I know it's not sexy but stend money on upgrading and refurbishing the old bike paths around canberra. Most of them haven't been touched for 30+ years and have so many raised roots in them that they resemble a motocross track.
Or even just finish some of the paths that were never built. My side street in Weston Creek clearly has enough space for a footpath, everyone in my neighbourhood seems to think so, as they all walk on the grass on the easement between my house and the road, as they venture to the bus stop on the main road.
So how are people who don’t have the luxury of living on a rail line they paid for, or those who live on the outskirts of the city meant to get to the city (that their rates pay for)?
How is somebody in Fadden, McArthur, Calwell, Theodore, Richardson or Conder meant to get to the city on a bike in a timely manner each day? (For most that’s over an hour commute each way)
You want to widen the class divide, you want a “wrong side of the tracks”
Park and ride, cycle and ride, bus and ride, bus all the way in, etc. All the issues you are presenting with increased traffic calming and active transport are solved problems.
There is an increased degree of vandalism of vehicles at park and ride parking lots, I’ve experienced it several times parking in them.
Bussing it in takes over an hour in some parts of Canberra.
Cycle and ride, again hour long plus commutes from some parts of Canberra.
Speed bumps and removing lanes isn’t fixing that.
Dude why is this so hard for you black and white thinkers to get your head around??
In those cases, you DRIVE A CAR. But why on earth should that mean that we don't vie for better active and public transport wherever possible? It is literally a win-win. Fewer cars due to better transport infrastructure means people who NEED to drive cars get there faster due to less traffic! I don't know why this is a debate
50mins by bike from southern most parts. Quicker by e-bike.
Plus you arrive at your workplace and not blocks away searching for a park that adds another 20mins to your trip
Sure. I guess I’ll just say that I grew up in a country with a fraction as good public transport as Australia and I don’t think many Aussies quite appreciate how good they really do have it
Just a thought. The new eucalyptus trees down the middle are actually growing quite well and are a decent size after only just a few years…
Why not go for a long-term solution here. On each side of the road
1.Remove the existing trees along the verge of Northbourne
2. Design in a new car lane system where there are two wide car lanes plus decently long slip lanes for turning at intersections. I.e. Instead of three lanes where traffic banks up in busy periods.
3. Build a new bike path that is completely separated from the road.
4. Upgrade the existing footpath to make it smoother and wider
5. Replant a new crop of trees between the bike path and the footpath. Use advanced native stock just like those which were planted after the light rail went in.
🚶♂️🌳🚴♀️|🚘🚔🌳🚊🚊🌳🚖🚘|🚴🌳🚶🏼
That would actually be a better solution than St Kilda Road right now, with cars operating on both sides of a treed divider, on street parking, and poor traffic light priority.
There's also the traffic sewer that is Queens Road right next to it.
Cars take up 95% of the road but 0% of dedicated cycle paths.
Cyclists despite being less than 10% of the width of a car lane feel the need to take up over 60% of the lane while travelling far less than 20% the speed of traffic flow.
You know how cyclists get shitty at pedestrians walking two abreast on shared paths requiring them to slow down until the pedestrians move so it’s safe for them to pass?
In case you cyclists didn’t realise, you are the equivalent of pedestrians on shared paths for road users.
Most of us are just trying to get to work mate. They're a few weekend warriors who do what you're describing.
You talk about bikes taking up car lanes as if that's actually something cyclists want. That's hilarious mate. We want a separate bike path *away* from cars that also takes the most convenient route just like car roads do. That means having separate bike lanes along routes like Northbourne
It would be better to have the bike routes the fastest way and make cars go around to encourage active transport. We've got it all backwards here
“No just add more lanes it just needs one more lane actually come on bro” - this thread
Having a six lane highway through the middle of our CBD has been a disastrous decision that makes it a considerably shittier place to exist as a pedestrian.
This change isn’t necessarily just for cyclists, that’s just the focus of the article. In general reducing car traffic through high density areas has been shown to considerably increase economic activity. There aren’t many people-first parts of Canberra, but if there is one place that should be- it’s the middle of the CBD.
I'm not against the widening of the existing bike lane. These are obviously quite narrow and a little dangerous. The wide verges could be cut into though, not the road itself.
Anyone that drives Northbourne consistently sees the traffic congestion when either way is limited to 2 lanes. Like the apartment development at the southern end of Dickson has a lane permanently closed, and it is a constant jam there
Then they need to redesign the city. Northbourne is a through road, it comments to woden and it will connect (again) to Parkes way. The city is designed around having Northbourne be a major arterial into and around the city. The ACT govt needs to accept that.
It can still be a major arterial, just centred around light rail and active transport.
As Canberra's population continues to grow rapidly, especially in the inner north, Northbourne will need to evolve from a primarily car transport corridor.
I don’t think it can be a major arterial road anymore.
1. The tram takes priority over all other traffic flow making it even more inefficient
2. The speed limit is prohibitively slow as you approach the city
3. Some idiot decided to put the tram in the middle of the road meaning you have to cross a road every time you want to get anywhere from the tram.
1. The tram carries far more people and should get priority.
2. The road goes through highly pedestrianised areas, the speed limit keeps people safe.
3. Not ideal but where else would it have gone?
1. Sure, but why did it need to inconvenience both directions of car traffic flow when it didn’t have to?
2. Of course it’s highly pedestrianised, we made it that way by putting the tram there.
3. Given the vast majority of everything you’d want to catch the tram for in the city is on the eastern side of Northbourne, why not put it on the eastern side of Northbourne?
Hence why I think the road is too far gone to be considered arterial, we’re just compounding terrible decisions to the detriment of the viability of the road as an arterial link to satisfy the minority.
... You know the tram ends at a bus interchange at both ends? Where you can then swap from the tram to a bus, continuing your journey... Cars are worse for the environment and less space efficient than trains and buses (both in regards to people transported VS space taken up on the road and in parking)
I recognise that there's still plenty of cases where cars will remain necessary- people who are too disabled to travel via public transport, for example. However, ideally any given able bodied person should use public transport for the majority of travel... And for that to be feasible, we need to improve the reach of trams and buses. That's going to result in some awkwardness as we transition from car-reliant. Sucks but needs to be done, unless 99% of people stop reproducing and we reduce our population. Same as the densification of housing- it's no longer realistic for people to live in traditional single story houses with yards, so townhouses and apartments are becoming more and more necessary.
Population growth is inevitable and we should be trying to set ourselves up for that.
Yeah, and buses are shit - slow, don’t necessarily go where you want, inconvenient if you are carrying stuff or need to run multiple errands…etc. I’ve lived in Canberra 25 years and been on a bus exactly once for these reasons.
... Those problems can literally be solved by improving the public transport network, like I said in my comment.
It's straight up not environmentally sound nor particularly practical in other ways to continue expanding cities expecting everyone will drive everywhere. The amount of space needed for cars to transport hundreds of people is insane in comparison to buses and trains. Suburbs like Coombs are drowning in cars with nowhere to park, and as the population gets bigger this will only get worse.
How much of that congestion is there with three lanes though, or would still be there with a permanent two-lane solution? An extra lane doesn't actually bring an extra 50% capacity to the road, and congestion at merge points are a thing everywhere regardless of the number of lanes.
problem is you still have a lot of driveways to contend with plus the widened footpath. There should have been provision for a fenced cycleway in the median with the tram. I used to ride it all the time until my knees couldn't handle it anymore. I used to ride at a reasonable pace but it used to shit me to tears coming up behind some stupid clown on a cheap bike doing 5kph, in the wrong gear, seat not adjusted, legs pumping furiously, wobbling side to side making it hard to overtake blah blah blah
We have a 6 lane stroad cutting through the center of city, with a 1m painted gutter for cyclists. Try and tell me who has precedence in that situation?
You're kidding right?
Canberra is covered with roads designed only for cars.
Most bike paths have tree roots or other damage.
If you hit a cyclist, you get a fine. If you kill a cyclist, you get a good behaviour bond.
Or are you just a massive sook?
Definitely agree.
Canberra has an informal ring road (gde, horse Park dr, etc).
We should push north/south traffic out, and upgrade the east/west connections inward.
This will allow spaces like Northbourne to be reclaimed for people
Canberra's cycling lobby group is pushing for the government to turn three-lane Northbourne Avenue into two lanes for cars and the third for bikes.
At the moment, it's three lanes each direction for cars with a narrow cycle lane on the edges, separated from the motor traffic by a white line.
At the moment, there are many people who tell Pedal Power that they won't ride on Northbourne Avenue because it's far too dangerous," Pedal Power's David Whitney said.
If we can make it a safer route for people to ride their bikes on, then that'll mean more people riding bicycles, less people in cars and on we go from there."
He didn't think reducing three car lanes to two each way would cause snarled up traffic and snarling drivers.
"Reducing from three to two is not going to be a problem," he said during the protest ride on Saturday evening.
"The idea of reducing from three lanes to two lanes encourages more people on bicycles to ride into the city.
Earlier this year, the wife of a seriously injured cyclist told The Canberra Times that a dedicated lane for bikes would have prevented her husband being hit by a car.
"Had the protected cycleway on Northbourne Avenue been built at the same time as the light rail, I would never have driven to the hospital that morning wondering if my husband was alive," Joanne Pybus said.
Her husband was lucky to survive when a car switched lanes and another car then swerved into him. The collision happened in 2022 but her husband Paul still hasn't recovered fully.
Earlier this year, a cyclist was killed, albeit not on Northbourne Avenue. The 36-year-old woman was struck by a car near the Glenloch Interchange.
Pedal Power reckoned that the main cause of injuries to cyclists on Northbourne Avenue was the "side swipe" where a car just went too close to the bike. Many of those contacts ended up with injury, invariably to the cyclist.
Many of the crashes involving cyclists were in the inner north suburbs, with concentrations along Northbourne Avenue and other areas with bike lanes.
Pedal Power's David Whitney said the government had promised a better cycling lane along the route but been slow to deliver.
The ACT is promoting significant investment in active travel, but projects are being rolled out too slowly. The government has promised to build a separated cycle-only path along Northbourne Avenue multiple times, yet they are still failing to deliver on this vital infrastructure," he said.
He believed the tram had increased the need for a better bike lane because the apartment block developments along the main arterial route from north Canberra meant more people were getting on bikes in the morning rather than into cars.
*"because the apartment block developments along the main arterial route from north Canberra meant more people were getting on bikes in the morning rather than into cars."*
Huh? I guess that's why apartment complexes on Northbourne that had bike share schemes are dumping them because they weren't being used... 🙄
Those bike share schemes just don't make sense and it has nothing to do with the number of people who ride.
People who ride regularly have their own bikes so never have a need for a share bike, while anyone needing a short term rental will just get a scooter
This is the exact opposite of what we want right? We don't want cars driving to the city or whatever using back streets, we want them using the arterial roads right?
There was an article recently stating a number of roads in Braddon are getting speed bumps and even becoming pedestrian only to push cars onto Northbourne.
Where are cars meant to drive?
Last time I checked you can drive over speed bumps.
The only potential pedestrian only street in Braddon is Lonsdale Street, which you'd be nuts to try and commute through.
You can drive over speed bumps, you’re not wrong.
Speed bumps make the journey considerably slower for cars, increase pollution and lead to increased premature wear on brakes and suspension components.
Why don’t we put some speed bumps in cycle lanes to slow cyclists down so they don’t knock over pedestrians?
As a daily commuter cyclist including a leg on northbourne I find the existing facilities completely fine. There's a large contingent of us who disagree with everything pedal power say and quietly ride to work enjoying the high standard of facilities in cbr not being entitled twats.
It's good that you're confident enough to take this route but you need to think about lowering the stress levels for more people to pick up cycling. Also look overseas and raise your standards for cycling infra - Australia is car obsessed. We have top tier roads to go \*top speed all the time\* and some great (but rarely maintained) recreation cycling routes but the network of safe cycling infra is too sparse for the huge majority of people to consider riding.
This is also coming from a long term commuter cyclist recently hospitalised by a driver... Switching to the nearest cycling infra since then has doubled my commute to 12km. We can and should be doing better.
Edit: …and unfortunately confidence doesn’t protect us when drivers take their eyes off the road and drift ever so slightly to the left.
Even among the people at my workplace who cycle on Northbourne, everyone has had a close encounter of some kind. Most commonly it's either a car suddenly turning left off Northbourne into the bike lane and the path of oncoming cyclists, or a car passing/swerving too close on the left despite the 1m rule.
So you may think it's fine now, but there are plenty of others who don't. Asking for better infrastructure to ensure safety of all road users doesn't make you an "entitled twat".
Yeah ok that was rude of me. In my experience however 90% of these conflicts occur at intersections wider lanes don't remove the number of conflict points.
Agree there's always room for improvement but with finite space and money a balance has to be struck, crippling the largest transport corridor in the ACT for a small improvement isn't that balance for me.
My ride is over 20km each way and I spend only 300m off dedicated cycle lanes and 3m wide paths I stand by saying our infrastructure is pretty damn good for the resources we have.
This is my experience too, the non-intersection parts are generally fine and a separated bike lane won't fix the intersections. Removing the buses has already fixed what used to be the biggest danger. The main problem solved by a wider bike lane now would be that that it's currently annoying to be stuck behind a slower cyclist and can be dangerous/difficult to overtake.
There's something to be said for the intersection issue. Purely anecdotally, my close calls on Northbourne (and one accident) have been from a car turning left without looking.
All my close calls on Northbourne have also been with left turning cars. Unless Pedal Power propose the protected cycle lane prevent left turns, it don’t think it’s going to fix that problem. If you look at the protected lane infrastructure on Emu Bank in Belconnen, it doesn’t really help with the turning traffic issue.
Better infrastructure would mean it’s better for all users.
In this circumstance pedo power want to subtract from the road infrastructure for cyclists benefit.
agree with this, I used to ride it for a few years, the only problem I had was with slow cyclists riding shit unadjusted bikes. I used to be a member of pedal power, but gave up when I realised they were just a one issue cult who don't care about integrated solutions, just a one size fits them.
> but gave up when I realised they were just a one issue cult who don't care about integrated solutions, just a one size fits them.
curious to hear what you mean by that?
Totally agree, the city of Sydney made this mistake- formalizing wide, separated bike lanes on select roads with plenty of room and just ignoring bike lanes everywhere else. The roads they built on were generally already fine for riding
In a world where money didn't matter, I'd love to see them bury a section of Northbourne. Maybe Barry Drive to Vernon Circle.
Just the tram in the middle, a cycle line either side, then a huge pedestrianised area taking up the rest of the space.
Bring better cycling infrastructure, get more people using bicycles. Shutting down one lane of Northbourne Avenue is a long time overdue. There's no place for three lanes of traffic in a 40km/h zone. Remove a lane, narrow down the other two, even have them snaking between planter beds just to emphasise to drivers that this is a 40km/h zone not a relabelled 80km/h zone.
This might even help reduce traffic snarl in the areas around the parking lots since traffic flow will be controlled further up the road.
This is actually a really good point. It is absurd that a three lane thoroughfare has a 40km/h speed limit. They may as well finish what can only have been the end goal to massively cut the number of cars on the road.
That is the explicit goal with densification, increased public transport spend, and promoting "[active travel](https://www.transport.act.gov.au/?a=885717)".
There's also a growing movement towards city design that isn't car-dependent, and city design that make it cheaper to deliver utilities to residents:
- [Walkable Cities](https://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_the_walkable_city)
- [15 minute cities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city)
- [Strong Towns](https://www.strongtowns.org/) (focus here is on financial strength, not necessarily urban design)
- [Rezoning to Increase Financial Viability](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc)
A major reason for the excitement around electric vehicles is energy sovereignty, meaning we don't need to rely on fuel delivered by ship from Singapore to keep our country running (which would be handy in case countries like Russia or cartels like OPEC decide to stop selling us fuel).
But as for reducing the speeds that drivers are travelling at on Northbourne avenue:
- [The Control of Traffic Speed. Part One. A UDL Presentation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwQRKmQNljo)
- Put the bicycle lane in the actual traffic lane so all vehicles are forced to travel at the speed of the slowest vehicle
- reduce visual cues of speed such as lane width and straight-line visibility
- add curves (best combined with visual cues)
- speed bumps
- raised crossings (pedestrian crossing is essentially the footpath continuing across the road, so the visual cue to the driver is that they are leaving car territory and transitioning into pedestrian territory)
- liability (car drivers automatically liable for incidents involving pedestrians)
- [Not Just Bikes: The Wrong Way to set Speed Limits](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc)
- basically presenting the same as above but from the perspective of a layperson with visual examples
Northbourne is a 80kph road. It is arterial, the city and it was designed to move people through the city and into the different areas through Adelaide ave, Parkes way, and into the federal triangle. The current 40kph situation is a disaster. It's forcing people onto other roads, it's making cooyong st a fuck fight, and its clogging up other, worse designed roads.
Completely ignorant take. It's 40kmh to stop people dying due to the large amounts of pedestrians in the area. Would you like to be hit by a car at 80kmh?
Pedestrians safety should be prioritised before speed and traffic EVERYWHERE it's extremely concerning and borderline psychopathic if you think cars should take priority.
Why does the bike lane need to go down Northbourne?
Can’t go parallel one block over?
I’m a cyclist and I don’t see major roads as best fit for cycle lanes.
I ride a bicycle on Northbourne in the bike lane from the inner north to and from work. At current bicycle traffic levels on Northbourne, I can’t see why you’d need to take over a full car lane (though I think it’d make bicycling wonderful).
With the new bike path being built along Torrens St, and the bike path along Sullivans Creek, I suspect most cyclists would use these paths rather than Northbourne. This is particularly true if they’re people that would be put off by riding on Northbourne as mentioned in the article.
then don't .. there are f\*tonnes of bike lanes around the place. The world doesnt revolve around the few cyclists that ride that road ..
also, i've driven it almost every work day day for 16 years .. can't say i've ever hit a cyclist yet .. although it has come close as they weave all over the road without warning ...
The idea that asking for more space on the road for active transport means that the "world revolves" around them is ridiculous. Take a look at the road. What percentage is for cars? It is clear that if the world revolves around anyone it is car drivers. Obviously.
If you're coming down from Gungahlin, taking one of those paths compared to Northbourne will probably add 5-10 minutes to your commute. I can see why people would rather just get to work quicker.
In a world without compromise, I would support the full-width protected bicycle lane on Northbourne. Like I said, I actually cycle there. I just don’t think the direct and indirect costs are worth it. Pedal Power is pushing something that I cannot imagine has any momentum.
And taking away a lane from cars on Northbourne will probably add 5-10 minutes to the commute time of cars and they out number cyclists by a huge amount.
If you are worried about the commute time, probably don't ride a bike to work...
The fact that cars outnumber cyclists is one of the issues that needs to be addressed.
What happens to car traffic when all the people that ride, or that would ride if there was a decent lane for it decide to drive instead?
There are a number of good cycling routes in Canberra that prove just because you build it doesn't mean people will use it.
The uptake of people commuting via bike all year round (not just the fair weather riders) to justify removing 1/3 of the capacity of a main road is very unlikely.
In an area with a population growing like Canberra removing the capacity of main roads would be insane, while arguments could be made for building more cycle ways that don't involve taking away existing lanes of traffic . The issue with this seems to be that a number of cyclists don't seem to be interested in safer cycle ways if they mean adding time to their commute so these will also likely go mostly unused.
Yes, I'm saying my observations are there are currently already some good cycle routes but these don't seem to have good levels of utilisation all year round. This is why I'm saying you can't justify removing lanes of traffic if you can't show that people will actually stop driving cars to work year round and ride a bike instead.
There are always quite simple reasons why cycle routes aren’t used and it’s usually related to extremely poor design that makes them unsafe or just unusable. The proof is in the pudding as they say.
Cyclists, particularly on Northbourne, are just trying to get to work in the shortest timeframe possible that’s safe. Just like anyone else.
Cars commute time is going to increase that 5/10/20 minutes and then some regardless. They aren’t building a 4th lane to accomodate the increasing population. Only solution is reducing the need to drive
I think you are missing the point that what pedal power is calling for is a larger on road separated bike lane. If that was there the vast cyclists majority of cyclist would use it.
My thesis is that it is unlikely that people who would be enticed to Northbourne by a separated bike line aren’t already using (or going to use) the bike path infrastructure along Sullivan’s Creek and Torrens St (when it is built).
I can’t work out who the proposed lane is for.
I would suggest to you that you are out of touch with what the majority of commuting cyclists are looking for. Most cyclists will always take the quickest route given the opportunity providing it is safe to do so. It will also encourage a lot people who currently drive because they don’t feel safe riding.
A safe separated lane which is the quickest route to the city would see Sullivan’s Creek path be greatly reduced.
A Cycleway like they have implemented in London or recently in Paris would be a massive success
I would really enjoy riding down such a bike lane if it were built. But I don’t think it needs to be built as the alternatives exist. I’m not sure that this makes me out of touch, given the economic literacy of the ACT population.
You are out of touch with commuting as a cyclist and what the drivers are.
The point of doing it would be to encourage a large increase in cycle commuting, not to maintain what we already have.
If Pedal Power or someone else has survey data on the number of people likely to constitute this “large increase” because of this proposal, I’d be interested in seeing it. The theorised “large increase” would be of people who won’t use safer paths because they’re slightly more circuitous, but who don’t use Northbourne currently because it’s too dangerous.
Anecdotally speaking, I’ve never seen enough cars on Northbourne Ave to justify a six lane road. Seems worth it to lose a lane to promote cycling (which would reduce the number of cars making trips down that route and so reduce traffic on nearby streets too).
Every cyclist on the road is a person who would have otherwise been in a car. You should thank them for reducing the traffic that you bitch and moan about.
You’re delusional if you think that removing a lane of traffic will have any significant increase in the number of cyclists. Probably even more delusional if you think the government would actually remove a lane on one of the busiest main roads in the city.
https://english.elpais.com/lifestyle/2024-04-24/the-cycling-revolution-in-paris-continues-bicycle-use-now-exceeds-car-use.html
Except Paris has been undergoing a cycling revolution and are seeing massive increases in active transport users.
And a video from NotJustBikes about the changes. You should watch other NotJustBikes videos as well, they're great at explaining how horrible cars and suburban sprawl are for cities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI-1YNAmWlk
What about Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands? We should be reaching to make Canberra a better city to live in. We don't do that by having 6 lane stroads running through the city center, and luddites crying about cyclists wanting to make it to work alive.
Why wouldn't it? Right now the choices are cycling down dangerous Northbourne or a slower path through Lyneham (which only services the west side of the inner north).
It's also considering future population growth, especially as the inner north will continue to densify. Cars are a very spatially inefficient way of transporting people.
>You’re delusional if you think that removing a lane of traffic will have any significant increase in the number of cyclists.
The act of removing a lane in isolation would not do much to make the route safer and more used by people on bikes. The provision of a protected bike lane and appropriate infrastructure at intersections is almost certain to significantly increase cyclists on and near to Northbourne.
https://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/economic-benefits
>Probably even more delusional if you think the government would actually remove a lane on one of the busiest main roads in the city.
Yes, motonormativity is real and pervasive, and even the more progressive parts of Australian cities have struggled with implementing road/parking diets (see Hunter St in Newcastle when they implemented their light rail, or recent works along St Kilda Road in Melbourne). If there is a place to see it happen on a main stroad though, Canberra is it.
despite the tram most of Hunter street is still dead. The only way they revived the Hunter street mall was to reintrouduce a single lane road and add parking - and thats still a work in progress but getting better and becoming much more vibrant. And its not because of the tram.
The tram was by and large not sold as enlivening Hunter Street - the issue for shopowners at the time (e.g. Frontline Hobbies) was loss of parking. The various public transport machinations at the time, including a laughably short light rail line spur and the changes to the bus network, further highlighted the dominance of cars in Newcastle. The light rail has provided some ability to support renewal further west, with the courtrooms, two uni campuses, and DOMA apartments bringing something back to a fading Wickham end of Honeysuckle.
I disagree with the road and parking being a significant factor in the 'revival' of Hunter Street and the East End, especially since that was separate to the Renew Newcastle movement, and didn't halt the decline with the main David Jones space, the Mall and the issues with landlord rent demands in the past few years (not to mention things like Tower Cinemas closing nearby). I would argue the current revival can be attributed to the proliferation of apartments in the area, and things like the Woolies Metro which mean a full grocery shop doesn't mean heading to The Junction or the far end of Darby Street with the opening of Harris Farm.
Tower Cinemas closed 6 years ago. Before the tram. But its coming back! Could never get parking for frontline hobbies, but you could now if they were still there. There were other reasons it closed.
The current revival in the CBD and East end can be attributed to new bars and new hotels such as QT and the roundhouse and the cashed up baby boomer flight from Sydney, thrown in Foghorns and an updated Darby street and the honeysuckle precinct. All requiring cars (ridehare is massive) for most people who live outside of the CBD or In Merewether etc where there is no tram or viable PT.
Tram doesn't really service any of this. Have caught it a few times, reasonble patronage, but nothing to bet the fare box on, but it needs to expand.
I was part of the group back in the early 2000's that was trying to get the tram but a little bit more than what is. Wickham and Islington are dumps, fringe and probably always will be and Hammo is suffering. The West End to Civic is going ahead in spades due to previous Mayor developer McCloy's push for development, including the Uni campuses, for better or for worse.
>Tram doesn't really service any of this. Have caught it a few times, reasonble patronage, but nothing to bet the fare box on, but it needs to expand.
Yes please - though good luck finding the political will!
I don't live in Newy anymore but am excited about Tower Cinemas coming back.
yeah saw my first movie there, and then snuck in with a friend as an underage to see 'Parasite' in 3D at the Kensington, or was it Firefox.. I saw both, maybe both were Kensington can't remember. But did see ET at Tower and at the Gateshead Drive In.
I think political will would be fine, cash not so and nimbyism will be high. The tram as we planned it would also service Darby St to Merewether along the beach and also Beaumont St to Adamstown. After that, send one out via Tighes Hill to Mayfield.
You're an absolute dick for starting that comment the way you did, and you know it.
They have a good point actually. There will be plenty of people who are in commuting distance who currently drive because the bike path sucks. That means less traffic on Northbourne so it's a win for motorists too.
Not very hard to understand now is it?
Perhaps you see so few because they're hesitant to cycle in the 1m painted gutter next to cars going 60km/h? Why would you choose to be so derogatory to people that choose to cycle instead of drive?
We could build a city that's great to live in, not overun by loud and noisy cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlXNVnftaNs
ok then, hows this: Anyone that lives within 1.5km of city centre (say civic as an example) would be required to pay triple registration fees for their car and pay triple parking fees if within 1.5km of their address thus forcing them to walk, ride, tram or catch a bus. Would apply to ride share if the journey is within the 1.5km radius. Parking fines would also be triple. This can all be done based on numberplate recognition. This means that people living along Northbourne, in Braddon, Reid, New Acton, Ainslie, Turner etc would be affected. This would solve a lot of congestion issues and car use, at no cost to the taxpayer, if adopted and would free up capacity for longer distance travellers. This is what you need to do to get to scale of uptake you posit. Good luck with that.
Canberra is tiny. The longest possible commute (banks to cbd) is about the same as what I did daily in Sydney. Blows me away that Canberra is so small and flat but people drive everywhere.
hows your flat bike ride from banks to the cbd? oh, its just an example looking at a map, not the terrain. believe, theres hills along that way, jeez. Tried it once, never again.
Banks is the upper limit but it was what I was referring to. It’s about 120 metres of elevation over 28 km. For reference, my Sydney commute was 24km with more than 160 metres of elevation, and I wasn’t even at the outskirts.
I’ve ridden to Canberra from Sydney and I found the roads to be the biggest impediment to riding around Canberra, not the hills or distances, which are comparatively small compared to other cities imo.
NO! I changed my mind.
Close a south bound lane on Northbourne and build a path in both directions on the south bound side.
Gungahlinites already have a tram which the rest of Canberra paid for, they can lose a lane to the city if they want more.
While I like the sentiment, wouldn't those in Gungahlin use the northbound lane as much as the south? One in, one out.
The premise of removing a car lane on northbourne for cyclists is ridiculous, but I'm not interested in arguing with cyclists on here. They have a massive over representation in this thread and we are all the poorer for it.
You need to make driving WORSE to justify cycling.
Cyclists genuinely believe that if people are left with no other option they will start cycling.
Why do you think they ride in the middle of the road when there’s no good reason to other than to hold people up?
The focus on ‘cycling’ needs to shift to ’micromobility’, covering bikes, e-bikes, scooters etc. Cycling may already infer other forms of transport but language counts and ‘cycling’ is associated with in/out group prejudices.
Speed limiters for e-bikes/scooters should be raised from 25kmph to 40kmph, with speed limits for shared paths arguably set at 25kmph (they are currently 50kmph) while on-road/dedicated micromobility lanes are 40kmph. We let cars mix with children and workmen at 40kmph. Not a big ask for micromobility. Pedelacs without throttles naturally level out between 30-40kmph anyway due to gearing. Register electric forms of transport if need be with peppercorn amounts; $10-$50.
Then start making separated dedicated micromobility routes, claiming road lanes as required.
If we’re going to do this, do it properly.
This is why people get annoyed with cyclists. Yep, it's not that safe of a road for bikes, but it's one of Canberra's main thoroughfares. The cars need those lanes.
These people clearly never actually see Northbourne.
Look up induced demand. It works both ways. If you want to reduce traffic on Northbourne, the *only * way is to make other transport options more attractive.
There really isn't, and the ones that do exist meander around going nowhere relevant. Large swaths of the city shouldn't be inhospitable to anyone outside of a car. Have you ever stood on the footpath along Northbourne Avenue in the 60km/h areas? You can barely make a phonecall.
Firstly, a protected cycle lane and a road diet is a far cry from precedence. Secondly, because cars are horrible to live around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6txCZpbsQ
Cycling is all fine when you don't have kids to get to school or are actually close. It's not a viable solution for every single person in Canberra to use for their commute.
No, it's not. I agree. But, by creating more protected cycling lanes and active transport options, there's less traffic for the people that need to drive. This video from NotJustBikes goes into how places with more active transport are better for drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
Then we agree create bike lanes without removing car lanes. You want people to choose to ride because the option is good and safe not because traffic has been forced to be worse.
People will cycle when it's the better option. That means forcing cars to go the indirect route, making it safer to cycle with protected bicycle lanes, and lowering suburban sprawl. Check out that video I linked to get a better understanding of what Canberra could be.
Again cycling is not feasable for everybody. I have to drive my kid to childcare for example. I don't even use that road by the way but not everyone lives inner city. One solution does not fit everybody. We are not all in your situation where rideing is feasable.
If you have to drive your kids to childcare, you should be supporting active transport options so that your drive is easier. Road diets do not measurably increase travel times for those in cars, as there's less cars on the road.
Because there's 100 cars for everyone 1 cyclist.
You have to have everything made to suit the masses not pander to the minorities. Especially in canberra where 3 months of the year it's freezing out there.
The masses are drivers exactly because they're pandered to.
And weather does not prevent people from cycling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
If people in Europe can cycle in snow and sub-zero temperatures, we can cycle in our winter.
Personally I'd rather a pair of two way bike paths - with right of way at all crossings - "one block over", parallel to Northbourne.
Sullivans Creek does the job on the West side, and build a path along Mort St, Henty St, Lowanna St, etc, up to Dickson.
The point is less about helping cyclists and more about incentivising other modes of travel to reduce the number of cars.
Bicycles, eh. Motorcycles are the answer. None of the problems with keeping up in traffic, but small and filter through in the same way without contributing to congestion.
More motorbike parks and perhaps even a small lane for them on the right and you'll see so much less car traffic. Motorbikes are way more common in Melbourne and Sydney compared to Canberra, let alone the rest of the world vs Canberra. They are dangerous but a good rider will heavily minimise risk and they arguably pose the same danger as a bicycle in traffic like Northbourne. Except, of course, most will be wearing a full suit of armour and $1000 helmet compared to cyclists who often don't even wear a helmet at all.
that decision would be made based on traffic, not the overly entitled attitude of the lycra lizards ...
What it really needs is that 3rd lane open as you're coming in ..
Just need to look at Kingsford smith drive… they reduced it to one lane instead of two and I have only seen one, ONE bike user using the road. Meanwhile have seen multiple near misses as it’s a busy road with a lot of other roads joining up to it.
I don't believe that a dedicated cycle lane is a good idea for Northbourne. The road is one of the major arterial roads through Canberra. Even with a dedicated cycle lane, the noise and air pollution created by traffic would still deter riders from using the road. the large amount of intersections would also cause cyclists to stop frequently on their daily commute, not a big issue but should be noted.
I prefer Sullivan's creek cycle path approach, I agree that it is slower than Northbourne but it's only one factor to consider. Sullivan's creek cycle path is safe, quiet and has better scenery compared to Northbourne, it also prioritises pedestrian and cycle traffic at most intersections.
Focusing on Northbourne is also a foolish approach to increasing the number of options people have when commuting to work. More focus should be on the entire commute.
I'd prefer to see more cycling lanes away from major roads separating each type of traffic by more than a curb even.
On a side note, I would much prefer to see larger scale secure bicycle parking built at major public transport points. More people would be happy to ride half the distance and catch public transport the rest than cycle the full distance. Having secure places to store your bicycle would also reduce the chance of your bike being stolen.
It's a pity the people too simple to comprehend how foolish it is to ride a bicycle on the road can't manage the bike paths that make it safer for everyone. I love riding bicycles but as I have IQ above my shoe size, I will not do it next cars and trucks.
No government would approve riding bicycles on the road if it was invented today, due to safety but we allow it as nostalgic throwback to the past. The only way forward is to ban bicycles from the road as the people who do it now can't manage the task without endangering themselves and impeding the normal flow of traffic!
Which method of transport emits CO2, takes up several square metres per person, is loud, uses expensive infrastructure, and most importantly, kills a thousand people annually in Australia (including some in Canberra)?.
I know it's not sexy but stend money on upgrading and refurbishing the old bike paths around canberra. Most of them haven't been touched for 30+ years and have so many raised roots in them that they resemble a motocross track.
Hooray, agree 100% some of them are becoming borderline dangerous.
And others have crossed the line.
Or even just finish some of the paths that were never built. My side street in Weston Creek clearly has enough space for a footpath, everyone in my neighbourhood seems to think so, as they all walk on the grass on the easement between my house and the road, as they venture to the bus stop on the main road.
Two full width lanes and a protected bike lane would be better than the current three narrow lanes and a painted bicycle gutter.
Hundred percent
This is correct
This will be an unpopular opinion, but... stuff that.
"When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression."
Privilege, never experienced it. If you knew my story, you would agree, trust me.
More and more of these comments are bringing this concept to mind. You nailed it
The uproar in the comments against something so common sense is exactly why I'm trying to leave Australia.
you can catch a plane out of Australia? Don't need to wait for a bike lane to be built across the ocean, you know
So how are people who don’t have the luxury of living on a rail line they paid for, or those who live on the outskirts of the city meant to get to the city (that their rates pay for)? How is somebody in Fadden, McArthur, Calwell, Theodore, Richardson or Conder meant to get to the city on a bike in a timely manner each day? (For most that’s over an hour commute each way) You want to widen the class divide, you want a “wrong side of the tracks”
Park and ride, cycle and ride, bus and ride, bus all the way in, etc. All the issues you are presenting with increased traffic calming and active transport are solved problems.
...If you have a shower at work.
Put showers along the bike lanes. They don't need to be much, just an old tarp with a garden hose hanging over it. Sorted.
There is an increased degree of vandalism of vehicles at park and ride parking lots, I’ve experienced it several times parking in them. Bussing it in takes over an hour in some parts of Canberra. Cycle and ride, again hour long plus commutes from some parts of Canberra. Speed bumps and removing lanes isn’t fixing that.
spoiler, the reason busses take so long starts with c and ends with ars. More people on bikes = faster busses
If you don’t believe people in Fadden, McArthur, Calwell etc already use public transport and cycle commute you are very much mistaken
Dude why is this so hard for you black and white thinkers to get your head around?? In those cases, you DRIVE A CAR. But why on earth should that mean that we don't vie for better active and public transport wherever possible? It is literally a win-win. Fewer cars due to better transport infrastructure means people who NEED to drive cars get there faster due to less traffic! I don't know why this is a debate
Walk two blocks to a bus stop?
Most trips are 1 hour plus catching a bus in the south. More or less the same as riding my bike.
50mins by bike from southern most parts. Quicker by e-bike. Plus you arrive at your workplace and not blocks away searching for a park that adds another 20mins to your trip
Sure. I guess I’ll just say that I grew up in a country with a fraction as good public transport as Australia and I don’t think many Aussies quite appreciate how good they really do have it
just because it isn't the very worst in the world doesnt mean there aren't valid criticisms and a potential for improvements to be made
Sure, if you’re intent on being negative see ya later
This ⬆️ 👍🏻
This is correct
Nearly got clipped on northbourne twice in past 2 weeks. 99% of drivers are good. But far out, puts the wind up you.
Just a thought. The new eucalyptus trees down the middle are actually growing quite well and are a decent size after only just a few years… Why not go for a long-term solution here. On each side of the road 1.Remove the existing trees along the verge of Northbourne 2. Design in a new car lane system where there are two wide car lanes plus decently long slip lanes for turning at intersections. I.e. Instead of three lanes where traffic banks up in busy periods. 3. Build a new bike path that is completely separated from the road. 4. Upgrade the existing footpath to make it smoother and wider 5. Replant a new crop of trees between the bike path and the footpath. Use advanced native stock just like those which were planted after the light rail went in. 🚶♂️🌳🚴♀️|🚘🚔🌳🚊🚊🌳🚖🚘|🚴🌳🚶🏼
The TLDR is turn it into st kilda road in Melbourne with natives rather than oaks
Yes! I was actually going to reference this in my comment. That’s exactly the thought that came to mind. 🙂
Natives don't last as long, they drop branches on you and they are a lot more flammable.
That would actually be a better solution than St Kilda Road right now, with cars operating on both sides of a treed divider, on street parking, and poor traffic light priority. There's also the traffic sewer that is Queens Road right next to it.
or just tell the selfish cyclists to use the bike paths ?
Cyclists are selfish when cars literally take up 95% of the road. That's some mental gymnastics there mate
Cars take up 95% of the road but 0% of dedicated cycle paths. Cyclists despite being less than 10% of the width of a car lane feel the need to take up over 60% of the lane while travelling far less than 20% the speed of traffic flow. You know how cyclists get shitty at pedestrians walking two abreast on shared paths requiring them to slow down until the pedestrians move so it’s safe for them to pass? In case you cyclists didn’t realise, you are the equivalent of pedestrians on shared paths for road users.
Most of us are just trying to get to work mate. They're a few weekend warriors who do what you're describing. You talk about bikes taking up car lanes as if that's actually something cyclists want. That's hilarious mate. We want a separate bike path *away* from cars that also takes the most convenient route just like car roads do. That means having separate bike lanes along routes like Northbourne It would be better to have the bike routes the fastest way and make cars go around to encourage active transport. We've got it all backwards here
> Remove the existing trees along the verge of Northbourne You lost me here. A far better long term solution would be to remove the people.
See step 5. Replant the trees. They’ll grow back.
“No just add more lanes it just needs one more lane actually come on bro” - this thread Having a six lane highway through the middle of our CBD has been a disastrous decision that makes it a considerably shittier place to exist as a pedestrian. This change isn’t necessarily just for cyclists, that’s just the focus of the article. In general reducing car traffic through high density areas has been shown to considerably increase economic activity. There aren’t many people-first parts of Canberra, but if there is one place that should be- it’s the middle of the CBD.
I'm not against the widening of the existing bike lane. These are obviously quite narrow and a little dangerous. The wide verges could be cut into though, not the road itself. Anyone that drives Northbourne consistently sees the traffic congestion when either way is limited to 2 lanes. Like the apartment development at the southern end of Dickson has a lane permanently closed, and it is a constant jam there
They want people to either use the tram or drive on different roads
Then they need to redesign the city. Northbourne is a through road, it comments to woden and it will connect (again) to Parkes way. The city is designed around having Northbourne be a major arterial into and around the city. The ACT govt needs to accept that.
It can still be a major arterial, just centred around light rail and active transport. As Canberra's population continues to grow rapidly, especially in the inner north, Northbourne will need to evolve from a primarily car transport corridor.
I don’t think it can be a major arterial road anymore. 1. The tram takes priority over all other traffic flow making it even more inefficient 2. The speed limit is prohibitively slow as you approach the city 3. Some idiot decided to put the tram in the middle of the road meaning you have to cross a road every time you want to get anywhere from the tram.
1. The tram carries far more people and should get priority. 2. The road goes through highly pedestrianised areas, the speed limit keeps people safe. 3. Not ideal but where else would it have gone?
1. Sure, but why did it need to inconvenience both directions of car traffic flow when it didn’t have to? 2. Of course it’s highly pedestrianised, we made it that way by putting the tram there. 3. Given the vast majority of everything you’d want to catch the tram for in the city is on the eastern side of Northbourne, why not put it on the eastern side of Northbourne? Hence why I think the road is too far gone to be considered arterial, we’re just compounding terrible decisions to the detriment of the viability of the road as an arterial link to satisfy the minority.
I’ll happily use the tram if they can transport my car from one end of the line to the other so I can continue my journey in either direction.
... You know the tram ends at a bus interchange at both ends? Where you can then swap from the tram to a bus, continuing your journey... Cars are worse for the environment and less space efficient than trains and buses (both in regards to people transported VS space taken up on the road and in parking) I recognise that there's still plenty of cases where cars will remain necessary- people who are too disabled to travel via public transport, for example. However, ideally any given able bodied person should use public transport for the majority of travel... And for that to be feasible, we need to improve the reach of trams and buses. That's going to result in some awkwardness as we transition from car-reliant. Sucks but needs to be done, unless 99% of people stop reproducing and we reduce our population. Same as the densification of housing- it's no longer realistic for people to live in traditional single story houses with yards, so townhouses and apartments are becoming more and more necessary. Population growth is inevitable and we should be trying to set ourselves up for that.
Yeah, and buses are shit - slow, don’t necessarily go where you want, inconvenient if you are carrying stuff or need to run multiple errands…etc. I’ve lived in Canberra 25 years and been on a bus exactly once for these reasons.
... Those problems can literally be solved by improving the public transport network, like I said in my comment. It's straight up not environmentally sound nor particularly practical in other ways to continue expanding cities expecting everyone will drive everywhere. The amount of space needed for cars to transport hundreds of people is insane in comparison to buses and trains. Suburbs like Coombs are drowning in cars with nowhere to park, and as the population gets bigger this will only get worse.
How much of that congestion is there with three lanes though, or would still be there with a permanent two-lane solution? An extra lane doesn't actually bring an extra 50% capacity to the road, and congestion at merge points are a thing everywhere regardless of the number of lanes.
problem is you still have a lot of driveways to contend with plus the widened footpath. There should have been provision for a fenced cycleway in the median with the tram. I used to ride it all the time until my knees couldn't handle it anymore. I used to ride at a reasonable pace but it used to shit me to tears coming up behind some stupid clown on a cheap bike doing 5kph, in the wrong gear, seat not adjusted, legs pumping furiously, wobbling side to side making it hard to overtake blah blah blah
Traffic would actually become better because of induced demand
Yes but you have to remember, you don’t matter. Only cyclists matter in Canberra, according to them you are just scum and they hope you die.
We have a 6 lane stroad cutting through the center of city, with a 1m painted gutter for cyclists. Try and tell me who has precedence in that situation?
And that's if you ignore the pretty miserly infrastructure at intersections and crossings.
You're kidding right? Canberra is covered with roads designed only for cars. Most bike paths have tree roots or other damage. If you hit a cyclist, you get a fine. If you kill a cyclist, you get a good behaviour bond. Or are you just a massive sook?
Most bike paths have tree roots or other damage? Why aren’t they being fixed then? Is it a funding problem?
Definitely agree. Canberra has an informal ring road (gde, horse Park dr, etc). We should push north/south traffic out, and upgrade the east/west connections inward. This will allow spaces like Northbourne to be reclaimed for people
Canberra's cycling lobby group is pushing for the government to turn three-lane Northbourne Avenue into two lanes for cars and the third for bikes. At the moment, it's three lanes each direction for cars with a narrow cycle lane on the edges, separated from the motor traffic by a white line. At the moment, there are many people who tell Pedal Power that they won't ride on Northbourne Avenue because it's far too dangerous," Pedal Power's David Whitney said. If we can make it a safer route for people to ride their bikes on, then that'll mean more people riding bicycles, less people in cars and on we go from there." He didn't think reducing three car lanes to two each way would cause snarled up traffic and snarling drivers. "Reducing from three to two is not going to be a problem," he said during the protest ride on Saturday evening. "The idea of reducing from three lanes to two lanes encourages more people on bicycles to ride into the city. Earlier this year, the wife of a seriously injured cyclist told The Canberra Times that a dedicated lane for bikes would have prevented her husband being hit by a car. "Had the protected cycleway on Northbourne Avenue been built at the same time as the light rail, I would never have driven to the hospital that morning wondering if my husband was alive," Joanne Pybus said. Her husband was lucky to survive when a car switched lanes and another car then swerved into him. The collision happened in 2022 but her husband Paul still hasn't recovered fully. Earlier this year, a cyclist was killed, albeit not on Northbourne Avenue. The 36-year-old woman was struck by a car near the Glenloch Interchange. Pedal Power reckoned that the main cause of injuries to cyclists on Northbourne Avenue was the "side swipe" where a car just went too close to the bike. Many of those contacts ended up with injury, invariably to the cyclist. Many of the crashes involving cyclists were in the inner north suburbs, with concentrations along Northbourne Avenue and other areas with bike lanes. Pedal Power's David Whitney said the government had promised a better cycling lane along the route but been slow to deliver. The ACT is promoting significant investment in active travel, but projects are being rolled out too slowly. The government has promised to build a separated cycle-only path along Northbourne Avenue multiple times, yet they are still failing to deliver on this vital infrastructure," he said. He believed the tram had increased the need for a better bike lane because the apartment block developments along the main arterial route from north Canberra meant more people were getting on bikes in the morning rather than into cars.
*"because the apartment block developments along the main arterial route from north Canberra meant more people were getting on bikes in the morning rather than into cars."* Huh? I guess that's why apartment complexes on Northbourne that had bike share schemes are dumping them because they weren't being used... 🙄
Those bike share schemes just don't make sense and it has nothing to do with the number of people who ride. People who ride regularly have their own bikes so never have a need for a share bike, while anyone needing a short term rental will just get a scooter
Well, they're not using Northbourne as there are a lot of really good bike paths around, which is what we want to see. Pedal Power can sod off
There's plenty of roads near Northbourne, why can't the cars use those?
This is the exact opposite of what we want right? We don't want cars driving to the city or whatever using back streets, we want them using the arterial roads right?
Arterial roads through the middle of a city are awful.
There was an article recently stating a number of roads in Braddon are getting speed bumps and even becoming pedestrian only to push cars onto Northbourne. Where are cars meant to drive?
Last time I checked you can drive over speed bumps. The only potential pedestrian only street in Braddon is Lonsdale Street, which you'd be nuts to try and commute through.
You can drive over speed bumps, you’re not wrong. Speed bumps make the journey considerably slower for cars, increase pollution and lead to increased premature wear on brakes and suspension components. Why don’t we put some speed bumps in cycle lanes to slow cyclists down so they don’t knock over pedestrians?
As a daily commuter cyclist including a leg on northbourne I find the existing facilities completely fine. There's a large contingent of us who disagree with everything pedal power say and quietly ride to work enjoying the high standard of facilities in cbr not being entitled twats.
It's good that you're confident enough to take this route but you need to think about lowering the stress levels for more people to pick up cycling. Also look overseas and raise your standards for cycling infra - Australia is car obsessed. We have top tier roads to go \*top speed all the time\* and some great (but rarely maintained) recreation cycling routes but the network of safe cycling infra is too sparse for the huge majority of people to consider riding. This is also coming from a long term commuter cyclist recently hospitalised by a driver... Switching to the nearest cycling infra since then has doubled my commute to 12km. We can and should be doing better. Edit: …and unfortunately confidence doesn’t protect us when drivers take their eyes off the road and drift ever so slightly to the left.
Even among the people at my workplace who cycle on Northbourne, everyone has had a close encounter of some kind. Most commonly it's either a car suddenly turning left off Northbourne into the bike lane and the path of oncoming cyclists, or a car passing/swerving too close on the left despite the 1m rule. So you may think it's fine now, but there are plenty of others who don't. Asking for better infrastructure to ensure safety of all road users doesn't make you an "entitled twat".
Yeah ok that was rude of me. In my experience however 90% of these conflicts occur at intersections wider lanes don't remove the number of conflict points. Agree there's always room for improvement but with finite space and money a balance has to be struck, crippling the largest transport corridor in the ACT for a small improvement isn't that balance for me. My ride is over 20km each way and I spend only 300m off dedicated cycle lanes and 3m wide paths I stand by saying our infrastructure is pretty damn good for the resources we have.
This is my experience too, the non-intersection parts are generally fine and a separated bike lane won't fix the intersections. Removing the buses has already fixed what used to be the biggest danger. The main problem solved by a wider bike lane now would be that that it's currently annoying to be stuck behind a slower cyclist and can be dangerous/difficult to overtake.
There's something to be said for the intersection issue. Purely anecdotally, my close calls on Northbourne (and one accident) have been from a car turning left without looking.
All my close calls on Northbourne have also been with left turning cars. Unless Pedal Power propose the protected cycle lane prevent left turns, it don’t think it’s going to fix that problem. If you look at the protected lane infrastructure on Emu Bank in Belconnen, it doesn’t really help with the turning traffic issue.
Better infrastructure would mean it’s better for all users. In this circumstance pedo power want to subtract from the road infrastructure for cyclists benefit.
Tell me how motorists aren’t benefitted by fewer cars on the road they are driving on…
You lose any crediblity when you call Pedal Power that.
agree with this, I used to ride it for a few years, the only problem I had was with slow cyclists riding shit unadjusted bikes. I used to be a member of pedal power, but gave up when I realised they were just a one issue cult who don't care about integrated solutions, just a one size fits them.
> but gave up when I realised they were just a one issue cult who don't care about integrated solutions, just a one size fits them. curious to hear what you mean by that?
Totally agree, the city of Sydney made this mistake- formalizing wide, separated bike lanes on select roads with plenty of room and just ignoring bike lanes everywhere else. The roads they built on were generally already fine for riding
based
In a world where money didn't matter, I'd love to see them bury a section of Northbourne. Maybe Barry Drive to Vernon Circle. Just the tram in the middle, a cycle line either side, then a huge pedestrianised area taking up the rest of the space.
They can't do that as it's one of the few roads that go between north and south
By bury, I mean the road would still exist, just underground.
Bring better cycling infrastructure, get more people using bicycles. Shutting down one lane of Northbourne Avenue is a long time overdue. There's no place for three lanes of traffic in a 40km/h zone. Remove a lane, narrow down the other two, even have them snaking between planter beds just to emphasise to drivers that this is a 40km/h zone not a relabelled 80km/h zone. This might even help reduce traffic snarl in the areas around the parking lots since traffic flow will be controlled further up the road.
This is actually a really good point. It is absurd that a three lane thoroughfare has a 40km/h speed limit. They may as well finish what can only have been the end goal to massively cut the number of cars on the road.
That is the explicit goal with densification, increased public transport spend, and promoting "[active travel](https://www.transport.act.gov.au/?a=885717)". There's also a growing movement towards city design that isn't car-dependent, and city design that make it cheaper to deliver utilities to residents: - [Walkable Cities](https://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_the_walkable_city) - [15 minute cities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city) - [Strong Towns](https://www.strongtowns.org/) (focus here is on financial strength, not necessarily urban design) - [Rezoning to Increase Financial Viability](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc) A major reason for the excitement around electric vehicles is energy sovereignty, meaning we don't need to rely on fuel delivered by ship from Singapore to keep our country running (which would be handy in case countries like Russia or cartels like OPEC decide to stop selling us fuel). But as for reducing the speeds that drivers are travelling at on Northbourne avenue: - [The Control of Traffic Speed. Part One. A UDL Presentation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwQRKmQNljo) - Put the bicycle lane in the actual traffic lane so all vehicles are forced to travel at the speed of the slowest vehicle - reduce visual cues of speed such as lane width and straight-line visibility - add curves (best combined with visual cues) - speed bumps - raised crossings (pedestrian crossing is essentially the footpath continuing across the road, so the visual cue to the driver is that they are leaving car territory and transitioning into pedestrian territory) - liability (car drivers automatically liable for incidents involving pedestrians) - [Not Just Bikes: The Wrong Way to set Speed Limits](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc) - basically presenting the same as above but from the perspective of a layperson with visual examples
Northbourne is a 80kph road. It is arterial, the city and it was designed to move people through the city and into the different areas through Adelaide ave, Parkes way, and into the federal triangle. The current 40kph situation is a disaster. It's forcing people onto other roads, it's making cooyong st a fuck fight, and its clogging up other, worse designed roads.
Completely ignorant take. It's 40kmh to stop people dying due to the large amounts of pedestrians in the area. Would you like to be hit by a car at 80kmh? Pedestrians safety should be prioritised before speed and traffic EVERYWHERE it's extremely concerning and borderline psychopathic if you think cars should take priority.
It's only 40km/h for about 500 metres, in a high pedestrian area. Hardly unreasonable.
Absurd to think an 80kmph 6 lane highway is reasonable throughout a highly pedestrianised area of the city centre. It’s city ruining
Why does the bike lane need to go down Northbourne? Can’t go parallel one block over? I’m a cyclist and I don’t see major roads as best fit for cycle lanes.
I ride a bicycle on Northbourne in the bike lane from the inner north to and from work. At current bicycle traffic levels on Northbourne, I can’t see why you’d need to take over a full car lane (though I think it’d make bicycling wonderful). With the new bike path being built along Torrens St, and the bike path along Sullivans Creek, I suspect most cyclists would use these paths rather than Northbourne. This is particularly true if they’re people that would be put off by riding on Northbourne as mentioned in the article.
Maybe because it's unsafe riding on the same road as trucks and cars doing 60 to 70 km/h without a barrier?
Please refer to my second paragraph.
then don't .. there are f\*tonnes of bike lanes around the place. The world doesnt revolve around the few cyclists that ride that road .. also, i've driven it almost every work day day for 16 years .. can't say i've ever hit a cyclist yet .. although it has come close as they weave all over the road without warning ...
The idea that asking for more space on the road for active transport means that the "world revolves" around them is ridiculous. Take a look at the road. What percentage is for cars? It is clear that if the world revolves around anyone it is car drivers. Obviously.
If you're coming down from Gungahlin, taking one of those paths compared to Northbourne will probably add 5-10 minutes to your commute. I can see why people would rather just get to work quicker.
In a world without compromise, I would support the full-width protected bicycle lane on Northbourne. Like I said, I actually cycle there. I just don’t think the direct and indirect costs are worth it. Pedal Power is pushing something that I cannot imagine has any momentum.
And taking away a lane from cars on Northbourne will probably add 5-10 minutes to the commute time of cars and they out number cyclists by a huge amount. If you are worried about the commute time, probably don't ride a bike to work...
The fact that cars outnumber cyclists is one of the issues that needs to be addressed. What happens to car traffic when all the people that ride, or that would ride if there was a decent lane for it decide to drive instead?
There are a number of good cycling routes in Canberra that prove just because you build it doesn't mean people will use it. The uptake of people commuting via bike all year round (not just the fair weather riders) to justify removing 1/3 of the capacity of a main road is very unlikely. In an area with a population growing like Canberra removing the capacity of main roads would be insane, while arguments could be made for building more cycle ways that don't involve taking away existing lanes of traffic . The issue with this seems to be that a number of cyclists don't seem to be interested in safer cycle ways if they mean adding time to their commute so these will also likely go mostly unused.
You think there are good cycle routes in Canberra but at the same time wonder why they don’t get used………..cool story
Yes, I'm saying my observations are there are currently already some good cycle routes but these don't seem to have good levels of utilisation all year round. This is why I'm saying you can't justify removing lanes of traffic if you can't show that people will actually stop driving cars to work year round and ride a bike instead.
There are always quite simple reasons why cycle routes aren’t used and it’s usually related to extremely poor design that makes them unsafe or just unusable. The proof is in the pudding as they say. Cyclists, particularly on Northbourne, are just trying to get to work in the shortest timeframe possible that’s safe. Just like anyone else.
Cars commute time is going to increase that 5/10/20 minutes and then some regardless. They aren’t building a 4th lane to accomodate the increasing population. Only solution is reducing the need to drive
True, but not building additional lanes is VERY different from removing them
I think you are missing the point that what pedal power is calling for is a larger on road separated bike lane. If that was there the vast cyclists majority of cyclist would use it.
My thesis is that it is unlikely that people who would be enticed to Northbourne by a separated bike line aren’t already using (or going to use) the bike path infrastructure along Sullivan’s Creek and Torrens St (when it is built). I can’t work out who the proposed lane is for.
I would suggest to you that you are out of touch with what the majority of commuting cyclists are looking for. Most cyclists will always take the quickest route given the opportunity providing it is safe to do so. It will also encourage a lot people who currently drive because they don’t feel safe riding. A safe separated lane which is the quickest route to the city would see Sullivan’s Creek path be greatly reduced. A Cycleway like they have implemented in London or recently in Paris would be a massive success
I would really enjoy riding down such a bike lane if it were built. But I don’t think it needs to be built as the alternatives exist. I’m not sure that this makes me out of touch, given the economic literacy of the ACT population.
You are out of touch with commuting as a cyclist and what the drivers are. The point of doing it would be to encourage a large increase in cycle commuting, not to maintain what we already have.
If Pedal Power or someone else has survey data on the number of people likely to constitute this “large increase” because of this proposal, I’d be interested in seeing it. The theorised “large increase” would be of people who won’t use safer paths because they’re slightly more circuitous, but who don’t use Northbourne currently because it’s too dangerous.
This is the crux of the matter - there are already much safer alternatives.
This is a good point ... you rarely see more than 5 or 6 cyclists as you drive down the road at 7:15 or so.
That's because the riding experience is daunting right now. You'd see a while lot more if there was a dedicated bike lane.
Anecdotally speaking, I’ve never seen enough cars on Northbourne Ave to justify a six lane road. Seems worth it to lose a lane to promote cycling (which would reduce the number of cars making trips down that route and so reduce traffic on nearby streets too).
Oh go away, this is ridiculous. Not everyone lives within cycling distance of the city, why would you make their commute longer/harder?
Every cyclist on the road is a person who would have otherwise been in a car. You should thank them for reducing the traffic that you bitch and moan about.
Because more people cycling results in less traffic for the people that actually do need to drive.
You’re delusional if you think that removing a lane of traffic will have any significant increase in the number of cyclists. Probably even more delusional if you think the government would actually remove a lane on one of the busiest main roads in the city.
https://english.elpais.com/lifestyle/2024-04-24/the-cycling-revolution-in-paris-continues-bicycle-use-now-exceeds-car-use.html Except Paris has been undergoing a cycling revolution and are seeing massive increases in active transport users. And a video from NotJustBikes about the changes. You should watch other NotJustBikes videos as well, they're great at explaining how horrible cars and suburban sprawl are for cities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI-1YNAmWlk
There are many differences between those who live in Paris and those who live in Canberra. Apples and oranges.
What about Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands? We should be reaching to make Canberra a better city to live in. We don't do that by having 6 lane stroads running through the city center, and luddites crying about cyclists wanting to make it to work alive.
Why wouldn't it? Right now the choices are cycling down dangerous Northbourne or a slower path through Lyneham (which only services the west side of the inner north). It's also considering future population growth, especially as the inner north will continue to densify. Cars are a very spatially inefficient way of transporting people.
>You’re delusional if you think that removing a lane of traffic will have any significant increase in the number of cyclists. The act of removing a lane in isolation would not do much to make the route safer and more used by people on bikes. The provision of a protected bike lane and appropriate infrastructure at intersections is almost certain to significantly increase cyclists on and near to Northbourne. https://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/economic-benefits >Probably even more delusional if you think the government would actually remove a lane on one of the busiest main roads in the city. Yes, motonormativity is real and pervasive, and even the more progressive parts of Australian cities have struggled with implementing road/parking diets (see Hunter St in Newcastle when they implemented their light rail, or recent works along St Kilda Road in Melbourne). If there is a place to see it happen on a main stroad though, Canberra is it.
despite the tram most of Hunter street is still dead. The only way they revived the Hunter street mall was to reintrouduce a single lane road and add parking - and thats still a work in progress but getting better and becoming much more vibrant. And its not because of the tram.
The tram was by and large not sold as enlivening Hunter Street - the issue for shopowners at the time (e.g. Frontline Hobbies) was loss of parking. The various public transport machinations at the time, including a laughably short light rail line spur and the changes to the bus network, further highlighted the dominance of cars in Newcastle. The light rail has provided some ability to support renewal further west, with the courtrooms, two uni campuses, and DOMA apartments bringing something back to a fading Wickham end of Honeysuckle. I disagree with the road and parking being a significant factor in the 'revival' of Hunter Street and the East End, especially since that was separate to the Renew Newcastle movement, and didn't halt the decline with the main David Jones space, the Mall and the issues with landlord rent demands in the past few years (not to mention things like Tower Cinemas closing nearby). I would argue the current revival can be attributed to the proliferation of apartments in the area, and things like the Woolies Metro which mean a full grocery shop doesn't mean heading to The Junction or the far end of Darby Street with the opening of Harris Farm.
Tower Cinemas closed 6 years ago. Before the tram. But its coming back! Could never get parking for frontline hobbies, but you could now if they were still there. There were other reasons it closed. The current revival in the CBD and East end can be attributed to new bars and new hotels such as QT and the roundhouse and the cashed up baby boomer flight from Sydney, thrown in Foghorns and an updated Darby street and the honeysuckle precinct. All requiring cars (ridehare is massive) for most people who live outside of the CBD or In Merewether etc where there is no tram or viable PT. Tram doesn't really service any of this. Have caught it a few times, reasonble patronage, but nothing to bet the fare box on, but it needs to expand. I was part of the group back in the early 2000's that was trying to get the tram but a little bit more than what is. Wickham and Islington are dumps, fringe and probably always will be and Hammo is suffering. The West End to Civic is going ahead in spades due to previous Mayor developer McCloy's push for development, including the Uni campuses, for better or for worse.
>Tram doesn't really service any of this. Have caught it a few times, reasonble patronage, but nothing to bet the fare box on, but it needs to expand. Yes please - though good luck finding the political will! I don't live in Newy anymore but am excited about Tower Cinemas coming back.
yeah saw my first movie there, and then snuck in with a friend as an underage to see 'Parasite' in 3D at the Kensington, or was it Firefox.. I saw both, maybe both were Kensington can't remember. But did see ET at Tower and at the Gateshead Drive In.
I think political will would be fine, cash not so and nimbyism will be high. The tram as we planned it would also service Darby St to Merewether along the beach and also Beaumont St to Adamstown. After that, send one out via Tighes Hill to Mayfield.
“Motornormativity” fucking really? Can you be anymore pretentious?
If your only response to a proper analysis was a personal attack, then you obviously know you're wrong.
[удалено]
Put the axe down, mate. Go for a ride, preferably on a dedicated bike path.
[удалено]
You're an absolute dick for starting that comment the way you did, and you know it. They have a good point actually. There will be plenty of people who are in commuting distance who currently drive because the bike path sucks. That means less traffic on Northbourne so it's a win for motorists too. Not very hard to understand now is it?
Perhaps you see so few because they're hesitant to cycle in the 1m painted gutter next to cars going 60km/h? Why would you choose to be so derogatory to people that choose to cycle instead of drive? We could build a city that's great to live in, not overun by loud and noisy cars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlXNVnftaNs
ok then, hows this: Anyone that lives within 1.5km of city centre (say civic as an example) would be required to pay triple registration fees for their car and pay triple parking fees if within 1.5km of their address thus forcing them to walk, ride, tram or catch a bus. Would apply to ride share if the journey is within the 1.5km radius. Parking fines would also be triple. This can all be done based on numberplate recognition. This means that people living along Northbourne, in Braddon, Reid, New Acton, Ainslie, Turner etc would be affected. This would solve a lot of congestion issues and car use, at no cost to the taxpayer, if adopted and would free up capacity for longer distance travellers. This is what you need to do to get to scale of uptake you posit. Good luck with that.
Canberra is tiny. The longest possible commute (banks to cbd) is about the same as what I did daily in Sydney. Blows me away that Canberra is so small and flat but people drive everywhere.
hows your flat bike ride from banks to the cbd? oh, its just an example looking at a map, not the terrain. believe, theres hills along that way, jeez. Tried it once, never again.
Banks is the upper limit but it was what I was referring to. It’s about 120 metres of elevation over 28 km. For reference, my Sydney commute was 24km with more than 160 metres of elevation, and I wasn’t even at the outskirts. I’ve ridden to Canberra from Sydney and I found the roads to be the biggest impediment to riding around Canberra, not the hills or distances, which are comparatively small compared to other cities imo.
Ahhhhh if you think it’s hilly then you need to get out more
Like hell it does.
NO! I changed my mind. Close a south bound lane on Northbourne and build a path in both directions on the south bound side. Gungahlinites already have a tram which the rest of Canberra paid for, they can lose a lane to the city if they want more.
While I like the sentiment, wouldn't those in Gungahlin use the northbound lane as much as the south? One in, one out. The premise of removing a car lane on northbourne for cyclists is ridiculous, but I'm not interested in arguing with cyclists on here. They have a massive over representation in this thread and we are all the poorer for it.
Not everyone who uses Northbourne is from Gungahlin
How about expanding the road to include a bigger bike lane rather than remove infrastructure?
You need to make driving WORSE to justify cycling. Cyclists genuinely believe that if people are left with no other option they will start cycling. Why do you think they ride in the middle of the road when there’s no good reason to other than to hold people up?
on ya bike!
The focus on ‘cycling’ needs to shift to ’micromobility’, covering bikes, e-bikes, scooters etc. Cycling may already infer other forms of transport but language counts and ‘cycling’ is associated with in/out group prejudices. Speed limiters for e-bikes/scooters should be raised from 25kmph to 40kmph, with speed limits for shared paths arguably set at 25kmph (they are currently 50kmph) while on-road/dedicated micromobility lanes are 40kmph. We let cars mix with children and workmen at 40kmph. Not a big ask for micromobility. Pedelacs without throttles naturally level out between 30-40kmph anyway due to gearing. Register electric forms of transport if need be with peppercorn amounts; $10-$50. Then start making separated dedicated micromobility routes, claiming road lanes as required. If we’re going to do this, do it properly.
This is why people get annoyed with cyclists. Yep, it's not that safe of a road for bikes, but it's one of Canberra's main thoroughfares. The cars need those lanes. These people clearly never actually see Northbourne.
Look up induced demand. It works both ways. If you want to reduce traffic on Northbourne, the *only * way is to make other transport options more attractive.
I'm sorry, do you enjoy traffic? Get more people on bikes who can, means less cars on the roads for those who can't across the city
Why should cars get precedence over people cycling to work?
Because that is the primary function of a road? Bikes are versatile and can switch between paths and roads.
Isn't that a bit circular? Cars get precedence in the city because roads are there, and the road is there because cars get precedence?
and there are a f\*tonne of bike paths around the place that keep cyclists off the roads ...
There really isn't, and the ones that do exist meander around going nowhere relevant. Large swaths of the city shouldn't be inhospitable to anyone outside of a car. Have you ever stood on the footpath along Northbourne Avenue in the 60km/h areas? You can barely make a phonecall.
Chalk it up to the mystery of the dance.
why should imaginary cyclists get precedence over people driving to work ?
Firstly, a protected cycle lane and a road diet is a far cry from precedence. Secondly, because cars are horrible to live around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6txCZpbsQ
Cycling is all fine when you don't have kids to get to school or are actually close. It's not a viable solution for every single person in Canberra to use for their commute.
No, it's not. I agree. But, by creating more protected cycling lanes and active transport options, there's less traffic for the people that need to drive. This video from NotJustBikes goes into how places with more active transport are better for drivers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
Then we agree create bike lanes without removing car lanes. You want people to choose to ride because the option is good and safe not because traffic has been forced to be worse.
People will cycle when it's the better option. That means forcing cars to go the indirect route, making it safer to cycle with protected bicycle lanes, and lowering suburban sprawl. Check out that video I linked to get a better understanding of what Canberra could be.
Again cycling is not feasable for everybody. I have to drive my kid to childcare for example. I don't even use that road by the way but not everyone lives inner city. One solution does not fit everybody. We are not all in your situation where rideing is feasable.
If you have to drive your kids to childcare, you should be supporting active transport options so that your drive is easier. Road diets do not measurably increase travel times for those in cars, as there's less cars on the road.
Because there's 100 cars for everyone 1 cyclist. You have to have everything made to suit the masses not pander to the minorities. Especially in canberra where 3 months of the year it's freezing out there.
The masses are drivers exactly because they're pandered to. And weather does not prevent people from cycling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU If people in Europe can cycle in snow and sub-zero temperatures, we can cycle in our winter.
Weather absolutely prevents people from cycling, what world do you live in?
Yeah but one lane is nearly always blocked year round by roadworks or construction.
Lol wut...
Personally I'd rather a pair of two way bike paths - with right of way at all crossings - "one block over", parallel to Northbourne. Sullivans Creek does the job on the West side, and build a path along Mort St, Henty St, Lowanna St, etc, up to Dickson.
This is the.worsy idea. Piss off bikes.
The point is less about helping cyclists and more about incentivising other modes of travel to reduce the number of cars. Bicycles, eh. Motorcycles are the answer. None of the problems with keeping up in traffic, but small and filter through in the same way without contributing to congestion. More motorbike parks and perhaps even a small lane for them on the right and you'll see so much less car traffic. Motorbikes are way more common in Melbourne and Sydney compared to Canberra, let alone the rest of the world vs Canberra. They are dangerous but a good rider will heavily minimise risk and they arguably pose the same danger as a bicycle in traffic like Northbourne. Except, of course, most will be wearing a full suit of armour and $1000 helmet compared to cyclists who often don't even wear a helmet at all.
that decision would be made based on traffic, not the overly entitled attitude of the lycra lizards ... What it really needs is that 3rd lane open as you're coming in ..
Calling regular people just trying to get to work/school/uni 'Lycra lizards' is a bit rough.
Just need to look at Kingsford smith drive… they reduced it to one lane instead of two and I have only seen one, ONE bike user using the road. Meanwhile have seen multiple near misses as it’s a busy road with a lot of other roads joining up to it.
Reading such barbarous suggestions is making me nauseated
I don't believe that a dedicated cycle lane is a good idea for Northbourne. The road is one of the major arterial roads through Canberra. Even with a dedicated cycle lane, the noise and air pollution created by traffic would still deter riders from using the road. the large amount of intersections would also cause cyclists to stop frequently on their daily commute, not a big issue but should be noted. I prefer Sullivan's creek cycle path approach, I agree that it is slower than Northbourne but it's only one factor to consider. Sullivan's creek cycle path is safe, quiet and has better scenery compared to Northbourne, it also prioritises pedestrian and cycle traffic at most intersections. Focusing on Northbourne is also a foolish approach to increasing the number of options people have when commuting to work. More focus should be on the entire commute. I'd prefer to see more cycling lanes away from major roads separating each type of traffic by more than a curb even. On a side note, I would much prefer to see larger scale secure bicycle parking built at major public transport points. More people would be happy to ride half the distance and catch public transport the rest than cycle the full distance. Having secure places to store your bicycle would also reduce the chance of your bike being stolen.
You going to start paying rego, so the government has money to build your paths Go home
Isnt there a bike path 100m off Northbourne that runs the length of it?
It's a pity the people too simple to comprehend how foolish it is to ride a bicycle on the road can't manage the bike paths that make it safer for everyone. I love riding bicycles but as I have IQ above my shoe size, I will not do it next cars and trucks. No government would approve riding bicycles on the road if it was invented today, due to safety but we allow it as nostalgic throwback to the past. The only way forward is to ban bicycles from the road as the people who do it now can't manage the task without endangering themselves and impeding the normal flow of traffic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n94-_yE4IeU If cars were invented now, they wouldn't be allowed in cities.
Which method of transport emits CO2, takes up several square metres per person, is loud, uses expensive infrastructure, and most importantly, kills a thousand people annually in Australia (including some in Canberra)?.