109 kerb access tram stops

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Lunn
[B]I have no objection with the kerb access stops on route 109, however, what is with the giveway signs
that they've just errected at Hood St?


Is this on Whitehorse Road in Surrey Hill/Mont Albert?

"Jeremy Lunn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have no objection with the kerb access stops on route 109, however, what is with the giveway
signs that they've just errected at Hood St?

Surely if anything the line markings on the road should be moved and

the

Quoted message said:

cars should be giving way to cyclists on the through road? Since when should cyclists be at the
mercy of motorists?

These are the most ridiculous things I've seen added to a road for public transport! They are
dangerous and slow traffic needlessly. Flying down that hill on Whitehorse Rd. and you either take
the bike lane of doom or squeeze between an un-jumpable (by me) tram stop and tram tracks/cars.
Going up the hill, the bike lane veers across a side-street. Does it have an early give-way sign to
indicate to motorists that bikes cross there? I stay on the road anyway and take the 1ft wide gap
between concrete and tram track. These stops should be destroyed.

hippy grr - second hangover in a row + bigpond are killing my internet!

hippy said:

Quoted message said:

I have no objection with the kerb access stops on route 109, however, what is with the giveway
signs that they've just errected at Hood St?

-snip-

Quoted message said:

These are the most ridiculous things I've seen added to a road for public transport!

If you dislike them, prepare for a fight with the disability lobby, who are already going ballistic
about the fact that the DoI isn't building more of these stops to meet DDA targets..

Quoted message said:

They are dangerous and slow traffic needlessly.

Actually, slowing traffic is a very good thing.. It encourages people to move closer to where
they work..

Quoted message said:

Flying down that hill on Whitehorse Rd. and you either take the bike lane of doom or squeeze
between an un-jumpable (by me) tram stop and tram tracks/cars.

That's where the bike bypass around the back of the tram stop comes
in..

PC

meh, they've completely destroyed the road in that area (they did a really bodgy job of resurfacing the road, leaving ruts every 15-20 metres, unless they've fixed it recently), so there's little point commuting down it anymore.

Between Burke Rd and Elgar Road, I now travel down Mont Albert Rd (which runs parallel to Whitehorse Rd, albeit about 500 metres south.) Less traffic, wider lane, fewer parked cars, no trams, less/no pedestrians... it just makes good sense.

"PC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

hippy said:

Quoted message said:

I have no objection with the kerb access stops on route 109, however, what is with the giveway
signs that they've just errected at Hood St?

-snip-

Quoted message said:

These are the most ridiculous things I've seen added to a road for public transport!

If you dislike them, prepare for a fight with the disability lobby, who are already going
ballistic about the fact that the DoI isn't building more of these stops to meet DDA targets..

Which will be useful for those regularly riding the route when they get clobbered - thankfully, I
don't need to go near there normally!

I do think from a purely PT point of view that they are a good idea however. No good for any other
user of the road!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They are dangerous and slow traffic needlessly.

Actually, slowing traffic is a very good thing.. It encourages people to move closer to where
they work..

People just take alternate routes, get frustrated and cause more polution.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Flying down that hill on Whitehorse Rd. and you either take the bike lane of doom or squeeze
between an un-jumpable (by me) tram stop and tram tracks/cars.

That's where the bike bypass around the back of the tram stop comes
in..

At one point, the bike lane (going down hill away from the city) dumps you straight into a side
street (which may be where the original poster is talking about.

It is just plane dangerous.

Cyclists are expected to slow at every single stop going through those bike bypasses, whether there
are trams or not.

Tim

hippy said:

These are the most ridiculous things I've seen added to a road for public transport! They are
dangerous and slow traffic needlessly.

Slowing traffic is an advantage, not a disadvantage!

Quoted message said:

Going up the hill, the bike lane veers across a side-street. Does it have an early give-way sign
to indicate to motorists that bikes cross there?

No they've added a giveway sign for cyclists. That's what I'm complaining about since it should be
the otherway round as you suggest.

--
Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia Homepage: austux.netaustux.netOpen ↗ jabber.org.aujabber.org.auOpen ↗ - the
next generation of Instant Messaging.

cfsmtb said:

Is this on Whitehorse Road in Surrey Hill/Mont Albert?

Yep.

--
Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia Homepage: austux.netaustux.netOpen ↗ jabber.org.aujabber.org.auOpen ↗ - the
next generation of Instant Messaging.

Tim Jones said:

I do think from a purely PT point of view that they are a good idea however. No good for any other
user of the road!

Stuff motorists though, seriously. They don't deserve to have two lanes to speed on past the
tram stop.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, slowing traffic is a very good thing.. It encourages people to move closer to where
they work..

People just take alternate routes, get frustrated and cause more polution.

You seriously aren't suggesting that making motorists get frustrated causes more pollution? Making
them frustrated is a good thing as they are more likely to consider other alternatives such as
public transport. The only thing is that decent PT needs to be provided, before we can put these
animals.... eeer I mean motorists out of their missery.

Quoted message said:

At one point, the bike lane (going down hill away from the city) dumps you straight into a side
street (which may be where the original poster is talking about.

No I'm talking about where the lane is broken up by a side street (Hood St to be exact), heading
towards the city. Really they should move the road markings back and clearly mark that part of the
road as a cyclist lane, instead of insisting that cyclists should give way to the miserable animals.

Quoted message said:

Cyclists are expected to slow at every single stop going through those bike bypasses, whether
there are trams or not.

Bugger that.... no point slowing unless a pedestrian is about to step out in front of you.

--
Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia Homepage: austux.netaustux.netOpen ↗ jabber.org.aujabber.org.auOpen ↗ - the
next generation of Instant Messaging.

"PC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you dislike them, prepare for a fight with the disability lobby, who are already going
ballistic about the fact that the DoI isn't building more of these stops to meet DDA targets..

Please a minority group by messing with everyone else?

Quoted message said:

Actually, slowing traffic is a very good thing.. It encourages people to move closer to where
they work..

No it doesn't! Slowing traffic doesn't reduce property prices or rent closer to the city so
people still can't afford to move closer. So what does it do instead? It makes people drive
faster in the parts of their commute that don't have stupid tram stops on them. It makes them get
even more annoyed and frustrated at the slightest slow down in their drive to work, i.e.
cyclists. Road rage ahoy!

Quoted message said:

That's where the bike bypass around the back of the tram stop comes
in..

I'd prefer not to destroy my wheels jumping over the curbing on the entrance and exit to these
paths. I also prefer not to cross a side street _before_ it meets the main road - that's just asking
to be hit by a car exiting the side-street.

hippy

"rek" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

meh, they've completely destroyed the road in that area (they did a really bodgy job of
resurfacing the road, leaving ruts every 15-20 metres, unless they've fixed it recently), so
there's little point commuting down it anymore.

Quite a few small ruts are still there. Most have smoothed out enough to be fine now.

Quoted message said:

Between Burke Rd and Elgar Road, I now travel down Mont Albert Rd

(which

Quoted message said:

runs parallel to Whitehorse Rd, albeit about 500 metres south.) Less traffic, wider lane, fewer
parked cars, no trams, less/no

pedestrians...

Quoted message said:

it just makes good sense.

But you (I) have to make a right-hand turn off Burke Rd. to get onto it. In peak hour, changing
lanes across Burke Rd. is not fun. I prefer to do a right-hand turn at the intersection of Burke and
Whitehorse Rd's. Does Mont Albert Rd. go all the way to Glenferrie Rd? Does it have lights on it at
Burke Rd. - I can't remember, but if it does, that would make it easier/nicer for me to use.

hippy

"Jeremy Lunn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

People just take alternate routes, get frustrated and cause more

polution.

Quoted message said:

You seriously aren't suggesting that making motorists get frustrated causes more pollution?
Making them frustrated is a good thing as they are more likely to consider other alternatives
such as public

transport.

Most motorists I know would never use public transport. At least not until it takes them to and from
their door and is free... So, slowing traffic _does_ cause more pollution - people are in cars
longer but still want to minimise driving time. This all equals faster driving in the fast bits and
longer time idling in the slow bits = more pollution. Ask some of your driving friends what would
make them take public transport.. unless you have much "greener" friends than me, I suspect you will
receive a similar response.

hippy

hippy said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, slowing traffic is a very good thing.. It encourages people to move closer to where
they work..

No it doesn't! Slowing traffic doesn't reduce property prices or rent closer to the city so
people still can't afford to move closer. So what does it do instead? It makes people drive
faster in the parts of their commute that don't have stupid tram stops on them. It makes them get
even more annoyed and frustrated at the slightest slow down in their drive to work, i.e.
cyclists. Road rage ahoy!

If you're talking about central CBD workers then there's no reason why they should be driving to
work anyway.

--
Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia Homepage: austux.netaustux.netOpen ↗ jabber.org.aujabber.org.auOpen ↗ - the
next generation of Instant Messaging.

"Jeremy Lunn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

hippy said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, slowing traffic is a very good thing.. It encourages people to move closer to where
they work..

No it doesn't! Slowing traffic doesn't reduce property prices or rent closer to the city so
people still can't afford to move closer. So what does it do instead? It makes people drive
faster in the parts of their commute that don't have stupid tram stops on them. It makes them
get even more annoyed and frustrated at the slightest slow down in their drive to work, i.e.
cyclists. Road rage ahoy!

If you're talking about central CBD workers then there's no reason why they should be driving to
work anyway.

I'm sure if you asked them, that they would have plenty of reasons. None of them particularly
holding water mind you, but their own reasons none-the-less.

As Hippy said, many of these people would only take alternative methods of transport is dragged
kicking and screaming out of their cars.

Tim

hippy said:

Most motorists I know would never use public transport. At least not until it takes them to and
from their door and is free...

Errr, they don't drive for free (barring the fact that they don't pay road taxes), so why should
they take public transport 100% free?

Quoted message said:

So, slowing traffic _does_ cause more pollution - people are in cars longer but still want to
minimise driving time. This all equals faster driving in the fast bits and longer time idling in
the slow bits = more pollution. Ask some of your driving friends what would make them

Wait a minute, if we reduce road capacity, surely that means that there has to be less cars on the
road so we'll get less pollution? Congestion only gets to the point where most people either give up
entirely or they seek alternative means for making the trip. So taking measures like this to reduce
road capacity can only be a good thing. All that needs to be done is ensuring that it isn't at the
expense of cyclists and there's no reason why the bypass at the back of the stops can't be done so
to avoid disruption to cyclists.

--
Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia Homepage: austux.netaustux.netOpen ↗ jabber.org.aujabber.org.auOpen ↗ - the
next generation of Instant Messaging.

hippy said:

Does Mont Albert Rd. go all the way to Glenferrie Rd?

No, but at 50m south you can take Barkers Rd or a few hundred metres north, Whitehorse Rd.

Quoted message said:

Does it have lights on it at Burke Rd. - I can't remember, but

Yes.

--
Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia Homepage: austux.netaustux.netOpen ↗ jabber.org.aujabber.org.auOpen ↗ - the
next generation of Instant Messaging.

Tim Jones said:

I'm sure if you asked them, that they would have plenty of reasons. None of them particularly
holding water mind you, but their own reasons none-the-less.

As Hippy said, many of these people would only take alternative methods of transport is dragged
kicking and screaming out of their cars.

Only a minority. Most people will use public transport if it's decent and gets them around in about
the same amount of time as driving. By slowing down motorists like this, it only makes it easier for
PT to compete as well.

--
Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia Homepage: austux.netaustux.netOpen ↗ jabber.org.aujabber.org.auOpen ↗ - the
next generation of Instant Messaging.

"Jeremy Lunn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:slrnbp71r0.1j8.i-hate-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No it doesn't! Slowing traffic doesn't reduce property prices or rent closer to the city so
people still can't afford to move closer. So what does it do instead? It makes people drive
faster in the parts of their commute that don't have stupid tram stops on them. It makes them
get even more annoyed and frustrated at the slightest slow down in their drive to work, i.e.
cyclists. Road rage ahoy!

If you're talking about central CBD workers then there's no reason why they should be driving to
work anyway.

Again, you're under the false assumption that drivers will actually want to use public transport.
They don't. That's why they will continue to drive to work, even if it takes them 3hrs!

You are also assuming that public transport is available to the city workers who live in the suburbs
(this is most people). There seem to be quite a few suburbs that simply don't have trains because
people want to drive cars so the government builds them roads. Who is going to sit on a bus for
30mins, wait around for a while and then sit on a train for an hour? People will drive, even if it
takes longer. "Ooh but there's other people on trains", "It takes too long", "I could get mugged",
"Trains are dirty", "Trains are scary", "I hate public transport", "I want to listen to my radio",
"I just bought a $50k car, I'm going to drive it even if it kills me", "Train tickets cost as much
as my fuel does" (they of course forget all other running costs), "I don't want to walk to the
station", etc, etc, etc, etc... I've been trying to convert people to ride and use public transport
since I came to Melbourne 5+ years ago. My success has been VERY limited. People just don't want to
change - they want everyone else to give up cars first, leaving the roads clear for themselves. Of
course, with everyone thinking the same way, this will never happen. Laziness is a very powerful
motivator.

hippy

"Jeremy Lunn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:slrnbp727g.1j8.i-hate-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Most motorists I know would never use public transport. At least not until it takes them to and
from their door and is free...

Errr, they don't drive for free (barring the fact that they don't pay road taxes), so why should
they take public transport 100% free?

You missed the point. I'm saying that there is a very slim chance of drivers swapping their cars for
public transport. i.e. "they might not ever consider PT _unless_ it went door to door or was free".
I'm not saying it should be free, merely that drivers wont use PT.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, slowing traffic _does_ cause more pollution - people are in cars longer but still want to
minimise driving time. This all equals faster driving in the fast bits and longer time idling in
the slow bits = more pollution. Ask some of your driving friends what would make them

Wait a minute, if we reduce road capacity, surely that means that there has to be less cars on the
road so we'll get less pollution? Congestion

You don't know many drivers do you? All of what you are saying depends upon drivers actually giving
up their cars for PT. This is just not going to happen. People are idiots. People are lazy. They
will sit in their polluting tank of steel, moving along at 5kph, for over an hour, whinging about
fuel prices - all the while with some twisted mental image of "the wind in their hair as they cruise
along a smooth, empty road in their convertible".

Quoted message said:

only gets to the point where most people either give up entirely or they seek alternative means
for making the trip. So taking measures like this to reduce road capacity can only be a good
thing. All that needs to be done is ensuring that it isn't at the expense of cyclists and there's
no reason why the bypass at the back of the stops can't be done so to avoid disruption to
cyclists.

It's a nice thought, but how congested does it have to get before people start moving to PT? I'd say
it'd have to be total gridlock _daily_ before people even thought about PT! Even then, if PT isn't a
heap better, drivers wont consider it.

hippy "grrr... drivers"

"Jeremy Lunn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:slrnbp78v7.1r8.i-hate-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As Hippy said, many of these people would only take alternative methods

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

transport is dragged kicking and screaming out of their cars.

Only a minority.

I fear not.

Quoted message said:

Most people will use public transport if it's decent and gets them around in about the same amount
of time as driving. By

Then why are there so many cars driving past me when I ride to work? I ride parallel to a decent,
often running, safe in peak hour, convenient (for me) train line. It gets me to work QUICKER than if
I drive a car. Why then, do far more people drive along next to this train line, most of them a
single human in a 4/5 seater car???

Quoted message said:

slowing down motorists like this, it only makes it easier for PT to compete as well.

I can see the way you are thinking, but you really do seem to be missing the whole driver mentality
wrt this issue. Drivers simply will not change their ways. It would take a massive slow down in car
travel time and an equally massive improvement of PT before most drivers would even think about
using it. Because the increases of car travel time will be slow in the eyes of drivers, they will be
gridlocked and crawling before they even realise that they need another transport option.

hippy