Orrong Road bridge

I recently noticed this new bridge. It's part of the Roe Highway upgrade and connects the residential areas of East Cannington and Beckenham to the heavy industrial area of Welshpool.

It's impressive. The width of the main path through this area has been made to the new PSP standard of 4.0 metres. On the bridge section, the width is actually 4.6 metres between the railings. This bridge eliminates the need to make a multiple stage crossing of the busy intersection at ground level.

The span across Orrong Road is about 120 metres long, plus there has been significant earth works on both sides to achieve a gradient suitable for cycling. 

There are three additional side-ramps connecting to the main path. The overall length of the project must be around 300 metres.

For comparison, the photograph below shows the much-lauded Cycle Snake / Cykelslangen bridge in Copenhagen. It's 4.0 metres wide between top rails and 4.6 metres at ground level - very similar. And its length, is 190 metres. Overall, the Perth bridge was a bigger project.

Cykelslangen, Copenhagen

Orrong Road and Roe Highway are part of a road network designed for very large trucks with oversize loads. The heavy industrial area of Welshpool is often the starting point for massive loads travelling to mine-sites in the state's north-west and eastern goldfields. The height of this cycle bridge has been designed to accommodate trucks with oversize loads up to 6.5 metres high traveling underneath. A standard truck has a maximum height of 4.3 metres.

This extra height requirement would have resulted in the whole project becoming larger and more costly. It would have required many more tonnes of earth works and much larger retaining walls. The hills here are not natural. This was originally a flat, swampy area. 

The path is not busy. You can visit here for more than an hour without seeing anyone on foot or on a bike. Why was it built? I'm not complaining, but it's an obvious question, without an obvious answer.  I suppose this would be called building-for-the-future. This is amazingly good infrastructure in an area with a mode share that is probably less than 1%. The Western Australian state government has made a commitment to expand the PSP network within a 15 kilometre radius of Perth. This is part of that process.

The Orrong Road bridge has been done without fanfare. I have not been aware of any media release or special announcement. It's part of the large Roe Highway Upgrade project which has a budget of $41 million. This connects with the even larger $1 billion Gateway WA project. Perhaps when there is so much money flowing for highway construction, building a top-class cycling bridge at same time is made easier.

I've called it a cycling bridge but officially these are shared paths. Curiously, Main Roads WA list this as a "footbridge" even though pedestrians are highly unlikely to use it. The residential area of East Cannington nearby rates as a "car dependant neighbourhood" on Walkscore. Many of the streets don't have footpaths and it is common to see three or more cars parked in the front yards of houses.

Perth is not a cycling utopia. We have some good parts but there are still lots of missing links to the PSP network. There are also missing bridges. The_Causeway across the river between Victoria Park and East Perth is an example. It's much closer to the central city than the Orrong Road bridge and has potential to be one of the main cycle routes into the city for commuters. Currently, pedestrians and people cycling share a bumpy, narrow bi-directional path on the southern side of the two bridges. The two-metre wide path is used by a lot of pedestrians and this will only increase when the nearby high-density Riverside development is complete. There has been talk about parallel cycling bridges for several years.

The Causeway shared path

The Causeway

Update 20 December 2017

The Department of Transport have provided some information on the Orrong Road bridge:

"The rationale behind the bridge was that this location would have been the only at grade crossing on the Roe Highway PSP between Kwinana Freeway and Tonkin Highway.  The new bridge and construction of the missing 1km of PSP have resolved this issue and the route now provides a great safe link into the hills for the more serious rider and recreational opportunities for local residents.  It also ties in nicely with the extensive Gateway project PSP network and the under construction Northlink project.  Ultimately, it all forms part of the high level PSP network that will cater for commuters, recreational cyclists and training cyclists."

Albany Cycling City - or not?

The City of Albany on Western Australia's south coast has an ambition to become a "cycling city". Albany is a port and has a population of around 34,000 people and is the oldest permanently settled city in Western Australia, predating Perth by a couple of years. It is potentially Western Australia's most attractive small city. The older, central area has many charming historic buildings with views across a natural harbour.

The coastline nearby is dramatic and there are a number of sparkling beaches with fine white sand.

As with most of Western Australian regional centres, car driving is the major mode of transport. Albany has local buses but the service is infrequent with short duration. The last bus leaves the city centre at 4:35pm on weekdays; 1:40pm on Saturdays, and there are no buses on Sundays or public holidays. If you work nine-to-five in the city and live in the suburbs, you would need to drive a car, ride a bike or walk. Albany's low density would make life difficult for anyone just relying on walking. Using a bicycle is a logical option if the riding environment is good.

In 2014 the Cycle City Albany Strategy 2014-2019 was published (summary here 2.8 MB PDF or the longer version here 30.5 MB PDF). It is admirable effort for a city of Albany's size. In conjunction with Cardno consultants, the state government, local businesses and the community the have produced 389 pages of detailed study and proposals.

The five key objectives are:

1. The Cycling Network - To develop and maintain a bicycling network of safe, connected and accessible routes and facilities. 

2. Cycling participation - To be a city where walking and cycling becomes the easy choice for travel of trips of up to 5 kms around identified community hubs.

3. Safety and respect for all users - To develop a bike riding culture in the City of Albany so that cycling is seen as a legitimate and normal use of the road, with mutual respect between all users. 

4. Cycling Tourism - To be a city that is recognised as a prominent regional cycling destination, delivering economic and tourism benefits for the community. 

5. Management and implementation - To develop management mechanisms to support and guide the ongoing implementation of the Cycle City Albany Strategy (2014-2019).

These objectives seem reasonable. They are the sort of goals you would expect for any city wanting to improve, but what is the desired result? For example, Albany's mode-share for bike trips at the start of the strategy was around 1%, what percentage gain is Albany trying to achieve?

The use of the term "Cycle City" is bold. For anyone who has travelled in Europe it brings to mind wonderful cities where bike riding is normal and done by a wide range of people. Many of those cities have a bike mode-share of 20% or higher.

There are a lot of factors involved in having a good cycling city. Mode-share is important, so is the quality of infrastructure, but also, social acceptance and driver behaviour play a big part.

The City of Albany is promising a lot. The Mayor, Dennis Wellington said:

"we want to transform Albany into one of Australia's best cycling destinations, including both on and off road cycling. We aim to do this by improving cycling infrastructure, encouraging cycling as a legitimate mode of transport, improving the culture surrounding cycling, and by encouraging more cycle tourism."

Using the term Cycle City will create high expectations. Albany has had some success with promoting the sport of cycling in the past few years; the Southern MTB festival is a good example. They have also included strategies to improve how bicycle transport is perceived by people. However, the City of Albany's infrastructure proposals which could encourage riding a bike for transport are mediocre and unlikely to deliver any significant increase in riding. The City of Albany is simply setting-the-bar too low.

ON-ROAD LANES

The strategy lists 82 possible improvements (Appendix F - Indicative Works and Funding, page 221). Of these, more than 50 are improvements to on-road infrastructure. I am sure these will be appreciated by the small percentage of Albany people riding a bike now. It may also encourage a few more brave people to dust off their bikes but it will not change the behaviour of the majority of people.

The extension to shoulders of Golf Links Road is an example. This extra bit of space on the edge of the 70 km/h road will be good for the confident sporting cyclists doing training on a Saturday morning but it is unlikely to be used by children travelling to school or by tourists to visit the beach. 

This sort of provision for cycling is nothing special. A 1.5 metre lane on the side of a 70 km/h road is the current minimum standard specified by Austroads. To become a Cycle City, Albany will have to do more, and do it better.

Another disappointing example is Frenchman Bay Road. As the City Cycle Albany Strategy concedes, "this road is the only access to some of Albany's best known tourist attractions...a growing number of tourists were attempting to cycle [to the attractions] and complained about the intimidating  cycling conditions". The road has a speed limit of 80 km/h and no sealed shoulders. In the short term, the City of Albany's fix for this problem has been some share-the-road signs.

Their long-term plan, is to consider the possibility of the widening the road and adding 1.5 metres shoulders. That is simply not good enough for most people. The majority do not feel safe riding a bike using on-road cycle lanes next to high-speed vehicles.  If the City of Albany is genuine about being a Cycle City for tourists there should be a separated cycle track or shared path along the Frenchman Bay Road route.

The Western Australia State Government recently invested $6.1 million to improve two key tourist attractions that are reached via this road: The Gap and the Natural Bridge. The attractions currently have 210,000 visitors per year. How many more visitors would there be if people didn't need a car to get there?

Curiously, the new parking area at The Gap has ten bike racks. They must be expecting pelotons of sporting cyclists or a lot of very brave tourists. The destination has been improved, but not how to get there. These tourist attractions are 18 kms from the centre of Albany and just 7 kms from the suburb of Little Grove. That is a bike-able distance for many tourists. The state government could complete the job and provide funding for a cycle track.

A separated cycle track next to Frenchman Bay Road would provide safe access to other natural attractions within the Torndirrup National Park and also the stunning Goode Beach and village nearby.

SHARED PATHS

The Cycle City Albany Strategy 2014-2019 also includes several shared paths and some of these will be important links for people on bikes. But again, the City of Albany has set low standards. Almost all of the shared paths have been specified as bi-directional with a width of 2.5 metres. Austroads specify this as the minimum width for shared local-access paths and not suitable for commuting by bicycle. 

The City of Albany, in their Strategy, has relegated commuter cyclists to the road. It states that commuter cyclists have "medium to advanced confidence levels...[and] travel speeds are generally higher than what casual cyclists achieve which makes them more suited to riding on the roadway".

This could explain their low-standard approach to paths. Unfortunately they are designing a network for the type of people who are riding now, not the type of people who would be riding if the paths are done to a higher standard.

People commuting by bike only ride on the road if there is not a good alternative. If there is a protected cycle track, or a even a shared-path of good standard and reasonably continuous priority along the same route as the road, they will not ride on the road with motor traffic. The paths should be smooth and not stop at every driveway and side street.  An example below.

Albany should design for the majority of people who would like to ride a bike, not just the 1% who are riding now. It could then become a cycling-city with normal commuters like this.

Museum Street opportunity

The City of Perth is digging up Museum Street, Northbridge. It's a short connection about 100 metres long between Aberdeen and Francis Streets. The work is a complete rebuild which includes new trees, lighting and realigning kerbs. Information is available on the city website.

It will be an improvement for pedestrians and create another space for the students from the adjoining colleges to sit during breaks. For people riding bicycles it is an incredibly poor design. Why is the City of Perth still excluding bicycles from planning decisions?

This is the artist impression of the completed works. The car lane is narrow and one-way. Any bicycle traffic is suppose to use a 'shared path' on the right. You can't see it? It's meant to be somewhere among all those people, trees and furniture.

Museum Street proposal

Confident people on bicycles will take-the-lane in front of cars when travelling north rather than tediously meandering through pedestrians and furniture. For those travelling south I would not be surprised to see riders sprinting along the street illegally if there are no cars coming. Bad design encourages antisocial behaviour.

Here is the 'before' street plan.

Here is one layer of the 'after' plan showing the proposed widened footpath on the left. It is achieved by removing one vehicle lane and eight parking bays. The footpath will be designated a 'shared path' which means you can ride on it but pedestrians have priority.

What the image above does not show are the new trees and furniture. Once those obstructions are added the sub-standard shared-path becomes almost useless.

A more correct image of the proposal would show the bicycle riders who will be forced to push past people sitting and talking. They will have no choice. This 'place activation' will suffer from bad design that does not respect everyone's needs.

My corrected version

Even without the trees and furniture, a shared path in this position is a poor design option. A person riding along the existing bicycle lane on Aberdeen Street needing to turn into Museum Street will not easily recognise the change to a shared path. Bicycle paths should be continuous and intuitive.

Museum Street is located in the middle of the Central Institute of Technology. Similar to a university, it's a modern open-style campus with seven buildings grouped around Aberdeen and Museum Street. There is a high percentage of teenage students, and considering the lack of quality paths, there are quite a lot of bicycles used for transport.

CIT Building 6, 19 Aberdeen Street

CIT Building 1, 25 Aberdeen Street

Immediately to the south of the campus is the State Library, Western Australian Art Gallery and Western Australian Museum, State Theatre and Perth Railway Station. Museum Street is an important access route between the campus and all those other facilities.

The idea to improve the amenity of the street has merit. The old street layout was very wide and unwelcoming. However, it did allow access for a person riding a bicycle in either direction, there were no pinch-points and it was relatively safe because of the extra width.

Museum Street, via Google Streetview

It is difficult to understand how a local government can undertake these expensive street works and virtually ignore the movement of bicycles. The City of Perth likes to brag about how much money they spend on bicycle riding in the city but they obviously still do not understand the basics of what is required. If the City of Perth is genuine about improving bicycle riding infrastructure, each time a street is dug up best practice should be applied to the new works. Most times it will not cost any more, it is just a matter of adjusting the priorities and applying good design.

It is disappointing when we wait for years for improvements to streets, but it is worse when it finally happens and our money is being spent the wrong way.

A summary and a solution

The 'before' version of Museum Street prioritised motor vehicles. It was tolerable for bicycle riding and pedestrians. It was not a destination.

With the City of Perth's enhancement Museum Street will become a destination. Pedestrians will have an improved experience. Motor vehicle access will be reduced a little. However, bicycle riding will be obstructed. This imbalance should be corrected. 

Most of the construction work has been finished at Museum Street but there is still a simple solution available. Motor vehicle access should be prohibited and that lane changed into a bi-directional bicycle path. This could be done by adding a single bollard at each end of the street. Motor vehicles do not need to be driven on this street. The car parking spaces are not required either, there are 614 bays underneath the library just 100m away.

With a bicycle-friendly enhancement of Museum Street it will become a better destination. There will be no noise and fumes from vehicles. People trying to enjoy the space will not be hindered by riders needing to use the footpath. Pedestrians will also have a better experience. People on bicycles will be to be able to move safely and easily along the street in both directions. Motor vehicle drivers will hardly notice any difference. This is what it would look like. Call the City of Perth and ask for the change.

The bicycle-friendly version. Easy.