Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Silly main road design

By JC 7 February 2012 45

Who is it in ACT roads that comes up with new road designs? Drove through Molonglo the other day along Cotter Road to discover that the alignment has changed and it now heads through the middle of the two new suburbs of Wright and Coombs towards Uriarra road. To get to the Cotter and suburbs such as Duffy a left turn is now required into Cotter Road. I assume at some point the road from Adelaide Ave to the new turn off will be renamed something else otherwise it will be odd having a road change name with a left hand turn.

Anyway the alignment and new arrangement makes sense, but what doesn’t is the fact that this road, which is clearly a major feeder road has those silly side roads coming off it, presumably with high density housing to be put alongside. Surrey if this is a major road why have any small side streets off it? Why not do what was done in the older suburbs and have one or two roads leading into the suburb and have every other road feed off these? Why do we need minor roads like this coming off a main road? They could still build all the high density housing they wish without these silly minor roads coming off the major road.

Out Gungahlin way they have done the same thing along Flemington Road and Gundaroo Drive between Horse Park and Mirrabei Drive, again both roads that by rights should be major thoroughfares.

Anyway have a look at these Nearmap pics. First showing the new arrangement in Molonglo.

Then Gundaroo Drive in Gungalin. Isn’t it plain to see that it would have been better for Gundaroo Drive to continue as a main road to Horse Park Drive? Now everyone who lives north of Horse Park Drive will need to come through the middle of a residential area to get to the town centre. Plain stupidity.

And finally Flemington Road. Again pointless having these piddly roads off what should be a main road. The alignment should have also ended up running onto Mirrabei as a main road instead of feeding into the main shopping/pedestrian area of Gungahlin.

Oh one last thing why are all left turns at lights now being built with such hard lefts, whereas in the past they were a lot gentler?


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
45 Responses to
Silly main road design
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
KB1971 9:39 am 09 Feb 12

JC said :

No wasn’t complaining about it being an inconvenience or having to slow down, was actually simply making an observation if you care to look at the first post. In a latter post I gave an example of where an intersection has been modified and I personally reckon made it more dangerous in the process.

I also notice that the new left turn off the Barton Highway onto Kurringa Drive has been built the same.

As for John Gorton Drive (aka the road previously known as Cotter Road), my issue is it is a main thoroughfare and I believe they have built it in a way that once it starts to get congested will cause issues, caused in particular with traffic entering or leaving those silly service roads or doing U turns at major intersections to access service roads on the other side. As the road has been designed for 70km/h do we really want cars slowing or entering slowly from these very regular service roads when a very simple solution would be to have major intersections and have the service roads coming off these instead, which is a traffic environment that is more akin to local traffic.

The whole thing could have still been built as a major transport thoroughfare for buses, bikes, pedestrians and heaven forbid cars with high density housing alongside, just without the parallel service roads. To me that is a win win win for everyone and easy to acheive in a green fields site.

Now speaking of public transport what corridors are going to be made available for buses to access the city in particular, or are we going to go back to the 60/70’s way of thinking and just assume everyone is going to live and work in the local area?

Sorry JC I mixed up the second response with your OP as this thread has been hijacked somewhat.

This is a popular way to do things in other places like Melbourne (Sydney not so much as it is a dogs breakfast) & I guess the local planners have decided to follow suit. I personally dont really see a problem with it as it will give the residents a quiet street to reverse into. Limestone AV is a prime example so is just about any road in Sydney of what I call bad residential planning (King Georges road comes to mind).

I have used sideroads like this in larger cities & I think they work quite well.

As to the answer to your question about having feeder roads, you will have to ask TAMS about that one.

wildturkeycanoe 9:08 pm 08 Feb 12

KB1971 – Ratrunner? What is that exactly? Yup, looked it up. Nope, the back streets are too twisted and I don’t have the acceleration to make it viable. In that train of thought though, what makes Cotter Road a backstreet??? It would be a rural road by any standard. With an 80km/h speed limit, not the kind of place you want to be slowing down 60km/h to avoid knocking someone over or hitting an oncoming vehicle.
Bike lane within city limits? How far does the city go towards Cotter? Surely not to Mount Stromlo? I’m talking about the rest of the journey where smooth open road driving should relax one, not cause constant braking and accelerating such as is seen all the way to the edge of the Brindabellas during the training exercises we regularly see.
My comment on government expectations was based on the design of Molonglo, being limited to one car off street parking in multi-storey dwellings. Obviously, one of the many people living in and paying off one of these hyper-priced mansions will have to take buses or ride to work. Control by design.
Turner is just a stroll from work, Molonglo is quite a hike for most. Big difference. They are using inner city strategies with outer suburb problems and encouraging it by placing a cycling facility right next door.
While we are making it personal, may I insinuate you are a Nimby, living the PS life and riding or walking to work without a care for those who haven’t inherited or cannot afford to live in the inner city.
I’d call you a yuppie. Especially with your intimate knowledge of government policy, I’d say definitely a pube. My comments on cyclists is not invalid, as I’ve had on many occasion on Cotter road to slow down to a crawl because of oncoming traffic and rider/s occupying the lane, only to have to “gas up” our greenhouse because of them when accelerating to the limit again. energy saved by cyclist vs extra fuel used by me??? Can someone figure that one out to see who wins, environment or leadfoots?
BTW, thanks for backing me up JC. Good info.
Lets stick to opinions about the subject matter, not opinions about people we don’t know.

JC 6:09 pm 08 Feb 12

KB1971 said :

I think you guys are reading too much into it, the way I read it, the OP was talking about the inconvenience of having to slow down & take notice of the traffic as he is entering a main road. This is a traffic calming measure, not a conspiracy to remove vehicles from the road.

As far as the access to the new Mologlo suburbs is concerned, the Cotter road is being upgraded to cope with the traffic flow (how well this will work will remain to be seen), ok its not a parkway but is that required just yet? That particular area will be pretty well full with no further scope for development. The next area is south Belco (near Coppins Crossing) for which they will direct traffic onto Willian Hovell Dve so there will be no more need to upgrade roads for that.

As far as Cotter Road goes, the bit that has no cycle lanes on it really is low traffic compared to other roads, yes it is busy with rat runners not saving any time in the morning but normally it is pretty quiet. I am thinking wildturkeycanoe is a rat runner but I could be wrong.

Part of my retort to wildturkeycanoe was basically to call him on his crap, yep he can hate cyclists all he wants but really if he is going to make wild statments he needs to back them up. Saying the government wants us all on public transport is a crock because they would be sacrificing a source of revenue & no government wants to do that.

No wasn’t complaining about it being an inconvenience or having to slow down, was actually simply making an observation if you care to look at the first post. In a latter post I gave an example of where an intersection has been modified and I personally reckon made it more dangerous in the process.

I also notice that the new left turn off the Barton Highway onto Kurringa Drive has been built the same.

As for John Gorton Drive (aka the road previously known as Cotter Road), my issue is it is a main thoroughfare and I believe they have built it in a way that once it starts to get congested will cause issues, caused in particular with traffic entering or leaving those silly service roads or doing U turns at major intersections to access service roads on the other side. As the road has been designed for 70km/h do we really want cars slowing or entering slowly from these very regular service roads when a very simple solution would be to have major intersections and have the service roads coming off these instead, which is a traffic environment that is more akin to local traffic.

The whole thing could have still been built as a major transport thoroughfare for buses, bikes, pedestrians and heaven forbid cars with high density housing alongside, just without the parallel service roads. To me that is a win win win for everyone and easy to acheive in a green fields site.

Now speaking of public transport what corridors are going to be made available for buses to access the city in particular, or are we going to go back to the 60/70’s way of thinking and just assume everyone is going to live and work in the local area?

KB1971 4:36 pm 08 Feb 12

chewy14 said :

KB,
that’s exactly what it means.
They are trying to remove the reliance on cars by making them harder to use and public transport easier. If they wanted you to use your car for these trips they would build more roads like the Tuggeranong Parkway between areas with few road connections like what JC was saying in the original OP.

I’m not actually saying there’s anything wrong with that approach. I think more sustainable transport is a good thing, but there is definitely no doubt that they are trying to stop people using their cars as much as they do now by reducing your ability to easily do so.

Ideally in the future we’ll have a much better bus/tram public transport system than we do now and people will use it much more frequently. The planning in the strategy is a good step to achieving this.

Fair enough but I don”t see it that way at all. Motor vehicles are so entrenched in our society that there will have to be a major shortage of something for them to become obselete.

I think you guys are reading too much into it, the way I read it, the OP was talking about the inconvenience of having to slow down & take notice of the traffic as he is entering a main road. This is a traffic calming measure, not a conspiracy to remove vehicles from the road.

As far as the access to the new Mologlo suburbs is concerned, the Cotter road is being upgraded to cope with the traffic flow (how well this will work will remain to be seen), ok its not a parkway but is that required just yet? That particular area will be pretty well full with no further scope for development. The next area is south Belco (near Coppins Crossing) for which they will direct traffic onto Willian Hovell Dve so there will be no more need to upgrade roads for that.

As far as Cotter Road goes, the bit that has no cycle lanes on it really is low traffic compared to other roads, yes it is busy with rat runners not saving any time in the morning but normally it is pretty quiet. I am thinking wildturkeycanoe is a rat runner but I could be wrong.

Part of my retort to wildturkeycanoe was basically to call him on his crap, yep he can hate cyclists all he wants but really if he is going to make wild statments he needs to back them up. Saying the government wants us all on public transport is a crock because they would be sacrificing a source of revenue & no government wants to do that.

One other thing, the Tuggeranong Parkway was built in the days of Federal Government (as will most of Canberra with the exception of Gunners) & roads were built with little care for the cost. All you have to is drive on Erindale/Ashely/Johnson Drives in Tuggers to see that they were inteded for dual carraigeway to be completed at a later date (that never came). Local government in the ACT does not have that money to throw around now so they have to make it go further.

chewy14 3:54 pm 08 Feb 12

KB1971 said :

chewy14 said :

Perhaps you’d like to read the ACT Planning Strategy.
http://timetotalk.act.gov.au/storage/1222_PLANNING_STRATEGY_TAGGED_PDF_FINAL.pdf
Particularly the parts about these transitways.

Or the Riotact discussion on it 4 months ago:
http://the-riotact.com/draft-act-planning-strategy-up-for-discussion-infill-ahoy/56828/comment-page-2#comments

“To lower Canberra’s carbon emissions, the community will invest in sustainable transport and buildings. There will be a shift from its current dependency on the motor vehicle to more sustainable options. Electric cars, walking and cycling and the newly built light rail/sustainable public transport system will make Canberra a city less dependent on motor vehicles. Incentives and planning codes that reduce energy and water use in new and old houses will conserve resources. Older houses will have been retrofitted to improve their environmental performance.”

Less, does not mean none 😉 & yes every Government in Australia is trying to acheive this because the public, guided by the media, are expecting it plus oil is not going to last forever.

It is a long bow that the territory plan specifically means that TAMS will build slower intersections so people do not use their cars anymore…..

I say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOzG7bBylRo

KB,
that’s exactly what it means.
They are trying to remove the reliance on cars by making them harder to use and public transport easier. If they wanted you to use your car for these trips they would build more roads like the Tuggeranong Parkway between areas with few road connections like what JC was saying in the original OP.

I’m not actually saying there’s anything wrong with that approach. I think more sustainable transport is a good thing, but there is definitely no doubt that they are trying to stop people using their cars as much as they do now by reducing your ability to easily do so.

Ideally in the future we’ll have a much better bus/tram public transport system than we do now and people will use it much more frequently. The planning in the strategy is a good step to achieving this.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site