109 kerb access tram stops

Originally posted by Jeremy Lunn 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?

--
it's all a creeping beige conspiracy

Quoted message said:

--------------------------<

Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

"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.

--
http://members.atlasf1.com/rek/bikes/bikes

Quoted message said:

--------------------------<

Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

"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

cfsmtb said:

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

Yep.

--
Jeremy Lunn
Melbourne, Australia
Homepage: http://www.austux.net/
http://www.jabber.org.au/ - the next generation of Instant Messaging.

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: http://www.austux.net/
http://www.jabber.org.au/ - 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: http://www.austux.net/
http://www.jabber.org.au/ - 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: http://www.austux.net/
http://www.jabber.org.au/ - the next generation of Instant Messaging.

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: http://www.austux.net/
http://www.jabber.org.au/ - 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:

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: http://www.austux.net/
http://www.jabber.org.au/ - 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: http://www.austux.net/
http://www.jabber.org.au/ - the next generation of Instant Messaging.

"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: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: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