Whoopsie! Sydney's road planners just discovered induced demand is a thing, after opening a new motorway.
@WaxedWookie @AvonVilla When the prime minister, the state premier, and the transport Minister all hype up an infrastructure project by promising less traffic to the city, many people will make transport decisions accordingly.
That's the big picture here.
Here's an example of the hype the federal and state governments were building for years around WestConnex and the Rozelle Interchange:
"Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the $16.8 billion project was cutting travel times and supporting thousands of families with work as Sydney and Australia were reopening from COVID lockdowns.
"“This breakthrough isn’t just for a tunnel, but it’s a breakthrough for getting people home sooner and safer and helping workers to move around,” the Prime Minister said.
"“As well as the 9,000 jobs this project has been delivering, the tunnel is going to make it easier for people across Sydney to pick up work and jobs that just wouldn’t have been possible before with traffic.
"“As we reopen Sydney and Australia, projects like this bypass and our record $110 billion infrastructure investment are going to give our economy even more of a boost.”
"New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet said the third stage of WestConnex is now another step closer to forming a western bypass of the Sydney CBD.
"“This project will change the lives of thousands of people, bypassing dozens of sets of traffic lights and allowing an uninterrupted drive from the Blue Mountains to Rozelle,” the Premier said.
"“As part of the New South Wales Government’s record $108.5 billion investment pipeline, WestConnex is already easing congestion, creating jobs and connecting communities, right across our city.
"“Our Government has its eye to the future and this breakthrough will complete a ‘missing link’ between the new M4 Tunnels at Haberfield and the M8 at St Peters.”
"Federal Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts Paul Fletcher said the Commonwealth Government had co-funded WestConnex from the outset with a grant of $1.5 billion and a concessional loan of $2 billion.
"“This is a major milestone in what is one of the most significant road infrastructure projects in the country, which is already delivering major benefits for Sydney commuters by reducing travel times, easing congestion and improving safety,” Minister Fletcher said.
"“When opened to traffic in 2023, the M4-M4 Link Tunnels and Rozelle Interchange will complete the WestConnex project, providing improved links between key employment hubs and local communities.”
"NSW Minister for Transport and Roads Rob Stokes said 22 of the 33 kilometres of WestConnex would be underground, including the 7.5 kilometres that make up the M4-M5 Link Tunnels.
...
"“The M4-M5 Link Tunnels will remove tens of thousands of vehicles from surrounding streets, including Parramatta Road, and will help slash up to 40 minutes from an average peak journey between Parramatta and the Sydney Airport.”"
@WaxedWookie @AvonVilla I fundamentally disagree that induced demand isn't at play here.
That's because this spaghetti intersection isn't a standalone project. It's part of WestConnex.
For years before it opened, the state government promised that WestConnex would deliver faster travel times from Western Sydney to the CBD. They promised faster travel times from the southern suburbs to the city. This was going to end traffic congestion on Parramatta Road once and for all.
This is directly off the WestConnex website:
"The New M4, opened in July 2019. The WestConnex M4, including the 5.5km New M4 Tunnels, connects Haberfield to Parramatta and the M4. Motorists on this section of WestConnex are saving an average of 35 minutes on their westbound peak time journey compared to Parramatta Road.
"The M8, opened in July 2020. The 9km twin tunnels connects the M5 at Kingsgrove to a new interchange at St Peters, with 6ha of new open space, built on a remediated former landfill site. The tunnels cut up to 30 minutes off a trip between Liverpool and the southern CBD."
https://www.westconnex.com.au/explore-westconnex/about-westconnex/
Here's a direct quote from Gladys in 2018:
"If you're coming from Liverpool you'll save about half an hour, if you're coming from [Oatley area] you'll save about 15 minutes.
"When this project has finished, not only will you have less traffic on local roads, because traffic will be underground, but you're also going to be given open space you didn't have before."
And people made decisions about where they would live and how they would travel based on WestConnex.
That instead of being stuck on Parramatta Road, they'd get a nice quick commute down the M4 to the city. Or that they'd be able to take the M5 through the new M8 motorway tunnel to the city.
And a lot of that traffic is now heading straight to the Anzac Bridge:
"Before the Rozelle interchange opened, seven lanes merged into four on the Anzac Bridge. Now, 10 lanes are merged into four with the extra lanes from the spaghetti junction."
"“It is a forever problem because the system is funnelling too many people into a road that is too small. They assumed the Anzac Bridge could support more cars than was physically possible," [Sydney transport expert Mathew Hounsell] said.
"“Trying to shovel a motorway into the middle of a city was never going to work. The previous government and the roads department stuffed it up. They didn’t want to listen to anyone who would tell them it was not going to work.
"The former Coalition government stated repeatedly that traffic flows on Victoria Road would be reduced by 50 per cent when the interchange opened, a “claim that is laughable now” [Inner West Council mayor Darcy Byrne] said."
@Ilandar @vividspecter The short answer is yes. A lot of Australia's mutual obligation system was created by the Howard government, copying what Bill Clinton was doing in the US, and Tony Blair in the UK.
But it was also underpinned by the same neoliberal ideology as the US and the UK.
Basically, up until the late 1970s and early 1980s, Australia's official government policy was to have full employment. It was a minor scandal when unemployment skyrocketed to around 3% under Malcolm Fraser.
Especially after the oil shocks that followed the Suez Canal crisis, inflation was running quite high through the late '70s and early '80s.
To try to curb this high inflation, the US, UK, and Australia all adopted a range of neoliberal economic policies advocated by people like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.
The idea was that if everyone had a job, when inflation rose, workers would demand higher wages, and those wages would put further pressure on inflation, creating a cycle.
So one of the main ways the Hawke Labor government sought to stop this inflation cycle was by stopping wage growth.
As part of this policy shift, The Australian government walked away from the idea of guaranteeing full employment.
As part of a set of policies called the Accord, Hawke and the unions basically agreed to wage increases below the rate of inflation, in exchange for the introduction of Medicare.
The Reserve Bank got an independent board that would raise Interest rates if inflation got above 2-3%.
Importantly, if unemployment rates ever fell too low, the Reserve Bank would see it as an inflationary risk, and have to raise interest rates to slow the economy (which increases unemployment) to stop inflation.
So instead of seeking full employment, the idea that there's a "natural rate of unemployment" (as economists call it) became part of our economic system.
But, instead of properly explaining to the public that there was inevitably going to be this natural rate of unemployment, governments from Hawke and Keating onwards instead blamed the victims and called them "dole bludgers".
In the early '90s, the Keating government followed this up by bringing in a limited form of work for the dole as part of his Working Nation policy.
Around this time, in the US, Bill Clinton, and in the UK, Tony Blair, brought in tough new welfare policies. They were built around mutual obligation.
In the late '90s and early 2000s, the Howard government followed in the footsteps of these crackdowns and made mutual obligation a core part of the Australian welfare system.
He also privatised a lot of the old Commonwealth Employment Service, outsourcing its training services to private "Jobs Network" providers. What was left over became Centrelink.
If you're interested, there's a lot more details about how mutual obligation came about under Howard here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jan/01/where-mutual-obligation-began-john-howards-paradigm-shift-on-welfare
And there's also in this government research paper from 1999: https://aifs.gov.au/research/family-matters/no-54/welfare-reform-britain-australia-and-united-states #auspol
@cosmicrookie @morry040 It's also telling how many of these same managers have never had any problems with outsourcing their manufacturing roles overseas.
Or outsourcing contact centres to India.
Or outsourcing business processes to Manila.
Or outsourcing IT work to a Silicon Valley cloud platform provider.
You can't get too much more remote than being in another country.
@naevaTheRat The author (Tim Richards) is a fairly regular Mastodon user. (Lemmy posts also appear on Mastodon.)
I thought I'd tag him in so he can see the discussion...
@kowcop @naevaTheRat Heads up @timrichards, there's quite a discussion about your article over on Lemmy.
@Voyajer @Faceman2K23 Just wait until the world learns about Lithuanian-style sushi. (And yep, it's a thing that actually exists. It's a slice of herring with beetroot, wrapped in mashed potatoes and sesame seeds.)
As for pizza — the modern variety was apparently developed by Italian-American migrants, and then introduced back to Italy: https://youtu.be/7uJ996KlM0?si=RSq3X0TqsIkVNAr5
Urban planning and public transport should absolutely go hand-in-hand.
But on to your other point.
The key factor for transport use isn't just population or density. It's also the proportion of the population that uses public transport. And places that have more frequent public transport will have a higher proportion of the population using it than places with low quality public transport.
It's a point the late Paul Mees made in his book "A very public solution": https://www.mup.com.au/books/a-very-public-solution-paperback-softback (it's highly recommended reading if you have the chance.)
Imagine a city with just 100,000 people. But the local bus service is exceptional, and half the population uses it. That's a base of 50,000 people.
Imagine a city of 500,000 people. The public transport network there is average, so just 10% of the population uses it. That's 50,000 people.
Now imagine a metropolitan area of 5,000,000 people. The public transport network there is poor and infrequent. Only 1% of the population uses it. That's 50,000 people.
Three cities, same absolute number of public transport users, different modal share.
If you run frequent services, every 10 minutes or better, and services connect so that it's a two- or three-seat journey to everywhere in your city, you will have a much higher ridership than if it's an hourly bus service. That's with the same population and density.
Frequent bus services (once every 10 minutes or more) can also act as a feeder into a higher rail, light rail, tram, or metro services. In suburban, rural, and seni-rural areas, that extends the reach of your rail network.
Yes, higher density around railway stations is the best option. But where there is a lot of low-density suburban sprawl, frequent feeder buses are a good option.
@ClintonAnderson @urbanism @fuckcars @trains@lemmy.ml @ukpublictransport @trains@midwest.social @melbournetrains @sydneytrains @brisbanetrains @bicycling@lemmy.ml @bicycling@lemmy.world @utilitycycling @feditips @FediFollows
They do indeed have posts, as you can see here: https://lemmy.ml/c/fuckcars https://slrpnk.net/c/urbanism
If you're the first person to follow them from your Mastodon server, then the feed will initially look empty from Mastodon because the posts haven't pulled across yet. (I'm sure @maegul can give a better explanation?)
Anyway, click follow and the new posts will begin appearing in your Mastodon feed.
@Adori @ray Even in many rural areas, this is not the best option.
First, in many towns, there often aren't any Uber drivers nearby, or the nearest driver is in another town and you're left to wait upwards of an hour for your ride to arrive.
Second, pairs of major cities and large metropolitan areas that are relatively close together should be connected by a railway line. Along with express services, these railways should have reasonably frequent all-stations services that serve the smaller towns along the way.
Third, there should be regular bus or coach services connecting multiple towns, and where available, feeding into these all-stations train services.
So if there's a train station in town A, there should be a feeder bus to nearby towns B, C, and D. This benefits rail passengers, who have more towns they can visit by public transport, and connects those towns to the rail network.
These inter-town bus services can make multiple stops in each town (for example at the local school, the local shops, and the local hospital),, providing both cross-town and inter-town services.
Fourth, with public transport, one service or route won't cover every pair of destinations—but a network can.
So say you have an east-west bus route connecting towns A, B, C, and D. You might have a second route that connects with that bus service at town C, and then runs north-south to connect it with towns E, F, G, and H.
The number of people travelling from town H to town D might be vanishingly small—zero on most days, no more than one or two on others. Certainly not enough to run a dedicated service from town D to town H.
Yet that trip can be provided for by the network, which draws its ridership from passengers who want to travel from any stop on either the north-south or east-west service, to any other stop on either service.
Fourth, with larger towns over 1000 people, an on-demand bus service that travels around town to designated stops is probably a better option. Again, this should feed into any railway stations of inter-town bus routes.
And finally, once your city reaches a population of around 10,000 or so, it should just have a regular bus service, and it should integrate with the broader bus and train network.
@zl2tod @danielbowen @technology And it's now confirmed by The Sydney Morning Herald: https://www.smh.com.au/technology/identity-of-third-party-who-brought-down-optus-network-revealed-20231114-p5ejy1.html
@Epsilon It's not, but it's the one many first-time Fediverse users coming across from Twitter end up on. (Much like how many users coming across from Reddit end up on Lemmy first.)
Then the jump from Mastodon to Calckey/Pleroma/Frienica/Pixelfed/etc in many cases comes later.
@duncesplayed @Anticorp Or, as some people said at the time: "Windows '95 is Amiga '87."
@betwixthewires Cars faster than trains? If that's the case in your country, then you have a serious underinvestment in rail.
(Seriously, even V/Line trains in Victoria go faster than the 100 KP/h speed limit, and by world standards V/Line ain't a great train service.)
What happened in the US, Australia, and Canada was a massive investment in rural highway infrastructure by national and state/provincial governments after World War 2.
In the US, that was Eisenhower's Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-AidHighwayActof1956
In Australia, it was Gough Whitlam's National Roads Act of 1974: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NationalHighway(Australia)
Many towns in the rural western US were railway towns. They were quite literally built around a train station.
But after WW2, the US spent the equivalent of US$193 billion (adjusted for inflation) in just 10 years building new interstate highways.
At the same time, the extensive already-existing network of rural railways saw service cuts, was run down, and had privately-owned lines become freight-only.
Again, similar story in the other former British colonies.
That was a choice by government. And the result of that choice is many people in those railway towns responded by buying a car.
It didn't have to be that way.
In many parts of Europe and Asia, where leaders have invested in rail, you can live quite comfortably in many small towns without a car.
@frankPodmore @betwixthewires Here's a map of what the train network used to look like across rural Victoria (in Australia) in 1927: https://everythingismaps.github.io/img/historicvicrailmaps/1927%20Victorian%20rail%20map.PNG
And here's rural NSW in 1933: https://www.nswrail.net/maps/nsw-1933.php
And here's a video that @nerd4cities recently uploaded about the destruction of intercity train networks in the US: https://youtu.be/svao4PZ4bGs?si=K7zrMlZ4bvfmiRcC
So yes, many rural areas and small towns in the US, Australia, and Canada used to have access to frequent and reliable train services back in the first half of the 20th century.
Those train systems in many cases were privately run, so no direct taxpayer subsidies. At a time when overall populations were smaller.
So what changed? Car-centric government policies.
@Meowoem @kd637mi Better yet...
Many Lemmy instances have communities on the same topic. For example, there's @technology@lemmy.ml and @technology@beehaw.org and @technology@lemmy.world .
It's unnecessary duplication.
Having a Fediverse-wide !Technology community would avoid a lot of duplication.
Each Lemmy instance would then responsible for the posts of its users, and if an instance fails to moderate appropriately, it gets defederated.
@Sina @Blaubarschmann Google is more like a restaurant that has a large chalk board covered with specials. The kind that has a soup of the day, and a fish of the day, and a chef's special.
There are a few core menu items that are perennials on its printed menu. Search, maps, photos, ads, Gmail, Google Docs, Chrome, Android, Chromebook, YouTube...
Then there's the messaging app of the day, the TV platform of the day, the flavour-of-the-month device selection...
@WaxedWookie @MrLee I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I think traffic is likely to remain awful during peak hours on the Anzac Bridge and Victoria Rd. (It's likely to ease up temporarily over the Christmas break, but will worsen again after Australia Day.)
Even before WestConnex, the Anzac Bridge already wasn't exactly great during peak hour from all the traffic heading through Drummoyne along Victoria Road.
The new WestConnex motorways have made that worse.
If you're on the M4 extension, how do you get to the CBD? Either you take the Parramatta Rd turnoff at Ashfield, or you go through the spaghetti intersection to the Anzac Bridge.
If you're heading from the airport on the new M8, how do you get to the CBD? You go through the spaghetti intersection to the Anzac Bridge.
And if you're on the M5, how do you get to the CBD? Well, you can take Southern Cross Drive under the airport to the Eastern Distributor, or you take the M8 to the spaghetti intersection to the Anzac Bridge.
During the morning and evening peak, a lot of commuters want to travel to or from the city at the same time. And that traffic is being funnelled from the M4, M5 and M8 on to the Anzac Bridge, and then to the CBD offramps.
The claim was that these new WestConnex motorways were going to take traffic off other roads. So for example the M4 was going to take traffic off Parramatta Road.
What it's ended up doing is inducing more traffic demand, and that additional demand is being dumped on to the Anzac Bridge.
Parramatta Road is still terrible during peak hour, and there's now even more cars travelling along the M4.
People have also made housing and long-term travel decisions based on the claims that WestConnex would make car travel quicker to the CBD from western and southern Sydney.
Are there people driving slowly while they figure out which lane to take through the spaghetti intersection? Yes there are.
But. The bigger issue is that the new WestConnex motorways have induced additional traffic demand, and a lot of it is trying to cross the Anzac Bridge.