Roads & Rail

[AtD]

Such a freeway would only promote more people to drive into the city, adding further to the congestion.

[Shuz]

Its better ok. The new citylink drive or whatever its called has larger cpapacity to support it being a N/S freeway than the current alignment of south road now. Plus hal;f tyhe traffic on south road wants to get into the city anyway so wouldnt it just alleviate traffic? duh.

[AG]

The alignment that Q915 has marked out between Richmond and Hindmarsh is quite a good one, since there is more space to build an elevated or tunnelled freeway and ramps than in the current South Road corridor. Although I agree with what AtD has said, it shouldn't really be encouraging city bound traffic.

One way you could get around the issue of discouraging motorists using it for city journies is to strategically place the on and offramps around the freeway. As marked on the map, there could be an offramp for northbound traffic to exit to Park Terrace at Bowden and vice versa for the onramp. No exit southbound at Bowden. In a similar fashion, an offramp for southbound traffic heading onto Sir Donald Bradman Drive could be built only allowing traffic to head west, and vice versa for the onramp, with no access onto the freeway heading west on Sir Donald Bradman Drive from the city.

[Cruise]

I think this is a better alignment for a north South Freeway. South Road bypasses the CBD and requires a lot of properties to be acquired. my idea is to go along south road untill it gets to the new James Congdon road, the continue along the West parklands and over the bakewell bridge onto south road. The problem then though is getting back onto south road. A tunnel could be build all the way from Port Road back to South Road. Park Terrace and Fitzroy Terrace could also be upgraded allowing acces to the freeway from the North East.

I like it!
you could also continue the Fitzroy terrace free way to the O-bahn corridor to build the modbury freeway from MATS

[Omicron]

Poor Hindmarsh really doesn't have much luck, does it. First MATS, and now this.

Utilising the existing corridor of James Congdon Drive, and the recent extension past the Mile End Homemaker centre (which has plenty of room either side for expansion) is a good idea, though - as you say, property acquisition along South Road would be highly expensive.

That said, of course, I'd be demanding tram extensions into the western suburbs at the same time. A new freeway is no good if it just fills up entirely with cars.

[jimmy_2486]

The alignment that Q915 has marked out between Richmond and Hindmarsh is quite a good one, since there is more space to build an elevated or tunnelled freeway and ramps than in the current South Road corridor. Although I agree with what AtD has said, it shouldn't really be encouraging city bound traffic.

Well such a project will probably end up being tolled anyways, which will scare off the majority of commuters back onto PT. Hence only the wealthy or commercial vehicles will be using it.

Id say its a very good idea as it consists of a half done bypass and makes better use of it. If the government were to toll it, then not everyone will be using it and the revenue will be put for a better PT system for the rest of the commuters to use.

This kind of tactic works well in Sydney where they make it expensive to drive to work by tolling every damn freeway, and try to divert all arterial roads onto these freeways. This has resulted in everyone hating the drive, and using PT instead. Hence why Sydney has the highest percentage of PT usage in the country.

The problem here is that its just too damn easy to drive, hence people will continue to do so. I think we should convert the main arterial roads (south road, glen osmond road, maybe north east road) into a connected inner metro freeway network for the truckies, but have them tolled so they don't get used by all the commuters.

[The_Q915]

Can I ask why it is nessasary to force people to use public transport. Saying it will add to traffic congestion seems like an excuse . You people sound like a group of Sydney tunnel owner plotting to rip off motorists.

[Edgar]

I know! I have noticed that too!

Personally, I don't mind PT, if there is enough services around my area, e.g. close by stations, more frequent services, reliable, more network coverage to every major spots of the metropolitan, etc.

We just lack the technology and the efficiency of PT in SA, which I never find attractive enough not to drive my car to work/city or perhaps to anywhere else.

On top of that, it's not too damn easy for us to drive here in SA, it's too damn hard to use PT effectively in SA. The only real well-serviced areas for PT are the Western and the Southern suburbs.

What about the North, the East, the North West (considering the newly demand for Port Adelaide surrounding suburbs?)

[Shuz]

I only recently discovered that the stretch of South Road between S.D.B Drive and Torrens Road was only designed to be a minor arterial road, and not designated to be upgraded to either a major arterial or expressway standard. It works out for the best too, since South Road's more important heritage-respected properties run along this stretch too, compared to the industrial factories and cheap commercial tenancies that flank its southern and northern ends.

The idea to divert the road along CityWest and along Park Terrace with a tunnel to Torrens Road just before the Port Road intersection is a great one, and would be far more effective than the current proposal that stands with the tunnel from Grange to Torrens Road.

[urban]

Govt subsidised transit oriented developments based around an upgraded train system should be the immediate priority for improving PT usage. Nourlunga Centre, Keswick, Cheltenham, Salisbury and Elizabeth should be targeted for large scale medium to high density developments. Smaller scale medium density developments could happen at Goodwood, Oaklands Park, Daw Park.

An expanded tram service could then follow in areas too difficult to service by train.

[AtD]

Can I ask why it is nessasary to force people to use public transport. Saying it will add to traffic congestion seems like an excuse . You people sound like a group of Sydney tunnel owner plotting to rip off motorists.

Get with the 21st century.

[The_Q915]

Thank you ATD, I know about all these arguments. The fact is you are making statements with the precedent that you must find arguments to support public transport and have a fixed agenda.

Freeways Create Ghettos: Compleate nonsense and baseless. How does a Freeway create ghettos? should I post pictures of Ghettos in Hong Kong or another public transport dependent citys and claim public transport will cause this in Adelaide

Smog: Again should I post pictures of smog in New Yory city or Hong Kong. Public Tranport will not make any tangable difference in air quality.

Urban Sprawl: The wikipedia article linked is highly balance and based on facts not personal opinion . "Urban planners emphasize the qualitative aspects of sprawl such as the lack of transportation options and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods". People chose to live in a suburban enviroment knowing of its benifits and disbenifits. Those that critisise it also tend to be quite happy live in it.

[AtD]

Comparing Hong Kong and New York to Adelaide is like, well, comparing Los Angeles to Adelaide.

This argument has taken place on this forum many, many, many times before.

[AG]

Thank you ATD, I know about all these arguments. The fact is you are making statements with the precedent that you must find arguments to support public transport and have a fixed agenda.

Freeways Create Ghettos: Compleate nonsense and baseless. How does a Freeway create ghettos? should I post pictures of Ghettos in Hong Kong or another public transport dependent citys and claim public transport will cause this in Adelaide

Public transportation systems are not a cause for ghettos in major cities. Rather, they result from other issues such as economical building maintenance and poverty. Freeways don't create ghettos, but if planned poorly, they can effectively cut entire neighbourhoods in two and drive people out of these areas as they transform into undesirable autoalleys.

Smog: Again should I post pictures of smog in New Yory city or Hong Kong. Public Tranport will not make any tangable difference in air quality.

Absolute nonsense. Most of Hong Kong's pollution is not a result of it's own doing, rather it comes downstream from industrial Guangdong province in mainland China. Pollution does not discriminate borders. Hong Kong has one of the most heavily used public transportation systems in Asia, and takes an enormous amount of traffic pressure that would be placed on roads beyond capacity. Geography and topography also plays a significant role in pollution patterns in these cities.

Urban Sprawl: The wikipedia article linked is highly balance and based on facts not personal opinion . "Urban planners emphasize the qualitative aspects of sprawl such as the lack of transportation options and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods". People chose to live in a suburban enviroment knowing of its benifits and disbenifits. Those that critisise it also tend to be quite happy live in it.

This issue is more about trying to meet the needs of the people, economy and environment at the same time. It is what we call sustainable development. Urban sprawl on a large scale is not sustainable, it is detrimental to the environment and creates inefficiency in services and infrastructure. You'll also find that most outer suburbs are less well off than inner suburban areas because of the imbalance of services and also social isolation created by the lack of services.

[Shuz]

Basically along most of the route it is a sunken freeway, much like this one in L.A (see picture below) - except for the section where it comes out of the tunnel at Port Road intersection (ground level freeway) and then sinks again on the curve of the CityWest bypass. And also reverts to ground level freeway on the 5x5 section of Main South Road between Marion Road and the Ayliffes intersection.