On May 20, 4:29=A0pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
<SNIP>
> I suspect they may be getting more opposition than they bargained for
> as they are calling some public meetings with very short notice. =A0As
> in this Saturday.
<SNIP>
Anyone seen this doc (emailed from one of the action groups):
World's Worst Practice?
In February 2007, the City of Sydney Council released their "Cycle
Strategy and Action Plan 2007-2017" (#1). After focus groups were
hired to gauge community reaction to photographs of various types of
cycling facility (#2), a last-minute addition to this Plan (Section
4.10) announced that "all routes on local roads that have either
bicycle shoulder lanes, bicycle lanes or are 12.8 metres or wider will
be examined for implementation" (of) "bi-directional separated bicycle
roads".
This came as a surprise to most of the people who had made submissions
to Council on the draft strategy put out to public exhibition in
August and September 2006 (#3), in which there was no reference to
such an obsolete and thoroughly discredited inner-city "sidepath"
design.
It was greeted with ridicule by cyclists (#4), many of whom were aware
of the overwhelming body of well-researched opinion and accident
statistics indicating that these "bi-directional separated bicycle
roads" would be far more dangerous than the shoulder lanes that they
were to replace (#5).
A press announcement ("New bicycle lanes to improve safety")
accompanied the launch, featuring a "photomontage" of a "bicyclised"
Crown Street, with the buses airbrushed out (#6). Nothing more was
heard of such a plan, possibly after unanswerable questions were asked
by State Transit.
Informed cyclists assumed - with relief - that the whimsical plan to
build "bi-directional separated bicycle roads" had been quietly
shelved, particularly after Copenhagen Council commissioned and - with
considerable embarassment - published (#7) yet another analysis of the
devastating effect on pedestrian and cyclist injuries of even one-way
cyclepaths in an inner-city situation with multiple cross-streets.
Residents and local businesses were unconcerned - there is (as of May
13 2008) no reference to "bi-directional separated bicycle roads" in
Council's "Inner East Local Action Plan" (#8). They were similarly not
mentioned at the Surry Hills (#9) and City East (#10) LATM meetings in
November and December 2007.
However, unbeknownst to the community, Council's "Sydney Traffic
Committee" had quietly approved detailed draft plans (#11) for a
"Bourke Street Bicycle Road" on 21 November 2007. The plans were
tabled by Ms Fiona Lewis, later to be despatched into the community to
defend the concept without - it appeared - permission to acknowledge
the existence of these plans.
A press release from Clover Moore on 8 February 2007 (#12) stating
that "construction on a 3.2 km separated cycle way connecting
Woolloomooloo with Zetland is expected to commence later this year"
went largely unnoticed by the community. Clover went on to say -
astoni****ngly - that "this increases safety by removing the conflict
between cyclists and cars" and alluded to the Focus Group re****t on
the sorts of facilities preferred by "potential cyclists".
The first that most of the community heard of this was in late March
and early April 2008, when a glossy leaflet (#13) was slipped under
their doors announcing that "The City of Sydney is introducing a
dedicated separated bicycle route along Bourke Street". The leaflet
featured another "photomontage", this time of a three-lane part of
Bourke Street with the new bikepath and an extra traffic lane
airbrushed in.
Local residents and businesses were not impressed, particularly when
they unearthed Ms Lewis' detailed plans (#11) and saw that most of the
pretty plane trees - and the pedestrian refuge - in the background of
the shot were earmarked for removal, along with much of the street
parking around Arthur Street outside two popular restaurants and a
pub.
Safety issues apart, the fundamental flaw of this proposal is that its
12.8 metre cross-section (the minimum allowable under RTA guidelines
(#14), and calculable from - although carefully not spelled out in -
Council's glossy leaflet) is up to two metres wider than much of the
narrow, twisting, Heritage-listed part of Bourke Street that runs
through Surry Hills.
Local cyclists, pedestrians, residents and business immediately
showered Ms Lewis, Councillors and Clover Moore with letters, but
have received no concrete answers whatsoever to their specific
questions - which revolve around safety, damage to the streetscape,
and the loss of street parking.
Council have been inconsistent and evasive on these issues, but it
appears that at least 12 trees (Monica Barone's undated letter to
residents) (#15) and "approximately 13" (#13) west-side parking
spaces will go; there are abundant re****ts of residents being
verbally advised by Council officers that they can trade-off between
the century-old plane trees that line the street and their on-street
parking, at an exchange rate of two parking spaces per tree.
Most residents have bravely voted for the trees, although a close
examination of the detailed draft plans (#11) shows the "bicycle road"
reducing roadway width to around 6 metres in places where Council
staff have verbally assured residents that east-side parking and the
two traffic lanes will remain unchanged - truly a miracle of
engineering.
Residents are similarly unconvinced by Council officers' verbal
assurances that the 12-30 or more parking spaces destined for removal
can be "relocated" to narrow and already overcrowded sidestreets.
Thus, in May 2008, we find a demonstrably dangerous "bi-directional
separated bicycle road" which was never put out to public exhibition
being shoehorned into an undersized, Heritage-listed streetscape by
elected officials who have - as far as we can ascertain - thusfar
refused to answer any of the questions raised by residents and
businesses affected by the scheme via thousands of letters, petitions
and emails.
A "detailed map" released on 14 May (#16) adds fuel to the flames of
resident anger by showing little detail, echoes previous nonsense
about creating replacement parking spaces out of thin air, and
overstates the width of the "narrow" bit of Bourke Street by a metre.
This is all an absolute disgrace. The scheme should be abandoned
immediately, before more ratepayers' funds are frittered away on this
dangerous, destructive, undemocratic and poorly-researched flight of
fancy.
The safe solution is to slow Bourke St to 30Km/hr or less, paint it
green and run it as a shared traffic zone. Add angle parking (as
currently exists in Gt Buckingham Street et al) to stop door-opening-
on-cyclist injuries - which the proposed bicycle road does little to
prevent. Cyclists, residents and local businesses would be overjoyed.
It should have been done years ago.
The remaining funds should be immediately reallocated to building the
vital "missing links" between bicycle-friendly parts of the city and
into genuine and proven schemes to increase cycling safety and
participation.
We sincerely hope that this shambles is not representative of the
quality of research, design and management behind "Sustainable Sydney
2030".
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
References:
(#1)
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/AboutSydney/do***ents/ParkingAndTran=
s****t/Cycling/CycleStrategyAndActionPlan2007-2017.pdf
(#2)
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/do***ents/meetings/2007/Comm=
ittee/Planning/260307/070326_PDTC_ITEM02_ATTACHMENTE.PDF
(#3)
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/do***ents/meetings/2006/Committee=
/Planning/310706/31-07-06_PDTC_ITEM172006-ATTACHMENTA1.PDF
(#4)
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.bicycle/browse_thread/thread/6b252d8=
b773b18f0?hl=3Den
(#5) Too numerous to list. Google for "safety" and "sidepath".
(#6)
http://www.sydneymedia.com.au/html/3231-new-bicycle-lanes-to-improve-sa=
fety.asp
(#7)
http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%=
20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf
(#8)
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/do***ents/LocalActionPla=
ns/InnerEastLAP07.pdf
(#9)
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/do***ents/meetings/2007/Publ=
icMeetings/SurryHillsLATMFlyer211107.pdf
(#10)
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/do***ents/meetings/2007/Pub=
licMeetings/CityEastLATM131207.pdf
(#11)
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/do***ents/meetings/2007/Tra=
ffic/211107/071121_STC_ITEM34.pdf
(#12)
http://www.bicyclensw.org.au/Assets/Downloads/080208%20bourke%20st%20c=
ycleway.pdf
(#13)
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/do***ents/CityImproveme=
nts/BourkeStCycleRoute/BourkeStCycleways_V1.pdf
(#14)
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/downloads/technicalmanua=
ls/nswbicyclev12_i.pdf
(#15) Could not be found at the Council website but freely available
from local residents
(#16)
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/do***ents/CityImproveme=
nts/BourkeStCycleRoute/Precinct2c.pdf
|
