Clarendon Street Campaign

[Shabby]

For thosen who are shitted off with the state of Clarendon Street, the traders have set up a website:

http://www.clarendonstcampaign.org/

Sen a nice email to our unfriendly pollies:

http://www.clarendonstcampaign.org/object.html

For once, cyclists, motorists, PT users and locals all agree that this is a stupid idea. If enough people tell you somethings a stupid idea, it usually is. Make sure they know that we're not happy.

In particular, I think it's really clever the way the hook turns are only on one road out of the intersection. ie. Hook when turning out of Clarendon St, but not when you're turning into it. Brilliant.....

 

[DaveB]

Shabby wrote:
> For thosen who are shitted off with the state of Clarendon Street, the
> traders have set up a website:
>
> http://www.clarendonstcampaign.org/
>
> Sen a nice email to our unfriendly pollies:
>
> http://www.clarendonstcampaign.org/object.html
>
> For once, cyclists, motorists, PT users and locals all agree that this
> is a stupid idea. If enough people tell you somethings a stupid idea,
> it usually is. Make sure they know that we're not happy.
>
> In particular, I think it's really clever the way the hook turns are
> only on one road out of the intersection. ie. Hook when turning out of
> Clarendon St, but not when you're turning into it. Brilliant.....
>
>

What exactly is the issue here for cyclists? I rode down there a couple
of weeks ago and had no issue with the hook turn lanes, maybe because
I'm used to cycling with them in the city. Hook when turnign out and not
when turning in is the case on a lot of the city intersections. And the
reduction in effective lanes seems to have reduced the amount of traffic
down there (which I assume is why the traders are ****** off). Is the
issue with hook turns in general, or the way they have been implemented
in Clarendon St?

DaveB

 

[[email protected]]

>>>>> "DaveB" == DaveB <[email protected]> writes:

DaveB> What exactly is the issue here for cyclists? I rode down
DaveB> there a couple of weeks ago and had no issue with the hook
DaveB> turn lanes, maybe because I'm used to cycling with them in
DaveB> the city.

Apples and oranges. The hook turns in the city do not close off a
straight through lane of traffic. In the CBD a cyclist can stay in the
near side lane when traveling straight through.

This is not the case with the hook turns in Clarendon Street. To carry
straight on a cyclist has to cross in to the off side lane. To be safe
a cyclist needs to claim that lane and that necessitates crossing the
tram lines; a dangerous maneuverer especially in the wet and especially
on 23mm tires.

The problem is particularly acute at two cross roads where tram lines
intersect. It's all but impossible to cross the curved tram lines at a
save angle without slowing down to a crawl and picking your way through
them.

DaveB> And the reduction in effective lanes seems to have reduced
DaveB> the amount of traffic down there (which I assume is why the
DaveB> traders are ****** off). Is the issue with hook turns in
DaveB> general, or the way they have been implemented in Clarendon
DaveB> St?

The way they've been implemented. They've taken a solution which works
well in the CBD because it does not close off straight ahead lanes and
truly botched it up in Clarendon Street. The reason there's a reduction
in traffic is because Clarendon Street is now a royal pain in the ass to
negotiate. Myself included, I use Canterbury Road / City Road to get in
to the city. Not as pleasant as cycling through Albert Park but a lot
less stressful.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[southerncyclist]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

> >>>>> "DaveB" == DaveB <[email protected]> writes:
>
> DaveB> What exactly is the issue here for cyclists? I rode down
> DaveB> there a couple of weeks ago and had no issue with the hook
> DaveB> turn lanes, maybe because I'm used to cycling with them in
> DaveB> the city.
>
> Apples and oranges. The hook turns in the city do not close off a
> straight through lane of traffic. In the CBD a cyclist can stay in the
> near side lane when traveling straight through.
>
> This is not the case with the hook turns in Clarendon Street. To carry
> straight on a cyclist has to cross in to the off side lane. To be safe
> a cyclist needs to claim that lane and that necessitates crossing the
> tram lines; a dangerous maneuverer especially in the wet and especially
> on 23mm tires.


Euan, you've been banging on for weeks about the lack of clearance. IMO
this line of argument is twaddle. On both my MTB & road bike, cars never
need to cross the centre line to overtake safely. Also, after reading
your posts, I have made a point to carefully observe other riders I've
seen on Clarendon St, and *not once* have I seen a car cross the centre
line while overtaking and nor did the cars seem to pass too close to the
cyclists. There is no need for cyclists to take the lane... you are
perpetuating a furphy.

With regards to hook turns, I fail to see how cyclists passing on the
right of the turner is a problem. The whole point of hook turns is that
the turning vehicle doesn't move until the lights change, so how is it
hazardous for a cyclist to pass a stationery vehicle wiating to turn?
When riding in the CBD I almost invariably pass hook-turners on their
right hand side. It never creates an issue for me in the CBD... so why
is it different on Clarendon St?



> The problem is particularly acute at two cross roads where tram lines
> intersect. It's all but impossible to cross the curved tram lines at a
> save angle without slowing down to a crawl and picking your way through
> them.


I'll concede you this point (although you say *two* cross roads...
surely you just mean the Clarendon & Park St intersection?). But this
problem could easily be solved by a simple cut-through for bikes in the
kerb extension.



> DaveB> And the reduction in effective lanes seems to have reduced
> DaveB> the amount of traffic down there (which I assume is why the
> DaveB> traders are ****** off). Is the issue with hook turns in
> DaveB> general, or the way they have been implemented in Clarendon
> DaveB> St?


Dave, it sounds like you've seen through the traders' campaign... all
they're interested in is their hip pocket. They couldn't give a toss
about cyclists... we are just a convenient grab-bag group for them to
use to further their own agenda of lobbying for more (not less) car
parking. They don't have to live in the area and cope with increasing
volumes of motor vehicles using a street network designed 150 years ago.
A represenative of the traders' group was quoted in a local newspaper
saying that Clarendon St would be a better place if the tram tracks were
ripped up! Great... let's turn the area into a car-only zone. That'd
sure improve the quality of life for pedestrians and cyclists... not.



> The way they've been implemented. They've taken a solution which works
> well in the CBD because it does not close off straight ahead lanes and
> truly botched it up in Clarendon Street. The reason there's a reduction
> in traffic is because Clarendon Street is now a royal pain in the ass to
> negotiate. Myself included, I use Canterbury Road / City Road to get in
> to the city. Not as pleasant as cycling through Albert Park but a lot
> less stressful.


But surely making Clarendon St a PIA for cars was the entire point?
Discourage cars & the trams will speed up. Then people look to trams as
a viable transport alternative. And for once, it's a case of PT having
the priority in the inner city, not cars. Like it or not, what is the
alternative... more cars and bigger roads? I'm all in favour of anything
which gets cars off inner city streets and people on trams and if it
means that, as a cyclist, I have to adapt to some changes then that is a
very small price to pay.

 

[[email protected]]

>>>>> "southerncyclist" == southerncyclist <[email protected]> writes:

southerncyclist> Euan, you've been banging on for weeks about the
southerncyclist> lack of clearance. IMO this line of argument is
southerncyclist> twaddle.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've had cars cross the
white line to overtake me on several occasions, whilst to the left of
the tram tracks incidentally.

southerncyclist> With regards to hook turns, I fail to see how
southerncyclist> cyclists passing on the right of the turner is a
southerncyclist> problem.

The problem is that the cyclist has to cross from the near side lane to
the offside lane in order to carry on straight ahead. You don't need to
do that in the CBD.

>> The problem is particularly acute at two cross roads where tram
>> lines intersect. It's all but impossible to cross the curved
>> tram lines at a save angle without slowing down to a crawl and
>> picking your way through them.


southerncyclist> I'll concede you this point (although you say *two*
southerncyclist> cross roads... surely you just mean the Clarendon
southerncyclist> & Park St intersection?). But this problem could
southerncyclist> easily be solved by a simple cut-through for bikes
southerncyclist> in the kerb extension.

Agreed. If that alone was implemented I'd be satisfied, although I'm
still skeptical that the hook turns have done anything to improve tram
travel times.

southerncyclist> But surely making Clarendon St a PIA for cars was
southerncyclist> the entire point?

You can make it a pain in the ass for cars and still make it amenable
for cyclists. With Park Street / Clarendon Street that's not the case.

southerncyclist> I'm all in favour of anything which gets cars off
southerncyclist> inner city streets and people on trams and if it
southerncyclist> means that, as a cyclist, I have to adapt to some
southerncyclist> changes then that is a very small price to pay.

If you've been following my posts on this subject you'll have noted that
I have no problem with cars and bicycles being subordinate to trams,
it's purely safety that concerns me. Suggesting that I'd be in favor of
wider roads etc is incorrect.

In summary I think that engineering the roads to give priority to trams
over all other forms of transport is a good thing, however the means
must not introduce elements of danger which were not present prior to
the project. Primarily:

1) Forcing cyclists to cross tram tracks at an unsafe angle at Park
Street / Clarendon Street.

2) Forcing cyclists to cross from the near side lane to the off side
lane in order to carry on straight ahead.

Like it or not these elements introduce risk where before there wasn't.
Adaptations to make this a non-issue are trivial and well documented on
BV's page on the subject.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[MikeyOz]

>>>>> "southerncyclist" == southerncyclist <[email protected]> writes:

southerncyclist> Euan, you've been banging on for weeks about the
southerncyclist> lack of clearance. IMO this line of argument is
southerncyclist> twaddle.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've had cars cross the
white line to overtake me on several occasions, whilst to the left of
the tram tracks incidentally.

southerncyclist> With regards to hook turns, I fail to see how
southerncyclist> cyclists passing on the right of the turner is a
southerncyclist> problem.

The problem is that the cyclist has to cross from the near side lane to
the offside lane in order to carry on straight ahead. You don't need to
do that in the CBD.

>> The problem is particularly acute at two cross roads where tram
>> lines intersect. It's all but impossible to cross the curved
>> tram lines at a save angle without slowing down to a crawl and
>> picking your way through them.


southerncyclist> I'll concede you this point (although you say *two*
southerncyclist> cross roads... surely you just mean the Clarendon
southerncyclist> & Park St intersection?). But this problem could
southerncyclist> easily be solved by a simple cut-through for bikes
southerncyclist> in the kerb extension.

Agreed. If that alone was implemented I'd be satisfied, although I'm
still skeptical that the hook turns have done anything to improve tram
travel times.

southerncyclist> But surely making Clarendon St a PIA for cars was
southerncyclist> the entire point?

You can make it a pain in the ass for cars and still make it amenable
for cyclists. With Park Street / Clarendon Street that's not the case.

southerncyclist> I'm all in favour of anything which gets cars off
southerncyclist> inner city streets and people on trams and if it
southerncyclist> means that, as a cyclist, I have to adapt to some
southerncyclist> changes then that is a very small price to pay.

If you've been following my posts on this subject you'll have noted that
I have no problem with cars and bicycles being subordinate to trams,
it's purely safety that concerns me. Suggesting that I'd be in favor of
wider roads etc is incorrect.

In summary I think that engineering the roads to give priority to trams
over all other forms of transport is a good thing, however the means
must not introduce elements of danger which were not present prior to
the project. Primarily:

1) Forcing cyclists to cross tram tracks at an unsafe angle at Park
Street / Clarendon Street.

2) Forcing cyclists to cross from the near side lane to the off side
lane in order to carry on straight ahead.

Like it or not these elements introduce risk where before there wasn't.
Adaptations to make this a non-issue are trivial and well documented on
BV's page on the subject.
--
Cheers
Euan

what about novice riders ? navigating the cars, trams, tram tracks, I live on Park street and the whole thing is a debacle, we regularly visit clarendon street, cafes, shopping, strolling, and it is just hideous now, the hook turn setup is a joke, it has ruined the street as far as I am concerned, there are better solutions, it is dangerous for cars, trams, cyclists and pedestrians, wet road, tram tracks as a cyclist by law you should be taking up the entire right lane when you have to go past the tram stop for safety as well because of the small clearance between the tram stop and the tram track itself.

as a resident it is ridiculous and I can tell you I will make sure I vote very carefully next time, I have already sent my email and they did respond saying they are in a study phase and they are not a permanent fixture as yet, and if my vote counts they wont be.

 

[Gurrie]

"Shabby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> For thosen who are shitted off with the state of Clarendon Street, the
> traders have set up a website:
>
> http://www.clarendonstcampaign.org/
>
> Sen a nice email to our unfriendly pollies:
>
> http://www.clarendonstcampaign.org/object.html
>
> For once, cyclists, motorists, PT users and locals all agree that this
> is a stupid idea. If enough people tell you somethings a stupid idea,
> it usually is. Make sure they know that we're not happy.
>
> In particular, I think it's really clever the way the hook turns are
> only on one road out of the intersection. ie. Hook when turning out of
> Clarendon St, but not when you're turning into it. Brilliant.....
>

As a rule, hook turns are only on raods with tram tracks - even in the CBD.
Roads that intersect the roiad with the tram tracks/hook turn will only have
hook turns applied if they also have tram tracks.


>
> --
> Shabby
>

 

[[email protected]]

>>>>> "mouseIThouse" == mouseIThouse <[email protected]> writes:

mouseIThouse> hi all not sure if any saw this in the paper last
mouseIThouse> week.

mouseIThouse> (was posted on the ride that shall not be named lis
mouseIThouse> too - always the latest news there)

mouseIThouse> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/04/01/1112302233583.html

Thanks for that.
--
Euan