Cycling in Sydney Australia
As part of the (surely still yet to be approved, no?...) WestConnex motorway enabling works, the RMS will be upgrading the Marsh St (Giovanni Brunetti) Bridge.The upgrade will include cycling facilities.
Submissions to the project can be made until 5th March via AirportWest@rms.nsw.gov.au.
What are your experiences? What's to be called for?
BIKESydney would be interested in a social ride along the route to discuss issues, challenges, opportunities.
The artists impression shows the bike lane on the north side and the document says its on the south side of the bridge
Exactly. Someone doesn't know North from South: http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/projects/sydney-south/westconne...
1) The northern shared use paths on Marsh Street are broken by poor signage, drive ways, uncontrolled intersections.
1a) If you enter Marsh Street SUP from Valda, you move through a no bicycle sign. If you enter Marsh Street SUP from Eve street cycle way, you don't. This is the same stretch of SUP
1b) The signage indicating right to cycle at Marsh Street SUP an Innesdale road is confusing and wrong
1c) The signage indicating right to cycle at Marsh Street SUP and Giovanni Brunetti Bridge (North West) is confusing and wrong
2) The southern cycleway and shoulder on Marsh Street are inadequate.
2a) Giovanni Brunetti Bridge's southern cycleway needs to be widened
2b) Kogarah golf club does not maintain their property line, their plants extend into the shoulder on Marsh Street South
2c) The shoulder on Marsh Street South needs to be modified into a separated off road cycleway, by resumption, all the way to Eve street route
2d) Ideally a turn back and underpass needs to be made on the Southern side, behind the Golf Club's buildings.
To solve 1 requires intersection redesigns along Marsh Street. It also requires liason with an active resident on Valda Ave. This resident has real concerns regarding the inadequate width of the SUPs and their lack of set back from residential exits. The North side of Marsh Street's SUP will always be a lower speed environment due to its density. This is why it is essential to expand the South side of Marsh Street into a bi-directional fully protected cycleway.
The proposal effectively stands for the deletion of Marsh Street South as a cycleway. This must be opposed, and a fully separated cycleway to Eve Street on the South, by resumption of Golf Course Land, with an underpass under Giovanni Brunetti bridge needs to be demanded.
It would be great, and yes, the artist seems to be compass-confused. A south-side bridge extension will make a complete connection with the Qantas Drive and Eve St cycleways and would be most welcome. Would by pass the northern side route which kinda is / kinda isnt a cycleway - and the northbound bridge path is currently prohibited for cyclists - so I have been told.
I assume from the plans (not artists impression) that they would have to assume some land from the golf course?
At least it might finally deal with the trees that keep growing in the current 1 m wide cycleway - and the crappy concrete slab tiles that make up the southern bridge crossing now - so many broken spokes from that!
Still, like anything, I believe it when I see it. Maybe it might make up for some likely pain at the southern end of Bourke Road...
Pity I missed the submission date. Will keep an eye on it. Thanks.
Qantas Drive has a missing link between Alexandria Canal cycleway bridge and Robey Street (or even Foreshore drive park cycleways). The submission date is 5 March, you've not missed it!
Wait, I re-read it and note that the southern side dedicated cycleway will connect to the existing path on the southbound side of the bridge. That would be the existing path made of those stupid concrete slab tiles, and also not wide enough for two bikes underway to pass each other.
I also can't see any reference in the actual docs to a widened bridge path on either side, artist impression of a northern new path notwithstanding.
Also the PDF I open from the link says submissions close 30 Jan.
Is there something I am missing, or not reading here?
The proposal on the website refers to the proposal in the PDF from December, but they're contradictory. I'd say oppose on the basis that it is incomprehensible?
Where did the "artists impression" come from it isn't in the pdf or webpage?
From the link embedded in the RMS webpage. Click on December 2014 community update (PDF, 2Mb)
yep, did that and it is a 3 page pdf that does not have the "artists impression" picture?