News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

[PeFe]

Ho Really wrote

Here in Australia city living (in apartments) is best suited to singles and childless couples (whether they work in the city or not).

Please explain...

[Will]

We need to understand that the days of the city as a destination for private cars is coming to an end. The vision for Adelaide, as with most modern CBD is to a self sufficient entity with enough residents to support employment and business within its boundaries. As a destination from outer areas, it will only be feasble by public transport, at least from the near city areas with park and ride etc. Narrowing of roads and calming of traffic (lowering speed limits to a crawl) is a deliberate means to promote this. If this does not work then more draconian measures are introduced such as conjestion fees, and exorbitant parking fees to discourage private car use. Cars will be largely for us suburban dwellers

I recall reading that less than 15% of people use public transport to enter the city. Hence, making it difficult for people to enter the CBD by cars would turn it into a ghost town.

I for one would stop going to the central market. There is no way I'm going to lug 20kg worth of fruit and veg on a bus.

[mattblack]

We need to understand that the days of the city as a destination for private cars is coming to an end. The vision for Adelaide, as with most modern CBD is to a self sufficient entity with enough residents to support employment and business within its boundaries. As a destination from outer areas, it will only be feasble by public transport, at least from the near city areas with park and ride etc. Narrowing of roads and calming of traffic (lowering speed limits to a crawl) is a deliberate means to promote this. If this does not work then more draconian measures are introduced such as conjestion fees, and exorbitant parking fees to discourage private car use. Cars will be largely for us suburban dwellers

I recall reading that less than 15% of people use public transport to enter the city. Hence, making it difficult for people to enter the CBD by cars would turn it into a ghost town.

I for one would stop going to the central market. There is no way I'm going to lug 20kg worth of fruit and veg on a bus.

You guys are making this sound like an either or argument. It is not.

Bus lanes are being introduced (reducing traffic lanes) in the CBD, reducing delays faced by buses, making the system more reliable and encouraging new commuters to jump on board. New trains are coming online with much increased frequency for the same reasons. Nobody is asking you to lug 20kgs of shopping on a bus but you must in turn be willing to pay more for parking and have to abide with 40km hour speed limits. We also have to get over the mentality of 'the fastest way to a destination is in a straight line", if we put in new regulations to minimise the 30% of cars that pass through the city without having any business in the city that would free up more road space for cars that have a genuine need to be there (e.g. shopping).

The point is that the paradime is shifting from a car orientated CBD to a people focused CBD (with more cycling lanes, larger footpaths, laneway activation and reduced speed limits). This is not saying that we should ban cars but more that we should cater more for pedestrians and the people that use the CBD for work, recreation and living. I heard a prominent person within government speak about this change and the question was asked 'What about congestion that might be caused by these changes?'. The answer nearly gave everyone in the roads department a heart attack. Congestion will be caused, we're not worried about it, it will make people actively think about the mode of transport they are using and the route they are taking to achieve their daily activities for the first time. I had a smile on my face, many didn't.

When people start to consciously think about the trip they need to take instead of going on auto pilot, that's when we we see change occurring .......... behavioral change.

[Ho Really]

Ho Really wrote

Here in Australia city living (in apartments) is best suited to singles and childless couples (whether they work in the city or not).

Please explain...

LOL...The reason why I made this statement is that culturally we are used to living in detached housing. That families (those with children) would find it harder to change (or adapt) their ways. In Europe (and elsewhere) where apartment living has been around for years it has already been part of their lives. This is why it would suit those that have no children best. Granted this is my opinion and it is not based on statistics, not so much empirically (although I have made observations) but anecdotally.

Cheers

[Ho Really]

We need to understand that the days of the city as a destination for private cars is coming to an end. The vision for Adelaide, as with most modern CBD is to a self sufficient entity with enough residents to support employment and business within its boundaries. As a destination from outer areas, it will only be feasble by public transport, at least from the near city areas with park and ride etc. Narrowing of roads and calming of traffic (lowering speed limits to a crawl) is a deliberate means to promote this. If this does not work then more draconian measures are introduced such as conjestion fees, and exorbitant parking fees to discourage private car use. Cars will be largely for us suburban dwellers

I recall reading that less than 15% of people use public transport to enter the city. Hence, making it difficult for people to enter the CBD by cars would turn it into a ghost town.

I for one would stop going to the central market. There is no way I'm going to lug 20kg worth of fruit and veg on a bus.

Well said, Will. Your example of the Central Market hits the issue on the head. Although I have stopped driving now for three and half years and am an advocate for good public transport, walking and cycling etc., I am a firm believer that you need to give people the freedom of choice whether they want to use public transport or not to get to their destination. Adelaide has been blessed with the best designed city in Australia. Colonel Light designed it for people and the horse and buggy not for cars, buses or trams. He was way ahead of his time laying down such wide boulevards. So why now do we have to close, narrow, impede traffic in SOME streets? In my previous post I said to leave certain thoroughfares open. Strike the right balance. What is so hard about that?

Cheers

[Ho Really]

[...]

Bus lanes are being introduced (reducing traffic lanes) in the CBD, reducing delays faced by buses, making the system more reliable and encouraging new commuters to jump on board. New trains are coming online with much increased frequency for the same reasons. Nobody is asking you to lug 20kgs of shopping on a bus but you must in turn be willing to pay more for parking and have to abide with 40km hour speed limits. We also have to get over the mentality of 'the fastest way to a destination is in a straight line", if we put in new regulations to minimise the 30% of cars that pass through the city without having any business in the city that would free up more road space for cars that have a genuine need to be there (e.g. shopping).

1.Bus lanes are a knee jerk reaction. Delays will still happen, but elsewhere.
2.Reliability is only one factor. Others are, frequency, capacity, itineraries and cost.
3.Trains are a non-issue in this argument.
4.Will has every right to lug 20kgs from the Market if he wants. To do shopping there and keep people employed there. He should not be penalised by higher parking fees! The 40kph speed limit is a furfie.
5.A straight line IS the quickest way to get to your destination unless you put obstacles there (or you do space travel).
6.People don't want regulations and they don't want to be sent miles away to get to their destination.
7.Maybe you should ask the city traders whether they'd be happy if you took out that 30 per cent off the streets. When I drove I would go through the city to do business elsewhere, but there were many times when I'd park and stop, do shopping or just relax there.

The point is that the paradime is shifting from a car orientated CBD to a people focused CBD (with more cycling lanes, larger footpaths, laneway activation and reduced speed limits). This is not saying that we should ban cars but more that we should cater more for pedestrians and the people that use the CBD for work, recreation and living. I heard a prominent person within government speak about this change and the question was asked 'What about congestion that might be caused by these changes?'. The answer nearly gave everyone in the roads department a heart attack. Congestion will be caused, we're not worried about it, it will make people actively think about the mode of transport they are using and the route they are taking to achieve their daily activities for the first time. I had a smile on my face, many didn't.

When people start to consciously think about the trip they need to take instead of going on auto pilot, that's when we we see change occurring .......... behavioral change.

No one here is against giving more of the city to pedestrians. I'm all for that, but they need to plan it right. I've made my point several times already in a couple of earlier posts.

This prominent person within government has a flawed view. Not worried about congestion? Is this person a fool? People won't change their mode of transport if you force them or if many of the issues aren't resolved. They won't change their habits if they need to use a car for business, shopping, community work or leisure while in the city or passing through. If they need to carry 20kgs or more like Will, how are you going to help them?

Yes, matt, some people will consciously use public transport for whatever reason: be it because it is handy for them, or reliable enough, or because they believe it does good to the environment. Education is one thing, forcing it by default is another.

Cheers

[mattblack]

[...]

Bus lanes are being introduced (reducing traffic lanes) in the CBD, reducing delays faced by buses, making the system more reliable and encouraging new commuters to jump on board. New trains are coming online with much increased frequency for the same reasons. Nobody is asking you to lug 20kgs of shopping on a bus but you must in turn be willing to pay more for parking and have to abide with 40km hour speed limits. We also have to get over the mentality of 'the fastest way to a destination is in a straight line", if we put in new regulations to minimise the 30% of cars that pass through the city without having any business in the city that would free up more road space for cars that have a genuine need to be there (e.g. shopping).

1.Bus lanes are a knee jerk reaction. Delays will still happen, but elsewhere.
2.Reliability is only one factor. Others are, frequency, capacity, itineraries and cost.
3.Trains are a non-issue in this argument.
4.Will has every right to lug 20kgs from the Market if he wants. To do shopping there and keep people employed there. He should not be penalised by higher parking fees! The 40kph speed limit is a furfie.
5.A straight line IS the quickest way to get to your destination unless you put obstacles there (or you do space travel).
6.People don't want regulations and they don't want to be sent miles away to get to their destination.
7.Maybe you should ask the city traders whether they'd be happy if you took out that 30 per cent off the streets. When I drove I would go through the city to do business elsewhere, but there were many times when I'd park and stop, do shopping or just relax there.

1. Most of the delays would occur as you approach the CBD as buses come into conflict with increased traffic and stop lights. I agree that this will not fix the entire network but if traversing through the CBD are dramatically decreased then perceptions about use of public transport will start to change.
2.Agree
3. Why? You need to look at the transport system as a whole not individual entities.
4. Adelaide's parking charges are amongst the cheapest in the country + we have over 40,000 of them. An increase in fees should be seen within this context and the message that there are alternatives to driving in and parking all day if you can accommodate this (e.g office workers). Like I said people who have legitimate business in the city can still do this. To show the point the ACC recently undertook a trial period of having a flat fee of $6 for 3hrs (a reduction in fees) in their U-Parks but increased the fees for longer term stays. 40kms hr will be a reality within a year, probably sooner. The ACC are well on the way to implementation to this and the benefits that it brings.
5.The reality is that there is obstacles in the city, so no a straight line is not always the quickest and will be less and less likely in the future
6. If it saves them time they will
7. The point is not to change everyone's behavior overnight but to give them viable alternatives. You have every right to continue to drive the way you are now into the distant future, just don't. complain when it becomes harder and harder to do so

The point is that the paradime is shifting from a car orientated CBD to a people focused CBD (with more cycling lanes, larger footpaths, laneway activation and reduced speed limits). This is not saying that we should ban cars but more that we should cater more for pedestrians and the people that use the CBD for work, recreation and living. I heard a prominent person within government speak about this change and the question was asked 'What about congestion that might be caused by these changes?'. The answer nearly gave everyone in the roads department a heart attack. Congestion will be caused, we're not worried about it, it will make people actively think about the mode of transport they are using and the route they are taking to achieve their daily activities for the first time. I had a smile on my face, many didn't.

When people start to consciously think about the trip they need to take instead of going on auto pilot, that's when we we see change occurring .......... behavioral change.

No one here is against giving more of the city to pedestrians. I'm all for that, but they need to plan it right. I've made my point several times already in a couple of earlier posts.

This prominent person within government has a flawed view. Not worried about congestion? Is this person a fool? People won't change their mode of transport if you force them or if many of the issues aren't resolved. They won't change their habits if they need to use a car for business, shopping, community work or leisure while in the city or passing through. If they need to carry 20kgs or more like Will, how are you going to help them?

He's a considered a leader in the field with tried and tested methods. I doubt you are of the same ilk. People with legit business in the CBD will always have the option of driving if they need or want to.

Yes, matt, some people will consciously use public transport for whatever reason: be it because it is handy for them, or reliable enough, or because they believe it does good to the environment. Education is one thing, forcing it by default is another.

Know one is forcing you to do anything, its about giving you more choice.

Cheers

Cheers to you!

[mattblack]

[...]

Bus lanes are being introduced (reducing traffic lanes) in the CBD, reducing delays faced by buses, making the system more reliable and encouraging new commuters to jump on board. New trains are coming online with much increased frequency for the same reasons. Nobody is asking you to lug 20kgs of shopping on a bus but you must in turn be willing to pay more for parking and have to abide with 40km hour speed limits. We also have to get over the mentality of 'the fastest way to a destination is in a straight line", if we put in new regulations to minimise the 30% of cars that pass through the city without having any business in the city that would free up more road space for cars that have a genuine need to be there (e.g. shopping).

1.Bus lanes are a knee jerk reaction. Delays will still happen, but elsewhere.
2.Reliability is only one factor. Others are, frequency, capacity, itineraries and cost.
3.Trains are a non-issue in this argument.
4.Will has every right to lug 20kgs from the Market if he wants. To do shopping there and keep people employed there. He should not be penalised by higher parking fees! The 40kph speed limit is a furfie.
5.A straight line IS the quickest way to get to your destination unless you put obstacles there (or you do space travel).
6.People don't want regulations and they don't want to be sent miles away to get to their destination.
7.Maybe you should ask the city traders whether they'd be happy if you took out that 30 per cent off the streets. When I drove I would go through the city to do business elsewhere, but there were many times when I'd park and stop, do shopping or just relax there.

1. Most of the delays would occur as you approach the CBD as buses come into conflict with increased traffic and stop lights. I agree that this will not fix the entire network but if the time that it takes to traverse through the CBD is dramatically decreased then perceptions about use of public transport will start to change.
2.Agree
3. Why? You need to look at the transport system as a whole not individual entities.
4. Adelaide's parking charges are amongst the cheapest in the country + we have over 40,000 of them. An increase in fees should be seen within this context and the message that there are alternatives to driving in and parking all day if you can accommodate this (e.g office workers). Like I said people who have legitimate business in the city can still do this. To show the point the ACC recently undertook a trial period of having a flat fee of $6 for 3hrs (a reduction in fees) in their U-Parks but increased the fees for longer term stays. 40kph will be a reality within a year, probably sooner. The ACC are well on the way to implementation to this and the benefits that it brings.
5.The reality is that there is obstacles in the city, so no a straight line is not always the quickest and will be less and less likely in the future
6. If it saves them time they will
7. The point is not to change everyone's behavior overnight but to give them viable alternatives. You have every right to continue to drive the way you are now into the distant future, just don't. complain when it becomes harder and harder to do so

This prominent person within government has a flawed view. Not worried about congestion? Is this person a fool? People won't change their mode of transport if you force them or if many of the issues aren't resolved. They won't change their habits if they need to use a car for business, shopping, community work or leisure while in the city or passing through. If they need to carry 20kgs or more like Will, how are you going to help them?

He's a considered a leader in the field with tried and tested methods. I doubt you are of the same ilk. People with legit business in the CBD will always have the option of driving if they need or want to.

Yes, matt, some people will consciously use public transport for whatever reason: be it because it is handy for them, or reliable enough, or because they believe it does good to the environment. Education is one thing, forcing it by default is another.

Knowone is forcing you to do anything, its about giving you more choice.

Cheers

Cheers to you!

[claybro]

Adelaide CBD will not turn into a ghost town by discouraging people from driving their cars there. If you want to view CBD ghost towns, look to the USA and the cities that failed to curb car use there. Giant skyscapers surrounded by giant carparks and big roads. All empty after 6pm.Here the council is planning for additional 10's of thousands of permanent residents. These residents, plus people who commute to work will be the main provider of activity in the CBD, and yes they will probably visit the Central Market. When us suburbanites have the time on the weekend to take a casual drive into the city for the market or go for clubbing/pubbing(designated driver provided) or whatever, traffic conjestion should not be a major issue. No one here, or in council is seriosly advocating removing cars from the CBD altogether, but the balance city wide, is still well in favour of cars, and when there are an additional 30odd thousdand residents along with extra daytime workers etc, the current level of car use INTO the city will have to stop as there simply will not be enough room for all that traffic no matter how wide the roads, or the number of parking spaces.

[Ho Really]

1. Most of the delays would occur as you approach the CBD as buses come into conflict with increased traffic and stop lights. I agree that this will not fix the entire network but if the time that it takes to traverse through the CBD is dramatically decreased then perceptions about use of public transport will start to change.

Dramatically decreased? Perceptions? If you want decreased times put in an underground.

3. Why? You need to look at the transport system as a whole not individual entities.

Trains don't run in the CBD streets that's why I said they are a non-issue (in the context of car traffic).

4. Adelaide's parking charges are amongst the cheapest in the country + we have over 40,000 of them. An increase in fees should be seen within this context and the message that there are alternatives to driving in and parking all day if you can accommodate this (e.g office workers). Like I said people who have legitimate business in the city can still do this. To show the point the ACC recently undertook a trial period of having a flat fee of $6 for 3hrs (a reduction in fees) in their U-Parks but increased the fees for longer term stays. 40kph will be a reality within a year, probably sooner. The ACC are well on the way to implementation to this and the benefits that it brings.

Maybe people will take their business elsewhere. Fees are a double-edged sword. The 40kph limit may be good for some streets but not for the few thoroughfares I've advocated, like Grote-Wakefield, where it can remain at 50kph.

5.The reality is that there is obstacles in the city, so no a straight line is not always the quickest and will be less and less likely in the future

By force of course.

6. If it saves them time they will

Unless they are congested because they have been forced to take the long way round...emh?

7. The point is not to change everyone's behavior overnight but to give them viable alternatives. You have every right to continue to drive the way you are now into the distant future, just don't. complain when it becomes harder and harder to do so

Sure, there will be alternatives, but not all will take advantage of them because it won't suit their needs. This is why the planners need to leave some thoroughfares open. Give people that choice.

He's a considered a leader in the field with tried and tested methods. I doubt you are of the same ilk. People with legit business in the CBD will always have the option of driving if they need or want to.

I don't have to be of any kind of ilk to prove anything. Logic tells me that if this person gets his/her way a lot of people will have to take longer journeys on a possibly congested ring route. People that cannot take public transport for one reason or another.

Knowone is forcing you to do anything, its about giving you more choice.

While taking other choices away. How about putting them all together. Doesn't that equal even more choice?

Cheers

[mattblack]

Sorry about the double post before.

Ho Really. Its clear that I or anybody else wont be able to persuade you into changing your (or many, many, may others) travel behavior here and to be honest viable alternatives at this stage still need a lot of work. Things are changing though, be prepared to reassess your choices in the future because transport policy will aim to mitigate through traffic in the CBD as much as possible. If you don't want to change to modes of transport that might service your needs or change the route that you currently use, well that's fine, its a free world, just be prepared to sit in more congested streets (especially in peak hour) with buses and cyclists whizzing past you on dedicated lanes and traffic light phases that favor pedestrians not cars.

Big changes happening in traffic management with the ACC next year.

[Ho Really]

[...]

its a free world

[...]

No it ain't, especially when government or councils go too far without letting the people vote on it.

Cheers

[claybro]

Ho, i understand your ,and many frustration with the sudden rate of big changes. You are right, it is not a free world, but on that point, as a community after 50 years we are finally coming to understand the true cost of personalised car transport. We either drastically reduce reliance on private car journeys into conjested areas, or pay a huge and increasing cost to provide for these cars. Most poeople would not vote for these changes, but will benefit from a better living environment because of them. This change in the Adelaide CBD has been proven worldwide over again in many former car dependant cities, which have gone on to become some of the most liveable cities in the world. Vancouver Canada is one such example. So long as public transport upgrades keep pace, but that is another arguement.

[rubberman]

Hi Ho,

I sympathise with the issue of being forced to do something in this situation. It is not pleasant. However, there are a couple of issues: first, the City of Adelaide is a council just like any other, and people who live in the City have a big say in what goes on. Even though many of them are NIMBYs and couldn't care less about people wanting to commute into the city, they are ratepayers, and therefore have a big say in the way traffic works in the city. They don't like to be forced to have cars from outside clogging up their streets, any more than you like being forced to drive through restricted and convoluted routes to get to where you want to go...and they have the City Council vote. Second point: like it or not, the more and more cars come into the city, the more congested it gets, and at some point, just the congestion is going to force you to crappy roundaboutation. So, to me, it is inevitable that there is going to be drastic change, the question is: how can we make that change as painless as possible?

Just sticking our heads in the sand until the traffic situation gets to be dreadful, is the most painful. If we do that, at some point, the ACC is going to be overrun by its nimby constituents, and you will find all sorts of culs-de-sac, one way streeting, traffic calming just about everywhere - and if you think the present proposals are driving you nuts, you just wait and see what the nimbys will do to you - legally in their own city. Also, if we leave it till it gets so bad, then doing anything about it will be even more painful - eg if we put in new tramways to ease congestion, during construction, those streets will be half closed - won't that be nice?

Better to do something now, painful though it might be, than to wait to have either nimbyism or total gridlock and then try to worry about it.

[Ho Really]

Fellas, putting the horse in front of the cart is not the right way of doing things. I foresee issues for those living in the east and west who want to travel across town in their vehicle. North-south won't be as bad. If Government goes ahead with increased density in the east and west (and even north and south) they will need to have public transport down to a tee. However that still won't stop people using their own car in these new built up areas when it is required, and that includes the residential areas of the CBD. With more people there, there is more of a chance of someone using their car. You still need one or two thoroughfares strategically positioned.

Penalising people because they want to use their car is going against their Human Rights, and yes I will go as far as saying that. Just in case you get any ideas, don't compare this with what is happening in the USA about their rights to bear arms. That is a totally different kettle of fish and in my opinion not a Human Rights issue. Arms are for killing, even if used with good intention, full stop.

Another issue is that of population. Can it be sustainable? How far can you build up Adelaide CBD and its suburbs before you turn it into a real mess? When do you draw the line? These questions are more important than narrowing streets and improving public transport, because if you cannot sustain a city, it will turn on itself.

As every city is different, you cannot compare Adelaide with Vancouver, Portland (Oregon), Bilbao, etc... Adelaide has been planned with several wide boulevards for a good reason. Now that we can actually use these boulevards we're thinking about doing the opposite. Look at Paris. Will they choke the Champs Elysee? Think about it.

Cheers