Upcoming cycling and pedestrian safety improvements for Hart St between the Jervois Bridge and Military Rd.

http://dpti.sa.gov.au/news?a=448761

Views: 180

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

PortBUG blog post here. If this redevelopment of Hart Street turns out as per the plans, it seems likely to become something of a benchmark for turning Adelaide's arterial roads into much more walkable and bike-friendly environments. A project worth keeping an eye on!

Sam.

So attached are a couple of pics that better illustrate what DPTI and Council are doing on Hart St between the Port CBD and Semaphore Beach.

The first is Hart Street as it is now, looking East from Military Rd towards the Port (60km/h, 4 traffic lanes, residential on the left, mostly school and sporting frontages on the right). 

The second is a rendering illustrating something of what is planned (50km/h, 2 traffic lanes, bike lanes both sides with one being protected, pedestrian refuges, greening etc).

Attachments:

The more I look at the detail of this, the more I dislike it.  Or at least, the more I realise that it could be done much better:

I appreciate that the westbound cycle lane is now protected by parking - this is as it should be, though it's important that correct parking is enforced, and that the lane is swept.

I don't really understand why the eastbound lane isn't protected by parking,  Sure there is a decent buffer against car dooring, but a lot of potential riders just don't want to ride that close to traffic.  It's still going to have a 50kmh limit, and that would rule out everyone else in my family.

The most serious issue is the westbound slip-road into Swan Terrace.  It only needs a large van parked in the last parking space before the junction, and some unfortunate timing for a fatality to happen.  A left turning motorist will have very little time to see a cyclist appearing from their left while they are concentrating on traffic from the right.  Ideally the slip-road should go, but alternately, the last few parking bays should be removed, and the cycle lane moved next to the main carriageway.

Of course the whole thing ends where it gets too hard - the oversize tangential (i.e. high speed) roundabout is retained.  This seriously limits the usefulness of the whole project, as the kind of potential riders who would benefit from protected lanes are the last to risk their lives on this type of roundabout.  This would have been the ideal place to trial a Dutch-style roundabout, with protected circumferential tracks, and much tighter geometry.

How it links into the existing infrastructure at the other end also seems to be an issue - it joins the painted lanes, but not the shared use pavement over the bridge (this in itself is a ridiculous duplication - do infrastructure once, and right).

Right turns on and off Hart Street also seem to have been ignored, unless you are diving a motor vehicle.  Only one side street does not have a dedicated right turn lane.  This removes the space needed for pedestrian or cycle refuges, making crossing the road on the desire line more difficult and dangerous (e.g. Robin Road, where it appears impossible to cycle from north to south at all).

To cap that, the arrangement on the westbound bus stops is less than ideal.  On a street with this much space, with relatively little traffic, something much better should be possible.

Overall, if this is the best that can be done when 2 lanes of traffic are being removed, then I can't see cycling going anywhere at all in SA in my lifetime.

Paul

p.s. IF you want to give feedback, it's here: https://infrastructure.sa.gov.au/road_projects/streets_for_people_h...

Note that it's only 1000 characters before you cut and paste a huge rant...

From the limited information I've had access to, the configuration of the bike lane on the northern side was determined by the many private residential driveways on that side. The southern side (where the protected bikeway is to be) is almost entirely school, park and sporting field frontages. 

With regard to Dutch-style roundabouts - one was indeed originally planned for the Carlisle St junction just to the west of the Jervois Bridge. Earlier this year Council told us that this had been abandoned due to limited budget - shame really as Carlisle St can be quite busy and this would have been a significant innovation! 

I too have concerns about the entry to the two-way separated bikeway over the J/Bridge. I think DPTI originally did the bike lanes over the bridge quite well, especially the southern one with its wide buffer (drivers on this curved bit of the bridge are often driving into the setting sun). However there should be a ramp on the northern side that allows road cyclists to ride directly onto the two-way separated S.U.P if they choose. I'm told that such a ramp was not installed at the end of the bridge path because designers didn't want cyclists or gopher users to bypass the dogleg entry/exit amp to the right and end up riding straight into oncoming motor traffic. But surely this could be circumvented by having a 'no exit' sign facing pathway users? Or by putting an entry ramp on the diagonal in the kerb alongside the bike lane rather than at the end of the pathway. 

The shared-use pathway over the bridge was I understand conceived of (if not actually designed by) RenewalSA as part of its Harbour Loop Pathway 'activation strategy' following the multiple debacles of Newport Keys and needless demolition of the historic slipways and boat sheds around the inner harbour. So it wasn't really designed as a part of the transport system and roadway - more as a S.U.P for people walking around the harbour edge! Or at least the mechanics of funding and development worked against it being 'in synch' with the redevelopment of Hart St several years later! But this seems to be the pattern doesn't it...

Please give your feedback if you feel the Swan Trc junction will be a problem. There's a small park on this corner opposite the school and I believe there's a push from residents and sporting clubs to convert this to off-street car parking for those using the adjacent hockey field and netball courts. If this goes ahead it may bear on the safety/slip lane issue you identify. 

Sam, PortBUG.

‘Or by putting an entry ramp on the diagonal in the kerb alongside the bike lane rather than at the end of the pathway.’

An example is from Port Rd to the shared path that skirts the North Adelaide parklands, just south of the intersection of Port Rd, Park Tce and Adam St. The diagonal path is perhaps 2 metres long. Adelaide BUG made the request to OC&W at DPTI.

Of course the driveways excuse is a massive cop-out.  Protected cycle-ways are ubiquitous in the Netherlands, and they have both drives and car parking.

I've already given feedback - hence my finding out about the 1000 character limit the hard way.

Paul

RSS

Support our Sponsors

© 2018   Created by Gus.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service