Clarendon Street Campaign

For thosen who are ****ted off with the state of Clarendon Street, th
traders have set up a website:

http://www.clarendonstcampaign.org/

Sen a nice email to our unfriendly pollies:

http://www.clarendonstcampaign.org/object.html

For once, cyclists, motorists, PT users and locals all agree that thi
is a stupid idea. If enough people tell you somethings a stupid idea
it usually is. Make sure they know that we're not happy.

In particular, I think it's really clever the way the hook turns ar
only on one road out of the intersection. ie. Hook when turning out o
Clarendon St, but not when you're turning into it. Brilliant....

--
Shabby

Shabby wrote:
For thosen who are ****ted off with the state of Clarendon Street, the
traders have set up a website:

http://www.clarendonstcampaign.org/

Sen a nice email to our unfriendly pollies:

http://www.clarendonstcampaign.org/object.html

For once, cyclists, motorists, PT users and locals all agree that this
is a stupid idea. If enough people tell you somethings a stupid idea,
it usually is. Make sure they know that we're not happy.

In particular, I think it's really clever the way the hook turns are
only on one road out of the intersection. ie. Hook when turning out of
Clarendon St, but not when you're turning into it. Brilliant.....



What exactly is the issue here for cyclists? I rode down there a couple
of weeks ago and had no issue with the hook turn lanes, maybe because
I'm used to cycling with them in the city. Hook when turnign out and not
when turning in is the case on a lot of the city intersections. And the
reduction in effective lanes seems to have reduced the amount of traffic
down there (which I assume is why the traders are ****ed off). Is the
issue with hook turns in general, or the way they have been implemented
in Clarendon St?

DaveB

"DaveB" == DaveB writes:

DaveB What exactly is the issue here for cyclists? I rode down
DaveB there a couple of weeks ago and had no issue with the hook
DaveB turn lanes, maybe because I'm used to cycling with them in
DaveB the city.

Apples and oranges. The hook turns in the city do not close off a
straight through lane of traffic. In the CBD a cyclist can stay in the
near side lane when traveling straight through.

This is not the case with the hook turns in Clarendon Street. To carry
straight on a cyclist has to cross in to the off side lane. To be safe
a cyclist needs to claim that lane and that necessitates crossing the
tram lines; a dangerous maneuverer especially in the wet and especially
on 23mm tires.

The problem is particularly acute at two cross roads where tram lines
intersect. It's all but impossible to cross the curved tram lines at a
save angle without slowing down to a crawl and picking your way through
them.

DaveB And the reduction in effective lanes seems to have reduced
DaveB the amount of traffic down there (which I assume is why the
DaveB traders are ****ed off). Is the issue with hook turns in
DaveB general, or the way they have been implemented in Clarendon
DaveB St?

The way they've been implemented. They've taken a solution which works
well in the CBD because it does not close off straight ahead lanes and
truly botched it up in Clarendon Street. The reason there's a reduction
in traffic is because Clarendon Street is now a royal pain in the ass to
negotiate. Myself included, I use Canterbury Road / City Road to get in
to the city. Not as pleasant as cycling through Albert Park but a lot
less stressful.
--
Cheers
Euan

In article , wrote:

"DaveB" == DaveB writes:

DaveB What exactly is the issue here for cyclists? I rode down
DaveB there a couple of weeks ago and had no issue with the hook
DaveB turn lanes, maybe because I'm used to cycling with them in
DaveB the city.

Apples and oranges. The hook turns in the city do not close off a
straight through lane of traffic. In the CBD a cyclist can stay in the
near side lane when traveling straight through.

This is not the case with the hook turns in Clarendon Street. To carry
straight on a cyclist has to cross in to the off side lane. To be safe
a cyclist needs to claim that lane and that necessitates crossing the
tram lines; a dangerous maneuverer especially in the wet and especially
on 23mm tires.


Euan, you've been banging on for weeks about the lack of clearance. IMO
this line of argument is twaddle. On both my MTB & road bike, cars never
need to cross the centre line to overtake safely. Also, after reading
your posts, I have made a point to carefully observe other riders I've
seen on Clarendon St, and *not once* have I seen a car cross the centre
line while overtaking and nor did the cars seem to pass too close to the
cyclists. There is no need for cyclists to take the lane... you are
perpetuating a furphy.

With regards to hook turns, I fail to see how cyclists passing on the
right of the turner is a problem. The whole point of hook turns is that
the turning vehicle doesn't move until the lights change, so how is it
hazardous for a cyclist to pass a stationery vehicle wiating to turn?
When riding in the CBD I almost invariably pass hook-turners on their
right hand side. It never creates an issue for me in the CBD... so why
is it different on Clarendon St?



The problem is particularly acute at two cross roads where tram lines
intersect. It's all but impossible to cross the curved tram lines at a
save angle without slowing down to a crawl and picking your way through
them.


I'll concede you this point (although you say *two* cross roads...
surely you just mean the Clarendon & Park St intersection?). But this
problem could easily be solved by a simple cut-through for bikes in the
kerb extension.



DaveB And the reduction in effective lanes seems to have reduced
DaveB the amount of traffic down there (which I assume is why the
DaveB traders are ****ed off). Is the issue with hook turns in
DaveB general, or the way they have been implemented in Clarendon
DaveB St?


Dave, it sounds like you've seen through the traders' campaign... all
they're interested in is their hip pocket. They couldn't give a toss
about cyclists... we are just a convenient grab-bag group for them to
use to further their own agenda of lobbying for more (not less) car
parking. They don't have to live in the area and cope with increasing
volumes of motor vehicles using a street network designed 150 years ago.
A represenative of the traders' group was quoted in a local newspaper
saying that Clarendon St would be a better place if the tram tracks were
ripped up! Great... let's turn the area into a car-only zone. That'd
sure improve the quality of life for pedestrians and cyclists... not.



The way they've been implemented. They've taken a solution which works
well in the CBD because it does not close off straight ahead lanes and
truly botched it up in Clarendon Street. The reason there's a reduction
in traffic is because Clarendon Street is now a royal pain in the ass to
negotiate. Myself included, I use Canterbury Road / City Road to get in
to the city. Not as pleasant as cycling through Albert Park but a lot
less stressful.


But surely making Clarendon St a PIA for cars was the entire point?
Discourage cars & the trams will speed up. Then people look to trams as
a viable transport alternative. And for once, it's a case of PT having
the priority in the inner city, not cars. Like it or not, what is the
alternative... more cars and bigger roads? I'm all in favour of anything
which gets cars off inner city streets and people on trams and if it
means that, as a cyclist, I have to adapt to some changes then that is a
very small price to pay.

"southerncyclist" == southerncyclist writes:

southerncyclist Euan, you've been banging on for weeks about the
southerncyclist lack of clearance. IMO this line of argument is
southerncyclist twaddle.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've had cars cross the
white line to overtake me on several occasions, whilst to the left of
the tram tracks incidentally.

southerncyclist With regards to hook turns, I fail to see how
southerncyclist cyclists passing on the right of the turner is a
southerncyclist problem.

The problem is that the cyclist has to cross from the near side lane to
the offside lane in order to carry on straight ahead. You don't need to
do that in the CBD.

The problem is particularly acute at two cross roads where tram
lines intersect. It's all but impossible to cross the curved
tram lines at a save angle without slowing down to a crawl and
picking your way through them.


southerncyclist I'll concede you this point (although you say *two*
southerncyclist cross roads... surely you just mean the Clarendon
southerncyclist & Park St intersection?). But this problem could
southerncyclist easily be solved by a simple cut-through for bikes
southerncyclist in the kerb extension.

Agreed. If that alone was implemented I'd be satisfied, although I'm
still skeptical that the hook turns have done anything to improve tram
travel times.

southerncyclist But surely making Clarendon St a PIA for cars was
southerncyclist the entire point?

You can make it a pain in the ass for cars and still make it amenable
for cyclists. With Park Street / Clarendon Street that's not the case.

southerncyclist I'm all in favour of anything which gets cars off
southerncyclist inner city streets and people on trams and if it
southerncyclist means that, as a cyclist, I have to adapt to some
southerncyclist changes then that is a very small price to pay.

If you've been following my posts on this subject you'll have noted that
I have no problem with cars and bicycles being subordinate to trams,
it's purely safety that concerns me. Suggesting that I'd be in favor of
wider roads etc is incorrect.

In summary I think that engineering the roads to give priority to trams
over all other forms of transport is a good thing, however the means
must not introduce elements of danger which were not present prior to
the project. Primarily:

1) Forcing cyclists to cross tram tracks at an unsafe angle at Park
Street / Clarendon Street.

2) Forcing cyclists to cross from the near side lane to the off side
lane in order to carry on straight ahead.

Like it or not these elements introduce risk where before there wasn't.
Adaptations to make this a non-issue are trivial and well documented on
BV's page on the subject.
--
Cheers
Euan

Wrote:
"southerncyclist" == southerncyclist writes

southerncyclist Euan, you've been banging on for weeks about th
southerncyclist lack of clearance. IMO this line of argument i
southerncyclist twaddle

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've had cars cross th
white line to overtake me on several occasions, whilst to the left o
the tram tracks incidentally

southerncyclist With regards to hook turns, I fail to see ho
southerncyclist cyclists passing on the right of the turner is
southerncyclist problem

The problem is that the cyclist has to cross from the near side lane t
the offside lane in order to carry on straight ahead. You don't nee
t
do that in the CBD

The problem is particularly acute at two cross roads where tra
lines intersect. It's all but impossible to cross the curve
tram lines at a save angle without slowing down to a crawl an
picking your way through them


southerncyclist I'll concede you this point (although you say *two
southerncyclist cross roads... surely you just mean the Clarendo
southerncyclist & Park St intersection?). But this problem coul
southerncyclist easily be solved by a simple cut-through for bike
southerncyclist in the kerb extension

Agreed. If that alone was implemented I'd be satisfied, although I'
still skeptical that the hook turns have done anything to improve tra
travel times

southerncyclist But surely making Clarendon St a PIA for cars wa
southerncyclist the entire point

You can make it a pain in the ass for cars and still make it amenabl
for cyclists. With Park Street / Clarendon Street that's not the case

southerncyclist I'm all in favour of anything which gets cars of
southerncyclist inner city streets and people on trams and if i
southerncyclist means that, as a cyclist, I have to adapt to som
southerncyclist changes then that is a very small price to pay

If you've been following my posts on this subject you'll have note
tha
I have no problem with cars and bicycles being subordinate to trams
it's purely safety that concerns me. Suggesting that I'd be in favo
o
wider roads etc is incorrect

In summary I think that engineering the roads to give priority to tram
over all other forms of transport is a good thing, however the mean
must not introduce elements of danger which were not present prior t
the project. Primarily

1) Forcing cyclists to cross tram tracks at an unsafe angle at Par
Street / Clarendon Street

2) Forcing cyclists to cross from the near side lane to the off sid
lane in order to carry on straight ahead

Like it or not these elements introduce risk where before there wasn't
Adaptations to make this a non-issue are trivial and well documented o
BV's page on the subject
-
Cheer
Euan
what about novice riders ? navigating the cars, trams, tram tracks,
live on Park street and the whole thing is a debacle, we regularl
visit clarendon street, cafes, shopping, strolling, and it is jus
hideous now, the hook turn setup is a joke, it has ruined the street a
far as I am concerned, there are better solutions, it is dangerous fo
cars, trams, cyclists and pedestrians, wet road, tram tracks as
cyclist by law you should be taking up the entire right lane when yo
have to go past the tram stop for safety as well because of the smal
clearance between the tram stop and the tram track itself.

as a resident it is ridiculous and I can tell you I will make sure
vote very carefully next time, I have already sent my email and the
did respond saying they are in a study phase and they are not
permanent fixture as yet, and if my vote counts they wont be

--
MikeyO

"Shabby" wrote in message
...

For thosen who are ****ted off with the state of Clarendon Street, the
traders have set up a website:

http://www.clarendonstcampaign.org/

Sen a nice email to our unfriendly pollies:

http://www.clarendonstcampaign.org/object.html

For once, cyclists, motorists, PT users and locals all agree that this
is a stupid idea. If enough people tell you somethings a stupid idea,
it usually is. Make sure they know that we're not happy.

In particular, I think it's really clever the way the hook turns are
only on one road out of the intersection. ie. Hook when turning out of
Clarendon St, but not when you're turning into it. Brilliant.....


As a rule, hook turns are only on raods with tram tracks - even in the CBD.
Roads that intersect the roiad with the tram tracks/hook turn will only have
hook turns applied if they also have tram tracks.



--
Shabby

hi all

not sure if any saw this in the paper last week.

(was posted on the ride that shall not be named lis too - always the
latest news there)

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...302233583.html

Making tracks on public transport April 2, 2005

Trams battle traffic along Collins Street
Photo: Craig Abraham

(see pic ----- tram 'battling' along past 1 taxi overtaking 1
doubleparked car, hardly battling)


The fight is on to win public support for plans and proposals to speed
up
Melbourne's tram service, reports Dan Silkstone.


In Clarendon Street, South Melbourne, shopkeepers and cyclists fume
with
injustice, while across the river on venerable Collins Street, outrage
has
united retailers, Greens and public transport advocates.

Welcome to Think Tram - a $30 million project that has started spot
fires of
local resistance in recent months as Yarra Trams and the State
Government,
through VicRoads, have begun rolling it out.

Think Tram aims to slash tram travel time by 25 per cent, introduce
platform
stops that allow quicker boarding and stop cars from blocking trams.

But plans to increase the number of hook turns, cut tram stops on some
routes and remove kerbside car parks have met fierce opposition.

The program is one of the most significant changes in decades to
Melbourne's
iconic tram network but Yarra Trams chief executive Hubert Guyot says
it has
been misunderstood and warns of dire consequences if it does not go
ahead.

"We are doing it to avert a major crisis within 15 years, which will be
the
tram network suffocating because it cannot move," he says.

From his office on the 23rd floor of a Collins Street tower, Mr Guyot
can
see the problem below. The tram network that crisscrosses Melbourne is
one
of the largest in the world but also one of the slowest. On a list of
72
tram networks, Melbourne ranks in the bottom fifth for speed.
And it is getting slower. About 65 per cent of the system runs on roads

shared with other traffic. As car numbers soar and congestion worsens,
trams
are grinding to a halt. According to the timetable, a trip down Collins

Street between Spencer and Russell Streets took 8 minutes 29 minutes
seconds
in early 2003. It now takes 9 minutes 16 seconds.

Mr Guyot says it is vital that he win over the critics. "We have no
choice.
We have to convince them and to implement our program because without
this
program the system is going to die."

On Clarendon Street, a three-month trial has introduced hook turns and
platform stops that allow the average passenger to board in 1.5
seconds. Old
style stops take an average 3.8 seconds.

Mr Guyot says that banning right turns in front of trams is a
courageous
decision that needs to be made. A single car, double parked or turning
in
front of a tram, will often delay 200 passengers, he says. "Is this guy
a
first-class citizen and the 200 passengers second-class citizens? There
is
something wrong."

But locals have complained that hook turns cause confusion and lead to
minor
car accidents. The abolition of 24 parking spaces has also angered
traders
who have taken the extraordinary step of hiring a publicist to voice
their
anger. (In response, the local council later added 35 spaces on nearby
streets.)

James Gray, whose family owns the Coles supermarket, has planning
approval
for a $30 million redevelopment but says his confidence has been shaken
by
the road changes. "We are down $100,000 for January and February," he
says.

Newsagent Don Watson has sold papers from the corner of Park Street for
22
years and says his takings are down 20 per cent since the road changed
and
four car spaces were removed outside his shop. His petition has been
signed
by 60 retailers and more than 500 residents.

"Everyone's up in arms about it," he says. "And the big problem is
they'll
do seven or eight other streets around Melbourne if this gets through."

He's right. There are plans to extend the program along other key
routes
including St Kilda Road, Bourke Street, Swanston Street and Sydney
Road.

Different routes will get different treatments, including hook turns,
platform stops and raised tram tracks to stop cars from crossing lanes.

Yarra Trams is also negotiating with VicRoads to paint tram lanes in
bright
colours to discourage cars from straying on to them.

Work will begin soon on Victoria Parade, where the introduction of
"superstops" will mean that three stops are cut.

Mr Guyot says that retail business will recover as improved tram travel

attracts more passengers.

"In the short term it's not very well understood by retailers but they
will
benefit from the renovation of the landscape of the street... in the
long
run," he says. The changes are unpopular with cyclists, who complain
they
are dangerous. "Tram platforms block the street, causing riders to veer
into
traffic across the tram track, which is not good, especially in the
wet,"
says Bicycle Victoria's Harry Barber.

Meanwhile, on Collins Street, Yarra Trams wants to install superstops
with
platforms, shelters and electronic timetables. But the plan, which
would
improve access for people with disabilities and slice three minutes
from the
trip, also requires three of the nine stops to be cut and 12 parking
spaces
sacrificed.

Retailers angry about parking have joined forces with the Greens,
Environment Victoria and the Public Transport Users' Association who
oppose
ending the tradition of trams stopping at each intersection.

"It's a hundred-year-old convention and a simple and convenient
system,"
says Greens councillor Fraser Brindley. "You turn up at the
intersection and
you get on a tram..."

But Mr Guyot says the time saved by the measures outweighs the extra
time it
will take to reach the stops. "The average passenger will have to walk
only
30 metres further," he says.

Last month the Collins Street plan was stymied when the Melbourne City
Council withheld planning permission and set up a working party to
examine
alternative options. Cr Brindley argues that similar time savings could
be
made by changing traffic signals from 90 to 60-second cycles but says
that
some traffic engineers believe such a move would make congestion worse
for
cars.

Alternatives have been prepared by the council's traffic engineers but
most
of them still involve removing or relocating stops and a cost/benefit
analysis places the existing Yarra Trams proposal as the most
preferred.

It appears likely the plan, or something like it, will be approved when

councillors reconvene in a fortnight.


D

"mouseIThouse" == mouseIThouse writes:

mouseIThouse hi all not sure if any saw this in the paper last
mouseIThouse week.

mouseIThouse (was posted on the ride that shall not be named lis
mouseIThouse too - always the latest news there)

mouseIThouse http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...302233583.html

Thanks for that.
--
Euan