Roads & Rail

[The_Q915]

See what I mean? Suddenly I'm a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that car companies advertise, and suddenly PT needs to be carbon neutral to be creditable.

What are you and rhino trying to suggest then. The reason for people not wanting to use other forms of transport is because of car company advertisments. A multinational conspiracy is the mainstream reason given by the public transport crusade to the demise of public tranpsort. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mo ... conspiracy

You probably come from the school of thought that think Melbournes trams cause pollution caus they block cars, yet its the cars itself that produce the pollution.

I never said rip up Melbournes tram lines. You must of gotten the idea people think that from a current affair. I suggest you look outside what you see in news reports and get an idea of what the real world is like.


This will disapoint people but public trannsport will never be an effective transport solution for Adelaide. I find that the idea it is the way of the future originates from these Jane Jacobs/ Wikipeida Sprawl article thinking people that are not happy with the way things are going now. They think having people live in suburbs makes them fat, lazy unsociable etc. and they want it to change. The ideas that it is one of the best ways to prevent climate change, and we will all be breating fresh air if we get rid of the cars are just excuses. I have spent the last year studying urban planning and have listened to all of the arguments for public transport.

There are uses for public transport. But the best transport solution for Adelaide is better roads including a north-south freeway. Little research into how public tansport on a large scale can work effectivly in Adeliade has been done. Just because some planners have herd about how effectivly public transport has worked in switzerland does not mean it will work in Adelaide. Forcing people to use public transport is of little benifit to anyone.

[rhino]

See what I mean? Suddenly I'm a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that car companies advertise, and suddenly PT needs to be carbon neutral to be creditable.

What are you and rhino trying to suggest then. The reason for people not wanting to use other forms of transport is because of car company advertisments. A multinational conspiracy is the mainstream reason given by the public transport crusade to the demise of public tranpsort. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mo ... conspiracy

Personally, I'm not truing to suggest anything of the sort.

Having said that, I do believe that a north-south freeway will clog up within a few years, just as the freeways in Perth have. I would rather see good transport corridors provided for freight, and a better and more efficient public transport system supplied for commuters.

I live in a very low-density area and believe that everyone has the right to do so if they wish. I also do without a lot of the services that are taken for granted in the inner metro, and accept that this is a trade-off for living where I live, and I don't expect the government or anyone else to come to my rescue. If, however, efficient public transport was supplied to near where I live, I would use it. I currently often drive half-way to the city to a Park and Ride facility and bus in from there.

I don't believe that public transport utilising electric traction where the power is provided from a renewable or other green resource, will create more greenhouse gas per passenger-kilometre than private vehicles.

[AtD]

What are you and rhino trying to suggest then. The reason for people not wanting to use other forms of transport is because of car company advertisments.

A conspiracy it is not, it's business! The entire point of all marketing everywhere is to influence consumer choice, and with the sums of money that is spent on marketing every year, you would assume it would be having an effect. If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it. Simple.

This will disapoint people but public trannsport will never be an effective transport solution for Adelaide. I find that the idea it is the way of the future originates from these Jane Jacobs/ Wikipeida Sprawl article thinking people that are not happy with the way things are going now. They think having people live in suburbs makes them fat, lazy unsociable etc. and they want it to change. The ideas that it is one of the best ways to prevent climate change, and we will all be breating fresh air if we get rid of the cars are just excuses. I have spent the last year studying urban planning and have listened to all of the arguments for public transport.

There are uses for public transport. But the best transport solution for Adelaide is better roads including a north-south freeway. Little research into how public tansport on a large scale can work effectivly in Adeliade has been done. Just because some planners have herd about how effectivly public transport has worked in switzerland does not mean it will work in Adelaide. Forcing people to use public transport is of little benifit to anyone.

I don't understand how by not building a freeway (ie, maintaining the status quo), translates to the public being forced to use PT.

Look at the funding roads receive verses PT, even relative to their actual usage. What we're trying to advocate is an alternative. And, no, it's never going to be the only solution. I'm sorry to say that neither our world nor this argument is black and white.

What I'd like to see is a change in the way new development is built with a better focus on PT. Taking Mawson Lakes as an example, as it is built next to a heavy rail line yet oh so far from it. If the town centre were built further west, with the railway station in its centre, the trains would be easier to access for those who wish to. Even now, it's one of the busiest stations on the line despite being the youngest, proof of concept. By implementing changes like this in the design stage, patronage can be easily increased and upgrades to the system can be made more cost effective. The upgrades then attract more patronage, and so it continues.

(It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. Which comes first? Effective PT, or urban centres designed around PT?)

There's a lot of talk in this thread about people's choices, and the loony greenies trying to force everyone to do this or that. But consider it from this perspective; People may want low density housing, but they also want to live close to services, both publicly and privately provided. This want is obvious when you examine the effect of these services on property prices, and it's these property prices that are forcing people further and further away from the urban centres. People want to live closer, but they can't afford to rent or buy existing dwellings. Those who already live close to the centres are fortunate enough to have both low density living and be close to the urban centre, and defend this by lobby though LGA’s, preventing any higher density development.

Please don't lecture us about your background, because on the Internet that means squat. Some of us have backgrounds in Planning, Engineering and Economics and have been studying and practicing for more than a year. This isn't about how expensive your piece of paper is.

[AG]

This will disapoint people but public trannsport will never be an effective transport solution for Adelaide. I find that the idea it is the way of the future originates from these Jane Jacobs/ Wikipeida Sprawl article thinking people that are not happy with the way things are going now. They think having people live in suburbs makes them fat, lazy unsociable etc. and they want it to change. The ideas that it is one of the best ways to prevent climate change, and we will all be breating fresh air if we get rid of the cars are just excuses. I have spent the last year studying urban planning and have listened to all of the arguments for public transport.

There are uses for public transport. But the best transport solution for Adelaide is better roads including a north-south freeway. Little research into how public tansport on a large scale can work effectivly in Adeliade has been done. Just because some planners have herd about how effectivly public transport has worked in switzerland does not mean it will work in Adelaide. Forcing people to use public transport is of little benifit to anyone.

I think the idea that public transport will never work in a low-density urban area is absolutely flawed when you consider the success that some low-density cities have been having with encouraging extensive use of public transport, one of these cities being in Australia. Some people seem to have the idea that public transport is accessed only by walking, waiting and then taking a bus or train from your stop to your destination and then walking again. In recent times, many cities have adopted new strategies in encouraging public transport use. Perth is one of the best examples. Almost all of the new train stations on the Joondalup and Mandurah Lines include Park and Ride facilities, coordinated bus-rail interchanges, and some stations are the focus of new urban renewal (eg. Subiaco) or commercial activity hubs (Joondalup and Cockburn Central). Before these major upgrades took place, the rail system had patronage of 8 million passengers a year, about the same as Adelaide then and now. In 2006, patronage was in excess of 34 million passengers a year and with the recent opening of the Mandurah Line, is expected to double in the next few years. It isn't forcing people to use public transport, but provides greater flexibility in the overall transport system and an alternative to driving.

[Cruise]

As for trams causing the most greenhouse gas themselves - well that depends on how the power is generated. Emissions in Hobart, if they ran trams there, would be minimal because the power is not generated by burning coal. If we had a couple of wind farms dedicated to generating power for the transport industry (providing the equivalent of what electric transport requires) the emissions would be reduced too.

They would be huge wind farms

[Ho Really]

...Some people seem to have the idea that public transport is accessed only by walking, waiting and then taking a bus or train from your stop to your destination and then walking again. In recent times, many cities have adopted new strategies...

Some older and disadvantaged people may still have to walk unfortunately. Taxis can be expensive, etc. As mentioned the Park and Ride is one good solution. Now if it works, how big would the car parks have to be? Maybe multi level? Would there be a fee? Cost may be an issue. People would have to weigh up whichever is cheaper and more convenient. When alternative cheap (green) fuel sources become available I think cars will still rule.

Cheers

[AtD]

There's a paid all-day commuter's car park at Tea Tree Plaza, it's always packed, partially because the TTG council is big on parking fines.

[Ho Really]

There's a paid all-day commuter's car park at Tea Tree Plaza, it's always packed, partially because the TTG council is big on parking fines.

If councils decided to diminish on-street parking or cut the times allowed to park, people would be forced to use off-street parking and take public transport. In the end I see us being slugged whichever way it goes. I think we should return to walking or riding our pushbikes (but then again, they might charge us for parking our bikes)...so walking has to be the (only) solution... .

Cheers

[AtD]

The situation at TTP was commuters park in Westfield's car park, which is private property and has a 5 hour limit. That being said, an old friend of mine used to get one fine per month on average, and continued to park there because the fines plus bus tickets were still cheaper than parking in the city.

[AG]

...Some people seem to have the idea that public transport is accessed only by walking, waiting and then taking a bus or train from your stop to your destination and then walking again. In recent times, many cities have adopted new strategies...

Some older and disadvantaged people may still have to walk unfortunately. Taxis can be expensive, etc. As mentioned the Park and Ride is one good solution. Now if it works, how big would the car parks have to be? Maybe multi level? Would there be a fee? Cost may be an issue. People would have to weigh up whichever is cheaper and more convenient. When alternative cheap (green) fuel sources become available I think cars will still rule.

Cheers

I do agree that private transport will still continue to dominate travel in Australia. The Park and Ride solution has its own set of issues with it. They certainly require a lot of space. In some cases, it can't be done simply because the train stations are completed surrounded by development adjacent to the railway lines and there is little to no space. There's also the issue of possible local opposition when train stations are planned for urban renewal or as part of a new development, as was seen in Camberwell, Melbourne, when the redevelopment plans were rejected about a year or two ago. Up on the Gold Coast, Queensland Rail offers free transportation of its own to and from the train stations located on the western side of the Gold Coast, that could provide a solution to help those who would otherwise have to walk.

[jk1237]

The Q195, lets set the record straight, you come come from a school of thought that is anti public trasnport. That article from your abc reference has been denounced by many transport professionals as utter crap. Why dont you post any references by Paul Mees. My step dad also comes from the thought of a right wing liberal voter who thinks that public transport is below him, and would never ever think of taking public transport and sit amongst commoners and 'scum'. You could never even think of suggesting to him to ever take PT, it would never ever happen. Its such a pathetic view that is so widespread. So many people have no idea its possible to travel anywhere except in the almighty car. I wonder what will happen when oil prices hit $2. I can only imagine your views with the Glenelg tramline extension.
I want a city that is cosmopolitan, vibrant, with people out on the streets, alfesco cafes and restaurants, nightlife, pedestrian friendly outdoor shopping malls, tourist friendly areas, interesting streetscapes, tall buildings and skyscrapers being built.
I do not want a souless, unsocial, car infested, polluted, bitumen filled shithole.

[jimmy_2486]

Lets shut down all our PT services because they cause too much pollution, and let there be an extra 100 thousand cars on the road in peak hour every morning. This will make our city much more environmentally friendly, and will cut the travel times to the city apparently over a train or tram.

[The_Q915]

The Q195, lets set the record straight, you come come from a school of thought that is anti public trasnport.

Not nessasaraly. I believethat the electrification of Adelaides rail network should be done at some point in time. It should of already been done 20 - 50 years ago but it hasent, nor has there been anything done on roads. Now we are left with a situation where we have to prioritise infrustructure including roads, public transport, water, Power including more enviromentaly frendly power, rejuvinating adelaide including improvements to the parklands.

right wing liberal voter who thinks that public transport is below him,

I am very unsatisfied by both the state goverment and the state opposition, particularly when it comes to infrustructure needs.

That article from your abc reference has been denounced by many transport professionals as utter crap.

Source?

Why dont you post any references by Paul Mees.

"transport carries the majority of motorised travel across the whole canton of Zurich, which is more spread out and less densely populated than Australia."
No it is not less densly populated. Zurich is not a suburban city like Adelaide or other Australian citys. Zurich has a density of 4,046 /km² while Adelaides is 615/km² according to wikipedia. How can an expert get something so basic so wrong. It is most likly this he is from the social engennering group. This guy won an award from the planning institute. You can not just say public transport works well in switzerland so it will work well here in Adelaide. Thats monkey see monkey do thinking.

want a city that is cosmopolitan, vibrant, with people out on the streets, alfesco cafes and restaurants, nightlife, pedestrian friendly outdoor shopping malls, tourist friendly areas, interesting streetscapes, tall buildings and skyscrapers being built.
I do not want a souless, unsocial, car infested, polluted, bitumen filled shithole.

Adelaide has many problems, but I wouldent call it a shithole. Overall things are quite good here. Have you ever been to Rundell mall, North Terrace, hindly street, jetty road Queen street croyden.

I think the idea that public transport will never work in a low-density urban area is absolutely flawed when you consider the success that some low-density cities have been having with encouraging extensive use of public transport, one of these cities being in Australia. Some people seem to have the idea that public transport is accessed only by walking, waiting and then taking a bus or train from your stop to your destination and then walking again. In recent times, many cities have adopted new strategies in encouraging public transport use. Perth is one of the best examples. Almost all of the new train stations on the Joondalup and Mandurah Lines include Park and Ride facilities, coordinated bus-rail interchanges, and some stations are the focus of new urban renewal (eg. Subiaco) or commercial activity hubs (Joondalup and Cockburn Central). Before these major upgrades took place, the rail system had patronage of 8 million passengers a year, about the same as Adelaide then and now. In 2006, patronage was in excess of 34 million passengers a year and with the recent opening of the Mandurah Line, is expected to double in the next few years. It isn't forcing people to use public transport, but provides greater flexibility in the overall transport system and an alternative to driving.

According to the ABS figurs you posted before PT in Perth accounts for 10.4% of travel to work while Adelaides is 9.9%. I have herd from other sources it is up to 7% of overall travel while Adelaides is 5%. Most of the growth in rail patranage over the years has simply been going from buses to trains. The difference with perth is they have both freeways and a resonable public transport network. People have a choice.

The entire point of all marketing everywhere is to influence consumer choice, and with the sums of money that is spent on marketing every year, you would assume it would be having an effect. If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it. Simple.

Why cant public transport market its positive attributes.

[Norman]

Adelaide Metro need better advertising. The "Get up and Go" era is over, we need something new and fresh. "Beat the crush, take a bus", market the buses as they are, modern and consumer-friendly. Show off your assets AdMet!

[AtD]

Why cant public transport market its positive attributes.

Just a few posts ago you were complaining that PT is using too much taxpayer funds.