Views: 1602

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hard to get excited about them "approving" about 1,200m of cycleway, I am assuming there is still a gap on the Liverpool St path between Castlereagh & Elizabeth so useless for eastbound to Oxford. A "network" that does not join anything at both ends is a fairly useless network. A lot of effort for very little benefit, I think I am beyond the "be thankful for any small crumb" stage. The "strategic bike network" remains a fiction that exists only on paper.

And the section south of Liverpool St was never a candidate for delivery zones was it, so so called backflip isn't one.

What I don't get is that RMS designs but CoS pays, maybe they should withdraw the funding, not worth the money.

I think it's still worth it. The State govt won't pay, so if the CoS take their bat and ball home we get nothing, and the poorly designed cycleways we get are still a lot better than nothing.

It's also good to have it (more or less) confirmed that the State government won't be using the light rail as a pretence for harpooning the cycleways.

Despite saying plenty of dumb things at times, I think Gay very grudgingly acknowledges the growth of cycling in the CBD and that we're not going away.

I have no special insight into the mind of somebody like that, but I reckon he's an old-skool patronage style politician who sees things in terms of divvying up the spoils according to the numbers, and in this case the bureaucracy tells him there is a small but significant number of cyclists using (and demanding!) cycleways, and so he figures he should do what he can to keep them quiet without upsetting the driving majority 

He's probably not too different from most politicians in this regard, except his background might make him slightly less likely to trust the numbers in this regard, or to give them weight compared to his National Party constituency.

He is personal route sensitive imo - the cycleway is where he can see it in his daily travel.  He had another bee in his bonnet about traffic light timings when he started that also impacted his personal route as far as I knew.

I think the RMS is internally less antagonistic once the vehicle count for cycleways approached the magic 600 or so per hour, as that is basically as many people as single occupant cars achieve in a lane (same space) alongside it with motor vehicles, and the cycle traffic is generally bi-directional and thus quite light and easily crossed by pedestrians, where as 600 cars per lane on an urban grid would be constant and uncrossable until traffic lights halted the flow, and 600 cars per hour, requires 4km of kerb to park the cars, or an hour for them to filter through a double lane parking garage entrance, where as 600 bicycles largely vanish into the buildings and none of them are stored on a carriageway at all.

The reason ultimately that the number of cars entering the CBD hasn't risen over the last few years is simply that a 10% rise, would require several thousand more carparking spaces, and in order for several thousand more car parking spaces to not just cause a tremendous queue outside, there needs to be many, many entrances distributed over many streets - ie its just not something that the government can resume some sort of space and fix.

Some interesting observations Jason.  Most of us would be generally aware of the implications, but never put numbers/stats to the situations that you mentioned.  Thanks.

Illuminating as usual.

I think I read that there is quite a bit of unused private car parking under buildings though, and there was a move to coordinate that, no doubt via an app.

Meanwhile there is a discussion in the smh about Green Square  and lack of transport capacity to move the tens of  thousands of expected new inhabitants to work. The only solutions that seem to have any chance in the short to medium term are walking and cycling. Its 2 km to Redfern, <3 km to Central,  walkable, and 5 km to Wynyard, cycleable, so maybe that is affecting RMS thoughts. Once people did start to walk and cycle in large numbers there wouldnt be a need to duplicate rail lines and install many extra buses etc.

so maybe that is affecting RMS thoughts.

RMS thinks? There's a novel concept.

But seriously, has not RMS been stripped of planning powers, so the thinking should be being done in Planning dept, shouldn't it? Do cyclists have any input there?

That was the idea, and we got a glimpse of multimodal transport planning when Transport NSW released the city centre access strategy.

But it appears Gladys and Transport NSW have now surrendered their planning powers to Duncan Gay and RMS, and we are back to planning for cars, not for people.

I don't really understand what they plan to do with Liverpool St. Sure a contraflow bike lane going up it (west to east) would be great, but have a bike lane going down it from east to west AND INCLUDING pedestrian shared zone sounds like total madness. 

From what the SMH seems to indicate, the shared zone is between Kent and George Sts only – but I'm only guessing that …

RSS

© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service