Roads & Rail

[jk1237]

How does attempting to force people into higher density inner city living environments help affordability. If transport cost to the outer suburbs are so detrimental why are people continuing to move there instead of flocking to inner city high density areas. Australians do not want to live in an apartment they want to live in a house, particularly those with a family. They don’t need or want someone telling them what type of housing will provide a better living condition and be a morally superior place to live.

Um what, there is unprecended demand for inner city apartments in Adelaide, with so many projects selling out in days. The only reason people move to the outer suburbs is for affordability.

What about the health costs of a fat, lazy society where a large proportion would drive their cars 3 meters to their leterbox if they could. What about the fact that traffic and traffic congestion is one of the largest source of greenhouse gases. What about the fact that oil prices are gonna go higher and higher.

Building freeways is in the past, the future is developing better public transport

[jimmy_2486]

Well I don't think most people here that you are quoting are against a north-south corridor. I would like to see one proposed, possibly with a link to the SE freeway, however the purposes of these freeways should not be purely for the purpose of pumping large volumes of traffic into the city. Instead they should be used for car drivers to get around the metro more faster. In an age of climate concern it is very poor judgment to simply state that people should have the right to drive their cars into the city, and the government should accommodate for this.

Truck drivers, cabbies, couriers, and other forms of commercial vehicles will benefit from a inner metro freeway system linking the north to the south and into the hills. People wishing to drive to places on the other side of the city will be very pleased to know they can reduce their driving time also.

However due to the state of our climate it should come at a cost to travel cross city just the same as it costs to run foxtel over crappy normal tv stations. It is a luxury to be able to drive to far away places really fast in a city, in fact not tolling cross city will mean there will be HUGE numbers of drivers using it, and it will just get congested as hell. The revenue raised from tolls could go to upgrades for our PT system to get commuters to the city just as fast as a freeway could.

Yes the are private costs to both forms of transport. It is up to the individual to decide what is the best form of transport. People are not "wrapped in the cocoon environment of the car", as one of my formal lecturers said. People choose the car as the preferred form of transport because it is extremely quick, continent and reliable all of which public transport is not. Taxes on motorist offsets any potential harm they may bring such as this smog problem no one realised existed until the advertiser reported it. Not that there is great a difference if pollution comes from cars of Torrens Island power station.

I dun understand how driving a car to work in peak hour is faster than a tram or train??

A trip from smithfield to the city peak via train is 25-30min and via car can take roughly an hour....sometimes longer.

A trip from Marion to the city peak via train takes about 15-20 min and via car has taken me almost an hour in some cases.

Problem is that people are forced to use cars as catching a bus is really slow, and for some its their only option. Others seem to think they are lower class catching our trains and who could blame them, I feel lower class on our crappy trains. The tram is fantastic. Its new, fast, and sure beats driving to commute, however you have to live in the south west to have access to it, which is a shame as more should be made.

[AG]

New populations are more consumers then producers. Australia relies on its surplus natural resources for its wealth. There is little benefit of continuing to grow our population rapidly. Slow sustained growth is best.

And yet there is a worsening skilled-labour shortage. Minerals don't dig themselves out. Nor do new goods, services and capital get built by itself.

How does attempting to force people into higher density inner city living environments help affordability. If transport cost to the outer suburbs are so detrimental why are people continuing to move there instead of flocking to inner city high density areas. Australians do not want to live in an apartment they want to live in a house, particularly those with a family. They don’t need or want someone telling them what type of housing will provide a better living condition and be a morally superior place to live.

Jk1237 has already addressed this, but many new high-density projects occurring in the inner city have been selling quite quickly, and the value of property in some inner suburbs has increased in excess of 30% in the past year. The majority of this movement to the inner city is by DINKs and retiring babyboomers. Most Australians families still do desire the dream of a quarter acre housing, but with the affordable of housing diminishing it will remain exactly that for many families, alongside the land shortage that is beginning to take ahold in many Australian cities. There is an increasing movement towards owning an inner city apartment in the past decade as more people who can afford it realise the benefits, this can be seen by the huge inner city population growth occurring in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane and the large numbers of high-density developments occurring.

The development of new apartment buildings in the inner city isn't forcing people to live there, it's giving people a greater variety of choices in housing. The vast majority of the housing stock in every major city is still detached dwellings.

Yes the are private costs to both forms of transport. It is up to the individual to decide what is the best form of transport. People are not "wrapped in the cocoon environment of the car", as one of my formal lecturers said. People choose the car as the preferred form of transport because it is extremely quick, continent and reliable all of which public transport is not. Taxes on motorist offsets any potential harm they may bring such as this smog problem no one realised existed until the advertiser reported it. Not that there is great a difference if pollution comes from cars of Torrens Island power station.

The increase in travel time the public transport would bring would far outweigh the economic cost of traffic congestion, not that I know how this billion dollar number could of come up. You need to look at the whole picture.

I am not entirely against public transport improvements, but for Adelaide roads and in particular a north-south freeway should be a priority. Adelaide will never have an a comprehensive public transport system. For public transport to work effectively high density and centralised environments are needed, while Adelaide is low density and spread over a large area. Southern and northern areas will continue to grow and there is a need to provide them with infrastructure of both road and rail regardless if you think they don’t deserve it of not. What if Mitsubishi is to decline in the south what industry will they fall back on? I dont have much confidence in the current goverment deliving improvement in any forms of transport. They are more preoccupied persueing popularist policies with the top priority of re-election. But the loger it is left the more difficult and costly it will become.

Why does it have to be an either/or proposition? Some cities have made great success out of focussing development at certain transport nodes and maximising the use of their public transport systems, resulting in the renewal and improvements to both the transport system and the districts around them. I agree that the North South road corridor is needed, it would benefit industry and the Port of Adelaide greatly. I believe that Adelaide can have both good public and private transportation systems if planned appropriately. At the moment we don't have either. There needs to be a greater plan for Adelaide which individual projects form a part of rather than a mish mash of projects treated individually.

[The_Q915]

I dun understand how driving a car to work in peak hour is faster than a tram or train??

A trip from smithfield to the city peak via train is 25-30min and via car can take roughly an hour....sometimes longer.

A trip from Marion to the city peak via train takes about 15-20 min and via car has taken me almost an hour in some cases.

Problem is that people are forced to use cars as catching a bus is really slow, and for some its their only option. Others seem to think they are lower class catching our trains and who could blame them, I feel lower class on our crappy trains. The tram is fantastic. Its new, fast, and sure beats driving to commute, however you have to live in the south west to have access to it, which is a shame as more should be made.

You need to add up the full equation when determining travel times. In Public Transport there is time involved in getting to the Station/Stop, connecting services, waiting times. There are none of these issues with the car. It takes you door to door when the individual pleases. Personally it takes me at least about 30-45minutes to get to the city by either bus of train. Car takes between 15-25minutes. Our trains system can only cover small areas around its train station of which there are all ready too many reducing the speed and efficiency of train services. There are many areas of Adelaide without access to an effective PT corridor. About 75% of public transport is handled by buses.

However due to the state of our climate it should come at a cost to travel cross city just the same as it costs to run foxtel over crappy normal tv stations

Perhaps we should look at more practical solutions to climate change then a very expensive and disruptive reconstruction of cities to make public transport work. The "greenness" of public transport is greatly exaggerated. The carbon emissions from public transport depend very much where the energy comes from. A Melbourne study found trams and trains are worse emitters then cars as power there comes from coal. Perhaps looking at alternative options on climate change like assisting the development of Geothermal Energy and more efficient vehicle technology. Any drop in oil consumption from our country will instantaneously be consumed by another developing one.

It is a luxury to be able to drive to far away places really fast in a city, in fact not tolling cross city will mean there will be HUGE numbers of drivers using it, and it will just get congested as hell. The revenue raised from tolls could go to upgrades for our PT system to get commuters to the city just as fast as a freeway could.

Like I have said motorists are already paying additional taxes while public transport is massively subsidised. There are parking fees on top of this for travel to the CBD. Tolling has been discussed before and you just creating a situation where you allow only those that can afford to use a road.

Um what, there is unprecended demand for inner city apartments in Adelaide, with so many projects selling out in days. The only reason people move to the outer suburbs is for affordability.

What about the health costs of a fat, lazy society where a large proportion would drive their cars 3 meters to their leterbox if they could. What about the fact that traffic and traffic congestion is one of the largest source of greenhouse gases. What about the fact that oil prices are gonna go higher and higher.

Building freeways is in the past, the future is developing better public transport

This sort of attitude really annoys me. Your saying that the majority of Australian are fat lazy and they would all live better lives if you and the government control them, and made decisions for them. No it is not unprecedented. Post WWII the population of the CBD was 60,000, they since have chosen the suburbs as the proffered place to live.

Forcing people into higher density living only causes more social problems. Australian’s will not raise families in apartment buildings. Our birth rates are already below replacement level. You’re tarnishing the equalitarian society we like to try and provide by saying one type of housing is for one type that can afford it and one for the other. The individual is the best person in determining what is the best lifestyle for them.


The public transport anti-suburb crusade has just always annoyed me all thought my study’s. I see to many baseless arguments and personal influences. The point has been constintly pressed and people are not afraid to make up any sort of notsense to support there argument. We were given a lecture on reasons for people not adopting passive design in homes and car dependence was a given reason. The logic behind it was not explained. How do make the connection? You cant it is just baseless spur. In our first reading for the course was part of a writing from Jane Jacobs. She proposed we should crowd people together to make more “healthy” communitys. She said there is a need to fight to “free American souls” from the likes of cars and “commodity housing”. Her ideas of society were very much like what is said in this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl . I find those that so strongly press for public transport tend to have these same ideas.

Public Transport is not the best thing since sliced bread. We moved away from it over 50 years ago. Make up all the little excuses you want ive herd them all before. “Building housing on farmland will cause food shortages”. “Do we make cities for people or for cars”. "Freeways create ghettos and divide communitys".

[Cruise]

Don't forget railways promote sprawl to. infact, they started it

[AtD]

Funny. The car industry spends billion on advertising telling us that cars are the material symbol of liberty and prosperity. Anyone who dares contradict this is a loony with "baseless arguments and personal influences." All arguments against cars are thus dismissed!

[rhino]

On the news this morning I heard that the NRMA in NSW (National Roads & Motorists Assoc - the equivalent of our RAA) claims that bicycle lanes are a waste of Government money, and should not be constructed.

Last year a million cars were sold in Australia, versus 1.3 million bicycles.

Our car culture is changing in Australia as people become more aware, both ecologically and fiscally, that there are beter and more efficient forms of transport, but the motorists associations continue to sprout their propaganda.

[jk1237]

well the q915, I must be missing something. All of the cities around the world that focused solely on freeways, have realised that simply adding extra freeway lanes, caused the same congestion in a few years time, and would you believe, have found their solution in public transport. No joke there. What an absolute crock of shit that trains and trams produce more greenhouse gases than cars. Are you comparing 1 car to 1 train, and 1 car to 1 tram, or dont you realise that 1 tram could carry around 100 people, and 1 train can carry around 700 people. You probably come from the school of thought that think Melbournes trams cause pollution caus they block cars, yet its the cars itself that produce the pollution.



Q915, why dont we shutdown public transport, ban cycling, and see what kind of city Adelaide becomes. Your anti-public transport stance is like someone living in the 1960s.
And forcing people into higher density does not create problems. In fact the low density ghettos on our city fringes cause major problems such as social isolation, they have a lack of services, lack of employment, and lack of things to do for young people. Have you noticed higher crime rates around the suburban fringes compared to inner suburbs. And the cost of suburban infrastructure per capita of dwelling in low density areas is rather higher.
Get with the times please!

[The_Q915]

What an absolute crock of shit that trains and trams produce more greenhouse gases than cars. Are you comparing 1 car to 1 train, and 1 car to 1 tram, or dont you realise that 1 tram could carry around 100 people, and 1 train can carry around 700 people. You probably come from the school of thought that think Melbournes trams cause pollution caus they block cars, yet its the cars itself that produce the pollution.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s768017.htm. I am simply reporting what others have determined, not making assumptions. Public transort does not get energy for free. Sometimes you can mistake the 2000 class railcars for steamtrains. I am not suprised that busses only account for 2.3% of carbon emmissions because they dont account for much more the 2.3% of transport needs. You realise 95% of the work is done by cars?

In fact the low density ghettos on our city fringes cause major problems such as social isolation, they have a lack of services, lack of employment, and lack of things to do for young people. Have you noticed higher crime rates around the suburban fringes compared to inner suburbs. And the cost of suburban infrastructure per capita of dwelling in low density areas is rather higher.

http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/svg/ocsar.svgz. I suggest you look at the real crime statistics before making more assumptions. The highest rate of crime is in the CBD, and worst in the inner west and east then in salisbury.

Funny. The car industry spends billion on advertising telling us that cars are the material symbol of liberty and prosperity. Anyone who dares contradict this is a loony with "baseless arguments and personal influences." All arguments against cars are thus dismissed!

blaming the multi nationals. It allways makes me laugth when leftys do that when they cant find a real reason why things are not going there way. No a multinational conspiracy was not the reason public transport declined in South Australia. It is because people decided to stop using it, and still prefer to use it. Perhaps you should look at why the noralunga line was build to see how hard the evil oil and car companys are conspiring to destroy public transport.

[AG]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s768017.htm. I am simply reporting what others have determined, not making assumptions. Public transort does not get energy for free. Sometimes you can mistake the 2000 class railcars for steamtrains. I am not suprised that busses only account for 2.3% of carbon emmissions because they dont account for much more the 2.3% of transport needs. You realise 95% of the work is done by cars?

That report is very outdated. Since that article was written, the patronage on Melbourne's public transport system, particularly trains, has increased significantly as oil prices have climbed. The article makes reference to light loadings on public transport in 2003, 5 years ago! Since the capacity still exists on many public transport corridors, we should be encouraging growth in those areas that makes efficient use of what already exists. In 2007, 82% of trips in Adelaide were by car (http://www.abp.unimelb.edu.au/aboutus/p ... 6-2006.pdf), not the 95% claimed.

[The_Q915]

The census only covers travel to work. You have to consider the other 50% of non work travel purposed. Cars do 95% of the work. I am not aware of the exact efficiency levels of public transport in Melbourne. The article none the less proves that public transport is not close to carbon neautral as many are made to belive.

[AG]

The census only covers travel to work. You have to consider the other 50% of non work travel purposed. Cars do 95% of the work. I am not aware of the exact efficiency levels of public transport in Melbourne. The article none the less proves that public transport is not close to carbon neautral as many are made to belive.

Is there any known form of transport that is carbon neutral? Not even walking is carbon neutral believe it or not. Measuring levels of CO2 alone isn't a great indicator of each form of transport's contribution to the enhanced greenhouse effect, some forms of transport also produce NO2 and other greenhouse gases that contribute to the effect.

[AtD]

blaming the multi nationals. It allways makes me laugth when leftys do that when they cant find a real reason why things are not going there way. No a multinational conspiracy was not the reason public transport declined in South Australia. It is because people decided to stop using it, and still prefer to use it. Perhaps you should look at why the noralunga line was build to see how hard the evil oil and car companys are conspiring to destroy public transport.

See what I mean? Suddenly I'm a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that car companies advertise, and suddenly PT needs to be carbon neutral to be creditable.

[rhino]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s768017.htm. I am simply reporting what others have determined, not making assumptions. Public transort does not get energy for free. Sometimes you can mistake the 2000 class railcars for steamtrains. I am not suprised that busses only account for 2.3% of carbon emmissions because they dont account for much more the 2.3% of transport needs. You realise 95% of the work is done by cars?

Some of that guy's findings in that report are ridiculous. Suggesting that we should use busses instead of trams, because when a tram stops it holds up traffic which increases the problem - please! Have you ever travelled along Glen Osmond Road in peak hour? When busses stop, the traffic banks up behind them too, causing the very same problems.

As for trams causing the most greenhouse gas themselves - well that depends on how the power is generated. Emissions in Hobart, if they ran trams there, would be minimal because the power is not generated by burning coal. If we had a couple of wind farms dedicated to generating power for the transport industry (providing the equivalent of what electric transport requires) the emissions would be reduced too.

[jk1237]

ofcourse the city centre has the highest crime rate, its where the action is. Compare Smithfield Plains, Craigmore, Noarlunga Downs, Hackham to inner suburbs. And no one is forcing people to live in higher density, people are making their own choice and doing it in droves. Property developers in Mawson Central wouldnt be building all those med density units if there wasnt any demand, and units close to town have had the highest property price increase.