| Previous Section | Table of Contents | Overview Summary | Next Section |
We are quite concerned at some of the apparent underlying premises of the proposed cycle facility in particular with respect to the potential users of the facility and in the context of providing a safe facility.
Within the original EIS focus groups particular reference was initially made to the potential users being recreational cyclists. The reality, of course, is that it is unlikely that most of this route has any large role as a recreational cycle route although it would be expected to provide access for the keen cyclist to the recreational facilities accessible at some distance from this route, a type of recreational usage more similar to the commuter and utility journey.
While the EIS itself does not makes such reference to the recreational cyclist there is still its reference to the commuter cyclist who choses not to use the off road cycle paths and will be able to use the bus lanes along both sides of Epping Road. We also understand that the motivation in providing facilities to cyclists for this project, as for all RTA projects, is not primarily for the benefit of existing cyclists for transport but so as to encourage a modal transport shift to the bicycle ie providing a welcoming cycle environment for the more inexperienced and vulnerable cyclist who will feel it is safe use their bicycle for transport.
This proposed cycle facility is a regional route which is a major part of a traverse of the major CBD crescent covering the City, North Sydney, St Leonards, Chatswood and North Ryde. This route will provide a major commuter link between two major employment, educational and residential areas, separated by the Lane Cove River divide with its relatively few crossings. Just as this is a critical public transport and motor vehicle link, this is primarily a cyclist commuter and utility link.
As highlighted in the EIS this route is currently very under-utilised by cyclists because of its extremely unfriendly and unsafe nature to all cyclists. Consequently there is huge potential for a significant modal shift to bicycle usage in this corridor provided an efficient and safe cycle facility is provided. The need in this corridor is for a cycle facility that will encourage usage by all levels of cyclists for commuter and utility purposes.
It should also be recognised that there is already a commuter cyclist facility along the Gore Hill Freeway. While it is narrow and does not have suitable connectivity to Longueville/Epping Road, it is still nevertheless much used. This facility is proposed to be removed by the widening of the Gore Hill Freeway. While the replacement will open up access for pedestrians and vulnerable cyclists, the proposed shared nature of this facility will not be suitable for the existing commuter cyclist along this corridor. It is quite iniquitous to remove the direct commuter link and not provide an alternative dedicated facility.
It is generally acknowledged that shared facilities particularly where they run along residential roads with numerous intersections are not efficient cycle facilities and the frequent obstacles and stopping at intersections simply frustrate any reasonably fit and skilled cyclist who wishes to commute anything more than a short journey. There are frequent trip generators in the section of this route between Naremburn and Lane Cove such that short journeys of less than 3 kilometres would be common as they would also be common in the closer environs to Lane Cove Shopping Centre. A shared facility would be adequate, though not preferable, to cater to trips of that distance. Journeys that reach further west and travel on the hills on either side of the Lane Cove River between North Ryde and Lane Cove would be far more likely to be distances of 5 kilometres and more. These journeys are more appropriate using an on-road bike lane, or dedicated cycleway.
The section along Epping Road from Munroe Street to Wicks Street is reasonably challenging for a brand-new cyclist by virtue of the geography of the land. It is far more likely that this route will be attempted by the cyclist who has already discovered the usefulness of the bicycles for local journeys and is developing their fitness, skills and experience. These cyclists are vital in their contribution to a modal shift as their growing commitment to commuter cycling is far more likely to be extensive and on-going. This cyclist would more likely prefer a safe on-road environment than a shared footpath.
While the option given to 'use the bus lane' may suit some, probably the much more experienced cyclists who is already cycle commuting on other major roads, there would be many others not prepared to 'dice with the buses' who would also find the delays of the shared path a disincentive to commuting any significant length journey. This link must cater to the needs of commuter and utility cyclists with a wide range of fitness, skills and confidence. The developing cyclist who will contribute so valuably to modal shift, will generally not be prepared to take the bus lane option.
We acknowledge that a significant attempt has been made in the EIS to address the issues that have already been raised with respect to efficiency in the use of the shared pathway and of that we are much appreciative. Further sections of this document will discuss these issues and proposed solutions in greater detail, but we must first state that the best way to respond to those issues is by providing a cycle facility which is more aligned with the road traffic than it is with pedestrians. A facility which is separated from pedestrian use, separated by direction of travel, flows in the same direction as the traffic lanes, moves through the intersections in the same timing phases as the traffic, is readily visible to the traffic lanes and in which the cyclist can behave very much in the way that a motorist would expect traffic to behave and hence is very predictable.
There appears to be a misapprehension that a shared pedestrian facility is by definition somehow safer than any on-road facility. Our view is that mixing usage of a cycle facility with pedestrians usage is not appropriate and nowhere near as safe as providing a separate cycle facility. The most usable and safest facility for all cyclists (vulnerable and experienced) is two, separate one-way cycle only facilities each in the same direction as the road traffic lanes. The width of the facility must of course meet Austroad 14 standards according to the speed of road traffic.
No section of the proposed cycle facility meets this ideal, although we recognise that a significant attempt has been made to otherwise address the concerns we have regarding mixing pedestrians and cyclists and that proposals in certain sections do go a long way towards meeting this objective.
Mixing pedestrians with cyclists is no safer than mixing cyclists with cars due to the speed differential between pedestrians and cyclists. In particular the section of this route that follows Epping Road is a hilly terrain with long gradients where the speed differential will be quite high, not only between pedestrians and cyclists but also between cyclists travelling in opposite directions. Closing speeds of up to 60kph would be easy to achieve, not appropriate for a shared pathway. A one directional cycleway facility would be far safer.
Two-way cycleways are also undesirable when cyclists must interface with vehicle traffic at an intersection or at driveways. Motorists have an expectation of direction of travel consistent with their own traffic lanes. While pedestrians come from all directions, they do slowly whereas a cyclist will arrive at speed. Motorist generally grossly underestimate the speed of cyclists and combined with their expectation of direction of travel, we have a great concern for cyclist safety, particularly the opposite directional cyclist, when a motorist crosses over the cycleway.
The only place where two-way dedicated cycleways can be considered adequate is where the terrain is relatively flat and there are no intersections with cross traffic and roads or driveways. These areas are more commonly found alongside motorways.
Return to TopWe can only express our deep concern at the transfer of financial and other resources for transport, whether private or government, to the building of another road and providing extra capacity for private motor vehicles. These transport resources are desperately needed for the provision of public transport and facilities for sustainable transport such as cycling. The building of new roads always results in significant 'induced traffic'. The EIS (Working Paper 4 - Traffic and Transport Appendix E) appears to be highly dismissive of the realities of 'induced traffic' particularly with regard to potential mode shift effects. Certainly it may be unlikely there will be large transfer from existing bus mode to car mode along the same corridor, but what consideration has been given to the transfer from the more circuitous train mode to car mode by those who have seen the traffic congestion of Epping Rd simply not worth considering by bus or car. The building of the M2 had an enormous impact on the number of car journeys along this corridor and to suggest that improving the travel time on the same corridor will have negligible impact on use of this corridor is quite na•ve. The tunnel will most certainly encourage potential users of this transport corridor to take up the private motorised option in preference to more sustainable modes. It is quite disturbing that this new road will be built and in use several years prior to the availability of the Parramatta Chatswood Rail Link in the same corridor. Habits are easily built and difficult to change.
While it may be true that the constraints of parking in the Sydney CBD will operate to lower increasing demand, there are many other trip destinations where those constraints are not so strong. For example destinations to the south of the Sydney CBD which do have a adequate train service but which simply cannot compete in terms of convenience with the car when the current congestion is almost eliminated.
Of particular concern is the provision of a greater capacity in motor vehicle (general and transit) travel lanes in the tunnel and along a reconfigured Epping Road than that already provided. While we are appreciative that the reconfiguration will minimise the increase in capacity, the overall tunnel proposal still will result in extra travel lanes and hence greater capacity. In particular, there will be significant increase in the capacity provided to the west bound morning peak and to a less degree the east bound evening. This can only serve to encourage more commuting car journeys from the City and eastern board residential areas to the growing employment area in Macquarie Park where parking is freely available.
Despite the benefits of improved cycling and public transport facilities and the bus lanes proposed in conjunction with the tunnel, we do not recommend that scarce transport resources be spent to support private motorised transport modes. The only sustainable answer is to reconfigure Epping Road now with a dedicated bus lane and a dedicated cyclelane. This should result in one lane for general traffic use and generally none dedicated especially for turning movements, totally inadequate for level of commuter use we are now experiencing but perfectly adequate once traffic has been reduced to essential journeys only. While there may be concern that traffic would simply overflow to alternative roads, they simply could not handle the current level of traffic and motorists would be forced to reconsider their transport options. While these measures may appear radical and politically unpalatable, they, combined with a massive injection of funding and resources for bus transit along the corridor are the only way to effect a significant turnaround in modal switch to public and non motorised transport.
If and when the Lane Cove Tunnel is built we recommend that the capacity for private motor vehicle traffic is retained at current levels such that the combined capacity of the tunnel and Epping Road is not increased. While modelling may have shown that additional lanes are necessary on Epping Road to allow for what is perceived to be adequate traffic performance, minimal levels of delay and reduction in queuing, these are all representative of outdated traffic oriented thinking rather than providing a more broadly based assessment of transport needs and solutions.
Ensuring the smooth flow of traffic should not be the prime directive. Priority should be the provision of convenient, efficient, integrated, accessible, timely and highly usable sustainable transport modes. These are best implemented as public transport modes integrated and complemented with highly meshed routes used by non-motorised modes. Decisions may need to be taken that advantage public transport and non motorised modes even at the expense of the smooth flow of private motorised traffic.
Of significant concern is the decision to provide for three lanes of traffic for many kilometres as the preferred tunnel option. It is extremely worrying that the EIS authors feel it is necessary to even contemplate a possible expansion of the tunnel to a full three lanes. They have clearly indicated that this is only feasible if there is a corresponding widening of the Gore Hill and Warringah Freeways and to the Harbour crossing. To suggest that such a road project could be even remotely possible in the future is to totally ignore the repercussions of continuing to subsidise private motorised traffic and to fully encourage a mode of transport that is both environmentally damaging and quite unsustainable.
We feel that all the arguments put forward to justify an extra general vehicle lane for such a long section of the Lane Cove Tunnel are once again arguments supported by outdated thinking that seeks to justify redirection of financial and other resources to private motorised transport away from critically important sustainable modes. Public transport and non-motorised modes of transport have for many decades lacked priority and been completely inadequately resourced. It is quite inappropriate to provide for three lanes of traffic in the tunnel when quite clearly two lanes are more than sufficient.
Quite clearly, adjustments to the project to provide for the third lane of traffic has resulted in an significant increase in costs. That money would be far better put to use in providing for sustainable transport modes.
Return to TopWe are concerned that the objectives have changed significantly since the original overview report of the Lane Cove Tunnel Project. While we acknowledge that these have been made more specific we are worried that some of the original intentions have been lost. For example the original objective to 'manage and contain trend for traffic growth in the corridor'
The EIS states that the Lane Cove Tunnel has a very small effect on total VKT, rising by 0.13 per cent relative to the base case in both 2006 and 2016. As previously indicated we have strong reservations as to reality of this 'small effect'. Regardless of how small this increase is, it is most definitely a move in the wrong direction and indicates that the original objective to contain the trend for traffic growth has been abandoned which is to be deeply regretted.
Return to TopWhile the Epping Road configuration has generally been specified as one bus lane and one general traffic lane, the section between Sam Johnson Way and the Lane Cove River the EIS has made provision for an additional traffic lane for those travelling west. This is cited as being necessary to avoid congestion arising from westbound traffic from the Lane Cove industrial estate.
We question the wisdom of this recommendation as it can only encourage an increase in motor vehicle traffic accessing the Industrial Area. Rather than catering to this increase, a better option would be to work to improve access to public transport and bicycle modes of transport. Public transport to this area is very poor and from the west directly into the Industrial Area, non existent. During the long lead time until reconfiguration of Epping Rd there should be plenty of opportunity to work with Lane Cove Council and State Government Agencies to develop and commence implementation of a Travel Plan for the Lane Cove Industrial Area to encourage a more sustainable model split . This would be entirely compatible with the aims and objective of the proposed Integrating Land Use and Transport package recently proposed by PlanningNSW.
Elimination of this second general traffic lane is extremely important as this additional lane would necessitate intrusion into the existing bushland alongside Epping Rd. It is extremely unfortunate if supposedly downsizing Epping Road resulted in the need to widen and encroach on bushland . The cycle facility along Epping Rd is essential as it provides a facility that does not currently exist that will enable the cycling as a sustainable transport mode to function in what is currently a cycling hostile environment. The second general traffic lane is not essential and will merely induce further traffic.
Return to TopThe proposal calls for an additional westbound lane on Epping Road west of the Lane Cove River. This is cited as being necessary to avoid congestion at the western exit of the Lane Cove Tunnel. This is clearly evidence that the EIS proponents expect an increase in vehicle capacity and use along this corridor once the tunnel is completed, an increase that should be contained rather than encouraged by the provision of an extra lane west of the river.
Effective containment would be not to build the tunnel at all or to build it with a fully restricted set of lanes and to correctly reconfigure Epping Road to a maximum of one private motorised vehicle travel lane.
The inclusion of this extra general traffic lane is highly undesirable on environmental grounds as it would necessitate intrusion into the existing bushland alongside Epping Rd. There is plenty of room within the existing sound walls to provide a cycle facility but not for this extra vehicle lane.
Return to TopThe proposal also calls for an additional general traffic lane between Longueville and Centennial Road, supposedly to cater to the bulk of traffic which is attempting to access the left hand turn into Centennial Rd and thereby access areas such as Gladesville to the west.
While it is agree that traffic from the City and lower north shore areas accessing the Gladesville region cannot use the tunnel, we cannot agree that a whole general lane is necessary on Epping Rd to cater for this. If we are going to contain traffic on Epping Road, then that containment must also include traffic that only utilises this short section to Centennial Road. To cater to this usage will only serve to encourage the continued increase in private motorised transport in that corridor, at the expense of more sustainable transport modes.
It is unfortunate that this proposal to supposedly downsize Epping Road will result in the need to widen the road, encroach into the azalea embankment and remove street trees. While we appreciate that the proposal does include new sympathetic landscaping design, it is a significant change to the character of this high profile area of Lane Cove that may not be acceptable to the by local residents. Removal of this second general traffic lane should obliterate the necessity for any such change to the landscape.
The cycle facility along Epping Rd is essential as it provides a facility that does not currently exist that will enable the cycling as a sustainable transport mode to function in what is currently a cycling hostile environment. The second general traffic lane is not essential and will merely induce further traffic.
Return to TopThe EIS generally provides for two lanes within 150metres of each intersection to eliminate predicted queuing through the intersection. While this may be highly desirable at the major intersections from a traffic management perspective, we question the wisdom once again in encouraging free flow of through traffic . One of the original objectives of this project was to 'manage and contain trend for traffic growth in the corridor'. Providing for turn lanes at Epping Road intersections can hardly be considered 'containing traffic growth' . Reconsidering these additional lanes at all minor intersection should eliminate the need for two general traffic lanes in each direction between Tantallon Road and Centennial Avenue.
Return to TopThe Lane Cove Tunnel project will provide for excellent connectivity/continuity for private motorised and public transport modes from the M2. It is highly regrettable that the proponents of the EIS have not considered it essential to provide for similar connectivity/continuity for the non-motorised transport mode.
Under this proposal a cyclist travelling east along the M2 shoulder must exit at Delhi Street, cross at the lights and then access the shared pathway and return west on a corresponding route.
Bicycle NSW has always proposed that the eastward bound cyclist should be able to continue along the M2 shoulder after Delhi Rd, and then underpass Epping Road to re-emerge on quality bike lane on the western side of Epping Rd. The westward bound cyclist would have a corresponding journey from a lane on the east side of Epping Rd, underpassing Epping Road to re-emerge on the eastern shoulder of the M2. Anything less would be inequitable and a signal that the RTA is not serious about encouraging sustainable transport.
Return to TopThe building of the Gore Hill Freeway in 1992 cut the Pacific Highway off from its direct links to Broughton St and hence to Artarmon Station and the larger urban area. What is only a minor inconvenience for the motor car has created a major detour for cyclists and pedestrians in unpleasant, noisy and dangerous conditions. This is a significant deterrent to Lane Cove residents in accessing their closest railway station and in all other forms of local non motorised trips between Lane Cove and Artarmon.
The situation is now exacerbated by the growth in higher density residential accommodation along the highway and the surrounding areas. This growing residential area is encouraged to use the unsustainable motor car by their proximity to expressway condition motorways while there remains a strong disincentive to walk and cycle to their local railway station.
While the proposed Gore Hill Cycleway will provide a much better facility for trips on the south of the Freeway, this goes nowhere near enough to reinstating the previously existing access by pedestrians and cyclists. to Artarmon Station and the Artarmon Urban Area.
We are disappointed that the EIS does not include any proposal to provide a pedestrian and cyclist link from the Pacific Highway Interchange direct to Broughton St and urge the EIS proponents to reassess their proposal to ensure this accessibility is reinstated. We feel quite sure that the engineers would welcome the challenge to design a facility that overpasses and/or underpasses the several on and off ramps to the highway.
Return to TopThe building of the Gore Hill Freeway in 1992 cut a swathe through Artarmon separating the Artarmon Urban Area and Railway Station to the north from the Artarmon Industrial Area to the south. While there are several points where it is possible for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the freeway they are of varying standards and much too far apart. In particular there is no available crossing of the Gore Hill Freeway between the Pacific Highway and Reserve Road a distance of approximately 1 kilometre.
The need for a crossing between these two roads is quite apparent by the presence of a well worn track across the central median of the freeway in the vicinity of McLachlan Avenue and Milner Road, evidence of high pedestrian usage despite the barrier fence and extremely dangerous environment. Frequent repairing of the barrier fence and at least one fatality has not deterred this activity.
Pedestrian access to the Reserve Road crossing itself is very poor with delays crossing the freeway exit and entrance ramps and insufficient storage space on the footpath while waiting through these delays. It is a very unfriendly pedestrian and cyclist environment.
We recommend that the proponents of the EIS review this proposal and include a pedestrian and cycle bridge over the Gore Hill Freeway in the vicinity of and providing access to McLachlan Avenue and Milner Road.
In addition we recommend that the proponents of the EIS review the Reserve Road interchange to provide safer, more pleasant and efficient cyclist and pedestrian access across the freeway in this vicinity.
Return to TopWhile the EIS proposes excellent bus facilities along Epping Road, this is not as evident along the Gore Hill Freeway where buses must share with other users of the transit lane. Of particular concern is the lack of any bus stops, especially in close proximity to the Artarmon Industrial Area. This area is very poorly serviced by public transport, much eased if buses could drop off and pick up along the freeway and quick access provided from north of the freeway to the Industrial Area.
Return to TopDocument Created 2 February 2002