Grenfell and Currie St Busway and Bikeway (dialup = no)

[peas_and_corn]

It means there are a lot of images, which makes dialup connections struggle.

[Westside]

I think the simplest solution would be to make Currie/Grenfell one-way, Eastbound only to private traffic (2 lanes) between Morphett and East Tce. This would allow for a bus lane each way and still retain bays for the bus stops (so Eastbound and Westbound buses can still pass each other without entering the flow of traffic). You would still retain parking on one side of the street. Then make Waymouth/Pirie one-way, Westbound (2 lanes) between Morphett and East Tce - still retaining parking on one side of the street.

Then with just a simple readjustment of the major intersections inbetween (ie Morphett, King William, Pultney, East Tce) and allow a few more one way streets to link between Currie/Grenfell and Waymouth/Pirie and Bob's your uncle.

Thoughts??

[monotonehell]

I think the simplest solution would be to make Currie/Grenfell one-way, Eastbound only to private traffic (3 lanes) between Morphett and East Tce. This would allow for a bus lane each way and still retain bays for the bus stops (so Eastbound and Westbound buses can still pass each other without entering the flow of traffic). You would still retain parking on one side of the street. Then make Waymouth/Pirie one-way, Westbound (3 lanes) between Morphett and East Tce - still retaining parking on one side of the street.

Then with just a simple readjustment of the major intersections inbetween (ie Morphett, King William, Pultney, East Tce) and allow a few more one way streets to link between Currie/Grenfell and Waymouth/Pirie and Bob's your uncle.

Thoughts??

Your use of the word "simple" means you haven't thought about it enough.

Welcome to Sensational-Adelaide by the way!

[AtD]

This is a very detailed and well thought out plan. At Wyatt Street, I don't think it's really necessary to have two lanes turning right particularly if motorists also have the option of continuing straight to Pulteney Street, the pedestrians could do with that extra width.

Thanks. The footpath for that section is the same width as it is now, so the status quo in that regard. There's no bus stops thus no crowds there. I don't think car park traffic should be allowed to continue to Pulteney due to the narrowed road. Add a loading bus and it's effectively one lane. The main reason I had two lanes turning right is because there's currently two lanes exiting the car park.

With regards to Pirie Street, it would be good to convert it to a one way street for westbound traffic, but it'd be a hell of a time for motorists trying to travel east around that part of the city if there's nowhere to travel east between North Terrace and Flinders Street.

I'm not so sure. Wakefield Street is also very wide. I don't think we need as many east-west cross town routes as we have. There's no cross town routes though all of North Adelaide, for example.

This looks like overkill - you seem to be trying to do too much unnecessary stuff, in a way that could actually make the problem worse.

You're just saying that because I said drawing lines on a map doesn't make you a transport engineer.

Replacing the median strip with cycle lanes would make the street much harder to cross. Surely it's far more sensible to create a better cycle route on a parallel road?

It's not like it'd be made out of a 2m tall concrete wall...

And narrowing the road would remove nearly all the traffic flow advantages for buses.

Hence the removal of traffic...

Yes, the footpaths on the northern side are severely congested in the PM peak. So what? Pedestrians have got a whole street to themselves just one block away!

Hang on, a few lines ago you were complaining about making the street harder to cross. Are you suggesting it's easier for a pedestrian to walk one block than it is for a vehicle to drive two?

[AtD]

They stole my idea!

Where's my lawyer?

[monotonehell]

They stole my idea!

Where's my lawyer?

At Mil$61 I think they're doing more than just some line marking?

[AtD]

One would hope so! Although we are talking from Park Tce to West Tce, which is a fair distance.

[peas_and_corn]

They stole my idea!

Where's my lawyer?

Your idea was better.

[Aidan]

This looks like overkill - you seem to be trying to do too much unnecessary stuff, in a way that could actually make the problem worse.

You're just saying that because I said drawing lines on a map doesn't make you a transport engineer.

Actually I forgot you were the one who'd said that.

I said what I said because I believe it to be true! Your plan has too many unnecessary obstacles for buses.

Replacing the median strip with cycle lanes would make the street much harder to cross. Surely it's far more sensible to create a better cycle route on a parallel road?

It's not like it'd be made out of a 2m tall concrete wall...

That's not the point. At the moment pedestrians can cross the road easily enough - they just cross one side to the median, than wait on the median until it's clear to cross the other side. Your plan demands they either detour to the lights, wait ages until they can cross the entire road at once, or stand in the bike lane risking a collision. That's much worse for pedestrians.

And narrowing the road would remove nearly all the traffic flow advantages for buses.

Hence the removal of traffic...

The removal of traffic would create advantages for buses, albeit at the expense of other vehicles.
The narrowing of the road would destroy most of those advantages. So despite the inconvenience to motorists, buses would not be much better off.

Yes, the footpaths on the northern side are severely congested in the PM peak. So what? Pedestrians have got a whole street to themselves just one block away!

Hang on, a few lines ago you were complaining about making the street harder to cross. Are you suggesting it's easier for a pedestrian to walk one block than it is for a vehicle to drive two?

At peak times it often is! But that's not my point. There's no need for pedestrians to walk very far along the street. And if they are on the N side, chances are they're starting from that side - so for those who are walking a long way, there is an alternative. But for those who are only going as far as the next bus stop, the congestion is not that much of a problem.

There are already restrictions on what vehicles can do. They can't get onto North Terrace easily. Rundle's closed. Once you're on Grenfell Street it's hard to get off it - though having driven down it once in the afternoon peak, I don't want to again. I'm quite happy to leave it to the professionals!

I just don't think forcing ever longer detours is the best solution. The street performs a useful transport function, and you're seeking to wreck that. I've no objection to putting bus lanes in (as the government now appear to be proposing) but narrowing one of the City's biggest streets without providing an alternative is a retrograde step.

[AtD]

Yay, quote war! (To be fair, I started it)

That's not the point. At the moment pedestrians can cross the road easily enough - they just cross one side to the median, than wait on the median until it's clear to cross the other side. Your plan demands they either detour to the lights, wait ages until they can cross the entire road at once, or stand in the bike lane risking a collision. That's much worse for pedestrians.

The green things are supposed to be medians.

The narrowing of the road would destroy most of those advantages.

Explain. I don't expect much local traffic to be using Grenfell Street during peak hour. I don't know the numbers of cars that use Grenfell Street (The State doesn't publish them AFAIK) but I'd wager it'd be an order of magnitude greater than the number of buses.

At peak times it often is! But that's not my point. There's no need for pedestrians to walk very far along the street. And if they are on the N side, chances are they're starting from that side - so for those who are walking a long way, there is an alternative. But for those who are only going as far as the next bus stop, the congestion is not that much of a problem.

I disagree. The afternoon queues frequently overlap each other, especially along the O-Bahn stops - no amount of ticketing system magic will change this. The footpath can quite literally become impassable for two way foot traffic and you frequently see people opting to walk along the road itself.

There are already restrictions on what vehicles can do. They can't get onto North Terrace easily. Rundle's closed. Once you're on Grenfell Street it's hard to get off it - though having driven down it once in the afternoon peak, I don't want to again. I'm quite happy to leave it to the professionals!

I just don't think forcing ever longer detours is the best solution. The street performs a useful transport function, and you're seeking to wreck that. I've no objection to putting bus lanes in (as the government now appear to be proposing) but narrowing one of the City's biggest streets without providing an alternative is a retrograde step.

[/quote]

Restricting and discouraging private traffic from the CBD in favour of PT is an objective of mine. The tram line was a good step in that direction, narrowing parts of King William St and North Tce from 8 lanes to 4. Melbourne (Goodwins Law?) has proven (current Lord Mayor not withstanding) that closing vast sections of a dense CBD to traffic is achievable and doesn't lead to the death of the local area.

Although with today's announcement, this entire thread becomes even more irrelevant!

[Aidan]

That's not the point. At the moment pedestrians can cross the road easily enough - they just cross one side to the median, than wait on the median until it's clear to cross the other side. Your plan demands they either detour to the lights, wait ages until they can cross the entire road at once, or stand in the bike lane risking a collision. That's much worse for pedestrians.

The green things are supposed to be medians.

They're too narrow to fulfil that function

The narrowing of the road would destroy most of those advantages.

Explain. I don't expect much local traffic to be using Grenfell Street during peak hour. I don't know the numbers of cars that use Grenfell Street (The State doesn't publish them AFAIK) but I'd wager it'd be an order of magnitude greater than the number of buses.

Of course there's much local traffic on Grenfell Street during peak hour - it comes out of the car parks.

At peak times it often is! But that's not my point. There's no need for pedestrians to walk very far along the street. And if they are on the N side, chances are they're starting from that side - so for those who are walking a long way, there is an alternative. But for those who are only going as far as the next bus stop, the congestion is not that much of a problem.

I disagree. The afternoon queues frequently overlap each other, especially along the O-Bahn stops - no amount of ticketing system magic will change this. The footpath can quite literally become impassable for two way foot traffic and you frequently see people opting to walk along the road itself.

Our ticketing system more than doubles the time it takes to load buses - it would be quite easy to change that and therefore reduce the number of people who are waiting to get on the buses that are already there.

But if that is the problem, one solution is to make some buses (possibly the express routes that only run during the peaks) run via other parallel streets in the peaks - particularly if those parallel streets are made one way.

There are already restrictions on what vehicles can do. They can't get onto North Terrace easily. Rundle's closed. Once you're on Grenfell Street it's hard to get off it - though having driven down it once in the afternoon peak, I don't want to again. I'm quite happy to leave it to the professionals!

I just don't think forcing ever longer detours is the best solution. The street performs a useful transport function, and you're seeking to wreck that. I've no objection to putting bus lanes in (as the government now appear to be proposing) but narrowing one of the City's biggest streets without providing an alternative is a retrograde step.

Restricting and discouraging private traffic from the CBD in favour of PT is an objective of mine.

Restricting private traffic from the CBD without upgrading the PT system just makes things worse!

The tram line was a good step in that direction, narrowing parts of King William St and North Tce from 8 lanes to 4.

The tram line was a feeble step in that direction, failing to give the trams signal priority!

Melbourne (Goodwins Law?) has proven (current Lord Mayor not withstanding) that closing vast sections of a dense CBD to traffic is achievable and doesn't lead to the death of the local area.

Who's Goodwin? (Or am I trying to read a double meaning where there is none?)

Have I missed something here? They closed Swanston Street and a bit of Bourke Street to vehicles, but both of those roads had parallel routes about 200m away on both sides - it was roughly equivalent to the creation of Rundle Mall, albeit with trams continuing to run through. But apart from that, what have they closed to traffic? Only a few lanes and alleys last time I checked! And Melbourne has the luxury of having tunnels to remove a lot of the through traffic. We don't. They have a good tram system and a fairly good trains system. We don't have either yet.

Although with today's announcement, this entire thread becomes even more irrelevant!

You said it - but if you know the problem with your plans, you might come up with a good one eventually

[Westside]

Your use of the word "simple" means you haven't thought about it enough.

Welcome to Sensational-Adelaide by the way!

Thanks man, I see I joined the conversation at an interesting time! This topic will only lengthen when the gov'ts plans for the bus lane come out.

I have thought about my plan and it won't be as complicated as people make it out to be. Yes a few drivers will have to head east for a few hundred metres before they head west, (or vice versa) but both Sydney and Brisbane manage it easy enough. Provided the traffic from Bartels rd flows directly to Pirie; Currie st to Bartels; then from Waymouth back to Currie following the natural 'clockwise' flow of Light square. In terms of the side-streets in between, a few may have to be reversed and/or unblocked but they did that between Hindley and Nth Tce a few months ago with ease.

Just as when the right turns from King William St were removed, people will just get used to turning left a few times to go right. The most important thing is that you keep the buses direct through the centre and retain access for cars to the businesses (the latter doesn't have to be direct).

Can't wait to see what the government has in mind

[Prince George]

Melbourne (Goodwins Law?) etc etc etc

Who's Goodwin? (Or am I trying to read a double meaning where there is none?)

Goodwin's Law is that as the length of a USENET thread grows, the probability of someone mentioning the Nazis approaches 1 (ie "sooner or later, someone is going to compare things to Hitler's Germany").

[AtD]

That's the one. Someone mentioned somewhere here that everything ever built in Adelaide has been compared to something in Melbourne, so in a sense, Melbourne is our Hitler! As the length of a debate on this forum increases, the probability of someone making a comparison with Melbourne approaches 1.

[Aidan]

[AtD and Prince George] You're thinking of Godwin's law. There is no Goodwin's law that I know of.

And comparisons with Melbourne are often valid here, including in this thread.