Roads and Infrastructure in NSW

LNacGhey on 02/02/2018 - 14:51

Hi Guys,

I am recent in country and couldn't understand few things, I thought I will inquire

  1. most of the roads are small, narrow and outdated, is there any particular reason or Govt is just not concerned about them?
  2. do Voters have other priorities to discuss when candidates are coming to ask for a vote?
  3. why Govt is selling roads to private companies, is it a norm?
  4. Toll Tax, why it's in addition to income tax, aren't we pay for these roads in the first place?
  5. in Sydney, why North-South road connections are very poor? why are there no motorways?
  6. why small roads with signals are called highways?
  7. certain outback NSW roads can be straight, why they are designed to have curves (i am referring to roads where there is absolutely nothing around-)- this design slows the traffic and makes the driver more tired. the driving experience is somewhat not pleasant.
  8. why the answer to every risk on NSW roads is to slow down? people just slow down to everything, I will consider myself unsafe more the amount of time I will be on the road, not how slowly I am going- obviously, I am not talking about madness but decent attentive, at or near speed limit driving.
  9. Australia is a huge country, why speed limits are very low? this makes no sense.
    10: why school zones are on highways? to minimize the risk schools should be slightly away from highways.

Traffic Laws seems outdated however law regarding fines seems up to date.

thank you in advance for your feedback.

Automotive

Comments

  • Ryanek on 02/02/2018 - 15:02
    +2

    These are great questions, welcome to Australia. I have a feeling you're from a Scandinavian country.

  • Davo1111 on 02/02/2018 - 15:28
    1. Cost. It's cheaper just to repair them. Also, we are very spread out.
    2. I dont understand the question. you can bring it up with your state government, but unless theres a real issue, they'll file it under who cares.
    3. Basically to offset the cost of building it. instead of putting the money to build up front, they let someone build it and run it at cost to users.
    4. AFAIK roads are state, income is federal tax. It trickles down…slowly
    5. Because it was the first city created, and was designed for horse/carriage/slaves.
    6. traffic density
    7. Could be that they're just chasing the contours, could be other reasons like land rights.
    8. because in every single accident, speed is written as a factor (we know our basic physics right?).
    9. Same as above, but i'll detail more below.
    10. Great in hindsight.

    I'm guessing you're from a progressive Scandinavian country? We don't have personal responsibility here, so we design our laws around the lowest common denominator and for the worst possible conditions. This is so that when a truck driver falls off the road because he was going at the speed limit, he can't say "well i was following the speed limit, this is your fault".

    We also group roads together as one, to try and simplify them. So all residential areas at 50 unless signposted to avoid people saying "i didnt know".A road might also have more dangerous "sections", so it's easier just to slow the lot down, than have a specific section thats slow.

    We treat driving as a right here, not a responsibility, very few people take it seriously. You'd probably think "oh my volvo has worn tyres and it's raining outside, so i'll make alternative plans, or drive slower". We think "well its legal, drive at the speed limit"

    • NacGhey on 02/02/2018 - 16:08

      Thank you @Davo1111 for your reply, further to your reply

      1. I must understand how Govt spends the tax, don't they have any other income?
      2. I meant, are road discussed during election times, do people ask the members of state parliament what plans they have for roads if elected?
      3. is it not the reason to pay the tax that Govt will take care of all these public services?
      4. OK
      5. well, in my opinion, cars replaced horses around 70 years ago, why Govt let roads in same conditions?
      6. should things change with time?
      7. other than land rights, in my opinion, emphasis should be given to ease of driving, not just finding the cheapest way to construct a road.
      8. speed will always be written as a factor but Roads Authority should at least work on making the roads safe by widening them, updating them, constructing overhead bridges/ tunnels, providing bypasses.
      9. understood
        10.ok

      I think a nation must think if they are at par with the latest development in the world, mindset shall change, Govt plays a role. one cant live with 1950's laws and expect that these laws/ mindset will work in twenty-first century.

      • Davo1111 on 02/02/2018 - 16:30

        Excuse me being blunt in the previous message, just honest.

        1. yes they do, but it has to trickle down through layers of government and bureaucracy. Sometimes they will get a grant to do a big upgrade, otherwise it's generally just maintenance. We also pay less tax than you probably, and our government doesnt have the same level of efficiency as your previous country (guessing).
        2. Sure, but not enough people care unless a heap of accidents start occuring. So "my commute to work" is bumpy vs "we've lost 3 trucks this week to a pothole". you can guess which one is more important.
        3. kinda, but priorities. Lets say you've got a budget for roads, do you give it all to the road most traveled? or the one in dire need of repair? A highway in the CBD with 60000 cars/day along it… or a country town with 100 people that had it's access cut off.
        4. ..
        5. Because we built houses along the road edge, and the government doesnt like compulsory acquisition.
        6. Well its a main aterial road, i suppose the definitions change.
        7. In an extreme example, the town of 100. do they need an engineered bridge to get them across the gully, or do we put a small double back in line with the contours
        8. they do, but too much beaucracy.

        The thing is, our government wastes a huge amount of money preparing for something, and tendering to be "fair" that the actual cost of the job is kind of outweighed by the administration. I was going to message you a personal example, but your PMs are not turned on.

        • NacGhey on 02/02/2018 - 16:36

          thank you and I should be able to receive PMs now.

  • Euphemistic on 02/02/2018 - 15:42
    1. Not enough money to update the roads. They were built on top of horse and cart tracks from many years ago.
    2. Yes. The condition of the roads is always a subject in state and local elections. Federal, not so much becuase they don't fund much of the road network.
    3. Private companies build the roads, then impose a toll to recoup the money. The govt doesn't have the funds available to build these sections. The private companies don't really own the road, they sort of lease it.
    4. See Private roads.
    5. Very old network that is stuggling to keep up with the traffic demand. To build motorways, they need to demolish houses and split suburbs - not many people who live there like that. It also adds cost to do that.
    6. Once upon a time it was the highway. We keep the name for historical reasons.
    7. Roads follow where the horse and carts used to go and thread between properties. Before motorised cars it was easier to go around a hill, than over it. Once it was mapped as a road, it stayed that way.
    8. Driving slower is actually safer. Our driver training is insufficient for country roads, so drivers are largely incompetent to travel fast. City drivers don't understand the country road conditions and try to travel too fast.
    9. Poor roads.
    10. Schools on highways were largely built long before heavy traffic and even motorised traffic. Too hard/expensive to move them now. What I can't understand is why school zones aren't all day, not just in the morning and afternoon.

    As Davo says, we are slowly increasing the safety of our road network to cater for those that can't drive well. But we don't have the population density to pay for it all. Insurance lawyers are quick to blame the road conditions rather than the numbskull behind the wheel.

    I believe our speed limits int he country are fine, but in urban areas they are too high in many places. Slower limits and driving slower leads to less incidents. Aussies have been 'trained' that you should travel at the speed limit all the time, and so crash when conditions are poor and get all raged when someone drives slower in front of them. Slowing it down for all would be a good thing.

  • AMDneverdies on 02/02/2018 - 15:54

    Welcome to Austria mate, everything here tryna kill you

  • elf888 on 02/02/2018 - 16:06
    +1

    I guess the answers are below:
    1. Money, Australian Govt is too poor for it
    2. Money, Australian Politician only response to those who donated to them.
    3. Money, Australian Govt has no money to built.
    4. Money, Australian Govt need more income.
    5. Money, Australian Govt is too poor for infrastructure rebuild
    6. Money, Australian Govt is too poor to maintain it as highways
    7. Money, Australian Govt is too poor to alter it.
    8. Money, Australian Govt is too poor for paying the medical bill if accident happen
    9. Money, Australian Govt can generate more income from speeding fines
    10. Money, Australian Govt is too poor to relocated the schools and putting risk to the kids.

    • NacGhey on 02/02/2018 - 16:10

      so who has the money, neither the people nor the Govt? where did all the money go from mining sales?

      • elf888 on 02/02/2018 - 16:14

        Of Course the mining company/politician, the politician even reversed the mining tax as those company are donating to their parties….

  • Halo375 on 02/02/2018 - 16:09
    +2
    1. Small and narrow? Have you tried driving in England or Italy?
    2. Everyone has other priorities - that's the damn problem
    3. Because govts are running out of cash - easier to sell the problem to someone else.
    4. Because obviously thats how we pay for the road to be built and managed. The maintenance cost is something else.
    5. Because land and labour costs too damn much to build another damned freeway - it is HUGELY expensive for us to build anything.
    6. who gives a damn what it's called?
    7. Land rights
    8. Because speeding up would be stupid.
    9. Because we're awful drivers - and we haven't updated legislation to match the improvements in car safety.
    10. Because people push for new highways and sometimes they have to pass by schools - we can't just move everything out of the way.

    Nothing makes sense when frequently changing democratic governments are in charge.

    • NacGhey on 02/02/2018 - 16:19
      1. Yes, I have, in fact, driven in 5 continents except for Antarctica. Sydney reminds me of London but Tube (underground/ metro/ trains) somewhat compensate for small roads there. I would love to take a train if it goes everywhere and cost me less than driving. currently, it is cheaper for me to drive to work than taking a train and a bus each way.
      • Halo375 on 02/02/2018 - 16:23

        In most cases narrow roads exist because they've been there for 200 years and there's something of value on either side that prevents expansion. Sydney was not a planned city - it grew wildly around the bay, hence some of the roads won't make a lot of sense but they do the best they can. London has a higher population plus they started on their tube system in 1863! There are heaps of city across the world that has better underground train networks than we do.

        • NacGhey on 02/02/2018 - 16:31

          Many countries are creating business districts outside their main cities, for example, allocating an area for businesses right outside Sydney. developing small towns, decentralizing the city. just suggestions, thoughts

        • Euphemistic on 02/02/2018 - 16:40

          @NacGhey: Blue Monuntains, Central Coast, Woolongong, Newcastle…. They are trying to decentralise, but it isn't really working.

          We still don't really have the population density to do that well, check the number of people commuting fdrom those areas into Sydney each day.

        • NacGhey on 02/02/2018 - 16:46

          @Euphemistic: Govt may try giving incentives to businesses. they can move their departments outside, Sydney rail, Roads (RMS), various other offices can be shifted to Sydney Suburbs. CBD can stay as recreational, tourist and shopping location.

  • NacGhey on 02/02/2018 - 16:26
    +1

    I have couple of questions about Trucks

    1. is there any discussion to limit trucks during peak hours within the cities?
    2. why are they soo noisy? don't we have any noise check? trucks, modified cars and bikes create immense noise pollution. it becomes sometime deafening
    • Davo1111 on 02/02/2018 - 16:34
      1. no, if anything it would be the reverse. I bet in 10 years time you'll find that in sydney cbd they'll ban delivery trucks during the day
      2. Provided it meets the legal standard nobody cares. If it's a stock truck, then nobody has the right to question it, as it's compliant with our standards.
      • NacGhey on 02/02/2018 - 16:44

        It surprises me what did various Govts improved so far? roads seem at least 50 years old except few new ones. why Australia is way advance in certain things but lacks behind in certain things. was it to do with governing style where you just solve the most pressing problem at hand and leave the rest. I think a vision was missing.

        A Leader says I want to see this country/ city like this in next 5/10/15/20 years.

        • Davo1111 on 02/02/2018 - 17:11

          We get government grants for big roads/major upgrades. It does happen, just takes… forever.

          It says you're in Sydney. You should take "the old pacific highway" one day up north. That was the only road going to gosford. Its fine with one car, but it used to be bumper to bumper traffic.

      • NacGhey on 02/02/2018 - 16:56

        @davo1111, I meant big trucks, not the delivery trucks and vans. Roads are not big enough to have these big trucks especially during the peak hours

        • Davo1111 on 02/02/2018 - 17:12

          Same applies, provided they meet the road rules and our vehicle standards, nobody cares.

          Oversize vehicles - like road trains have different rules - including approved routes.

  • [Deactivated] on 02/02/2018 - 17:58

    tl;dr

  • RockyRaccoon on 03/02/2018 - 07:31

    Overall

    In NSW we believed politicians, who for 20+ years promised us new roads and infastructure, but there was no money as it lined the pockets of a select few (See ICAC)

    Some specific.

    North South

    Point 5 The road north went thru mainly very strong Liberal electorates. So no votes there for Labor, and also no fear of loss by Liberals, so no road changes. Finally there is a new road 40 years too late- but tolled

    Point 10. I've asked the same thing for years. The best answer is that it would cost the govt money - less for public servants wages etc. Just like we have to have kids in seat belts in cars, but public buses aren't. The Toll road principle. The other pays for your "initiatives", that way you can have more "initiatives"

  • maiuspala on 03/02/2018 - 09:11

    I think the traffic here in Sydney is so chaotic because of:

    1. The road structure - road network of Sydney has a structure of a (spreadout) village.
    2. Nonexistent driver training - as the driving school is not compulsory, there is no collective way of acting in traffic, just the invidual way, where everyone thinks that they are the best driver, be it the overly caucious (slow) or overly confident (fast, lane filtering) driver. They all think they are the best and acting the only right way possible.
      Why else are we have that everlasting (clashing) topic of takeover lanes - why arent they used for over taking.
  • NacGhey on 05/02/2018 - 11:31

    all I gather from all my learned friends here is that Australia needs updating of most of the things, it's not only limited to roads

  • NacGhey on 06/02/2018 - 15:32

    Tough new NSW road safety rules introduced after horror holiday road toll- quoting SMH newspaper where Premier Gladys Berejiklian announced various new rules. well, again she missed the point, rather than only punishing drivers, why can't we assume that we will never have all drivers driving vigilantly. we must come up with idiot-proof roads. rather than investing money in cameras (to increase state income), I would have invested in updating roads, making them more safer, wider, signal and roundabout free.

    • Euphemistic on 06/02/2018 - 16:15

      Yes, pretty poor new rules, nothing much new in them.

      Investing in cameras is significantly cheaper than upgrading roads, but you are right, better roads would be preferable. The best spend of money would be on increasing the education and licensing standards for drivers. Better drivers can cope with poor roads, but dodgy drivers provide revenue for the cameras.

      Not sure why you want signal and roundabout free. Both have their pros and cons, but both work well at controlling intersections when they are suited to the location.

      • NacGhey on 07/02/2018 - 10:15

        being an Civil Engineer, Signals and Roundabouts work for minor to medium traffic, It does not work for major traffic. for major traffic, roads need to be updated with tunnels and flyovers. if a person travels from St, Ives to airport OR north to south/ east to west, it should be free-flowing traffic which can be achieved by having tunnels/ flyovers. I understand Govt is not willing to pay so this situation on roads will go on for a long time until mentality/ priority changes.

        • Euphemistic on 07/02/2018 - 11:00

          If you are a civil engineer, you probably have a feel for how much the different types of intersections cost then. Whack a roundabout in an intersection? $2-3mill. Change it to lights? $1-2mill. Flyover/tunnel? 10x that. And really, we don't have the need for massive highways, all they do is encourage more cars which choke up the other roads.

          The cheapest alternative is to encourage people to stop using cars. One way to do that is to ensure that public transport is effective and has priority and that congestion remains for private cars - but we don't do that very well either!

        • NacGhey on 07/02/2018 - 11:33

          @Euphemistic: agreed, but Public transport is still not adequate. Train paths are in majority designed in 1920s. new rails cost much more, however, its one of the best means of mass transport. there is never one solution fits all, if Govt wants to improve traffic situation here, they need to come up with a mixture of roads and rail improvements. there may not be enough room now for new rails so they can think of Metro/underground.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join