News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[AtD]

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.

It's funny you chose that as an example. That would only be the time if you're following the lemmings in their daily migration (peak hour). The Gawler train does that trip in less than 45 minutes. Even if you arrive just to see the train leave and you're stuck there for half an hour for another, the train is still faster than the time you quoted.

And this is why PT is more suited for the daily lemming migration than Wayno's weekly Barossa migration. PT can never be the answer for everything, but we know it's faster, cheaper and cleaner for heavy capacity.

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!

Let me explain. Higher-density mixed-use development that's close to good, efficient public transport is better for the taxpayer and environment than low density green-fields suburban sprawl residential development. The marginal cost of providing essential services (everything from sewage to police cover) to an extra resident in a high-density area are considerably lower than for the same person if they chose to live in a far-flung suburb.

A badly designed freeway, such as the Southern Expressway (even if it were bi-directional), subsidises the low-density sprawl. A well designed transport link, such as a frequent rail service, encourages higher-density living.

And before you say "but everyone has the right to live in a detached house 30km away from the nearest suitable employment" - that person is not taking into account what it costs the rest of society to sustain that lifestyle (and I'm not just talking tree-hugging environmentalism, I'm talking cold hard taxes). The roads, pipes, cables, ambulance coverage, school system, etc, all have to bear the cost of serving that extra suburb, because the residents demand those services and the political system is obliged to deliver.

A topical piece of evidence of these higher costs is Telstra refusing to provide decent coverage to rural areas, but being politically forced to. They know rural services are unprofitable, but because the government requires then to provide them anyway, they're losing money which they must recoup by charging higher prices to city residents. In the mean time, the competition, unburdened with rural customers, can under-cut Telstra in the cities.

[AtD]

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)?

Rational answer: It's good for freight. It's just unfortunate there isn't a politically realistic to prevent the daily lemming migration from clogging it up. Some boffin has done his sums and decided the benefit for freight in this case outweighs the problem of extra traffic being pulled onto surrounding streets.

Cynical answer: It wins votes. Hell, there's an "Australian Motorists Party" in Canberra, yet Canberra is full of some of the widest, emptiest and most needlessly excessive roads in the country. Even the pathetic excuses for traffic problems here are continuously in the headlines. As a result, Canberra is a totally car dependant city.

[Prince George]

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)?

Because the only organised and funded groups in this debate are on the side of roads. Apart from the obvious vested interests (the oil and car industries), the RAA has 560,000 members and a significant budget to spend on its campaigns.

[adam73837]

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?

The following 2 are of the Noarlunga Freeway (the part of the North-South Freeway that was to go from Hindmarsh to Noarlunga):

MATS_Noarlunga_Freeway_South_of_Hindmarsh_Interchange.jpg (405.65 KiB) Viewed 4243 times

MATS_Noarlunga_Freeway_Western_CBD.jpg (279.81 KiB) Viewed 4240 times

This also shows part of the Noarlunga Freeway, but it is more of an overview of the North-Western part of the CBD:

MATS_North_West_of_CBD.jpg (256.6 KiB) Viewed 4238 times

In fact if you just want more information on the plan altogether, I'd recommend the State Library or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolit ... port_Study

[Wayno]

If we did not already have urban sprawl (which can't be fixed, it can only be made an ever smaller % of the problem)...

If the govt was not releasing more land at the north/south extremities (which they will continue to do)...

If TODs could really make a difference within 5-10 years (they will help, but only a bit)...

If we had true "commercial precincts" easily serviced by PT (instead of being ever further scattered throughout suburbia)...

If we did not have so many people unwilling to walk a few hundred metres to a bus stop (this is the hardest one to resolve)...

IF we could fix these problems within the current generation, and by that i mean within 10 years - then i'd be against a N-S freeway. The truth being we can make a start, but it will be 25 years before real change is seen. So the govt is stuck - it has to provide benefits to the current generation and the next.

Sure, the N-S freeway will clog up with induced traffic over many years, and hopefully the govt will act to repair many of the above "self-induced" problems across the same timeframe.

[AtD]

If we did not already have urban sprawl (which can't be fixed, it can only be made an ever smaller % of the problem)...

If the govt was not releasing more land at the north/south extremities (which they will continue to do)...

If TODs could really make a difference within 5-10 years (they will help, but only a bit)...

If we had true "commercial precincts" easily serviced by PT (instead of being ever further scattered throughout suburbia)...

If we did not have so many people unwilling to walk a few hundred metres to a bus stop (this is the hardest one to resolve)...

IF we could fix these problems within the current generation, and by that i mean within 10 years - then i'd be against a N-S freeway. The truth being we can make a start, but it will be 25 years before real change is seen. So the govt is stuck - it has to provide benefits to the current generation and the next.

Sure, the N-S freeway will clog up with induced traffic over many years, and hopefully the govt will act to repair many of the above "self-induced" problems across the same timeframe.

As long as we don't see a MATS revival! All of your points are self-reinfocing - a positive feedback loop. Spraw needs freeways, freeways create sprawl, which need more freeways, and so it goes on.

[Wayno]

As long as we don't see a MATS revival! All of your points are self-reinfocing - a positive feedback loop. Spraw needs freeways, freeways create sprawl, which need more freeways, and so it goes on.

Colonel Light certainly had a grand plan for Adelaide CBD, but either he had no plan for urban Adelaide, or it's been ignored. Agree, MATS would be a disaster...

certainly shows how ill-directed govt policy has far reaching implications...

[drsmith]

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.

While Perth has a wider coastal plain than Adelaide it is perhaps even more linear than Adelaide as most prefer to live close to the coast.

Having lived in both cities I know which road network I prefer.

[TooFar]

Queen Anne, I think our views are more similar that you think, although maybe I’m more of a glass half full type of guy.

I agree that American downtowns are mostly a sad facsimile of the Australian version, barring a few notable exceptions. And you a most likely correct in stating that the freeway has in some part helped this decline. But to me the freeway was a solution to a problem, not the cause. After the 2nd World War huge numbers of families wanted their own house with a ¼ acre block. Obviously they could not all live within a few km’s of downtown so the suburban sprawl was born. This was the same in Australia. As petrol was cheap and everyone wanted their own personal transport, Freeways provide the solution to moving large numbers of people over long distances. Thankfully for Australia, this move to the suburbs did not destroy our downtowns the same as the US. The US did/does have additional social problems that Australia never had to deal with.

Downtown Philly is a nice historic city and is on the way back with lots of city development going on. However it does have a bad reputation for violence and there are certainly large sections that many consider a no go area. Last year I read that it is far more likely that an urban black man has more chance of being shot and killed in Philly than if they were deployed to Iraq. Not something to be proud of that is for sure. This has played a large part in the move of family’s to the suburbs. Many people I now work with grew up in/near downtown, but moved to the suburbs when the violence got too bad.

I was recently down in Dallas, and once again the downtown was a little sad. There are some very nice glass towers that make an impressive skyline, but on the weekend the downtown was mostly lifeless. Lots of homeless and transient people wandering but little else. The entertainment areas appeared to be on the fringes of the CBD, and there was a lots of condo activities just to the north of the city near the American Airlines Center. However the freeway system was unbelievably impressive, I have never seen a better road system. Interchange stacks 6 levels high is many areas. All paved in concrete and most 8 or 10 lanes wide. Along the length of many freeway was 10’s and 10’s of restaurants and shopping centers. And from where I visited some very beautiful suburban housing developments. So for most people living there, there would be no need to ever go downtown.

I also lived in Montreal for a number of years. Montreal downtown is very much alive everyday of the week with lots of restaurants, shopping and festivals in the summer. No one could accuse the city of being dead after hours, cold yes, but not dead. However Montreal also has a very comprehensive freeway system, not as complete as the original planner in the 60’s had envisioned, but does provide good coverage. In additional it has a large Metro(Subway) and heavy gauge train network. Toronto appear very similar. More importantly, both these cities and there American cousins, offer cheaper housing than Adelaide.

So where is this small essay taking me? What I’m trying to say and have said before, is Adelaide developed just like other US, Canadian and Australian cities after WW2, however it was one of the relatively few that did not provide adequate roads to go along with the sprawl. Just by building a freeway does not mean the CBD will turn into a US style downtown, as Canadian and the other large Australian cities prove. There is something very wrong when it is more expensive to buy a house in suburban Adelaide than it is in suburban Toronto, Philadelphia or even New York. Or take an hour and a half to drive from Noarlunga to Elizabeth.

[TooFar]

Prince George, Once again some really big words and a whole lot of theorizing. But not a lot of context. Time to put down those text books and look out the window?

• Here are the facts;
  - Adelaide is a sprawling city, lots and lots of low density housing.
  - Adelaide has some of the slowest commutes in the country.
  - Adelaide is conservative and not receptive to change.
  - Adelaide is also very slow growing and not much chance that that will change any time soon.
  - Due to the slow growth, Adelaide is not overly affluent. Basically, it struggles to keep up. In the last 35 years it has gone from the 3rd most important city, to a city that barely registers on the national radar. Let alone the international one.
  - There are already big box stores popping up around the place. And the corner store has been dead for a generation or two.
  - The two main manufacturing hubs are at either end of the suburban sprawl.
  - PT works with high density living, Roads work with low density living.

So given the very limited funds the State government has, what is the best solution for the majority of the population today?

[raulduke]

Prince George, Once again some really big words and a whole lot of theorizing. But not a lot of context. Time to put down those text books and look out the window?

• Here are the facts;
  - Adelaide is a sprawling city, lots and lots of low density housing.
  - Adelaide has some of the slowest commutes in the country.
  - Adelaide is conservative and not receptive to change.
  - Adelaide is also very slow growing and not much chance that that will change any time soon.
  - Due to the slow growth, Adelaide is not overly affluent. Basically, it struggles to keep up. In the last 35 years it has gone from the 3rd most important city, to a city that barely registers on the national radar. Let alone the international one.
  - There are already big box stores popping up around the place. And the corner store has been dead for a generation or two.
  - The two main manufacturing hubs are at either end of the suburban sprawl.
  - PT works with high density living, Roads work with low density living.

So given the very limited funds the State government has, what is the best solution for the majority of the population today?

nicely done

[raulduke]

I read with little surprise that it was the Labor Government that "shelved" MATS

Martin2010 here we come!

just couldnt resist that

[AtD]

So given the very limited funds the State government has, what is the best solution for the majority of the population today?

The State government has asked the Feds for $2 billion to build a non-stop South Road. That's not including the upgrade of any roads leading too South Road, such as Port Wakefield Road or Anzac Highway.
They have also quoted $2 billion, the same figure, for all of its proposed public transport upgrades. That's a total upgrade of all six rail lines, the extension of two of those lines, the extension of the tram line and construction of two new tram lines, a new fleet of rolling-stock and refurbishment of much of the existing fleet, and some token upgrades of the bus network.

Bang for bucks?

[TooFar]

So given the very limited funds the State government has, what is the best solution for the majority of the population today?

The State government has asked the Feds for $2 billion to build a non-stop South Road. That's not including the upgrade of any roads leading too South Road, such as Port Wakefield Road or Anzac Highway.
They have also quoted $2 billion, the same figure, for all of its proposed public transport upgrades. That's a total upgrade of all six rail lines, the extension of two of those lines, the extension of the tram line and construction of two new tram lines, a new fleet of rolling-stock and refurbishment of much of the existing fleet, and some token upgrades of the bus network.

Bang for bucks?

Well, what would relieve the most congestion for the greatest number?

It would certainly be nice if they could complete both, as they are long overdue. Maybe the feds can pay for the road and the state taxpayers can cough up of the PT?

[Shuz]

Which is probably the way it'll be done anyhow, because all the Feds care about is making roads, roads and what's that word again? Oh, roads.

It's all to cater for the MPs in their lovely chaffuered limosines. Rann's just using the PT bailout as a electoral commitment to assure his reign in Parliament continues. Not the way I would go about it, but politics is a dirty game and that's the way they survive.