1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 20, 2020 8:07 pm
Aidan wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:14 am
Too bad you didn't measure the depth!
Neither did you. It looks deep enough from Google Streetview.
Even if it needs to be lowered, that's still much cheaper than buying up neighbouring properties or building a tunnel.
Aidan wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:14 am
I suggest you delete the new thread.
You seem like a nice person to be around.
Let's not get personal guys, we're just discussing our ideas not actual state policy or projects.
Aidan wrote: ↑
Sat Nov 21, 2020 3:26 am
rev wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:20 pm
So you're against the NSM because that does a pretty good job of dividing up communities.
DTEI/DPTI/DIT should have taken a lot more care not to divide up communities. For example between Regency Road and Torrens Road, all they're providing is a footbridge at Pym Street. If they did their job properly, they'd be providing a road bridge where the footbridge is, a footbridge somewhere between Overland Road and Lamont Street, and a pedestrian underpass at Packard Avenue.
They should have put Pym st under the motorway with a short underpass, even if it wasn't enough for the bus routes, it would at least be enough to maintain the community links. That's really my own gripe with this section.
As for the Thebarton to Tonsley section of the NSM, my main objection is the cost. There are much better ways to spend 9.9 gigabucks, and I will soon be announcing a more efficient alternative to the government, opposition, DIT and media.
Look forward to reading it.
You make it sound like the whole area is interconnected and couldn't possibly continue to exist if anything change.
.....those communities are already divided by the drain. The only crossings that exist are Marion road, Brooker Tce and Milner rd, and three little foot bridges.
Footbridges could be included.
You still want to drive a motorway through he heart of a residential area. Whereas I say residential areas should be avoided unless there's no practical alternative (in which case it's much better to stick to the edge than run through the middle).
While yeh it is a residential area, it is already divided/split, by the concrete creek. The only connection they have with each side of the creek along that 2.2km length is 3 roads, and 3 small foot bridges over the creek and into side streets.
A motorway and/or rail line wouldn't change that, in fact there could be more foot bridges connecting both sides. That corridor could be beautified as well, which would be an improvement over what it is today.
In my idea there would be property acquisitions. As we have seen with the NSM so far, not all the land acquired has been used for the motorway, so it would reason that some of that land in my idea could be used to create a reserve along the length of it, perhaps on both sides of the motorway, to lessen the impact of a motorway on nearby homes. IMO even with having a motorway there, the added greenery would be an improvement then the derelict concrete creek that exists now.
You and Ho seem to imagine the Keswick Creek channel to be as deep and wide as the Sturt River! In reality it's much smaller.
Do you actually read peoples posts or just see what you want to see?
I'm not suggesting putting anything in Keswick Creek, I'm suggesting building over the top of it.
Do you actually read your own posts or just see what you want to see? You used the word through
rather than over
My mistake. But I also did get more specific and say building over the top of it, which I believe you responded to.
And what about the residential on the western side of Richmond road near the airport?
As I said, it could be avoided by diverting south at Netley. AIUI the state government already owns the land there, so your claim about needing large amounts of property acquisition of businesses is wrong.[/quote]
What occupies the areas you're suggesting?
And near Deacon and Ritchie Avenues?
OK, I concede a few houses there would need insulation subsidies and the owners should be given the opportunity to sell.
It's residential today. The biggest gripe by locals is the noise pollution from aircraft and the hours they operate.
Build a motorway, convert the area to warehousing and logistics hubs for our exports to be brought to via the NSM corridors, before being sorted and loaded onto aircraft.
Buy the property owners out. Let them live them, paying their bills as normal, until it's time to make way.
There's many ways to go about it.
Most of the area has residential directly behind businesses, so this would be an unsightly thing to see, not to mention all the noise from an elevated motorway.
Directly behind businesses is better than directly behind a motorway.[/quote]
How would [congestion on Sir Donald Bradman Drive] decrease if there's now the added Tram signalling at intersections?
Partly with a modal shift onto the trams. But mainly by opening alternative routes to the airport, a lot of traffic would use those instead.
What routes? I assume this is part of your plan that you mentioned above.
Adelaide is predominantly a north-south city yes?
Very much so at the moment. Probably less so in the future, as more development occurs around Monarto.
I think we're going to remain a predominantly north-south city, with most of our future housing stock to be in the north, and a bit in the south.
Developments beyond the foot hills I don't think would even count as part of a greater metropolitan area. Or would they?
We have the final part of the NSM being planned. It's not too far from the airport, and adding a direct link to it, via a motorway, would make it more accessible.
Not much more accessible; not worth the cost of a motorway.
I don't know what the costs would be, I'm just an ideas man
What do you mean it's only accessible from the northeast/west? Why should an airport have roads coming into it from every direction.
You need one major road and/or train/tram link coming in to the terminal from one direction, and then they can fork out to whatever direction needed.
That's very inefficient. I take it you've never driven to the airport from the Glenelg direction? You have to go nearly half way round the outside before you can get in! It's similar to the problem of the time southern suburbs residents waste on the train as it goes round the City before going to it.[/quote]
But that's the side our terminal access is located at. That's how airports the world over work.
That's why it's a good idea to 'spur' the NSM motorway down to the airport. Because the NSM is going to be the main north-south link, and it's running very close to the airport.
Look at Melbourne's Tullamarine. You drive on the terminal access roads and straight onto a freeway that predominantly heads south. From there you can go in any direction. You can loop back around and head west, you can head south west, south, north, east, into the CBD..All on freeways/motorways.
Also, having just one road means less resilience - one big accident could cause terrible congestion. And even without accidents, it would still require capacity enhancements - that roundabout won't be able to handle all those extra passengers. Best avoid the problem of having to get everyone onto one road and then having to get them off it!
Wouldn't a train link and even a tram link then make sense?
The roundabout wouldn't have to remain. I just used it as a reference point.
Chief Street is a slight underpass under a rail line, Rosetta st is an underpass, 1 lane each direction and that's been there for eons. And so on. What, we cant do the same elsewhere all of a sudden?
We can, but it's not so easy where it's subject to flooding!
Just because it isn't easy isn't a reason for something not to be done.