[U/C] North-South Motorway

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 370 times
Been thanked: 87 times

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4186 Post by SBD » Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:10 am

how good is he wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:29 am
Ok based on these hypothetical options -

A) Tunnels -10 years & $10 billion (and possibly tolls?)
Vs
B) Trench - 7 years & $7 billion but vastly more property & business resumptions & loss of heritage and far more disruption while being built.
Vs
C) Hybrid. A combination of the above.
8.5 years and $8.5 billion.

What is your decision and/or the likely decision by the Govt?
Tolling the main through road with a parallel free road won’t work. It provides the wrong price signal, and no toll road company will participate in funding the road.

Roads are currently funded significantly by fuel tax, which provides an incentive for fuel-efficient vehicle or electric cars. Eventually, this will lead to more electric vehicles being subsidised by other vehicles. A solution would be for all vehicles to have a mandatory tracker/odometer that logs which roads and how far a vehicle travels. We should be taxed on a combination of distance travelled, weight of the vehicle (heavy vehicles do more damage to the road), and whether we are on the main roads or minor roads to discourage “rat running”. Local councils and DPTI can be funded in proportion to the use of their roads, encouraging them to upgrade the popular ones.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4043
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 295 times
Been thanked: 424 times

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4187 Post by rev » Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:50 am

SBD wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:10 am
how good is he wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:29 am
Ok based on these hypothetical options -

A) Tunnels -10 years & $10 billion (and possibly tolls?)
Vs
B) Trench - 7 years & $7 billion but vastly more property & business resumptions & loss of heritage and far more disruption while being built.
Vs
C) Hybrid. A combination of the above.
8.5 years and $8.5 billion.

What is your decision and/or the likely decision by the Govt?
Tolling the main through road with a parallel free road won’t work. It provides the wrong price signal, and no toll road company will participate in funding the road.

Roads are currently funded significantly by fuel tax, which provides an incentive for fuel-efficient vehicle or electric cars. Eventually, this will lead to more electric vehicles being subsidised by other vehicles. A solution would be for all vehicles to have a mandatory tracker/odometer that logs which roads and how far a vehicle travels. We should be taxed on a combination of distance travelled, weight of the vehicle (heavy vehicles do more damage to the road), and whether we are on the main roads or minor roads to discourage “rat running”. Local councils and DPTI can be funded in proportion to the use of their roads, encouraging them to upgrade the popular ones.
It's nobodies business which roads I travel on, how far I travel, and how often.
All just to tax people on it? Because we aren't taxed enough, we need a new tax. You a politician or gunning to be one by any chance? :sly: :lol:

If they wanted to discourage rat running, they'd firstly improve & upgrade main arterial roads, and then our back streets and neighbourhoods would be designed in such a way that they discourage rat running..or short cuts.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 370 times
Been thanked: 87 times

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4188 Post by SBD » Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:35 pm

rev wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:50 am
SBD wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:10 am
how good is he wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:29 am
Ok based on these hypothetical options -

A) Tunnels -10 years & $10 billion (and possibly tolls?)
Vs
B) Trench - 7 years & $7 billion but vastly more property & business resumptions & loss of heritage and far more disruption while being built.
Vs
C) Hybrid. A combination of the above.
8.5 years and $8.5 billion.

What is your decision and/or the likely decision by the Govt?
Tolling the main through road with a parallel free road won’t work. It provides the wrong price signal, and no toll road company will participate in funding the road.

Roads are currently funded significantly by fuel tax, which provides an incentive for fuel-efficient vehicle or electric cars. Eventually, this will lead to more electric vehicles being subsidised by other vehicles. A solution would be for all vehicles to have a mandatory tracker/odometer that logs which roads and how far a vehicle travels. We should be taxed on a combination of distance travelled, weight of the vehicle (heavy vehicles do more damage to the road), and whether we are on the main roads or minor roads to discourage “rat running”. Local councils and DPTI can be funded in proportion to the use of their roads, encouraging them to upgrade the popular ones.
It's nobodies business which roads I travel on, how far I travel, and how often.
All just to tax people on it? Because we aren't taxed enough, we need a new tax. You a politician or gunning to be one by any chance? :sly: :lol:

If they wanted to discourage rat running, they'd firstly improve & upgrade main arterial roads, and then our back streets and neighbourhoods would be designed in such a way that they discourage rat running..or short cuts.
The tax system should encourage the behaviours we want - from both governments and individuals. :P

I believe we want people to choose the right vehicle for the task, use the minimum amount of fossil fuels to achieve the task, and not use residential streets as alternatives to arterial roads.

Charging an explicit extra fee to use the main road/freeway instead of the backstreets fails almost every one of those goals.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2019
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 222 times

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4189 Post by claybro » Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:29 pm

aceman wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:26 pm
the 'we're looking at tunnel options' is just another token line to keep the masses at bay a little longer while they work out what to say next. I'd rather they just be honest and say sorry there are no future plans because it's too expensive and we can't afford it so the section between tonsley and the torrens will remain as it is for the foreseeable future. I was putting petrol in my car at the caltex at castle plaza and noticed what looks like another petrol station going up directly across the road. it's business as usual all along that section. it's almost as if the whole plan doesn't even exist.
What plan? And they're right. A plan doesn't exist.

croweater888
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:02 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1 time

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4190 Post by croweater888 » Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:30 pm

http://hansardpublic.parliament.sa.gov. ... D-10-28205

'The amendments that relate to underground acquisitions are vital for the next stages of the Government's
North-South Corridor infrastructure projects. Clarification of the procedures for underground acquisitions allows the
Government to explore options for the remaining sections of the Corridor that involve tunnelling, which allows the
possibility of vastly improving road infrastructure with a minimum of disturbance in built-up urban areas.'


'Some of the most important amendments in the Bill relate to acquisitions of underground land. A new set of provisions will be inserted into the Act to clarify the position in relation to compensation for underground acquisitions, and create a modified procedure for dealing with underground acquisitions. The Act is currently silent on the question of compensation for underground acquisitions, which causes legal and operational confusion.

In South Australia, landowners also own the underground parts of their land with no limit as to depth, and therefore an acquisition needs to take place in order to tunnel under private property, but it is not always necessary to acquire the surface land and structures.

The Act will be amended to provide that no compensation will be payable for underground acquisitions, as landowners will not suffer any detriment or loss of enjoyment of their land.

A modified notification procedure has also been created, removing the need for DPTI to serve a Notice of Intention to Acquire. A Notice of Acquisition will instead be served at the time of acquisition. This will apply only where the underground part of the land will be acquired.

New South Wales and Western Australia all have provisions in their equivalent legislation that provides that no compensation is payable for underground acquisitions, and therefore the new provisions in our Act are in keeping with the position in other jurisdictions.

The amendments that relate to underground acquisitions are vital for the next stages of the Government's North-South Corridor infrastructure projects. Clarification of the procedures for underground acquisitions allows the Government to explore options for the remaining sections of the Corridor that involve tunnelling, which allows the possibility of vastly improving road infrastructure with a minimum of disturbance in built-up urban areas.

I commend the Bill to Members and I seek leave to insert the Explanation of Clauses in Hansard without my reading it.'


I mentioned this earlier and was basically ignored. I still say they are going to tunnel from Hindmarsh in a straight line under Thebarton, toward the Henley Beach Road intersection and THEN follow the existing South Road to Darlington.

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 456 times
Contact:

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4191 Post by ChillyPhilly » Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:10 pm

It won't be a tunnel from T2T, but perhaps from the Brickworks. I predict it will be at-grade over the Torrens, then dip down.

The Scoping Report stated that a tunnel was inappropriate for near Cross Road because of the water table.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4043
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 295 times
Been thanked: 424 times

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4192 Post by rev » Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:07 pm

The Act will be amended to provide that no compensation will be payable for underground acquisitions, as landowners will not suffer any detriment or loss of enjoyment of their land.
So if the tunnelling causes the soil above to become unstable and causes a partial collapse or even sink hole, that damages the property above, whose liable then?

They couldn't even build a trench in Darlington without the walls collapsing...did they ever figure out where the water was coming from?

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 370 times
Been thanked: 87 times

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4193 Post by SBD » Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:05 am

rev wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:07 pm
The Act will be amended to provide that no compensation will be payable for underground acquisitions, as landowners will not suffer any detriment or loss of enjoyment of their land.
So if the tunnelling causes the soil above to become unstable and causes a partial collapse or even sink hole, that damages the property above, whose liable then?

They couldn't even build a trench in Darlington without the walls collapsing...did they ever figure out where the water was coming from?
I doubt that any of the South Road area between T2T and Darlington is through hard rock. It will all be silt or limestone, so will need to be shored up as it is dug, so there will be no ongoing risk of tunnel collapse.

My understanding of the Darlington issues was that it was a shallow aquifer/subsurface natural drainage stream that had not been mapped as it was dry at the time of the investigations.

aceman
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:02 am
Location: Adelaide (Hallett Cove)
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 7 times

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4194 Post by aceman » Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:52 am

my guess would he that tunneling is too problematic, if they don't want to acquire all the land back then an elevated road may be the only option. :2cents:

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2019
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 222 times

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4195 Post by claybro » Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:05 pm

aceman wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:52 am
my guess would he that tunneling is too problematic, if they don't want to acquire all the land back then an elevated road may be the only option. :2cents:
There is nothing problematic about tunnelling in Adelaide other than the states finances. It seems "issues" are used to prevent things happening in Adelaide as if they are peculiar to SA. There is not one thing different in Adelaide that has not been encountered anywhere in the world. It really surprises me how gullible (compliant) the media and the public are. Just tell people the various costs.. the assumed benefit of each method, and use whatever method is suitable for whatever section. A tunnel the whole length is not feasible and will not happen. As others have pointed out, this is a red herring to delay expenditure/actual progress. The previous government had t just about right with a combination of short tunnels, trenches and elevated. In what became SOP for the previous government however was the lack of a locked in plan, and now we are left with more politicking, inaction and social media scare stories about heritage buildings.. (drummed up by political interest groups).

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 370 times
Been thanked: 87 times

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4196 Post by SBD » Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:36 pm

claybro wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:05 pm
aceman wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:52 am
my guess would he that tunneling is too problematic, if they don't want to acquire all the land back then an elevated road may be the only option. :2cents:
There is nothing problematic about tunnelling in Adelaide other than the states finances. It seems "issues" are used to prevent things happening in Adelaide as if they are peculiar to SA. There is not one thing different in Adelaide that has not been encountered anywhere in the world. It really surprises me how gullible (compliant) the media and the public are. Just tell people the various costs.. the assumed benefit of each method, and use whatever method is suitable for whatever section. A tunnel the whole length is not feasible and will not happen. As others have pointed out, this is a red herring to delay expenditure/actual progress. The previous government had t just about right with a combination of short tunnels, trenches and elevated. In what became SOP for the previous government however was the lack of a locked in plan, and now we are left with more politicking, inaction and social media scare stories about heritage buildings.. (drummed up by political interest groups).
Agreed. Digging a tunnel across the Adelaide floodplains would be quite similar to the tunnel being dug across Melbourne, and several previous Melbourne tunnels.

I also thought the previous (Labor) government plan sounded fairly reasonable. I don't understand why the now-opposition seems to be standing against both the original plan and any deep-tunnel options. For a supposedly "progressive" government, it seems to have become even more nay-saying than the Liberal opposition was.

The three electorates directly effected by construction would safe-Labor West Torrens (Koutsantonis), fairly safe Labor Badcoe (first-term Stinson) and marginal Liberal Elder (first-term Habib/Power). It would also impact on commuters from Liberal-held Colton and Morphett. Politically, Labor should be supporting a version that leads to maximum-disruption in time for the next election, I would have thought.

NTRabbit
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:00 pm
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 49 times

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4197 Post by NTRabbit » Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:40 pm

SBD wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:36 pm
I also thought the previous (Labor) government plan sounded fairly reasonable. I don't understand why the now-opposition seems to be standing against both the original plan and any deep-tunnel options.
Answered your own question - everything Labor was for they are against by default, everything Labor planned was by defintion wrong and needs to be replaced by something the Liberals planned, which was the attitude that killed the modern art museum, and caused the idiotic series of changes to the Springbank Rd-Goodwood Rd-Daws Rd intersection project.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 370 times
Been thanked: 87 times

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4198 Post by SBD » Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:27 pm

NTRabbit wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:40 pm
SBD wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:36 pm
I also thought the previous (Labor) government plan sounded fairly reasonable. I don't understand why the now-opposition seems to be standing against both the original plan and any deep-tunnel options.
Answered your own question - everything Labor was for they are against by default, everything Labor planned was by defintion wrong and needs to be replaced by something the Liberals planned, which was the attitude that killed the modern art museum, and caused the idiotic series of changes to the Springbank Rd-Goodwood Rd-Daws Rd intersection project.
So if Labor is now against everything it was previously for, does Labor stand for anything at all? Surely if it wanted to get back in to government, it needs to demonstrate that it has better vision or implementation than Liberal does. Liberal has vision about north-south corridor tunnels (whether we think it is a good vision is not relevant to this point), but also has vision for an east-of-the-hills bypass, duplicating Joy Baluch Bridge and Port Wakefield interchange outside of the metro area. There are also other metropolitan road upgrades. Labor seems to only be negative, rather than espousing an alternative positive future. That's what I don't understand.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4043
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 295 times
Been thanked: 424 times

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4199 Post by rev » Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:00 pm

There is a state election coming in March 2022, followed by a federal election by September 2022.
Don't be surprised that they draw this out till then. And then announce something significant for the remaining stretch.
But wait there's more, Labor will come along with their big plan for the remaining stretch of South Road.

But, wait, there's even more...once the elections are done, they will do another study to figure out what to do, and it will be several more years before work even begins. 2050 looking like a good round figure for a finishing date. :banana:


While South Australia can't get its act together, the east coast & Perth will have billions upon billions poured into infrastructure as usual, and South Australians will bitch and moan that life is unfair.

Way to go South Australia, heaps good. :lol:

Eurostar
Legendary Member!
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 30 times

[U/C] Re: North-South Motorway

#4200 Post by Eurostar » Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:52 pm

As well as finishing the non stop corridor I think there is two intersections that could be upgraded simply and fast. Firstly an overpass/underpass at the intersection of West Beach Road/Tapleys Hill Road, preferably Tapleys Hill Road going over or under the intersection. Secondly an overpass/underpass at the intersection of Sir Donald Bradman Drive/Tapleys Hill Road , preferably Sir Donald Bradman Drive going under or over because of the river north of the junction.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests