I went and took photos after reading this. The bikeway is in 4 sections (north to south: Cross Rd - Delaine Ave, Delaine Ave - Angus Ave, Angus Ave - Raglan Ave, and Raglan Ave - Sixth Ave). Strangely, the concrete median strip is on only 2 of the 8 entance/exits:
The first is just south of Raglan. The photo is taken looking south. So it great riding south, less good riding north.
The second one is just south of Delaine Ave. This photo is also facing south. The kink is really awkward so when I am riding south, I ride on the RIGHT side of the median separator, which defeats the purpose of it. I am guessing that is the main one you were talking about. Maybe I should write to council to suggest they remove those two separators?
I agree with your point about the separators too (that if you miss an entrance, it is long way until you can join the bikeway). They do have a gap at least at every street which intersects Railway Terrace, but some of the gaps are pretty narrow.
On the bright side, by my count they have bypassed 13 intersections. So a cyclist riding from Cross Road to Sixth Avenue now has 3 intersections to cross, instead of 16. But I still wonder whether some of it could have been as a shared zone / sharrows, especially around Woodlands Park station where there is now less parking. I notice a lot of cyclists skip parts of the bikeway and just use the road.
Actually it bypasses 18 intersections. I forgot about the older section south of Sixth Ave. So now Marion Council has put a separated bikeway the entire length of Railway Tce (Cross Road to Daws Road), only crossing the 4 east-west roads which cross the train line.
And it's especially good to have the bikeway from Angus Ave to Raglan Ave, which is a long length of road which tempts some drivers to speed.
But a few parts could be improved, as I mention in my other posts.
Finally, there is this narrow nasty section near the Railway Tce / Castle Street roundabout. It's not obvious from this first photo, but the path goes around the pine tree in the middle of this photo and joins the older, wider path adjacent to Edwardstown Railway Station.
It's a sharp left turn, and in only a week using this path, I have already seen one cyclist lose control and almost fall. Now I think of it, why does the path not go to the left of the pine tree in the middle of the second photo?
Plus, that new section of path (in black on the first photo) is too narrow for a bicycle in each direction. There would be plenty of room if that fence was moved a little to the left (east), but either Council did not bother asking, or Adelaide Metro were too stubborn to move the fence, even though the train line is curving east at this point, so it would be safe to move the fence a metre or two east.
Looks once again like the designer has never ridden a bicycle on a commuter trail. What is it with councils and inexpert "experts"?
I agree , the new part of this "bikeway" looks like it has been designed and engineered by someone who never rides a bike . too narrow , too much concrete , bends too sharp . I wouldn't like to be riding it at night time .
Regarding the "too narrow" criticism... for the section that goes along Railway Terrace (as in my first two photos), they probably didn't have a lot of choice, because there was only a finite amount of road width to work with. (Though they could still improve the exits).
For the part around that roundabout (my 2nd pair of photos), there is a narrow pinch point between the fence and the roundabout, and they couldn't do much unless Adelaide Metro agreed to move that fence. But the rest of it could have been wider and designed better.
I rode thru there a few days ago and another thing I noticed was that the concrete edges are too high , be very careful of pedal strike !
The divider between the bicycle path and the road does have a slope though (a sort of "A" shaped cross section), so I think that would be hard to hit. Unless you mean the "median strips" on the entries/exits.
It has occurred to me that the exits are deliberately shaped to slow cyclists down as they rejoin traffic. I think that is reasonable; but I cannot think of any reason to deliberately slow cyclists down as they enter the bikeway. (Thankfully that is only once - just south of Delaine Ave - but it is one too many).
It also makes it impossible for people with disabilities riding tricycles to use the path.
I've just moved into this area this week, I'm shocked at how many pedestrians, and even some walking dogs, are using the bike lane in the section on Railway Tce - i.e. the section that is part of the road, marked as bikes only, quite narrow and (at least to my mind) clearly unsafe for pedestrian use. There is a perfectly good footpath on the other side of the road.
I assume pedestrians prefer the bicycle path for the same reasons we cyclists do: it's safer. No driveways to cross, and fewer roads to cross.
I am pretty tolerant of pedestrians, because they are vulnerable road users too. I've passed a few pedestrians on the bikeway over the last few weeks; and every single one has either been out of the way, or moved out of the way. So long as they keep doing that, I don't mind them.
I rode along there yesterday and had an interesting encounter. Had a lady on a gopher using the bikeway, so I rode on the road, planning to move back on as soon as I passed her. This was heading north between Woodlands park and Edwardstown stations. She stopped me to ask why I wasn't using the bikeway. I pointed out that she was on the bikeway and it would be a bit tight to pass her so thought I'd make it easy for both of us. She introduced herself as the "local busybody" and said that her and some other residents were using the bikeway as they were sick of people riding on the footpath. As it was all very cordial, I decided against pointing out the irony of what she was doing. Not much in it, but possibly just some useful info for the local BUG if they or the council are getting any backlash.
And Peter, I agree with your attitude. Even though they're not meant to be there, costs nothing to keep everyone safe. Any confrontation or pointing out they shouldn't be there is just likely to have a negative effect