Sydney City Council Cycle Plan
dewatf
The Sydney City Council put out a PR release Saturday about its new plan
(to be released Monday).
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2007/03/23/1174597882715.html
Funny enough this was the same day the the Lord Mayor, Clover Moore was up
for election in the State seat for the area.
However, NSW's Alex Unwin claims this is in no way about politics but "is
about good public policy".
The plan is for two-way on-road cycle-lanes. The council likes these
because they can pander to the green lobby and only destroy half the
businesses on the street by removing parking on only one side. Helasinki
put in 800km of two way off-road cycle lanes and found they yeilded no
safety benefits at all. Two-way on road cycles lanes will probably kill
more cyclists, but that is Bicycle NSW's idea of good policy.
Looking at the map it is a collection of bit of red lines not one of which
connects up to each other, so nothing new there.
The cost is $1.7m for 55km of cycle lanes by 2010, or $10/m/year which is
less than my local council budgets for footpaths.
Looking at the roads some of them like Bourke St already exist. Abercrombie
St is blocked off to through and right turning traffic which has
effectively turned it to a cycleway anyway.
The strangest bit is that there are proposed two-way cycles lanes on Crown
St, to with the ones on Bourke St as well as a lane on Riley St. Since
those three roads are parallel it would make more sense to have one way
cycle lanes going with the one way traffic on the roads.
Mr McFarlane, of Bicycle Industries Australia, wants to abolish tickets for
trains in peak hour. Given the that trains are already sardine tins that
run incredibly slowly and unreliably blocking up the doorways with bikes is
just what is needed to reduce public transport congestion and encourage
people to leave their cars behind.
dewatf.
Artoi
dewatf <dew...@foomail.com> wrote:
> The Sydney City Council put out a PR release Saturday about its new plan
> (to be released Monday).
> http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2007/03/23/1174597882715.html
Well, I look forward to seeing the conversion of Kent St.
--
EuanB
dewatf Wrote:
> The plan is for two-way on-road cycle-lanes. The council likes these
> because they can pander to the green lobby and only destroy half the
> businesses on the street by removing parking on only one side.
> Helasinki
> put in 800km of two way off-road cycle lanes and found they yeilded no
> safety benefits at all. Two-way on road cycles lanes will probably kill
> more cyclists, but that is Bicycle NSW's idea of good policy.
From the papers I've read that's 100% correct. Two way bike paths
appear to be the most hazardous facilities a cyclist can use.
--
EuanB
Zebee Johnstone
EuanB <EuanB....@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
> From the papers I've read that's 100% correct. Two way bike paths
> appear to be the most hazardous facilities a cyclist can use.
What are the main problems?
Cyclists not coping cos they aren't wide enough? Peds not looking the
right way? Cyclists riding against traffic?
Zebee
EuanB
1) Cyclists not in the line of sight of other road users (until the
very last instant)
2) Cyclists coming from a direction unexpected by other road users.
The diagram at this URL illustrates the problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cycle_path_collision_risks.jpg
*Bicycle facilities of the Netherlands*
Beukers. Dutch Ministry of Transport. ITE Conference, 1977
Safety problems of two-way cycle tracks at junctions almost
insuperable.
*Amenagements cyclables en Belgique*
Review in Roue Libre, 1991.
Review of new Belgian Government policy on cycling.
Cycle tracks no longer favoured in urban areas due to problems and
danger.
Preferable to remove narrow paths and where in bad state.
Two-way cycle tracks to be declassified as particularly dangerous
*Haveriundersökningar av vägtrafikolyckor 'motorfordon-oskyddad
trafikant'*
Ahlcrona et al. Sweden, 1994.
Referenced from 'Safety of vulnerable road users'
(http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html#OECD).
Small sample investigation of crashes to vulnerable road users at
Skåne. Two-thirds of collisions occurred at pedestrian and cycle track
crossings. In two-thirds of the cycle crashes, the cyclist was riding
on a two-way cycle path counter to traffic flow or appeared somewhere
he was not supposed to be.
*The risks of cycling*
Pasenen, Helsinki City Planning Department
'Full paper available on-line'
(http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/helsinki.htm)
In Helsinki, using a road-side cycle path is nearly 2.5 times likely to
result in injury than cycling on the carriageway with traffic. At
junctions the relative risk rises to more than 3 times. In those
countries and cities which are just beginning to build cycling
facilities, two-way cycle paths in particular should be avoided in an
urban street network.
In Helsinki and Lund (Sweden), cycling leads to more pedestrian
injuries per kilometre reported to the police than motor traffic.
Source for all the above:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html
--
EuanB
Zebee Johnstone
EuanB <EuanB....@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>>
> Width is a factor. IMO the most important factors are:
>
> 1) Cyclists not in the line of sight of other road users (until the
> very last instant)
>
> 2) Cyclists coming from a direction unexpected by other road users.
I suspected the 2nd one, but didn't really think about junctions.
Given the way that junctions are usually handled in Sydney - badly - I
can see the horror of it all...
Zebee
Fractal
"Zebee Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnf0eaqp...@gmail.com...
The Herald artists impression did look dangerous, with narrow bollards only
between two way cycle lane and motorists. Hit a bollard, fall into oncoming
traffic, etc. Not sure that is what will go in though. Kent St proposal was
for a conventional bike lane on either side I think. The Bike Plan is up for
approval tonight.
fb
flyingdutch
Sydney City Council has (at least?) one very pro councillor.
Can't remember which one off the top of my head...
who knows what will come of this...
often wondered if it were possible too make those 2way separated lanes
possible, but the more i sketched it up the less i liked it. good
research Euan
--
flyingdutch
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnf0eaqp...@gmail.com...
>> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:51:50 +1000
>> EuanB <EuanB....@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> Width is a factor. IMO the most important factors are:
>>>
>>> 1) Cyclists not in the line of sight of other road users (until the
>>> very last instant)
>>>
>>> 2) Cyclists coming from a direction unexpected by other road users.
>>
>> I suspected the 2nd one, but didn't really think about junctions.
T'was the most obvious.
>> Given the way that junctions are usually handled in Sydney - badly - I
>> can see the horror of it all...
>
> The Herald artists impression did look dangerous,
Didn't find the graphic to which you were referring to.
> with narrow bollards only
Bollards.
The fucking solution to everything. Stupid fuckers.
--
TimC
*** System shutdown message from root ***
System going down in 60 seconds
cfsmtb
EuanB Wrote:
> Width is a factor. IMO the most important factors are:
>
> 1) Cyclists not in the line of sight of other road users (until the
> very last instant)
>
> 2) Cyclists coming from a direction unexpected by other road users.
3) Bar ends. No I'm not being completely facetious here either. ;)
Interesting times in Sydney, it seems most of the progressive transport
initiatives are coming from either the Greens or Liberals. ALP? They
went MIA until the very last moment, see here;
http://www.vote4cycling.com.au/candidate_survey.html
For starters at the local government level, there's Cr Shayne Mallard
and Cr Norman Jew doing a lot of excellent work on behalf of cyclists.
Also there's some very switched on local government employees, although
general networking up in NSW isn't as good as down here in Vic, ie:
we've got Sustainable Transport Officers in many local councils. But
the NSW situation can be worked upon & improved. :)
--
cfsmtb
Robert Moore
> EuanB Wrote:
>
>>Width is a factor. IMO the most important factors are:
>>
>>1) Cyclists not in the line of sight of other road users (until the
>>very last instant)
>>
>>2) Cyclists coming from a direction unexpected by other road users.
They will have traffic lights to control bikes and cars at
intersections. If you want to turn right I guess you will have a
separate phase.
>
>
> 3) Bar ends. No I'm not being completely facetious here either. ;)
No, yr right about that.
>
> Interesting times in Sydney, it seems most of the progressive transport
> initiatives are coming from either the Greens or Liberals. ALP? They
> went MIA until the very last moment, see here;
> http://www.vote4cycling.com.au/candidate_survey.html
>
> For starters at the local government level, there's Cr Shayne Mallard
> and Cr Norman Jew
? He passed some IMHO silly motion at the LGA conference about all off
road cycleways in new subdivisions- doesnt believe cyclists should be on
the road.
doing a lot of excellent work on behalf of cyclists.
> Also there's some very switched on local government employees, although
> general networking up in NSW isn't as good as down here in Vic, ie:
> we've got Sustainable Transport Officers in many local councils. But
> the NSW situation can be worked upon & improved. :)
>
>
you can download the whole City bike plan from the
cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au site, under committees/planning. It was up for
approval yesterday. A quick squizz at it and they have changed Kent St
to a Local Route and are thinking of using Clarence St as the main link
to the bridge. Attachments A and C have diagrams of the proposed 2 way
bike lanes, and there _are_ Bollards. Seems they have had a major
rethink since the plan was released for comment last year and have
decided car door lanes are no good and are going for these two way cycle
lanes on one side instead on some main routes. Some have a 0.7 metre
median between cars and bikes, others seem to have just a narrow line of
bollards separating moving traffic or parked cars from bikes. Seems they
are ignoring the RTA guidelines about not having vertical obstacles
right next to a cyclepath - to allow for handlebar or pedal clearance.
Still have to watch out for opening car doors (as cars will be parked
in some cases next to the bollards) and people stepping out of cars onto
the cycle lane.
Terryc
> Bollards.
>
> The fucking solution to everything. Stupid fuckers.
Naah, round here it is
1) speed humps, for a decade now. Always speed humps.
2) those upside U shapes ACROSS the bicycle path in disjoint pairs.
>
cfsmtb
Robert Moore Wrote:
>
>
> ? He passed some IMHO silly motion at the LGA conference about all off
> road cycleways in new subdivisions- doesnt believe cyclists should be
> on
> the road.
Fair call, although keep in mind Cr Jew is a relatively recent convert
to cycling, so his newbie perspective may broaden with more experience.
Although I can't really fault his attitude for overall safer cycling
facilities, see more here:
http://www.rideforlife.com.au/
--
cfsmtb
dewatf
> They will have traffic lights to control bikes and cars at
> intersections. If you want to turn right I guess you will have a
> separate phase.
Lights are the RTA's responsibility (good luck).
And what happens at drive ways, parking entrances, alleys, side streets,
pedestrian crossings etc.?
I haven't seen reports of anything similar working, guess we will have to
see what the council and RTA come up with. Though it sounds like something
that should be trialed before being rolled out on a large scale.
So two way cycle paths are now "Bike Roads". And report lists them as only
be considered, and then built within a budget that is far lower than the
sum of the proposed work in the old draft plan. A lot of the plan is
dependant on State Government authorities and with Bike Plan 2010 and
regional routes effectively scrapped are uncertain.
> you can download the whole City bike plan from the
> cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au site, under committees/planning. It was up for
> approval yesterday. A quick squizz at it and they have changed Kent St
> to a Local Route and are thinking of using Clarence St as the main link
> to the bridge.
The Kent St becomes less attractive with the State Government reversing the
lane changes for the Cross City Tunnel around Town Hall.
dewatf.