[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[SBD]

The ANZAC Highway intersection/interchange should be contraflow, or the middle intersection removed (so to make it more like Port Road/South Road).

It's not the worst outcome to have visual impact of flyovers reduced.

Which government thought of the Ayliffes Road flyover? Is that such an eyesore that traffic lights would have been better there too?

Mr Koutsantonis was on the radio this morning and another of his criticisms of the "Former Liberal Government's plan" was that people would not have been able to turn right from Anzac Highway to North-South Motorway. That's more than a rightangle, I'd have thought most journeys that could have included that movement would be quicker/shorter to have used another road and joined the motorway further north/south (in the direction you are going).

[Llessur2002]

Which government thought of the Ayliffes Road flyover? Is that such an eyesore that traffic lights would have been better there too?

There are far fewer residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the Ayliffes Road flyover than the proposed ANZAC highway one.

Ayliffes Road:


ANZAC highway:

[SBD]

Which government thought of the Ayliffes Road flyover? Is that such an eyesore that traffic lights would have been better there too?

There are far fewer residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the Ayliffes Road flyover than the proposed ANZAC highway one.

Ayliffes Road:

ANZAC highway:

The Tonsley Court apartments look closer to the Ayliffes Road flyover than any residential property would be to the Anzac Highway one. If the flyover is the best traffic solution for the intersection, then an offer to acquire any affected properties could be made, as if they were to be demolished, then if the site is not needed, it could be handed over to the SA Housing Authority. If double turning lanes leading in to traffic lights are a better solution for the finished highway, then I guess Mr Koutsantonis' solution is fine, but I was more convinced by the Liberal solution so that the first traffic lights off the motorway would be Leader Street - much further than twice the off ramp length that the new solution appears to be going to offer.

TK wants to build something that will last for 100 years, but is redoing the Mount Barker interchange because it's no longer fit for purpose after only 50 years, and has a much longer exit ramp than proposed for Anzac Highway.

[A-Town]

All that extra traffic coming down the Motorway turning right onto Anzac Highway to get into the city in peak periods is going to be a nightmare. The flyover onto Ayliffes Rd works very well, so to scrap the one entirely at Anzac Highway is a really poor outcome.

[Vasco]

The overpass/exit ramp at Anzac HWY should be 2 lanes and situated to the left of the road (rather than centre) with the acquisition of all road fronted properties facing Anzac HWY from Home Ideas Centre up until Ashford Retirement Apartments.

Whilst I agree some changes may be warranted including to prevent the danger of queuing of a single lane into the tunnel, agree any off-ramp into the Anzac/Sth Rd traffic lights is a poor outcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[[Shuz]]

Whilst the elevated road was not ideal, I'm very concerned with the new proposal given the amount of traffic on the off ramp leading onto the Anzac Highway right turn will be backing up and clogging the tunnel itself.

Wonder why a tunnel off ramp option wasn't considered? (Other than for cost reasons). It only needs to be the same width similar to the O-Bahn tunnel which would fit into the median of Anzac Highway itself, if not just a tad wider. Wouldn't need any more property acquisitions.

[ChillyPhilly]

From a modern planning perspective, it's a triumph to have the flyover canned. We need to discourage private vehicle use, rather than encourage it (which this would have done). A flyover is a boon if it's exclusively for buses, or road freight. Or cycling for that matter. But it was not solely intended for any of these options. Let's not settle for mediocrity in this situation, and let's be a better city, and not cave into cars.

[rev]

From a modern planning perspective, it's a triumph to have the flyover canned. We need to discourage private vehicle use, rather than encourage it (which this would have done). A flyover is a boon if it's exclusively for buses, or road freight. Or cycling for that matter. But it was not solely intended for any of these options. Let's not settle for mediocrity in this situation, and let's be a better city, and not cave into cars.

If we want a better city, our city planners would be coming up with better infrastructure that caters not only for cyclists, but also for cars, for trucks/vans, and just as critical, public transport. A huge mistake was not including rail in the northern connector part of the North South Corridor, that would have covered an area that's going to be filled with housing in the decades ahead where the majority of Adelaide's new residents will be located.

What's needed is a balanced approach, not a militant 'no cars' or 'no bikes' approach.

[Nathan]

From a modern planning perspective, it's a triumph to have the flyover canned. We need to discourage private vehicle use, rather than encourage it (which this would have done). A flyover is a boon if it's exclusively for buses, or road freight. Or cycling for that matter. But it was not solely intended for any of these options. Let's not settle for mediocrity in this situation, and let's be a better city, and not cave into cars.

If we want a better city, our city planners would be coming up with better infrastructure that caters not only for cyclists, but also for cars, for trucks/vans, and just as critical, public transport. A huge mistake was not including rail in the northern connector part of the North South Corridor, that would have covered an area that's going to be filled with housing in the decades ahead where the majority of Adelaide's new residents will be located.

What's needed is a balanced approach, not a militant 'no cars' or 'no bikes' approach.

I don't think running a rail line down the middle of a motorway is really the best practice. Better to have it run along a different alignment so development can be done right up to the line and around the stations.

[cocoiadrop]

Building a motorway right down the middle of suburbia and having massive overpasses is not a balanced approach especially when all it does is encourages greater car use instead of the under-served public transport of the non Go-Zone routes.

[claybro]

Building a motorway right down the middle of suburbia and having massive overpasses is not a balanced approach especially when all it does is encourages greater car use instead of the under-served public transport of the non Go-Zone routes.

Something like 80% of the motorway route is light industrial/commercial...hardly pristine suburbia. And AGAIN...the motorway is mainly devised to facilitate commercial transport not commuters-although obviously commuters will benefit. No amount of bus go zones will deliver goods to market. It is not an either or thing.

[[Shuz]]

But let's be real guys, as much as the government is trying to spin this as a freight benefit, there will be a shit ton of commuters using this once opened. Induced demand.

[rev]

Improved freight times is one of the benefits.

Overall the benefit is getting more vehicles to use these motorways, particularly for longer distances, then using other roads, which should help with maintenance and repairs on those roads through reduced usage.

Instead of countless vehicles queuing at every intersection creating congesyin until they peel off where they need, they're on a free flowing motorway and only hit an intersection when they exit where they need to go, less cars at those intersections less congestion.

Faster moving vehicles, being on the road less, stuck in traffic less and therefore burning less fuel, will also be a benefit to the environment.


And as for building a train line in the middle of a motorway, its a great idea and one we've missed. Particularly in the to be developed northern areas, where park and ride facilities could have been built adjacent to the motorway opposite where train stations could have been built. Its more ideal then trains running through suburbs and criss crossing suburban streets.
Why create that problem only to spend billions down the track removing level crossings, when it could be done right from the get-go and avoid wasting billions and creating disruptions.

[Hooligan]

The rail component of the Northern Connector was to move rail freight out of the suburbs, it had nothing to do with passenger trains.

If you want to run passenger services to the growing areas of Virginia, Two Wells and Riverlea the rail corridor is already there with room to expand

[ChillyPhilly]

I'll add that the plan for rail down the median of the Northern Connector was changed to run adjacent. I believe a reservation for this on the overall embankment has been retained. It was also intended for freight.