rhino wrote:Obviously you have paid a lot of attention to the posts describing the negative effects of having a freeway (not).
And perhaps you didn't notice when he stated that there would have to be a significant amount of money pumped into each and every one of the bottlenecks (or soon to become-) on South Road.
Why would Rhino not have noticed? I certainly did. But there was an assumption that underpasses would be used everywhere when in reality overpasses (and in at least one case, a bridge over South Road) would suffice.
Besides, did you see the positive effects of having a freeway?
The only positive effect I can think of other than what we'd get from upgrading South Road is faster journey times for users - but even that may be temporary, and non users are more likely to be slowed down than speeded up.
But why would we (not necessarily you rhino) want to pay attention to those things.
If you consider the size of the disadvantages, perhaps a bigger question is why would you?
Apparently Public Transport is the way to go in a city which many PT and Freeway Activists (on S-A) alike have admitted is one of the most low-density cities they have ever seen.
And rightly so! It saves on the cost of parking provision, enabling the land to be put to better use.
'Tis easy to make too much of the density issue, but employment tends to be in high density areas. And while our low residential density is a disadvantage for public transport provision (though only a small one, as Melbourne proves), our conurbation shape is a great advantage.
Yes we can.
I'm not saying that we should abolish PT (that's ridiculous and besides:) it is needed. However we can't expect a city tipped to boom after the Global Economic Recession to have a 2-lane road as its principle North-South Axis while every day freight rumbles through suburban areas.
Whatever made you think otherwise?
Being tipped to boom is not the same thing as booming, and as investors in a Brisbane one recently discovered, a booming economy is no guarantee of financial success for a tollway. Tunnelling is very expensive, but anything else would unacceptably blight residential areas. I thought I'd explained to you that people rejected the MATS plan for a good reason, and that reason has not changed - indeed it's strengthened.
But there's potentially a much bigger problem: a freeway could encourage employment to move to places of lower density, which is a problem while residential density is still low. This could make it far more difficult for public transport to increase its market share, so there would be a greater reliance on cars and the freeway. Not only would it become congested, but many of the roads leading to it would become congested - so yet more money would be needed.
We have a fairly good urban arterial road system, so it's best to concentrate on improving it and our rail system rather than building extremely expensive roads that we won't need any time soon. And if you disagree or think you have better ideas, remember they're off topic here. But they're on topic in the North South Corridor thread
in the Visions & Suggestions section.
[Edit: by here
I meant 60 pages into the South Road Upgrade thread. They're on topic in this (Great Roads Debate) thread that they've now landed in.