Saw some workers doing prep for the removal this afternoon around 430pm.

It looks like it's going to happen at any time, probably in the dead of night to avoid any political fallout.

Couple of stills from the helmet cam tell the story. They have marked out about 1.5 metres of the footpath/shared zone for removal. This will make an ugly, people unfriendly intersection even worse. 

What's the bet they won't give pedestrians any longer to cross the road.

Fucking idiots

Views: 2624

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It may well not be a direct personal loss to you, Mike. You may be confident and competent enough to handle riding on the road, which is great.

Not everyone is, though. Not everyone feels comfortable with the pressure of riding among cars on a busy road. There are a lot of people out there (I know, I've spent a lot of time on College Street talking to them) who only started riding to work because the cycleway was built and it made a difference to their perception of how achievable the work commute could be. There are a bunch of people (again, I've spoken with them) who will stop riding because this piece of key infrastructure will be gone, because they won't feel safe. 

This is where the loss of the infrastructure becomes an indirect loss to you. Losing infrastructure means losing numbers - some who currently ride will stop, others who might have chosen to ride will not. There is safety in numbers, in the normalisation of cycling as transport, in the mainstreaming of the needs of people who want to cycle (be it in legislation changes or improved infrastructure and facilities). 

It remains to be seen what a motor-vehicle free George St will be like. It won't be "traffic free", though. There will be plenty of trams and thousands of pedestrians in that space. As for it being a better option, it really depends on where you want to go. The heat maps show that a lot of the College St cycle traffic is heading in to the north east sector of the CBD. George St isn't necessarily a particularly convenient way for people to get there. 

There are plenty of battles to be fought on behalf of cycling in the city. College St is just one. It should remain as part of a full grid in order to provide eastern CBD access. It is thoroughly wasteful to rip up such a successful piece of infrastructure after only a few years. We think it is worth fighting for. 


Ultimately we're on the same side, so I don't want to dismiss what you're saying - but I do find it hard to believe that people will stop cycling to work (or only started in the first place) because of 400m of bike path which has no ongoing infrastructure at either end. What do all these people do when they reach the end of the path (or how do they get to it in the first place!), if they're not 'confident and competent' enough to ride on the road?

But I do agree with your'safety in numbers' theory - and as long as everyone keeps using this route then there'll be plenty of cyclists to give that safety.

If they're anything like I was when I first started riding I actually calculated how much of my journey was on dedicated cycling infrastructure or shared paths and was only confident of attempting the ride when that amount was over 50% (around the time of the completion of the Kent St cycleway). There were still parts of the journey I didn't enjoy but the good bits outweighed the bad.

I can easily see someone decide that they will no longer ride if the ratio of comfort to unpleasantness swings back to an overall less comfortable journey.

Well, believe it, that's what people who currently use it are saying. Maybe they are using shared paths, other cycleways or even illegally riding on the footpath for the majority of their rides? There is a difference between riding in a quieter back street and taking on peak hour traffic - plenty of people are happy to ride in the suburbs but woudn't feel comfortable in the CBD without separation.

This is me -yes I ride illegally on the footpath and I also ride on the road .The College Street cycle way was important in signaling 'permission 'into riding into the cbd .For future more enlightened governments it could have been built on to no cars -my argument being is that college street has a concentration of cultural touristy buildings , museum,cathedral entry to art gallery road ,aquatic centre ,space next to cathedral & Hyde park

An experienced surfer doesn't need the safe Flagged area at the beach. Doesn't mean we take the flags away.

In other words Mike, it's not just about your needs.

Correct, it's not about my needs - but I don't think I'm the one who's being a bit needy.

I just don't get why there's all the fuss about pulling up a bike lane which has no infrastructure in place to get to it or from it, and replace it with a bus lane that a) will potentially carry more people, b) will potentially remove cars from the road and c) which we can use as a bike lane anyway!

The only 'downside' is that we'll need to use the road going southbound, but as I've already stated, the faff of having to cross the road twice makes that more hassle than it's worth.

Mike another way to look at it is in regard to perception. Separated bike lanes send a signal that its possible to ride a bike separate from motor vehicles. That makes people think about riding a bike to work. In my opinion this works even when, as you say, the infrastructure network is incomplete, and in fact, because its incomplete, its the biggest benefit they have. People will try riding to work and even though they'll have to ride on the road a bit, they won't mind because they know they are heading to or from a separated path that is built just for them. 

In the same way it also sends a signal to drivers - that cyclists are real people for whom the government builds infrastructure. Thats why I see the decision to rip up the College St cyclepath as almost entirely ideological. Its a moot point that it creates space for motor vehicles diverted from George St – and even the government's own data shows that its unnecessary – but it fits to the Roads minister's ideological agenda and the message he wants to send to his constituents.

FYI I take the road going south bound too. North bound also sometimes, I typically ride too fast for cyclepaths. But I want to keep it there for my wife and kids to use, and for when I ride with them. 

I never use it at all, except to protest. I'll protest it still, since bike paths are the only thing that really boosts numbers of people cycling.

I just don't get why there's all the fuss about pulling up a bike lane which has no infrastructure in place to get to it or from it, and replace it with a bus lane that a) will potentially carry more people, b) will potentially remove cars from the road and c) which we can use as a bike lane anyway!

The bus lane is a good idea. But the College St cycleway carries the same number of people in peak hour as the adjacent "car" lane. And bike traffic is growing, while car traffic has peaked, and is now reducing.

So it's one of the car lanes that should make way for the bus lane, not the cycleway. Removing the cycleway is all about conservative identity politics rather than transport planning.

What's the next step? Do people want to do a bit more to try to delay it?

Two options to consider:
1: maintain a list of contacts of people who are ready to roll in to non-violently protest as soon as they start the destruction.
2: maintain a small non-violent protest on site during the day and partly into the evening.
The aim would be just to delay the thing.

If anyone is keen could you please message me? I'll note down your phone no., email, twitter account or other contact, so you can be notified quickly when it all starts. Let me know if you want to just be notified when it starts up, or if you'd consider putting in some time standing around on site.

Personally, without an SMS, I'd probably miss the whole thing when it starts.


© 2020   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service