News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[Cruise]

Torrens Road is bad when thhe trains just sit there across the road, Why do they do this?

As fo Park Terrace. The planned Northern Connector will improve this intersection significantly by reducing freight trains through the intersection.

[Aidan]

Torrens Road is bad when thhe trains just sit there across the road, Why do they do this?

Outer Harbour line trains have signal priority. The interstate trains have to wait for them to pass.

[Shuz]

Three blocks actually. Nonetheless, close.

The Hills Freeway was easily the worst element of the plan, the destruction I can't fathom.

[Aidan]

Aidan, I had a look at your plan and I am quite impressed by it. I would also like to repeat that I was not saying that my idea is the solution, I am merely presenting an idea. (That last sentence was not written in anger or frustration, but rather as a kind reminder, in case there had been a misunderstanding)

Likewise with my response - I'm not just telling you that your idea is not the solution, I'm explaining why it's not even a good idea. There seem to be three things you misunderstand:

Firstly, blighting residential suburbs with motorways is a bad idea. It may have been acceptable in the 1950s when lots of people in the inner suburbs were living in slums, and were glad to see them bulldozed - but those days are long gone. Indeed they were gone before the MATS plan was devised, which is why it was rejected. It's not just the number of people affected that's the problem, it's the extent to which they're affected. Underground road construction is a far better solution, which is why there's so much of it in the Eastern states.

Secondly, although you're right that we should take advantage of existing infrastructure, you're wrong about what that means. The South Road infrastructure was designed for South Road, and the best way to take advantage of it is to use it for South Road. Even if another road takes a lot of the traffic, South Road will still be there.

Thirdly, freeways aren't always more effective than normal roads. They do have higher capacity, but that capacity isn't always needed. And even when it is needed, it isn't always effective. Had the MATS plan been implemented, the freeways would've probably had to be widened by now. Perth had to widen theirs.

[adam73837]

...Underground road construction is a far better solution, which is why there's so much of it in the Eastern states...

Hence, what would be the problem with building an underground North-South Freeway? It seems that so many people feel that the underpasses will be adequate and whenever the word 'freeway' or 'tollway' is mentioned, no matter in what context, suddenly "Everyone loses their minds!" . While they (underpasses) may be, for a period of time, in the short term, what about the long term? I've said it before about school zones and commercial districts, hence why won't we conduct a study into the best option for a North-South Freeway. If we're going to do it, do it once and be done with it instead of constantly going for third-best, band-aid solutions that are just overrun and we're back where we started.
Adelaide would benefit from an efficient N-S Railway (going through the city as proposed in the MATS Plan, don't know why that didn't go ahead -well actually I do, cost, but hey, what about the City Loops in Melbourne and Sydney, hmm?) and a decent North-South undisturbed Roadway; it's only a matter of finding the best options.

The Hills Freeway was easily the worst element of the plan, the destruction I can't fathom.

While the destruction that its route caused would have been large, its concept was great. it would have provided a freight connection from the S-E and Victoria, etc. to the Port Freeway, hence Dry Creek, etc. What would be wrong with an underground Hills Freeway (or a similar concept) being proposed today? (I'm not asking you Shuz, just everyone in general)

[adam73837]

Seeing as I have the feeling that no one would really look at the Great Roads Debate forum, I decided to start a new one for this:

April 26, 2009 03:30pm : Adelaide Now

SOUTH Australia will receive $1.7 billion for road upgrades as part of the largest federal transport infrastructure investment in Australia's history.
The states and the territories have signed up to the agreement, which will see $26.4 billion of funds for projects including upgrades of the Pacific and Bruce highways.

The agreement, which was foreshadowed at the February meeting of the Council of Australian Governments, includes federal funding for 120 road and 26 rail projects over six years.

The key projects include the Pacific Highway, NSW, ($2.5 billion), the Bruce Highway, Queensland, ($2.2 billion) and Western Ring Road, Victoria ($900 million).

The SA component of the funding includes $450 million for the Northern Expressway; $500 million for the South Road upgrade; and $80 million for the Dukes Highway.

"We are spending more on rail in 18 months than the previous government spent in 12 years," Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese told the Nine Network on Sunday.

Meanwhile, Mr Albanese said he would enjoy announcing $2 million of federal funding for a $7.3 million sporting pavilion to be built in Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull's own electorate.

The funding will be made available for the Waverley Park pavilion under the government's $800 million community infrastructure program.

Mr Turnbull is attending the announcement.

"The hypocrisy of Malcolm turning up to Waverley Park for this announcement - $2 million from the commonwealth contributing to a $7.3 million project in his electorate that he voted against," Mr Albanese said.

"That is I think something that stands for itself."

Opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss said the nation-building package was nothing more than a re-badging of the former coalition government's AusLink program.

"In fact, Labor's package is still $5 billion less for road and rail than what the coalition committed before the 2007 election and seems to be spread over an extra year," he said.

"While ... (Mr) Albanese is today trumpeting that $700 million worth of projects has been brought forward, $6 billion worth of projects have either been delayed or cancelled.

"The minister must now be honest about which projects are now on the backburner."

Key infrastructure projects to be funded over six years under the federal government's $26.4 billion package:

SA - $1.7 billion

$450 million - Northern Expressway

"$500 million - South Road upgrade

"$80 million - Dukes Highway

VIC - $4.4 billion

$900 million - Western Ring Road

$600 million - Western Highway

$250 million - Princes Highway east and west

NSW - $8.6 billion

$2.5 billion - Pacific Highway

$950 million - Hume Highway

$840 million - Northern Sydney Freight Line



QLD - $6.8 billion

$1.1 billion - Ipswich Motorway upgrade

$2.2 billion - Bruce Highway

$455 million - Pacific Motorway

WA - $2.8 billion

$225 million - New Perth Bunbury Highway and Mandurah Entrance Road

$160 million - Port Hedland road upgrades

$350 million - Perth Urban Transport and Freight Corridor upgrade

TAS - $800 million

$164 million - Brighton Bypass

NT - $590 million

$72 million - Tiger Brennan Drive

$160 million - NT highways

ACT - $200 million

$30 million - airport precinct upgrade

Source: Office of Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese

As usual, SA receives the smallest amount of funding out of the states with capital cities with a population >1million (i.e. states other than NT, Tas, ACT)
<SIGH>

[Wayno]

$1.7b is a 6.4% slice of the pie. Probably about right given we are ~7% of the Oz population...

[Norman]

So what will the remaining $700m go to? Local road upgrades?

[Shuz]

Well, there's a bit of good news. Northern Expressway was going to be a $550m burden on the State Government, it's now only a $100m burden, now that the Feds have funded $450m of it, leaves Foley with $450m he doesn't have to spend in the "horror" Budget.

[waz94]

So effectively its only $1.2 Billion for SA considering the Libs at the last election announced this funding for the Northern Expressway. Typical politics, announce the same funding 100 times. They might get that fuzzy feeling 100 times but I only got it once when it was originally announced.

[Omicron]

A rather self-indulgent little diversion here, but Anthony Albanese is so impossibly illiterate and incoherent it makes my ears hurt.

And now back to your regular programming.

[Norman]

Well, there's a bit of good news. Northern Expressway was going to be a $550m burden on the State Government, it's now only a $100m burden, now that the Feds have funded $450m of it, leaves Foley with $450m he doesn't have to spend in the "horror" Budget.

Actually, that 450/100 arrangement was always there. It hasn't changed.

[DM8]

Typical politics, announce the same funding 100 times. They might get that fuzzy feeling 100 times but I only got it once when it was originally announced.

How very true!

None of the funding for the Northern Expressway, South Road and the Dukes Highway is new money - all of these figures were mentioned months ago. But there's no mention on what the remaining odd $700M is going to be spent on. Fair chance it aint gonna be spent on fixing up the maintenance backlog.

Realistically, it's nowhere near enough. The $500M for South Road will get frittered away on useless planning studies before we ever see any decent construction take place. It would be interesting to see a costing breakdown for each of these area to see where the money actually goes.

[Aidan]

...Underground road construction is a far better solution, which is why there's so much of it in the Eastern states...

Hence, what would be the problem with building an underground North-South Freeway?

The main problem would be the enormous cost. The money we have is limited, and there are much more important and urgent things it needs to be spent on.

There is also another completely different problem: transport infrastructure often determines land use. A freeway could result in more dispersed employment destinations, making it more difficult to serve with public transport. This is likely to become less of a problem over time due to increasing density.

It seems that so many people feel that the underpasses will be adequate and whenever the word 'freeway' or 'tollway' is mentioned, no matter in what context, suddenly "Everyone loses their minds!" . While they (underpasses) may be, for a period of time, in the short term, what about the long term?

But what do you mean by the long term? It's not as if freeways are futureproof!

I've said it before about school zones and commercial districts, hence why won't we conduct a study into the best option for a North-South Freeway. If we're going to do it, do it once and be done with it instead of constantly going for third-best, band-aid solutions that are just overrun and we're back where we started.

Building a N-S freeway once and for all may sound good to you, but it would not be good for the state as it would leave SA saddled with many billions of dollars of debt. And what would we do afterwards? A freeway would take much longer to reach capacity than using underpasses, but it still would eventually.

Meanwhile, overpasses and underpasses are useful in their own right. They may eventually link together to form a non stop corridor, but meanwhile, just reducing the number of stops gives significant benefits.

Also, why are you so confident that the best solution to the problems of the future can already be determined reliably?

Adelaide would benefit from an efficient N-S Railway (going through the city as proposed in the MATS Plan, don't know why that didn't go ahead -well actually I do, cost, but hey, what about the City Loops in Melbourne and Sydney, hmm?) and a decent North-South undisturbed Roadway; it's only a matter of finding the best options.

The MATS Plan's proposed N-S railway wasn't actually that efficient. For a start it would have destroyed the Glenelg tramway.

The Hills Freeway was easily the worst element of the plan, the destruction I can't fathom.

While the destruction that its route caused would have been large, its concept was great. it would have provided a freight connection from the S-E and Victoria, etc. to the Port Freeway, hence Dry Creek, etc. What would be wrong with an underground Hills Freeway (or a similar concept) being proposed today? (I'm not asking you Shuz, just everyone in general)

I refer you back to my earlier answer: cost.

But yes, something will have to be built eventually, probably under Glen Osmond Road. There was a thread on here about it earlier this year. At the time I didn't think it would be possible to go into tunnel at Glen Osmond due to the already steep gradients, so a viaduct would be needed, which would be much more intrusive. However, I've driven up the freeway and revised my opinion since then - I now think a tunnel would be possible and practical, as there is a section (near the tollgate) with a much shallower gradient. It doesn't make economic sense yet, but if the rapid development in the hills continues, it will.

[mattblack]

The main problem would be the enormous cost. The money we have is limited, and there are much more important and urgent things it needs to be spent on.

And your the one proposing a underground rail line that would seem to cost a hell of alot more money than an entire western tram system