Proposed cycleway for the Pacific Highway at North Sydney

[AndrewCowley]

This would be cool.

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act ... 6865720326" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It would help to connect the Narremburn cycleway with the Harbour Bridge.

[trailgumby]

Oh noes, the Daily Telegraph is horrified by the thought!

Their protests about the impact on motor traffic are a load of bunkum. You could take out a lane *in each direction* and notice no difference to flow rates for motor vehicles. Of course, the editor isn't going to let that trivial detail get in the way of a good cyclist beat-up.

The best thing about this plan is that it will really annoy Jilly Gibson.

Oh, and it will be great for cyclists as well.

[biker jk]

A good reason to write to the NRMA (I'm sure many cyclists are members) and voice disapproval of its head in the sand attitude to cycleways. The absolute drivel about solutions to road congestion that it gets away with turns my stomach.

[queequeg]

Yep, I ride the hwy in both directions most days, to and from my office in Nth Sydney.
There is a T3 lane that is basically not used because all the motor vehicles are single occupant!

the bigger issue is West St. too many nimby folks worried about losing their free on street parking. it has nothing to do with congestion at all, and everything to do with "oh no, I can't use public space to park my car"

[sankari]

$15 million. Why does it cost so much? Given that it's conversion of existing road space, I don't remember other cycleways having cost so much.

Also, there's no guarantee that the O'Farrell government will accept the removal of a lane of traffic. That's why the Bourke St missing link will be built as shared path. RMS refused to give any road space.

Link to council's plans.

[sankari]

Having skimmed through council's plans, it seems to imply that West St is wide enough to retain all on street parking. It also seems to imply RMS agrees to removal of a lane from the Pacific Hwy.

It wants the state government to foot 97% of the $15M bill. We shall see what happens I suppose...

[TTar]

This would be cool.

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act ... 6865720326" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It would help to connect the Narremburn cycleway with the Harbour Bridge.

Thanks for posting this, Andrew, but isn't it weird that it takes a typically tabloid trash piece for it to come to our attention?

The article itself is a loaded disgrace giving voice only to the NRMA as if their opinion is the only one that matters. It's this sort of thing that inflames the bigotry on the road putting at risk... sigh, you know the rest and an anti News Corp rant is not the purpose of this post.

My point is "we" shouldn't allow plans and issues like this to be commandeered by Murdoch for such tawdry uses. "We" should be out there, if not dominating, at least having our voice heard in cycling issues. Just think about this for a moment, here's a cycling issue and no cyclist or cycling org is heard from! The future of "our" facilities is being decided by the News Corp bunnies and the NRMA...

I don't know how to counter the imbalance, but timid discussions between ourselves here won't do it.

Sorry, ended up being ranty anyway, but I would be interested hear thoughts about how we can claim ownership of these issues. They are, after all, "our" issues.

[gorilla monsoon]

We riders seem to lack the balls and heart needed to get ourselves some decent representation. we pile copious loads of manure on Harold Scruby but you have to grudgingly admire the fact he gets a lot of attention for his non-issues. we have real issues and can't get a scrap of attention.
What does that say about us?

[wellington_street]

$15 million. Why does it cost so much? Given that it's conversion of existing road space, I don't remember other cycleways having cost so much.

Also, there's no guarantee that the O'Farrell government will accept the removal of a lane of traffic. That's why the Bourke St missing link will be built as shared path. RMS refused to give any road space.

Link to council's plans.

A large portion of the cost would be changes to traffic signals to accommodate a bi-directional cycleway on one side of the road. Things like kerbing, green paint etc also add up quickly over that distance.

[Nate]

Lets not forget that the Engineering road hand book (dont know the exact name - but its the Aus standard for road designs) explicitly states that traffic flows increase when you remove parking from the street.

Its going back a while but you jump from something like 800cars/hour up to 1200cars/hour when you remove street parking.
so um yeah, sorry for bringing up a fact... i'll get back to sacrificing infants for bikes lanes in a bit

[trailgumby]

We riders seem to lack the balls and heart needed to get ourselves some decent representation. we pile copious loads of manure on Harold Scruby but you have to grudgingly admire the fact he gets a lot of attention for his non-issues. we have real issues and can't get a scrap of attention.
What does that say about us?

I think some of that will change once the Australian Cyclists' Party starts getting active.

The reason they've been relatively quiet so far is they are busy doing the necessary groundwork before formulating their policy positions. Shooting from the hip will cost them credibility, so I applaud this approach.

Watch this space: -> https://australian-cyclists-party.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[sankari]

A large portion of the cost would be changes to traffic signals to accommodate a bi-directional cycleway on one side of the road. Things like kerbing, green paint etc also add up quickly over that distance.

The similar Bourke Street path cost $7M for 3.2 km, roughly $2.2M per km. The West St path is projected to cost $9.7M for 1.2 km, at $8M per km.

Someone's got some 'splaining to do.

[sankari]

Lets not forget that the Engineering road hand book (dont know the exact name - but its the Aus standard for road designs) explicitly states that traffic flows increase when you remove parking from the street.

Its going back a while but you jump from something like 800cars/hour up to 1200cars/hour when you remove street parking.
so um yeah, sorry for bringing up a fact... i'll get back to sacrificing infants for bikes lanes in a bit

Another interesting fact is that lower traffic flow is better. On street parking provides a self-assembling barrier that shields people from moving cars. Walking on the footpath becomes a lot more pleasant and pedestrian friendly. Often, it's used specifically for this purpose, rather than the small number of parking spaces it provides.

Of course, these points are all irrelevant, since parking will not be lost on West St under the council's plans.

[Xplora]

Never thought of parked cars providing a barrier against the wheeléd death machines. I do actually prefer it, now I think of it. While that is illuminating to consider, it is also shameful to think that we can't trust drivers to behave.

[Thrilloilogy]

the bigger issue is West St. too many nimby folks worried about losing their free on street parking. it has nothing to do with congestion at all, and everything to do with "oh no, I can't use public space to park my car"

And that is fair enough too given that they basically don't have off street parking on that street and many of the side streets. Labelling them "NIMBY" folks is ignoring their needs and putting yours above.

[queequeg]

the bigger issue is West St. too many nimby folks worried about losing their free on street parking. it has nothing to do with congestion at all, and everything to do with "oh no, I can't use public space to park my car"

And that is fair enough too given that they basically don't have off street parking on that street and many of the side streets. Labelling them "NIMBY" folks is ignoring their needs and putting yours above.

Why should the council provide free on-street parking to those who buy houses that don't have any off-street parking? It is not a right to be able to park your car on public property. West St is effectively blocked from having a Cycleway because it is lined on both sides by residents cars. In my view, a better design for West St would be to convert the full length of it to a paved 30km/h shared zone, retaining the parking but allowing cyclists to seamlessly use the road proper without fear of getting doored.

[biker jk]

the bigger issue is West St. too many nimby folks worried about losing their free on street parking. it has nothing to do with congestion at all, and everything to do with "oh no, I can't use public space to park my car"

And that is fair enough too given that they basically don't have off street parking on that street and many of the side streets. Labelling them "NIMBY" folks is ignoring their needs and putting yours above.

Why should the council provide free on-street parking to those who buy houses that don't have any off-street parking?

Yes that's a fair point. We have the same selfish complaints where I live over the car share schemes and there was whinging about the loss of parking for the Bourke St Cycleway. Motorists need to understand that public space is not for their exclusive use, especially when they are subsidised by the rest of the community.

[queequeg]

Why should the council provide free on-street parking to those who buy houses that don't have any off-street parking?

Yes that's a fair point. We have the same selfish complaints where I live over the car share schemes and there was whinging about the loss of parking for the Bourke St Cycleway. Motorists need to understand that public space is not for their exclusive use, especially when they are subsidised by the rest of the community.

Unrelated, but riding in to work today along West St, I was pleasantly surprised to see that they have resurfaced it from Falcon St all the way to the Pacific Hwy in nice smooth hotmix! Line markings not done yet, so it was interesting in the wet today with cars having little idea where to drive.

[Thrilloilogy]

the bigger issue is West St. too many nimby folks worried about losing their free on street parking. it has nothing to do with congestion at all, and everything to do with "oh no, I can't use public space to park my car"

And that is fair enough too given that they basically don't have off street parking on that street and many of the side streets. Labelling them "NIMBY" folks is ignoring their needs and putting yours above.

Why should the council provide free on-street parking to those who buy houses that don't have any off-street parking? It is not a right to be able to park your car on public property. West St is effectively blocked from having a Cycleway because it is lined on both sides by residents cars. In my view, a better design for West St would be to convert the full length of it to a paved 30km/h shared zone, retaining the parking but allowing cyclists to seamlessly use the road proper without fear of getting doored.

It is not free. Residents have to pay for a residents parking permit and the residents pay rates to North Sydney Council. Improvements can be made for cyclists, but not at the expense of rate paying and permit paying residents.

Your idea of a share zone has merits. Council should also instal right turn arrows at Ernest & Falcon St intersections on West St city bound to compensate for their caving in to the Holtermann St residents and installing a no right turn restriction. That would improve traffic flow and improve the area for cyclists, motorists and residents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[queequeg]

Why should the council provide free on-street parking to those who buy houses that don't have any off-street parking? It is not a right to be able to park your car on public property. West St is effectively blocked from having a Cycleway because it is lined on both sides by residents cars. In my view, a better design for West St would be to convert the full length of it to a paved 30km/h shared zone, retaining the parking but allowing cyclists to seamlessly use the road proper without fear of getting doored.

It is not free. Residents have to pay for a residents parking permit and the residents pay rates to North Sydney Council. Improvements can be made for cyclists, but not at the expense of rate paying and permit paying residents.

Your idea of a share zone has merits. Council should also instal right turn arrows at Ernest & Falcon St intersections on West St city bound to compensate for their caving in to the Holtermann St residents and installing a no right turn restriction. That would improve traffic flow and improve the area for cyclists, motorists and residents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I went and looked up the Residents Parking Scheme and found this FAQ.

The actual fees are pretty cheap, and Nth Syd Council bases the fees on the environmental impact of the vehicle, but even still the worst case for a 1 year permit is $111 a year for the first vehicle and $248 for the second vehicle, which equates to just over 30 cents a day/67 cents a day. The more typical fee would be the Low or Medium Impact cars at $43 and $58 per year respectively (for the first car).

However, whilst you might think this is to pay for the parking, the FAQ makes this statement

Why do I have to pay for my Resident Parking Permit?

A fee is charged to help recoup the cost of running the scheme. These fees only partly cover the cost of installing and maintaining the signs, and managing the scheme.

So, you are not paying for the parking, you are just partially offsetting the cost of running the residents parking scheme!

If you were to look at the typical cost of an actual parking space in terms of land value, it is not uncommon to see parking spaces sell for something like $50,000 (http://www.findacarpark.com.au/dsp_prop ... B857DD0C12), which is also presumably what it would add to the cost of a house that included off-street parking in council area. In that light, it is pretty generous at $111 per year. You would have to park your car on the street for 450 years to be worse off!

Council Rates do not include any rights to free parking. I'd be pretty annoyed as a rate payer if the council was spending public money providing parking for private vehicles instead of spending it on community resources like libraries, parks, playgrounds, bike paths etc.

I am not against residents parking schemes, but I do have to question people that move into areas where parking is limited and then expect the council to give it to them "because they're locals". I think either Waverley Council or Sydney City Council was toying with the idea of approving DA's for high density apartments that did not include off-street parking, and then to exclude anyone living in that development from applying for residential parking permits.


Anyway, to get back on topic, I have nothing against parking on the street, but West St is the main designated cycle route to the North from Nth Sydney. I would suggest that West St itself would be far more vibrant without both sides being lined by cars, for at least the section between Falcon St and the Pacific Hwy. There are some nice cafes along there that would be even better without the constant stream of high speed traffic (which mostly seems to be parents dropping off kids at the two nearby Girls Private Schools). I don't think a dedicated cycleway is going to work, but the traffic calmed shared zone with a 30km/h or 40km/h limit would really tidy it up and be a better amenity for both cyclists and locals, who can still have their parking but can now also enjoy a meal outside.

[sankari]

Some people seem to hate reading but love writing. Under council plans, no parking is to be lost on West St for the cycleway.

[AUbicycles]

ANOTHER one of Sydney’s busiest roads is set to be torn up to create an exclusive lane for cyclists.

Great start, and already sounds like it will be credible and unbiased quality reporting.

[queequeg]

Some people seem to hate reading but love writing. Under council plans, no parking is to be lost on West St for the cycleway.

That's not what it shows in Appendix F. There is some loss of parking, and some restrictions placed on currently unrestricted parking.

BTW The plan is only a draft concept for discussion, which is what we are doing.

I am not a fan of bidirectional cycleways that cross over driveways and intersections. The only time I have been hit by a car is on a bidirectional Cycleway when the driver only looked to their right when turning left out if their driveway, and t-boned me coming from their left.

The parking lanes are being reduced down to 2m width in order to fit 2 x 3m traffic lanes + the 2.4m Cycleway (should really be 3m). Cyclists in the northbound lane will be exposed to passengers opening doors and exiting vehicles onto the path, though at least any impact would probably slam the door shut onto the passenger. On the drivers side, car doors would now be opening directly into the traffic lane without any buffer.

Would I use the Cycleway? Probably not. It is not designed for the speeds that most cyclists along West St do, which is around 30km/h. The Cycleway is not suitable for the volume and mix of cyclists that use the route. For example, Easy Riders comes down West St (between Ernest & Falcon) and I have seen up to 50 riders. They would have to go single file (if it is even possible to join the path when turning right onto West St from mid-block) and you would have them stretched out for 100m. That is why I believe a better plan is a shared zone that retains the existing street alignments, but changes the treatment of the road lanes to keep the speed at 30km/h (or 40km/h if you want to keep it consistent with the other high pedestrian activity areas in nth Sydney).

[sankari]

Of course, I am well aware that 12 parking spaces are to be lost, all to allow dual traffic lanes at intersections. I highly doubt the loss of 12 spaces over the entire 1.2 km street are the cause of such heated discussions though.

I do take exception to your other point, about the cycleway not catering to fast cyclists. Cycleways are not designed for fast cyclists, nor should they ever be. Broadly speaking, there are two mindsets on this issue. Firstly, where bikes are always to be considered road vehicles, and every effort should be made to facilitate riding on roads. In contrast, other planners regard bikes as fundamentally different from motor vehicles, and should have their own infrastructure that caters to even the slowest of cyclists. The first can be regarded as the 'American' approach, while the second the 'European' approach. No prizes for knowing which approach has attracted a larger cross-section of society to cycling, and was ultimately far more successful.

For these reasons, I believe a 'shared zone' can never be considered superior to a dedicated cycleway, despite the faults you mention, none of which I dispute (though all of which are due to driver error). The cycleway targets those who are hesitant to cycle, not necessarily those who already do. You and the other fast cyclists are still entitled to ride on the now narrower West St, which should be calmer by virtue of its narrowness. If you want to cycle fast, use the road. Don't meddle with the planning of cycleways.

[queequeg]

The whole point of the West St proposal is to provide a link between the SHB through Nth Sydney to the Gore Hill Fwy. Same with the Cycleway proposed for the Pacific Hwy up to West St.
If the design does not cater for 90% of the existing users of the route, then why do it? Is the expectation there that the 90% will switch to the Cycleway or are they being told to stay on the road?
I already get abused on west st for "not using the cycle lane" (which doesn't exist), so I am sure the view of motorists will be that cyclists should be on the Cycleway and not on the road.

I am not meddling in Cycleway planning, just trying to point out what should be obvious to anyone who has ever ridden a bicycle between the Gore Hill path and the SHB.

The design of the cycleway appears on the surface to act as the primary link to the Gore Hill Fwy, and does not provide any entrances/exits to the cycleway from any side street on the opposite side of the road, other than the start at Amherst St (at the Northern End). It should be possible to join it from Ernest or Falcon without too much trouble, but Cyclists who would ride on these roads wouldn't be using the Cycleway anyway. Joining from mid-block you would need to make a right or left turn and try and find a gap in the concrete kerb to get through, which would be a driveway in most cases.

We'll see how it progresses.