Tunnel under the airport ASAP!

Ideas and concepts of what Adelaide can be.
User avatar
1NEEDS2POST
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Tunnel under the airport ASAP!

Post by 1NEEDS2POST »

New plan to make it even cheaper! It's in this new thread. https://www.sensational-adelaide.com/fo ... =17&t=7194
Aidan wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:03 am
1NEEDS2POST,
It's a lot smaller than you seem to think it is!
Two O-Bahn tracks plus clearances comes out to 6 m wide. I've measured the width of the drain on Google Earth. At its narrowest, the drain is 5 m wide, but the reservation is 6 m wide. So to fit a double track O-Bahn, the drain would have to be widened.

A single track O-Bahn will easily fit without big modifications to the drain. So my new plan is a single track O-Bahn with traffic lights at each end.
Aidan wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:03 am
But then what? All that expense for nothing more than an at grade road!
It's not an at-grade road, that's the whole point of using the existing drain. Buses would enter the O-Bahn at James Congdon Drive and they wouldn't have to stop for anything until the airport.
rev wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:05 pm
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.
I think a train is possible in the drain instead of an O-Bahn. The problem is how does it get into the city. With a bus, it's easy, it drives on the existing roads.

The centre of James Congdon Drive used to be a railway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holdfast_Bay_railway_line
rev wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:05 pm
Can a metro train line cross over a freight train line?
If the Adelaide Hills bypass gets built, there won't be any freight trains on that section of track, so you won't have any problems.

The only problem is if the underground city railway gets built, we'd have more trains coming from the north than the south.
Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2088
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am

Re: Tunnel under the airport ASAP!

Post by Aidan »

1NEEDS2POST wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:00 am
I've measured the width of the drain on Google Earth.
Too bad you didn't measure the depth!

I suggest you delete the new thread.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4681
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: Tunnel under the airport ASAP!

Post by rev »

1NEEDS2POST wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:00 am
rev wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:05 pm
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.
I think a train is possible in the drain instead of an O-Bahn. The problem is how does it get into the city. With a bus, it's easy, it drives on the existing roads.
My suggestion is to put it over the top.
The centre of James Congdon Drive used to be a railway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holdfast_Bay_railway_line
Interesting, didn't know that. Well my suggestion would have it as a surface train line and then go underground.
rev wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:05 pm
Can a metro train line cross over a freight train line?
If the Adelaide Hills bypass gets built, there won't be any freight trains on that section of track, so you won't have any problems.

The only problem is if the underground city railway gets built, we'd have more trains coming from the north than the south.
[/quote]

IF it gets built. That's a big IF in my opinion with this government.
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4681
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: Tunnel under the airport ASAP!

Post by rev »

Aidan wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:30 pm
rev wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:45 am
So a surface level motorway through suburbia is a no go, but an elevated motorway through suburbia is ok? :sly:
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.
So you're against the NSM because that does a pretty good job of dividing up communities.

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.
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.
[/quote]

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.
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.
[/quote]

Pretty sure parts of South Road where widened for the Superway. What parts would be widened and what impact would there be on local businesses? It's not like Richmond road is as wide as South Road was at the time.
And what about the residential on the western side of Richmond road near the airport? And near Deacon and Ritchie Avenues?
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.
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.
[/quote]

So you would need large amounts of property acquisition of businesses..
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.
[/quote]

How would it decrease if there's now the added Tram signalling at intersections?
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.
[/quote]

Adelaide is predominantly a north-south city yes? 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.

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.
We're a north-south city mostly. The major train lines run north and south too don't they?
Adding a short motorway that links to the main north-south motorway corridor, and adding a train link that connects to the main north and south lines, would make the airport more conveniently accessible to a greater number of people.
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.
[/quote]

This may come as a surprise, but your logic isn't necessarily always correct Aidan.
I'm not suggesting I'm correct in this case, but you contradict your self here.
You say you are against motorways that blight suburbs, but you would build an elevated motorway over Richmond Road and blight those nearby residential areas.

The point of a public transport link between the airport and cbd should be primarily efficiency. It should get people to and from as quickly as possible. The majority of people who will use it will be interstate and international visitors, who will be more likely then not starting their holiday/trip here at a cbd/city hotel. There should also be consideration given to linking it with the bus terminal, as that gives access to our regions such as the Barrossa and so on.

You say that a motorway/rail link along the keswick creek alignment would be a blight, but that could be mitigated with noise barriers/walls and landscaping such as tree planting which would minimize the visual impact to those areas. They are already mostly cut off from the other side of the creek, except 3 small foot bridges, which could be rebuilt over the top of the motorway/rail line, and Marion road, Brooker tce and and Milner rd, all of which could be underpasses under the motorway/rail line.
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?
I think you get my point.
I think you missed mine. But I hope you get it now.
[/quote]

Nope, missed it again :P
User avatar
1NEEDS2POST
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Tunnel under the airport ASAP!

Post by 1NEEDS2POST »

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.
drain.png
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.
User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2527
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head

Re: Tunnel under the airport ASAP!

Post by Ho Really »

Thanks for the grab shot 1NEEDS2POST. This section is for the passing loop. Yes you can lower it but you need to strengthen the side walls that will be vertical. This will mean a lot of piling along the back fences of many properties. Otherwise the drain could be dug out and replaced with precast tubular sections 'a la' cut and cover.

Like I said previously, the first option is over the drain. Second option is to run the track inside the drain or lower but with stormwater redirected elsewhere. I think Aidan can come up with engineering solutions to this. I've got a line drawing I did about a year ago somewhere. When I find it I'll scan and post it.

Cheers

P.S. rev's idea of a motorway is not really required. I think he's being very visionary and looking too far into the future. At present the Airport has good road links from all directions except there's only one real entrance from the north(east). This is where Aidan comes in.
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.
Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2088
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am

Re: Tunnel under the airport ASAP!

Post by Aidan »

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.

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.
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).
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.
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.
Pretty sure parts of South Road where widened for the Superway.
Indeed they were, and the Superway design would be totally unsuitable for Richmond Road.

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.
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
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.

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!
This may come as a surprise, but your logic isn't necessarily always correct Aidan.
I'm not suggesting I'm correct in this case, but you contradict your self here.
You say you are against motorways that blight suburbs, but you would build an elevated motorway over Richmond Road and blight those nearby residential areas.
It's a case of damage limitation. When there's the demand to justify a high speed connection from the SE Freeway and City to the airport, it shouldn't cut a swathe through residential areas, but should instead go where there's a commercial/industrial buffer zone between it and the residential areas.
The point of a public transport link between the airport and cbd should be primarily efficiency. It should get people to and from as quickly as possible. The majority of people who will use it will be interstate and international visitors, who will be more likely then not starting their holiday/trip here at a cbd/city hotel. There should also be consideration given to linking it with the bus terminal, as that gives access to our regions such as the Barrossa and so on.
Speed is one important factor, but it's not the only objective and it counts for nothing if there's a lot of waiting involved. For short journeys, convenience is more important. With light rail along SDBD, the airport could be linked with both Hilton hotels and bus station, plus a few other stops (to spur commercial development and remove the need for bus services on the same route) there could be frequent services that still reach the heart of the City in under 15 minutes.
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 build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4681
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: Tunnel under the airport ASAP!

Post by rev »

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.

drain.png

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).
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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]

Only marginally.
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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

I don't know what the costs would be, I'm just an ideas man 8)
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!
[/quote]

Just because it isn't easy isn't a reason for something not to be done.
Post Reply