[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[drwaddles]

I know I'll probably get crucified for this and get told things that imply that I'm "in cahoots with camaro68 and/or Jim Boukas", but I can't help but feel (sorry, rhino ) that there's something wrong with this. Call me naive to economics or impatient if you want, but doesn't >10 years seem like quite a long time to fix up a road? If we stick to the plan explained above, by the time we've finished with these small (yes, small) upgrades, won't South Road be just as congested as it was before we started constructing these band-aids? In fact, even if we're aiming for what rhino suggested, we're still looking at ~2025 before South Road is traffic light free, because remember, we can't forget all those school zones, community centers, pedestrian crossings and side streets, now can we? But what really amazes me is that so many people on this forum are quite content knowing this!

If you think that in 10 years the upgrades will become basically worthless then it becomes pointless to do them quickly (and much more expensively) either.

+1

[drsmith]

Whether it be off to one side, above or below, the Northern Expressway, Northern Connector, South Road Superway and the Darlington trench are all examples of a new transport corridoor.

If these projects are any guide, then the only way Adelaide will have a free flowing vehiclular route north/south will be along a new corridoor.

[drsmith]

The section of South Road between Anzac Highway and Cross Road illustrates why this route could never be free flowing in its existing form, even with grade seperation of all major intersections.

Anzac highway, the Glenelg tram and Cross Road are all now free flowing, but in between, there's a set of signals for pedestrians.

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&sour ... 48.43,,0,5

[rhino]

Anzac highway, the Glenelg tram and Cross Road are all now free flowing, but in between, there's a set of signals for pedestrians.

When, eventually, all the intersections and level crossings have been grade-seperated, it won't be such a big job to install walkways over the road at strategic places (where the pedestrian crossings currently are).

[Jim Boukas]

Anzac highway, the Glenelg tram and Cross Road are all now free flowing, but in between, there's a set of signals for pedestrians.

When, eventually, all the intersections and level crossings have been grade-seperated, it won't be such a big job to install walkways over the road at strategic places (where the pedestrian crossings currently are).

How is that going to help the elderly??? Oh i forgot just like the tram overpass oversight i'm sure the goverment will install elevators.

The only option for South Road is an elevated freeway basically an extension of the must have now, priority number 1, don’t pass go, $35m study told us to do Regency Park Super way.

The tunnel option put forward by the RAA has too many safety risks associated with accidents occurring underground, ventilation etc, not to mention the huge excavation and tunnel securing structures that are required during construction.

I saw how they integrated an elevated freeway construction in Bangkok when I was in Thailand last year; the way they got around it was to block the middle lanes to reduce the road to one lane in the sections they were working on. Not the best solution but it still allows traffic to flow during construction.

[rhino]

You've come a long way from not wanting any freeways, Jim

How do the elderly rerach the island platforms at railway stations? Elevators would work, so would escalators. The money saved by not elevating the road would easily pay for them. Teleporters would be good. "Scotty! Beam me up!" Jonathan Livingstone Seagull got there just by thinking about being there.

[mattblack]

The only option for South Road is an elevated freeway basically an extension of the must have now, priority number 1, don’t pass go, $35m study told us to do Regency Park Super way.

The tunnel option put forward by the RAA has too many safety risks associated with accidents occurring underground, ventilation etc, not to mention the huge excavation and tunnel securing structures that are required during construction.

Wont happen Jim. We have much, much tighter Planning restrictions. With so many residential properties on South Rd an elevated expressway is not socially acceptable. Do you have stats on the safety issues that you have pointed out in road tunnels as apposed to normal roads or is this your perception?

[adam73837]

The term freeway doesn't have to mean 100km/h, it just needs to be free-flowing. i.e no traffic lights. With traffic lights it becomes a highway. Emerson was not designed for more than 80km/h, nor was Gallipoli, so South Rd will be a low-speed freeway based on the constraints that already exist. The Darlington ER says it will be designed for 80 as well.

I think building on a new alignment would be cheaper for a number of reasons. South Rd is narrow and fronted by mainly businesses, which are expensive to acquire and time consuming to relocate. You save on service relocation, which are predominently on the main roads. Services can't be moved until the land is available to relocate them off to one side, which adds to the delay. You have to build under busy traffic which is massively more expensive than green fields.

In comparison, a new alignment would be through cheaper residential land, with only minor services and away from traffic which means fewer stages of construction. The downside would be the time to acquire, the massive public opposition (rightly so) and the fact that it would require significant sections to be built in one hit otherwise it would become road to nowhere. Gradually upgrading South Rd allows the road to be upgraded section by section based on the availability of funding

The section from St. Marys and Regency Park is currently subject to a study anyway to determine the best outcome, so there's no point doing anything with that until it's complete in 2011/12.

Is it? My apologies. I was not aware of that.

[adam73837]

Actually Norman, did you mean "between the Gallipolli Underpass and the South Road Superway"? Because according to this article, there is nothing mentioned about the route between Emerson and St Mary's.

http://www.aeol.com.au/databases/news/n ... anning.htm

[koalaboy]

The tunnel option put forward by the RAA has too many safety risks associated with accidents occurring underground, ventilation etc, not to mention the huge excavation and tunnel securing structures that are required during construction.

The RAA option always bemused me. The cross section - 3 lanes each way - suggests that it would have to be a very expensive cut and cover construction, but that immediately means that service relocation and land acquisition would be required. They had traffic signals in Darlington to turn from South Rd onto the Expressway, yet they had an overpass at the South Rd / Victor Harbor Rd intersection, gotta love the consistency.

Wont happen Jim. We have much, much tighter Planning restrictions. With so many residential properties on South Rd an elevated expressway is not socially acceptable.

Have to agree. There are also other big technical issues. South Rd is barely wide enough for 5 lanes between the property boundaries. An elevated road with 6 lanes would not fit without overshadowing someones block. Can they buy air space? Then there are the ramps. They sit outside of the structure footprint, so it will require significant acquisition at every interchange. Constructing would be a disaster. The footings are 3 lanes wide and need working room around them, so where would half of South Road's traffic go while they are doing this? Where would you move all of the services currently in the road? With all of the disruption for probably 5 years plus, how many businesses would survive? Last and by no means least, having this bridge 15m up in the air across the Adelaide Plains would be visible for miles and a blight on the landscape.

$35m study told us to do Regency Park Super way.

I am fairly sure they announced the Superway as a series of overpasses at the same time they announced the $70M planning study, so not much planning went into deciding on the Superway - http://www.southaustralia.biz/library/S ... Part_2.pdf - I would be horrified if $35M needed to be spent "planning" an announced project, not to mention spending half of the $70M planning allocation on less than 20% of South Road's length.

[Norman]

Actually Norman, did you mean "between the Gallipolli Underpass and the South Road Superway"? Because according to this article, there is nothing mentioned about the route between Emerson and St Mary's.

http://www.aeol.com.au/databases/news/n ... anning.htm

This: http://www.nationbuildingprogram.gov.au ... t_id=SA150

[Jim Boukas]

Wont happen Jim. We have much, much tighter Planning restrictions. With so many residential properties on South Rd an elevated expressway is not socially acceptable. Do you have stats on the safety issues that you have pointed out in road tunnels as apposed to normal roads or is this your perception?

Tighter planning restrictions, sorry what was i thinking it might be in the flight path, i'd say the ACC would probably vito it even though it's in the suburbs.

Socially acceptable, what is socially acceptable in South Australia, Festival Theatres, Fringe festivals and tight short wearing politicians???

[rhino]

The tunnel option put forward by the RAA has too many safety risks associated with accidents occurring underground, ventilation etc, not to mention the huge excavation and tunnel securing structures that are required during construction.

Whoa, KB! That was Jim Boukas said that, not this little black duck!

[crawf]

Wont happen Jim. We have much, much tighter Planning restrictions. With so many residential properties on South Rd an elevated expressway is not socially acceptable. Do you have stats on the safety issues that you have pointed out in road tunnels as apposed to normal roads or is this your perception?

Tighter planning restrictions, sorry what was i thinking it might be in the flight path, i'd say the ACC would probably vito it even though it's in the suburbs.

Socially acceptable, what is socially acceptable in South Australia, Festival Theatres, Fringe festivals and tight short wearing politicians???

So you wouldn't care if a big arse elevated highway was built on your front door step?

Plus what's wrong with a tunnel?

[Amused]

I'm thinking a tunnel may be more appropriate if speed was important. If as previously suggested regency to Gallipoli underpass was just to be a non-stop 60kph zone then it's probably not as important but a tunnel will help straighten some of the major curves in the current south rd without need for land acquisition if speed was intended to be increased.