City of Stirling Integrated Cycling Strategy

The City of Stirling Integrated Cycling Strategy is open for comments until the 3rd of March 2015. Below are the […]

The City of Stirling Integrated Cycling Strategy is open for comments until the 3rd of March 2015. Below are the draft comments from the BTA

General comments

Overall the document provides a comprehensive description of cycling issues in Stirling, in the context of the larger moves towards more sustainable transport in Australia and the rest of the world. The positions and responsibility of various agencies and levels of government in respect to cycling are explored and documented comprehensively.
Some of the people who commented on the draft in 2011 are unsure of the extent to which their suggestions have been considered, and are now less willing to comment a second time. The comments made in 2011 should be considered in the final version of the 2014 draft.
We strongly support the use of Bicycle Boulevards in residential areas. This is a bicycle friendly solution where paint, signage and re-prioritising traffic are often sufficient to create a safer riding environment at little cost.
WABN IRG is moving towards a 3-tier structure as the standard definition of cycling infrastructure in the suburbs. This will eventually be reflected in the guidelines for bike plans, the review of local bike routes and the guidelines for traffic management on local roads, and should be considered for all cycling projects in local government areas.
Part 2 of the document should be discussed and cleared with MainRoadsWA.
The City of Stirling should develop an actual Bicycle Network Plan in line with the guidelines published in draft form by the Department of Transport. This will help in cycling related funding applications.

Comments to the Recommendations:


1. Riding on footpaths:

We agree, except that a speed limit is not necessary or desirable. The very nature of most footpaths will lead to safe cycling speeds that conform to conditions.
2. Data collection:

We agree (including the comments we made in 2011)
3. Signage

We agree (including the comments we made in 2011)
4. PSP improvement

We agree (including the comments we made in 2011)
5. Think 20

We agree with the “Think 20” matrix, but feel that car volumes should be considered as well.
6. NMU Audit tool

We agree, but having pedestrians on top should not just be a visual “gag” but should actually be applied to all planning decisions when vulnerable road users are affected
7. Coordinate cycling solutions with the State government

We agree
8. LATM and speed management

Should be brought in line with the State Government 3-tier structure
9. Retain PAWS

We agree, particularly if they are used in conjunction with the 3-tier structure to create a connected low-speed cycling network
10. Cycle access to train stations within 3km

We agree
11. EoTrip facilities

We agree
12. Traffic light phasing

We agree
13. Speed limits

We agree, with the reservation that the correct speed where vulnerable road users mix with cars is 30kmh. Using the 85th %tile rule is not appropriate in urban and suburban environments.
14. Speed limits on shared paths

We disagree. Where cycling volumes and speeds are consistently high, separation of cycling traffic from other users is safer and more effective than hard-to-enforce speed limits. Recommended (rather than mandated) speeds are strongly supported

Page comments
p.101 Bicycle Boulevards should always be 30kmh
p. 103 Section 7.3 should be read in conjunction with 3-tier structure and adjusted where necessary. Trying to explain and cater for some 14 different ways of cycling infrastructure can become confusing and ineffective
p. 117 Section 7.4 should be read in conjunction with 3-tier structure
– 3-tier structure
– WABN infrastructure projects

Three tiers of bicycle routes:

Tier 1
Freeways of cycling Tier 2
Inter-suburban routes Tier 3
Connect local destinations
Purpose Main users during the week are people cycling to work. Similar to PSP’s, they are the freeways of cycling and should have few or no crossings, red lights etc. Clear, direct and primary routes that connect strategic destinations such as mayor activity centres employment hubs, bus hubs, large shopping centres etc. Connect to the Tier 1 routes. Connects to schools, train stations, local shops etc. Less important that they are direct and more important that they are safe. Tier 3 routes need to be suitable for kids riding to school.
Granularity 5km 2km 400 metres
Environment Follow train lines and freeways Bike priority and continuous markings in an environment hospitable to cycling.
Car speeds preferably 40 kph (but in some cases 50kph speeds can be considered. Normally they would be on-road with the road speeds reduced to 30kph or less.(The UK is looking at 15mph car speeds with the overtaking of bicycles prohibited)
Suitable for Commuters and all other cyclists Commuters and all other cyclists Kids, inexperienced cyclists, women, gopher cars, pedestrians
Expected speeds Up to 50 kph
Average 20-30 kph Up to 40 kph
Average 15 – 30 kph Max 30kph
Average 10 – 20 kph
Possible change when cycling volumes increase substantially Cycling use only Reduce attractiveness to motorised traffic Largely eliminate motorised traffic except for residents
Planned by DoT DoT/Local Governments Local Governments
Funded by DoT DoT 50/50 Local and State funding via PBN Grants Program
Identification Single digit numbered routes, signs similar to current PBN Double digit numbered routes, signs similar to current PBN Triple digit numbered routes, signs similar to current PBN. Large on road markings
Comments Eventually these are bicycles only routes Tier 2 routes are also described in section 5.3.7 of the “Capital City Planning Framework – a vision for Central Perth” Local bicycle routes are also described in the 1995 WA Bicycle Plan. Also worthwhile watching the Portland video for suggestions

About Heinrich

Promoting everyday cycling