Hi Chris, traffic engineer here, not working for BCC. BCC's City Plan places a high priority on level of service as the performance measurement of the road network and intersections, Level of service is effectively a measure of traffic delay (read as delays to cars). The Council traffic engineers (and anyone developing for BCC) are expected to maintain these high levels of service, in particular with new designs (with the expectation of probably catering to in the order of 3%pa background traffic growth). When modelling intersection options for a intersection upgrade, those options with a higher level of sevice (i.e. more lanes) for longer will be preferred, and hence become the basis of design. Further, modelling software typically used does not often model cycle lanes, cycle movements or cycle volumes unless you go out of your way to put them in. The unfortunate truth is even when modelled, the bicycle volumes (if counted at all in surveys) are a minor volume in the total intersection volume and hence they contribute next to nothing in terms of the delay, and the best option on paper to maximise performance of an option in the model is to "add another lane" for motor vehicles. Removing a cycle lane has little performance impact in the model (again if included at all). For simplicity intersections are often also analysed in isolation so downstream queuing may not be factored in. This being said a lot of this is also driven not by traffic engineers, but by politics that often disregard cycling requirements even though there is a desire to provide them. Safety audits should be stressing the importance of separation of traffic modes, but often this is only extended to pedestrians and cyclists are just considered to either have to use the path or share in lane (like this project). I would consider requesting the options analysis undertaken by Council to come up with the concept design. I think you'll find not many options modelled will have included cyclists.
Thanks for that. None of it is surprising. I've sat in on presentations talking about modelling and level of service. It's all about cars, and it's modelled to favour that. It's all garbage, and I think traffic engineers know that. It was clear with every infuriating dealing I had with engineers and project managers related to the project that cycling and pedestrian considerations were non existent. To be honest, TMR isn't much better, but there's currently a minister who insists on active transport being included (when he's made aware of it).
@@ChrisCoxCycling It needs to be kept in mind that the project engineers/project managers aren't the decision makers they are just the executors, it really needs to be escalated above them if you want any real changes/decisions made.
As a European, I would expect a roundabout without slip lanes at such a place instead of a traffic light. A roundabout will slow down all the cars and greatly increase safety. Given that all roads are only 2 lanes, it might even have more throughput than the proposed traffic light.
Residents did ask for a roundabout when they saw the awful design. But apparently that would require more land resumptions. I am dubious, as I was about all their CONsultation responses. Also worth noting, Australian roundabout designs are garbage and not like European ones. They're designed for speed of throughput, not slowing down and allowing pedestrian and cycle movements. Wonder why I'm frustrated? 😉
Some areas in Australia have an obsession with traffic lights and it's just dreadful to move around. The yarra valley is a good example for me. Particularly as many road don't have inter-connected traffic lights to give you a green lane. IMHO a lot of road design is done to please NYMBYs in Australia. The dumbest design is that tendency to have completely inaccessible dead ends right in parallel with a main artery. Not far from my home in a rich neighbourhood, they're right next to a main road and have to drive 3.2km just to get to that right that's 50m away from them. 3.2km! That's double the distance that I cycled to get through 3 settlements in Germany to go to school. That's on top of the dreadful cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. In any civilised country, you expect smooth pedestrian paths. In Brisbane and Sydney, they're often concrete plates that are uneven, making for a jarring experience with even large wheels. Dedicated bicycle paths only exist for a handful of routes in a city with >2.5 million. Go into a suburb (particularly those f****ing NIMBY areas) and those "footpaths" paths often end in front-yard lawns. I used to rollerblade in my local area in Germany. I cold not do that here in any way. We also looooooove to just close off short-cuts in our overly extended areas, making for a truly car dependent culture as distance to virtually any amenity are too large and if you are brave enough to head out on non motorised transport, you're risking your life. I loved cycling in Europe, but can't do it here. It's too much of a hassle and too risky for me (I ride small cc motorcycles instead now). But I do have respect for those very few individuals that do go out on their bicycles. A sad part really is that cyclins is not really thought of as a mode of transport here. It's a leisure activity. So, to go cycling, particularly mountain biking, you don't ride to the place. You take your oversized ute with the bicycles in the back to a trail like on Gap Creek reserve, do a bit of riding there and then take the bike back in your ute home.
Great video Chris. BCC may see it as a major road, but in reality its suburbia and I imagine the residents are going to be shocked at this "major intersection" in their neighbourhood. People are starting to realise why its $15M and asking why such an over-engineered solution is needed in a quiet, treelined suburb.
While I was filming, a local resident who had lived on Pylara Street for 30 years was talking to the traffic control and then came and talked to me. They had no idea about the extra lanes being added, and no bike lanes. They assumed it was main roads doing it because it seemed like such overkill. She doesn't own a car and during construction the bus stop has moved up the road a fair distance. Traffic control didn't know which stop went in which direction. When residents didn't even really know what was happening, it says consultation is pretty average.
My American friend visited an European city. He called it a big amusement park. He said, "I don't get to walk in any other place in the US, other than the amusement parks"
In my experience adding extra left hand lanes which merge shortly after the lights only benefits those prepared to take all sorts of risks to use them to gain one or two car spaces. Also they provide a prime opportunity for those said morons to pull in behind a bicycle and then get angry when that cyclist fails to accelerate as fast as a car uphill. Utterly pointless.
The lack of cycling provision on a principal cycle route is a huge fail - particularly uphill along FTP. It makes planning irrelevant if the project engineers ignore the requirements and only focus on motorised traffic capacity for the available budget - particularly on such a wide road corridor. There are already a large number of trees already being removed, and it looks like some property resumptions. So significant environmental and property impacts are already occurring. Downhill along FTP there should also be a bicycle ramp to the footpath where the bus stop is located at the end of the project area. This would provide a better opportunity to transition from FTP onto the footpath (and not conflict with people at the bus stop) than the one shown near Errogie Place, which looks almost impossible to get onto (but could be fixed in detailed design). Not clear if there is a separate signal traffic phase, but if not then the very low volume of traffic from Errogie Place means the drivers from FTP 2-right hand turn lanes will fail to give way to Errogie Place traffic resulting in potential collisions. Hopefully the road safety audit will pick it up, rather than crashes once it opens to traffic. Not sure about the crash barriers near the rock stabilisation - without a footpath behind it and no road shoulder then how does a pedestrian get to the new bus stop or a cyclist ride along the road safely? You can see in street view that side of the road is used as a footpath because of the erosion from people walking that way. Finally, this intersection will be there for decades and the FTP area will continue to develop, so all legs of the intersection should have included pedestrian walkways, not just the two provided. Pedestrians will just cross in a non-compliant manner and be blamed when this is a failure in the design.
@bananaplays6154 is it completed yet? I'm keen to check it out. I went to Strathpine Rd and looked at the "diverging diamond" interchange. What a hellscape.
Reply2 on this one. As a part time seasoned cyclist, I'm only really concerned about the drag up the hill on Kenmore road after the intersection, I feel it will have to be more narrow than it is currently to accommodate all of those extra lanes? Otherwise seems like an okay upgrade in terms of safety in regard to turning into Fig tree pocket. The forgotten bit here though for cyclists is fig tree pocket, even for a relatively seasoned part timer I don't feel particularly safe on the upper parts of fig tree pocket road, it's pretty narrow, there's no shoulder, you're going pretty slowly and the cars are going pretty quickly, there's nothing at all in this upgrade for anyone cycling out of Fig tree pocket. Seems like the better way to get out of Fig tree pocket by bike is via Karella St, Sprenger St (Then maybe Farnham & Aylebury St), but it involves some decent hills and it's definitely not straight forward. I guess I'm thinking that while Kenmore road should really be catered for in this upgrade with at least some green paint, for Fig tree pocket users maybe there's a better solution, like a well signed route? If BCC don't even bother to upgrade the main intersection there's zero hope in them upgrading the whole road with green paint (not with this administration, or in the next decade anyway)
Ah right I couldn’t work out why they wanted 2 lanes so badly. The other reason is having two lanes that can turn right out of fig tree pocket road. Still pure madness to go from a 2 lanes to 4 and give a BS reason of not having enough space.
I just love it when the word "sharing" be coming around. A 'bicycle lane' printed on a road does not constitute bicycle infrastructure. Its a bit of paint for drivers to totally ignore. BCC's 'Principle bicycle network' is a classic oxymoron and nothing more than spin and in this case a complete joke. At the very least the engineering dept decision maker could have upgraded the crappy old middle of last century footpaths. Keep up the good work Chris, just don't take any risks with your life trying to prove a point, not worth it mate.
Whilst I can agree that the road doesn't cater for cyclists enough and the road design isn't great, residents in that "dead end street" you mention often have a terrible time getting into their place of residence currently, especially if coming from the highway end of that road. A loop has to be performed including that horrible right turn onto Kenmore Rd from Pylara St which if we are being sensible, takes away some more chances for accidents. Just some food for thought.
Fair. Perhaps there's an argument for right turn in from FTP Rd. Regardless, a few houses get top level of service while people walking and cycling get ripped off. Indefensible project.
@@ChrisCoxCycling Fair response. I guess I just don't get the hostility towards a pocket of people who have gone without just because there was little improvements made for others. I do understand that it is part of a cycling plan road map however which I can agree is frustrating that concerns such as raised in your video aren't addressed, I just can't understand why it should be another groups fault that it isn't provided.
@reignman40au21 I'm frustrated mainly because those residents already have some access and they're getting it gold plated, but cyclists have nothing now and it will be even worse when it's finished.
It's only difficult topography because they have made it that way in the first place. I'm sure the Neverland's was a difficult topography at one time but they managed. If you had 4 Lanes you could dedicate 2 for cars and 2:for bikes and pedestrians. Even if you had 3 you could give two for cars. Another solution could be to slow the Traffic down so their is less likely to be anymore accidents. Sorry I'm rambling on. Yes the people in charge near you are full of 🐂💩. The thing is if you make roads wider all you do is get more traffic that go faster. Good luck Chris Don't let them Fob you off
It's scary seeing that SUV behind you, clearly impatiently struggling to get past you, almost running into traffic on the other side of the road... Simply because they can't fathom wasting 5 seconds of their day going slightly slower than usual... It's a great showcase of the danger posed by anti-cyclist rhetoric getting in people's heads. It's a danger to everyone, not just cyclists
Thanks for spotting that. When you're told we're "getting you home sooner and safer", it does give you the impression you have some right to travel at whatever speed you want. I definitely see a lot of impatient driving these days - but just while I'm riding either. Tailgating is insane around here.
There were two others in this footage, but you're kinda missing the point. You don't decide whether you need a bridge by counting how many people are swimming across a river...
@@ChrisCoxCycling Well at least not my area..... we build Train and metro station , something that actually being use by people... not an empty path that bare use like bike-line.... oh yah in my area we also have dedicated bike lane and yes its empty.... while our train station pack to the brim.....
![UCF Professor Richard Quinn accuses class of cheating [Original]](/img/1.gif)
Hi Chris, traffic engineer here, not working for BCC.
BCC's City Plan places a high priority on level of service as the performance measurement of the road network and intersections, Level of service is effectively a measure of traffic delay (read as delays to cars). The Council traffic engineers (and anyone developing for BCC) are expected to maintain these high levels of service, in particular with new designs (with the expectation of probably catering to in the order of 3%pa background traffic growth).
When modelling intersection options for a intersection upgrade, those options with a higher level of sevice (i.e. more lanes) for longer will be preferred, and hence become the basis of design. Further, modelling software typically used does not often model cycle lanes, cycle movements or cycle volumes unless you go out of your way to put them in. The unfortunate truth is even when modelled, the bicycle volumes (if counted at all in surveys) are a minor volume in the total intersection volume and hence they contribute next to nothing in terms of the delay, and the best option on paper to maximise performance of an option in the model is to "add another lane" for motor vehicles. Removing a cycle lane has little performance impact in the model (again if included at all). For simplicity intersections are often also analysed in isolation so downstream queuing may not be factored in.
This being said a lot of this is also driven not by traffic engineers, but by politics that often disregard cycling requirements even though there is a desire to provide them. Safety audits should be stressing the importance of separation of traffic modes, but often this is only extended to pedestrians and cyclists are just considered to either have to use the path or share in lane (like this project).
I would consider requesting the options analysis undertaken by Council to come up with the concept design. I think you'll find not many options modelled will have included cyclists.
Thanks for that. None of it is surprising. I've sat in on presentations talking about modelling and level of service. It's all about cars, and it's modelled to favour that. It's all garbage, and I think traffic engineers know that.
It was clear with every infuriating dealing I had with engineers and project managers related to the project that cycling and pedestrian considerations were non existent.
To be honest, TMR isn't much better, but there's currently a minister who insists on active transport being included (when he's made aware of it).
@@ChrisCoxCycling It needs to be kept in mind that the project engineers/project managers aren't the decision makers they are just the executors, it really needs to be escalated above them if you want any real changes/decisions made.
As a European, I would expect a roundabout without slip lanes at such a place instead of a traffic light. A roundabout will slow down all the cars and greatly increase safety. Given that all roads are only 2 lanes, it might even have more throughput than the proposed traffic light.
Residents did ask for a roundabout when they saw the awful design. But apparently that would require more land resumptions. I am dubious, as I was about all their CONsultation responses.
Also worth noting, Australian roundabout designs are garbage and not like European ones. They're designed for speed of throughput, not slowing down and allowing pedestrian and cycle movements.
Wonder why I'm frustrated? 😉
Some areas in Australia have an obsession with traffic lights and it's just dreadful to move around. The yarra valley is a good example for me. Particularly as many road don't have inter-connected traffic lights to give you a green lane.
IMHO a lot of road design is done to please NYMBYs in Australia. The dumbest design is that tendency to have completely inaccessible dead ends right in parallel with a main artery. Not far from my home in a rich neighbourhood, they're right next to a main road and have to drive 3.2km just to get to that right that's 50m away from them. 3.2km! That's double the distance that I cycled to get through 3 settlements in Germany to go to school.
That's on top of the dreadful cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. In any civilised country, you expect smooth pedestrian paths. In Brisbane and Sydney, they're often concrete plates that are uneven, making for a jarring experience with even large wheels. Dedicated bicycle paths only exist for a handful of routes in a city with >2.5 million.
Go into a suburb (particularly those f****ing NIMBY areas) and those "footpaths" paths often end in front-yard lawns. I used to rollerblade in my local area in Germany. I cold not do that here in any way.
We also looooooove to just close off short-cuts in our overly extended areas, making for a truly car dependent culture as distance to virtually any amenity are too large and if you are brave enough to head out on non motorised transport, you're risking your life.
I loved cycling in Europe, but can't do it here. It's too much of a hassle and too risky for me (I ride small cc motorcycles instead now). But I do have respect for those very few individuals that do go out on their bicycles.
A sad part really is that cyclins is not really thought of as a mode of transport here. It's a leisure activity. So, to go cycling, particularly mountain biking, you don't ride to the place. You take your oversized ute with the bicycles in the back to a trail like on Gap Creek reserve, do a bit of riding there and then take the bike back in your ute home.
I live in the states and there is very little bicycle infrastructure let alone pedestrian. It is super frustrating to have to drive just to be safe😡
Great video Chris. BCC may see it as a major road, but in reality its suburbia and I imagine the residents are going to be shocked at this "major intersection" in their neighbourhood. People are starting to realise why its $15M and asking why such an over-engineered solution is needed in a quiet, treelined suburb.
While I was filming, a local resident who had lived on Pylara Street for 30 years was talking to the traffic control and then came and talked to me. They had no idea about the extra lanes being added, and no bike lanes. They assumed it was main roads doing it because it seemed like such overkill.
She doesn't own a car and during construction the bus stop has moved up the road a fair distance. Traffic control didn't know which stop went in which direction.
When residents didn't even really know what was happening, it says consultation is pretty average.
I hope people in power will get to see this video
I'm hoping there's a briefing note provided to them 😉
My American friend visited an European city. He called it a big amusement park. He said, "I don't get to walk in any other place in the US, other than the amusement parks"
In my experience adding extra left hand lanes which merge shortly after the lights only benefits those prepared to take all sorts of risks to use them to gain one or two car spaces. Also they provide a prime opportunity for those said morons to pull in behind a bicycle and then get angry when that cyclist fails to accelerate as fast as a car uphill. Utterly pointless.
The lack of cycling provision on a principal cycle route is a huge fail - particularly uphill along FTP. It makes planning irrelevant if the project engineers ignore the requirements and only focus on motorised traffic capacity for the available budget - particularly on such a wide road corridor.
There are already a large number of trees already being removed, and it looks like some property resumptions. So significant environmental and property impacts are already occurring.
Downhill along FTP there should also be a bicycle ramp to the footpath where the bus stop is located at the end of the project area. This would provide a better opportunity to transition from FTP onto the footpath (and not conflict with people at the bus stop) than the one shown near Errogie Place, which looks almost impossible to get onto (but could be fixed in detailed design).
Not clear if there is a separate signal traffic phase, but if not then the very low volume of traffic from Errogie Place means the drivers from FTP 2-right hand turn lanes will fail to give way to Errogie Place traffic resulting in potential collisions. Hopefully the road safety audit will pick it up, rather than crashes once it opens to traffic.
Not sure about the crash barriers near the rock stabilisation - without a footpath behind it and no road shoulder then how does a pedestrian get to the new bus stop or a cyclist ride along the road safely? You can see in street view that side of the road is used as a footpath because of the erosion from people walking that way.
Finally, this intersection will be there for decades and the FTP area will continue to develop, so all legs of the intersection should have included pedestrian walkways, not just the two provided. Pedestrians will just cross in a non-compliant manner and be blamed when this is a failure in the design.
should check out the new intersection at beaudesert and illaweena street
Good or bad? Is that the one TMR is building with shared paths and cycle crossings?
@@ChrisCoxCycling its a so called 'protected intersection' looks alright.
@bananaplays6154 is it completed yet? I'm keen to check it out. I went to Strathpine Rd and looked at the "diverging diamond" interchange. What a hellscape.
@@ChrisCoxCycling yep just finished
Reply2 on this one.
As a part time seasoned cyclist, I'm only really concerned about the drag up the hill on Kenmore road after the intersection, I feel it will have to be more narrow than it is currently to accommodate all of those extra lanes? Otherwise seems like an okay upgrade in terms of safety in regard to turning into Fig tree pocket.
The forgotten bit here though for cyclists is fig tree pocket, even for a relatively seasoned part timer I don't feel particularly safe on the upper parts of fig tree pocket road, it's pretty narrow, there's no shoulder, you're going pretty slowly and the cars are going pretty quickly, there's nothing at all in this upgrade for anyone cycling out of Fig tree pocket. Seems like the better way to get out of Fig tree pocket by bike is via Karella St, Sprenger St (Then maybe Farnham & Aylebury St), but it involves some decent hills and it's definitely not straight forward.
I guess I'm thinking that while Kenmore road should really be catered for in this upgrade with at least some green paint, for Fig tree pocket users maybe there's a better solution, like a well signed route? If BCC don't even bother to upgrade the main intersection there's zero hope in them upgrading the whole road with green paint (not with this administration, or in the next decade anyway)
Ah right I couldn’t work out why they wanted 2 lanes so badly. The other reason is having two lanes that can turn right out of fig tree pocket road.
Still pure madness to go from a 2 lanes to 4 and give a BS reason of not having enough space.
I just love it when the word "sharing" be coming around. A 'bicycle lane' printed on a road does not constitute bicycle infrastructure. Its a bit of paint for drivers to totally ignore. BCC's 'Principle bicycle network' is a classic oxymoron and nothing more than spin and in this case a complete joke. At the very least the engineering dept decision maker could have upgraded the crappy old middle of last century footpaths. Keep up the good work Chris, just don't take any risks with your life trying to prove a point, not worth it mate.
That's why I spent a lot of time riding on the footpath for this one...
Whilst I can agree that the road doesn't cater for cyclists enough and the road design isn't great, residents in that "dead end street" you mention often have a terrible time getting into their place of residence currently, especially if coming from the highway end of that road. A loop has to be performed including that horrible right turn onto Kenmore Rd from Pylara St which if we are being sensible, takes away some more chances for accidents.
Just some food for thought.
Fair. Perhaps there's an argument for right turn in from FTP Rd. Regardless, a few houses get top level of service while people walking and cycling get ripped off.
Indefensible project.
@@ChrisCoxCycling Fair response. I guess I just don't get the hostility towards a pocket of people who have gone without just because there was little improvements made for others. I do understand that it is part of a cycling plan road map however which I can agree is frustrating that concerns such as raised in your video aren't addressed, I just can't understand why it should be another groups fault that it isn't provided.
@reignman40au21 I'm frustrated mainly because those residents already have some access and they're getting it gold plated, but cyclists have nothing now and it will be even worse when it's finished.
It's only difficult topography because they have made it that way in the first place. I'm sure the Neverland's was a difficult topography at one time but they managed. If you had 4 Lanes you could dedicate 2 for cars and 2:for bikes and pedestrians. Even if you had 3 you could give two for cars. Another solution could be to slow the Traffic down so their is less likely to be anymore accidents. Sorry I'm rambling on. Yes the people in charge near you are full of 🐂💩. The thing is if you make roads wider all you do is get more traffic that go faster. Good luck Chris Don't let them Fob you off
It's scary seeing that SUV behind you, clearly impatiently struggling to get past you, almost running into traffic on the other side of the road... Simply because they can't fathom wasting 5 seconds of their day going slightly slower than usual... It's a great showcase of the danger posed by anti-cyclist rhetoric getting in people's heads. It's a danger to everyone, not just cyclists
Thanks for spotting that. When you're told we're "getting you home sooner and safer", it does give you the impression you have some right to travel at whatever speed you want. I definitely see a lot of impatient driving these days - but just while I'm riding either. Tailgating is insane around here.
Hold on I can only one cyclist in both road with or without bike lane ... its you ...
There were two others in this footage, but you're kinda missing the point.
You don't decide whether you need a bridge by counting how many people are swimming across a river...
Well if you see the bridge just few block away also empty why you thinks building another bridge make any difference?
@@anubizz3 you would need to ask every transport department that's been building parallel major roads, and endlessly widening them for decades...
@@ChrisCoxCycling Well at least not my area..... we build Train and metro station , something that actually being use by people... not an empty path that bare use like bike-line.... oh yah in my area we also have dedicated bike lane and yes its empty.... while our train station pack to the brim.....
@@anubizz3 Bike lanes look empty because they're efficient. But knock yourself out being against cycling infrastructure for some reason. It's edgy.