Sensational-Adelaide.com

monotonehell wrote:

Cam wrote:To me if the City is the Heart then it requires big free flowing arteries to function healthily . Doof Doof Doof Doof.

So why clog them with caresterol ? People can be shifted about better with PT.

Not an easy issue to solve when people still want their freedom. It's a fine balance, we need both good public transport and enough roads to carry commuter traffic (mostly in peak hour). There's one area of traffic management I have never been impressed with, that of councils closing, narrowing, diverting or limiting traffic on some secondary roads. This has pushed more traffic on main roads where there is public transport. I agree that there has to be some traffic management somewhere but not on those roads that help keep things fluid. Tricky.

Cheers

Well if they were to improve public transport today, congestion on the roads would ease. Everyone wins.

I think a good solution for the short-medium term to tackling Adelaide's traffic conjestion would be the introduction of suicide lanes along some roads, while the long-term soultions are being worked on (eg: South Road, trains, expressways, etc) Flagstaff Hill Road already has a suicide lane along its route, and I think many more roads can handle them.

Winston Avenue/East Terrace is another example of a busy road which would support the model (on-road parking banned of course) however, some complications could arise due north of the tramline as the road is very narrow.

Goodwood Road - God knows why they still haven't banned on-road parking yet!? Its ludicrous to think that one of Adelaide's major southern routes gets funneled down into a 1x1 lane configuration (when it has 2x2 capacity) because stupid people park on the road causing all the congestion.

If you think about it, Main South Road is 6x6 at the South/Ayliffes Road intersection - already full of southern commuter traffic - 3x3 of this gets funneled into South Road (which after 500m gets funneled into 2x2 and then at Anzac Hwy 3x3 - however with the construction of the underpass there is only 1 slip lane to exit (2 turning lanes thereafter) and 2x2 traffic funneled throughout. It'll be interesting to see upon completion whether the traffic improves (I have my doubts) because most people will want to follow through and they have exit options onto Richmond Road (2x2) but has on-road parking I think - Bradman Drive which is 2x2 (but is already at capacity from western suburbs traffic) leaving only the CityWest route (1x1) and has no right-turn policy onto Keswick Bridge, leaving commuters to travel even further to Port Road, which I can only imagine although being 4x4 is at capacity also!

Goodwood/Ayliffes is also 3x3 I believe all the way to Edward/Grange streets (however is limited to 2x2 from Springbank/Daws because of BL lanes) This gets funneled into 2x2 to the Millswood underpass, and then 1x1 because of the stupid on-road parking policy! But then eases into 2x2 in the parklands. The 1x1 is a real bitch in the mornings/afternoons, people swerving, failing to indicate, merging without consideration, sudden braking, all the whilst trying to read thier papers, eat Weetbix from a bowl, apply makeup or talking on their phones... And its not a pretty sight.

Is there no consistency whatsoever? Ugh... enough of my rambling.

Shuz wrote:I think a good solution for the short-medium term to tackling Adelaide's traffic conjestion... And its not a pretty sight. Is there no consistency whatsoever? Ugh... enough of my rambling.

Many good points if you wade through that rant

They wont get rid of the on street parking on goodwood road for the same reason they wont fix the britannia roundabout.. nobody has the balls to do anything about the issue.

im throwing a spanner in the works, but I still want to see cars allowed to park on the side of Goodwood Rd. The shopping strip around Goodwood is a cool, historic little area, and I hate to see this turned into a 4-laned highway for the whole day, just so the cars can get somewhere 3 mins quicker. If the roads to the south are too congested, extend the Tonsley train line and build a large bus/train/park n ride interchange at Darlington/Flinders, to relieve the pressure on the 3 main roads from the south into the city.
One way to avoid congestion is to create congestion, forcing people to switch to PT, but there needs to be decent PT alternative, so people thinking about switching to PT, know they can get into city on the train, quicker than stuck in a traffic jam

Agree, jk.

jk1237 wrote: One way to avoid congestion is to create congestion, forcing people to switch to PT, but there needs to be decent PT alternative, so people thinking about switching to PT, know they can get into city on the train, quicker than stuck in a traffic jam

That's an interesting concept. I like your thinking.

Agree, jk. This is why they narrowed Grote St north of the Central Markets. This is why you're not allowed to drive on the tram line north of Victoria Square. And apparently it works!
I think you'll find that a number of your freeway/road projects won't be required if you build the rail ones first, especially if you don't take as a given that freight traffic along South Road will double by 2030 (or something), but instead proactively work to prevent this environmental disaster. (Not to mention the disruption to lives and the horrible thought of a traffic sewer through the city!)

cleverick wrote:Agree, jk. This is why they narrowed Grote St north of the Central Markets. This is why you're not allowed to drive on the tram line north of Victoria Square. And apparently it works!
I think you'll find that a number of your freeway/road projects won't be required if you build the rail ones first, especially if you don't take as a given that freight traffic along South Road will double by 2030 (or something), but instead proactively work to prevent this environmental disaster. (Not to mention the disruption to lives and the horrible thought of a traffic sewer through the city!)

Is true. Try to create a shift in the paradigm instead of catering to the current one.

That is afterall, the role of government. To restrain the free market and prevent its worst excesses, and to provide adequate public goods and positive externalities which are undersupplied by the market.

I'm 20 studying economics and politics. I love it.

cleverick wrote:That is afterall, the role of government. To restrain the free market and prevent its worst excesses, and to provide adequate public goods and positive externalities which are undersupplied by the market.

I'm 20 studying economics and politics. I love it.

Then you must first admit that you know nothing or is that Zen?

Your definition would be rejected by many who have their own ideas.
Restrain the freemarket. / Support the freemarket. / BE the freemarket. / Every point in between.

Some say that the market is self correcting and needs no protection from itself. Others say that the free market is inherently corrupt and must be completely regulated. Still others say that the free market should be abolished. If you're reading from more than one text you'll find as many definitions of what a Government is and should be as there are governments.

monotonehell: Economists don't say the market is self correcting, at least not the reputable ones. That's why we have fixed exchange rates.

Cleverick: Are you going to Adelaide Uni?

*We* don't have fixed exchange rates, not since the 70s! Only China and poor African nations who are just rich enough to escape the ire of the IMF can afford the luxury of a fixed exchange rate.
Monotonehell: as a 20-y-o student, my definition of government is the entity which saves the free market from itself. That doesn't mean big government the way communism likes big government, nor does it mean small government the way the conservatives traditionally like it.
Somewhere about where the democrats were before they imploded.
AtD: Yes.

Urgh. I meant cash rates.

(And since when were fixed exchange rates a 'luxury?')

cleverick: Are you doing/have you done Public Economics?