Sensational-Adelaide.com

Nathan wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:37 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:26 pm

What could change and get more people riding bikes in general? An actual campaign that spruiks the health benefits for example.

Except we have councillors who express specifically not doing that.

Khera, aligned with the Team Adelaide majority voting bloc, also told the chamber it would be a “dangerous path” for the council to recommend the health benefits of cycling, likening it to “social engineering”.

“If we’re putting out messaging that — what we’re doing is we want to shunt you off your car and put you on a bike because that’s good for you… It really has an echo of Stalinist, kind of, Orwellian, ‘We’re going to whip you onto the bike and make you exercise’, kind of stuff,” he said.

Geeez, what does he think of the slip slop slap campaigns of the past?

SBD wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:26 pm

You are also projecting your opinion. It doesn't matter how many people are driving cars who would continue to drive their cars no matter what bike infrastructure was available.

The point is that there are some people who would consider cycling instead of driving, but think that cycling is too dangerous. You appear to think this group is very small. Some others have hinted that they think it is a significant number. I don't know, and noted that it is very hard to count how many people are not riding along South Road because they don't feel safe. The ones who are not riding now are this hard-to-count group plus all of the other people in cars who would continue to be in cars. If high-quality, safe infrastructure was provided, some people would start using it straight away, and over time, more would start to use it, either because they see their neighbours and friends using it so decide to try it, or because as people move in and out, people more inclined to use it will value the houses near their preferred environment.

No SBD, its reality. We have the t2t section specifically the surface road around Croydon that has seen a dramatic dreacease in traffic, and there is still next to no significant use of the bike lane.
I mean how much more safer should it get? Theres next to no heavy vehcile traffic anymore, mostly buses, very low traffic volume in general. What would cyclists like, cushioned surface and walls around them and full time nurses every 500m to tend to them?

How do you know people think its unsafe, have you surveyed them? That's your opinion, I'm stating the facts that are visible to anyone who lives in or commutes through the area daily.

On my former commute by bike that you critiqued earlier, I (as a solo cyclist, so not abreast of anyone) occupied the lane of traffic in areas where I needed to, such as queued for a roundabout. I guess you're right, I didn't have to occupy a lane of traffic, I would have been legal to overtake on the left all of the stopped cars, and ride through the roundabout before them.

The bike lane began after the last roundabout, and I used it to get to the front of the traffic light queue as the bike lane continued the other side of the lights.

And this is the problem with most lycra cyclists.
They know what they can and can't do, but they choose to do whats convenient for them.

Im curious though, did you at least use hand signals unlike most other lycra cyclists?
Most people wouldn't have a problem if cyclists did at least that and stuck to the left of the road.

Your last point is incomplete: Cycling & the Law says on Page 13: If you are riding on a road with a bicycle lane, you must ride in the bicycle lane. You may move out of the bicycle lane to avoid debris, potholes, or to safely overtake another bicycle rider.

Those things are rather obvious and common sense thats why I didn't post them.

rev wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:05 am

SBD wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:26 pm

You are also projecting your opinion. It doesn't matter how many people are driving cars who would continue to drive their cars no matter what bike infrastructure was available.

The point is that there are some people who would consider cycling instead of driving, but think that cycling is too dangerous. You appear to think this group is very small. Some others have hinted that they think it is a significant number. I don't know, and noted that it is very hard to count how many people are not riding along South Road because they don't feel safe. The ones who are not riding now are this hard-to-count group plus all of the other people in cars who would continue to be in cars. If high-quality, safe infrastructure was provided, some people would start using it straight away, and over time, more would start to use it, either because they see their neighbours and friends using it so decide to try it, or because as people move in and out, people more inclined to use it will value the houses near their preferred environment.

No SBD, its reality. We have the t2t section specifically the surface road around Croydon that has seen a dramatic dreacease in traffic, and there is still next to no significant use of the bike lane.
I mean how much more safer should it get? Theres next to no heavy vehcile traffic anymore, mostly buses, very low traffic volume in general. What would cyclists like, cushioned surface and walls around them and full time nurses every 500m to tend to them?

How do you know people think its unsafe, have you surveyed them? That's your opinion, I'm stating the facts that are visible to anyone who lives in or commutes through the area daily.

This conversation started with an observation (by someone else) that many families and children (or their parents on their behalf) do not feel safe when protected only by a white painted line. They would be more likely to use a separate path like what is along the Northern Expressway, Northern Connector and Southern Expressway. The bike lane looks quite narrow on StreetView - the bike symbol does not fit completely between the white line and the concrete gutter. Is it actually wider than it appears?

Do you honestly believe that kids riding to school or workers riding home are just as safe on that bikelane as they would be on a separate shared path?

On my former commute by bike that you critiqued earlier, I (as a solo cyclist, so not abreast of anyone) occupied the lane of traffic in areas where I needed to, such as queued for a roundabout. I guess you're right, I didn't have to occupy a lane of traffic, I would have been legal to overtake on the left all of the stopped cars, and ride through the roundabout before them.

The bike lane began after the last roundabout, and I used it to get to the front of the traffic light queue as the bike lane continued the other side of the lights.

And this is the problem with most lycra cyclists.
They know what they can and can't do, but they choose to do whats convenient for them.

Im curious though, did you at least use hand signals unlike most other lycra cyclists?
Most people wouldn't have a problem if cyclists did at least that and stuck to the left of the road.

Your last point is incomplete: Cycling & the Law says on Page 13: If you are riding on a road with a bicycle lane, you must ride in the bicycle lane. You may move out of the bicycle lane to avoid debris, potholes, or to safely overtake another bicycle rider.

Those things are rather obvious and common sense thats why I didn't post them.

Just like all other road users, cyclists are required to know and follow the rules (including hand signals and bike lanes where available and usable). As a holder of a driver's licence, I have also had to demonstrate (several decades ago) that I knew the road laws. I see no problem with requiring all licence holders to resit their tests every ten years as part of licence renewal to confirm we have stayed up to date with changes to the law.

If anyone interested, there is now a very profesh looking information booth for T2D set up in the Central Market Plaza, next to Vintage Cellars.
Looks to be staffed by at least two people.

aceman wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:27 am

https://dit.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/ima ... SP_v11.jpg

no exit onto Richmond road northbound for airport access?

Also, no northbound exit or southbound entrance at James Congdon, meaning it's one of those worthless half-ramps like they have at Main South x Panalatinga

NTRabbit wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 04, 2021 3:40 pm

aceman wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:27 am

https://dit.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/ima ... SP_v11.jpg

no exit onto Richmond road northbound for airport access?

Also, no northbound exit or southbound entrance at James Congdon, meaning it's one of those worthless half-ramps like they have at Main South x Panalatinga

As far as ramps go between the tunnels, there is just one northbound off ramp (right as you exit the southern tunnel) and only one southbound on ramp (also south of Anzac Hwy). Not so bad if Anzac Hwy is the surface road you need, but not so good for any other road.

Conversely, there are three northbound on ramps and three southbound off ramps between the tunnels, so traffic to/from the north have more optimal options depending on which surface road they want to take.

I think they should consider adding at least one more northbound off ramp and southbound on ramp in this section.

SCF wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:57 am

NTRabbit wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 04, 2021 3:40 pm

aceman wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:27 am

https://dit.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/ima ... SP_v11.jpg

no exit onto Richmond road northbound for airport access?

Also, no northbound exit or southbound entrance at James Congdon, meaning it's one of those worthless half-ramps like they have at Main South x Panalatinga

As far as ramps go between the tunnels, there is just one northbound off ramp (right as you exit the southern tunnel) and only one southbound on ramp (also south of Anzac Hwy). Not so bad if Anzac Hwy is the surface road you need, but not so good for any other road.

Conversely, there are three northbound on ramps and three southbound off ramps between the tunnels, so traffic to/from the north have more optimal options depending on which surface road they want to take.

I think they should consider adding at least one more northbound off ramp and southbound on ramp in this section.

Doesn't seem to add up does it? Even replace one of the northbound-on-ramp-southbound-off-ramp combos with a second northbound-off-ramp-southbound-on-ramp combination.

Seems like it will (a) cause congestion at the one ramp that so many will need to take, and (b) cause confusion when people stay on the lowered motorway headed north and then end up in the tunnel with no chance of getting off untill Hindmarsh.

I understand the need to limit off/on ramps but this doesn't seem to quite tick the boxes. I'd still like to see them rethink the cross road section too tbh.

Heading north in the tunnels and on the surface road, there will be signs directing to Airport and City at the Anzac Highway offramp.

The lanes marked Airport will leave the motorway and meet traffic lights where you will continue across Anzac Highway onto the South Road surface road, from which you can turn left into Sir Donald Bradman Drive as you would today.

The lanes marked City will go up onto the flyover to turn right onto Anzac Highway.

ralmin wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:06 am

And something that's sorely missing from the signs at the Darlington Upgrade... ARROWS!

ralmin wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:06 am

Heading north in the tunnels and on the surface road, there will be signs directing to Airport and City at the Anzac Highway offramp.

The lanes marked Airport will leave the motorway and meet traffic lights where you will continue across Anzac Highway onto the South Road surface road, from which you can turn left into Sir Donald Bradman Drive as you would today.

The lanes marked City will go up onto the flyover to turn right onto Anzac Highway.

Clarity will obviously help, but why do you need three chances to exit if you're heading south, and only get once chance to exit heading north?

A good piece by Cathy Cashen in todays Advertiser, who is the spokesperson for the South Road Inner West Action group https://www.facebook.com/groups/2362690160720817/ [if anyone can post it?]. Their position is for the tunnels to continue under the Torrens to join up with the existing Torrens to Torrens section. The extra bit of tunnels would then save the community centre, the reserve, the lawn bowls club etc and get rid of the need for that proposed elevated road. The Transport Dept says that the extension of the tunnel is not an option because of the gradient, ramps and cost. The response to this is, ask an engineer and they will say that every problem has a solution. Thoughts?

how good is he wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:47 pm

A good piece by Cathy Cashen in todays Advertiser, who is the spokesperson for the South Road Inner West Action group https://www.facebook.com/groups/2362690160720817/ [if anyone can post it?]. Their position is for the tunnels to continue under the Torrens to join up with the existing Torrens to Torrens section. The extra bit of tunnels would then save the community centre, the reserve, the lawn bowls club etc and get rid of the need for that proposed elevated road. The Transport Dept says that the extension of the tunnel is not an option because of the gradient, ramps and cost. The response to this is, ask an engineer and they will say that every problem has a solution. Thoughts?

Well they need to fit in ramps between the torrens river and Grange Road, so they'd need the tunnels surfacing very quickly after going under the river. And I imagine you'd have to go quite deep under the river. I can see why they'd say it's just not possible without a really steep section of road which is obviously not a great solution. I was waiting to see what they were going to do with that Brickworks section and I actually thought their idea looks pretty decent.

mattwinter wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:56 pm

how good is he wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:47 pm

A good piece by Cathy Cashen in todays Advertiser, who is the spokesperson for the South Road Inner West Action group https://www.facebook.com/groups/2362690160720817/ [if anyone can post it?]. Their position is for the tunnels to continue under the Torrens to join up with the existing Torrens to Torrens section. The extra bit of tunnels would then save the community centre, the reserve, the lawn bowls club etc and get rid of the need for that proposed elevated road. The Transport Dept says that the extension of the tunnel is not an option because of the gradient, ramps and cost. The response to this is, ask an engineer and they will say that every problem has a solution. Thoughts?

Well they need to fit in ramps between the torrens river and Grange Road, so they'd need the tunnels surfacing very quickly after going under the river. And I imagine you'd have to go quite deep under the river. I can see why they'd say it's just not possible without a really steep section of road which is obviously not a great solution. I was waiting to see what they were going to do with that Brickworks section and I actually thought their idea looks pretty decent.

There doesn't need to be ramps between the torrens and Grange road, there needed to be north/south on/off ramps in both directions at Port Road, a MAJOR road/intersection. The other places should have been Grand Junction Road, and Regency road which has them, and there should be some in both directions at SDB and Daws Road, as well as Ayliffes Road/Sheppeherds Hill Road/South Road. Marion Road, Majors Road, Sherrifs Road which has them, Beach Road which has them.
If the whole corridor was built properly and not compromised with each section.

It's very amusing how pedestrians having massive detours forced upon them is the price of progress, but motorists not getting on and off ramps every few hundred meters is an outrage.

So far we've got complaining about bike lanes, now pedestrian footpaths.
All on a project whose primary focus is the rapid non stop movement of freight and motor vehicles.

Would it be pre-empting someone else's post to point out [insert your favourite mode of public transport] hasn't been exclusively catered for?
How about an airport runway or a helipad?