... and that seems to be happening in a few spots in the City of Perth, eg the malls. Good outcome, easy to do, no costs.Sinner wrote:The "No Cycling" signs have now gone from the bridge and replaced with "Pedestrian Priority Zone". Hence you can legally cycle over the bridge.
Mount St Overpass
- CycleSnail
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:23 pm
- Location: Bassendean, WA
- Contact:
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby CycleSnail » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:39 pm
-
- Posts: 1791
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby wellington_street » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:13 pm
However, the nitpicker in me can't help but nitpick the selection of signs - "pedestrian priority zone" - presumably there's 'END Pedestrian Priority Zone" signs at each end where pedestrians no longer have priority? Even if there isn't, do pedestrians only have priority in these zones?
-
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 12:19 pm
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby Sinner » Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:44 pm
- rolandp
- Posts: 2316
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:47 am
- Location: Hillarys - Perth, WA
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby rolandp » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:27 am
The nitpicker in me asks - where are the shared path signs?wellington_street wrote:^ I concur.
However, the nitpicker in me can't help but nitpick the selection of signs - "pedestrian priority zone" - presumably there's 'END Pedestrian Priority Zone" signs at each end where pedestrians no longer have priority? Even if there isn't, do pedestrians only have priority in these zones?
Without this, we legally are not allowed to ride here. What is currently installed are (which already have been vandalised):
Budgeted costs for these signs (which aren't legal) - $14,000 - City of Perth's Bike Plan implementation documentation
And in relation to Halo on the Mount, they recently changed their FaceBook picture to:
When the reality is:
with zero gap between the PSP and the new building.
I'm still waiting for confirmation from City of Perth in relation to line of sight, and if they approved the building being located next to the PSP significantly reducing our line of sight - it was only asked back in August 2013 and followed up three times now. Anyone have formal line of sight requirements for PSP's?
- CycleSnail
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:23 pm
- Location: Bassendean, WA
- Contact:
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby CycleSnail » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:37 am
I think there is something in the Austroads index, but I dont have the details at hand.rolandp wrote: Anyone have formal line of sight requirements for PSP's?
-
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 12:19 pm
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby Sinner » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:08 pm
SSDs for cyclists are given in Table 3.1
Design Speed Preferred Minimum Stopping Sight Distance
30 kph 30 m
10 kph 10 m
Table 3.1 – SSD for Off-Carriageway Cycle Routes
From UK DMRB TA 90/05, The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes
Gives an idea......
- rolandp
- Posts: 2316
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:47 am
- Location: Hillarys - Perth, WA
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby rolandp » Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:54 am
The line of sight I can vouch for at this location is VERY small, and appreciated the person in front using slow down hand signals, as well as others in the opposite direction.
Shame workers didn't install early warning signs. Still waiting a response from MRWA indicating if they had given permission for this work to occur on the PSP, and if not, how will this be addressed.
-
- Posts: 1791
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby wellington_street » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:15 am
-
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:21 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
- Contact:
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby eldavo » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:31 am
It will always be a terrible spot with the steep step down in the descent that can instantly add 10kph speed. Hence the need for best practice and preparation with MRWA knowing this, not sub-standard knee jerk reactions.
If something fatal happens and a Coroner were to review it, the bleeding obvious negligence should be criminal.
- rolandp
- Posts: 2316
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:47 am
- Location: Hillarys - Perth, WA
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby rolandp » Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:15 am
Something like this:eldavo wrote:My first thought was perhaps after the long weekend shenanigans someone has pulled it down and/or strong winds etc. Someone gets to work by 7am and told to fix it (peak hour commuting on the path).
Taken this evening on the way home, reported to MainRoads as I didn't get a response to my Online Report an Issue raised yesterday, and wanted to show what the shade cloth looked like now.
So, if it was long weekend shenanigans, and it has happened again today, then they should be looking at increasing their security, or using alternatives to shade cloth.
I also included an image of the same location from 12 months ago, where the line of sight is all the way up to Mount St Bridge:
-
- Posts: 845
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:12 am
- Location: Perth, WA
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby Rex » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:24 am
- rolandp
- Posts: 2316
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:47 am
- Location: Hillarys - Perth, WA
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby rolandp » Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:49 pm
We also spoke about the line-of-sight, and he indicated that he was building according to the approved plans. I asked if I could get see a copy (no), or get a copy (yes - but would have to apply/pay a fee/etc from some government department - not an option at this time for me, but will follow up if required).
So, verbally the building is being built to approved plans.
Did a search last night to see if there was an online access to the approved plans, and came back with the City of Perth's Design Advisory Committee - Jan 2011 approval. Scroll to page 7/8 and it specifies:
Setbacks
Side east - Basement-Ground - Proposed Nil (Car Park) - Required/Permitted - 3m
Side east - Levels 1-5 - Proposed 1.5m - Required/Permitted - 3m
There is also reference to previous approval also back on 13 December 2005 which I couldn't get to due to 502 Bad Gateway error message, but will be interested to see what was approved at that time.
So, the Committee (and assumable the Council as currently historical council meeting minutes are off-line with 502 Bad Gateway error message) approved the reduction of the east side setbacks from 3m to be 0 for the ground floor and 1.5m for the remaining floors.
There is no mention of line-of-sight on the PSP being reduced as a result of this decision.
The definition of 'ground floor' can also be questioned, as the 'ground floor' may be 'ground floor' on Mount St, but the 'ground floor' at the south end of the property and next to the PSP is several meters above the ground, which can be seen in the photos where the 'ground floor' sticks up and over the PSP fencing.
There is a set back from that ground floor (as shown in the previously posted photo), but is it 1.5m?
I'm going to write to the next City of Perth Council meeting as my previous attempts to get information from Perth Council staff in relation to line-of-sight have not provided the information required (ie has the line-of-sight reduced below recognised standards and if so, how will it be restored).
- rolandp
- Posts: 2316
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:47 am
- Location: Hillarys - Perth, WA
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby rolandp » Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:46 am
- CycleSnail
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:23 pm
- Location: Bassendean, WA
- Contact:
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby CycleSnail » Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:05 am
you can wear your budgie smugglers, like on "that" bikeride last year ....rolandp wrote:Questions forwarded to CoP for tomorrows (18-Feb) meeting. Meeting is at 6pm, am I allowed to wear cycling gear to these meetings?
- rolandp
- Posts: 2316
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:47 am
- Location: Hillarys - Perth, WA
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby rolandp » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:19 am
The questions were:
On 27th January 2011, the Design Advisory Committee recommended changes to setbacks of 31 – 35 (Lot 801) Mount Street, West Perth be submitted for approval to the Council, with setbacks of 0 meters, even though the required/permitted setback is 3 meters, for the Side (East) Basement-Ground. This recommendation was approved by the Council on 22nd February 2011. Now that construction has commenced at this location, sight lines have significantly been reduced as shown in the below pictures taken in January 2013 compared to January 2014.
Included two images taken from Jan-2013 and Jan-2014 showing the sight lines then and now
Q1 Could the Council indicate if sight lines have been reduced on the principle shared path at this location as a result of not applying the required/permitted setback of 3 meters?
Q2 How will the Council re-implement the sight lines to allow for safe travel again on the principle shared path at this location?
In February 2013, the principle shared path at this location was partially closed due to the collapse of a large section of the principle shared path:
Included image showing the collapse of the section of the PSP
The principle shared path at this location still has several large cracks today:
Included image showing the cracks at this location
Q3 Would the damage to the principle shared path at this location have occurred if the Council had not approved the reduction in setbacks from a required/permitted setback of 3 meters and approved this to be 0 meters?
Q4 Who is responsible for the permanent fixing of the principle shared path at this location to remove these cracks, and when will this occur?
Advertising material for this development shows a green wall being built alongside the principle shared path:
Q5 Has the Council approved this green wall?
Q6 Given that there is 0 meters setback from the principle shared path which the Council approved on 22nd February 2011 even though the required/permitted setback is 3 meters, and development has now occurred to that 0 meters setback, how will this green wall be built unless the principle shared path is relocated to accommodate the green wall?
Q7 Could the Council confirm exactly where this green wall is being built?
Q8 Could the Council indicate if this green wall will also impact on sight lines at this location?
-
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:21 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
- Contact:
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby eldavo » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:37 am
http://www.haloonmount.com/wp-content/u ... R-2800.jpg
- rolandp
- Posts: 2316
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:47 am
- Location: Hillarys - Perth, WA
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby rolandp » Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:28 am
Interesting article on the architect for Halo on the Mount - titled Pushing Boundaries. They certainly did in this case, right up against the PSP.
As a side note, I was overtaken by a electric scooter late last week. There were a couple in front of me, which I sat back as I didn't think I would be able to pass them safely. Instead, the electric scooter overtakes me, and the couple, at this location.
- rolandp
- Posts: 2316
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:47 am
- Location: Hillarys - Perth, WA
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby rolandp » Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:48 am
Question 1: On 27th January 2011, the Design Advisory Committee recommended changes to setbacks of 31 – 35 (Lot 801) Mount Street, West Perth be submitted for approval to the Council, with setbacks of 0 meters, even though the required/permitted setback is 3 meters, for the Side (East) Basement-Ground. This recommendation was approved by the Council on 22nd February 2011. Now that construction has commenced at this location, sight lines have significantly been reduced.
Could the Council indicate if sight lines have been reduced on the principle shared path at this location as a result of not applying the required/permitted setback of 3 meters?
Response The photograph supplied indicates that distant objects may be partially obscured from view at the location, however the predominant visual barrier at the location is temporary during construction, having been erected to protect the public from materials spilling from the construction site and will be required to remain in place until construction of the building’s exterior is completed. Lower bicycle speeds and heightened rider vigilance are required in this location as the path is steep and shared with pedestrians.
Question 2: How will the Council re-implement the sight lines to allow for safe travel again on the principle shared path at this location?
Response The construction fencing will be removed at the completion of the development, increasing sight lines.
Question 3: In February 2013, the principle shared path at this location was partially closed due to the collapse of a large section of the principle shared path, The principle shared path at this location still has several large cracks today:
Would the damage to the principle shared path at this location have occurred if the Council had not approved the reduction in setbacks from a required/permitted setback of 3 meters and approved this to be 0 meters?
Response As the described event is hypothetical, there can be no definitive (or correct) answer to the question.
Question 4: Who is responsible for the permanent fixing of the principle shared path at this location to remove these cracks, and when will this occur?
Response At the Council meeting held on 18 February 2014 the Chief Executive Officer advised that in relation to the cracking and safety issues an inspection would be carried out the next morning following the meeting date.
The PSP is located within the Freeway reserve and falls under the control and responsibility of Main Roads WA. A Works Bond has been paid to the City by the Builder to cover the repair of any damage to roads within the City’s care and control (Mount Street). If there was evidence provided that the cracks in the PSP were the result of the construction activity on the adjoining site then it might be possible to negotiate for the Builder to undertake the repairs or to use the bond money to cover the works. Otherwise it is MRWA’s responsibility to repair the path if required.
Question 5: Advertising material for this development shows a green wall being built alongside the principle shared path, Has the Council approved this green wall?
Response It is noted that the lower car parking levels have been approved with a nil side setback while the upper residential levels are setback 1.5m from the side (cycle path) boundary.
An extensive green landscaping treatment was approved for the eastern and southern boundary walls. The ‘green wall’ has been designed to step down toward the cycleway in narrow terraces and will be wholly contained within the boundaries of the development site. Therefore there will be no need to relocate the cycle path in order to construct the wall or to install and maintain the plants.
Question 6: Given that there is 0 meters setback from the principle shared path which the Council approved on 22nd February 2011 even though the required/permitted setback is 3 meters, and development has now occurred to that 0 meters setback, how will this green wall be built unless the principle shared path is relocated to accommodate the green wall?
Response The entire development will occur within privately owned property (refer to previous response for further information regarding the ‘green wall’ construction).
Question 7: Could the Council confirm exactly where this green wall is being built?
Response (Refer to response for questions 5 and 6 for further information regarding the ‘green wall’ construction).
Question 8: Could the Council indicate if this green wall will also impact on sight lines at this location?
Response (Refer to responses for questions 1 and 6) The owners of the development will be required to maintain the landscaping so that it does not obstruct the PSP.
-
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:13 pm
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby WarbyD » Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:39 pm
-
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:21 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
- Contact:
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby eldavo » Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:05 pm
Thanks to Roland (as part of BTA?) for chasing it up.
- rolandp
- Posts: 2316
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:47 am
- Location: Hillarys - Perth, WA
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby rolandp » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:41 pm
Photo previously posted on 29-Jan-2014:WarbyD wrote:i haven't ridden this way for a bit, and it's not entirely clear from the photos above... But I'm SURE there are walls built hard up against the PSP aren't there? I think council are delusional (or being lied to) if they believe the setback is being maintained and that line of sight obstructions are only temporary....
This one taken late last week:
Should we have a poll if individuals think that this a solid piece of concrete build 0m away from the PSP? And if this will reduce the line of sight at this location as a result?
- rolandp
- Posts: 2316
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:47 am
- Location: Hillarys - Perth, WA
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby rolandp » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:52 am
Hopefully reported to Main Roads this evening, but their website is playing up.
Pole looked like it was still attached to the ground, so I didn't try to move it (and if I did try may have been too heavy).
-
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:08 am
- Location: Perth
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby Marmoset » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:11 pm
I no longer overtake anyone going up there, the idea of a 40Km/h combined speed impact doesn't appeal to me enough to risk getting to work a minute earlier.
-
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:13 pm
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby WarbyD » Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:17 pm
-
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:21 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
- Contact:
Re: Mount St Overpass
Postby eldavo » Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:31 pm
Only problem was they had cut shrubs and left the prunings on the path in front of parliament, he jumped on the brakes to take evidence, testing I put money where mouth is and used my safety distance to avoid him
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.