[PRO] Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by rev »

Nathan wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:43 pm
[*] Bravo on the (seperated?) bike lane over the bridge, but the lane completely disappears (not just ends - the kerb is shown coming in) just after Chief St.
[/list]
Go for a drive down there and make a post suggesting where you think a bike lane would fit after Chief Street on that side of the road.

The project isnt about widening Torrens road and adding a dedicated bike lane, so why would it be done..even if there was room without having to widen the entire road.

There's a small car park on the opposite side. A widening project would see that removed.
A dedicated bike lane would see on street parking lost.
There's businesses there that rely on customers being able to park.
The side street (fifth street) is too narrow as it is and is always full so very limited parking options.

Bike lanes shouldn't always be a priority.
The primary users of a road are cars and trucks
The law to allow bikes on roads and not footpaths, and the 1m rule are stupid because rhe infrastructure isn't setup for it. Retroactively painting lines doesn't work.
The laws should apply only to roads designed properly for dual use by motor vehicles and bicycles.
OlympusAnt
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 7:31 pm

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by OlympusAnt »

road over rail should minimise rail closure

what it will do is make that Park Tce intersection even worse for a few months
Follow me on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3272
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Contact:

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by Nathan »

It is depicting a widened Torrens Road though. Torrens Rd is two lanes each way, and the video depicts a new median strip and a right turn lane from Torrens Rd onto Chief St (not to mention a much wider nature strip on the south side).

My issue is that you can't go from seperated bike lane, to "fuck you, you're on your own". It's not even a bike lane that disappears into parking or whatever, it's shown actively ending with an angled curb into traffic. This should never be entertained, even in a preliminary render.

Image

Almost all of the businesses on the south side of Torrens Rd (CBF and the bridal shop next to it are the only exceptions) have off-street parking available. There is no need for on-street parking at all between Park Tce and South Rd. None.
Attachments
Screen Shot 2020-06-15 at 8.27.44 pm.png
SBD
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by SBD »

Pistol wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:46 pm
I really hope they make use of that wasted land on the corner of Exeter Terrace and Torrens Road.
Could they have extended the bridge a bit further and grade separated the Churchill Road and Torrens Road intersection as well?
I imagine it would be very difficult to make a grade-separated right turn from Churchill Road to Torrens Road. If that movement is allowed to be sacrificed, one of the cost considerations may be how much dirt has to be moved in and out. If digging Churchill Road below the bridge provides fill for the ramp west of the railway line, then separating it might be an option offered by the bidders.
SBD
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by SBD »

rev wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:19 pm
Nathan wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:43 pm
[*] Bravo on the (seperated?) bike lane over the bridge, but the lane completely disappears (not just ends - the kerb is shown coming in) just after Chief St.
[/list]
Go for a drive down there and make a post suggesting where you think a bike lane would fit after Chief Street on that side of the road.

The project isnt about widening Torrens road and adding a dedicated bike lane, so why would it be done..even if there was room without having to widen the entire road.

There's a small car park on the opposite side. A widening project would see that removed.
A dedicated bike lane would see on street parking lost.
There's businesses there that rely on customers being able to park.
The side street (fifth street) is too narrow as it is and is always full so very limited parking options.

Bike lanes shouldn't always be a priority.
The primary users of a road are cars and trucks
The law to allow bikes on roads and not footpaths, and the 1m rule are stupid because rhe infrastructure isn't setup for it. Retroactively painting lines doesn't work.
The laws should apply only to roads designed properly for dual use by motor vehicles and bicycles.
There is no "law to allow bikes on roads and not footpaths". There was recently a new law to permit bicycles to go slowly on footpaths, but before that, the laws were to allow cars to use roads that had previously been used by bicycles and horse-drawn vehicles.

The 1m rule is necessary only because too many drivers did not understand what a "safe distance" looked like. It wouldn't need to be codified if all drivers thought of themselves or their loved ones being the person on the bike they whiz past.
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by rev »

SBD wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:06 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:19 pm
Nathan wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:43 pm
[*] Bravo on the (seperated?) bike lane over the bridge, but the lane completely disappears (not just ends - the kerb is shown coming in) just after Chief St.
[/list]
Go for a drive down there and make a post suggesting where you think a bike lane would fit after Chief Street on that side of the road.

The project isnt about widening Torrens road and adding a dedicated bike lane, so why would it be done..even if there was room without having to widen the entire road.

There's a small car park on the opposite side. A widening project would see that removed.
A dedicated bike lane would see on street parking lost.
There's businesses there that rely on customers being able to park.
The side street (fifth street) is too narrow as it is and is always full so very limited parking options.

Bike lanes shouldn't always be a priority.
The primary users of a road are cars and trucks
The law to allow bikes on roads and not footpaths, and the 1m rule are stupid because rhe infrastructure isn't setup for it. Retroactively painting lines doesn't work.
The laws should apply only to roads designed properly for dual use by motor vehicles and bicycles.
There is no "law to allow bikes on roads and not footpaths". There was recently a new law to permit bicycles to go slowly on footpaths, but before that, the laws were to allow cars to use roads that had previously been used by bicycles and horse-drawn vehicles.

The 1m rule is necessary only because too many drivers did not understand what a "safe distance" looked like. It wouldn't need to be codified if all drivers thought of themselves or their loved ones being the person on the bike they whiz past.
The roads, as they are, are not designed to be shared with bicycles. Comprehend?

A push bike that weighs a few kilos at most should not be on these roads with vehicles that weigh mostly over 1.5 tonnes.
There's no protection for a push bike rider, bike lanes or 10m rules even, if an accident happens. And accidents happen daily.
Since it wont change, the solution is to design roads that accommodate both. Painting lines on bitumen to keep idiot cyclists safe doesnt work because too many dont stay in the bike lane and think everyday is the peloton at the TDU. The Frome st bikeway was a step in the right direction.
Westside
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 4:30 pm

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by Westside »

rev wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:20 pm
SBD wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:06 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:19 pm


Go for a drive down there and make a post suggesting where you think a bike lane would fit after Chief Street on that side of the road.

The project isnt about widening Torrens road and adding a dedicated bike lane, so why would it be done..even if there was room without having to widen the entire road.

There's a small car park on the opposite side. A widening project would see that removed.
A dedicated bike lane would see on street parking lost.
There's businesses there that rely on customers being able to park.
The side street (fifth street) is too narrow as it is and is always full so very limited parking options.

Bike lanes shouldn't always be a priority.
The primary users of a road are cars and trucks
The law to allow bikes on roads and not footpaths, and the 1m rule are stupid because rhe infrastructure isn't setup for it. Retroactively painting lines doesn't work.
The laws should apply only to roads designed properly for dual use by motor vehicles and bicycles.
There is no "law to allow bikes on roads and not footpaths". There was recently a new law to permit bicycles to go slowly on footpaths, but before that, the laws were to allow cars to use roads that had previously been used by bicycles and horse-drawn vehicles.

The 1m rule is necessary only because too many drivers did not understand what a "safe distance" looked like. It wouldn't need to be codified if all drivers thought of themselves or their loved ones being the person on the bike they whiz past.
The roads, as they are, are not designed to be shared with bicycles. Comprehend?

A push bike that weighs a few kilos at most should not be on these roads with vehicles that weigh mostly over 1.5 tonnes.
There's no protection for a push bike rider, bike lanes or 10m rules even, if an accident happens. And accidents happen daily.
Since it wont change, the solution is to design roads that accommodate both. Painting lines on bitumen to keep idiot cyclists safe doesnt work because too many dont stay in the bike lane and think everyday is the peloton at the TDU. The Frome st bikeway was a step in the right direction.
Can you keep your bigoted comments out of this forum please? Share the road, it's really that simple. Roads are for everyone and everyone has their place. Roads have always been designed to be shared with all vehicles, it's just that some cyclists and some drivers don't know how to do so.
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by rev »

Westside wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 12:25 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:20 pm
SBD wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:06 pm


There is no "law to allow bikes on roads and not footpaths". There was recently a new law to permit bicycles to go slowly on footpaths, but before that, the laws were to allow cars to use roads that had previously been used by bicycles and horse-drawn vehicles.

The 1m rule is necessary only because too many drivers did not understand what a "safe distance" looked like. It wouldn't need to be codified if all drivers thought of themselves or their loved ones being the person on the bike they whiz past.
The roads, as they are, are not designed to be shared with bicycles. Comprehend?

A push bike that weighs a few kilos at most should not be on these roads with vehicles that weigh mostly over 1.5 tonnes.
There's no protection for a push bike rider, bike lanes or 10m rules even, if an accident happens. And accidents happen daily.
Since it wont change, the solution is to design roads that accommodate both. Painting lines on bitumen to keep idiot cyclists safe doesnt work because too many dont stay in the bike lane and think everyday is the peloton at the TDU. The Frome st bikeway was a step in the right direction.
Can you keep your bigoted comments out of this forum please? Share the road, it's really that simple. Roads are for everyone and everyone has their place. Roads have always been designed to be shared with all vehicles, it's just that some cyclists and some drivers don't know how to do so.
Our roads are piss poor as they are, they are not well designed.
And they are DEFINITELY not designed to accommodate bike lanes, and in most cases it's not safe to do so even though it's done. Do you disagree with any of this? If so, show me how I'm wrong instead of whining about your imaginary slight against you.

Do you disagree that our roads should have an improved design so that they accommodate motor vehicles and cyclists in their own dedicated lane that is physically separated from other road using vehicles that weigh hundreds of times more then your bike, and of course pedestrians?

In relation to the topic, and the comment by Nathan, since you apparently seem to not agree that painted white lines for bike lanes at the expense of lane width for other road users is not an adequate solution, tell me, at Torrens Road just after Chief street, where the chicken shop and the community school are on one side and the primary school on the other side, without widening the road, where do you think exactly a bike lane on either side will fit on that road?
How do you think you can fit a bike lane on that short stretch right there, when there is barely enough room for vehicles that are only separated in the middle of the road by a white line...?

So for you to say that road have always been designed for all road users in mind, no you're wrong.
For you to say that it's just a matter of sharing the road, no you're wrong.

Because the issues I'm raising are about SAFETY.
Yes there's idiot drivers who think they own the road just like there's pretentious wankers in lycra who think they don't have to stay in the bike lanes.

If I have an accident in my car, the car has many safety features to keep me as safe as possible. So does the other car involved.
What safety features does your bike have that will keep you as safe as possible and prevent your death in the event of an accident with a car?
What, do you think you're flashing lights and helmet are going to keep you safe and even alive in many cases?

The fact that you can very easily be killed or left permanently disabled in a wheel chair if you are involved in an accident on a road with a motor vehicle is enough reason why you shouldn't be sharing the same bitumen as motor vehicles separated only by white painted lines.


I'll give you an example that relates to safety and space.
Piloted aircraft and remotely piloted aircraft ie drones.

The law states that a drone operator must land their drone if there is a piloted aircraft in the area.
For safety reasons, the law does not allow both to be operated in the same air space.

Apply the same exact principle to push bikes, motor vehicles and roads.
SBD
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by SBD »

rev wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 1:38 pm
Westside wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 12:25 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:20 pm


The roads, as they are, are not designed to be shared with bicycles. Comprehend?

A push bike that weighs a few kilos at most should not be on these roads with vehicles that weigh mostly over 1.5 tonnes.
There's no protection for a push bike rider, bike lanes or 10m rules even, if an accident happens. And accidents happen daily.
Since it wont change, the solution is to design roads that accommodate both. Painting lines on bitumen to keep idiot cyclists safe doesnt work because too many dont stay in the bike lane and think everyday is the peloton at the TDU. The Frome st bikeway was a step in the right direction.
Can you keep your bigoted comments out of this forum please? Share the road, it's really that simple. Roads are for everyone and everyone has their place. Roads have always been designed to be shared with all vehicles, it's just that some cyclists and some drivers don't know how to do so.
Our roads are piss poor as they are, they are not well designed.
And they are DEFINITELY not designed to accommodate bike lanes, and in most cases it's not safe to do so even though it's done. Do you disagree with any of this? If so, show me how I'm wrong instead of whining about your imaginary slight against you.

Do you disagree that our roads should have an improved design so that they accommodate motor vehicles and cyclists in their own dedicated lane that is physically separated from other road using vehicles that weigh hundreds of times more then your bike, and of course pedestrians?

In relation to the topic, and the comment by Nathan, since you apparently seem to not agree that painted white lines for bike lanes at the expense of lane width for other road users is not an adequate solution, tell me, at Torrens Road just after Chief street, where the chicken shop and the community school are on one side and the primary school on the other side, without widening the road, where do you think exactly a bike lane on either side will fit on that road?
How do you think you can fit a bike lane on that short stretch right there, when there is barely enough room for vehicles that are only separated in the middle of the road by a white line...?

So for you to say that road have always been designed for all road users in mind, no you're wrong.
For you to say that it's just a matter of sharing the road, no you're wrong.

Because the issues I'm raising are about SAFETY.
Yes there's idiot drivers who think they own the road just like there's pretentious wankers in lycra who think they don't have to stay in the bike lanes.

If I have an accident in my car, the car has many safety features to keep me as safe as possible. So does the other car involved.
What safety features does your bike have that will keep you as safe as possible and prevent your death in the event of an accident with a car?
What, do you think you're flashing lights and helmet are going to keep you safe and even alive in many cases?

The fact that you can very easily be killed or left permanently disabled in a wheel chair if you are involved in an accident on a road with a motor vehicle is enough reason why you shouldn't be sharing the same bitumen as motor vehicles separated only by white painted lines.


I'll give you an example that relates to safety and space.
Piloted aircraft and remotely piloted aircraft ie drones.

The law states that a drone operator must land their drone if there is a piloted aircraft in the area.
For safety reasons, the law does not allow both to be operated in the same air space.

Apply the same exact principle to push bikes, motor vehicles and roads.
Streetview suggests that the parking lane could be repurposed as a bike lane, leaving the other lane in each direction for motor vehicles, and maybe make the bike lane a bit narrower to provide for a bigger median. There also looks to be a quite wide verge on the north side of the road, but I haven't been down it for a long time, so am only working from the internet. I don't think it is wide enough for fully-separated bike lanes as well as parking and driving though, I agree on that. The chicken shop could have a few indented parking bays near the stobie pole to support its business better than the clearway zones do.

I'm not sure your drone example is true for larger aircraft such as the RQ-4. It's true for small ones that are the size of birds.

By that argument, all the partially-automated cars should stop if a manually-controlled bike ventures near it, anyway.
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by rev »

SBD wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:17 pm
Streetview suggests that the parking lane could be repurposed as a bike lane, leaving the other lane in each direction for motor vehicles, and maybe make the bike lane a bit narrower to provide for a bigger median. There also looks to be a quite wide verge on the north side of the road, but I haven't been down it for a long time, so am only working from the internet. I don't think it is wide enough for fully-separated bike lanes as well as parking and driving though, I agree on that. The chicken shop could have a few indented parking bays near the stobie pole to support its business better than the clearway zones do.

I'm not sure your drone example is true for larger aircraft such as the RQ-4. It's true for small ones that are the size of birds.

By that argument, all the partially-automated cars should stop if a manually-controlled bike ventures near it, anyway.
torrens1.jpg
torrens2.jpg
Where will a bike lane fit, safely, without widening the road?
There's no extra room in any of the lanes and the road is divided by a painted line not a median strip.

Which illustrates the point I'm making, our roads aren't designed for this stuff and should be redesigned to accommodate all users.
I know some people get off on forcing their will onto others and think it's great that the majority are ignored for a minority group that they happen to be in, but the world doesn't work based on peoples feelings.
It's not practical in a safety sense to have these bike lanes continually added to roads that were never designed to accommodate bike lanes.
SBD
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by SBD »

rev wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:47 pm
SBD wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:17 pm
Streetview suggests that the parking lane could be repurposed as a bike lane, leaving the other lane in each direction for motor vehicles, and maybe make the bike lane a bit narrower to provide for a bigger median. There also looks to be a quite wide verge on the north side of the road, but I haven't been down it for a long time, so am only working from the internet. I don't think it is wide enough for fully-separated bike lanes as well as parking and driving though, I agree on that. The chicken shop could have a few indented parking bays near the stobie pole to support its business better than the clearway zones do.

I'm not sure your drone example is true for larger aircraft such as the RQ-4. It's true for small ones that are the size of birds.

By that argument, all the partially-automated cars should stop if a manually-controlled bike ventures near it, anyway.
torrens1.jpg
torrens2.jpg

Where will a bike lane fit, safely, without widening the road?
There's no extra room in any of the lanes and the road is divided by a painted line not a median strip.

Which illustrates the point I'm making, our roads aren't designed for this stuff and should be redesigned to accommodate all users.
I know some people get off on forcing their will onto others and think it's great that the majority are ignored for a minority group that they happen to be in, but the world doesn't work based on peoples feelings.
It's not practical in a safety sense to have these bike lanes continually added to roads that were never designed to accommodate bike lanes.
The left lane is presently used for parking. Indent the bus stops and car parks near the shops that need passing parkers (the chicken shop does, the crash repair doesn't). Then make that left lane a little narrower and designate it as a bike lane. Move the other lane over a bit so there is space for a wider painted median.

Most rural roads have higher speed limits with only a painted median, and cyclists have to share the road, so it should be possible to only have a painted median in urban areas too.
Westside
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 4:30 pm

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by Westside »

rev wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 1:38 pm
" "
Have you been to Europe, Asia or most other places in the world? Cars, bikes, pedestrians and all other manner of vehicles all get along just fine. The problem in Australia absolutely is about behaviour. Yes, we could spend billions of dollars upgrading every main rd in Adelaide to separate trucks, cars, cyclists and pedestrians from one another, but we should have to if people just changed their behaviour. And I'm talking about behaviour of both drivers and cyclists. When I was in New York, I used one of those horrible blue rental bikes with no helmet and never felt safer. Cars gave me a wide berth and if they couldn't get around me, they just waited the 10-30 seconds until it was safe to do so and everyone went on their merry way. It's not rocket science. Unfortunately some people drive or ride like they own the road and that is what causes the issues, not the size of the road or whether there is a painted white line.
User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3272
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Contact:

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by Nathan »

Ignoring the argument about whether bikes should be accommodated at all (despite the massive reserve along the north side), the bigger issue is that you go from fully separated bike lane over the bridge, to no lane and being actively funnelled into traffic. That's just utterly dangerous.
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by rev »

Westside wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:22 pm
rev wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 1:38 pm
" "
Have you been to Europe, Asia or most other places in the world? Cars, bikes, pedestrians and all other manner of vehicles all get along just fine. The problem in Australia absolutely is about behaviour. Yes, we could spend billions of dollars upgrading every main rd in Adelaide to separate trucks, cars, cyclists and pedestrians from one another, but we should have to if people just changed their behaviour. And I'm talking about behaviour of both drivers and cyclists. When I was in New York, I used one of those horrible blue rental bikes with no helmet and never felt safer. Cars gave me a wide berth and if they couldn't get around me, they just waited the 10-30 seconds until it was safe to do so and everyone went on their merry way. It's not rocket science. Unfortunately some people drive or ride like they own the road and that is what causes the issues, not the size of the road or whether there is a painted white line.
This is Adelaide, Australia.

What does any of this rubbish have to do with Adelaide and Torrens road?
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

[PRO] Re: Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

Post by rev »

So instead of designing and building safer roads, some think we should continue with the present dangerous situation?

Wow.....
Post Reply