News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[adam73837]

Now, I'd like to remind you that that Document was written in 2005 (as I mentioned, but perhaps we looked over that?). Now don't anyone start this "But they were wrong" stuff, because what are the stats for the people that use the tram? It'd probably be quite hard to obtain such statistics that outline the following, but I'd be very interested to know if anyone has:
• How many of the people that use the tram on the city are actually travelling within the City Square Mile
• How many people that commute from the areas that the tram services didn't catch the bus or the tram before the extension was completed
• How many people have actually abandoned travelling by car to work in order to travel by the tram
Could I also be a pain and query how many people are expected to park their cars at Hindmarsh and catch the tram into the city? I'm sure it will be well utilised by tourists and other people going to the EC and Hindmarsh Stadium; but what about these commuters which several people here expect to follow their PT plans?

Just for the record, I am for building a tunnel from Croydon to Kurralta Park and properly upgrading the rest of South Road.

Oh, before I take a month break from S-A due to exams and also lay out the red carpet for those wanting to give me an e-slapping (which I haven't been given in months ), could someone please explain what is wrong with improving safety along the current route that freight trucks utilise to access PA from the South East? I am asking because it seems that the reaction the RAA's plan is not going to be entirely pretty in the coming days...

(I await a dissection of my post Aidan . [-Joking. ])

[AtD]

The RAA are a lobby group. It's highly unlikely they'd suffer the expense of actual engineering work by actual engineers with all the trimmings for what is basically a glossy brochure.

[Prince George]

Well, it depends somewhat on how you are judging safety. For example, the article called the Britannia Roundabout "one of Adelaide's worst crash spots", but of those crashes how many caused serious or fatal injuries and how many just involved damage to cars? Freeways tend to produce fewer total accidents than a typical arterial road, but more fatalities. Partly this is due to the greater speeds that the accidents occur at, and partly also because when people feel a situation to be dangerous their reactions become more cautious and careful. Which gives that paradoxical situation of safety improvements encouraging more dangerous behaviour.

Likewise, the RAA are concerned about increasing trip times along Greenhill Road. That road happens to be the most dangerous road for cyclists in the state that produces the most cycling deaths per capita. Somehow, I don't expect that to figure highly in the RAA's assessment of the road.

Now, the final page is the "business as usual" argument that gets used by road advocates the world over. Everywhere we hear "more people drive their cars than take the bus, therefore we should spend more on roads than public transport"; we might equally reverse that formula as "we spend more on roads than public transport and therefore more people drive their cars than take the bus". Setting your spending levels based only current usage levels is a recipe for maintaining the status quo; we can, and should, consider where we want future usage levels to be when we determine our budgets. The RAA are happy with a 20-to-1 ratio of car to public-transport use, so they quibble over $21m for the tramline extension and happily bandy about figures like $40m, $250m, $1.5-2 billion for their pet road projects.

[DM8]

• How many of the people that use the tram on the city are actually travelling within the City Square Mile
• How many people that commute from the areas that the tram services didn't catch the bus or the tram before the extension was completed
• How many people have actually abandoned travelling by car to work in order to travel by the tram

I've got more to add to that:

• How many people used to catch the BeeLine bus service before it was ditched in favour of the tram service?
• How many people that used to use the BeeLine bus service are now using the tram?

I do recall seeing somewhere that the whole city west tram extension project was a poor use of funds, as it would simply mean BeeLine commuters would switch from bus to tram, without much (if any) increase in overall patronage. Plus people were pissed off with losing a traffic lane on King William St (personally, I find the 24hr right turn ban a massive nuisance).

[jk1237]

I've got more to add to that:

• How many people used to catch the BeeLine bus service before it was ditched in favour of the tram service?
• How many people that used to use the BeeLine bus service are now using the tram?

I do recall seeing somewhere that the whole city west tram extension project was a poor use of funds, as it would simply mean BeeLine commuters would switch from bus to tram, without much (if any) increase in overall patronage. Plus people were pissed off with losing a traffic lane on King William St (personally, I find the 24hr right turn ban a massive nuisance).

you have got to be joking. This is one of the poorest posts Ive ever seen on here. Did you get your facts from The Advertiser

[drwaddles]

So, since the extension to City West was a complete waste, in your opinion it is better to have two independent tram lines (Glenelg and Port Rd) entering the city from different directions and terminating at different ends of the city, with the only interconnection provided by the BeeLine bus service?

How bizarre.

[DM8]

Wow, hit a nerve there!

I do recall seeing somewhere ...

.... thus me quoting something that I have seen somewhere else. Helps if you *read* the post

My questioning the BeeLine patronage still stands though.

[jk1237]

oh I forgot, the trams eat small children so I once read in The Advertiser. DM8, have you never noticed how congested the trams are. Do you not know that the flexity fits over twice as many people as a single b-line bus, which only ever had people on it in peak hour. The much longer trams run rather full ever 7.5 mins, a little b-line bus went every 5 mins (weekdays only) with a scattering of people depending on how bunched up they were. I thought I read that patronage to Glenelg (existing track area) increased by 10-20%, but overall patronage increased by 30-40% due to the amount of people using it within the CBD. I thought I read there is twice as many people using the free trams as the old b-line, which is why other than the Advertiser and petrol heads, all transport commentators have noticed of how successful the project was for such little money compared to how much funding roads get.
DM8 there is no logical argument of terminating an important transport corridor on the edge of the city, just because those poor little driver only cars cant travel down K W street in 20 seconds. It is completely inefficent to transfer to a litle bus for the rest of the journey, when your almost there anyway. Its basic transport planning to have public transport infrastructure to where peoples destinations are, not 1 km from it and then make people find another method. It simply discourages people from using it at all.
Now, if the closest road to you had $21 million spent on adding another lane, that would be money well spent wouldn't it

[DM8]

The much longer trams run rather full ever 7.5 mins, a little b-line bus went every 5 mins (weekdays only) with a scattering of people depending on how bunched up they were. I thought I read that patronage to Glenelg (existing track area) increased by 10-20%, but overall patronage increased by 30-40% due to the amount of people using it within the CBD. I thought I read there is twice as many people using the free trams as the old b-line

.... answers my question - thanks. Save the rest of the irrelevant ranting for The Advertiser/AdelaideNow thank you.

...which only ever had people on it in peak hour

Perhaps patronage died down in the lead up to it being replaced by the tram, but I used to catch it a fair bit on weekends and it was always full.

And as I said:

I do recall seeing somewhere ...

i.e. mentioning something I saw somewhere else, and is not necessarily my own opinion. Can't remember where, but it was a few years ago - before the announcement of further extensions out to Semaphore and West Lakes, and thus probably didn't make much sense to the author. But I've not seen any comparisons of BeeLine vs Tram patronage until now.

[Prince George]

Complaining about the North Terrace tram line extension is like complaining about a link in a chain. Each link by itself may seem pointless, but without them there is no chain. The tram sheds are at Morphetville, all new lines have to connect to it. Without this extension there can be no further extension to the north, whether a city loop, to North Adelaide, to the entertainment centre, to Port Adelaide, or to the Bowden Village. The extension may have been a waste of funds if its sole purpose was to get to Parliament House, but that's not the case.

I recall hearing some advice that the City of Portland gave the state about the political fallout from this kind of project back when they were first considering it. Roughly it went "They'll complain about it when you propose it, they'll complain about it when you're building it, and when you're done they'll complain that there's not enough".

[camaro68]

I’m back!!! Did you miss me???

The south road superway!!!

Ahh the dream of every sane person in this state, pity it's not the full length of south road, oh well progress needs to start somewhere I guess.

I was wondering if the panel of rocket scientists on this forum agree or disagree with the proposal?

Let me guess NO???

Induced demand I guess, if they build it, everyone will want to use it and it will get overcrowded, bad idea spend more money on trams and buses.

[rhino]

I think I heard a troll

[drsmith]

Buried in the documentation for the South Road Superway is the traffic forecasts for 2031.

http://www.southroad.sa.gov.au/__data/a ... nsport.pdf

139600 v/d on South Road between the South Road service ramps and Regency Road.

Peak hourly traffic volume projected for 2031 at the same location is about 11500.

[Shuz]

There was a tiny weeny little snippet in the paper about how the Liberals believe that South Road Superway will become a toll road. The Government's comeback was just class. "At least it'll go in both directions."

[monotonehell]

I’m back!!! Did you miss me???

Yes! Welcome back.

The south road superway!!!
I was wondering if the panel of rocket scientists on this forum agree or disagree with the proposal?
Let me guess NO???
Induced demand I guess, if they build it, everyone will want to use it and it will get overcrowded, bad idea spend more money on trams and buses.

Actually if you bothered to read the past few weeks of discussion on here, you would see that the general consensus is that it's a good idea as it's aimed at FREIGHT traffic. As people have constantly kept telling you in the past; used in the right ways freeways have a purpose.

There was a tiny weeny little snippet in the paper about how the Liberals believe that South Road Superway will become a toll road. The Government's comeback was just class. "At least it'll go in both directions."

I LOLed at that when I read it this afternoon. Slap down, biartch.