[bikeqld] Coro Drive - oh goody

Tue May 5 18:56:57 CDT 2009

All good stuff Michael. I'm exhausted now having read it, without even
riding anywhere! Not sure how you can get it down in the time you do.

Just a couple of points from you recent posts, I think the Goodwill
bridge used to be 10km/h cycle speed limit and Southbank along the river
15. I think different (opposite)to what you have written. It may have
changed or maybe I've misinterpreted your words. 

You are absolutely correct that 10 k is too slow for comfortable
cycling. 15 in my mind is reasonable in situations that have several
peds eg Southbank beside the river which I think was built for
strolling, or other obstacles, but not of course for bike paths where it
is way too slow even for me.

Regards, Norm.
07 5442 2916, 0409 63 99 44
140 Blackall Range Rd Woombye Qld  4559
Disclaimer:     Overall Energy consumption Japan 1999 (kWh per 100
person-km) 

Car 68, Bus 19, Rail 6, Air 51, Sea 57.

 <http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html>
http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

-----Original Message-----
From: bikeqld-bounces at bikeqld.org.au
[mailto:bikeqld-bounces at bikeqld.org.au] On Behalf Of Michael Yeates
Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2009 9:24 AM
To: 'bikeqld'
Subject: RE: [bikeqld] Coro Drive - oh goody

Hi all ...

How is the Coro Drive ONE WAY "bikeway" ?

Does it really need to be one way?

Does BCC really need to waste scarce cycling funds on traffic
controllers?

Or is the current situation evidence that ...

(i) BCC has been rather vindictive in implementing the ONE WAY
controlled system and 

(ii) wants to "bury" the issue of allegedly substandard provision?

If (ii) is the case, is BCC trying to distract from the real issue
namely provision of facilities that do (or do not) comply with
"standards" and "guidelines" in order to avoid public scrutiny and
investigation as to how the problems (?) with the facility came about?

To date it seems nobody has made public the measured clear minimum width
... although 2m has been mentioned.

The problem we face is the fact that cyclists in Brisbane have been
accepting substandard facilities (both paths and bike lanes) for so long
... and almost everywhere across the city ... so most people (appear or
act as if they) think how good it all is. 

For example almost none of the path outside the former ABC Studios at
Toowong complies. Most of the Sylvan Road "bike lanes" do not comply.
Clearly for anyone cycling or walking, the inner part of the
Bicentennial Bikeway (the sections approaching and under Victoria
Bridge) were arguably never complying ... a cyclist died from injuries
there as an outcome. 

We use them and yes, they are "better than nothing" ... and so we have
become accepting, begrudgingly tolerant if you like, of very poor
facilities.

This is likely to continue because any new facilities done properly,
will show up how bad the previous facilities are. 

In fact it might (if BCC chose to be vindictive) mean re-building or
closing most of the existing network ... especially as numbers of users
increase as intended. Of course, like the 2000 and 2005 targets, it is
easy for BCC to ensure the targets never get achieved. One way is to
ensure a constant supply of "barriers" (see below) to discourage new
users ... and old. 

Therefore IF the current temporary bikeway is substandard, might the
current facility be better used only for inbound cyclists (to avoid
multiple crossings of Coro Drive) while outbound cyclists use the kerb
side lane (or footpath if they so choose) on Coro Drive?

At 2m, the existing facility may "work" with care by users ... is this
the case?

For legal purposes (ie only in the event of an incident between
cyclists) and to reflect the design speed upon which the facility design
is based, should we ask Council for a posted 15km/h speed limit? 

Or is it suitable ie "fit for purpose" at 20km/h? 

We know from guidelines but also from experience eg South Bank, that
10km/h is too slow.

Should we suggest the controllers be removed and the money saved spent
on something useful eg at any number of problem sites?

The other "problem" illustrated by those now choosing not to use this
corridor is the "induced" demand effect well known (by a number of
different names) to those in the transport and traffic policy area. 

By putting in a "barrier" such as this, the numbers (in this case, of
cyclists and no doubt joggers and walkers and certainly people with
disabilities) will be reduced sometimes quite dramatically ... some
change to other modes or to other routes, or simply stop doing the
activity ... thus reducing the problem. 

This use of "barriers" also has the effect of making the new facility
appear really good (and popular) when it is first opened ... by
comparison with what was provided ... and will encourage an increase
over previous use before the barrier was installed hence "induced" ...
but the effect may be temporary, or permanent and often is cyclic until
people work out their own new personal preferences. 

It works .. it exists ... induced demand is widely recognised ... and
its why BCC suddenly needs so many more buses ... because by improving
the bus service, many more people have been "induced" to use the system
... but the "barriers" remain viz the full buses, congestion on the
busway/s, buses stuck in traffic congestion because there are no bus
lanes, etc ... and it is also why the tunnels and bridges and new road
projects all over the city will "induce" more car use.

Indeed these road projects on completion can be expected to induce a
shift to the car from those using public transport and some people
cycling. 

Recently I took an international transport consultant for a tour of some
of the projects. 

For example, its worth considering why the $700m (and, like the bike
bridge at Toowong and almost all such projects, it will cost far more
than that) is good value for the Centenary overpass ... when it will
encourage so much more car traffic in peak hours. No doubt it will
"necessitate" the BCC tunnel from Toowong to the City Bypass which given
it already is congested, will presumably no longer be congested once the
NSBT tunnel is in operation ... and yes, somewhere in all that, like the
Gold Coast rail line and the billion dollar M1, is a rail line probably
with insufficient trains.

Like most new roads, these road projects (and the tunnels and bridges)
will "induce" a lot more car use until it is sufficiently congested to
again act as a "barrier" and presumably given current planning policies,
this will again act as a trigger for another round of road
"improvements" ...!

Of course nobody does accurate counts that are made public (other than
perhaps academics ... or critics/advocates) so the "induced" demand
effect goes almost un--noticed ... esp so in the hype and euphoria when
the new project is finally in operation ... an interesting example is
the bridge across the freeway at Toowong which started life as a way to
cross Milton Road. 

At the times I choose to travel, the HSL changes on Coro Drive will
probably make almost no difference and maybe will slightly improve for
motorists ... until I get to Toowong or to North Quay where any
additional capacity on Coro Drive will suddenly add to the congestion we
now have ... but if the car suits ...!

And in peak hours, the majority of cyclists on the "new" bikepath along
the river will be looking at the adjacent almost empty walking path
along Coro Drive ... much as motorists (and politicians and the vast
majority of traffic engineers and some cyclists) look at bus lanes ...! 

Some may even realise that the $100m for cycling (but it seems is for
"shared footpaths") was actually being spent for the benefit of
motorists and pedestrians esp if more people start cycling and walking
and that then leads to conditions on Coro Drive that "induce" more car
traffic ....

I left the following emails because they both make sense in the context
... the problem created by Council is perhaps, not the cyclists?

MY.........................

At 03:59 PM 5/05/2009, Yani wrote:

Ive seen a few cyclists do things I wouldnt do but they managed them
with style and showed skill.

The point more being that cyclists make better drivers and pedestrians
when they are in that role.

The group who are the most ignorant are the only people. Only use a
car and never walk, only walk and never use a car and just as likely
only cycle although that would be one tiny tiny demographic.

Then there is group as in pack mentality. Likely a pack of cyclists is
as bad as any pack of anything human. 

I can say that as a pedestrian Ive never had an issue ever with a
cyclist. And the reason??? I give them a bit of space. Nor do I have
issues with cyclists when Im a car driver. If only the reverse was
true.

Yani

  _____  

From: Mick Fanning [  <mailto:cameraperson at bigpond.com>
mailto:cameraperson at bigpond.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 11:28 PM
To: Yani
Cc: bikeqld
Subject: Re: [bikeqld] Coro Drive - oh goody

Sorry Yani but I must differ. I only occasionally see bad pedestrian
behaviour there but see silly cyclists on that path every day. But I
feel that it is mostly just boorish behaviour rather than downright
dangerous. You do encounter the odd bloody-minded pedestrian. There are
very few actual incidents when you consider how much traffic there is. 

Mick Fanning

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20090506/bb310f9e/attachment-0001.htm