Does anyone who lives in the Woodville/Cheltenham area want to be in next week's Messenger Press? On their bike of course (with or without kids)! Call Paul, 0414623511.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
I'd take Sam Powries advice before a Mayor. 30 street crossings is exposing people to way too many hazards.
I think heater had a good point that a path down the middle of the road will be used by what group of cyclists?
Commuters what to travel with a minimum of stops and good average speed lots of road crossings wont achieve this.
People who want to visit local businesses dont want to be stuck in the middle of the road were they can't get to the businesses.
It's a shame that we can't do both, and more! Personally, if we are pushing to have a bike path along the railway line from the Port to the City, why not make it a decent one? I know that it might not be economically feasible, but I would love to see the new electrified rail system running along Port Rd, and convert the current rail line into a reasonable width shared use path.
Much of the Port Rd and Old Port Rd medians are in line for some major works. If you travel along the Old Port rd section currently, you will see a lot of drainage infrastructure being installed. After this work has been completed, why not then put in some paths in the new landscaping that could be used by recreational cyclists? It used to work, and there used to be a number of cyclists using it some time ago.
Then we would have three cycling networks heading in the same sort of directions, being the old rail line, Port Rd Median, and Port Rd Bike Lanes! Wow, win win for all!! (Well, apart from the fact that it would all need to be financed by the tax payers!!)
I would suggest that anybody that volunteers is cautious as to what comments they may be encouraged to make in relation to Council decisions or whether Council/Mayor are pro cycling or anti-cycling. Refer attached scan of a recent Council resolution where the Council wanted amendments to the Port Road bicycle lane, without attempting any form of prior discussion or consultation wth its community.
It appears to me that the Council might be better served if it put some energy into consulting with the community, (including representive groups for cycling) and renewal of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield - Local Area Strategic Bicycle Plan 2008-2012.
Have a think about this Smudge, or even better, have a look at the Outer Harbour Greenway proposal (in the Government's Greenway policy) and benefit from others' thinking. There's absolutely no way a trainline could be built down the midle or Port Road. It would require the sort of money thrown around by BHP when it starts a new mine and would break all the same rules that a central reserve bike path would.
As for a 'reasonable width shared use path' - shared use does not (repeat, does not) work for high volume commuting bicycle users. That's why the planned Greenway is either on the existing railway boulevards or has a separate footpath (as planned for the Cheltenham section).
I can only suggest that you contact Jan Cornish or Philip Hewitt at CS Council for names and contact details of those residents involved with CS BUG.
Oh wait on - Google tells me that's you! If Messenger feel that they want someone other than you, how about one of the other BUG members? Bridgitte etc?
I am not the best person for a photo shoot when I want both cycle paths.
I understand that fast commuters want a fast route alongside of the railway line. As coordinator of Prospect BUG I have been lobbying for a few years for a greenway near Devonport Terrace. Also for Prospect Council to start by reopening to cyclists the one block of Devonport Terrace that they made 'no entry' to vehicles and cars. At the same time I staged a long campaign (eventually successful) to keep bicycle lanes and cycling space on Prospect Road. As a slow utility cyclist, I need to cycle Prospect Road if I am to patronise businesses and shops there. When I return from an evening meeting in the CBD, I would not cycle a Devonport Terrace greenway that would be dark and isolated. Not would I cycle it at 6pm in winter when dark. More than 50% of AC members are males, so might not readily think of safety concerns of a lone female cyclist.
I have not compared the number of crossovers on the Westside Bikeway with Port Road. Expect it could be similar per km. The Westside Bikeway suits lone female cyclists who prefer to be away from traffic during daylight hours. If speed is the ultimate, then select Anzac Highway. I often cycle Port Road where there is a bicycle lane (but watch out for opening doors, buses and other vehicles). I once cycled Port Road where no bicycle lane. Headed to a factory outlet to buy a mop head -- otherwise wait for shop to order it in at a higher price. So unpleasant with vehicles squeezing out this slower cyclist, I thought never again. Much worse than the CBD.
I understand that there are different types of cyclists with different needs. I ask AC members to also understand, and that different types of cycling facilities are required. By all means a greenway now, but how about better cycling facilities later for female utility cyclists.
I have absolutely no argument with the needs of 'female utility cyclists' at all. I'm just pointing out that there are very strong arguments to be made that a central reserve bikeway on Port Road ain't gonna meet those needs. Have a look maybe at what's been done on Semaphore Rd. with it's new off-road bike pathways. The shopping sectors of Port Road seem to have wide footpaths that may quite easily accommodate such 'shop front' facilities...
I think I'm also pointing out that you (and Mayor Johanson) can 'want' a central reserve bike path all you like. It'll never be built because those who really make the decisions - the hard headed engineers in DPTI - already know that it doesn't make sense. That's why I'm saying that we need to be as smart and strategic as we can be and not get sucked in. Mayor Johanson isn't really interested in bicycle use. He's just making noise for his own ends, whatever they may be!