Mr OC Benz wrote:Well in some respects, yes it was to stop circling trips and make navigating easier, but also to improve the movement of people. We've seen reduced number of lanes and wider footpaths - it has never been any better being able to walk through the city and not worry about crowded footpaths or people zooming past you. The waking environment is certainly a lot more attractive than it was 10 years ago (but still room to improve). Cycling provision still pretty poor though.
Perth Jaywalker wrote:You can't have (non-indented) bus stops on any street which has a dedicated cycling lane on it.
Barrack St has heavy cyclist traffic, as it is the main North/South cycle route, connecting with Elizabeth Quay and the Foreshore Cycle Path. It was developed as the alternate to William St and has bicycle priority, separated bicycle lanes and seperate traffic signals for bikes, as well as raised humps running alongside the bicycle lanes. It was simply too dangerous to have bikes going down William St, so Barrack St solved that problem.tonyp wrote:For the sake of a few occasional cyclists...
tonyp wrote:On that question of dwell delays caused by enthusiastic use of the ramp, after a lot of observation I've come to the conclusion that use of the ramp isn't so much an issue in itself (indeed I'd be reluctant to discourage such a user-friendly practice that makes Perth public transport the most accessible in Australia), but the fact that the other doors are also interlocked with the ramp. This means everybody else alighting (and boarding on the CATs) is held up while this is going on at the front door. Surely there's a engineering way of separating the other door/s from this procedure? I can't think of any safety issue why it is done.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests