Damn, it's Austria...

[Allan A]

Interesting snippet in the Sydney Morning Herald's Saturday Drive section.
The transport minister in Austria has announced that there are to trial a
change in speed limits on some of their 3 lane freeways. They are lifting
the limit, in good conditions only, from 130km/h to 160km/h.

When I first read it I thought it said Australia...and I nearly chocked on
my coffee. Sadly, it is Austria...

Allan A

[Mot Adv-NSW]

"Allan A" <aaci@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:4217c66e_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> Interesting snippet in the Sydney Morning Herald's Saturday Drive section.
> The transport minister in Austria has announced that there are to trial a
> change in speed limits on some of their 3 lane freeways. They are lifting
> the limit, in good conditions only, from 130km/h to 160km/h.
>
> When I first read it I thought it said Australia...and I nearly chocked on
> my coffee. Sadly, it is Austria...
>
> Allan A

Yes, this better's Italy's 150km/h 3-lane allowance.

Hungary has raised limits from 110km/h to 130km/h. Other jurisdictions will
follow and have done so.

We in NSW will not raise the F3 limit until our median barrier is in place
full-length. Even then being the conservative buggers we are - it'd only go
up 10km/h under deep protest from the nay side.

JP

[Mot Adv-NSW]

http://www.austria.com/engine.aspx/page/vienna-article-detail-page/cn/vol-news-traffl-20050210-115845/dc/tp:vol:oesterreich


Use Goolge etc to translate

[athol]

Mot Adv-NSW <mot.adv@gotalk.net.au> wrote:

> We in NSW will not raise the F3 limit until our median barrier is in place
> full-length. Even then being the conservative buggers we are - it'd only go
> up 10km/h under deep protest from the nay side.

So we need to go straight to true derestriction instead? :-)

Seriously, while I have previously suggested that the limit go
up 10, wait say 6 or 12 months, then up another 10, then wait
another 6 or 12 months and raise again, I'm now of the opinion
that the limit should rise to 130 or derestriction immediately
to reduce the cost of multiple signage changes.

F3 issues to be resolved:
* median barrier
* some areas need off-side barriers
* immediate need to widen to 3 lanes each way from Doyalson
link road (Wallarah interchange) to existing 3-lane section
near Tuggerah interchange and to extend exit and entry lanes
at Paruna service centres.

The section from immediatly north of Wallarah interchange to
Black Hill (Northern end of F3) only needs median barrier and
a small amount of off-side barrier.

I'd also like to see similar improvement to the freeway section
of the Hume Hwy. It has a similar problem with an immediate
need for additional lanes from the WSO to beyond Kambelltown
and median barrier. I could see derestriction working on the
entire freeway section from WSO to Sutton Forest.

Ironically, the best candidates for derestriction are the two
lane carriageways with lighter traffic volumes rather than the
three lane carriageways due to lane discipline problems.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Uncle Bully]

> * immediate need to widen to 3 lanes each way from Doyalson
> link road (Wallarah interchange) to existing 3-lane section
> near Tuggerah interchange and to extend exit and entry lanes
> at Paruna service centres.

This part I don't get. Why o why do they bother building 2 lane arterial
roads anymore?
When they built the M2 only a few years ago I can't beleive how anyone
thought 2 lanes was a good idea, the M4 and M5 also have two lanes, and the
F3 is notorious for it's 2 lane stretches. The Sydney Tunnel is two lanes,
the Eastern distributor two lanes. Most of these roads reached capacity 2
minutes after they were opened. Why the fuck can't these clowns plan for the
future?

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:35:39 +1100, Uncle Bully wrote:

>> * immediate need to widen to 3 lanes each way from Doyalson
>> link road (Wallarah interchange) to existing 3-lane section
>> near Tuggerah interchange and to extend exit and entry lanes
>> at Paruna service centres.
>
> This part I don't get. Why o why do they bother building 2 lane arterial
> roads anymore?
> When they built the M2 only a few years ago I can't beleive how anyone
> thought 2 lanes was a good idea, the M4 and M5 also have two lanes, and the
> F3 is notorious for it's 2 lane stretches. The Sydney Tunnel is two lanes,
> the Eastern distributor two lanes. Most of these roads reached capacity 2
> minutes after they were opened. Why the fuck can't these clowns plan for the
> future?

They're clowns?
Besides they come from a long line of distinguished clowns who have
NEVER planned for the future with the possible exception of the
Sydney Harbour bridge - and even the it was because the turds probably
weren't able to muscle in on the ferry rackets - the needed a 'toll'.

One of these Clowns once said "the Story Bridge is a luxury that
Brisbane can well afford to do without."
Who the fuck is Brisbane anyway, and what the fuck was Brisbane going
to spend money on instead of the Bridge - balloons maybe.
Those questions and more....

Yes, they're Clowns.

--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Marco]

"Allan A" <aaci@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:4217c66e_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> Interesting snippet in the Sydney Morning Herald's Saturday Drive section.
> The transport minister in Austria has announced that there are to trial a
> change in speed limits on some of their 3 lane freeways. They are lifting
> the limit, in good conditions only, from 130km/h to 160km/h.

But surely this will kill thousands of people. At least that's what various
politicians keep saying. Are you suggesting that isn't true? Shit, maybe
that means that certain pollies haven't been totally above board with us.

If this continues, next thing you know interest rates will go up too.

[athol]

Toby Ponsenby <toby@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:35:39 +1100, Uncle Bully wrote:

> They're clowns?
> Besides they come from a long line of distinguished clowns who have
> NEVER planned for the future with the possible exception of the
> Sydney Harbour bridge - and even the it was because the turds probably
> weren't able to muscle in on the ferry rackets - the needed a 'toll'.

How about this for forward thinking...

It is proposed to build a southern extension of the F3 to link to the
M2. It will be a pair of tunnels, roughly paralleling Pennant Hills
Rd. Completely the wrong solution to the national highway goal of
bypassing Sydney by connecting the F3 and F5 (that's the Hume Fwy
south of the M5) by a freeway, but the correct solution for removing
the maximum possible volume of traffic from the overloaded Pennant
Hills Rd and Pacific Hwy between F3 and M2/Bradfield Hwy.

So, there are 2 options. Either government funded freeway or private
funded tollway. If it is a gov funded road, the tunnels will be 3
lanes each way. If it is privately funded, the toll will reduce
usage and hence it will only need to be 2 lanes each way!?! WTF???

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[go_virgil@yahoo.com.au]

Planning for the future including public transport?

[Toby Ponsenby]

On 20 Feb 2005 05:56:29 GMT, athol wrote:

> Toby Ponsenby <toby@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:35:39 +1100, Uncle Bully wrote:
>
>> They're clowns?
>> Besides they come from a long line of distinguished clowns who have
>> NEVER planned for the future with the possible exception of the
>> Sydney Harbour bridge - and even the it was because the turds probably
>> weren't able to muscle in on the ferry rackets - the needed a 'toll'.
>
> How about this for forward thinking...
>
> It is proposed to build a southern extension of the F3 to link to the
> M2. It will be a pair of tunnels, roughly paralleling Pennant Hills
> Rd. Completely the wrong solution to the national highway goal of
> bypassing Sydney by connecting the F3 and F5 (that's the Hume Fwy
> south of the M5) by a freeway, but the correct solution for removing
> the maximum possible volume of traffic from the overloaded Pennant
> Hills Rd and Pacific Hwy between F3 and M2/Bradfield Hwy.
>
> So, there are 2 options. Either government funded freeway or private
> funded tollway. If it is a gov funded road, the tunnels will be 3
> lanes each way. If it is privately funded, the toll will reduce
> usage and hence it will only need to be 2 lanes each way!?! WTF???

Stunning stuff.
In some ways we do get our $$ worth.
But I really prefer my comedy branded as such:-)
The plan seems more about maintaining votes (shifting peak snarls
about) than effective transport solutions.


--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Allan A]

Did you say "maintaining votes". What a cynical attitude.

There is lots of long term planning out there. The definition of "long term"
is "days to the next election".

Allan A





"Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1lwn06obk8lhl$.15va27g00eshv.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On 20 Feb 2005 05:56:29 GMT, athol wrote:
>
>> Toby Ponsenby <toby@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:35:39 +1100, Uncle Bully wrote:
>>
>>> They're clowns?
>>> Besides they come from a long line of distinguished clowns who have
>>> NEVER planned for the future with the possible exception of the
>>> Sydney Harbour bridge - and even the it was because the turds probably
>>> weren't able to muscle in on the ferry rackets - the needed a 'toll'.
>>
>> How about this for forward thinking...
>>
>> It is proposed to build a southern extension of the F3 to link to the
>> M2. It will be a pair of tunnels, roughly paralleling Pennant Hills
>> Rd. Completely the wrong solution to the national highway goal of
>> bypassing Sydney by connecting the F3 and F5 (that's the Hume Fwy
>> south of the M5) by a freeway, but the correct solution for removing
>> the maximum possible volume of traffic from the overloaded Pennant
>> Hills Rd and Pacific Hwy between F3 and M2/Bradfield Hwy.
>>
>> So, there are 2 options. Either government funded freeway or private
>> funded tollway. If it is a gov funded road, the tunnels will be 3
>> lanes each way. If it is privately funded, the toll will reduce
>> usage and hence it will only need to be 2 lanes each way!?! WTF???
>
> Stunning stuff.
> In some ways we do get our $$ worth.
> But I really prefer my comedy branded as such:-)
> The plan seems more about maintaining votes (shifting peak snarls
> about) than effective transport solutions.
>
>
> --
> Toby
> quidquid latine dictum
> sit, altum viditur

[kevcat]

How about a dual lane all the way between Sydney and Brisbane
all cities should have bypass/ring roads of at least 4 lanes each way


Kev

Allan A wrote:
>
> Did you say "maintaining votes". What a cynical attitude.
>
> There is lots of long term planning out there. The definition of "long term"
> is "days to the next election".
>
> Allan A
>
> "Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:1lwn06obk8lhl$.15va27g00eshv.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> > On 20 Feb 2005 05:56:29 GMT, athol wrote:
> >
> >> Toby Ponsenby <toby@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:35:39 +1100, Uncle Bully wrote:
> >>
> >>> They're clowns?
> >>> Besides they come from a long line of distinguished clowns who have
> >>> NEVER planned for the future with the possible exception of the
> >>> Sydney Harbour bridge - and even the it was because the turds probably
> >>> weren't able to muscle in on the ferry rackets - the needed a 'toll'.
> >>
> >> How about this for forward thinking...
> >>
> >> It is proposed to build a southern extension of the F3 to link to the
> >> M2. It will be a pair of tunnels, roughly paralleling Pennant Hills
> >> Rd. Completely the wrong solution to the national highway goal of
> >> bypassing Sydney by connecting the F3 and F5 (that's the Hume Fwy
> >> south of the M5) by a freeway, but the correct solution for removing
> >> the maximum possible volume of traffic from the overloaded Pennant
> >> Hills Rd and Pacific Hwy between F3 and M2/Bradfield Hwy.
> >>
> >> So, there are 2 options. Either government funded freeway or private
> >> funded tollway. If it is a gov funded road, the tunnels will be 3
> >> lanes each way. If it is privately funded, the toll will reduce
> >> usage and hence it will only need to be 2 lanes each way!?! WTF???
> >
> > Stunning stuff.
> > In some ways we do get our $$ worth.
> > But I really prefer my comedy branded as such:-)
> > The plan seems more about maintaining votes (shifting peak snarls
> > about) than effective transport solutions.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Toby
> > quidquid latine dictum
> > sit, altum viditur

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:03:29 GMT, kevcat wrote:

> How about a dual lane all the way between Sydney and Brisbane
> all cities should have bypass/ring roads of at least 4 lanes each way

I go back to Menzies, Hold and Coy on that.
Because that's when the infrastructure of a reasonable nation should
have been established.

--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[kevcat]

while the yanks were here
they would have had it all done in a couple of years

Kev

Toby Ponsenby wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:03:29 GMT, kevcat wrote:
>
> > How about a dual lane all the way between Sydney and Brisbane
> > all cities should have bypass/ring roads of at least 4 lanes each way
>
> I go back to Menzies, Hold and Coy on that.
> Because that's when the infrastructure of a reasonable nation should
> have been established.
>
> --
> Toby
> quidquid latine dictum
> sit, altum viditur

[Mot Adv-NSW]

"kevcat" <kevcat@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42188564.1CDCDC5B@dodo.com.au...
> while the yanks were here
> they would have had it all done in a couple of years

Yup, I recall, (well, now via departed grandfather who went to his grave
pissed at Gov Co) after the war they offered to build an interstate/freeway
SYD - BRIS or was that MELB-SYD-BRIS?? Had their Engineering Corps here. A
way of saying thanks etc.

For some reason we said no. Pride??

The offer also extended to a dual carriageway Syd west to Orange (or was it
Bathurst)??

We should be looking at this stuff.

Where is the History on this??


>> I go back to Menzies, Hold and Coy on that.
>> Because that's when the infrastructure of a reasonable nation should
>> have been established.
>> Toby
>> quidquid latine dictum
>> sit, altum viditur

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:11:33 +1100, Mot Adv-NSW wrote:

> Yup, I recall, (well, now via departed grandfather who went to his grave
> pissed at Gov Co) after the war they offered to build an interstate/freeway
> SYD - BRIS or was that MELB-SYD-BRIS?? Had their Engineering Corps here. A
> way of saying thanks etc.
>
> For some reason we said no. Pride??
>
> The offer also extended to a dual carriageway Syd west to Orange (or was it
> Bathurst)??
>
> We should be looking at this stuff.
>
> Where is the History on this??

If we had the time, we'd find it alright. Lots of time. And money.
And even more determination than......

Yes, well.
Strings? What strings....
And oh-shit-oh-dear, another 'Battle of Brisbane'

Really though we hear things like this time and time again. Most never
surface in the media, and some never even see the light of day due
immediate accusations of conspiracy.
One things for sure, shenanigans like that won't go publicly
unrecorded these days. We have the net.

So, I wonder just how they're gonna nobble it?
Spam? (90% of emails are spam)
Trojan terror? (People terrified to use the keyboard)
Virus?(BIG media spin there, and billions in Scanners)
Windoze? (The ultimate virus - err disease)

Hehe, all of the above.



--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur