Sung to the tune of ‘Look what they’ve done to my song, ma’.

Please help to stop this ‘upgrade’ which is happening now.

Approved by the State Government so a road near you may be next.


On Ride to Work Day a cyclist was killed on freight route Port Expressway.

Will 'upgraded' Churchill Road be the next freight route where a cyclist dies?


A Prospect Council document states that motorists are afraid to park on the street, due to heavy vehicles and speeding traffic. Hence extended footpaths and indented parking bays. But why should cyclists then be expected to cycle closer to heavy vehicles and speeding traffic? Aren't cyclists people also? Why is property of parked cars given higher priority than cyclists' lives?


Look at the photos and tell me if you agree with a Prospect Council document that it will be safer for cyclists. These five photos were taken by Kristina Barnett on Wednesday 22-Sep-2010 around 9.30am. The location is Churchill Road, at an offset intersection with bikedirect route Myrtle Street to the east (before) and bikedirect route Belford Avenue to the west (after).


The photos show Churchill Road in the process of being ‘upgraded’, in keeping with the Prospect Masterplans of Prospect Council, and approved by the Department of Transport Energy & Environment (DTEI) and the Department of Planning. This arterial road is within six kilometres of the Adelaide CBD, is a busy commuter route and a freight route, and is under the control of the State Government of South Australia.


Do you agree with Prospect Council that it will be safer for cyclists?

Photo 1, eastern side, looking south, the ‘before’. The wheel of a bus impinges on the edge of the wide bicycle lane (to be removed soon).


Photo 2, eastern side looking south, the 'before'. Five trucks in convoy travel close to the wide bicycle lane, to be removed soon when the footpath is widened and the road narrowed. Further south is a wide bus.


Photo 3, western side, looking north, the ‘after’. The bus would be even closer to the cycling area, if the bus allowed clearance to its right for turning vehicles.


Photo 4, western side, looking south, the ‘after’. A large truck leaving no space for cycling. Further south are two approaching trucks. Indented parking bays are visible in the recently extended footpath. Near the new kerb is the white line that was the edge of the bicycle lane.


Photo 5, western side, looking south, the ‘after’. Another large truck leaving no space for cycling. Further south is an approaching truck. Indented parking bays are visible in the recently extended footpath. Near the new kerb is the white line that was the edge of the bicycle lane.


Prospect Council recognises that this is a busy road for large trucks and commuters.

www.prospect.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/PO209_CHURCHILL_ROAD_REPORT_FINAL.pdf

Churchill Road Masterplan October 2009

The character of The Churchill Road corridor is dominated by its primary use as a freight route, with a large number of heavy trucks, fast flowing commuter traffic… The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on this road is approximately 22,000 vehicles per day at the Torrens Road entrance and increases to 27,900 vehicles per day north of Regency Road (Reference DTEI data) … Motorists are afraid to park on the street due to heavy vehicles and speeding traffic.”


Prospect Council implies that the ‘upgrade’ will improve safety for cyclists.

http://www.prospect.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=762&c=4564

Churchill Road Makeover Begins, 23-Aug-2010

Director of Special Projects said, “ … provide indented car parks, safer bike lanes … improve road safety for all users of this very busy road corridor”.


Note that there are many recommendations to leave a minimum of one metre when overtaking a cyclist. Austroads 2009 states: Due to the side ‘wind’ force exerted on bicycle riders from heavy vehicles, roads should be designed to provide satisfactory clearances between the bicycle envelope and the vehicle. The recommended minimum clearance is one metre when the truck is travelling at 60 km/h.


The main reason given for not cycling is it is unsafe.

http://www.prospect.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/PedalPower_Summary_Website.pdf

Community Survey – Cycling Behaviour

Q: If you currently don’t ride a bicycle, what are the reasons why?

A: Feel unsafe riding on main roads 78.6%


http://www.sa.gov.au/upload/franchise/Transport,%20travel%20and%20motoring/cycling_strategy.pdf

From the State Government policy Safety in Numbers, A Cycling Strategy for South Australia 2006-2010: Market research shows that many people choose not to cycle because they perceive cycling to be unsafe – so the challenge lies in improving not only safety for the existing cyclists but the perception of safety for those not currently cycling. Whether cycling for recreation or transport, safety is a barrier to getting more people to take up cycling.


Prospect Council, with the approval of the State Government, has similar ideas for arterial Prospect Road. See the Prospect Road Masterplan.


From 4-Sep-2009, as coordinator of Prospect BUG, I have contacted many authorities, informing them that narrowed Churchill and Prospect Roads will increase cyclist hazard. For example, submission to Prospect Council, Prospect Director of Environment & Planning, all elected Prospect Council, Coordinator of the Prospect Masterplans, Patrick Conlon Minister for Transport, Jane Lomax-Smith when State Member for Adelaide and Minister for Tourism (think TDU), all State Ministers, Kate Ellis as Federal Member for Adelaide and Minister for Sport, Anthony Albanese Federal Minister for Transport who launched road safety campaign of A Metre Matters, DTEI's Office of Cycling and Walking, a planner at DTEI, and several media. I collected a petition signed by 3,433 cyclists, left it at the office of the State Minister for Transport on 11-Aug-2010, but he is 'sitting on it'. Still cyclist safety is ignored.


Views: 830

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, that would be about right. The road is a major truck corridor, so I would think it would be even more important to protect cyclists here. I wouldn't mind so much if the trade off was installation of good safe links & signage to the very near by Green Corridor along the railway. We need this corridor to be well developed before cutting off safe cycling options along Churchill Road. I have posted this around NTPBUG for comment and made Michael Lardelli (candidate for Prospect Mayor) aware of this.
I have now added the second paragraph and a final. Would 'early birds' please read these?

Thanks David for informing cyclists. Churchill Road is an arterial road under the control of the State Government. Prospect Council wanted the road changes, but the State Government approved them, ignoring their own Cycling Strategy and documents like The Driver's Handbook, plus Austroads. So this style of 'upgrade' could be coming to a road near you, like your commute to work.

I appreciate that cyclists have different requirements and choose different routes. I cycle Churchill Road to businesses, not serviced by a Green Corridor. I often use the offset intersection pictured, that includes two bikedirect routes. So I do not want Churchill Road to be made more hazardous for cyclists, which is happening now with the 'upgrade'.
Reply to Torbjorn's posting on the group BISA 1 day ago.
You have correctly quoted “indicative cross section”. The plan / drawing is spread across 19 pdf files. It shows travel lanes of 3.5m, 3.4m, 3.3m width, and a right-turn lane of 3.0m.

In the report I referred to, on pdf page 20: “The carriageway width varies significantly on Churchill Road and varies between 13 and 15m in most instances, with one area being 19m wide. The verge width also varies along the length of the road.”

At Pym Street the travel lane has been reduced to 3.3m. Remarkably, considering that the other part of the intersection is bikedirect route Beatrice Street, and the statements in a Prospect Council document.

pdf page 18: “Pym Street is used as a truck thoroughfare and is not wide enough to accommodate safe and convenient turning to and from Churchill Road. The eastern end of Pym Street is not wide enough to allow a large truck to turn without using both sides of the road and subsequently some trucks have been mounting and damaging the footpaths and putting pedestrians at risk.”

pdf page 15: “Pym Street Precinct. Pym Street is another vital link west over the railway line and is frequently used by heavy vehicles. Very busy and tricky intersection – sense of danger.”

Many measurements are missing from the drawings over 19 files. For the pictured intersection of Churchill Road – Myrtle Street – Belford Avenue, the pdf file shows no measurements. So I do not know what the proposed measurements are, to even compare with current measurements. Hazardous to take measurements here, because it is a busy with turning vehicles. Many drivers use Belford Avenue to cross the railway line, or cross at Pym Street then travel along Devonport Terrace to Belford Avenue, and use the sheltered turning bay on Churchill Road.

Earlier it was recognised that it was a busy hazardous intersection, hence the original short wide bicycle lane. This effectively discouraged parked cars, and enabled cyclists to negotiate the offset intersection from one bikedirect route to another.

Prospect BUG measured Churchill Road before any ‘upgrade’, at pedestrian crossing lights near Boyle Street. Measurements on 1-Jul-2010: western footpath 2.92m, western travel lane 5.45m, painted median 3.12m, eastern travel lane 5.43m, eastern footpath 3.83m. At this location, trucks could overtake cyclists with 1.33m to 1.35m clearances. Fence setbacks vary and therefore footpath widths vary. The western footpath, south of nearby Winter Terrace measures 5.05m. The western footpath, north of nearby Gladstone Road, measures 6.15m.

You say that a 3.5m wide lane does not strike you as particularly narrow for Adelaide. Need to take into account that my car is 1.6m wide, a truck with mandatory exterior mirrors is 2.8m, and a public bus even wider at 2.9m. 3.5m – 2.8m = 0.7m, so starting to get 'squeezy' when truckies pick the centre of the travel lane, leaving only 0.35m between the truck and bicycle lane. Where the travel lane is 3.3m, the distance may be 0.25m. Austroads gives the bicycle operating envelope as 1.2m, DTEI recommends on the web that a cyclist keeps 0.20m away from a kerb or 1.0m when cars parked, so little change out of a theoretical 1.5m bicycle lane. Seems to me at the pictured intersection, there will not be room for a 1.5m wide bicycle lane.

Also remember that Churchill Road is a designated freight route, acknowledged in the Prospect Council document. A photo shows five trucks in convoy. That Austroads 2009 states “Due to the side ‘wind’ force exerted on bicycle riders from heavy vehicles, roads should be designed to provide satisfactory clearances between the bicycle envelope and the vehicle.” The recommended minimum clearance is one metre when the truck is travelling at 60 km/h. There is a marked difference between cycling next to a car lane of 3.5m, and cycling next to five wide trucks in convoy.

Earlier this year in a Bicycle Victoria newsletter was a picture of freight route. When you want something, cannot find it, when searching on the Bike Vic website. Has anyone kept the newsletter? It shows a space of perhaps a metre between a cycling lane and a travel lane, marked with two parallel white lines, then chevrons painted between. The Vics encourage truckies to follow Austroads, and leave a metre next to a bicycle lane. Sometimes Victoria does it better than SA.
Article published in City North Messenger of 27-Oct-2010 on page 1 re Churchill Rd drivers ignoring temporarily lowered speed limit signs past road workers.
http://city-north-messenger.whereilive.com.au/news/story/churchill-rd-drivers-ignoring-speed-limit-signs/

Coincidentally, as the journalist was writing the above story, I forwarded a story on increased cycling hazards as Churchill Road is narrowed. However, the City North Messenger did not include a paragraph on cyclist safety.

My unpublished letter dated 27-Oct-2010 to the City North Messenger.
Churchill Road safety – or lack of it for cyclists

It is unfortunate that drivers are exceeding current lowered speed limit of 25 km/h past road workers on Churchill Road. Consider what it will be like for cyclists with a speed limit of 60 km/h and a narrowed road.
Prospect Council’s Churchill Road Masterplan October 2009 suggests that it is common for vehicles to exceed 60 km/h here. “Motorists are afraid to park on the street due to heavy vehicles and speeding traffic.” [1] Hence extended footpaths and indented car parking. However, in extending the footpaths, vulnerable cyclists are being forced closer to wide trucks. Why is property of parked cars given higher priority than cyclists' lives?

Compare the before and after photographs as the ‘upgrade’ continues on this freight route. www.adelaidecyclists.com/group/bugprospect/forum/topics/look-what-t... Prospect Council and the State Government have ignored Austroads 2009: “Due to the side ‘wind’ force exerted on bicycle riders from heavy vehicles, roads should be designed to provide satisfactory clearances between the bicycle envelope and the vehicle”. The recommended minimum clearance is one metre when the truck is travelling at 60 km/h. [2]

A British study found that “passing too close to the cyclist reason for 25% of serious collisions involving vehicles, and 29% of fatal collisions”. An Australian study found that trucks were involved in 3% of cyclist crashes, but accounted for 18% of cyclist fatalities. [3]

Notes on this Australian study of truck and cyclist collisions added. “Given the over-representation of sideswipes in crash statistics, it is important to understand the role of aerodynamic forces to minimise the potential for such crashes. Sideswipe crashes can occur without initial collision between the truck and the bicycle. Instead, the incident can be due to the ‘blow and suck’ effect as the truck passes the bicycle rider. This effect is proportional to a truck’s size, speed and distance from the rider. The aerodynamic effects of heavy vehicles are therefore critical in selecting design dimensions for cycling facilities.” [3]

Coordinator of Prospect BUG

1. www.prospect.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/PO209_CHURCHILL_ROAD...
2. Austroads, 2009, Guide to Road Design Part 3 Geometric Design, page 61
3. Cycling and heavy vehicles, www.tmr.qld/~/media/9a8a1a11-02d2-406e-baf6-8d5c2aa0019e/c7_cycling...
South Australia is slower than Victoria to adopt improved bicycle lane design.

www.thinkingtransport.org.au/content/cycling
Sub-heading states “An information resource for the Victorian local governments”. Includes two photos of well-designed bicycle lanes on freight routes: Somerville Road in Footscray, plus a road in North Melbourne.



Network Improvements of VicRoads said that on Somerville Road, the bicycle lane is 2m wide, the buffer zone is 1.7m and the travel lane is 3.6m wide.
Bicycle Victoria said that the buffer zone on Somerville Road was added about 5 years ago.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs, Network and Asset Planning, VicRoads replied that this buffer facility exists on Rathdowne Street in North Melbourne, and Queensberry Street in North Melbourne. Also exists on Broadway in Reservoir. In fact, is now being used in quite a few places.
Photos on www.nearmap.com show these facilities on these streets.
-- Abbotsford Street in North Melbourne
-- Broadway in Reservoir
-- Queensberry Street in North Melbourne
-- Rathdowne Street in North Melbourne or North Carlton
-- Somerville Street in Footscray.

South Australian road authorities are behind-the-times when it comes to designing cycling facilities on freight routes. See photos of the continuing ‘upgrade’ of Churchill Road, Prospect, SA.
www.adelaidecyclists.com/group/bugprospect/forum/topics/look-what-t...

In Victoria, road authorities have even adopted a marked buffer between cyclists and moving vehicles in business streets with mainly car traffic. www.bv.com.au/bike-futures/42039/
Photos on www.nearmap.com show kerbside running bike lanes on these streets:
-- Albert Street in Melbourne
-- Swanston Street (near Queensberry Street) in North Melbourne.

A buffer with 'candlesticks' encourages drivers to give cyclists space.


Note the bicycle lane is between the footpath and moving cars. The buffer is wide enough to protect cyclists when a passenger opens a car door.


These are called Kerbside Running Bike Lanes. A South Australian Traffic Engineer told me, “That is the standard now”. Refer to Austroads, 2009, Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design on page 65 and Figure 4.21: Kerb separated bicycle lane.
A Guide to the Use of Kerbside Running Bike Lanes 2010
http://media.bv.com.au:8080/file/Final%20No%20Cover%20Guide%20to%20...


Several organisations have got together, seeking how to encourage active transport, including cycling. www.thinkingtransport.org.au/content/planning-active-communities

This year five groups got together to promote Active Transport: Australian Local Government Association, Bus Industry Confederation, Cycling Promotion Fund, Heart Foundation of Australia and International Association of Public Transport.
Media Release: Active Transport could save 16 000 lives
www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/495/9/
One of those interviewed is Felicity-ann Lewis, the Marion Mayor in SA, and an Vice President of the Australian Local Government Association. Prospect Council is out of step with its LGA in its ‘upgrade’ design of arterial and freight route Churchill Road. This will be so hazardous for cyclists that it will discourage sustainable transport of the bicycle and active transport.

Four transport groups Australasian Railway Association, Bus Industry Confederation, Cycling Promotion Fund and International Association of Public Transport have joined forces. They urge all political parties to commit to tasking the Productivity Commission to report on the costs of urban congestion, road accidents, environmental degradation, climate change and energy security associated with Australia’s current transport use.
Joint Media Release: A step towards a reliable, safe and sustainable transport system for Australia.
www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/496/9/
Possible Liability of Road Authorities When Churchill and Prospect Roads 'Upgraded'.

I asked a lawyer for general advice if a cyclist is injured or killed when it appears that the road design was a contributing factor. He said once common law provided protection for road authorities. Around 2000-2002, the High Court watered the protection down, after a successful case that involved poor signage, a truck and a narrow bridge. Since then, each Australian State has sought to protect itself through legislation. For example, Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA), and section 42, and Part 6, introduced on 1-May-2004.
(Go to www.legislation.sa.gov.au then search for Civil Liability Act to find
www.legislation.sa.gov.au/lz/c/a/civil%20liability%20act%201936/cur...)

Section 42 states that a road authority is not liable in tort for a failure to maintain, repair or renew a road. Note that it does not specifically mention making a new road, or upgrading of a road.

Section 40 with 41 implies that a professional may not protected if the road design does not fit with “widely accepted in Australia by members of the same profession as competent professional practice”.

I thought of the case known to Bicycle Victoria. Refer www.bv.com.au/join-in/42075/
3-Mar-2010. A highly significant court victory by a Melbourne bike rider has put local government under new pressure over the building of sub standard bike facilities. Bayside City Council has to play $229,000 damages to a rider as a result of the court decisions. Evidence was presented on behalf of the plaintiff by Mr Andrew O'Brien, a traffic and road engineer, that the path did not comply with the requirements and the recommendations of the Austroads Standards or the VicRoads Cycle Notes.

There are several State Government guidelines that recommend leaving a minimum of one metre when overtaking a cyclist:
-- The Driver’s Handbook -- www.sa.gov.au/upload/franchise/Transport,%20travel%20and%20motoring...
-- Cyclist road rules and safety -- www.sa.gov.au/subject/Transport,+travel+and+motoring/Cycling/Cyclis...
-- Share the Road -- www.transport.sa.gov.au/publications/pdfs/share_the_road_brochure.pdf
Then there is the road safety campaign of A Metre Matters in Road Safety launched by the Federal Minister for Transport on 23-Nov-2009 -- www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2009/november/aa497_...

Austroads 2009 states: “Due to the side ‘wind’ force exerted on bicycle riders from heavy vehicles, roads should be designed to provide satisfactory clearances between the bicycle envelope and the vehicle.” The recommended minimum clearance is one metre when the truck is travelling at 60 km/h. Refer Austroads, 2009, Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design, page 61.

An Australian study 'Cycling and heavy vehicles' at www.tmr.qld/~/media/9a8a1a11-02d2-406e-baf6-8d5c2aa0019e/c7_cycling... expands on this theme. Trucks were involved in 3% of cyclist crashes, but accounted for 18% of cyclist fatalities. “Analysis of data for all crashes involving bicycles and trucks found that 50% of these crashes occurred away from intersections. Sideswiping by vehicles travelling in the same direction and angle crashes with vehicles pulling out of driveways were found to be common causes of crashes … Given the over-representation of sideswipes in crash statistics, it is important to understand the role of aerodynamic forces to minimise the potential for such crashes. Sideswipe crashes can occur without initial collision between the truck and the bicycle. Instead, the incident can be due to the ‘blow and suck’ effect as the truck passes the bicycle rider. This effect is proportional to a truck’s size, speed and distance from the rider. The aerodynamic effects of heavy vehicles are therefore critical in selecting design dimensions for cycling facilities.”

Since I saw Prospect Masterplans dated Aug-2009 (revised Nov-2009 and several times in 2010), I have repeatedly warned Prospect Council, DTEI, the Minister for Transport and other authorities that narrowing freight route Churchill Road and portions of arterial Prospect Road, will result in cyclists being overtaken by less than the recommended one metre minimum.

I learnt this year of the seriously injured cyclist being awarded $229,000, a factor being that the design did not meet Austroads. In June 2010 I emailed this to all of elected Prospect Council, DTEI and the Minister for Transport. While raising the question if a cyclist is seriously injured on the 'upgraded' Churchill and Prospect Roads, could a road authority be found liable?

Five years ago VicRoads started designing freight routes with a clearly marked buffer zone between the travel lane and bicycle lane. In one example the buffer zone is 1.7m wide. VicRoads is now including narrower buffer zones on business roads. It also designs roads with the bicycle lane between the footpath and parked vehicles. This is known as kerbside running bike lanes. A South Australian traffic engineer told me, “That is the standard now”. For details and photos refer to my earlier post with sub-heading 'South Australia is slower than Victoria to adopt improved bicycle lane design'.

Then compare these pictures with photos of the continuing 'upgrade' of Churchill Road posted on 17-Oct-2010 at 7.20pm.

Prospect Council recognised hazards of Churchill Road before it approved the plan. Refer
www.prospect.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/PO209_CHURCHILL_ROAD...
The Churchill Road Masterplan October 2009 states, “Motorists are afraid to park on the street due to heavy vehicles and speeding traffic.” Hence extended footpaths and indented car parking. However, in extending the footpaths, vulnerable cyclists are being forced closer to large trucks on this freight route.

When the 'upgrade' of Churchill Road is completed, trucks will pass dangerously close to cyclists. The photos taken at the offset intersection of Churchill Road – bikedirect Myrtle Street – bikedirect Belford Avenue indicate that the road will be so narrow that truck drivers will be unable to follow Austroads and give cyclists a minimum of one metre clearance.

As coordinator of Prospect BUG, I have repeatedly since 4-Sep-2010 for 14 months warned road authorities that the 'upgrades' of arterial Churchill and Prospect Roads will create road hazards for cyclists, and thus be dangerous for these vulnerable road users. That the designs ignore some guidelines. Even a possibility that road authorities might be found liable when (not if) a cyclist is injured or killed. So now I wait until I am called as a witness.

I ask that you read a recent post at http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/group/bicycleblackspoteradication/f...

Carl, interesting comment, and thanks for trying to keep cyclists safe. Some people dislike cyclists but are yet to realise that hitting a cyclist would result in tedious legalities, financial repercussions, even loss of licence.

If you read the full post on Prospect BUG on AC web at http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/group/bugprospect/forum/topics/look...
there is quote from council document dated 2 years ago. That motorists afraid to park on Churchill Road due to heavy vehicles and speeding commuters. So council persuaded SA Government to agree to narrow this commuter and freight route, and force vulnerable cyclists closer to the trucks. The design does not comply with Austroads in that trucks unable to leave one-metre clearance when overtaking cyclists. In Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, now designing separated bicycle lanes. $1m of pavers laid 10 years ago were ripped up to relay new pavers while narrowing the road. Council will not change these new pavers, so only hope is to install a very visible separator between bicycle and travel lanes where no car parking.

Many times council has erroneously stated that 'upgraded' road safer for cyclists. Despite me informing Prospect Council, DTEI and Government Ministers otherwise before plans finalised.

In Sep-2011 I gave story to Indaily. Please read link below where council again reckons that Churchill Road is safe for cyclists. This week I forwarded the following to the City North Messenger.

Prospect Road Traders continue to publicly state that they do not want cyclists on Prospect Road. (Reported several times by Messenger over last 10 years.) Although Messenger has reported that traders welcome TDU to make money.
Council about to spend thousands on TDU (for traders not cyclists) yet my repeated requests for $100 bicycle parking outside Coles and PO ignored. My first submission was when shopping mall was in planning stage, about 2004.
Read this. http://www.indaily.com.au/?iid=53939#folio=001
Heather, Coordinator of Prospect BUG (Bicycle User Group)


Are you in a position to contact the Messenger on Monday and confirm from a truckies view?
Journalist Lisa Bachmayer, bachmayer@mng.newsltd.com.au, phone 8130 0110

Hi Heather

                 This makes interesting reading for sure, obviously in my position I have to be careful what I say but I am more than happy to give you feedback from a perspective that no one else could! I spend more time driving on these roads that anyone else would! I can tell you just about every pot hole in the Prospect council! Happy to help you out! Pm me (if you let me know where you are I can stop and we can have a chin wag when I pick up your bin!)

I used to be a passionate cyclist when I lived in QLD, wide roads, awsome bike lanes, Bike trails that you could ride on for hours. Came to adelaide and the interest waned due to too many near misses. Just getting back into it now, but with trepidation.

 

I will say it is only a matter of time before there is an accident on Churchill or Prospect Rd (you won't have to wait long) perhaps if you let the council know you have done the background on their accountability and you will be notifying any future accident victims of the councils liability. (Just a thought) Money talks!

The theory is they want to reduce traffic however at the moment the choice is Churchill, Prospect or Main Nth and at 8.00am they are all a nightmare if you are heading into the city (South Rd is a joke due to roadworks)

You know what's funny, I was driving down Prospect road the other day and saw the sign about the TDU and I laughed my head off! I thought now "That's hpocrisy" Happy to take the Cyclist's money and happy to kill them too! (Sorry said too much now!!)

 

Carl

 

 

carl, nice to hear from you. you could help by recording exactly where you see the potholes, and other cycling hazards. need to be precise cos at the moment i cannot go out and confirm. then i will report to pertinent councils and authorities. last month prospect council finally fixed a cycling hazard that i had repeatedly reported to director environment & planning (cycling) since 4-sep-2009. some other councils where i do not pay rates fix hazards promptly, even thank me.

i contacted council, councillors, dtei, transport minister and other mps before and during churchill road changes, expressing my concerns about forcing cyclists closer to heavy vehicles on a freight / commuter route. i quoted austroads and a liability statute.

did you read the indaily link above. i let the journalist know that council will spend much money on tdu stage. but not re-open bikedirect edgeworth street to cyclists, implement the prospect bike plan first drawn up in 1994 (about $10,000) or spend $100 to install bicycle parking outside a shopping mall and po.

the organisation prospect road traders was quoted again as saying they did not want cyclists on prospect road. but they support the tdu, according to the messenger. do they want money from cycling tourists for one day of the year, but no business from local cyclists for the whole year.

It's interesting that the council have taken this attitude because in other ways they are ahead of the game in many ways, certainly in their waste management, we have touch screen computers in the truck and we can give them real-time feedback. Every bin is computer chipped so they know when and where it was picked up.  Now that I have read your post I will be looking more vigilantly with cyclists in mind. I will log it on the computer as well as let you know when I see potential hazards.  If I complain about a tree it is usually trimmed within a few days.

 

Carl

thanks carl. let me know if you see cycling hazards outside of prospect and i will report these also. you could start a discussion on bug that is only about hazards. might encourage others to report promptly, rather than belatedly let me know during next contact.

Will do!

Got one for you straight away! Gallipoli Drive in Regency park (the brand new road) They have made this beautiful new road with cycling lanes but just after the roundabout heading sth there is a parking bay (Note: with transport company just accross the road as well as a lunch bar) so guess what  there are always B doubles and Semi's parked there and they take up most of the cycling lane, I travel this road six times a day and it is only ever clear at 6;00AM  when I head out in the morning, such a shame as the bike lane has its own path to avoid the roundabout and could have kept going past this parking bay on the inside as there is more than enough room, this was obviously designed by a non cyclist. Maybe you could drop the PAE council a note as this would actually be a "very" easy fix. If you pop down and have a look you will see what I mean.

 

I work in the PAE area every now and then maybe 6-7 hours a week.

 

Will keep you up to date.

 

Carl

RSS

Support our Sponsors

© 2018   Created by Gus.   Powered by

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