Another slap in the face for Brisbane cyclists

[MountGower]

Plans for the Gateway Bridge cycle path have been released and are on display at Toombul Shopping Town and the Nundah Library.

I simply can't believe what I see HERE. Another shared pile of crap. I've seen wider hallways. Imagine the carnage when some ipod wearing cattle decide to start swerving around all over the place. What on earth are they thinking? Does anyone understand what the objective is in all of this. People are not going to start cycling to work until they can do so in good time and that does not mean weaving your way through the ipod moron jungle. If this was propperly planned, cyclists could be flying along for literally many kilometers. Istaead we get this pile of crap.

What a joke. The Queensland government aught to hang their heads in shame.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

"A 4.5 metre wide pedestrian and cycleway will be constructed on the eastern side of the second bridge, featuring viewing platforms and seating for rest stops."

4.5 m isn't wide enough? The viewing platforms and seating is additional to the 4.5 m. How wide do you think it should be?

[MountGower]

Wide enough to avoid high speed collision.

Does anyone understand what the objective is in all of this. People are not going to start cycling to work until they can do so in good time and that does not mean weaving your way through the ipod moron jungle.

[Wazza]

Interesting dimensions for the new Gateway as they mirror the new Houghton Hwy upgrade.

"A 4.5 metre wide pedestrian and cycleway will be constructed on the eastern side of the second bridge, featuring viewing platforms and seating for rest stops."

Although there are subtle differences like

A new 4.5 m wide shared pedestrian and cycle facility will be combined with the new bridge and will form a key link in the Moreton Bay Cycleway.

So if there is trouble brewing on the new Gateway imagine the carnage waiting to happen on the new Houghton Hwy.

Waz

[Max]

MountGower, you obviously don't understand the purpose of this bridge. It's not to facilitate the conveyance of riders and pedestrians from point A to point B. It's to:

experience panoramic views previously only available to motorists.

Yes folks, the Gateway Tourist Bridge will be open for business soon! Maybe we should sell tickets at each end. If they're smart, they'll install those 20c telescopes that give you a one minute view off into the distance. You know, like that big tower in Sydney. People will line up just to use one. The popularity of the telescopes alone will bring in the big bucks.

/sarcasm


Max

[beauyboy]

I partly agree in this piece of inferstructure there path is not ideal. 4.5 metres sounds wide but generally the wider you make the path the more the cattle spread out. The Normanby cycle link is 4 metres wide and it is not comfortable at times with it being shared. The path over the New Gateway should be segregated and wider, 3.5-4 meters for cyclists and 2 meters for pedestrians. That said I can understand the reasoning for the shared path. The likely hood of pedestrians being on this bridge is a bit low. Yes they will visit but I don't think pedestrians will be using the viewing platforms as much as cyclists will be. I can see there being accidents but if there is a speed limit slapped on this Bikeway I will be spitting chips.
I think we should be more worried about how this Bridge is going to link into the network. We need this linked up and linked up well. That is where there is going to be the most conflict between cyclist and pedestrians.

Donald

[Aushiker]

G'day

Just a thought, but it might be an idea to put in some constructive submissions. No? Details here

Regards
Andrew

[MountGower]

It would seem that the time for submissions is over and calls for them is a thin veil over the fact that they will be in vain. I know I am very negative about the way things are up here but our city is a town planning abomination and it's hard not to feel agrieved when we here talk, talk and more talk from politicians and get nothing from them. I am not a dog and I do not want a frigging bone.

[beauyboy]

Well I am not a happy chappy. Talk about a substandard bikeway. The only part of the hole project is the interchange where Nudgee Rd crosses over the Kedron Brook/Boondal Wetlands Bikeway there. There should of been a link built up to that road at conception years ago.

I will be having my winge about how it does not meet there High quality tag.

Donald

[Aushiker]

It would seem that the time for submissions is over and calls for them is a thin veil over the fact that they will be in vain. I know I am very negative about the way things are up here but our city is a town planning abomination and it's hard not to feel agrieved when we here talk, talk and more talk from politicians and get nothing from them.

You maybe right, and letting of steam here is probably not a bad thing, BUT, you can't change things unless you engage in the process constructively and here in lies the problem. Not enough people (cyclists etc) actually do that. If there where 100s or 1000s of submissions from cyclists for example I suspect you might be a lot happier.

I know it is easier to let off here than put in a submission but the submission has more chance of getting the actual outcome you desire.

Regards
Andrew

[MountGower]

Our so called bicycle advocate was involved in the process. Not being on the front line of negotiations, it's impossible for me to say they put up a weak fight or were talking to themselves the whole time, but I can't see an individual or group being taken any more seriously.

The problem lies in the lack of identification regarding what is required. The government seems intent on telling us over and over how we need to start cycling, but the priority in practice is expanding roads and trying to force cyclists on to half arsed shared path.

I want express travel, not a recreational network.

[beauyboy]

Same here. What annoys me is they say "but a recreational riders will mostly be using this route" but a recreational rider can do recreational speeds on a high quality route, a commuter can not do commute speeds on a recreational route.
So What if BQ has been consulted for the route who cares. While there imput is valid if we stand behind the idea of BQ doing all the work for us Nothing will happen. We need BQ for these things but we also need to get off our own asses and complain.
If we get off ous asses often enought things do get done. Look at the Normanby Cycle Link, that was not to have the southern access to Collage Rd but we complained and it got added back onto the project. Thank God it di as half the people using the link exit there.

Come on Mount put your Two Cents in where you can say you tried?

Donald

[aet4016]

I received the following from the builders of the new Gateway Bridge (my emphasis):

"Cyclists will be separated from pedestrians on the shared user path with a painted dividing line, bicycle / pedestrian symbols and signage. Cyclists will travel on the western side of the path, while pedestrians will be closest to the view and the four viewing platforms on the eastern side of the path. There will be a signed suggested speed limit of 10km per hour for cyclists.

The 4.25m wide shared pedestrian and cycle path on the second Gateway Bridge has been designed in consultation with a Pedestrian / Cycle / Accessibility Special Interest Group. The group has been in operation since early 2007, and its members include representatives from Brisbane City Council Active Transport, Bicycle Queensland, Cycle Australia, Spinal Injuries Association, Queensland Blind Association, EastBug, Vision Australia, Queensland Transport, Department of Main Roads, Queensland Motorways and the Leighton Abigroup Joint Venture. Meetings have taken place at least every quarter, with comment, feedback and open discussion taking place throughout the design phase of the path."

I replied to the effect that it is unreasonable and a recipe for accidents.

Andrew

[Aushiker]

I received the following from the builders of the new Gateway Bridge (my emphasis):

"Cyclists will be separated from pedestrians on the shared user path with a painted dividing line, bicycle / pedestrian symbols and signage.

We have a shared path along these lines south of river. My experience it works pretty well. Not perfect but then neither are the physical divided bike/pedestrian lanes we have in Subiaco. Nothing is perfect but it sounds like an attempt to be reasonable IMO.

Andrew

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Wide enough to avoid high speed collision.

Do you have a number to go with that?

[MountGower]

What is needed is huge fines for cattle in the bike lane. A prime example of this is the bad will bridge from South Brisbane to Gardens Point. Great loads of illiterates, who can't even read pictures wandering everywhere and moaning no end when they cause problems for everyone else.

These deterents require a government with the guts to put true solutions ahead of the vote, which we will never have.

[MountGower]

Wide enough to avoid high speed collision.

Do you have a number to go with that?

*big, big yawn*

[Aushiker]

What is needed is huge fines for cattle in the bike lane.

and vice versa. Cyclists don't have a monopoly on brains by any means!

Andrew

[MountGower]

Monopoly?

.....and your right. There are some shocking things going on out there. I often wonder when we will here of a cyclist being bashed or run down because of the actions of another.
Edit: I think you took the question out of your post before I answered it. I'm not sure monopoly is right anywway.

[Aushiker]

Monopoly?

Thanks. That is the word I was looking for ... I tried a few variations

Andrew

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Wide enough to avoid high speed collision.

Do you have a number to go with that?

*big, big yawn*

I am not being obnoxious, just asking a question. If 4.5 m is not wide enough in your opinion, what is?

[Aushiker]

I am not being obnoxious, just asking a question. If 4.5 m is not wide enough in your opinion, what is?

Get the feeling your reputation precedes you?

Andrew

[MountGower]

Perhaps there is some bagage being carried from other threads and if I have misunderstood the intention of the question the I am sorry about that. My main problem is with the absence of segregation between the cattle and the cyclists. Knowing that this is unlikely I probably defaulted to the idea of a wider path. How wide? Who knows. How stupid? How illiterate? It's obvious that a great number of people on the bad will bridge can't read pictures, let alone words.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

i don't think there will be the same problems on the Gateway as on the Goodwill Bridge. Pedestrians will be much less common and will tend to stay closer to the 'viewing side' (outside edge). The Goodwill Bridge makes a nice short pedestrian loop with the Victoria Bridge (attracting lots of walkers/ joggers/ tourists) and has nice views from both sides. Peds naturally want to check out the views on both sides of a bridge, if available, so they weave about or drift down the middle. The Gateway basically has single-sided views for us.

I haven't had too many bike/ped problems with similar UK bridges (Avonmouth, Humber, Severn, etc).

[mikesbytes]

My experience with pathways that are segregated with a painted line, is that the pedestrians will be evenly spread between their portion and the cycling portion.

This new gateway bridge, is it going to be an up and down one like the one near the airport? If so there will be some significant speeds on the downhill side.