News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[AG]

You can't create a successfully flowing and sustainable transport system by making roads worse, but by improving alternative forms of transport. The Deliberately-allow-roads-to-become-congested model adopted by some US cities such as San Diego has a more detrimental effect to the effeciency of the transport system than benefit. If the roads are removed without the proper alternatives set up in place, you're bound to find the livelihood of a district disappear. The closure of what is now Rundle Mall for pedestrians was successful because many transport nodes and high pedestrian traffic already existed.

Take NYC for example, it has some of the most well developed road infrastructure (although a lot of it is aging), yet a significant portion of the population still insists on using public transport, including mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Unfortunately, whether we like it or not it is possible to build a city with no rail system. However, it is nearly impossible to build a city without roads. There still needs to be some investment on improving the road network because there will always be traffic using roads. However, the public transport system still needs far more investment than the roads for private transport.

[jimmy_2486]

Well it seems that the government doesn't think we need a better PT system. Otherwise they would be acting quick smart to advertise an upgrade.

[Norman]

Well, let them upgrade the tracks first, then we can continue... it's not like the government is not spending money at all. In fact, they have just re-comissioned 2 new rail cars to meet the extra demand on the Public Transport.

[Tyler_Durden]

Yes and id say the best way to get people out of the city is to make it as frustrating as possible to drive into the city.

You know what Adelaide people are like. They won't find alternative methods if it's difficult they simply won't go into the city at all unless they have to. I have no problem with cars in the city, they are one of several important systems of transport and the city isn't that congested. I just think some areas of the city could be made car free, or more pedstrian friendly, while others areas made to cater for cars. Of course, public transport should always have right of way though.

[Cruise]

Unfortunately, whether we like it or not it is possible to build a city with no rail system. However, it is nearly impossible to build a city without roads. There still needs to be some investment on improving the road network because there will always be traffic using roads. However, the public transport system still needs far more investment than the roads for private transport.

Been playing sim city have we?

[AG]

Giving the city a miss
TIM LLOYD
August 11, 2007 02:15am

IN A few years, drivers will scoff at the idea of driving through Adelaide rather than around it.

We are quickly approaching that point that occurs in every modern city's life when it becomes impractical to use the city as a short-cut.

It is the point where planners stop trying to accommodate ever-larger loads of traffic in their CBD cores.

Instead, they start to plan on behalf of life in the city and let drivers vent their frustrations elsewhere. It is usually the point at which cities build by-pass and ring routes, put their roads underground or up on stilts.

It has already happened in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. Adelaide has held out a bit longer because its open grid layout has been kind to traffic.

But the ring routes have steadily developed around the CBD, and the major road works on South Rd and at Port Adelaide show how the north-south and east-west axes of transport are now developing.

It is time for the city to stop thinking about itself as a thoroughfare and start planning to be just that: a city.

Hopefully, it would be a more mature place where the emphasis would switch to pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and amenities for humans rather than cars.

Pedestrians are endlessly squeezed on narrow footpaths, loaded with poorly-conceived street furniture.

The new tramline is one sign that the balance between pedestrian and traffic is beginning to change.

But once you stop worrying about it being a thoroughfare, the whole physical shape of the city's public space can change.

At present, the cars are spending much of their time at rush hour stationary so it won't be such a big change after all.

[Howie]

Pretty hit and miss article by Tim Lloyd actually. We're presented with no facts or figures, and it gets a little confusing towards the end. I'm not sure if he's stating his personal opinion or even if he has done any research on the subject at all. Not a personal attack on Tim, but lately his journalistic work leaves a little to be desired. Either that or it must have been a slow day at the tiser.

[bdm]

It's often quicker to whiz straight through the city in peak hour than brave the monstrosity that is Greenhill Road.

[toby1]

an interesting point made previously by normangerman about removing parking on Unley and Goodwood rds ... I often use these roads and almost all of the congestion is due to parked cars taking up 1/2 to 3/4 of one lane on each side, effectively reducing flow to one lane in each direction (and this is not limited to these streets).

This is where politics seems to get in the way all the time - how many times have I heard about small business owners arcing up because they might lose the parking spaces outside their premises and so lose business. "Widening" these Arterial roads by reducing street parking (and maybe even some right hand turns?) could be discussed as a case of "Greater Good", but too often seems to be a casualty of politics as the local elected members feel threatened by an angry deli owner ...

Less street parking is in my humble opinion far better than one way streets or lowered speed limits.

[adam73837]

although our traffic problems aren't as bad as Melbourne or Sydney's we are still struggling. This is because we are too conservative. People must realise that it is now the 21st Century and that Light's Vision will be turning 200 in the next 30 years. If we must, base the CBD around Light's Vision, however Greate Adelaide's roads are in need of an upgrade- and I don't just mean South Road.
Having used to live near South Road (in St Mary's to be exact) when i was younger, i can remember that evey moring during the school holidays when my parents would take me to my grandparents house (or even to school on schooldays), it would be bumper to bumper right past anzac Highway and up to Sir Donald Bradman Drive. It is obvious that this road needs to be looked at, however there is another road which is just as important to Adelaide. This road is Portrush Road (and I just happen to live near it). People can say that Adelaide will become a non-stop city as much as they like. However what tey must realise is that that only applies if you are traveling to/from Victor Harbour. By all means, upgrade South Road, but remeber that Portrsuh road is also bumper to bumper, however that doesn't just include a part of it and nor does it only consist of cars. Portrush Road is congested from Glen Osmond, past Payneham, past Vale Park, past Regency Road and right up to Grand Junction Road. All the while, carrying semi-trailers and thousands of cars each day (except Sunday just like south Road). Portrush Road is -when you come to think about it) the main transport corridor between the South East of the state and Port Adelaide. However it just so happens to be that Portrush Road is surrounded by people that are conservative and speak out as if they are still living in the 19th century. Hello? Wake up everybody, Portrush road is just as much a nightmare as South Road and yet nothing is being done about it. (Other than the so-called widening which took 4 years to build ).
Might I also say that if Dunstan had carried out the MATS Plan when it was proposed, we wouldn't have the portush Road traffic problem and nor would we have the South Road problem. But no, that generation of South Australians - like this generation of South Australians only focus on here and now and not on how something will benefit the future.

[AtD]

Might I also say that if Dunstan had carried out the MATS Plan when it was proposed, we wouldn't have the portush Road traffic problem and nor would we have the South Road problem.

Nor would we have the suburb of Hindmarsh. MATS called for most of it to be demolished!

[monotonehell]

Might I also say that if Dunstan had carried out the MATS Plan when it was proposed, we wouldn't have the portush Road traffic problem and nor would we have the South Road problem. But no, that generation of South Australians - like this generation of South Australians only focus on here and now and not on how something will benefit the future.

I agree with most of what you said, we do need to seriously invest in some sensible transport measures for even more roads than you mention. As well as useful public transport options. But have you ever been to Los Angeles? A freeway system is not the answer, it doesn't matter how large you make the road system, demand will always rise above capacity.

[Edgar]

You are not alone, there is many other roads in Adelaide Metropolitan that is in seriously bad situation. Firstly, I agree the roads around the eastern suburbs are really bad. They are so insufficiently narrow yet recording high traffics, to top that off, those shops and car yards located just beside the road has insufficient car parking, subjecting to using the main road side itself as car parking areas.

Maybe adding another lane would solve this problems, or totally eliminate car parking on main road-side would definitely help the situation, but not in terms of long planning though. And the road itself, together with many other roads in our metropolitan is very limited. Limited as in the limitation for expansion, even so, it would require purchasing off the entire properties along the road and clean them up for upgrades.

Since I am a migrants with less than 5 years in Australia, I have not much knowledge on the history of Adelaide and the road planning. I would assume that most of these main roads were upgraded, or built over the suburbs, but not the other way round. This means that it has very little opportunity for the widening of these roads unless massive land were purchased and cleared.

On the side note, I would also like to take this opportunity to stress out the current situation at the intersection of Torrens Rd at Ovingham (off Brompton). There are basically almost half a dozen of traffic lights starting from Renown Park all the way to Park Terrace intersection lights. Mathematically speaking, there are one set of lights at less than 100m distance.

To rub salt into the would, there is the always-so-busy3-tracks rail crossing. I have witnessed in less than 8 months, two very seriously life threatening incidents. The recent one being a man who was killed by the interstate trains, and the other being an ambulance attending on an emergency apparently had no where to go and was stuck for 3 long minutes (in case of an emergency 30seconds delay could be life threatening), due to the freight trains passing. But that is part of the problems, the other thing is, of ALL the hours of the day for these freight trains to pass, they always, somehow, love to choose the best time of the day, you could possibly guess it. That's right, peak hours. If I have a grenade, I would blow one of these up. Everytime, around 8am or after 8am, they happily chose to trail pass slowly and sometimes even decided stop to wait clearance off the waiting area adjacent to War Memorial Drive.

This is nothing more than cutting the network connection between the affected suburbs and the city by half. Everything is paralysed, cars cannot move, public bus cannot move, everyone has no choice but to sit and wait, 3 minutes for them to pass at their slow rate, another 2 minutes of waiting time for the clearance.

Would you believe once, the traffic actually congested all the way from Torrens Rd at Brompton to South Road intersection? Amazing.

[adam73837]

monotonehell wrote:

• But have you ever been to Los Angeles? A freeway system is not the answer, it doesn't matter how large you make the road system, demand will always rise above capacity.

I see your point, however if we were to plan freeways carefully, we would be able to have enough capacity on them to meet the demand. A reason for this is that even on the South eastern Freeway, you have people travelling at 80 km/h, so they'll probably stick to the roads other than the freeways.
Although despite the fact that these people will stay off the freeways, experienced drivers (who have been interstate, etc.) will know how to use them properly and I doubt that they will highly exceed capacity, because I doubt Adelaide's population will reach that of a city like Los Angeles.

[AtD]

"Widening roads to cure congestion is like widening your belt to cure obesity" You can't beat traffic by encouraging more traffic.

The focus should be public transport, not roads. Adding more lanes and bypassing traffic lights increases traffic problems further upstream. Freeways encourage more people to live further away from jobs and services, which leads to car dependence and a perpetual cycle of congestion and expansion. Car dependent design is a problem all most suburban centres.

Public transport provides an alternative gets people off the roads which eases congestion for other road users. It encourages people to live closer to services and breaks the cycle of car dependence.

Our rail lines have massive uncaptured capacity to handle commuter traffic, but is hampered by a lack of investment in infrastructure and rolling stock. Every day the rail network is crammed packed in the mornings and afternoons. Every extra rail car or tram we can add to the network removes in excess of 150 cars from our roads at the times where its needed most. Every extra bus [img]removes[/img] 80 cars.