From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Transport Issues etc... (long)
Keywords: Birth, School, Work, Death
Date: 6 Nov 92 07:17:12 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@otc.oz.au (Brendan Jones)
Followup-To: aus.politics
Distribution: aus
Organization: R&D, OTC Sydney, Australia

In article <1d3c87INNda@melang.connect.com.au>, bgg@melang.connect.com.au (Ben Golding) says:
>> [re freeway corridor crossings]
> This is quite simply not true.  On last year's UBD there were eight
> crossings between Naremburn and the Pacific Highway; now there are two.
> What about the roads that have been totally split in two, for example,
> Milner Road, Hotham Pde, Simpson Street (which no longer exists), etc.
> This is what I mean when I say divisive.

Tsk, tsk, Ben.  I would have thought you'd be the sort of person to use
sources more authoritative than a UBD street directory, which has the corridor
*very* inaccurately marked anyway.

Let's have a look at the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Gore Hill
Freeway instead.  It might be a tad more accurate.

Your initial proposition was that this freeway has divided a community, my
response was that there were only 3 road closures that could arguably have
done that (from a *community* perspective).

Looking at the land use map in the EIS we see that *all* of the land to the
west of the railway line and south of the corridor is zoned "Industrial".
Hence as there is not a community on *both* sides of the corridor here I can't
see how the freeway can divide it.  The land zoning has done that already!!

So those roads you mention above are irrelevant in terms of your initial
proposition.  Or do you wish to alter the parameters of this debate?

East of the railway line, you've ignored the fact that Chelmsford Ave and Park
Rd still provide for pedestrian movement, even though they've been closed to
cars.  That's why the freeway is on a viaduct in those two locations and why
it looks like on the UBD that access has been cut when it hasn't.

It's possible that Chelmsford Ave may be even reopened to cars.  The RTA were
still working in the area two weeks ago, and there's certainly enough
clearance under the viaduct to allow cars to pass underneath.

The "Community Severance" study begins on p. 33 of the EIS, and notes that
because the freeway runs immediately between a residential and industrial area
west of the railway line it will "not be a barrier to community interaction."

It then goes on to note that impact east of the railway line is minimised by
the road being on a viaduct in those two locations.  Much like the Eastern
Suburbs Railway viaduct at Woolloomooloo, wouldn't you say?

But Ben, do you know what really harpoons your argument?  The North Shore 
Railway Line between the Pacific Hwy at St Leonards and Mowbray Rd at Artarmon
provides only *three* crossing places (Brand St, Lambs Rd and Ella St), yet
this track segment is just as long as the Gore Hill freeway.

So the Gore Hill freeway has divided a community with two vehicular and four
pedestrian crossing places, but the North Shore railway line hasn't, with only
three pedestrian/vehicle crossing places over a similar length.  That's very
interesting.

<steeerrike one!>

Your entire argument on this issue is specious.

Obviously railway lines are less divisive because of their ideological value
rather than by any practical or objective measure.  Well, I'm only interested
in objective measures, not ideologically based ones.

I think that if there were railway tracks running on the surface of the Gore
Hill Freeway rather than cars we wouldn't even be *having* this discussion on
"divisiveness".

>> ...something like only 22 houses were demolished...
> I according to an aerial photo I have, nineteen houses were demolished
> down Willoughby Road *alone* for the freeway.

Yes, sorry, that should have read "in Willoughby Rd".  The actual numbers in
Willoughby Rd were 17 houses/flats, 2 commercial properties, and one block of
land was vacant.

On page 32 of the EIS it estimated that approximately 80 houses needed to be
demolished to build the Gore Hill freeway.  The RTA owned half of these, the
rest were privately owned but the owners knew of their potential fate.

In the end, somewhat less than this number of houses were demolished due to a
significant realignment of the freeway near Olympia Rd and the abolition of
the diversion of Willoughby Rd which would have wiped out the Naremburn Shops
(these were saved by the RTA agreeing to a tunnel interchange with the F1
after community consultation), and most of the houses in Glenmore St.

Perhaps you can tell me how many houses were demolished to build the Eastern
Suburbs Railway.  Oops... but that's different isn't it.

> [re functionality of the Gore Hill freeway]
> I can see the end of the freeway from my building and every afternoon the
> traffic backs up along the freeway.

That's funny.  I have a car commuting friend (ideologically unsound I know)
who's never experienced that.  I checked your assertion with his experience
and he said they don't match.

I've only driven along the freeway once at afternoon peak (5.10 pm to be
exact, on business), and there was *no* bank up at all.  Zip.  It was great.

You say *every* afternoon - I've personally experienced one exception, and if
I remember my science correctly, that's sufficient to disprove an assertion.

Nearly strike two... but I'll let that one pass.

> Everyone I've talked to that lives in the area has said that Willoughby
> Road seems to be carrying about the same number of cars as it always did.

Exactly - "seems".  Human perception is notoriously unreliable.  I will try to
get the actual traffic *numbers* from the RTA - but they may not be available
for some months, especially since we're interested in the long term change.

I'd be *very* surprised if there hasn't been a *substantial* (>15%) reduction
in the number of cars using Willoughby Road each working day since the freeway
opened.

You also didn't comment on the benefits the residents in Artarmon Rd are now
experiencing.

> The "cycle lane"!  You obviously don't ride a bike.

When we began this discussion, you had a rather nastily toned question asking
me "how I travel to work".  I put this question in the same category.

No doubt my first answer disappointed you greatly, because you were just about
to pigeonhole me as a rabid car commuter, and use that to dismiss my point of
view as being vested or irrelevant.  Forget it Ben.  No-one pigeonholes me.

This line of questioning is irrelevant to the facts of this discussion.  Yes,
I ride a bike (occasionally) and really enjoy it.  But that doesn't change
anything, does it?

> It was only after the trucking lobby got involved and requested a breakdown
> lane that the RTA agreed to the proposal.

Where on earth did you get this apocryphal story?  Was this a conspiracy
theory promoted by the "bike lobby"?  It looks like you're increasingly
getting out of your depth on this topic - and out of supporting documentary
evidence for your claims.

The 1986/87 EIS that I had a look at yesterday clearly indicates breakdown
lanes on both freeway proposal plans (4 lane and 6 lane freeway options were
considered, amongst other options such as do nothing, six lane arterial road,
and yes, even public transport).  It's there in black and white.

The "trucking lobby", whoever they are, *never* got involved, at least there's
no mention of anything that looks like a "trucking lobby" in the EIS
submissions index at the back of the EIS.

<steerrrike two!>

The breakdown lane was always going to be there, the adaptation for bicycle
use came after the EIS.  But of course, that's not good enough... even though
you've now got more cycling roadspace free of moving cars than you ever had on
the Pacific Highway.

> [re the Eastern Suburbs Railway's effect on traffic]
> I have to ask why it was so necessary when it doesn't seem to have
> fulfilled any of the driving public's transport needs.

Deary me - such sarcasm.  I was making the point that public transport
alone doesn't stop people driving, despite what many public transport
lobbyists would like us to believe.

The Eastern Suburbs Railway line could be justified on community, transport
and financial grounds, although the costs blew out considerably during its
construction.  This has nothing to do with the needs of motorists.

There's plenty of examples around the world of cities with fabulous public
transport systems that still have severe traffic snarls.  Hong Kong is a
classic example.

So Ben, if a fabulous, extensive and frequent public transport system is put
in place, and yet traffic problems still persist, what do *you* suggest as the
appropriate course of action?

I'm very pro public transport.  It'd be great to have unlimited quantities of
it on demand.  But at some point the routes are going to become so thin that
it's more damaging to the environment to make the trip by public transport
than by private car.

Just think how efficient it is to take one person somewhere in a train or one
person in a bus compared to one person in a 4 cylinder 1.3 litre car.

Public transport alone is not going to solve transportation problems, just as
road based transport alone won't.  Why oh why do so many people refuse to
acknowledge a role for both?

> You have gone to some lengths to demonstrate that the Harbour Tunnel
> and Gore Hill freeway are necessary things.  I don't see how building
> more freeways encourages high density living in any way

It doesn't necessarily encourage or discourage it because as I've said before,
I seriously doubt the major factor influencing people's choice of housing on
the fringe suburbs of Sydney is the hope of a freeway being built in the area
at some unknown time in the future.

To suggest that a freeway policy is your sole urban planning tool is not only
ludicrous, it could be construed as indicating a hopelessly inadequate
understanding of urban planning issues and societal influences on same.

I've supported roads that have, IMHO, solved particularly difficult local
traffic problems.  That doesn't mean I think all freeways are good.  It
also doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see an extension to the rail system.

I'd be loathe to suggest that Sydney should have any more freeways than
currently allocated for in the six radial freeway corridors (which would
provide for a reasonably effective bypass capacity for all urban centres).
And, in time if they are all built, I would argue against building any more
unless a very good case demonstrated the need.

However, I also expect a good case to be put for new public transport routes.
Or do you suggest that the incredibly strict justification requirements for
new roads need not apply to new railway lines?

It'd be nice to hear one day a public transport association admit that perhaps
not all freeways are bad, but I'll probably die waiting.  Their usually
blinkered approach to any integrated transport solution is not constructive.

One very interesting thing I read from Greenpeace actually suggested that
further *heavy* rail lines may enable further urban sprawl, and that any new
public transport systems should be confined to lighter haul, shorter route
systems such as light rail.  What say you?

>> [re a policy of blanket freeway abandonment]
> Simple.  The government has only got so much money and I'd rather see
> them spend it on just about anything else than freeways, for example
> maintaining the existing road system.

I'd strongly suggest you take a look at an RTA Annual Report (the 91/92 one
is due out in December) to see just how much money the RTA spends on roads
that *aren't* freeways.

Anyway, many of the new road proposals in Sydney are tollways.  That means
the user pays rather than the Government.  That's solves one objection.

> The government is happy to spend $400m on 4km of freeway while there are
> main thoroughfares literally crumbling away.

So dramatic, and so unfortunately inaccurate.  The Gore Hill freeway cost $127
million.  Nearly strike three on that one.  I'm being very generous.

> I could equally ask why condemn the 50% of the Australian population who
> doesn't have a driver's licence to the collective aggravation of an
> ineffective public transport system?

Nice to see you've counted the kiddies.

I have travelled to many cities in Australia and a few around the world, and
the only public transport systems I though were better than Sydney's were
London's and Hong Kong's.  That's not surprising considering their population
densities are 5 and 10 times higher, respectively.  I haven't been to New York.

I'm afraid too many people don't realise how good Sydney's public transport
is for a city of its size and density.  People slag off at it because they
don't know any better.  They automatically assume its bad.

Go to a city like Newcastle, Perth or Canberra, *live* its public transport
for a few months, and then come back and tell me Sydney's is "ineffective".

When I first moved to Sydney seven years ago, I was literally amazed at the
extent and frequency of its public transport.

>> As I said before, if you want to restrict car usage, there are far more
>> intelligent, productive and *effective* ways of doing it, rather than
>> adopting a very blunt and unintelligent policy of abandoning road projects
>> and using congestion as your regulator.
> How would you suggest doing that?

I posted a list of techniques was back in the first article on this topic.

Did you also see the evidence I posted of Sydney's much more successful public
transport usage and lower petrol usage than Melbourne?

> What about linking Parramatta and Chatswood or any of the other urban 
> centres that have sprung up around Sydney?

I thought Abigroup's rail proposals were good, especially duplicating the
Carlingford line and linking it to Epping.  But the whole package of proposals
would be inordinately expensive, and if their proposals were subjected to that
same stringent costs/benefit requirements that freeways are, it's entirely
possible that some would fail hopelessly -  some routes suggested may be
simply not thick enough.

What about the Merrylands - Parramatta link that is going to be funded by the
One Nation package?  The Airport Rail link (which has just entered its Stage 2
feasibility study)?

You always seem to concentrate on the alleged negatives, Ben, and rarely give
*any* credit or praise for the positives.

> We've happily paved over 50% of the available area within Sydney at
> enormous expense over the years for the drivers in the population.

This is getting ridiculous - where did you dig *that* one up from??  I can
only conclude that this reflects a lack of references to back up your
increasingly thinning arguments and the signs of desperation are creeping in.

Did you ever consider that street widths are enormously exaggerated in your
UBD?  Please spare me such arrant nonsense.

I'd say that's strike three - you're out.

-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
Network Access |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | pending new
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig