891 radio discussion on Port Road Cycle lanes today after 9:00am
There is to be a discussion about Port Road Cycle lanes today after 9:00am today on 891
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Glen Turner on -
Going into work late today, so I tried to call in but unfortunately by the time I'd gotten annoyed enough at the cluelessness to call the producer said "they're going out of that segment now".
There didn't seem to be much of a recognition that if the proposed cycling facility doesn't give Port-to-City times better than riding on the road, then commuters will simply use the road. This makes the design of the cross-roads vital, and there was little attention paid to that. There was some discussion of traffic calming but the essential issue -- do bikes have to stop 30 times in 15Km (ie, more times than riding on the road) -- didn't really get addressed. Let alone in the short of detail which will allow a listener to work out if the bikeway will succeed or fail.
Lots of old folk rang in and told stories of the bike lane that used to be there, with a lot fewer through-ways. I suppose that reflects 891's audience. I think maybe one commuter cyclist called in -- not a shock, since they are at work.
Mayor Johanson said the rail option is opposed by "the train drivers union". Apparently because we'll all fling ourselves in front of trains. He even went so far as to claim that more people would die on a path alongside the railway track than currently die on Port Rd. Which doesn't even pass the smell test. You'll gather the tone of the interview from the fact that he didn't get pulled up on that.
The Motor Traders Association (?) was keen on getting rid of the bike lanes, and thus support the cycling facility. Considering that their members used the public road as part of their display area until the bike lane came along, you can see where they are coming from. Their rep called the bike lane "effectively a clearway", which is an interesting view considering that I can see the day when Port Rd is a clearway end-to-end.
The overall tone was supportive of cycling. But they really didn't understand the difference between recreational facilities and commuter facilities. And Port-to-City is very much a commuter run -- few people are stopping to smell the flowers along the way. The vast majority of users just want to cycle at 30-40Km/h all the way to home or work.
One caller wanted the facility to be a recreational shared path. Which just misses the point entirely. A commuter cyclist at 40Km/h and a person walking their dog are not compatible traffic. It might work on the railway option, with its long sight-lines, but it's just asking for trouble along Port Rd.
Johanson closed by saying that this is a once-in-a-generation chance. Which might well be true. Which made the lack of understanding just making me want to cry.
Reflecting back on the interview there was no mention at all of the state government. This is almost purely an initiative of the Port Adelaide-Enfield Council and they are lobbying their friends at Charles Sturt and Adelaide. To my mind, that lack of state government interest is the real reason why the rail corridor option isn't getting off the starting blocks. Councils are much better friends to cycling than the state govt, and you've got to wonder if a second-best but likely-to-happen-this-lifetime Port Rd option isn't to be preferred in practice to a better-option but waiting-for-the-state-govt-to-see-the-light rail corridor option.
(Edit: fix spelling of mayor's name)
-
Permalink Reply by Dahondude on -
Thanks for the summary Glen. I didn't hear the story - is the proposed cycling route to run down the reserve in the middle of the road?
Either way, the situation bears strong similarities to many of the existing off-road cycling facilities in Adelaide which run parallel to roads eg the Mike Turtur Bikeway vs Anzac Hwy, the shared path along the beaches from Seacliff to Outer Harbour versus Military Rd, the Torrens Linear Path vs NE Road. As you point out these serve two different (and mostly mutually exclusive) groups of cyclists - off road paths suit commuters and weekend family riders happy to be riding somewhere free from traffic but not necessarily at speed. On road bike lanes suit roadies and fast-commuters who just want to get from A to B as quick as possible. Its clear from the discussion about the MTB versus Anzac Hwy that both types of infrastructure are needed, serve very different purposes and different styles of riders.
Unfortunately most road users don't appreciate the difference, nor do the people making decisions about cycling infrastructure (building off road bike paths may get more people riding bikes, but it wont necessarily reduce the number of cyclists choosing to ride on adjacent roads). Places like Port Road need to maintain a good on-road bike lane network, but clearly many people would not choose to ride on a road like this, so an off-road option (albeit with lots of inconvenient road crossings) would provide opportunities for slower and less confident riders to start riding (instead of driving). At the end of the day isn't this what we want new and improved cycling infrastructure for? To get more people out of cars and onto bikes.
-
Permalink Reply by heather on -
Dahondude, I agree that need more than one type of cycling facility for different types of cyclists. In an earlier discussion I said by all means lobby first for the commuter route along the rail line, but there is also a need for a median strip cycle lane. Similar to fast route on Anzac Highway and slower route on Westside Bikeway (where cyclists give way to vehicles on intersecting roads). I was howled down. Why don't some fast commuter cyclists recognise that there are other types of cyclists, including utility cyclists who want to access main roads with shops?
-
Permalink Reply by Savvas on
-
Heather,
I don't think it's at all accurate to say that you were 'howled down' in the previous discussion on AC. It was however pointed out that a central reserve bikeway on Port Road will not - repeat, will not - give you the safe and convenient street front access that you covet. If you want that, then what you need is a separated bike path along the margins of the wide footpaths available in the shopping precincts on Port Road. To better understand what I'm referring to ride down to Semaphore and take a look at what the Council has built there! Building just this off-road cycling facility has probably multiplied the presence of shopping bicycle users along Semaphore Rd by 4 or 5 times previous numbers!
Sam Powrie.
-
Permalink Reply by Darryl on
-
Well reported Glen. I agree with both of you to an extent. Commuters really need to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible, whether by bike or car or even by foot. As well as getting more people on bikes it is paramount to make cycling for those of us who already ride. A cycling lane or lanes in the middle of Port Road would be annoyingly inneficient, with bikes having to give way to the right turning traffic from Port Road to the other arterial roads as well as the traffic on those roads. We would probably need an extra set of lights, just for cyclists at the end of every traffic island which would create more traffic turmoil for everyone and not really helping cyclists or drivers. In my opinion the best place for bike lanes is between the parking lane & the rest of the traffic so that we are clearly visible and only really vulnerable to dooring ( which should be punishable by death )( kidding :) or better still remove parking lanes from arterial roads as they have in Perth so that motorists get a little bit of exercise and the main roads are clearer for ALL traffic to use.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike W on -
@ Darryl - or better still remove parking lanes from arterial roads as they have in Perth so that motorists get a little bit of exercise and the main roads are clearer for ALL traffic to use.
And as they have done in nearly every European city.
That would be the first real sign of a serious attempt to cater for cyclists. All we are seeing at the moment is lip service when compared to modern day effort displayed forward by planning cities.
We keep hearing about new bike lanes and all we get are white lines with cars parked on them.Every main road in Adelaide has vacant spaces on side streets and behind shops but all the cars are are parked in what they call bike lanes.
-
Permalink Reply by heather on
-
My first preference would be to remove on street car parking and use this space for bicycle lanes. I did not suggest this because I think it will be decades before an Australian Govt would support this, scared of the rabid driver vote.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Jorgensen on
-
-
I have just posted the comments immediately below at the ABC 'Morning' web site. I would encourage thinking bicycle users to offer their own comments there as well, if only to encourage a better standard of interview than that demonstrated this morning!
My comments:
"Unfortunately Mayor Gary Johanson is talking through his hat. In fact, it is of concern that the Mayor of Port Adelaide doesn't understand the Greenway proposal that is already documented in his Council's own bicycle strategy! The proposed City to Outer Harbour Greenway - part of the State Government's widely documented Greenway Plan for Adelaide - will at no point be on the railway reserve as Mayor Johanson infers! His statement that it will be and that rail unions would object sounds very much like an blatant attempt to spread misinformation about an extraordinarily valuable and visionary project. Mayor Johanson seems to be completely unaware that the Greenway will run along the 3 beautiful railway boulevards - Days, Buller and Belmore Terraces - and that plans are already being developed to link these 3 low traffic boulevards together with road crossings and bike paths to ensure a continuous bikeway from the City to Outer Harbour. In fact there is an extensive reserve already set aside within the new Cheltenham and St Clair housing development to accommodate this. Where has Gary been for the last 3 or 4 years while all of this has been planned?
A bikeway on Port Road's central reserve would face significant design and construction challenges, including:
- the isolation of the central reserve path from shop fronts and side roads, negating the economic benefits of ‘passing trade’ and connection to local bicycle networks
- major difficulties providing safe user access for both pedestrians and bicycle users, as well as for people with disabilities and those using mobility aids (as required by Australian Design Rules)
- significant infrastructure costs associated with provision of an entirely new lighting system and the 30-odd roadway treatments required (some needing light-controlled crossings)
- major inefficiencies (and low rates of bicycle use) associated with highly compromised continuity and inevitable 'stop-start' rates of progress
- the physical barriers inherent in hundreds of items of existing reserve infrastructure (car parks, sporting facilities, trees, utility lines, signage, tramways, pedestrian paths, fences etc).
A central reserve bike path would have significant negative impact on vehicle safety and movement, particularly in the commuter hours when turning vehicles and bikes would compete for ‘road space’ and right of way. It is very unlikely that engineers within DPTI would ever endorse a central reserve bike path (other than for local recreational purposes) for reasons of safety that should be obvious to any thinking person.
Any proposal for a central reserve bikeway the full length of Port Road would be a 'white elephant' before it was even built! While it is well known that various central reserve bike paths did exist on Port Road many decades ago, there are clearly very good reasons why they are no longer there today!
I'd encourage Mayor Johanson and anyone else who finds the proposal of a central reserve bikeway on Port Road to check out the State Governments Greenway Strategy in the '30 Year Plan for Adelaide' and have a good hard think about the much better Greenway alternatives available."To find the section on Greenways in the 30 Year Plan just Google 'Greenways 30 year plan'. I think it's chapter D4. The Labour Gov't also has a 'Greenways and Cycle Paths' Policy which is online. I attach a map copied from this policy.
Sam Powrie, Secretary, Port Adelaide Bicycle User Group.
- Attachments:
-
-
Some further thoughts...
I can't believe that Mayor Johanson actually has the interests of his community at heart. Remember a 'cyclist' is just a member of the community perched on a bike and pedaling. I'm not sure that the Mayor understands this. Speaking purely as a resident of Port Adelaide, I strongly suspect that he is just trying to be seen to be making the right noises in the interests of those traders along Port Road who find the Port Rad bike lanes a bit irksome. As the Mayor seemed to indicate towards the end of his interview, his real agenda is probably the removal of these bike lanes. Which is of course completely futile because neither DPTI nor the community would allow this. In fact, I understand that DPTI and it's transport department predecessors have not removed a single bike lane since they commenced installing them a couple of decades ago!
Some on this list have called for cycling facilities for ALL bicycle users. I'd strongly support this and this is exactly what the City to Outer Harbour Greenway proposal is all about. For those who think a central reserve bikeway on Port Road would give them safe and secure access to shops etc, I'd suggest you try a little experiment. Take your bike and go have a picnic in the middle of Port Road during shopping hours. And then sit on your bike and try and look into the windows of your favourite shops (across 20 metres and 3 lanes of traffic) and see if you can see something you'd like to buy. And then please come on this list and tell us how you fared. My tongue is of course firmly in my cheek! However if you really want to see a good attempt to foster 'passing trade' via increased bicycle use, go and look at what the Port Council's non-elected and highly dedicated staff have done at Semaphore. You'll find both on and off-road cycling facilities that facilitate a truly 'bike-friendly' shopping precinct (Eastwards from Military Road anyway). As far as I know there's nothing else quite like this in Australia! And it came about because local bicycle user and the planning staff on Council would not accept 'second best'. If you like using your bike AND you wants a City-to-Port 'secure route' AND you want better facilities on Port Road (for either fast commuting or local shopping) then for heaven's sake, do not accept second best. Bicycle use does not deserve compromises!
Sam Powrie,
Semaphore.
-
-
Some further thoughts...
I can't believe that Mayor Johanson actually has the interests of his community at heart. Remember a 'cyclist' is just a member of the community perched on a bike and pedaling. I'm not sure that the Mayor understands this. Speaking purely as a resident of Port Adelaide, I strongly suspect that he is just trying to be seen to be making the right noises in the interests of those traders along Port Road who find the Port Rad bike lanes a bit irksome. As the Mayor seemed to indicate towards the end of his interview, his real agenda is probably the removal of these bike lanes. Which is of course completely futile because neither DPTI nor the community would allow this. In fact, I understand that DPTI and it's transport department predecessors have not removed a single bike lane since they commenced installing them a couple of decades ago!
Some on this list have called for cycling facilities for ALL bicycle users. I'd strongly support this and this is exactly what the City to Outer Harbour Greenway proposal is all about. For those who think a central reserve bikeway on Port Road would give them safe and secure access to shops etc, I'd suggest you try a little experiment. Take your bike and go have a picnic in the middle of Port Road during shopping hours. And then sit on your bike and try and look into the windows of your favourite shops (across 20 metres and 3 lanes of traffic) and see if you can see something you'd like to buy. And then please come on this list and tell us how you fared. My tongue is of course firmly in my cheek! However if you really want to see a good attempt to foster 'passing trade' via increased bicycle use, go and look at what the Port Council's non-elected and highly dedicated staff have done at Semaphore. You'll find both on and off-road cycling facilities that facilitate a truly 'bike-friendly' shopping precinct (Eastwards from Military Road anyway). As far as I know there's nothing else quite like this in Australia! And it came about because local bicycle user and the planning staff on Council would not accept 'second best'. If you like using your bike AND you want a City-to-Port 'secure route' AND you want better facilities on Port Road (for either fast commuting or local shopping) then for heaven's sake, do not accept second best. Bicycle use does not deserve compromises, specially when offered with no thought for safety, efficiency of real benefit to the community!
For those interested in current Greenway activity see: http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/major_projects/greenways_project
To check out the Governments Greenway Policy or Greenways in the 30 Year Plan for Adelaide try Google - they're too big to post here in pdf form.
Sam Powrie, Semaphore.
-
Permalink Reply by Dario Gautama on -
I kinda lost here, so Port Rd will have dedicated bike line on the middle?
I thought that empty is for tram.
Can you guys give me summary of the project? Because I am cycling on port rd quite a lot.
© 2013 Created by Gus K.
