Motorways ... provably stupid

User avatar
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

Who'd have thunk it ... motorways aren't the solution
Westconnex a Dud Deal.
Melbourne's East link equally a dud deal.

When will the electorate wake up ?
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

User avatar
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

I recall that when the dodgy numbers on travel time savings expected from a widening of the M2 were reviewed by traffic experts the large positive net present value of the project disappeared. The NSW State Government would only invest in projects with a large NPV, which if I recall correctly the M2 widening was supposed to be around $500mn. In reality it is close to zero. Look at the traffic jam on it every morning which says it all.

User avatar
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

Think your right at least for lane Cove tunnel. And the M5 builders got a sweetheart bailout too.
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

User avatar
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

Reckon Melbourne might have dodged a bullet

http://www.planetizen.com/taxonomy/term/1352/all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
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

Regarding both projects, methinks the state anti corruption bodies should be taking very close looks at the entire process by which each got as far as it did on such "ahem" figures...
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
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

I personally can't quite work out why the people doing the contracts weren't taken out the back and shot - the purpose of public/private partnerships is for the private organisation to bear some risk and get some profit. I don't know how these projects can be justified if the private parties essentially bear no risk.

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.

User avatar
queequeg
Posts: 6477
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:09 am

Re: Motorways ... provably stupid

Postby queequeg » Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:07 am

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.
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.
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.
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '16 Cervelo R5, '18 Mason BokekTi

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Motorways ... provably stupid

Postby human909 » Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:29 am

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.
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.
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.
30kph? You say? Happens that is around the speed at which the highest flow rate occurs.


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!

User avatar
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

The extra lane really should have been a bus lane the whole way from Baulkham Hills to North Ryde, and let the trucks use it too. Would make the thing flow better.

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.

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Motorways ... provably stupid

Postby human909 » Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:41 pm

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).
No arguments there but big gaps don't result in a high flow rate. Because density if significantly reduced.

User avatar
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

human909 wrote:
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).
No arguments there but big gaps don't result in a high flow rate. Because density if significantly reduced.
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.

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 :lol:

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5742
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Motorways ... provably stupid

Postby Ross » Sat Dec 20, 2014 1:53 pm

I think queequeg answered the question earlier. The road may flow more freely for a short time but this just encourages more motorists to use it therefore clogging up the road again.

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.

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Motorways ... provably stupid

Postby human909 » Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:01 pm

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.
Ummm you seem to be missing all the complexities of traffic flow... (I won't claim to be an expert here.)

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.

User avatar
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

Xplora 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 :lol:
Driverless cars FTW ;)
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
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

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.
n=10 (2013 & 2004 roads,2010 track,2x 2009 foldups,1990 hybrid,1992 trainer,2007 rental,1970's step through,1980's zeus)

User avatar
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

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.
And so too is building an entirely new motorway ... it's just another lane or two in parallel with some route drivers presently use.
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.
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 6734
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Motorways ... provably stupid

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:46 pm

A very similar assesment could have been made in WA for the initial design and contracts for the southern metro railway going to Mandurah. Yet the railway (redesigned after commencement of construction by another government) is clearly of great value. And far better than for more lanes on the freeway.

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.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle

zero
Posts: 3056
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Motorways ... provably stupid

Postby zero » Sun Dec 21, 2014 12:31 am

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.
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.

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.

User avatar
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

zero 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.
A totally unsustainable lifestyle. Yep, I'll vote my kids into penury so I can have it all now
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.
And there is an under utilized railway line from Port Botany to intermodal terminals at 1) Chullora 2) Yennora and 3) Minto 4) Villawood
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.
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

User avatar
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

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. Unfortunately railway freight isn't as flexible as road.

Image
In order that the labour of centuries past may not be in vain during the centuries to come... D Diderot 1752

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6599
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Motorways ... provably stupid

Postby Thoglette » Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:27 pm

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.
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.

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!
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users