News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[Aidan]

The Tonkin Govenment scrapped the plan and made sure it would never happen by selling off the land.

I believe it was the Banon government that sold the most import pieces of land. The entertainment center area, and Lafaters triangle spring to mind.

What part of Laffer's Triangle was important? Marion/Flagstaff Road was widened, and the bit along Main South Road appears to still be available for road widening if necessary.

The problem with Adelaide is there are no options. If you need to transport goods from Elizabeth to Noarlunga, you need to stop at 40 odd sets of traffic lights.

No you don't - our traffic lights aren't that badly phased! Most of the lights you encounter will be green.

Should B-doubles really be rolling down residential streets like South or Marion Road?

Yes - such roads are suitable for B doubles. And although those roads do have some residences on them, they're not exactly residential streets!

If you are a tradesman living in Port Adelaide yet have a job in the Hills, how many set of light do you need to negotiate?

That depends exactly where in Port Adelaide and the Hills, but your quickest route almost certainly isn't the one with fewest lights!

What does that lost time cost?

Not enough to make building a freeway economically viable!

It is pathetic to think that Adelaide calls is self a modern prosperous city, yet has third world standard roads.

The standard of its railways is currently a much bigger problem!

I would love to see some high density living around PT hubs. But it is not going to happen any time soon for a number of reasons. First and foremost Adelaide is just not growing fast enough.

...yet!

But having a good public transport system does not require high density living around PT hubs. It would help, but it is not an essential requirement.

Second, trying to build any mid (or God forbid, High) rise developments in the suburbs will never happen, to many NIMBY’s. Look at Marion when they added the 6 storey office tower, why do you think there has been no siblings added?

I'm guessing it's because they found it wasn't as lucrative as they expected. They seem to have had to settle for low value tenants, and they seem to regard the tower as low priority. One of the lifts has been out of action for weeks, and the other one is having difficulty coping with demand. Twice last week it failed as well, so levels 3.4.5.6.7 and 8 could only be accessed by the stairs!

Yet Marion would be the perfect place for mid to high density housing. You are all fooling yourself to think that in some near future, Adelaide will be a model city with pockets of HD accommodation centered around PT links. It aint gonna happen.
Have you seen Mawson Lakes recently? In some parts of Adelaide it is happenning.

If Adelaide does not bite the bullet and plan for a full length north-south freeway now, then the city will only fall further behind its competitors.

Adelaide has planned for one, in the form of the South Road upgrade.

[adam73837]

A17 ... and is quite capable of carrying all the traffic that uses it.

Really? Is that so? When was the last time that you were down there and took note of how much traffic that there is? Although it may not be as bad as South Rd, it is certainly a congested corridor that carries most (and very close to all) of the S-E Freight, yet other than adding enough room to park cars on the side of the road while still having 2 lanes going each way, nothing's been done about it! I'm not saying it needs to be done before South Rd; that North-South Corridor is the first priority (I used to live in St Mary's, so believe me, I know), but afterwards, we need to look at moving these large numbers of trucks coming through school zones and residential areas (that is also one of the reasons that I find a freeway, rather than these continuous South Rd upgrades, to be the longer term solution. If you don't think so, that's fine, its your opinion, not mine).

A17(more commonly known as Portrush Road) is an urban arterial in the inner suburbs,...

I said 'A17', because I was referring to the entire length of that route (Glen Osmond to Grand Junction Rd).

Appropriate corridor??? On the contrary, it would be most inappropriate, and cause more congestion than at present! Currently the O-bahn is a faster alternative for most passengers, while most freight is on a completely different axis.

Whether you already know this or not, the Modbury Freeway was to go from Walkerville to that relatively large reserve just next to the intersection of Main North Road and Blacktop Road. This would take a lot of the city-bound traffic off of Main North Road (which is quite accident prone), Bridge Road, North East Road, etc. If a 'Hills Freeway' were to be designed carefully, the Modbury Freeway could also act as a link from the Northern Suburbs to Eastern Suburbs and the S-E of the state.

Having said that, there might actually be a bit of MATSPlan that could benefit the NE suburbs: extending Montague Road to link with the Port River Expressway.

Most certainly, if we were to extend the Port River Expressway (along the route of Montague Rd)it would mean directing traffic off of Grand Junction Road, so why not? However a direct link from the N-E Suburbs to the city would used more by commuters than a freeway/expressway going from Modbury to PA.

-Remember this is well into the future, but we would benefit from them. Isn't it great, the MATS Plan was conceived in the 1960s, yet it would still be appropriate if it were constructed today. Good ol' Highways Department!

Remember the MATS plan was shelved in the 1970s, but shelving it would still be appropriate if it were proposed today! It's good to have freeways in sensible locations, but that's not what the MATS Plan proposed at all.

Whether you've already seen it or not, here's a map of where the freeways were to go under the 1960s MATS Plan:

Sorry for the poor quality towards the bottom of the page, but that's the way I found the image

MATS_Plan_Overview.jpg (307.24 KiB) Viewed 4532 times

Oh and in case anyone is curious, here is a more detailed drawing of that freeway that appears to be cutting through North Adelaide:

MATS_North_Adelaide_Connector.jpg (124.78 KiB) Viewed 4532 times

Oh and Norman, sorry for not specifying what I meant by building freeways; I didn't mean to have them all above ground as huge bridge structures going above suburbs, I meant to have them below ground level, but not underground if you now what I mean.

Considering the effects that this would have, underground may well be easier than in cutting!

Wouldn't that be considerably more expensive, or were you being sarcastic? <not intended to be an arrogant response, just curiousity>

If Adelaide does not bite the bullet and plan for a full length north-south freeway now, then the city will only fall further behind its competitors.

Adelaide has planned for one, in the form of the South Road upgrade.

...we need to look at moving these large numbers of trucks coming through school zones and residential areas (that is also one of the reasons that I find a freeway, rather than these continuous South Rd upgrades, to be the longer term solution.

If you don't think so, that's fine, its your opinion, not mine).

[Omicron]

It seems a lot of people are of the assumption that, at any given time, if one road from Point A to Point B carries 100 cars per day, two roads from point A to point B will carry only 50 cars each - that is, the construction of a freeway creates a redistribution of existing traffic which eases pressure on both routes. Logic would suggest otherwise.

There's a key point to remember in all this chit-chat - not all cars and trucks are being used at any given point in time. It is entirely possible to increase traffic levels quite dramatically without increasing the total number of vehicles simply by encouraging drivers to drive all at the same time. The existence of a new road with the sole intent of providing reduced travel time induces more people to use more vehicles at the same time - not only have you increased the road options within the market, you have increased the total market for roads.

For example, if traffic is sufficiently congested to give rise to demand for a freeway, then there are undoubtedly people who are catching public transport or riding bikes in lieu of their own cars to avoid the jams, or not travelling at all. The construction of a freeway with the aim of reducing congestion and travel times will induce some of these people to forego public transport and return to the road system - either to the older arterial roads in the belief that they will be less crowded following the construction of the freeway, or onto the freeway itself in the belief that it will in fact reduce travel time. As a result, there are more cars on the road system as a whole.

A similar situation applies to freight movements. It is reasonable to assume that commercial trucks and other such heavy vehicles would forego arterial roads and their traffic lights, potholes, suburban road-users and whatnot for the superior road construction, easier gradients, smoother corners, (supposed) higher speeds for economical cruising, increased sight lines et. al. of a freeway. Not only would truck drivers from arterial routes be attracted to the new road, so too would other commercial vehicles like courier vans, coaches and a percentage of freight previously transported by rail in search of a more direct route - increasing traffic volume overall rather than simply redistributing it. In attempting to direct freight from Point A to Point B more effectively, a freeway concentrates large volumes of freight movement on the one route with limited entry and exit points, rather than smaller volumes distributed across a wider network of existing roads combined with other methods of freight transport.

Worringly, however, road freight wishing to go from Point A to Point B will be drawn to the very same freeway route that cars are also using to get from Point A to Point B, again by concentrating volumes and assuming that most journeys are unidirectional in nature. This is another dangerous assumption - what of Points C, D and E? We assume that most freeway traffic is to more or less the same place in the same general direction (and point to high volumes of traffic headed for CBDs on their freeways as evidence of the desire of people to all go to the same place), but is that a function of the actual intended destination of the driver or a function of the freeway design itself - that which funnels traffic towards one destination given limited entry and exit points and the manipulation of surrounding road networks as inescapable feeders? No one route or purpose amongst drivers is the same, but a freeway assumes that they are - by restricting access, by directing traffic to and from limited destinations, and by placing freight and cars on the same road at the same speed.

The problem is less with the road system and more with both the lack of a comprehensive and viable public transport alternative and the distribution of manufacturers relative to suppliers; importers and distributors relative to retailers; and in a more general sense, industry relative to commercial and residential areas. We must not, as BDM stated, facilitate journeys which are unprofitable, illogical, and ill-planned due to improperly-sited businesses or distant and relentless sprawl with little viable employment nearby. If people wish to make these journeys of their own volition (and funds!) then they are free to do so, or if companies wish to facilitate these journeys by building private freeways and collecting tolls then go right ahead, but for taxpayers to subsidise many journeys which really shouldn't be occurring in the first place (or could occur by more effective means) doesn't quite add up.

[fasterthanlids]

I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on this or any other issue, but it seems like there are lots of inter-relating issues that need sorting for Adelaide to have a efficient transport system.

Wasn't the South Road upgrade planned and promoted primarily to benefit road freight? Combine this with planners (Govt and here) rhetoric on TOD's and public transport, and it seems there isn't a true freeway debate going on at all. If the benefits of the SOuth Road upgrades are designed for mainly freight transport, and long passenger trips across the city, shouldn't there be discussion as the relative merits of upgrading alternative routes?

Most would agree with the assertion that a freeway may help in the short-term (in my mind perhaps isolated types of transport - eg. freight), but it does not provide a long term solution. Hence, if other upgrades are made in conjunction with South Road to specifically benefit the shorter inter-city trips that most people make, leaving the north-south corridor to its purpose. The other major arterials, (Marion, Portrush, Cross, Regency, etc...), as well as improved public transport (another kettle of fish) should be looked at to complement and ease the burden on South Road, given it is the only real (albeit light interupted) North-South arterial in Adelaide.

Basically, improve secondary arterials for inter-city road transport, along with public transport to access the city, and the South Road upgrades will look rosy now and in the future...

And to reinforce I am not an expert on transport, I have taken the wheels off my computer chair because i consistently break things in my office...

[Shuz]

I've never seen that map before of the overall MATS plan, it appears the North-South freeway would have followed Beckman/Winifred/Towers etc. roads. Is there anywhere where a more comprehensive insight of the plan can be found?

[Aidan]

A17 ... and is quite capable of carrying all the traffic that uses it.

Really? Is that so? When was the last time that you were down there and took note of how much traffic that there is? Although it may not be as bad as South Rd, it is certainly a congested corridor that carries most (and very close to all) of the S-E Freight, yet other than adding enough room to park cars on the side of the road while still having 2 lanes going each way, nothing's been done about it! I'm not saying it needs to be done before South Rd; that North-South Corridor is the first priority (I used to live in St Mary's, so believe me, I know), but afterwards, we need to look at moving these large numbers of trucks coming through school zones and residential areas (that is also one of the reasons that I find a freeway, rather than these continuous South Rd upgrades, to be the longer term solution. If you don't think so, that's fine, its your opinion, not mine).

Unless the freeway is underground, it would have a greater impact on residential areas!

A17(more commonly known as Portrush Road) is an urban arterial in the inner suburbs,...

I said 'A17', because I was referring to the entire length of that route (Glen Osmond to Grand Junction Rd).

Yes, I suspected as much, but virtually nobody uses the metropolitan road numbers. I guessed the A17 was Portrush Road from the context, but I had to look on a map to check I was right.

Appropriate corridor??? On the contrary, it would be most inappropriate, and cause more congestion than at present! Currently the O-bahn is a faster alternative for most passengers, while most freight is on a completely different axis.

Whether you already know this or not, the Modbury Freeway was to go from Walkerville to that relatively large reserve just next to the intersection of Main North Road and Blacktop Road.

Yes I did know this. A very expensive intrusion into a scenic area! But it's not as if it's hard to get to the northern suburbs at the moment.

This would take a lot of the city-bound traffic off of Main North Road (which is quite accident prone), Bridge Road, North East Road, etc. If a 'Hills Freeway' were to be designed carefully, the Modbury Freeway could also act as a link from the Northern Suburbs to Eastern Suburbs and the S-E of the state.

It would take traffic off some roads and put it on some others. You wouldn't end up much better than when you start.

Having said that, there might actually be a bit of MATSPlan that could benefit the NE suburbs: extending Montague Road to link with the Port River Expressway.

Most certainly, if we were to extend the Port River Expressway (along the route of Montague Rd)it would mean directing traffic off of Grand Junction Road, so why not? However a direct link from the N-E Suburbs to the city would used more by commuters than a freeway/expressway going from Modbury to PA.[/quote]
That's a bad thing! We don't want our freeways clogged up with commuters - it makes them less effective at their real job.
And yes, I have seen maps of the MATS Plan freeways.

Oh and Norman, sorry for not specifying what I meant by building freeways; I didn't mean to have them all above ground as huge bridge structures going above suburbs, I meant to have them below ground level, but not underground if you now what I mean.

Considering the effects that this would have, underground may well be easier than in cutting!

Wouldn't that be considerably more expensive, or were you being sarcastic? <not intended to be an arrogant response, just curiousity>
Don't worry, I didn't take it as an arrogant response.
It would be considerably more expensive were it not for two factors that greatly increase the cost of doing it in cutting. Firstly the disruption during construction is greater. Secondly, and most importantly, the cost of land acquisition can make up a fairly large proportion of the total - particularly as some people will be reluctant to sell. Thirdly there is the issue of blight - even in cutting it will have an effect on surrounding land values.

...we need to look at moving these large numbers of trucks coming through school zones and residential areas (that is also one of the reasons that I find a freeway, rather than these continuous South Rd upgrades, to be the longer term solution.

What school zones would these be?

[TooFar]

Its great to see all you people theorizing about the apparent negative aspects of building freeways. I wonder how many of you actually have lived and worked in a city with a decent freeway system? Ask your friends in the other major cities in Australia, if they would prefer to remove their own freeways and introduce the “Adelaide System”.

You have to break away from this small town mentality that Adelaide just can’t seem to shake. Most of you criticize the NIMBY’s in the city for not allowing buildings over 100m, but it is exactly the same mentality that has prohibited a state government from building a N/S freeway over the last 40 odd years.

I don’t think anyone is saying that high speed limited access roads are the total solution to Adelaide’s current and future transport needs. But those in favour understand that there is not one system than can solve the problems, but a combination of disparate systems that need to be implemented. And that means for Adelaide, a N/S freeway it crucial.

[Aidan]

Its great to see all you people theorizing about the apparent negative aspects of building freeways. I wonder how many of you actually have lived and worked in a city with a decent freeway system?

What would you regard as a decent freeway system? Is it their extent that matters? Or is it t

Ask your friends in the other major cities in Australia, if they would prefer to remove their own freeways and introduce the “Adelaide System”.

Just what would that prove? Of course they wouldn't want to remove infrastructure that their city now relies on. But Adelaide's pattern of land use is different, so there is no need for us to adopt their system.

You have to break away from this small town mentality that Adelaide just can’t seem to shake. Most of you criticize the NIMBY’s in the city for not allowing buildings over 100m, but it is exactly the same mentality that has prohibited a state government from building a N/S freeway over the last 40 odd years.

NIMBYism isn't always bad, and freeways can be far more destructive than tall buildings.

I don’t think anyone is saying that high speed limited access roads are the total solution to Adelaide’s current and future transport needs. But those in favour understand that there is not one system than can solve the problems, but a combination of disparate systems that need to be implemented. And that means for Adelaide, a N/S freeway it crucial.

For something to be crucial, it must allow us to do something that we would not otherwise be able to do. What do you think that something is?

[Queen Anne]

I actually live about 30 miles from Downtown Philly and work about 10 miles away. I do not venture Downtown too often. In not sure about Washington state but south eastern Pennsylvania is a multitude of communities. Very different to Adelaide which is very centralized. It was very odd when I first moved here to see very large office parks in what appears to be the middle of nowhere. But the benefit to this decentralized system is the amount of natural landscape that has been preserved. The downside is that greater Philly spans over thousands of square kms and the only real way to get around is by car.

TooFar, I don't have much to offer this debate but I have been thinking on this comment of yours, a bit.

It has been very odd for me too to go travelling through America and see large office parks appearing out of nowhere. And the more of it I have seen the more depressing I have found it. It seems to me, and my simple analysis of things, that America has become a place where 'downtown' is often a forgotten place. You say you don't venture downtown much. What I have seen in my travels is evidence that millions of Amercians "don't venture downtown much". I find it incredibly sad.

So much of America seems to have become a 'multitude of communities'. These 'communities' are a pale imitation of a proper town, imho. I can't think of any benefit from this 'decentralised system'. It amazes me that people will part with money to live in a group of cookie-cutter houses situated in what was a corn field five years ago and still features all the ammenities of a corn field (except corn). People will live in these places, forced to drive out of their cul-de-sac for the simplest of errands - onto the freeway they go and then down to the local "Main Street Market" (we really saw a supermarket named this in the numbing sprawl of Denver it was sat there totally by itself, at the freeway on-ramp, some way from the houses it was supposedly the 'main street market' for). Thank you single use zoning, I guess

What I see in this scenario is natural landscape and arable land not being preserved but being pointlessy ravaged - and no easily identifiable sign of 'community' for as far as the eye can see. This is more than a downside, I find it disastrous on all levels, environmental, social and economic. I feel that America has botched things up and that the freeways are part of it.

I agree that Adelaide has already sprawled but building freeways to accommodate it makes me feel uneasy. Adelaide is beautiful and I have not seen one beautiful freeway here, nor a freeway hugging community that looks beautiful or happy. Simple comments from a simple mind maybe, but I have seen a lot of freeways. One thing I do know for sure is that the linear growth encouraged by freeways is non-stop here - just makes me think of all the lonely downtowns

[raulduke]

Of course they wouldn't want to remove infrastructure that their city now relies on. But Adelaide's pattern of land use is different, so there is no need for us to adopt their system.

The pattern of land use in Adelaide is very similiar to Perth, both are effectively linear cities. It is insane to think we live in a linear city, without a linear transport corridor.

[Wayno]

I've been quietly observing this debate. Here's my *biased* summary:

For many reasons Adelaide must encourage PT friendly housing development (TODs, etc). A heavy focus on freeways won't generate the long-term outcome we desire. However, we should have one major N-S freeway that is mostly free of traffic lights. This is fundamental even if it induces traffic and ends up laden with cars and trucks M-F each week.

Time is precious, and my weekends even more so. No matter how you slice it, PT on weekends will never get me where I want to go (down to McLaren Vale, Aldinga Beach, up to Murray Bridge/Mannum, visit friends in Gawler, etc) especially since i carry a load of goodies with me (picnic lunch, chairs, the dog, etc). I'm much more likely to head off to McLaren Vale and spend $$$ on tourism (ok, i mean a case of wine or two) if i can drive non-stop down south rd and also not worry about which direction the Southern Expressway is pointing at the moment.

Better roads = induced traffic = increased gratification & economic growth, right?

[Aidan]

Of course they wouldn't want to remove infrastructure that their city now relies on. But Adelaide's pattern of land use is different, so there is no need for us to adopt their system.

The pattern of land use in Adelaide is very similiar to Perth, both are effectively linear cities. It is insane to think we live in a linear city, without a linear transport corridor.

It is indeed insane to think that!

Of course we have a linear transport corridor - it's just that it isn't a freeway.

However, we should have one major N-S freeway that is mostly free of traffic lights.

If it is mostly free of traffic lights then it's not a freeway. A road must be entirely free of traffic lights to qualify as a freeway, and nobody has yet supplied a good reason why Adelaide requires that.

And yes, I do know that Melbourne had at least one roads with freeway in its name long before it actually was one.

[Prince George]

Better roads = induced traffic = increased gratification & economic growth, right?

No, it does not.

First, spending multiple billions of dollars to get thousands, even millions, of extra tourist or leisure dollars is a bad deal. But the fundamental problem with that logic is our friend the Substitution Principle.

I'm going to go out on a limb, Wayno, and assume that the money that you might spend at Gawler or Mclaren Vale is not currently getting stuffed under your mattress. If you were hoarding it like that, then that money would be effectively disappearing from the economy. But it's safe to assume that you are not doing that, you are already spending it, thereby contributing it back to the economy. In fact, it's likely that this money is already being spent on some other similar activity. This is the substitution principle at work: people tend to have fixed budgets within each category of spending, all that they do is substitute one choice in that category for another. The net gain for the economy is zero.

Likewise across the whole metropolitan area, increasing mobility means that it's easier for people to get to places like Harbour Town, but the extra money that's getting spent there or at Ikea didn't just fall from the sky, it's money that's not being spent at other shops closer to their homes. And when it gets spent at places like Ikea, more of it is leaving the state than when it gets spent at the corner. The big-box national (or multinational) chain store is a creature of the freeway, they need to cast a broad net across a whole metropolitan area. They are the primary winners for any freeway construction and they are like suction pumps extracting value from a local economy.

To increase the value of our economy, the Substitution Principle tells us that we need to find ways to get people to switch categories away from areas that send the money out of the state and back to ones that keep it within the state. This has happened in a bad way across the country during the last decade, with the switch from savings to spending, so we need to find a healthier way to do it. My target of choice: the car.

If we could reduce the number of cars that each household owned - so a two-car family became one-car, or a one-car single person went without altogether - how much would that be worth to them? The typical figure quoted over here is that the average car costs the average family $600/month, and some back of the envelope calculations makes that seem about right:

Let's say it's a used car and you have a $10,000 loan over 5 years - about $240/month
Insurance, there's a lot of variation, shall we say $100/month?
Registration, compulsory third party, I think that's about $50/month
Maintenance, lot's of variation again, $20/month?
Fuel, I'm going to take $100/month, but I bet that most people are over that amount.
And I'm going to assume that parking is free every where.

I think that those numbers are pretty reasonable, and that comes to $500/month, or $6000/year, the bulk of which leaves the state. Of course, there's probably going to be some cost to the alternatives that they are using instead - let's say that it's half of that amount so the net saving is $3000/year. Three grand to spend on something else. If 100,000 households could make that choice, that would be $300,000,000 each year that we could be using for other purposes. That extra stimulation generates further growth (the Multiplier Effect) making it's final value higher still.

That is my program for making our cross-town-travelling tradie happy - not focussing on making his current status quo cheaper, but changing the whole economy to increase the number of choices of work he has locally. It's my version of "a rising tide floats all boats" and I believe that this is the direction that can reshape our image and our future. Much more so than building a me-too freeway.

[raulduke]

Aidan - there would have to be atleast 30 sets of traffic lights on Main North Road between Munno Para and the City - it takes an hour and fifteen minutes to travel 34 km on a road that has a speed limit of 80.

Trying to discuss development in Adelaide is like beating your head against a brick wall. All I hear in this forum are planning buzzwords, like transit oriented development and sustainable development. You can still build a freeway sustainably. You can still develop, sustainably. It doesnt mean not developing at all. In terms of TOD's, without the T there aint no OD!

[Wayno]

So if improving N-S traffic flows is not a good idea, then why is the SA Govt spending money on building underpasses along South Rd (albeit quite slowly and in a piecemeal fashion)?