A response received from RACV about their veiwpoint on Princes Bridge and the removal of a motor vehicle lane for more tram space and a bike lane.
Thank you for your e-mail received 25 March 2013 regarding Melbourne City
Council’s proposed changes to the lanes on Princes Bridge. Your email has
been forwarded to me for a response.
RACV has been very active in supporting cycling in Victoria, including
sponsoring Ride2Work Day, Around the Bay in a Day, the Great Victorian Bike
Ride, and Part Way is OK for school children, as well as operating
Melbourne Bike Share under contract to the Victorian Government.
With respect to Princes Bridge, RACV believes that the existing bicycle
path is not well used because Council and other government authorities have
placed obstructions at either end, so there isn’t a smooth and direct
connection to the existing on-road bicycle lanes either side of the bridge.
No effort is being made to educate or encourage pedestrians to stay off the
bicycle path either. The obstructions include two Council information signs
erected in the middle of the path. It would seem sensible to actually
remove all the obstructions, provide better connections to the existing
path with improved ramps, and then to monitor its use before considering
other actions.
RACV has suggested an additional bridge if additional space is needed
across the Yarra. For example, this could be a pedestrian bridge across
the Yarra from the Eastern end of the Southgate building to Flinders Street
Station. This would be a more direct route than Princes Bridge, reducing
the volume of pedestrians across it. Another option is for a new parallel
bridge from near Hamer Hall to Flinders Street Station, as part of the
redevelopment of the station precinct.
Options like those described above need to be thoroughly investigated,
instead of removing traffic lanes at the expense of all other road users,
and exacerbating the existing congestion on St Kilda Road.
RACV remains supportive of projects like separated ‘Copenhagen’ style
bicycle lanes for the safety of cyclists. In fact, RACV has called for the
removal of on-street parking to create better, separated facilities for
cyclists on more roads, and for the creation of a transit mall for
pedestrians, cyclists and public transport at the southern end of Elizabeth
Street.
I hope that this further clarifies the RACV’s position on separated cycling
facilities.
Kind regards,
Dave Jones
I have forwarded a further point of view to Mr Jones.