| Previous Section | Table of Contents | Overview Summary |
In this following section, comments and relevant issues are raised with respect to each section of the route.
The section is documented in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper as proposed to be
This is a residential area with numerous driveway crossings and a great many signs installed all over the existing nature strip. The combination of nature strip and existing footpath is probably sufficiently wide to create a 4 metre shared pathway, but there will not be much leftover and it will visually appear all concrete. While the pedestrian usage may not be high, neither will it be low due to the residential nature of the area. This is not an ideal section for a shared pathway and would be far better implemented as a dedicated cyclelane, best still as separate lanes on each side of Epping Road.
If built as a shared pathway many poles will need to be relocated or cycling along this section will be a game of dodgems and it could not be considered as serious effort at a cycleway.
What measures are being taken to reduce dangerous conflict with the frequent driveway crossings in this section. All residents in this area will need to be aware of the potential dangers, the fact that cyclist travel at speed and that they will be coming from either direction. A dedicated cycleway in this section will assist in providing a demarcation from footpath to quasi road conditions despite the two-way nature of the cycleway.
Our recommendation is that this section would be far better as a dedicated cycleway (preferably one-way, one each side of the road). This probably requires widening the total pedestrian/cycle facility which can only be achieved by narrowing the road.
Wicks Road marks the most westerly point of this cycle route. Obviously it has to end somewhere, but this is not a logical end point from trip generator point of view and consideration must be given as to how cyclists will proceed from here. It is our understanding that the regional route continues across Wicks Road and then across Epping Road following the west side of Wicks Road. Consequently a more complete crossing of Wicks Road is required.
The proposal only shows a crossing of the slip lane, whereas a single crossing from east to west is required. The slip lane needs to be controlled via signals to ensure safety. Ryrie Street Bus Stop
As a shared pathway there should be no need to weave the cycle and pedestrian routes around this bus stop. Given the residential nature of this area with people stepping out of their gates as well as car exiting driveways, in the section any through cycle or pedestrian traffic should be at closer to the road and as far as possible from the residences. It would be far preferable to separate the pedestrian and cycle with a kerb and keep it next to the road carriage. Collection of potential bus passengers should not be large and should be located closest to the houses with a pedestrian crossing of the cycle facility.
While there is some housing close to Pittwater Road this is primarily adjacent to parkland and open space areas. Except for those residences and a driveway out of the Tennis World complex there is very little potential for conflict with cars crossing the cycleway. There is currently a walking track along this section which passes high above the road alongside Tennis World but it appears this will entirely rebuilt / configured with a new retaining wall. There should be sufficient room to cater for separate cycle and pedestrian facilities along most of this section.
Our recommendation is that alongside Tennis World and Blenheim Park should be separate cycle and pedestrian facilities using the land available with some resumption of unused land if necessary.
The section alongside the residences near Pittwater Road could be somewhat problematic. There are some very major road signs in the middle of the existing track and there will be constrictions in space outside the residences. This section may need to remain shared pathway unless a lane can be trimmed off Epping Road by reconfiguration. It would also be worth examining Blenheim Park to see whether a satisfactory route could be devised behind the residences.
Delhi Road Crossing and Bus Stop
The crossing of Epping Road at Delhi Road should be a separate cycle facility to ensure continuity of cycle access from this cycle route to the M2 and other local links
There should be no need to weave the cycle facility around the pedestrian facility in this section. We can see no reason this why this could not be separate cycleway, continuing along the kerb with a single pedestrian crossing to access the road crossing and the bus stop.
Pittwater Road Bus Stop
Once again weaving of the cycle facility around the pedestrian facility is not desirable in this area. This would be low volume bus usage and holding areas should be kept to the rear with a pedestrian crossing.
Pittwater Road Crossing
The crossing of Pittwater Road should be a direct continuation of the cycleway on each side of the intersection. How that will eventually be placed depends on the final design, but the preference is for this cycleway to be dedicated and to the kerbside.
The section is documented in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper as proposed to be an off road 4 metre wide shared bicycle/pedestrian path.
In this section of the route the road is currently enclosed within the sound walls with plenty of room for a cycle facility within the walls. Unfortunately the EIS proposes to increase the number of lanes on Epping Road in the location. This is quite unnecessary and simply encourages more car use.
The EIS therefore proposes to move back the sound walls into the surrounding bushland to include this extra lane. Of course it is the pedestrian / cycleway that will be physically located in what is currently bushland, but it will have been made necessary by demanding an extra lane.
Our recommendation is eliminate the extra lane and keep the facility within the existing sound walls.
The section is documented in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper as proposed to be
Crossing to Mowbray Road West
The crossing of Mowbray Road West, particularly to access the western side cycleway is quite convoluted and will result in lengthy delays. The eastward travelling cyclist will have to cross at three signalised crossings and one unsignalised to reach the western side shared path. It will simply add weight to the commuter cyclist's decision to use the road and bus lane and be a major delay to other cyclists. Direct access from the private road would be a far better option and since signals are already been proposed at this intersection why not provide a cycle phasing directly across the intersection past the island and to the shared pathway system. Similarly cyclist should be able to cycle directly across the intersection (not walk on the pedestrian crossing) directly to the shared pathway. Dropped kerb access to each shared pathway is essential.
Mowbray Road Facility
The EIS indicates that the lower section of Mowbray Rd will have a 3 metre shared path /cycleway on both sides although the plans do not indicate how far the shared pathway extends. It is imperative that this shared pathway extends as far as Avian Cr to link in with the local Willoughby Council network. This provides a very necessary safe facility to replace the existing narrow steep road and has the double benefits of linking into the Willoughby network (via Avian Cr) as well as elimination of a 'blackhole' unsafe area for the more experienced commuter cyclist who will use Mowbray Road for a direct access to Chatswood.
The section is documented in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper as proposed to be
This section of the shared pathway is along a long drawn out hill and would be far safer implemented as separate bicycle lanes on each side of the road. If a shared pathway, all 4 metres of width will be required to adequately separate cyclists travelling in each direction.
Additionally this section has three roads cutting across the pathway .. one entrance only, one exit only and one that appears to be entry and exit all of which could if not treated appropriately create a very dangerous situation when mixing with high speed downhill cyclists as well as other path users.
Entry to the Shell Service Centre appears to be primarily via the U Turn Bay which provides an opportunity to slow down traffic. Special traffic management treatments and very clear signage are needed here to ensure speed is slowed and that traffic entering the Centre gives way to cyclists (and pedestrians) on the pathway. Essentially the motorist will have to be forced to stop before proceeding through the intersection with the pathway.
There is also the possibility that motorists will attempt to access the Service Centre via the end of the U-Turn loop unless treatments are in place to ensure this is not possible.
This is still going to be a hazardous situation as motorists are likely to at full speed when entering the U-turn bay and consideration should be given to eliminating the conflict by providing a grade separated crossing at this point.
Note that this is not nearly as hazardous for a cyclist in a proper bike lane as they are far more visible and obvious as a road user to the motorist. The motorist also does not have to keep a separate eye out for cyclists coming in the opposite direction. By eliminating the second unnecessary general traffic lane, separate bike lanes could be easily provided on each side of the road.
Motorist using the Exit from the Shell Service Centre should not be travelling at such speed, but the cyclist will. Treatments also need to be in place to ensure that the motorist stops and has very good long distance visibility in both directions along the pathway before. Motorists need to be very aware that they are crossing a form of roadway and not just a path. Consideration should also be given in this situation to a grade separated crossing of road and pathway.
With respect to the Entry for the Industrial Area, this adds just one more point of conflict, without any run in area to slow motorists down when entering from Epping Road. Strong consideration should be given to eliminating the entry and providing access for that area only via the Shell Service Centre entry/exits. It is just far too hazardous to add one more entry of this type.
The Bus Bay at the Shell Service Centre is probably low usage and quite likely does not need any special treatment. It may be advisable though to provide warning signs to both pedestrians and cyclists regarding pedestrians crossing the pathway to the bus stop and the presence of high speed cyclists on the pathway.
The section is documented in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper as proposed to be
This section of the shared pathway is along a long drawn out hill and would be far safer implemented as separate bicycle lanes on each side of the road. If a shared pathway, all 4 metres of width will be required to adequately separate cyclists travelling in each direction.
The weaving of pedestrian and cyclist should be eliminated from this section as it is shared pathway. Cyclist crossing of Sam Johnson Way should be kept close into the intersection and the slip lane controlled by traffic signals
The Bus Stop at Sam Johnson Way could be expected to have significant usage and care is required at this point to separate through cyclist traffic from the bus users. As most of the bus users are more likely to be accessing the bus stop via the footpath on Sam Johnson Way this is probably one situation where it is best for the through cycle/pedestrian lane to run behind the bus stop storage and loading area as shown on the diagram. The weaving west of the stop, though should not be required in a shared facility.
This section of road would involve some widening into the bushland on the northern side. This has been necessitated by the extra general traffic lane proposed west of Sam Johnson Way. Removal of this lane should eliminate the need for this encroachment.
The section is documented in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper as proposed to be
This section of the shared pathway is along a long drawn out hill and would be far safer implemented as separate bicycle lanes on each side of the road. If a shared pathway, all 4 metres of width will be required to adequately separate cyclists travelling in each direction.
Moore Street drops rapidly from Epping Road and any cyclist (or pedestrian) crossing as indicated on the diagram will be out of sight to traffic turning from Epping Road into Moore Street. The cycle crossing needs to be high into the intersection so they are immediately obvious to motorists prior to turning into Moore Street. Large signs will also be required to warn motorists of priority cyclist crossing.
The weaving of pedestrian and cyclist should be eliminated from this section as it is shared pathway. The Bus Stop at Moore St is unlikely to have high volumes of bus users, although they are likely to come from several direction, from the pedestrian overpass, from Moore St as well as from the residential area to the north of Moore St. Through cycle and pedestrian traffic should be kept away from the base of the overbridge ramp spill area to avoid conflict in that area.
The section is documented in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper as proposed to be
This section of Epping Road is residential and it is very welcoming to finally see a dedicated cycle facility. Apart from the obvious benefits in avoiding conflict with pedestrians, this places the cyclist further away from the houses and more distinguishable as part of the road system to motorists exiting the driveways.
The weaving of the cycleway to the rear of the bus stop and crossing of Munro Street and its conversion of shared path should not be necessary. The cycleway should continue across this area in the same way as to the east and west. Any bus shelter and storage area should be to the rear of the area, with a pedestrian crossing of the cycleway used only to load to the bus with cyclists. The continuity of the dedicated cycleway should be much less confusing for pedestrians and cyclists alike.
Similarly at the crossing to Tantallon Road the waiting area and pedestrian detector button should be to the rear of the dedicated cycleway with a crossing of the cycleway with the pedestrian green walk signal.
The section is documented in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper as proposed to be
This section of Epping Road is also residential and it is again very welcoming to see a dedicated cycle facility. In addition to reducing the conflict with pedestrians, this places the cyclist further away from the houses and more distinguishable as part of the road system to motorists exiting the driveways.
In this section the cycleway deviates from the footpath to pass through Turrumbarra Park which appears to be a excellent option. We appreciate the need to align the cycleway to avoid mature native trees and also expect that within those constraints the best gradients for the cycleway would be sought.
As the cycleway passes through a park with playing facilities, consideration must also be given to avoid conflict with children playing. It is absolutely essential that the cycleway continue at a different level to the surrounding lane, with borders and that there be signage to warn parents, older children and other park users of this cycleway by cyclists travelling at reasonable speed. As indicated in the diagrams, the cycleway obviously needs to be crossed by a footpath linking to the footpath system in this park. A single marked crossing should be marked in a position with good sightlines for both cyclists and pedestrians.
The Centennial Road intersection is a major intersection and obviously a difficult intersection to treat well. Given that the diverted cycleway through Turrumbarra Park positions the cycleway on the far side of the intersection of the pedestrian, it is probably not unreasonable to continue the cycle facility in that way.
The section is documented in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper as proposed to be
On the eastern side of Centennial Road the cycleway converts to a shared pathway for a significant period including behind the proposed bus stop. Pedestrian volumes can be expected to be significant but moderate in this region, both for through traffic and congregating at the bus stop. If sufficient land cannot be found to separate the through pedestrian and cycle traffic it will most likely need to be shared in this region. We do though question why the shared section is shown on the diagram for a significant distance to the east of the bus stop. This appears unnecessary.
At Cox's Lane, the diagram shows the cycleway weaving to the rear of the road alignment and becoming a shared path, with pedestrian crossings of that facility. It would be far less confusing for both pedestrians and cyclists and far less conflict to continue the cycleway directly along the kerb alignment, with a simple pedestrian crossing at the proposed crossing of Epping Road.
The section is documented in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper as proposed to be
It is to be hoped that the three section crossing of Longueville Road will be phased as a single crossing, in the same way as the motorist can cross the intersection. Otherwise cyclists will experience significant delays.
We think that the facility would be better positioned alongside the bus lane rather than weaving the pedestrian and cycle facilities. In that way it should only be necessary for pedestrians to cross the cycle crossing, if they need to cross Epping Road.
The crossing of Epping Road into Parklands Ave links into the Lane Cove Bicycle Plan and also be supported by a standard signalised crossing facility.
The section is documented in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper as proposed to be
This short section will almost certainly be high pedestrian traffic volume, but it is not a holding area for the bus stop and pedestrians are only likely to gather to wait for the crossing of Longueville Road. Under the proposed position of the crossing facility for Longueville Road, this is an issue which can be well addressed by relocating much further into the intersection (as suggested in the previous section 6.11.1). In that circumstance we suggest a separate dedicated cycleway in this section.
The section is documented in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper as proposed to be
This area will be very problematic due to the high pedestrian traffic and need for large holding areas for pedestrians waiting for buses. We agree with the positioning of the shared pathway behind the bus shelters and holding area in this area. There needs to be very clear demarcation of the through route from the holding areas, otherwise there will be general spill over into through areas. A kerb drop down is probably the only way to assist in that. Clear signs should also emphasise the direction of travel. Even though the pathway is shared, it should be very clearly through pedestrian and cycle traffic only.
The diagram does not show clearly the positioning of the cyclist crossing of Kimberley Avenue, although a pedestrian facility is shown. A position that correlates with either end of the shared facility would be excellent.
A pedestrian crossing of the shared pathway close to Kimberley Avenue is a little peculiar and seems to suggest that the section near Kimberley Avenue is dedicated cycleway, although it is not depicted as such.. This would be useful to ensure separation at the road crossing, although continual discontinuities are very confusing and not really desirable.
The section is documented in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper as proposed to be a shared pathway varying in width between 2.5 metres and 4 metres.
The width of this section of pathway is physically constrained, so although it would be preferable to separate the cycle and pedestrian facility due to the reasonably high pedestrian traffic this does not appear to be possible without constraining the traffic lanes. Given the major interchange of traffic in this area, this is most likely difficult, though it would excellent if the proponent were to give that some consideration.
From this section on there is no corresponding section documentation in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper. But from other sections of the EIS and Working Papers our understanding is that there is
Providing continuous access under the Highway is excellent as is access from both of the shared pathways to the Pacific Highway.
Diagrams of the Gore Hill Freeway side access show a very tight turn as the pathway turns back on itself. This is not desirable and if a direct straight ramp access is not possible, a more open scissor rampway is preferable, resulting in a manoeuvrable turning circle. Austroad 14 sets recommended minimal radius for horizontal curvature and states generally a minimum radius of 30 metres is preferred. While some compromise may be required due to constraints, a radius as close as possible to that should be designed.
There is no corresponding section documentation in the EIS Bicycles, Public Transport, Pedestrians Working Paper for the Gore Hill shared pathway, but from other sections of the EIS and Working Papers our understanding is that a 4 metre wide shared pathway is proposed parallel to and along the length of the Gore Hill Freeway from the Pacific Highway until the North Shore Railway line.
Shared Path / Cycleway / Bikelanes?
This proposed quality shared facility will be excellent for pedestrians, children and other vulnerable cyclists especially for local trips. This will make accessible by non-motorised means many destinations that have been previously quite difficult, convoluted and/or unpleasant to reach without a motor car. The terrain is generally flat, proposed width excellent and there are no intersecting driveways. Pedestrian usage is anticipated to be low. This facility is very welcome for its contribution to encouraging sustainable transport at the simplest level.
None the less we feel consideration should be given to provide either separated cycle facilities or separate bike lanes for commuter cyclist. Although pedestrian usage is anticipated to be low this will not necessarily the case. Usage could easily increase once appreciation of the access possible becomes more widely know.
Commuter cyclists are already catered for on the freeway shoulder but this proposal is taking away that facility. For such a commuter cyclist, the shared facility, particularly as it grows more popular with local pedestrians, this will not be adequate. It is quite inequitable for the widening of the freeway corridor to actually take a facility it already provides to the sustainable transport mode.
The best scenario, would be bike lanes on each shoulder and a shared pedestrian/cycleway for more vulnerable cyclists. While bike lanes should be to the Austroad 14 standard appropriate to the speed of traffic, a minimum 1.5 metre lane on each side would be preferable to none.
If facilities can only be provided on one side of the Freeway, consideration should be given to separating the cycle and pedestrian facilities. As indicated previously, a white line is not adequate separation and no attempt should be made to separate in that fashion. Separation needs to be by kerb, which means a minimum of 3 metre width and a form a low-key barrier separation such as low, trimmed, unobstructive vegetation.
Access to Artarmon Industrial Area
The EIS proposal shows access from the shared pathway the Artarmon Industrial Area via Reserve Road and Hampton Road. These are important links which are also extendable to many trip destinations both north and south of the freeway. They are though, on their own, not adequate access to the Artarmon Industrial Area.
The existing Gore Hill Freeway bikelane, in addition to those links, also provides access to Waltham/Dickson Streets and to Hotham Parade. These are very important access points as they vastly increase the area of the Artarmon Industrial Area that is more immediately accessible from the cycelway.
The access proposed at Reserve Road is on the eastern side of that intersection, so there is no access proposed to that part of the Industrial Area to the west of Reserve Road.
Existing access points to the west of Reserve Road must be maintained. The Artarmon Industrial Area is an extremely unfriendly bicycle and pedestrian area during working hours and we consider these access points critically important.
This continues as a 4 metre shared pathway. From the North Shore Railway line underpass, the cycleway is shown as deviating away and then back along the wall at the commencement of the viaduct.
This is an existing facility which needs some upgrading under this project. The deviation is currently required to move around the sound walls which jut out at a right angle in this position. As the path under the railway line is proposed to be moved close to the bridge retaining walls there would appear to be no necessity for any such deviation.
The existing facility crosses the cul de sac at the end of Francis Road and along a short section of Chelmsford Ave (cut off from the remainder by the original Gore Hill Freeway works). This section needs a smoother transition across the roads and treatments to ensure safety from cars that need to access houses in Chelmsford Ave or that could attempt to turn around at the bottom of Francis Road.
The existing facility then follows the along the sound walls of the freeway. Although the space is constrained by residences, it is wide with significant vegetation.
Where the freeway viaduct open this facility meets the major local cycling route to Chatswood via Artarmon Reserve. This will be a major cycle intersection and needs appropriate signage to assist safety. Depending on the route chosen for the next section of the cycle route, consideration should be given to raising the cycleway in this area, cantilevered to the sound wall and above the local route. Ground level access of course will still be required to ensure access from the Gore Hill cycleway to the cross cycle route.
This section of the cycle route is proposed to deviates from the freeway as it now travels high above along a viaduct. It is shown as a 4 metre shared pathway that crosses a storm water channel on a well directed bridge to follow along the northern bank of that channel until it reaches the open area under the viaduct close to Park St. At this point it once again crosses the storm water channel and joins into the local bicycle route through Bicentennial Park. Commuter cyclists can also join the Gore Hill Freeway bikelane at this point, after climbing back up to that height again on the paths under the viaduct. The drainage channel is at the bottom of the fill area for the viaduct.
Flooding
The gradients along the pathway will be good but we are concerned that it appears no studies have been done of the possible impact of flooding on the cycleway. While it is to be expected that there will be some flooding along the pathway, we had expected that such analyses would be performed to determine the frequency and height of flooding and the extent to which 'flash' flooding could endanger path users. Many cycleways are constructed in flood prone areas and while the occasional low level flooding can be compatible, there is a limit to which this is acceptable on an important regional route such as this.
Local Residents Concerned
This storm channel does back onto a number of residences, but usually that should not be a major concern as they are located on the opposite side of the channel and provision should always be made for screening open views if necessary. Concern though has been expressed by those residences in particular to their perceived loss of privacy and to the loss of vegetation required to build the pathway. That concern has been exacerbated due to the width of the path, visions of bright lights shining into their houses and that fact that a rough 'greenway' track had recently been made along the higher area of the fill area.
Consequently, local cycling enthusiasts and advocates walked the route and an alternative higher route to see the options and verify for themselves their suitability.
Their findings with regard to the proposed route were as follows:
Privacy - For the major extent of the pathway there is no real impact on the privacy of residents that could not be addressed by some discrete planting along their border with the channel. Many residences already had back fences and nothing could be seen at this low level. Those without fences usually already had plantings that effectively screened most of their yards. The exception though was at the western of the pathway, where there has been a development of medium density housing which backs directly onto and very close to the drainage channel. This housing has been built with balconies facing directly in the direction of the pathway. The group's opinion was that the pathway could be considered intrusive to these particular residences only and this should be taken into consideration when choosing the recommended location for the path.
Vegetation - In the main the vegetation where it could be reasonably be expected the pathway would be built was not very mature, some exotics and quite a few natives but many of a short life span used to initiate the revegetation but usually replaced in the longer term. There were a number of exceptions such as the delightful mature banksia tree which we felt should be retained and could be with compromises on width and deviations of the pathway. But once again towards the west section of the proposed pathway there was a large grove of well grown native trees which the group felt it was undesirable to disturb, if at all possible.
Alternative Route Along Sound Walls
Consequently the general feeling of that group was that the higher route, directly alongside the sound walls of the freeway, should be seriously examined to see whether it could be made an acceptable alternative. If was also felt that if so, an attempt should also be made to deviate from the existing 'greenway' which is now located along the higher section of fill.
For the western section of this route directly along the sound walls, there is very little vegetation at all that can be disturbed and absolutely no way that any of the residences below are visible. The 'greenway' also can be quite separated from the pathway allowing for separated pedestrian and wheeled facilities.
In the middle section the fill area narrows and pathway and greenway coincide. There is some visibility to open backyards at this point but it is a longer distance aspect and already accessible to walkers of the greenway. This section also dips down. Our recommendation is that this area could be further filled, widened and remodelled during the Freeway rewidening project to give more privacy to the residences and more opportunity for separation of walkers and wheeled transport.
The last section is very open and still very little vegetated. There remains an excellent opportunity here to provide a pathway and separate 'greenway' track which does not intrude visually on any residences.
The major issue with this route are the gradients involved in accessing this cycleway from each end. If there is no remodelling of the existing approaches and/or climb in each case, the gradients will be excessive, in particular on the Park St end. While cyclists can climb these gradients for short sections, they can be a deterrent to beginner cyclists and it would be a particular issue for people in wheelchairs who we understand require a gradient of 1:7. Steep hills are also a safety issue when sharing the pathway with pedestrians, as speeds can quickly rise on the down hills. If this route is chosen special work will be required to reduce the gradients.
The Park St end appears the steeper climb, but also offers the greatest potential for improvement. There is a significant face to the hill as it opens up under the viaduct, providing an opportunity for snaking of the pathway along the incline. The widening of the expressway in this area must also mean that there will already be major earth movements. This should be an excellent opportunity to relocate much of this fill area to allow for a much longer but far more gradual descent. We feel quite sure the engineers will be able to provide an excellent gradient pathway on the Park St end.
The Chelmsford St end, while not as steep is much more narrow and so more problematic to improve but there are still good possibilities.
For example the proposal calls for a bridge to cross the channel to the freeway side. If the climb were to be initiated at this bridge with an elevated design a far more gentler climb could be achieved.
Another possibility would be to run the pathway cantilevered against the sound walls of the freeway commencing as far back as the railway line. The extra benefit of this solution would be to avoid conflict at the pathway intersection at Artarmon Reserve. This type of clip-on facility could also be used to connect directly to the bike lanes of the Gore Hill Freeway.
Cycle lanes are provided along the Warringah Freeway and are used by commuter cyclists, although conditions are not pleasant particularly for the west bound traveller. It is critical that this access continue and not be downgraded in any way by the proposed works, in particular at the Falcon Street ramps. Regional routes already planned will not adequately cater to those cyclists and it is quite inequitable to remove their facility.
Consideration should be given to improving this facility wherever possible to provide a safer environment that is more accessible to more cyclists. While it would be wonderful to have grade separation at freeway entrances and exits, even little improvements such as a better angled crossing, smoothing crossings, grab rails at crossing and widening shoulders can all assist.
Access to the Warringah Expressway at Falcon Street for cyclist travelling west is by a flight of stairs, hardly appropriate. Given that the Lane Cove Tunnel project is proposed to enhance travel west from Falcon Street for the motorist with ramps that are not considered safe for use by cyclist, we feel cyclist access should be similarly enhanced by replacing the stairs with ramps.
The EIS predicts a reduction in the volumes of traffic on the Pacific Highway with the provision of the Lane Cove Tunnel. Just as traffic along Epping Road is to be contained and the corridor rearranged to give priority to public transport and non motorised transport, so should the Pacific Highway south of Longueville Road.
Speed limits should be lowed and the road better configured to give priority to buses, cyclists and walkers in everyway. This includes the provision of more frequent crossings of the road for pedestrians and cyclists. While it may not be possible to provide a bus lane and a bicycle lane on both sides of the road for the entire length of the road, priority for both should be improved along the length of the road.
The Pacific Highway is an ideal bicycle route as it follows the ridge with the best natural grades in the region and links the proposed Lane Cove Tunnel cycle route with commercial centres such as St Leonards, Crows Nest and North Sydney, regular trip destinations for commuter cyclists along this route. This route should be upgraded with bike lanes so commuter cyclists can safely travel the length of this road. Footpaths should be widened and upgraded to provide a more encouraging place for pedestrians and vulnerable cyclists.
We totally support the concept of continuing a pedestrian and cycle facility from Naremburn south to the Harbour Bridge utilising RTA land on the easement of the Warringah Freeway as proposed by Bill Orme and associates. We have also seen great potential in this available land and would very much want to be involved in developing the design of a combination of shared and dedicated facilities along this corridor.
Document Created 2 February 2002