Started by ozbob, June 11, 2023, 04:07:11 AM
QuoteThe best I can hope for out of this is it will force the construction of further stages of the northern busway, much like how the construction of the AirportLink tunnel forced the construction of the Lutwyche-Kedron section
Quote from: timh on June 14, 2023, 07:22:49 AMThe best I can hope for out of this is it will force the construction of further stages of the northern busway, much like how the construction of the AirportLink tunnel forced the construction of the Lutwyche-Kedron sectionThat and maybe this could free up surface space for a proper surface busway north of Kedron
Quote from: Gazza on June 14, 2023, 08:33:33 AMLets be honest here. Did the first stage of airport link bring about public realm improvements in Lutwyche?Absolutely not, its still a traffic sewer.
Quote from: RowBro on June 14, 2023, 08:51:06 AMQuote from: timh on June 14, 2023, 07:22:49 AMThe best I can hope for out of this is it will force the construction of further stages of the northern busway, much like how the construction of the AirportLink tunnel forced the construction of the Lutwyche-Kedron sectionThat and maybe this could free up surface space for a proper surface busway north of KedronBest option would be if they built the tunnel, made it free, and then reduced Gympie Road to 2 lanes with landscaping, separated bike paths either side, bus lanes running the length. Wouldn't that be the dream.
Quote from: verbatim9 on June 14, 2023, 10:25:00 AMAs per the toll I don't think it will be free unfortunately. Although they should introduce off peak and multi trip financial incentives as well as rebates to use the new tunnel instead of the surface road.
Quote from: RowBro on June 14, 2023, 10:26:33 AMQuote from: verbatim9 on June 14, 2023, 10:25:00 AMAs per the toll I don't think it will be free unfortunately. Although they should introduce off peak and multi trip financial incentives as well as rebates to use the new tunnel instead of the surface road.Which is silly since if the goal is really to alleviate traffic off the surface roads, making the alternative tolled will do very little.
Quote from: Jonno on June 14, 2023, 10:28:46 AMThe Clem 7 fixed nothing.
Quote from: Jonno on June 14, 2023, 10:14:06 AMQuote from: Gazza on June 14, 2023, 08:33:33 AMLets be honest here. Did the first stage of airport link bring about public realm improvements in Lutwyche?Absolutely not, its still a traffic sewer.Spot on. This bunch of muppets think that the tunnel will reduce congestion (would be a world first or a miracle - I thinking the latter is more likely) thus freeing up the non-separated traffic lanes for public transport. This is their idea of improving public transport.My own conclusion is that whilst the world is moving forward in time. Our Governments are in fact moving backwards in time. Brilliant Twilight Zone episode!!! Maybe one day they will arrive at the time before cars were invented and start building for pre-car world. Not sure what we are going to do with the horse watering stops but hey its a start.
QuoteOne can claim toll tunnels have no economic benefit OR one can claim they induce traffic but one cannot claim both.
QuoteALL transport modes are capable of induced traffic; it's not a phenomenon solely restricted to cars.
Quote from: #Metro on June 14, 2023, 12:09:39 PMIf people are paying to drive in the toll tunnel, then it is a fee-for-service exchange where both the provider and customer gain a benefit.
A Gympie Road Toll Tunnel will monetise congestion, not bust it
23rd August 2023
RAIL Back On Track...Posted by RAIL - Back On Track on Wednesday, 23 August 2023
A Gympie Road Toll Tunnel will monetise congestion, not bust it
23rd August 2023
RAIL Back On Track...
QuoteBrisbane residents have been asked to have their say on a proposed bypass tunnel that could ease congestion in the city's north.Consultations for the Gympie Road Bypass Tunnel, between Kedron and Carseldine, will begin on Monday, with the proposal expected to reduce commuter times, and improve liveability for local communities. ...
Quote from: #Metro on October 29, 2023, 09:26:18 AM'Congestion-busting' narratives are just that... narratives. They are NOT an analysis, or an evaluation. For that, you need the numbers...The BT article is purely descriptive, and is full of forward-looking statements such as 'expected' and 'potential'.Such a tunnel will have minimal impact on congestion due to the combination of (a) low road capacity and (b) presence of a toll.
Quoteit will in fact have a huge impact on CREATING more congestion! This is not just a waste of tax-payers money because it hardly makes a difference! It is a monumental waste of tax-payers money (even if a toll road) as it makes the problem even worse!! It is fiscal negligence!
Quote from: verbatim9 on October 29, 2023, 12:24:45 PMI am actually all for the tunnel in principle. We should be advocating for joint delivery of a corresponding train tunnel happening at the same time as proposed by Council.
Quote from: RedirentAgreed. If it's going to be a thing that happens, then there may be an opportunity to have public transport objectives met at the same time. It'd be nice if we could get both a busway/BERT and rail solution up alongside any tolled road.
QuoteI feel like this corrdior is busy enough that we could have both BRT and rail. Surface BRT for the shorter, local trips, and rail for medium-to-longer distance journeys.
Quote from: achiruel on October 29, 2023, 14:38:20 PMI feel like this corrdior is busy enough that we could have both BRT and rail. Surface BRT for the shorter, local trips, and rail for medium-to-longer distance journeys.Burying the cars might end up making Gympie Rd a more pleasant place for active transport, too. Have proper segregated bike lines, improve streetscaping and shade for pedestrians, maximum 50 km/h speed limit (maybe 40), pedestrian/cycle priority at intersections, and no more than 2 lanes each way for cars.
QuoteRoad development throughout the 20th century was based primarily on the premise that more infrastructure eases traffic. But evidence shows that road building, instead of reducing congestion, actually increases traffic. When travel time by car is reduced and convenience increased, coupled with the appeal of the private vehicle as a continued indicator of wealth and standing, people are inclined to make more car trips. A recent working paper by researchers from the University of Barcelona, using data from 545 European cities from 1985-2005, confirms that capacity expansion efforts over two decades led to more vehicle traffic, not less, and congestion was not relieved.A reverse effect to traffic generation is the phenomenon of "traffic evaporation": traffic that disappears when road space is reallocated from private vehicles to more sustainable modes of transport like walking, cycling and public transportation. While traffic evaporation has been well-documented for more than 20 years, most decision- and opinion-makers are still under the impression that reducing car lanes will make traffic worse. In 2001, researchers Cairns, Atkins and Goodwin published a paper in Municipal Engineer reviewing 70 road space reallocation cases, including testimonials from 200 traffic engineers and planners in multiple countries. The researchers concluded that predictions of unbearable traffic as a result of reallocating space away from private vehicles were, in most cases, alarmist. People adjusted their behavior in ways that traffic models did not accurately predict. When lanes were reassigned from car traffic to higher-capacity modes – sidewalks, bike lanes and bus or rail lanes – traffic issues were less severe than expected, and traffic volumes were significantly reduced.Naturally, there were strong variations on this effect depending on the local context, background conditions and how the road space reallocation projects were planned and implemented, but the general results were more positive than negative. There was not a traffic apocalypse. Traffic was reduced not only for the roads where lanes were reassigned, but on nearby streets too in most cases. Out of 57 interventions where traffic was not completely shut down, 45 saw reductions in traffic and 11 increases. The maximum decrease in traffic was 60% and maximum increase 9%, with a simple average of 10% reduction.* In one case traffic remained the same before and after the intervention. Why did this happen? According to the authors of the study, the projects in several cases included new traffic management plans, such as coordination of traffic signals, to make traffic more efficient. But in many cases, individual drivers changed not only their routes but their departure times, "flattening" out peaks in travel times. Other drivers changed their destinations (e.g., shopping in a different location) or consolidated their trips (a concept known as "trip chaining"), shared their vehicles with others or teleworked more often. Several months after the interventions, more people started moving to and working in areas with greater access to modes of transport other than cars, and even developers changed their plans. Road space reallocation seemed to ignite behavior changes and break habits of private car usage that may not have been broken otherwise.More recently, European cities and some urban areas in the United States and Canada have further confirmed this effect, often through even more aggressive space reallocation initiatives.The 2009 pedestrianization of Times Square in New York City is a notable example. According to local authorities, since the area was closed to traffic, pedestrian injuries have declined 40% and vehicular accidents by 15%. In London, in 2019, a bridge over the Thames was closed due to maintenance issues, and the press expected total chaos. But levels of noise and air pollution reduced significantly in the area around the bridge. Similar effects have been observed after the pedestrianization of downtown Copenhagen and the smart management of traffic parking in San Francisco and Zurich. One of the most emblematic cases is the demolition of the Cheonggyecheon elevated expressway in Seoul. Despite concerns that its demolition would exacerbate traffic problems, the long-feared increase in traffic never arrived.All this does not mean that cities don't require adequate road connectivity among rural areas and other cities. But reducing road space for cars in denser areas while improving areas for walking, cycling and public transportation clearly does not produce the chaos many believe it will. It is actually a more sustainable and equitable way of improving mobility in dense and fast-growing cities.
QuoteBut evidence shows that road building, instead of reducing congestion, actually increases traffic.
Quote from: #Metro on October 29, 2023, 18:37:48 PMQuoteBut evidence shows that road building, instead of reducing congestion, actually increases traffic.I have seen this claim a lot, but having something repeated a lot or by important/prominent people does not necessarily make a claim true. Fortunately, this theory creates a testable claim and prediction.- If new roads create new trips, then the trip generation rate for SEQ should be rising over time.- If new roads do not create new trips, then the trip generation rate for SEQ should be flat or falling over time.What we see with trip generation rates in SEQ, is they are stable or flat over the past three decades. From 3.6 trips per person in 1992 to 3.3 trips per person with the most recently available figures from TMR (2009). And SEQ has had plenty of new or expanded roads since 1992.So the reason why new roads run out of capacity is because the population is constantly increasing, not because the road-km length in the transport network has increased. At least for the SEQ case.Study ConstructionWhy do different studies draw different conclusions? IMO it might be perspective.Some studies will look at a particular road or corridor, other studies will look at the whole-of-transport network.IMO, only a whole-of-network study would be able to pick up genuine induction.A car trip that moves from one time of day to another, or from one road to another road is not a new trip. It is an existing trip that has been retimed or relocated, and thus cannot be said to be 'induced' or 'created'.
QuotePity all the peer reviewed research says that the is a 1:1 relationship between additional road capacity and increase traffic (don't care if it's a new trip or a different old trip it is additional traffic...and here is the kicker...after discounting population growth!!
Page created in 0.203 seconds with 22 queries.