Gepps Cross Intersection

[rev]

A round about will fix it.

[claybro]

Re the Gepps Cross intersection and the varying points further Northeast. I believe that
1. The most likely outcome for the Northeast Corridor is a conversion of the O Bahn to heavy or light rail as this is mainly a commuter area.(freeways should not be built for commuters)
2. Without the Modbury freeway, it will not be worthwhile sending the PREXY east up Montague road to feed this area.
3. Commercial traffic needs to get from the Southeast entry point SE Freeway to the Northwestern suburbs.
4. An upgrade of Grand junction provides the most direct route for(3)
5. An upgrade of Grand Junction would solve the Gepps Cross problem, AND provide an East West solution for the mid Northern suburbs.
6. Traffic patterns in the Northern suburbs will be moved further West with the completion of the Northern Connector, further solving congestion on Main North road.

[rev]

Re the Gepps Cross intersection and the varying points further Northeast. I believe that
1. The most likely outcome for the Northeast Corridor is a conversion of the O Bahn to heavy or light rail as this is mainly a commuter area.(freeways should not be built for commuters)
2. Without the Modbury freeway, it will not be worthwhile sending the PREXY east up Montague road to feed this area.
3. Commercial traffic needs to get from the Southeast entry point SE Freeway to the Northwestern suburbs.
4. An upgrade of Grand junction provides the most direct route for(3)
5. An upgrade of Grand Junction would solve the Gepps Cross problem, AND provide an East West solution for the mid Northern suburbs.
6. Traffic patterns in the Northern suburbs will be moved further West with the completion of the Northern Connector, further solving congestion on Main North road.

Why not divert the end of Port Wakefield Road to just north of the Drive In's to meet up with Main North Road there? thus making the Gepps Cross intersection a regular 4 way..?
Then in the middle of Grand Junction, build and over pass..?

[monotonehell]

Shuz, what you refer to as my "ridiculous notion" is actually standard practice among engineers and planners (and indeed anyone who takes an interest in roads) the world over. And with good reason: it accurately describes the situation.

Using x to mean + is a mistake - that's all there is to it. Of course this board isn't the first place people made that mistake and it won't be the last - but AFAIK it is the only place I know of where people, when informed of their error, still try to argue that it's not an error and 3x3 really does equal 6.

Using 3x3 to mean 3+3 is like claiming we should make the Dukes Highway safer by making it a duel carriageway!

Pedantry, but correct.

[[Shuz]]

Oh for the love of God, who cares.

If I just may point out - the 'experts' always refer to it verbally as 'three by three'. If we're going to get 'technical', mathematically speaking, 'by' also means times, multiplied, etc. So in the verbal context, and I quote you, Aidan, "using x to mean + is a mistake". Oh, the horror! Won't someone please think of the children! #sarcasm

So on the one hand, verbally its said three 'by' three, when 'technically' they actually mean three 'and' three, or three 'plus' three. Same goes for the written translation. I say 3x3, when I mean 3+3. At the end of the day, it's the same fucking thing. I don't imagine that you are going to get into the habit of correcting every single person whenever they verbally say it 'three by three'.

Even if 3x3 was to be interpreted literally, how would that configuration even work? Three lanes one way, three lanes the other way, and three lanes... err... just because? I don't think such a configuration even exists. 2+2 and 2x2 both equal four, so there's no argument there to be had.

And in the one instance where 4x4 were to be interpreted literally (16 lanes in total) doesn't exist either. As far as I'm aware, the 401 Freeway in Toronto - which is the widest freeway in the world comes close (14 lanes total) as it consists of seven lanes, broken up into two segments going one way, three lanes, and the other four, and another seven lanes in two segments of three and four lanes in the other direction. (see pic below) To some, this would be 4+3+3+4, or to others, 7+7 or 7x7.

[monotonehell]

Oh for the love of God, who cares.

You and Aidan do.

[Nathan]

I say 3x3, when I mean 3+3. At the end of the day, it's the same fucking thing

Do you actually read through what you write, or have you realised you've dug yourself too far into your position that you must continue to defend it regardless of logic?

[rev]

I say 3x3, when I mean 3+3. At the end of the day, it's the same fucking thing

Do you actually read through what you write, or have you realised you've dug yourself too far into your position that you must continue to defend it regardless of logic?

[claybro]

A round about will fix it.

No for this intersection we would need our latest creation, the "double roundabout"

[rhino]

Re the Gepps Cross intersection and the varying points further Northeast. I believe that
1. The most likely outcome for the Northeast Corridor is a conversion of the O Bahn to heavy or light rail as this is mainly a commuter area.(freeways should not be built for commuters)
2. Without the Modbury freeway, it will not be worthwhile sending the PREXY east up Montague road to feed this area.
3. Commercial traffic needs to get from the Southeast entry point SE Freeway to the Northwestern suburbs.
4. An upgrade of Grand junction provides the most direct route for(3)
5. An upgrade of Grand Junction would solve the Gepps Cross problem, AND provide an East West solution for the mid Northern suburbs.
6. Traffic patterns in the Northern suburbs will be moved further West with the completion of the Northern Connector, further solving congestion on Main North road.

What Claybro said.

Why not divert the end of Port Wakefield Road to just north of the Drive In's to meet up with Main North Road there?

I have never been in favour of this option.
Do you use Port Wakefield Road to commute to Adelaide, or to drive freight towards Adelaide?
If so, would you prefer to divert to Main North Road, adding distance and going through another set of traffic lights, where you would have to turn right, to the current situation?
If you are not a regular user of this route, perhaps you should consult with someone who is. I certainly would not appreciate someone who does not use my regular route telling me that it should be made longer and I should go through more intersections controlled by traffic lights.

[rhino]

I like the idea of this road being built, however I believe it shoud go straight over or under Main North Road, with only a slip lane from MNR (southbound) on to the new road (eastbound) and an exit from the new road (westbound) to MNR (northbound). The only reason for the new road would be for traffic to avoid Gepps Cross intersection (the "Grand Junction"?).

On reflection, perhaps a slip lane from the new road (westbound) on to MNR (southbound) could be justified. Perhaps.

[Hooligan]

Oh for the love of God, who cares.

If I just may point out - the 'experts' always refer to it verbally as 'three by three'. If we're going to get 'technical', mathematically speaking, 'by' also means times, multiplied, etc. So in the verbal context, and I quote you, Aidan, "using x to mean + is a mistake". Oh, the horror! Won't someone please think of the children! #sarcasm

So on the one hand, verbally its said three 'by' three, when 'technically' they actually mean three 'and' three, or three 'plus' three. Same goes for the written translation. I say 3x3, when I mean 3+3. At the end of the day, it's the same fucking thing. I don't imagine that you are going to get into the habit of correcting every single person whenever they verbally say it 'three by three'.

Even if 3x3 was to be interpreted literally, how would that configuration even work? Three lanes one way, three lanes the other way, and three lanes... err... just because? I don't think such a configuration even exists. 2+2 and 2x2 both equal four, so there's no argument there to be had.

And in the one instance where 4x4 were to be interpreted literally (16 lanes in total) doesn't exist either. As far as I'm aware, the 401 Freeway in Toronto - which is the widest freeway in the world comes close (14 lanes total) as it consists of seven lanes, broken up into two segments going one way, three lanes, and the other four, and another seven lanes in two segments of three and four lanes in the other direction. (see pic below) To some, this would be 4+3+3+4, or to others, 7+7 or 7x7.

If I buy a car that says it's a 4x4 on it does that mean I have 16 wheel drive?

[Aidan]

If I buy a car that says it's a 4x4 on it does that mean I have 16 wheel drive?

No. But nor does it mean you have 8 wheel drive.

(Really, was there any point in reviving a thread after nearly 6 months of inactivity just to ask that?)

[Hooligan]

Yes, yes it was.

And i'd do it again.

[monotonehell]

Yes, yes it was.

aidia.jpg (9.94 KiB) Viewed 5706 times

And i'd do it again.