Motorways ... provably stupid
- wombatK
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
- Location: Yagoona, AU
Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby wombatK » Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:45 pm
Westconnex a Dud Deal.
Melbourne's East link equally a dud deal.
When will the electorate wake up ?
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
- biker jk
- Posts: 6998
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby biker jk » Fri Dec 19, 2014 2:34 pm
- wombatK
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
- Location: Yagoona, AU
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby wombatK » Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:11 pm
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby il padrone » Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:17 pm
http://www.planetizen.com/taxonomy/term/1352/all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby Mulger bill » Fri Dec 19, 2014 7:40 pm
London Boy 29/12/2011
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby Xplora » Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:29 am
The M2 widening was a good plan, it doesn't flow because drivers are not forced to create significant gaps to the car in front. Rushing drivers, lane changing drivers, without exception are the sole cause of the mess.
- queequeg
- Posts: 6477
- Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:09 am
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby queequeg » Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:07 am
That is highly debatable. The M2 is choked every day in peak hour because making a road wider just encourages more people to use it, which is why it is now back to how it was before the upgrade.Xplora wrote:
The M2 widening was a good plan, it doesn't flow because drivers are not forced to create significant gaps to the car in front. Rushing drivers, lane changing drivers, without exception are the sole cause of the mess.
Most afternoons I have to laugh at the big flashing sign saying "Slow Traffic Ahead due to congestion", which is what Transurban promised would vanish after they did the upgrade. All tree lanes are crawling along at less than 30km/h, whilst the variable speed limit sign shows a highly improbable 80km/h upper limit.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby human909 » Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:29 am
Big gaps between cars reduces the car density which then reduces the flow rate (cars/min). At higher speeds the necessary gaps increases and flow rate decreases.Xplora wrote:The M2 widening was a good plan, it doesn't flow because drivers are not forced to create significant gaps to the car in front. Rushing drivers, lane changing drivers, without exception are the sole cause of the mess.
30kph? You say? Happens that is around the speed at which the highest flow rate occurs.queequeg wrote:All tree lanes are crawling along at less than 30km/h, whilst the variable speed limit sign shows a highly improbable 80km/h upper limit.
More on traffic flow theory here:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/re ... /chap2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Though you already know the issue. Too many cars!
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby Xplora » Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:22 pm
Big gaps between cars allows time and space for lane changes as necessary, as well as adjusting to driver error. You just can't do that with a car length at 100kmh (I'm not joking, this happens when it banks up badly). There is no conceivable reason for traffic to roll at 30kmh on the M2, or M4. Heavy traffic flows better when the road curves or descends - proving that drivers aren't really paying attention to the entire traffic situation, and aren't accelerating appropriately on the hills. They just sit in a pile of their own misery, wondering why everything doesn't work, while racing 20m to join the queue again. Larger spaces in front allows better perspective so they drive better.
human, I think you are mistaking my post - tailgating is the norm when traffic appears bad. Tailgating is the problem, but drivers do it as the solution to it.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby human909 » Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:41 pm
No arguments there but big gaps don't result in a high flow rate. Because density if significantly reduced.Xplora wrote:Big gaps between cars allows time and space for lane changes as necessary, as well as adjusting to driver error. You just can't do that with a car length at 100kmh (I'm not joking, this happens when it banks up badly).
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby Xplora » Sat Dec 20, 2014 1:18 pm
I put this to you - do drivers want high flow rate, or do they want to reach their destination faster? If you keep them moving at 100kmh with bigger spaces between cars, they arrive quicker.human909 wrote:No arguments there but big gaps don't result in a high flow rate. Because density if significantly reduced.Xplora wrote:Big gaps between cars allows time and space for lane changes as necessary, as well as adjusting to driver error. You just can't do that with a car length at 100kmh (I'm not joking, this happens when it banks up badly).
Concerns about flow rate are for traffic engineers, not commuters. Simple reality is that driving too close to the cars in front prevents faster driving, unless the group is in sync (as you see with a cyclist peleton). That's the real issue, I guess. Getting drivers in sync with each other. They generally don't believe that they are part of the same "bunch", despite the reality that they are all stuck together
- Ross
- Posts: 5742
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby Ross » Sat Dec 20, 2014 1:53 pm
But talking of flow rates, it's like a large cycling bunch of A through to E grade riders. They aren't all going to be able to whizz along at 50km/h. There are riders of all different strengths and abilities. Car drivers are the same. Becasue of the pi$$ poor licencing system we have in this country where you barely need and skill or coordination to get a licence you get people of all different abilities driving. Some can comfortably do 80km/h and are aware and alert of traffic around them where others struggle with that and are more interested in social media on their phone or something else rather than driving.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby human909 » Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:01 pm
Ummm you seem to be missing all the complexities of traffic flow... (I won't claim to be an expert here.)Xplora wrote:I put this to you - do drivers want high flow rate, or do they want to reach their destination faster? If you keep them moving at 100kmh with bigger spaces between cars, they arrive quicker.
Keeping them moving at 100kph with large spaces between the cars results in a flow rate that is less that the number of people entering the road. Thus density increases, the gaps decrease and eventually speed decreases.
What you suggest is incompatible with peak demand. Though it is quite compatible with off peak demand which is why off peak the traffic speed will be ~100kph.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby il padrone » Sat Dec 20, 2014 5:41 pm
Driverless cars FTWXplora wrote:Concerns about flow rate are for traffic engineers, not commuters. Simple reality is that driving too close to the cars in front prevents faster driving, unless the group is in sync (as you see with a cyclist peleton). That's the real issue, I guess. Getting drivers in sync with each other. They generally don't believe that they are part of the same "bunch", despite the reality that they are all stuck together
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- Strawburger
- Posts: 1729
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:19 pm
- Location: Dulwich Hill, Sydney
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby Strawburger » Sat Dec 20, 2014 8:35 pm
By the way, there is a saying in the industry: widening a road is like giving a calorie happy person a bigger pair of pants. It's only a matter of time before it gets filled.
- wombatK
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
- Location: Yagoona, AU
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby wombatK » Sat Dec 20, 2014 8:47 pm
And so too is building an entirely new motorway ... it's just another lane or two in parallel with some route drivers presently use.Strawburger wrote: By the way, there is a saying in the industry: widening a road is like giving a calorie happy person a bigger pair of pants. It's only a matter of time before it gets filled.
Which is why any fair-dinkum assessment of the project's Net Present Value will be negative.
Worse, if history is a form guide, the new motorway owners will make sure those presently used routes become exceedingly slower, in order to
ensure their motorways profits. And it will be secret mens business.
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
- ColinOldnCranky
- Posts: 6734
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:46 pm
While my usual position on motorways is strongly negative, this assessment is an indictment of the political and bureaucratic processes around it. Not of the value of motorways. The thread title misleads.
-
- Posts: 3056
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby zero » Sun Dec 21, 2014 12:31 am
It only improves travel time relative to the motorway without reduced speeds. In practice a motorway operating at 30km/hr has severely increased overall travel times, because drivers generally have to drive out of their way to get to the entrance, queue for some time to enter, and then out of their way to get from the exit to their destination. There is a motorway method of getting to Liverpool. After about 3pm, it is generally faster to ride my bicycle from Glebe to Liverpool directly (though must ignore bicycle infrastructure along the way because its terrible) than it is to use the motorway. The cars average 37, I average 31, but I am not riding 10km total out of my way (at only 7km/hr faster, a 10km deviation is negative for time). If you raise the density of the motorways such that commute to-from the motorway is reduced, then because of the extreme land usage of the motorway and the space mess of its junctions (even if its underground), then you reduce the density of destinations, which means people have to on average drive further, which from a societal perspective makes motorway building, largely pointless.Strawburger wrote:It is proven that lowering the speed limit at high traffic volume periods improves the travel time, hence why you see variable speed signs in urban motorways.
By the way, there is a saying in the industry: widening a road is like giving a calorie happy person a bigger pair of pants. It's only a matter of time before it gets filled.
The ultimate expression of this is Houston, texas, where the commute times are the same as Sydney on average, despite the presence of 10 lane freeways and simpler landscape that would theoretically allow a greater density of destinations - ie if you seriously attempt to untangle traffic with rabid motorway construction then everything is so far apart that it takes forever to drive to it.
What saddens me most about Houston is that on google maps, you can see many demolished houses where people park on the slabs and then walk the rest of the way to work. It is extremely obvious that a society level, not building the motorway, and having people actually live there, is cheaper.
The crazy thing about westconnex, is that at a societal level, we will be paying $200,000 per person that commutes along it - and most of the people that commute along it probably don't contribute more than $20,000 tax a year, and they probably also live far enough away in general that they already cost a lot in services to provide their mcmansions.
If we need a truck road, then a truck road should be built, or one of the existing roads should be designated as such, but in all honesty I do not believe the trucking industry wants a trucking road, because the last thing they want is to be exposed to a potentially unsubsidized road and have to pay 100% of the costs associated with it, and nor will they want to risk the chance that it gets reconstructed properly as a railway. more than anything else, that is an industry hiding behind subsidized infrastructure.
I find the 3400 truck stat from mascot to be hilarious. That is 43 trains.
- wombatK
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
- Location: Yagoona, AU
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby wombatK » Sun Dec 21, 2014 4:29 pm
A totally unsustainable lifestyle. Yep, I'll vote my kids into penury so I can have it all nowzero wrote: The crazy thing about westconnex, is that at a societal level, we will be paying $200,000 per person that commutes along it - and most of the people that commute along it probably don't contribute more than $20,000 tax a year, and they probably also live far enough away in general that they already cost a lot in services to provide their mcmansions.
And there is an under utilized railway line from Port Botany to intermodal terminals at 1) Chullora 2) Yennora and 3) Minto 4) VillawoodIf we need a truck road, then a truck road should be built, or one of the existing roads should be designated as such, but in all honesty I do not believe the trucking industry wants a trucking road, because the last thing they want is to be exposed to a potentially unsubsidized road and have to pay 100% of the costs associated with it, and nor will they want to risk the chance that it gets reconstructed properly as a railway. more than anything else, that is an industry hiding behind subsidized infrastructure.
I find the 3400 truck stat from mascot to be hilarious. That is 43 trains.
which in total see probably less than 20 trains per day. Obviously, we need to rip it up, sell the real-estate and invest the
money with the Motorways Ponzi scheme.
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
- rokwiz
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:14 pm
- Location: Eastcoast Australia
- Contact:
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby rokwiz » Fri Jan 02, 2015 2:03 pm
- Thoglette
- Posts: 6599
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm
Re: Motorways ... provably stupid
Postby Thoglette » Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:27 pm
I recently (no cite, sorry) saw a proposal for splitting the offload, customs/quarantine, sorting and dispatch roles of the port. It involved offloading the containers directly onto rail which was to run to an existing regional container sort/dispatch site on the north of the city.rokwiz wrote:In regard to port botany, I think you'll find the majority of trucks, operating from the container terminals are local and regional container freight not interstate which makes railway logistics unrealistic.
Containers would then go through customs/quarantine before sorting and placing on vehicles utilising the existing rail and major transport roads at that point for dispatch to industrial/regional areas (almost none of the containers first stop was between the port and the proposed container sort/dispatch site).
If I recall correctly, most of the (rather narrow vs freeway) land required was already in government control. The only issue was for certain govt departments to get their head around the impact of having the rail corridor being a customs/quarantine zone.
I appologise for not having a URL!
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.