<html>
<body>
Hi all ...<br><br>
How is the Coro Drive ONE WAY "bikeway" ?<br><br>
Does it <u>really</u> need to be one way?<br><br>
Does BCC <u>really</u> need to waste scarce cycling funds on traffic
controllers?<br><br>
Or is the current situation evidence that ...<br><br>
(i) BCC has been rather vindictive in implementing the ONE WAY controlled
system and <br><br>
(ii) wants to "bury" the issue of allegedly substandard
provision?<br><br>
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?<br><br>
To date it seems nobody has made public the measured <u>clear</u> minimum
width ... although 2m has been mentioned.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
This is likely to continue because any new facilities done properly, will
show up how bad the previous facilities are. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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?<br><br>
At 2m, the existing facility may "work" with care by users ...
is this the case?<br><br>
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? <br><br>
Or is it suitable ie "fit for purpose" at 20km/h? <br><br>
We know from guidelines but also from experience eg South Bank, that
10km/h is too slow.<br><br>
Should we suggest the controllers be removed and the money saved spent on
something useful eg at any number of problem sites?<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
Recently I took an international transport consultant for a tour of some
of the projects. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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" ...!<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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 ...!<br><br>
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 ...! <br><br>
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 ....<br><br>
I left the following emails because they both make sense in the context
... the problem created by Council is perhaps, not the cyclists?<br><br>
MY.........................<br><br>
At 03:59 PM 5/05/2009, Yani wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2 color="#000080">
I’ve seen a few cyclists do things I wouldn’t do but they managed them
with style and showed skill.<br>
<br>
The point more being that cyclists make better drivers and pedestrians
when they are in that role.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Then there is group as in pack mentality. Likely a pack of cyclists is as
bad as any pack of anything human. <br>
<br>
I can say that as a pedestrian I’ve 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 I’m a car driver. If only the reverse was
true.<br>
<br>
Yani<br>
<br>
<hr>
<div align="center"></font></div>
<font face="Tahoma" size=2><b>From:</b> Mick Fanning
[<a href="mailto:cameraperson@bigpond.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:cameraperson@bigpond.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, May 03, 2009 11:28 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Yani<br>
<b>Cc:</b> bikeqld<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bikeqld] Coro Drive - oh goody<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
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. <br><br>
Mick Fanning</font></blockquote></body>
</html>