Roads & Rail

[Norman]

Peter Van the Party Man

[Wayno]

Peter Van the Party Man

he's the man, party products and bread making supplies as well!

Actually this is a very busy intersection, perhaps an overpass would be a good idea? apart from the Party Man there's nothing else that would really suffer (the church i suppose)...

[Norman]

Underpass please. Overpasses are too ugly and stand out way too much.

In fact, upgrade the entire strech of Goodwood Road, that road is so bad it's not funny.

[AtD]

^^ If/when South Road is 'non-stop,' it won't be needed.

[Norman]

Goodwood Road needs to be upgraded nevertheless. Even if it's just resurfacing and the tram crossing. Those areas need to be done ASAP because they are terrible.

[Jim]

There are Lots of these intersections around Adelaide that don’t quite line up resulting in two sets of lights. Hampstead and Muller’s road has recently fixed by realignment.
The other obvious one of these intersections is South road with Black and Majors roads at O’Halloran Hill, two sets of lights and lots of vacant land around; it looks to be an easy fix

[adam73837]

If we want to fix our problems for the long-term, bring back the North-South Freeway, Modbury Freeway, the Dry Creek Expressway, the subway under KWS, build an eastern orbital to divert traffic from the suburbs, add a branch off of the Belair Line to go to Flagstaff Hill, replace the O-Bahn with a train and extend it to Greenwith, bring back the Penfield Line and extend it to Angle Vale, bring back the Happy Valley Train Line, extend the Noarlunga Line to Seaford and find a way to send a train line to Mount Barker. And let's not forget putting an extensive tram network within the eastern & western suburbs as well as the southern suburbs north of Daws Road and the northern suburbs south of Grand Junction Road.
-A VERY expensive 'overhaul', but worth it in the long term!

[Cruise]

They just finished the dry creek expressway adam......

[adam73837]

They just finished the dry creek expressway adam......

Yes, to a certain extent. The MATS Plan intended it to go from Port Adelaide (like the Port River Expressway) however, rather than stopping at Dry Creek, it would have continued on to where Montague Road is now and terminated at the Modbury Freeway, just west of TTP. If we were to build that and then have an Eastern Orbital (that can divert freight from the suburbs and around through the hills) starting just south of it, it would be perfect.
Let's at least hope that we can see the connection with Montague Road and the Port River Expressway at least.

[adam73837]

Let's also hope that one day we'll bring back the highways department -oh, how we miss it!
(I'm not being sarcastic by the way.)

[Norman]

A lot has changed since the 60s. Things like petrol prices and increasing importance of public transport make these projects more and more unlikely to happen.

[Wayno]

A lot has changed since the 60s. Things like petrol prices and increasing importance of public transport make these projects more and more unlikely to happen.

don't write off the other form of PT - private transportation. It will live on, and maybe even grow in popularity more than public transport. Electric cars for example...

[cleverick]

Electric cars still require roads, and they are as destructive to the environment, built and natural, as the petroleum-fuelled cars they currently serve.
Further, the use of cars supports ever-greater suburbs which in turn errodes farm and wilderness land, reducing the area of land available for cultivation or set aside as habitat for Australia's many endangered species. When was the last time you heard of a species on the endagered list being taken off, except to declare it extinct?

It is these things, besides the consumption of petrol and consequent climate change, which cause me to oppose private transport as the major means of mobility in today's urban landscape.

[Wayno]

It is these things, besides the consumption of petrol and consequent climate change, which cause me to oppose private transport as the major means of mobility in today's urban landscape.

you can oppose all you want, but people will always require, nay demand private transportation...it's folly to believe otherwise.

Something like 35+% of greenhouse pollution arises from petrol driven cars (not forgetting the coal power plants that generate electricty for the car manufacturing industry). but interestingly, the move towards green sources of electricity generation will (in my opinion) make cars much more attractive!

[AtD]

you can oppose all you want, but people will always require, nay demand private transportation...it's folly to believe otherwise.

Something like 35+% of greenhouse pollution arises from petrol driven cars (not forgetting the coal power plants that generate electricty for the car manufacturing industry). but interestingly, the move towards green sources of electricity generation will (in my opinion) make cars much more attractive!

Cars and trucks are here to stay, fact of live, necessary to the functioning of modern society, and seeking means to reduce the pollution caused by them is an honourable goal that the taxpayer should support. But that in itself doesn't mean roads are any more deserving of taxpayer dollars than PT. There is an opportunity cost involved; every extra $1 devoted to one is $1 less available for the other. People will demand more roads as the government builds new roads: induced demand, and the same is true for PT. So the question becomes, which deserves the government spending?

If you're looking at total public, private and social cost per kilometre per passenger, you'll have to support PT. It's all a matter of scale. Congestion will exist regardless of energy source, and a new, cheaper energy source would obviously result in more congestion. PT is the answer to that congestion.

For example, the bus lane on the Sydney Harbour Bridge moves more people than the other seven lanes of traffic combined!