Perth Waterfront

[ColinOldnCranky]

I'd like to know what excludes the continuation of existing bike passage immediately across the front of the bell tower. Any ideas anyone?

Rather than what is shown which is large numbers of cyclists and walker crossing four lanes of traffic twice. And, presumably, two light changes.

[WarbyD]

I went through there yesterday afternoon and found there was more than enough space for cyclists and pedestrians alike to just travel around the shoulder of the left lane rather than cross the road twice - Probably not as intended but with traffic moving as slowly as it was and more than adequate space it felt like the safer option.

Would have had absolutely no idea about the dotted line on the map there though if I hadn't seen a cyclist come the other way out of it - no signage that I noticed and no direction from cap'n high vis.

[blkmcs]

I just rode around Barrack Square and then continued on the path, much easier and quicker than crossing the road.

[wellington_street]

Silly me, I saw the path continued but sheepishly followed others as per the video animation that was shared around last week, I.e. the big upside down U detour around the work area, not across the area on the dashed cycle line in your graphic above.

Did you ride down the wrong side of Barrack Street on the road too?

[Aushiker]

Andrew

[wellington_street]

pretty disgraceful that the crossings across Barrack Square roads are not being used!

[rolandp]

Here is a suggestion:

There are existing traffic lights on all off these intersections that the suggestion goes through as well as existing shared paths (with the exception of the area which is basically the original Riverside Dr where we have existing curb mounts), and the amount of traffic entering/exiting Barrack St, is no more than prior to the development occurring, so no change.

Please note, that this is only until late February (aka 4 weeks away) so the big question which needs to be answered, what will be implemented late February. Will the Barrack St/Riverside Drive crossings remain after late February? If they do, and if works out quicker to ride rather than wait for the two light changes, why can't cycle lanes be installed on the Barrack Square route. Image from tonight of this area:

[ColinOldnCranky]

Please note, that this is only until late February (aka 4 weeks away) so the big question which needs to be answered, what will be implemented late February. Will the Barrack St/Riverside Drive crossings remain after late February? If they do, and if works out quicker to ride rather than wait for the two light changes, why can't cycle lanes be installed on the Barrack Square route. Image from tonight of this area:

The answer is in the limited width on southern, section of road. Taking it as a given that they will not give up any of the walking and garden areas then they would need to give up either some parking or the double decker bus in order to fit a lane along the souther section of road.

Cutting parking would be a hard choice. Any one ever tried to park there? Outside of some ACROD spots I seldom see a spot on the weekends for example. Lucky for me my wife has an ACROD pass.

And the tourist bus? No way will that be dropped, nor should it.

They could lose the path on the west but it would be a poor choice for the double decker bus - it's a bit out of the way which is not good for a valuable tourist service.

But I do see a solution that looks to me could still put the double decker in an appropriate place AND not lose any car bays. Simply lose the path at the west. Even before the works it was never used by peds anyway.

Then move the car parking on the west side of the east section of road and have the double decker pull up either there or on the other side up against the Lazy Shag.

Those changes will give the required extra space for a lane on all three sections of the road, not lose any car bays and place the double decker drop-off in a spot appropriate to it's tourism function. It may even give an extra bay or two for parking.

[ColinOldnCranky]

I can't see the number o bikes I'd guess would be crossing that intersectioall co-existing on the NE corner of the intersection.And that is even if there were no peds.

Already there are commonly about 8 or more bikes waiting in the mornings to cross from the bell tower to the Supreme Court Gardens corner. But now we have to add all those that simply pass that section as they continue east or west. I reckon you could add a dozen or more who just want to head east or west that currently do not cross.

Yuch.

[WarbyD]

This is exactly what I've done the last couple of days, along with most of the pedestrians and cyclists I've seen there at the same time as me. Plenty of space IMO. The traffic controllers don't seem to have any problem with this either..

I don't know what the traffic is like at other times though to know if this is really practical or if I've just been lucky.

[rolandp]

Shared path replacement now visible from The Esplanade:


Sneak preview on the new route:


It still requires us to cross at Barrack St (now at the corner of The Esplanade/Barrack St), ride down Riverside Dr, and cross at Riverside Dr. No difference in the number of lights that we have to now cross at.

There will be an additional alternative temporary route from early 2015, as 'road works' are required for the extensions of Howard St/Sherwood Ct, which will occur on the south side of The Esplanade St. This last alternative temporary route is still under discussion as it may use car bays on The Esplanade (subject to required approval).

The bike lanes on Barrack St are committed, and I was verbally told they will be here in the next couple of months (or earlier).

There will not be bike lanes around the Quay. Still trying to work out 'shared-use city centre roads' is as announced by Minister of Planning late last month, and specified on MRA's website.

[ColinOldnCranky]

For a while they were using attendents to push cyclists through a direct route across the road lanes on green-for-peds.

But no sign anymore of these attendents this morning during peak. So, as initially anticipated by myself, cyclists are required - as per signs placed - to cross two sets over two light changes, and clustered for one light-change on an inadequate path space in the middle where there is far too little room for them and the pedestrians sharing the space.

The only reason that it was workable this morning was the majority of cyclists ignoring the requirement and making an illegal and somewhat clumsy and somewhat dangerous direct cut across in the face of traffic. Without those illegal crossing I think the inadequacy of the setup would be patently obvious and we would have calls to the media by peds and cyclists alike. It's a bit rough when the only way something will work is by people putting themselves in some danger and flagrantly ignoring the law.

But inevitably someone will come unstuck. Watch this space.

I rate the arrangements in place as about the biggest fail possible.

[Scott_C]

The only reason that it was workable this morning was the majority of cyclists ignoring the requirement and making an illegal and somewhat clumsy and somewhat dangerous direct cut across in the face of traffic. Without those illegal crossing I think the inadequacy of the setup would be patently obvious and we would have calls to the media by peds and cyclists alike. It's a bit rough when the only way something will work is by people putting themselves in some danger and flagrantly ignoring the law.

I haven't been through Barrack St since the most recent changes (I use Riverside, Plain St & the Terrace to get in and the Terrace, Plain St & Riverside PSP to get out of the CBD and only on Saturdays) so I may be completely wrong but, if I understand correctly, the cyclists are in effect making a hook turn which is, as I understand it, legal for cyclists at any intersection where it is not specifically banned. Depending upon how it is done it may not be safe/legal from an entry/exit of the carriageway in the face of traffic but a bicycle starting behind the stop line westbound can legally make a cross to the diagonal corner on a green light provided they give way to any straight through traffic.

This doesn't apply to the rider of a "wheeled toy" though.

If I've got anything wrong corrections are welcomed.

[ColinOldnCranky]

The only reason that it was workable this morning was the majority of cyclists ignoring the requirement and making an illegal and somewhat clumsy and somewhat dangerous direct cut across in the face of traffic. Without those illegal crossing I think the inadequacy of the setup would be patently obvious and we would have calls to the media by peds and cyclists alike. It's a bit rough when the only way something will work is by people putting themselves in some danger and flagrantly ignoring the law.

I haven't been through Barrack St since the most recent changes (I use Riverside, Plain St & the Terrace to get in and the Terrace, Plain St & Riverside PSP to get out of the CBD and only on Saturdays) so I may be completely wrong but, if I understand correctly, the cyclists are in effect making a hook turn which is, as I understand it, legal for cyclists at any intersection where it is not specifically banned. Depending upon how it is done it may not be safe/legal from an entry/exit of the carriageway in the face of traffic but a bicycle starting behind the stop line westbound can legally make a cross to the diagonal corner on a green light provided they give way to any straight through traffic.

This doesn't apply to the rider of a "wheeled toy" though.

If I've got anything wrong corrections are welcomed.

Noble guess.

At each corner the cyclists (and peds) are leaving shared-paths, they are not yet on the road. Hook turns apply to vehicles on the road.

The intersection is otherwise also not really a hook-turn situation. The lights for east-west and north-south are the simultaneously the same - walk on both crossings or green drive thru both crossings. Done apparently so that cyclists could bypass the middle "island" corner which was supported earlier with attendants on both lights directing cyclists onto the road to the other corner. But those attendants are no longer there and signs have been placed on the "island" corner directing cyclists to head over there.

Essentially the lights have been synched to allow cyclists to take the diagonal short cut that they are now taking illegally but signage and attendants are no longer supporting that or making it clear either. Result is that most cyclists are simply riding and wobbling around the edge of the car lanes, sometimes in sync with the lights and sometimes not.

If the all did use the island corner then the whole intersection would become gridlocked with peds and cyclists at every change.

A true dogs breakfast and an accident waiting to happen.

Ignoring the gridlock for a moment, FYI to follow the signage and take the intersection in two light changes takes 3 minutes 10 seconds. All they needed to do was push the barriers that describe the arc back about 2 meters to make the ped/cyclist path continous.

[Aushiker]

The route now in place from Monday February 17, 2014:



Andrew

[WarbyD]

The last couple of days I've taken the Victoria Square option... much better than the "required" route IMO .. Although I see that won't be an option from 20th Feb when the path through the development is closed..

[wellington_street]

Note: cyclists are permitted to ride on the route shown and are not required to dismount at crossings."

Do Main Roads have the authority to permit cyclists to disobey the road rules? If so, why not do it at most intersections?

[Sinner]

There are cycle lanters for the William Street crossing outside the Esplanade Bus Port, so provided they put the lanterns up, then staying on your bike will be legal.

[rolandp]

The route now in place from Monday February 17, 2014:



Andrew

That was a non-starter. New path remains closed. Lets see what Tuesday brings.

[wellington_street]

Have they installed cycle lanterns at those crossings?

Or do we need to carry a print out with us to show to Mr Plod - "but I have a note from my mum Main Roads that says I can ride across"

[Sinner]

I would think that its going to be open in the next day or so. - UPDATE - it's open!

The contractor haven't been able to complete the cycle lantern installation at Barrack/Esplanade intersection and so will place "cyclist dismount" signage at both sides of this intersection until they can install the lanterns.

So you won't be legally allowed to ride across until the lanterns go up.

[rolandp]

It wasn't open when I came in around 7:45 and some twat had left their car on the shared path, so we had to either push our bikes through the sand or onto Wellington st.

Car had gone this evening and new path was now opened.

[Sinner]

The head of transport instructed closure today until it is made safe. The hoardings make it difficult to see pedestrians and the cyclists don't want to slow down to join The Esplanade.

[BrownBike]

The 'dual use path' along William St isn't much chop. Not marked as such and of course, peppered with streetlight poles.

[wellington_street]

The 'dual use path' along William St isn't much chop. Not marked as such and of course, peppered with streetlight poles.

That's not the shared path - the shared path is on the eastern side of the trees.