Bicycle NSW Level 2, 209 Castlereagh St Sydney 2000 phone: 9283 5200 fax: 9283 5246 31 July 2000

Dear Ross,

This is the response from Bicycle NSW and the North Shore Bicycle User Group to the amended proposals for cycle facilities along Epping Road, Longueville Road and the Gore Hill Freeway as part of the Lane Cove Tunnel project and to feed into the current EIS process.

First, my apologies for the delay in providing this response back to you. As you would know we are all volunteers working in our spare time and our processes also require internal consultation. The task at hand also was a rather larger task than at first envisaged as can be seen from our approach and the detail in our response.

The most recent meetings with the consultants on the Lane Cove Tunnel project, on 23 June and 26 June 2000, were very pleasing to the bicycle representatives present. The ideas and suggestions that were presented to us by the consultants were clearly aimed to provide both a commuter and a recreational bike route along the corridor. This follows from the recognition that cycling is a viable form of commuter transport that must not just be catered to but be promoted in this important transport corridor. It is also important to maintain a low stress link for less experienced cyclists or children who may not wish to travel as quickly.

As requested, we received detailed plans from Hyder Consulting immediately following our last meeting and we were thus able to undertake a detailed review of the proposals. Subsequently we prepared this submission which reinforces the proposed facilities and gives our preferences when multiple options were presented. At the meeting a series of options were presented to us which indicated that there were sections where compromises were required. Our assessment of the plan indicates that, for cycle facilities, fewer compromises are necessary than were suggested to us in the meetings. It is possible to maintain a higher standard of cycle facility by making arrangements or compromises to other uses in the same competing space. When our amended proposals are incorporated into the project then cyclists will have an adequate facility along the entire corridor.

Although it is not within your current project brief, we would like to advise you that Bicycle NSW is focussing on the regional context of the proposed project. We will be approaching the government to request improvements to cycle facilities at both ends of the project including from Naremburn to the Sydney Harbour Bridge and from North Ryde to Epping. The objective of this approach would be to ensure that the new high grade facilities will be available from Epping all the way to the city.

It is important that the proposals with our amendments be adopted in the EIS process and become the recommended option for implementing cycling infrastructure in this project. Clear commitment to cycling is required by the planning and funding authorities.

For any further information on this proposal please contact one of the contacts below:

Neil Tonkin, Phone: 9283 5200, Email: ntonkin@bicyclensw.org.au

Carolyn New, Phone: 9438 1903, Email: carolynn@ihug.com.au

Russ Webber, Phone: 9906 7238, Email: r.webber@bom.gov.au

Doug Stewart, Phone: 9887 1478, Email: speedwell74@yahoo.com

Please note the this submission consists of this word document plus 9 figures which are sent separately due to space reasons.

Yours sincerely,

Doug Stewart

Lane Cove Tunnel Project - EIS process

Community Consultation 23 June 2000

Focus Group on Cycle and Pedestrian Issues 26 June 2000

Response from Bicycle New South Wales

Introduction

A representative from Bicycle New South Wales (Doug Stewart) and the North Shore Bike Group (Carolyn New) met with consultants on 23 June 2000, to discuss options for a commuter and recreational cycle facilities from Delhi Road North Ryde to Merrenburn Ave, Naremburn as part of the Lane Cove Tunnel Project (LCTP). We also attended a Focus Group on 26 June where the proposals were presented, in brief, to a larger group.

Bicycle New South Wales (BNSW) was asked to provide a response to the proposals which resulted in this document. The format of the rest of this document is:

• Cycle Facility Design Principles for the LCTP. A listing of the cycle facility design principles relevant to the project and which need to be adopted in the project;
• Cycle Facility Treatments. A listing of the cycle facility treatments (labeled Treatments 1 to 7) which were proposed by the consultants during our meetings, giving our understanding of those treatments and key design points,
• Location based detailed comments. A listing of the locations along the facility from west to east (labeled a to z) where each of the treatments is to be built. This section includes detailed comments at certain key locations;
• Conclusion.

We believe that the government's policy to reduce dependence on private cars and generate a mode shift in transport use can be a key outcome of this project. Clearly the LCTP bus transport enhancements will provide the biggest benefit to commuters in this area, however cycling offers several important and unique benefits, and must be strongly favoured and promoted as a viable option for commuters.

• Cycling is private transport where the owner has control over many important factors
• cycling is point-to-point such that a commuter need not switch modes at all
• cycling is on-demand such that there is never any waiting or dependence on timetables
• cycling is extremely low cost when compared to other commuter transport options
• Cycling is a time effective method of transport
• cycling is fast with estimated average speeds on the corridor at about 20km/hr
• the travel times from day-to-day are extremely consistent
• cycling combines fitness time with commuting time
• Cycling provides personal and environmental benefits
• cycling is available to all commuters from teenage years upwards
• increased cycling reduces pollution from motor cars
• cycling improves the health of cyclists and benefits them and the community
• cycling is the most fun way to commute
• cycling improves personal safety when compared to walking

Commuter bicycle use has not been catered to for many decades along this important transport corridor and a large commitment is required to redress the situation. Therefore the budget commitment to cycling may need to be larger than in previous projects to make up.

Throughout this response, references to Austroads 14 are to the Second Edition, 1999.

Cycle Facility Design Principles for the LCTP.

While in general Austroads 14 gives excellent cycle facility design principles covering most aspects, there are some areas that are not covered in adequate detail. Also in Austroads there are many places where choices can be made as to which treatment is appropriate. This section clarifies the guidelines and choices that we believe should be applied to the LCTP. Extensive reference should be made to most parts of Austroads 14.

1. Cyclists must be treated as equal to every other road or path user and not be at the end of the pecking order. This means that cyclists should compromise at the same time and to the same level as other users. Cycle facilities should only be downgraded to another level or reduced in width if similar compromises are made to road and pedestrian facilities.
2. The cycle facilities should be continuous and as consistent as possible for the entire length of the facility. Transitions will be necessary between treatment types but these should be carefully designed.
3. All attempts should be made to reduce conflict between motor vehicles and bicycles by means of separation of their facilities. When allocated cycle space is adjacent to motor vehicles, then separation should occur by means of a barrier such as a "New Jersey Barrier" (preferred), Low fence, median strip, road blisters or Vibra-Line (at a minimum).
4. All attempts should be made to reduce conflict between pedestrians and bicycles by means of separation of their facilities. When allocated space is adjacent, then separation should occur by means of a kerb (preferred when the cycle path is separated) or painted centre-lines on the pavement (on a shared facility).
5. To reduce conflict with pedestrians and enhance pedestrian safety, pedestrians should cross the cycle path at marked pedestrian crossings. Such crossings must be signposted to both cyclists and pedestrians, and at these points cyclists should give way to pedestrians in a similar manner to a normal road pedestrian crossing. At other places pedestrians must give way to cyclists under Australian Road Rule, Regulation 239. Pedestrians should be encouraged to behave in this manner by a stepping down from the kerb to cross the cycle path without lingering in a manner similar to crossing a roadway.
6. Car parking should be banned in cycle lanes. If parking is required in any section, then a completely separate parking lane of at least 2.2m in width must be provided. When there is not enough room for a separate parking lane, then parking should be omitted rather than compromise the safety and utility of cycle facility.
7. Cycle facilities must be wide enough to cater for safe passing of cyclists and other path users:
1. For a cycle lane at the edge of the road, the lane must not be wide enough to be perceived as a car lane. We request that the width be 2.0m
2. For a two-way dedicated cycle path we request that the width is 3.0m
3. For a shared footpath in areas of high pedestrian activity we request a width of 4.0m.
8. There must be no fences or walls or handrails within 0.5m of either side of the cycle path pavement to allow for handlebar clearance at the edges. Thus, while the pavement width will be 2.0 or 3.0 or 4.0 metres, the area clear of obstructions should be 1m wider, i.e. 0.5m on each side.
9. To promote clear sight lines all vegetation within 1m of the cycle path edge should be restricted to 1m high. On curves and corners this distance should be considerably extended to ensure sight lines. This affects the type of plantings that can be made in these areas. Low herbs and grasses would be appropriate at the edge of the cycleway. (Refer Austroads figure 6-5)
10. All the commuter cycle facilities in this project should be built in accordance with Austroads 14 to cater for speeds of 30km/hr on the flat and 40km/hr on slopes. While cyclists will be slower uphill they more than make up for this deficit downhill. Any slope will allow for higher speeds in one direction so the cycle facility should be constructed with this in mind. The design should include aspects of minimum radius of corners, sight lines, gradient and facility width.
11. Minimum radius of curvature is affected by speed, sight distance and superelevation (banking). All curves must have a minimum radius of 25 metres with Austroads 14 preferring 30 metres. When a path is on a gradient then the minimum radius should be 50 metres to cope with a 40 km/hr cyclist. Superelevation (see Austroads 14 Table 6-2) can reduce the radius requirement but not by a substantial amount.
12. Sight distance is critical to cycle way construction and is something which is very often designed poorly. The view around corners is the critical issue, and the most important aspect is to intruding vegetation over time, although other obstructions are also common. Austroads 14 (figure 6-6) suggest a stopping distance of 40 metres for a 30km/hr cyclist. On a 30 metre minimum radius curve this equates to about 6.5 metres of clear sight back from the edge of the curved cycle path! This means 6.5 metres which does not have vegetation tall than 0.5 metres so that all cyclists can clearly see around the corner.
13. Gradient is an aspect of cycling that most cyclists are very sensitive to. Apart from the difficulty in climbing a steep gradient another issue is safety on the downhill run. With higher speeds there needs to be more cycle path width provided on sloping facilities. Austroads 14 (section 6.3.6) recommends that gradients do not exceed 3% as a desirable maximum. Sections may be up to 5% in grade, which is considered by Austroads 14 to be the maximum gradient for downhill safety.
14. All bridges and ramps should be aligned with the direction of travel and be designed to match the path speed. In particular minimum curve radius, maximum gradient and minimum path width are critical.
15. At intersections between roads and cycle paths or shared paths should be painted a distinctive shade of green.
16. At intersections cyclists on the two-way path or in an cycle lane should have right of way over motor vehicles turning across the cycle path or lane. This should be reinforced by "give way to cyclists" signs. Signs should be placed on the approach via the local street as well as on the main road.
17. On shared cycle/pedestrian paths appropriate signage should be constructed to
1. warn pedestrians and cyclists that this is a shared facility
2. indicate that all path users should always keep well to the left of the painted centre-line
3. instruct cyclists to ring their bells when approaching other path users
4. encourage users to be courteous and considerate to each other.
18. Wherever a kerb must be crossed by cyclists the drop kerbs should have no lips at all, should be broadly dished with no sudden change of angle and should be at least the width of the facility so it can be approached at an angle. The wider kerb ramp also allows for longer and wider bicycles. Thus kerb ramps will typically be 3.0m wide.
19. All cycle facilities must allow for use by all non-standard human powered vehicles. These would include longer vehicles such as tandem bicycles (length 2.5 metres) and wider vehicles such as recumbent tricycles and children's bicycle trailers (width 0.9 metres). All bollards, squeeze points, kerb crossings must accommodate these dimensions with ease.
20. To enhance safety and reduce debris on the cycle path materials such as bark chips, sand, or loose soil should not placed such that it can be washed, blown or fall on to the cycle path
21. Bollards on the cycle path should be avoided. Only where a recorded problem exists of intrusion by motor vehicles should bollards be considered. At that stage they can be retro-fitted. We believe that bollards are not automatically needed on cycle facilities. If bollards are demonstrably required to be fitted then please consult with BNSW on the detailed planning for each site and only in accordance with the following:
1. Only a single bollard should be used and it should be placed in the centre of the path.
2. All bollards should be a light and distinctive colour so they stand out
3. All bollards should have distinctive reflective material for night time safety on at least 25% of each surfaces which faces the cycle traffic,
4. All bollards should have a centre-line leading up to them in a broader and distinctly different colour
22. Where a dedicated cycle path or shared cycle path crosses a road then holding rails must be provided on the left hand side of the pathway set back 0.3m from the edge of the path.
23. Where a cyclist must cross at a cyclist/pedestrian crossing then any crossing signal button should be place on the left side 0.3m back from the edge of the path.
24. Where cycle lanes are provided, every traffic signal must provide a detector to detect cycles in the cycle lane to change the lights. This detector must be sensitive to every type of bicycle.
25. Where a bus priority traffic light is provided we recommend that cyclists also be able to start earlier to reduce travel times.
26. At key points along the facility there must be appropriate destination signage. Both short term waypoints and the cycle facility destination should be given along with distances. For example a sign may have "Lane Cove Shops 1.3km, City 17.5km".

Cycle Facility Treatments

Treatment 1 - Grade separated crossing of road ramps

This treatment allows safe and rapid crossings of on and off ramps. The greatest danger point on a major road is where traffic is crossing a cycle facility. At locations where an off or on-ramp comes down to meet a major road the best option for the cycle facility is to cross under the ramp. Such a crossing point should be made such that a rider need not slow down and therefore must have only gentle corners with good site lines. The tunnel should be wider than the cycle facility on either side. It should be well lit at night.

This type of facility is cheapest to build at the stage of constructing the ramps however retro-fitting is well worth while due to the serious safety problem created by ramps.

Treatment 2 - Separate cycle lane each side of the road in addition to a separated shared pedestrian/cycle path.

This treatment allows confident commuter cyclists to travel with minimum interruption safely along the edge of the road and is the preferred option by commuters as long as adequate width if provided. This treatment should be constructed wherever space is available.

It is likely that commuter cyclists will ride uphill sections up to 25km/hr and downhill sections at 50km/hr and the facility should be designed with these speeds in mind particularly when allowing for overtaking. This should be considered to be a two lane cycle facility.

To reduce potential conflict from motor vehicles the cycle lanes should be separated from the traffic flows by means of "Vibra-Lines" at a minimum and, in appropriate places at points of greater conflict, by narrow median strips or by blisters.

The width of the cycle lane must be sufficient to allow two cyclists to overtake. Given the terrain covered by this treatment the speed differential between cyclists is likely to be over 20 km/hr. Provision also needs to be made to allow for wider than normal bicycles to use the facility such as modern pedal powered recumbent tricycles which are about 0.9m wide. Thus both the speeds and vehicle width dictate this facility should be 2.0m. At some places the words "keep left" should be painted on the surface and an occasional centre line should be marked to facilitate overtaking.

At the start and end of each block and at regular intervals cycle logos should be painted on the surface. At a width of 2.0m with a solid line boundary cars or motor cycles should not mistake the lane for a normal traffic lane. It is preferable to make the lane unmistakably a "cycle-only" lane rather than to reduce the width of the lane to avoid use by cars.

Given the location to build Treatment 2 we believe that there is ample width to build a 2.0m wide cycle lane. If any place cannot accommodate a 2.0m wide lane then a narrower lane is acceptable if all traffic lanes bear the same reduction in width. Thus if all traffic lanes and the cycle lane were reduced by 0.2m at squeeze points then it would be acceptable to build a 1.8m wide cycle lane. Similarly if all traffic lanes and the cycle lane were reduced by 0.5m then it would be acceptable to build a 1.5m cycle lane. To reduce the width of the cycle lane while keeping the traffic lanes at full width would indicate that only cyclists were expected to compromise. This is not an acceptable scenario.

This treatment requires further work where the cycle lane crosses an intersection. More substantial lane dividing barriers, such as a narrow median strip or "blisters" should be used adjacent to intersections to ensure that vehicles do not cut the corner or turn into the cycle lane or use the cycle lane as a street.

Where the cycle lane crosses the side street the cycle lane should be painted a bright green colour, with dashed white lines either side and prominent cycle logos.

Where the route crosses side streets at traffic lights there should be detectors on the cycle facility that will pick up cyclists to trigger the light changes. Cyclists will trigger the car lights and then proceed on green.

There should be no parking allowed in the cycle lane and no obstructions, bollards or squeeze points.

It is expected that a dedicated footpath would be provided on the outside of the cycle lane to reduce the possibility of pedestrians illegally using the cycle lane.

The shared cycle path part of this treatment should be continuous along the southern side of the road and is provided for recreational cyclists and children who should not use the road facility. This path should follow Austroads 14 guidelines for cycle path scenario "D" in figure 6-19 with a width of 3.0m and a design speed of 20 km/hr. Kerb ramps should be lip-less, dished and 3.0m wide.

Treatment 3a.

This treatment is to be used where there is not enough space for Treatment 2. Motor traffic, cyclists and pedestrians all have designated areas each, with two-way traffic. This separation of modes allows safe travel by all concerned. The cycle path should be a minimum of 3.0m wide (See Austroads 14, 4.4.5 and figure 4.12).

The treatment provides for a dedicated cycle path separated from pedestrians by a normal kerb and the facility should be signposted as a separate cycle facility. Provisions for use of the cycle path by pedestrians would then follow the Regulation 239 of the Australian Road Rules.

For this treatment it is important to indicate that pedestrians should treat the cycle path as they would treat a road and only cross with care giving way to cyclists except on a marked crossing. For a normal road, designing the kerb as a natural boundary between road and footpath results in high compliance in separating the traffic and pedestrians. We would expected similar compliance when using a kerb for separation of the footpath and cycle path on this treatment. Under the Australian Road Rules regulation 239 provides that a pedestrian should not use a cycle path and should cross it by the shortest route available.

The treatment also calls for a major separation barrier between the cycle path and the motor traffic in the form of "New Jersey Barriers". This is particularly important because of the two-way nature of the treatment allowing contra-flow traffic patterns.

As this facility will be shared between commuter cyclists and other less experienced users the cycle path should be marked with a centre line to assist in keeping the traffic to the left which will facilitate overtaking.

Where the cycle path crosses side streets the pavement should be coloured bright green and the separation barrier should be reinstated as soon as possible. At side streets which are not controlled by traffic lights signs facing motorists should indicate "Warning. Two way cycle path. Give way to cyclists in both directions." Signs facing cyclists should indicate "Warning cars crossing cycle path".

Where the route crosses side streets at traffic lights there should be detectors on the cycle path that will pick up the presence of a cyclist and then trigger the traffic light change. (See Austroads 14, 6.7.2.3(a).) Cyclists should trigger the normal motor vehicle traffic lights and then proceed on green.

Treatment 3b.

This treatment is used when Treatment 3a comes up to a bus stop. The figure shows the situation where there is a bus lay-by, but the situation with a bus stop and no lay-by would be very similar, just without the extra set back.

The key feature of this treatment is the continuation of the cycle path around the back of the bus waiting area. This will facilitate the picking up of passengers by buses with no disruption to the cycle path. The area of the waiting area would need to be assessed but would certainly be large enough to accommodate bus passenger weather shelters.

Another key feature is the retention of the kerb around the outside of the cycle way and the provision of a pedestrian crossing to move between the footpath and the bus waiting area. With the design mimicking that of a road crossing it is expected that bus passengers would have a high compliance to directly cross the cycle path at the designated crossing. This would be assisted by only allowing access to the waiting area at the crossing.

Excellent sight lines must be maintained on either side of the bus stop crossing to help avoid any conflict. Signs just prior to the crossing should indicate to cyclists the presence of the crossing ahead.

Treatment 4.

This treatment is to be used in the very few situations where there is not room for Treatment 3a. When intersections have left turn lanes, bus priority at lights and right turn lanes and the adjacent property building lines are close then the space available for a cycle path is reduced. From the plans provided to us we have assessed that this situation probably only occurs on the eastern side of the Longueville Road and Epping Road intersection where Treatment 4 would only be required for a short distance. Design work to reduce the application of this treatment in other locations is desirable and may include resuming some land from parks or widening pathways by means of cantilevering, use of retaining walls, reducing the width of medians, removing turning lanes, reducing the width or traffic lanes or realigning footpaths. Where Treatment 4 is used we expect that other claimants to space have similarly compromised.

Across the intersection from this treatment it is expected that the cyclist will pass directly back to the superior Treatment 3a rather than continuing as Treatment 4.

The locations where this treatment is necessary are areas of high pedestrian traffic movements and therefore this path should follow Austroads 14 guidelines for cycle path scenario "F" in figure 6-19 with a width of 4.0m and a design speed of 20 km/hr.

Any traffic signals should have press buttons that are easy to reach from on the bike on the left side of the path and should have holding rails where possible.

Traffic islands must be able to accommodate a tandem bicycle of over 2.5m in length and tricycles and trailers which are 0.9m wide. A generous safety margin should also be allowed in all dimensions.

The drop kerb at pedestrian crossings should be at least 3m wide to allow for cyclists to cross without being funneled into a narrow gap. This kerb should be "lipless" to provide an easy transition and to reduce the probability of flat tyres due to pinches on the sharp lips.

If this treatment is used to cross a side street then the pavement should be coloured bright green. At side streets which are not controlled by traffic lights signs facing motorists should indicate "Warning - cycle path. Give way to cyclists." Signs facing cyclists should indicate "Warning cars crossing cycle path".

In a situation with Bus Priority at Traffic lights we believe that pedestrian lights should "turn green" at the same time as the buses, thus giving cyclists and pedestrians the least possible delays.

It is critically important that cyclists can ride their bikes, rather than walk them, along the pathway and also across intersections to enable speedy travel times.

Treatment 5.

This is a special treatment that allows a shared pathway to split and skirt around and then under an on-ramp at the Pacific Highway. It involves excavating downwards so that the cyclists ride a level path that turns under the ramp when enough head clearance height is gained. This was one of the options proposed to BNSW by the consultants and is our preferred option at this intersection.

A key point is to allow adequate width for a cyclist to execute a U-turn coming down the pathway and to travel towards the freeway.

The gradient of the pathway going up to the highway should not be too steep, preferably less than 10% grade.

The tunnel section must have good site lines with no sharp corners to allow for the best speed. The tunnel must also be well lit at night.

At the western end of this facility cyclists are riding on a shared path of Treatment 4 and to the east cyclists have changed over to a contra-flow path of Treatment 3a.

Treatment 6.

This treatment is to be used for any location where a separated cycle path is constructed parallel with, but separate from, the freeway. Typically the sound barrier for the freeway would be on the freeway-side providing several advantages for cyclists, such as reduced noise, reduced pollution, improve amenity and most importantly it allows for regular connections to local cycle paths.

This treatment should be designed for speeds of 30km/hr although on downhill runs cyclists may easily exceed this speed. The design criteria for this speed should follow Austroads 14 in terms of curve radius, gradient, path banking and sight lines.

Some particular points to note are that all bridges must be aligned with the path to avoid unnecessary corners. Although this will make the bridges longer and more expensive, this is an unavoidable and extremely desirable design feature in this type of cycle path. We should note that this is the design most often used on road bridges for the same reasons. We are requesting that cyclists be considered in the same way as motorists in alignment of bridges.

Austroads 14 recommend a maximum of 5% gradient for downhill safety and this should be the design target for treatment 6. The cycle path should not just follow the contours on the land in the area where treatment 6 is used. In many places the land has been filled or excavated and further works should be undertaken to keep the gradient to the minimum.

When designing the cycle path in the area of the Gore Hill Freeway we would expect that extra design and construction works would be implemented to keep the cycle path relatively level rather than follow the contours of the land closely.

Sight distances are particularly difficult on this type of pathway. One critical aspect is to reduce the height of vegetation plantings adjacent to the path. Certainly no planting that will exceed 1m high should be grown within a distance of 1m back from the path at all times.

On the inside of curves the lateral clearance should be determined from figure 6.5 in Austroads 14 with a design speed of 30km/hr. The calculated area for low vegetation can be quite large. For example for a 5% downhill section where 40km/hr would be expected the minimum radius turn is 50m (Austroads 14, table 6-1). At that speed and gradient the stopping distance is just under 60m. Combined together these require a corner sight line cleared more than 8m back from the cycle path right around the curve.

At the edge of the cycle path no loose material should be used that can fall, roll or wash onto the cycle path. Acceptable material at the edge of a cycle path would be grass. Unacceptable material includes bark chips, mulch, sand and loose soil.

There should be frequent connections to local bike paths to allow for access to the facilities. These intersections should be clearly marked when approaching from all directions and provide clear sight lines at the intersection. Vegetation must be kept low on all these intersections as well.

Treatment 7.

This is the final treatment for the situation where the separated cycle path cannot be built. This treatment uses the edge of the freeway for cyclists. The width of the cycle lane should be 2.0m given the speed of the adjacent traffic and the need for overtaking by faster cyclists. (See Austroads 14, 4.4.1 and figure 4.4). The separation from motor traffic should be made with Vibra-Lines and the road surface should be uniformly sealed across the entire cycle lane.

A critical part of this treatment is how freeway ramps are crossed. The only safe approach is to apply Treatment 1, which gives grade separation to promote safety in this area.

Location based detailed comments

Please refer to the various figures provided and referred to in the Treatment section above. In addition an overview sketch map is provided to assist in the location of these detailed comments along the proposed route marked from a) to z) when travelling from west to east. All the comments are ordered in this direction for consistency. At various points reference will also be made to Cycle Facility Design Principles or Special Treatments as outlined above.

1. Delhi Road. Access should be maintained eastbound and westbound between the M2 and Delhi Road in both directions. The Delhi Road intersection with Epping Road needs to cater to cyclists in all directions as well with painted lines across the intersection.
2. Pittwater Road. The intersection between Pittwater Road and Epping Road is an important entry point for the cyclists feeding from North Ryde into the new cycle lanes eastbound on Epping Road. Treatment 2 is expected to start from this point which will mark the start of the commuter and recreational cycle facilities to the east. Note that a metal expansion joint currently exists on Epping Road at this intersection when travelling east and poses a hazard to cyclists. It should be treated appropriately.
3. Epping Road intersection with the M2. At this point we propose that Treatment 1 (which was suggested by Hyder Consulting and basically follows Austroads 14, Figure 4-32) be retrofitted to the existing freeway to allow safe ingress and egress to the cycle facilities on Epping Road and the M2. Note that the underpass should be built with good visibility on the corners leading into the tunnels. Also note that the ramps themselves should be fitted with provision for a cycle lane to bring cyclists on and off Epping Road at this point (Austroads 14, Figure 4-32). Cyclists should also be able to travel in the cycle lane under the Pittwater Rd intersection over-bridge and onto the main part of the M2. For the rest of the hill down to the Lane Cove River, Treatment 2 will be in place.
4. Magdala Road Bridge. This footbridge currently brings cyclists and walkers from East and North Ryde to Epping Road. The link comes in at the intersection with Mowbray Rd, which is going to be completely realigned as part of the project. It is important that this link be kept open to cyclists and walkers. In particular, a pedestrian crossing is required to enable cyclists to cross to the north side of Epping Road for cyclists travelling to and from the Magdala Rd Bridge east and west on Epping Road as well as to and from Mowbray Road. If possible this crossing should be an re-constructed underpass suitable for cycles, although if the tunnel does not allow for this then an appropriate crossing on the surface of the new intersection is required.
5. Mowbray Road Intersection. Access must be maintained for cyclists to travel in every direction to and from Mowbray Road. With the realignment of the bottom section of Mowbray Road provision should be made for cycle lanes to give access up the hill. Currently it is a narrow and difficult section to cycle on the uphill side. It is particularly important to provide for cyclists climbing the hill as is pointed out in Austroads 14, 4.2.5 because this is where the speed differentials will be the greatest. In addition to the cycle facilities the reconstruction of Mowbray Road must allow for pedestrian footpaths along both sides of the new road. At the intersection itself clear provision should be allowed for cyclists travelling across the intersection in all directions. in particular green pavement should be marked to indicate cycle facilities at the proposed left turn slip lane and on the outside of the right turn across the intersection above the tunnel to and from Mowbray Rd.
6. Uphill Grade from Lane Cove River. This section is a difficult grade for cycling and will result in a large speed differential between cyclists depending on experience and fitness. It should be expected that a reasonable amount of cycles overtaking cycles would take place on the uphill section. In this area it is critical that the widest treatment possible is provided. To stop cars using the cycle lane it could be protected by frequent use of blisters or a narrow median strip. Such a barrier would also give more confidence to cyclists with large vehicles passing close by. The treatment here should be Treatment 2 (see attached figure). Consideration should be given on this section for pathway links from Epping Rd to Mowbray Road West and to Cumberland Ave. It is important to note that any reduction in width in the cycle lane or other compromises in this section should be matched by compromises in other parts of the roadway as well to ensure that cyclists are not losing out in favour of other road users.
7. Intersections with Shell Service Station and Sam Johnson Way. Special treatments will be required for the crossing in and out of the Shell Service Station complex. We suggest that speed humps be constructed on the entrance and exit from the Service Station to keep the speed of vehicles as low as possible in this key conflict zone. The U-turn bay could be improved by incorporating it to the main entry to the Service Station. This would reduce the crossings of the cycle lane by two. Clear paths in contrasting green pavement for cyclists must be provided to safely pass the road and service intersections. At bus lay-bys enough room should be left in the kerb lane for a cyclist to pass a stationary bus in the bus-lay by. The bus lay by would need to be about 4.5m wide. Consideration should be given to removing the left turning slip lane at Sam Johnson Way for westbound motorists given the danger to cyclists. If possible this should be replaced by a normal signalised left turn. If the left slip lane is retained then it should be marked in contrasting colour as shown in Austroads 14, 5-3. At lights which don't affect cycle flow a straight-through treatment such as Austroads 14, figure 5-21 should be used.
8. Uphill Grade from Stringybark Creek. This will be another slow section eastbound but a fast one westbound similar to f) above. An appropriate treatment is required for the intersection at Moore St and Johnson Crescent including green pavement and wide bus lay-bys.
9. Tantallon Oval and Road. At Tantallon Oval it was agreed to end Treatment 2 and changeover to Treatment 3a. If the left turn lane is required then a short section of cycle path will go through Tantallon Oval up until Tantallon Road eastbound. If no left turn lane is required then the cycle lane can proceed on the road. If the cycle facility does use the park then a high quality wide crossing of the gutter and footpath is required. In particular all sharp corners should be avoided and vegetation should be very low around the path. For westbound cyclists coloured pavement should be provided at Munro St.
10. Epping Road east of Tantallon. Eastbound cyclists will cross Epping Rd at the Tantallon Rd lights to the southern side and will continue along a two-way separated eastbound cycle path as shown on figure 3a. Bus stops will be treated as shown in Treatment 3b. This treatment is required to remove conflict between bus passengers and cyclists. With a cycle path on one side only and staggered bus lay-bys, this treatment should be able to be accommodated all the way to Centennial Ave, by reducing the centre median strip and using some of the Council Park adjacent to the intersection.
11. Centennial Ave Intersection. The consultant's proposal was to use Treatment 4 around this intersection, however, by using a section of Turrumburra Park to the west of the Centennial Ave intersection Treatment 3a can be continued right up until the intersection removing the need to compromise on the separate two-way cycle path.
    We are willing to compromise on the quality of the cycle path where there is no option, however, our examination of the plans indicates that the section to the east of the Centennial Ave intersection can also be redesigned to incorporate cycle path Treatments 3a and 3b. The proposal to maintain the left turn lane is the key issue that we request be reviewed.
    To the east of the intersection we query the need for a left turn lane south into Centennial Ave, which requires extra road space necessitating a downgrading of the cycle facilities. A standard intersection with left turning traffic from the left traffic lane without the extra lane is preferred. The configuration shown is not designed for bus priority at the traffic lights so that may not be an issue.
    Even though the regional traffic demand for this turn into Centennial Ave appears to be high, we would question the need to cater to this demand when it means a compromise to other users. The aim of the entire project is to reduce Epping Road down to a lesser route and we question the sense in catering to existing, or higher, volumes of traffic using the north to south corridor. The only outcome can be even higher levels of use. Where the cycle facility is compromised down to lower treatment levels, we expect that compromises need to be made in other areas such as forgoing a left turn lane for cars.
    If after further consultation with us the left turn lane must be built, then Treatment 4 should be constructed for the shortest possible length until treatment 3a can provide separation from pedestrians again. Attention should be paid to all the design points mentioned under Treatment 4.
12. Epping Road east of Centennial. Between Centennial Ave and Longueville Rd the cycle facility provided should be Treatments 3a and 3b for the longest possible distance by using up the lane space marked as "optional landscaping" on the plan. If a left turn lane is not required east of Centennial Ave then Treatments 3a and 3b can be continuous. Otherwise, immediately east of Centennial Ave, there will be a short section of Treatment 4 before it reverts again to Treatment 3a and 3b.
    At the intersection with Coxs Rd, we request the use of green coloured pavement across the intersection to indicate to turning motorists that cycles could come from either side along the two-way cycle path.
13. Longueville Rd Intersection. On the west of Longueville Rd for about 100m there is a narrowing of the available space for a cycle path and at the same time an increase in pedestrian traffic. This situation continues across the intersection for a short distance until Phoenix St. For this section Treatment 4 should be used, which has a path width of 4.0m to cater for the heavy mixed use. (See Austroads 14, Figure 6.19 (F).) In the next short section to Phoenix St some of the adjacent garden may be able to be used to widen the shared pathway to ensure a width of 4m.
    At the intersection the priority bus traffic signal should also trigger the cyclist traffic green light.
    Green pavement should be laid across Phoenix and Kimberley Streets.
    Treatment 3a and 3b should be possible for about 150m in this section. We understand that some property acquisition is being considered east ot Phoenix St to ensure that there is enough width to accommodate the major bus interchange as well as cycle path and footpath as shown in Treatment 3b. Further to the east Longueville road narrows down again and the cycle way moves on to a shared path again towards the pacific Highway.
14. Pacific Highway intersection ramp. For this section we were presented with four possible options at the meeting. Our preferred option is a grade separation that allows the main west-east cycle facility to stay level as shown in our Treatment 5. Note that the underpass under the ramp should have good lighting, and broad corners in order to provide excellent sight lines for a design speed of about 20km/hr. To safely accomplish this the path width may need to be over 3m wide. At the eastern end of the underpass we will have two way cycle traffic adjacent to fast moving motor traffic and we require a separation from the traffic of full "New Jersey Barriers".
    At the same time a 3m wide path is required to run up to the Pacific Highway pedestrian crossing. In order to maintain adequate width we suggest that the existing two lane slip lane off the Pacific Highway to Longueville Rd be reduced to one lane. The traffic must merge to one lane by the bottom of the ramp and we feel that, in keeping with the reduced capacity on the Epping Rd corridor that that this another reasonable compromise in order to provide a wide shared pathway to the upper level.
15. Pacific Highway crossing. In addition to the underpass mentioned above an at-grade crossing at the Pacific Highway will be necessary to allow cyclists free movement in all directions to connect the Pacific Highway to Longueville Rd/Gore Hill Freeway. The crossing must follow the recognised design principles. In particular wide lipless kerb ramps, holding rails and adequate spaces for bikes to wait on the traffic island.
    The intersection will be joined to the cycle path by the shared footpath to the west and a separate cycle path to the east. All these paths must be 3m wide to cater to two-way cyclists on the lowest gradient possible.
16. Broughton Road Connection. This shared cycle/pedestrian link was designed by Hyder Consulting (sketch 17 April) to provide access from the Pacific Highway to Broughton Rd Artarmon. We endorse this extra connection as an important mechanism to link the community again. To gain access at the Pacific Highway end there should be a wide kerb ramp allowing cyclists travelling south on the highway to turn onto the new link. In addition the footpath here needs to be wide and clearly marked as a share cycle path down to the Pacific Highway Crossing 30m to the south.
17. Gore Hill Freeway east of Pacific Highway. For the remainder of the project to the east, we understand that a separated commuter cycle path will be constructed. We have shown this in Treatment 6 as outside the sound wall barrier. This is the preferred option to allow multiple local connections and a lower stress cycling environment. However, it looks like the first section east of the Pacific Highway may be proposed for inside the sound barrier. Wherever that is the case, a full "New Jersey Barrier" should provide traffic separation between the two-way cycle path and the Gore Hill Freeway.
    The design of this facility should follow Austroads 14 for a design speed of 30km/hr on flat sections. On downhill sections the design speed should be 40km/hr.
    Gradients for the majority of the facility should be 3% or less. Some sections of 5% gradient are acceptable but we request further specific consultation on those sections during the design phase. In most cases earthworks can be used to reduce the gradient. In extreme cases the gradient could exceed 5% for very short distances of 20m or so but must not be greater than 10% at any point. (Refer Austroads 14, 6.3.6)
    Even though this will be designed as a separate cycle path, we expect that in this area many other users will use the path because it provides an important local link. Therefore adequate signage and access should be incorporated.
18. Reserve Road and Hampden Road intersections. Good links to local roads (Punch St and Lambs, Hampden and Reserve Roads) must be maintained at these points. This includes well lit underpasses with good sight lines.
    By this stage of the cycle facility it is expected to be outside the freeway sound barrier which will provide a more pleasant environment.
19. North Shore Railway intersection. In future there will be a major regional cycle path north to south along the railway corridor. Therefore this point in future will be a major cycle intersection and this should be kept in mind during detailed design. The link will probably from from the Francis St side.
    All links to local cycle paths in this area should be consistent and smooth. Therefore instead of kinking down to Francis Street and back again the cycle path should continue straight along the Freeway edge with no deviations. Cyclists continuing along the commuter cycle path should be able to safely continue at 30km/hr without concerns about local squeeze points and barriers. Intersections with local streets and cycle paths should provide curved entries and exits where possible.
20. Railway line to Park Road. Along this section the cycle path runs under the freeway and along the local creek. The present draft design is not appropriate to the design speed required for the cycle path. We cannot determine what gradients are proposed but they should be under 5%. The two bridges across the creek in this section must be realigned to run in the direction of the cycle path rather than perpendicular to the creeks to allow the design speed of 30km/hr. There should be no tight corners or poor sight lines. The bridges over the creeks should allow a usable deck area of 3m, which means that the bridges need to be 4m wide between the railings to allow for handlebar and pedal clearance. The side railings/fences on the bridges must be of a construction not to snag on handlebars or pedals if a cyclist veers off course.
21. Artarmon Reserve / Willoughby Road. In this area a range of local cycle paths link to the proposed facility. All these links should be maintained with careful design allowing commuting speeds to be maintained along the new east-west pathway. Intersections with local paths should be designed with this objective. Signposting in this area will be particularly important.
22. Links back to Gore Hill Freeway. At this point the separated cycle path facility ends and commuting cyclists will be directed back onto the Gore Hill Freeway cycle lanes (breakdown lanes). Treatment 7 should be constructed. Existing links between the local cycle routes and the cycle lanes on the Gore Hill Freeway should be maintained and streamlined to allow a transition between treatments 6 and 7. The current links use the emergency phone bays and they need to be redesigned to better integrate with the breakdown lanes. Signage and line marking needs to be explicit that commuting cyclists travelling away from the city should take the route away from the Gore Hill Freeway. The route needs to be clearly designated as the commuter cycle route to Artarmon. We suggest that the entry and exit points are protected by New Jersey Barriers as shown.
23. Gore Hill South East of Willoughby Road. Treatment 7 should be used along this section. We understand that some extra road widening will need to take place to allow this treatment. It is critical that the commuter link from North Ryde continue to the city along this section. The Willoughby Rd entrance and exit ramps to the freeway require grade separation treatment to ensure cyclist safety as per Treatment 1.
24. Merremburn Ave. This is the nominal end of the current major works except for the Falcon Street ramps, but the cycle lane will continue on to North Sydney along the existing freeway edge.
25. Cammeray Golf Course. A link to the local pathway at the Cammeray Golf course is required to allow for cyclists to exit back to local destinations. This small task should be considered an important part of linking the commuter cycle path to local feeder routes. If it cannot be undertaken out of the major project funding then we recommend that the RTA take on this as a separately funded project that could be carried out as quickly as possible.
26. Falcon Street ramps. We understand that ramps for motor vehicles are being constructed at Falcon Street as part of the main Lane Cover Tunnel project. At this stage we are not aware of the design proposals for this area and we request detailed plans in order for us to make an informed comment. In general, at the same time as motor traffic facilities are upgraded at Falcon St integrated, cycle facilities must be constructed to allow cyclists to enter and leave the Freeway at this point. There must be no downgrading of existing cycle access along the Warringah Freeway as part of the Falcon St construction.

Conclusion

Bicycle New South Wales welcomes the opportunity to be involved at all stages of the planning and construction of this major cycle facility in Northern Sydney. We wish to be closely consulted on all the detailed construction plans that involve cycle facilities. Attention should be paid to closely following the current best practice in Australia as detailed in Austroads 14 (second edition 1999). During design work the main purpose of the cycleway as a major regional commuter cycleway should be kept in mind and this will then provide for all other path users.