See http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/south_road_upgrade/northsouthcorridor/south_road_upgrade_-_torrens_road_to_river_torrens
It looks on the video like the railway is to be rebuilt as an elevated railway from Coglin St to north of Elizabeth/ Queen with the station relocated further south. It shows it on the existing alignment so Outer Harbour line passengers appear to have a long shutdown to look forward to and Day Terrace and Euston Terrace will have a nice new viaduct or embankment across the road. If they are to shuttle to Woodville, the Port Adelaide Junction to Rosewater Junction section will definitely be needed.

Another failure of "planning" being subjugated by vote buying here - both the railway and South Road are going to provide travel experiences inspired by the Mad Mouse as the hodge podge of piecemeal upgrades take place along both corridors.

The Torrens-Torrens section of South Road for through traffic should be elevated above the local service roads, consistent with the section to the north of Regency Road. This would allow a high-level bridge to be constructed at the River Torrens end in the future, leading to one seamless connection from the Port River Expressway right through to Anzac Highway at the same elevation for through traffic (like a proper freeway!) rather than encountering big ramps and awkward interchanges where each poorly planned segment starts and finishes.

The impact on the rail line of putting the express section of South Road up in the air would be better too, it would allow the planned sub-surface line through the northern parklands and the Bowden-Brompton area to be extended to go under the ground-level local access roads for South Road. Below the surface would enable the building of a cheap and cheerful station more suitable for the current economic climate than the gold-plated monument in the sky shown on the artist's impressions of the current "plans."

Justapax

Considering that the NEXy and the SEXy are not finished yet the release does have an electoral smell about it. Note the federal Govt insignia.

Why can't they widen the existing road now to at least three lanes each way so we can at least have some interim improvement.

Apart for a few creek and drain crossings it is possible to have the South Road expressway part at a lower level all the way from the Sturt river to Regency road. It will have to rise to level for Brownhill Creek, Keswick Creek and the Torrens. These could coincide with exists.

Ian

It was previously announced in the federal budget (which was an election budget of course) so I don't think the timing, a couple of months on, is suspect.

A coherent plan with the local road underneath and the freeway above would be able to be done in stages (like the original Southern Expressway was) by simply directing traffic off at the last exit ramp before the elevated freeway stops. It would be a huge project to build the elevated freeway all the way from the currently-progressing section (PRExy to Regency Road) right through to Darlington, but that demands a can-do attitude instead of just throwing up the hands and saying "this is South Australia, it's too hard" and rolling over to accept piecemeal underpasses that don't hit any of the actual congestion points.

I'm confused by your reference to the Northern Expressway though, that was finished back in about 2009 or 2010 and is a very nice road to drive or cycle with the Stuart O'Grady Bikeway having been included in the corridor. Were you talking about the Northern Connector instead, which is still at the point of just a planning study?

Having seen the planning people work on this very project and others mentioned here, I have a little more understanding of the processes that occur when designing this sort of job. These are not a hodge-podge of piecemeal upgrades but careful thought out workable steps that can be attained as budget, time and materials allow. To blatantly say that there should be an elevated roadway all the way from Darlington to Wingfield would be pretty short sighted and also show that there is a lack of understanding of the problems and cost associated with this type of roadway. To say that it should have been a subway instead of a superway is also showing a lack of understanding. If we get the North-South Corridor in a progressive manner as such, then we are doing a lot better than never having anything at all, which is what has happened between the time of the MATS plan and the SEF until the SExy.

This is South Road. There is a very narrow corridor between buildings so construction will be challenging and a temporary deviation like the tram bridge looks out of the question.

[bigimg]http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/y501/62440/IMG_1144_zps57ad5f02.jpg[/bigimg]

This is at Croydon with Queen/Elizabeth in the foreground and South Road further on. The new station is to go in the section between the two roads.


[bigimg]http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/y501/62440/IMG_1143_zps46879732.jpg[/bigimg]

Having seen the planning people work on this very project and others mentioned here, I have a little more understanding of the processes that occur when designing this sort of job. These are not a hodge-podge of piecemeal upgrades but careful thought out workable steps that can be attained as budget, time and materials allow. To blatantly say that there should be an elevated roadway all the way from Darlington to Wingfield would be pretty short sighted and also show that there is a lack of understanding of the problems and cost associated with this type of roadway. To say that it should have been a subway instead of a superway is also showing a lack of understanding. If we get the North-South Corridor in a progressive manner as such, then we are doing a lot better than never having anything at all, which is what has happened between the time of the MATS plan and the SEF until the SExy.

Thankyou, saved me the trouble.

Rhino & nm39.

I have some idea of what the Government is doing, or feels forced to do.
The media make much of Mrs Kafoops being "forced" to move from the family home by some infrastructure venture and the Government feels it suffers. do some improvement so the bottle neck moves along to Mrs Kafoops and her complaints seem mean spirited and fall on deaf ears.

Ultimately South Road will have to be at lease 3 through lanes each way. The traffic is not commuters but substantial freight and service transport.

My proposal was to have the through lanes about 3 metres below surface with open to with surface level service roads each side. There would be crossings at about 1 km interval  with the surface roads rising to get to bridge deck height. At a few locations th ethrough road would need to rise to the surface level to get over water courses etc and to allow interchange. lowering the through road deals with the noise and visual issues. A continuous Gallipoli underpass.

My beef with the Government is not purchasing land when it becomes available and not putting a moratorium on building close to the South Road. There are so many car yards which should only be allowed to remain as "open" area and not be built on.
My other beef is the alignment of the Gallipoli underpass and the Tram Bridge; the latter is too narrow for future demand and it will cost a fortune to extend the opening.

The problem harks back to Scrafton who sought to deny that road traffic existed.

Ian

Ian, I wouldn't mind betting that when the "freeway" gets built in this area, it is in a trench, in line with the Gallipoli Underpass, and will pass under the tramline to the west of the current overpass. The current South Road, under the tram overpass, will be a service road for businesses on the eastern side of it. Businesses on the western side will go, to make room for the freeway. Therefore the alignment of the Gallipoli underpass is correct, as is the span of the tram overpass.

Ian, I wouldn't mind betting that when the "freeway" gets built in this area, it is in a trench, in line with the Gallipoli Underpass, and will pass under the tramline to the west of the current overpass. The current South Road, under the tram overpass, will be a service road for businesses on the eastern side of it. Businesses on the western side will go, to make room for the freeway. Therefore the alignment of the Gallipoli underpass is correct, as is the span of the tram overpass.

Sounds fair enough. Keep up the good work.

Unfortunately probably not in my lifetime.

My proposal was to have the through lanes about 3 metres below surface with open to with surface level service roads each side. There would be crossings at about 1 km interval  with the surface roads rising to get to bridge deck height. At a few locations th ethrough road would need to rise to the surface level to get over water courses etc and to allow interchange. lowering the through road deals with the noise and visual issues. A continuous Gallipoli underpass.

My beef with the Government is not purchasing land when it becomes available and not putting a moratorium on building close to the South Road. There are so many car yards which should only be allowed to remain as "open" area and not be built on.
My other beef is the alignment of the Gallipoli underpass and the Tram Bridge; the latter is too narrow for future demand and it will cost a fortune to extend the opening.

A mini Houston I59?  Seems like a reasonable proposal.


Not sure if you beef is exactly fair - as I'm pretty sure most of the properties already have that moratorium.

Rhino & nm39.

I have some idea of what the Government is doing, or feels forced to do.
The media make much of Mrs Kafoops being "forced" to move from the family home by some infrastructure venture and the Government feels it suffers. do some improvement so the bottle neck moves along to Mrs Kafoops and her complaints seem mean spirited and fall on deaf ears.

Ultimately South Road will have to be at lease 3 through lanes each way. The traffic is not commuters but substantial freight and service transport.

My proposal was to have the through lanes about 3 metres below surface with open to with surface level service roads each side. There would be crossings at about 1 km interval  with the surface roads rising to get to bridge deck height. At a few locations th ethrough road would need to rise to the surface level to get over water courses etc and to allow interchange. lowering the through road deals with the noise and visual issues. A continuous Gallipoli underpass.

My beef with the Government is not purchasing land when it becomes available and not putting a moratorium on building close to the South Road. There are so many car yards which should only be allowed to remain as "open" area and not be built on.
My other beef is the alignment of the Gallipoli underpass and the Tram Bridge; the latter is too narrow for future demand and it will cost a fortune to extend the opening.

The problem harks back to Scrafton who sought to deny that road traffic existed.

Ian

I have long thought the tram and Anzac Highway should have gone under South Road, as it stands should South Road need to be (get to be?) vertically duplicated, the current unders and overs are going to be just about a preclusion.

A mini Houston I59?  Seems like a reasonable proposal.


Not sure if you beef is exactly fair - as I'm pretty sure most of the properties already have that moratorium.

Houston is where I got the inspiration although many of their freeways are elevated in sections to cross other roads etc but then drop to ground level for exits. The service roads on either side are only one direction in line with the freeway lanes.

There is a major construction advantage in this design. Each section of freeway become useable the moment it is completed. Other freeways I have seen party build have users ending up in suburban streets until the whole project is complete which takes years. Politically a part complete in alignment freeway still gets runs on the board, particularly if it deals with even local bottlenecks. it allows money to be spent over a longer time and still have the benefits realised.