way down to Goolwa and back up. He later came to Adelaide by land, droving a herd of cattle. So the Sturt Highway is quite an appropriate name for the road.

When he got to Adelaide he became Colonel Light's successor as Surveyor General of SA. As well as laying out roads and land divisions etc he led several more exploration expeditions before eventually returning to England. If you want to know more about him, it's worth going to the Charles Sturt Museum at Grange.

Would it be wise once its nonstop between Gawler West and Old Noarlunga to rebrand the Northern Connector etc as Sturt Highway or Southern Expressway

I don't think so. Rebranding the Northern Expressway as Sturt Highway might be more sensible, but OTOH there are lots of other roads branching off it at Gawler.

The Sturt Highway is traditionally National Route 20, and is now A20 leading in to Gawler. When the Northern Expressway opened, it was made M20 and Main North Road was renumbered to A53. About a year ago, Northern Expressway was renumbered to M2, and Main North Road got A20 back. I think that gives a clue that Northern Expressway is not going to be Sturt Highway. There will be a single name for M2 from Gawler to Noarlunga, which currently is named North-South Motorway - inoffensive but uninspiring.

Once Darlington, Northern Connector and Regency Road sections are completed, the North-South Motorway will have a North part from Gawler to the Torrens, and a south part from Tonsley Park to Noarlunga. If nobody is game to bite the bullet politically and join them up, perhaps we'll just shorten the name and have the North Motorway and the South Motorway instead of North-South Motorway (North) and North-South Motorway (South).

[Waewick]

Pym-Regency draft plan has been uploaded-

https://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__ ... y_2019.pdf

If this plan goes ahead there’s a brand new house on pym that has just been completed which will be knocked down, that would be a bit of a stuff up!

You would have had to be nuts to build a house there knowing what was going on.

[ChillyPhilly]

Pym-Regency draft plan has been uploaded-

https://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__ ... y_2019.pdf

If this plan goes ahead there’s a brand new house on pym that has just been completed which will be knocked down, that would be a bit of a stuff up!

You would have had to be nuts to build a house there knowing what was going on.

I wonder who precisely approved it.

Back on the design, I'm really glad that it appears Croydon Kings will be able to keep their home ground. Hopefully this new certainty (the design albeit being just a draft) can allow them to begin using the project as an opportunity to upgrade their ground and facilities.

The project now has a name - R2P, Regency to Pym.

[Aidan]

Struth, I thought T2T was bad, but that only demolished the buildings on one side. This Pym-Regency plan would widen South Road so much that they'd have to destroy the buildings on the opposite side as well! And though the sports pitch is set well back from the road, the road would intrude onto that too.

Intrusive, expensive and inefficient. Who exactly came up with this monstrosity?

[Patrick_27]

Struth, I thought T2T was bad, but that only demolished the buildings on one side. This Pym-Regency plan would widen South Road so much that they'd have to destroy the buildings on the opposite side as well! And though the sports pitch is set well back from the road, the road would intrude onto that too.

Intrusive, expensive and inefficient. Who exactly came up with this monstrosity?

... Do you have a better idea? It's probably common knowledge on here that I'm all for the preservation of history, open space and elements of suburbia, so this might come out as left field, but have you driven along this stretch of South Road? Considering the state of some of the structures I'm sure some of the land owners are hanging out for acquisition. And I hate to say it, but it's nice to see a bit of level ground freeway in Adelaide; and I don't see how this is inefficient or any more expensive than to spend an extra year digging down or going up.

[Aidan]

... Do you have a better idea? It's probably common knowledge on here that I'm all for the preservation of history, open space and elements of suburbia, so this might come out as left field, but have you driven along this stretch of South Road? Considering the state of some of the structures I'm sure some of the land owners are hanging out for acquisition. And I hate to say it, but it's nice to see a bit of level ground freeway in Adelaide; and I don't see how this is inefficient or any more expensive than to spend an extra year digging down or going up.

There's plenty of ground level freeway on the Southern Expressway and the Port River Expressway — I expect that's the case with the Northern Expressway too, though I've not driven on it yet. But this is not about its level; that's largely irrelevant. The problem is the excessive width (and the destruction needed to accommodate that) and the lack of connections from one side to the other.

[[Shuz]]

Aidan,

The land acquisition required has been well known for years. Why are you having a whinge now? Darlington is worse.

I'd hate to hear you whinge about the 20 lane North East Link in Melbourne.

[bits]

Pym-Regency draft plan has been uploaded-

https://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__ ... y_2019.pdf

If this plan goes ahead there’s a brand new house on pym that has just been completed which will be knocked down, that would be a bit of a stuff up!

You would have had to be nuts to build a house there knowing what was going on.

I don't see how you can add extreme limits to someone's land without compensation because you have an unfunded plan in the future to change things maybe.
People are allowed to build new houses on their land, that is part of what owning land entitles you to.

The owner will be paid market value plus compensation for the land and house. So the owner could make a healthy return on the building.

The government would need to compensate aka buy the land prior to the house being built if they didn't want to potentially buy new homes.

The "problem" is that they announced the plan without fully funding and buying the land it would sit on. That time gap allows people to build new buildings. But what else could you do.

I see no issue here. The way this is funded in sections as they are ready to be built is fine. The project is over a long period of time and could potentially never be finished.
The government can't block me from using my land for normal uses because of a dream they have, because who owns the land, me or them?

[muzzamo]

Aidan,

The land acquisition required has been well known for years. Why are you having a whinge now? Darlington is worse.

I'd hate to hear you whinge about the 20 lane North East Link in Melbourne.

I looked this up - looks cool.

[Nort]

Pym-Regency draft plan has been uploaded-

https://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__ ... y_2019.pdf

If this plan goes ahead there’s a brand new house on pym that has just been completed which will be knocked down, that would be a bit of a stuff up!

For the entire 1.6km stretch between Regency and Torrens roads there appears to be only one point where pedestrians can cross South Road based on this plan.

For a freeway out in the sticks that would be fine, but for one being cut through suburbia that's extremely disappointing.

[Bacon]

I don't see how you can add extreme limits to someone's land without compensation because you have an unfunded plan in the future to change things maybe.
People are allowed to build new houses on their land, that is part of what owning land entitles you to.

The owner will be paid market value plus compensation for the land and house. So the owner could make a healthy return on the building.

The government would need to compensate aka buy the land prior to the house being built if they didn't want to potentially buy new homes.

The "problem" is that they announced the plan without fully funding and buying the land it would sit on. That time gap allows people to build new buildings. But what else could you do.

I see no issue here. The way this is funded in sections as they are ready to be built is fine. The project is over a long period of time and could potentially never be finished.
The government can't block me from using my land for normal uses because of a dream they have, because who owns the land, me or them?

I completely understand this but it just seems like a waste of time and resources, given the narrow timeline between it being built and the R2P funding being announced, but hey, the owner is probably better off for it rather than leaving an empty block.

[SBD]

Pym-Regency draft plan has been uploaded-

https://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__ ... y_2019.pdf

If this plan goes ahead there’s a brand new house on pym that has just been completed which will be knocked down, that would be a bit of a stuff up!

For the entire 1.6km stretch between Regency and Torrens roads there appears to be only one point where pedestrians can cross South Road based on this plan.

For a freeway out in the sticks that would be fine, but for one being cut through suburbia that's extremely disappointing.

Two - there's a disabled-accessible footbridge near Pym Street, and pedestrian crossings on both sides of Regency Road at-grade where the freeway goes over top. The pedestrian crossing presently near Packard Avenue/Essex Crescent seems to be gone though.

Next one south would be Torrens Road, next one north would be Days Road.

[Aidan]

Aidan,

The land acquisition required has been well known for years.

To whom? And who made it well known?
The new house on Pym Street shows they can't've done a very good job!

Why are you having a whinge now?

Possible precursor to action. Plus I wanted to hear the opinions of others on this board.

Darlington is worse.

Darlington was worse. Sixty houses demolished unnecessarily because the government insisted on a full freeway rather than a nonstop corridor. But they're long gone; 'tis far too late to do anything about that now. I did try at the time, but failed.

I'd hate to hear you whinge about the 20 lane North East Link in Melbourne.

I knew they'd opted for an overengineered version of that, but I hadn't realised how much. No wonder it's been labelled Victoria's most expensive road!

[[Shuz]]

Why.

Must.

You.

Respond.

Like.

This.

It's annoying. Just reply like a normal person without having to break everything up into mini quotes. We get the point.