Battle of Bourke Street takes to the footpaths
- Author:
- Michael Gormly
- Posted:
- Thursday, 4 June 2009
Resident opposition to the proposed Bourke St Cycleway has taken to the footpaths where someone is spraying ‘X marks the spot’ stencils next to parking spaces that will be lost to the cycleway.
Bourke Street residents have found themselves at the sharp end of Council’s plans to link safe cycle routes into a network across the city, aimed at reducing traffic congestion and pollution while bringing cost savings and health benefits to people who switch from cars and public transport to cycling.
While most Bourke Streeters are themselves cyclists and agree with this in principle, they say they are being made to pay the cost while the rest of the city benefits.
Nearly 100 parking spots will be lost to the cycleway in an area where most houses do not have off-street parking. Guy Ollivier lives in one such terrace house on the street in Surry Hills.
“While it’s all very well to say we should all get rid of our cars and take to our bikes, the reality is that cycling is not a viable option for regular all-weather commuting for most of us. Quite apart from arriving at showerless work places hot, sweaty and stinky, or rain-drenched, many of us have families or work in places that are not served by public transport. Elderly or disabled people can’t just take up cycling – people like that simply need their cars,” he said.
“It’s going to affect the side streets too, because anyone driving to Bourke Street will find themselves going round in circles searching for spots in nearby streets.”
“I heard someone had marked where car parking is to be removed from the northern end of Bourke Street. I hope they mark the rest of Bourke Street where scores more parks will be lost. People need to know what the City Council is up to. The latest is that the City Council intends to remove nearly 100 car parks and put parking meters on the remaining spaces, and on Albion Street and Riley Street and other streets in Surry Hills too. I don’t think this council is representing the residents any more”
Residents also claim the design of the cycleway is unsafe.
“This narrow bi-directional cycleway is half the width and does not meet the specifications of the Copenhagen cycleways it is supposedly modelled on, ” said Mr Ollivier.
He says the doors of parked cars will open directly onto the southbound cycle lane creating danger for children and passengers getting out of cars as well as for cyclists.
The City points out that this conflict is far safer than the present cycle lanes which run alongside parked cars with cyclists approaching from behind the drivers side door where they are difficult to see. The cycleway will have southbound cyclists approaching the passenger side doors of cars, resulting in much better visibility.
The residents say the cycleway design does not meet the standards of the Copenhagen bike network because it is too narrow and crossed by too many intersections. They predict that few cyclists will use it. They support a shared ‘Cyclist Boulevarde’ concept, pointing to lots of overseas examples which work well.
The City has called for tenders for the first stage of the cycleway up Bourkes street Woolloomooloo to William Street.
by Michael Gormly
X marks the spots to be lost in Bourke Street Darlinghurst
June 4th, 2009 @ 6:53 am
The City Council’s argument that the cycleway is “far safer than the present cycle lanes which run alongside parked cars with cyclists approaching from behind the drivers side door where they are difficult to see” is a furphy:
This is because cyclists will still need to use the road which will be even narrower without shoulder lanes so cyclists will be at more risk, and from both sides of the parked vehicles. While car passengers alongside the cycleway will have no safe exit as both sides will open into traffic lanes. This City Council is all about spin and distortion and is attempting to create an unrealistic perception of safety .
June 4th, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
Very good article. I also would like to point out that there is certain areas that is not very recomendable to go by bicycle because of the risk to get stolen!
The Danish government is developing a system to track stolen bikes, therefore it’s not active yet.
- Dennis
June 22nd, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
I applaud the pro-active and visionary stance of the City of Sydney in providing a safe option for a form of transport which is superior to the motor vehicle in almost any way that matters (health, resource use, pollution, cost, congestion, safety). Of course, bicycles do require some physical effort but that is a great benefit in an increasingly sedentary world.
While the few people who object to the cycleway claim all sorts of things about the path being poorly designed or that Bourke St isn’t suitable, at the end of the day all they are concerned about is losing “their” parking space. This space is public space which can be utilised better by providing a safe corridoor for hundreds of people each day rather than for the parking of motor vehicles.
June 25th, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
i live on Bourke St where the new cycle ways are to be put in place. I ride a bike to work and park my car on Bourke St. I think it is really important we have more cycle ways put into place particularly in such busy streets as Bourke and Crown st. It is easy to forget but Bourke st has always been a busy thoroughfare to and from other areas of the city- it wasn’t too long ago that it was the main route to the airport.
With these new cycle ways there will be many more people who will be able to help lower their emissions and improve their health by riding their bikes who currently do not ride because of their concerns with how unsafe it is to ride their bikes in the city.
Riding over the ANZAC bridge regularly i am astounded by the numbers of riders that utilise this cycle route- young and old. This is, i believe because of the fantastic cycleway from the city over the bridge. A good cycleway and more of them will increase the numbers of cyclists in Sydney giving countless benefits.
I think safety if is a concern with the new version of cycle ways, this is where we should be focusing our energy and objections towards the council. I also think we should be putting more pressure on our employees to make riding to work easier with facilities to store bikes as well as provide showering facilities.
I live on Bourke st for many reasons; the ease of transport is one of them. This is now, with a new cycleway, only going to improve for Bourke St residence and improve the community feel and. I don’t think parking will now become a major issue in the area for locals with permits. I believe my neighbours who object are wanting an excuse to be lazy, to argue for the sake of arguing, to stop Sydney moving towards a greener city and if you live on Bourke St there are many options for transport- now one more. Get off your high horses and mount your bicycles i say.
July 3rd, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
My neighbour Jessi Rose has written, above, that “we should be focusing our energy and objections” on the safety aspects of Sydney Council’s proposals.
Like many other Bourke Street residents I strongly agree with Jessi.
Sydney Council keeps referring to their scheme as a “safe cycleway”, which makes anyone who criticises it look like some sort of horrible car-hugging NIMBY.
In fact, Council’s tempting scheme – which was designed by marketing experts to persuade non-cyclists to buy bikes – has proved very dangerous when tried in Europe and the USA, as a quick “Google” will prove.
It seems that nobody has managed to build a safe separated cycleway in an inner-city area with lots of cross-streets, because the complex intersections make such cycleways inherently more dangerous than riding “with the traffic”. No overseas country with cycleway experience would recommend this sort of scheme for Bourke Street, Surry Hills.
As one of the large number of Surry Hills and Redfern cyclists who have been urging Sydney Council to turn Bourke Street into a European-style ‘Bicycle Boulevard” – cheaper and much safer than the Council proposal – I urge local residents to follow Jessi’s advice and to focus their energy on questioning Council’s very dodgy “safe cycleway” claims.
September 15th, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
I find this whinging and curmudgeonly “battle” about loss of parking space selfish and pathetic. Oppose a bike lane? Do you oppose puppies and ice cream too?
There will NEVER be enough parking spaces to satisfy car dependent folk. Build more parking spaces and they will simply fill up. Erase a few to provide sensible alternatives on just a few streets and you will reduce the need for cars.
Get with the new century people! Obesity, air pollution, congestion, climate change, road rage – it’s time to spare some space for healthy alternatives.
September 15th, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
I find this whinging and curmudgeonly “battle” about loss of parking space selfish and pathetic. Oppose a bike lane? Do you oppose puppies and ice cream too?
There will NEVER be enough parking spaces to satisfy car dependent folk. Build more parking spaces and they will simply fill up. Erase a few to provide sensible alternatives on just a few streets and you will reduce the need for cars.
Get with the new century people! Obesity, air pollution, congestion, climate change, road rage – it’s time to spare some space for healthy alternatives.
btw, i have used this type of bikeway in Europe and it works just fine. As does any other sensible way to separate cars and bikes and people.
September 16th, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
In inner city streets like Bourke Street with numerous intersections a cycling boulevard is a far safer and superior option to an inadequate overly narrow bidirectional cycleway still subject to car doors opening into it, with no safe unloading area for elderly and young from parked cars. Cyclists will still need to use the road causing further confusion to turning traffic. For many of us who will have to live with it on a daily basis rather than pass through once in a while it is not acceptable. Loss of parking is an additional problem that affects servicing and maintenance of properties and is not simply an inconvenience. For some people, especially shift workers, it can result in unpleasant consequences such as increased exposure to risk of mugging at night if unable to park anywhere near their homes. My wife has already been mugged here at night. thinking only of your ideal answer Jane as the passer through (if you even come here) and blaming one street for the world’s problems is the curmudgeonly tactic.
September 16th, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
PS
don’t think we don’t ride bicycles. Most of us do. We just don’t want a bad idea foistered on us. Work with with and get an answer that suits more people, a decent cycling boulevard. Then you’ll reallly get with the new century.
March 19th, 2010 @ 9:51 am
Well now you can learn just what a disaster this inappropriate cycleway really is. Here is what people are saying about the cycleway now its been forced into nearby Bourke Road.
http://southern-courier.whereilive.com.au/news/story/bourke-rd-cycleway-hurts-businesses/
March 19th, 2010 @ 10:42 am
and 22 more comments here:
http://southern-courier.whereilive.com.au/news/story/bourke-rd-cycleway-madness-hits-home/
April 2nd, 2010 @ 7:06 am
The broad vision is great! No one disputes that, but the way this cycleway has been implimented is very poor. OHS FAIL!(1)Bourke Rd is a swerving jousting road with traffic, cyclists and pedestrians facing eachother at various points (cyclists share the footpath on one section anyway!). (2) There are several very dangerous sections, one where the stop sign for cars crosses the bike path at an extremely busy t-junction. (3) This road is a major artery for buses and traffic between the airport and city, industry, trades (tradies don’t cycle), businesses and the sourthern parts of sydney. Safety of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers must always come first, then the environment somewhere in at a close third it should also make sense utility and commerce-wise, in a local and development-sustainable way. If emissions were measured along this road, I doubt they would have decreased even though traffic has halved; the amount of braking, accelerating and swerving makes this road one of the LEAST green in Sydney! An alternative route (McEvoy-Euston-side streets then follow the Canal) would have made more sense for the lungs, safety and pleasure of the cyclists.