PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd 2015.
The information contained in this document produced by InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd is solely for the use of the Client for the purposes for which it has been prepared and InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd undertakes no duty or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely on this document.
All rights reserved. No sections or elements of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd.
Because of the statistical nature of this report, care should be taken in interpreting the data presented throughout. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information included in this report, InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd and its contractors make no representations, either express or implied, that the information is accurate or fit for any purpose and expressly disclaims all liability for loss or damage arising from reliance upon the information in this report.
Kerry McConnell Team Leader, Transport City of Port Adelaide Enfield City of Port Adelaide 163 St Vincent Street, Enfield Port Adelaide SA 5015 p: +61 8 8405 6887 m: +61 447 819 964 e: [email protected] Gayle Buckby Benjamin Russ Senior Movement Planner Associate InfraPlan (Aust) P/L InfraPlan (Aust) P/L Consultant Adelaide Adelaide Level 1, 22-26 Vardon Avenue, Level 1, 22-26 Vardon Avenue, Adelaide SA 5000 Adelaide SA 5000 p: +61 8 8227 0372 p: +61 8 8227 0372 e: [email protected] e: [email protected] Last saved 25/11/2015 1:55:22 PM
Authored by Gayle Buckby, Brad McCormack and Benjamin Russ
Reviewed by Benjamin Russ
i | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge the Kaurna people, the original custodians of the Adelaide Plains, the land upon which this Local Area Bicycle Plan is set. We value their spiritual relationship with their country and respect that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still as important to the living Kaurna people today.
The Local Area Bicycle Plan 2014/15-2019/20 was commissioned by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. InfraPlan was engaged to undertake the project, led by Senior Movement Planner Gayle Buckby and Associate Ben Russ who were supported by Assistant Planners Brad McCormack and Juanita Castillon. The Project was managed by Kerry McConnell/Michael Ravno/Shaun Dewaal for the City of Port Adelaide Enfield.
We wish to acknowledge and thank all those who have contributed to the development of the Plan. The enthusiastic participation of Elected Members, stakeholders and members of the community throughout the process was very much appreciated.
Key stakeholders included:
Port Adelaide Bicycle User Group; Bicycle Institute of South Australia; Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) – Office of Cycling and Walking and Metro Region; South Australian Bicycle Federation; Relevant staff from the City of Port Adelaide Enfield’s traffic, community development and strategic planning divisions; Adjoining councils: o Campbelltown, Charles Sturt, Norwood, Payneham and St Peters, Prospect, Salisbury, Tea Tree Gully and Walkerville. Obesity Prevention and Lifestyle (OPAL); South Australian Police (SAPOL); School representatives; Council area committees; BikeSA; Heart Foundation (SA); Susan Close MP Office (Ian Steele); Dana Wortley MP Office; Renewal SA; Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC); and Local bicycle business owners.
ii | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd Executive Summary
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield is a diverse, vibrant and historically significant urban municipality. This City of Port Adelaide Enfield: Local Area Bicycle Plan 2014/15-2019/20 seeks to build upon the unique aspects of the Council and provide an integrated and sustainable transport system that will improve cyclist safety, increase the number of cyclists, connect communities and raise the status of cycling as an enjoyable, respected and legitimate form of transport.
A critical component in the development of this Plan was to undertake a robust review of the existing Port Adelaide Enfield Bicycle Plan 2008-2012. The existing cycling facilities and routes form the basis of this updated 2014/15-2019/20 Bicycle Plan, however over the past decade innovation in planning and design for cycling has evolved, and simultaneously, the volume and type of people cycling has also seen a shift. It is therefore important to develop a new strategic local area cycling plan that acknowledges, incorporates and builds on all of these factors.
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield: Local Area Bicycle Plan 2014/15-2019/20 sets a framework and direction for the continued development of cycling facilities in line with the City and Corporate Plans by focusing on establishing a unique hierarchy of routes for Port Adelaide Enfield that accommodates cyclists of all abilities and confidence levels, creating better east-west connections across the Council area, and continued development of Outer Harbor and Gawler Greenway routes.
An important aspect of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield: Local Area Bicycle Plan 2014/15-2019/20 is to define the cycling network: defining the route type and locations assists Council to focus development and funding efforts, and assists cyclist route selection though a coherent bicycle network. The route types identified in this plan include:
Key Metropolitan Routes: Greenways and Secondary Roads Key Metropolitan Routes: Main Roads (DPTI Roads) Key Neighbourhood / Local Links (to Schools, Shops, parks, etc.) Fine-Grained Cycling Network (e.g. safe road crossings, ramps to access paths, footpaths around schools) Streets for People (balanced street network, speeds below 40km/h, low-moderate traffic volumes)
As well as network development and infrastructure provision, it is essential to deliver programs for travel behaviour change, cycling promotion and education to develop a cycling culture and facilitate cyclist-to-council communication strategies.
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield: Local Area Bicycle Plan 2014/15-2019/20 is also intended to be a ‘working’ document which is reviewed and updated every 5 years to ensure that the strategies and networks are relevant and up-to-date.
iii | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
iv | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd Contents
1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 The Value of Cycling ...... 2 2 Local Area Context ...... 4 2.1 Demographic Analysis ...... 5 3 Policy and Strategy Review ...... 6 3.1 City of Port Adelaide Enfield City Plan 2010-2016 ...... 6 3.2 City of Port Adelaide Enfield Open Space Plan 2013 ...... 6 3.3 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide ...... 7 3.4 Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan (Draft) ...... 7 4 Review of the Current Bicycle Plan & Network ...... 9 4.1 Local Area Bicycle Plan 2008-2012...... 9 4.2 Cycling Infrastructure 2008 to 2014 ...... 9 4.3 Cycling Catchments ...... 16 4.4 Intersection Bicycle Counts ...... 18 4.5 Cyclist Collisions ...... 20 4.6 Traffic Count and Crash Cluster Relationships ...... 22 4.7 DPTI Managed Roads ...... 22 5 Recent Projects ...... 24 5.1 Recent Major Developments ...... 24 5.2 Recent Major Transport Projects ...... 26 6 Consultation ...... 28 6.1 Consultation Workshop A: 30 July 2014, Hillcrest Community Centre...... 28 6.2 Consultation Workshop B: 13 August 2014, Port Adelaide Town Hall ...... 29 6.3 Elected Members Workshop: 17th September 2014, Port Adelaide Town Hall ...... 29 6.4 Direct Stakeholder Engagement ...... 30 6.5 Consultation with adjoining Councils ...... 31 7 Planning the Proposed Network ...... 35 8 Designing for Cycling ...... 37 8.1 Safe System Approach ...... 38 8.2 Traffic Speed and Volume ...... 39 8.3 Traffic Calming ...... 42 8.4 Cycling Infrastructure ...... 42 8.5 Cycling on Main Roads ...... 42
v | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
8.6 Public Transport Integration ...... 42 8.7 Bikeways and Neighbourhood Cycling ...... 43 9 The Proposed Cycling Network 2015-2020 ...... 45 9.1 Metropolitan Routes: Greenways / Bikeways ...... 48 9.2 Neighbourhood Routes (east-west connectors) ...... 55 9.3 Local Links ...... 62 9.4 Metropolitan Routes: Main Roads ...... 67 9.5 City-wide infrastructure Actions ...... 72 9.6 Recreational / Tourist Routes ...... 74 9.7 Open Channels ...... 76 9.8 40km/h Area Speed Zones ...... 76 9.9 Lady Gowrie Drive – Riding in Groups...... 77 10 Promoting Cycling ...... 79 10.1 Education and Travel Behaviour Change Programs ...... 79 10.2 Publicity Campaigns ...... 80 10.3 Infrastructure Elements ...... 80 10.4 Information Provision and Route Legibility ...... 81 10.5 Safety Training ...... 81 10.6 Committing to Ongoing Research ...... 82 10.7 Local Government Policy ...... 83 10.8 Council Advocacy ...... 83 11 Funding ...... 85 11.1 State-level ...... 85 11.2 Federal-level ...... 86 12 Maintenance ...... 87 13 Conclusion ...... 89 14 Action Plan Summary ...... 90 15 Appendices ...... 110 15.1 Appendix A: Literature Review ...... 111 15.2 Appendix B: Status of Recommendations from the 2008-2012 Bicycle Plan ...... 116 15.3 Appendix C: Detailed assessment of incident locations identified in the 2008 Bicycle Plan 117 15.4 Appendix D: Best Practice Design Toolkit ...... 120 15.5 Appendix E: References ...... 149
vi | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd Summary of Figures
Figure 1: The four types of cyclists...... 1 Figure 2: Benefits per kilometre cycled for an average project...... 2 Figure 3: Map of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield...... 4 Figure 4: The favoured journey to work methods in the City of Port Adelaide Enfield...... 5 Figure 5: Outer Harbor Greenway route...... 11 Figure 6: Inner Harbour Loop Path ...... 11 Figure 7: Underpass upgrade (Grand Junction Road/Greenway) ...... 11 Figure 8: Cross section over Birkenhead Bridge ...... 11 Figure 9: Semaphore Road on-road lane and off-road path...... 13 Figure 10: Map of existing main road cycling network...... 15 Figure 11: Map showing 2km (10 minute) cycling catchments from shopping precincts within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield...... 17 Figure 12: Map showing intersection bicycle counts in the City of Port Adelaide Enfield...... 19 Figure 13: Map showing the incident cluster locations and cyclist counts...... 23 Figure 14: Draft master plan of the Lipson Industrial Estate at Gillman, including provisions for cycling...... 25 Figure 15: Australia's Safe System Framework...... 38 Figure 16: Pedestrian and cyclist collision speed graph...... 39 Figure 17: Separation of bicycles and motor vehicles according to traffic speed and volume ...... 40 Figure 18: Desirable street network speeds as per the ‘Link and Place’ matrix...... 41 Figure 19: The realignment of street hierarchy. Active transport modes can have priority on some streets...... 43 Figure 20: Proposed Cycling Network (Long Term)...... 46 Figure 21: Proposed Cycling Network (short to medium term)...... 47 Figure 22: Enlargement C: Gawler Greenway (short to medium term)...... 51 Figure 23: Enlargement D: Enfield East-West Connector (short to medium term)...... 56 Figure 24: Enlargement B: Gillman East-West Connector (short to medium term)...... 58 Figure 25: Enlargement of Port Adelaide central business district (short to medium term)...... 63 Figure 26 : Causeway Road - concept design ...... 67 Figure 27: Free bicycle hire scheme at Lightsview, SA...... 80 Figure 28: Example of a cycling infrastructure management and maintenance plan...... 88 Figure 38: Chevron separated lane...... 135 Figure 39: Green lane and tactile edge strip...... 135 Figure 40: Cyclist and vehicle conflict zone at a roundabout...... 148
vii | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd Summary of Tables
Table 1: Bicycle Network Features...... 37 Table 2: Traffic speed criteria ...... 41 Table 3: Traffic volume criteria ...... 41 Table 4: End-trip and mid-trip facilities matrix...... 126 Table 6: Where to provide footpaths ...... 130 Table 7: Recommended footpath width ...... 131 Table 8: Recommended path width...... 132 Table 9: Recommended path width...... 133 Table 10: Recommended path widths ...... 134 Table 11: Exclusive lane width...... 137 Table 12: Recommended dimensions for parallel parks...... 138 Table 13: Recommended dimensions for angle parking ...... 138 Table 14: Rural road shoulder widths ...... 140
viii | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
1 Introduction
Cycling plays an important role in creating healthy, diverse and vibrant communities. It also supports increasing liveability by taking pressure off public transport, reducing congestion and noise and supporting a zero-carbon future. The City of Port Adelaide Enfield recognises this and its responsibility in providing safe, sustainable and active transport options for the local community. This Local Area Bicycle Plan details a comprehensive network vision that builds on the previous Bicycle Plan, provides insight on the benefits of cycling as well as outlining recommendations and actions that concurrently endeavour to see more people of all ages, abilities and skill levels cycling more often.
In addition to providing Council with a cycling network plan, an underlying objective is to guide Council toward improving cyclist safety and easing the concerns of the local community. Cyclists need to feel legitimate, safe and supported. In cities such as Adelaide, over half of the population is understood to be interested in cycling, but has a degree of concern (Figure 1). Predominantly, these concerns pertained predominantly to road safety fears. In contrast, only eight percent of people are identified as confident cyclists.
Figure 1: The four types of cyclists.
Source: Dill & McNeil 2012. Interpreted by InfraPlan 2014.
The vision underpinning this plan is clear. It builds upon the previous Plan and existing infrastructure, identifies the need to overcome the barriers that are prevalent among contemporary transport networks, as well as enhancing the opportunities for an increased cycling mode share.
It is important to acknowledge that this is a strategic high-level plan and should be treated as a ‘working’ document. It should be reviewed every five years to ascertain the priority action plan for the following five years. This regular review process also provides the opportunity to evaluate the outcomes of the work implemented and make adjustments as required. Some recommendations may also prove difficult to implement, with alternative solutions found, or opportunities arising. The proposed network must be implemented with a ‘fine-grained’ approach so that continuous connections are delivered and cyclists not left stranded.
1 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
1.1 The Value of Cycling Widely accepted to have negligible environmental impacts, cycling is also understood to improve public health, community well-being and social connectedness (Cycling Promotion Fund 2008a). According to the Heart Foundation (SA) (2011), it has also been linked to increasing commercial and residential property values, growing business and stimulating local economies. This section looks at the value of cycling and how it can be quantified to highlight the significant economic, environmental, social and public health benefits, particularly in contrast to private motor vehicle travel.
In 2011 the World Health Organization developed the health economic assessment tool (HEAT), which is used to estimate the economic savings through regular walking and/or cycling. HEAT was recently applied in Auckland, New Zealand to calculate the potential cost benefit of constructing cycling infrastructure across the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The bridge, built in 1959, has no active travel infrastructure and may only be crossed by motor vehicles. Based on hypotheses for the number of cyclists that would use the bridge for regular commuting, HEAT calculated that for every 1,000 adults who regularly commute by bicycle across the bridge, annual economic savings were estimated to be NZ$1,529,000. - Source: Department of Infrastructure and Transport 2013a, p. 311.
According to the Department of Infrastructure and Transport (2013b, p. 6), the associated costs for a typical off-road path (to Austroads standards) equate to approximately $1.5 million per kilometre. Adopting this figure, studies show that 1000 cyclists per day will generate discounted benefits of around $15 million per kilometre over a 30-year appraisal period ($1.43 per kilometre cycled, per person). This is demonstrated in Figure 2, which also illustrates that for each person who cycles 20 minutes to and from work, the economy saves $14.30 in related costs.
$1.60 COST ANALYSIS PER KILOMETRE CYCLED $1.43 $1.40 $1.20 $1.12 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.35 $0.40 $0.21 $0.20 $0.01 $0.03 $0.02 $0.05 $0.02 $- $(0.20) $(0.40) $(0.60) -$0.37
Figure 2: Benefits per kilometre cycled for an average project.
Source: Department of Infrastructure and Transport 2013b, p. 7 (adapted by InfraPlan 2014).
2 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Data sources: KPMG – Econtech in Medibank Private 2008; European Cyclists’ Federation 2011; Cycling Promotion Fund 2008b. Image source: Des Moines Urban Ambassadors 2010.
3 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
2 Local Area Context
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield is a diverse, vibrant and historically significant urban municipality (Figure 3). Located in the north-west of metropolitan Adelaide, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield is bordered by the councils of Salisbury, Tea Tree Gully, Charles Sturt, Prospect, Campbelltown, Norwood Payneham and St Peters and Walkerville. The City includes a wide variety of land-uses including industrial and commercial employment areas, residential suburbs, iconic areas such as Inner Harbour and popular sections of coastline. The relatively flat topography is conducive to cycling with parts of the City also serviced by train, which can support dual-transport mode journeys (take their bike on the train, or park their bike at the rail station). Port Adelaide Enfield also attracts many recreational cyclists, especially along the coastal regions to Outer Harbour and the Torrens Linear Trail through the eastern suburbs.
Figure 3: Map of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield.
Source: City of Port Adelaide Enfield 2014.
4 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
2.1 Demographic Analysis The 2011 Census showed that there were 112,812 people living within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, which increased to an estimated 120,427 in 2013. The population is diverse with increasing numbers of young adults and families with children. There is also a strong multi-cultural presence with 36.1% of the population born overseas and 2,722 Indigenous Australians. The LGA is also home to over 8,000 businesses, with 26.8% of residents working within the local area and 61.2% working outside. The City also has a relatively large number of people living alone (30.6%). Some areas display lower socio-economic characteristics, for example parts of the Lefevre Peninsula, Port and central areas, while areas nearer the coast and in the east show increased average to higher socio- economic status.
The percentage of residents who rode to work on Census day was 1.1%, which was the same as the Greater Adelaide region and slightly above the state average of 1.0% (Figure 4). The percentage of households in Port Adelaide Enfield who do not own a car is 13.4%, 4.1% higher than the Greater Adelaide rate of 9.3%. Lower car ownership may facilitate increased opportunities to further legitimise cycling and encourage those without private vehicles to adopt utility based cycling.
Figure 4: The favoured journey to work methods in the City of Port Adelaide Enfield.
Data source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014.
5 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
3 Policy and Strategy Review
This Local Area Bicycle Plan has been prepared with consideration of key projects and strategies outlined in local area documents and both the State Government’s Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan (Draft) and 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. In addition, a comprehensive literature review has also been undertaken and included as Appendix A.
3.1 City of Port Adelaide Enfield City Plan 2010-2016
The Port Adelaide Enfield City Plan 2010-2016 is an important document that defines the existing identity of the area as well as articulates Council’s future vision and outlines the policies and strategies to achieve it. The proposed directions, which support the South Australian Strategic Plan, build on the area’s strengths and strive to shape a vibrant, diverse and connected community. A number of the goals, objectives, indicators and targets within the City Plan underpin this Bicycle Plan. These are listed below:
Goal: A healthy and connected community that supports and values people, culture and place. - Objective: An active and healthy community that has access to positive lifestyle choices. - Indicators: Opportunities for physical activity and incidental exercise are accessible through the provision of a network of quality open spaces, bicycle and pedestrian routes.
Goal: A vibrant and attractive City that is well-planned and accessible, with safe and healthy places to live, work and play. - Objective: An integrated transport system that is safe, efficient, convenient and sustainable, and that encourages the use of alternative forms of transport. - Objective: Pedestrian and cycle networks and trails that provide connections within communities and link passive and active recreation areas. - Target: The implementation of Council’s Local Area Bike Plan contributes to meeting SA Strategic Plan targets for cycling and walking.
3.2 City of Port Adelaide Enfield Open Space Plan 2013 The current Plan assists Council in shaping strategic decisions toward the future provision, development and management of open space within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. Findings identified strong community demand for exercise opportunities along with tracks, pathways and places for walking and cycling. Open space connections through linear parks and networks are vital for supporting and encouraging such activity through various modes of active transport including cycling. This Bicycle Plan has therefore remained cognisant of the conclusions made in the Open Space Plan, including creating opportunities for people to safely pursue cycling through the provision of off-road infrastructure, safer street treatments and linear parks, endeavouring to deliver them where physically and economically possible.
6 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
3.3 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide As the overarching planning framework for Greater Adelaide, the 30 Year Plan sets out the policies and targets aimed at managing growth within the region. The plan advocates active transport and recognises the environmental, economic, health, and social benefits. Overarching objectives particularly relevant to cycling in the City of Port Adelaide Enfield include:
Reducing car use by promoting a more compact and diverse urban form with integrated public transport and pathways for cycling and walking. Integrate off-road shared-use paths, on-road bicycle lanes, footpaths and cycle friendly streets to promote cycling and walking into Structure Plans containing major transit corridors. Promote a highly permeable and connected street network in new growth areas and transit oriented developments to encourage cycling and walking. Ensure transit corridors contain a network of cycle ways, walkways and greenways to provide natural vegetation and create liveable and attractive locations for a diverse population. Create dedicated cycling and walking corridors along major transit corridors to improve access to activity centres, public transport nodes and local cycling and walking routes.
Area specific major projects, policies and targets outlined in the Plan are summarised below:
Prepare precinct requirements for transit-oriented developments, initially for the following priority developments: Bowden Village, Cheltenham/Woodville, Keswick/Wayville, Marion/Oaklands, Noarlunga, Port Adelaide and Tonsley/Bedford Park. Upgrade stations to support higher densities around major transport interchanges, including stations at Noarlunga, Elizabeth, Munno Para, Port Adelaide and Glanville. Designate five fixed-line transit corridors: the Noarlunga train line, Outer Harbor train line, Gawler train line, Glenelg tram line and Adelaide O-Bahn bus way. Undertake Structure Plans for the first two transit corridors, Outer Harbor and Noarlunga, by the end of 2011. Expand the light rail network to the north-west (Port Adelaide and Semaphore).
3.4 Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan The Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan (ITLUP) seeks to facilitate a more vibrant Adelaide and better connected South Australia. The Plan draws attention to active transport through extending cycling networks and catchments, and improving the accessibility and amenity of active transport routes. The table below presents the key objectives from the Draft Plan that relate directly to improving the cycling network within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield.
7 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Public Transport Short Medium Long 1. PortLINK – conversion of the Outer Harbor train line to deliver a new tram service to Outer Harbor and Grange and construct new tram lines to West Lakes and Semaphore 3. ProspectLINK and UnleyLINK – trams along Grand Junction road, along prospect road from Grand Junction road, O’Connell street, through the City to Unley road and Belair road to Mitcham 7. Complete the electrification of the entire Gawler train line in the short term – increase service frequency, staged upgrade of stations over 20 years, and grade separations of rail crossing at key locations such as Torrens Road Area-wide solutions Improve protection for pedestrians at at-grade railway crossings Supply of additional park and rides at key nodal points Roads 11. Complete the North-South Corridor – Northern Connector, road and rail connection to the port - [also included as number 18. under ‘Ports, rail freight and airports’] Cycling and walking 19. Partner with local councils to complete the Gawler Greenway from Salisbury to Grand Junction road 20. Partner with Port Adelaide Enfield Council to complete the Outer Harbor Greenway from Semaphore Road to North Haven 27. Complete provision of bicycle lanes on Main North Road between Munno Para and the City 29. Partner with local councils to upgrade the levels–City Bikeway from Mawson lakes to Regency Road Area-wide solutions Improve walking and cycling facilities in catchment areas for schools Implement bicycle lanes on selected arterial roads Local Government Work with local councils to complete local transport strategies to complement land use directions of local development plans, with a focus on accessible neighbourhoods, integration with public transport networks and state freight/major traffic routes Attractive and convenient pedestrian and cycling connections to public transport stops and stations, including along the revitalised northern and southern rail corridors and O-Bahn Development of shared use linear paths along waterways, coast and public transport corridors Clearways and kerbside and off-street parking provisions, particularly on high streets and along bike routes Access to sporting, entertainment and leisure hubs Local road, pedestrian and cycle networks to reflect and guide precinct planning for areas being revitalised
8 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
4 Review of the Current Bicycle Plan & Network
4.1 Local Area Bicycle Plan 2008-2012 The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Bicycle Plan 2008-2012 was undertaken by Consultants QED. The cycling environment in 2008 was described as discontinuous and difficult to navigate. Very few main roads had bicycle lanes and local road routes intersected with busy roads without protection. There was difficulty crossing the Port River due to the Birkenhead and Jervois Bridges carrying large traffic volumes and heavy vehicles with narrow traffic lanes, which resulted in the River being a significant barrier to cyclists and separating the community for those who wish to cycle. Coast Park and Linear Park were pleasant and well-used by local residents and visitors.
The cycling network that was proposed in the 2008-2012 Bicycle Plan was generally a route based strategy that provided long-distance regional connections, local routes connecting schools, shops, activity hubs as well as other places of interest and focussed on developing a more connected, enjoyable and safer cycling experience in the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. It included short, medium and long-term recommendations. Appendix B summarises a number of recommendations from the previous plan and their current status.
4.2 Cycling Infrastructure 2008 to 2014 An audit of the current cycling network has been undertaken via site inspections, saddle surveys and aerial photograph review. It was found that there has been considerable cyclist infrastructure installed since 2008 by DPTI, Council and Renewal SA that is consistent with the recommendations set out in the 2008-2012 Plan.
Some of the key cycling projects installed include: Outer Harbor Greenway (Figure 5). Semaphore Road on-road lanes and off-road paths (Figure 9). Levels – City Bikeway. Port Adelaide railway yards off-road paths. Perkins Drive, Port Adelaide. Victoria Road bicycle lanes. Victoria Road off-road path, Outer Harbor. Kardi-Yarta off-road path, Outer Harbor. Gallipoli Drive bicycle lanes. Port River Expressway sealed shoulders. Port Road bicycle lanes. Mersey Road bicycle lanes. Port Loop (by Renewal SA, Figure 6). Hart Street (west end) advisory bike lanes. Swan Tce (Semaphore, Glanville and Exeter) advisory bike lanes. Bower Road / Grand Junction Road bicycle lanes. DPTI bicycle lanes: Churchill Road, Regency Road, Hampstead Road, Briens Road, Fosters Road, North East Road and Muller Road. South Road Superway (Bicycle infrastructure is still being completed at time of writing this report).
9 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
It was noted that only a few of the Advisory Treatment routes had been installed, such as Swan Terrace. Advisory treatments consist of bicycle logos along the cycling network but are not formal bicycle lanes. The logos guide the route for cyclists and raise awareness of their presence to motorists. They are usually recommended on local streets with low traffic volume and speed, or in some cases where road widths are insufficient for bicycle lanes. Advisory treatments were recommended on the majority of the 2008-2012 secondary road cycling network.
Figure 10 illustrates the cycling infrastructure that currently exists and demonstrates that the City of Port Adelaide Enfield has improved significantly for cycling network connectivity and infrastructure since 2008. Some of the major cycle routes are described below.
4.2.1 Outer Harbor Greenway The Outer Harbor Greenway is currently being completed and will provide a low-risk, direct, continuous and enjoyable cycling link from the City of Adelaide to Port Adelaide and the Lefevre Peninsula (Figure 5). The 20km route links the Adelaide Parklands (Linear Park) to Coast Park at Outer Harbor. It follows local streets alongside the Outer Harbor railway line before diverging through Port Adelaide and across the Birkenhead Bridge. Key components of the Greenway within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield include:
The cycle path along Semaphore Rd (Fletcher Rd to Mead Street). Inner Harbour Loop Path, including Birkenhead and Jervois Bridge Paths (Figure 6). The loop path provides a 2.2km route around the Inner Harbour and facilitates important cyclist access links to the greater cycling network on both sides of the river.
Upgraded underpass at Grand Junction Road (Figure 7). Path upgrade at Alberton Rail Station (an existing path between Fussell Place and Station Place will be widened). Queen St, Alberton – cycling link through road closure. Path upgrade through the Aviation Museum area. There are some gaps that prevent this route being continuous, which have been addressed in this Plan. However since the release of the draft version of the document for consultation, several actions have already been undertaken (in 2015) to complete the Outer Harbor Greenway, including:
Outer Harbor Greenway -shared path upgrade through railway yards adjacent Aviation Museum (Lipson St-Henry St).
Outer Harbor Greenway -Fussell Pl – Station Pl, Alberton off road shared path. Outer Harbor Greenway Sharrows (whole route in Council area). Outer Harbor Greenway – upgraded off road link, Strathfield Tce-Wandana Ave, Taperoo. Outer Harbor Greenway – new link through Queen St road closure at Alberton.
10 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Figure 5: Outer Harbor Greenway route Figure 6: Inner Harbour Loop Path
Figure 7: Underpass upgrade (Grand Junction Figure 8: Cross section over Diver Derrick Bridge Road/Greenway)
Source (clockwise from top left): DPTI, RenewalSA, DPTI and Google Maps 2014.
11 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
4.2.2 River Torrens Linear Park Originally established for flood mitigation in 1982, the River Torrens Linear Park (RTLP) has since been transformed in to a popular recreational and commuter off-road cyclist route. It also allows for easy cyclist access to the O-Bahn interchanges at Klemzig and Paradise, where bicycle lockers are provided. The City of Port Adelaide Enfield is fortunate to have the shared path trail form part of its eastern boundary.
The popularity of the RTLP has far surpassed its original function and design and does not have sufficient width to cater for the high volumes and diversity of users, which range from high speed cyclist commuters to relaxed walkers. There are opportunities for more way finding and directional signage to be installed to show the accessibility and relatively short distances to points of interest.
In 2012, the River Torrens Linear Park Coordinating Committee was formed that comprises State and local governments, including the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. A Memorandum of Understanding was prepared that aims to promote and foster a cooperative approach to the management and development of the entire RTLP. It is recommended that the City of Port Adelaide Enfield continue to work with the coordinating committee and allocate funds each year to incrementally upgrade the shared path trail.
4.2.3 Port River Expressway The Port River Expressway carries approximately 30,000 vehicles per day and is signed at 90km/h. There is a shared path on the southern side of the Expressway between Victoria Road and Eastern Parade that crosses the Port River via the Diver Derrick Bridge (Figure 8). East of Eastern Parade, the cycling facilities consist of sealed shoulders with bicycle logos and signage at crossing points. The guidelines for cycling facilities recommend that a separated path should be provided on roads with traffic volumes and speeds such as this (Figure 17). There is sufficient road reserve width for a path to be constructed alongside the Expressway and it is recommended that Council and DPTI explore this.
4.2.4 Coast Park Coast Park is a State Government initiative, in partnership with the six metropolitan coast councils to develop a continuous 70km linear park along the Adelaide coastline from North Haven to Sellicks Beach. Construction began in 1992 and more than half has since been developed, with completion expected in 2020.
Most sections of Coast Park comprise the following facilities:
A shared pedestrian/cycling path or boardwalk. Benches and picnic areas. Toilets (some with change rooms and showers). Motorised vehicle and bicycle parking.
12 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
4.2.5 Semaphore Road Cycling facilities provided on Semaphore Road are a good example of providing for confident cyclists as well as encouraging less confident cyclists to ride. The on-road lanes cater for riders who prefer fast, direct routes and are confident to ride next to traffic. The separated bicycle paths provide for people who would like to ride but do not feel comfortable riding with traffic. The vibrant environment of Semaphore Road with shops, cafes, cinemas and leading to a beach is an ideal location to provide this dual cycling treatment. The path extends the experience of recreational cycling along Coast Park to a shopping, dining experience on bike, and further connects to Outer Harbor Greenway resulting in a significant regional cycling experience that is not only enjoyable but also links to important destinations.
Figure 9: Semaphore Road on-road lane and off-road path.
13 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
4.2.6 40km/h Area Zones The Plan recommended that 40km/h area precincts be considered in built-up areas, particularly the Port Adelaide Centre.
40km/h zones have been implemented on St Vincent Street, Port Adelaide (Commercial Road-Nelson Street) and Semaphore Road, Semaphore (Military Road – Esplanade). (Council is considering expanding this to include Dale St and Church St around the retail/commercial precinct). 40km/h precincts are being considered throughout all of Hillcrest and Oakden (bounded by North East Road, Sudholz Road, Fosters Road and Grand Junction Road). 40km/h precinct will be considered in the Kilburn area (bounded by Churchill Road, Prospect Road, Way Street and Palmer Avenue) following implementation of other Local Area Traffic Management.
4.2.7 LATM’s A Local Area Traffic Management scheme is being progressively installed throughout Birkenhead.
Other schemes are being / to be developed in North Haven, Kilburn, Greenacres, Clearview/Enfield and Rosewater.
14 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Figure 10: Map of existing main road cycling network. Source: InfraPlan 2014
15 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
4.3 Cycling Catchments The perception of travel time and distance can be significant in encouraging people to cycle. It is widely accepted that a 10 minute ride can cover 2km (at a slow average speed of 12 km/h). As a way of illustrating the potential convenience of cycling within Port Adelaide Enfield, Figure 11 shows 10 minute cycling catchments around some of the major shopping centres and high streets.
Given the 10 minute proximity to a shopping precinct for a majority of Port Adelaide Enfield residents, there is significant cycling potential across the local area. Land use in the east and coastal west is predominantly residential, reflecting suburban characteristics and function. The industrial central region, as depicted in the map below presents a unique barrier, as it is comparatively barren of cycling conducive attractors. This region is also crisscrossed by heavy vehicles and high traffic flows, with significant linear infrastructure (major roads, rail lines etc.) providing the most direct route opportunities and further fragmenting the area, particularly for east-west cyclist movement.
16 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Figure 11: Map showing 2km (10 minute) cycling catchments from shopping precincts within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. Source: InfraPlan 2014.
17 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
4.4 Intersection Bicycle Counts DPTI regularly undertake counts of cyclists at signalised intersections and roundabouts as well as other strategic locations. The cyclist data is not always accurate as some cyclists are not picked up, for example some cyclists may use the footpath to avoid traffic at intersections and therefore are not counted. However, these counts are useful to highlight the popular cycling networks and give some indication of busier intersections for cyclists. These figures can also be correlated with the incident data to highlight conflict points that may require a higher priority in addressing (Figure 12).
Some counts undertaken on routes under significant long-term construction, such as South Road may not be an accurate reflection of true usage due to thoroughfares being closed, detoured or obstructed.
4.4.1 Super Sunday Cyclist Counts In 2013 Port Adelaide Enfield took part in the Super Sunday Recreation Cyclist Counts. The purpose of the participation surveys is to provide a snap-shot of the usage of recreation trails within the Council area, and enables Council to understand the usage of the recreational network. Five locations were counted between 9am and 1pm on the 10th November, 2013:
Coast Trail (corner of Wandana Tce, Taperoo): 203 people were recorded, which included 99 cyclists, 57 walkers and 32 runners. On average there were 25 cyclists per hour. Coast Trail (corner of Harrold Tce, Largs Bay): 379 people were recorded, which included 118 cyclists, 143 walkers and 47 runners. On average there were 30 cyclists per hour. Coast Trail (corner of Bower Rd, Semaphore): 363 people were recorded, which included 125 cyclists, 142 walkers and 27 runners. On average there were 31 cyclists per hour. River Torrens Linear Park (Paradise): 109 people were recorded, which included 51 cyclists, 29 walkers and 7 runners. On average there were 13 cyclists per hour. River Torrens Linear Park (Klemzig): 218 people were recorded, which included 144 cyclists, 39 walkers and 18 runners. On average there were 36 cyclists per hour.
Overall, people on bicycles represented 42%, walkers comprised 32% and runners comprised 10% of movements recorded across the 5 survey sites.
18 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Figure 12: Map showing intersection bicycle counts in the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. Source: InfraPlan 2014. Data: DPTI 2014.
19 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
4.5 Cyclist Collisions Incidents of reported crashes have risen significantly for the period 2009-2013 (386) compared to the period 2002-2006 (112). The previous Local Area Bicycle Plan acknowledged a lack of incident recordings at the time, particularly where no casualty was involved. Therefore, the large increase in recordings may be due in part to increases in the reporting of crashes that had no casualty (212 crashes reported in this period had no reported injury) as well as increasing numbers of cyclists on the road. 304 of the 386 reported incidents occurred on weekdays. Cyclist incident cluster locations, which are designated by 2 or more incidents within a confined locality, have been identified on Figure 13.
4.5.1 Incident summary for period 2009-2013 Injury summary: One fatality, 27 serious injuries (23 incidents), 154 minor injuries (150 incidents) and 212 property damage only. Crash type summary: 183 (47%) Right angle, 97 (25%) side swipe and 42 (11%) Right turn. Error summary: 251 incidents (65%) included a failure to give way, failure to stand or failure to obey stop and give way signs, 45 (12%) due to inattention and 28 (7%) lane change to endanger. Fault summary: in 97 cases (25%) the cyclist was at fault with 7 cases (<2%) unknown fault. Most crashes between cyclists and vehicles occur because of a ‘failure to give way’ and ‘fail to stand’ (nearly 60% of all crashes) and as ‘right angle’ crashes, with vehicles at fault a majority of the time. These types of crashes are heavily represented in the crash statistics as there are a multitude of ways they can occur. The following link provides a summary (with examples) of all of the possible ‘failure to give way’ infringements. http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/road-rules/the-drivers- handbook/giving-way (although only several examples identify cyclists, all of the examples are relevant for the purpose of assessing vehicle/cyclist crashes).
Incidents of ‘failure to give way’ and ‘fail to stand’ crashes can be reduced by:
Vehicles approaching intersections with caution: vehicles should look specifically for cyclists at intersections, specifically at the kerb-verge or at the verge of travel lanes where cyclists are more likely to be positioned. If there are sight obstacles (such as parked cars, stobie poles or vegetation) extra care should be taken to look for cyclists. Cyclists could wear brighter or ‘high-visibility’ clothing so they are more visible to drivers. Raising motorist awareness that cyclists may be present – by the installation of bicycle lanes, coloured green lanes in areas of high conflict and signage.
4.5.2 Noted Incident Clusters Lady Gowrie Drive / Marmora Drive, North Haven: 3 incidents resulting in 3 minor injuries and one property damage only. All involved vehicles failing to give way or to stand at the T-junction with Marmora Drive.
Esplanade, Semaphore (near Semaphore Road): Four incidents recorded in a 75m length of the Esplanade, south of Semaphore Road. Marked on-road cycle lanes on both sides of the Esplanade, except at the roundabouts. Incidents in which the cyclist was not at fault include opening a car door, side swipe and failure to give way.
20 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Bower Road / Swan Terrace, Semaphore South (edge of council area): 2 incidents, both resulting in injury, one serious and one minor (cyclist at fault). Both incidents were caused by failure to obey a stop sign at the Bower Rd T-junction.
Causeway Road, Semaphore South: 7 incidents, all involving a failure to yield at T-junctions resulted in 1 serious and four minor injuries. Five of the incidents were on Causeway Road at junctions with minor roads and service roads while two were at the T-junction of Bower Road and Causeway Road. In no cases was the cyclist at fault.
Eastern Parade, Ottoway: Two incidents at the cross roads of Eastern Parade and May Terrace the result of disobeying a stop sign resulting in one serious and one minor injury. Cyclist not at fault.
First Avenue, Woodville Gardens: Two incidents were reported at the junction of Gray Street and First Avenue. In one case, a motorist’s failure to obey a stop sign resulted in a minor injury, in the other cyclist inattention caused property damage. Five incidents resulting in injury were reported along First Avenue, Kilkenny between Hanson Road and Hassell Street.
Churchill Road / Carroll Ave / Northcote Street, Kilburn: Five incidents were reported at the cross junction of Churchill Road and Northcote Street / Carroll Avenue. These included one fatality (cyclist at fault), one serious injury (cyclist at fault) and two minor injuries as a result of motorists failing to obey a stop sign on Northcote Street.
Main North Road, Blair Athol: A cluster of seven reported incidents around side roads Audrey Avenue, Warwick Street and Barton Street resulted in three minor and one serious injury as a result of failure to stand or give way at T-junctions and unsafe overtaking or lane changing. There is no cycling infrastructure in this area, but there is extensive on road parallel parking. No incidents were attributed to fault of the cyclist.
Main North Road, Sefton Park (shared with Prospect CC): A cluster of incidents north of Regency Road to Collins Street appear on the map of reported crashes but some may have occurred in the Prospect City Council area. Four incidents found on the Crash Data spreadsheet are attributable to failure to give way or stand at T-junctions from minor roads, resulting in three minor and one serious injury. One of these incidents was found to be the fault of the cyclist and resulted in a minor injury.
Grand Junction Road, Montrose Avenue and Clearview: Two reported incidents at the T-junction with protected right turn lane in Grand Junction Road. One case of inattention resulted in a minor injury and one instance of failure to give way causing a side swipe and property damage. In both cases the cyclist was not at fault.
Grand Junction Road from Briens / Hampstead Road Intersection to Vickers-Vimy Parade, Northgate: A total of five reported incidents along this 1,100m section of Grand Junction Road with a central island and protected right turns from Grand Junction Road. Grand Junction Road has marked, on road cycle lanes east of the Hampstead / Briens Roads intersection. The five incidents occurred where Gray Street and Vickers-Vimy Parade form T-junctions with Grand Junction Road and resulted in four minor injuries and one incident of property damage only. Reasons for the incidents include three failure to give way and two failure to stand, none were the fault of the cyclist.
Prospect Road Pedestrian Refuge (south of Marmion Avenue): Although not a cluster, this location was the site of a serious crash involving school children crossing the road. This crossing provides access for pedestrians and cyclists to Blair Athol North Primary School and requires a safety review.
21 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
4.6 Traffic Count and Crash Cluster Relationships While all incident clusters should be reviewed by Council as a matter of urgency, assessing their direct correlation to cyclist volumes can provide a general overview of the locations risk. Clusters are likely to form in areas where there is high cyclist traffic, as there is greater potential for an accident to occur due to human error. Where clusters form in areas with lower cyclist volumes, the likelihood of the location having external or environmental hazards increases. These locations must be reviewed by Council to ascertain if improvements can be made to the surrounding environments to reduce the risk of further accidents. The map in Figure 13 layers the identified incident clusters and cyclist counts from the DPTI data presented in this chapter.
Identified examples where cyclist crash clusters align with low cyclist volumes include:
Intersection of Hanson Road and First Avenue, adjacent Arndale Shopping Centre, Kilkenny. Intersection of Grand Junction Road and South Road, Wingfield (up to date figures may be required since the completion of the elevated South Road Superway). Intersection of Sudholz Road and Ross Smith Boulevard, adjacent Gilles Plains TAFE, Oakden. It is recommended that Council seek to collect comprehensive and up to date cyclist counts of the Council area to produce increasingly thorough reviews and investigate locations where there is conflict between motor vehicles and cyclists and develop solutions for improvements.
Where cyclist crash clusters exist at locations specifically identified in the 1-5 Year action plan, it is recommended that council undertake a detailed cycling safety audit with specific regard to crossing points, road surface and sight-obstructions (such as parked vehicles or fixed objects). The historical crash type may provide some insight into the issue, and should be reviewed in conjunction with the site safety audit.
4.7 Cycling infrastructure on DPTI Managed Roads The main road cycling routes are those designated on the DPTI Bikedirect maps and are mostly located on State Government (DPTI) managed roads. They have several functions that need to be considered, including public transport, freight, mixed use activity, pedestrians, cyclists and private vehicle traffic.
Council does not have the authority to install cycling infrastructure on roads that are managed by DPTI. However, these arterial roads often provide the most direct route and therefore form an integral component of the proposed cycling network, particularly for experienced, higher speed commuter cyclists. When volume and speed synchronously increase, so does the degree of separation required between cyclists and motorists. This can influence the types of treatments that are desired within the proposed network.
22 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Figure 13: Map showing the incident cluster locations and cyclist counts. Source: InfraPlan 2014. Data: DPTI 2014.
23 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
5 Recent Projects
Since the 2007 bicycle plan, a number of major developments that will effect cycling networks, behaviours and concentrations of varying skill levels have been completed, are under construction or within the planning and approval phase. This revised plan has remained cognisant of these developments. This section outlines some of the major projects that have been considered.
5.1 Recent Major Developments Lightsview
Located entirely within the suburb of Northgate, Lightsview is 8km north-east of the Adelaide City Centre. Bound by Folland Avenue to the north, Fosters Road to the east, Redward Avenue to the south and Hampstead Road to the west, once complete the development is envisaged to comprise 2,200 new dwellings. Desired objectives include integrating a future village centre, pedestrian linkages, public transport, cycling routes and 15 hectares of public reserves. The Lightsview developers are pro-active to promote cycling and provide bicycle hire facilities.
The current Bikedirect network envelopes the site, with Main Road – Bike Lane/Shoulders on Hampstead and Fosters Roads, Secondary Road – Bike Lane/Shoulders on Folland Avenue and Secondary Road access on Redward Avenue. According to the Master Plan, the proposed movement network incorporates a range of new streets and lanes, particularly around the planned Village Centre located in the north-eastern corner of the site. This network has been designed to increase active transit permeability, but seeks to constrain motor vehicle traffic speeds in key areas.
Newport Quays
Situated on the western bank of the Port River’s historic Inner Harbor, the Newport Quays development is located approximately 1km west of Port Adelaide and 13km north-west of the Adelaide City Centre. The site is bound by Semaphore Road to the north, the Port River to the east, Bower Road to the south and the Outer Harbor railway line immediately to the west. The development area is intersected by Hart Street, which continues as Jervois Bridge to link the Lefevre Peninsula and Port Adelaide. The Ethelton Railway Station directly abuts the development site.
The new shared path (Port Loop, refer Figure 6) is located adjacent to Newport Quays. Existing Bikedirect connections exist on Bower Road (Main Road – Bike Lane/Shoulder) and an off-road unsealed path that connects the Ethelton Railway Station to Bower Road. As at the time of review, all other adjacent connections via Semaphore Road, Causeway Road and Hart Street are identified as Main Roads without enhanced bicycle infrastructure.
Bayriver
Bayriver is a new residential development located within the suburb of Largs North on the Lefevre Peninsula. It is approximately 18km north-west of the Adelaide City Centre and 800m from the Draper Railway Station on the Outer Harbor line. The site is bordered by Strathfield Terrace to the north, an industrial railway line and the Port River to the east, Wandilla Street in the south and existing development to the west. The existing division plan yields 127 lots (116 standard and 11 medium density). The current Bikedirect network consists of Secondary Road provisions on Strathfield Terrace, which links directly west to Victoria Road, which has Main Road – Bike
24 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Lane/Shoulder infrastructure. As part of this development a new North-South shared path was constructed parallel to the freight rail line.
Techport Australia
Techport Australia is a naval industrial precinct located within the suburb of Osborne on the eastern edge of the Lefevre Peninsula. Once complete the site will serve as a significant employment centre in Adelaide’s north-west. Currently, the site is accessible by Mersey Road North to the west and Veitch Road to the south. The Bikedirect map shows existing connections along both roads as Secondary Roads comprising no enhanced bicycle infrastructure. This may be improved over time as the precinct develops and should be monitored. The area has bicycle lanes and paths on and off road on Mersey Road and some of Veitch Rd.
Lipson Industrial Estate (Gillman)
The estate is located 12 kilometres from the Adelaide CBD and 7 kilometres from Outer Harbor and is adjacent to the interstate freight rail line and major road networks including the Port River and Northern Expressways and the recently developed South Road Superway. The land has been earmarked in the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide as a future industrial land supply. The Lipson Estate covers a total site area of 450 hectares with final built form area of 200 hectares. Renewal SA has prepared a Master Plan that includes off-road and on-road cycle routes (Figure 14).
Figure 14: Draft master plan of the Lipson Industrial Estate at Gillman, including provisions for cycling.
Source: Renewal SA 2014
25 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Dry Creek Mixed Use Development (Cheethams Salt Pans)
Although this proposed development will be predominantly within the City of Salisbury LGA, the scale of this project at the boundary of Port Adelaide Enfield is likely to have an impact on local traffic movement, mode and behaviour. The mixed use proposal at Dry Creek (Cheethams salt pans site) is estimated to comprise 10,000 new dwellings for 20,000 people, a new town centre, marina and salt water recreation lake.
New Schools
Since 2010, four of the State Government’s six new PPP schools have been developed within the Port Adelaide Enfield Council area. The project as a whole saw the consolidation of 20 existing schools and preschools. This process would have facilitated a significant change in the travel patterns of students, staff and families within each school’s catchment. The four new schools within Port Adelaide Enfield are:
Adelaide West Special Education Centre, Moldavia Walk, Taperoo. Blair Athol North School, Marmion Avenue, Blair Athol. Roma Mitchell Secondary College, Briens Road, Gepps Cross. Woodville Gardens School, Ridley Grove, Woodville Gardens. Since the previous bicycle plan was adopted, the construction of these schools has warranted amendments to existing bicycle routes or completely new connections. As part of this cycle network review, it is important to acknowledge the impact they may have on existing bicycle infrastructure and network connections, and the effects they will have on mode share, travel behaviour and the influx of cyclists of varying skill levels.
International Bird Sanctuary
The Dry Creek salt fields have recently become an international sanctuary for migratory shorebirds. The 60 kilometre long sanctuary extends from the Barker Inlet to Port Parham in the north to create a green corridor along the Gulf St Vincent coast, which will help to improve the local environment through better air and water quality. It is expected to benefit the economy by generating tourism of bird enthusiasts from around the world. 5.2 Recent Major Transport Projects Port River Expressway
Completed in 2008, the Port River Expressway is a 5.5 kilometre freeway-grade road comprising four lanes and connects Port Adelaide and the Lefevre Peninsula to Adelaide’s northern suburbs and major metropolitan and interstate routes, including South Road, Port Wakefield Road and the Salisbury Highway. The Expressway carries in excess of 30,000 vehicles per day and has a 90km/h speed limit.
South Road Superway
The Superway is a non-stop corridor of approximately 4.8 kilometres, comprising an elevated roadway of around 2.8 kilometres in length and 6 lanes in width (3 in each direction) positioned above the existing South Road alignment. Vehicle speeds range from 90km/h on the elevated section, and 60km/h at ground level. Located entirely within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, the Superway connects the Port River Expressway to Regency Road. Pedestrian and cycling
26 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd infrastructure has been provided along South Road at ground level as well as on nearby service and local roads. 5.3 Recent upgrades/improvements to the Cycling Network (2015) Since the release of the Draft of this Plan and during the period of consultation, Port Adelaide Enfield has been proactively implementing several projects for improving/upgrading the existing cycling network. Some of these projects were reflected in the initial draft of the Plan, but have since been updated to reflect the upgrades. Specifically the projects undertaken include:
Addison Road Bike Lanes. Grand Junction Road crossing improvement for Levels-City Bike Route. Swanson Link (short section of ramp to connect Lurline Ave and Swanson St through the park). New off road shared path through Harold Tyler Reserve (Cardigan Rd – Cowan St). Outer Harbor Greenway -shared path upgrade through railway yards adjacent Aviation Museum (Lipson St-Henry St). Outer Harbor Greenway -Fussell Pl – Station Pl, Alberton off road shared path. Outer Harbor Greenway Sharrows (whole route in Council area). Outer Harbor Greenway – upgraded off road link, Strathfield Tce-Wandana Ave, Taperoo. Outer Harbor Greenway – new link through Queen St road closure at Alberton. St Vincent St – Nelson St- Jervois Bridge new bike lanes currently being constructed by DPTI/ Renewal SA. Elder Road and Stirling St Birkenhead new crossing / ramp from off road shared path to Elder Road.
27 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
6 Consultation
During the Plan’s development, InfraPlan undertook a consultation and engagement program to collaborate with local residents, businesses, community groups and other stakeholders, such as DPTI and adjoining councils. The aim of which was to add to the understanding of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield’s character, enhance knowledge of both the local area and the existing cycle network, and collect valuable contributions toward developing the 2014/15-2019/20 network. The outcomes of such processes have been pertinent in reflecting community desires and concerns, as well as developing the vision and recommendations put forward in this Plan. A separate report summarising the comments/observations from the community consultation undertakings was drafted to detail the process and its outputs. Summaries of each of the undertakings are detailed in this chapter.
6.1 Consultation Workshop A: 30 July 2014, Hillcrest Community Centre The intention of this stakeholder workshop was to critically assess the work undertaken by the consultant team to date and identify network issues, hotspots and opportunities. This session facilitated the transition of valuable network information as well as providing the opportunity for respondents to have a direct input in the development of the Plan. The focus of the workshop included: Building upon the network audit. Assess the first draft of the Plan. The extent and nature of cycling in the area. The cycling requirements and desires of the community. Factors that encourage and/or inhibit cycling. Missing links and problem areas. Locations for parking and other end-trip facilities.
Main outcomes of the stakeholder workshop included: A comprehensive list of existing gaps in the cycling network at the local level (crossing points, missing links, local connections) as well as the identification of a lack of east-west metropolitan routes across the Council area. Recognition of the unique nature of cycling across the Port Adelaide Enfield area, specifically that the local government area has varied and diverse communities with unique demographics, urban form, severance and infrastructure provisions. Recognition that both infrastructure and developing a ‘cycling culture’ are important components in encouraging more people to cycle.
28 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
6.2 Consultation Workshop B: 13 August 2014, Port Adelaide Town Hall A second workshop was undertaken with government stakeholders, including DPTI Office of Cycling and Walking and Metro Region Community Programs and Traffic and Access Standards along with relevant staff from the City of Port Adelaide Enfield’s traffic, community development and strategic planning divisions. The aim of this workshop was to determine the vision and principles of the Plan, define the roles that Council will need to undertake to deliver it, build upon the Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat (SWOT) analysis and workshop the cycling network following Consultation A.
The overarching purpose of this workshop was to reaffirm and refine the strategic aspects of the Bike Plan. Key topics of the consultation included: Critically assessing the first draft of the Plan. Acceptable standards and proposed designs (given new design standards had recently been trialled, such as ‘sharrows’ and ‘bicycle boulevards’ concepts). Funding opportunities for projects and initiatives. Network opportunities and intentions (further exploration of Greenways and Bikeways networks).
Main outcomes of the stakeholder workshop included: Confirmation of the latest design and implementation practices including the encouragement of enhanced bicycle lanes, Streets for People concepts, speed reduction in local areas and bicycle logo placement in the centre of travel lanes to strengthen cyclist position on the road. Recognition of network gaps and requirement to progress/complete the Greenways network, including Gawler Greenway, Levels-City Bikeway and the Port River Expressway Path. Determining opportunities for continued and broadened commitment to travel behaviour change programs, such as the BikeEd and Way2Go programs with local schools.
6.3 Elected Members Workshop: 17th September 2014, Port Adelaide Town Hall An Elected Members workshop was held to continue the engagement process and provide the opportunity for Port Adelaide Enfield Councillors to have input into the Draft Plan. A presentation of introductory findings, outcomes from community consultation and an overview of the network strategy facilitated open discussion. The workshop affirmed the commitment by Council to develop the Local Area Bicycle Plan which aims to provide an integrated and sustainable transport system that will improve cyclist safety, increase the number of cyclists, connect communities and raise the status of cycling as an enjoyable, respected and legitimate form of transport.
Main outcomes of the Elected Members workshop included:
Reducing pedestrian and cyclist conflicts of shared use paths, specifically Coast Park and the River Torrens Linear Trail: both cyclists and pedestrians are required to demonstrate
29 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
courtesy to other path users and etiquette protocols may need to be promoted. Specific actions for consideration included addressing conflict point at the Palais on Coast Park and encouraging ‘faster’ cyclists to use alternative and adjacent routes (such as Esplanade Rd). Identification of network opportunities or mapping over sites, specifically Fosters Road, Northgate (missing from map) and Pelican Point Road (opportunity to promote as alternative to Esplanade for training cyclists). The need for cross-jurisdictional co-operation and engagement: the potential for a metropolitan wide local government cycling plan may provide some usefulness in developing cross-jurisdictional route selection. Potential to inform debate and advocate change, specifically the potential to encourage broader thinking on who should be allowed to cycle on footpaths (currently, children 12 and under are permitted, together with any adults accompanying them but could be expanded to include seniors or all school-aged children).
6.4 Direct Stakeholder Engagement InfraPlan also engaged with additional stakeholders directly, whose input was understood to be valuable in creating a well-connected and legible network at both local and metropolitan scales. Direct consultations included:
Consulting with adjoining councils to ensure the new network is well-connected and cognisant of nearby projects being undertaken: o Campbelltown; Charles Sturt; Norwood, Payneham and St Peters; Prospect; Salisbury; Tea Tree Gully and Walkerville. Surveying schools within the council area to identify the preferred cycling routes and assess network issues and opportunities for students who cycle or would like to cycle but do not.
30 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
InfraPlan also consulted directly with the Port Adelaide Bicycle Users Group (through the Community Workshop, and ongoing feedback and communication). The Port Adelaide Bicycle Users Group (http://portadbug.org/) provided valuable feedback during the development of the suggested network, and given their first-hand experience across the cycling network were able to suggest locations/links which require improvement. Many of the suggestions from the Bicycle Users Group (provided in two detailed submissions) have been incorporated into the Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan, including:
New Greenway opportunities (Port River Expressway, Dry Creek Trail and Outer Harbour Loop Pathway). Main Road infrastructure (including Causeway Road, Hart Street and Military Road). As suggested by the BUG, it is also acknowledged that the Plan is a ‘working document’ which is required to be updated and reviewed to remain relevant.
This Plan also encourages continued engagement with the Port Adelaide BUG, and seeks to establish a Cycling Officer (or similar) within Council who can be a direct point of contact.
6.5 Consultation with adjoining Councils City of Campbelltown
The boundary of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield and the City of Campbelltown comprises a section of the River Torrens Linear Park between Wicks Avenue and just east of Darley Road. The existing City of Campbelltown Local Area Bicycle Plan was prepared in 2007 and is planned for review in the near future. Staff at Campbelltown Council were consulted the following locations were identified as being important cyclist links between the two Council areas.
O-Bahn Track Holden Hill to Paradise (Pedestrian / Bicycle River crossing). Darley Road Windsor Gardens to Paradise Road (Road Bridge). River Torrens Linear Park Greenglade Drive, Paradise to Moore Street, Windsor Gardens (Pedestrian /Bicycle River crossing). River Torrens Linear Park James St, Campbelltown to Windsor Grove, Windsor Gardens (Pedestrian /Bicycle River crossing). O-Bahn Track Lochiel Parkway, Campbelltown to Andrea Way, Klemzig (Pedestrian / Bicycle River crossing).
City of Tea Tree Gully
The boundary of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield and the City of Tea Tree Gully follows Grand Junction Rd, Wandana Ave, Tarton Rd, Kittle Rd and then south to the Torrens River. The existing City of Tea Tree Gully Local Area Bicycle Plan was reviewed in 2006. Staff at Tea Tree Gully were consulted and the following key points were raised:
TTG have focussed recently on the Dry Creek Separated Path, which starts in Wynn Vale (TTG) and follows Dry Creek and links into Port Adelaide Enfield for a 600m section of separated path to Grand Junction Rd adjacent Valley View Golf Course. TTG have previously raised with PAE the potential for Wandana Ave to have some form of cyclist facility, and would like to continue this discussion.
31 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
The key cycling routes across the boundaries of Port Adelaide Enfield and Tea Tree Gully are:
Brookvale Road, which has good cycling facilities (bike lanes) with no identified requirement for improved integration or crossing points at the council boundaries location. Lyons Road, which has good cycling facilities (bike lanes) with no identified requirement for improved integration or crossing points at the council boundaries location. Grand Junction Road, which has bike lanes. Any improvements/suggestions at this location will need to be negotiated with DPTI. Tasman Road (TTG) into Hawker Ave (PAE) which are identified as Secondary Roads without facilities on the Bike Direct Maps. Has the potential implementing a Pedestrian/Cyclist Crossing point on Wandana Ave to improve crossing.
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield and the City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters share only a small common boundary, along the Torrens River in Klemzig. The City of NPSP are currently implementing their 2013 City-Wide Bicycle Plan and there are no identified actions of relevance for the integration of cycling between the two councils. The two cycling routes of significance between the two councils are:
Linear Trail along the Torrens River (a complete route that requires only ongoing maintenance). OG Road (a DPTI road with bike lanes). City of Salisbury
The cities of Salisbury and Port Adelaide Enfield share a significant boundary to the north east of the Port Adelaide Enfield Council area. The City of Salisbury are currently finalising their 2014 Cycling and Walking Plan. The cycling routes currently shared across the council boundaries include:
Down Drive (existing network without infrastructure). Paul Drive (existing network without infrastructure). Walkleys Road (main road without infrastructure). Briens Road (main road without infrastructure). Off-road shared path from Grand Junction Rd to South Tce in Gepps Cross (adjacent Velodrome). Main North Road (existing main road with bicycle lanes). Port Wakefield Road (existing main road without bicycle lanes). Churchill Rd North (existing main road without bicycle lanes). Salisbury Highway (existing main road with bicycle lanes). Between Pauls Drive and Bridge Rd, the Dry Creek Trail runs adjacent to the council boundaries and is predominantly in the City of Salisbury, however at certain points the path crosses into PAE.
Proposed infrastructure across boundaries include:
Proposed off-road shared path adjacent Salisbury Highway. Dry Creek Path (adjacent Rail line). Proposed off-road shared path adjacent Briens Road. Proposed off-road shared path adjacent Walkleys Road. Northern Connector Shared Path (future by DPTI).
32 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
The City of Charles Sturt
The City of Charles Sturt and Port Adelaide Enfield share a significant boundary, which zig-zags through the suburbs from Devon Park to Semaphore. The recently drafted City of Charles Sturt Strategy for Walking and Cycling identifies several actions that are relevant and intersect with the Port Adelaide Enfield Cycling Network. Specific actions include:
Completion of additional sections of the Coast Park around Tennyson. Progressing the Greenway along the Outer Harbor railway corridor (now completed within the City of Charles Sturt with the exception of crossing South Road). The facility provides a continuous cycle and pedestrian route to the CBD via the Park Lands.
As well as the greenways, there are also local routes (identified in BikeDirect) that cross the two Council boundaries. Where possible, Port Adelaide Enfield Council will ensure the connections are contiguous and identified with Advisory Logos.
There are also two recognised actions with in the Action Plan Summary in this document (Chapter 14) which are relevant to the City of Charles Sturt and require cross-jurisdictional co-operation:
Action 15.12: Liaise with the City of Charles Sturt to upgrade the shared path on Old Port Road and Bower Road. Action 27: Install cyclist refuge in existing median at Bower Road (liaise/work with City of Charles Sturt), refer to Figure 25 for location. 6.6 Consultation on Draft Report Following the detailed consultation program, the Draft Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan was open to public consultation in early 2015 for a 6 week period. This consultation provided the opportunity for the community to provide detailed feedback on the Plan. Although this was an open consultation and all parties were invited to provide specific or generalised comments, the following questions were posed to the community to guide feedback;
- Do you currently ride a bicycle? - Why do you ride? - Is there anything that prevents you from cycling? - What do you think is the most important thing that Council can do to encourage and promote cycling in our Council area? - Please provide feedback and comments about the Bicycle Plan. During this consultation period, 9 general community responses were submitted, and a further two detailed responses from the Heart Foundation and the Port Adelaide Bicycle Users Group were received. Where appropriate, the feedback provided from this consultation has been included into this final version of the Plan. It should also be noted that this plan is intended to be reviewed and updated every 5 years to ensure that the Plan remains relevant. This Plan includes the action “Committing to ongoing research: Conduct a review of the Bicycle Plan every five years” which will also afford the opportunity for ongoing and inclusive community consultation.
33 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
34 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
7 Planning the Proposed Network
The proposed cycling network has been developed with the following planning considerations:
The existing Local Area Cycling Plan and the DPTI BikeDirect network. Locations of existing and future greenways and bikeways. Feedback from consultation sessions and Port Adelaide BUG. Useful origins and destinations including shopping centres, schools, rail stations, parks and areas of employment. Using streets that have existing traffic calming measures installed, such as: relocating routes to match up with slower traffic routes where practical. Traffic volumes and speeds. Public transport integration. Bicycle volumes (from DPTI traffic signal data). New and future developments and major road projects. The proposed routes were selected from this analysis, with the proposed network comprising:
A metropolitan network comprising greenways and bikeways. A metropolitan network comprising main roads. A neighbourhood network that link to the metropolitan network. Local links that connect to neighbourhood routes. Fine-grained accessibility at centres.
Metropolitan Routes: Greenways/Bikeways
Function Connects metropolitan regions through the City of Port Adelaide Enfield (e.g., Coast Park: North Haven to Sellicks Beach, Gawler Greenway: Adelaide to Gawler). For longer trips either on a district or metropolitan wide scale along greenways, shared use paths and/or secondary roads with low to moderate traffic volumes. For shorter trips where the origin and destination exist along the route. Accommodates district trips and leisure/recreational cycling. Forms the ‘spine’ of the PAE cycling network, and are fed by the finer grained neighbourhood route networks. Users As a majority of the route is off-road there is a minimised risk of conflicts with car traffic, therefore suitable to a wide variety of cyclists. High speed confident cyclists may prefer alternative direct routes. Features Cyclist separation or mixed streets with low to moderate traffic volume and speed. Utilise off-street path opportunities where possible. Traffic calming devices may be required to facilitate low traffic speeds on roads. Cyclist crossing points where route crosses roadways. Integrated with community and cycling facilities (such as public toilets, water fountains etc.). Signposting to indicate major destinations and distances. Information signage along shared paths to inform users of cyclist/pedestrian etiquette.
35 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Metropolitan Routes: Main Roads
Function Connects metropolitan regions through the City of Port Adelaide (such as Port Adelaide to the City along Port Road). Longer trips either on a district or metropolitan wide scale that can be predominantly taken on arterial roads. Often the most direct route for longer district/metropolitan journeys. Users Confident cyclists (particularly commuters) who prefer the fastest route. Training (recreational) cyclists. Features Major cycling routes along arterial roads. On-road road bicycle lanes. The most direct route.
Neighbourhood Network: Links into Metropolitan Routes
Function Increases the network to be within reach of more dwellings and destinations. Provides key east-west routes. Users All bicycle users accessing local destinations. Bicycle users connecting to/from Metropolitan routes. High speed confident cyclists may prefer alternative direct routes. Features Cyclist separation or mixed streets with low to moderate traffic volume and speed. Utilise off-street path opportunities where possible. Traffic calming devices may be required to facilitate low speeds. Cyclist crossing points where route crosses roadways. Integrated with community and cycling facilities (such as public toilets, water fountains etc.). Signposting to indicate major destinations and distances. Information signage along shared paths to inform users of cyclist/pedestrian etiquette.
Local Links and Fine-grained Access
Function Link to key cyclist destinations that are off the metropolitan or neighbourhood cycling network. Users All bicycle users, particularly to access local destinations. High speed confident cyclists may prefer alternative direct routes. Features Cyclist separation or mixed streets with low to moderate traffic volume and speed. Utilise off-street path opportunities where possible. Traffic calming devices may be required to facilitate low speeds. Cyclist crossing points where a route crosses roadways. Signposting to indicate destinations and distances.
36 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
8 Designing for Cycling
In order to create a comprehensive plan that efficiently builds on the infrastructure already in place, a selection of specific cycling network principles have been considered and are presented in this chapter. It is to be read in conjunction with the Best Practice and Design Toolkit of cycling infrastructure treatments provided in Appendix D. The Toolkit includes best practice and contextual considerations to assist Council in choosing the most appropriate treatments as it expands the cycling network. Best practice treatments should be Council’s first preference, particularly for new developments and strategic plans. However, they are not always possible to retrofit in existing situations or justify financially, and hence a number of solutions have been provided.
The infrastructure treatments in this chapter and Appendix D have been sourced from the following:
Streets for People Compendium For South Australian Practice. Austroads’ suite of guidelines, in particular ‘Guide to Road Design’.
Site specific detailed design is required prior to installation that complies with the following Australian national and South Australian state standards:
AS 1428 Design for Access and Mobility. AS 1742.9 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Bicycle Facilities. AS 2890.3 Parking Facilities – Bicycle Parking. The South Australian Disability Discrimination Act 1992.
As treatments are constantly evolving, some innovative solutions may not be included within these standards. However, this should not dissuade Council from promoting and pursuing adventurous design. Various options (including optimum solutions) should be explored and assessed circumstantially. The United States’ National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide (Second Edition) is one additional reference that may assist Council with the development of such innovative treatments.
As the proposed network is made up of the route hierarchy detailed in Chapter 7, it should be designed for cyclists of varying abilities and experience levels. Table 1 lists the features that should be considered for each cycling route within this network.
Table 1: Bicycle Network Features. Source: Cyclist Aspects of Austroads Guides (2014). Route Feature Comments Minimal risk of traffic related injury, low perceived danger, space to ride, Safety minimum conflict with vehicles. Infrastructure should form a coherent entity, link major trip origins and Coherence destinations, have connectivity, be continuous, signed, consistent in quality, easy to follow, and have route options. Route should be direct, based on desire lines, have low delay through routes Directness for commuting, avoid detours and have efficient operating speeds. Lighting, personal safety, aesthetics, integration with surrounding area, access Attractiveness to different activities. Smooth skid-resistant riding surface, gentle gradients, does not require Comfort complicated manoeuvres, reduced need to stop, minimum obstruction from vehicles.
37 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
8.1 Safe System Approach In Australia, a Safe System approach to road safety has been adopted which recognises that humans, as road users are fallible and will continue to make mistakes, and the community should not penalise people with death or serious injury when they do make mistakes. In a Safe System, roads (and vehicles) are designed to reduce the incidence and severity of crashes when they occur. The Safe System approach requires, in part, the following (Australian Transport Council 2011):
Designing, constructing and maintaining a road system so that forces on the human body generated in crashes are generally less than those resulting in fatal or debilitating injury. Improving roads and roadsides to reduce the risk of crashes and minimise harm: measures for higher-speed roads including dividing traffic, designing ‘forgiving’ roadsides, and providing clear driver guidance. In areas with large numbers of vulnerable road users or substantial collision risk, speed management supplemented by road and roadside treatments is a key strategy for limiting crashes. Managing speeds, taking into account the risks on different parts of the road system.
Figure 15: Australia's Safe System Framework.
Source: Australian Transport Council 2008, adapted by InfraPlan 2014.
38 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
8.2 Traffic Speed and Volume It is important to acknowledge that traffic speed is the single most important factor that affects the amenity, safety (both actual and perceived) and enjoyability of cycling. High traffic speeds not only affect street amenity, but also have serious consequences when a pedestrian or cyclist is involved in a vehicle conflict or accident. Motor vehicles have airbags, crumple zones and seatbelts for protection in the event of a collision, but cyclists remain vulnerable road users. At higher speeds, motorists are less likely to see a pedestrian or cyclist, and are less likely to be able to stop in time to avoid a collision.
Figure 16 illustrates that a collision speed of 60km/h results in a pedestrian/cyclist fatality risk of around 90%. This risk remains significant until the traffic speed is reduced to 30km/h or less.
Figure 16: Pedestrian and cyclist collision speed graph.
Source: Towards Zero Together: South Australia’s Road Safety Strategy 2020 (2011, p. 15).
39 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
As traffic speed and volume increases, so does the required amount of physical separation between cyclists and motorists. Figure 17 demonstrates that separated bicycle infrastructure is not generally required where vehicular speeds are below 40km/h and traffic volumes less than 5,000 vehicles per day. This is a useful tool that identifies whether best practice on a particular street is mixed traffic, on-road lanes or off-road paths and is to be read in conjunction with the Best Practice Toolkit in Appendix D. In addition to speed and volume, Council will need to assess each street to consider other factors, such as whether or not the street is a strategic cycling route, the road width, land uses, cyclist volumes and their skill levels. Particular attention is required near land uses that may attract vulnerable users such as schools, hospitals, retirement villages and activity hubs.
Figure 17: Separation of bicycles and motor vehicles according to traffic speed and volume
Source: Austroads ‘Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design’ – modified by InfraPlan 2014.
40 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Assessment of traffic data is critical in determining the most appropriate cycling infrastructure, or whether any infrastructure is needed at all. The following traffic speed and volume criteria have been applied (if available) when developing this cycling network.
Table 2: Traffic speed criteria 85th percentile traffic speed Traffic Calming Exceeds 35/km/h Preferred Between 35km/h and 50km/h Assess risk on street by street basis Exceeds 50km/h Required
Table 3: Traffic volume criteria Traffic Volume Traffic Diversion (Average Annual Daily Traffic, 2-way) 1000-1500 vehicles per day Not required 1500-3000 vehicles per day Likely not required - assess risk on street by street basis 3000-5000 vehicles per day Preferred, assess risk on street by street basis Exceeds 5000 vehicles per day Required
8.2.1 Traffic Speed and Street Classification The speed environment should be appropriate to a street’s strategic role. The ‘slow’ network can generally only function effectively if there are good connections (typically within 500m) to streets that are part of a higher speed network (Heart Foundation SA 2012). It is recommended that the ‘Link and Place’ matrix be used to determine the desirable street network speed as illustrated in Figure 18. The Streets for People Compendium provides detailed guidance for classifying streets using the Link and Place matrix, as well as providing design solutions to reduce speeds.
Figure 18: Desirable street network speeds as per the ‘Link and Place’ matrix.
Source: Streets for People: Compendium for South Australian Practice (Heart Foundation SA 2012).
41 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
8.3 Traffic Calming Reducing speeds on key cycling and walking routes to 40km/h or less (30km/h preferred) is a significant ‘best practice’ principle that can be adopted to vastly improve the cycling environment. Where this can be achieved, there is generally no need for specific cyclist infrastructure creating a mixed traffic environment. Where the cycling network is designated on higher level roads that are not appropriate for speed reduction, higher level infrastructure must be provided that facilitates greater separation for cyclists.
Traditional approaches to reducing speed are based on installing traffic calming devices at 80-120 metres apart. Vehicle speeds are reduced to 20 km/h at each device, but may reach over 40km/h between each device. To maintain consistently slower speeds throughout the length of the street (less than 30km/h), the devices need to be placed at less than 80 metres apart (40 to 70 metres desirable). However traffic calming devices are not the only way to reduce traffic speed. Other options include landscaping, signage and streetscape changes, alternate paving sections or reducing the width of a roadway. 8.4 Cycling Infrastructure The proposed cycling network comprises a range of infrastructure recommendations based on design criteria that have been discussed in this chapter, including safety, traffic volumes, traffic speeds, road width, type of cyclist that would use the road, urban design factors and street layout. In addition, the consultation sessions undertaken identified that separation between motorists and cyclists was important and off-road paths are preferred.
The infrastructure options and the selection criteria is provided in the Best Practice Toolkit in Appendix D. These resources are designed to assist Council Officers during planning, design and implementation of the cycling network. 8.5 Cycling on Main Roads On main roads with higher traffic speed and volumes, cyclist infrastructure needs to provide more separation for cyclists. Where possible, buffer zones should be provided between parked cars and bicycle lanes; as well as between moving traffic and bicycle lanes.
The majority of main roads have part-time cycle lanes that operate only within Clearway Operating hours. Although helpful for commuter cyclists, they become a hazard to cyclists in areas of high and sporadic car parking demand. Although banning car parking full-time would solve the problem for cyclists, this raises issues for others such as business owners who rely on short-term parking in front of their operation. These issues can often be solved with corridor planning where rear of shop parking is provided and adjacent business share parking areas.
DPTI is currently considering rolling out the extension of clearway hours which is strongly supported to improve cyclists’ safety on these roads. 8.6 Public Transport Integration Multi-modal integration can deliver efficiencies for cyclists and public transport commuters: riding longer distances can be reduced by taking public transport for part of the journey, and cycling to public transport hubs can be more efficient than driving or walking for shorter distances. Integrating public transport with cycling infrastructure assists people to either rely on their cars less, or improve the mobility of those who do not drive.
42 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Two broad principles will improve public transport and cyclist integration:
1 Improving cycling routes and connections to public transport hubs: The selection for many of the routes in the PAE Cycling Network have been determined with integration into public transport as a requirement. 2 Providing ‘end-of-cycling-trip’ facilities at public transport hubs: The following actions will assist integration between cycling and public transport in the City of Port Adelaide. Council to work with DPTI in delivering Proposed Bike Cages at Glanville Train Station and Port Adelaide Train Station. Council to identify additional stations where Proposed Bike Cages can be considered / implemented (for example Taperoo Station, Kilburn Station), and approach DPTI for consideration.
It is also important to note that bikes can be carried on trains for free outside of peak commute times, when space is available: Monday to Friday between 9.01am and 3pm or between 6pm and the last service. Saturday, Sunday & public holidays – all day. At all other times a peak concession fare must be purchased for the bike.
8.7 Bikeways and Neighbourhood Cycling The physical design of neighbourhoods and streets can do a lot to encourage active transport. Future developments and structure plans should incorporate the activation of streets, mixed land use provisions, increased densities and realigning the traffic priority of some streets to help legitimise active modes such as cycling to be effective transport options (Figure 19).
The Greenways, Bikeways, Neighbourhood Routes and local links includes off-road and on-road treatments.
Council could consider recognising a hierarchy for new developments, street upgrades and rehabilitation, using the Streets for People resource.
Priorities would include focussing walking and cycling around schools.
Figure 19: The realignment of street hierarchy. Active transport modes can have priority on some streets.
Source: InfraPlan 2014.
43 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
44 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9 The Proposed Cycling Network 2015-2020
The updated network is based on building a strong framework of completed metropolitan routes which are fed by neighbourhood connecting routes. Local links connect cyclist destinations (schools, centres etc.) in to the neighbourhood connectors. In addition to this framework is the fine-grained infrastructure that completes an accessible network, such as ramps to paths, cyclist slots in traffic calming devices, median refuges, sections of shared paths on arterial roads to connect a local street to a pedestrian crossing, etc.
Due to the high cost of infrastructure, the upgrade and improvements to the entire cycling network will need to be budgeted, programmed and implemented incrementally over a period of time. This Plan identifies priorities and key actions that should be undertaken in the short to medium and long term, and provides design guidance and cost estimates for these priorities. However, if a road on the cycling network that is not a priority is scheduled for upgrade, it should be moved up the list and cycling facilities implemented.
The long-term network aims to provide a cycling network within easy reach of every house and every destination with either separated cycling facilities (on/near busy streets) or mixed traffic streets (low traffic speed and volume). Therefore, traffic calming can be as important as installing bicycle lanes. Long-term routes should be brought forward if works are planned such as resealing or kerb replacement and coordinated with these works. Otherwise, these lower priority routes should be reviewed in 5 years time.
The proposed overall long-term cycling network is illustrated in Figure 20.
The short to medium term actions have been selected to improve safety foremost, with consideration of the following criteria: 1. Provide east-west connections; 2. Complete missing links; 3. Improve road crossings; and 4. Provide fine-grained accessibility to the Port.
These priorities are earmarked for either planning, designing or completion by 2020, to be reviewed again in 2020.
Short to medium term actions for the overall network are identified in Figure 21, with specific area enlargements provided.
Advisory treatments are recommended on a number of strategic routes where separated cycling facilities are either not warranted or do not fit. Also, the use of sharrows has recently been accepted under Operational Instruction 9.4 Advisory Bicycle Pavement Marking: Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow).
The Action Plan in Chapter 14 provides recommendations for short to medium term implementation. The Best Practice Design Toolkit in Appendix D provides guidance for Council on design criteria.
45 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Figure 20: Proposed Cycling Network (Long Term). Source: InfraPlan 2014
46 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Figure 21: Proposed Cycling Network (short to medium term). Source: InfraPlan 2014
47 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.1 Metropolitan Routes: Greenways / Bikeways 9.1.1 Outer Harbour Greenway The Outer Harbor Greenway is almost complete and will provide a continuous cycling route between the city, Port Adelaide and the Lefevre Peninsula. Refer to Section 4.2.1 for description of route and existing infrastructure. Recommendations:
Continue to work with DPTI to complete the Outer Harbour Greenway.
Local Road route treatment to be installed on local roads (Sharrows already implemented).
Assess all connections from the bicycle network into the Greenway to ensure they are continuous.
9.1.2 Gawler Greenway The Gawler Greenway is currently incomplete, particularly with the gaps north of Grand Junction Road. It is identified in the State Government Integrated Transport and Land use Plan as a high priority project. Council must work closely with DPTI in design and implementation to ensure the Greenway is implemented to best practice standards where possible.
Recommendations for the Gawler Greenway are illustrated on Figure 22 and described below in sections.
Pym Street – Rail line to Shared Path (Janice Jensen Reserve)
The Gawler Greenway crosses from the City of Prospect into the City of Port Adelaide Enfield at the intersection of the rail line and Pym Street.
Pym Street is a busy road, carrying traffic volumes of around 6,000 vehicles per day, and the 85%ile traffic speed was measured at 55.1km/h. Given this generally high volume/speed road environment, separated cycling facilities are required on the section of Gawler Greenway that extends along Pym Street (railway line to Harrison Road).
The following two options are recommended for Council to assess the most preferred option.
Recommendation A:
Ban parking on Pym Street and install a 1.3 metre wide Bicycle Lane plus a 500mm wide flush island buffer between the bicycle lane and the moving traffic.
Recommendation B:
Construct 2-way shared path on the south side of Pym Street in road reserve. There are very few driveways on the south side and conflict would be minimised.
Shared path (Janice Jensen Reserve) – Pym Street to Regency Road
An existing shared path between Pym Street and Regency Road provides off-road north-south access along the Greenway. The path width varies and is generally around 2.5 metres wide. The path is in poor condition and the associated infrastructure (rails, line marking and signage), is aged or does not
48 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd exist. Given that this path is now a component of the Gawler Greenway, its status will be raised and it will carry a higher volume of cyclists.
Consultation identified that tree roots along this route were significantly affecting the path surface.
Recommendation:
Upgrade path to at least 3 metres wide (minimum). Review tree root damage and remove where possible. Install new signage, line marking and holding rails/bollards where required. Gallipoli Drive – Regency Road to Grand Junction Road
Exclusive bicycle lanes were installed along Gallipoli Drive by DPTI in recent years as part of the South Road Superway project.
Given that the traffic volume is approximately 11,500 vehicles per day and the speed is 60km/h, the cyclist facility along Gallipoli Drive should be a separated path (as per Austroads), particularly as it forms part of the Gawler Greenway.
Observations indicate that there is space to provide a separated path on one or both sides of the road reserve.
Recommendation:
The preferred option is to construct a separated path alongside Gallipoli Drive (east side). Design input would be required with the proposed Aldi Distribution Centre at this location. If a separated path is not possible, improve separation between cyclists and motorists by installing a 400mm wide edge line (Enhanced Bicycle Lane) at existing bicycle lanes.
Grand Junction Road – Gallipoli Drive to Gawler rail line
There is an underpass providing a grade separated road crossing of Grand Junction Road just east of the rail line. The underpass provides access to SCT Logistics from the Service Road and adjacent to the driveway is an unsealed track that may be a rail maintenance track or SA Water access road. There is sufficient width to provide a shared path adjacent to this unsealed track and allow the Gawler Greenway to travel under Grand Junction Road.
This requires a connection from Gallipoli Drive which also exists in the form of an unsealed track. Therefore, providing a shared path along this track would be possible providing that a land agreement for public use can be arranged.
Recommendation:
Clarify land ownership and the users of the unsealed tracks. Liaise with the above with the aim to allow a shared path to be constructed. Consider providing an incentive such as sealing the track. A separate path may not be required, but depending on frequency of track use, the track and path may be one item.
Shared path Grand Junction Road to Cormack Road
An unsealed track exists that is understood to be an SA Water access track, and would be suitable to be utilised as a shared path. A wide median island exists in Cormack Road to facilitate a safe crossing point of Cormack Road.
49 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Recommendation:
Clarify land ownership and the users of the unsealed track. Liaise with the above with the aim to allow a shared path to be constructed. Liaise with DPTI to install a cyclist/pedestrian median refuge crossing at Cormack Road. Consider providing an incentive such as sealing the track. A separate path may not be required, but depending on frequency of track use, the track and path may be one item.
Magazine Road - Cormack Road to Martin Street
A short section (approximately 140 metres) of shared path is required alongside Magazine Road to connect the shared paths either side. Given the high volumes of heavy traffic in this location, it is not preferred that cyclists share the road.
Recommendation:
Install shared path on east side of Magazine Road between Cormack Road and Martin Street.
Martin Street – Magazine Road to Rail Line
Martin Street is a ‘no through road’ with low traffic volumes, however carries heavy vehicles. It is considered that cyclists could mix with traffic along this short distance (approximately 100 metres), however the presence of heavy vehicles must be considered during the detailed design of the route to ensure that bicycle logos and signage is sufficient to alert motorists that cyclists may be present as it forms part of a major bicycle route. Cyclists cross Martin Street at the 90 degree bend and design of a safe, highly visible crossing by cyclists is required.
Recommendation:
Install Advisory bicycle logos (or Sharrows in accordance with Operational Instruction 9.4 Advisory Bicycle Pavement Marking: Shared Lane Marking) and signage to identify the Gawler Greenway route. Install “cyclist crossing” warning signs. Shared path – Magazine Road to Council Boundary
An unsealed track exists alongside the rail line which may be possible to be used as part of the Gawler Greenway. This path also provides access to Dry Creek Station.
Recommendation:
Clarify land ownership and the users of the unsealed track. Liaise with the above with the aim to allow a shared path to be constructed. Provide access to Dry Creek Station.
50 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Figure 22: Enlargement C: Gawler Greenway (short to medium term). Source: InfraPlan 2014
51 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.1.3 Levels-City Bikeway The Levels-City Bikeway comprises an 18km route from North Adelaide to Mawson Lakes. It traverses through several Councils, and through the City of Port Adelaide via Galway Avenue, Robert Avenue, Kent Avenue, Radford Avenue, Montrose Avenue and a path through State Sports Park (refer Figure 21). Major road crossings of this route are managed by DPTI who are currently preparing concept designs for the intersections of the Bikeway. The Grand Junction Road improvement for the Levels-City Bike Route has recently been implemented also.
Traffic volume and speed on the majority of these roads is moderate (except Galway Avenue) and Council has installed Advisory bicycle logos against the kerb along the route. Observations include seeing cars parked over the bicycle logos reducing their visibility. The Levels-City Bikeway would be an appropriate route for Sharrows in accordance with Operational Instruction 9.4 Advisory Bicycle Pavement Marking: Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow).
Traffic volume on Galway Avenue is approximately 4,000 and speeds in the order of 55km/h. It is recommended that the existing bicycle lanes be upgraded to enhanced bicycle lanes to provide greater separation from traffic. The travel lane widths can be reduced to accommodate the wide buffer.
Recommendations:
Replace the existing logos with new logos (and Sharrows) in accordance with the new Operational Instruction 9.4 Advisory Bicycle Pavement Marking: Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow). Monitor and evaluate traffic volumes and speeds with view to installing traffic calming measures to facilitate speeds of 40km/h or less. Upgrade existing bicycle lanes in Galway Avenue – convert to enhanced bicycle lanes. Liaise with DPTI to ensure upgrades of Bikeway road crossings at Regency Road (Grand Junction Road recently upgraded).
52 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.1.4 Port River Expressway Greenway As described earlier in this report, the Port River Expressway carries approximately 30,000 vehicles (including significant freight volume), and is signed at 90 km/h. Given these traffic volumes and speeds, guidelines clearly recommend that the cyclist facilities should be in the form of a path separated from the road.
A separated path existing over the Diver Derrick Bridge and continues east until Eastern Parade before merging into the Port River Expressway as 2.5 metre wide sealed shoulders.
During consultation it was made clear that residents were unhappy with the lack of separated cyclist path along the Expressway, and many people would not cycle on the sealed shoulders due to the traffic conditions.
The Port River Expressway route has the potential to provide a critical east-west route for cyclists in an area with a severe lack of east-west connectivity. A high quality cycle path would provide a relatively easy 13km journey from Port Adelaide to the Mawson Lakes rail station, as well as links to the Gillman development, industry in the Wingfield area, the future Northern Connector cycle path and the Gawler Greenway.
Recommendations:
Liaise with DPTI to provide an off-road bikeway alongside the Port River Expressway that connects into the Gawler Greenway and the future Northern Connector Greenway.
There is a Shared Path on the southern side of the Expressway between Victoria Road and Eastern Parade that crosses the Port River via the Diver Derrick or Diver Derrick and Birkenhead Bridge (Figure 8). East of Eastern Parade, the cycling facilities consist of sealed shoulders with bicycle logos and signage at crossing points. The guidelines for cycling facilities recommend that a separated path should be provided on roads with traffic volumes and speeds such as this, refer Figure 17. There is sufficient road reserve width for a path to be constructed alongside the Expressway and it is recommended that Council and DPTI explore this.
9.1.5 Coast Park (recreational) Maintenance of Coast Park is ongoing and Council include this in their regular programme. There is some conflict between cyclists and pedestrians on the path, particularly near The Palais where diners and waiting staff cross the shared path to access the Beach Bar / Marquee.
A temporary solution has been implemented for the Marquee location where cyclists are required to dismount either side. It is understood that Council is undertaking investigations to provide a cyclist path located behind the Marquee to resolve the issue. In the medium term, Council is developing other solutions to calm and direct cyclists and patrons.
Recommendations:
Council continue regular inspections and maintenance of Coast Park. Develop a signage strategy that informs users of etiquette between cyclists and pedestrians; e.g. ring your bell when approaching a pedestrian. Develop a cyclist path behind The Marquee to separate cyclists from Palais patrons at this busy location.
53 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.1.6 River Torrens Linear Park (metropolitan / recreational) The Torrens Linear Park was completed in 1997 and was one of the first major shared paths of its kind in Australia. Designed mostly as a flood mitigation project, no-one could foresee its future popularity, and it now carries high volumes of pedestrians and cyclists comprising commuters and recreational users. Council is aware that the paths are too narrow for the volume of users and has been progressively widening the paths. Two sections are remaining for widening and are programmed in the current financial year.
Recommendations:
Complete widening of Linear Park paths within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield to 4 metres where possible (3 metres minimum). Develop an information and directional signage policy and implement. Includes distances to destinations, and path user etiquette.
9.1.7 Dry Creek Linear Park (recreational) The City of Port Adelaide Enfield shares a section of Dry Creek along its Council boundary with the Cities of Salisbury and Tea Tree Gully. The trails comprise unsealed and sealed paths and provide enjoyable recreational cycling.
Recommendation:
Liaise with the Cities of Salisbury and Tea Tree Gully to work together to upgrade the shared paths to a consistent standard.
9.1.8 Future Northern Connector Greenway (connection) A connection is required that links the Gawler Greenway to the future Northern Connector which will include a crossing of the Port River Expressway. Cyclists currently use unsealed tracks in this area through the wetland. Through consultation it is understood that the route is blocked by a locked gate which cyclists currently climb over.
Recommendations:
Liaise with DPTI and the City of Salisbury to identify the most appropriate route. Investigate land ownership and map existing tracks. Investigate purpose for locked gate. Formalise the most appropriate track. Install a safe crossing point at Port River Expressway (It is likely that this crossing would need to be grade-separated).
54 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.2 Neighbourhood Routes (east-west connectors) The development of the Greenways and Bikeways is likely to attract more cyclists to this route and so east-west connections to/from them are critical.
9.2.1 Enfield East-West Connector The Enfield Connector links the Kilburn Rail Station, the Levels-City Bikeway and the City of Tea Tree Gully using the secondary road network. Other connections are St Pauls College, Gilles Plains TAFE, Northgate Village Shopping Centre, Oakden Wetlands, Recreation reserve (tennis, basketball), Enfield Memorial Park, Folland Reserve, Barton Reserve, Blair Athol Reserve and the Churchill Centre. Local links to the Enfield Connector connect River Torrens Linear Park, Dry Creek Trail, numerous Schools and Shopping Centres.
The route uses existing Pedestrian Activated Crossings where possible, but requires some intersection upgrades as well as route identification with Advisory/Sharrow line marking. Traffic volumes and speeds have been assessed (where available), and the type of cycling facilities have been selected to suit the road environment.
Folland Avenue carries approximately 7,000 vehicles per day and therefore the service road on the north side provides an alternative choice for less confident cyclists. Short sections of shared path at road closures are required for the service road to be a viable alternative.
Sir Ross Smith Boulevard forms part of this route and currently has 2.5m wide paths that are intended as shared use paths but not continuous or designated as shared paths. Given that this street falls within the area being considered for a proposed 40km/h area speed zone, it is recommended that Advisory logos (sharrows) are marked on the roadway to identify the route and raise awareness of the presence of cyclists, in addition to upgrading the existing path.
A section of the route uses Gilles Plains TAFE land. Liaison is required to assess feasibility of this route.
Refer to Figure 23 for details of the recommendations to complete the Enfield East-West Connector.
Recommendation:
Commence planning, design and implementation of the Enfield east-west connector as illustrated on Figure 23.
55 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Figure 23: Enlargement D: Enfield East-West Connector (short to medium term). Source: InfraPlan 2014
56 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.2.2 Gillman East-West Connector The Gillman Connector links the Gawler Greenway to the Outer Harbour Greenway along shared paths and the Gillman disused rail corridor. The route uses the new shared path alongside the South Road Superway and connects Regency TAFE, Harold Tyler Reserve, and a local link to Woodville Grove Primary School.
Refer to Figure 24 for details of the recommendations to complete the Gillman East-West Connector.
Recommendation:
Commence planning, design and implementation of the Gillman east-west connector as illustrated on Figure 24.
57 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Figure 24: Enlargement B: Gillman East-West Connector (short to medium term). Source: InfraPlan 2014
58 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.2.3 Sudholz Road (shared path) A shared path exists on the west side of Sudholz Road in the road reserve, achievable due to the dwellings backing onto Sudholz Road with no driveway access onto Sudholz Road. There is an opportunity to extend this shared path so that it extends from Grand Junction Road to the Council boundary at the River Torrens.
Recommendations:
Liaise with DPTI and convert existing footpath to a shared path on west side of Sudholz Road. Convert footpath to shared path south of Grand Junction Road to connect to existing shared path (400 metres). Convert footpath to shared path from North East Road to the River Torrens (1200 metres).
9.2.4 Causeway Road (Shared Path) Causeway Road is managed by DPTI, is a direct north-south link from Bower Road to Semaphore Road (and the Outer Harbour Greenway), is signed at 60km/h and carries around 13,000 vehicles per day, including freight.
The road is located such that it would be a useful route for commuters as well as school/utility cyclists and connects important destinations such as the Ethelton and Glanville rail stations and two schools (LeFevre Primary School and Portside Christian College). Causeway Road is particularly important as it also provides a connection to the Outer Harbour Greenway route (Mead Street), from the west side of the Port River.
Given this road environment it is recommended that a separated path be constructed along the road reserve, but given that it is a direct main road route, on-road bicycle lanes are also recommended for confident, higher speed cyclists.
A shared path will connect Causeway Road to the Outer Harbour Greenway (Mead Street). This can be achieved on the south side of Semaphore Road where cyclists can use the traffic signals at Causeway Road /Semaphore Road and/or the pedestrian actuated crossing (PAC) on Semaphore Road, just east of Mead Street.
There is a section of shared path exists on the western side between Bower Road and Rennie Road. This path is narrow, in poor condition and difficult to access, and therefore requires upgrade. The path terminates south of Sutherland Street where residential properties, driveways and a narrow footpath make it difficult to achieve a path. The east side of Causeway Road (alongside the rail line), north of Sutherland Street can accommodate a shared path although there would be some squeeze points due to stobie poles.
It is recommended that a shared path be constructed as follows:
Construct new shared path on the west side of Causeway Road, to match into each end of the existing shared path (part of Port Hike & Bike Loop) (2.5m wide minimum). Install new shared path on east side of Causeway Road between Sutherland Street and Semaphore Road (2.5m wide minimum). Ensure ramp access to shared path is provided where practical. Provide refuge crossing where path crosses from west side to east side near Sutherland St.
59 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Match new shared path in to existing shared path at southeast corner of Semaphore Road / Causeway Road – Note: Existing Pedestrian Actuated Crossing provides connection to the Outer Harbour Greenway.
Refer to Section 9.4.1, Main Road Routes for details of recommended on-road bicycle lanes.
9.2.5 Hart Street, Glanville/Ethelton Hart Street is an important direct east-west extension from the Jervois Bridge, linking Port Adelaide (and the Port Loop) to Semaphore, Coast Park, Outer Harbour Greenway and the direct north-south road routes of Military Road and Esplanade. In addition, LeFevre High School and numerous sports facilities exist along Hart Street.
Hart Street comprises two lanes in each direction east of Military Road and this section is managed by DPTI. West of Military Road is managed by Council and comprises one lane in each direction. Traffic volumes east of Military Road are in the order of 7,000 vehicles per and the road is signed at 60km/h.
A Koala crossing exists opposite Lefevre High School (west of Swan Terrace) and a median refuge facilitates road crossing just west of Carlisle Street.
Council have installed Advisory bicycle logos adjacent to on-street parking between Esplanade and Military Road. Given that Hart Street links two off-road routes (The Port Loop and Coast Park) and the traffic volume and speed, it is considered that the cycling facility along Hart Street should be separated from traffic by a kerb (preferably) or a buffer zone, (refer Toolkit, Separated Lane).
Given that the traffic volume east of Military Road is 7,000 vehicles per day, there may be sufficient capacity to reduce the roadway to one lane in each direction which would provide width to accommodate a kerb separated bicycle lane.
It is understood that DPTI are currently planning to develop a design for a bicycle facility along Hart Street, east of Military Road. Council has also asked that they consider a roundabout or some other type of treatment at the intersection with Carlisle St.
Recommendations:
West of Military Road:
Liaise with DPTI to coordinate a consistent approach for a best practice cycling route along Hart Street from Jervois Bridge to Esplanade. This includes road sections managed by both DPTI and Council. Lobby to review the capacity of Hart Street with view to reducing four lanes to two and installing kerb separated bicycle lanes. Liaise with DPTI to reduce the signed speed to 40km/h or 50km/h. Provide directional and information signage. Between Military Road and Esplanade:
Measure traffic speeds and volumes. Create a slow (40km/h or less) speed environment (using Streets for People guidelines and traffic calming measures) to facilitate a mixed traffic street. Provide directional and information signage.
60 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.2.6 Lipson Street, Port Adelaide Lipson Street is currently undergoing detailed design with view to completion in 2015. The current proposal includes on road advisory treatments for cyclists, improved footpaths for pedestrians and median refuges to link the off road shared path near the Aviation Museum with the Port Waterfront.
9.2.7 Dry Creek to Linear Park, Gilles Plains This route comprises Haddington Street, Wandana Avenue, Tarton Road and Kiltie Street.
The centrelines of Wandana Avenue and Tarton Road are part of the eastern Council boundary with Tea Tree Gully. Tarton Road is a secondary road and has exclusive bicycle lanes on both sides. Wandana Avenue is not on the BikeDirect Route but is a practical, direct route given that it has traffic signals at each end (Grand Junction Road and North East Road), to facilitate a safe road crossing, and it passes the Wandana Primary School and The Junction Shopping Centre. It also forms a connection from Dry Creek Linear Park to River Torrens Linear Park. This extended route to Linear Park includes Kiltie Avenue which is traffic calmed with plateaus.
The only section of this route that cannot currently accommodate bicycle lanes is the 150 metre long section of North East Road between Wandana Avenue and Tarton Road. An alternative route to access Tarton Road is via Kyle Road and Andrew Avenue. This route requires a 40 metre section of shared path on the southern footpath of North East Road, between the signals and Kyle Road.
Wandana Avenue and Tarton Avenue carry considerable traffic volumes and speeds, and therefore Enhanced Bicycle Lanes are recommended, refer Section 8.2.
This project is not identified as a 5 year priority, but is included for reference in the event that road works are planned, and these works brought forward.
Recommendations:
Liaise with the City of Tea Tree Gully to agree on a concept design for cycling facilities on Wandana Avenue. Note the road width is 12.5 metres which could facilitate exclusive bicycle lanes on one side and Bicycle / Car parking lanes on the other side. The road width is sufficient to provide enhance bicycle lanes, e.g., wide line marked buffers between bicycle lane, parking lane and traffic lane. The side of the road with parking could be alternated where parking demand requires it. Convert the exclusive bicycle lanes in Tarton Road to enhanced bicycle lanes, by a line marking buffer, e.g. 300mm wide flush island between bike lane and moving traffic. Liaise with the City of Tea Tree Gully to line mark the bicycle lane on the east side for consistency. Install a 40 metre section of shared path on the existing paved footpath – east side of North East Road, between signals at Wandana Avenue and Kyle Road. Install Advisory logos in Kyle Road and Andrew Avenue to identify route. Install Advisory logos in Haddington Street to identify route. Install Advisory logos in Kiltie Street to identify route.
61 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.3 Local Links 9.3.1 Port CBD Connectivity It is critical that the Port CBD is easily and safely accessible for bicycle users of all skill levels, including school students, shoppers, tourists and commuters. The recommendations herein include accessibility to the Port Adelaide Rail Station, Ethelton Station, Port Mall, accessibility to the Port Hike and Bike Loop, shared path connections to Outer Harbour Greenway, safer road crossings, cyclist cut-throughs of road closure and a shared path along Causeway Road.
Refer to Figure 25 for details of the recommendations for Port CBD connectivity.
Recommendation:
Commence design and implementation of the fine-grained accessibility at the Port CBD as detailed on Figure 25. Provide a cyclist cut-through of the Heath Street road closure to connect to bicycle lanes on Fletcher Road. Liaise with DPTI and City of Charles Sturt to install crosswalk on west side of signalised intersection – Bower Road, Causeway Road and Old Port Road.
Nelson Street access to Port Outer Harbour Loop
Bicycle Lanes on Nelson Street terminate prior to the connection to the Port Outer Harbour Loop, creating a 60m long squeeze point.
To access the shared path on the Birkenhead Bridge or the Port Loop, cyclists need to be on the west side of Nelson Road. The existing median provides sufficient width for a cyclist refuge at the point where the Nelson Road bicycle lanes terminate, which can link to future shared path on the east side of Nelson Road – connecting all paths and providing an alternative to the Nelson Road Squeeze point.
South of the Birkenhead Bridge, the shared path heads west (Port Loop), and a median refuge in the centre of Nelson Street provides access to the east side of Nelson Road.
Recommendation: NOTE as of August 2015, DPTI and Renewal SA have been installing new bike lanes at St Vincent Street – Nelson Street Jervois Bridge.
Install a cyclist/pedestrian refuge in the existing median on Nelson Street south of Victoria Road / Semaphore Road (where the bike lanes terminate). Install a shared path on east side of Nelson Street between the Port Loop shared path and the new refuge. Include directional signage for southbound cyclists to cross. Upgrade existing footpaths on both sides of Nelson Street, between North Parade and St Vincent Street to a Shared Path to provide alternative connection to traffic signals and bicycle lanes at St Vincent Street. (This will need to be done with care outside of the British Hotel to avoid creating a pedestrian and cyclist conflict).
62 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Figure 25: Enlargement of Port Adelaide central business district (short to medium term). Source: InfraPlan 2014
63 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.3.2 Briens Road, Gepps Cross (Shared Path) A footpath exists on the west side of Briens Road between Grand Junction Road and South Terrace. It has the potential to provide cyclist access to the Roma Mitchell College without mixing with traffic on Briens Road, and links to the traffic signals at Grand Junction Road and South Terrace. The majority of the path is 3 metres wide, but there are sections that are 2 metres wide.
Recommendations:
Widen path where required to at least 2.5 metres wide (3.0 metres preferred). Install a new section of cycle path behind the bus stop in front of College – to separate cyclists from passengers boarding and alighting to the bus. Install signage and line marking to convert footpath into Shared Path.
9.3.3 Rosewater / Ottoway The disused rail line in Ottoway and Rosewater is fenced and reduces permeability through these local streets. Additional roads have been added to the bicycle network and a new crossing of the disused rail line to increase permeability in this area. The addition to the network links to existing network routes (McGregor Terrace, Rosewater and Daisy Street, Ottoway).
Recommendations:
Add the following streets to the Bicycle Network, and install Advisory Logos to identify route. Murray Street, between McGregor Terrace and Jenkins Street (this includes laneway that has been closed to traffic with a Hazard Board blocking vehicle access. Ensure sufficient width for cyclist access). Florence Street, between Jenkins Street and the disused rail line. May Terrace, between the rail line and Daisy Street. Liaise with DPTI and PTD to provide a cyclist and pedestrian crossing of disused rail line between Florence Street and May Street (short term recommendation included in Local Links Section of this report).
9.3.4 Bundara Avenue / Denver Terrace The City of Prospect is currently undertaking concept design and consultation for the Braund Road Bicycle Boulevard. When completed this route will likely attract cyclists and there is the opportunity for the City of Port Adelaide Enfield to extend this route northward to provide connections to the Churchill Centre and Blair Athol Primary.
This route would follow Bundara Avenue and Denver Terrace (Kilburn), from Hillsdale Street to Northcote Terrace.
This project is not identified as a 5 year priority, but is included for reference in the event that road works are planned, and these works brought forward.
Recommendations:
Work with the City of Prospect to extend the Braund Road Bicycle Boulevard route with a consistent approach along Bundara Avenue and Denver Terrace. Particularly with regard to providing a low-street cycling route to the Churchill Centre, St Brigids Primary School and Blair Athol Primary.
64 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.3.5 Victoria Road (shared path) Victoria Road provides a direct route for all modes of transport, it is signed at 60km/h and carries up to 24,000 vehicles per day. Bicycle lanes have been installed along Victoria Road which provide a high speed cycle route for confident cyclists. Slower cyclists can cycle the parallel alternative route of the Outer Harbour Greenway.
The bicycle lanes terminate at Klingberg Drive, Outer Harbor where a shared path is provided to connect to Coast Park. There is potential to extend this shared path south of Klingberg Drive to Marmora Terrace (Peter Cousins Reserve), within the road reserve on the west side of Victoria Road.
This project is not identified as a 5 year priority, but is included so that Council is aware of the works required to ensure that any upgrades or works in Victoria Road include these works.
Recommendations:
Construct 2.5-3m wide shared path on western side of Victoria Road between Klingberg Drive and Peter Cousins Reserve.
9.3.6 Grand Junction Road – Shared Paths in Road Reserve There is a severe lack of high quality cyclist facilities that travel east-west through the Council area. Bicycle lanes along Grand Junction Road are discussed in Section 9.4.1, under the Main Roads Chapter.
There are sections of the Grand Junction Road, road reserve that are suitable for shared paths to be constructed which would provide east-west neighbourhood connections without riding next to traffic.
The locations that are appropriate are where there are only few driveways, and practical connections can provide east-west links to north-south routes.
This project is not identified as a 5 year priority, but is included so that Council is aware of this opportunity. If footpath upgrades are planned for these locations at any time, these recommendations should be implemented.
Recommendations:
Undertake feasibility study to provide shared paths in the Grand Junction road reserve at the following locations: o North side – Old Port Road to Port Road. o Both sides – Port Road to Tomset Street. o South side - Gallipoli Road to South Road. o South side – South Road to Main North Road (includes the section above Gallipoli – South). o North side – Main North Road to Amanga Street. East-west route to then continue along Amanga Street to Mira Street / along Mira Street to Tepko Street and return to Grand Junction Road. o North side – Tepko Street to Briens Road. o North side – Briens Road to Walkleys Road.
65 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.3.7 Mersey Road Bikeway The Mersey Road Bikeway extends north from the Victoria Rd / Nelson St/Expressway junction and provides an alternative route to the busy Victoria Road, however it is not continuous and not formally named, and therefore likely has more potential for use if upgraded and connected to the Port Loop.
The Port BUG has suggested a preferred connection to the Loop as follows:
Construct off-road path between corner of Victoria Road and Nelson Street (existing bicycle refuge) to the Nelson Street / Semaphore Road junction. Construct off-road path. This project is not identified as a 5 year priority, but is included so that Council is aware of the works required and any upgrades or works in these locations should include these recommendations.
Recommendation:
Upgrade the Mersey Road Bikeway so that it is continuous – liaise with the Port Adelaide BUG to determine most appropriate connections and works. Install signage to identify it as an alternative to Victoria Road. Improve the connection to the off road shared path at Elder Road (i.e. upgrade ramp).
9.3.8 Future Gillman Development The RenewalSA Gillman Master Plan includes a network of future off-road and on-road cycle routes. Given that this is a greenfield development, it is an opportunity to ensure that best practice cycle facilities that link in to the Port Adelaide Enfield cycle network are an essential component of the development. These routes are included on the future network plan, refer Figure 24.
Recommendation:
Ensure that a fine-grained network of on-road and off-road cycle routes are incorporated into the development and are designed to best practice Standards and guidelines. Ensure that the Gillman cycle network connects to the Port Adelaide Enfield cycle network. Take into consideration and request Renewal SA consider the recommendations of the Port Adelaide Bicycle Users Group for the route selections proposed in the submission for the Gillman Development Plan Amendment.
66 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.4 Metropolitan Routes: Main Roads 9.4.1 Causeway Road (on-road bicycle lanes) Causeway Road is managed by DPTI, is a direct north-south link from Bower Road to Semaphore Road, is signed at 60km/h and carries around 13,000 vehicles per day, including freight. It is one lane in each direction and approximately 12 metres wide which provides sufficient width for full- time enhanced bicycle lanes on both sides of the road, and parking on one side of the road only (to be confirmed in detail design).
Given the high traffic volumes and speeds, a shared path is also recommended within the road reserve, as detailed in Section 9.2.4. In addition, greening of the bicycle lanes at road junctions will raise awareness of the presence of cyclists in this road environment.
Given the route location, it is recommended that both separated and on-road facilities be provided to cater for both experienced and less experienced cyclists.
Recommendations:
Liaise with DPTI to design on-road cycling facilities as follows:
On-road Bicycle Lanes Undertake survey to determine road widths and confirm concept design. Install full-time enhanced (buffered line marking) bicycle lanes on both sides of Causeway Road, including wide buffer lines between traffic lane and cycle lane, and greening at hazardous locations such as at left-turn merge lanes. Investigate providing additional off-street parking for train commuters off of Causeway Road if possible - location to be assessed by Council. Review the speed controls for Causeway Road with view to reducing to 50km/h. Install green bicycle lanes at potentially hazardous locations (road junctions and intersections).
Figure 26 : Causeway Road - concept design for road cross-section. See p 138 for a photograph of a similar treatment
67 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.4.2 Grand Junction Road There is a severe lack of high quality cyclist facilities that travel east-west through the Council area. Grand Junction Road provides the most direct route, and DPTI has installed bicycle lanes where they will fit but this has left gaps, particularly at intersections where additional turn lanes take up more space. There are no bicycle lanes between South Road and Hampstead Road (wide kerbside lane), and vehicles therefore tend to take up the whole kerbside lane leaving no room for cyclists.
Confident cyclists, who prefer the most direct route use Grand Junction Road, particularly as there are no alternatives, would benefit greatly from bicycle lanes being installed where they do not currently exist.
It is understood that the Port River Expressway has diverted significant traffic from Grand Junction Road and it may be that the current traffic volumes do not require the roadway capacity that exists.
May be better to have the following as an action, “Liaise with DPTI to identify what can be done to improve provision of bike facilities along the length of Grand Junction Road.” Liaise with DPTI to design and schedule bicycle lanes on Grand Junction Road, between South Road and Hampstead Road.
9.4.3 Military Road, Bower Road to Strathfield Road Traffic volumes on Military Road are between 9000 - 12,000 vehicles per day with speed signed at 60km/h. There are no dedicated cycle lanes along Military Road, but a wide kerbside lane exists on each side, where squeeze points are created with the demand for on-street car parking.
The DPTI ‘Integrated Transport and Land use Plan’ has designated Military Road as a ‘major cycling route on arterial road’, and it is understood that it will be assessed for opportunities to provide cycling facilities in the short-term. Recreational or inexperienced cyclists can use parallel alternative routes to use, such as Coast Park or Outer Harbour Greenway, however Military Road is a direct north-south route and therefore preferred by confident, higher speed cyclists.
Recommendations:
Liaise with DPTI to ensure concept designs for Military Road bicycle lanes are prepared in the short term.
9.4.4 Hanson Road Although bicycle lanes have been installed along the majority of Hanson Road, there is a gap between Grand Junction Road and Cormack Road. It is understood that the Metropolitan Adelaide Road Widening Plan (MARWP) exists along Hanson Road and therefore additional width could be achieved if required.
Recommendation:
Liaise with DPTI to install bicycle lanes on Hanson Road, between Grand Junction Road and Cormack Road.
68 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.4.5 Old Port Road Old Port Road provides a direct link to Semaphore, Largs Bay and Coast Park. The ‘Water proofing the West’ project is currently underway which includes landscaping, wetlands and stormwater infrastructure within the central median of Old Port Road from Frederick Road to Port Road and the adjoining side streets. This project has included re-seal and line marking on the traffic lanes which are two lanes in each direction. A wide kerbside lane exists for the majority of the road, except for a length of 150 metres (just south of Frederick Road), where a parking lane has been marked.
The opportunity to provide a high quality cyclist facility along Old Port Road was lost during the design stage of the above works. However, bicycle lanes should be retrofit along this important connection.
There is an unsealed path on the south side of Old Port Road and Bower Road that falls within the City of Charles Sturt. This provides a critical link into Port Adelaide Enfield and it is recommended that Council discuss the upgrade of this path with the City of Charles Sturt.
Recommendations:
Liaise with DPTI to install bicycle lanes in Old Port Road. Ensure crossing points are provided for viewing of the wetlands. Liaise with the City of Charles Sturt to upgrade the shared path on Old Port Road and Bower Road.
Intersection of Old Port Road and Port Road
The city bound merge lane from Old Port Road into Port Road presents difficulties for cyclists as they are channelled into the inside lane of Port Road and there is not a dedicated crossing facility to gain access to the kerbside lane of Port Road. A solution is simple by providing a refuge in the median just prior to the merge lane, to enable cyclists to cross at 90 degrees to the Port Road traffic.
Recommendations:
Liaise with DPTI to install a cyclist refuge crossing point of Port Road for eastbound cyclists on Old Port Road.
69 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.4.6 Sudholz Road Bicycle lanes exist on Sudholz Road south of Grand Junction Road where there are two-lanes in each direction. South of North East Road, the traffic lanes increase to three lanes in each direction with insufficient width to provide bicycle lanes. Although a BikeDirect route, the traffic lanes are narrow, (approximately 3m wide) and difficult for cyclists to negotiate. In addition, there is no scope for lane rearrangement to provide cycle lanes. Traffic volumes are more than 26,000 and a separated cyclist facility is preferred.
A shared path exists on the west side of Sudholz Road in the road reserve, achievable due to the dwellings backing onto Sudholz Road with no driveway access onto Sudholz Road. Therefore there is an opportunity to extend this shared path so that it extends from Grand Junction Road to the Council boundary at the River Torrens.
DPTI has scheduled an upgrade of the intersection of Sudholz Road and North East Road which will improve cyclist facilities.
Recommendations:
Liaise with DPTI to ensure that the intersection upgrade of Sudholz Road and North East Road includes improved cycle facilities. Refer to Section 9.2.3 for separated facility recommendation.
9.4.7 South Road The South Road Superway project will be completed late 2014 and includes cycling infrastructure at ground level as well as on nearby service and local roads. The elevated roadway has redirected the heavy and high speed traffic from the ground level resulting in a safer cycling environment. The cyclist facilities vary from on-road lanes to off-road paths and although inconsistent, do provide a direct cycle route that is safer than the previous South Road route which did not have any cycling facilities at all.
During consultation it was noted that the cycle route is difficult to navigate and complex. The Port Adelaide BUG has identified that cycle route signage on the Superway is incorrect (at Grand Junction Road).
Now that the Superway project has reached completion, the cycling facilities constructed should be reviewed with view to improving where possible. This includes access onto the South Road cycling facilities from the surrounding street network.
Recommendation:
Liaise with DPTI to have the South Road Superway cycling facilities reviewed with particular focus on directional signage and links to the local network.
70 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.4.8 North East Road Part-time bicycle lanes exist on North East Road north of Ascot Avenue and Petrova Avenue, Windsor Gardens. North of Petrova Avenue, bicycle lanes exist on the north side only but stop short of Sudholz Road.
It is understood that DPTI have scheduled upgrade works of the intersection of North East Road and Sudholz Road. Works are only proposed on the north side of the road although it is understood that DPTI is investigating provision of bicycle lanes on the south east side of the intersection on North East Road near Holden Hill Police Station.
Recommendations:
Liaise with DPTI regarding the designs for the intersection upgrade of North East Road and Sudholz Road, and lobby for these works to include bicycle lanes along North East Road that are continuous on both sides up to the intersection.
71 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.5 City-wide infrastructure Actions The cycling routes suggested in this plan provide the overall strategic network but it is important that cycling infrastructure is implemented with a fine-grained approach so that continuous connections are delivered and riders are not left stranded. For example, the provision of kerb ramps to access paths, safe road crossings, permeability to and through shopping centres, community centres, etc.
Guidelines and Standards are provided in Chapter 8 and the Best Practice Design Toolkit in Appendix D and it is critical that the designated Council Officer and Depot construction and maintenance staff are aware of these design considerations.
9.5.1 Community Resources The Port Adelaide Enfield community have the on-ground knowledge which can help turn this high level strategic plan work in a practical and connected network. Therefore it is important that Council develop a strategy for the community to feed information to council at the fine-grained level as an on-going process.
This strategy can include:
An input sheet on Council’s website for reporting issues and opportunities for the Bicycle Network. An App that the community can send messages with GPS coordinates to the Council Officer with locations that need improvement; e.g. kerb ramp access up to a path.
Recommendation:
Develop a strategy for the community to feed information to council at the fine-grained level as an on-going process and explore ways to improve use of existing options e.g. Council’s web page and My Services App.
9.5.1 Links to Rail Stations The rail lines within the City of Port Adelaide provide dual mode transport opportunities for people either taking their bike on the train, or parking their bike at the rail station. Routes to train stations need to be identified with direction signage and distances to encourage use.
Recommendations:
Liaise with DPTI Public Transport Division to assess current bicycle parking facilities at stations and provide additional parking if required. Improve cyclist permeability through railway mazes by ensuring they are constructed to current Australian Standards. Develop a signage strategy to identify routes to stations.
72 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.5.2 Footpaths around Schools Footpath cycling can offer safer routes for young cyclists and their parents and its encouragement is recommended. Council can assist by providing high quality, smooth, well-maintained footpaths throughout the Council area and particularly near Schools.
Recommendations:
Council develop a footpath strategy that includes: o Footpaths to be 3 metres wide where possible, (or if not possible, construct as width between kerb and boundary) in close vicinity to Schools. o Footpaths to be maintained regularly with removal of surface debris and low hanging tree branches.
9.5.3 Main Road Intersections The fine-grained network includes the identification of hazardous locations where bicycle lane greening could be installed. This includes bicycle lanes at signalised intersections, particularly where left turning vehicles cross the lane, and across unsignalised T-junctions.
Two main road crossings were identified by Council as hazardous for cyclists:
Brookvale Road – O-Bahn underpass between Beaverdale Avenue and River Valley Drive. The underpass is at the bottom of a steep hill Prospect Road – Pedestrian crossing south of Marmion Avenue. Other infrastructure that Council could identify and feed through to DPTI includes: stand-up lanes at intersections, bicycle storage boxes, cyclist push buttons and cyclist head-start lanterns (refer Best Practice Design Toolkit: Appendix D).
This plan details the networks which require priority over the next 5 years (2015-2020), however Council could also inform the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure where locations are identified in the future which may require consideration and should be high priority considerations. This is aligned with the DPTI Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan action which reads: “Upgrade the existing Bikedirect network, including retrofitting existing bike lanes to best practice standards and extending bike lanes through intersections”.
9.5.4 Investigate Crash Locations It is recommended that Council seek to collect comprehensive and up to date cyclist counts of the Council area to produce increasingly thorough reviews and investigate locations where there is conflict between motor vehicles and cyclists and develop solutions for improvements.
Where cyclist crash clusters exist at locations specifically identified in the 1-5 Year action plan, it is recommended that council undertake a detailed cycling safety audit with specific regard to crossing points, road surface and sight-obstructions (such as parked vehicles or fixed objects). The historical crash type may provide some insight into the issue, and should be reviewed in conjunction with the site safety audit.
73 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.6 Recreational / Tourist Routes Cycle tourism is a fast-growing activity and routes such as Coast Park and River Torrens Linear Park are popular for recreational cycling. Additional opportunities exist for local residents, as well as unique locations that will attract visitors from further afield.
9.6.1 Garden Island / Torrens Island A cyclist route is required out to Garden Island which could comprise a shared path alongside the Grand Trunkway, and sealed shoulders on the bridge to Garden Island. This portion of land is unincorporated Government land (not Council’s) and therefore liaison is required, and it is noted that Council is the authority most interested in this area.
This path would link into paths developed with the Gillman Development and form a recreational loop. Features for cycle tourists include the River, The Dolphin Sanctuary, Mutton Cove, kayaking and the recently announced international bird sanctuary.
Recommendations:
Commence feasibility and planning of cycle tourism to Port River/Garden Island. Consider path alongside Grand Trunkway. Seal shoulders along main road crossing to Garden Island.
9.6.2 Pelican Point Road An existing unsealed off-road path exists along part of Pelican Point Road which if extended would provide a continuous loop recreational path and link to the Outer Harbour Greenway. Given its relatively remote location, this path could be gravel or cement treated. It would also connect to Kardi Yarta, the North Haven Adventure Playground. There is scope in the future for a path to link from Pelican Point Road to Mutton Cove.
Consultation sessions suggested that this route could become the cycle training route to replace Lady Gowrie Drive and therefore remove cyclist/resident conflicts.
A safe road crossing (cyclist refuge in median) is required to safely cross Victoria Road.
Recommendations:
Install median refuge in Victoria Road opposite Kardi Yarta. Liaise with Bicycle SA regarding the feasibility of Pelican Point Route replacing Lady Gowrie Drive as the training route. This will include assessing road surface and upgrading to suit training cyclists. Construct recreational unsealed shared path loop around Pelican Point Road. Review feasibility of constructing path to Mutton Cove i.e. across rail line.
74 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.6.3 Snowdens Beach Snowdens Beach is a unique river/beach location with a picnic spot with toilets, river views and a boat ramp. It provides a destination for local recreational cycling.
Recommendations:
Install signage to identify route to Snowdens Beach. Install cycling parking rails. Include Snowdens beach (listing facilities) on all cycling maps.
75 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.7 Open Channels The Kilburn and North Arm Open Channels provide an opportunity for future local greenway links.
The Kilburn Open Channel would provide an enjoyable alternative to Prospect Road which is busy and does not have bicycle lanes, although these are proposed in future streetscape upgrades. It would also link into the Braund Road Bicycle Boulevard (City of Prospect currently designing), and further to the Adelaide Park Lands and CBD.
The North Arm Open Channel forms part of the proposed Gillman East-West Connector and provides an off-road connection as an alternative in this area of roads that carry high volumes of heavy vehicles.
Recommendation:
Consider a policy that protects open channels from development that would preclude the transformation into a Greenway. Undertake a feasibility study to identify works required to convert channels to Greenways.
9.8 40km/h Area Speed Zones The City of Port Adelaide Enfield has some existing and planned 40km/h area speed zones. These are highly recommended to improve cycling amenity, and the current status is as follows:
40km/h area zones have been implemented on St Vincent Street, Port Adelaide (Commercial Road-Nelson Street) and Semaphore Road, Semaphore (Military Road – Esplanade). Council is considering expanding this zone to include the Port Adelaide CBD around Dale St and Church Street 40km/h precincts are being considered throughout all of Hillcrest and Oakden (bounded by North East Road, Sudholz Road, Fosters Road and Grand Junction Road) 40km/h precinct is currently being considered in the Kilburn area (bounded by Churchill Road, Prospect Road, Way Street and Palmer Avenue). This will not commence until after implementation of some of the LATM devices.
Recommendations:
Define feasibility of providing a 40km/h area speed zone that includes the Port Adelaide CBD. Extend the proposed 40km/h Area Zone in the Kilburn area to include Northcote Street. This street is already calmed with slow points and provides a direct link to the Kilburn Rail Station. In the long term it would be ideal to reduce the default suburban speed limit to 40km/h or even 30km/h throughout the Council area.
76 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
9.9 Lady Gowrie Drive – Riding in Groups Lady Gowrie Drive has bicycle lanes along its length and is also a training route used by sports cyclists. The route also includes Victoria Road and Strathfield Terrace.
It was identified in consultation that there is conflict between cyclists riding in bunches along Lady Gowrie Drive and residents / motorists. Issues include cyclists riding in a hazardous manner, cyclists intimidating motorists, cyclist/motorist conflict and cyclists shouting to each other along the route.
It is important that bunch riders use the correct etiquette when riding and it is also important that residents and motorists understand ‘why’ cyclists bunch ride. Education campaigns can include: articles in the local paper, brochure distribution to local cafés and bicycle groups and liaison with the cycling groups to raise awareness of the issues.
Recommendation:
Advocate that DPTI:
Liaise with cycling groups to discuss the conflicts that are occurring, and work together to develop solutions. Prepare educational brochures that provide information for residents on cycling in bunches and outlines the etiquette required by cyclists. Distribute brochures around Semaphore, Largs Bay and Port Adelaide and request cycling groups to distribute to members.
77 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
78 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
10 Promoting Cycling
Many cycling routes are already established within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. To make the most of these existing networks and the future links proposed in this Plan, it is important for Council to exercise their responsibility of raising the profile of cycling as a fun, healthy, accessible, flexible and legitimate transport option. This is an essential component toward increasing the mode share of cycling within the local area. This section details a number of recommendations and examples of initiatives on cycling promotion that Council are encouraged to consider implementing.
The role of actively promoting cycling is similar to that of providing the required infrastructure. Although they are applied in different ways, they encourage more people to cycle more often. Initiatives that influence people’s decisions about how and when they travel can be applied in a number of ways, including:
Education and travel behaviour change programs. Publicity campaigns. Infrastructure elements. Information provision and route legibility. Safety training for all users. Committing to ongoing research. Local government policy. Council advocacy.
10.1 Education and Travel Behaviour Change Programs Travel behaviour change programs play an important role in promoting cycling and walking. Such schemes aim to provide appropriate information, assistance, motivation or incentives that induce a shift in voluntary travel choices to ways that benefit themselves, the community and the environment. Key endeavours of travel behaviour change include:
Information provision. Providing support for participants though organised events, or on-going contact. o Creating a cycling community. o A sense of safety in numbers. Education programs. Skills training. Recommendation:
Research and implement education and travel behaviour change programs with DPTI, Bicycle SA and other relevant bodies.
Provide and support Bicycle Education programs such as Bike Ed, Ride a Bike Right in the Council area (make this an action in Council’s Community Wellbeing plan).
79 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
10.2 Publicity Campaigns Encouraging people to cycle is an essential component of any cycling program. As detailed in the ‘National Cycling Strategy 2011-2016’ (Austroads 2011, p. 5), it is critical that Council run effective campaigns encouraging people to get on their bikes. Marketing campaigns and initiatives to promote cycling as a viable method of transport have been successful in increasing mode share and raising the profile of cycling in Australia. Examples include:
The national ‘Travel Smart’ program. ‘Ride To Work Day’. Localised events, such as those run in conjunction with the Tour Down Under. Using social media to promote cycling and the details of new and upgraded routes. Recommendations:
Support ‘Ride to Work Day’ and other similar events to raise the profile of cycling within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. Continue to collaborate with DPTI on the Way2Go program, by identifying schools which can become involved in the program and budgeting and resourcing to assist with the program implementation and any related engineering treatments. 10.3 Infrastructure Elements Although not essential, some infrastructure elements work to encourage cycling by improving amenity and comfort. A lack or absence of such facilities can deter people from considering cycling. The Design Toolkit (Appendix D) provides a comprehensive listing, with a short summary provided below:
End of trip facilities: o Secure bicycle parking. o Shower facilities at the workplace can encourage cyclists. Mid-trip facilities: o Seating. o Drinking fountains. o Bicycle repair and adjustment stations. Bicycle hire initiatives, such as Figure 27 below. Recommendation: Continue to support bike hire initiatives and consider cycling supportive infrastructure elements along the network where appropriate.
Figure 27: Free bicycle hire scheme at Lightsview, SA.
80 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
10.4 Information Provision and Route Legibility Providing easy to access, reliable and relevant information is key to increasing the mode share of cycling. Not knowing where to find safe and convenient route information is a barrier for those who do not currently cycle. Providing information across varying media platforms increases accessibility and caters to a diversifying demographic. Examples include:
Directional signage and pavement logos along key routes, for example: o To activity hubs. o To railway stations. o To key routes, greenways and shared paths. Pamphlets, brochures, maps and other printed material made available to the public. Provide localised maps of areas around schools or local shops or neighbourhood centres e.g. 3km radius. Provide a map of the Port Loop. Online maps and route information, including route difficulty ratings, such as: o http://maps.sa.gov.au/cycleinstead/ o http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/using-roads/bicycles/cyclewayfinder/index.html Smartphone apps, such as: o ‘CycleStreets Journey Planner’, which helps plan journeys and notifies users of potential route difficulties, such as steep inclines, http://www.cyclestreets.net/ o ‘Bike Blackspot’, which allows bicycle users to submit locational information on trouble areas could be linked to a Council data base, http://www.bikeblackspot.org/
Recommendations:
Ensure adequate public access to route information and consider additional media platforms for a diverse demographic. Plan for sufficient wayfinding, route notification and directional signage along key routes.
10.5 Safety Training Cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as any other road user. However, as private cars are the predominant type of vehicles on the road and are of larger size and can travel at higher speeds, cyclist vulnerability is increased. Evidence shows that driver behaviour is a key concern for cyclists and forms a barrier to encouraging new cyclists.
During consultation, it was raised that cycle training parks could be established to educate and encourage young cyclists.
It may also be necessary to promote the following key messages from DPTI to all road users encouraging safer road environments:
Scan the road for cyclists. When turning or entering an intersection look for cyclists and give way as you would for any other vehicle – cyclists are often harder to see when approaching intersections, and can travel at variable speeds. Before opening your car door look behind and check blind spots for cyclists.
81 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
You must not drive, stop or park in a bicycle lane. You can cross a bicycle lane to turn left, enter private property or park in a parking lane. Cyclists can legally ride two abreast. Be patient as you approach and overtake only when safe. Give cyclists plenty of room - a minimum of one metre clearance when overtaking. Related to this is the behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists in a mixed environment, specifically shared use paths. Conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists are infrequent, however it is the responsibility of all path users to be courteous and exercise a degree of caution.
Guidelines for using shared paths have been established by the Bicycle Network (Victoria). The main points of etiquette to observe on shared paths include:
Be considerate of other path users. Keep left unless overtaking (overtake on the right). Ride at an appropriate speed - keep it at running pace or below (about 20-25km/h maximum). Wheeled traffic gives way to foot traffic. Ring your bell gently, call 'Passing' and slow when passing others. Move off the path if stopped. Recommendations:
Provide information and generate awareness on ‘shared path etiquette’ in locations with a high number of pedestrians/cyclists. Review existing reserves with view to suitable locations for bicycle training parks (for example Hanson Reserve and Kardi Yarta). Build at least one road safety park in the Council area. Engage with DPTI and MAC (Motor Accidents Commission) to consider undertaking a specific driver/cyclist awareness campaign. Promote and provide bicycle education programs at Community Centres and Libraries with a particular focus on School Holidays, Women and Newly arrived residents.
10.6 Committing to Ongoing Research Council’s commitment to continuous research to develop a better understanding of the barriers facing residents, and those who are interested in cycling is essential. Such studies and research should also examine what factors would enable people to take up cycling or cycle more often in Port Adelaide Enfield and to inform programs to support more people to cycle.
Research methods and objectives may include:
Understanding the barriers and enablers of residents cycling or cycling more frequently, and use the results to inform the design of projects and programs; and Actively work with community groups and schools to promote bicycle safety education and awareness and provide support for them to apply for funding.
82 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Recommendations:
Continue to participate in the Super Sunday Recreation Counts (given the surveys are designed to be conducted annually to provide council with the necessary data to assist planning and asset management). Supplement the data with additional counts on other days (at the discretion of Council) at these select locations for comparative data. Conduct Super Tuesday counts. Conduct a review of the Bicycle Plan every five years. Develop administrative protocols for ‘End Task Administration’ to update records and asset registers. When bicycle facilities are implemented tasks should include: updating GIS layers, asset registers, recording an action database to assist in future updates of the Council Bicycle Plans. 10.7 Local Government Policy Council is encouraged to adopt policies that ensure consideration of this Bicycle Plan when assessing all forms of Development applications, including: Development Assessment, Development Plan Amendments, Structure Plans, Master Plans and other forms of land use and transport development.
Recommendations:
Propose the North-Arm East Management Plan considers use of the channel to be used as a greenway. Ensure that future development at Gillman incorporates a best practice cycle network that connects to the Port Adelaide Enfield cycle network. Review the City of Port Adelaide Enfield Development Plan to update/improve policies for cycling, such as: o Providing end of trip facilities, such as: parking, lockers, and showers. o Including best practice facilities, treatments and networks in new developments.
10.8 Council Advocacy It is recommended that Council leads by example to encourage cycling and walking within the community. Advocacy measures that encourage a workplace culture of cycling are encouraged, and Council should lead the way. Actions could include:
Preparing a ‘Green Travel Plan’ for staff that encourages greater use of public transport, cycling and can include benefits for staff who cycle to work such as: o Easy access to secure, high profile bike racks. o Shower and locker facilities. o Interest free loans to purchase a bicycle. o Fostering staff development by running training courses and maintenance sessions to educate staff on the benefits of cycling. o An incentive program for staff that ride or walk to work. Developing a generic workplace travel plan for the LGA and distribute to employers. Introduce a workplace bike fleet, see for example: http://www.travelsmart.gov.au/toolkits/bikefleets/index.html
83 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Host a ‘Ride to Work Day’ breakfast. Encourage large employers to develop green travel plans. Encourage land use planning and design that supports walking and cycling. Define the role for an existing council representative (or create a new position) with a good knowledge of cycling facility design to implement the actions, recommendations and ongoing management of projects listed above and throughout this plan and be a liaison point for workplaces, schools, cycling groups and DPTI.
Recommendations:
Provide a designated Council Officer with a good knowledge of cycling facility design to implement the actions and ongoing management of projects listed above, and throughout this Plan and be a liaison point for workplaces, schools, cycling groups, DPTI, etc. Facilitate an open communication process where the community can provide a designated Council Officer on updates of issues, constraints and opportunities within the cycling network. Depot and technical staff who are trained in cycling facility requirements and who automatically cross-check the bicycle plan before any road works are constructed so that opportunities are not lost.
84 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
11 Funding Opportunities
Implementing the proposed cycling network will require continual and greater levels of investment than has previously been allocated to cycling. Implementation relies on internal funding allocation as well as external funding. The timing and delivery will be dependent on Council budgetary processes and the receipt of grant funding from state and Federal sources. This section outlines a number of sources that Council can pursue in conjunction with this Cycling Plan, or promote to individuals, community groups and businesses to apply directly.
11.1 State-level 11.1.1 State Bicycle Fund The State Bicycle Fund is an annual subsidy scheme that provides financial assistance up to a dollar for dollar basis to councils to progress cycling initiatives in their local area. The Fund has fostered a long-standing partnership between the State Government and councils to respond to federal, state and local government strategies that encourage cycling. Suitable projects for funding include:
Development or review of Local Area Strategic Bicycle Plans. Construction of on-road bicycle lanes. Construction of off-road shared use paths. Construction or modification of median refuges or road crossings. Subsidy funding is up to 50% of the total project cost and Council is required to provide the remaining amount. The maximum total project cost is limited to $100,000 (maximum funding contribution of up to $50,000).
11.1.2 Places for People Places for People is a State Government grant program available to all South Australian councils to strategically plan, design and develop public places of community significance. The principal objective is to assist in creating new public places, or revitalise existing public spaces that contribute to the social, cultural and economic life of the community they serve. Places for People projects must be carried out on land with free public access and assists councils and their communities to:
Add to their area’s vitality. Enhance public places in terms of use ability, safety and visual appeal. Develop a 'sense of place' and identity that reflects local culture, heritage and character. Improve the efficiency and economic performance of urban and rural centres and other strategic places. Improve the relationship between public and private areas. The program also aims to foster the development of an urban design culture within Councils, ensuring a commitment to strategic collaborative practices and high quality, sustainable outcomes. Specific to this City-Wide Cycling Plan, the Places for People grants recognises within its objectives to provide safe walking and cycling links between communities and land uses, as well as improving the environment for pedestrians and cyclists where appropriate.
85 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
11.1.3 Bikes for Better Business The Bikes for Better Business projects seek to facilitate an increase in bike riding to and from businesses, contributing to a more bike-friendly city. The program is funded by DPTI and encourages local businesses to contribute toward establishing bicycle parking and end-trip facilities within close proximity. Other metropolitan councils have also partnered with DPTI as part of this scheme, including the Adelaide City Council and the City of Holdfast Bay.
Recommendation: The City of Port Adelaide Enfield partner with DPTI as part of the Bikes for Better Business program and encourage businesses to apply for grant funding.
11.1.4 Community Grants Although not aimed towards Councils, DPTI and the Motor Accident Commission (MAC) offers community grants to groups and organisations to assist in delivering small scale projects that support safer, greener and more active travel choices. Projects can focus on improving road safety, getting people cycling, walking or catching public transport, replacing car journeys with technology, doing things locally, or using cars in a smarter manner.
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield can play a role in encouraging its resident groups, schools, businesses or other active organisations to consider applying for the Community Grants.
11.2 Federal-level 11.2.1 Black Spot Programme The Black Spot Programme is part of the Federal and State Government’s commitment to reduce crashes on Australian roads. Funds are directed towards significantly reducing crashes by the identification and treatment of locations and sections of road that have an unsatisfactory casualty crash record or that have a significant crash potential. Funds from the State Black Spot Program are specifically available to councils as subsidy funding for cycling safety infrastructure projects. Applications can be submitted late in the year for the following financial year’s program. Subsidy funding is two-thirds of the total project cost and Council is required to provide the remaining one- third. The maximum total project cost is limited to $100,000 (maximum funding contribution of $66,667)
This Plan acknowledges that incident clusters may be eligible for Black Spot funding for the:
Construction of on-road bicycle lanes. Construction of off-road shared use paths. Construction or modification of median refuges or road crossings.
11.2.2 Office for Recreation and Sport Various funding opportunities are available to local governments, organisations and individuals to provide high quality active recreation and sport facilities, programs, initiatives and activities.
Details of the grants can be found here: http://www.recsport.sa.gov.au/funding-scholarships/
86 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
12 Maintenance
Maintenance of cycling infrastructure should be monitored and reviewed regularly in line with both Council budgetary allocations and reflect DPTI’s ‘Guide to Bikeway Pavement Design Construction & Maintenance for South Australia’ (2011). Regular maintenance activities on bikeways should include:
Filling of cracks. Patching of potholes. Trimming or removal of grass so that it does not intrude into the path. Sweeping of paths to remove debris such as broken glass and fine gravel (including that arising from construction and maintenance activities such as crack sealing). Repainting of pavement markings. Cleaning of signs, seating etc. Trimming of trees and shrubs to maintain safe clearances and sight distances. Recommendation: Council should develop a maintenance and management plan for cycling infrastructure and ensure adequate budgets are allocated (see for example: Figure 28).
87 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
Figure 28: Example of a cycling infrastructure management and maintenance plan.
Source: Sydney’s Cycling Future, NSW Government 2013.
88 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
13 Conclusion
Through providing this Plan, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield has recognised its role and exercised its responsibility toward providing safe, sustainable and active transport options for the local community. This Local Area Bicycle Plan provides a comprehensive network vision that builds upon existing infrastructure and the previous Bicycle Plan, provides insight on the benefits of cycling as well as outlining recommendations and actions that together, strive to have more people of all ages, abilities and skill levels cycling more often. The Action Plan which follows summarises and lists the recommendations made throughout this Plan. These are to be developed with further detailed investigations along with the guidance provided in this report, particularly: Chapter 7 ‘Planning the Proposed Network’, Chapter 8 ‘Designing for Cycling’, Chapter 9 ‘The Proposed Cycling Network 2015-2020’ and Appendix D: Best Practice Design Toolkit.
It is important to acknowledge that this is a strategic high-level plan and should be treated as a ‘working’ document. It should be reviewed every five years to ascertain the action plan and priorities for the following five years. This regular review process also provides the opportunity to evaluate the outcomes of the work implemented and make adjustments as required. The proposed network must be implemented with a ‘fine-grained’ approach to ensure connectivity and improved permeability of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield.
89 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
14 Action Plan Summary
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority Metropolitan Network: Greenways / Bikeways
1 Outer Harbour Greenway 9.1.1
1.1 Continue to liaise with DPTI to complete the Outer Harbour Greenway PAE Resource Short
1.2 Install Sharrow linemarking as per DPTI Operational Standard Installed 2015 Completed
1.3 Assess all connections from the bicycle network into the Outer Harbour Greenway to ensure they are PAE resource Short continuous
2 Gawler Greenway: Refer to Enlargement C Gawler Greenway for location and design reference
2.1 Pym Street – Rail line to Shared Path (Janice Jensen Reserve)
Ban parking on Pym Street and install a 1.3 metre wide Bicycle Lane plus a 500mm wide flush island buffer 633 $9,495.00 Short between the bicycle lane and the moving traffic.
2.2 Shared path (Janice Jensen Reserve) – Pym Street to Regency Road
2.2a Upgrade path to 3 metres wide (minimum), including signage, linemarking, holding rails and bollards where 785 $94,200.00 Medium required
2.2b Review tree root damage and remove where possible PAE resource Short
2.3 Gallipoli Drive – Regency Road to Grand Junction Road
2.3a Install a 400mm wide edge line (Enhanced Bicycle Lane) at existing bicycle lanes 2783 $41,745.00 Medium
2.4 Grand Junction Road – Gallipoli Drive to Gawler rail line
90 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority 2.4a Clarify land ownership and the users of the unsealed tracks PAE resource Short
2.4b Liaise with the above with the aim to allow a shared path to be constructed 488 PAE resource Short
2.5 Shared path Grand Junction Road to Cormack Road
2.5a Clarify land ownership and the users of the unsealed track PAE resource Short
2.5b Liaise with the above with the aim to allow a shared path to be constructed 1178 PAE resource Short
2.5c Liaise with DPTI to install a cyclist/pedestrian median refuge crossing at Cormack Road PAE resource Short
2.6 Magazine Road - Cormack Road to Martin Street
2.6a Install shared path on east side of Magazine Road between Cormack Road and Martin Street 253 $50,600.00 Short
2.7 Martin Street – Magazine Road to Rail Line
2.7a Install Sharrows to identify the Gawler Greenway route. 195 $156.00 Short
2.7b Install signage to raise awareness of cyclists, including “cyclists crossing” warning sign 195 $200.00 Short
2.8 Shared path – Magazine Road to Council Boundary
2.8a Clarify land ownership and the users of the unsealed track PAE resource Short
2.8b Liaise with the above with the aim to allow a shared path to be constructed 1100 PAE resource Short
2.8c Provide access to Dry Creek Station - detail to be determined TBC Short
3 Levels-City Bikeway 9.1.3
3.1 Install Sharrows to identify route (note - update from recently installed bicycle logos) 4824 $3,859.20 Short
3.2 Monitor and evaluate traffic volumes and speeds with view to installing traffic calming measures to facilitate PAE resource Short
91 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority speeds of 40km/h or less
3.3 Upgrade existing bicycle lanes in Galway Avenue – convert to enhanced bicycle lanes 465 $6,975.00 Short
3.4 Liaise with DPTI to ensure upgrade of Bikeway road crossings at Regency Road and Grand Junction Road PAE resource Short
4 Port River Expressway Greenway 9.1.4
4.1 Liaise with DPTI with regard to providing a Greenway alongside the Port River Expressway that connects into PAE resource Short to the Gawler Greenway and the future Northern Connector Greenway Long
5 Coast Park 9.1.5
5.1 Council continue regular inspections and maintenance of Coast Park PAE resource Ongoing
5.2 Develop a signage strategy that informs users of etiquette between cyclists and pedestrians; e.g. ring your 11190 PAE resource Short bell when approaching a pedestrian
5.3 Develop a cyclist path behind The Marquee to separate cyclists from Palais patrons at this busy location In Progress Short
6 River Torrens Linear Park 9.1.6
6.1 Develop a program to widen all Linear Park paths within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield to 4 metres where PAE resource Long possible (3 metres minimum)
6.2 Develop an information and directional signage policy and implement. Includes distances to destinations, 5150 PAE resource Medium and path user etiquette
7 Dry Creek Linear Park 9.1.7
7.1 Liaise with the Cities of Salisbury and Tea Tree Gully to work together to upgrade the shared paths PAE resource Medium consistently / Long
8 Future Northern Connector Greenway Connection 9.1.8
92 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority 8.1 Liaise with DPTI and the City of Salisbury to identify the most appropriate route PAE resource Short / Medium 8.2 Investigated land ownership and map existing tracks PAE resource Medium
8.3 Investigate purpose for locked gate PAE resource Short
8.4 Formalise the most appropriate track PAE resource Medium
8.5 Install a safe crossing point at Port River Expressway - Location and design to be determined TBC Short
Neighbourhood Route Networks
9 Enfield East-West Neighbourhood Connector: Please refer to Enlargement D Enfield East-West Connector 9.2.1 for location and design reference
9.1 Assess identified safety issues and action any required improvements. - Safety Audit required $5,000.00 Short
9.2 Install Sharrow linemarking along the length of the Enfield East-West Neighbourhood Connector in 8750 $7,000.00 Short accordance with DPTI's Operational Instruction
9.3 Install ramp to shared use path at Swanson Ave (actioned as of August 2015) Installed 2015
9.4 Upgrade shared path between Swanson Ave and Lewis Court 98 $11,760.00 Medium
9.5 Liaise with TAFE Gilles Plains to construct section of shared path from Blacks Road to Sudholz Rd 300 PAE resource Short (construction cost if approved approx. $75,000)
9.6 Upgrade existing shared paths adjacent Sir Ross Smith Blvd to 3m wide and install directional signage 1510 $181,200.00 Medium / Long
9.7 Enhance line marking on existing bike lanes on Folland Rd (e.g. 300mm wide buffers) between Fosters Rd 1650 $24,750.00 Short / and Hampstead Road Medium
9.8 Provide cyclist cut-throughs at all road closures along Folland Ave Service Roads, between Hampstead and 5 $10,000.00 Short
93 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority Fosters Rd
9.9 Install shared paths on footpaths to connect to existing signals at Hampstead Road 50 $1,000.00 Short
9.10 Main North Road: Convert footpath to shared paths between Harewood Ave and pedestrian activated 52 $1,040.00 Short crossing on East side and between Clifton St and pedestrian activated crossing on West side
9.11 Install Pedestrian Refuge in existing median on Main North Road between Warwick St and Barton St $5,000.00 Short
9.12 Convert footpaths to shared paths between signals at Darlington Ave and new refuge opposite Stanley Ave 87 $1,740.00 Short
9.13 Upgrade existing shared path access through road closure on Barton St $2,000.00 Short / Medium
9.14 Install refuge in existing flush median on Prospect Rd at Northcote St $2,000.00 Short
9.15 Liaise with DPTI to develop cyclist crossing at Northcote St and Churchill Rd intersection. PAE resource Short
9.16 Liaise with DPTI to develop cyclist facilities (extended and green lanes) at the Churchill/Regency Road PAE resource Short intersection
10 Gillman East-West Connector: Please refer to Enlargement B Gillman East-West Connector for location and 9.2.2 design reference
10.1 Construct shared path north side of Regency Rd to connect path to signals at Regency Rd/South Rd 372 $7,440.00 Short intersection
10.2 Construct shared path North side of Cowan St (completed section through Harold Tyler Reserve as of August Installed 2015 Completed 2015)
10.3 Connect new shared path to existing shared path along South Rd $5,000.00 Short
10.4 Construct shared path adjacent Cardigan St 370 $92,500.00 Medium
94 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority 10.5 Construct shared path adjacent Trafford St 238 $28,560.00 Medium
10.6 Construct shared path along open channel (long-term) 395 $98,750.00 Long
10.7 Connect to existing pedestrian crossing with shared paths along footpaths (both sides) 130 $2,600.00 Short
10.8 Construct shared path East side of Plymouth Rd 1,060 $127,200.00 Medium
10.9 Construct shared path East side of Wingfield Rd 95 $11,400.00 Medium
10.10 Construct shared path North side of railway line 1,080 $270,000.00 Medium
10.11 Construct shared path South side of railway line 990 $247,500.00 Medium
10.12 Provide railway crossing for shared path TBC Short
10.13 Connect to Outer Harbour Greenway shared path $5,000.00 Short
11 Sudholz Road Shared Path 9.4.6
11.1 Convert existing footpath to a shared path on west side of Sudholz Road. Requires liaison with DPTI 2,395 $47,900.00 Medium
11.2 Convert footpath to shared path south of Grand Junction Road to connect to existing shared path (400 400 $8,000.00 Medium metres)
11.3 Convert footpath to shared path from North East Road to the River Torrens (1200 metres) 1200 $24,000.00 Medium
12 Causeway Road Shared Path (also refer to Enlargement A Port Proposed Cycling Network for 9.4.1 location/design reference)
12.1 Construct new shared path on the west side of Causeway Road, to match into each end of the existing 410 $49,200.00 Short / shared path (part of Port Hike & Bike Loop) (2.5m wide minimum) Medium
12.2 Install new shared path on east side of Causeway Road between Sutherland Street and Semaphore Road 480 $120,000.00 Short / (2.5m wide minimum) Medium
95 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority 12.3 Ensure ramp access to shared path is provided where practical PAE resource Short / Medium
12.4 Provide refuge crossing where path crosses from west side to east side (near Sutherland St) $5,000.00 Short / Medium
12.5 Match new shared path in to existing shared path at southeast corner of Semaphore Road / Causeway Road. $5,000.00 Short / Install linemarking and signage to recently constructed path – Note: Existing Pedestrian Actuated Crossing Medium provides connection to the Outer Harbour Greenway
13 Hart Street, Glanville/Ethelton 9.2.5
13.1 Between Military Road and Causeway Road:
13.1a Liaise with DPTI to coordinate a consistent approach for a best practice cycling route along Hart Street from PAE resource Short Jervois Bridge to Esplanade. This includes road sections managed by both DPTI and Council. Lobby to assess the capacity of Hart Street with view to reducing four lanes to two and installing kerb separated bicycle lanes.
13.1b Liaise with DPTI to reduce the signed speed to 40km/h or 50km/h PAE resource Short
13.1c Provide directional and information signage 1,185 $2,000.00 Short
13.2 Between Military Road and the Esplanade (Maintained by Council) 9.2.5
13.2a Liaise with DPTI to coordinate a consistent approach for a best practice cycling route along Hart Street from PAE resource Short Jervois Bridge to Esplanade. This includes road sections managed by both DPTI and Council. Lobby to assess the capacity of Hart Street with view to reducing four lanes to two and installing kerb separated bicycle lanes.
13.2b Liaise with DPTI to reduce the signed speed to 40km/h or 50km/h PAE resource Short
13.2c Provide directional and information signage 300 $2000.00 Short
96 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority 14 Dry Creek to Linear Park 9.2.7
14.1 Liaise with the City of Tea Tree Gully to agree on a concept design for cycling facilities on Wandana Avenue. 970 Shared with Medium / Note the road width is 12.5 metres which could facilitate exclusive bicycle lanes on one side and Bicycle / Car TTG ($13,580) Long parking lanes on the other side. The road width is sufficient to provide enhance bicycle lanes, e.g., wide line marked buffers between bicycle lane, parking lane and traffic lane. The side of the road with parking could be alternated where parking demand requires it.
14.2 Convert the exclusive bicycle lanes in Tarton Road to enhanced bicycle lanes, by a line marking buffer, e.g. 525 $7,875.00 Medium / 300mm wide flush island between bike lane and moving traffic. Liaise with the City of Tea Tree Gully to line Long mark the bicycle lane on the east side for consistency.
14.3 Install a 40 metre section of shared path on the existing paved footpath – east side of North East Road, 40 $8,000.00 Medium / between signals at Wandana Avenue and Kyle Road. Long
14.4 Install Advisory logos in Kyle Road and Andrew Avenue to identify route 90 $72.00 Medium / Long
14.5 Install Advisory logos in Haddington Street to identify route 450 $72.00 Medium / Long
14.6 Install Advisory logos in Kiltie Street to identify route 455 $72.00 Medium / Long
Local Links
15 Port CBD Connectivity: Refer to Enlargement A Port Proposed Cycling Network for location/design 9.3.1 reference
15.1 Provide a cyclist cut-through of the Heath Street road closure to connect to bicycle lanes on Fletcher Road $3,500.00 Short
15.2 Vincent Street / Nelson Street – Install cyclist hook turn to facilitate right turn into Nelson Street (adjacent $220.00 Short two right turn lanes).(Note that Bus Hook turn is also proposed for this location by Council – design to
97 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority consider both)
15.3 Provide access to the Port Loop from Nelson Road as follows: As of August 2015, DPTI and Renewal SA have Short been installing new bike lanes at St Vincent Street – Nelson Street Jervois Bridge
Install a cyclist/pedestrian refuge in the existing median on Nelson Street south of Victoria Road / $2,000.00 Semaphore Road (where the bike lanes terminate)
Install a shared path on east side of Nelson Street between the Port Loop shared path and the new refuge 660 $13,200.00
Include directional signage for southbound cyclists to cross 660 $1,000.00
Upgrade existing footpaths on both sides of Nelson Street, between North Parade and St Vincent Street to a 150 $3,000.00 Shared Path to provide alternative connection to traffic signals and bicycle lanes at St Vincent Street. (This will need to be done with care outside of the British Hotel to avoid creating a pedestrian and cyclist conflict.)
15.4 Liaise with DPTI to install bike facility on Southern side of St Vincent Street PAE resource Short
15.5 Install median refuge on Grand Junction Road near College Street intersection $3,000.00 Short
15.6 Upgrade footpaths to shared paths on Grand Junction Road (both Sides) between Russell Street and Lipson 350 $14,000.00 Short Street
15.7 Install median refuge on Lipson Street where shared use path joins (approx 100m north of Russell Street) $3,000.00 Short
15.8 Upgrade existing shared use path between Rosetta Street and Lipson Street $1,000.00 Short
15.9 Along Old Port Road between Grand Junction Rd and Church St, upgrade existing path to shared path and 495 $9,900.00 Short connect to existing shared path
15.10 Install cyclist refuge in existing median at St Vincent Street and Hart Street $3,000.00 Short
15.11 Install cyclist refuge in existing median at Bower Road (liaise/work with City of Charles Sturt) $3,000.00 Short
98 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority 15.12 Liaise with DPTI and City of Charles Sturt to install crosswalk on west side of signalised intersection – Bower PAE resource Short Road, Causeway Road and Old Port Road
16 Briens Road, Gepps Cross (Shared Path) 9.3.2
16.1 Widen path where required to at least 2.5 metres wide (3.0 metres preferred) 1,180 $141,600.00 Medium
16.2 Install a new section of cycle path behind the bus stop in front of College – to separate cyclists from TBC Medium passengers boarding and alighting the bus
16.3 Install signage and line marking to convert footpath into Shared Path 1,180 $23,600.00 Medium
17 Rosewater / Ottoway link 9.3.3
17.1 Add the following streets to the Bicycle Network, and install Advisory Logos to identify route
17.2 Murray Street, between McGregor Terrace and Jenkins Street (this includes laneway that has been closed to 340 TBC Medium traffic with a Hazard Board blocking vehicle access. Ensure sufficient width for cyclist access).
17.3 Florence Street, between Jenkins Street and the disused rail line 140 $112.00 Medium
17.4 May Terrace, between the rail line and Daisy Street 165 $132.00 Medium
17.5 Liaise with DPTI and PTD to provide a cyclist and pedestrian crossing of disused rail line between Florence PAE resource Medium Street and May Street (short term recommendation included in Local Links Section of this report).
18 Bundara Avenue / Denver Terrace 9.3.4
18.1 Work with the City of Prospect to extend the Braund Road Bicycle Boulevard route with a consistent 1720 TBC Medium / approach along Bundara Avenue and Denver Terrace. Particularly with regard to providing a low-street Long cycling route to the Churchill Centre and Blair Athol Primary.
19 Victoria Road Shared Path 9.3.5
99 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority 19.1 Construct 2.5-3m wide shared path on western side of Victoria Road between Klingberg Drive and Peter 1970 $236,400.00 Medium Cousins Reserve
20 Grand Junction Road footpath links 9.3.6
20.1 Undertake feasibility study to provide shared paths in the Grand Junction road reserve at the following PAE resource Medium / locations: Long
North side – Old Port Road to Port Road
Both sides – Port Road to Tomset Street
South side - Gallipoli Road to South Road
South side – South Road to Main North Road (includes the section above Gallipoli – South)
North side – Main North Road to Amanga Street. East-west route to then continue along Amanga Street to Mira Street / along Mira Street to Tepko Street and return to Grand Junction Road
North side – Tepko Street to Briens Road
· North side – Briens Road to Walkleys Road
21 Mersey Road Bikeway 9.3.7
21.1 Review the Mersey Road Bikeway to fill in missing links – liaise with the Port Adelaide BUG to determine PAE resource Short most appropriate connections and works
21.2 Install signage to identify this as an alternative lower traffic route to Victoria Road for cyclists $1,000.00 Short
21.3 Improve the connection to the Off road shared path at Elder Road (ie upgrade ramp.). Note: as of August Installed 2015 Completed 2015 new crossing / ramp from off road shared path to Elder Road (Elder Road and Stirling St Birkenhead) has been installed.
100 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority 22 Future Gillman Development 9.3.8
22.1 Structure planning - Ensure that a fine-grained network of on-road and off-road cycle routes are PAE resource Ongoing incorporated into the development and are designed to best practice Standards and guidelines
22.2 Ensure that the Gillman cycle network connects to the Port Adelaide Enfield cycle network PAE resource Ongoing
22.3 Take into consideration and request Renewal SA consider the recommendations of the Port Adelaide Bicycle PAE resource Ongoing Users Group for the route selections proposed in the submission to the Employment Lands (Gillman/ Dry Creek & Wingfield) and General Section Amendments Development Plan Amendment
Metropolitan Routes: Main Roads
23 Causeway Road 9.4.1
23.1 Undertake survey to determine road widths and confirm concept design PAE resource Short
23.2 Install full-time enhanced (buffered line marking) bicycle lanes on both sides of Causeway Road, including 1250 $37,500.00 Medium wide buffer lines between traffic lane and cycle lane, and greening at hazardous locations such as at left-turn merge lanes
23.3 Investigate providing additional off-street parking for train commuters off of Causeway Road PAE resource Medium
23.4 Review the speed controls for Causeway Road with view to reducing to 50km/h PAE resource Medium
23.5 Install green bicycle lanes at potentially hazardous locations (road junctions and intersections) $20,000.00 Medium
24 Grand Junction Road 9.4.2
24.1 Liaise with DPTI to encourage an assessment of the current traffic volumes with view to reducing two-lanes PAE resource Long to one-lane in each direction to allow space for bicycle lanes. This is recommended for the entire length of Grand Junction Road in the long-term, but priority should be given to the existing gaps in the network
24.2 Liaise with DPTI to design and schedule bicycle lanes on Grand Junction Road, between South Road and PAE resource Long
101 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority Hampstead Road
25 Military Road 9.4.3
25.1 Liaise with DPTI to ensure concept designs for Military Road bicycle lanes are prepared in the short term PAE resource Short
26 Hanson Road 9.4.4
26.1 Liaise with DPTI to install bicycle lanes on Hanson Road, between Grand Junction Road and Cormack Road PAE resource Short
27 Old Port Road 9.4.5
27.1 Liaise with DPTI to install bicycle lanes in Old Port Road PAE resource Short / Medium
27.2 Ensure crossing points are provided for viewing of the wetlands PAE resource Short / Medium
27.3 Liaise with the City of Charles Sturt to upgrade the shared path on Old Port Road and Bower Road PAE resource Short / Medium
27.4 Liaise with DPTI to install a cyclist refuge crossing point of Port Road for eastbound cyclists on Old Port Road PAE resource Short / Medium
28 Sudholz Road 9.4.6
28.1 Liaise with DPTI to ensure that the intersection upgrade of Sudholz Road and North East Road is scheduled PAE resource Short and includes improved cycle facilities
Refer to Action 11 for separated facility recommendation.
29 South Road 9.4.7
29.1 Liaise with DPTI to have the South Road Superway cycling facilities reviewed with particular focus on PAE resource Ongoing
102 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority directional signage
30 North East Road 9.4.8
30.1 Liaise with DPTI re: the designs for the intersection upgrade of North East Road and Sudholz Road, and lobby PAE resource Short for these works to include bicycle lanes along North East Road that are continuous on both sides up to the intersection.
31 Lady Gowrie Drive
31.1 Liaise with cycling groups to discuss the conflicts that are occurring, and work together to develop solutions 9.9 PAE resource Short / Medium Prepare educational brochures that provide information for residents on cycling in bunches and outlines the etiquette required by cyclists
Distribute brochures around Semaphore and Largs Bay and request cycling groups to distribute to members
32 Prospect Road
32.2 Review pedestrian refuge (just south of Marmion Avenue) with view to improving safety for pedestrians and 4.5.2 PAE resource Medium cyclists. Consider installing kerb island over parking bay on west side of crossing similar to that on east side
33 Brookvale Road
33.1 Review road crossing at Obahn underpass (just south of Beaverdale Avenue). Install cyclist refuge to improve 9.5.3 $3,000.00 Medium safety for cyclists
City-Wide Infrastructure Actions
34 Links to Rail Stations 9.5.1 PAE resource Ongoing
103 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority Liaise with DPTI Public Transport Division to assess current bicycle parking facilities at stations and provide additional parking if required
Improve cyclist permeability through railway mazes by ensuring they are constructed to current Australian Standards
Develop a signage strategy to identify routes to stations
35 Footpaths around Schools 9.5.2 PAE resource Ongoing
Council develop footpath policy that includes:
Footpaths to be 3 metres wide where possible, (or if not possible, construct as width between kerb and boundary) in close vicinity to Schools
Footpaths to be maintained regularly with removal of surface debris and low hanging tree branches
City-Wide Actions
36 Community input PAE resource Ongoing
Develop a strategy for the community to feed information to council at the fine-grained level as an on-going process and explore ways to improve use of existing options eg Council’s web page and My Services App.
37 40km/h Area Speed Zoning 9.8 PAE resource Short
Define feasibility of providing a 40km/h area speed zone that includes the Port Adelaide CBD
Extend the proposed 40km/h Area Zone in the Kilburn area to include Northcote Street. This street is calmed is slow points and provides a direct link to the Kilburn Rail Station
38 Data Collection 10.6 PAE resource Ongoing
Port Adelaide Enfield continue to participate in the Super Sunday Recreation Counts (given the surveys are designed to be conducted annually to provide council with the necessary data to assist planning and asset
104 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority management.
Supplement the data with additional counts on other days (at the discretion of Council) at these select locations for comparative data.
Data Collection 10.6 PAE resource Ongoing
Include cycle count downloads when undertaking local road AADT counts
39 Asset Register and End Task Administration: 10.6 PAE resource Short
Develop administrative protocols for ‘End Task Administration’ to update records and asset registers. When bicycle facilities are implemented tasks should include: updating GIS layers, asset registers, recording an action database to assist in future updates of the Council Bicycle Plans.
Council Policy
40 Open Channels 9.7 PAE resource Short
Develop policy to earmark Kilburn and North Arm open channels as future Greenways.
protect channel easements from development that could preclude them from being converted to Greenways
41 Councils Works Programs PAE resource Ongoing
Integrate cyclist network with Councils works program
Council Depot Officers to refer to Bicycle Network prior to any road works
Depot staff to alert designated Cycling Officer of future works that are planned on a road or path that is part of the cycling network
Develop a maintenance and management plan for cycling infrastructure and ensure adequate budgets are
105 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority allocated
Promoting Cycling
42 Council Advocacy 10.8 PAE resource Short / Ongoing Provide a designated Council Officer with a good knowledge of cycling facility design to implement the actions and ongoing management of projects listed throughout this Plan and be a liaison point for workplaces, schools, cycling groups, DPTI, etc.
Council Advocacy 10.8 PAE resource Short
Facilitate an open communication process where the community can provide a designated Council Officer on updates of issues, constraints and opportunities within the cycling network
Council Advocacy 10.8 PAE resource Short
Depot and technical staff who are trained in cycling facility requirements and who automatically cross-check the bicycle plan before any road works are constructed so that opportunities are not lost.
Council Advocacy 10.2 PAE resource Short
Define the role for an existing council representative (or create a new position) to reflect in their job description specific roles for Way2Go Council Liaison;
Council Advocacy 10.2 PAE resource Short
Continue to collaborate with DPTI on the Way2Go program, by identifying schools which can become involved in the program, and budgeting and resourcing to assist with the program implementation and any related engineering treatments
43 Travel Behaviour Change to Promote Cycling 10.1 PAE resource Short
106 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority Research and implement education and travel behaviour change programs with DPTI, Bicycle SA and other relevant bodies
Provide and support Bicycle Education programs such as Bike Ed, Ride a Bike Right in the Council area. (make this an action in Council’s Community Wellbeing plan.)
44 Infrastructure Elements to Promote Cycling 10.3 PAE resource Ongoing
Continue to support bike hire initiatives and consider cycling supportive infrastructure elements along the network where appropriate
45 Information Provision and Route Legibility 10.4 PAE resource Ongoing
Ensure adequate public access to route information and consider additional media platforms for a diverse demographic.
Information Provision and Route Legibility 10.4 PAE resource Ongoing
Plan for sufficient wayfinding, route notification and directional signage along key routes
46 Safety Training 10.5 PAE resource Ongoing
Provide information and generate awareness on ‘shared path etiquette’ in locations with a high number of pedestrians/cyclists.
Safety Training 10.5 PAE resource Ongoing
Review existing reserves with view to suitable locations for bicycle training parks (for example Hanson Reserve and Kardi Yarta). Build at least one road Safety Park in the Council area.
Safety Training 10.5 PAE resource Ongoing
Engage with DPTI and MAC (Motor Accidents Commission) to consider undertaking a specific driver/cyclist
107 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority awareness campaign.
47 Committing to ongoing research 10.6 PAE resource Ongoing
Continue to participate in the Super Sunday Recreation Counts (given the surveys are designed to be conducted annually to provide council with the necessary data to assist planning and asset management)
Committing to ongoing research 10.6 PAE resource Ongoing
Supplement the data with additional counts on other days (at the discretion of Council) at these select locations for comparative data.
Committing to ongoing research 10.6 PAE resource Ongoing
Conduct Super Tuesday counts.
Committing to ongoing research 10.6 PAE resource Ongoing
Conduct a review of the Bicycle Plan every five years.
48 Local Government Policy 10.7 PAE resource Ongoing
Propose the North-East Arm Management Plan considers use of channel to be used as a greenway.
Local Government Policy 10.7 PAE resource
Review the City of Port Adelaide Enfield Development Plan to update/improve policies for cycling, such as: Ongoing
Providing end of trip facilities, such as: parking, lockers, showers; and including best practice facilities, treatments and networks in new developments
Local Government Policy 10.7 PAE resource Ongoing
Ensure future development at Gillman includes best practice cycling network and facilities that connect into the Port Adelaide Enfield Cycle Network
108 | P a g e
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield Local Area Bicycle Plan 2015 – 2020 InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd
No. Description
Report Reference Length (m) Cost Estimate Priority 49 Funding Opportunities 11.1. PAE resource Ongoing 3 Partner with DPTI as part of the Bikes for Better Business program and encourage businesses to apply for grant funding.
Tourism / Recreational Opportunities
50 Garden Island / Torrens Island 9.6.1 PAE resource Medium / Long Commence feasibility and planning of cycle tourism to Port River/Garden Island
Consider path alongside Grand Trunkway
Seal shoulders along main road crossing to Garden Island.
51 Pelican Point Road 9.6.2 PAE resource Medium / Long Install median refuge in Victoria Road opposite Kardi Yarta
Liaise with Bicycle SA regarding the feasibility of Pelican Point Route replacing Lady Gowrie Drive as the training route. This will include assessing road surface and upgrading to suit training cyclists
Construct recreational unsealed shared path loop around Pelican Point Road
Review feasibility of constructing path to Mutton Cove, ie across rail line
52 Snowdens Beach 9.6.3 $1,000.00 Medium
Install signage to identify route to Snowdens Beach
Install cycling parking rails
Include Snowdens beach (listing facilities) on all cycling maps
109 | P a g e
15 Appendices
15.1 Appendix A: Literature Review The value of cycling has been recognised in economic, environmental, public health and social contexts. Improving cycling conditions and creating a comprehensive and connected network can encourage increased participation and therefore increase the localised benefits. In addition to the reviewed Council documents, ITLUP and the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, the following literature review summarises relevant strategies and reports from a variety of international, national and state-wide sources to guide and support the overarching goal of this plan. International
Cycling Safety: Key Messages – International Transport Forum (OECD) The International Transport Forum at the OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with 54 member countries. Objectives include helping to shape the transport policy agenda on a global level and ensure that it contributes to economic growth, environmental protection, social inclusion and the preservation of human life and well-being. This report monitors international trends in cycling, safety and policy, and explores options that may help decision makers design safe environments for cycling. Key messages relate to strategic goal-setting for cycling policy and managing crash risks while increasing the benefits. Some of the key messages from the report are detailed below: Bicycles belong in the urban mobility mix; Cyclists are vulnerable road users; The road traffic system is not designed for cyclists; Cycling significantly improves health; On balance, the positive health impacts of cycling far outweigh negative health Impacts; ‘Safety in Numbers’: Cyclist safety is linked to the number of cyclists in traffic but causation is uncertain; Crashes most likely when exposure is greatest, severe crashes most likely when traffic speeds were above 40 km/h are high and at night; Cyclists seem to be at fault in less than half of all crashes; Crashes are generally less common on cycling-specific infrastructure than on infrastructure that is not cycling-specific; A disproportionate number of crashes occur at intersections, including intersections between cycling infrastructure and roads; and Infrastructure and infrastructure-related measures help resolve issues linked to the visibility of cyclists, predictability at intersections and differences in traffic speed.
National
Australian National Urban Policy: Our Cities, Our Future Our Cities, Our Future articulates goals and objectives to achieve greater productivity, sustainability and liveability for the major urban centres of Australia. Key directions outlined in the Policy include reducing dependence on cars and improving transport options, as well as improving public health outcomes. Specifically, it builds on the existing Government agenda toward doubling the number of cyclists by 2016. The Policy is supported by the annual State of Australian Cities report.
State of Australian Cities 2013 This report delivers a current and comprehensive snapshot of Australia’s 18 biggest cities. State of Australian Cities 2013 details changes in urban population and examines indicators relating to productivity, health, sustainability and liveability. The report advocates a selection of criteria in relation to active travel (i.e. cycling and walking) that are outlined below: public health benefits and reduced medical costs; increasing active travel in journey to work trips; increasing active travel for local trips through mixed land use; and road safety concerns. National Cycling Strategy The National Cycling Strategy 2011-2016 aims at developing a coordinated understanding and commitment across all levels of government, non-government organisations and communities nation-wide to encourage more people to cycle. The strategy’s overarching vision is to double the number of people cycling in Australia over the five year life- span. Aiming to achieve this, six priority areas were identified in the report to be: cycling promotion; infrastructure and facilities; integrated planning; safety; monitoring and evaluation; and guidance and best practice. Creating Places for People: An Urban Design Protocol for Australian Cities Championed by the Australian Federal Government, this report defines places that are enjoyable and easy to walk and cycle around. Key aspects to consider when creating such environments include: prioritising walking or riding before vehicles; environments that are easy to navigate by foot, bike, wheelchair, pushing a pram or wheeling luggage; comprising buildings and streets that feel like they’re the right size and type for that place; promoting a healthy lifestyle; and encouraging physical activity and social interaction. Moving Australia 2030: A Transport Plan for a Productive and Active Australia This collaborative report compiled by the Moving People 2030 Taskforce delivers key transport focused information toward a more productive and active Australia. The report suggests the benefits of shifting away from private vehicle dominated transport systems to include: increased capacity in the transport network and reduced local traffic congestion; improved public health and reduced healthcare costs; improved community well-being and social cohesiveness, and increased social interaction; reduced environmental impacts; and reduced household costs.
Walking, Riding and Access to Public Transport This ministerial statement was released in 2013 and details how the Australian Government plans to increase the proportion of people walking and cycling for short trips and to access public transport. An increase in active transport will: increase capacity, and reduce congestion, in the overall transport network; reduce environmental impacts; improve public health and reduce healthcare costs; and improve community wellbeing and social cohesion. An Australian Vision for Active Transport Compiled by five independent organisations, this report calls upon the Australian Federal Government to lead the cause for improved active transport across the country. Key objectives that support this Cycling and Walking Strategy include: developing an integrated national active transport strategy; develop clear and realistic targets for active transport and physical activity outcomes; provide local governments with substantial, sustained and targeted funding for active transport; support the development of Healthy Spaces and Places planning principles; promote a safe environment for people who choose to walk, cycle or take public transport and review jurisdictional approaches to the legislative protection of vulnerable road users; support cycle training and pedestrian education in schools; and provide incentives for employers to encourage employees to walk, cycle or take public transport to work. Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides Cycling Aspects consolidates into one document all of the cycling related components from the entire Austroads suite of design documents. It includes: an overview of planning and traffic management considerations; design guidance and criteria relating to on-road and off-road bicycle facilities; and information on the provision for cyclists at structures, traffic control devices, construction and maintenance considerations and end of trip facilities. Guide to Road Design - Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths Established by Austroads, the Road Design Task Force compiled a set of guiding principles that considers all of the aspects of road design. Particularly relevant to this Strategy is Part 6A, entitled ‘Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths’. This chapter provides guidance for creating paths that are safe and allow for efficient movement. Geometric design, such as intersections and surface treatments, along with path location, alignment, width, clearances, crossfall, drainage and sight distances are all detailed within this Guide.
State
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 is national legislation that aims to eradicate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of disability. Pursuant to section 3(a)(i), the Act states that limiting ‘access to premises’, which comprise ‘places, whether enclosed or built on or not’ on the grounds of disability to be discriminatory and unlawful. This Strategy endeavours to ensure compliance with this Act, promoting the social equity and
inclusion of all who walk and cycle to, from and within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. Streets for People: Compendium for South Australian Practice 2012 The Streets for People Compendium was released in 2012 and provides information and guidance toward providing pedestrian and cycle friendly environments, which unite and support elements of health, social equity, environmental sustainability and planning principles for supplying active transport alternatives. The Compendium: identifies the importance of integrating best practice principles in street design to facilitate pedestrian and cyclist friendly streets; brings together South Australian, national and international best practice examples; and collates relevant Australian standards and guidelines and how they apply strategically. The Streets for People compendium has been used throughout this Strategy, specifically in applying best practice principles to existing and future urban development. South Australian Public Health Act 2011 (SAPHA 2011) The role of walking and cycling in improving public health requires recognition. The SAPHA 2011 is the overarching legislative framework for South Australia’s public health system and facilitates a statutory response to new public health challenges as well as traditional hazards. Some of the legislative objects and principles relevant to this Strategy are: to promote health and well-being of individuals and communities and to prevent disease, medical conditions, injury and disability through a public health approach; to protect individuals and communities from risks to public health and to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, a healthy environment for all South Australians and particularly those who live within disadvantaged communities; to encourage individuals and communities to plan for, create and maintain a healthy environment; public health, social, economic and environmental factors should be considered in decision-making with the objective of maintaining and improving community well- being and taking in to account the interests of future generations; and administrative decisions and actions should focus on the health of populations and the actions necessary to protect and improve the health of the community and, in so doing, the protection and promotion of the health of individuals should be considered. The Eat Well Be Active Strategy for South Australia 2011–2016 The South Australian Eat Well Be Active Strategy is a blueprint for action, promoting healthy eating and physical activity for all South Australians. Five key action areas are aimed at enhancing health and wellbeing through increasing the proportion of people who eat a healthy diet, undertake regular physical activity and maintain a healthy weight. Specific to local government, having more people physically active and eating well through council-led initiatives that may include sport and recreation facilities, community gardens, cycling and walking paths, open space, water fountains and much more, will help build healthy and stronger communities.
Heart Foundation South Australia: Good for Busine$$ The Good for Busine$$ discussion paper was commissioned by the Heart Foundation (SA) to explore the associated benefits of walking and cycling friendly environments to retailers and trading associations. Conclusions of the report suggest that high quality walking and cycling environments around shops, neighbourhood activity centres and main streets are vital for the economic health of South Australia, and: increase retail rental values; increase sale prices of nearby homes; significantly increase pedestrian and cyclist activity; generate more business and stimulate the local economy; revitalise ‘drive-through’ districts into lively places that people want to visit; encourage people to spend time outside their homes; reduce noise levels; and create attractive and popular places for Adelaide and South Australia. The Heart Foundation (SA) continues to encourage government and local governments to promote walking and create a state that is pedestrian-friendly where walking is easy, comfortable and safe. Local governments are encouraged to develop walking strategies and action plans that facilitate direction toward achieving this.
15.2 Appendix B: Status of Recommendations from the 2008-2012 Bicycle Plan General Recommendations Status Council to allocate staff resources to implement bicycle plan Incorporate bicycle facilities into asset management system Continue to liaise with Port Adelaide BUG and the cycling community. Encourage BUGS in other parts of the Council area Install signage on shared paths to encourage user consideration of each other Consider 40km/h Area Precincts in built up areas, particularly the Port Adelaide Centre ongoing Work with DPTI Safe Routes to Schools and improve infrastructure around schools Upgrade footpaths around Schools to improve cycling amenity Commence data collection of cyclist volumes Support BikeED programs in Schools DPTI Roads Bower Road/Military Road roundabout: High crash rate. Liaise with DPTI and City of Charles Sturt to improve roundabout for cyclist safety Semaphore Road on-road and off-road cyclist facilities Completed Victoria Road. Work with DPTI to install cyclist facilities and safe road crossings Completed Days Road – upgrade bike lanes Completed Port Rd/Old Port Rd. Install bike lanes and shared path median crossings Completed Council Roads Implement city-wide secondary road network as detailed in maps and tables Off-Road Routes Undertake a safety audit of River Torrens Linear Park to identify required upgrades ongoing Regularly maintain Coast Park Trail ongoing Dry Creek Linear Trail. Liaise with City of Salisbury to maintain trail. Dry Creek Linear Trail – provide links to access trail Grand Junction Road/Tomset Street Underpass. Investigate the feasibility of upgrading Constructed Dry Creek Trail / Walkleys Road. Liaise with City of Salisbury to upgrade lighting Other Routes The Adelaide to Port Adelaide / Outer Harbor Rail Route. Liaise with BUG to extend complete route through PAE. East-West Bikeway (recommended in 1997 and 2008 bicycle plans). Undertake feasibility study. Route partially Adelaide to Gawler Rail Line Greenway. Liaise with DPTI and Councils to investigate complete – ITLUP feasibility. recommendation to complete Gillman Rail Yards. Upgrade existing paths and include in any future developments Rail line crossings. Liaise with PTD to replace existing mazes (superseded design) with the new design, particularly where the bike network intersects. Supporting Infrastructure Develop an asset register that documents existing cycling infrastructure, including parking rails Install parking rails at cyclist destination, e.g. shops, railway stations, bus interchanges, Part undertaken community centres, libraries and schools.
15.3 Appendix C: Detailed assessment of incident locations identified in the 2008 Bicycle Plan
Lady Ruthven Drive, at the bend near Oliver Rogers Road One crash was reported in this area since 2009. Side swipe, car driver failed to give way at a lane merge. A separated cycle path now runs alongside Oliver Rogers Road, Lady Ruthven Drive and Lady Gowrie Drive. See new data for Lady Gowrie Drive. Bower Road / Military Road (roundabout) Seven incidents and 3 minor injuries reported. All seven incidents occurred at the roundabout and were reported as a failure to give way. Cyclists were not found to be at fault in any of the incidents. Sudholz Road / North East Road intersection (traffic signals) 5 incidents all occurring at the signalised intersection were reported. In no case was the cyclist found to be at fault. In 3 cases, there was a failure to give way (1 minor injury), one instance of a failure to stand while performing a right turn (minor injury) and one change lanes to endanger resulting in a side swipe (serious injury). A marked cycle lane runs NW-SE on the eastern side of Sudholz Road (southbound) through the intersection but ends suddenly at the entrance of the left-turn slip lane from North East Road. No other cycle infrastructure runs through this intersection. O.G. Road / Fourth Avenue (traffic signals) No incidents reported at the signalised intersection of O.G. Road and Fourth Avenue, though there were two incidents reported at mid-block sections of O.G. Road nearby. Both being side swipe incidents when changing lanes resulting in minor injuries, cyclist not at fault. North East Road, between Pitman Road and Innes Road Six incidents in this area and five more just south, near the intersection of Patricia Avenue. Six of these occurred at a cross road or T-junction where failure to give way or failure to stand resulted in two minor injuries. Four instances of change lanes to endanger resulted in one minor injury (cyclist at fault) and one incorrect turn resulted in property damage only. North East Road, between Fosters Road and Muller Road Five incidents reported drivers failing to stop at the stop sign exiting Fosters Road, one resulting in minor injury, others reporting property damage only. Another serious injury was reported at the junction of Hender Avenue (junction immediately east of Fosters Road, city bound) due to a vehicle failing to stand at the T-junction. Notes on North East Road 43 separate incidents (including those noted earlier) were reported along North East Road within the Port Adelaide Enfield Council area. Of these, 6 incidents were found to be the fault of the cyclist. These resulted in 3 serious injuries and 15 minor injuries and included 29 instances of fail to stand/ give way or disobey stop/give way sign (one of these was the fault of the cyclist, the rest attributable to the motorist). 27 of the 43 incidents occurred at cross roads or T-junctions, most without traffic controls. North East Road has marked, on-road cycling lanes from Willow / Doreen street T-junctions to Dauntless / Petrova Street T-junctions, with a section around the Fosters / Muller Road intersections an exception. North East Road / Ascot Avenue / Hampstead Road intersections, Vale Park / Manningham A cluster of three intersections with short midblock sections between, a marked cycle lane runs on the eastern side of Hampstead Road through the Ascot Avenue intersection but ceases mid-block prior to the North East Road intersection. Five incidents reported, two serious and two minor injuries, one resulting in property damage only. Of these, three were the fault of the cyclist involved. Three of the incidents occurred at signalled intersections, caused by failure to stand, failure to give way (cyclist at fault) and one failure to stop at traffic lights (cyclist). Two mid-block incidents were caused by inattention (cyclist) and overtaking without due care. Noted cyclist accident clusters for period 2009-2013 Lady Gowrie Drive / Marmora Drive, North Haven 3 incidents resulting in 3 minor injuries and one property damage only. All involved vehicles failing to give way or to stand at the T-junction with Marmora Drive. A separated, sealed bike lane runs parallel to and on the western side
of Lady Gowrie Drive, no marked cycle lane on the roadway. Esplanade, Semaphore (near Semaphore Road) Four incidents recorded in a 75m length of the Esplanade, south of Semaphore Road. Marked on-road cycle lanes on both sides of the Esplanade, except at the roundabouts. A separated bikeway runs north-south through the grassed area between the Esplanade and the sand dunes. Incidents in which the cyclist was not at fault include opening a car door, side swipe and failure to give way. One incident fault was unknown, a roll-over resulting in minor injury. Bower Road / Swan Terrace, Semaphore South (edge of council area) 2 incidents, both resulting in injury, one serious and one minor (cyclist at fault). Both incidents were caused by failure to obey a stop sign at the Bower Rd T-junction. Causeway Road, Semaphore South 7 incidents, all involving a failure to yield at T-junctions resulted in 1 serious and four minor injuries. Five of the incidents were on Causeway Road at junctions with minor roads and service roads while two were at the T-junction of Bower Road and Causeway Road. In no cases was the cyclist at fault. Eastern Parade, Ottoway Two incidents at the cross roads of Eastern Parade and May Terrace the result of disobeying a stop sign resulting in one serious and one minor injury. Cyclist not at fault. Old Port Road, Royal Park (edge of council area) A cluster of seven reported incidents, resulting in 5 minor injuries were reported on Old Port Road between Tapley’s Hill Road and Frederick Road. In the single case where the cyclist was at fault, inattention caused the cyclist to hit a parked car causing property damage. Of the other 5 incidents, two were reported as failure to Give Way, one failure to stand, two disobey a give way sign and one caused by following too closely. South Road / Grand Junction Road, Wingfield Three reported incidents near the junction of Grand Junction Road and South Road, the last in September 2011. Given the significant amount of work completed in this area related to the construction of the South Road Superway it is reasonable to suggest that conditions have changed significantly since these incidents were reported so further assessment is unwarranted. First Avenue, Woodville Gardens Two incidents were reported at the junction of Gray Street and First Avenue. In one case, a motorist’s failure to obey a stop sign resulted in a minor injury, in the other cyclist inattention caused property damage only. Six incidents resulting in three minor injuries were reported along First Avenue Kilkenny between Hanson Road and Hassell Street. Of these, two incidents where the cyclist was at fault were caused by failure to give way (minor injury) and disobey – traffic lights (property damage). Three others were the result of a motorist failing to give way (one minor injury) and a driver under the influence resulting in a minor injury. Torrens Road, Croydon Park (edge of council area) A cluster of three incidents reported on Torrens Road between Boomerang Road and Aroona Road resulted in two serious injuries and one minor injury. A cyclist failed to give way at the corner of Cook Avenue resulting in a minor injury. In two other cases the cyclists were not at fault and serious injury resulted from failure to give way and disobey – stop sign. Churchill Road / Carroll Ave / Northcote Street, Kilburn Four incidents reported at the cross junction of Churchill Road and Northcote Street / Carroll Avenue resulted in one serious injury involving a DUI (cyclist) and two minor injuries as a result of a failure to obey a stop sign on Northcote Street. The other three incidents were not found to be the fault of the cyclist. A marked, on road cycle lane runs south bound on Churchill Road. In addition there was a recent fatality (2014) – the cyclist was found to be at fault. Main North Road, Blair Athol A cluster of seven reported incidents around side roads Audrey Avenue, Warwick Street and Barton Street resulted in three minor and one serious injury as a result of failure to stand or give way at T-junctions and unsafe overtaking or lane changing. There is no cycling infrastructure in this area, but there is extensive on road parallel parking. No incidents were attributed to fault of the cyclist. Main North Road, Sefton Park (shared with City of Prospect)
A cluster of incidents north of Regency Road to Collins Street appear on the map of reported crashes but some may have occurred in the Prospect City Council area. Four incidents found on the Crash Data spreadsheet are attributable to failure to give way or stand at T-junctions from minor roads, resulting in three minor and one serious injury. One of these incidents was found to be the fault of the cyclist and resulted in a minor injury. There are no marked cycle lanes or other cycling infrastructure in this part of Main North Road. Grand Junction Road, Montrose Avenue, Clearview Two reported incidents at the T-junction with protected right turn lane in Grand Junction Road. There are no marked cycle lanes on either roadway. One case of inattention resulted in a minor injury and one instance of failure to give way causing a side swipe and property damage. In both cases the cyclist was not at fault. Grand Junction Road from Briens / Hampstead Road Intersection to Vickers-Vimy Parade, Northgate A total of five reported incidents along this 1,100m section of Grand Junction Road with a central island and protected right turns from Grand Junction Road. Grand Junction Road has marked, on road cycle lanes east of the Hampstead / Briens Roads intersection. The five incidents occurred where Gray Street and Vickers-Vimy Parade form T-junctions with Grand Junction Road and resulted in four minor injuries and one incident of property damage only. Reasons for the incidents include three failure to give way and two failure to stand, none were the fault of the cyclist. Another incident was recorded on Grand Junction Road, Northfield but at an undefined location, involving a rear- end impact where the cyclist was at fault due to inattention. Property damage only. Sudholz Road, Gilles Plains There are four intersections of note along Sudholz Road within this council area: Sir Ross Smith Boulevard: 4 incidents, 2 minor injuries. All at T-junction, none the fault of the cyclist and all due to failure to give way. On road cycle lanes on both sides of Sudholz Road and on Sir Ross Smith Boulevard at the intersection only. Blacks Road 3 incidents, all at the entrance to Gilles Plains Shopping Centre on the eastern side of Sudholz Road. None the fault of the cyclist, two due to failure to give way and one because of an illegal turn. Property damage only. On road cycle lanes on both sides of Sudholz Road and on the approach to the intersection on Blacks Road. North East Road See earlier summary Lyons Road 2 reported incidents, one failure to obey traffic signals at the T-junction resulting in a minor injury and one change lanes to endanger at a mid-block section resulting in serious injury and found to be the fault of the cyclist. No cycling lanes on either Sudholz Road or Lyons Road in the area of the intersection. Salisbury Highway, Dry Creek / Wingfield Two incidents recorded at the interchange ramps, one entering the Salisbury Highway from the overpass, where a failure to give way resulted in the death of a cyclist who was not found to be at fault. One incident exiting the Salisbury Highway where a cyclist at fault made a dangerous lane change manoeuvre resulting in a minor injury. Extensive works at this intersection since the recording of these events (late 2010) will have changed the way cars and cyclists interact at this free-flowing freeway intersection.
Appendix D: Best Practice Design Toolkit The design toolkit presents a collection of best practice design elements and treatments that vary in suitability that is determined by site specific contexts. They have been categorised into subgroups as follows: General, End and Mid Trip Facilities, Paths, On-Road and Road Crossings. The graph in Figure 17 has been provided below as a useful tool in identifying whether best practice on a particular street is mixed traffic, on-road lanes or off-road paths and is to be read in conjunction with the following section. Each treatment has limitations, and InfraPlan reiterates the need to conduct site specific analysis to ensure the best practice and cost effective measures are undertaken.
General (A)
Design Toolkit No. A1: Neighbourhood Streets
The Streets for People Compendium is a valuable resource for Council when developing cycling and walking neighbourhoods, particularly when aiming for reduced speeds. Best practice design builds speed restraint into the design of the street and creates a lower speed environment1. However in existing streets, traditional retrofitting of traffic calming devices are usually required. Key principles for reducing vehicle speeds along a street include: reducing lengths of straight road sections; narrowing road width to create slow points; limiting forward sight lines and driver’s field of vision by incorporating landscaping; introducing bends (a meandering street), horizontal deflection, at intervals less than 80 metres; vertical deflection (road humps or speed cushions), 40 to 70 metres apart; change in pavement texture (paving at junctions or other materials that have audio-tactile properties for motor vehicles, but do not impact on cyclists); and visual elements such as landscaping, signage and streetscape changes. Traditionally, traffic calming devices such as slow points, road humps and roundabouts have been placed at 80-120 metres apart. This usually reduces vehicle speeds to 20 km/h at each device, but allows vehicles to speed up in between. Best practice design maintains consistently slow speeds throughout the length of the street (less than 30km/h). To achieve this, the devices need to be placed at less than 80 metres apart (40 to 70 metres desirable). The installation of traffic islands and slow points will usually result in the loss of some car parking. Reduced lane widths should be less than 3 metres wide, so that a vehicle must overtake by indicating and entering the other side of the road, but not squeezing past the cyclist within the lane. Speed reduction treatments can also reduce traffic volume as they can make arterial roads more attractive to cut- through traffic. Other ways to reduce volume include half-road or full-road closures, banning of some turns and junction rearrangement.
1 See ‘Safe Speed Environments’, Streets for People Compendium 2012, Chapter: C4, pp. 10-11.
Examples of streets with slow speeds are shown below (note: Photo 2 to Photo 6 are taken from the Streets For People Compendium). The selection of a particular speed reduction device will vary depending on the existing street environment.
Photo 1: Road narrowing with Photo 2: Meandering street, Unley. Photo 3: Shared Space, Adelaide. median, Adelaide.
Photo 4: Textured pavement at Photo 5: Painted junction, Bowden. Photo 6: Varied pavement sections, junction, Mawson Lakes. Canberra.
Photo 7: Landscaping in Photo 8: Slow Point (typical). Photo 9: Speed Cushions / Road Humps. roadway.
Design Toolkit No. A2: Local Speed Precincts
Implementation of precincts with 40km/h speed limits requires specific approval by DPTI. Approval is based upon the area meeting specific criteria for mean speeds of traffic on most of the roads in the area, as well as demonstrated community support for a lower speed limit.
Photo 10: 40km area precinct, King William Road, Hyde Park.
Design Toolkit No. A3: Shared Zones
A Shared Zone is a legal traffic control device in South Australia. It is similar to Shared Space in that there is not a traditional roadway-footpath distinction, and pedestrians have equal rights with vehicles. However, Shared Zones must be designed to specific guidelines that force traffic to travel at walking pace speed, and include a 10 km/h speed limit. Existing Shared Zones in the Adelaide CBD are: Festival Drive, Peel St, Stock Exchange Lane, Charlick Circuit and Freemasons Lane.
Photo 11: Charlick Court, Adelaide. Photo 12: Peel Street, Adelaide. Shared Zones must be signed and designed for 10km/h. Parking is not recommended in the Design Guidelines. Opportunities for Water Sensitive Urban Design opportunities.
Design Toolkit No. A4: Shared Space
The term, ‘Shared Space’ is an urban design and traffic engineering concept developed in the Netherlands that integrates pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in a slow environment. All traditional street elements such as kerbs, signs, traffic lights and pavement markings are removed, and the surface is made of block pavers to look and feel different to a road. These elements create an ambiguity that results in people acting more cautiously on the road. Survey data of overseas examples has shown that there are benefits such as lower vehicle speeds, reduced congestion, fewer accidents and injuries, and more vibrant and attractive streets. However concerns have been raised about the negative effects that shared space has on more vulnerable road users such as children, the elderly and people with a visual impairment. In New Zealand, safe routes within Shared Spaces have been designed in cooperation with disability organisations to include vehicle- and obstruction free corridors (accessible zones) along the building lines. The ‘Streets for People Compendium’ includes more detail on ways to design shared streets in South Australia has been produced through extensive research and consultation.
Photo 13: Shared space, Haslach, Germany. Photo 14: Shared space, Barrack Street Sydney. Incorporate with design advice from disability groups. Consider on-street parking and loading zones. Opportunities for outdoor dining.
Design Toolkit No. A5: Signage / Way Finding
Directional signage helps to assist people in finding their way without referring to a map. Once a continuous route has been established, signage can be useful to guide and inform people of distances and estimated travel times to common or interesting destinations, such as rail stations, activity centres, cycling trails, transport interchanges, educational campuses etc. Ideally the use of signs should be minimised to reduce visual clutter and installation costs. Pavement logos can also assist continuity along a route and consistency for ease of use.
Photo 15: Simple directional signage, Photo 16: Directional Photo 17: Direction signage with Goodwood, SA. signage with distances specific destinations and distances, and estimated travel Melbourne, Vic. times, Marion, SA.
Design Toolkit No. A6: Shared Path Etiquette As the number of shared paths grows, so does the conflict potential for cyclists and pedestrians. According to the Australian Road Rules (Regulation 242), cyclists on a shared path are obliged to keep left and give way to pedestrians, which means slowing or if necessary stopping to avoid a collision. Not as well known, but equally as important is that pedestrians are also obliged not to unreasonably obstruct other users (Regulation 236). This means they should also keep left, not stop in the middle of a path and ensure children, strollers and dogs etc. are controlled appropriately. Mutual cooperation and respect should allow all users to move safely and freely along shared paths. As an example, the City of Sydney (2014) has produced a collection of safety tips as follows: When Riding Give Way - Always give way to pedestrians; they have right of way. Ring Your Bell - Ring your bell early to alert walkers of your presence. Slow Down - Slow down and be courteous to pedestrians. Watch Out - Pets and children can be unpredictable, always take extra care on shared paths when they are present. When Walking Be Aware - Be aware of other users and try not to listen to your iPod in shared path environments as it might stop you from hearing a bike bell. Listen for the Bell - If you hear a bike bell on a shared path, move to the left hand side in a safe fashion and allow the bike rider to pass. Be Predictable - Keep to the left on shared paths and walk in a predictable manner. Be Considerate - Keep pets under control and ensure children are supervised on shared paths.
End and Mid Trip Facilities (B)
It is critical that appropriate end-trip facilities are provided at destinations, such as attractors, activity hubs and public transport interchanges, and mid-trip facilities be provided where deemed suitable, such as along busy cycling routes.
It should be noted that the provision of bike parking at major transport stops and interchanges is important in encouraging change in travel behaviour. Undercover and secure lock up facilities at these locations is becoming international best practice.
Key facilities and typical locations for installation are summarised in Table 4 and described throughout this section in detail.
Table 4: End-trip and mid-trip facilities matrix.
End-trip/mid-trip facility Bicycle Other Facilities Location Bicycle Parking Adjustment/ Seating (B4) (B1) Repair Stations (B3) Drinking Toilets (B2) Fountains At 100m intervals (max), At picnic grounds, At key points as recreational At entry At key points Green Trails toilets, play-spaces required hubs and points as required locations with views At retail/commercial Laneway n/a n/a n/a n/a destinations At 400m Residential street n/a If required n/a n/a intervals Collector/ At retail/commercial At 400m If required If required n/a distributor destinations intervals At retail/commercial At 400m Where Arterial road If required n/a destinations intervals (max) required Activity At convenient Where If required Multiple As required centres/hubs locations required
Design Toolkit No. B1: Bicycle Repair and Adjustment Stations
Parking for cyclists is particularly important and should be located in an intuitive, easy to find location. Short-term parking for visitors is usually in the form of rails located in an area of passive surveillance, and close to the entry point of destinations. Long-term parking is also required for employees and all-day parkers. These require a location that is highly secure (usually enclosed), and protected from the weather (undercover). It is obvious that some destinations require parking rails as they will automatically attract cyclists, such as parks, swimming pools and along shopping strips. However, all businesses should be able to apply to Council for rails to be installed if the demand exists. This not only encourages cycling, but also stops footpath clutter with bikes parked against posts and fencing (which can also cause property damage). Bicycle parking should comply with Australian Standards AS 2890.3 – 1993 Part 3: Bicycle Parking Facilities. Enclosed parking facilities at transport interchanges encourage integrating active transport in to longer journeys by enabling people to secure their bikes before moving to public transport. Secure parking cages are currently being installed by DPTI at some of Adelaide’s most popular train stations. Bicycle pods can incorporate showers, personal lockers and secure bicycle parking and are designed to fit within existing car parking bays in varying configurations. These are suited to existing undercover car parks and are used by staff who require all–day secure parking. The showers and lockers can encourage staff who live long distances away and cycle to work at buildings that do not already have these facilities.
Photo 18: Bicycle parking rails Photo 19: Bicycle cage, Leeds Photo 20: Typical bicycle pod (short-term parking) UK (secure parking) (parking and additional facilities)
Design Toolkit No. B2: Bicycle Repair and Adjustment Stations
As the number of commuter riders and general cyclists increases, there is a growing need for a facility where temporary bicycle maintenance, repairs or adjustments can be undertaken. Bicycle adjustment or repair stations can be easily installed into end of journey facilities such as bicycle cages or at strategic locations along busier cycling routes. The station allows for a bicycle to be positioned on it so that repair work can be easily undertaken and generally comprises a manual bicycle tyre pump as well as tools that a cyclist would likely require that are attached by stainless steel tethering ropes.
Photo 21: Typical bicycle repair/adjustment Photo 22: Bicycle repair station, Brisbane, QLD. station design.
Design Toolkit No. B3: Bicycle Repair and Adjustment Stations
Resting is an integral component of active transport, especially for people who are starting out to improve their fitness, the elderly and people with a disability. Seating can be used to create opportunities to rest, enjoy a landscape or view, and interact with others and should be placed at frequent intervals, particularly along shared paths. A lack of seating can discourage people who are less fit and need to stop frequently to rest when moving between locations. It is recommended that: seating be provided at maximum intervals of 400 metres on routes on the pedestrian network, more frequent along the Green trails and at key sites; seating (in multiples) be provided at ‘destinations’, such as the local shops to encourage social contact; seating should be positioned where people would want to sit, most commonly a well-lit place, with good sightlines, away from sources of noise and air pollution; seating to be set back from the footway, so as not to cause an obstruction or impede the clear footway; and there should be space for a wheelchair/mobility scooter to user to pull up alongside a seated companion.
Photo 23: Seating examples.
Design Toolkit No. B4: Other Facilities
Other facilities to be considered to improve amenity for cyclists include: drinking fountains at entry points to trails and other key locations; and toilets at key locations.
Paths (Off-Road) (P)
Design Toolkit No. P1: Footpaths
Footpaths and road crossings provide the basic means to walk from one destination to another.
Footpath provision Road type/Land use New Roads Existing Roads Preferred Minimum Preferred Minimum Laneway Shared Space / slow speed Shared Space / slow speed
Local Road Both sides preferred (one side Both sides One side (residential) absolute minimum.) Collector/Distributor Both sides Both sides (residential) Arterial Road Both sides Both sides (residential) Bus Route Both sides Both sides School Both sides Both sides Activity Centre Both sides Both sides Low density (3-10 Both sides One side One side Road shoulders dwellings / ha) both sides Less than 3 One side Road shoulders One side Road shoulders dwellings/ha both sides both sides
Table 5: Where to provide footpaths (adapted from Land Transport NZ, 2007a).
The width of the footpath needs to accommodate the volume of pedestrians anticipated to use it. Table 6 provides guidance on clear desirable width. It is important that additional space is provided for other features such as lighting, signs, seating, bicycle parking, outdoor dining and planting. Provide footpaths wherever pedestrians will use them. Use footpath dimensions and geometry that provides access for all. Choose surface materials for safety, convenience and aesthetics. Manage design and location of street furniture. Locate and design driveways appropriately. Manage conflict on shared paths by good design and operation. Provide quality connections to public transport. Situation Desired width (m) Comments Clear width required for one Low pedestrian demand 1.2m (1.0m absolute min) wheelchair General minimum is 1.2m for most streets 1.0m absolute minimum at Average pedestrian demand 1.5m (1.2m min) a squeeze point Clear width required for one wheelchair 2.4 (or higher based on Generally commercial and High pedestrian volumes demand) shopping areas Allow for two wheelchairs to pass (1.5 minimum, 1.8 For wheelchairs to pass 1.5 to 1.8 (desired minimum) comfortable) Narrower width (1.2) can be tolerated for short distances For people with other 1.8 to 2.0 disabilities Table 6: Recommended footpath width (adapted from Guide to Austroads part 6a)
Photo 24: 1.2m wide footpath, Lomond,Cct? Photo 25: 2.4m Wide footpath at (typical) activity Mawson Lakes. centre.
Design Toolkit No. P2: Cyclist Paths
Cyclist paths are areas designated for exclusive cyclist use. They are most appropriate where there is: significant cycling demand and low pedestrian demand (or a separate footpath is available), limited vehicle crossings, and an alignment that allows for safe, uninterrupted journeys at relatively constant speeds. Considerations include: function of the path; speed and volume of traffic; needs of likely users (i.e. varying experience levels); drainage; and adjacent areas that are forgiving to errant cyclists. Intersections, underpass access points and other possible conflict locations should be avoided at the bottom of steep gradients, except where there is no alternative. Important considerations include: safe and convenient road and/or footpath crossings with sufficient sight distance; warning to cyclists that they are approaching a crossing; warning to motorists that a cyclist crossing is ahead; way-finding signage; and lighting.
Path width (m) Local access path Major path Desirable minimum 2.5 3.0 Minimum – typical maximum 2.5 – 3.0 2.5 – 4.0 (subject to volume) Table 7: Recommended path width (source: Cycling Aspects of Austroads).
Photo 26: Coastal Cycling path, Perth. Photo 27: 2-way cyclist path, Sydney. Photo 28: Cyclist path and footpath crossing, Perth.
Design Toolkit No. P3: Shared Paths
A shared use path allows for both pedestrian and cyclist use. They can be used for recreation, local access and linking other on-road lanes or paths to ensure continuity. Shared paths are appropriate where: demand exists for both walking and cycling, however the intensity of use is not so great to warrant separate facilities; an existing low use footpath can be modified to allow sharing by cyclists (this is particularly useful to provide a safe link between a side-street and a mid-block pedestrian actuated crossing on an arterial road); and there is an existing nearby road which allows for faster cyclists (e.g. with an on-road bicycle lane) to reduce the extent of potential conflict between pedestrians and higher speed cyclists. Shared paths along existing footpaths can offer best practice where they provide a safe and convenient option for young and/or inexperienced cyclists (i.e. within proximity to schools and parks) and at ‘squeeze points’ (i.e. narrow, busy sections of road, railway level crossings, bridges, underpasses). As noted above, they can provide important short off-road links to connect a side street with a pedestrian crossing. Other considerations include; safe and convenient crossings where path meets road, way-finding signage and lighting.
Path width (m) Local access path Commuter path Recreational path Desirable minimum 2.5 3.0 3.5 Minimum – typical maximum (subject to 2.5 – 3.0 2.5 – 4.0 3.0 – 4.0 volume)
Table 8: Recommended path width. Source: Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guidelines.
Photo 29: Typical shared Path. Photo 30: Shared Path as well as on-road lanes Photo 31: Section of footpath for faster cyclists, Hindmarsh SA. converted to shared path to access signalised crossing.
Design Toolkit No. P4: Separated Paths
Separated paths are most appropriate where there are significant volumes of both cyclists and pedestrians and a shared use path would present increased conflict potential. Generally, separated paths are effective in areas that attract high recreational or commuter walking and cycling (e.g. beachside promenades, bridges etc.). Generally designed as two-way facilities, separated paths are not common and public understanding of their correct use is limited. Adequate signage, pavement symbols and varying pavement surfaces are often required to delineate the pedestrian and bicycle zones. Best practice design includes a physical separation between the cyclists and pedestrians such as landscaping.
Separated two-way Path width (m) Bicycle path Footpath Total Desirable minimum 2.5 2.0 4.5 Minimum – typical maximum (subject to 2.0 – 3.0 ≥ 1.5 ≥ 4.5 volume) Separated One-Way Path width (m) Bicycle path Footpath Total Desirable minimum 1.5 1.5 3.0 Minimum – typical maximum (subject to 1.2 – 2.0 ≥ 1.2 ≥ 3.4 volume)
Table 9: Recommended path widths (Source: Cycling Aspects of Austroads)
Photo 32: one-way separated path, Hamburg Germany (cycle Photo 33: Two-way separated path, UK. path red paved / footpath (2-way) grey paved – separated by cobblestones).
On-Road (R)
Design Toolkit No. R1: Enhanced Bicycle Lanes
Enhanced bike lanes offer stronger separation between cyclists, moving vehicles and/or parked cars, and/or higher visibility. They strengthen standard lane types such as Exclusive or Bicycle Car Parking Lanes. They are achieved through various measures, such as: wider line marking, chevron line marking, green-coloured lane marking or tactile marking. Enhanced bike lanes are not a physical separation so do not prevent vehicles from crossing over it. Enhanced lanes offer a more cost effective solution than physical separation (i.e. kerbing) and require less space. Design criteria will differ depending on the type of enhancement, but in general they are the same width as Exclusive Bicycle Lanes (refer Toolkit for details) The DPTI guidelines for installing green coloured lanes stipulate that they are to be used only in areas of potentially high conflict between cyclists and motorists, these include: between multi-lane approaches to signalised intersections i.e. between two left turn and multiple through lanes; where cyclists are exposed to motor vehicle traffic crossing the bicycle lane over significant length of road i.e. greater than 80m; where the volume of motor vehicle traffic crossing the bike lane exceeds 2,800 vehicles per day; where there is a recorded pattern of collisions between cyclists and motorists; where a bicycle lane is located next to or between vehicle lanes but the desirable minimum vehicle and bicycle lane widths are not achievable; and where a bicycle lane is located on a left hand curve where vehicles routinely cut into the bicycle lane. Refer to the DPTI Operational Standard prior to the selection of Green Lanes.
Figure 29: Chevron separated lane. Figure 30: Green lane and tactile edge strip.
Design Toolkit No. R2: Separated Bicycle Lanes
Separated bike lanes include physical separation (usually kerbing) between cyclists and motor vehicles. The physical separation results in less traffic stress for some cyclists than a traditional painted line. There are however safety concerns due to the cyclist being less visible to the traffic lane by vehicles turning into side streets and parking removal is usually required to ensure sufficient sight lines at all crossings. This treatment is often a high-cost solution and requires a wide road cross section. Separated bicycle lanes: have been associated with increased participation due to high level of amenity; are used on routes that provide direct connections to major destinations; are used where there high traffic and high cyclist volumes; and an alternative solution if a direct off-road path cannot be achieved. Design criteria include: width to consider a fast cyclist passing a slow cyclist (typical 2m wide); clear space for car doors to open (if required) (typical 1m wide); traffic volumes greater than 7,000 vehicles per day (if road speed 50km/h); traffic volume greater than 5,000 vehicles per day (if road speed 60km/h); a street with few side streets and driveways to ensure sight lines are maintained; car parking removal is generally required either side of road crossings and driveways; and separated lane re-joins the road as an exclusive bicycle lane prior to major intersections, unless specific cyclist crossing provided. Type 1: Kerb separated Bicycle Lanes Kerb Separated lanes include physical separation of kerbing between cyclists and moving traffic. Type 2: Between kerb and parked cars Separated bicycle lanes between the kerb and parked cars are installed by ‘flipping’ the parking and the bike lane so that cyclists ride alongside the kerb and parked cars sit between the cyclist and the moving vehicle traffic.
Photo 34: Bike lane separated by parked cars, Albert Street Photo 35: Kerb separated bike lane, Frome Street, Adelaide. Melbourne.
Design Toolkit No. R3: Exclusive Bicycle Lanes
An exclusive bicycle lane provides the basic level of separation between cyclists and motor vehicles. The bicycle lane is generally marked by a single white line which delineates road space, however the single white line is not considered a safe-enough separation by some cyclists, and therefore could dissuade some people from cycling. The lanes are provided on both sides of the road in the same direction as the vehicle traffic. Cars are prohibited from parking in exclusive bike lanes, unless it is signed as ‘part-time’ only, usually in Clearways. Part-time bicycle lanes are not preferred as cyclists are forced into the traffic lane outside of operating times. However, where on- street parking is non-negotiable, part-time lanes are preferred over no lanes at all. Exclusive bike lanes are suitable for many cycling routes with moderate speeds and volumes, but may not encourage less confident riders to cycle on roads with speeds above 50km/h.
Lane width (m) Road posted speed 80 (off-road path 100 (off-road path 60 limit (km/h) preferred) preferred) Desirable 1.5 2.0 2.5 Accepted range 1.2 – 2.5 1.8 – 2.7 2.0 – 3.0
Table 10: Exclusive lane width (source: Cycling aspects of Austroads).
Photo 36: Exclusive Bicycle Lane, Adelaide SA.
Design Toolkit No. R4: Bicycle Car Park Lanes
Bicycle/parking lanes (BCPL’s) are located between parked cars and moving traffic. They delineate space for cyclists but can result in cyclists feeling squeezed between car doors potentially opening (parallel parking) or reversing cars (angle parking); and moving traffic. Wider lanes are preferred to provide as much space as possible without appearing to look like a vehicle lane. Generally, they do not require the removal of any car parking, but do need a generous road width.
Parallel Parking - Overall facility width (m) Road posted speed limit (km/h) 60 80 Desirable 4.0 4.5 Accepted range 3.7 – 4.5 4.0 – 4.7
Table 11: Recommended dimensions for parallel parks (source: Austroads aspects of cycling) With angle parking, an opening car door does not pose a threat to cyclists, however cyclists must remain alert to reversing vehicles in to their path, as motorist sight distance is often poor when reversing.
Angle Parking - Overall facility width (m) Parking angle 45 60 70 (degrees) Desirable 7.3 7.6 8.0 Acceptable range 7.1 – 7.8 7.4 – 8.1 7.8 – 8.5
Table 12: Recommended dimensions for angle parking (source: Austroads aspects of cycling)
Photo 37: Bicycle car parking lane - parallel parking, Photo 38: Bicycle car parking lane: angle parking, Hutt St Osmond Tce, Norwood. Adelaide.
Design Toolkit No. R5: Contra-flow Lanes
A contra-flow bike lane is installed on a one-way road and permits cyclists to travel in both directions. Contra-flow lanes: should be considered where there is sufficient road width to provide a safe treatment; should have an appropriate width: . absolute minimum: 1.5m; . desirable: 1.8m; have clear signage and line marking to alert motorists and cyclists of the conditions; are generally appropriate in low speed zones (50 km/h max); and should be physically separated from motor traffic in higher speed zones.
Photo 39: Contra-flow lane, City of Yarra Vic. Photo 40: Contra-flow street, Sydney.
Design Toolkit No. R6: Sealed Shoulders
Where a road is unkerbed and there is some demand for cyclist use, a smooth sealed shoulder provides space outside of the traffic lane for cyclists. Austroads recommends that shoulder lane widths are the same as recommended for Exclusive Bicycle Lanes (refer Toolkit No. 11). In addition, Table 13 lists recommended shoulder widths for rural roads. Unkerbed roads are usually outside of urban environments where traffic speed may be higher. Traffic speed and volume as well as percentage of heavy vehicles must be considered when designing cyclist facilities for rural roads. Where possible, enhancing the white line (refer Toolkit No. 9), e.g., providing a wider line than a standard 100mm width is recommended on roads with higher traffic speeds and volumes.
Traffic volume (Annual Average Daily Traffic: AADT) Element 1 -150 150 – 500 500 – 1,000 1,000 – 3,000 > 3,000 Total shoulder 2.5m 1.5m 1.5m 2.0m 2.5m (unsealed) Minimum sealed 0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 shoulder1
Table 13: Rural road shoulder widths (source: Austroads Aspects to Cycling) Although not directly related, the widths within these tables are not inconsistent with each other and provide basic correlation when considering urban sealed shoulders. Consideration should also be given to using a maximum size 10mm stone seal to provide a smoother, less abrasive and safer riding environment for cyclists.
Photo 41: Main North Road, sealed shoulders.
Design Toolkit No. R7: Advisory Treatment
Advisory treatments do not have legal status as bicycle lanes, but are useful on streets with low traffic volume to connect the network. They comprise bicycle pavement symbols, which indicate to motorists that cyclists may be present and also define way-finding for cyclists along part of a network. As they do not mark a separate space for cyclists they do not necessarily encourage cautious cyclists to ride, particularly on streets with higher traffic volumes, however, road width constraints sometimes mean these are the only possible treatment available to bridge short sections of a bicycle route. Where these routes meet busy roads, safe crossing points must be provided to ensure connectivity. Traffic calming options can be considered if speed reduction is necessary. Each street must be assessed specifically to determine the most appropriate location to place the logos. They can be placed against the kerb in a street with low parking demand or in the centre of the travel lane in a slow speed ‘mixed traffic’ street (less than 30km/h). They should not be placed close to parked cars where cyclists could be hit by opening doors (the ‘dooring zone’). Design considerations include: traffic calming is recommended if 85th%ile speeds are measured above 40km/h; route-finding signage may also supplement the logos; and this treatment is non-regulatory.
Photo 42: Advisory Treatment on local bike route, Norwood.
Design Toolkit No. R8: Bicycle Boulevard
A Bicycle Boulevard is an integrated approach that can be adopted on a strategic route that links important destinations and has high cyclist volumes. They can be installed in streets that are not wide enough to fit a bicycle lane and they usually do not require the removal of a significant amount of car parking, if any. All types of vehicles are generally allowed along a Bicycle Boulevard, but the look and feel of the roadway is that of a cycling street which is achieved by prominent logos, and signage. High profile Bicycle Boulevards can also include cycling related public artwork to further highlight the ‘cycling street’ concept. Bicycle Boulevards are not a ‘traffic control device’ as such, and therefore do not require DPTI approval. Regulatory signage is not required as cyclists are permitted to ride in the carriageway when bicycle lanes (with legal status) do not exist. For cyclists to feel comfortable in mixed traffic, traffic speed should be slow so that there is not a large speed differential between travel modes. Traffic calming may be required to achieve acceptable speeds (≤ 30km/h) and traffic diversion may be required to achieve acceptable traffic volumes (< 3000 vehicles per day preferred). Measures for a successful Bicycle Boulevard include: reduce vehicle speeds (if 85thile >40km/h), through traffic calming to speeds around 30km/h; reduce vehicle volumes if above 3,000 vehicles per day; provide safe road crossings at intersections with major streets and arterial roads (median refuge islands, signals, kerb extensions); install pavement bicycle logos in the centre of the carriageway (note that Sharrows (logos with arrowheads) have recently been approved under Operational Instruction 9.4 Advisory Bicycle Pavement Marking: Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow) (Photo 35); install prominent way-finding signage; and an environment that raises awareness for all road users that cyclists are encouraged and it is a cyclist- friendly route. This can be done through urban design features, public art, signage, sculptures, and entrance statements or similar.
Photo 44: example of Photo 45: Example of supplementary public art, signage. Oslo, Norway.
Photo 43: Directional logos ‘sharrows’ in Croydon, SA.
Road Crossings (C)
Design Toolkit No. C1: Universal Kerb Ramps
It is essential that kerb ramps are provided at every interface between any path (pedestrian and/or cyclist) and a road crossing, and that their position, design and installation complies with all relevant Australian Standards. It is recommended that an audit of all paths identify where upgrades are required. When locating kerb ramps, it is important to ensure that they are located on both sides of the roadway – directly opposite and in-line with each other. Every kerb ramp comprises: the ramp - from top of kerb to roadway; the top landing, where pedestrians move between the ramp and the footpath; the approach, the section of footpath next to the top landing; and the gutter, which is the drainage trough at the roadway edge, a smooth transition (not a lip).
Photo 46: Universal kerb ramp.
Design Toolkit No. C2: Median Refuge
A median refuge provides a protected space for pedestrians and/or cyclists to wait in the centre of the road and cross the road in two stages. Design criteria includes: sufficient width is required provide space for a cyclist or a person pushing a pram without protruding into the traffic lane. A bicycle is 1.75 metres long and so the refuge should be 2 metres wide at least (3 metres desirable), although 1.8m is acceptable if the road width is not sufficient. If there is a high demand for pedestrians or cyclists to wait in the refuge (school or busy cycling route), additional waiting space should be provided and assessed on a case by case basis; and refuges are recommended if traffic volumes exceed 3000 vehicles per day.
Photo 47: Cyclist only refuge, Portrush Road, Norwood. Photo 48: Shared refuge, Wakefield Street, Adelaide.
Design Toolkit No. C3: Wombat Crossing
A Wombat Crossing is a raised pedestrian crossing and the only form of Zebra Crossing currently permitted in South Australia. The South Australian Manual of Legal Responsibilities and Technical Requirements for Traffic Control Devices Part 2 – Code of Technical Requirements (DPTI), requires the following warrant for a Wombat Crossing: 1. In two separate one hour periods of any day (including Saturday and Sunday): a. 40 or more pedestrians per hour actually cross the road and could reasonably be expected to use the crossing; and b. 200 or more vehicles per hour pass the site where the pedestrians cross during the same two hours. OR: 2. During eight hours of any day: a. An average of 20 or more pedestrians per hour, cross the road (a total of 160 or more in 8 hours) and could be reasonably be expected to use the crossing; and b. An average of 200 or more vehicles per hour pass the site during the same 8 hours (a total of 1600 or more in 8 hours). However, it is important to note that pedestrian planners Australia-wide are ignoring strict warrants such as these as they recognise the benefit of installing pedestrian crossings with less stringent requirements. Council are encouraged to liaise with DPTI regarding locations for Wombat crossings, where warrants are not met.
Photo 49: Wombat Crossing where a shared path meets a road.
Design Toolkit No. C4: Head-start Lantern
A major hazard for cyclists is that motorists do not see them at intersections. Priority given to cyclists at signals can place cyclists in front of motorists and therefore increase their visibility and therefore motorist awareness. Cyclist lanterns can be installed at signalled intersections, where they turn green a few seconds before the vehicle green highlighting their presence and increasing safety.
Photo 50: Head-start cyclist lantern, South Tce/Pulteney St, Adelaide.
Design Toolkit No. C5: Bicycle Head Start & Storage Area
Bicycle storage areas or ‘bike boxes’ provide a designated space for cyclists to sit in front of motorists waiting at signalised crossings and intersections. Current Standards allow bicycle storage areas to be installed at the end of a bicycle lane. However, this is currently under review for change of legislation, to be in line with Victorian Standards. Therefore, it is likely that in the near future bike storage areas will be able to be installed without a bicycle lane leading into it. This would be advantageous on DPTI roads where the bike lanes terminate before reaching the signals. Assessment for feasibility and installation would be at the discretion of DPTI. There are various types of these treatments available. It is likely that these treatments would be applicable on DPTI roads within the Council area. Council should consult Austroads Aspects of Cycling to determine their appropriate use prior to liaising with DPTI if they are to be considered.
Photo 51: Bicycle Head Start Storage area (one type), Pirie Street Adelaide.
Design Toolkit No. C6: Hook Turn Storage Area
A hook turn storage area is provided to accommodate cyclists in a safe position while they are waiting for a green traffic signal phase for the intersecting road. This treatment can be used generally throughout the road system. Cyclists undertake a hook turn by travelling straight at the intersection and giving way at the far corner of the intersecting road for safe crossing. Hook turn storage boxes provide guidance on where cyclists can wait and can be used at a traditional intersection and T-junction.
Photo 52: Hook turn storage boxes at South Tce/Pulteney St, Adelaide.
Design Toolkit No. C7: Roundabout design for cyclists
Austroads are currently preparing a new publication with roundabout design guidance that considers cyclist safety. In the past, Australian roundabouts have been designed as ‘tangential’ which direct cyclists to the edge of the lane while motor vehicles remain in the centre at higher speed. Recent research which will be included in the updated Austroads Guideline has found that ‘radial’ design is preferred as it directs cyclists to the centre of the lane where they ‘claim their space’ in front of motorists, becoming more visible. Tangential roundabouts can be reviewed to ascertain if their approach and departure can be modified to a more radial design. If a roundabout with a history of crashes cannot be improved through design, other measures should be employed. These include signage, and also speed reduction measures on the approach to the roundabout, such as installing a distinctive surface, strips of alternate pavement to change the road texture or raised platforms.
Photo 54: Radial roundabout (preferred design), Largs Bay, SA. Photo 53: Tangential roundabout, St Peters SA.
Figure 31: Cyclist and vehicle conflict zone at a roundabout. Source: Bicycle Network Victoria.
Appendix E: Bicycle User Group Comments on First Draft
Commentary and Recommendations in Response to the Draft Port Adelaide/Enfield draft Local Area Bicycle Plan, 2015-20.
February, 2015.
1. Preface: The Port Adelaide Bicycle User Group (PortBUG) has, for over 3 decades represented a community voice for improved facilities for every-day, utility bicycle use in and around Port Adelaide and its surrounding areas. We have been pleased to have the opportunity for input to this review of the Council’s bicycle strategy, particularly to the extent that it will shape the community’s future of Active Mobility, improving access to safe, equitable and healthy everyday transport
In recent years the PortBUG has adopted a broader stance than that focused only on ‘infrastructure’, to consider three key principles & outcomes: Active Mobility (formerly described as ‘Active Transport’) Integrated Transport (that is, the use of bicycles across or in conjunction with other transport modes) Transport Equity (addressing issues associated with access to convenient, safe, appropriate and affordable means of transport).
The PortBUG believes that these three key principles and outcomes should underly the aims of all transport planning, particularly with the needs of local communities in mind.
The PortBUG has also increasing become aware of the need to provide for effective public engagement in the planning of all community facilities. In particular we would refer to the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation as described in the SA Health ‘Guide for Engaging with Consumers’
The IAP2 provides five levels of engagement as follows:
inform – to provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions. consult – to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions. involve – to work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered. collaborate – to partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution. empower – to place final decision-making in the hands of the public.
This brief response from the PortBUG to the draft PA/E Bicycle Plan is informed by perspectives derived from these key principles and by our assertion of an ongoing need for public engagement in the implementation of this Local Area Bicycle Plan.
2. Executive Summary & General Overview: The PortBUG applauds statements in the Executive Summary that: asserts need for a hierarchy of routes identifies need to define routes in terms of route type and locations.
The PortBUG believes that the Draft Plan’s Executive Summary is a particularly important section of the plan in that it will define the scope and purpose, particularly for Councilors and constituents who may be ‘new’ to issues of Active Mobility.
Whilst we would applaud the goals described in paragraph 1 and elsewhere in this Summary, we feel that it should more explicitly state the outcomes sought for the Plan as an ongoing strategy rather than simply as a network ‘mapping and development’ exercise.
We believe that in a number of ways, it is simply not possible to fully understand and account for the Active Mobility needs of the Port Adelaide/Enfield community in a single planning exercise. The area covered is simply too large, the local issues too diverse and uncertain and the scope and possibilities for ongoing development too ‘unknown’ and ill-defined.
As an alternative, we would like to see this Summary explicitly outline measurable outcomes in terms of: Active Mobility (changes in travel behavior, increased physical activity across demographics, improved health indices etc) Integrated Transport (identification of the specific route ‘connectivity’ and considerations required for such integration) Transport Equity (identification and strategies for resolving transport inequities)
We believe that broadening the focus of this Executive Summary to embrace such outcomes would radically improve its appeal to both Councilors and constituents, and would greatly assist the alignments required for ready access to State and Federal Government funding mechanisms!
We note that the final paragraph of this Executive Summary proposes that the Plan be a ‘live’ document. From a community perspective this implies a degree of ‘continuous review’! We do not believe that simply recommending review every 5 years will ensure such a ‘live’ outcome. The PortBUG notes that the 2007- 08 Plan remained relatively neglected, essentially unread and most definitely ‘unreviewed’ by most Councilors and staff until quite recently, when the State Government undertook development of the Outer Harbour Greenway and senior transport planning staff were engaged to oversee such issues.
It seems obvious to us that an intention to review a document is no guarantee of its viability or ‘live’ qualities. We believe that a ‘live’ planning document should provide strategies to ensure that it remains under active, critical and accountable observation for its entire term.
To this end we would recommend that this Executive Summary explicitly state that the Plan will embrace a range of strategies in line with those outlined in the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation.
We believe such strategies should include mechanisms such as: provision of Council staff with specific responsibility for Bicycle Plan and Active Mobility outcomes provision of mechanisms for ongoing and localized consultation with constituents and the public development of localized and functional transport planning strategies associated with specific destinations and constituent needs.
We would like to see this Executive Summary clearly outline and define what is meant by the Plan’s status as a ‘live document’ to assist both the public and the elected members to ensure it remains so!
3. General Comments.
3.1. Introduction (Section 1, page 1 onwards): We note in this section that there is little or no mention of ‘cycling’ as a component part of the community’s ‘Active Mobility’. We also note no mention of activity-related health issues (that are known to be particularly critical for Adelaide’s North Western communities) nor of similarly important issues of transport equity! We believe that information relevant to these issues to the extent that they involve communities across the PA/E Council area is readily available and deserves mention in this introduction.
We note the commitment to the Plan as a ‘live’ document, but also note that - other than an intention to ‘review’ – there is no outline provided as to how such a review should take place or what the outcomes should be. We again refer to out proposals regarding use of the IAP2 community engagement criteria!
Introduction 1.1 ‘The Value of Cycling’: While we would concur with most of what is said in this section, we note the absence of clear statements outlining the value of bicycle use in terms of: ‘sustainable transport’ ‘transport equity’ ‘healthy transport’ ‘affordable transport’ ‘transport efficiency’. We would like to see these qualities stated explicitly as being central to the ‘value of cycling’, particularly as it is now widely acknowledged that the transport systems that dominate Australian cities - based predominantly on private car use - are inherently unhealthy and imposing unsustainable costs and demands on the community!
The PortBUG believes that the ‘value of cycling’ as one of a number of preferred alternative transport modes needs to be far more clearly acknowledged by Port Adelaide/Enfield Council, and building some very clear statements to this effect into this bicycle plan would be an excellent step towards this. We need to elevate the argument for bicycle use beyond that of ‘individual lifestyle choice’ to that of an essential sustainability strategy!
While we acknowledge the discussion of economic and environmental issues on page 3, we note that there is no clear mention of related issues that we believe are (or will be) of crucial importance to Adelaide’s North Western communities, notably: the economic and business opportunities passed over simply because ‘active tourism’ and ‘bicycle visitation’ issues are generally overlooked across the PA/E Council area that household budgets are, and will continue to be ‘under assault’, making opportunities for low- cost ‘active transport’ extremely important for many the many known and measurable benefits stemming from Active Transport for individual health and longevity. Such issues have been well studied and documented across the PA/E Council area and we feel they deserve mention here.
3.2. ‘Local Area Context (section 2): We note the lack of mention here of: the many opportunities that exist for expanding the Greenway network associated with disused or redundant rail transport corridorS, drainage reserves service roads the growing movement across the North-Western suburbs identifying sustainable living priorities the NW suburb’s unique needs for improved access to sustainable transport - affordable, integrated and efficient transport opportunities. We feel that these characteristics and key aspects of the ‘North Western context’ and deserve specific mention and references here.
3.3. Reference to Key Planning Documents (section 3). PortBUG is pleased to see acknowledgement in the draft Plan of key planning documents such as the PA/E City Plan, the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide and the Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy.
All of these documents provide essential data points and rationale supporting both the Council’s development of a new Local Area Bicycle Plan as well as its consideration of key Policy imperatives associated with Active Mobility and related economic and community development opportunities. In particular we note the table on page 8 of key objectives drawn from the draft ITLUS. This table raises many questions for the new Local Area Bicycle Plan, particularly with regard to opportunities for enhancing connectivity raised by some of the major route and modal integration projects mentioned.
What we would prefer to see in this reference section are a series of short summaries that identify: the questions each of these documents raise for Local Area Bicycle Planning need for alignment of Council Policy with State and Federal statements implications for Local Area Bicycle Planning, particularly with regard to need for ongoing community engagement.
We note for instance mention in the City Plan of the Objective for: “Pedestrian and cycle networks and trails that provide connections within communities and link passive and active recreation areas”. We feel this objective and several others all raise questions regarding the processes required for developing a Bicycle Plan, particularly one that is ‘live’ over its term!
These questions of ‘process’ might include: how the destinations to be ‘connected’ are identified and by whom? how route preferences and experiences can best be identified and by whom? what parties need to be involved and ‘on board’ to achieve transport integration targets? These are all questions raised for the PortBUG on our reading of the City Plan and we feel that they should be noted here, particularly to the extent that they might shape the new Bicycle Plan as a community-based strategy and a ‘living’ document.
4. This Review (section 4). Generally we concur and support statements made in this section, although we would note that much of the infrastructure described as ‘installed’ remains either incomplete or ‘disconnected’. In particular we would strongly support: recommendations for a separated shared pathway associated with the Port River Expressway further development and completion of both the unique Semaphore Road bicycle facilities and the Outer Harbour Greenway, particularly at its Eastern end between South Road and Park Terrace (many obstructions and hazards), and those sections towards Outer Harbour (which remain hard to follow and poorly signposted) consideration of broader use of 40km/h precinct zones to manage ‘rat running’ along back streets, particularly around Semaphore Road, where motorists will often take short- cuts through back streets to avoid traffic lights.
We note mention of ‘cycling catchments’ associated with shopping precincts. We feel that a more in-depth analysis of this is required that embraces a broader range of ‘cycling destinations including: schools and higher education centres child-care centres, preschools and playgrounds medical facilities and other service centres transport interchanges and railway stations major tourism venues the main ‘traffic feeder’ infrastructure such as the bridges over the Port River.
In general we feel that the identification of ‘cycling destinations’ in this new Local Area Bicycle Plan is inadequate. Without understanding ‘cycling destinations’, it becomes very hard to identify development targets for ‘cycling routes’, particularly for those that the Dutch refer to as ‘less secure’ bicycle users.
We strongly feel that identification of cycling destinations ought to be part of an ongoing planning project for the PA/E Council and would like to see mention of such a target and recommendation here!
We note that there has been at least one cycling fatality on Causeway Road that is not mentioned in section 4.5! Several years ago a bicycle user was run down from behind and fatally injured after turning right into Causeway Road from Bower Road. Few bicycle users are aware of the light-controlled cyclist crossing at this junction with many attempting to make use of the right-turn lane, the situation that led to this fatality. We would like to see this fatality acknowledged in the Plan as Causeway Road remains a major but quite hazardous bicycle route.
5. Network Planning Considerations (sections 7 & 8): The PortBUG supports the hierarchical structure outlined in this section of the Plan. We also support the notion of ‘designing for cycling’ and the ‘safe systems’ approach. However we see here a key opportunity to emphasise the principle of designing for Active Mobility to meet the needs of the community as a whole.
We see this as a crucial network design element and principle that should be ‘front and central’ to these sections of the Plan. Designing for Active Mobility will: ensure alignment with State and Federal planning documents (and funding directions) promote sympathetic understanding of design objectives for both Councilors and the broader community facilitate more efficient planning goals and implementation without the difficulties so often associated with balancing the needs of one constituency against those of others! We would like to see Active Mobility given prominence in sections 7 and 8 as a key planning imperative.
6. The Proposed Network: The PortBUG assigned the review of different sections of the network proposal to several members to read in detail. We acknowledge the overwhelming scale of this task and have therefore confined our specific comments to the sections we were able to look at in more detail (see comments from BUG members below).
6.1. A General Comment: In general terms we are supportive of the new network opportunities and objectives that the Plan has identified. Where we find ourselves critical of the Plan, our concerns are generally focused on missed opportunities which we feel are best identified by local users and those riding the routes on a daily basis. Perhaps this concern is best summed up in the words of one BUG member:
“Council is congratulated for giving consideration to the very important task of planning a strategy for safe movement for cycling within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. The strategy could benefit from an explanation of why the Council has chosen to undertake this review of cycling at this time and most importantly, how a cycling strategy fits into an overall strategy for safe and sustainable mobility within the City of Port Adelaide Enfield.
The previous City of Port Adelaide Enfield Bike Plan expired in 2012; it is quite unfortunate that there has been no explanation of why it is considered that this cycling strategy is current and relevant to contemporary needs, given that it appears that it can only be a minor review of provisions that were developed more than 7 years ago. Perhaps, the wider community of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield would be better served by a strategy that gives consideration to how people within our communities are able to safely move around between our homes and businesses to our various local destinations throughout the council area, as well as linking to these destinations beyond the council boundaries.
Movement is a central element to our lives. We commence moving first thing in the morning with our journey out of bed to the bathroom and breakfast; we continue to move throughout the day in order to achieve our various tasks. Safe mobility, within the public realm beyond our homes, to reach our desired destinations such as school, work, shopping and other necessary places is a topic that concerns us all. Whilst riding a bicycle, utilising public roads can be challenging, even for confident and experienced bicycle riders at times, the issue of safe mobility is much wider than just considering the needs of cyclists. Maximising safe and efficient access to destinations that allow for sustainable and healthy travel options creates and reinforces positive and vibrant communities in which people want to live and raise families. A well-considered cycling strategy that is informed by relevant engagement with the community is but one aspect of a healthy movement strategy and its effectiveness is severely curtailed if it is not supported by wider strategies for mobility such as walking and access for all. Mobility needs are varied, not every-one has access to private motor vehicles; children, older people and persons with disabilities have particular needs that require sensitive consideration. Often, by providing facilities that support those most in need, it benefits the wider community and creates a safer and more engaging public realm.”
6.2. Safety around schools: “The City of Port Adelaide Enfield has the opportunity to create a wonderful safe local built environment which encourages active transport by ensuring that appropriate walkable destinations such as schools, shops, and local recreational facilities are able to be reached by walking and cycling, which become the preferred and practical access options. Walking and cycling radius should mapped around all schools within the area and consideration given as to whether these areas meet the existing needs for safe active travel or whether adjustments are required. Consultation should occur with the local school and carer communities to ascertain existing barriers and enhance future desire lines to maximise active travel potential. The wider community benefits from traffic calmed streets and analysis of active travel options to local destinations should form part of all local area traffic management (latm) projects.
Parents and caregivers hold justified concerns for children’s’ safety on local streets, as child pedestrian injuries occur most commonly within the local area, often in close proximity to the child’s home. And, of course this makes sense, as it is less likely that children would be permitted to roam unsupervised very far away from their homes. Imagine though, if local residential suburbs could be modified at costs far less than what occurs when having to provide infrastructure for motor vehicles. Residential neighbourhoods can be transformed to enhance safer walking and cycling, with relevant ease and certainly at lower costs than the alternative of continuing to have to provide facilities so that parents can deliver and pick up students in private motor vehicles. Our neighbourhoods have been changed over a few short decades from having safe streets where children could walk and cycle to school, to being exposed to higher and faster traffic levels where it feels more comfortable for parents to chauffer children to school via car.”
The PortBUG recommends an ongoing project across the PA/E Council area to address the principle of ‘Safe Routes to Schools’.
6.3. Causeway Road: “Correction: 9.2.4. - the existing shared use path on the western side of Causeway Road ends at its northern end at Mary Street, not Rennie Road (which is on the eastern side of Causeway Rd) as mentioned in the text The PortBUG generally supports all recommendations but notes that a marked crossing should be provided for cyclists approaching via Exmouth Road to access the eastern- side section of the proposed Causeway Road shared use path. This crossing would facilitate access to the Port Loop, the Outer Harbour Greenway (and thus Le Fevre Primary School) and to Glanville Station. the existing hook-turn bicycle refuge facility on Bower Road at its intersection with Causeway Road needs to be highlighted with green lane paint and bike stencils. Few bicycle users are aware of this provision and many choose to use the alternative. Joining the right-turn lane into Causeway Road. For those travelling West along Bower Road this involves crossing two lanes to the right-turn lane, often a hazardous maneuver when sharing the road with huge trucks or in the late afternoon or evening.”
6.4. (9.4.2) Grand Junction Road: “Any bike lanes provided on Grand Junction need to recognise that large trucks still use this road and parking occurs in the bike lanes making this road still very dangerous for cyclists. The PortBUG recommends provision of wide on-road lanes with wide buffer lanes.”
6.5. (9.4.3) Military Road, Bower Road to Strathfield Terrace: “The PortBUG supports recommendation seeking DPTI prioritisation of designs for bicycle lanes on Military Road.”
6.6. (9.4.4) Hanson Road: “The PortBUG supports the recommendation to ensure bicycle lanes are installed on Hanson Road between Grand Junction and Cormack Roads when this section is widened. Again bike lanes with wide buffers would be preferable as many heavy vehicles use this section.”
6.7. (9.4.5) Old Port Road: “The PortBUG strongly supports installation of bicycle lanes on Old Port Road. This is the only section of Port Road without bike lanes and remains the most direct on-road bike route from the city to the Le Fevre Peninsula. If Old Port Road is to become more of a major heavy vehicle route than Port Road then this will become more urgent. Although road width has been reduced by the stormwater & wetland design, there are not many residences or businesses requiring on street parking except the Fitness Centre on the western side of Old Port north of Cross Street.
The PortBUG supports the upgrade of the current off-road path on the south side of Old Port Road - which runs between Frederick Road and Bower and continues west along Bower to the Causeway Road intersection. This could be marketed as a useful route for families and children wanting to access Portside Christian School, Semaphore Road or the Port Loop Pathway from areas within Semaphore South. The current path is in fact mostly sealed - not unsealed as stated – although it is in very poor condition and generally substandard.
The PortBUG supports the installation of a cyclist refuge at the crossing point of Old Port and Port Roads, at least until this intersection is modified (which we believe is under consideration by DPTI).”
6.8. The Port CBD: Section 9.3.1 indicates that it is ‘critical’ that the Port CBD is easily and safely accessible. The following issues arise from close examination of the proposed Plan and are informed by the PortBUG’s own survey of Port CBD bicycle access, available at our website. There is no mention of a proposed right-turn ‘hook turn’ bicycle access from St Vincent’s Street into Nelson St (and thence across the Birkenhead Bruidge and/or Loop Pathway) There is no mention as to development of a safe route for bicycle users from the North side of the St Vincent St/nelson Street crossing into the Port CBD itself. It is essential that safe bicycle access to these service and retail centres from the Loop Pathway be considered.
There is no mention of re-development of Geoffrey Street as a bicycle route. Geoffrey Street connects Lipson Street (and the OHGreenway) directly to the Dale Street/Commercial Road crossing and provides direct bicycle access into the PortCBD from the East. It is currently a heavily used bus route and ‘rat run’. The PortBUG does not believe that the concrete culvert under the rail line adjacent to the Port Dock shopping precinct can be effectively developed as a bicycle access route as shown in the Plan. We would strongly recommend an alternative strategy that redevelops existing pathways across public land adjacent to the Port Reach and makes use of a now decommissioned at-grade rail crossing adjacent to the existing rail bridge across the Port River. The Plan makes no mention at all of the proposed development of the Harbour Loop Pathway Stage Two! This second stage would see PortCBD access developed around the Eastern end of the Inner Harbour between the Diver Derrick and Birkenhead Bridges. The PortBUG feels that it is essential that the Plan considers this Stage Two development and recommends its implementation! The Plan makes no mention of a number of contra-flow possibilities which would greatly improve bicycle access throughout the Port CBD. These include s=establishing a contra- flow arrangements for bikes on Nile Street (between the market precinct and Commercial Road North) and along Lipson Street between St Vincent Street and the Loop Pathway.
7. General Comments: The PortBUG notes the State Government’s intention to allow pavement cycling under a broader range of circumstances and the major impact this may will have on demand for a broader range of infrastructure provisions for Active Mobility. The BUG feels that this change will have particular potential for enhancing Active Mo=bility access to schools and to shopping and service precincts! The PortBUG notes that the current draft Plan benefits from previous traffic planning to assist school bicycle and pedestrian access! We suggest that local area analysis would benefit all schools and many other local destinations across the PA/E area. The PortBUG recommends the Council commit to: - an ongoing ‘working party’ approach to the development of specific bicycle routes - annual publication of a ’bicycle works’ schedule - specific strategies to ensure that the Local Area Bicycle Plan can be maintained as a ‘live’ document in accord with the goals of IAP2 (including specific mechanisms for ongoing consultation). - Development of ‘Local Area Active Mobility’ strategies across the PA/E Council Area - similar in principle to Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Plans – as an ongoing process of ‘opportunity discovery’. This should be a key plank for the Local Area Bicycle Plan’s implementation! The PortBUG recommends specific Council action to ensure that DPTI provides a safe crossing and/or diversionary strategy for bicycle users on the Outer Harbour Greenway over the course of the Torrens to Torrens Project as a matter of priority! The PortBUG recommends that Council consider implementation of local area active mobility groups to assist in meeting the Plan’s objectives. In discussions with the Transport Minister, the PortBUG has noted the Government’s interest in addressing the opportunities of ‘low hanging fruit’. The PortBUG recommends that such opportunities (and their associated political and ‘activation’ dividends be considered as a specific strategy in this Plan’s recommendations, particularly with regard to addressing the current Council
budgetary processes! The PortBUG would like to see on-going opportunities built in to the Plan’s implementation to look at connectivity and to identify cycling destinations. We see this as a crucial step for the community in moving from where we are now to be where we want to be in the future. The PortBUG is very interested in the role suggested for a Council’Active Mobility’ officer. We would like to see this role ‘owned’ my the community with quite specific provisions for community liaison and accountability. For the new financial year we would like to see the Plan recommend some key ‘activation’ projects to get the new Plan ‘up and running’. We would nominate funding: - a comprehensive strategy to get the Outer Harbour Greenway up and running’ - a local area cycling plan for Port Adelaide’s CBD. - a city-wide ‘users’ survey’ of the community’s Active Mobility needs, - including their aspirations for cycling to schools!
8. Conclusion: The PortBUG regrets that our opportunity to comment on this draft Plan has been relatively limited. There are many details as well as some broad principles on which we’d like to offer further and more considered recommendations. We would therefore welcome an opportunity to meet with both officers from the PA/E Council and with the Plan’s consultants as soon as is practical.
We trust that the comments provided here are useful.
Sam Powrie, Secretary on behalf of the PortBUG. February, 2015.
Appendix F: References Australian Transport Council 2011, National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020, Australian Transport Council, Canberra, viewed 1 July 2014,
City of Sydney 2014, Using Shared Paths, Sydney, accessed 16 July 2014,
Cycling Promotion Fund 2008a, Cycling Fact Sheet 3: Cycling is good for Communities, Melbourne, viewed 30 June 2014,
Cycling Promotion Fund 2008b, Economic Benefits of Cycling for Australia, Cycling Promotion Fund, Melbourne.
Department of Infrastructure & Transport 2013a, State of Australian Cities 2013, Australian Government, Canberra.
Department of Infrastructure & Transport 2013b, Walking, Riding and Access to Public Transport: Supporting Active Transport in Australian Communities (Ministerial Statement), Australian Government, Canberra.
Dill, J & McNeil, N 2012, Four Types of Cyclists? Testing a Typology to Better Understand Bicycling Behaviour and Potential, Portland State University, Portland Oregon.
European Cyclists’ Federation 2011, ECF Press Release: New Study Investigates Potential of Cycling to Reduce Emissions, Brussels, viewed 30 June 2014,
Heart Foundation SA 2011, Good for Busine$$: the benefits of making streets more walking and cycling friendly, Heart Foundation South Australia, Adelaide.
Heart Foundation SA 2012, Streets for People: Compendium for South Australian Practice, Government of South Australia, Adelaide.
Medibank Private 2008, The cost of physical inactivity, Medibank Private, accessed 30 June 2014,
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2011, Benefits of inclusion of active transport in infrastructure projects, SKM & PWC, Brisbane.