Hey, some good news :)


An independent review of environmental factors surrounding the Bourke Road cycleway has found no significant environmental impacts.


The report by leading engineering, architecture and environmental consulting company GHD says there is no need for a formal Environmental Impact Study into the cycleway and lists a number of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the cycleway and its impact on the surrounding area for the Council's consideration.


The report will be placed on public exhibition for 28 days from Monday to allow the community to provide further feedback before Councillors decide which recommendations should be implemented.


The report noted there had been a reduction in traffic accidents since the cycleway was completed and also stated the loss of on-street parking, at less than six per cent of the overall 4,488 parking spaces available in the precinct, was "not significant" as the area was mainly industrial with most businesses having off-street parking for staff and visitors.

Views: 1189

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree. The perception of safety notion is a very interesting aspect, as we know from many of our would-like-to-cycle friends who say they think roads are too dangerous. If there were more people on bikes then perhaps there would be less fear. More "eyes on the street".

I can understand that a lot of people who work in the area are working odd hours where there are less people around = a sense of fear = a perception that driving is the best option. A shame, but I can understand it.

I liked (in the sense of being shocked and amused) the section on amenity where people complained that the "amenity of driving" was reduced by the speed cushions.

I would think that anything that reduced the "amenity of driving" would lead to less of it, and therefore to greater amenity for the area as a whole. Overall the report seemed a bit light on stressing that point - that the reduction in driving on Bourke St is  a positive thing. Everything the windshield-perspective folks complained of seemed like a great positive to me.

Report says they will look at the start and end of the path to see if improvements and links can be made, so that is good, and about widening the path in places. Also recommends a 40 K limit.

In the Safety section they di not consider if one way cycleways on either side of the road would be a safer option than bi di path. Also, no reports of the accident/injuryhistory on the path. Maybe there are no reported crashes, but it would be useful to know.

who paid for the report?

Oh, I'm sure a special rate increase can be organized for Hannan's Business Park to cover it ;-)

If not that then parking meters all over!

CoS, as a result of a court settlement with Hannans. Not sure why they didn't do a REF before the project, that would seem more logical, but apparently It wasn't required, see section 4.1.2 of report. REFs are normally done if the proponent thinks there are no significant environmental impacts but are not required if it is an Exempt development., which this apparently was. CoS was the proponent and the consenting authority in this case, so they just went ahead. Now, as the consent authority, I guess they can accept or ignore the REF. Claro?

Spoke to one of the folks interviewing on Bourke St - it was Nick from MC. Clipboards are actually iPads and they only spoke to one person wanting to rip up the cycleways. Interviews were with pedestrians today, the general theme seems to be riders going to fast and not giving way at pedestrian crossings. Interviews with cyclists soon.

I wonder if those who think riders are going too fast are some of the ones that step right out in front of me mid block leading to some VERY close calls. If someone asked them what they thought, cyclists going too fast would be the most likely human reaction, not "I almost got cleaned up by cyclists doing 30 km/h because I stepped right out in front of them without so much as a sideways glance".


Most cyclists I see do stop, or at least slow or go around peds on the crossings. Although once when the CW lights went red near the church between the bakery and Cleveland I was the only one that stopped and someone almost punted into the back of me.

It's possibly a similar problem to when that older guy was killed in Melb when he stepped into that peloton - an expectation that bicycles are only really toys (hence why they shouldn't be on the road, that argument continues) and thus couldn't really travel *that* fast, could they?

Excellent sight this morning: traffic banked up going not-very-far over the Gladesville Bridge, and then two little halogen lights popped through the gloom - two guys, riding over the deck of the bridge, easily and swiftly filtering through the stationery traffic. If that isn't a good advertisement for getting out of yr car, I don't know what is... :-)

More bikes  than cars travelling in that pic (of the Bourke STREET CW).


Rip up the vehicle lanes!

Good point Kylie - I'll repost that:

The Tele is at it again "Clover Moore's folly - bike path report calls for crime risk review" - a fantastic example of pure spin to raise revenue. CoS you are doing a great job - keep it up.


I'm midway through reading the report- it is an interesting read for me since it was the Bourke Road cycleway got me cycling. A couple of things jump out at the moment

1 speed cushions wouldn't need to be installed  if people didn't speed and the recommendation of a 40kph speed can only be a good thing if it is montiored and enforced

2 the phrase 'cyclists feel safer ' is too one dimensional. Yes I cycle on Bourke Road cycleway because it is a separated path but part of the inclination for me to do it this is The "permission " or recognization that there is a path that is only for bicycles that I can travel on. It doesn't mean I don't exercise the same caution as if I was driving or walking .

3 I have recently been exiting and entering the Bourke Road cycleway at Doody Street to check out whether simon johnson providores has anything on special . This seems to point out the the statement on page 73 that Bourke Road route is a local route to provide access to local facilities .But then the applicant seems to have trouble with me doing this as the applicant notes on page 70 as "cyclists crossing Bourke Road at the intersection of Doody street" is a hazard.
Have there been any conflicts here because I don't seem to have any trouble doing this, thought its never in peak hour
I'm just happy that the whole question of Bourke Road being replaced by Alexandra Canal  seems to be laid to rest by this report. .


© 2018   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service