Return to Lane Cove Tunnel Page

Bicycle NSW
Level 2, 209 Castlereagh St
Sydney 2000
phone: 9283 5200

fax: 9283 5246

28 August 2000

Dave Kilsby
Kilsby Australia
Chair of the Community Focus Group
- Cycling, pedestrian and public transport

Dear Dave,

RE: Lane Cove Tunnel Project - Cycle Facilities

Please accept this submission as part of the community focus input to the Lane Cove Tunnel Project. This message should be passed on to everyone who has been involved in any of the community focus groups because the issues discussed here may have a bearing on other issues elsewhere. It should also be included in the final documentation for the community process. (It will be posted on our bicycle advocacy web site along with the responses we receive.)

UNACCEPTABLE PROPOSAL

From our point of view the community consultation process on the cycling facilities component of the Lane Cove Tunnel Project completely broke down last Monday night (21 August 2000). What we were shown was absolutely unacceptable to the bicycle representatives present. The meeting was a complete turnaround from the previous two meetings with the consultants and we request that steps be taken to reverse this situation again. We don't endorse or even accept the "final" proposal as shown to the meeting, and don't accept the reasons given for the proposal shown.

DISAGREEMENT OVER PROJECT BRIEF

In particular it was argued that to include commuter cycle facilities was a major change to the client brief, however we believe that the original proposal included commuter cycle facilities. Please refer to page 18 of the Overview report which describes a "dedicated cycle lane" and use of the shoulder of the Gore Hill Freeway. We therefore reject any suggestion that inclusion of commuter facilities is at odds from the Overview report which started the process. Given the original intention was to provide these facilities why have they been removed from the "final" proposal?

This is especially of concern to us given our discussions at previous meetings on commuter cycleway options. These concepts were designed and discussed and then our understanding of those options was reflected back in our previous submission dated 31 July 2000. We received no feedback to the contents of that submission.

As you are aware four bicycle representatives attended a Community Focus Group meeting on 21 August. This meeting had been postponed twice in order that work may be completed and we could see the final outcome and we wouldn't "waste our time". Extra time was taken to assess our previous submission, but when we arrived we found that the submission and previous discussions had been completely ignored and we indeed "wasted our time".

REQUEST FOR ANOTHER MEETING

We request that you chair a further meeting to discuss the inclusion of commuter cycle facilities in the project. At that meeting in addition to the relevant consultants we request inclusion of additional officers from the RTA in order to resolve the outstanding issues of the scope of the brief. In addition to a variety of current participants attendees would include the RTA General Manager Road Network Infrastructure and the RTA General Manager Bicycle Network.

REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

We have many concerns with the project as it was shown to us, and to assist our understanding of the "final" proposal we ask that you facilitate detailed answers to the following questions as soon as possible. Please send answers to questions as they become available rather than waiting for responses to all of them before you respond.

  1. It was indicated that the project plans we would see on Monday were the "final" plans to come out of this consultation phase. Is this how those plans will be presented? Is it intended that the inadequate plans that we were shown be forwarded on to the next phase?
  2. Why weren't we informed, before the meeting, that none of the commuter cycle facilities, previously discussed, were included in the "final" proposal?
  3. Please indicate to us who requested and who approved the work on commuter cycle facilities, that were discussed with us at our last two meetings?
  4. Please indicate to us why that design work for commuter cycle facilties has not proceeded and is not included in the "final" plan?
  5. Given that it was suggested that a commuter cycleway represented a change of brief (which we reject based on the Overview Report) has a proposal been forwarded to the RTA "internal client" that the brief be extended due to community consultation? If this has been done please forward a copy of that proposal?
  6. If no request for an extension of brief has been forwarded to the RTA "internal client" then please indicate the role and purpose of these workshops in relation to cycle facilties? When a formal request for an extension of brief is submitted please forward a copy to us.
  7. It was indicated that the internal client within the RTA had to approve of any major changes in the brief based on costs. Clearly to do this costings would have to be done. Please forward to us all the design drawings and costings of the commuter cycle facilities that were previously discussed?
  8. It was indicated that cost was a major concern of the project. Please indicate, from the project brief, what level of additional cost which constitutes a change to the brief? For example, is extra approval needed for additional infrastructure costing $100,000 or $200,000 etc.
  9. Many of the commuter cycle facilities would not add materially to the cost of the project. They involved changed lane marking and changed kerb boundaries which are minimal cost components. Such a component would have been the provision of "on-road" commuter cycle lanes from the Lane Cove River to near Tantallon Ave. Given that this did not involve major infrastructure costs, and that it was included in the original overview report, why was it not included in the "final" proposal?
  10. It is clear to us that commuter cyclists will benefit from the implementation of bus lanes (or even of transit lanes). Have the Bus Representatives been asked their view on the provision of on-road commuter bicycle facilities in the Bus Lanes?
  11. Has the work of the consultant traffic modeler included the effect of cyclists using Bus Lane facilities? What number of cyclists per hour were used? What was the average uphill and downhill speeds that were used? What effect would commuter cyclists using those facilities have on buses (and on T2 commuters)? If this work has been done please forward a copy of the analysis.
  12. It was stated on several occasions that the work to be undertaken was to provide facilities to local residents. However as we pointed out at the workshop the "final" proposal only caters to local residents who drive cars. From the analysis undertaken what proportion of local residents catch a bus, ride a bike or walk around the local area?
  13. In the "final" proposal how is the proportion of residents using public transport, riding a bike or walking increased compared to driving a car? What specific disincentives have been provided to increasing car use in line with the objectives of the project?
  14. In the traffic modeling studies is there a model of long term trends of car usage in the event of delays on the road? For example does the model indicate that at a certain delay people will attempt to find another route? What level of delay does the model indicate that will people start to use alternate transport rather than cars? Please forward a copy of the analysis.
  15. How have the consultants planned to meet the project objectives of reduced car use by local residents?
  16. On several occasions we were told that the project had not progressed to detailed design stage, however the diagrams shown indicated detailed designs such as median widths, lane widths, traffic islands and cycleway bridge orientation. Does the detail contained in the plans shown to us indicate designs that are proposed?
  17. If the diagrams are not indicative of detailed design then will they be amended (or notated) to show that? Will those plans be changed to include drawings with only vague outlines and perhaps boxes to indicate design components? e.g. A box with a caption "bridge goes here" with no bridge shown.
  18. If however as we believe, the design shown does indicate planned details will they be amended to follow the guidelines given in Austroads part 14 and our previous submission?

If any of the information we have requested is unavailable to us then please indicate why the information is unavailable to us.

Yours faithfully

Doug Stewart
on behalf of Bicycle NSW

cc:
Rolf Lunsmann, RTA, Acting General Manager Bicycle Network
John Betts, RTA
Ken Robinson, SKM, Project manager
Ross Jones, SKM, Assistant project manager
Ross Smith, Hyder Consulting, Design consultant
Calum Hutcheson, Masson Wilson Twiney, Traffic modeling consultant
Michael Sheridan, Hassell, Urban design consultant

Return to Lane Cove Tunnel Page

Document Created 29 August 2000
Updated 29 August 2000