News & Discussion: Active Transport

[ChillyPhilly]

Unley Road is a stroad, and a bad one at that. With the volumes of traffic it carries, unless they can be fully protected as they are on sections on Frome Road, bike lanes shouldn't be anywhere near it.

I don't mind these changes if they can build a dedicated cycleway through nearby streets. And good luck with that to Unley Council, I'm sure the NIMBY residents will get right behind it (/sarcasm).

Definitely a bad stroad - but, what do we want Unley Road to be?

It's not a five-lane arterial. It is a local road that features some key precincts and connects some nice and changing areas of Adelaide to the CBD, Parklands and vice versa.

It should also be protected as a light rail corridor.

[Nathan]

The thing that really needs to go is the street parking, not the bike lane.

[SRW]

Guys, Unley already has bike streets. The Rugby-Porter bikeway is specifically mentioned as an alternative to Unley Road. Not that there's not NIMBYs around in Unley, but it actually has some of the better cycling routes.

As concerns Unley Road, it's the same problem as for Goodwood, Glen Osmond and Fullarton. All could be great high streets, but for the commuter traffic. We need better public transport to reduce trips by car and possibly one day a road tunnel for the SE Fwy.

[dbl96]

South bound past the zoo and Botanic High is a bit of a mess. Send cyclists through a bus stop, and then up on the footpath with no markings (and narrower than it current is).
They also still need to provide a proper connection between the bikeway and the linear path at the Victoria Dr intersection, particularly to the west.

This, and it could be enhanced by ditching the kerbside parking.

It's unnecessarily confusing and messy to navigate. I don't understand why they don't just continue the same treatment they currently have from Carrington to Rundle Sts all the way down to the bridge.

[ChillyPhilly]

Unley Road is a stroad, and a bad one at that. With the volumes of traffic it carries, unless they can be fully protected as they are on sections on Frome Road, bike lanes shouldn't be anywhere near it.

I don't mind these changes if they can build a dedicated cycleway through nearby streets. And good luck with that to Unley Council, I'm sure the NIMBY residents will get right behind it (/sarcasm).

Definitely a bad stroad - but, what do we want Unley Road to be?

It's not a five-lane arterial. It is a local road that features some key precincts and connects some nice and changing areas of Adelaide to the CBD, Parklands and vice versa.

It should also be protected as a light rail corridor.

I've been thinking about the latest news in balance, and I'm struggling to support the latest idea.

We really need a new quasi designation for some roads in Adelaide: a high street.

Dropping the speed limit is wise. Increasing the car-friendliness and removing the bike lane is not. It does not matter if there is other bike infrastructure - this is a dangerous mindset.

[Saltwater]

Unley Road as a high street is correct in a historic sense. In it's early days it had the tram, always had a lot of retail activity, and residential nearby.

Nowadays we're asking an awful lot of one road:
- car parking for shops, restaurants and other commercial along it
- room for buses
- freight movements
- foot and mobility movements
- room for cars, including those travelling from further afield like Belair / Blackwood
- cyclists, including locally to schools and businesses, and those that use it to commute to the city or elsewhere

Including the above, there's also a push to add light rail into the mix.

Accommodating all this is next to impossible, because to change the road to a point it's safe for cyclists, we'd need to cut traffic volumes significantly (challenging when a lot originates outside the area), and significantly slow down speeds (unpopular given it's not only cyclists using the road).

Hence my strong argument that the cycling lobby is almost better off going with a "taking their toys and going home" approach to roads like Unley Road, and targeting dedicated cycleways along side streets instead. These streets don't have to be devoid of traffic or on-street parking, but importantly would have enforced speed limits that are compatible with cycling (i.e. 20km/h tops), to fully align with the approach these thoroughfares are shared spaces, rather than a bike travelling at 20kmh vs one-tonne cars travelling at 40-50kmh.

[Nathan]

Unley Road as a high street is correct in a historic sense. In it's early days it had the tram, always had a lot of retail activity, and residential nearby.

Nowadays we're asking an awful lot of one road:
- car parking for shops, restaurants and other commercial along it
- room for buses
- freight movements
- foot and mobility movements
- room for cars, including those travelling from further afield like Belair / Blackwood
- cyclists, including locally to schools and businesses, and those that use it to commute to the city or elsewhere

Including the above, there's also a push to add light rail into the mix.

Accommodating all this is next to impossible, because to change the road to a point it's safe for cyclists, we'd need to cut traffic volumes significantly (challenging when a lot originates outside the area), and significantly slow down speeds (unpopular given it's not only cyclists using the road).

Hence my strong argument that the cycling lobby is almost better off going with a "taking their toys and going home" approach to roads like Unley Road, and targeting dedicated cycleways along side streets instead. These streets don't have to be devoid of traffic or on-street parking, but importantly would have enforced speed limits that are compatible with cycling (i.e. 20km/h tops), to fully align with the approach these thoroughfares are shared spaces, rather than a bike travelling at 20kmh vs one-tonne cars travelling at 40-50kmh.

But then that assumes that cyclists are just passing through the area, and not also wanting to access the shops, restaurants and other commercial on Unley Rd.

The real solution is kill the street parking, and if necessary, provide some new off-street parking where needed to make up the difference. When space is at a premium, there's no good reason why that needs to be on the street itself.

[ChillyPhilly]

I've spent time in Gold Coast and Brisbane a fortnight ago.

The Gold Coast with its light rail has positively transformed Surfers Paradise.

It's significant as much of the corridor is along Gold Coast Highway.

On-road parking went in the bin. We have an odd fetish with this in SA. Maybe it's our lazy culture.

Pedestrians, cyclists, buses, cars and trams all flow and function harmoniously.

If we look abroad...Paris has completely transformed in a matter of months, let alone years, by removing on street parking and installing hundreds of kilometres of cycling infrastructure.

[rev]

I've spent time in Gold Coast and Brisbane a fortnight ago.

The Gold Coast with its light rail has positively transformed Surfers Paradise.

It's significant as much of the corridor is along Gold Coast Highway.

On-road parking went in the bin. We have an odd fetish with this in SA. Maybe it's our lazy culture.

Pedestrians, cyclists, buses, cars and trams all flow and function harmoniously.

If we look abroad...Paris has completely transformed in a matter of months, let alone years, by removing on street parking and installing hundreds of kilometres of cycling infrastructure.

Public transport options in Paris are light years ahead of what we have in Adelaide.
Limiting on street parking in Paris has a vastly different outcome to what it would in Adelaide. And it wouldn't be a desirable or positive outcome overall in Adelaide.
Public transport in Adelaide is neither convenient nor well designed to be able to accommodate such changes.

Politicians in this state, councils included, all love to talk about how to make the city more vibrant etc.
They think repaving some roads and footpaths, planting some trees and adding some benches and lights and painting some bike lanes will do that.
They look at these options because they are the cheapest and at least will potentially get them re-elected before the shine of them wears off, by then who cares they've earned an easy couple million in salary.
The harsh truth is if we really want a vibrant city, with great public transport options, proper and safe cycling infrastructure as well as decent roads, it's going to cost billions.
Either they have to bite that bullet or we'll just keep getting band aid jobs.

I don't want to be stuck in congested traffic in my vehicle anymore then a cyclist wants to be trying to safely navigate the same road.
And I'm certainly not waiting around some piss poor excuse bus shelter that smells like piss, or trekking to some out of the way train station to wait around for 15-30 minutes for a train if I don't get there in time.
We don't need to go crazy and build subways throughout the whole metro area, but we certainly can build a more extensive tram network and where possible extend and build new train lines.
If more people are able to use a decent public transport system, then we will have less cars on the road. That will make it easier to transform parts of the road network to adequately and safely accommodate proper cycling infrastructure.