Sensational-Adelaide.com

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:00 am**

Pool cars for peak travel
Article from: The Advertiser
TOM ZED
September 28, 2009 12:01am

SMARTER use of roads, including the introduction of car pooling and reversible lanes, would help reduce the growing problem of traffic congestion, the RAA believes.

The RAA states high-occupancy lanes – restricted to vehicles with passengers – and reversible lanes, operating in one direction in the morning and the opposite direction in the evening, are among the best options for improving traffic flows on the state's existing road network.

RAA principal engineer Peter Tsokas said the results of the latest surveys showed peak-hour travel times for several major routes to and from the city had risen by up to five minutes in the past nine years, proving more needed to be done to reduce traffic congestion.

"It is about smarter and more efficient use of existing road space as well as specific incentives to reduce congestion," he said.

WHAT IS ADELAIDE'S MOST CONGESTED ROAD? Have your say in the comment box below.

"The RAA supports measures, such as extended clearways, application of contra-flow (reversible) and high-occupancy vehicle lanes as well as facilitation of green travel plans to spread peak period travel.

"We should be looking at a whole range of options to ease congestion and one of those is high-occupancy lanes, where we designate part of the road to be used by high-occupancy vehicles."

Mr Tsokas said car pooling – often encouraged by employer schemes and recently touted as a way to reduce carbon footprints – was a behavioural shift.

The practice could be encouraged by the introduction of high-occupancy lanes.

In Queensland, some bus lanes also are high-occupancy lanes that can be used by private vehicles carrying passengers.

Mr Tsokas said latest surveys showed peak hour travel times on the most-recently surveyed routes had increased by between two and five minutes over the past nine years.

The morning journey from Seacombe Rd, Sturt, to the city – mostly along Goodwood Rd – now takes nearly 35 minutes, compared with 29 minutes in 2000. Average travelling speed has fallen to 21km/h from 25km/h nine years ago.

Unley Rd's average morning peak-hour speed has dropped to 29km/h from 32km/h in 2000.

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:38 pm**

Our roads don't have the capacity to support HOV lanes, as many of our roads only have 2 lanes in each direction, and to surrender one to higher capacity when he prevalence of single-occupant vehicles is alarmingly high - it'd just be political suicide to do so. Speaking of suicide

contra-flow lanes (aka "suicide lanes" as they are called in the U.S) is something I'd support, particularly on some of the narrower inner city routes, like Winston Avenue and Duthy Street, for example.

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:48 pm**

Shuz wrote:Our roads don't have the capacity to support HOV lanes, as many of our roads only have 2 lanes in each direction, and to surrender one to higher capacity when he prevalence of single-occupant vehicles is alarmingly high

The RAA know this, if you read between the lines its obviously they expect new lanes to be built as a side effect of their HOV lanes. Rest assured anything the RAA cook up that makes the papers is going to cost a fortune.

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:37 pm**

"Car insurance company wants more roads, cars"

A recurring theme in the 'Tiser.

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:28 pm**

Shuz wrote:Our roads don't have the capacity to support HOV lanes, as many of our roads only have 2 lanes in each direction, and to surrender one to higher capacity when he prevalence of single-occupant vehicles is alarmingly high - it'd just be political suicide to do so. Speaking of suicide contra-flow lanes (aka "suicide lanes" as they are called in the U.S) is something I'd support, particularly on some of the narrower inner city routes, like Winston Avenue and Duthy Street, for example.

I think Winston Avenue and Duthy Street would be the ones near the bottom of the list, they shouldn't be major thoroughfares to begin with. Goodwood and Unley Roads on the other hand...

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:25 am**

Norman wrote:
Shuz wrote:Our roads don't have the capacity to support HOV lanes, as many of our roads only have 2 lanes in each direction, and to surrender one to higher capacity when he prevalence of single-occupant vehicles is alarmingly high - it'd just be political suicide to do so. Speaking of suicide contra-flow lanes (aka "suicide lanes" as they are called in the U.S) is something I'd support, particularly on some of the narrower inner city routes, like Winston Avenue and Duthy Street, for example.
I think Winston Avenue and Duthy Street would be the ones near the bottom of the list, they shouldn't be major thoroughfares to begin with. Goodwood and Unley Roads on the other hand...

The easiest way to increase traffic flow is to stop all parking on these roads (Unley, Goodwood, Fularton, etc..) leading to and from the city. With some work bus/car pool lanes as well as dedicated right turn lanes could be incorporated.

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:16 pm**

mattblack wrote:
Norman wrote:
Shuz wrote:Our roads don't have the capacity to support HOV lanes, as many of our roads only have 2 lanes in each direction, and to surrender one to higher capacity when he prevalence of single-occupant vehicles is alarmingly high - it'd just be political suicide to do so. Speaking of suicide contra-flow lanes (aka "suicide lanes" as they are called in the U.S) is something I'd support, particularly on some of the narrower inner city routes, like Winston Avenue and Duthy Street, for example.
I think Winston Avenue and Duthy Street would be the ones near the bottom of the list, they shouldn't be major thoroughfares to begin with. Goodwood and Unley Roads on the other hand...
The easiest way to increase traffic flow is to stop all parking on these roads (Unley, Goodwood, Fularton, etc..) leading to and from the city. With some work bus/car pool lanes as well as dedicated right turn lanes could be incorporated.

I can understand these options seem reasonable if we restrict our road planning to only the blacktop and further say that the only purpose that it must serve is to move the maximum number of vehicles through it. The fact is that our roads do not exist in a vacuum, they share space with other parts of our cities and neighbourhoods. There are footpaths, houses, bus-stops, schools, parks, hospitals, cross streets, businesses and cross-walks adjacent to (or crossing) the roadway. Changing the configuration of the road to suit traffic flow can have serious repercussions on these neighbours.

One of the easiest to harm are pedestrians, both in terms of "harming their interests" and literally causing them harm. Adding extra lanes of traffic, increasing average speeds, removing protections (whether buffer space or parked cars) all increase the risk of injury to the people on the side of the road. The street that we currently live on was built to be a single traffic lane in each direction with curb parking on each side. During peak hours, it drops the parking to add extra traffic lanes, putting the cars only a few feet from the footpath. Mornings and evenings I walk along this street to my bus with the traffic whistling past, frequently racing the traffic lights or switching lanes to weave around each other - by a wide margin it's the most dangerous part of my day. It's hardly a surprise, then, that there are few other people walking along there.

Likewise, it's hard to pull out onto the street from a side-street, house, or business; it's hard to cross the street on foot or even by bike or car; bikes are almost non-existent on the street (excepting the super-hero messenger types); and the intersection of two such streets is an accident magnet - one afternoon I got off the bus to be greeted by a car upturned on its roof sitting on the sidewalk. This isn't the outcome that I want for our streets, so I'm looking for people to formulate the problem as something more than just "it takes an extra few minutes to drive from A to B".

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:28 pm**

mattblack wrote:
Norman wrote:
Shuz wrote:Our roads don't have the capacity to support HOV lanes, as many of our roads only have 2 lanes in each direction, and to surrender one to higher capacity when he prevalence of single-occupant vehicles is alarmingly high - it'd just be political suicide to do so. Speaking of suicide contra-flow lanes (aka "suicide lanes" as they are called in the U.S) is something I'd support, particularly on some of the narrower inner city routes, like Winston Avenue and Duthy Street, for example.

Reversible lanes and suicide lanes are different things - and contraflow lanes (as the term is normally understood to mean) are different again.

Suicide lanes are lanes that are normally clear, but can be used by overtaking traffic in either direction. They are rare now, as for safety reasons they've generally been either assigned a direction or incorporated into the median.
Reversible lanes are assigned a direction depending on the time of day. Apart from those associated with the Southern Expressway, they're also on Flagstaff Road.

I think Winston Avenue and Duthy Street would be the ones near the bottom of the list, they shouldn't be major thoroughfares to begin with. Goodwood and Unley Roads on the other hand...
The easiest way to increase traffic flow is to stop all parking on these roads (Unley, Goodwood, Fularton, etc..) leading to and from the city. With some work bus/car pool lanes as well as dedicated right turn lanes could be incorporated.

I seem to recall they're already clearways, so stopping all parking wouldn't give you any more peak capacity. And there's no room for any more lanes on Unley or Fullarton roads. Goodwood Road already has bus lanes where space permits - I suppose they could be turned into HOV lanes, but whether that would decrease congestion is far from certain - it could increase it. As for making existing lanes reversible, the problems wouldn't just be political - something as simple as a turning vehicle could be very disruptive, and a breakdown would cause utter chaos. It would be possible to redesignate a lane HOV on a stretch of Anzac Highway (possibly eastbound between Cross Road and Marion Road) but I doubt there'd be much benefit.

I seem to recall Adelaide experimented with HOV lanes when the Southern Expressway first opened. Does anyone know if they were judged to be a success?

Anyway, I'm very surprised the RAA is advocating this - I'd expect them to call for the upgrading of South Road to be brought forward. And they do also have a copy of my plan, which would be an order of magnitude better.

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:18 pm**

I agree with Prince George. Goodwood Rd and Unley Road are shopping and community districts first and foremost, with transport routes a secondary purpose. They are a destination, not just a place to wizz past.

You're not going to get any phenomenal capacity from them. You shouldn't be looking to get any phenomenal capacity from them! IMO the clearways should be removed in favour for kerbside parking and loading areas.

If traffic is too much for you to handle, take a train.

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:25 pm**

AtD wrote:I agree with Prince George. Goodwood Rd and Unley Road are shopping and community districts first and foremost, with transport routes a secondary purpose. They are a destination, not just a place to wizz past.

I can understand why you think that about Unley Road, but not Goodwood Road. Unley Road's got shops nearly all the way along it. It's single carriageway because it's too narrow to fit a median in. But the road capacity is needed. When the MATS Plan was rejected, something had to be done, and making Unley Road a clearway was not only the cheapest option, but the one that provoked the least local opposition.

But Goodwood Road is different - it's the classic urban arterial. There are several shopping and community districts along it, but its primary function is, and always was, transport.

You're not going to get any phenomenal capacity from them. You shouldn't be looking to get any phenomenal capacity from them!

True, but the absence of phenomenal capacity is no reason to ignore significant capacity!

IMO the clearways should be removed in favour for kerbside parking and loading areas.

Why would you want to wreck the traffic flow when businesses have had decades to adapt to other parking and loading arrangements? I could understand you wanting to turn traffic lanes into bus lanes, but eliminating them for the sake of more parking and loading space makes no sense at all.

If traffic is too much for you to handle, take a train.

If the trains better served the destinations people wanted to go to, many more people would.

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:53 am**

I don't think this is an engineering issue, as these streets serve a purpose other than the mere transportation of people from distant A to distant B. There are unarguably a number of streets, generally in the inner suburbs, whose role is as a social space exceeds their role as a piece of engineering.

It is from that viewpoint that I don't think clearways are appropriate for selected inner city streets, namely:
Unley Rd (which is four lanes, not two)
Goodwood Road north of the rail underpass
The Parade
Prospect Rd
And so on. Of course, these can all be debated.

My rational for this is along the lines stated by Prince George. On street parking serves three purposes:
- Provide a physical barrier between passing traffic and the footpath, allowing for a greater range of uses of the footpath
- Create a traffic calming effect, not just by reducing speeds but by increasing the perceived danger of the street. (The argument being that on a wide road, we turn into robotic drivers, responding to colours of lights rather than traffic conditions)
- Promoting the fact that this area is a key busy local community area.

I don't think it's a change that could be done in isolation nor overnight. It would have to be accompanied with improved zoning regulations, improvements to pedestrian facilities and public transport. Unfortunately it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation.

I think these areas should have zoning rules such as minimum plot ratios, no setbacks, mandatory use of the ground floor as retail or hospitality.

As South Road, for example, is increasing developed as an engineering project, there will be greater scope to develop Goodwood Road as a social project.

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:05 pm**

AtD wrote:I don't think this is an engineering issue,

Of course it's an engineering issue! Not only for the street, but also for the whole of Adelaide.

as these streets serve a purpose other than the mere transportation of people from distant A to distant B. There are unarguably a number of streets, generally in the inner suburbs, whose role is as a social space exceeds their role as a piece of engineering.

Yes, King William Road is the classic example. But I'm puzzled as to how you could conclude Goodwood Road's minor role as a social space exceeds its enormous role as a piece of engineering!

It is from that viewpoint that I don't think clearways are appropriate for selected inner city streets, namely:
Unley Rd (which is four lanes, not two)

Indeed it is... but it's still a single carriageway because of lack of space.

Goodwood Road north of the rail underpass

If it wasn't, it would be an enormous bottleneck!

The Parade

The Parade already has on street parking.

Prospect Rd
And so on. Of course, these can all be debated.

They've already narrowed Prospect Road.

My rational for this is along the lines stated by Prince George. On street parking serves three purposes:
- Provide a physical barrier between passing traffic and the footpath, allowing for a greater range of uses of the footpath

Why would we want a greater range of uses on the footpath?

I'm wondering what the speed limit is on Prince George's street. It doesn't sound at all like what we have here in Adelaide. Our traffic lights are rather better sequenced, so it's unlikely to race between the lights. And the amount of traffic means it's more likely to crawl past than whiz. But where it does whiz past, our footpaths are wide enough for this not to be a problem.

- Create a traffic calming effect, not just by reducing speeds but by increasing the perceived danger of the street. (The argument being that on a wide road, we turn into robotic drivers, responding to colours of lights rather than traffic conditions)

I'm well aware of the effect, but traffic calming isn't always the best solution, and there's a real risk that this sort of thing could increase the actual danger of the street.

- Promoting the fact that this area is a key busy local community area.

Again, what's the point?
(And please don't include the word vibrant in your answer - that doesn't make it desirable)

I don't think it's a change that could be done in isolation nor overnight. It would have to be accompanied with improved zoning regulations, improvements to pedestrian facilities and public transport. Unfortunately it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation.

There are plenty of places that are well suited to farming chickens - you don't need to sacrifice the fields that are so good for growing potatoes!

I think these areas should have zoning rules such as minimum plot ratios, no setbacks, mandatory use of the ground floor as retail or hospitality.

Whereas I think these areas should be zoned mixed use - the disadvantages of restrictions outweigh the advantage in these circumstances.

As South Road, for example, is increasing developed as an engineering project, there will be greater scope to develop Goodwood Road as a social project.

Reducing Goodwood Road's traffic levels would put more traffic onto South Road, reducing the benefits.

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:03 pm**

Aidan wrote:
AtD wrote:I don't think this is an engineering issue,
Of course it's an engineering issue!

Hence we disagree.

Posted: **Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:06 pm**

AtD wrote:
Aidan wrote:
AtD wrote:I don't think this is an engineering issue,
Of course it's an engineering issue!
Hence we disagree.

Of course - that's so obvious that it should go without saying. But I have explained why it is an engineering issue, so I'm puzzled as to why you still think it isn't. Normally your opinions seem to be sensible and well thought out, in complete contrast to the oneSizeFitsAll urbanist solution you seem to be advocating in this case.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:24 pm**

Hence we disagree.

Of course - that's so obvious that it should go without saying. But I have explained why it is an engineering issue, so I'm puzzled as to why you still think it isn't. Normally your opinions seem to be sensible and well thought out, in complete contrast to the oneSizeFitsAll urbanist solution you seem to be advocating in this case.

You know Aidan, not everybody has to agree with you even if you do spell out your opinion in lengthy awnsers. I dont agree with AtD in this case but he should be able to have his own opinion, thats what this forum is all about.

Sensational-Adelaide.com

News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate

Re: The Great Roads Debate