BNE: Cycling Mt Cootha in jeopardy

Further details from BCC: http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2478.
Oh no! Cyclists have been forced onto the road! Woe is me!!

Donga

"
A review of Sir Samuel Griffith Drive, Mt Coot-tha is being
undertaken. The focus will be on safety for motorists, buses, cyclists
and pedestrians.

It will cover Sir Samuel Griffith Drive from the Mt Coot-tha summit,
westward around Mt Coot-tha to the intersection with Simpsons Road at
Bardon.

Public consultation is available until 2 March 2007. The findings and
the recommendations will be available by late March 2007.

Project details

This road largely operates as a two-lane roadway. Increased usage has
led to:

cyclists and walkers being forced onto the road
vehicles needing to pass cyclists and walkers by crossing over the
centre line of the road
Brisbane City Council has three improvement options:

Option 1 - One-way vehicle operation

Change the operation of Sir Samuel Griffith Drive to one-way. This
could be implemented in either direction (summit to Simpsons Road or
Simpsons Road to the summit). It could be either two traffic lanes or
one traffic lane and a pedestrian/bicycle lane.

Option 2 - Two-way vehicle operation with passing bays

Maintain the existing two-way operation and install passing bays at
regular intervals. This would provide safe opportunities for vehicles
to pass pedestrians and cyclists without crossing the centre of the
road.

Option 3 - Current operation with additional signs

Maintain the current operation of the road and install safety and
warning signs. This would help raise awareness of potential traffic,
pedestrian and cyclist hazards.
MORE
"

Best form of defense is attack, if there is so much cyclist traffic
start a petition to ban cars!

PiledHigher said:

Best form of defense is attack, if there is so much cyclist traffic
start a petition to ban cars!

.... or to get the TV stations turfed off the hill.

Donga said:

Further details from BCC:http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2478.
Oh no! Cyclists have been forced onto the road! Woe is me!!

Donga

"
A review of Sir Samuel Griffith Drive, Mt Coot-tha is being
undertaken. The focus will be on safety for motorists, buses, cyclists
and pedestrians.

It will cover Sir Samuel Griffith Drive from the Mt Coot-tha summit,
westward around Mt Coot-tha to the intersection with Simpsons Road at
Bardon.

Public consultation is available until 2 March 2007. The findings and
the recommendations will be available by late March 2007.

Project details

This road largely operates as a two-lane roadway. Increased usage has
led to:

cyclists and walkers being forced onto the road
vehicles needing to pass cyclists and walkers by crossing over the
centre line of the road
Brisbane City Council has three improvement options:

Option 1 - One-way vehicle operation

Change the operation of Sir Samuel Griffith Drive to one-way. This
could be implemented in either direction (summit to Simpsons Road or
Simpsons Road to the summit). It could be either two traffic lanes or
one traffic lane and a pedestrian/bicycle lane.

Option 2 - Two-way vehicle operation with passing bays

Maintain the existing two-way operation and install passing bays at
regular intervals. This would provide safe opportunities for vehicles
to pass pedestrians and cyclists without crossing the centre of the
road.

Option 3 - Current operation with additional signs

Maintain the current operation of the road and install safety and
warning signs. This would help raise awareness of potential traffic,
pedestrian and cyclist hazards.
MORE
"

All cyclists: vote early, vote often (an old Queensland tradition!),
for Option 3 in the online survey:

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2478

The Mt Cootha circuit is Brisbane's favourite hill training course -
check www.bikely.com for the variety of sessions in each direction of
the loop.

The pampered TV station staff who work on the hill and drive to work
don't like having to wait for cyclists. It's only a few seconds until
the way is clear, and only early in the morning, but heck, "We're
celebrities, we should be able to drive fast". So they are putting the
pressure on council to have the loop road made one-way. This would be
a disaster for cycling in Brisbane.

Mt Cootha is a key tourist destination in Brisbane, for cyclists and
'normal' folk. So even if you don't live here, you are entitled to
vote. Vote Option 3. Say you want the amenity of Mt Cootha for
cycling, walking and running on the loop road preserved. Ask why the
TV stations are still allowed to occupy public recreational nature
reserve, in these days when technology would allow them to relocate
off the mountain.

Thanks for helping us out, where ever you are. Voting closes this
Friday, so don't delay.

Donga

Donga said:

Thanks for helping us out, where ever you are. Voting closes this
Friday, so don't delay.

Would they trace the IP's on these surveys, or could it be classified a "postal vote"? 😉

On Feb 27, 9:11 am, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.2mm...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

Donga said:

Thanks for helping us out, where ever you are. Voting closes this
Friday, so don't delay.

Would they trace the IP's on these surveys, or could it be classified a
"postal vote"? 😉

--
cfsmtb

Doesn't matter - say you're from out of town but you like to visit
Brisbane (and spend money).

On Feb 27, 10:11 am, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.2mm...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

Donga said:

Thanks for helping us out, where ever you are. Voting closes this
Friday, so don't delay.

Would they trace the IP's on these surveys, or could it be classified a
"postal vote"? 😉

--
cfsmtb

They are not tracing to stop you voting twice so I assume that they
aren't doing anything very sophisticated!

I am happy to offer my vote, however why is option 3 preferred?

I would have thought the best option is a one way single lane for motor
vehicles and a two way lane for pedestrians and cyclists. This *could*
be Option 1. The wording of Option 1 is ambiguous to me, do they mean
one way for all traffic (motor vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians) or
one way for motor vehicles and two way for cyclists/pedestrians?

Option 2 is to add passing lanes, this has to be better from a cyclist
perspective than Option 3 which is to add signs only.

I haven't ridden this rode (yet) however I live in Toowong and I am
familiar with it.

Donga said:

Donga said:

Further details from BCC:http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2478.
Oh no! Cyclists have been forced onto the road! Woe is me!!

Donga

"
A review of Sir Samuel Griffith Drive, Mt Coot-tha is being
undertaken. The focus will be on safety for motorists, buses, cyclists
and pedestrians.

It will cover Sir Samuel Griffith Drive from the Mt Coot-tha summit,
westward around Mt Coot-tha to the intersection with Simpsons Road at
Bardon.

Public consultation is available until 2 March 2007. The findings and
the recommendations will be available by late March 2007.

Project details

This road largely operates as a two-lane roadway. Increased usage has
led to:

cyclists and walkers being forced onto the road
vehicles needing to pass cyclists and walkers by crossing over the
centre line of the road
Brisbane City Council has three improvement options:

Option 1 - One-way vehicle operation

Change the operation of Sir Samuel Griffith Drive to one-way. This
could be implemented in either direction (summit to Simpsons Road or
Simpsons Road to the summit). It could be either two traffic lanes or
one traffic lane and a pedestrian/bicycle lane.

Option 2 - Two-way vehicle operation with passing bays

Maintain the existing two-way operation and install passing bays at
regular intervals. This would provide safe opportunities for vehicles
to pass pedestrians and cyclists without crossing the centre of the
road.

Option 3 - Current operation with additional signs

Maintain the current operation of the road and install safety and
warning signs. This would help raise awareness of potential traffic,
pedestrian and cyclist hazards.
MORE
"

All cyclists: vote early, vote often (an old Queensland tradition!),
for Option 3 in the online survey:

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2478

The Mt Cootha circuit is Brisbane's favourite hill training course -
check www.bikely.com for the variety of sessions in each direction of
the loop.

The pampered TV station staff who work on the hill and drive to work
don't like having to wait for cyclists. It's only a few seconds until
the way is clear, and only early in the morning, but heck, "We're
celebrities, we should be able to drive fast". So they are putting the
pressure on council to have the loop road made one-way. This would be
a disaster for cycling in Brisbane.

Mt Cootha is a key tourist destination in Brisbane, for cyclists and
'normal' folk. So even if you don't live here, you are entitled to
vote. Vote Option 3. Say you want the amenity of Mt Cootha for
cycling, walking and running on the loop road preserved. Ask why the
TV stations are still allowed to occupy public recreational nature
reserve, in these days when technology would allow them to relocate
off the mountain.

Thanks for helping us out, where ever you are. Voting closes this
Friday, so don't delay.

Donga

Bradley said:

I am happy to offer my vote, however why is option 3 preferred?

I would have thought the best option is a one way single lane for motor
vehicles and a two way lane for pedestrians and cyclists. This *could*
be Option 1. The wording of Option 1 is ambiguous to me, do they mean
one way for all traffic (motor vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians) or
one way for motor vehicles and two way for cyclists/pedestrians?

Option 2 is to add passing lanes, this has to be better from a cyclist
perspective than Option 3 which is to add signs only.

I haven't ridden this rode (yet) however I live in Toowong and I am
familiar with it.

OK, here goes the argument:
1. Don't spend public money unless there is a need (it's our taxes)
2. The current structure works quite well. Cyclists and walkers/
runners love it. Drivers have to wait a few seconds for cyclists,
mainly from 6-7 am.
3. Cyclists sometimes ride two abreast up the hill, but generally move
over when they hear a car. On the downhill, they don't cross to the
wrong side, because the road camber and curves are good.
4. Some drivers are impatient and try to pass on double lines,
illegally, or when they can't see ahead. They get a scare when a
cyclist comes fast downhill the other way (not as scared as the
cyclist), but this is not common and I haven't heard of an accident
caused by this. Most accidents, car or bike, have been single-vehicle
caused by excessive speed.
5. Any such problems could be largely fixed with signage, minor works
and perhaps some enforcement. Option 2 is acceptable, but the cost is
unnecessary - passing bays are not built cheaply on a hill.
7. Confining cyclists and walkers to a single, dual-direction lane
would make descending unsafe. This is a steep hill with significant
speed (50+) and descending absolutely requires a full lane. Option 1
is the product of 70's thinking, that cyclists don't belong on roads
(note the words "cyclists being forced onto roads).
8. Making cycling one-way is absurd. I've seen numerous 'beginners'
riding the hill and turning around halfway - I started out doing this
myself. We can't tell them to ride all the way.
9. Mt Cootha is incredibly valuable to Brisbane cyclists - only at Mt
Gravatt, some distance away, can you do a hills ride before work.
Hundreds, maybe thousands, use it regularly. This is a sport and
activity that is ballooning, and should be encouraged and fostered.

Bradley, I hope I've explained it well. By all means vote Option 2 if
you don't mind your taxes ballooning in order to look after some
impatient motorists - heck, with tunnels and all, what does it matter?
But please don't think for another second that Option 1 is OK.

Donga

quote='Donga'On Feb 27 said:

I am happy to offer my vote, however why is option 3 preferred?

I would have thought the best option is a one way single lane for motor
vehicles and a two way lane for pedestrians and cyclists. This *could*
be Option 1. The wording of Option 1 is ambiguous to me, do they mean
one way for all traffic (motor vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians) or
one way for motor vehicles and two way for cyclists/pedestrians?

Option 2 is to add passing lanes, this has to be better from a cyclist
perspective than Option 3 which is to add signs only.

I haven't ridden this rode (yet) however I live in Toowong and I am
familiar with it.

OK, here goes the argument:
1. Don't spend public money unless there is a need (it's our taxes)
2. The current structure works quite well. Cyclists and walkers/
runners love it. Drivers have to wait a few seconds for cyclists,
mainly from 6-7 am.
3. Cyclists sometimes ride two abreast up the hill, but generally move
over when they hear a car. On the downhill, they don't cross to the
wrong side, because the road camber and curves are good.
4. Some drivers are impatient and try to pass on double lines,
illegally, or when they can't see ahead. They get a scare when a
cyclist comes fast downhill the other way (not as scared as the
cyclist), but this is not common and I haven't heard of an accident
caused by this. Most accidents, car or bike, have been single-vehicle
caused by excessive speed.
5. Any such problems could be largely fixed with signage, minor works
and perhaps some enforcement. Option 2 is acceptable, but the cost is
unnecessary - passing bays are not built cheaply on a hill.
7. Confining cyclists and walkers to a single, dual-direction lane
would make descending unsafe. This is a steep hill with significant
speed (50+) and descending absolutely requires a full lane. Option 1
is the product of 70's thinking, that cyclists don't belong on roads
(note the words "cyclists being forced onto roads).
8. Making cycling one-way is absurd. I've seen numerous 'beginners'
riding the hill and turning around halfway - I started out doing this
myself. We can't tell them to ride all the way.
9. Mt Cootha is incredibly valuable to Brisbane cyclists - only at Mt
Gravatt, some distance away, can you do a hills ride before work.
Hundreds, maybe thousands, use it regularly. This is a sport and
activity that is ballooning, and should be encouraged and fostered.

Bradley, I hope I've explained it well. By all means vote Option 2 if
you don't mind your taxes ballooning in order to look after some
impatient motorists - heck, with tunnels and all, what does it matter?
But please don't think for another second that Option 1 is OK.

Donga[/QUOTE]

[nods in agreement]

Adam