Views: 1602

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Original draft plans showed a shared path section between Sussex and Dixon, to get onto/off  the Harbour St pedestrian overpass. Cyclists then crossed Liverpool  at Sussex. to a cycleway on north side of Liverpool. At Kent,  cyclists heading east were to  dismount  and store, before crossing Kent at a ped crossing and getting back on to  the Kent St cycleway or an extension around to George St.

Have they finished Kent St yet and connected it to George St? Or is that bit to be a shared path?

Firstly, it would be nice if all the talk about the planned Castlereagh St cycleway was in the same forum.  I've picked this forum to update info received as it appears to have the most recent relevant comments.

The Minister has replied to my complaints of 10 Feb 2015, via the Parliamentary Secretary for Roads, Ray Williams, dated 4 March 2015.

Quoting Williams -

"As you may be aware, part of Castlereagh Street, north of Liverpool Street, will trial part-time loading zones along the cycleway.  During the six-month trial, it will operate as a bi-directional cycleway, except at selected times when loading is permitted.  During these times, it will not be used as a cycleway."

and -

"Following the completion of the Castlereagh Street cycleway between Hay and Park streets, the College Street cycleway will be removed to help accommodate traffic diverting from George Street, while the CBD and South East Light rail is under construction".

The bolding above is mine.  I hope the above is of some use to readers.

Yes, that is just about word-for-word the "personal" response ("Dear Mr Alexander Neil") I received from Gladys. 

Suggests that rip-up day is some way off but that cyclists are being shafted because of improvements to public transport, even though Gladys always maintains that cycling is public transport. They clearly have no clue about cyclists' needs or efficient use of public money.

Anyway, if they take away road space from cars, cars will go away. It's the opposite corollary to building new roads which just attracts more traffic.

buses and trains are public transport and are for povvos

bicycles are for povvos

therefore bicycles are public transport, see?

I'm a little confused how any piece of infrastructure can be called a "cycleway" when it is part time and allows vehicles to park on it.

A non segregated bi-directional part time bike infrastructure manages to combine the very worst in cycle infrastructure in all the one package.

Seems utterly crazy.

Help me think this through:

Castlereigh is one way for motor transport, but a part-time bi-directional cycleway creates the risk that a casual cyclist, perhaps a previous user during cycleway hours, will enter from the contra-flow end during loading times and be confronted by delivery vans blocking the path, with the possible course of action being to veer around the van into oncoming traffic.

Is that right?

I'm sure people will muddle through in both directions at all times

I think there is only a limited number of people who would be prepared to throw themselves under trucks "for the cause".

Maybe other cyclists, if there are any not totally discouraged by this enlightened bit of LNP "planning" (#LNPFail, #PutLNPLast), will simply ride along the footpath, which will be convenient for everyone.

</sartalic>

Exactly, I would expect riders to dive on to the footpath. I wouldn't expect people to dive into oncoming traffic, although it would be worth considering this risk of catastrophic consequences and working out if the likelihood is remote, improbable or what.

Reciprocally, I'd expect vans in the part time not-a-real-cycleway during 'cycleway' hours.

If the 'paint only' option goes ahead, I hope one thing...

That CoS gets its Parking bombers out there and they show absolutely zero tolerance of vehicles blocking the 'cycle way'.

No mercy.

No mercy? In giveafairgo country?

are you mad?

no mercy is reserved for the victims and their families

Australia, a "fair go" country?

I doubt that has been the case since, at the latest, 1996.

(Though I sense sartalics in your post, PT.)

RSS

© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service