| Previous Section | Table of Contents | Overview Summary | Next Section |
As documented in the previous section, Bicycle NSW preference is for separate bike lanes with a significant barrier be provided to cater to all cyclists.
If an off-road facility continues to be the preferred option for beginner, child and other vulnerable cyclists we recommend that separate bike lanes, one on each side of the road, built to Austroad 14 standards for the corresponding speed limits are provided for the more experienced commuter cyclists.
These bike lanes are required from the shoulder of the M2, with an underpass of Epping Road to the shoulder of the Epping Road and connecting to and along the Gore Hill Freeway.
The EIS proposes that commuter cyclists who were not satisfied with the off road facility would be able to use the proposed Bus Lane. In general this is not a desirable option for a number of reasons
If no other on-road facility is provided than a Bus Lane, there is no doubt it will be used by many commuter cyclists. It would be best therefore to anticipate this and provide supplementary and complementary facilities to improve conditions for both buses and cyclists.
If it is impossible to provide a Bike Lane on both sides of the road and all sections of the road we recommend that priority be given to building a bike lane for the up hill sections where the speed differential between cyclists and buses are at their highest. While this lane should to Austroad 14 standard, a minimum width is required that will enable a cyclist and bus to travel side by side without endangering the cyclist.
This is especially important for eastward travelling cyclists who will have no other option than to continue climbing the hill when they realise how high their speed differential is to other traffic in the bus lane. As they will be physically located on the opposite side of Epping Road to the shared pathway, they will have next to no opportunity to access it from their lane, after they take the initial decision to cycle along Epping Road.
Westward travelling cyclists within the Bus Lane will be in close proximity to the shared pathway and a cyclist in that lane may decide that due to their speed or other circumstances it is more opportune to travel on the shared pathway. This decision is more likely to be made on the uphill sections of road.
To provide for smooth and speedy access to the shared path we recommend that there be frequent ramp access on uphill sections. In these sections there should be frequent and wide and shallow graded kerb ramps, say 2.5m wide every 30m or so, to facilitate a cyclist who is slowing down to quickly and safely convert to the shared path. This should be provided on every uphill section where the share path is separated by a kerb.
Correspondingly, the separation median between bus lane and separated cycleway should have gaps on the uphill sections at about the same intervals for the same reasons.
Return to Top
It is proposed that the 4 metre wide shared path be separated by a white line into 2.8metres for cyclists and 1.2 for pedestrians. We think compliance to this form of separation by pedestrians and cyclists will be poor and it would better to have the widest possible path for both pedestrians and cyclists. This would be a path split into 2 metre sections.
The 2.0m/2.0m split will allow maximum separation for uphill and downhill travelling cyclists instead of leaving the first 1.2m to pedestrians. We estimate average closing speeds on the longer hills to be in excess of 60km/hr. (10km/hr and 50km/hr downhill). Given that the one path will need to cater to these two directions of travel with their widely varying speeds, a width of metres is essential to provide some level of safety.
A possible exception to this rule could be around busier bus stops and pedestrian road crossings where there may be a need to attempt to separate the pedestrian and cyclist areas.
The 2.0m/2.0m split shared path and any other width shared path should be painted with logos for both pedestrians and cyclists and an arrow to indicate direction.
Return to Top
The key defining characteristic of the dedicated cycleway, as opposed to a shared path, is how it is separated from any footpath facilities. To be effective if must have at least one but preferably a combination of the following characteristics:
In constrained space along a roadway with parallel footpath facilities is most likely would be separated by a kerb, with a step down from footpath facilities. If there is space, a buffer zone of low non obtrusive vegetation should separate the footpath from the cycleway.
Where the cycleway deviates from the road and passes through a park, this same different level separation from the surrounding land should persist. It should also be edged by a barrier, such as low, non obtrusive vegetation that will discourage children and other users from running and walking across and on the cycleway.
Return to Top
While a cycle facility, either part of a shared pathway system or dedicated cycleway, is off-road, there is no guarantee that any cyclist using the facility will avoid conflict with the road system. Particularly in the Epping Rd section the cycle facility will be crossed by several road intersections, some signalised, others not, some major roads, others only minor.
Whereas a bike in a bike lane travels as any other road user with all the corresponding rights and regulations as to priority in crossings, this is not the case for a cyclists on a shared pathway or cycleway. On most existing shared pathways today the cyclist who approaches a road crossing is at very low priority indeed and in many situations is called upon legally to dismount their bike. This is quite inappropriate, a significant disincentive for any reasonably skilled cyclist and an invitation for almost total non compliance. Obviously a far better scenario is required and appears to be considered for this cycleway if it is to be useful for cycle commuting and utility.
The consequences of building a shared or even dedicated two way-cycle facility, as opposed to bike lanes, is that the facility needs to be especially well designed at all intersections to ensure:
The EIS makes some very good suggestions for road crossings such as Signal Loop Detectors at all signalised crossing which are intended to minimise cyclists' travel times and we welcome these initiatives. We also appreciate that some proposed treatments are subject to amendments to legislation and that it is therefore difficult for the EIS as yet to specify exactly what treatments are proposed at intersections. Consultants, Jamieson Foley Traffic and Transport were engaged by the EIS proponents to review the bicycle facilities and recommend improvements and we totally support the suggestions made in that document.
The EIS, the Jamieson Foley report and this response all make suggestions that go beyond any other cycle facility built in NSW and clearly depend on a standard facility to be endorsed and commissioned by the RTA not just for this project. Some elements are also dependent on amendments to legislation. It is critical that there be no delay in respect of these.
In the remainder of this section we review the EIS proposals and make further recommendations with respect to the different types of intersections. It is not the role of this response to provide detailed specifications of the intersection nor to provide a review of the detailed engineering, that is properly the role of the proponent and their associates.
The EIS states that at signalised intersections there will be 'a separate, marked, flush cyclists' crossing and signal phase with detector loops and push buttons to minimise travel times and conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians.'
Expanding on this we would expect this to mean that at signalised crossings:
We also support the Jamieson Foley report in its following recommendations with respect to signalised intersections:
The EIS states that at non-signalised intersections there will be 'cycleway pavement raised across intersections, advance signage for motorists travelling parallel and beside the cycleway indicating cyclists on adjacent cycleway. Motorists on side road crossing cycleway held at stop sign before cycleway'
Expanding on this we would expect this to mean that at non-signalised crossings:
We also support the Jamieson Foley report in its recommendations with respect to un- signalised intersections that there be a straight riding line for bicycles, without kinks and deviations.
Slip lanes are a dangerous hazard at any intersection as cars can and do approach slip lanes at high speed and it may be difficult to ensure safety. We see removal of slip lanes as an important safety measure as the traffic can be controlled effectively.
If slip lanes must remain at an intersection we strongly suggest they be controlled by traffic lights which are not with the normal light phasing but controlled by a manual crossing button only. This would operate such that as soon as a pedestrian or cyclist pressed the button the light would go amber and red, thus providing a safe crossing environment.
Wherever possible the design of the road crossing should be in one phase, the cyclist crossing directly from one side of the road to the other and continuing their journey smoothly without delay. This should be quite practical given the speed with which a cyclist can travel unimpeded, relative to the time taken for a pedestrian to cross the same facility.
If for any reason it is necessary to stage a cyclist crossing with provision of an island crossing, much consideration must be given to the amount of storage spaces required on that island to cater to all types of bicycles such as tandems, bikes with trailers, recumbents etc.
Return to Top
When the pedestrian and cycle facilities are separated as in the case of a dedicated cycleway or by a white line on a shared facility (which we do not recommend), there will be situations where the two facilities will need to cross. These are possible points of conflict which need to be managed well to ensure safety and also to ensure smooth continuity. The need for crossing arises principally at bus stops and where there are pedestrian crossing of the road facility, in this case crossings of Epping Road itself.
The need for cycleway / pedestrian crossing must be reduced to the minimum possible. The current design, shows weaving of the two facilities with a significant number of crossings many of which could be eliminated. Under the proposed design, the shared pathway is separated into pedestrian / cycle sections. As we responded earlier, we do not recommend separation where it is only signified by a white line. Consequently there should be a reduced need for crossings of the facility where there is no separation. Of course some treatment should be implemented to encourage pedestrian deviating across the pathway in just a single position.
With respect to the position of the dedicated cycleway, we recommend that this should travel alongside the road facility and the kerb median at all times with one exception, where it deviates through Turrumbarra Park. We do not feel that that weaving the pedestrian and cycle facility to and fro the road verge as shown on the diagrams in the best design.
In sections of the shared pathway where pedestrian are likely cut across or mingle, such as at bus stops and pedestrian crossing of the road facility, the design will need to depict a separation of the pedestrian walk and storage and the cycle facility.
In areas where pedestrian usage is likely to be low or medium we would also recommend that the cycle facility continue along the road verge with pedestrian storage to the rear. It is most likely that in the Longueville Road section the volume of pedestrians and frequency of crossing will so high that this may no longer be feasible. So in the section alone we feel that it would be better to position the shared through / cycle facility to be positioned to the rear.
Bus stops are one important issue that needs to be addressed with respect to pedestrian / cycle conflict. There are often bus shelters, pedestrians congregate and need to access and load onto or disembark from the bus which will be parked either in a bus bay or in the bus lane.
The degree to which conflicts will occur will vary considerably along the route as the usage demand and type of usage (load or disembark) also itself varies. It is our understanding that apart from the Longueville Road section, usage is fairly low and there is not expected to be a high demand for pedestrian storage on this western side. There will be more drop offs than pick ups who will disperse quickly. The Longueville Road section on the other hand, will be highly used. Different solutions would be needed for these different demands.
Generally we recommend that the dedicated cycleway continue adjacent to the road and kerb with any pedestrian through facility to the rear of the cycleway so there is no weaving of through cycle and pedestrian traffic. A single pedestrian crossing should be marked across the cycleway in the manner that is depicted in the Jamieson Foley report as Exhibit 6, Bus Stop Design Alternative 2. Cyclists would give way to pedestrians crossing in the marked area in the same way as a motorist gives way to pedestrians in a road pedestrian crossing.
Exhibit 6 depicts the bus shelter and waiting zone to the rear with a bus boarding zone to the front. Exhibit 4 shows the entire bus shelter, waiting and boarding area at the road way. Either scenario would probably be satisfactory, although Exhibit 6 probably provides more flexibility for increasing a minimal pedestrian storage area, whereas Exhibit 4 probably provides more distinguishable features for the bus driver to position the bus for loading/unloading In either case the bus loading area should be at a higher level than the cycleway.
We believe this should work well in conjunction with the dedicated cycleway with its grade separation which requires the pedestrian to step down to cross and then step up onto the boarding zone. Pedestrians should immediately appreciate the similarity of this facility to a road facility which is crossed directly and quickly and in which you do not usually congregate. The single crossing very clearly demarks the area where pedestrians are allowed cross the cycleway. No doubt, in an urgent situation pedestrians will be tempted to jay walk across the cycleway to the bus in the same way as they would jay walk across the road but that would not be normal usage.
Exhibits 4 and 5 both feature dual crossings of the cycleway which not only increases the amount of potential conflict and possible delay to the cyclist but also sends a far less distinct message to the pedestrian which will encourage a more dispersed crossing. We do not recommend dual crossings. Exhibit 4, is obviously designed to cater for restricted widths and does require through pedestrians to cross the cycleway twice. We approved of this scenario only when such restrictions apply and in relatively low pedestrian volumes. It is better to provide a continuous delineated cycle facility with the two crossings in those circumstances.
A shared facility is more problematic as it is more difficult to distinguish between pedestrian and cyclists zones. It is even more problematic in the Longueville Road section which is depicted as a shared facility. As stated earlier we do not recommend that a shared facility be marked into separate pedestrian and cyclist areas by a white line, it must be at least grade separated, with a rounded kerb.
Generally speaking we recommend a similar facility to the dedicated cycleway, but recognise that it will be far more difficult to obtain compliance on the part of the pedestrians. In these areas, provided sufficient room is available, the shared pathway should be properly separated into cycle and pedestrian facilities, separated by a kerb in the same manner as a dedicated cycleway. This separation should be provided for a reasonable lead distance to the bus stop. Of course, it would be far preferable if the facility was correctly separated for the entire length of Epping Road.
Where there is insufficient room to provide a dedicated facility consideration should be given to providing a lowered through shared facility around these bus stops to emphasis the through nature of the facility and the need to cut across only at the marked crossing. Such a facility could also be best for the Longueville Road section , only in this case located behind the bus shelters and storage areas. Lowering the through shared pathway should clearly indicate to waiting pedestrians that the through section is not an appropriate place to gather.
Careful consideration should be given to the design of any bus shelters provided along this route. The role of those currently popular as a advertising medium has resulted in a design that maximises their ability to obstruct the footpath while minimising the protection they provide in sheltering a pedestrian. A far more compact and practical design is needed here and on other shared footpaths and restricted areas to minimise obstructiveness.
Placement of bus shelter and signage associated with the bus stop must not be located any within the dedicated cycleway or within the through area of a shared facility.
The other major cause of pedestrian / cycle conflict on separated facilities arise from the need to cross the road running parallel to the facility at a signalised pedestrian crossing. The crossing at Tantallon Road is especially mentioned in the Jamieson Foley report as there is no corresponding road crossing on the cycleway side. Nevertheless a similar scenario applies at Cox's Lane and at Mowbray Road and our recommendation remains the same at those crossings.
Our recommendation is that the dedicated cyclelane should be treated very much as part of the road from the point of view of the pedestrian. The storage area for pedestrians waiting to cross the road and the detector push button should all be positioned on the footpath facility. On the pedestrian green walk phase the pedestrian walks across the cycleway, across the median area and continues on across the road. Likewise the pedestrian crossing from the other side of the road, continue from the road crossing, across the cycleway directly to the footpath.
During the pedestrian green walk phase, a cycle red stop phase will hold back the cyclist on the cycleway. The cycle red stop phase will operate in conjunction with the motorist red stop phase and the signal for the cyclelane should remain green until it is triggered, along with the road signal, by a pedestrian needing to cross the road . These signals would be physically located off the cycleway, ie on the median or the edge of the footpath. As the cycleway is proposed to be two-way, signals would be required in both directions.
There will be some issue with respect to the pedestrian expectations of direction of traffic due to the two-way nature of the cycleway that will require warning signs. It of course would be far better if the cycleway were separated in direction and located on each side of the road carriage. That way there would be no conflict in pedestrian expectations when crossing the road.
The raised median between the cycleway and the roadway should be lowered at this point to provide better continuity for pedestrians and to enable the cyclist who needs to leave the facility at this point to also access the crossing.
To complete this facility, the pedestrian crossings across Epping Road should all be cycle legal with separate cycle and pedestrian facilities in the same way as are proposed the crossings along Epping Road. In this way good connections can be made from this route to destinations throughout the region.
Return to Top
Based on our experience with recent cycleways such as the Liverpool to Parramatta Rail Trail we are aware that what may be initially envisaged as a showcase cycleway has been ruined by the presence of a multitude of impingements such as road signs, lighting poles, letter boxes, trees, bus shelters etc. These create obstacles on the pathway which can the dangerous, both due to accidents created when a cyclists runs into that obstacle or runs off the cycleway which has veered to avoid the obstacle. While these accidents would be more prevalent at night but between two users of the pathway who are attempting to avoid the obstacle. Not only are they dangerous, but if they remain in abundance they can delay cyclists who wisely reduce their speed to manoeuvre around them and the squeeze points they create.
It is quite regrettable that what may have on paper appeared to be a useful and quality cycle facility is totally destroyed by very obstacles that have simply been ignored or deviated around by the cycleway builders. Such a key facility as the Lane Cove Tunnel cycleway should not be ruined in this way. We note reference in the EIS to the removal of trees in certain section but what about other obstacles. Right now there are some very significant obstacles adjacent to Epping Road, enormous road directional signs, large information signs, smaller parking/road signs, major roadway lighting structures and so on. The positioning of all these potential obstacles needs to very carefully considered in relation to the positioning of the cycleway or shared path and where they will obstruct the facility, they must be moved.
The difficultly in relocating these signs would simply not be an issue if the far left lane was simply converted to a bike lane, as no-one would ever consider allowing such obstacles in a road traffic lane.
Return to Top
An additional feature of a quality cycleway is adequate lighting to ensure sufficient vision and personal safety of the pathway users. This is particularly important in sections that deviate from the major roadways and its associated lighting . Such lighting of course should always be appropriate to its setting and not intrude on any neighbouring
residences
Return to Top
While vegetation and other tree planing is a desirable urban feature that improves the amenity of an area, care must also be taken to ensure such plantings do not impinge on the cycleway in any way.
Choice of planting is critical, with the requirement for tree types that grow up not out, with branches that then obstruct the cycleway. At no times should sight lines of cyclists, pedestrians or motorists be affected by the plantings chosen.
While Maintenance to cover this situation, the reality from previous projects is that maintenance does not happen, or not nearly frequently enough so the useful width gradually becomes less and less. Correct choice and positioning of planting is the only way to ensure they will not obstruct.
Document Created 2 February 20024.2 Shared Path Characteristics
4.2.1 White Line Pedestrian/Cyclist Separation
4.2.2 Other Shared Pathway Markings
4.3 Dedicated Cycleway Characteristic
4.4 Cycle Facility Road Crossings
4.4.1 Priority road crossings - signalised
4.4.2 Priority road crossings - unsignalised
4.4.3 Slip lanes
4.4.4 Single / Island Crossing
4.5 Pedestrians crossing the cycle facility
4.5.1 Reduction in Cycleway / Pedestrian Crossings
4.5.2 Issues at Bus stops
4.5.2.1 Dedicated Cycleway
4.5.2.2 Shared Facility
4.5.2.3 Bus Shelter
4.5.3 Issues at Road Crossings
4.6 Possible Obstacles on Shared Pathways
4.7 Lighting
4.8 Vegetation