Tunnel under the airport ASAP!

[Ho Really]

We know it can flood once in a hundred years, but haven't they mitigated this by diverting most of what can flood there into the Brownhill Creek via a culvert? I know not all water can bypass the Keswick Creek. Some has to come from the local area. Besides there are engineering workarounds.

Cheers

[Aidan]

Ho Really,
Diverting a creek does not eliminate all water completely! And yes, I could come up with solutions for a drain. But they wouldn't be cheap solutions.

If you only see it as a line on a map, you might think Keswick Creek could be a decent transport route (especially if you're so bad at reading maps that you overlook the fact that Milner Road and Brooker Terrace cross it). However if you actually go there, you'll see it's not suitable at all.

Nor is there any need for it. If a nonstop road is needed, above Richmond Road would be a better alignment. If a tramway to the airport is needed, best stick to SDBD and replace the existing bus route. And if a nonstop railway from the CBD to the airport is ever needed, it would be far better to tunnel straight there!

[1NEEDS2POST]

Another totally different idea: instead of a tunnel, we could have a lowered O-Bahn along Keswick Creek.

An O-bahn that floods every time it rains???

Yes

It rarely fills up and when we do get heavy rain, just don't use the O-Bahn track, send the buses along Sir Donald Bradman Drive. That's what's great about the O-Bahn, it can use alternate routes, unlike if we have light rail to the airport.

I'm not suggesting to do anything to the drain for it's drainage function. Leave it as it is. I'm suggesting literally putting the O-Bahn in the drain, raised up a bit in the drain so water can flow underneath. It's just a bunch of concrete beams, it's not going to hurt if it goes underwater every now and then.

[rev]

In this hypothetical, why would you put it in the drain or remove the drain?

Surely it would be possible to re-concrete and reinforce that drain, and build on top of it, so that it's more like a stormwater sewer?

[Aidan]

1NEEDS2POST,
It's a lot smaller than you seem to think it is!
_______________________________________________

rev,
Culvertization is something that's been done successfully before, including further upstream (alongside Windsor Street in the Unley area). A culvert would need to be bigger than the current channel, but it is possible.

But then what? All that expense for nothing more than an at grade road!

[SRW]

It's worth noting that any talk of culvertisation of Keswick Creek need pay heed to broader plans of Brownhill-Keswick Creek stormwater project -- not that this would rule it out, but there's already considerable expense upgrading the catchment.

[rev]

1NEEDS2POST,
It's a lot smaller than you seem to think it is!
_______________________________________________

rev,
Culvertization is something that's been done successfully before, including further upstream (alongside Windsor Street in the Unley area). A culvert would need to be bigger than the current channel, but it is possible.

But then what? All that expense for nothing more than an at grade road!

Well I'm suggesting make it non stop motorway and link it to the NSM. Marion Road would be under it. No reason why Brooker and Milner couldn't be underpasses either.
On/off ramps closer from the roundabout.
From the roundabout at the airport to South Road, following the creek, its 2.8km. Directly links the airport to the NS corridor, would remove some traffic from Sir Donald Bradman drive

Could a train line be included as well?, up the centre of James Congdon Drive, cross over to the parklands near the Mile End stop. South bound JCD could have a short overpass over the train line crossing over it. Can a metro train line cross over a freight train line?
Or perhaps down the centre of JCD and it goes into a tunnel, veers right into the city up Grote street and links up with the talked about underground city loop..?

[Aidan]

rev,
So because a watercourse runs from west of the City to the airport, you think it's OK to blight some residential suburbs by running a motorway through them on that alignment?

There are many things that could be done - it doesn't actually mean they're worth doing. We don't have the demand for heavy rail to the airport, though a tramway along Sir Donald Bradman Drive makes some sense.

If an E-W motorway to the airport is ever built, I think above Richmond Road would be by far the better option. Though as many a true word is spoken in jest, there is also the alternative of building it directly above Sir Donald Bradman Drive, which would then be renamed:
Sir Donald Bradman Cover Drive.

[[Shuz]]

Okay come on guys seriously, you've all been taking the red Mitsubishi pills again. Back to reality...

[Ho Really]

Okay come on guys seriously, you've all been taking the red Mitsubishi pills again. Back to reality...

How old are you [Shuz] if you don't mind me asking?

Cheers

[bits]

Aidan is surely right, the creek space is tiny and not suitable. You build on Sir Donald Bradman or Richmond Roads.

While we talk about airport access can I ask how and why did Airport Road between Sir Donald Bradman and Henley Beach roads come to exist?
A big wide road to basically nowhere.

[rev]

rev,
So because a watercourse runs from west of the City to the airport, you think it's OK to blight some residential suburbs by running a motorway through them on that alignment?

There are many things that could be done - it doesn't actually mean they're worth doing. We don't have the demand for heavy rail to the airport, though a tramway along Sir Donald Bradman Drive makes some sense.

If an E-W motorway to the airport is ever built, I think above Richmond Road would be by far the better option. Though as many a true word is spoken in jest, there is also the alternative of building it directly above Sir Donald Bradman Drive, which would then be renamed:
Sir Donald Bradman Cover Drive.

Wait up aidan

So a surface level motorway through suburbia is a no go, but an elevated motorway through suburbia is ok?
There shouldn't be a rail line through that concrete creek linking the CBD to the Airport, but a tram through a main arterial road should be.

Your Richmond road motorway will cause how much disruption and headaches? How many businesses will need to be bought out and relocate and at what cost? How many side streets will be cut off, and with the loss of Richmond Road how many cars will be forced onto other roads causing how much more congestion? And wont that motorway run through some suburbia too and/or touch it closer to the airport especially?
Your tram down Sir Donald Bradman Drive will cause how much congestion with the change in traffic light sequences to accommodate the tram service?

That above should be done (ie more of the same typical backwards ass shit that Adelaide does)..

Turning a concrete creek (not removing it, building over the top of it) and nearby houses into a motorway and/or combining a train line or just making it a train line, a Marion road underpass, linking it to the NSM, and said train line continuing underground into the city linking up with a potential city underground loop, which when complete will cause no increase in congestion and wont hurt local businesses by forcing them to relocate to God knows where.......

...should not be done.

You could argue that we don't need a hotel at the airport. But they built one, and it succeeded.

You say we don't need something like what I'm suggesting (be it on the same route or another), but AAL are forecasting 20 million passenger by 2039. Ok so covid issues, push that out to say 2045. Pretty sure we're still going to need a rail link to the airport, and a motorway link to it.
They're also estimating a jump from 58,000 tonnes of freight to 146,000 tonnes of freight by that time.

So yeah Aidan, I believe the train line and the motorway I'm suggesting, be it the concrete creek route or another route, are going to be very much needed. And planning for these should already be underway, which at least for the road link from the NSM it seems to be. Hopefully it is a motorway leading straight to the airport.

Adelaide Airport didn't build the new terminal with all that extra capacity, with all those international airlines ready to go on day one. We had Singapore, Cathay Pacific, Malaysia, and Air NZ as far as overseas carriers go. We now also have China Southern, Emirates, Qatar and Malindo.They've brought in those other airlines, and are working to bring in more international airlines to Adelaide. The capacity is there. They're also planning on expanding the terminal further which will add more capacity, and they'll bring in more airlines once that's done too.

Adelaide Airport can handle an A380, but we don't have any airlines that fly an A380 into Adelaide. Your logic would dictate that it shouldn't have been done, because it's not happening now. Not saying it will ever happen on a regular basis, but the capability is there.

I think you get my point.

[Ho Really]

Look I've mentioned this before under other transport and visions topics in years past. The Keswick Creek is still a perfect corridor for light rail. There's enough room for a single track and a (passing) loop where it gets wider. You can build over the drain. I mentioned this waaaaay back in older posts. Then soundproof back fences along the corridor. Over all intersections grade separate. Overpasses. That includes Brooker Terrace and Milner Road. Several properties may have to go on the bends but that is a small price to pay.

The other solution is to retain the stormwater drain and shift all water into new pipe drains under other East-West streets running towards the Airport. Then the drain itself can be used to house the track. Work would be needed to shore up the side walls of the drain. Running in the drain itself will allow the track to go under intersections. Of course major work will have to be done to stormwater and utilities where the track goes underground. This option I think would be more expensive. Still in the long run this would be a better than running trams on Henley Beach Road and Sir Donald Bradman Drive.

All these solutions - including those running along roads and even those under roads - have their pros and cons. It's just a matter of how visionary one wants to be.

Cheers

[Norman]

We don't need a motorway that specifically goes to the airport. Does it sound nice? Sure. Does it look great on a map? Why not? Is it necessary? Absolutely not. There are better ways to fix issues with the current setup, such as the Richmond Road extension, but I have never had any issues accessing the airport except for traffic issues that will not be solved by another motorway (such as the Marion Road/Tram/Anzac Highway jam).

[Aidan]

So a surface level motorway through suburbia is a no go, but an elevated motorway through suburbia is ok?

A surface level motorway through a residential area is not OK, particularly if it divides communities. An elevated motorway through commercial and industrial areas is far less of a problem.

I used to think that above ground urban motorways were entirely a bad idea. Then in 1999 I visited Darling Harbour and saw they could be well integrated into commercial areas. Though when I visited again a decade later, I found that having two elevated motorways crossing had ruined the ambience.

There shouldn't be a rail line through that concrete creek linking the CBD to the Airport

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.

Your Richmond road motorway will cause how much disruption and headaches? How many businesses will need to be bought out and relocate and at what cost? How many side streets will be cut off,

In round figures, 0. I'm suggesting building above the road, not closing it.

And wont that motorway run through some suburbia too and/or touch it closer to the airport especially?

If it slavishly followed Richmond Road. But west of Marion Road it could instead divert into the industrial area further south.

Your tram down Sir Donald Bradman Drive will cause how much congestion with the change in traffic light sequences to accommodate the tram service?

I haven't modelled it, but I will say it depends on what else is done. If combined with tunnelling under the runway just south of the terminal (as I've suggested in this thread), overall congestion could decrease.

You say we don't need something like what I'm suggesting (be it on the same route or another), but AAL are forecasting 20 million passenger by 2039.

Sounds impressive... until you realise that's just 55 thousand passengers per day. And that's from all directions combined.
Currently our airport's only accessible from the northeast and northwest directions (and the road layout strongly favours the former; the NW connection's more an exit than an entrance). More connections between the airport and the ordinary roads around it should be a higher priority than a motorway.

Adelaide Airport can handle an A380, but we don't have any airlines that fly an A380 into Adelaide. Your logic would dictate that it shouldn't have been done, because it's not happening now. Not saying it will ever happen on a regular basis, but the capability is there.

My logic dictates nothing of the sort!
I'm in favour of meeting future needs.
But I'm against badly designed motorways that blight suburbs.
And I'm against wrongly assuming a line on a map would be a good, relatively cheap, high capacity transport route.
And I'm against wrongly assuming that such a route is the answer to our transport problems.

I think you get my point.

I think you missed mine. But I hope you get it now.