City Bikeways North-South Bikeway

CITY BIKEWAYS: ROUND 1 NORTH SOUTHOFFER ENGAGEMENT OF BIKEWAY SERVICESOUTCOMES CAR PARKING CITY BIKEWAYSCONTRIBUTION SCHEME REVIEW NORTH-SOUTH BIKEWAY

PREPARED FOR ADELAIDE CITY COUNCIL

21 FEBRUARY 2017 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page ii NORTH-SOUTH BIKEWAY ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PAGE 1 OF 4

PROJECT BACKGROUND ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT The City Bikeways project is a visionary partnership The engagement was carried out for the North-South between the South Australian State Government and Bikeway (route section from Carrington St to North the City of Adelaide. It will introduce two continuous Tce). The objectives for this stage of engagement were and separated bikeways through the City of to tell about the project and to invite ideas and Adelaide, from north to south, and from east to west. feedback on the general design approach for the The bikeways will create a separated environment for North-South Bikeway. Cross section design treatments people who ride bikes along these routes. were the main discussion element for this engagement. The engagement will influence the design proposal for the North-South Bikeway route.

ENGAGEMENT RESPONDENTS approximately Engagement activities included: the Bikeways 2,400 Summit, a series of stakeholder and community accessed project workshops, face-to-face interviews with residents information during the and property owners along the route (from engagement Carrington St to North Tce). In parallel, RAA conducted a survey with their members. Discussions were held with industry groups and a number 1,074 of submissions were received and heard by the provided feedback Council. via engagement activities This report summarises feedback received from 1,074 engagement participants, combined for reporting purposes into the following groups:

GROUPINGS FOR INDIVIDUAL GROUP RESPONDENTS RESPONSES RECEIVED

Businesses 71 Stakeholder Industry workshop 11 Residents 70 Community workshops 18 Design professionals 28 RAA (online survey) 704 Council deputations 8 Bike SA Individual submissions 38 Bicycle Institute of South Australia (BISA) Bike riders 55 Centre for Automotive Safety Research (CASR) Internet forum 71 Australian Institute of Landscape Architecture - SA Chapter (AILA) Page iii NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

PAGE 2 OF 4

VIEWS ON REINSTATING FOUR LANES OF TRAFFIC IN THE EXISTING BIKEWAY SECTION (FROM CARRINGTON TO PIRIE ST)

Businesses 27% 27% 30% 3%14% Group feedback from industry representatives, community, BISA Residents 31% 29% 17% 9% 14% and CASR showed preference for making minor modifications to Design professionals 43% 21% 14% 14% 7% the existing bikeway rather than proceeding Council deputations 88% 13% with reinstating 2 traffic lanes in each direction. Bike SA commented Individual submissions 58% 11% 32% that if reconstruction proceeds, funding should not come out Bike rider 58% 5%5% 29% 2% of the existing City Bikeways budget, while Internet forum participants 79% 8% 13% CASR recommended that a thorough assessment of benefits No changes are needed and dis-benefits be Minor improvements only are needed carried out. Uncertain Did not discuss Reinstate to four traffic lanes

RAA survey: extract of questions and feedback

Q: Are you happy with the current traffic Q: Are you supportive of reinstating 4 traffic lanes arrangements in the southern section of Frome St in the southern section of Frome St? that accommodate the existing bikeway?

9% 18% 14%14% 9% 18% 16% 16% 15% Very happy 54%54% 15% VeryHappy happy 31%31% HappyNeither happy nor unhappy NoNo Neither happy nor unhappy Unhappy Unsure/Unsure/ need need further further info info 41% Unhappy 41% VeryVery unhappy unhappy YesYes NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page iv NORTH-SOUTH BIKEWAY ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PAGE 3 OF 4

TOP REASONS FROM RESPONDENTS TOP REASONS FROM RESPONDENTS WHO DID NOT SUPPORT REINSTATING WHO SUPPORTED REINSTATING FOUR FOUR LANES OF TRAFFIC LANES OF TRAFFIC

• Bikeway is functioning well • More consideration of traffic flow is needed • Spend is not warranted • Traffic flow and capacity is more important than car parking • Complete bikeway reconstruction is not necessary or warranted • Traffic is congested during peak periods • Car parking loss in peak hours is not supported • Bikeway is too wide • On-street car parking is more important than • Placement of car parking in the middle of the increasing traffic capacity road is not supported • Bikeway width of 2.7 metres should be • Visibility of bike riders to motorists is poor maintained • Bike riders should not be prioritised over drivers • It will be better to invest funding into building • There are not enough cyclists to justify this new bikeway infrastructure infrastructure • There are no concerns with traffic capacity here • Bikeway is over-engineered • Reinstating 4 traffic lanes contradicts Council’s and State Government policies • Independent evaluation confirmed no real impact on traffic

VIEWS ON THE PREFERRED DESIGN TREATMENT FOR THE NEW BIKEWAY SECTION (FROM PIRIE ST TO NORTH TCE)

Only 28% of individual engagement participants 4% had an opinion about bikeway treatment options and provided views on their preference. Majority of these 33% respondents were interviewed at the Bikeways Trial site. 43% Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 received the highest number of Treatment 3 preference votes and it was most popular with 20% design professionals and bike riders. More residents Treatment 6 preferred treatment 2 than other treatments. Page v NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

Businesses 25% 44% 4% 27%

PAGE 4 OF 4 Residents 50% 4% 27% 19%

Design professionals 96% 4% VIEWS ON THE PREFERRED TRAFFIC LANE ARRANGEMENTS Council deputationsFOR THE NEW BIKEWAY100% SECTION (FROM PIRIE ST TO NORTH TCE) Individual 3% 97% submissions 50% of residents and 25% of Bike riders 16% 84% businesses indicated that they Businesses 25% 44% 4% 27% would prefer if 1 traffic lane in each direction was continued for the Internet forum 100% entire length of Frome St. Majority participantsResidents 50% 4% 27% 19% of businesses with walk-in trade indicated they would prefer this arrangement. The main reason Design professionals 96% 4% Preference for one lane of through traffic in each direction behind these views was the Uncertain preference to keep a dedicated Council deputationsDid not discuss 100% on-street car parking lane at Preference for two lanes of traffic in peak hours in each direction all times over additional traffic capacity. Individual 3% 97% submissions DESIRABLE OTHER KEY DESIGN BIKEWAYBike riders 16% WIDTH 84% SUGGESTIONS FOR THE NEW Internet forum BIKEWAY SECTION 100% participantsThe views from the professional bike design experts • Maximise landscaping and tree plantings and design community on the bikeway design • Create physical separation between bike riders width are as follows: Preference for one lane of through traffic in each directionand other road users • 2.5 metres is considered to be the minimum Uncertain • Use lower kerb profiles and rounded edges to appropriate bikeway design width. Did not discuss minimese kerb strike • 2.4 metres is considered to be the minimum Preference for two lanes of traffic in peak hours in each • directionMinimise construction costs effective bikeway width (once the pedal strike or any other limiting factors are taken into • Optimise traffic signals account). • Maximise retention of on-street car parking • In isolated instances where the width has to be • Focus on resolving intersection safety reduced down due to localised constraints, the width should not be less than 2 metres. • Ensure bikeway design is easy to understand visually, with a contrasting surface and with The report contains other individual opinions on signage installed in the buffer this topic, with little consensus on the design • Ensure trees are easy to maintain dimensions. • Use natural and sustainable materials • Work on initiatives and promotions to raise awareness of the road rules, improve awareness of new (for SA) bikeway design arrangements and to promote cycling E: [email protected] T: 08 7120 2574 M: 0413 570 229 Page i NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

CONTENTS

NORTH-SOUTH BIKEWAY PROJECT BACKGROUND ��1 THE PROJECT ��1 ENGAGEMENT ROUNDS AND THEIR PURPOSE ��2

ENGAGEMENT PARTICIPATION AND ACTIVITIES �� 3 ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ��3 OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES AND ATTENDANCE �� 3 PHOTOS FROM SOME THE ENGAGEMENT EVENTS �� 5 BUSINESSES AND PROPERTY OWNERS INTERVIEWED �� 7 ENGAGEMENT RESOURCES �� 8 RESPONDENT TYPES IN THIS REPORT ��10

ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK �� 11 FEEDBACK ON THE EXISTING BIKEWAY SECTION ��11 INDIVIDUAL FEEDBACK �� 11 GROUP FEEDBACK �� 18 FEEDBACK ON NEW BIKEWAY SECTION ��20 INDIVIDUAL FEEDBACK �� 20 GROUP FEEDBACK �� 27 MOTORIST FEEDBACK VIA RAA SURVEY ��30

Page 1 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES NORTH-SOUTH BIKEWAY PROJECT BACKGROUND

THE PROJECT

The City Bikeways project is a visionary partnering between the South Australian State Government and the City of Adelaide. It will introduce two continuous and separated bikeways through the City of Adelaide, from north to south, and from east to west. The map shows the proposed North-South route and three options for East-West route currently under consideration.

The bikeways will create a separated environment for people who ride bikes along these routes, improving safety, comfort and enjoyment for all road users. In addition, the project will include improvements to landscaping, lighting, paving and signage where appropriate.

Intermethod was commissioned by the City of Adelaide to support the City Bikeways project team in delivering engagement activities for the North- South Bikeway. A collaborative approach between Intermethod team and City Bikeways Team over the last four months was instrumental to delivering a North-South Bikeway series of engagement activities and events, which Alternatives for East-West Bikeway are described in this report.

This engagement focussed on the route section from Carrington St to North St. NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 2

ENGAGEMENT ROUNDS AND THEIR PURPOSE

Three engagement rounds have been planned for the North-South Bikeway project, as described in the figure below. The engagement commenced with the Bikeways Summit on 12 October 2016 and Round 1 engagement activities were completed on 12 February 2017. It is proposed that Round 2 engagement will commence in March 2017, after the preferred design for the North-South bikeway is established.

OBJECTIVES: DESIGN PROGRESS ROUND 1 • To tell about the project Cross section options DESIGN • To invite ideas and APPROACH feedback on the general design approach

OBJECTIVES: DESIGN PROGRESS ROUND 2 • To gather feedback on Draft design drawings draft design proposal for for the entire length DRAFT the bikeway route of the bikeway route DESIGN • To resolve context- with options/variations sensitive considerations where appropriate

OBJECTIVES: DESIGN PROGRESS • To make available final ROUND 3 design proposal Final design drawings DETAILED • To resolve any final design DESIGN details • To advise of the construction schedule Page 3 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES ENGAGEMENT PARTICIPATION AND ACTIVITIES

ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES AND ATTENDANCE

approximately 2,400 accessed project information during engagement 1,074 provided feedback via engagement activities

The table on the next page provides details of the engagement activities and participation figures.

THE PROJECT LAUNCH - BIKEWAYS SUMMIT The first event in the engagement schedule was the Bikeways Summit, which took place on 12 October 2016. Hosted by The Right Honourable The Lord Mayor of Adelaide, Martin Haese, the Summit facilitated a discussion about the opportunities and benefits that growth in bike riding can bring to Adelaide. National and international speakers shared their experiences in building bikeways and bike-friendly streets in Portland in Oregon, Copenhagen in Denmark, New York in USA and Sydney. The event was attended by approximately 150 people representing decision makers, community, businesses, property owners, professionals and the media. This event officially launched the City Bikeways project. NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 4

Engagement events and participants

Period of Activity type Participation and engagement numbers engagement

Bikeways Summit 12-Oct-16 150+ attendees

11 industry representatives took part (from Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Workshop with industry experts 17-Oct-16 RAA, BISA, Access and Inclusion Group, Centre for Automotive Safety Research, Bike SA, Urban Design expert and Australian Walking and Cycling Conference)

Leaflet describing the project and Nourth-South Bikeway 14-Dec to 1,600 leaflets were distributed to property occupiers Round 2 engagement Dec-16 along North-South Bikeway and mailed out to the property opportunities owners

Face-to-face interviews with 12-Dec to traders along the route 16-Feb 70 businesses and property owners were interviewed

Face-to-face interviews with 19-Jan to residents along the route 4-Feb-16 68 residents were interviewed

RAA survey with motorists Dec-16 (conducted independently by RAA) 704 motorists took part in the survey

Bikeways and Brunch public event 10-Dec-16 200+ bike riders attended at the Bikeways trial site 52 bike riders provided feedback

Engagement with design 18-Jan-17 30 people attended and professionals 27 provided feedback

Demonstration of the design treatments at the trial site for 24-Jan-17 7 people attended business and property owners

Two community workshops 10-Jan and (advertised through the leaflet) 11-Jan-17 18 people attended

A number of media events and small scale demonstrations Engagement at the Bikeways Trial Dec-16 to were held at the Bikeways Trial site. A long standing Site Feb-17 invitation to speak with members of the Design Team at the site on Thursday afternoons generated little interest.

1,100 people accessed City Bikeway’s Your Say page Your Say project web page and Dec-16 to discussion forum Feb-17 71 registered site members engaged in the forum 82 comments were posted

Deputations at Council Committee 22-Nov and and Meeting 28-Nov-16 8 deputations were heard by the Council

Sept-16 to 38 submissions were received by the City Bikeways Team Individual submissions Feb-17 or Elected Members. 29 submissions were e-mails and 8 were letters.

Verbal and written feedback was received from the following Sept-16 to groups: Bike SA, Bicycle Institute of South Australia (BISA), Group submissions Feb-17 Centre for Automotive Safety Research and Australian Institute of Landscape Architecture - SA Chapter (AILA) Page 5 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

PHOTOS FROM SOME THE ENGAGEMENT EVENTS

BIKEWAYS SUMMIT 12 OCTOBER 2016

WORKSHOP WITH INDUSTRY EXPERTS 17 OCTOBER 2016

MEDIA BRIEFINGS AND DEMONSTRA- TIONS AT THE BIKEWAYS TRIAL SITE DECEMBER 2016 TO FEBRUARY 2017 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 6

BIKEWAYS AND BRUNCH PUBLIC EVENT 10 OCTOBER 2016

COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS 10 AND 11 JANUARY 2017

DESIGN INDUSTRY EVENT 18 JANUARY 2017 Page 7 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

BUSINESSES AND PROPERTY OWNERS INTERVIEWED

The list below provides details of non-residential stakeholders that were interviewed as part of Round 1 engagement. All businesses were were invited to attend community workshops and events at the Bikeways Trial Site.

Adecco Suite 2, 165 Grenfell St Medical practice 12 Regent St North Adelaide Zoo Frome St Mohyla Architects 27 Regent St North Adelta Legal 3/104 Frome St NCI Level 2, 165 Grenfell St ADM Level 3 ,199 Grenfell St New Morning Books 155 Frome St Aje 227 Rundle St Nunkuwarrin Yunti 183-190 Wakefield St Andre's Cucina 94 Frome St Office of Senator Skye 187 Grenfell St Australian Aged Care Level 3,199 Grenfell St Kakoschke-Moore Quality Agency O'Loughlins Lawyers Level 2, 99 Frome St Bentleys Level 2, 139 Frome St One Advisory 104 Frome St Century 21 195 Wakefield St Ooh! 84 Frome St Christian Brothers College 214 Wakefield St Ouwens Lawyers 147 Frome St Cibo Espresso 218 Rundle St Paddy Pallin 228 Rundle St Citi Cafe 235-237 Pirie St Palestine Center for Peace 60 Frome St Comunet 136 Frome St Peregrine Corporation 270 The Parade, Crab Shack 188 Grenfell St Norwood Custom Fleet Level 1, 99 Frome St Peter Price Real Estate 200 Flinders St Daniel's 225 Rundle St Port Bonython Fuels and 136 Frome St Petro Diamond Australia DDLS Level 4, 139 Frome St RDC and Partners Level 1,193 Wakefield St Dr John Tomich, 211 Frome St Otorhinolaryngology Red Cross Ground floor, 212 Pirie St East End Studios 76 Frome St Royal Society for the Blind 230 Pirie St Eckersley's 27 Frome St Ruralco Level 1, 165 Grenfell St Eco Caddy Owner SA Police 176 Grenfell St Enzo's Auto Service 187 Frome St San Giorgio 217 Rundle St Family Relationships Centre 161 Frome St SATAC 104 Frome St Funk Coffee 139 Frome St Seven Stars Hotel 187 Angas St Grant Thornton 170 Frome St Sims Richmond 147 Frome St Greenway Architects 207 Angas St Square Holes 8-10 Regent St North Greenwheat Freekeh 1/165 Frome St The Lion the Witch Vintage 58 Frome St and Tatra Training Thor World Travel 22-32 Frome St Happy Bite 196 Flinders St Tu Yu 230 Rundle St Heard Financial 93 Frome St Uniting Church Level 2, 212 Pirie St HostPlus Level 1, 104 Frome St University of Adelaide 122 Frome St IAGU 244 Pirie St Valerie Embroidery 193 Angas St Kidney Health 136 Frome St Veterans and Veterans Ground floor, 99 Frome St Local Government 148 Frome St Families Counselling Association Service Majestic Roof Garden Hotel 55 Frome St WATPAC Level 4, 199 Grenfell St Maras Group Level 3, Chalicks Building, 511/15 Vaughan Pl 31 Ebenezer Pl NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 8

ENGAGEMENT RESOURCES

LEAFLET The project leaflet provided basic project information and dates for the two Round 1 community workshops. It also provided information about the Bikeways Trial site and times when the Bikeways Team members were available at the site to answer questions.

THE PROJECT THE TWO BIKEWAY ROUTES YOUR VIEWS

We are transforming Adelaide into a smart, green, liveable Development of designs The North-South Bikeway builds on the existing Frome Development of design ideas and creative city that enables our community to thrive. Bikeway and will connect the existing Rugby/Porter The project supports the City of Adelaide 2016-2022 Following this engagement on the design ideas, early Bikeway in Unley to the Braund Road Bike Boulevard in The City of Adelaide is working on design ideas for the Strategic Plan by delivering cycling routes throughout in 2017, we will be developing the draft designs for Prospect. The project will consider changes to the existing North-South Bikeway. We will develop typical design the City and Park Lands. the North-South Bikeway. Through door-to-door section of bikeway in Frome Street, between Carrington treatments suitable for the North-South Bikeway, which conversations, we will approach property owners and and Pirie Streets. It aims to achieve a balanced outcome will then be developed into concept designs. The City Bikeways project is a visionary partnership occupiers along the route and seek their comments on for all road users, allowing two peak hour traffic lanes in We invite you to attend one of the community between the South Australian State Government and draft designs. Additional design workshops and design each direction and on-street parking outside peak hours. workshops to discuss any general design ideas: FURTHER the City of Adelaide. It will introduce two continuous and displays will also be arranged. separated bikeways through the City of Adelaide, Route options for the East-West Bikeway will be • Tuesday, 10 January 2017, 6-8pm INFORMATION from north to south, and from east to west. More information on this project will be available at considered along either Grote/Wakefield streets, Flinders/ • Wednesday, 11 January 2017, 10-12 noon adelaidecitycouncil.com/citybikeways Franklin streets or Pirie/Waymouth streets with separate The project will create a separated environment for people For more information, visit community engagement to occur in 2017. To register your attendance or to provide feedback, please who ride bikes along these routes, improving safety, adelaidecitycouncil.com/citybikeways email us on: [email protected] comfort and enjoyment for all road users. In addition, For any further queries, please contact We have built a bikeways trial site, which is located off the project will include improvements to landscaping, North-South Bikeway the City Bikeways Team on: lighting, paving and signage where appropriate. The City Alternatives for East-West Bikeway ANZAC Highway, opposite the netball courts (see map). of Adelaide’s Bikeways Team will manage and deliver Tel: 8203 7203 The site demonstrates some of the materials, landscaping the project. E-mail: [email protected] and design features that are being considered. The site is open at all times, with easy access from the Park Lands shared path network, and on site car parking is also available. Bring your bike for the full experience! Our Bikeways Team members will be at the site every Thursday, 4.00-5.30pm to talk you through the proposed designs and hear your views.

South Tce

HERE

ANZAC Hwy Goodwood Rd Greenhill Rd

INTERNET Two web pages provided relevant project details during engagement. The project website provided project overview and links to all of the relevant downloads, which included the leaflet, cross section design treatments, presentations from the Bikeways Summit and background strategy documents. Your Say web page provided information of all of the engagement activities. Discussion Forum was also set up on Your Say web page. Page 9 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

BIKEWAYS A full scale model of the three bikeway design treatments was built in the Park Lands off Anzac Highway. The site was used as the venue for a number of TRIAL SITE engagement activities and was open to the members of the public at all times.

DESIGN A cross section and plan view with six possible design treatment drawings was developed and made available at all of the events, on the website and on TREATMENT posters at the Bikeways Trial Site. The drawings provided details for design DRAWINGS alternatives under consideration.

1. FLUSH BUFFER WITH SURFACE TREATMENT 2. KERB + MEDIAN ARRANGEMENT 3. STEPPED ‘COPENHAGEN’ ARRANGEMENT WITH KERBS SECTION SECTION SECTION

PAVING OR ASPHALT OR PAVING CONCRETE SURFACE ASPHALT ASPHALT OR PAVING ASPHALT PAVING ASPHALT ASPHALT OR PAVING ASPHALT PAVING ASPHALT TREATMENT CONCRETE CONCRETE

VARIES 0.15m 2 - 2.7m 1m VARIES VARIES 0.15m 2 - 2.7m 1m 0.45m VARIES VARIES 0.15m 2 - 2.7m 1m 0.45m VARIES SECTION (VARIES) SECTION (VARIES) SECTION (VARIES)

4. STEPPED ‘COPENHAGEN’ ARRANGEMENT WITH EDGE + KERB 5. BI-DIRECTIONAL ARRANGEMENT WITH EDGE + KERB 6. KERB + MEDIAN ISLAND ARRANGEMENT SECTION SECTION SECTION

PAVING OR PAVING OR SURFACE SURFACE ASPHALT OR PAVING ASPHALT TREATMENT ASPHALT ASPHALT OR PAVING ASPHALT TREATMENT ASPHALT ASPHALT OR PAVING ASPHALT ASPHALT CONCRETE CONCRETE

VARIES 0.15m 2 - 2.7m 1m 0.45m VARIES VARIES 0.15m 2 - 2.7m 1m 0.45m VARIES VARIES 150mm 2000mm 1000mm VARIES SECTION (VARIES) SECTION (VARIES) SECTION NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 10

RESPONDENT TYPES IN THIS REPORT

To present the responses, feedback from individuals was grouped into respondent or response types. It is acknowledged that most of the respondents relate to more than one group (for example, many residents are also bike riders and motorists). However, to simplify presentation of the engagement feedback, groupings were used for individual responses, as listed in the table below. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES

Respondent group Number of type used in this people in Source of feedback report the group

70 were interviewed through door-to-door knocking (or by Businesses 71 appointments) and 1 provided feedback at the Bikeways Trial site

68 were interviewed through door-to-door knocking and 2 Residents 70 provided feedback at the trial site

27 were interviewed at the dedicated event for design Design professionals 28 professionals on 18-Jan-17 and 1 provided feedback at the Bikeways Trial site on a different day

Formal deputations were made at Council and Committee Council deputations 8 meetings

All written and verbal submissions made to the City Bikeways Individual submissions 38 Team or Council outside of engagement activities

52 attendees of the Bikeways and Brunch event on 10/12/16 and Bike riders 55 3 bike riders that attended the Bikeways Trial site at other times were interviewed

Participants of Your Say engagement forum. Any individuals that provided feedback more than once were counted only once in the Internet forum 71 report, while content of their feedback was still represented (i.e. instances of double-counting were eliminated).

Views of 341 individual engagement contributors were reviewed 341 and summarised in the charts presented in this report

GROUP RESPONSES Feedback from the following groups of stakeholders was received during the engagement: Feedback from groups of stakeholders is presented separately (not included in the charts), as these • Australian Institute of Landscape Architecture comments represent views of more than one (AILA) individual. Results from the RAA survey are also • Bike SA presented separately, as the structure of the survey • Bicycle Institute of South Australia (BISA) and questions (posed by RAA) were very different to engagement prompts used in other engagement • Centre for Automotive Research activities. • Community workshops (10 and 11/1/17) • Industry workshop (17/10/17) Page 11 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK

FEEDBACK ON THE EXISTING BIKEWAY SECTION INDIVIDUAL FEEDBACK

VIEWS ON REINSTATING FOUR LANES OF TRAFFIC IN THE EXISTING BIKEWAY SECTION

85% of individual engagement participants wanted to discuss their views on reinstating 4 traffic lanes in the existing bikeway section (from Carrington St to Pirie St). The chart below graphs views that were put forward. 15% of all respondents that did not raise this topic, are shown on the chart in light grey colour ‘did not discuss’ category.

Businesses 27% 27% 30% 3% 14%

Residents 31% 29% 17% 9% 14%

Design professionals 43% 21% 14% 14% 7%

Council deputations 88% 13%

Individual submissions 58% 11% 32%

Bike rider 58% 5% 5% 29% 2%

Internet forum participants 79% 8% 13%

No changes are needed Minor improvements only are needed Uncertain Did not discuss Reinstate to four traffic lanes NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 12

COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS WHO DID NOT SUPPORT REINSTATING FOUR LANES OF TRAFFIC

The chart below provides a summary of feedback made by respondents who did not support reinstating the street section with the existing bikeway to four lanes of traffic. These respondents either preferred no changes to the bikeway or wanted to see minor improvements only. All types of comments provided during interviews are included.

Bikeway is functioning well 87 Spend is not warranted 82 Complete bikeway reconstruction is not supported/warranted 45 Traffic capacity increase is not warranted 42 Focus on extending the bikeway instead 26 Improve landscaping 19 Bikeway width of 2.7 metres should be maintained 19 There are no concerns with traffic capacity here 17 Car parking loss in peak hours is not supported 17 Minor improvements only are warranted 14 Intersection conflicts and confusing give way priority 14 Bikeway is too wide 13 On-street car parking is more important than increasing traffic capacity 12 Reinstating 4 traffic lanes contradicts Council's and State policies 11 Bikeway width reduction is not supported 11 Visibility of bike riders to motorists is poor 10 Independent evaluation confirmed no real impact on traffic 10 Reconstruction will undermine the message/effort 8 Car parking arrangements are confusing 8 Bikeway design is safe for cyclists 8 Bikeway balances well the needs of all road users 8 People became more accepting of the bikeway 7 Reinstating 4 traffic lanes is not supported 6 Bikeway is popular with many bike riders 6

Turning cars queue across the bikeway 5 The bars on the chart Synchronise traffic lights 5 show the total number of respondents for each type It is not appropriate to spend cycling funding on traffic capacity increase 5 of comment. Comments Concrete islands are being constantly hit by parking cars 5 with 4 or more respondents Bikeway surface should be in a contrasting colour 5 are shown.

Reinstating 4 traffic lanes will encourage driving over other modes 4 Please note that original Cars drive in the bikeway 4 comments have been simplified for this report Reinstating 4 lanes of traffic will reduce safety 3 and that all verbatim Numbers of bike riders in Frome St have increased 3 comments are available to Make the bikeway safer 3 the Bikeways Team. Improve bikeway aesthetics 3 Complete bikeway reconstruction will cause a community backlash 3 Changes to traffic conditions across Pirie St inersection are a safety concern 3 Bikeway width should be a minimum of 2.5 metres 3 Bikeway width of 2 metres is sufficient 3 Bikeway made the street safer and better for all users 3 Bikeway design reflects past decisions and consultation 3 Bikeway aesthetics is poor 3 Page 13 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

Comments made by 3 respondents: • Traffic should be calmed • Bikeway aesthetics is poor • Traffic volumes have decreased • Bikeway design reflects past decisions and Comments made by a single respondent: consultation • 1 lane of traffic in each direction is better for • Bikeway made the street safer and better for all Frome Street users • Against carbon neutral Adelaide • Bikeway width of 2 metres is sufficient • Allow travel behaviour to occur • Bikeway width should be a minimum of 2.5 metres • Base decisions on actual performance outcomes • Changes to traffic conditions across Pirie St intersection are a safety concern • Better enforcement of car parking time limits is needed • Complete bikeway reconstruction will cause a community backlash • Bikeway created pedestrian tripping hazards • Improve bikeway aesthetics • Bikeway impacts were not as bad as envisaged • Make the bikeway safer • Bikeway is a hazard to people who park cars • Numbers of bike riders in Frome St have • Bikeway is better for business increased • Bikeway is not used by many bike riders • Reinstating 4 lanes of traffic will reduce safety • Bikeway provides an important infrastructure in the city Comments made by 2 respondents: • Bikeway reconstruction will worsen conditions • Bikeway aesthetics is fine for bike riders • Bikeway encourages more people to ride bikes • Bikeway should not compromise traffic capacity • Bikeway is an important cycling infrastructure • Bikeway width needs to cater to future higher • Car parking loss is detrimental to businesses demands • Car parking should be placed to the right of the • Bikeway width reduction will cause congestion footpath for bike riders • Decrease height of kerbs and islands • Bikeway width reduction will have a negative impact on the safety of bike riders • Incorporate at kerb passenger pick up and drop off zones for taxis • Bikeway width reduction will not accommodate accessible bike types • Maintain the buffer width • Buffer is too wide • Make buffers more visible • Car parking lane is too narrow • Reduce the height and smooth over kerb profile • Car parking restrictions are confusing • Reduce the width of concrete and landscaping islands • Clarify opportunities for mid-block pedestrian crossings • Regent St North is a residential street and limited traffic capacity is better • Close Regent St North to traffic • Relocate traffic and car parking signs into the • Council should have consulted on the decision buffer to reinstate 4 traffic lanes • Slow down the bike riders • Current bikeway arrangements have been endorsed by consultation • Spend to introduce any of the new treatments is not warranted • Cyclists are riding too fast • Traffic congestion only occurs during March or • Design is in line with other cities major events • Environment is confusing for pedestrians NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 14

• Extend car parking limits to 2 hours • Proposed changes will worsen cycling conditions • Focus on a consistent approach to strategy delivery • Provides good separation from cars • Improve aesthetics of the buffer features • Reconstruction will result in a public backlash • Increase car parking time limits • Reduce the bikeway width at intersections only to create additional turning lanes • Install bike parking along the route • Reduce trip hazards created by traffic isalnds • Introduce angled parking by decreasing footpath width • Reduce width of the buffer zone • Lower traffic speeds to 40 kph • Reinforce give way priorities • Make safety improvements • Reinstate right turn car movements • Maximise car parking by introducing angle • Reinstating 4 traffic lanes will not actually parking increase car capacity • Minimise construction costs • Reinstating 4 traffic lanes is a backward step for the city • New bikeway funding is not for increasing traffic capacity • Reinstating 4 traffic lanes will compromise safety • Not many cyclists are using the bikeway • Right turn bans caused havoc • One traffic lane in each direction is more suitable • Street is not managed well during events for Frome St • There are design issues • On-road balance is better now • Too many parking restrcitions • Opinion of residents should be taken into • Traffic capacity increase will discourage bike account riding • People exiting cars are not safe from cyclists • Traffic capacity increase will have a negative • People park in the bikeway impact on pedestrians • Persist with cycling infrastructure and maintain • Traffic increase will create more noise the vision • Treatments 1 to 4 are preferred • Proceed with the vision of bikeways for the city despite the pressure Page 15 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

TOP RESPONSES FROM BUSINESSES On-street car parking is more important than traffic capacity 12 Bikeway is functioning well 11 Spend is not warranted 8 Car parking loss in peak hours is not supported 8 Visibility of bike riders to motorists is poor 6 There are no concerns with traffic capacity here 5 Minor improvements only are warranted 5 Intersection conflicts and confusing give way priority 5 Responses Bikeway is too wide 5 from 5 or more Turning cars queue across the bikeway 5 businesses

TOP RESPONSES FROM RESIDENTS

Bikeway is functioning well 24 Improve landscaping 10 Bikeway is too wide 7 Spend is not warranted 6 Intersection conflicts and confusing give way priority 5 Car parking loss in peak hours is not supported 4 There are no concerns with traffic capacity here 3 Responses from 3 Car parking arrangements are confusing 3 or more residents

TOP RESPONSES FROM DESIGN PROFESSIONALS

Bikeway is functioning well 8 Spend is not warranted 7 Improve landscaping 4 There are no concerns with traffic capacity here 4 Responses from 3 or more design Minor improvements only are warranted 3 professionals

TOP RESPONSES FROM BIKE RIDERS

Bikeway width of 2.7 metres should be maintained 6 Traffic capacity increase is not warranted 5 Spend is not warranted 3 Responses from 3 Bikeway is functioning well 3 or more bike riders NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 16

COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS WITH NO DEFINITIVE VIEW

The chart below provides a summary of feedback made by respondents who were uncertain about the preferred traffic arrangements for the street section with the existing bikeway or that did not raise this in the discussion.

Bikeway is functioning well 15 Intersection conflicts and confusing give way priority 7 Visibility of bike riders to motorists is poor 5 Spend is not warranted 5 Right turn bans caused havoc 4 Bikeway is too wide 4 Reinstate right turn car movements 3 Changes to traffic conditions across Pirie St inersection is a safety concern 3 Car parking loss in peak hours is not supported 3 Standard cycle lane to the right of parked vehicles is a better design 2 Relocate traffic and car parking signs into the buffer 2 Reinstating 4 traffic lanes will be better 2 Focus on extending the bikeway instead 2 Concrete islands are being constantly hit by parking cars 2 Car parking lane is too narrow 2 Bikeway width of 2 metres is sufficient 2 Bikeway design is confusing 2 Bikeway balances well the needs of all road users 2

Comments made by single respondents: • Bike riders need to be slowed down • Minor improvements only are warranted • Bikeway width of 2.7 metres should be • New hospital will add pressure to traffic capacity maintained • On-street car parking is more important than • Car parking arrangements are confusing increasing traffic capacity • Complete bikeway reconstruction is not • People parking cars cause congestion supported/warranted • Reinstating 4 traffic lanes will encourage driving • Consider solar bikeways over other modes • Contra-flow cycling arrangements along • Slow down bike riders residential streets are not supported • Synchronise traffic lights • Current car parking clearways periods should be • There are no concerns with traffic capacity here reduced • Traffic is congested in peak periods • Install traffic lights for left turning vehicles • Treatment 6 is most suitable • Integrated transport and balanced solution is needed • Use a co-design approach to design development • It is not appropriate to spend cycling infrastructure funding on traffic capacity increase Page 17 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS WHO SUPPORTED REINSTATING FOUR TRAFFIC LANES

The chart below provides a summary of feedback made by respondents that supported reinstating 4 lanes of traffic.

Reinstating 4 traffic lanes will be better 13 Bikeway is too wide 5 Intersection conflicts and confusing give way priority 3 Bikeway is functioning well 3 Visibility of bike riders to motorists is poor 2 Traffic is congested in peak periods 1 Traffic is congested during events 1 Traffic congestions issues 1 Remove garden beds 1 On-street car parking is more important than increasing traffic capacity 1 Not many cyclists are using the bikeway 1 More time is needed for drivers to get used to the bikeway 1 Make the bikeway safer 1 Invest in public transport instead 1 Intersection capacity concerm 1 Improve pedestrian crossing points 1 Focus on extending the bikeway instead 1 Ensure bikeway continuity and good connections 1 Concrete islands are being constantly hit by parking cars 1 Changes to traffic conditions across Pirie St inersection is a safety concern 1 Car parking placement is confusing 1 Buffer is too wide with no uses 1 Bikeway surface should be in a contrasting colour 1 Bikeway is contributing to traffic congestion 1 Bikeway design is not safe 1 Bikeway causes chaos 1 Aesthetics is poor 1 Bikeway design is confusing 1 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 18

GROUP FEEDBACK

INDUSTRY WORKSHOP COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS Early on in the engagement process a Residents and community members that attended stakeholder workshop was held with a number of the two community workshops did not support representatives from various industries including: reinstating 4 traffic lanes alongside the existing bikeway section. Key reasons cited included: • Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) • Current bikeway is functioning well and there are no issues with traffic congestion. • RAA • The expense associated with the complete • BISA reconstruction of the bikeway is not warranted • Access and Inclusion Group or supported. • Centre for Automotive Research • The bikeway is integrated into the street • Bike SA environment, provides good separation between street users and creates good and comfortable • Urban design professional experience for all. • Australian Walking and Cycling Conference • There is an issue with people turning left and right across the bikeway, which needs to be Industry workshop questioned the merit of a rectified. four lane traffic operation citing the following advantages of the current configuration: • The bikeway is well used during the week by commuters and on weekends by whole families • Better urban design with significant with children. opportunities for landscaping, parking and outdoor dining • Residents were consulted on the bikeway in 2013 and the current design reflects • Longer car parking operation preferences made based on the options and • Significant benefits for pedestrians with ample budget available. Reconstruction will undermine ability to create safe crossing environment community decisions made at the time. • Calmer traffic, supportive of outdoor dining • One lane of traffic in each direction with permanent car parking is more appropriate for • Wider bikeway the street. • Easier to design for turning movements, thus • The bikeway is a visionary statement of the creating a safer environment for all road users delivery across all important Council and State • No traffic capacity issues exist (other than Government strategies and its reconstruction some minority perceptions) to argue for a four will undermine this message. lane traffic operation. Community workshop attendees did not support The attendees of the workshop did not support complete reconstruction of the bikeway. reinstating 4 traffic lanes alongside the existing bikeway section. Page 19 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

BICYCLE INSTITUTE OF CENTRE FOR SA AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY BISA provided their feedback throughout Round RESEARCH 1 engagement. BISA does not support reinstating four traffic lanes and reconstructing the bikeway for • Retaining 1 lane of traffic in each direction is the following key reasons: preferred. All road users will have safety benefits with this traffic arrangement, not just people that • Current bikeway is functioning well and there ride bikes. are no issues with traffic congestion. • There are no traffic capacity issues in Frome St • The expense associated with the complete with the existing 1 traffic lane in each direction. reconstruction of the bikeway is not warranted Therefore, there is no traffic capacity justification or supported. for increasing the number of lanes available. • Resources for and efforts of improving • If a 4 lane option is pursued, a thorough cycling infrastructure should be prioritised assessment of benefits and dis-benefits should towards creating new infrastructure and new be carried out. connections. • Existing bikeway width is appropriate, as it allows two bike riders to pass one another. AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE • Improvements to Frome St traffic capacity OF LANDSCAPE can be made by optimising traffic signals. Additional traffic lanes mid-block will not have ARCHITECTS - SA an actual impact on overall traffic capacity of CHAPTER the street. • AILA SA does not support the reduction of • Independent evaluation of the existing bikeway the current Frome Road separated bikeway confirmed that the bikeway design did not from 2.7 metres to 2 metres in order to have a notable impact on traffic capacity. accommodate additional traffic lanes and has • BISA noted that State Government clearly concern that user safety may be compromised. expressed that their funding allocation is not to • AILA SA highlighted that the Independent be contributed towards reconstruction of the Evaluation Report found that the bikeway had existing bikeway. not adversely impacted the local economy, transport efficiency, safety and general amenity BISA recommended to construct new bikeway of Frome Street. sections first, before revisiting the needs and the best approach for making improvements to the • The significant cost of the bikeway width existing bikway section. reduction is not supported. • AILA SA recommends that minor improvements, including better landscaping, be made to the BIKE SA existing bikeway. Bike SA provided the following feedback: • The number of traffic lanes in Frome St is irrelevant provided the riding width of the existing bikeway is not reduced and ensuring that parked car door openings on the passenger side do not encroach upon the bikeway. • Removal and redesign of the existing bikeway should not be done within the established $12m City Bikeways funding. If reconstruction proceeds, it should not be funded with existing or future cycling budget. NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 20

FEEDBACK ON NEW BIKEWAY SECTION INDIVIDUAL FEEDBACK

VIEWS ON THE PREFERRED TREATMENT OPTION FOR EACH RESPONDENT GROUP

Only 28% of individual engagement participants had an Businesses 4 31 63 opinion about bikeway treatment options and provided views on their preference. Residents 8 10 3 3 46 Most engaged participants were design professionals Design professionals 3 2 17 6 and bike riders. Feedback for these respondent groups was captured at the Bikeway Trial Council deputations 8 site. This confirms that the Bikeway Trial site was a valuable Individual submissions 3 35 tool in explaining the differences in design treatments under consideration. Treatment 3 Bike riders 12 3 20 1 19 (stepped ‘Copenhagen’ design) was the preferred option among design professionals and bike Internet forum participants 2 68 riders. Residents preferred treatment 2 (raised buffer).

Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 6 VIEWS ON THE PREFERRED DESIGNDid not raise TREATMENT - COMBINED FEEDBACK

This chart shows the 4% preferred treatment for all participants combined 33% that provided feedback. Treatment 3 was preferred Treatment 1 43% by the majority of the Treatment 2 respondents. Treatment 3 20% Treatment 6 Page 21 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

VIEWS ON THE PREFERRED TRAFFIC LANE ARRANGEMENTS

Businesses 25% 44% 4% 27% 28% of respondents Residents 50% 4% 27% 19% had a view on traffic lane arrangements Design professionals 96% 4%

Council deputations 100%

Individual 3% 97% submissions

Bike riders 16% 84%

Internet forum 100% participants

Preference for one lane of through traffic in each direction Uncertain Did not discuss Preference for two lanes of traffic in peak hours in each direction NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 22

COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS WHO PREFERRED A DEDICATED CAR PARKING LANE AT ALL TIMES

The chart below provides a summary of feedback made by respondents who expressed a preference for a dedicated car parking lane at all times or one traffic lane in each direction in Frome St, between Pirie St to North Tce. This chart shows the total number of respondents for each type of comment. Comments with 2 or more respondents are shown on the chart and comments not repeated are listed following.

On-street car parking at all times is more important than traffic capacity 12 Loss of car parking will be detrimental to businesses 8 Create physical separation between people that drive, ride (and walk) 8 Maximise landscaping 6 Bikeway width should be a minimum of 2.5 metres 5 Maximise tree plantings 4 Minimise construction costs 3 Intersection design is very important to bikeway safety 3 Limit traffic to two lanes in both directions for the entire route 2 Ensure business accessibility by cars (with lower wheel base) 2 Buffer should offer sufficient clearance for people to step out of cars 2 Bikeway width should be wider than 2 metres 2 Page 23 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

Comments made by single respondents: • Reduce traffic speeds to 40 kph • Bikeway width should allow bike riders to pass • Reducing car parking to off-peak periods will be one another acceptable • Minimise gaps in the buffer strip • Reinstate right turning movements • A typical bike lane to the right of parked cars is • Slow down bike riders to improce street safety safer than a bikeway • Synchronise traffic lights • Any traffic impact will re-adjust and settle in time • Achieve bikeway width greater than 2 metres • Car parking loss during peak hours will impact • Bikeway width should accommodate accessible city users and cargo bikes • Concrete islands and kerbs will get in the way of • Bikeway width should be wider than 2 metres car parking • Do not plant trees to ensure visibility of bike • Concrete surface for a bikeway is better riders • Delay design decisions until O’Bahn works are • Ensure bikeway connects well will all roads completed beyond the city boundary • Ensure bikeway design does not obscure shop • Ensure the design is cost effective frontage visibility • Introduce meandering features to slow down all • Ensure new bikeway is safer than the existing road users bikeway section • Maximise bikeway width • Ensure safety and accessibility for people arriving in cars mid-block at popular destinations • Minimise width of the buffer • Ensure taxi drop off zones are accommodated • Parking signs should be in the buffer strip during clearways • Regent St North is a residential street and • Ensure visibility of cyclists to motorists limited traffic capacity is better • Flush buffer is less safe • There are not enough bike riders to justify 2.7 m bikeway width • Frome St needs a positive change • Improve traffic accessibility from Frome St into other streets • Include directional signage • Incorporate Aboriginal Cultural Trail elements into the bikeway design • Incorporate water sensitive urban design • Install additional bike racks • Issue car parking permits to workers • Landscaping should not impede visibility of business frontages • Make it safer than the existing bikeway section • Make the decision on traffic arrangements on the basis of what most businesses want • Minimise removal of on-street car parking • Minimise tripping hazards across the bikeway • Prevent water ponding in the bikeway • Reduce times for clearway periods NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 24

COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS WHO DID NOT HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR TRAFFIC ARRANGEMENTS

Maximise tree plantings 19 Create physical separation between people that drive, ride (and walk) 18 Bikeway width should be a minimum of 2.5 metres 13 Bikeway width of 2 metres is sufficient 13 Minimise construction costs 11 Minimise the height of kerbs and concrete islands 10 On-street car parking at all times is more important than traffic capacity 8 All of the design treatments will provide a good outcome 8 Maximise bikeway width 6 Concrete surface for a bikeway is better 6 Install rollover/mountable kerbs 5 Model new bikeway on the existing bikeway section 4 Flush buffer is preferred 4 Bikeway width should be greater than 2 metres 4 Bikeway width should allow bike riders to pass one another 4 Reducing car parking to off-peak periods will be acceotable 3 Intersection design is very important to bikeway safety 3 Ensure trees are easy to maintain 3 Ensure constrast in the bikeway surface 3 Synchronise traffic lights 2 Make the new bikeway narrower than the existing bikeway section 2 Loss of car parking will be detrimental to businesses 2 Introduce varied bikeway materials 2 Incorporate water sensitive urban design 2 Functionaility of the bikeway is more important than its aesthetics 2 Ensure bikeway continuity and good connections 2 Design for the growth in cyclist numbers 2 Concrete surface for a bikeway is not supported 2 Buffer should offer sufficient clearance for people to step out of cars 2 Bitumen bikeway surface is preferred 2 Bikeway width is more important than additional traffic lanes 2 Bikeway surface needs to be in contrasting colour 2 Page 25 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

Comments made by single respondents: • Install more on-street bike storage • Angled parking provides a safer and cheaper • Install the buffer strip option for the bikeway design • Integrated transport and balanced solution is • Avoid separation by width between all users needed • Avoid separation by width between all users • Invest in high quality of landscaping • Bikeway concrete surfacing could be too • Invest in quality design and materials expensive • Low kerbs and concrete islands • Bikeway narrower than 2.7 metres is supported • Lower traffic speeds to 40 kph • Bikeway to the right of parked cars is safer • Make buffer wider than 1 metre • Bikeway width of 2 metres is NOT sufficient • Make it safer than the existing bikeway section • Bikeway width should accommodate accessible • Make the decision on traffic arrangements on and cargo bike types the basis of what most businesses want • Bitumen surface for a bikeway is better • Minimise car parking in commercial areas • Car parking clearways will be confusing • Minimise gaps in the buffer strip • Car parking loss during peak hours will impact • Minimise the clearway periods city users • Minimise the height of vertical barriers to • Concrete islands and kerbs will get in the way of improve accessibility fo all across the bikeway car parking • Minimise tripping hazards across the bikeway • Consider coloured bitumen for the bikeway surface • Minimise width of the buffer • Continuous flush buffer may not offer sufficient • Narrow down buffers separation • Pedestrians will walk in the bikeway with a low • Create wider passing areas for bike riders step down • Decrease height of kerbs and islands • Place car parking signs on the buffer strip • Design for safety and comfort of bike riders first • Plant trees to create shade for the bikeway • Do not plant trees to ensure visibility of bike • Prevent people from parking in the bikeway riders • Prevent water ponding in the bikeway • Ensure bikeway design does not obscure shop • Reduce traffic speeds to 40 kph frontage visibility • Reinstate right turning movements • Ensure complete street design • Safety and comfort for bike riders should be a • Ensure design continuity for the entire bikeway primary concern length • Separated bikeway design is preferred to shared • Ensure new bikeway is safer than the existing paths bikeway section • Traffic capacity and flow should be maximised • Ensure safe pedestrian islands and crossovers • Tree planting is not necessary • Flush design does not provide enough separation • Improve traffic accessibility from Frome St into other streets • Incorporate Aboriginal Cultural Trail elements into the bikeway design • Install a buffer strip • Install in high quality of landscaping NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 26

COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS WHO PREFERRED TWO TRAFFIC LANES IN EACH DIRECTION DURING PEAK PERIODS

The chart below provides a summary of feedback made by respondents who expressed a preference for two traffic lanes in each direction during peak hours in Frome St, between Pirie St to North Tce.

Maximise traffic capacity and flow 8 Create physical separation between people that drive, ride (and walk) 4 Reducing car parking to off-peak periods will be acceptable 3 Traffic flow and capacity is more important than car parking 2 Remove all car parking between North Tce and War Memorial Dve 2 Make the new bikeway narrower than the existing bikeway section 2 Bikeway width of 2 metres is sufficient 2 Slow down traffic 1 Placement of car parking in the middle of the road is not supported 1 Model the new bikeway on the existing bikeway 1 Minimise removal of on-street car parking 1 Minimise buffer width to improve visibility of bike riders 1 Maximise tree plantings 1 Install reflectors 1 Install a raised buffer 1 Flush buffer is preferred 1 Ensure trees are easy to maintain 1 Ensure good stormwater runoff 1 Bikeway should be to the right of parked cars 1 Bikeway should be level with the carriageway 1 Better manage traffic 1 Page 27 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

function, that relies on paving colour contrast GROUP FEEDBACK and kerbing to navigate. • Consider permeable pavers for the buffer areas. INDUSTRY WORKSHOP • RAA commented that while one lane traffic operation in two directions was possible • Intersection design needs careful consideration. on Frome Street south of Pirie St, there are Consider protected intersection design concept. unresolved issues (including the operation of • Design to a bikeway width of 2.7 metres, noting buses following O-Bahn tunnel opening, old that 2.5 metres is the minimum standard. 2 RAH site and new City High School) that will metre wide bikeway is narrow for two cyclists to impact on traffic volumes in the section north of pass one another. Pirie St. • The width of the bikeway should be ‘future- proofed’ to ensure it will cater for future growth in bike riding. Evidence from other cities that COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS have installed bikeways in the last 5 years ( for example, in Sydney and London) showed rapid • Majority of the participants agreed that the increase in bike volumes with some bikeway bikeway width of 2 metres will be too narrow. sections nearing capacity soon after installation. The bikeway should be at least 2.5 metres wide. Bikeway design should allow bike riders • A raised buffer is only needed in landscaped to pass one another and bikeway width should areas. A flush buffer will work in sections which cater to the growth of cycling in Adelaide. Some are not landscaped. participants felt that 2 metre bikeway width will • A lane of parked vehicles creates perception of be adequate. safety for cyclists. • Separation of bike riders from motorists is • If a concrete surface will be installed for the imperative. bikeway, it will need to be rough trowelled. • Maximise planting, greenery and shade. • Use a contrasting colour and/or different • Optimise traffic signals along Frome St. material for a bikeway. • Select the most economical solution so as to • Use natural materials and avoid injecting construct the greatest length of bikeways with colours, which fade and look inferior over time. the available budget. • Consider carbon footprint of the materials • Car parking removal may be appropriate, selection. depending on the context. • Prevent cyclists from being able to easily enter • Four lane traffic arrangement may be received pedestrian spaces. Introduce tactile surfaces for better by the city and will make installation greater separation. easier. • Installation of bikeways will result in less clutter • There was a difference of opinions with regard in pedestrian areas (and therefore create greater to the preferred treatment. effective pedestrian width), as all signage will be relocated to buffer areas. • Intersections create points of conflict and require careful consideration. • 1m area is a very narrow space for tree planting. Special planting treatments will need to be • Improve signage of the routes. considered to ensure vegetation survives and is • Create education programs to improve riding well integrated into the streetscape. culture and motorist awareness. • The design will need to consider the vertical envelope of a vehicle as it drives/parks in the near-side lane (as well as the horizontal turning path) to prevent clashes with overhanging tree branches. • The bikeway design should consider emerging vehicle technology, such as an auto-park NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 28

BIKE SA CENTRE FOR Bike SA provided the following feedback: AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY • Separated bikeway will create safer conditions RESEARCH for all road users. 60% of South Australians say that they would ride more if they felt safe to do • The detailed design of bikeway elements will so and the separated bikeways will encourage be critical to improving safety outcomes, in this. particular the design of intersections, to reduce conflicts between motor vehicles and bike • 2.5 metres is always the preferred minimum, but riders. it is acknowledged that it many not be possible to achieve in all scenarios. Should the bikeway • Eliminating right filter turns from the corridor will width need to be reduced below 2.5 metres to be a key factor in improving safety for all road balance other competing road demands, this is users. an acceptable compromise. • The bikeway needs to cater to future cycling • At worst, the bikeway should be 2 metres wide. demand and growth in bike riding. A sufficiently Ultimately, because of the various competing wide bikeway, greater than 2 metres, is needed uses it is expected that a mix of widths and to future proof the facility and encourage designs, subject to locations, will be put more diverse widespread cycling participation, forward. This is acceptable as long as the including young and old, and also cargo bikes minimum of 2 metres is achieved. and trailers. • Subject to the funding available, the preferred treatments are the flush buffer (treatment 1) and stepped level design (treatment 3). AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS - SA BICYCLE INSTITUTE OF CHAPTER SOUTH AUSTRALIA • Further engagement with surrounding Councils • All of the design treatments are costly and can may assist in raising the debate regarding active be improved. transport and to advocate for a more balanced • Treatment 3 (stepped design) will provide the level of service into, out of and across the city best bike riding conditions, as it has constrained for all forms of transport. least by the pedal strike zone. • The bikeway treatment should demonstrate best • City Bikeways Team are encouraged to look practice design for user safety, including kerb into ways of reducing project costs, as designs and grade separation between pedestrian, cycle under consideration will be costly to construct. and vehicular traffic and a width appropriate to Specific savings can be made by low cost the volume of users. stormwater system adaptation. • The proposed width of the bikeway at 2 metres • Any bikeway should have a minimum effective may not accommodate the expected volume width of 2.4 metres. Effective width excludes and type of users on these routes, and growth pedal strike zones. in user numbers in the years ahead. • Bikeway width of 2 metres is too narrow and is • To ensure a safe bikeway can be established, not supported. Demonstrations at the Bikeways AILA SA supports a minimum of 2.5 metre width Trial site confirmed that inexperienced bike for the following reasons: riders will not feel safe when overtaken, unless »» peak hour cycling is already at a level where the effective width of 2.4 metres is achieved. 2.5m is considered the minimum width to allow safe overtaking; • Two lanes of traffic in each direction will have safety implications and will displace car parking. »» expert report shows there has been an One lane in each direction is preferred. increase in numbers of cyclists on the separated bikeway compared to on road • Specific attention needs to be paid to integration cycling; with side streets and intersection treatments. »» more women are engaging in cycling now Raised intersections with side streets will there is a separated bikeway, as well as new provide a good solution and will integrate best with Treatment 3 option. Page 29 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

riders and younger riders, and a variety of bicycle types such as cargo bikes, trailers, tricycles for parents carrying children, that require more space; »» increased traffic volumes along Frome Road will not improve local safety of businesses or residents, nor will it improve the economic health of the local area; and »» best practice design is required to encourage more workers and residents to participate in active travel and to realise greater health outcomes. Reducing the width to below minimum recommendations will discourage many potential new cyclists. • AILA SA encourages the Adelaide City Council and State Government of South Australia to review the allocation of funding to key initiatives associated with the City Bikeway Proposal. Improvements to the intersections and traffic signal phasing would require a lower cost and would provide tangible benefit to cyclists and motorists alike, without significantly drawing down on the project budget for new streetscape works that better support cycling on specific strategic routes through the city. NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 30

MOTORIST FEEDBACK VIA RAA SURVEY

In December 2016 RAA asked members of their engagement panel (with approximately 2,000 people registered) their views in relation to some of the elements of the City Bikeways project. RAA conducted this survey independently of planned Round 1 engagement activities and the City Bikeways Team did not influence in any way the questions that were asked.

Timing of the survey was early December 2016, before project website was launched. It is therefore important to acknowledge that the survey respondents did not have access to the City Bikeways project information (project leaflet, web site information, design treatment options or bikeway trial site model). The views expressed were shaped by previous project information available in the public domain and the media coverage.

704 motorists took part in the survey with key feedback as following.

Q Are you aware of the Frome Street bike lanes?

23%

77% Yes No

Q Have you used the southern section of Frome Street in the past 12 months?

44% 49% As a motorist As both a cyclist and a motorist As a cyclist 3% 3% No Page 31 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

What do you think of the southern section of Frome Street (one lane in each direction, Q parking and separated bike lane)?

9% 18% 16%

15% Very happy Happy Neither happy nor unhappy Unhappy 41% Very unhappy

The Adelaide City Council may redesign a section of Frome Street including returning it to two lanes in each direction during peak periods, no parking during peak periods, and a Q reduced width separated bike lane. Do you support these changes?

14%

54% 31% No Unsure/ need further info Yes

OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS Survey participants were asked to provide comments with regard to their answers and 357 provided feedback. Comments were summarised into categories and presented overleaf.

The chart below provides an indication of whether respondents were supportive of cycling infrastructure, based on the nature of their feedback. In case of 115 responses, this could not be determined. Therefore the chart below reports on 242 respondents. The chart demonstrates that 48% of the motorists are not accepting of cycling infrastructure in general.

48% 52%

Supportive of cycling infrastructure Not supportive of cycling infrastructure NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 32

The chart below provides a summary of feedback made by 357 of the 704 RAA survey participants. Comments made by one only respondent are listed on the next page.

Better design is needed 31 What a waste of money 26 More consideration of traffic flow is needed 26 Existing bikeway works fine 25 Bike riders need infrastructure in the city 23 Bike riders should not be prioritised over drivers 20 Unsupportive 12 Supportive of separated bikeways 11 Not enough cyclists to justify this infrastructure 9 Existing bikeway does not work and needs to be improved 8 Cyclists should contribute to the cost 8 Bikeway does not need to be so wide 8 Supportive of new North-South bikeway extension 7 Prefer two traffic lanes in each direction 7 More separated bike lanes should be installed in more areas 7 Extend the bikeway 7 Safety concerns over turning left at intersections 6 Remove the bikeway 6 Get rid of cyclists 6 Cycling should be encouraged 6 Bike rider culture needs improving 6 Achieve balance for everyone 6 Too much focus on cyclists 5 Existing bikeway design is confusing 5 Bikeway is over engineered 4 Essential to get the design right this time 4 Better consultation is needed 4 Supportive of bikeway 3 Reinstate standard bike lanes 3 Not supportive of cyclists overall 3 Bikeway installation is not considerate of traffic flows 3 There are other routes for cars 2 Remove concrete islands 2 Remove bike lanes 2 Poor driver skills or poor awareness of bike riders 2 Not a good investment 2 Need to accept the strategy of creating a bike-friendly city 2 Ensure money are not wasted 2 Cycling is not a viable commuting mode for most 2 Council should base decisions on professional advice 2 Buffer is too wide 2 Bikeway is not needed in the city 2 Bike riders should be registered and insured 2 Page 33 NS BIKEWAY: ROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

Comments made by single respondents: • Lower the speed limit • Better signage is required at intersection where • Media portrays the bikeway negatively car lane ends • More road awareness is needed by motorists • Bike lanes should be on back streets and cyclists • Bike riders do not follow road rules • No on-street parking is a good thing • Bike riders should be separated from motorists • One traffic lane and bikeway might encourage and pedestrians people to use public transport more often • Bike riders should use footpaths • One wide traffic lane in each direction is preferred • Bikeway is unsafe and more dangerous than standard bike lanes • Poor visibility of cyclists in the bikeway • Bikeway provides an important connection • Prefer one traffic lane in each direction • Bikeways will always have issues • Reduce traffic volumes in the city • Buffer can be dangerous for drivers • Reinstate right turns • Cars should be restricted to outside the CBD • Reinstating 4 traffic lanes is a waste of money • Clearway during peak hour • Remove parking from main roads • Cost and benefit should be investigated • Restricting traffic is good for the city • Cyclists have too much political influence • Separated bikeways are safer than bike lanes • Design is bad for businesses • Standard bike lanes work better • Do not support riding on footpaths • Too many cycle lanes in the city • Emergency vehicles must be able to cross over • Traffic in the city is slow so cyclists can use the the buffer road • Existing design seems safer than most bike • Two traffic lanes in each direction are lanes unnecessary • Find alternative to fixed infrastructure • Bikeway can’t seem to work in Adelaide • Frome St is a good option for bikeway • Bikeway type projects keep people out of the city • Implement clearways during Clipsal • Bikeways is bad for businesses • Improved environment for everyone • Put bike lanes in the middle of the road • Learn from other cities • The street should be designed for cars, not • Less traffic and more bikes minority cyclists

RAA’S FEEDBACK ON THE SURVEY With regard to the survey and North-South Bikeway project RAA provided the following comment: Finding a holistic balance for mobility movement in a city with limited street capacity continues to be identified as challenging. Comments varied and in part provided polar views on what people movement could look like in 2040. Ideas ranged from one way streets with identified modes of transport assigned, to removing all cars and trucks. Frome Street created moderate interest with some supporting the roll out of left hand only turns across the city onto minor roads to removing the entire Frome Street infrastructure as it is (presumed) not working.

Traffic management is the key with people acknowledging that not every form of transport was ideal for every person and that people should be able to travel by their mode of choice. Bus lane comments have been included as traffic management with comments and ideas on how to support greater efficiency.