News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
Nort
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2171
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#571 Post by Nort » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:23 pm

camaro68 wrote: If we agree that we should spend them money in portions would it not make sense to free up the congested portions of south road, not the free flowing end after Regency road???? :cheers:
Sure it would, if everything was equal. That's why the next step was planned to be on more currently congested sections like the Port Road intersection.

However everything is not equal, those upgrades will be cheaper than this one and so it will be easier to do them at a subsequent stage. Remember the funding for the Regency Road end of South Road was offered by the Federal Government for its long term advantage to commercial transport. If the offer was not taken now it could be a long time before the State Government could afford the upgrade, and by then it could already be causing trouble. You keep on talking about peak hour travel times on South Road, but that ignores the fact that this road is not being built for peak hour commuters. Sure it will be available to them, but they are not the justification for its construction.

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#572 Post by Shuz » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:32 pm

I honestly believe the problem does not lie within South Road; but with the lack of available north-south corridors throughout the Adelaide metropolitan area. South Road is the only corridor, and hence we need to reduce our dependancy on it, not increase it!

I think that there would be far more benefit in realigning and widening (2x2, with central median for provision of right-hand turning lanes) some of the roads that make up part of the Hanson/Marion road corridor, and the Patalinga-Morphett-Addison road corridor.

Nort
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2171
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#573 Post by Nort » Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:19 pm

Shuz wrote:I honestly believe the problem does not lie within South Road; but with the lack of available north-south corridors throughout the Adelaide metropolitan area. South Road is the only corridor, and hence we need to reduce our dependancy on it, not increase it!

I think that there would be far more benefit in realigning and widening (2x2, with central median for provision of right-hand turning lanes) some of the roads that make up part of the Hanson/Marion road corridor, and the Patalinga-Morphett-Addison road corridor.
Indeed. :applause:

For better or worse, South Road will never be the freeway some people want it to be. The chance for that has been and gone decades ago.

User avatar
camaro68
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#574 Post by camaro68 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:15 pm

Nort wrote:
Shuz wrote:Indeed. :applause:

For better or worse, South Road will never be the freeway some people want it to be. The chance for that has been and gone decades ago.
So basically SA has had no strategies in the past so we're stuck with south road!!!! :wallbash:

Not much has changed then, coz media mike is still building short term, during my reign type projects!! (Under passes, tram extensions).

This state is a joke, me thinks i'm off to Victoria.

Nort
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2171
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#575 Post by Nort » Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:49 pm

camaro68 wrote:
Nort wrote:
Shuz wrote:Indeed. :applause:

For better or worse, South Road will never be the freeway some people want it to be. The chance for that has been and gone decades ago.
So basically SA has had no strategies in the past so we're stuck with south road!!!! :wallbash:
Well we are stuck with it in the sense that for the forseeable future it will be a suburban road. No matter how many underpasses and bridges we build it won't change the fact there that are countless businesses and homes built on land that would need to be acquired to make South Road freeway standard. You can argue that it would be a good thing to forcibly acquire those properties (and you could make a pretty damn good argument to do so) however I don't see it being politically feasible for any party to do so. If it was acceptable then the MATS plan wouldn't have died back in the 1960's.
Not much has changed then, coz media mike is still building short term, during my reign type projects!! (Under passes, tram extensions).
I'm confused, a couple of posts ago weren't you saying that NOT building underpasses on currently busy intersections was not planning for the future? You need to make up your mind. You started off in this thread by criticising a major long term oriented project by saying it would not help current commuters, but now are criticising a lack of long term thinking. Which is it?
This state is a joke, me thinks i'm off to Victoria.
Bye. :roll:

User avatar
adam73837
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: The wilderness being sustained by nutrients in the air and powering my laptop with positive energy

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#576 Post by adam73837 » Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:54 pm

camaro68 wrote:If we agree that we should spend them money in portions would it not make sense to free up the congested portions of south road, not the free flowing end after Regency road????
I agree, which is why as soon as this project is over, rather than fix their attention to duplicating the expressway (which should have been done when it was first built :roll: , but let's not go there) they (the government) should focus on a project to get rid of the bottlenecks from Hindmarsh to Kurralta Park/ Ashford. Obviously it would cost more to do one big project here than it would to duplicate the Southern Expressway, but at least we actually have a free flowing corridor there (the expressway, I mean).
IMO, the Southern Expressway duplication (even though it should be done) should be done after fixing up the rest of South Road. But unfortunately, the two sections of this North-South Corridor (the superway and the expressway) are probably the ones that need the least attention, but are being done first! Can anyone work out the logic in that? :? (Yes, I know it was to do with Federal funding, but come on...)
Shuz wrote:I honestly believe the problem does not lie within South Road; but with the lack of available north-south corridors throughout the Adelaide metropolitan area. South Road is the only corridor, and hence we need to reduce our dependancy on it, not increase it!

I think that there would be far more benefit in realigning and widening (2x2, with central median for provision of right-hand turning lanes) some of the roads that make up part of the Hanson/Marion road corridor, and the Patalinga-Morphett-Addison road corridor.
Well, I heard from a family friend who lives in a property that actually lies on the corridor originally proposed to connect Marion and Hollbrooks Roads that because the government is so determined to fix South Road, we can forget anything of the sort which you just mentioned. As for the Patalinga-Morphett-Adison road corridor, that would involve a tunnel beneath the airport and I think we both know what that means...
I take back many of the things I said before 2010; particularly my anti-Rann rants. While I still maintain some of said opinions, I feel I could have been less arrogant. I also apologise to people I offended; while knowing I can't fully take much back. :)

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#577 Post by Prince George » Sun May 30, 2010 7:43 am

This weekend marks the unofficial start of America's summer holiday season, which is a time that many Americans hit the road and the age old cry of "are we there yet?" rings across the land. In that spirit, here's a couple of interesting traffic related articles.

From the New York Times - Do we tolerate too many traffic deaths?. The NYT asks several prominent writers & thinkers The national road-toll in the USA is astoundingly high - over the last decade it's averaged about 42,000 deaths per year, with about 35,000 of them being vehicle occupants, and the remainder other road users. 2008 was a markedly better year (about 37,000 deaths), but then it was an anomalous year for many things -- Tom Vanderbilt points out "[w]hen 1 in 10 Americans don’t have a job to drive to, there are going to be fewer fatal crashes". When you think about that number, that's like a small-town's worth of people dying every month.

From Wired magazine - The Man Who Could Unsnarl Manhattan Traffic. It's a looong article, so I'll post a couple of excerpts
When he finally gets back to his office, Komanoff will use this interview to inform his magnum opus, the Balanced Transportation Analyzer (.xls), an enormous Excel spreadsheet that he’s been building for the past three years. Over the course of about 50 worksheets, the BTA breaks down every aspect of New York City transportation—subway revenues, traffic jams, noise pollution—in an attempt to discover which mix of tolls and surcharges would create the greatest benefit for the largest number of people.

Komanoff’s spreadsheet, which he has posted online, calculates how new fees and changes to existing tolls affect traffic at different times of day. It calculates which costs are borne by city dwellers and which by suburbanites. It calculates how long it takes passengers to dig for change and board buses. And it allows any user to adjust dozens of different variables—from taxi surcharges to truck tolls—and measure their impact. The result is a kind of statistical SimCity, an opportunity to play God (or at least Robert Moses) and devise the perfect traffic policy.

Komanoff is a dyed-in-the-wool stats geek, and the BTA demonstrates his faith in data. By measuring the problem—the amount of time and money lost in traffic every year—we can begin to solve it, he says. We can turn the knobs on the entire transportation system to maximize efficiency. Komanoff’s model suggests a world in which everything from subway fares to bridge tolls can be precisely tuned throughout the day, allowing city planners to steer traffic flow as quickly and smoothly as a taxi driver tooling his cab down Broadway on a quiet Sunday morning.

...

[T]he BTA, Komanoff says, will finally allow engineers to model the effects of proposed transportation policies in realistic detail. He translates all traffic impacts—delays, collisions, injuries, air pollution—into dollars and cents; that way, it’s easy for users to compare the benefits and costs of different plans. He has even come up with a plan of his own that would, according to his calculations, collect $1.3 billion in motorist tolls per year—all of which would be spent on improving public transit—and save $2.5 billion in time costs by reducing delays. To that, add $190 million from decreased mortality as a result of making streets more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly, $83 million in collision damage reduction, and $34 million in lower CO2 emissions.

But there’s one aspect of Komanoff’s plan that his spreadsheet can’t help with: how to put it into practice. Americans hate the idea of paying to drive on public roads. No US city has succeeded at passing any plan remotely like Komanoff’s. And the response from New York City’s Department of Transportation has been tepid at best. Komanoff may have created a vision of the traffic system of the future, but he’s still stuck with the government and politics of the present.

...

Still, for all of its sophistication, Komanoff’s plan remains imperfect. Komanoff himself admits that an ideal system would track drivers wherever they went, charging by the mile and the minute, with rates determined by location. He calls this “the holy grail of congestion pricing.”

Someday, technology will probably help fulfill this promise. Skymeter, a Toronto-based company, has developed a GPS-based metering system that can track and bill cars in even the densest urban areas. With such a system, Komanoff says, he could adjust congestion prices on a block-by-block basis. Cities could do away with parking meters and simply track how long cars sat at a curb. Insurance premiums could reflect the habits of individual drivers instead of relying on crude proxies like age. Drivers could be rewarded for taking the roads less traveled—not having to pay, and sometimes even getting paid, if they chose to commute on less congested routes on particularly busy days. “It’s going to happen,” Komanoff says. “Cities will charge per mile or per minute according to your exact location and the type of vehicle you’re driving.”

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#578 Post by Omicron » Sun May 30, 2010 10:47 pm

And lo! 1984 cometh.

RayRichards
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Glenelg South

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#579 Post by RayRichards » Mon May 31, 2010 3:02 pm

Omicron wrote:And lo! 1984 cometh.
How depressing :cry: :cry:

These control freaks are taking over the world. Soon either they will know or you will have to disclose, how much bodily waste you produce per year so they will work out what you need to do to be carbon neutral and to receive access to your bank accounts and use your car. :roll: All cars will have to have breathalyser and speed limit reduction box whatever thingy before you can go on the road etc etc

Wow, and I though the anti-smoking lobby were bad. And all the do gooders love this stuff. Makes them full warm and fuzzy inside. "We are all doing our part for the community and environment...." Where's the wank emotion when you need it???

And yes, 1984 cometh. George Orwell knew where its at.

Ray.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Location: Christies Beach

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#580 Post by Aidan » Mon May 31, 2010 4:40 pm

RayRichards wrote:
Omicron wrote:And lo! 1984 cometh.
How depressing :cry: :cry:
Only for PC users :D
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#581 Post by AtD » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:18 am

Tax benefits choking city roads
By transport reporter Kylie Simmonds

A transport lobby group says drivers who gain tax benefits by having a car included in their salary package are choking Australia's roads.

The Tourism and Transport Forum (TTF) says traffic congestion will cost Australia nearly $13 billion this year.

It says while major cities choke, the Federal Government is encouraging people to drive by offering tax concessions for people who get cars as part of their salary package.

The more people drive, the bigger the tax benefit.

TTF's Kary Peterson says it does not make sense for the Government to promote car use while claiming to be conscious of climate change.

"What we need is a level playing field between people commuting to work by public transport, who get little or no tax breaks, with those who are driving into work and reaping the benefits of FBT benefits or exemptions," he said.

"There's no need to wait until next year's tax summit. What we want is it to be phased out in the next budget."

Mr Peterson says congestion would ease if the tax concessions were scrapped.

"With 2 million people using this at the moment it would make a massive difference," he said.

The scheme was introduced more than 20 years ago to help the struggling local car manufacturing industry.

It costs the government nearly $2 billion a year, which the TTF says would be better spent investing in more public transport.

User avatar
drsmith
Legendary Member!
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:35 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#582 Post by drsmith » Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:06 pm

If we are going to start talking tax reform, all deductions from salary income should be abolished (without mercy) and the savings used to increase the tax free threshold and to facilitate a streamlined reduction of effective marginal rates.

That would be a significant step along the road to tax simplificaton.

EDIT: Perhaps put a little aside to bypass Port Wakefield. :mrgreen:

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3620
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#583 Post by Waewick » Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:55 pm

bastards

once again foiled.

first they removed my laptops now the cars....I better get in quick

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#584 Post by AtD » Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:23 pm

Interesting article from Crikey
http://www.crikey.com.au/
22. Woolies wants a bigger train set, but keeps on trucking
Freelance writer Angus Kidman writes:

Woolworths says it would happily transfer more of its freight from road to rail if there was an inland Melbourne-Brisbane line, but the supermarket giant isn't convinced that customers would give it any credit for the shift.

Support from Woolworths would provide a useful fillip for the glacial process of getting the much-discussed east coast rail link actually happening and reducing our national dependency on road freight. Ultimately, that depends on a bunch of regulatory processes where the outcome is anything but clear, but backing from Australia's biggest retailer certainly wouldn't hurt.

Speaking on a panel at the annual Ausrail rail industry conference in Perth, Woolworths' transport strategy manager Ben Newton took issue with the suggestion that Woolies wasn't doing its bit to utilise rail. Around 20% of Woolworths' freight goes on trains, he said, and it would like to increase that, if only to avoid any future price increases for road freight: "We've been pretty vocal that we have an intention to use more. We can see the writing on the role in terms of road pricing and carbon tax."

The most appealing route for Woolworths is Melbourne to Brisbane. "That is the longest corridor we don't have on rail," Newton said. While that route is at least in theory already covered by two separate rail lines connected in Sydney, Wooworths would prefer the alternative of a single inland standard-gauge route. "We're not in a position where we've got absolute confidence in the infrastructure," he added dryly.

Like most supermarket retailers, Woolworths relies on just-in-time supply models, and any unexpected delays often have a ripple effect. "If we do put it on rail and for whatever reason we have a day's delay, that's going to mean products not on shelves, especially in Brisbane with some slow moving lines," Newton said. "Any out of stocks [customers] definitely notice."

A direct Melbourne-Brisbane rail link would remove 300 Woolworths semi-trailers a week from the roads, Newton estimates. Ask any driver stuck on the Pacific Highway if they'd like to see freight shifted onto rail and they'll almost certainly say yes.

However, Newtown thinks that the ongoing care factor is low in practice and that any shift won't be noticed fickle grocery buyers. Asked if customers cared about how goods were delivered, he was direct: "If [a reduction in trucks] become noticeable they might appreciate it, but in reality no."

Woolworths and other freight-dependent companies already have to deal with truck bans imposed by local councils, which often restrict delivery hours to minimise night noise and, Newton argues, increase traffic congestion. "There's plenty of examples through all the major capital cities where we've got restricted deliveries. A lot of those curfews force us to be on the road in peak hour."

But a shift to rail won't help with that either. "Our focus on rail is really the interstate intermodal market," Newton said. "The metropolitan distribution piece is really very separate and we don't see that much of an overlap." In other words, Woolworths really likes its trucks.

A rail conference provides plenty of evidence that Australia, like Woolworths, is still in the grips of automotive addiction. We're the only OECD member country where car sales and investment in freeway building is growing.

A recurrent grumble at Ausrail was that rail users are charged for infrastructure and rail network operators are expected to turn a profit, while national highways are essentially free for truck freight companies to use and there's no expectation of profitability from the roads themselves (save for the often disastrous urban private motorway sector).

"Our current system of road charges must change so that road and rail can compete on a level playing field," said David Marchant, CEO of Australian Rail Track Corporation -- a theme the railway industry has been hammering for years. It estimates 30% of the cost of rail freight comes from network access costs, compared to less than 5% for road freight.

The big problem is that our pre-Federation history of separate and incompatible state rail networks continues to haunt the nation, despite attempts during the 1990s to standardise the main routes. There are currently seven different railway safety regulators, for instance. A project is under way at the National Transport Commission to consolidate those, but that won't happen before 2013 at the earliest, and will require agreement from every single mainland state.

Infrastructure Australia CEO Michael Deegan was blunt in his assessment of the sloth involved in discussion so far. "I don't see that progressing anywhere near the pace that's required," he said during the conference. "There needs to be some sense of urgency about changing these things."

Colonial history has condemned us to discussion over action, he suggested: "In transport, we just don't seem to get much done." Meanwhile, the trucks just keep on trucking, for Woolies and everyone else.

peas_and_corn
Legendary Member!
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:32 pm

Re: The Great Roads Debate

#585 Post by peas_and_corn » Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:38 pm

So I'm guessing Woollies is talking about transport to the DC, not DC to store stock movement, right?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: I Follow PAFC, Nathan and 113 guests