Holdfast Bay Council reluctantly decided not to follow up the black spot funding for this route as the DPTI plans made the roundabout appear difficult for all to negotiate and traffic would have been reduced to one lane, meaning some waiting times at lights would have quadrupled. This may well have led to more accidents due to impatient drivers. Until this is sorted out please ride on the pavement between Gordon St and Adelphi Tce as there are not many pedestrians using the wide footpaths there. I am a cyclist so would have been happy to put the cycle path in if it had been suitable but it really looked as if it might cause more issues than it would solve. We needed to be sure it would work well for all road users before implementing it as it would have cost council a similar amount to reverse if our fears materialised.
Thanks for posting this update. I had heard that there was a DPTI proposal for this area and its junctions but hadn't registered a proposal for a new bikeway. Can you provide some context for your update please - maybe some links?
With regard to asking people to ride on the footpaths, are you representing official advice from the Council?Is there a link somewhere to an official council communication re this situation?
Was the roundabout proposal you refer to a 'Dutch-style' design with separated space for Active Transport users? I'm quite interested in the implementation of the Dutch-style roundabouts in Adelaide as I've been told that they're actually much more efficient (in terms of traffic flow) that light-controlled intersections...
Sorry I wasn’t being very precise. I meant a cycle lane not a proper segregated bikeway. There is a cycle lane on the rest of the Anzac Hwy now except in this area.
We discussed the proposal in the council meeting and thought cyclists could continue to ride along the footpath in this area (as it was indicated in the report that several already did this) if we didn’t go ahead with the cycle lane but there is no official policy (except that it is of course legal now to ride on footpaths, as long as pedestrians are treated considerately).
I am sorry but I don’t know what a Dutch-style design is for the roundabout. If you look at Holdfast Bay website and select Council and then Agendas, Reports, Minutes you can select the council agenda for 11th Sep 2018 and then go down to 14.3 which has all the details of the proposal. We were concerned that articulated buses might have trouble going round the narrower roundabout, that cars were meant to give way to cyclists on entry to the roundabout, that some trees would be removed and that queuing at the intersection would get up to 4x longer. We felt the plans could raise more issues. Have a look and let me know what you think of the proposal.
I'm sorry, I hadn't realised that you were a Councillor at Holdfast Bay.
I've read the agenda and minutes as you suggested. The information provided to Council seemed very extensive and thorough. If I've interpreted the plans correctly, the proposed roundabout design was indeed a 'Dutch-style' in that it seems to provide separated 'by-pass' facilities for bicycle users. There have been recent discussions of such roundabouts on Adelaide Cyclists and in a PortBUG blog post if you want a bit more insight into the design.
It seems to me that the discussion and analysis from Infraplan quite effectively deals with concerns about increased congestion, waiting times etc. It's disappointing that none of the information regarding the Council discussion and decision that you relate in your post seems to have been recorded in the minutes.
In my view this is a very retrograde decision on your Councils part, especially given the award of Black Spot funding! The whole point of continuous bike lanes and the separation inherent in the Dutch-style roundabout design is to provide Active Transport users (including but not exclusively bicycle users) with the security and access they require as legitimate road users. It seems to me that a few seconds of extra queuing at the roundabout for motor vehicles is a small price to pay for this safety and for encouraging increased bicycle use and safer walking and use of mobility devices etc! Infraplan make it quite clear that any delays would be absolutely minimal anyway.
The reality is that there is a high level of sporting cyclist traffic along this section of Anzac highway as well as utility bicycle use. It is obviously entirely unrealistic to expect that sports ('fast') cyclists will make use of the footpath for this 1km section of Anzac Highway as your report Councillors may have suggested. In the absence of a marked cycling lane and a secure roundabout, what will inevitably happen is that under very busy traffic conditions such cyclists will simply 'take the lane' when and where they feel it's in their interests to do so. Especially on entry, through and on exiting the roundabout! So passing on this redevelopment opportunity (and the Black Spot funding) will likely not help with traffic congestion at all and will perpetuate unwarranted risk to vulnerable road users. The logic appears inescapable!
Did Council consult or work with the Marion & Holdfast Bay Bicycle User Group at all in coming to this decision? I don't see them mentioned in the agenda notes - it would seem a doubly disappointing outcome if their input was not sought...
We are nearing re-election plus this is only me stating what happened in my opinion so I couldn’t speak as a councillor. One of the main issues was ‘the southern approach to the roundabout on Gordon Street is likely to see an increase in queuing from 20m to 152m at the PM peak and from 29m to 79m at the AM peak.’ We wanted more clarification on the impacts of this as we felt that traffic might use other routes and cause more issues elsewhere. It was decided to leave it to the new council to reconsider this and consider all the impacts with further traffic analysis but admittedly we would have to re-apply for the black spot funding.
i also confess that I didn’t know this roundabout model and it did not seem that secure for cyclists as a question in the workshop given on this subject prior to the council meeting led to the answer that cars would have to give way to cyclists on the roundabout and that sounds dangerous if the drivers are impatient because of the delay. None of this discussion is recorded in the minutes, only the decision so it can lead to misunderstanding of the motives of councillors for making that decision.The Messenger does not always give a full background in its reports either, as in this case, where it makes it sound as if we don’t care about cyclists. We certainly do but felt the extra queuing and change to a single lane could lead to other detrimental consequences in road usage, that needed exploration as they might have led to more accidents for cyclists or issues elsewhere. The workshop was given by a council staff member but he may not have been that familiar with the roundabout design. It would in hindsight have been better if the planners had given the workshop.
The normal procedure for these sort of changes is that council initially approves the change and then the community is consulted, then the council reviews the consultation and decides whether to give its final approval. So we didn’t get to the consultation stage.
Thanks Lynda for that explanation.
I'm encouraged in that it sounds as though the redevelopments may still be on the Councils longer-term agenda. I suspect that it might be a good idea to have a workshop with both the consultant planners and with DPTI experts on the new roundabout designs. There are already a few around the state and DPTI will have gathered some data on their operation. They seem (to me) to work very well in the videos I've seen of their operation.
Here's a good summary - the video is worth watching! Strictly speaking, what seems to be planned at Glenelg is not a Dutch roundabout. It does however provide a welcome 'separation' option.
The real Dutch roundabout design has quite continuous cycling infrastructure through the intersections as the video will demonstrate. Note that the Dutch changed their give way laws to make this possible. To my understanding this has not occurred in SA, so I do wonder if the information you were provided with - that 'cars would need to give way to cyclists' - was correct!
Thanks again, Sam.
Thank you for the info. I googled the roundabout and found a useful video showing one in operation - much clearer than just looking at the plans. I hope council will choose to install one in the near future. Re the road laws, that is an interesting point as I can’t see how it would work as well if cyclists had to give way to the usually much faster cars - it could lead to a queue of cyclists at intersections and clog up movement.
This begs the question, why are Councillors in Australia ignorant of international best practise design guidelines.
"Dutch-Like" when used to describe Australian/British infrastructure is usually nothing like what is considered best practise in the Crow manual.
They are available in English and there really is no excuse if the Council does not have a copy. https://www.crow.nl/english-summary
The most probable outcome is that most cyclists aren't going to use the footpath and there is going to continue to be conflict at this roundabout. (anyone who disagrees must actually measure to prove me wrong...)
In my experience it's a bit unfair to ask Councillors to independently be aware of international best practice. Yes - it's Councillors that make funding decisions rather than Council staff - but in doing so they mostly depend on said staff for both information and a recommendation in coming to a decision. In this case the decision was whether they should accept the DPTI funding bond (ie; funding agreement) which seems to have come with a fully developed DPTI design. I'm told that they depended (as Councillors often do) on an information workshop run by staff to outline the project and the design as well as a report from the consultants, InfraPlan. These workshops are not (I believe) compulsory so it's likely that not all Councillors attended.
But reading between the lines I'd suggest that the information provided to Councillors at their workshop (or the understanding they ended up with) may have been a bit unclear - apparently they were told that drivers would have to give way to cyclists crossing at the roundabout, something not AFAIK provided for in the road rules. They were certainly left concerned about increased traffic congestion when this was - to my reading - quite clearly dealt with in the consultant's report (available to read in the agenda at the Council web site).
My sense from Lynda's discussion above is that Council will return to the issue after the October elections. I agree with you that the great majority of bicycle users will avoid the suggested use of the footpath here, particularly as it is not designed as a bikeway provides no properly designed linkages to the roadway. Getting on with this much needed project is certainly an issue that the new Marion & Holdfast Bay BUG might like to take up!