News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[monotonehell]

The main problem would be the enormous cost. The money we have is limited, and there are much more important and urgent things it needs to be spent on.

And your the one proposing a underground rail line that would seem to cost a hell of alot more money than an entire western tram system

I think you mean "you're".

To be fair to Aidan, he has stated a few times that he doesn't expect his idea to be built any time soon due to the cost. His is a long term vision.

[Aidan]

The main problem would be the enormous cost. The money we have is limited, and there are much more important and urgent things it needs to be spent on.

And your the one proposing a underground rail line that would seem to cost a hell of alot more money than an entire western tram system

I think you mean "you're".

To be fair to Aidan, he has stated a few times that he doesn't expect his idea to be built any time soon due to the cost. His is a long term vision.

Thanks Mono, but that's only because the politicians have such a poor track record at getting things done. If it were up to me I'd start constructing the underground railway ASAP.

Yes, I am the one proposing an underground rail line that would probably cost much more than a western tram system. There is no contradiction here - the benefits would also be much higher. I'm not against spending a lot of money, as long as that money is spent efficiently and without resorting to false economies.

[mattblack]

I think you mean "you're".

Thankyou for you diligence in correcting my punctuation Monotone. You sound like my wife!

[rhino]

Thankyou for you diligence in correcting my punctuation Monotone. You sound like my wife!

I think you mean your

[mattblack]

Thankyou for you diligence in correcting my punctuation Monotone. You sound like my wife!

I think you mean your

I was hoping Mono was going to pick that up

[Prince George]

Here's another article about the community-promoting benefits of investing in transit over roads, but with a twist. This one's from the conservative side of politics - ie the people who's politics tends towards issues like family values, flag-waving patriotism and morality/religious issues - arguing that promoting pedestrian scale and reducing car-dependence strengthens communities. It seems like an obvious conclusion to me, but it's one that rarely gets argued: the usual conservative cry over here is something like "subsidising Amtrak is stealing money from your wallets". To that, the author makes the excellent response "[when] was the last time you heard someone complain about how a local road never manages to turn a profit?"

http://thepublicdiscourse.com/viewartic ... .001.pdart

[camaro68]

I'm at a loss to how anyone with an IQ above 50 can use the word "UPGRADE" when referring to South Road.
It is beyond belief how much money this and previous governments have and intend to spend on south road. So far they have managed to put a mono directional expressway down south, and have now built an underpass that sends traffic to the next set of stop signs.

I believe there are plans to build an underpass from Grange road all the way to the train crossing at Croydon. What a great way to spend tax payers money, i understand the budget for that one is $165M not including the moving or revamp of the power station on the cnr of South and Port Roads.

So what's next an under pass under Richmond, Deacon Ave, Sir Donald Bradman Drive, Henley Beach road, George Street, Torrens Road, Grand Junction Road, Commack Road, Wingfield Train line, not to mention the other side of the cross roads bridge from Mitchell Street Melrose Park to cnr of Sturt and South road!!!

Gee i wonder how much that will cost at a guess i reckon around over $2 billion??? and possibly 100 years in the making.


I only wish one day a Jeff Kennet type political party actually runs this state and builds a proper road system through this lovely city of ours when someone can travel from Noarlunga to Gawler in just over an hour as apposed to 2 with the current road we have, not to mention the semi trailers that block south, cross and Portrush road every morning and night to get in and out of Adelaide.

Over head North South Freeway people, do what Greece did have it financed and build by an international company and charge a toll to use it, who ever does not want to does not have to. WIN/WIN situation, we get a descent road system without the taxpayer forking out for it!!!!

Oops sorry I just woke up, let’s all consult the blue rinse brigade that runs this state first!!!!!

[rhino]

Same old same old blah blah blah!!!!!

Come in on page 60 of a thread and repeat stuff that has been said ad nauseum. Well done. Obviously you have paid a lot of attention to the posts describing the negative effects of having a freeway (not).

[adam73837]

Obviously you have paid a lot of attention to the posts describing the negative effects of having a freeway (not).

And perhaps you didn't notice when he stated that there would have to be a significant amount of money pumped into each and every one of the bottlenecks (or soon to become-) on South Road. Besides, did you see the positive effects of having a freeway?
But why would we (not necessarily you rhino) want to pay attention to those things. Apparently Public Transport is the way to go in a city which many PT and Freeway Activists (on S-A) alike have admitted is one of the most low-density cities they have ever seen. I'm not saying that we should abolish PT (that's ridiculous and besides:) it is needed. However we can't expect a city tipped to boom after the Global Economic Recession to have a 2-lane road as its principle North-South Axis while every day freight rumbles through suburban areas.

[rhino]

Adam, the point I was making is that these comments by Camaro68 have generally been gone over and over and over in this thread - we're up to page 60, we don't need to have it repeated. When you weigh things up, you have to end up with what is affordable and acceptable. You can throw all the state's funds for the next 30 years at a north-south freeway along the South Road corridor and ignore everything else that needs to be done, but then you will have to put up with the public complaining about everything else. Saying it can be built buy private enterprise isn't enough. A private company is not going to buy up all the land that's required to build a tollway, they're not going to go to court to force every property owner along the route to sell to them at their price. They're not going to pay compensation to all the property owners who were a street or two back from South Road and will suddenly find themselves living next to a tollway. I was under the impression that BOOT projects (Build-Own-Operate-Transfer) are generally built on land that has been supplied for them. Happy to be corrected here if I'm wrong.

[Aidan]

Obviously you have paid a lot of attention to the posts describing the negative effects of having a freeway (not).

And perhaps you didn't notice when he stated that there would have to be a significant amount of money pumped into each and every one of the bottlenecks (or soon to become-) on South Road.

Why would Rhino not have noticed? I certainly did. But there was an assumption that underpasses would be used everywhere when in reality overpasses (and in at least one case, a bridge over South Road) would suffice.

Besides, did you see the positive effects of having a freeway?

The only positive effect I can think of other than what we'd get from upgrading South Road is faster journey times for users - but even that may be temporary, and non users are more likely to be slowed down than speeded up.

But why would we (not necessarily you rhino) want to pay attention to those things.

If you consider the size of the disadvantages, perhaps a bigger question is why would you?

Apparently Public Transport is the way to go in a city which many PT and Freeway Activists (on S-A) alike have admitted is one of the most low-density cities they have ever seen.

And rightly so! It saves on the cost of parking provision, enabling the land to be put to better use.

'Tis easy to make too much of the density issue, but employment tends to be in high density areas. And while our low residential density is a disadvantage for public transport provision (though only a small one, as Melbourne proves), our conurbation shape is a great advantage.

I'm not saying that we should abolish PT (that's ridiculous and besides:) it is needed. However we can't expect a city tipped to boom after the Global Economic Recession to have a 2-lane road as its principle North-South Axis while every day freight rumbles through suburban areas.

Yes we can. Whatever made you think otherwise?

Being tipped to boom is not the same thing as booming, and as investors in a Brisbane one recently discovered, a booming economy is no guarantee of financial success for a tollway. Tunnelling is very expensive, but anything else would unacceptably blight residential areas. I thought I'd explained to you that people rejected the MATS plan for a good reason, and that reason has not changed - indeed it's strengthened.

But there's potentially a much bigger problem: a freeway could encourage employment to move to places of lower density, which is a problem while residential density is still low. This could make it far more difficult for public transport to increase its market share, so there would be a greater reliance on cars and the freeway. Not only would it become congested, but many of the roads leading to it would become congested - so yet more money would be needed.

We have a fairly good urban arterial road system, so it's best to concentrate on improving it and our rail system rather than building extremely expensive roads that we won't need any time soon. And if you disagree or think you have better ideas, remember they're off topic here. But they're on topic in the North South Corridor thread in the Visions & Suggestions section.

[Edit: by here I meant 60 pages into the South Road Upgrade thread. They're on topic in this (Great Roads Debate) thread that they've now landed in.

[camaro68]

The only positive effect I can think of other than what we'd get from upgrading South Road is faster journey times for users - but even that may be temporary, and non users are more likely to be slowed down than speeded up.
But why would we (not necessarily you rhino) want to pay attention to those things.

1 positive effect??? Wake up and smell the coffee dude!!!

Advantages: here’s a few, less trucks on small suburban roads (safety), Less pollution to the atmosphere, ergo the less you’re engine is running the less emissions it produces, less wear and tear less stops (Brakes, Clutches etc) and we all know that a vehicle’s highway cycle is more efficient than it’s city cycle. So in summary, cheaper running costs, less emissions and safer suburban roads you do the math???

If you consider the size of the disadvantages, perhaps a bigger question is why would you?
Apparently Public Transport is the way to go in a city which many PT and Freeway Activists (on S-A) alike have admitted is one of the most low-density cities they have ever seen.

Determine the % of the working population that work in the city, then decide if public transport upgrades is the best option

I thought I'd explained to you that people rejected the MATS plan for a good reason, and that reason has not changed - indeed it's strengthened.
What reason?? We don't want SA to look like Chicago or California, perhaps the blue rinse brigade that rejected it so many years ago should try travelling down our main roads today it's a joke, it takes me 40 mins to drive from Goodwood to port Adelaide every day, 20 km journey, i travelled 80 km's through the centre of Melbourne at it took me 60 mins, mate do yourself a favour and travel around Melbourne, it's a pleasure to drive there.

[Benski81]

travelling down our main roads today it's a joke,

I just want to say on that point f**king aye! I spent a night a my parent's place in Craigmore catching up with them and it took me over an hour twenty to drive into Flinders St the next morning.

My car showed the averge speed as being 21km/hr, that's appalling and I couldn't believe it.

I'm no town planner, I don't fully understand the arguments for/against freeway systems but f**k something has to be done if SA is going to cope with future significant growth.

[stelaras]

travelled 80 km's through the centre of Melbourne at it took me 60 mins, mate do yourself a favour and travel around Melbourne, it's a pleasure to drive there.

Camaro68, yes driving through and around the city using melbourne's freeway and tollway system is great. The clincher here is if your doing your travelling outside of peak times!

You try using the Monash city bound in the morning or night when it is anything from 50-80 minutes into or out of the city from a 15km distance away from the city, or the eastern which anything from 20-40 minutes from a 12km distance.. Take a good packed lunch if there happens to be a breakdown!

The city is almost a gridlock during peak travel times..

Furthermore i travel 22.5kms to get to work every day in Melb and have no freeway or tollway to use, it takes me 65 minutes door to door peak times (aggressive driving) with an average driving speed of 26.5km/hr.

Driving through the city or within the city in Melbourne is not that great mate..

[Norman]

Freight from the north is already diverted via the Port River Expressway, which will be linked up to the Northern Connector and Northern Expressway to the Port.

As for freight coming from the South and the Hills, there is still more planning to be done. How about using rail freight more often, that reduces air pollution even more than having a freeway with lots of trucks on it.

South Road will eventually become a freeway, it's just going to take time unless the Feds give us some more money to grade seperate interchanges. Gallipoli Underpass and the Tram Overpass are just the start, by 2014 we will have the Port River Expressway to Regency Road all at a freeway standard, and the Sturt Road Underpass will be done as well or well underway.