[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[claybro]

If a 100km/h freeway is deemed essential for hills freight and commuters, then I fail to understand why metropolitan Adelaide should have to be content with a 60km/h non controlled access arterial road, lined with driveways etc.To all those who believe a 60km/h limit is adequate lets reduce the speed on the hills freeway and the Southern Expressway to 60km/h for consistency and see what happens eh?

[how good is he]

Can someone confirm why the new South Rd plan.... the (river) Torrens to Torrens proposal doesn't go under Torrens Rd? What's the point of spending so much money to go under Port and Grange Rds to just have another bottle neck at Torrens Rd? If they went under at Torrens Rd it would be a clear run with no major intersections to the super highway.... Bizarre.

[Aidan]

Can someone confirm why the new South Rd plan.... the (river) Torrens to Torrens proposal doesn't go under Torrens Rd? What's the point of spending so much money to go under Port and Grange Rds to just have another bottle neck at Torrens Rd? If they went under at Torrens Rd it would be a clear run with no major intersections to the super highway.... Bizarre.

I can confirm it. You're wrong about major intersections (there's also Regency Road) but to call their strategy bizarre is an understatement. I don't yet know the reason, but it certainly looks as if they want to turn South Road into a full freeway rather than just a nonstop corridor.

[[Shuz]]

Can someone confirm why the new South Rd plan.... the (river) Torrens to Torrens proposal doesn't go under Torrens Rd? What's the point of spending so much money to go under Port and Grange Rds to just have another bottle neck at Torrens Rd? If they went under at Torrens Rd it would be a clear run with no major intersections to the super highway.... Bizarre.

I can confirm it. You're wrong about major intersections (there's also Regency Road) but to call their strategy bizarre is an understatement. I don't yet know the reason, but it certainly looks as if they want to turn South Road into a full freeway rather than just a nonstop corridor.

Please back this up, because from where I stand, you are so wrong on so many levels. I can tell you that all the planning calls for a non-stop 'corridor' with a speed limit of only 60kph. Not a fully fledged freeway.

[drsmith]

The speed limit on the Superway will be 90 km/hr.

That I suspect will represent an upper limit for any upgrades further south.

Even the northbound carriageway of the Southern Expressway duplication will only have a posted speed limit of 80km/hr (design speed 90 km/hr) on the down hill section into Darlington.

[Aidan]

Can someone confirm why the new South Rd plan.... the (river) Torrens to Torrens proposal doesn't go under Torrens Rd? What's the point of spending so much money to go under Port and Grange Rds to just have another bottle neck at Torrens Rd? If they went under at Torrens Rd it would be a clear run with no major intersections to the super highway.... Bizarre.

I can confirm it. You're wrong about major intersections (there's also Regency Road) but to call their strategy bizarre is an understatement. I don't yet know the reason, but it certainly looks as if they want to turn South Road into a full freeway rather than just a nonstop corridor.

Please back this up, because from where I stand, you are so wrong on so many levels. I can tell you that all the planning calls for a non-stop 'corridor' with a speed limit of only 60kph. Not a fully fledged freeway.

My opinion is based entirely on how overengineered it is. Why else would they design a 3+3 lane underpass beneath Port and Grange Roads?

[neoballmon]

The speed limit on the Superway will be 90 km/hr.

That I suspect will represent an upper limit for any upgrades further south.

Even the northbound carriageway of the Southern Expressway duplication will only have a posted speed limit of 80km/hr (design speed 90 km/hr) on the down hill section into Darlington.

Surely the trench will be more than 60km/h?

As for the expressway, the current section was 100km/h down the hill. This only changed to 80 due to a fatal incident (irresponsibly driving from what I've heard; no genuine source though).
The new section looks an exact design duplicate. So they must have over posted the present section?

[claybro]

Can someone confirm why the new South Rd plan.... the (river) Torrens to Torrens proposal doesn't go under Torrens Rd? What's the point of spending so much money to go under Port and Grange Rds to just have another bottle neck at Torrens Rd? If they went under at Torrens Rd it would be a clear run with no major intersections to the super highway.... Bizarre.

I can confirm it. You're wrong about major intersections (there's also Regency Road) but to call their strategy bizarre is an understatement. I don't yet know the reason, but it certainly looks as if they want to turn South Road into a full freeway rather than just a nonstop corridor.

Please back this up, because from where I stand, you are so wrong on so many levels. I can tell you that all the planning calls for a non-stop 'corridor' with a speed limit of only 60kph. Not a fully fledged freeway.

I think we need to be reminded here, that that there is no other plan, either conceptually or in fact that has a North/South route other than the South Road alignment. It would seem that once some $4 billion plus is spent over then next 15-20 years on South road upgrades, it is inconceivable that they would start from scratch on another route. South Road will no longer resemble a suburban arterial road by then. I fail to see why a freeway based on South road is the disaster that some are making it out to be, and having been stuck in South road traffic doing an average 50km/h today in fairly light conditions without any reason for hold ups (drivers daydreaming), clearly the 60km/h limit for our major Nth/Sth route will be inadequate. And given Adelaide drivers strange habit of coming to nearly a complete standstill while turning left into a side street, controlled access will be a must. So could we stop complaining about "over engineering" and hope that this is the grass roots of a proper Freeway.

[rubberman]

Claybro,

South Road since the time of the MATS Plan rejection is a classic case what happens when you ignore the wisdom of: Do it once, do it right.

Don Dunstan, for political reasons, portrayed the MATS Plan as evil, got in on promising that apparently we could solve the problem by ignoring it, and he would save money. The community bought that, and we have been paying for it ever since.

It is not the first time a technically good plan that has had someone on the opposite political side offer up a technically inferior scheme, get in, and then for years the community suffers as that technically inferior scheme screws up as predicted. It won't be the last time this happens either.

Now that does not mean that the MATS Plan was the best scheme (I certainly didn't like all of it), but the alternative of a bit here, and a bit there, and an overpass somewhere else offered by Dunstan and his successors was inferior. But hey, it was cheaper, and you know, State finances etc etc. Dunstan's real crime was that he did not offer a superior scheme, he offered something that was cheap and nasty and was able to be marketed.

The problem Claybro is that typically if people don't want to use the infrastructure themselves, they don't see the need for it, and as long as something cheap and superficially plausible is offered, they will quite happily go along with the cheap plausible solution. Any attempt by those who actually need to use the infrastructure, or who might point out inconvenient truths (such as it actually isn't cheaper) are dismissed out of hand as being politically motivated, or wanting to gold plate stuff, or use South Road to transport truckloads of stuff they are not interested in, so why should everyone else have to pay for it?

Whatever, it does not look like there is going to be government or private money going to solve this in any substantial way. Certainly the SA Government cannot fund it without money from the Feds, and apart from Darlington, I don't see any other Federal funding happening in the next few years. Do you?

[claybro]

I agree with you here Rubberman, on some points. The MATS plan in its entirety would have been massive overkill,(gold plated solution) and unnecessarily destroyed some of the suburban fabric of Adelaide. MATS also turned road infrastructure into a political football, and has spooked the populace of Adelaide since. HOWEVER, the North/South route was/is/will be essential for the economic development of Adelaide, just as the SE freeway was in the 70's. Agree also, that those that do not daily have to deal with or use Adelaide roads, think that the amount of alternative routes via existing arterial roads should suffice. Working in logistics management, and also having to travel South Road most days for work and recreation, it is from personal experience I believe our road system is broken. Professional drivers I deal with are in despair at the state of our road network, particularly North/South. I do believe, that once the free flowing parts of this route ie Superway/ Southern Expy/ and probably (given the likely election result) Darlington section are up and running, the frustration of motorists having to slow for the other sections will bring a vocal and consistent call for a similar standard on the entire route. This will probably come in the form of political pork barrels at each election cycle.(neither party in this state seems to want a cohesive forward plan). As for alternative routes through the Western Suburbs,it is too late now for this. Too much has been/will be invested in the South Road alignment. The mainly residential profile away from the industrial areas of South road will make this impossible without substantial tunnelling, which given the amount of money being funnelled into the South Road alignment, will not be considered in our working lifetimes, and the expense of lengthy tunnelling would be politically unsellable once South road is of decent standard.

[rubberman]

Claybro, I did point out that I was not advocating the MATS Plan as such.

The problem with the MATS Plan was not the question that it divided the city East-West . Doing nothing has divided the city just as effectively, but North-South. So the end result has been a division of the city, with the difference being that with the MATS Plan, you would have had a better traffic flow. We have ended up with a divided city in any case.

The problem of the MATS Plan from my perspective is that it tried to solve two separate problems - the North South traffic load, and the transport to the city load. The first was an achievable outcome, the second would only funnel more traffic to the city and choke it - so it was a pointless and expensive exercise. to try to do the latter.

As to your point about gold plating, it is a matter of how much road capacity do you want? The more like a freeway it is, the more traffic you can get down it. If you do it cheaper, you get less traffic throughput. Simple as that. I think that had there been a North South Freeway along with the associated lesser highways in MATS we would have solved the North South problem. A lesser solution would be reaching its comfort zone about now, (in lieu of the systemic breakdown we now have, we would be starting to have problems) and we would be looking for some sort of upgrade.

Now, if people did not like the MATS Freeways, they should have had some choices put before them:

1) MATS - with the problems we all agree on.
2). Tunnels - bloody expensive.
3). Do nothing - ie effectively what we have been doing.

And the dire consequences of option 3). fully explained. It is that lack of choices and firm leadership in terms of the consequences of the do nothing solution that gets my dander up.

[claybro]

It is that lack of choices and firm leadership in terms of the consequences of the do nothing solution that gets my dander up.

Ditto many of us Rubberman. And given the crumbs presented to us as part of the Federal Election campaign by both parties, the poor state of affairs will continue for the near future. what is important for us now is to focus on what we are being offered, and start to lobby loud and hard for the momentum to continue. Road users in metropolitan Adelaide should have the same right to access a free flowing, rapid, controlled access freeway as do the residents of the hills and southern suburbs, and every other capital in Australia. It seems the fate of South Road as a suburban arterial is slowly being sealed, and given the dilapidated state of much of the housing and business along its length, not before time. We cannot allow the politicians get side tracked by focus groups worrying about the ambience of South road and its environs, and use this as an excuse to do nothing.

[how good is he]

Can someone also try to justify the purpose or rather massive expense of elevating the train line over South Rd ( and onto Queen and Elizabeth St) Croydon when the 2x3 lane tunnels will be going under it anyway?
Also with the Park Tce train connection (where Clipsal /Bowden village is) will this section be underground or overground then?
Can someone also explain why at the intersections of South Rd with: Grange Rd, Port Rd, Torrens Rd and Regency Rd these 4 intersections don't just go over or under South Rd .... Cheaper, quicker and more effective....

[Aidan]

If a 100km/h freeway is deemed essential for hills freight and commuters, then I fail to understand why metropolitan Adelaide should have to be content with a 60km/h non controlled access arterial road, lined with driveways etc.To all those who believe a 60km/h limit is adequate lets reduce the speed on the hills freeway and the Southern Expressway to 60km/h for consistency and see what happens eh?

Claybro, there are effectively no other options for hills freight and commuters. The other roads are twisty and impractical, as is the railway. But the Adelaide plains have a good network of urban arterials which worked quite well throughout the 20th century, even though they're getting swamped by traffic now.

Reducing the speed limit on the SE Freeway would bring no significant benefits but plenty of disbenefits. Keeping South Road limited to 60km/h would save billions of dollars. That's money that could and should be spent on other roads and railways to bring greater total benefits.

I think we need to be reminded here, that that there is no other plan, either conceptually or in fact that has a North/South route other than the South Road alignment.

What would a tollway tunnelled below the Morphett-Findon Road corridor have to include to meet your standards of a conceptual plan?

It would seem that once some $4 billion plus is spent over then next 15-20 years on South road upgrades, it is inconceivable that they would start from scratch on another route. South Road will no longer resemble a suburban arterial road by then.

Whereas upgrading South Road to a 60km/h nonstop corridor could be done much more quickly for under $3 billion. Much greater short term benefits, and avoiding the problem of making solutions with much greater long term benefits inconceivable.

I fail to see why a freeway based on South road is the disaster that some are making it out to be, and having been stuck in South road traffic doing an average 50km/h today in fairly light conditions without any reason for hold ups (drivers daydreaming), clearly the 60km/h limit for our major Nth/Sth route will be inadequate. And given Adelaide drivers strange habit of coming to nearly a complete standstill while turning left into a side street, controlled access will be a must. So could we stop complaining about "over engineering" and hope that this is the grass roots of a proper Freeway.

A proper freeway would get lots more cars onto the road (congesting the roads that connect with it) while absorbing funds that could be better spent on our public transport system (getting people out of their cars and freeing up roadspace).

And as I think I've said further up this thread, a local traffic lane can be almost as effective as a controlled access road, but for a much lower cost.

[Maximus]

Suggest everyone read the front page of InDaily today.

It would be interesting to know just how many studies there are! Whatever the number, what the article doesn't mention is that the one that Mike Mrdak was talking about apparently cost $5.5m. And $4.4m of that was funded by the Commonwealth. You'd think, then, that the Feds might have some influence over the State Government about when the study was released... Which is exactly what Senator Birmingham asked during the hearing. Reply: it's a matter for the State Government.

Who knows what goes on behind closed doors.

Further to this, if you're interested in reading the actual Senate Estimates transcript, you can do so here. The South Road bit starts near the bottom of page 50. It starts with a discussion of funding, then the status of the South Road study, and then the question of which part of South Road is the highest priority. An interesting discussion.