Read and submit here

As usual, it is proposed to keep on-street parking and come up with a wafer thin bi-di

Views: 1379

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It needs to run the full length of the road too. Connecting people to Enmore Park, the pool and Marrickville Metro in the east and on towards Dulwich Hill in the west.

I suspect this may well degenerate into a similar discussion as the Lilyfield Rd one, but I can not encourage people enough to post positive comments about this plan, insisting upon the need for a cycleway on this route, but also making the claim for improvements to the design. If we don't support it, no one will, and it will not get up. We need these regional routes to have proper connectivity if we are going to boost mode share.

Thx Rob,

I found the Lilyfield Rd one useful, despite being stymied by the lack of disclosure of a current design proposal.

Happily we are invited to submit concerning Addison Rd with both a 'yes please' and qualification about width and length anxiety.

As well as achieving practical and attractive connections we really do have to slay the parking demon. If that comes down to a salami-slice approach then we need to know what's proposed now, and what's in mind for future improvement so that we understand that a grotty bidi is only a temporary measure.

And a couple of additional thoughts:

1) We ought to consider the urban design we desire, not just a cycleway

&

2) An advantage of being behind with infrastructure is that we have the chance to jump directly to a most evolved design.

It probably won't degenerate as a conversation because its a local route between a community center and a school, and Newington road is a fast parallel route which they are directing people to anyway under the current plan. 

No I don't ever really want in corridor bi-di but they've chosen the side of the road with very few driveways and they have bicycle priority crossings of the side streets, and its a flat route, so the average cyclist isn't going to plow into the side of a reversing car at 45.

Good things - bicycle priority crossings on side streets, with a design that may reduce "plugging" by motor vehicles compared to bourke st.

Bad things. 

its too narrow.

They didn't learn anything from bourke st about having what will be perceived as missing chunks and "3 sides of the square" detours.   The obvious destination beyond the community center is the shopping center.  The route should serve that as directly as possible.

They are trying to preserve in-corridor parking, when in fact in corridor parking is not even good for motorists on a through road, and the whole point is if 10 of the vehicles are now bicycles, then they don't need 100% of the old parking space.  A typical Australian bicycle rack is 8 bicycles to less than a car space, and a dutch rack can be as much as 30 bicycles to a car space.

The far end doesn't seem to go far enough as a system to pick up sufficient traffic - ie its a route to a traffic light intersection mid hill on a new rider unfriendly 4 lane road.  I presume that the actual bicycle traffic comes from park st ?

Thx. The parking lobby there seems organised and carries weight it ought not.

I hope council at least improve the design, and at the same time design for but not with improvements contingent upon getting our street back from the parked car menace.

Perhaps they have a strategy for removing parking spots incrementally and discreetly. I hope so.
Re last para, there may be some cyclists coming from the north via the West St to Livingstone Rd route.

My particular interest is a route from Leichhardt to Tempe, where a lot of us go to get to Cooks River or Brighto/Kurnell etc. Currently I use Renwick/ Railway Pde /Croydon /Crystal St, cross Stanmore Rd (brave aren't we?)and take the first left to get off Shaw St and dive down Newington, which is a great run apart from a few dodgy speed humps. Then I use Agar or Wemyss to get to Addison and go to Enmore Rd to use the lights to get onto Victoria Rd (Cook Rd is shorter bur hard to get out at Victoria Rd). Point being, nothing useful in the new cycleway for us!
It is a bit absurd to divert the cycle route up to Newington Rd and then back down to not quite Addison Rd again to avoid the narrow bit (10.8m) of Addison Rd east of Illawarra Rd. What if you want to turn right onto Enmore Rd or Cook Rd to head south? Cyclists will use this bit of Addison, so should be provided for.

The eastern bit is actually not bad to ride on, the shoulder lane is obviously too narrow to ride in so most motorists back off in my experience if you ride out in the traffic lane, though they get they at about Shepherd, trying to pass where the side streets look like there is more width.

Maybe they could try lowering the speed limit and installing BMUFL signs. There is increasing evidence these works, see a recent paper from US in PLOS. Motorists actually understand BMUFL signs better than Share the Road or Watch for Cyclists signs. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.01...

From another angle, the reason why the road is narrower in that eastern section is because the footpath is wider! Check it out on Google at Illawarra Rd. So a shared path could be considered for that section.

The report is otherwise quite good, bi di width excepted, it covers all the problems along Addison Rd, particularly the squeeze points at the refuges, which might now be turned into ped crossings, and it does hold out hope for widening the pretty ridiculous 2 m wide bidi if they go the flush with the footpath option. Not sure why they just didn't go for that in the design. If they have to alter the kerb line why not pinch a bit of the verge to give a 3 m bi di and be the envy of Sydney. I mean, what would the Dutch do?

I agree, Bicycles May Use Full Lane signage is likely to be handy anywhere the off-road facility is naff or non-existent.

The diversion is indeed a bit weird, you are right. I think it is safe to assume that riders won't go on the magical mystery tour.

It's important that this bike path is installed.  Make sure your submissions encourage refinements to the design and don't end up putting it in the hard basket

Yes, so second button is the right button.

I think I have articulated positiveness-with-improvements to Benny directly, and I hope others do so too.

There is an 'anti' group active, which as with Wilson St will probably be the nasty people who think their free on-road car storage is more important than other people's safety.

In the plan,it stated 2m wide bi-di cycleway. It looked too small and it's not good. On Burke St bi-di is crap.
Need minimum 2.5m to max 3m bi-di.

Stuff those motorist planners who don't give a stuff to bike riders and we need the cyclist planners who knows what cyclists needs.

The discussion about parking is quite relevant as when they build that proposed development there will be something like an average of 1.5 cars per unit and something like 0.8 parking spots for them, because the development includes "affordable" options which means no parking spot and those people will be have to bomby cars (like mine).

This emphasis's why we need this path in now, as it will be so much more difficult to get the space in the future

RSS

Community Ads

© 2017   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service