New Ped crossing junction Lilyfield Rd/Mary St/James St

I received a consultation letter from either leichhardt council or RMS (I can no longer find it) regarding the installation of a new pedestrian crossing, effectively North/South on the western side of Lilyfield Rd and Mary/James Street.

I've attached a pic for reference for those that use Lilyfield Road.  The addition of the Ped crossing is a great idea for those wanting to get to the Leichhardt North light rail stop so no question/issue there.  What I wondered was whether this is a good place to have a defined cycle box at the head of the traffic lane eastbound (commuting to the city)?

If they are re-doing all the lane markings, and bearing in mind this is an quite an incline, is it safer to have a cycle box at the head of the traffic for cyclists to get in to or does it make no difference or is it a bad idea?

I can't find the consultation, someone with more familiarity might be able to dig out the details and therefore the place to submit your comments but thought I would share the info in case there is an opportunity here.

Views: 724

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Given that they must move the paint as you say, AND move the sensors for the signals I don't see why a bike box should not be included.


Surely that would be the current design standard guideline recommendation wishful thinking these days??

Glad to see a missing leg on a crossing being fixed - one of my pet peeves with pedestrian handling is missing legs.

I don't think they should change the cycle handling system myself - imo the cyclelane feeds into a dominant lane position, the lane itself is very narrow and hard to pass cars within anyway and cyclists can queue with the cars, we don't need to go ahead of them there, particularly since most cyclists will go straight and many cars will turn - its just creating conflicts to put a left-passing encourager in.  Also I expect that the position of queueing with the cars is unusually safe, since its out of the direct line of someone paying no attention at 50, usually the through lane is dangerous for that, but on this intersection its more likely the right turn box.

I think I'll go up there tomorrow and watch some traffic behavior.

Be good to learn whether there's enough right turning traffic to impede those going straight ahead, if it went down to one regular traffic lane per Bob's idea

Wasn't my idea, but it sounded OK.there would be two lanes for cars, as now, but you wouldn't have to turn right if in the middle lane.

I can't ever recall seeing a queue there, maybe after a footie match at Leichhardt oval, when cars are diverted left out of the car park and down past the pool to the foot of LF Rd then back up LF Rd to Mary/Jane St, which is another story. But cars can always turn right at Norton St if there is a queue.

Probably some technical reason they wouldn't remove the right turn road arrow, there is a right turn phase coming the other way too. If I get a chance I will ask one of the traffic engineers on Thursday.
Under current rules you can't have a bike box without a lead-in bike lane. The uphill bike lane stops some distance before the intersection, so wouldn't be approved anyway. So long as a cyclist occupies the ahead (kerbside)traffic lane I don't think a bike box would help much, not a lot of traffic anyway.
Someone else in SC proposed an idea there, I think it was to remove the eastbound right turn arrow you can see in the image, so motorists could use that lane to go straight ahead and stay out of the kerb lane. That might be more useful. I'll chase it up on Thursday at the Leichhardt Traffic Cttee.

I thought bike boxes were out of fashion because evidence showed they didn't work? I can't find the source, but I remember someone pooh-poohing them recently.

And RMS charges councils a large fee to "supervise" the design, even if done by supposedly expert consultants, hence very few around. They were investigated for Lilyfield Rd and Booth St but the cost and need for lead in bike lanes, plus some doubt as to their actual usefulness Case by case meant $ were spent elsewhere.

This is probably what I was thinking of:

Maybe the bureaucracy around bike boxes in Sydney isn't such a bad thing.

It's intrigued me why there aren't many more scramble crossing around the state, particularly in the big smoke.  It doesn't appear that this one would be necessary, but I feel sure that they'd speed up ped's travel time, and if done properly, may also be able to reduce car travel times too!

Yep, scramble crossings with a 5 sec period at end or beginning where cyclists could nip across. Ideal at Pyrmont Bridge /Murray St crossing.

Sounds like a job for Simultaneous Green Crossing!

They don't actually speed up pedestrians travel time much or at all, because pedestrians wanting to go straight across are now subject to more or less the same delay usually afforded to pedestrians wanting to cross both roads.  Oddly enough motoring authorities often see them as over prioritizing pedestrians (which they don't), simply because the pedestrian is much like a vehicle, able to complete their transit of the intersection in 1 move, and because there is a phase where cars can't move.


They are however plainly safer by design, because the pedestrians have exclusive access to their crossings, which is a failure by design in almost every intersection in the country, and one which many road authorities keep worsening by allowing turn on red, which makes the entire pedestrian crossing "hot".


© 2018   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service