West gate punt punted

[warrwych]

http://tinyurl.com/lu7lv

So the ferry is not part of Brack's $73 mill then.....


--
warrwych

[cfsmtb]

warrwych Wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/lu7lv
>
> So the ferry is not part of Brack's $73 mill then.....

fksticks! Here's the longform ver below. I reckon the punt would of
been financially ok, but had the plug pulled just before it (literally)
turned the corner. Time will tell.

*************************
Cyclists take a punt, but the idea sinks

Sailing away: the West Gate punt on the Yarra with a load of cyclists.
But they are among the last, with the service to be abandoned.

Sailing away: the West Gate punt on the Yarra with a load of cyclists.
But they are among the last, with the service to be abandoned.
Photo: Michael Clayton-Jones. Stephen Moynihan. June 1, 2006

IT WAS a gamble that did not pay off. The punt that carries cyclists
across the Yarra River in the shadow of the West Gate Bridge will be
axed tomorrow.

The five-minute crossing — between Scienceworks at Spotswood and Port
Melbourne — will be cut on weekdays. The punt will continue to operate
on weekends.

Money for the service has dried up. The punt, which is owned by the
City of Port Phillip, was funded by the cities of Port Phillip,
Maribyrnong, Hobsons Bay and Melbourne, as well as VicRoads, Parks
Victoria and the Port of Melbourne Corporation.

The service started as a trial in December, co-ordinated by Bicycle
Victoria. It has since proved popular, but not enough to keep it
going.

Bicycle Victoria general manager Harry Barber said that although the
punt had proved popular as a quick trip for cyclists and a way to avoid
road congestion and reduce environmental problems, it was an idea that
was "premature".

Mr Barber said research had revealed that there were not enough regular
commuters to justify the service.

However, users of the punt told The Age that it saved travel time and
was preferable to being stuck in peak hour traffic on the congested
West Gate Bridge. Dot Byrne said she was devastated at the prospect of
losing the service, which was a "much more pleasant way of getting to
work".

A trip across the Yarra cost $2 each way, with cyclists apparently
willing to pay more to keep the service operating. But despite it
attracting an average of 1000 passengers a month since January, that
was not enough patronage to make the punt viable.

Dave Presley was another supporter of the service. He said cycling from
his home in Newport to Southbank took about 30 minutes and was "more
enjoyable than driving my company car over the bridge each day".

"Without the punt service, myself and many other cyclists from the west
would be forced to ride on dangerous roads through Yarraville in order
to reach Footscray Road and then the city," he said.

Mr Barber said cyclists from Melbourne's south-west would benefit from
a new bike path link to the city. A committee would oversee any future
plans to relaunch the punt.


--
cfsmtb

[Resound]

warrwych Wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/lu7lv
>
> So the ferry is not part of Brack's $73 mill then.....

Even allowing cyclists to use the breakdown lane to get over the bridge
in the same way that we can use the breakdown lane on some other
freeways would provide a way for cyclists to get over the river at that
point.


--
Resound

[TimC]

On 2006-06-01, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> warrwych Wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/lu7lv
>>
>> So the ferry is not part of Brack's $73 mill then.....
>
> fksticks! Here's the longform ver below. I reckon the punt would of
> been financially ok, but had the plug pulled just before it (literally)
> turned the corner. Time will tell.

Are you so sure about that? It had 1000 commuters per month. That's
30 trips per day, 15 per morning and night. At $2 each, that's $60
for diesel, maintenance, and wages. It was never going to make a
profit. It was never going to turn the corner. It was always going
to need government assistance.

--
TimC
White dwarf seeks red giant star for binary relationship

[Peter McCallum]

TimC > wrote:

> On 2006-06-01, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> >
> > warrwych Wrote:
> >> http://tinyurl.com/lu7lv
> >>
> >> So the ferry is not part of Brack's $73 mill then.....
> >
> > fksticks! Here's the longform ver below. I reckon the punt would of
> > been financially ok, but had the plug pulled just before it (literally)
> > turned the corner. Time will tell.
>
> Are you so sure about that? It had 1000 commuters per month. That's
> 30 trips per day, 15 per morning and night. At $2 each, that's $60
> for diesel, maintenance, and wages. It was never going to make a
> profit. It was never going to turn the corner. It was always going
> to need government assistance.

I've been running my car for the past 10 years and it still hasn't made
a profit. Maybe I should put the axe to it too.

P
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
http://bicyclemackay.org.au

[Donga]

Resound wrote:
> warrwych Wrote:
> > http://tinyurl.com/lu7lv
> >
> > So the ferry is not part of Brack's $73 mill then.....
>
> Even allowing cyclists to use the breakdown lane to get over the bridge
> in the same way that we can use the breakdown lane on some other
> freeways would provide a way for cyclists to get over the river at that
> point.

Tell them Queensland is putting cycle access into the Gateway Bridge
duplication. They wouldn't want to look backward!

Donga

[rooman]

Resound Wrote:
> Even allowing cyclists to use the breakdown lane to get over the bridge
> in the same way that we can use the breakdown lane on some other
> freeways would provide a way for cyclists to get over the river at that
> point.
*Turn the breakdown lanes into full time cycleways* (with Copenhagen
barrier), and *use a tow service for all breakdowns*, like Syd Harbour
Bridge they dont have a breakdown lane, just nudge trucks that come
along and push the cars (off the bridge, I wish) to each end to a
service bay and away from a hold up...


--
rooman

[Bleve]

TimC wrote:
> On 2006-06-01, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> >
> > warrwych Wrote:
> >> http://tinyurl.com/lu7lv
> >>
> >> So the ferry is not part of Brack's $73 mill then.....
> >
> > fksticks! Here's the longform ver below. I reckon the punt would of
> > been financially ok, but had the plug pulled just before it (literally)
> > turned the corner. Time will tell.
>
> Are you so sure about that? It had 1000 commuters per month. That's
> 30 trips per day, 15 per morning and night. At $2 each, that's $60
> for diesel, maintenance, and wages. It was never going to make a
> profit. It was never going to turn the corner. It was always going
> to need government assistance.

Sure, but does that matter? If it was viable commercially, then
someone would have bought the barge and run it commercially, but if
it's a worthwhile public service, then perhaps BV (unless they've
already tried and been beaten back) could lobby for it further?
Dutchy, what say you?

I don't see the problem with Footscray Rd though, it has a good path
beside it as a viable alternative. I've ridden that way lots ...

[cfsmtb]

Bleve Wrote:
>
>
> I don't see the problem with Footscray Rd though, it has a good path
> beside it as a viable alternative. I've ridden that way lots ...

It's ****e headwind when riding west. Especially during the arvo.


--
cfsmtb

[Bleve]

cfsmtb wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't see the problem with Footscray Rd though, it has a good path
> > beside it as a viable alternative. I've ridden that way lots ...
>
> It's ****e headwind when riding west. Especially during the arvo.

heh

catch a taxi ....

[Gurrie]

Except there isn't a breakdown lane on the inbound side of the bridge for
basically the first half. It is used as a 5th lane to alleviate the heavy
traffic demands.

Not sure I would want to ride so close to 80km/h traffic either.

What happens where there is a breakdown too? How would you get around a
broken down car without getting killed?

There is also the issue of suicides. Cars are not allowed to stop and
pedestrians aren't permitted either as a means to reduce the number of
suicides.

Essentially, whilst a good idea, especially if the bridge was to be widened,
the current config makes it unviable. Considering the option of Yarraville,
Footscray Rd (complete with parallel bike path) is it such a big deal to
actually just ride a bit further?


"Resound" > wrote in message
...
>
> warrwych Wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/lu7lv
>>
>> So the ferry is not part of Brack's $73 mill then.....
>
> Even allowing cyclists to use the breakdown lane to get over the bridge
> in the same way that we can use the breakdown lane on some other
> freeways would provide a way for cyclists to get over the river at that
> point.
>
>
> --
> Resound
>

[rooman]

> Except there isn't a breakdown lane on the inbound side of the bridge
> for
> basically the first half. It is used as a 5th lane to alleviate the
> heavy
> traffic demands.DUMP THE FIFTH LANE...BIKES ARE MORE PRACTICAL TO REDUCE TRAFFIC DEMANDS
AND ROAD SPACE... MORE IMPORTANT THAN INCREASING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
DEMANDS AND THE AUTHORITES WANT TO REDUCE WESTGATE TRAFFIC ANYWAY OR
THEY WILL HAVE TO WIDEN IT FOR MORE CARS


> Not sure I would want to ride so close to 80km/h traffic eitherTHE NEPEAN HIGHWAY IS 80KLM AND IS HEAVYILY USED BY BICYCLING COMMUTERS

> What happens where there is a breakdown too? How would you get around a
> broken down car without getting killed?STAY IN THE CAR, GET NUDGED BY SERVICE TRUCK TO SERVICE BAY AT EACH END
- SEE SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE COMMENT EARLIER...

> There is also the issue of suicides. Cars are not allowed to stop and
> pedestrians aren't permitted either as a means to reduce the number of
> suicides.
> LET EM JUMP, YOU WONT STOP A HELL BENT SUICIDE. IF THEY CANT JUMP OFF
THE BRIDGE THEY'LL JUMP UNDER A BUS
'

>
> Essentially, whilst a good idea, especially if the bridge was to be
> widened,
> the current config makes it unviable. Considering the option of
> Yarraville,
> Footscray Rd (complete with parallel bike path) is it such a big deal
> to
> actually just ride a bit further?
> NO, BUT IT IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF ENSURING CYCLISTS HAVE ACCESS TO TWO
VITAL TRANSPORT CORRIDORS, THEY ARE TRAFFIC AND ENTITLED TO ACCESS TO
WESTGATE AND BOLTE, THE PLANNERS JUST DIDNT FIGURE THEM IN THE EQUATION
BEING ONE EYED CAGERS AND BEAN COUNTERS.


--
rooman

[Aeek]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:19:09 +1000, "Gurrie" <lameus2ATbigfoot.com>
wrote:

>Not sure I would want to ride so close to 80km/h traffic either.

I do everyday, so long as everyone does what they are supposed to,
60, 80, 100, 110, its all much the same. If someones too busy texting
or a truck load shifts thats pretty much it anyway.

>What happens where there is a breakdown too? How would you get around a
>broken down car without getting killed?

Signal, move out early so you don't surprise anyone, move back asap.

Andre

[Peter Signorini]

"Gurrie" wrote:

> Except there isn't a breakdown lane on the inbound side of the bridge for
> basically the first half. It is used as a 5th lane to alleviate the heavy
> traffic demands.
>
> Not sure I would want to ride so close to 80km/h traffic either.

Umm.... I ride amongst 80kmh traffic on Canterbury Rd, Springvale Rd,
Burwood Hwy, Maroondah Hwy and most of the other main roads throughout the
eastern suburbs. And they usually only have 2 or 3 lanes. How is that any
different? Before you say "you can jump off onto the footpath", that is not
an option I take. Ride in the lane, use the roadspace as conditions demand,
and if the lane is too narrow, claim the centre of the lane. You can do the
same crossing the Westgate. Drivers know its their responsibility to go
around you.

Several years ago I was on a ride with my wife around the Bayside trails
from St Kilda to Port Melbourne and we were to go over on the punt to
Williamstown. We got separated and due to a misunderstanding about the
route, she ended up near the Graham St entrance, and rode over the Westgate
to Williamstown Rd, toured Williamstown and then rode back the same way!! I
didn't catch up to her until much later at St Kilda. I was staggered when I
heard where she'd been.

She had no problems with traffic (admittedly it was the middle of the day on
a Sunday), only quite a few truckies were honking the horn at her. No Police
or VicRoads patrols to pull her over. The hazards of riding the Westgate are
very much over-rated in my opinion.

> What happens where there is a breakdown too? How would you get around a
> broken down car without getting killed?

Observe in advance, indicate, move out early and pass it. How do you get
around any parked car normally?
>
> There is also the issue of suicides. Cars are not allowed to stop and
> pedestrians aren't permitted either as a means to reduce the number of
> suicides.

I see little that I can do about it on my bike. There could also be suicides
off Princes Bridge, should we ban pedestrians and cyclists there too?

> Essentially, whilst a good idea, especially if the bridge was to be
> widened, the current config makes it unviable. Considering the option of
> Yarraville, Footscray Rd (complete with parallel bike path) is it such a
> big deal to actually just ride a bit further?

So you're happy about giving up access to what is potentially the safest,
most direct, road option?

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

[Kathy]

rooman wrote:

>>Except there isn't a breakdown lane on the inbound side of the bridge
>>for
>>basically the first half. It is used as a 5th lane to alleviate the
>>heavy
>>traffic demands.DUMP THE FIFTH LANE...BIKES ARE MORE PRACTICAL TO REDUCE TRAFFIC DEMANDS
>
> AND ROAD SPACE... MORE IMPORTANT THAN INCREASING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
> DEMANDS AND THE AUTHORITES WANT TO REDUCE WESTGATE TRAFFIC ANYWAY OR
> THEY WILL HAVE TO WIDEN IT FOR MORE CARS
>
>
>
>>Not sure I would want to ride so close to 80km/h traffic eitherTHE NEPEAN HIGHWAY IS 80KLM AND IS HEAVYILY USED BY BICYCLING COMMUTERS
>
>
>>What happens where there is a breakdown too? How would you get around a
>>broken down car without getting killed?STAY IN THE CAR, GET NUDGED BY SERVICE TRUCK TO SERVICE BAY AT EACH END
>
> - SEE SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE COMMENT EARLIER...
>
>
>>There is also the issue of suicides. Cars are not allowed to stop and
>>pedestrians aren't permitted either as a means to reduce the number of
>>suicides.
>>LET EM JUMP, YOU WONT STOP A HELL BENT SUICIDE. IF THEY CANT JUMP OFF
>
> THE BRIDGE THEY'LL JUMP UNDER A BUS
> '
>
>
>>
>>Essentially, whilst a good idea, especially if the bridge was to be
>>widened,
>>the current config makes it unviable. Considering the option of
>>Yarraville,
>>Footscray Rd (complete with parallel bike path) is it such a big deal
>>to
>>actually just ride a bit further?
>>NO, BUT IT IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF ENSURING CYCLISTS HAVE ACCESS TO TWO
>
> VITAL TRANSPORT CORRIDORS, THEY ARE TRAFFIC AND ENTITLED TO ACCESS TO
> WESTGATE AND BOLTE, THE PLANNERS JUST DIDNT FIGURE THEM IN THE EQUATION
> BEING ONE EYED CAGERS AND BEAN COUNTERS.
>
>
Shhhhhhhhhhhh
Its really really late. Don;t shout. You will wake Kathy
:)

Dave

[ritcho]

Gurrie Wrote:
> Except there isn't a breakdown lane on the inbound side of the bridge
> for
> basically the first half. It is used as a 5th lane to alleviate the
> heavy
> traffic demands.
>
> Not sure I would want to ride so close to 80km/h traffic either.
>
> [snip]
>
>

80km/h? You haven't been on the bridge in peak hour. 8km/h is more like
it. The removal of the punt service will probably increase travel time
for some, but I've been looking for ways to increase my travel time.
How can I get any decent training in a 15min ride?

Ritch


--
ritcho

[Bleve]

Aeek wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:19:09 +1000, "Gurrie" <lameus2ATbigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Not sure I would want to ride so close to 80km/h traffic either.
>
> I do everyday,


Likewise, and 100km/h. It's ok.

The bridge, however ... gets windy. *very* windy. cfs moaned about
headwinds on footscray rd, try riding a bike over the westgate at
25km/h or so with a decent sou westerly blowing. forget it. I've done
it on my motorbike at 60km/h when the warning lights have been on and I
was struggling to keep my 220kg motorcycle in a lane. On a bicycle,
NYET!

Rooman, be patient, when petrol's $5 a litre and the penny drops, we'll
have the bridge. In the mean time, stop sooking (and shouting!)

did you know the zionist nazis faked the westgate bridge too?

[Euan]

Gurrie wrote:

> Not sure I would want to ride so close to 80km/h traffic either.

If your primary mode of transport is a bicycle it's pretty much unavoidable.

Generally roads which have a speed limit of 80km/h have very good sight
lines. The consequence of that is that when I'm riding on such a road
I'm much more likely to be seen from 300M plus. I'd much rather ride on
a road like that than ride on a 50km/h road where there are blind
corners and intersections everywhere, much safer!

> What happens where there is a breakdown too? How would you get around a
> broken down car without getting killed?

The same way you get around any hazard on the road. Observe, indicate
and manouver.

> There is also the issue of suicides. Cars are not allowed to stop and
> pedestrians aren't permitted either as a means to reduce the number of
> suicides.

Do you really think that someone intent on committing suicide by jumping
off the Westgate is going to care if he breaks the law by stopping and
jumping off?

> Essentially, whilst a good idea, especially if the bridge was to be widened,
> the current config makes it unviable.

Why is it unviable?

> Considering the option of Yarraville,
> Footscray Rd (complete with parallel bike path) is it such a big deal to
> actually just ride a bit further?

You might be happy being treated like a second class road user, I'm not.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

[Rory Williams]

On a few issues:

As I understand it they do currently use a "push truck" method to clear
breakdowns from the west gate. I imagine that the breakdown lane still
serves a usefull purpose as a place for a brokend down vehicle to sit
until the pusher gets to them.

I am a very occasional commuter from Oakleigh to Werribee. If
considering the punt I have to decide when I get to South Melbourne at
about 06:30 do I fang it down Lorrimer St to catch the 6:45 and
possibly stand arround for half an hour if I just miss the ferry, or
head off through Docklands and Footscray Rd? Footscray Rd has won so
far.

The Footscray Rd path is good, the road is good too at 6:30, except for
the citilink entry and exits. The Bridge over the Maribrinong Yarraville
end is awfull and the connecting streets down to Newport likewise. So
many trucks. Efforts to get some good routes for bikes, cars and
trucks through that area would be more worthwhile than worrying about
the Westgate. But of course, that might eat into citilinks profits....


RoryW


--
Rory Williams

[flyingdutch]

Bleve Wrote:
>
> Sure, but does that matter? If it was viable commercially, then
> someone would have bought the barge and run it commercially, but if
> it's a worthwhile public service, then perhaps BV (unless they've
> already tried and been beaten back) could lobby for it further?
> Dutchy, what say you?
>
> I don't see the problem with Footscray Rd though, it has a good path
> beside it as a viable alternative. I've ridden that way lots ...

BV camapaigned and got the trial funding that initially had the thing
running.
The daily take was just under $100 so very heavily subsidised. Still
worth fighting for altho bang-for-buck the punt was mor of nice idea
than a thing to attract funding versus other facilities


--
flyingdutch

[Gurrie]

"Aeek" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:19:09 +1000, "Gurrie" <lameus2ATbigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Not sure I would want to ride so close to 80km/h traffic either.
>
> I do everyday, so long as everyone does what they are supposed to,
> 60, 80, 100, 110, its all much the same. If someones too busy texting
> or a truck load shifts thats pretty much it anyway.

And that is the exact problem - not everyone does do what they are supposed
do. I used to ride from Melton to the city on a regulat basis with 110km/h
vehicles, including large trucks. It is great when it all works but are you
really prepared to put your life in the hands of someone who would rather
smoke/text/do their makeup instead of concentrate on the job at hand?
>
>>What happens where there is a breakdown too? How would you get around a
>>broken down car without getting killed?
>
> Signal, move out early so you don't surprise anyone, move back asap.

You try that in peak hour and you will be dead. Guaranteed.

>
> Andre

[Bleve]

Gurrie wrote:
> "Aeek" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:19:09 +1000, "Gurrie" <lameus2ATbigfoot.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Not sure I would want to ride so close to 80km/h traffic either.
> >
> > I do everyday, so long as everyone does what they are supposed to,
> > 60, 80, 100, 110, its all much the same. If someones too busy texting
> > or a truck load shifts thats pretty much it anyway.
>
> And that is the exact problem - not everyone does do what they are supposed
> do. I used to ride from Melton to the city on a regulat basis with 110km/h
> vehicles, including large trucks. It is great when it all works but are you
> really prepared to put your life in the hands of someone who would rather
> smoke/text/do their makeup instead of concentrate on the job at hand?

Road riding 101. I do it every day.

> >>What happens where there is a breakdown too? How would you get around a
> >>broken down car without getting killed?
> >
> > Signal, move out early so you don't surprise anyone, move back asap.
>
> You try that in peak hour and you will be dead. Guaranteed.

I do it everyday. Not dead yet. Been a few k's too ...

[Aeek]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 20:32:46 +1000, "Gurrie" <lameus2ATbigfoot.com>
wrote:

>
>"Aeek" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Signal, move out early so you don't surprise anyone, move back asap.
>
>You try that in peak hour and you will be dead. Guaranteed.
>

so I'm already dead, then I don't have anything to lose.

I look too.
One reason for moving out early is so I can choose exactly when.

[Gurrie]

"Bleve" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Gurrie wrote:
>> "Aeek" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:19:09 +1000, "Gurrie" <lameus2ATbigfoot.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Not sure I would want to ride so close to 80km/h traffic either.
>> >
>> > I do everyday, so long as everyone does what they are supposed to,
>> > 60, 80, 100, 110, its all much the same. If someones too busy texting
>> > or a truck load shifts thats pretty much it anyway.
>>
>> And that is the exact problem - not everyone does do what they are
>> supposed
>> do. I used to ride from Melton to the city on a regulat basis with
>> 110km/h
>> vehicles, including large trucks. It is great when it all works but are
>> you
>> really prepared to put your life in the hands of someone who would rather
>> smoke/text/do their makeup instead of concentrate on the job at hand?
>
> Road riding 101. I do it every day.

Just about anyone who rides on the road does it, myself included.
Does this therefore make it any less dangerous? No.
This was my intended point.

>
>> >>What happens where there is a breakdown too? How would you get around
>> >>a
>> >>broken down car without getting killed?
>> >
>> > Signal, move out early so you don't surprise anyone, move back asap.
>>
>> You try that in peak hour and you will be dead. Guaranteed.
>
> I do it everyday. Not dead yet. Been a few k's too ...

Surely a slow moving cyclist (going up the Westgate remember) having to
merge into congested, faster moving traffic is an extremely dangerous thing
to have to do?
Why take more risks than you have to? There are enough idiots out there
trying to clean up us cyclists as it is - why do anything that further
reduces your chances?

>

[Peter Signorini]

"Gurrie" wrote:

> Surely a slow moving cyclist (going up the Westgate remember) having to
> merge into congested, faster moving traffic is an extremely dangerous
> thing to have to do?

How fast does the peak hour traffic over the Westgate travel? It's got an
80kmh limit, but does the traffic travel at 80? Or 60? Or even 40-50? I've
riden over the Westgate several times, on GVBRs and GMBRs usually on
Sundays, but I found it a fairly easy climb. Certainly not as steep as
riding up to Surrey Hills on Canterbury Rd, or my climb on Boronia Rd to
Canterbury Rd, and these roads have far less room for a cyclist than the
Westgate. I'd reckon the hazards of faster moving traffic overtaking is no
worse on the Westgate than any other suburban road in peak hour.

The alternative of trying to ride around via Footscray Rd sounds just as
hazardous with all the truck traffic entering and leaving the docks. Most
accidents occur at intersections and side street entries you know.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

> Why take more risks than you have to? There are enough idiots out there
> trying to clean up us cyclists as it is - why do anything that further
> reduces your chances?
>
>>
>
>

[Gurrie]

I too have riden over the WGB multiple times - sadly each time I have as
part of ATB I have seen at leat one accident. I suspect that these people
get carried away by the chance of hitting 70+kmh speeds before loosing it
and these wouldn't be the candidates to commute over the bridge on a regular
basis if it was an option.

Footscray Rd has a very good bike path completely removed rom the actual
road, although sadly way too many riders elect to take on the trucks and
cars 'cause they can'. I fail to see what the big advantages are that you
gain for the huge increase in risk.

I guess I would still continue to ride the longer path via
Yarraville/Footscray Rd compared to Westgate during peak because I think it
would be way too dangerous.

Each to their own.

"Peter Signorini" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gurrie" wrote:
>
>> Surely a slow moving cyclist (going up the Westgate remember) having to
>> merge into congested, faster moving traffic is an extremely dangerous
>> thing to have to do?
>
> How fast does the peak hour traffic over the Westgate travel? It's got an
> 80kmh limit, but does the traffic travel at 80? Or 60? Or even 40-50? I've
> riden over the Westgate several times, on GVBRs and GMBRs usually on
> Sundays, but I found it a fairly easy climb. Certainly not as steep as
> riding up to Surrey Hills on Canterbury Rd, or my climb on Boronia Rd to
> Canterbury Rd, and these roads have far less room for a cyclist than the
> Westgate. I'd reckon the hazards of faster moving traffic overtaking is no
> worse on the Westgate than any other suburban road in peak hour.
>
> The alternative of trying to ride around via Footscray Rd sounds just as
> hazardous with all the truck traffic entering and leaving the docks. Most
> accidents occur at intersections and side street entries you know.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Peter
>
> ~~~ ~ _@
> ~~ ~ _- \,
> ~~ (*)/ (*)
>
>> Why take more risks than you have to? There are enough idiots out there
>> trying to clean up us cyclists as it is - why do anything that further
>> reduces your chances?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[flyingdutch]

BTW, punt may be more viable once the 'Federation Trail'
(http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/Federation-Trail-due-in-06) is
completed


--
flyingdutch

[Resound]

"flyingdutch" > wrote in
message ...
>
> I would back Bleve's point regarding the wind on the WGB being the more
> concerning element. Changing lanes because some 'big hand' cmes down
> and thumbs you into the next lane amongst traffic aint my idea of fun.
>
> Once drove a bongo van so a mate could base-jump off the WGB and was
> met by security guard on Willie Rd ("Hurry up mate! my friend will be
> freezing her bits off now...) who chuckled that she was the first
> jumper with something to break the fall. Average (15yrs ago) was one a
> month without, according to him...
>
> personally i reckon a walk/rideway strapped to undercarriage of bridge
> would be a better solution. no smelly trucks, little wind and THAT
> view...
>
>
> --
> flyingdutch
>

That was a thought I had too. A decent underslung pathway would be a
fantastic thing. If I remember rightly, the edge of the bridge is far less
deep than some main stuctural elements a bit further in so you'd effectively
have a big concrete wall to one side of you. Wouldn't do wonders for the
view to that side, but it would block the wind.

[cfsmtb]

Resound Wrote:
>
> That was a thought I had too. A decent underslung pathway would be a
> fantastic thing. If I remember rightly, the edge of the bridge is far
> less
> deep than some main stuctural elements a bit further in so you'd
> effectively
> have a big concrete wall to one side of you. Wouldn't do wonders for
> the
> view to that side, but it would block the wind.

It would have to be fully enclosed for obvious reasons. Seriously
though, would the logistics be worth the outcome? From anecdotal
knowledge the jumpers are at least one or more a month and sadly, a
high percentage have casino chips in their pockets..

Back to topic, keep in mind CityLink reneged on bicycle infrastructure
being including in the Bolte Bridge construction, but they *did*
upgrade the lower end of the Moonee Ponds Creek path to the tune of
$2-3m (going by memory here)

Question for Sydney viewers - Anzac Bridge included provision for
bicycle traffic, so whats the hold up with similar infrastructure
including bicycle lanes? (Ok, I know about the recent palavar about the
Cross city tunnel, traffic being forced into using it & resulting
backdowns on promised bike lanes)


--
cfsmtb

[Gurrie]

"flyingdutch" > wrote in
message ...
>
> I would back Bleve's point regarding the wind on the WGB being the more
> concerning element. Changing lanes because some 'big hand' cmes down
> and thumbs you into the next lane amongst traffic aint my idea of fun.
>
> Once drove a bongo van so a mate could base-jump off the WGB and was
> met by security guard on Willie Rd ("Hurry up mate! my friend will be
> freezing her bits off now...) who chuckled that she was the first
> jumper with something to break the fall. Average (15yrs ago) was one a
> month without, according to him...
>
> personally i reckon a walk/rideway strapped to undercarriage of bridge
> would be a better solution. no smelly trucks, little wind and THAT
> view...

That would be a very good idea.


>
>
> --
> flyingdutch
>

[Bleve]

Gurrie wrote:


> > I do it everyday. Not dead yet. Been a few k's too ...
>
> Surely a slow moving cyclist (going up the Westgate remember) having to
> merge into congested, faster moving traffic is an extremely dangerous thing
> to have to do?

If you just blindly do it, of course. But, if you pick a gap and use
it, I don't see a problem. It's a hazard I deal with on most days of
the week (merging into fast traffic to get around hazards), if you
*think* and *look* before you *do*, maybe it's not so bad after all?

Of course a nice, safe path beside the road is good to have for those a
little less road savvy, but for $heaps to build one over/under/hanging
from the bridge? I can see better uses for my tax dollars, like
sealing more road shoulders, for starters :) They can start with Stud
Rd ...

[Euan]

Gurrie wrote:
> Footscray Rd has a very good bike path completely removed rom the actual
> road, although sadly way too many riders elect to take on the trucks and
> cars 'cause they can'. I fail to see what the big advantages are that you
> gain for the huge increase in risk.

I don't ride on the roads in preference to off-road paths `'cause I
can', I do so because I believe it is safer and more expedient to do so.

Half of all cycling accidents occur when joining traffic, a quarter
occur at intersections. When you elect to use an off-road path every
driveway, entrance to another path etc. is an intersection. Every
crossing of the road, you lose priority and have to rejoin traffic.

The road is a predictable environment where I maintain my priority and,
in my opinion, safer than riding off-road.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

[Random Data]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 07:56:04 +0000, Euan wrote:

> The road is a predictable environment where I maintain my priority and,
> in my opinion, safer than riding off-road.

Been out to Lysterfield again have we?

--
Dave Hughes |
That's why I love VoIP. You don't get people phoning up to complain
that the network is down.- Peter Corlett, in the Monastery

[Euan]

Random Data wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 07:56:04 +0000, Euan wrote:
>
>
>>The road is a predictable environment where I maintain my priority and,
>>in my opinion, safer than riding off-road.
>
>
> Been out to Lysterfield again have we?

No, but I was out at Beaconsfield to watch (unforutnately, on call
dammit) the 6 hour enduro.

First time I've been there and first time I've been to an enduro. It
looks like a heap of fun, work permitting I'll be in the next one for sure.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

[rooman]

>
> =cfsmtb]It would have to be fully enclosed for obvious reasons.
> Seriously though, would the logistics be worth the outcome? From
> anecdotal knowledge the jumpers are at least one or more a month and
> sadly, a high percentage have casino chips in their pockets..
>
> ........snip......
>
> .......snip.......
>
interestingly enough, there is already a fully enclosed full vehicle
width road *inside* the Westgate Bridge, so wide that a service vehicle
drives through it...

if you've been to Westgate Park, there is a section of the bridge that
you ride through, that's the same size as the bridge internal
road...twice as wide as the Bay Trail...

ok no view, but it is already ventilated, accessible and rarely used as
it is...

but it is there.....

I wouldnt attach anything under the bridge, that would muck up the wing
shape airfoil that adds to bridge stability in ultra high
winds...Remember the Tacoma Narrows bridge?...after it fell down bridge
design radically changed and now all high exposure bridges, not just
suspension bridges, are designed to be "wings" to equalise deal with
wind pressure and prevent resonance and oscillation from getting out of
kilter , (which would bring down the structure....)

so...it is there....a road in the sky...away from traffic and wind....
what's the difference using it as they do in Europe with some of the
car tunnel escape roads, they are used as cycle paths...

oh yeah I forgot...there is some beaurocracy that had the WB as a part
of its domain...and some little petty beaurocrat will have his nickers
in a knot...just like national parks characters over Rickets Point
Marine Park foreshore and the local doggy walkers and their pets in a
"national " park...

you know.....the bleeding obvious always gets a short shift!!!!


--
rooman

[rdk]

rooman Wrote:
> interestingly enough, there is already a fully enclosed full vehicle
> width road *inside* the Westgate Bridge, so wide that a service vehicle
> drives through it...
>
> Wow. Who else knew that?


--
rdk

[Random Data]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:17:14 +0000, Euan wrote:

> First time I've been there and first time I've been to an enduro. It
> looks like a heap of fun, work permitting I'll be in the next one for sure.

Yep. I like Enduros. One days are nice as well, since 24s just take too
much out of you (or put too much into you if you're singlespeeding or
trying that lifestyle, right Parbs?). That said, my worst effort at a 12Hr
was the time I didn't solo and crashed rather nastily.


--
Dave Hughes |
Any commentary about doing something "for the children" has no place in
polite society unless heavily inflected with sarcasm or uttered by
Helen Lovejoy -- Pete Vonder Haar, A Perfectly Cromulent Blog

[dave]

cfsmtb wrote:
> rdk Wrote:
>
>>Wow. Who else knew that?
>
>
> Knew about that. Also knew about a rave that was held in there once
> too.
>
> -shhhhh.. - :D
>
>

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Resound]

cfsmtb Wrote:
> Knew about that. Also knew about a rave that was held in there once
> too.
>
> -shhhhh.. - :D

A concrete room many hundreds of metres long. The acoustics must have
been...interesting.


--
Resound

[PiledHigher]

Euan wrote:
>
> > Essentially, whilst a good idea, especially if the bridge was to be widened,
> > the current config makes it unviable.
>
> Why is it unviable?
>

> Cheers | ~~ __@
> Euan | ~~ _-\<,
> Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

I rode it maybe 6 or 7 years ago on a saturday morning with a small
group, no problems.

It is now unviable because the entry lanes take up the first 500m's of
what used to be the mergency lane so you have cars trying to merge into
traffic uphill at speed. not where I'd like to be on a bike..

[cirrus]

PiledHigher Wrote:
> Euan wrote:
> >
> > > Essentially, whilst a good idea, especially if the bridge was to be
> widened,
> > > the current config makes it unviable.
> >
> > Why is it unviable?
> >
>
> > Cheers | ~~ __@
> > Euan | ~~ _-\<,
> > Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
>
> I rode it maybe 6 or 7 years ago on a saturday morning with a small
> group, no problems.
>
> It is now unviable because the entry lanes take up the first 500m's of
> what used to be the mergency lane so you have cars trying to merge
> into
> traffic uphill at speed. not where I'd like to be on a bike..

At speed? The cars are lucky to get to 30kph before coming to a
complete halt at the merge. I drive over the Westgate the days I'm not
on my bike.

It's not the speed ... it's the lunatics who don't know how to merge
lanes of traffic! ;)


--
cirrus

[TimC]

On 2006-06-05, cirrus (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> At speed? The cars are lucky to get to 30kph before coming to a
> complete halt at the merge. I drive over the Westgate the days I'm not
> on my bike.
>
> It's not the speed ... it's the lunatics who don't know how to merge
> lanes of traffic! ;)

Some obvious and non-obvious analysis just came up in the scary devil
monastery:

http://amasci.com/amateur/traffic/trafexp.html


In the one traffic jam I've been behind the wheel in, I, like many
other drivers, independantly discovered some of the concepts in that.
Of course, I bolloxed some of the others.

--
TimC
Jun 26 14:08:17 kernel: troll-o-meter (pid 15134) killed: memory exhausted

[Rory Williams]

flyingdutch Wrote:
> wait on laddy. things are in 'the pipeline' to make it a truly CBD
> commute viabl thang. all them Werribee/HoppersCrossing peoples could
> put us easterners to shame :rolleyes:

Good. As it happens I am a (south) easterner. Eight years ago work was
relocated from Highett to Werribee which rather curtailed my cycle
commuting. Because of the WGB and also the way the Geelong Freeway
dominates the road network in the west, the ride ends up about 7 km
longer than the drive. I have watched the Fed trail story with great
interest and it should help, but it will be interesting to see how they
can get it linked.

Perhaps the redevelopment of the Fruit and Vegie market area will allow
a re-development, an perhaps the removal of a lot of trucks from the
area.

RoryW


--
Rory Williams

[Gurrie]

"Rory Williams" > wrote
in message ...
>
> flyingdutch Wrote:
>> wait on laddy. things are in 'the pipeline' to make it a truly CBD
>> commute viabl thang. all them Werribee/HoppersCrossing peoples could
>> put us easterners to shame :rolleyes:
>
> Good. As it happens I am a (south) easterner. Eight years ago work was
> relocated from Highett to Werribee which rather curtailed my cycle
> commuting. Because of the WGB and also the way the Geelong Freeway
> dominates the road network in the west, the ride ends up about 7 km
> longer than the drive. I have watched the Fed trail story with great
> interest and it should help, but it will be interesting to see how they
> can get it linked.
>
> Perhaps the redevelopment of the Fruit and Vegie market area will allow
> a re-development, an perhaps the removal of a lot of trucks from the
> area.

Don't hold your breath. Isn't the site to be used as an extension to the
existing Dock area on the other side of Footscray Rd? The other item I have
heard about is using this area as the beginning on a new tunnel to go under
the Western Suburbs as a way of easing traffic pressure on the WGB


>
> RoryW
>
>
> --
> Rory Williams
>