Greens ask for their cycle path back on the Majura Parkway

Aeek said :

It does need a breakdown lane so innocent motorists aren’t wiped out by drugged truckers (allegedly)
If that is labelled bike lane, then cyclists are obliged to use it. How is that that bad for motorists.

If it needs a breakdown lane, but that’s labelled as a bicycle lane, then it’s not much use as a breakdown lane because drivers aren’t allowed to stop in a bicycle lane – sorry, it has to be one or the other.

Felix the Cat said :

Isn’t Majura Parkway going to plough through the middle of Majura Pines? It would be easier, safer andf probably quicker to access Majura from Ainslie.

No, Majura Parkway is going to plough through the 2nd tranche of pines up from the current road. it’s not really the middle, though unfortunately it is to go where a number of the best MTB tracks are.

The new road is only to be ~100m west of the existing road. It does not mean that it is or will be easier to access Majura Pines from Hackett (not Ainslie) for Gungahlin residents. Residents of other areas of Canberra riding to Majura Pines via Hackett do so because Majura Parkway is dangerous – hence the call for a protected cycle-way.

It does need a breakdown lane so innocent motorists aren’t wiped out by drugged truckers (allegedly)
If that is labelled bike lane, then cyclists are obliged to use it. How is that that bad for motorists.

I don’t see why this road would need a segregated cycle lane, or a cycle lane at all. The road is one that links the Monaro Hwy with the Federal Hwy and for most will be a quicker way to go from the far south to the far north by car bypassing most of Canberra at 100kph most of the way.There is no residential developments remotely close to Majura Road, without some massive hills in between, and those who wish to access Brindabella and Majura Park would most efficiently access the site via Fairbairn Ave. The Government have some common sense on this one..

Postalgeek said :

blub said :

The most interesting part of this for me is the process here – Pedal Power post on RA, then the Greens come out using the argument presented in the previous RA post..

If you’re referring to the earlier post this week, I believe BicycleCanberra is the moniker for a private poster who does not represent Pedal Power.

I would assume Pedal Power would use the moniker ‘PedalPower’.

Yes your are correct here. Bicycle Canberra does not represent the views of Pedal Power and visa-verse!
.
The issue which many of you are missing here is the difference between the cycle infrastructure. You can have the shoulders of the parkway to ride in with only a white line protecting you (cycle lane) or a barrier with a bi-directional path. The video on the other post shows you that the cycle lanes are physically protected by a barrier, a one way Cycle track in each direction ,which they are known in Denmark.
There is a guideline chart which has been developed over several years that state the higher the speed limit of a road and the greater the volume of traffic the greater the separation of the cycle infrastructure.
Sadly this has been ignored here in the ACT and Australia and the explanation that ACT roads gives in the Design standards 13 Pedestrian and cycle facilities is:
” Due to topography and through design, Canberra does not have a grid or radial street pattern as in other Australian cities and arterial roads are generally the only roads to provide these direct routes. These roads generally have speed limits up to 80km/h and are designed to a high standard
generally with controlled access, clearly defined intersections, good sight distances
and a much lower volume of heavy vehicles compared to similar roads in other
jurisdictions. This is not consistent with the NSW context and Figure 3.2 of the
NSW Bicycle Guidelines does not apply in the ACT. ”
The Graph in the NSW bicycle guidelines has been taken from the Dutch Traffic engineering design manual ‘ Sign up for the Bike” in 1993 . This manual has been been superseded since then by the Crow Manual 25 ‘Design Mannual for Bicycle Traffic’ which goes much further with the implementation of ‘Sustainable Safety’ the Dutch Road Safety Policy. The majority of roads which have speeds greater than 50km/h (residential speeds are 30km/h) they have physically separated cycle infrastructure.
Whether this road needs a path or not is not the question its the type of infrastructure that the ACT government is using. If you have the path then the shoulders of the parkway do not need to be as wide so the ‘extra cost’ will be minimal.

It is time that we start protecting cyclists properly rather than poorly designed infrastructure that is currently allowed.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/truck-ploughs-into-cyclists-on-m4-one-dead-three-injured-20100410-rzs4.html

blub said :

The most interesting part of this for me is the process here – Pedal Power post on RA, then the Greens come out using the argument presented in the previous RA post..

If you’re referring to the earlier post this week, I believe BicycleCanberra is the moniker for a private poster who does not represent Pedal Power.

I would assume Pedal Power would use the moniker ‘PedalPower’.

arescarti42 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Once you get to the airport, all you have is the Monaro to get you past Hume or Hindmarsh hill to conquer. Path to nowhere I reckon.

As far as commuting goes, the airport is already home to tens of thousands of jobs, and is projected to host tens of thousands more in the coming decades. The Majura Valley is also meant to be a major commercial and industrial area in the future. Plus there’s Fyshwick.

I have to agree with wildturkeycanoe on this one. It really is a road to nowhere. A quick bit of Google Map work tells me that the distance from Gungahlin to the airport via Majura Road is 19km and via the existing cycle infrastructure 21.5km. Given the 5% grade up Horse Park Road to the crest at the Federal Highway I’d always choose the extra 1500m along the lake. Given that it’s about 16km to the Commonwealth Bridge on the existing paths and 18km to Pialligo a glance at a map of South Canberra would show you that there really aren’t too many places where it would be shorter to go via Majura.

The most interesting part of this for me is the process here – Pedal Power post on RA, then the Greens come out using the argument presented in the previous RA post..
It’s exactly what the Libs do, except they use CT stories.
How about doing some effective opposition and cross-bench duties to hold the Govt to account, rather than just following the press. Lazy politicians.

Aeek said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Also, there is no on road cycling on the Parkway, the signs forbid it.

Um, no. The only No Bicycles signs on the Tuggeranong Parkway are both ends of the bridge by the Aboretum entrance.
They mean no bicycles ON THE BRIDGE. It is narrow, and with all the extra lanes…
A big clue is the bike lane on the southbound off ramp. It is designed for cyclists to go straight ahead and up the on ramp. Another clue is there is no such sign on the on ramp.

Just another example of bad road signs in the ACT.

More a case of wildturkeycanoe not being able to read. From the context you should be able to tell that they are referring to Majura Parkway.

wildturkeycanoe said :

..isn’t the point of cycling to get fit?

No, it’s transport. It’s how I get to work.