News & Discussion: O-Bahn

[Patrick_27]

Freeway would have been better...

Surely you've been reading this forum long enough to know better?

I agree with citywatcher. A freeway would take a lot of pressure off of N/E and Lower N/E Road(s), would work if we have a freeway grade ring route but without it would probably be a nightmare. If the S/E Freeway found it's way into the city they could connect the both and have a N/E to S/E freeway-grade route. The thing is, buses can use a freeway, cars can't use a busway - seeing as this city's PT remains to be largely unreliable, freeway-grade roads should still be seriously considered along these corridors.

[Norman]

As the isn't much manufacturing in the North-East, it's not going to happen. And it shouldn't happen. Anything more than a bus or rail corridor would destroy the amenity of the River Torrens and Linear Park.

[Kasey771]

Freeway would have been better...

Surely you've been reading this forum long enough to know better?

I agree with citywatcher. A freeway would take a lot of pressure off of N/E and Lower N/E Road(s), would work if we have a freeway grade ring route but without it would probably be a nightmare. If the S/E Freeway found it's way into the city they could connect the both and have a N/E to S/E freeway-grade route. The thing is, buses can use a freeway, cars can't use a busway - seeing as this city's PT remains to be largely unreliable, freeway-grade roads should still be seriously considered along these corridors.

Anyone that thinks a Freeway would have been the better option needs to do some reading on Induced Demand.

Induced Demand is the name for what happens when increasing supply of roadways lowers the time cost of driving, causing more people to drive and obliterating any reductions in congestion. "On average a 10% increase in lane miles induces an immediate 4% increase in vehicle miles traveled, which climbs to 10%(ie the entire new capacity) in a few years" **
**Walkable City, Speck, Jeff 2012.

More roads is not and can never be the answer to congestion.

[citywatcher]

Surely you've been reading this forum long enough to know better?

I agree with citywatcher. A freeway would take a lot of pressure off of N/E and Lower N/E Road(s), would work if we have a freeway grade ring route but without it would probably be a nightmare. If the S/E Freeway found it's way into the city they could connect the both and have a N/E to S/E freeway-grade route. The thing is, buses can use a freeway, cars can't use a busway - seeing as this city's PT remains to be largely unreliable, freeway-grade roads should still be seriously considered along these corridors.

Anyone that thinks a Freeway would have been the better option needs to do some reading on Induced Demand.

Induced Demand is the name for what happens when increasing supply of roadways lowers the time cost of driving, causing more people to drive and obliterating any reductions in congestion. "On average a 10% increase in lane miles induces an immediate 4% increase in vehicle miles traveled, which climbs to 10%(ie the entire new capacity) in a few years" **
**Walkable City, Speck, Jeff 2012.

More roads is not and can never be the answer to congestion.

Like to see LA with no freeways

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[Kasey771]

I agree with citywatcher. A freeway would take a lot of pressure off of N/E and Lower N/E Road(s), would work if we have a freeway grade ring route but without it would probably be a nightmare. If the S/E Freeway found it's way into the city they could connect the both and have a N/E to S/E freeway-grade route. The thing is, buses can use a freeway, cars can't use a busway - seeing as this city's PT remains to be largely unreliable, freeway-grade roads should still be seriously considered along these corridors.

Anyone that thinks a Freeway would have been the better option needs to do some reading on Induced Demand.

Induced Demand is the name for what happens when increasing supply of roadways lowers the time cost of driving, causing more people to drive and obliterating any reductions in congestion. "On average a 10% increase in lane miles induces an immediate 4% increase in vehicle miles traveled, which climbs to 10%(ie the entire new capacity) in a few years" **
**Walkable City, Speck, Jeff 2012.

More roads is not and can never be the answer to congestion.

Like to see LA with no freeways

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

Also from Jeff Speck's book:
"If more and more highways mean more traffic, does the same logic work in reverse? The latest twist in the Induced Demand story might be called Reduced Demand, which seems to be what happens when"vital" arteries are removed from cities. The traffic just goes away.
Two best known American examples remain New York's West Side Highway and San Fracisco's Embarcadero Freeway which collapsed in 1973 and 1989 respectively. In both cases contrary to the apocalyptic warnings of traffic engineers, most of the car trips simply disappeared. They did not pop up elsewhere clogging surface streets; people just found other ways to get around or felt less compelled to be mobile. The Embarcadero was replaced by a lovely boulevard, whose street cars actually transport more riders per day than the freeway once did."

[citywatcher]

Anyone that thinks a Freeway would have been the better option needs to do some reading on Induced Demand.

Induced Demand is the name for what happens when increasing supply of roadways lowers the time cost of driving, causing more people to drive and obliterating any reductions in congestion. "On average a 10% increase in lane miles induces an immediate 4% increase in vehicle miles traveled, which climbs to 10%(ie the entire new capacity) in a few years" **
**Walkable City, Speck, Jeff 2012.

More roads is not and can never be the answer to congestion.

Like to see LA with no freeways

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

Also from Jeff Speck's book:
"If more and more highways mean more traffic, does the same logic work in reverse? The latest twist in the Induced Demand story might be called Reduced Demand, which seems to be what happens when"vital" arteries are removed from cities. The traffic just goes away.
Two best known American examples remain New York's West Side Highway and San Fracisco's Embarcadero Freeway which collapsed in 1973 and 1989 respectively. In both cases contrary to the apocalyptic warnings of traffic engineers, most of the car trips simply disappeared. They did not pop up elsewhere clogging surface streets; people just found other ways to get around or felt less compelled to be mobile. The Embarcadero was replaced by a lovely boulevard, whose street cars actually transport more riders per day than the freeway once did."

Yeah like saying that eliminating food will solve hunger cos everyone would have starved to death

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[Kasey771]

Like to see LA with no freeways

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

Also from Jeff Speck's book:
"If more and more highways mean more traffic, does the same logic work in reverse? The latest twist in the Induced Demand story might be called Reduced Demand, which seems to be what happens when"vital" arteries are removed from cities. The traffic just goes away.
Two best known American examples remain New York's West Side Highway and San Fracisco's Embarcadero Freeway which collapsed in 1973 and 1989 respectively. In both cases contrary to the apocalyptic warnings of traffic engineers, most of the car trips simply disappeared. They did not pop up elsewhere clogging surface streets; people just found other ways to get around or felt less compelled to be mobile. The Embarcadero was replaced by a lovely boulevard, whose street cars actually transport more riders per day than the freeway once did."

Yeah like saying that eliminating food will solve hunger cos everyone would have starved to death

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

People that advocate for more roads and freeways are saying that buying bigger trousers will cure obesity.

[[Shuz]]

I think I made mention of it in another thread - We really do need to wait out another decade or so and see how technology plays out in automation, ride-sharing, driver less concepts before the argument can well and truly be settled about the need for freeways in cities. Automation, driver less and ride sharing technologies is a real and significant game changer for the way transport will be managed in our cities and how people will choose to get around in future.

I think the argument is not so much lets build more freeways for the sake of more freeways and believing that they're the panacea to relieving traffic congestion -
as per the 1950s / 1960s belief. The argument today is looking at how improvements can be made across the board; whether it be your residential side street, arterial road or freeway and how traffic congestion will be relieved by making more efficient use of the road.

In saying that, there may be an argument on a case by case / as needs basis for the construction of a new freeway which is more innovative in design and harnesses on the new technologies in ride sharing and automation. Simply put, the freeways of the future will not look like the freeways of today.

A future freeway concept might have the configuration of a standard 3x3 freeway, but with a number of efficiency regulations imposed upon use of the freeway. i.e. one lane may be reserved solely for heavy vehicle use, one lane which acts as the public transport conduit (buses / taxis / HOV lane) and one lane which is reserved for single occupant ride-sharing vehicles / exempted vehicles (i.e motorbikes, scooters, etc.) and driver less vehicles have use of all three lanes (as by virtue of their automated nature, they would be able to navigate the traffic more efficiently in synchronization & wireless / blue-tooth communication with other driver less vehicles - thereby reducing congestion and improving traffic flow.

Let alone adding in other technologies such as reversible lanes (in response to traffic demand / peak hour needs), interchangeable speed limits, congestion charging, road tolls (fixed or distance based), etc. There's a whole range of other efficiency solutions, and ones which may not have even been thought of yet.

Quite a spiel for a discussion on the O-Bahn; However, I do believe that for now, the current system suffices - but to reiterate again - give it another 10 years and this corridor may just end up being a prime candidate for revisiting the North Eastern Freeway concept in the future format described above.

[Nort]

I agree with citywatcher. A freeway would take a lot of pressure off of N/E and Lower N/E Road(s), would work if we have a freeway grade ring route but without it would probably be a nightmare. If the S/E Freeway found it's way into the city they could connect the both and have a N/E to S/E freeway-grade route. The thing is, buses can use a freeway, cars can't use a busway - seeing as this city's PT remains to be largely unreliable, freeway-grade roads should still be seriously considered along these corridors.

Anyone that thinks a Freeway would have been the better option needs to do some reading on Induced Demand.

Induced Demand is the name for what happens when increasing supply of roadways lowers the time cost of driving, causing more people to drive and obliterating any reductions in congestion. "On average a 10% increase in lane miles induces an immediate 4% increase in vehicle miles traveled, which climbs to 10%(ie the entire new capacity) in a few years" **
**Walkable City, Speck, Jeff 2012.

More roads is not and can never be the answer to congestion.

Like to see LA with no freeways

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

LA grew into a sprawling mess because of the freeways.

It's been said before, but the Adelaide CBD itself is a perfect example of induced demand. It is much easier to drive into and around the CBD than in Melbourne or Sydney, including having vastly more parking spaces, and all that leads to is more traffic to meet that space.

[Kasey771]

I think I made mention of it in another thread - We really do need to wait out another decade or so and see how technology plays out in automation, ride-sharing, driver less concepts before the argument can well and truly be settled about the need for freeways in cities. Automation, driver less and ride sharing technologies is a real and significant game changer for the way transport will be managed in our cities and how people will choose to get around in future.

I think the argument is not so much lets build more freeways for the sake of more freeways and believing that they're the panacea to relieving traffic congestion -
as per the 1950s / 1960s belief. The argument today is looking at how improvements can be made across the board; whether it be your residential side street, arterial road or freeway and how traffic congestion will be relieved by making more efficient use of the road.

In saying that, there may be an argument on a case by case / as needs basis for the construction of a new freeway which is more innovative in design and harnesses on the new technologies in ride sharing and automation. Simply put, the freeways of the future will not look like the freeways of today.

A future freeway concept might have the configuration of a standard 3x3 freeway, but with a number of efficiency regulations imposed upon use of the freeway. i.e. one lane may be reserved solely for heavy vehicle use, one lane which acts as the public transport conduit (buses / taxis / HOV lane) and one lane which is reserved for single occupant ride-sharing vehicles / exempted vehicles (i.e motorbikes, scooters, etc.) and driver less vehicles have use of all three lanes (as by virtue of their automated nature, they would be able to navigate the traffic more efficiently in synchronization & wireless / blue-tooth communication with other driver less vehicles - thereby reducing congestion and improving traffic flow.

Let alone adding in other technologies such as reversible lanes (in response to traffic demand / peak hour needs), interchangeable speed limits, congestion charging, road tolls (fixed or distance based), etc. There's a whole range of other efficiency solutions, and ones which may not have even been thought of yet.

Quite a spiel for a discussion on the O-Bahn; However, I do believe that for now, the current system suffices - but to reiterate again - give it another 10 years and this corridor may just end up being a prime candidate for revisiting the North Eastern Freeway concept in the future format described above.

I hear what you're saying but a 3 lane freeway is still a massive scar on the cityscape. It divides neighbourhoods because it is the antithesis of pedestrian friendly even if there are 'only' driverless vehicles on it.
On the subject of rideshare: rideshare only works if people think they can do without owning their own car and so are happy to uber with someone who does 'need' to own a car. This means the Public Transport network needs to offer a viable alternative for a lot of trips.

[citywatcher]

Also from Jeff Speck's book:
"If more and more highways mean more traffic, does the same logic work in reverse? The latest twist in the Induced Demand story might be called Reduced Demand, which seems to be what happens when"vital" arteries are removed from cities. The traffic just goes away.
Two best known American examples remain New York's West Side Highway and San Fracisco's Embarcadero Freeway which collapsed in 1973 and 1989 respectively. In both cases contrary to the apocalyptic warnings of traffic engineers, most of the car trips simply disappeared. They did not pop up elsewhere clogging surface streets; people just found other ways to get around or felt less compelled to be mobile. The Embarcadero was replaced by a lovely boulevard, whose street cars actually transport more riders per day than the freeway once did."

Yeah like saying that eliminating food will solve hunger cos everyone would have starved to death

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

People that advocate for more roads and freeways are saying that buying bigger trousers will cure obesity.

No we're saying fat people need bigger trousers

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[citywatcher]

Anyone that thinks a Freeway would have been the better option needs to do some reading on Induced Demand.

Induced Demand is the name for what happens when increasing supply of roadways lowers the time cost of driving, causing more people to drive and obliterating any reductions in congestion. "On average a 10% increase in lane miles induces an immediate 4% increase in vehicle miles traveled, which climbs to 10%(ie the entire new capacity) in a few years" **
**Walkable City, Speck, Jeff 2012.

More roads is not and can never be the answer to congestion.

Like to see LA with no freeways

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

LA grew into a sprawling mess because of the freeways.

It's been said before, but the Adelaide CBD itself is a perfect example of induced demand. It is much easier to drive into and around the CBD than in Melbourne or Sydney, including having vastly more parking spaces, and all that leads to is more traffic to meet that space.

Nonsense
It's a city of over twelve million people
LA was spread out to begin with
It was like several cities in one
Freeways was the only sensible solution to link them together

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[Kasey771]

Yeah like saying that eliminating food will solve hunger cos everyone would have starved to death

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

People that advocate for more roads and freeways are saying that buying bigger trousers will cure obesity.

No we're saying fat people need bigger trousers

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

Or they could be healthier and eat less. Ie. Adelaideans need to drive less kms.

We are the worst city in the country for PT/active transport as a share of the daily commute. That is a direct result of the chronic under investment in Public Transport over the last few decades. People complain that the city(ACC) is anti car. No it's just that we've(SAgovt & ACC) been blatantly 'pro-car'(to the exclusion of all else) for so long that just beginning to address that imbalance 'seems' like oppression to those that only think car and are incapable of recognising that investing in PT will actually benefit all citizens, especially drivers. Books like Walkable City are controversial because they expose the lie that too many have been brought up on..that freeways and 'better' roads solve congestion. All road projects do is give politicians a ribbon to cut every few years and keep traffic engineers in a job. Construction crews could work an 'Electrify the rail network' job as well as an 'elevated superway' surely.

[monotonehell]

Citywatcher you are arguing against around sixty years of experience and observation. All those who have studied this in detail are onboard with the fact of induced demand. More freeways leads to more traffic, it might seem counter intuitive, but it's a verified fact.

This is why current PT efforts all over the World (including in LA, where they arguably have better PT than Adelaide now) are focused on taking people out of their cars and putting them on PT.

The O-Bahn takes an estimated 12,000 cars or 310 busses off the roads each peak period. Imagine 12,000 more cars all pouring off an exit ramp and into the CBD on top of what we already have in the peak periods.

[Goodsy]

Citywatcher you are arguing against around sixty years of experience and observation. All those who have studied this in detail are onboard with the fact of induced demand. More freeways leads to more traffic, it might seem counter intuitive, but it's a verified fact.

This is why current PT efforts all over the World (including in LA, where they arguably have better PT than Adelaide now) are focused on taking people out of their cars and putting them on PT.

The O-Bahn takes an estimated 12,000 cars or 310 busses off the roads each peak period. Imagine 12,000 more cars all pouring off an exit ramp and into the CBD on top of what we already have in the peak periods.

and having to find parking for all those cars

we'd end up like Denver in the 1970's