Bicycle NSW welcomes many of the proposals associated with the Lane Cove Tunnel projects as documented in the EIS document. While we fail to appreciate the necessity to build yet another road, it is very pleasing to see the State Government and the RTA fulfilling their obligations to 'incorporate dedicated bike lanes and cycleways whenever a new road is being built or upgraded' as per Action for Transport by providing very significant associated improvements in public transport and non motorised transport.
The bike facilities proposed are quite significant and we appreciate the effort that has gone into ensuring continuity along the corridor, by allocating the space required and by consideration of innovative features that make for a high quality facility and attempted separation from pedestrians in higher usage areas. It is pleasing too to see a recommendation to complete the Gore Hill section early to ensure good continuity of cycle access during the freeway widening phase.
We do though have significant concerns particularly with the underlying premises on which the proponents have based the proposed cycle facilities. With respect to the potential users of this cycle route, we believe this is first and foremost a commuter cycle route with some sections also providing excellent local access and a backbone into which local cycle routes feed for commuter and utility journeys. This is in no way a recreational cycle route.
We appreciate that the RTA builds cycle routes to assist a modal transport shift to the bicycle and they require that any facility they build must be of a type and quality that will encourage new bicycle users to cycle for transport, even if those features will not be desirable to the cyclist who is already commuting. The section of the cycle route alongside the Gore Hill Freeway should attract many brand new cyclists who will discover how much easier it is to cycle than drive between Lane Cove and Naremburn or Artarmon. On the other hand we do not believe that the section of this cycle route along Epping Road between Delhi Road and Munro Streets can be made initially attractive to such cyclists. It is simply too hilly and the trip generators are too far apart.
The Delhi / Munro section though, will be very attractive to the developing cyclist who has already discovered the usefulness of the bicycle for local journeys and is beginning to increase their fitness, skills and experience. They will be prepared to extend themselves to the commute across the Lane Cove River on a continuous, direct, no delay and safe cycle route whereas they would never consider commuting on the usual busy roads. These cyclists will contribute significantly to a modal shift as their growing commitment to commuter cycling is far more likely to be extensive and on-going.
The second premise with which we take issue relates to the question of 'what makes a safe cycle facility' and the underlying belief that it can only be safe off-road. We are quite convinced that a cycle facility can not only be made safe on road but that depending of the prevailing conditions it can often be safer than off road. On-road facilities can be made safe by the lowering of speed limits, provision of good wide cyclelanes and, especially for the vulnerable cyclist a significant barrier such as a New Jersey barrier, interspersed with openings where traffic can cross to access driveways and side streets and buses can load and disembark their passengers.
One of the areas of danger in off-road facilities, especially two-way facilities, arises from conflict with cars in unexpected situations such as backing out of driveways and turning into cross streets where the motorist does not often appreciate the speed of a cyclist and fails to recognise a potential occupant of the space they are about to take, especially when that cyclist is coming from the 'wrong' direction. These dangers are eased, if not avoided, when on road where the cyclist is far more predictable as he/she travels in the same direction as other traffic, is far more visible and is recognisably travelling in a lane of traffic.
Another condition which increases the danger for two-way off-road facilities is the presence of long hills where most downhill cyclists can easily achieve speeds of 40kph and more. These speeds are quite realistic and any to attempt to continually slow a cyclist down in such a situation would be to heavily discriminate against the potential benefits of the bicycle as transport and drive most onto the road. Not only will uphill cyclists be travelling much slower, but there will be a wide variety of speeds both up and downhill depending on the cyclists' fitness, experience and inclination. With closing speeds of 60kpm common, crashes would be quite nasty. Conflict between opposite direction cyclists is simply a non issue where single bike lanes are provided on the road.
Although Action for Transport recognises the importance in reducing car dependency as essential to improve air quality and the need to take initiatives to improve public transport and provide for and encourage non motorised forms of transport, we fear that the RTA and the proponent have not taken on board as seriously as needs be, the changes in priorities and thinking that are necessary to effect significant change. We fear that the removal of the objective 'to manage and contain trend for traffic growth in the corridor' signals the reluctance to take actions that would truly contain motorised private transport growth.
The proposal attempts to cater for public and non motorised transport but not at the expense of private motorised traffic flow. Wherever traffic flow modelling and analysis indicates there could be some congestion, extra lanes including many dedicated turn lanes, are provided for the private motorised transport mode, rather than looking at ways to shift the model split away from that mode. By way of example, an extra lane of traffic is proposed between Sam Johnson Way and the River to cater for possible congestion of traffic exiting the Lane Cove Industrial Area, encouraging growth in motor vehicle usage. A better approach would be to work with Lane Cove Tunnel and State Government Agencies to develop and commence implementation of a Travel Plan which encourages and assists employees to take up more sustainable transport options, including the option to work from home. There is a long lead time for the rearrangement of Epping Road, plenty of time to set in train effective measures that can change the way people travel to work.
The inability to accept any proposal that does not cater to current and expected motorised traffic demand has resulted in a proposal to widen Epping Road in many sections. It proposes resumption of private land, encroachment into bushland and removal of street trees, which could have significant repercussions in terms of community acceptance. It is quite ironical and unfortunate that this proposal to downgrade Epping Road could have this outcome. The proponent must be prepared to stand firm on good quality public transport and non motorised facilities, even if it means compromising and doing without any extra lanes catering for private transport.
Regardless of the overall proposal for cycle facilities, this corridor will be used by commuter cyclist and the proposal should suggest ways to enhance their safety and reduce impacts on other road users, in particularly public transport. In particular, existing commuter facilities that already exist such as along the Gore Hill Freeway, must be retained, anything less is quite iniquitous. The EIS recommends that those who are not satisfied with the off-road facility can use the propose Bus Lanes. While this is not a desirable option there are many improvements that could enhance that use of the Bus Lane, if no alternative is available.
While we appreciate the attempt made to separate bicycle and pedestrian usage of the shared path, compliance will be very poor if that separation is only indicated by a line. Rather than separating by type of user, separation of a single facility should be by direction of travel. This split would allow maximum separation for up and downhill travelling cyclists. A better alternative to the shared pathway is true dedicated and separate facilities.
At all times the pathway, whether shared or dedicated cycleway, should be continuous, smooth surfaced, with gentle curvatures and gradients, good sight lines, no obstacles and no obstructive, overhanging vegetation.
Special treatments are required at all road intersections with the cycle facility, whether it be shared path or cycleway. This applies to both signalised and unsignalised intersections. Those treatments must ensure continuity of travel, priority for cyclists, minimisation of delay and elimination of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. These treatments will need to be highly visible and able to be recognised as a cyclist priority crossing facility. The EIS proposes some good facilities and the report from Jamieson Foley takes these much further. We totally support the suggestions they make and have indicated our preferences where several options are offered. Many of the suggested facilities are quite new initiatives which are dependent on confirmation, clarification and standardisation by the RTA and in some cases on new legislation. We look forward to contributing further to the development of these initiatives and request a speedy resolution that caters to the overall requirements.
Although there may be dedicated cycleway facilities there is always the potential that pedestrian and cycle traffic must cross such as where there are Bus Stops and where pedestrians need to cross to the other side of the road. In both cases it is critical to minimise the extent of crossovers and we feel that at any one Bus Stop or road crossing this be reduced to a single crossing. Once again the Jamieson Foley report has made some good suggestions and we have detailed our preferences. These suggested treatments once again are quite new initiatives which are dependent on confirmation, clarification and standardisation by the RTA and in some cases on new legislation. We also look forward to contributing further to the development of these initiatives and request a speedy resolution that caters to the overall requirements.
While we appreciate that much of the Epping Road rearrangement cannot be completed until the tunnel is complete and open, this is not necessarily the case in every section of the cycle route. We welcome the recommendation that the Gore Hill Freeway section be completed early to provide a route clear of the works for the duration of the project and urge this to be so. We further recommend that sections not dependent on the rearrangement such as those to the west of the Lane Cove River, be built at earliest time possible.
We urge the implementation of certain extensions to the proposed Wicks Road to Parks Road cycle route. A continuous, direct transition between the M2 and Lane Cove Tunnel facilities, underpassing Epping Road, is essential for equity reasons alone. It is most sensible to provide shared pathway facilities on Mowbray Road at the same time as the road realignment and we request that those facilities extend to the top of the hill and connect into Avian Crescent to provide continuity to local bicycle routes. Consideration should be given to maintain and contain the Pacific Highway south of Longueville Road and provide for bicycle along this important commuter route linking to St Leonards and Crows Nest. Existing cycle facilities on the Warringah Freeway must not be compromised by proposed works. We also support the concept to continue facilities for pedestrians and cyclists along the Warringah Freeway easement to the Harbour Bridge. There is excellent potential for a quality commuter route in that region and look forward to co-operating and contributing to its development.
A cycling project of such magnitude and vision is bound to meet opposition in some quarters and raise local issues. We request to be appraised of any genuine, serious concerns that may be raised and to be involved in any on-going resolution that may be necessary. This project is of much importance and it is essential that where compromises must be made, the most appropriate compromise is made after consultation with all the relevant stakeholders.