Another Clarendon Street response

[email hidden said:

"]VicRoads this time.

I fired off my objections through their website on the 11th of January,
I received a response today. Common to both responses is reference to
the Principal Bicycle Network (PBN), frankly I don't like the
implications. It smacks too much of `cycle where we tell you to cycle.'

[Response Snipped]

Euan,

Don't bite my head off, but I can sort of see their point of view here. The powers that be (Port Phillip Council, VicRoads or whoever) had a problem to address on Clarendon Street (delays to trams), and they're attempting to solve it. Unfortunately, the method they have tried has disadvantaged cyclists. I imagine there are examples of road 'improvements' that have disadvantaged other road users, including motorists, all over the place. You win some, lose some.

I'm definitely not an advocate of segregation, or one of the 'if there's a cycle path you have to use it' brigade. However, IMHO, Moray Street is a far safer and more pleasant road to cycle down (it's on my normal commute). In fact I woul take it in preference to Clarendon even when I'm in the car.

When is the pilot due to finish?

Incidentally, I was interested to hear about the Port Phillip BUG meeting you mentioned in one of your previous posts. Hopefully I'll make it to one sometime soon.

Cheers,
Craigster.

Hi Euan - I have been working in Sth Melb/Port Melb over the past couple of
months, and I often ride down Clarendon St. I've been following this thread
for a while and (in all seriousness) I would like to ask what exactly are
the issues that you have with the new tram stop treatment? IMO there is
still plenty of room for cyclists to ride between the tram tracks & the tram
stops, and there is still enough room left over for cars to overtake
cyclists safely. So am I missing something here? What is the exact nature of
the probelm?

DS

Quoted message said:

From: craigster_jd <[email hidden]>
Organization: cyclingforums.com
Newsgroups: aus.bicycle
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:32:13 +1100
Subject: Re: Another Clarendon Street response

[email hidden] Wrote:
VicRoads this time.

Quoted message said:

I fired off my objections through their website on the 11th of

January,

Quoted message said:

I received a response today. Common to both responses is reference to
the Principal Bicycle Network (PBN), frankly I don't like the
implications. It smacks too much of `cycle where we tell you to

cycle.'

Quoted message said:

[Response Snipped]

Euan,

Don't bite my head off, but I can sort of see their point of view here.

The

Quoted message said:

powers that be (Port Phillip Council, VicRoads or whoever) had a

problem to

Quoted message said:

address on Clarendon Street (delays to trams), and they're

attempting to solve

Quoted message said:

it. Unfortunately, the method they have tried has

disadvantaged cyclists. I

Quoted message said:

imagine there are examples of road

'improvements' that have disadvantaged

Quoted message said:

other road users, including

motorists, all over the place. You win some, lose

Quoted message said:

some.

I'm definitely not an advocate of segregation, or one of the 'if

there's a

Quoted message said:

cycle path you have to use it' brigade. However, IMHO, Moray

Street is a far

Quoted message said:

safer and more pleasant road to cycle down (it's on my

normal commute). In

Quoted message said:

fact I woul take it in preference to Clarendon even

when I'm in the car.

Quoted message said:

When is the pilot due to finish?

Incidentally, I was interested to hear about the Port Phillip BUG

meeting you

Quoted message said:

mentioned in one of your previous posts. Hopefully I'll

make it to one

Quoted message said:

sometime soon.

Cheers,
Craigster.

--
craigster_jd

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "David" == David Sutton <[email hidden]> writes:

David> Hi Euan - I have been working in Sth Melb/Port Melb over the
David> past couple of months, and I often ride down Clarendon
David> St. I've been following this thread for a while and (in all
David> seriousness) I would like to ask what exactly are the issues
David> that you have with the new tram stop treatment? IMO there is
David> still plenty of room for cyclists to ride between the tram
David> tracks & the tram stops, and there is still enough room left
David> over for cars to overtake cyclists safely. So am I missing
David> something here? What is the exact nature of the probelm?

Specifically, the junction of Park Street and Clarendon where cyclists
*have* to cross tram tracks at an unsafe angle. It might not be a
problem on a MTB but on a skinny 700 X 23 it's definately a problem.

Other than that I disagree with you when you say there's enough room
left over for cars to overtake safely. If there was enough room
motorists wouldn't have to cross the dividing line. Unfortunately they
do.
--
Cheers
Euan

[email hidden said:

"]

Specifically, the junction of Park Street and Clarendon where cyclists
*have* to cross tram tracks at an unsafe angle. It might not be a
problem on a MTB but on a skinny 700 X 23 it's definately a problem.

Other than that I disagree with you when you say there's enough room
left over for cars to overtake safely. If there was enough room
motorists wouldn't have to cross the dividing line. Unfortunately they
do.
--
Cheers
Euan

I'm with Euan with this one. Another perspective - the first encounter I had with the new 'Think Tram' stops on Friday night was when a waiting van attempted to turn right - in to me. Not a pleasant introduction. I'll make inquiries if these stops are planned anywhere else and follow up if necessary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "cfsmtb" == cfsmtb <[email hidden]> writes:

cfsmtb> I'm with Euan with this one. Another perspective - the first
cfsmtb> encounter I had with the new 'Think Tram' stops on Friday
cfsmtb> night was when a waiting van attempted to turn right - in to
cfsmtb> me. Not a pleasant introduction. I'll make inquiries if
cfsmtb> these stops are planned anywhere else and follow up if
cfsmtb> necessary.

It's a pilot scheme, so there are defiantly more in the works. If you
have concerns please take the time to write the council. The more
letters they get, the more they'll take notice.

BV page on issue:

http://tinyurl.com/4nbu5

VicRoads page on project:

http://tinyurl.com/5basn

Routes that will be affected from that page:

Priority routes
Route 86: Bourke St, Gertrude St, Smith St, High St, Plenty Rd
Route 55: Queensbridge St/William St/Peel St/Flemington Rd
Route 59: St Kilda Rd/William St, Peel St/ Flemington Rd
Route 19: Elizabeth St, Royal Pde, Sydney Rd
Route 112: Clarendon St, Collins St, Brunswick St, St Georges Rd
Route 109: Collins St, Victoria Pde
Route 48/75: Flinders St, Wellington St, Bridge Rd
Route 6/8: Swanston St, St Kilda Rd

So if the changes in Clarendon street go through unopposed you can
expect the same treatment on all of the above routes. Not a pleasant
prospect.
--
Cheers
Euan

[email hidden said:

"]>>>>> "cfsmtb" == cfsmtb <[email hidden]> writes:

cfsmtb> I'm with Euan with this one. Another perspective - the first
cfsmtb> encounter I had with the new 'Think Tram' stops on Friday
cfsmtb> night was when a waiting van attempted to turn right - in to
cfsmtb> me. Not a pleasant introduction. I'll make inquiries if
cfsmtb> these stops are planned anywhere else and follow up if
cfsmtb> necessary.

It's a pilot scheme, so there are defiantly more in the works. If you
have concerns please take the time to write the council. The more
letters they get, the more they'll take notice.

BV page on issue:

http://tinyurl.com/4nbu5

VicRoads page on project:

http://tinyurl.com/5basn

Routes that will be affected from that page:

Priority routes
Route 86: Bourke St, Gertrude St, Smith St, High St, Plenty Rd
Route 55: Queensbridge St/William St/Peel St/Flemington Rd
Route 59: St Kilda Rd/William St, Peel St/ Flemington Rd
Route 19: Elizabeth St, Royal Pde, Sydney Rd
Route 112: Clarendon St, Collins St, Brunswick St, St Georges Rd
Route 109: Collins St, Victoria Pde
Route 48/75: Flinders St, Wellington St, Bridge Rd
Route 6/8: Swanston St, St Kilda Rd

So if the changes in Clarendon street go through unopposed you can
expect the same treatment on all of the above routes. Not a pleasant
prospect.
--
Cheers
Euan

I live on Park Street and often have to venture down Claredon Street for one reason or another by car and bike! There has already been 1 incident involving a Car and Tram, already, its ugly, its dangerous and its only a matter of time before a cyclist or driver is killed or injured seriously.

The worst thing I see quite often is impatient drivers stuck behind a tram at one of those stops, trying to go straight ahead, the lights change and then they decide to turn right anyway! Not using the hook-turn, its a recipe for disaster.

I know all roads there are inherently dangerous, but I thought the idea was to decrease the dangers not increase them, I can only assume their drive behind this is to drive traffic away from clarendon street ?? If it works I guess they will be called geniuses.

Quoted message said:

Specifically, the junction of Park Street and Clarendon where cyclists
*have* to cross tram tracks at an unsafe angle. It might not be a
problem on a MTB but on a skinny 700 X 23 it's definately a problem.

Ok firstly, a public mass-transit system has to take priority over any
single user vehicle (including bikes)

Secondly, maybe you should consider a more appropriate bicycle for
such conditions. You wouldn't take a Porsche 911 down a bush-track.
Sounds like a skinny racer bike isn't the best thing for this surface.

No youve missed the point... its unsafe... if you are crossing the road,
riding a bike or in a car, it is absoluetely unsafe, especially when it has the ability to case back of traffic through the lights, which happens all the time.

so when I head out for a ride along Beach Road, do I first have to ride my mountain bike across the tram tracks and then hope back on the roadie again.

I have no problem with a mass transit system tacking priority, just be good if it was safe thats all.

Ive sent my email to the council and vic roads anyway.

quote='ggf'On Sat said:

Specifically, the junction of Park Street and Clarendon where cyclists
*have* to cross tram tracks at an unsafe angle. It might not be a
problem on a MTB but on a skinny 700 X 23 it's definately a problem.

Ok firstly, a public mass-transit system has to take priority over any
single user vehicle (including bikes)

Secondly, maybe you should consider a more appropriate bicycle for
such conditions. You wouldn't take a Porsche 911 down a bush-track.
Sounds like a skinny racer bike isn't the best thing for this surface.[/QUOTE]

ggf said:

Secondly, maybe you should consider a more appropriate bicycle for
such conditions. You wouldn't take a Porsche 911 down a bush-track.
Sounds like a skinny racer bike isn't the best thing for this surface.

You could be onto something.
Think of the money the authorities can save by not repairing potholes.
Then, if a car is damaged, or worse, tough.
Drivers should know better than to drive, without off-road suspension, on a CITY STREET.

========

I don 't remember the Adelaide tram tracks being a problem.
Maybe they lay the bitumen closer and limit the speed of the trams on those sections?
Something to think about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "ggf" == ggf <[email hidden]> writes:

ggf> Ok firstly, a public mass-transit system has to take priority
ggf> over any single user vehicle (including bikes)

Uh huh, your point? I haven't argued that bicycles should take priority
over trams, I've argued that the engineering to facilitate that is
flawed and endangers other road users. That is not acceptable.

Let's take the closing off of one lane for a start, that increases
vehicular congestion down the entire street (indeed this was cited in a
letter to me as an "improvement" for cyclist safety) which only serves
to delay trams even more. The extension of the pavement to the offside
lane puts cyclists in the path of trams as well.

The only reason hook turns work in the city is because it takes right
turning vehicles out of two lanes of traffic. The right turn lanes in
Clarendon Street close off one of the lanes which is downright dumb.

The accident rate in Clarendon street has increased for the duration of
the pilot so far, that should be telling enough.

ggf> Secondly, maybe you should consider a more appropriate bicycle
ggf> for such conditions. You wouldn't take a Porsche 911 down a
ggf> bush-track. Sounds like a skinny racer bike isn't the best
ggf> thing for this surface.

Unless you missed it, Clarendon Street is a road, not a bush track. If
I was going to the bush I'd take a mountain bike. I use a road bike and
with good reason. My commute is 40KM day, soon to go up to 65km a day.
--
Cheers
Euan