[U/C] Northern Connector | 14km | $1b

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#61 Post by monotonehell » Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:49 pm

AtD wrote:
rhino wrote:While turniong Port Wakefield Road into a freeway might seem like a cheaper option at first, there are other things to be considered. Currently PWR is lined with businesses, which need access. The current road alignment means that land will have to be purchased to make the access roads, so that needs to be added to the cost - you can't just squeeze them in - there are standards which need to be adhered to. These service roads would need to be paved, 2-way roads, because of the amount of trucks and other traffic which will be using them - so, you need to buy up enough private land to put in 2 new paved 2-way roads. The brand new freeway option is looking better, and is only enhanced by putting the freight railways down the middle.
Most of the section of Port Wakefield Road in question (north of Salisbury Highway) has vacant land either side. While there are a few businesses, many are already on service roads. For example, have a look at Google Maps
Is it the possible that the western location was chosen because of all the housing to the east of Pt Wakefield Road? Looking at the Google Map location you posted? (Ie noise considerations, trucks and rail)
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#62 Post by AtD » Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:41 pm

monotonehell wrote:Is it the possible that the western location was chosen because of all the housing to the east of Pt Wakefield Road? Looking at the Google Map location you posted? (Ie noise considerations, trucks and rail)
Having lived in the area, the noise is already quite loud from the existing rail line. It isn't the best socio-economic area, and it's an ultra safe ALP seat, so to be honest I can't imagine the government giving two stuffs about that! Then again, it is Mike Rann's own seat so it could cause some bad press. Would soundproofing be more expensive than the compulsory acquisition?

User avatar
adam73837
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: The wilderness being sustained by nutrients in the air and powering my laptop with positive energy

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#63 Post by adam73837 » Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:13 pm

crawf wrote:Oh I love the outbursts state liberal supporters come up with, btw its metre
I'm not a state liberal supporter and I'm not a state labor supporter either. However I do know that building a freeway road beside an already freeway standard road is a waste of money. It can be stated that the same issue occured with the Southern Expressway. Why build a freeway standard road beside an already freeway standard road?
Firstly, Main South Road goes through urban areas, so we couldn't transform it into a freeway. Meanwhile, Port Wakefield Road isn't surrounded by rural areas on either side and there are few traffic lights along it which are situated on flat landscapes so we can build overpasses, etc and build urban roads to go along PW Road as to divert the urban traffic onto them, so that they eventually meet at the main roads (eg. salisbury highway, bolivar road, waterloo corner road, etc.)

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#64 Post by monotonehell » Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:00 am

adam73837 wrote:
crawf wrote:Oh I love the outbursts state liberal supporters come up with, btw its metre
I'm not a state liberal supporter and I'm not a state labor supporter either. However I do know that building a freeway road beside an already freeway standard road is a waste of money. It can be stated that the same issue occured with the Southern Expressway. Why build a freeway standard road beside an already freeway standard road?
Firstly, Main South Road goes through urban areas, so we couldn't transform it into a freeway. Meanwhile, Port Wakefield Road isn't surrounded by rural areas on either side and there are few traffic lights along it which are situated on flat landscapes so we can build overpasses, etc and build urban roads to go along PW Road as to divert the urban traffic onto them, so that they eventually meet at the main roads (eg. salisbury highway, bolivar road, waterloo corner road, etc.)
I just had a closer look at the relevant section of Port Wakefield Road and the properties either side of it and there's a lot of existing residential and slated residential, as well as established businesses all very close to the road. I can see why they discounted turning it into a freeway, the proposed route is the path of least resistance in terms of quantity of forced acquisition and isolation.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#65 Post by Omicron » Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:09 am

monotonehell wrote:
adam73837 wrote: I'm not a state liberal supporter and I'm not a state labor supporter either. However I do know that building a freeway road beside an already freeway standard road is a waste of money. It can be stated that the same issue occured with the Southern Expressway. Why build a freeway standard road beside an already freeway standard road?
Firstly, Main South Road goes through urban areas, so we couldn't transform it into a freeway. Meanwhile, Port Wakefield Road isn't surrounded by rural areas on either side and there are few traffic lights along it which are situated on flat landscapes so we can build overpasses, etc and build urban roads to go along PW Road as to divert the urban traffic onto them, so that they eventually meet at the main roads (eg. salisbury highway, bolivar road, waterloo corner road, etc.)
I just had a closer look at the relevant section of Port Wakefield Road and the properties either side of it and there's a lot of existing residential and slated residential, as well as established businesses all very close to the road. I can see why they discounted turning it into a freeway, the proposed route is the path of least resistance in terms of quantity of forced acquisition and isolation.
And I'm sure Mr. Rann doesn't want any more angry banners popping up on businesses like those around the South Rd. construction site.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#66 Post by monotonehell » Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:12 am

Omicron wrote:And I'm sure Mr. Rann doesn't want any more angry banners popping up on businesses like those around the South Rd. construction site.
Zacery!
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 130 times

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#67 Post by Wayno » Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:37 am

Ho Really wrote:
Wayno wrote:The mining companies won't wait. They will build their own roads (or expand existing ones) where necessary with little impact on their profits. The SA Govt knows this and is playing a waiting game as these "free" roads will benefit all south aussies later on...
Are you saying the private companies are going to fully fund the building of (future) public roads? Those roads on mining leases may well be privately built and possibly those to mining towns, but the rest would have to be either on a PPP basis or fully public.
Cheers
yep, there's a several examples on the Eyre Peninsula where "mining company funded" roads are now purely used as public roads. Granted, these are not main freeways used by 1000's of people daily - but they are essentially free and serve a useful public purpose. The point being that mining companies typically make huge profits and are under pressure from their major shareholders to deliver profits now. How often do you hear about mining companies threatening "not to start a mine" because of a lack of govt infrastructure? Instead they just get on with it and sell themselves as being good corporate citizens.

Roads closer to existing townships are a different story. As mining traffic increases the public complains and the govt is forced to take action (e.g. PPP approach).
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2937
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 115 times

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#68 Post by rhino » Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:13 am

AtD wrote:
rhino wrote:While turniong Port Wakefield Road into a freeway might seem like a cheaper option at first, there are other things to be considered. Currently PWR is lined with businesses, which need access. The current road alignment means that land will have to be purchased to make the access roads, so that needs to be added to the cost - you can't just squeeze them in - there are standards which need to be adhered to. These service roads would need to be paved, 2-way roads, because of the amount of trucks and other traffic which will be using them - so, you need to buy up enough private land to put in 2 new paved 2-way roads. The brand new freeway option is looking better, and is only enhanced by putting the freight railways down the middle.
Most of the section of Port Wakefield Road in question (north of Salisbury Highway) has vacant land either side. While there are a few businesses, many are already on service roads. For example, have a look at Google Maps
Looking at the stretch of PWR in question, on Google Maps, it is apparent that not all of the businesses along that stretch are serviced by service roads already, and most of the service roads that do exist come off PWR anyway, which they can't do it it's made into a freeway - they have to continue, through land that will have to be aquired, until they reach another public road. On the aerial photos, it looks like these service roads are gravel, so they'll also need to be sealed.

Then there's the question of what to do with all the public roads that currently enter/exit Port Wakefield Road? (Taylors Rd, St Kilda Rd, Waterloo Corner Rd, Bolivar Rd, Martins Rd, at least). Dead-end them? Build exits? The fact that there are businesses along there means that traffic will need to be able to access PWR, or else the service roads will have to cope with a lot more traffic than your average service road, and will become major roads in their own right. The Northern Connector will have one exit along it's length, at Waterloo Corner Road, and possibly another one near Mawson Lakes.
cheers,
Rhino

User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#69 Post by Cruise » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:24 am

To be totally selfish i give this project my full support. Because it would mean i would just about have a freeway from my front door to my work place. (Elizabeth to Port Adelaide)

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2297
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head
Has thanked: 861 times
Been thanked: 108 times

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#70 Post by Ho Really » Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:25 pm

Fellas I'm not against this proposal per se, it is just that I'm not too keen on wasting money on an unnecessary new dual-carriageway. Wouldn't it be better to encourage freight movement to and from Port Adelaide onto rail? Then if there is a minor increase in freight it shouldn't affect an upgraded freeway-style Port Wakefield Road. I also can't see why some properties on Port Wakefield Road be acquired and relocated, especially those around entry and exit points. Surely it would cost less than it would for an entirely new road. We need to look at all the facts and get them from the gov.

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#71 Post by monotonehell » Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:05 pm

Ho Really wrote:Fellas I'm not against this proposal per se, it is just that I'm not too keen on wasting money on an unnecessary new dual-carriageway. Wouldn't it be better to encourage freight movement to and from Port Adelaide onto rail? Then if there is a minor increase in freight it shouldn't affect an upgraded freeway-style Port Wakefield Road. I also can't see why some properties on Port Wakefield Road be acquired and relocated, especially those around entry and exit points. Surely it would cost less than it would for an entirely new road. We need to look at all the facts and get them from the gov.

Cheers
  • The rail line needs to be relocated, that's a given. So the prep cost can be shared.
  • What would the difference in cost between building a freeway on top of Pt Wakefield Road compared to on a virgin site be? I'd guess minimal.
  • While the freeway's being built we'd still need an alternate route.
  • Upgrading Pt Wakefield road is an option but would require the acquisition of a lot more established properties - both business, residential (and isn't there a caravan park there?). I'd say the greater cost of acquisition would be prohibitive.
  • Pt Wakefield Road has become an important local road as the area has been developed in the past two decades. Turning it into a freeway would necessitate the construction of service roads and more exits bringing the cost up.
Of course as you said, we're all just whistling dixie unless the govt publishes their findings and reasons. :lol:
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
jimmy_2486
Legendary Member!
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Glenelg-Marion Area

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#72 Post by jimmy_2486 » Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:22 pm

Me thinks the gov wants to toll this new road and salisbury hwy, hence why they are giving road users options on 2 roads.... Maybe its part of their grand master plan of connecting southern expressway (dual carriage version) to northern expressway and to port river expressway with a toll. Those not wanting to pay can use pt wakefield road/main north road/goodwood road/main south road etc etc and get stuck in the mess...

Melbournes Hume Hwy has a freeway alongside it (The Hume Fwy) so I guess it could work here.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#73 Post by monotonehell » Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:32 pm

jimmy_2486 wrote:Me thinks the gov wants to toll this new road and salisbury hwy, hence why they are giving road users options on 2 roads.... Maybe its part of their grand master plan of connecting southern expressway (dual carriage version) to northern expressway and to port river expressway with a toll. Those not wanting to pay can use pt wakefield road/main north road/goodwood road/main south road etc etc and get stuck in the mess...

Melbournes Hume Hwy has a freeway alongside it (The Hume Fwy) so I guess it could work here.
Is this based on MHS's faulty reading between the lines of Conlon's "...these roads pay for themselves..." as "I'm gunna make it a toll road! Bwahaah!"; or just some sneaky suspicion?

It seems the primary focus is for freight. Would they toll a freight-way? Possibly... hrmz.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
jimmy_2486
Legendary Member!
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Glenelg-Marion Area

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#74 Post by jimmy_2486 » Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:46 pm

monotonehell wrote: It seems the primary focus is for freight. Would they toll a freight-way? Possibly... hrmz.
What about those who travel cross city for work or visiting reles....you could effectively cut upto half of your travelling time (maybe more) for the cost of a fee. If I had to visit someone in Noarlunga and I lived in Elizabeth, id drive a bit outta my way to hop on it once it was all connected up. You might actually save more in petrol because all of the lights youd be stopping at etc.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2937
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 115 times

[U/C] Re: #Proposed : 'Northern Connector'

#75 Post by rhino » Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:12 pm

monotonehell wrote: Is this based on MHS's faulty reading between the lines of Conlon's "...these roads pay for themselves..." as "I'm gunna make it a toll road! Bwahaah!"; or just some sneaky suspicion?

It seems the primary focus is for freight. Would they toll a freight-way? Possibly... hrmz.
MHS was scaremongering - you couldn't even call it Reading Between the Lines. His first reaction on hearing the plan would have been "How can I scare the population off this idea?"
cheers,
Rhino

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests