Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Nathan wrote:I don't think the ring road is as bad as people think it is. Most parts flow quite easily, and traffic light waits tend to be ok. Excepting of course through the O-Bahn works at the moment, and Greenhill Rd.
I use it regularly to get from Port Road round to Norwood/Dulwich and it really isn't that bad at all. Granted, my travel is outside of peak hours but even then I believe it is quicker to travel around the CBD (either via Park/Fitzroy Terraces or West Terrace/Greenhill Road) than through it. Even if not you're only talking a couple of minutes difference. For a nicer CBD with less traffic I don't think it's too great a sacrifice.
Have a look at traffic light sequencing, extending clearway hours etc by all means but the bones of the route really aren't bad at all. I think it just has an unnecessarily bad reputation.
I have tried to use the ring route when travelling East/West but in my experience, straight down Wakefield even with road works is quicker.
Going Magill,Dequiteville etc around to Port Road will be better once the train lines are removed, but Greenhill is becoming a waste of time , especially when you try to get over to Richmond Road.
Nathan wrote:The Port Rd intersection (ignoring priority for trams and the level crossing) favours the peak traffic flow. Turning right onto Park Tce in the morning takes ages, but not much of an issue at other times.
The wine centre intersection will greatly be improved once the O-Bahn tunnel is completed.
How so? The problem is that there is a large volume of traffic using the ring route v's the large volume of traffic leaving the city. That whole stretch of the ring through Flinders, Rundle and Botanic intersections should be trenched to remove all the intersections, then the ACC can have CBD roads narrowed and reduced speed limits. The botanic corner is of particular concern and grade separating this alone would remove the traffic snarl along the ring route particularly in the PM. The ACC should be pushing hard for this as it will encourage commuters to stay on the ring route and not duck through the city as a shortcut to the North West.
Nathan wrote:The Port Rd intersection (ignoring priority for trams and the level crossing) favours the peak traffic flow. Turning right onto Park Tce in the morning takes ages, but not much of an issue at other times.
The wine centre intersection will greatly be improved once the O-Bahn tunnel is completed.
How so? The problem is that there is a large volume of traffic using the ring route v's the large volume of traffic leaving the city. That whole stretch of the ring through Flinders, Rundle and Botanic intersections should be trenched to remove all the intersections, then the ACC can have CBD roads narrowed and reduced speed limits. The botanic corner is of particular concern and grade separating this alone would remove the traffic snarl along the ring route particularly in the PM. The ACC should be pushing hard for this as it will encourage commuters to stay on the ring route and not duck through the city as a shortcut to the North West.
Because most of the traffic issues at the intersection are due to the large volume of bus movements. Look at the utter shit-show of the bus lanes on Botanic Rd (mostly caused by motorists who can't read the f**king signs, thereby creating two lanes of traffic trying to swap lanes with each other to either turn or avoid a stopped bus). The O-Bahn tunnel will effectively remove all buses (bar the routes continuing on straight to North Tce through Kent Town / St Peters) from the intersection.
Waewick wrote:
I have tried to use the ring route when travelling East/West but in my experience, straight down Wakefield even with road works is quicker.
Going Magill,Dequiteville etc around to Port Road will be better once the train lines are removed, but Greenhill is becoming a waste of time , especially when you try to get over to Richmond Road.
Agreed on a direct east/west journey but it's difficult to envisage a ring route which takes a significant detour north/south of the CBD, serves the major arterial roads along that route and is also quicker than a direct path through the middle of the city. The ring route's real value comes into play when it's used to avoid a trip through north adelaide.
At any rate, the context of the discussion is that of reducing CBD limits to 40. I'd suggest the travel time along wakefield/grote at most times of the day would not be materially impacted. Other trans CBD routes which are impacted materially by a 10km/hr reduction (hard to think of many) would make the ring route look more attractive. Win-Win.
Waewick wrote:
I have tried to use the ring route when travelling East/West but in my experience, straight down Wakefield even with road works is quicker.
Going Magill,Dequiteville etc around to Port Road will be better once the train lines are removed, but Greenhill is becoming a waste of time , especially when you try to get over to Richmond Road.
Agreed on a direct east/west journey but it's difficult to envisage a ring route which takes a significant detour north/south of the CBD, serves the major arterial roads along that route and is also quicker than a direct path through the middle of the city. The ring route's real value comes into play when it's used to avoid a trip through north adelaide.
At any rate, the context of the discussion is that of reducing CBD limits to 40. I'd suggest the travel time along wakefield/grote at most times of the day would not be materially impacted. Other trans CBD routes which are impacted materially by a 10km/hr reduction (hard to think of many) would make the ring route look more attractive. Win-Win.
see I think we should be trying to make the ring route better the encourage usage - at the same time as making the direct route less attractive.
Greenhill should be easy - fix up the Anzac Highway intersection (I said easy, not cheap) and I would remove the Sir Lewin Cohen intersection. (Ideally the Hutt street extension as well)
Maximus wrote: The city ring route just isn't functional enough in its present state to entice cross-city traffic to avoid the CBD -- particularly for those travelling east/west.
This is an important point. Its no use chipping away at the available "thru" routes of the CBD, by the tactics of reducing limits, narrowing of roads, poor sequencing of lights, if something is not done immediately about the next to useless ring route. It is still quicker to travel from Main North Road to Hyde Park via King William Street than the bypass. Visa versa the CBD will never be free of unnecessary traffic until a proper viable ring route is established ie, no, or limited traffic lights. The only cars in the CBD core should ultimately be local residents, delivery vehicles and public transport ie taxis.
How would you resolve for the major intersections such as Greenhill Rd / Fullarton Rd, Anzac Hwy / Greenhill Rd, etc? I suppose just a series of under/over passes?
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.
Waewick wrote:
Greenhill should be easy - fix up the Anzac Highway intersection (I said easy, not cheap) and I would remove the Sir Lewin Cohen intersection. (Ideally the Hutt street extension as well)
I use both of them frequently but agree they're completely unnecessary; the southern parklands are well and truly overserviced by roads. Sir lewis is little more than a carpark. If they were serious about the ring route they wouldn't allow on-street parking on greenhill road, either.
Waewick wrote:
Greenhill should be easy - fix up the Anzac Highway intersection (I said easy, not cheap) and I would remove the Sir Lewin Cohen intersection. (Ideally the Hutt street extension as well)
I use both of them frequently but agree they're completely unnecessary; the southern parklands are well and truly overserviced by roads. Sir lewis is little more than a carpark. If they were serious about the ring route they wouldn't allow on-street parking on greenhill road, either.
Yeah that is a huge bugbear of mine.
There are two issues in the east I can't see how they'll ever resolve. The Britannia roundabout and choosing between Fullarton road and Glen Osmond Rd. Shouldn't have both hitting Greenhill imo.
Waewick wrote:see I think we should be trying to make the ring route better the encourage usage
I absolutely agree with this part. I take issue with the ideology that because 'Road B' is where we want cars to drive, not 'Road A', we should actively make Road A less attractive (via reduced speed limits, additional traffic furniture, etc) so that drivers use Road B. To me, that's just lazy. It's an easy way out that addresses the symptom, not that cause, and it's a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Also, frankly, it's just downright mean-spirited... "We've made Road A an exercise in frustration for drivers, and Road B is dysfunctional and far from your optimal route, so either way you're f**ked... But you're less f**ked if you use Road B. So bravo to us, we've solved the problem!"
It's = it is; its = everything else. You're = you are; your = belongs to. Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.
Waewick wrote:see I think we should be trying to make the ring route better the encourage usage
I absolutely agree with this part. I take issue with the ideology that because 'Road B' is where we want cars to drive, not 'Road A', we should actively make Road A less attractive (via reduced speed limits, additional traffic furniture, etc) so that drivers use Road B. To me, that's just lazy. It's an easy way out that addresses the symptom, not that cause, and it's a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Also, frankly, it's just downright mean-spirited... "We've made Road A an exercise in frustration for drivers, and Road B is dysfunctional and far from your optimal route, so either way you're f**ked... But you're less f**ked if you use Road B. So bravo to us, we've solved the problem!"
Maximus wrote:I absolutely agree with this part. I take issue with the ideology that because 'Road B' is where we want cars to drive, not 'Road A', we should actively make Road A less attractive (via reduced speed limits, additional traffic furniture, etc) so that drivers use Road B. To me, that's just lazy. It's an easy way out that addresses the symptom, not that cause, and it's a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Also, frankly, it's just downright mean-spirited... "We've made Road A an exercise in frustration for drivers, and Road B is dysfunctional and far from your optimal route, so either way you're f**ked... But you're less f**ked if you use Road B. So bravo to us, we've solved the problem!"
Agree with this in principle but in practice I don't think it's always as clear cut. Whilst it would be nice to chuck £70m at the ring road and make the whole thing brilliant overnight, in reality projects happen separately in stages as and when funding allows. In reality the ring road's slowly being improved, whilst the CBD is gradually being made a less attractive option.
Britannia Roundabout's been fixed, in my opinion very well, Park Terrace has been widened and the upcoming Torrens Junction improvements will have a massive positive impact on the western part of the route. In a couple of years it should be much better than it was five years ago. I don't think it ridiculous that there should be no changes made to the CBD in that time to start the diversion of traffic onto the ringroad. Hopefully the ringroad will continue to improve until it's perfect - at which point it should be next to impossible to drive directly through the CBD. Whilst it's not the easiest route at the moment - it's certainly not impossible and some people would argue it's still quicker than the ring road....
Maximus wrote:I absolutely agree with this part. I take issue with the ideology that because 'Road B' is where we want cars to drive, not 'Road A', we should actively make Road A less attractive (via reduced speed limits, additional traffic furniture, etc) so that drivers use Road B. To me, that's just lazy. It's an easy way out that addresses the symptom, not that cause, and it's a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Also, frankly, it's just downright mean-spirited... "We've made Road A an exercise in frustration for drivers, and Road B is dysfunctional and far from your optimal route, so either way you're f**ked... But you're less f**ked if you use Road B. So bravo to us, we've solved the problem!"
Agree with this in principle but in practice I don't think it's always as clear cut. Whilst it would be nice to chuck £70m at the ring road and make the whole thing brilliant overnight, in reality projects happen separately in stages as and when funding allows. In reality the ring road's slowly being improved, whilst the CBD is gradually being made a less attractive option.
Britannia Roundabout's been fixed, in my opinion very well, Park Terrace has been widened and the upcoming Torrens Junction improvements will have a massive positive impact on the western part of the route. In a couple of years it should be much better than it was five years ago. I don't think it ridiculous that there should be no changes made to the CBD in that time to start the diversion of traffic onto the ringroad. Hopefully the ringroad will continue to improve until it's perfect - at which point it should be next to impossible to drive directly through the CBD. Whilst it's not the easiest route at the moment - it's certainly not impossible and some people would argue it's still quicker than the ring road....
I drive the roundabout every day. If that's fixed well I must say my expectations of the ring route ever being functional has dimished significantly.
Waewick wrote:I drive the roundabout every day. If that's fixed well I must say my expectations of the ring route ever being functional has dimished significantly.
Like the rest of the ring road, I never drive it in peak hour but outside of peak it functions perfectly.
What's the problem? Is it a bottleneck issue or just the fact it's two roundabouts combined? Fair enough if it's the first, but if it's the latter then hopefully Adelaide's drivers can adapt with time and learn how to use the thing properly - double roundabouts aren't by any means unusual throughout much of Europe.
Don't mean to sound condescending on that one - just genuinely interested as to why this part of the route isn't considered fixed when it seems 100x better to me.
Waewick wrote:I drive the roundabout every day. If that's fixed well I must say my expectations of the ring route ever being functional has dimished significantly.
Like the rest of the ring road, I never drive it in peak hour but outside of peak it functions perfectly.
What's the problem? Is it a bottleneck issue or just the fact it's two roundabouts combined? Fair enough if it's the first, but if it's the latter then hopefully Adelaide's drivers can adapt with time and learn how to use the thing properly - double roundabouts aren't by any means unusual throughout much of Europe.
Don't mean to sound condescending on that one - just genuinely interested as to why this part of the route isn't considered fixed when it seems 100x better to me.
It magnificently fails during any form of congestion. Especially peak hour.
I understand the design and it would work well if all traffic on all roads flowed consistently. But traffic there doesn't so it is a nightmare.
However I have to admit, I don't have a cheap solution that would appeal to all.
Waewick wrote:It magnificently fails during any form of congestion. Especially peak hour.
I understand the design and it would work well if all traffic on all roads flowed consistently. But traffic there doesn't so it is a nightmare.
However I have to admit, I don't have a cheap solution that would appeal to all.
So the roundabout itself seems to be slowing traffic? In which case I would have thought it's a user problem - i.e. too many people not understanding what entry lane they need to be in to take their desired exit, people not giving way when required or people entering the roundabout when there's traffic blocking their exit? In heavy traffic it often takes only one or two people doing the wrong thing to slow down the entire traffic flow and cause things to grind to a halt.
Perhaps better signage or road markings are required?
If the traffic's flowing freely before and after the roundabout then I can't see why a relatively simple double roundabout should cause any significant bottleneck. This thing works perfectly well in the UK, probably with higher traffic volumes in peak time than ours:
