[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[Llessur2002]

It's not so much the lack of grass which annoys me (although it would look 100% better with it) - it's the cheap compacted gravel treatment which just ends up looking like a weedy mess for all eternity. Such a cop out.

[Jaymz]

This revised plan is still not a given, since the funding is to be split 50/50 between the State and Federal Govts. So that means the Feds are going to have to stump up an extra $2.5 billion to what's already been allocated. Not really chump change.

I would like to think this has already been agreed upon in the background, but we really won't know for sure until the Federal Budget is handed down next year, or even possibly the year after that.

[Nort]

I can't imagine there is any way that the Federal Government didn't already agree to it.

[claybro]

Here's hoping that areas like the James Congden and Richmond Road section aren't just giant areas of grey. Those vegetated areas are usually the first to get downgraded to expanses of gravel or bare paving.

That's what I was thinking and I really don't hold out very much hope at all. T2T is currently looking bloody awful.

What was promised:


Reality:

HMM T2T...= Charles Sturt council....say no more. It should be made clear to the various local councils there is an expectation that since their areas are being improved with associated landscaping-they are responsible for the upkeep. They must be rolling in cash with the recent increase in property prices and massive amounts of developement going on in Adelaide at present.

[Jaymz]

I can't imagine there is any way that the Federal Government didn't already agree to it.

A $15 Billion dollar project though, it's just such a ridiculous number that it's hard to comprehend. Would that make it the largest road infrastructure project by dollar value in Australia's history?

If so, then it's pretty impressive and scary at the same time

[ralmin]

It's not the record, but close. Sydney's WestConnex is Australia’s largest road infrastructure project linking Western and South Western Sydney with the city, airport and port in a 33km continuous motorway, with an estimated project cost of $16.8 billion.

[Jaymz]

It's not the record, but close. Sydney's WestConnex is Australia’s largest road infrastructure project linking Western and South Western Sydney with the city, airport and port in a 33km continuous motorway, with an estimated project cost of $16.8 billion.

Thanks for the info ralmin, good stuff. Now i'm sure with inflation that project would be a bit, if not considerably more if built today.

As you said, that project was 33km. I should've been more specific, this one will be around 10.5km, so per kilometre, this will be the most expensive ever?

Don't get me wrong, I want this built as much as anyone, but just trying to put it into perspective in an economic sense

[AG]

I think the Southern tunnel of the North-South Motorway will be the fourth longest road tunnel in Australia after the M4-M8 and Rozelle Interchange (WestConnex) project in Sydney (33km across various continuous interconnected tunnels), NorthConnex (9km) and almost the same length as Brisbane's AirportLink tunnel (5.7km).

[Nort]

Here's hoping that areas like the James Congden and Richmond Road section aren't just giant areas of grey. Those vegetated areas are usually the first to get downgraded to expanses of gravel or bare paving.

That's what I was thinking and I really don't hold out very much hope at all. T2T is currently looking bloody awful.

What was promised:


Reality:

HMM T2T...= Charles Sturt council....say no more. It should be made clear to the various local councils there is an expectation that since their areas are being improved with associated landscaping-they are responsible for the upkeep. They must be rolling in cash with the recent increase in property prices and massive amounts of developement going on in Adelaide at present.

I live in West Torrens, and not really sure how the area is being improved by this project, or at least improving council revenue?

It's acquiring a few homes, and removing a lot of businesses, reducing ratepayers for the area. The expanded road area (which will mainly involve people just passing through and being less likely to stop by design) is taking land away which at this time is generating the council revenue.

If the state wants to claim that land as theirs and take it in a compulsory fashion, the state should be responsible for it being useful.

Alternatively, if the local councils are going to be responsible for these areas, they should be from the start designed to be areas that the local council has control and use of, and that are of use to local ratepayers. However the nature of them is that they are usually islanded areas that the state makes barren and washes their hand off, and that it's hard to justify many local resources on because they can't be used for much.

None of that means the development shouldn't happen, but there is a running history in this state, even in very prominent locations, of not considering the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of decisions made.

[rev]

Councils losing revenue from a couple hundred houses should be the least of anyone's concerns.
If its that big a deal for those councils, perhaps they should assess whether they need CEO's on three figure salaries in excess of a quarter of a million dollars?

West Torrens Council is paying a CEO $339,956 and giving them a vehicle.
Their GM Business & Community Services is on $225,011 plus vehicle.
They have at least 15 people on $100,000 or more. Including a "Library Team Leader" paid between $104,000 and $110,000.

Why does someone on a quarter of a million + need a vehicle provided as well?

[claybro]

I live in West Torrens, and not really sure how the area is being improved by this project, or at least improving council revenue?

It's acquiring a few homes, and removing a lot of businesses, reducing ratepayers for the area. The expanded road area (which will mainly involve people just passing through and being less likely to stop by design) is taking land away which at this time is generating the council revenue.

If the state wants to claim that land as theirs and take it in a compulsory fashion, the state should be responsible for it being useful.

Alternatively, if the local councils are going to be responsible for these areas, they should be from the start designed to be areas that the local council has control and use of, and that are of use to local ratepayers. However the nature of them is that they are usually islanded areas that the state makes barren and washes their hand off, and that it's hard to justify many local resources on because they can't be used for much.

None of that means the development shouldn't happen, but there is a running history in this state, even in very prominent locations, of not considering the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of decisions made.

Increase in council revenue is not related to this project specifically , but the massive increase in property value in general, and overall real estate activity in each council area ie sub divisions. they are awash with funds They are well able to maintain verges to a better standard. As for main transport routes-and this is just a larger main transport route-councils have usually maintained medians and verges-albeit with some arguments over who is responsible for the middle of dividing roads like Greenhill Road and the farcical ACC and Unley standoff which allowed what was a beautiful green tree lined boulevard to slowly die in drought. Some are better at this than others. Given the T2T stretch of the former South Road is a vast improvement in amenity (remember the virtual goat track with dirt verges and crooked Stobie poles that used to jag passing trucks?) -they should be pleased with some better landscaping provided to their zone free of charge that the project provides and at least maintain what is planted.

[SBD]

I want to see a proper view of the roads going over the Torrens, because moving the motorway east and putting the B road back down at grade would seemingly undo the corner straightening on the other side of the river and actually make it worse, unless they plan to pave over half the cemetery

Somethign like this view?
https://youtu.be/EEJskxsWVB8?t=27

Does it look like they have still acquired a bunch of houses on Torrens Avenue, then grassed over some of them and the Torrens itself?

[[Shuz]]

I have given some further feedback on the T2D survey section of the DIT website. Would encourage others to do the same.

Key points I made:

Further consideration needs to be given to the upgrade, particularly at intersections, of the entire Marion/Holbrooks/Davis/Hanson road corridor as a genuine alternative to South Road and N-S Motorway route. Recommended realignment (and property acquisition) at key east west intersections to make them truly 4 way intersections rather than doglegs.

Recommended grade separation of Emerson rail crossing involving demolition of existing South Road overpass and construction of new rail overpass over South and Cross Road intersections.

Sought further detail on Anzac Highway to northern end of Southern Tunnel portal. I suspect the tram overpass will have to be demolished and rebuilt (again) to accommodate all the traffic lanes. Raised concerns about gradient of Gallipoli underpass if design speed limit is to be 90kph.

Sought further detail on River Torrens "bend". I simply cannot see how they are going to fit 10 lanes of traffic through here with a safe design speed limit of 90kph for the Motorway. Recommended partial acquisition of Hindmarsh Cemetary and relocation of graves in immediate proximity to accommodate roadworks.

Given the significant scale of land acquisition at James Congdon Drive intersection, I recommended building an 800 metre grade seperated flyover for north (city) bound traffic directly onto JCD and Sir Donald Bradman Drive and southbound traffic from SDB and JCD directly onto the Motorway to avoid 2 sets of traffic lights with South Road and SBD. This will take pressure off Anzac Highway and enable smoother and faster access to the city. This area is mostly industrial and the Hilton Bridges are already an elevated structure, so there isn't really much to lose in terms of visual amenity.

[Spotto]

Recommended grade separation of Emerson rail crossing involving demolition of existing South Road overpass and construction of new rail overpass over South and Cross Road intersections.

Railway needs to be grade separated, priority one. But you still need separation between South Road and Cross Road otherwise you’re just going to be recreating the problem that already exists just with traffic v traffic instead of traffic v rail.

The motorway will help draw people off of South Road, but there’s still going to be lots of people who will still need to use it.

[MT269]

An underpass for Cross Rd under South Rd might help. With a new station in a similar, but not identical style to Oaklands. The way Oaklands is designed makes me feel like there are two segments.

Many patrons come from near Diagonal Rd, and it isn't always immediately obvious that the train stops at the far end of the platform. I am used to them pulling up just past the shelter.

It would also facilitate the merging of Emerson and Edwardstown stations. A new station would attract more attention than the current more discreet one. A carpark could even be an option.