There's a report going up to a Council committee on Tuesday presenting the options for Frome Street.  BISA has extracted the report from the agenda document and has put it on it's website.  (It's still about 6MB, but has pictures of the options.)

(I don't have much luck with links, but you can find a post about it on the bisa home page.)

The favoured option for the new bit, between Pirie and North Terrace, is for a "Copenhagen" style separated bike lane that's halfway between road height and footpath height, 2m wide. The kerb would be about 5cm high, so if cambered a bit you could ride quite close to it without striking your pedal.

The preferred option for the existing bit (south of Pirie) is to reduce the existing width from 2.7m to 2m, but this time still with the 10cm high kerbs, so would be effectively narrower. Probably not wide enough to overtake, so you'd be stuck behind slow cyclists.  The report tells council that the proposed design won't meet existing capacity standards for peak periods.

Probably better to stick to the road.

They also propose a shared use path for the new bit along Le Fevre Terrace.  I know the Lord Mayor already gets a lot of complaints from pedestrians and cyclists complaining about the other on shared use paths.  He's obviously a glutton for punishment, especially it is designed to be used by school kids accessing the new high school on Frome Road.

The good news is that the report is only for putting stuff out to consultation.  We've been told we'll be able to try the different options at a site in the parklands.

Does anyone know of any other council anywhere in the world that had put in and then taken out a separated bike lane twice?  I think that record of incompetence justifies the State government taking over, especially given it's the centre of the state we are talking about, and given that Council is going against the advice it has commissioned.

Views: 8553

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That's ok. We all want this to be done right! I am heartened that they actually listened to feedback from the community consultation. It did make a difference (supposedly)!

Yes. very good news. I wait with bated breath the Advertisers negative anti cycling and anti ACC spin on this:-/

My God I cant help myself. I read the comments under the Advertiser's article on this. I even replied once or twice. I have a sickness. I cant help it. The level of hurts.
Although in a lot of cases its not their fault. They've been conditioned by society to only think in terms of cars for transport and everything else by default becomes the enemy :( Also the thought that "if only there were more lanes we could drive everywhere at speed:ludicrous"  being a mirage is a difficult concept the break down for those already wedded to the idea.  

Nearly 2 years and several hundred thousand $$ later we seem to getting close to these conclusions:


Adelaide must be a very wealthy and very patient city to allow this kind of heel-dragging.

2.3m is still not enough to permit safe overtaking for all types of cycle users.

Eg. for a regular cyclist overtaking a recumbent bicycle that is 80cm wide

left kerb >40cm gap + 80cm recumbent bike + 40cm gap + 70cm overtaking bicycle + 40cm gap = 2.7m.

I wait with bated breath for the new combination bicycle path/passenger door fling zone to be built by ACC for the benefit of hurrying ratepayers.

There will not even be a bicycle path/passenger door fling zone.

As reported by the ABC Haese said the section between Carrington and Wakefield (just two blocks) is "largely a residential area and the residents need their car parking, and the cyclists need their segregated bikeway,"

However from Wakefield onwards "we're going to put two lanes of traffic in either direction during peak hour only, so that motorists can come into the city and clear the city easier during peak hours but will still be keeping our cyclists safe because they'll have a designated bike lane."

Note the deliberate use of language for two blocks "segregated bikeway" and for the rest "designated bike lane" i.e. paint on the road.

There is not intention to build safe separated cycling corridors. Under Haese the intention is to roll out designated bike lanes.

Paint being DIY for Council I don't think their intention to complete design work and tendering for construction points to your conclusion. It's just a loose use of words.

Haese is highly media trained so I'm a little dubious that it was just a loose use of words. Particularly when you consider that Design Treatment 1 is a "flush buffer with surface treatment", surface treatment being a euphemism for paint. 

Well it will be something to be outraged about if it indeed happens. Cyclegeddon on Frome FTW.

Don't trust Haese as far as you can kick him.  He is a mouthpiece for Theo Maras, of whom we know we can trust even less.  Anne Moron posted some BS about paint and poles that was installed in North America.  This whole thing is going to be a shambles, I can just see the trainwreck starting to unfold.

Ian Radbone, I'm not an optimist.  I'm a realist, especially when it comes to car drivers designing bicycle infrastructure.

Does that mean out of peak  hour when the 2 lane bit reverts to a 1 lane + parking the cyclists will be in the door zone on the passenger side of the parked cars ? 

The wonderful thing I find now on the Frome bike path is you can ratchet back a bit on the vigilance and relax.  If we are back to watching every car and car door for movement we might as well be on the road. 


Support our Sponsors

© 2019   Created by Gus.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service