[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[Nathan]

And we should do what other countries do because...............?
I fail to see the logic or sense in doing something because others are doing it. As the old saying from our childhoods goes, if he/she jumped off a cliff, would you?

What about doing what we want to do, you know, what makes us unique?
What about finding ways to do what we do, better, with consideration for the environment? Such as using waste/recycled water for watering gardens, using solar power, etc..

What you again do not seem to want to acknowledge, is that not everyone wants to live tightly packed in like sardines. Some people, I know this might shock you so make sure you are sitting down, want some space.

Say I've got a German Shepherd. How am I going to accommodate it in the yuppy village that's developed in Brompton and is swallowing up Bowden now? That's just one example of many, many as to why people may want more space then inner city living may offer. What, are you going to suggest next that people should be limited to the size and type of their pets?

My point is Rev, that if people in every other country on Earth live in less space, then it demonstrates that the desire for space in Australia is a want, not a need. Owning a German Shepherd is also a want, not a need, and if you require a larger house/land to accommodate said want, then it's a bit rich to bemoan housing affordability because said larger house/land costs more.

There's also a huge middle ground between our large detached houses and being tightly packed in like sardines. I'd also suggest that part of the problem is that many homes here are poorly designed, and require more space to make up for their deficiencies (for which I blame those house & land package development companies which dominate the new build market).

Sticking a few solar panels up and using recycled water for your gardens is good, but I doubt that would begin to offset the larger scale environmental issues of low density living.

[Wayno]

Rev, please take a moment to proofread your posts before submission. I'm tired of reading what appear as inflammatory statements, even if not intended as such.

What specifically in my posts today looks inflammatory? I'll remove it so we can keep the civility in here.

let's chat offline.

[SCF]

The way I read it, $1.8billion was the original figure. They're now proposing a more effective solution for $620million. This needs to be done, as well as your proposals Omada.

Thanks Rhino for the correction, I'm glad they at least scaled it back.

Would be nice if the money saved from the revised proposal goes towards improvements to public transport/cycling/walking infrastrucure

Haha we can only dream Llessur2002!

This isn't quite right.

The $1.8 billion figure mentioned was for the original 2010 Darlington Transport Study which also included plans to electrify, duplicate and extend the Tonsley line to FMC and Flinders University and build a public transport interchange. I don't believe that was ever funded (or it if was, funding was pulled many years ago). Here is a link to the original study http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/__d ... or_Web.pdf

In mid 2014 it was announced that they would proceed with a fully funded $620 million Darlington upgrade project. This project upgrades South road and does not include the public transport features of the original 2010 study. Most noticeably absent is the Tonsley rail line duplication/extension and transport interchange and hence why it is some $1.2 billion "cheaper" than the original concept.

Initially this new proposal only had expressway traffic on the lowered road - South road traffic was to travel at grade and still encounter traffic lights. It also had changes to the South road/Ayliffes intersection (basically they were going to patch the expressway to that intersection).

This latest news is just a same cost update to the 2014 proposal. It now puts South road traffic on the lowered road as well and has no changes to the South road/Ayliffes intersection and is more like the proposed changes to South road made in the original 2010 study.

So there was no money "saved" with this announcement.

[rev]

So a previous plan was to keep things "at grade" with traffic lights/intersections for a certain cost, and the new plan is to lower south road in that section, for the same cost as the plan from 5 years ago?

[SCF]

So a previous plan was to keep things "at grade" with traffic lights/intersections for a certain cost, and the new plan is to lower south road in that section, for the same cost as the plan from 5 years ago?

The "plan from 5 years ago" was only ever just a plan and was never funded (as far as I know). It was costed at $1.8 billion and included a rail extension and a public transport interchange. The South road upgrade in that plan allowed all traffic travelling through Darlington to travel non-stop in the lowered road thus bypassing the Sturt road and Flinders drive intersections.

The 2014 plan, costed (and this time funded) at $620 million had a lowered road to the west of south road that allowed non-stop flow for southern expressway traffic only. So if you were to travel through this section but were not headed for or coming from the Southern expressway (i.e. you wanted to travel on South road south of the current expressway entrance), you had to stay at grade and still travel though the Sturt road and Flinders drive intersections. In the 2010 plan you would have bypassed these intersections. The main reason this plan is so much cheaper than the 2010 plan is that it doesn't include the rail extension and public transport interchange.

The announcement last week is a redesign of the 2014 plan. It is still costed (and funded) at $620 million (so it is not "same cost as the plan from 5 years ago"). This revision now allows all through traffic to travel non-stop in the lowered roadway bypassing Sturt road and Flinders drive intersections. In that respect it is more like the original 2010 plan. The article suggest that an additional 15,000 commuters a day will now be able to travel non-stop through here with this revision.

My main point was that there was no cost saving with this announcement as some people alluded to. It is just a revision of the existing 2014 plan with the same cost - $620 million. The $1.8 billion figure mentioned in the article was for an older and much more comprehensive plan that was only ever just a plan and was not funded.

[rev]

Well, misread your post.

[rev]

My point is Rev, that if people in every other country on Earth live in less space, then it demonstrates that the desire for space in Australia is a want, not a need. Owning a German Shepherd is also a want, not a need, and if you require a larger house/land to accommodate said want, then it's a bit rich to bemoan housing affordability because said larger house/land costs more.

There's also a huge middle ground between our large detached houses and being tightly packed in like sardines. I'd also suggest that part of the problem is that many homes here are poorly designed, and require more space to make up for their deficiencies (for which I blame those house & land package development companies which dominate the new build market).

Sticking a few solar panels up and using recycled water for your gardens is good, but I doubt that would begin to offset the larger scale environmental issues of low density living.

I'm not for one or the other only. I understand the need for higher density living, and think it's bloody great that it's becoming a more common site around Adelaide. But I also understand that a lot of people still need, and yes want, their own detached house with plenty of space. Why cant new housing developments(or redevelopments of areas) include both higher density residential buildings, and regular homes? Like Saint Clair and Mawson Lakes before it.
The cost of housing in inner areas regardless of the size of the land or the homes, will continue to increase in value/cost. Regardless of how much more sprawl we get. So first home buyers and young families will still struggle and be unable to buy closer to the City.

[Ben]

Lucky Lupitas at Bedford Park is relocating to Gouger Street as the shops will be getting demolished later this year.

[rev]

Have all the whingers aka people holding out for way more money from the government for their derelict houses, finally given up yet?
I did see some more homes around Hindmarsh being demolished the other week.
Really can not wait for Torrens to Torrens to start.

[Patrick_27]

Have all the whingers aka people holding out for way more money from the government for their derelict houses, finally given up yet?

Who are you to judge the worth of another person's home? Watch 'The Castle', you might feel enlightened.

[rev]

Have all the whingers aka people holding out for way more money from the government for their derelict houses, finally given up yet?

Who are you to judge the worth of another person's home? Watch 'The Castle', you might feel enlightened.

I am God of course, didn't you know? Well now you do, bow down and offer your tribute before I smite you.


There's that one pensioner if I'm not mistaken who expects I think it was upwards of 500,000 for his home from the government. He wouldn't get what he thinks his house is worth if he was to sell it or go to auction.
Let's not forget the location of these homes. Every day tens of thousands of cars and trucks and buses roar past their homes. Yeh, very valuable and attractive homes. You can see why so many of them were such attractive looking homes and were so sought after.

It's obvious some of these people are trying to milk it for all they can get.

I suppose though we've waited this long for this section of road to be fixed properly, a few minor delays now wont make much of a difference after decades of waiting.

[rockthenation]

I wonder how the final plan for T2T, which was meant to be released at the end of last year, is going...

[[Shuz]]

It was released. The junction with Port Road has been changed a bit. T2T now deviates away from the electrical substation which was going to be originally demolished. The road will sit in a half trench and the rail overpass will be half a bridge to reduce construction costs associated with building a full height rail bridge.

[Norman]

It was released. The junction with Port Road has been changed a bit. T2T now deviates away from the electrical substation which was going to be originally demolished. The road will sit in a half trench and the rail overpass will be half a bridge to reduce construction costs associated with building a full height rail bridge.

That was the plan released in June last year. There should be a final Project Impact Report released soon.

[Waewick]

Have all the whingers aka people holding out for way more money from the government for their derelict houses, finally given up yet?

Who are you to judge the worth of another person's home? Watch 'The Castle', you might feel enlightened.

not interested in worth. Just value.