PRO: Tonsley Rail Extension

[drsmith]

I emailed them my response this arvo.

Have you yet had a response ?

The DTS preferred option is an example of bad traffic engineering and worse
transport planning. It is needlessly expensive, inefficient in terms of land use,
and not even as safe as it should be.

I'm not in a position to comment on its merits, but I hope the person on the receiving end had broad shoulders.

Otherwise, he/she may have read no further than the above.

[Aidan]

I emailed them my response this arvo.

Have you yet had a response ?

I got a response thanking me for taking the time to write it, and telling me it had been forwarded to the project director for consideration.

The DTS preferred option is an example of bad traffic engineering and worse
transport planning. It is needlessly expensive, inefficient in terms of land use,
and not even as safe as it should be.

I'm not in a position to comment on its merits, but I hope the person on the receiving end had broad shoulders.

Otherwise, he/she may have read no further than the above.

What they feel is irrelevant - their job requires them to read and consider the whole lot.

[rubberman]

Aidan,

What they feel should be irrelevant.

However, my experience is that such an approach closes people's minds. They are immediately thinking of why you are wrong, rather than why you might be right. They comb through what is written, and any and all mistakes are highlighted and magnified with the objective of painting you and your opinions as being wrong.

You may end up worse than not being read. You may have just set people up psychologically to actively reject these and future ideas with your name attached.

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

[koalaboy]

However, my experience is that such an approach closes people's minds. They are immediately thinking of why you are wrong, rather than why you might be right. They comb through what is written, and any and all mistakes are highlighted and magnified with the objective of painting you and your opinions as being wrong.

You may end up worse than not being read. You may have just set people up psychologically to actively reject these and future ideas with your name attached.

After reading Aidan's response I immediately had visions of a person that regularly posts negative comments on AdealaideNow, where everything happening in the world was a bad decision because it wasn't his. Working in the traffic engineering industry and seeing Aidan's proposal, I could immediatly see that the scheme had good intentions, but was far from an "alternative solution".

You lose all credibility as a person without traffic engineering experience to start a letter with:

The DTS preferred option is an example of bad traffic engineering and worse
transport planning. It is needlessly expensive, inefficient in terms of land use,
and not even as safe as it should be.

It caught my attention. I couldn't wait to see the earth shattering "solution" that would solve Darlington's problems. Unfortunately I didn't find it and I was left thinking that this person just likes to be negative for the sake of it. Rubberman is right, they will stop listening. You are dealing with professionals that have investigated the solution as a whole, not just one intersection and not just for road traffic . Were they rude to you in the first instance to warrant such a harsh opening to your letter? Did they earmark your best friend's house for destruction? There must have been a reason?

The consultation process is a way for the community to provide "constructive" input into the solution. If you disagree with the solution, explain explicitly what is wrong and how it perhaps could be done better, element by element. Being totally negative about every aspect from the very first sentence without explaining yourself lowers your credibility and after seeing your "solution" I don't think you had the right to bag the scheme as much as you did.

I think you are on the right path when you mention the public transport alternatives and I can see that this is probably your field of work. It seems that everyone except the politicians knows that building bigger roads is unsustainable and actually creates more demand. Focus on your area of expertise and be constructive rather than destructive and you may find that your inputs become part of the process.

[AtD]

It's also customary with public consultation documents that the first few paragraphs describes who you (or your organisation) are and why you are interested. It demonstrates that you're not some random nutter, what vested interests you're pushing and why you're interested in this consultation.

[Aidan]

Apologies Aidan for misquoting Fabricator, I am still learning how to use these forums. Based on your reply I can see that you never get anything wrong or make a mistake in life.

We all get things wrong and make mistakes, and people don't hesitate to correct me when I do.

By definition a freeway is a road that is free flowing, or as the government says non-stop. They don't need to be 100km/h, but they need to follow the same principles such as no direct access to the freeway apart from interchanges.

And that's NOT a principle that South Road needs to follow.

I never said that adjacent intersections needed to be treated the same way, just considered together. There is a big difference. This simply means that your need to draw up a full scheme from end to end, when intersections are closely spaced. Looking a one section in isolation is pointless.

I agree they need to be considered together in that sense, but I don't think that's what the report meant by considered together.

A slip road separated from the main part of South Road by a landscaped strip. If necessary it could be widened and noisewalls constructed.

Widened where? Into their front gardens, by acquiring their land?

No. Widened into where South Road currently is. Possibly at the expense of the median strip, or possibly entirely from the vacant strip of land on the other side of the road.

Not to mention being on the north side of their block, a high noise wall would cast a shadow over their entire front yard.

It is a tradeoff. But the noise wall doesn't have to be big enough to screen out the road entirely - just being big enough to block most of the wheel noise would be a significant improvement. And as the noise walls would be separated from the houses by the landscaped strip and the road, shadowing shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Acquiring a proportion will cost nearly as much as buying the whole block. And suddenly your footprint is becoming no different.

On the contrary, my footprint would be entirely within the available space, not encroaching on the houses at all.

Or University Drive.

Have you not seen University Dr in the peak hours? It can’t handle much more traffic, if any at all. Pushing the problem somewhere else and ignoring the impact seems to be your solution for everything. Once again, the solution needs to be looked at in its entirety, not one section in isolation.

I didn't say the impact should be ignored. If University Drive is inadequate to meet the PM peak demand, obviously we should look at why it's inadequate and how that can be addressed. My point was there are options, and people will use the one that best suits them.

Impossible??? There are plenty of steeper hills than that in the suburbs! Nor is it the only roundabout at the bottom of a steep hill.

Obviously Aidan you are not aware of these annoying things called design standards and guidelines. Unfortunately, to avoid litigation most professionals have to follow them. Over time standards change to reflect higher standards of safety. In some instances due to the steepness of the existing terrain, there is no other option but to install a sub-standard slope or intersection. But given the terrain in Darlington, your scheme would never be allowed. Even if the grades you suggest were possible, the overpass would not meet the disability act requirements. How would pedestrians cross South Rd at Flinders Dr on your 30% grade bridge?

You think I was suggesting 30% gradients??? Struth, no wonder you oppose it!

I haven't got detailed figures (this was only a conceptual design) but using Google Earth I make it around 10%. That's the same as the bottom section of the street I live on (which ends in a roundabout). There are 3 obvious ways of making it a bit shallower if need be.

As for the pedestrian ramp, it can zig zag if it's too steep - indeed I showed it doing so on the northern side.

All of it??? Struth, how shallow do you think gradient and curvature have to be for a road with a 50km/h speed limit?

Yes, all of it. Your spiral is also about 1/3 the minimum radius required, especially coming off an 80km/h design road. You can’t transition design speeds instantaneously from 80 to 50km/h. Maximum grades for 50km/h are about 10% for short sections, but not on approaches to intersections because rear-end crashes will become far more common. You also need sight distance over crests and around corners, all of which will make your scheme bigger. Your overpass will be lucky to come down to ground level before Sturt Rd, Laffer is impossible.

It can branch off South Road earlier if required, and South Road's speed limit does not need to be raised to 80km/h. As for tight curves, is there any reason why advisory speed limits couldn't be used?

That figure is based on inadequate public transport, which is one of the things I took exception to.

And you would know this how?

By reading Section 18.4.3.

Politicians win votes more quickly and easily with road projects, about 90% of us drive. Everyone knows PT is the better long-term spend and is more sustainable, but as long as politicians dictate what is built, they will go for the more-popular road projects (for example Southern Exy Duplication).

Duplicating the Southern Expressway is a worthwhile road project that will make a lot of journeys significantly shorter. But building a railway under the City is likely to be similarly popular, as well as increasing train numbers by about a third.

Near doubling of the population in the next 30 years and the existing low-density housing down south will result in growth of traffic. Unless they made PT free, people will still love to drive, particularly with a free-flow road. It’s called induced demand. If the road wasn’t free-flowing and left to clog up, yes people would try PT, but if it is quicker door to door by car, people will continue to drive in big numbers. Look at major cities with good PT, they still have massive traffic chaos.

I'm familiar with growth and induced demand so I'm puzzled as to why you bring up the issue. Surely you know it's an equilibrium situation and attracting more people onto trains will improve traffic flow on the roads? And while speed does make it more attractive, it doesn't actually have to be faster - just competitive.

Which is stupid, because it will never be worth constructing extra lanes in the Gallipoli Underpass.

They don’t need to “construct” them, they are already there. It will cost peanuts to convert. Just take out the median, bike lane and parking lane and you have one more lane without changing the bridge or walls. Not stupid at all, it’s called future-proofing. Luckily some people plan for the growth, instead of basing everything on present day for all of their decisions.

Don't you get it? Continual widening South Road is not the best way to accommodate future growth. Making provision for infrastructure we'd be better off without isn't futureproofing.

[Isiskii]

Is there any way I can open this thread and not read Aidan's posts? Surely I'm not the only one whose thinking that...

[koalaboy]

I can see you have it all sorted. You use such definitive statements for your scheme, without virtually any consideration of design realities (trust me, you haven't considered most of them)

And that's NOT a principle that South Road needs to follow.

It wont be free flowing for long if you don't

But the noise wall doesn't have to be big enough to screen out the road entirely - just being big enough to block most of the wheel noise would be a significant improvement.

New noise requirements may contradict this, the height isn't plucked out of thin air.

On the contrary, my footprint would be entirely within the available space, not encroaching on the houses at all.

How do you know? Being so definitive without a designed or even sketched scheme once again reduces your credibility.

It can branch off South Road earlier if required, and South Road's speed limit does not need to be raised to 80km/h. As for tight curves, is there any reason why advisory speed limits couldn't be used?

Once again your lack of knowledge in this area highlights a massive reason why you should not be so quick to criticise. A design speed +10km/h of the posted speed is relatively standard because people drive over the speed limit. It will remain a 70km/h road. For 50km/h, you need a 50m absolute minimum curve radius (this applies to your spiral, so like I said, say goodbye to Laffer). Even with a 50m radius design, your spiral may still have a lower advisory speed sign. Advisory speeds are based on driver comfort, not design.

Duplicating the Southern Expressway is a worthwhile road project that will make a lot of journeys significantly shorter.

Are you serious? South Rd running parallel to the Southern Expressway is an existing road asset that has plenty of capacity. Darlington and Edwardstown are choked with traffic in many ways because of the Expressway. Very strange logic. Yes it's nice to have the farce fixed, but the state has dozens of over saturated road sections that should have been fixed first.

Continual widening South Road is not the best way to accommodate future growth. Making provision for infrastructure we'd be better off without isn't futureproofing.

Duplicating the Southern Expressway is somehow good, yet upgrading the road it feeds into is wasteful. There is no logic for your aguement, unless you live south and always travel against the peak flow. That would explain why you think South Rd doen't need upgrading and the Expressway needs duplication.

Is there any way I can open this thread and not read Aidan's posts? Surely I'm not the only one whose thinking that...

+1. Imagine how much of our tax dollars are wasted on having to respond, although I think DrSmith and Rubberman may be right and they may have only read the first few lines.

[iTouch]

I can see you have it all sorted. You use such definitive statements for your scheme, without virtually any consideration of design realities (trust me, you haven't considered most of them)

And that's NOT a principle that South Road needs to follow.

It wont be free flowing for long if you don't

Good point

But the noise wall doesn't have to be big enough to screen out the road entirely - just being big enough to block most of the wheel noise would be a significant improvement.

New noise requirements may contradict this, the height isn't plucked out of thin air.

On the contrary, my footprint would be entirely within the available space, not encroaching on the houses at all.

How do you know? Being so definitive without a designed or even sketched scheme once again reduces your credibility.

I never thought of it that way

It can branch off South Road earlier if required, and South Road's speed limit does not need to be raised to 80km/h. As for tight curves, is there any reason why advisory speed limits couldn't be used?

Once again your lack of knowledge in this area highlights a massive reason why you should not be so quick to criticise. A design speed +10km/h of the posted speed is relatively standard because people drive over the speed limit. It will remain a 70km/h road. For 50km/h, you need a 50m absolute minimum curve radius (this applies to your spiral, so like I said, say goodbye to Laffer). Even with a 50m radius design, your spiral may still have a lower advisory speed sign. Advisory speeds are based on driver comfort, not design.

I agree

Duplicating the Southern Expressway is a worthwhile road project that will make a lot of journeys significantly shorter.

Are you serious? South Rd running parallel to the Southern Expressway is an existing road asset that has plenty of capacity. Darlington and Edwardstown are choked with traffic in many ways because of the Expressway. Very strange logic. Yes it's nice to have the farce fixed, but the state has dozens of over saturated road sections that should have been fixed first.

I agree

Continual widening South Road is not the best way to accommodate future growth. Making provision for infrastructure we'd be better off without isn't futureproofing.

Duplicating the Southern Expressway is somehow good, yet upgrading the road it feeds into is wasteful. There is no logic for your aguement, unless you live south and always travel against the peak flow. That would explain why you think South Rd doen't need upgrading and the Expressway needs duplication.

Yeh good point

Is there any way I can open this thread and not read Aidan's posts? Surely I'm not the only one whose thinking that...

+1. Imagine how much of our tax dollars are wasted on having to respond, although I think DrSmith and Rubberman may be right and they may have only read the first few lines.

Maybe.

[drsmith]

Out of curiosity, I did read more than the first few lines, but I'm not the person who has to deal with the personalities behind submissions as part of their working life.

Rubberman summed that aspect up very well.

[drwaddles]

A design speed +10km/h of the posted speed is relatively standard because people drive over the speed limit.

This is outside the scope of this project but is something that really pisses me off. Design standards are already very 'boring' (for lack of a better word) for the relevant speed limit, so designing it 10km/h faster than the posted speed limit is stupid. All it does is generate a cycle of speeding and lack of respect for speed limits.

[koalaboy]

This is outside the scope of this project but is something that really pisses me off. Design standards are already very 'boring' (for lack of a better word) for the relevant speed limit, so designing it 10km/h faster than the posted speed limit is stupid. All it does is generate a cycle of speeding and lack of respect for speed limits.

It's even worse when after 1 fatal crash caused by an idiot driving at 180km/h they decide the road is unsafe and they drop the speed limit. So a road designed for 120km/h gets reduced to 80km/h or even 60km/h. Main South Rd in Hackam is a great example of where this happened. Now if you are overtaking in the fast lane doing 89km/h, a huge mass of cars will still be right up your backside. The posted speed should reflect how the road feels and that section of road feels a lot faster.

There isn't much difference between the standards for 70 vs 80. Lanes can be the same width, just the sight distance and horizontal / vertical curves are improved. Technically more safe, but you make a good point.

I think most of my posts have been outside the scope of the thread - Rail Line to Flinders Uni Perhaps there needs to be a DTS thread to cover the whole project?

[Aidan]

I can see you have it all sorted. You use such definitive statements for your scheme, without virtually any consideration of design realities (trust me, you haven't considered most of them)

That's not the situation at all. I considered the issues, but without a copy of the design standards to hand, I went by what is done elsewhere in the suburbs.

And that's NOT a principle that South Road needs to follow.

It wont be free flowing for long if you don't

Off peak it will. And in the peaks, having too much capacity on South Road is likely to be counterproductive, as it would encourage more car commuting, resulting in other roads becoming more congested.

But the noise wall doesn't have to be big enough to screen out the road entirely - just being big enough to block most of the wheel noise would be a significant improvement.

New noise requirements may contradict this, the height isn't plucked out of thin air.

Since when have new noise requirements been mandatory for existing roads?

On the contrary, my footprint would be entirely within the available space, not encroaching on the houses at all.

How do you know? Being so definitive without a designed or even sketched scheme once again reduces your credibility.

I know because I've seen the site, and I checked distances with Google Earth and Google Maps. At the narrowest point it's about 19m between the edge of South Road and the block of land the Sir Mark Oliphant building's on. My plan adds two lanes to the road - that's 7m. Assuming 4m for slip lanes, that's still 4m spare even before you start to consider how much land could be freed up by narrowing the median.

It can branch off South Road earlier if required, and South Road's speed limit does not need to be raised to 80km/h. As for tight curves, is there any reason why advisory speed limits couldn't be used?

Once again your lack of knowledge in this area highlights a massive reason why you should not be so quick to criticise. A design speed +10km/h of the posted speed is relatively standard because people drive over the speed limit. It will remain a 70km/h road. For 50km/h, you need a 50m absolute minimum curve radius (this applies to your spiral, so like I said, say goodbye to Laffer). Even with a 50m radius design, your spiral may still have a lower advisory speed sign. Advisory speeds are based on driver comfort, not design.

Do you think this one is based on driver comfort, not design?

Advisory speeds aren't just used in the way you think. But if it's been decided they should be, there's still the option of putting a lower speed limit on the spiral. And the transition problem could be solved by making the slip road longer.

Duplicating the Southern Expressway is a worthwhile road project that will make a lot of journeys significantly shorter.

Are you serious? South Rd running parallel to the Southern Expressway is an existing road asset that has plenty of capacity.

Of course I'm serious. It's not a capacity issue, and not all traffic starts off on South Road. Southbound traffic from Brighton Road (or any of the coastal suburbs) would have a much quicker journey if they could join the Expressway at Sherrif's Road, but it always seems to be going the wrong way.

Darlington and Edwardstown are choked with traffic in many ways because of the Expressway. Very strange logic. Yes it's nice to have the farce fixed, but the state has dozens of over saturated road sections that should have been fixed first.

In most cases where capacity is the issue, the biggest problem is the lack of alternatives.

Continual widening South Road is not the best way to accommodate future growth. Making provision for infrastructure we'd be better off without isn't futureproofing.

Duplicating the Southern Expressway is somehow good, yet upgrading the road it feeds into is wasteful. There is no logic for your aguement, unless you live south and always travel against the peak flow. That would explain why you think South Rd doen't need upgrading and the Expressway needs duplication.

South Road does need upgrading, but not to full motorway standard. I fully support grade separation, and I think an extra lane each way for local traffic would be highly desirable, but upgrading one road can never be the solution to all our traffic problems.

Is there any way I can open this thread and not read Aidan's posts? Surely I'm not the only one whose thinking that...

+1. Imagine how much of our tax dollars are wasted on having to respond, although I think DrSmith and Rubberman may be right and they may have only read the first few lines.

Yet you're apparently happy for hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to be wasted on a grossly overengineered South Road! Do you not see the inconsistency?

[mattblack]

You seem to have the awnser to everything Aidian although I dont agree with you but do you have the awnser to life, the universe and everything?

[Aidan]

You seem to have the awnser to everything Aidian although I dont agree with you but do you have the awnser to life, the universe and everything?

If you want a better answer than 42, I suggest you rephrase the question.