First tolled tunnel -- where should it go?

[Aidan]

There are many things rail's well suited to. This is not one of them - withut going to the expense of an entirely new line (mostly in tunnel) the train jouney times would not even be competitive with bus jouney times on the freeway/tollway.

Im a bit confused and perhaps you guys can enlighten me. We are happy for a vision of toll tunnels under the length of Glen Osmond and Greenhill Roads etc, but the idea of a similar distance of tunneling in the hills and electrification to straighten some of the long diversions and ultimately speed up the train from mt Barker is dismissed.

Dismissed because it would be futile. Electrification and straightening some of the long diversions wouldn't be enough to make it competitive with the freeway even without a tunnel to the City. The railway is MUCH longer snd its route into the City too indirect. Even a new line up the Brownhill Creek valley (which would not be environmentally acceptable, but was once considered as a long term option to serve Monarto) would not be sufficient.

A toll on the fare from Mt Barker and railfreight toll could be set to help pay for this.

Complicating the fare structure would not be a good ideaeven before you consider that few people would be willing to pay extra for a slow option. As for freight, what's really needed is a line further north to avoid the Adelaide Hills altogether.

The bus servce up there is already a nightmare in peak. I believe a Glen OSmond tollway although great for transport will not resolve commuter issues as busses do not have the capacity of trains and will further conjest the city end of the tollway exits. A decent public transport option is a must in conjunction with the tollway.

You're absolutely right about the need for a decent public transport option, but provision of a good bus service is much cheaper than rail tunnel contsruction. Buses can provide the capacity as long as there are enough of them. As for congestion of the tollway exits, there's no reason why it should be worse with buses than any other vehicles. Having said that, I do think there should be provision for a bus only entrance/exit in the City and also one to/from a bus interchange at Glen Osmond (though some buses would be express all the way and therefore wouldn't use it).

Don't get me wrong - I'm strongly in favour of rail tunnels, and I'd rate then as a higher priority than any road tollway. But they should be under the City and inner suburbs, where demand is highest.

[claybro]

. The railway is MUCH longer snd its route into the City too indirect

k. Get the pointt re the indirect hills rail, which is a real shame for Mt barker. I think at the moment the only viable toll tunnel is the North/South route as posted by AG. Even today (Sat) South road was bumper to bumper, whereas Glen Osmond Road outside of peak hours is not that bad yet. If the hills tollway was to be completed first, traffic exiting after the cty near South Road would be severely restricted if this was not also up to standard. Once the North/South tollway was complete, then I think the direct route to the SE freeway will become more important, as this will provide a free flowing freight route from interstate in both directions. Also by then the extra population of the hills would require increased capacity into the metro area.

[Maximus]

Right-o, so it sorted. Tolled tunnel between southern end of Superway and somewhere around James Congdon Drive. Who do we talk to about getting this built?! Construction should start immediately!

Re rail into the Hills, I seem to remember there was quite a detailed thread a while ago that went into the specifics of suitable routes, feasible track inclines, etc, but I couldn't easily locate it with a search just now. Perhaps Aidan can help with that.

I haven't been up and down Glen Osmond Road much in the past few years, but consensus certainly seems to be that it's not yet too bad outside of peak hours. One suspects an interim solution as the traffic volumes build up will be to ban street parking completely and possibly also restrict right-hand turns to some degree (which, incidentally, would probably also be a good idea on some other roads, such as Greenhill (right-hand turns problem not really applicable, but street parking certainly is), Unley and Goodwood). Again, using Canberra as an example, street parking on anything other than suburban back-streets is extremely rare, and you certainly notice the difference in not having to weave around parked cars all the time.

Still interested to know more details about the major trucking routes in suburban Adelaide if anyone's able to shed some light on that from within the industry.

[claybro]

Maximus, you are certainly right in your observation that Adelaide motorists expect to be able to turn right or left at every minor side street (some with traffic right turn arrows to assist) and park outside of wherever they wish to stop. We dont even seem to police clearways very strictly- I often observe parked cars on West Terrace in the evening and sometimes Unly and Goodwood Roads. Just tonight a bus was stopped on Goodwood Rd outbound and a car was turning right, both lanes were blocked for some 2 minutes the bus driver seemingly oblivious as no one was boarding or departing the bus.
As to your transport question. Most heavy transport from the southeast travells from the Freeway, North along Portrush, then Lower Portrush, Ascot,(a steep hillstart here if the lights are red) Taunton, a sharp right into Hampstead and then North again to Grand Junction if they are heading Northwest or turn North on Main North or Pt Wakefield. Most heavy industry is located around Winglield/Regency area(thus the Superway). or around gillman.(Port river Expressway).Alot of transport travells from the North to Southern industrial areas such as Lonsdale which is the reason South Road is so conjested even out of peak times as it is the only through route which does not require right of left turns ( a big problem for longer vehicles/ doubles etc.) I believe that once the North/ South Route is established, then the Glen Osmond tollway could channel alot of this heavy vehicle traffic away from the Portrush-Hampstead route, and free this up for more suburban traffic.

[AtD]

Having lived in both Sydney and Canberra, I reject the idea that Canberra is a model we should follow. Canberra residents complain about their transport network like anyone else. Generally everything is over-built. There literally are six lane roads that turn into two lane roads.

Adelaide's public transport is far better.

And this idea that the M5 and ED in Sydney is non-stop? I wish!

[bva]

i think that you are forgetting the once south road is completed, then cross road will become the primary freight road (see DTEI 2030 Plan) so I would hope that any first tolled tunnel would form an element of any upgrade toCross Road to cope with substantial new freight movement

[Maximus]

I certainly never meant to imply that Canberra is a model we should follow. I could easily talk forever about all the things I don't like about Canberra -- transport and infrastructure included -- and, yes, Adelaide's public transport system is clearly far superior. I was simply using Canberra as an example to demonstrate why I find driving in Adelaide to be somewhat frustrating these days.

As for the M5 and ED, I've admittedly never lived in Sydney, but I have driven there and back a number of times and, whilst those roads are usually pretty crowded, I've always found them to be nevertheless free flowing. I'll take your word for it that this isn't always the case.

Claybro, while I can think of worse routes to drive through Adelaide, it must be incredibly frustrating for the truckies to have to navigate suburban roads for such a distance to get to their final destination. I can definitely see a lot of merit in some sort of non-stop link from the freeway to an upgraded South Rd.

[claybro]

Lucky this is only the visions and suggestions thread. I dont believe either major party have a real vision for toll roads, and as is evident from this forum, even many Adelaide residents think our road system is adequate. (although I believe a silent majority do not). We will get a compromise solution such as a widened South Road as the mere mention of a freeway (it will decimate pristine suburbia) or spending money on infastructure(the tramway to nowhere) seems to send the media vocal interest groups here in dear old Adelaide into meltdown.I can see The Advertiser headlines now...You wanna spend $10BILLION ON A TUNNEL?? oh the humanity! We take the cheapest path of least resistance in the quickest time offending the least amount of people for the maximum number of votes and end up with a half baked solution.(see the OBahn scenario). Sorry for the sarc., but having just spent the day visiting clients and trades on our road system makes me frustrated.

[Maximus]

This is an interesting piece about the history and possible future of toll roads and tunnels in Sydney:

http://smh.drive.com.au/roads-and-traff ... 23zpn.html

This first toll road in Sydney opened in May 1992. Nick Greiner, NSW Premier at the time, said:

When you think about it, the choice is very simple: either have the road as a privately owned tollway or not have the road at all.

Within a month, he stood down as Premier. A few months later, he became a director of a company that owned one third of the newly-opened toll road.

[claybro]

An interesting read Maximus. Almost mirrors the political demise of the MATS plan here in SA. Whilst the MATS plan in hindsight was overkill, and in its entirety would have decimated Hindmarsh and St Peters,other parts of it are are being built today (at more cost) and the scrapping and sale of property on transport corridors North /South here, and West-East in Sydney was short sighted and has just deferred the cost and problems to the current term. The only alternative now appears to be tunnels, but Brisbane's experience with their extensive tunneling has been a financial disaster, even as tollways.

[neoballmon]

I love the idea of the tollway tunnel from the Superway, to James Cogdon Drvie, as well as upgrading the JCD intersections with Sir Donald Bradman Drive and South Road to keep this free flowing onto South Road, as well as passing over/under Richmond Road. Then remove the intersection at Barwell/Everard, making it left in, left out, and possibly right in, with median turning lanes (as the traffic lights are mostly there for right out turns anyway).
An exit as suggested at Port Road would be useful as well, but I think at least one connection to South Road somewhere amogst the corridor, say Port Road/Grange Road (Hindmarsh) would be good for people coming from the West to avoid South Road, but I'm not 100% sure this would work too well.
But this tollway will save the government several several billions of dollars of having to upgrade intersections with Regency, Torrens, Port, West Thebarton, Henley Beach, Sir Donald Bradman Roads, and many smaller intersections, which would now primarily be used for local travelling, and will greatly reduce traffic volumes. This means the government will be able to spend more money on public transport and other road projects away from South Roadm further improving our conjested metropolitan network.

With completion of the proposed Northern Connector and Darlington interchange (assuming it extends out to Ayliffes Road), this will almost complete Adelaide's North-South Corridor, with only Edwardstown's traffic light hell (seems too short, and too far away from the above toll possibitily to be viable as a toll road) and Daws road's intersection to remove through a grade separation.

As was suggested previously for a Glen Osmond Road toll, the tollway should have higher charges during peak hours.
I am not up to date with standard toll costs, having only used Melbourne tollways twice, but here are my cost suggestions (to be increased appropriately for heavy transport if necessary.
Peak > 6am-9am & 3pm-6pm = Approx $6 - $8
Interpeak > 9am-3pm = Approx $3 - $4
Off Peak > 6pm-6am = Approx $2


If a miracle happened and I somehow came into upwards of $1Billion, I can very safely say,* I would form my own Private company, and make this happen immediately!


* - After the couple of obvious purchases, $1M House, 100k Car, $1-2M to set my future family financially for life

[Maximus]

Interesting article in the AFR this morning about tunnels, noting the lack of foresight in protecting surface transport corridors. I wonder how the cost of tunnels stacks up versus road widening when it involves land acquisition...?

Our tunnel vision 'brings risks of white elephants'
Australian Financial Review
22 Oct 2012
by Jason Murphy

Australia builds too many tunnels and money spent on major projects will be wasted unless the costs are brought under control, top infrastructure experts say.

Business Council of Australia president Tony Shepherd blames a national obsession with tunnels. "Tunnel-itis, as I call it, has contributed significantly to the cost of inner urban roads and railways. People have got to recognise that," Mr Shepherd said.

Road tunnels can cost well over $200 million a kilometre, about four times more than surface roads, according to UK research. Sydney's Cross City Tunnel a two-kilometre stretch of road beneath the CBD had an estimated capital cost of just under $700 million.

The Cross City Tunnel was placed into receivership in 2006. It joins the Lane Cove Tunnel in Sydney and River City Motorways owner of the Clem Jones Tunnel in Brisbane as entities that have collapsed after toll revenue proved far less than expected.

The clamour for tunnels is driven by easy-to-understand trade-offs over land use, which could push urban electorates to vote one way or another. The trade-off of spending significantly more money is less visceral, and the burden is more widely shared.

Mr Shepherd, who is also chairman at Transfield Services, which built Melbourne's CityLink, said: "We've just got to stop. We have to understand there is a role for tunnels, but tunnels are not the solution for every conceivable transport problem, and they add an extremely high cost."

Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief Brendan Lyon agrees. "Tunnel projects struggle because they're expensive to build and traffic demand is notoriously hard to predict," he said.

"The other problem is the sheer cost of these projects. Because former governments either didn't undertake long-term planning and protect surface corridors, or worse, sold them off after they'd been protected, as happened in Sydney, the projects are expensive and in most cases beyond the capacity of tolls to fund alone."

Infrastructure Australia this week called for governments to raise $220 billion to spend on infrastructure. The money would come from selling state-owned electricity, water, ports and transport assets, and reinvesting in new projects.

But a rush of new building may stretch Australia's infrastructure sector too far. Costs are already far above international benchmarks, and tunnels are just the tip of the expensive iceberg.

Research conducted for the Business Council of Australia shows resources projects in Australia cost 40 per cent more than in the United States. Australian Bureau of Statistics data on the price of building roads and bridges show costs have risen 56 per cent in the past 10 years, almost double the pace of inflation.

Earlier this year, the Council of Australian Governments instituted a review of cost, competitiveness and productivity challenges in the commercial, civil and large-scale residential construction industry. Its start has been delayed by wrangling between governments over who should be on the panel.

Australia's high construction costs wouldn't be easy to fix because they had many causes, Mr Shepherd said. "It sounds wussy, but the higher project costs are due to a range of factors. We've recommended to the government that the Productivity Commission should do a thorough review. COAG is discussing the terms of reference of a COAG review and the sooner that starts the better."

A report by the Business Council, Pipeline or Pipe Dream?, argues that a lack of community support for major projects, a deficit of political leadership, poor productivity and red tape are among the reasons projects are hard to deliver.

Mr Lyon said industrial relations was part of the problem. "There's no doubt construction costs are rising. The huge demand for skills in resources states has driven part of the escalation, but it also appears that the Fair Work Act has made the labour market less flexible and less efficient."

Industrial relations agreements signed on large greenfield projects have, at times, offered significantly higher wages than are available in other parts of the market. Mr Lyon gave credit to Infrastructure Australia for its capacity to prioritise projects. The body was established in an attempt to make infrastructure decision-making less political.