News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1021
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by Goodsy »

How about pushing freight all the way down south onto a new freeway that services Strathalbyn

Image
Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2035
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by Patrick_27 »

Goodsy wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:41 pm
How about pushing freight all the way down south onto a new freeway that services Strathalbyn

Image
Well, apart from the fact that what you're proposing would likely cost more than the rail freight component of the Globelink proposal; let's just rip up national parks and the like because why not, hey?
alexczarn
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:13 am

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by alexczarn »

Patrick_27 wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:11 pm
Goodsy wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:41 pm
How about pushing freight all the way down south onto a new freeway that services Strathalbyn

[spoiler]Image[/spoiler]
Well, apart from the fact that what you're proposing would likely cost more than the rail freight component of the Globelink proposal; let's just rip up national parks and the like because why not, hey?
"

The merit is linking to the N/S Corridor just north of Mt Compass thereby tying into the mooted Mt Compass and Old Noarlunga bypasses.
Bob
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:16 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by Bob »

The link for SA Freight Council's latest newsletter, there are relevant topics in there, attached with their opinion.

https://www.safreightcouncil.com.au/new ... php?id=177
Bob
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:16 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by Bob »

Apparently Infrastructure SA is releasing its 20 Year Strategic Infrastructure plan soon, in March?

It will be interesting to see if there is any substance or just more waffle. After all, they been at it for well over a year.

As SA is, for the most part absent on the Infrastructure Australia's projects review list, something needs to happen...
Eurostar
Legendary Member!
Posts: 723
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by Eurostar »

New traffic lights being installed at Port Wakefield Road/Matthew Road in Gepps Cross
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4621
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by rev »

Image
Burnside Council report calls for trucks to be diverted from freeway to improve safety
Ben Cameron, The Messenger
April 17, 2020 11:13am
Subscriber only

The State Government must consider an alternative truck route linking the South-Eastern Freeway at Mt Baker to the northwestern industrial suburbs, a Burnside Council report says.

The report, which has yet to be presented to the council, said an incident last month in which a chicken truck rolled and blocked the freeway for more than six hours brought the need for action into focus.

“The most recent truck incident re-highlights the demand for use of the South-Eastern Freeway and the significant effect that truck accidents can have, not only directly to those involved in the incident, but also on other users of the freeway,” the report said.

“Such an impact would be significantly heightened if the freeway was blocked in the event of an emergency situation where emergency vehicles required access or the general public required a general means of escape.”

A new route linking the freeway at Mt Barker to the eastern end of Grand Junction Rd – as suggested by the SA Road Transport Association – was a better option, the report said.

“The benefit of the proposed ring route is that it would obviate the necessity for many trucks to use the steeper and more dangerous section of the South Eastern Freeway,” it said.

“This option would … reduce the number of trucks that would otherwise (now and in the future) make use of Portrush and Cross roads.”

The safety of the freeway has long been on Burnside’s agenda.

In 2018, councillor Anne Monceaux, who has since been elected Burnside’s mayor, called for stationary traffic to be pushed back from the intersection of Portrush and Glen Osmond roads and the freeway to improve safety.

The council subsequently wrote to the Transport Department, saying it held “significant concerns that crashes and incidents involving heavy transport continue to occur at this intersection”.

The design of the road was “placing the safety of other motorists, road users and the public at risk”, it said at the time.

The Transport Department rejected the call.

The new report also recommended additional SA Police resources in the policing of laws and regulation of truck maintenance, driver fatigue and other safety issues.

It is not known when the council will discuss the report.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... 5cd51b370c
Modbury_Man
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:55 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by Modbury_Man »

rev wrote:
Fri Apr 17, 2020 6:15 pm
Image
Burnside Council report calls for trucks to be diverted from freeway to improve safety
Ben Cameron, The Messenger
April 17, 2020 11:13am
Subscriber only

The State Government must consider an alternative truck route linking the South-Eastern Freeway at Mt Baker to the northwestern industrial suburbs, a Burnside Council report says.

The report, which has yet to be presented to the council, said an incident last month in which a chicken truck rolled and blocked the freeway for more than six hours brought the need for action into focus.

“The most recent truck incident re-highlights the demand for use of the South-Eastern Freeway and the significant effect that truck accidents can have, not only directly to those involved in the incident, but also on other users of the freeway,” the report said.

“Such an impact would be significantly heightened if the freeway was blocked in the event of an emergency situation where emergency vehicles required access or the general public required a general means of escape.”

A new route linking the freeway at Mt Barker to the eastern end of Grand Junction Rd – as suggested by the SA Road Transport Association – was a better option, the report said.

“The benefit of the proposed ring route is that it would obviate the necessity for many trucks to use the steeper and more dangerous section of the South Eastern Freeway,” it said.

“This option would … reduce the number of trucks that would otherwise (now and in the future) make use of Portrush and Cross roads.”

The safety of the freeway has long been on Burnside’s agenda.

In 2018, councillor Anne Monceaux, who has since been elected Burnside’s mayor, called for stationary traffic to be pushed back from the intersection of Portrush and Glen Osmond roads and the freeway to improve safety.

The council subsequently wrote to the Transport Department, saying it held “significant concerns that crashes and incidents involving heavy transport continue to occur at this intersection”.

The design of the road was “placing the safety of other motorists, road users and the public at risk”, it said at the time.

The Transport Department rejected the call.

The new report also recommended additional SA Police resources in the policing of laws and regulation of truck maintenance, driver fatigue and other safety issues.

It is not known when the council will discuss the report.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... 5cd51b370c
I've seen a few references to this northern route proposal. Would the plan be to build a new road or just upgrade current roads through Woodside, Lobethal, Cudlee Creek, Chain of Ponds, Inglewood, Houghton etc? No doubt it would upset alot of people living a quiet life up that way!!
Bob
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:16 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by Bob »

This is a crap idea that has come back around again, so they suggest moving the through heavy traffic away from Portrush Road to Grand Junction Road through a different set of suburban intersections of another suburban main road, not really solving anything.


How about finishing the NS MW and building a proper MW link from SE FW to the NS MW as many of us on here and elsewhere have been proposing for some time, resolve the bigger problem for the long term once and for all.


We can’t keep allowing the main objective to be continually distracted with each change of State Government, the latest councilor or the latest MP in the Burnside area coming up with new fanciful ideas. The lack of focus, planning, designing, and securing the funding for the real project just keeps causing more delays.
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4621
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by rev »

If they build a new freeway north to GJR, you hit more lights.
Widen GJR with a freeway down the middle 3 lanes each way. Interchange at North East, on off ramps at Sudholz, interchange at main north/port wakefield, on/off ramps at hanson, interchange at the superway, and interchange at port road.
Or is that too scary for Adelaidians? Too big cityesque? :lol:
User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5997
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by Norman »

rev wrote:If they build a new freeway north to GJR, you hit more lights.
Widen GJR with a freeway down the middle 3 lanes each way. Interchange at North East, on off ramps at Sudholz, interchange at main north/port wakefield, on/off ramps at hanson, interchange at the superway, and interchange at port road.
Or is that too scary for Adelaidians? Too big cityesque? Image
I would make the freeway a bit simpler by redirecting the corridor North after Yatla Prison and using the Northfield Line corridor, going up on a bridge over the Dry Creek depot and seamlessly merging with Salisbury Highway. It might save some money in property acquisition on the western side and avoiding complex intersections at the North South Motorway. It would also make it easier for traffic heading to Outer Harbor.

There would still need to be a lot of property acquisition on the Eastern side though, and that's where a freeway might not be viable economically. You could, however, still make improvements on that side by grade seperating intersections.

User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4621
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by rev »

Norman wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 11:31 am
rev wrote:If they build a new freeway north to GJR, you hit more lights.
Widen GJR with a freeway down the middle 3 lanes each way. Interchange at North East, on off ramps at Sudholz, interchange at main north/port wakefield, on/off ramps at hanson, interchange at the superway, and interchange at port road.
Or is that too scary for Adelaidians? Too big cityesque? Image
I would make the freeway a bit simpler by redirecting the corridor North after Yatla Prison and using the Northfield Line corridor, going up on a bridge over the Dry Creek depot and seamlessly merging with Salisbury Highway. It might save some money in property acquisition on the western side and avoiding complex intersections at the North South Motorway. It would also make it easier for traffic heading to Outer Harbor.

There would still need to be a lot of property acquisition on the Eastern side though, and that's where a freeway might not be viable economically. You could, however, still make improvements on that side by grade seperating intersections.
Yeh that would work better then going all the way down GJR.

Also, have they ever thought about redoing the SEF to reduce the gradient so its safer? Surely there is something thay can be done besides reducing truck speed limits snd arrestor beds..
User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by [Shuz] »

The Dry Creek Expressway (Montague Road) reservation is still there for most of its length. This would be a far cheaper option than Grand Junction Road.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.
Modbury_Man
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:55 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by Modbury_Man »

Looking on Google Maps I would say a route could be -

Bald Hills Rd, right Old Princes Hwy, left Nairne-Woodside Rd, right Onkaparinga Valley Rd, left Woodside Rd, right Main St Lobethal, left Cudlee Creek Rd, left Gorge Rd, right Tippett Rd, left North East Rd, left Lower North East Rd to Grand Junction Rd. Definitely alot of curves that would need to be straightened out and bridges widened/strengthened!
alexczarn
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:13 am

Re: News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

Post by alexczarn »

[Shuz] wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:40 pm
The Dry Creek Expressway (Montague Road) reservation is still there for most of its length. This would be a far cheaper option than Grand Junction Road.
Connect with a basic interchange at Greenfields Wetlands. Still means you would probably need a northfacing on ramp from Salisbury Highway to the NS Mwy(doesn't exist atm obviously).
Post Reply