[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[SouthAussie94]

A proper shared use path is accessible to everyone.

The "lyrcra clad wankers" probably aren't going to be the ones who would use this if it was built. You're more likely to see these people cycling up Norton Summit, Mt Lofty or Willunga Hill, or cycling along the Esplanade.

The analogy of "the lycra wankers don't use the shared use path so why should we build more shared use paths" is similar to that used by those opposed to the Adelaide 500 - "Why should we have a street race when The Bend Motoraport Park exists".

They are two completely different demographics/events.

A proper shared use path (which IMO should be built alongside the motorway) would be accessible to pedestrians, and cyclists (of all levels) and would help to bridge the gap that between the two sides of the corridor that the motorway will create.

This path should also be grade separated where possible

[greenknight]

Talking about big things, there will be 6 lanes on the surface road heading south, 3 turning right to Anzac Highway towards Glenelg and 3 south towards the tunnel entrance and the surface roads. I thought it was overkill, but the traffic modellers disagreed with me.

The issue they have is that if they do this upgrade, and it needs upgrading again in 5-10 years time, there will be an outrage. It needs to last 15-20 years worth of adelaide growth. Most of which, will happen in northern and southern suburbs.

Once its fully finished, ALOT Of traffic will divert from the other roads onto South Road... purely because of how efficient it will be.

These other arterial roads that run perpendicular to south road, will then need upgrading as they are bottleneck... and then that means even more increased traffic.

The final issue, is that unlike a grade separation (whether raised or lowered)... building more tunnels is essentially pointless... which means that far in to the future... the tunnels will be the bottleneck.

[ChillyPhilly]

Talking about big things, there will be 6 lanes on the surface road heading south, 3 turning right to Anzac Highway towards Glenelg and 3 south towards the tunnel entrance and the surface roads. I thought it was overkill, but the traffic modellers disagreed with me.

The issue they have is that if they do this upgrade, and it needs upgrading again in 5-10 years time, there will be an outrage. It needs to last 15-20 years worth of adelaide growth. Most of which, will happen in northern and southern suburbs.

Once its fully finished, ALOT Of traffic will divert from the other roads onto South Road... purely because of how efficient it will be.

These other arterial roads that run perpendicular to south road, will then need upgrading as they are bottleneck... and then that means even more increased traffic.

The final issue, is that unlike a grade separation (whether raised or lowered)... building more tunnels is essentially pointless... which means that far in to the future... the tunnels will be the bottleneck.

Induced demand.

Widening roads to ease traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity.

[rev]

It’s a niche thing here precisely because we don’t have good cycling infrastructure.

Look a London, which is trying to emulate the success of cycling in the Netherlands. Their approach isn’t perfect, but their bikeways are very popular. Think of all the people that used to be in their cars or crowding public transport who are now using bikes.

We have an entire month of cycling every January. Why aren't more people on their bikes? It's not like F1, a bicycle is easily accessible & affordable for the majority.
Where are the cyclists?
South Road along the T2T stretch has seen a dramatic decrease in traffic volumes, the bike lanes are almost always void of even a single cyclists. Safety because of traffic congestion? Well congestion has eased on the surface, where's the cyclists?

I saw 5 cyclists this morning in Croydon along Day Terrace getting onto that pathway that runs parallel to the train track. FIVE!
Those millions of dollars it took to build that path, and 5 people were using it.
And they weren't dressed in lycra.

So again, my point is valid. Better infrastructure alone wont entice more people to hop on a bike.

Build it and they will come.

No they wont. 99% who will use it will be the lycra people.

But you can see the justification in wasting taxpayer money on revenue raising instead of using that money to build adequate infrastructure to solve the root problem?

That revenue raising from improved freight movements? That revenue that helps pay for your basic services? That will also help pay for better cycling infrastructure one day?

The motorway isn't catering to a niche group. There's ample justification for it.

I want nothing more then to see no cyclists on the roads. Because almost every encounter with them, 99% in lycra, is a negative one.
Of course there's the added safety benefit for the cyclists.
But there needs to be a campaign to get more people on a bike more often, to justify spending tens of millions on improving cycling infrastructure.


Lets be honest. Those of you who are arguing that more should be spent, are only doing so out of self interest. You are the people who ride around in lycra, so you are the niche group who will use it.
The majority of South Australian's wont use it.


So, pony up the tens of millions, or lobby your local members to get a campaign to get more people riding to justify improved infrastructure.

[Llessur2002]

I saw 5 cyclists this morning in Croydon along Day Terrace getting onto that pathway that runs parallel to the train track. FIVE!

How long were you there for and at what time of day? I live locally and use the shared path regularly and there's usually a fairly steady stream of cyclists coming in from the Outer Harbor greenway.

It's also worth noting that traffic in general is starting to taper off as schools start to break up and people start to take leave. Probably not the best time to gain an accurate representation of patronage.

South Road along the T2T stretch has seen a dramatic decrease in traffic volumes, the bike lanes are almost always void of even a single cyclists.

Other than the fact that the South Road surface roads are still 60kmh main roads with zero physical segregation of vehicles and bikes the other problem is this is an isolated and short stretch of bikeway. The existing section of South Road south of T2T probably represents one of the most hazardous stretches of road for cycling in the state - potholes, narrow carriageways, B-Doubles, multiple business entries and intersections etc. If you put in cycling infrastructure which doesn't allow for end to end journeys then it's likely to be very underutilised. The same problem is also evident in the patchy CBD cycling network e.g. cyclists coming in on the excellent Mike Turtur bikeway suddenly find themselves spat out in to CBD traffic and have to intermingle with buses and the like.

This also affects the Outer Harbor route to an extent - only a small section between Croydon and the parklands is actually a dedicated path (and possibly some at the Port Adelaide end - I'm not sure off the top of my head), the remainder being a supposedly safer route through mainly residential streets. The Croydon to parklands section is good for cycling but is not as appealing as the Mike Turtur bikeway in that much of it lacks passive surveillance, has limited opportunities to enter and leave and is pretty graffiti-ridden. I can see why some cyclists, particularly women, might be put off from using this part alone or after dark - especially given much of the parkland routes it connects to are completely unlit. There's also currently a 12month detour in Bowden which requires riding on the road through construction traffic, which isn't ideal.

A lot of these issues will gradually resolve over time as Bowden is developed and the planned lighting upgrades in the parklands are completed. A few more apartments along Port Road would also help to improve passive surveillance between Croydon and Bowden. Extending the dedicated path along the entire length of the Outer Harbor rail corridor would, I suspect, massively increase the appeal of this route.

And they weren't dressed in lycra

the lycra people

99% in lycra

the people who ride around in lycra

You've obviously got an axe to grind but the obsession with lycra is wearing a bit thin tbh. Can't we have a cycling-related discussion without focusing on attire?

[Spotto]

I saw 5 cyclists this morning in Croydon along Day Terrace getting onto that pathway that runs parallel to the train track. FIVE!
Those millions of dollars it took to build that path, and 5 people were using it.
And they weren't dressed in lycra.

So again, my point is valid. Better infrastructure alone wont entice more people to hop on a bike.

Build it and they will come.

No they wont. 99% who will use it will be the lycra people.

"Lycra people are the only ones who use it... apart from this morning when I watched non-lycra people using it."

[rev]

I saw 5 cyclists this morning in Croydon along Day Terrace getting onto that pathway that runs parallel to the train track. FIVE!
Those millions of dollars it took to build that path, and 5 people were using it.
And they weren't dressed in lycra.

So again, my point is valid. Better infrastructure alone wont entice more people to hop on a bike.

Build it and they will come.

No they wont. 99% who will use it will be the lycra people.

"Lycra people are the only ones who use it... apart from this morning when I watched non-lycra people using it."

Did you even read what you quoted?

[rev]

How long were you there for and at what time of day? I live locally and use the shared path regularly and there's usually a fairly steady stream of cyclists coming in from the Outer Harbor greenway.

It's also worth noting that traffic in general is starting to taper off as schools start to break up and people start to take leave. Probably not the best time to gain an accurate representation of patronage.

It was around 745am, a few people walking about as well but I assume they were there for the local cafes.

Other than the fact that the South Road surface roads are still 60kmh main roads with zero physical segregation of vehicles and bikes the other problem is this is an isolated and short stretch of bikeway. The existing section of South Road south of T2T probably represents one of the most hazardous stretches of road for cycling in the state - potholes, narrow carriageways, B-Doubles, multiple business entries and intersections etc. If you put in cycling infrastructure which doesn't allow for end to end journeys then it's likely to be very underutilised. The same problem is also evident in the patchy CBD cycling network e.g. cyclists coming in on the excellent Mike Turtur bikeway suddenly find themselves spat out in to CBD traffic and have to intermingle with buses and the like.

This also affects the Outer Harbor route to an extent - only a small section between Croydon and the parklands is actually a dedicated path (and possibly some at the Port Adelaide end - I'm not sure off the top of my head), the remainder being a supposedly safer route through mainly residential streets. The Croydon to parklands section is good for cycling but is not as appealing as the Mike Turtur bikeway in that much of it lacks passive surveillance, has limited opportunities to enter and leave and is pretty graffiti-ridden. I can see why some cyclists, particularly women, might be put off from using this part alone or after dark - especially given much of the parkland routes it connects to are completely unlit. There's also currently a 12month detour in Bowden which requires riding on the road through construction traffic, which isn't ideal.

A lot of these issues will gradually resolve over time as Bowden is developed and the planned lighting upgrades in the parklands are completed. A few more apartments along Port Road would also help to improve passive surveillance between Croydon and Bowden. Extending the dedicated path along the entire length of the Outer Harbor rail corridor would, I suspect, massively increase the appeal of this route.

It may still be 60km/h, but it is considerably safer now then it was, because there has been that huge reduction in traffic volume, which has been taken by the lowered motorway. Of course it's not as safe as having physical barriers, I wasn't saying anything to the contrary. I was just pointing out it's a safer environment now for cyclists, but there's still next to no cyclists using the bike lanes.

I, in my car, don't dice with death against semi trailers. For very obvious reasons.
It would be nice if all cyclists in lycra used that logic and common sense too.

You've obviously got an axe to grind but the obsession with lycra is wearing a bit thin tbh. Can't we have a cycling-related discussion without focusing on attire?

Well I have never made it a secret I dislike the majority of cyclists who wear lycra, not because of their attire, but their behaviour and attitude.
I use terms like lycra brigade to differentiate them from other cyclists, because as you know, unless you're very specific in what you say on this forum, you get all sorts jumping up and down crying blue murder.

[Nort]

No,, you say lycra people because you have a consistent history of trying to otherise those you don't like.

[Nort]

As an example of the type of thing that is going to actively make the area worse, here's an example of the catchment for the primary school near Richmond road.

What is currently one pedestrian crossing is now going to become 4 road crossings, adding lots more time and danger.

The South Road upgrade should absolutely happen, however it should also be done in a way that considers the need of the areas it's passing through.

It's incredibly frustrating when people just say "ThIs Is ThE mOtOrWaY tHrEaD" when everyone knows that once built it would be practically impossible to adjust the motorway to address any of these issues.

[whatstheirnamesmom]

Agreed Nort

Rev, even with fewer cars, there will still be cars on the surface road. And if past induced demand is anything to go by, the surface roads will be busy again in no time. Actual safety, as well as perceived safety, are both barriers to getting people on bikes. And any sane person looking at a 60km/hr road with a painted bike lane would not want their loved ones cycling there. Which is why we mostly see only truly passionate cyclists/daredevils using them.

There are so many alternatives to a painted bike lane. Here are a few types set out in the Global Street Design guidelines, which was published by NACTO and the Global Designing Cities Initiative with input from 72 cities in 40 countries:




As you can see, a conventional bike lane has the lowest safety rating of the standard design options. It also says they are most applicable when the speed limit is 40km/h or lower. Research shows a conventional bike lane is better than no bike infrastructure at all. But is it any wonder that ordinary people (ie NOT the ""lycra brigade"") are hesitant to jump out of a car and onto a bike, even for small trips and errands, when overwhelmingly the only protection they are afforded is globally recognised as being unsafe?

I agree that a campaign to get more people on bikes would be wonderful. But what a tremendous waste of money it would be if the infrastructure isn't in place for people to actually take action on that message. If we want more people to use cycling as a form of transportation (not just recreation), then we can’t have demand-led uptake of cycling. It has to be infrastructure-led. The infrastructure needs to come first or in tandem with a campaign.

Bike lanes are the bare minimum that planners can do when accommodating cyclists, and represents a lazy or purely uninformed approach to urban planning.

Unfortunately, Adelaide has nothing resembling a safe cycling network — we have a separated patchwork of infrastructure, with very few high-quality bits. But the good bits either:
a) aren’t connected to each other, b) are indirect to places of interest, c) don’t provide a safe end-to-end journey, or d) aren't given enough priority to be time-competitive more a large enough proportion of trips

The cycling infrastructure proposed as part of this project (so far) does not seem like high enough quality to support good cycling outcomes. However, I am waiting to hear more detail about the separated path following the surface road.

Nort is completely right — this motorway is for the good of the state, but it is still running through people's local communities. People still need to move about their neighbourhoods and go places. To go to school, the shops, the bus stop, to see friends. Where is the proper local interconnectivity?

[omada]

REV please refrain from further posts on this thread for a little while eh? I think we are all across your opinion now. Have a lovely lycra free xmas mate!

[rev]

A proper shared use path is accessible to everyone.

The "lyrcra clad wankers" probably aren't going to be the ones who would use this if it was built. You're more likely to see these people cycling up Norton Summit, Mt Lofty or Willunga Hill, or cycling along the Esplanade.

The analogy of "the lycra wankers don't use the shared use path so why should we build more shared use paths" is similar to that used by those opposed to the Adelaide 500 - "Why should we have a street race when The Bend Motoraport Park exists".

They are two completely different demographics/events.

A proper shared use path (which IMO should be built alongside the motorway) would be accessible to pedestrians, and cyclists (of all levels) and would help to bridge the gap that between the two sides of the corridor that the motorway will create.

This path should also be grade separated where possible

Thats one of the most ridiculous analogies I've ever seen here.

Its the lycra cyclists who want better cycling infrastructure.
It is not Supercar racers who are asking for our roads to be fixed.

The lycra guys aren't professional cyclists in a race. They are using public roads, meant to be shared.
The Supercar racers are racing around on closed streets or dedicated circuits.

[Nort]

A proper shared use path is accessible to everyone.

The "lyrcra clad wankers" probably aren't going to be the ones who would use this if it was built. You're more likely to see these people cycling up Norton Summit, Mt Lofty or Willunga Hill, or cycling along the Esplanade.

The analogy of "the lycra wankers don't use the shared use path so why should we build more shared use paths" is similar to that used by those opposed to the Adelaide 500 - "Why should we have a street race when The Bend Motoraport Park exists".

They are two completely different demographics/events.

A proper shared use path (which IMO should be built alongside the motorway) would be accessible to pedestrians, and cyclists (of all levels) and would help to bridge the gap that between the two sides of the corridor that the motorway will create.

This path should also be grade separated where possible

Thats one of the most ridiculous analogies I've ever seen here.

Its the lycra cyclists who want better cycling infrastructure.
It is not Supercar racers who are asking for our roads to be fixed.

The lycra guys aren't professional cyclists in a race. They are using public roads, meant to be shared.
The Supercar racers are racing around on closed streets or dedicated circuits.

Given that your posts were in reply to people in this thread, can you tell us which people here advocating for better shared paths you think are wearing lycra?

[croweater888]

I had hoped this forum would have a considered debate on extending the Northern tunnel to Croydon, the lack of a right turn on ANZAC highway, or the troubles with transparency and information provision to those affected by the future construction works.

But no, what do we have? A tit for tat debate on bike lanes.