News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
paul
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:36 am

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#406 Post by paul » Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:23 pm

monotonehell wrote:
paul wrote:The principle of Induced Demand is not particularly complex and is often at the heart of arguments by those against roads in general. I suspect its impressive sounding name is designed to intimidate opponents and is presented as an indisputable fact. That said, it is used as it does have some merit, however it must be looked at in context - is the growth in traffic a result of economic growth, population growth? the increasing affordability of cars? And, if there was an increase in car usage is this outweighed by the environmental benefits of a nonstop motorway?, the economic benefits of improved transportation?

Should new roads result in a disproportionate increase in car usage during peak hours, road pricing could be introduced during those hours to discourage CBD commuters while maintaining the benefits of a motorway for freight and business traffic and the those making a weekend visit to granny in the northern suburbs.

adam73837 - I admire your persistence!!
Well reasoned. Let's look at it in the context of Adelaide then shall we?

During peak periods (the times when people complain that the roads are at or above capacity) which arterial roads are 'full'? The answer is - all of them. Where do those roads go? The answer is - all directions. In light of that, in order to relive congestion where is the best place to run a freeway? Probably in no one corridor. The reason is that people do not go from a common point A to a common point B. Their trips are many and varied.

The main point that comes from the study of induced demand on freeways is that they aren't always the answer, and in most cases are actually a route to a larger problem, as well as negative flow on effects. In a sprawl like Adelaide people want to go in many different directions, therefore it makes more sense to spread the traffic load over as many roads as their are directions. During peak period there are a few common destinations, and a well patronised public transport system can help reduce the load by catering to those people.

That's not to say freeways don't play a positive role in a city. Just that the patterns of use don't always turn out to be what people envision them to be. We've had around 50 years of experience to learn from in the rest of the World. No need to repeat their mistakes because we don't ask the right questions.
Adelaide's geography and the distribution of industry surely suggests that upgrading south road to a north-south expressway ensures you provide the greatest benefit possible? Our relatively low population and density means journeys often cover a large distance (I’m basing this purely on personal experience I should add). Alleviating congestion from arterial routes would ensure they can better serve local communities, which is what they were always intended for.

The freeway, as a means of moving a vehicle from point A to point B in the most efficient manner is as relevant today as it was in the 1950s. What has changed is the balance has shifted from a grossly disproportionate emphasis on freeways at the expense of PT, a complete absence of any consideration of the aesthetics and location of a freeway in the 1950s and a shift towards inner city living over the last two decades or so.

A well designed and managed expressway should be part of Adelaide’s transport network and could even be complementary to our existing PT network (perhaps dedicated bus lanes during peak hour?)

paul
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:36 am

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#407 Post by paul » Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:35 pm

Aidan wrote:
paul wrote:The principle of Induced Demand is not particularly complex and is often at the heart of arguments by those against roads in general. I suspect its impressive sounding name is designed to intimidate opponents
I hadn't realised the name sounded impressive. Can you think of a less impressive but still descriptive name for it?
and is presented as an indisputable fact.
Its existence is a fact. What is disputable is the amount.
That said, it is used as it does have some merit, however it must be looked at in context - is the growth in traffic a result of economic growth, population growth? the increasing affordability of cars?
Induced demand exists without any of these factors, although it can be hard to separate out the effects, especially with population growth. To see why, look at Mount Barker: the freeway (since the tunnels opened) has resulted in substantial rapid population growth, but if it hadn't happened there then it would happen somewhere else.
And, if there was an increase in car usage is this outweighed by the environmental benefits of a nonstop motorway?,
I can't think of any urban situation where this is the case.
the economic benefits of improved transportation?
Obviously this is something for cost benefit analysis, but it must be considered against alternative options. This is where the MATS Plan failed technically.
Should new roads result in a disproportionate increase in car usage during peak hours, road pricing could be introduced during those hours to discourage CBD commuters while maintaining the benefits of a motorway for freight and business traffic and the those making a weekend visit to granny in the northern suburbs.
True. But a new N-S motorway above ground can be ruled out completely, and the economic case does not yet justify constructing one below ground. Upgrading South Road (giving most of the benefits of a freeway) is a better strategy for now.
adam73837 - I admire your persistence!!
I don't think abandoning a thread when your points have been addressed and then coming back and acting like they haven't been counts as persistence!
Induced demand is a theory, and one that in the case of a N-S expressway in Adelaide, is being grossly overstated. Likewise, environmental benefits of freeways is also a theory based more or less an the example of emissions from a truck stoping 10 times at traffic lights versus travelling at a constant speed without stopping.

As for urban sprawl, it is purely a policy decision.

paul
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:36 am

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#408 Post by paul » Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:52 pm

skyliner wrote:For those having troubles with induced demand - take a long hard look at Brisbane's road situation. It is in a total snarl - came out on the news here today. Tunnels, expressways and freeways have all got caught up in an uncoordinated mess with very irate drivers everywhere. (All at a cost of 10's of billions of dollars to boot). Anne Bligh taking the knocks on the nose - infrastructure is out of hand - Adelaide has a chance not to go that way.

Coupled with the mess above is that options available to those on the freeways and so on to get out etc have lowered into huge waiting scenarios. People are trying to find back roads as the big fix it road infrastructure net is too crammed already.

Count our blessings here guys - rail, tram, road and O Bahn coordination still a viable option for us.

SA -STATE ON THE MOVE
For this to be explained by Induced Demand, from the time the freeway in question opened population growth would need to have been zero, tourism growth zero, economic growth zero, demographics constant (ie people per household), the price of cars relative to income constant.........

Is this perhaps more a case of under investment in PT? Have they got the balance wrong?

We have in Adelaide, for our population size, sprawl and density, a first class public transport system (not withstanding the need to upgrade the rail system, but it is still quite functional and the network extensive).

paul
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:36 am

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#409 Post by paul » Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:11 pm

Prince George wrote:
monotonehell wrote:If you're so concerned with what the rest of the World is doing then you might be further surprised that some of the World's largest cities are both considering demolishing some of their freeways and some others have already done so. And you'll be beyond surprised that those places aren't suffering from the gridlock that was predicted from demolishing them.
Further to monotonehell's point, news just a couple of days ago that Hartford, the capital of Conneticut, will tear down a highway that cuts the city in two. A month ago, Oklahoma City announced the same thing. That story also mentions Cleveland and Syracuse doing the same.

And in related news, financial troubles for struggling NASCAR got worse when GM cut back its sponsorship on several teams. My heart bleeds.
In many cases they are simply replacing a road with a road, albeit one more appropriately located and designed. In other cases is it perhaps a realignemt of the balance between PT and roads?

Still, I don't know of any city the size of Adelaide that is pulling down it's entire freeway network

User avatar
skyliner
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: fassifern (near Brisbane)
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#410 Post by skyliner » Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:50 pm

paul wrote:
skyliner wrote:For those having troubles with induced demand - take a long hard look at Brisbane's road situation. It is in a total snarl - came out on the news here today. Tunnels, expressways and freeways have all got caught up in an uncoordinated mess with very irate drivers everywhere. (All at a cost of 10's of billions of dollars to boot). Anne Bligh taking the knocks on the nose - infrastructure is out of hand - Adelaide has a chance not to go that way.

Coupled with the mess above is that options available to those on the freeways and so on to get out etc have lowered into huge waiting scenarios. People are trying to find back roads as the big fix it road infrastructure net is too crammed already.

Count our blessings here guys - rail, tram, road and O Bahn coordination still a viable option for us.

SA -STATE ON THE MOVE
For this to be explained by Induced Demand, from the time the freeway in question opened population growth would need to have been zero, tourism growth zero, economic growth zero, demographics constant (ie people per household), the price of cars relative to income constant.........

Is this perhaps more a case of under investment in PT? Have they got the balance wrong?

We have in Adelaide, for our population size, sprawl and density, a first class public transport system (not withstanding the need to upgrade the rail system, but it is still quite functional and the network extensive).
Paul, all this has happened in a fairly short space of time. Of course there has been other change but I referred to this because the problem was 'suddenly'
there, As a user of one of the key roads in question - Ipswich Highway - it had troubles anyway, but when the attempted rectification was made, it got really out of hand - induced demand - even during construction time. (about 2 years I gather for this road) Population has grown, and , as you say, under investment in PT with it. Despite this, the rather 'sudden' change in usage, frequency of gridlocks, accidents etc is appaling.

Also, as you say, Adelaide has a chance not to get caught up in Brisbane's PT mistakes. A better place you see :wink:

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE
Jack.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2075
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#411 Post by Aidan » Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:04 pm

jk1237 wrote:Im pretty sure Birmingham in the UK have dismantled some of their ring freeways that blighted the inner Brum for years and years.
The eastern side of their inner ring road is no longer there.
I was getting a bit annoyed during my lunch break walk for the past few weeks. Everyday in Rundle Mall, there were 3 people under the canopy handing out flyers from the ACC of "learn how to park your car for free in the city", as well as a big sign promoting the carparks. Oh dear :roll:
I don't know why - the free parking spaces on South Terrace always seem to be full nowadays, and the free spaces elsewhere seem to be in short supply.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#412 Post by AtD » Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:06 pm

So jk24601, how do you park in the city for free?

User avatar
jk1237
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:22 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#413 Post by jk1237 » Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:20 pm

AtD wrote:So jk24601, how do you park in the city for free?
you have to fill out the competition form to go into the draw to win free parking for a year. Other than that, ride your bike in :wink:

User avatar
drsmith
Legendary Member!
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:35 pm
Location: Perth
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#414 Post by drsmith » Sun Jun 28, 2009 3:17 pm

paul wrote:In many cases they are simply replacing a road with a road, albeit one more appropriately located and designed. In other cases is it perhaps a realignemt of the balance between PT and roads?

Still, I don't know of any city the size of Adelaide that is pulling down it's entire freeway network
In Perth the William Street Overpass (which went over the on and off ramps from the Mitchell Freeway to Riverside Drive) was torn down as part of the Mandurah Railway project. It was replaced with a signalised insersection.

Other changes too have taken place to discourage use of the traditional entry/bypass route around the Perth CBD (Causeway/Riverside Drive) since the completion of the Graham Farmer Freeway (a purpose built bypass of the CBD under Northbridge). Non PT traffic capacity over the Causeway was reduced by almost half with the introduction of dedicated bus lanes and more complex signal phases to cater for busses going from the outside lanes at either end to the middle lanes across the Causeway itself and back to the outer lanes at the other end.

Plans have also been put forward cut the access from Riverside Drive to the Mitchell Freeway from both sides of politics when in power. This has been strongly advocated by Perth City Council.

On Friday however two accidents resulted in the closure of the westbound carriageway of the Grahame Farmer Freeway during the morning peak effectively denying CBD access via that route from the east. The constricted Causeway could not cope and it took until the afternoon to clear the resultant traffic backlog.

User avatar
adam73837
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: The wilderness being sustained by nutrients in the air and powering my laptop with positive energy

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#415 Post by adam73837 » Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:17 pm

Aidan wrote:
adam73837 wrote: Aidan, I'M BACK!! :lol: :mrgreen:
I wasn't criticising your frequency (or otherwise) of posting.
Yes Aidan, I understand that. However the smilies perhaps didn't show that I wasn't being very serious when I stated, "I'm Back!" For you see in posts, its either too many or too little number of smilies, hence leading to (in some cases) sticky situations. :lol:
raulduke wrote: There are some real public transport nuts in here.
raulduke, I understand what you're saying but take it from me; it's no use arguing. :(
I take back many of the things I said before 2010; particularly my anti-Rann rants. While I still maintain some of said opinions, I feel I could have been less arrogant. I also apologise to people I offended; while knowing I can't fully take much back. :)

User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#416 Post by Cruise » Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:22 pm

Go back to playing hop scotch Adam.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2075
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#417 Post by Aidan » Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:57 pm

paul wrote: Adelaide's geography and the distribution of industry surely suggests that upgrading south road to a north-south expressway ensures you provide the greatest benefit possible?
Not quite.

An underground expressway beneath Morphett Road, Adelaide Airport and Findon Road would provide greater benefits. But it would not be an efficient use of money. The Brisbane Airport Link is in financial trouble, and this would be much more expensive than that.

A rail link under the City may also give better value. It would do more to reduce congestion, but wouldn't give the time and fuel benefits of a South Road upgrade.

And the South Road upgrade has the advantage that it can be done incrementally.
Our relatively low population and density means journeys often cover a large distance (I’m basing this purely on personal experience I should add).
Conurbation size is a much bigger factor than population density.
Alleviating congestion from arterial routes would ensure they can better serve local communities, which is what they were always intended for.
Where did you get the idea that arterial roads were always intended for serving local communities? We have local streets for that! Arterial roads are primarily for longer distance traffic.
A well designed and managed expressway should be part of Adelaide’s transport network
It is. The Port River Expressway is a great success.
and could even be complementary to our existing PT network (perhaps dedicated bus lanes during peak hour?)
Bus lanes on freeways are not usually a cost effective way of improving public transport. Bus lanes are very useful approaching bottlenecks, but they're not much use where the traffic is free flowing.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

User avatar
drsmith
Legendary Member!
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:35 pm
Location: Perth
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#418 Post by drsmith » Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:16 pm

Aidan wrote:The Brisbane Airport Link is in financial trouble, and this would be much more expensive than that.
I don't know that the Airport Link project itself is in financial trouble but the financing of the listed equity component (partly paid Brisconnections units) has, well, proven to be slightly less than ideal to say the least.

raulduke
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:22 am

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#419 Post by raulduke » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:27 am

Aidan wrote:
paul wrote: Adelaide's geography and the distribution of industry surely suggests that upgrading south road to a north-south expressway ensures you provide the greatest benefit possible?
Not quite.

An underground expressway beneath Morphett Road, Adelaide Airport and Findon Road would provide greater benefits. But it would not be an efficient use of money. The Brisbane Airport Link is in financial trouble, and this would be much more expensive than that.

A rail link under the City may also give better value. It would do more to reduce congestion, but wouldn't give the time and fuel benefits of a South Road upgrade.

And the South Road upgrade has the advantage that it can be done incrementally.
Our relatively low population and density means journeys often cover a large distance (I’m basing this purely on personal experience I should add).
Conurbation size is a much bigger factor than population density.
Alleviating congestion from arterial routes would ensure they can better serve local communities, which is what they were always intended for.
Where did you get the idea that arterial roads were always intended for serving local communities? We have local streets for that! Arterial roads are primarily for longer distance traffic.
A well designed and managed expressway should be part of Adelaide’s transport network
It is. The Port River Expressway is a great success.
and could even be complementary to our existing PT network (perhaps dedicated bus lanes during peak hour?)
Bus lanes on freeways are not usually a cost effective way of improving public transport. Bus lanes are very useful approaching bottlenecks, but they're not much use where the traffic is free flowing.
Aidan - this is not a personal attack but for some reason I find your method of responding to posts by breaking them up line by line somewhat irritating.

The Port River Expressway will be a great success once the Northern Expressway, Northern Connector and South Road upgrades are completed, without them, its just a non stop route from Port Adelaide to Salisbury (and I realise that it also services Pt Wakefield Road).

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2075
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#420 Post by Aidan » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:33 am

raulduke wrote: Aidan - this is not a personal attack but for some reason I find your method of responding to posts by breaking them up line by line somewhat irritating.
Can you think of a better way of individually addressing the points made?

BTW this isn't a personal attack either, but I was under the impression that excessive quoting was something that most people found more irritating.
The Port River Expressway will be a great success once the Northern Expressway, Northern Connector and South Road upgrades are completed, without them, its just a non stop route from Port Adelaide to Salisbury (and I realise that it also services Pt Wakefield Road).
No, it's a great success already. It's a faster route from the Northern suburbs (where most of the manufacturing businesses are located) to the port, and it also links to South Road (which is useful whether or not the road is upgraded) and Hanson Road. And it connects to the main road north - it makes no difference at all to the Port River Expressway's usefulness whether that happens to be Port Wakefield Road (as it currently is) or the Northern Connector.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests