News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[Waewick]

So what does that say about our city vs others? It is way too easy/cheap to take the car into the cbd so why even consider another option?

yes, exactly. There is little incentive to take PT because driving the car into the CBD and parking is too easy. Just under half of all trips to the CBD are done by PT, whereas all the other big 4 cities are between 70-85%.

Rev, all trams and trains, and about 80% of buses are low floor which means that cater for wheelchairs, so non-argument

Waewick, come on, you cant be serious. Its embarrassing because our over-reliance on cars makes us look like an unsophisticated country town, not a city. Its ridiculous, and the Adelaide establishment are at it again by opposing improvements to public transport by protesting against the new obahn tunnel through the east parklands, which will actually result in a net gain to parkland space. Funny how they don't call for less roads in the parklands, because this would go against their senile conservative values of driving their car everywhere

So I guess L.A is an un sophisticated country town? Their PT is abysmal.

All it does is reflect on a past that was literally based on the car and rightly so, it was promoted as the transport of the future and was once a sign of wealth and success – remember Adelaide is a small city, it was virtually empty a decade or so ago.
You can’t just change 50 years of infrastructure overnight because the odd person feels embarrassed, given the vast majority of people wouldn’t care one bit, let alone make reason for us to be embarrassed.

[rhino]

Well, I'm embarrassed that while other cities found a better way to operate, we didn't. Simple fact is that we are further behind the times than so many other places in this regard. And that is embarrassing. LA is not a city to hold up as something to aspire to, IMHO.

[claybro]

So it seems, despite the banter we are all in agreement.
1. The current situation is unworkable moving forward
2. A combination of solutions for all users will be required.
3. We have been badly let down in the past for the lack of adequate planning and funding (too much tinkering around the edges) by politicians of all persuasions.
4. The upside of the previous lack of action is we can learn from the mistakes of others.
5. Our grwoth is slower than other cities so we should be able to manage growth in a more planned, less panicky way.
6. There is no where near enough planning STILL, what plans there are, constanly change, are piecemeal and become political footballs.(time to re-instate a department seperate to government to oversee all transport planning/funding/prioritising/implementation.)
7. There is no where near enough money, and no politician has the balls to instigate alternative revenue streams to make all this possible STILL.(see point 6).

Time we make a loud and consistent message to our local members, instead of bleating on forums to each other about what is needed, and dont accept "it's the other mobs fault for xyz"as an excuse.
At least the transport insudustry is vocal and consistent ini voicing its needs, but keeps getting shot down by minorities.

[rhino]

Well said Claybro, you've put it all in a nutshell.

[Waewick]

What we need to do is think of an incentive to get people on PT.

We need a tangible incentive, not a disincentive for other forms.

Free wifi is a good start, but that isnt going to be enough.

My initial thought was given we use smart card you could get a discount on state taxes and charges, ironically it could be cheaper car rego.

But 1 thing i thought we could use was something like movie tickets or Netflix memberships. Enough trips per month and bang inventive delivered.

Even with the stupid PT levy put on footy tickets, which was a disgrace, it should have been done so much smarter, like rather than slugging us all and making us hate the government, they should have kept the PT charge so we still price signal the bus, but take the bus fair price off the ticket to the footy. Same idea but it becomes a visible incentive

[Goodsy]

What we need to do is think of an incentive to get people on PT.

The only incentive that will ever work will be making PT as convenient and easy to use as a car

[Waewick]

What we need to do is think of an incentive to get people on PT.

The only incentive that will ever work will be making PT as convenient and easy to use as a car

so wait until we have a population of 50m or just make driving worse. Which is a silly idea

[jk1237]

Even with the stupid PT levy put on footy tickets, which was a disgrace, it should have been done so much smarter, like rather than slugging us all and making us hate the government, they should have kept the PT charge so we still price signal the bus, but take the bus fair price off the ticket to the footy. Same idea but it becomes a visible incentive

Ok, you have completely and utterly lost the plot Waewick. Your arguments are contradicting yourself.

The PT levy on footy tickets is a smart and simple incentive to use PT to the footy and is working very well. Its not stupid, its not a disgrace, the only ones complaining are senile ultra right wing conservatives who psychologically refuse to ever use PT. They have the option of using it and taking it for free, if they don't, then they can't complain. It still needs to be subsidised regardless

[Waewick]

Even with the stupid PT levy put on footy tickets, which was a disgrace, it should have been done so much smarter, like rather than slugging us all and making us hate the government, they should have kept the PT charge so we still price signal the bus, but take the bus fair price off the ticket to the footy. Same idea but it becomes a visible incentive

Ok, you have completely and utterly lost the plot Waewick. Your arguments are contradicting yourself.

The PT levy on footy tickets is a smart and simple incentive to use PT to the footy and is working very well. Its not stupid, its not a disgrace, the only ones complaining are senile ultra right wing conservatives who psychologically refuse to ever use PT. They have the option of using it and taking it for free, if they don't, then they can't complain. It still needs to be subsidised regardless

No i havent lost the plot.

It's an un targeted immeasurable con.

All it does is unfairly tax people who walk, ride, or use PT regardless, for the price of their football ticket.

What a fairer or should i say smarter system do is simply reward those who use PT if that is your aim.

Use PT, the price off your ticket at the gate (or redunded on your travel card).

Not screw you all more expensive footy ticket.

That way instead of making everyone worse off, you simply reward those who do what you want. Take PT.

just don't ask me how to fund it

[Norman]

How is it different to have a discount off footy tickets after you used public transport to get there, to having free public transport for people who go to a game? The only thing that changes is the wording, and the outcome is exactly the same.

[Waewick]

How is it different to have a discount off footy tickets after you used public transport to get there, to having free public transport for people who go to a game? The only thing that changes is the wording, and the outcome is exactly the same.

its the incentive.

People get an incentive they are more likely to use it. Which is what we want as an outcome to AO.

But anyway.....i need a tram to the East.

[Vee]

This is interesting: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected] ... 0July+2013

* 85% of Adelaide folk travel to work by car (highest of any Australian city). Melbourne 80%, Sydney 70%, Perth 83% (approximate).
* SA has the highest rate of car ownership in Australia (612 per 1000 people).

85% travel to work by car is not great but improving public transport, increased cycling initiatives to create safer routes and connections and zoning changes encouraging higher densities in the city/inner suburbs are a step in the right direction.

Reducing the mandated number of car parks in new city apartments and increasing storage for bicycles allows for changing preferences and trends in car ownership (sharing etc).

I think the politicization of the city car park levy was unfortunate. It was reasonably modest and the objective was good. The levy is much higher in other Australian cities and has been extended to cover a wider area eg in Melbourne.

American cities are much worse for high rates of commuting by car but this article by Joseph Stromberg in Vox Transportation is interesting.

Fewer than 4% of Americans walk or bike to work. Here's how to change that.

The article includes examples, illustrations and references to research.
Ways for cities and towns to reduce the over reliance on the motor car and most effective ways to make travel on foot and by bicycle safer and easier.
Includes:

1) Stop building cul-de-sacs and bring back the grid
2) Change zoning rules to allow for density and mixed-use
3) Eliminate parking requirements
4) Put roads on a diet and make lanes narrower
5) Build protected bike lanes
6) Connect bike lanes to create usable routes

Vox:
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/29/8682707/wa ... sportation

[Waewick]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business ... 7383214163

even doing it in Sydney....

[metro]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business ... 7383214163

even doing it in Sydney....

what the heck is wrong with Luke Foley and NSW Labor?! before the election said they supported Light Rail, but now they're against Light Rail as well as the 2nd Harbor rail crossing and they should instead build a bus tunnel in the city. I'm betting they'll spend another 2 terms in opposition, they certainly deserve it! Sydney will be so much better once George St is cleared of loud smelly buses and cars!

[drsmith]

Following the big detour (below), another brain-fart idea has emerged to deal with the regular holiday congestion at Port Wakefield. This time it's a roundabout at the Copper Coast intersection with Highway 1.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... =anonymous

As some of the commenters to the article have pointed out, the congestion through the town also needs to be dealt with as well.

Interestingly in the article was the mention of $160m on an alternative route which included 20km of new road. Note hat's from recollection as the article is now behind a paywall. If it's for that ridiculous detour route mentioned earlier in the year, I can't see the Feds coughing up for that. $160m would build a dual carriageway bypass and a grade separated interchange with Copper Coast Highway surely. That option though isn't 20km long.

The following somewhat bizarre solution has been proposed as a solution to traffic congestion at Port Wakefield,

The State Government initially proposed a detour route for Copper Coast traffic along Ninnes Rd to Lochiel, them down to Two Wells via Balaklava.

Although this route is 25km longer than Highway 1, it avoids the often horrendous holiday traffic build up around Port Wakefield and can save drivers up to an hour’s driving time during peak periods. Traffic signs would encourage drivers to use the other roads.

I'm not surprised local councils aren't supportive of this proposal. It's cheap and nasty.

A potential solution remains an initial build single carriageway national highway bypass of the town with the main convergence point for YP and national highway traffic south of the town where the bypass commences. During busy holiday periods, signalised carriageway metering could be applied to manage traffic flows. A reoriented Balaklava road to just north of the BP could provide heavy transport access from the bypass to/from that service station. The Balaklava Road could cross the bypass in the form of split T's.

A variation of this could be to build the bypass but maintain priority for the existing road through the town. That would at least give national highway traffic an alternative and reduce pressure on the existing road during busy holiday periods. It would also help flood proof the corridor.

Ultimately, a dual carriageway bypass will be required with a grade separated connection to the Copper Coast highway north of the town. Such a design could also directly link the CC Highway directly to a realigned Balaklava Road thus grade separating movements from that side as well. Without grade separation of the conflicting CC highway and national highway movements, safety issues are going to remain. In any form, access to/from the existing BP from a new bypass shouldn't be a problem.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 7292373498