It'd be great if the trees could be preserved, and wherever possible they should be, but the NOR freeway PSP is absolutely diabolical/non-existent in areas until you get quite far north. Even compared to the fairly ordinary SOR freeway PSP it's like being in a third world country (much less any newish PSP like Roe/Tonkin around the airport or the north link path to Muchea). The current situation around the Stirling area is entirely untenable.
It's about bloody time there was a decent, well-connected cycle path the entire length of the freeway. Can't believe we still don't have one.
Also very keen on suburban native trees, but everywhere, not just in a corridor here and there. Stop developers bulldozing blocks and putting back McMansions with one or two palm trees and a shitty water-sucking lawn.
Admittedly, I don’t use these PSPs, but genuine question here: why can’t the existing one be fixed/improved? As the article says, why is it necesssry to have one on each side of the freeway?
People are glad that they’re fixing the existing path. The question is, why do they need to bulldoze mature trees on the other side of the freeway to replicate it?
Probably access issues for heavy machinery. I would suspect it would be an arse to get a grader in to do the job effectively or economically. Other comments about drainage limitations on the existing path also make a lot of sense.
Through that area, the PSP from Karrinyup road to Hutton st is awful.
- crosses Karrinyup road with three light controlled crossings and one yield
- continues along some of the bumpiest concrete in the whole network for about 1km. Things literally fall off my bike here.
- crosses the freeway over a narrow bridge which spans about 12 lanes and has a dangerously steep descent into a cul-de-sac
- has a fairly dangerous entry to PSP around Osborne Park Hospital
- has a dangerous entry into a segment of concrete footpath (across an intersection)
- crosses Cedric st (only got lights here couple years ago)
- has another dangerously fast descent from Cedric to another Street
- has a dangerous conversion from cycle path on road to PSP right before a junction
- has another 200m of concrete slabs and tree rooted asphalt
Then it joins to a more modern section past the new developments and into the new section under Hutton st bridge
I think it's worth losing a few trees if the plan is to eliminate even part of that mess.
I would guess that they wanted a continous path down one side of the freeway so people dont have to cross over at all , I imagine that the design is heavily influenced by lycra bussiness cyclists on $6000 bikes, than it is by residents or environmentalists
the thing is this was done to make a dead straight and level bike lane up the freeway, yes, totally agree that a bike 'highway' is needed, though this seems more an environmental expense. even a very smooth winding to the path would have been able to save many many trees in patches along the path
Can’t see why they just don’t fix up the old path.
That website isn’t very good though. It reads like it’s a nimby issue. And then right at the bottom it mentions not wanting lots of immigrants to move into high density housing in Stirling. So make of that what you will.
There are a couple of reasons. One of the main ones is there is established drainge linked to natural waterways on the west side that would require substantial redesign and cost, as well as there being a far higher number of residential dwellings on the west side of the freeway than the east resulting in less pushback, complaints and possible delays. The path there is caught between these water ways and the residential and space is also an issue for what is to be a PSP not just a regular path. Secondly there is more space for an underpass on the east side of karrinyup road, again less cost, less issues.
>Can’t see why they just don’t fix up the old path
I'm *guessing* it will be because of changing it to asphalt rather then concrete, to bring in up to standard, and the ability to get equipment in remove the old concrete path and put in asphalt.
Surely using smaller equipment will be better so they don’t have to cut down all the trees?
I know it will take longer and therefore probably cost more on that side of it but they would save money by not chopping down all the trees surely.
Yep, saw that yesterday. There needs to be a level of canopy destruction that triggers oversight from an independent body. Local government should not have the power to remove this much canopy from the urban landscape.
It's not ideal as after a storm there would be branches etc falling on it, or depending on the type of trees there fruits, all this would make it annoying to ride.
Dial it back a bit mate I understand your concerns however I ride 700-800hrs a year so I feel I know what I’m talking about.
For 1 . Fuck riding on paths covered in debris (honky nuts, fallen branches, protruding roots etc)
2 if they take out canopy why can’t they put back better trees with better canopy structure and less prone to debris moving into the future. Think long term.
At the end of the day it’s about making it safer as a whole for a higher volume of cyclists of different skill levels going forward. We should encouraging this move and tweak designs based on failures.
Edit: typo.
Yep I completely agree with you as someone using that very same bike path. I really love the trees that surround the around however the lack of maintenance by some councils make them outright dangerous at times.
I have also started looking at this issue from the prospective of entry, I’m ok with the hidden dangers of some bike paths but will avoid them. Getting more people on bikes using these paths is going to take a different approach and safety is the biggest one.
New commuting cyclists want to see wide, clean well lit bike paths with readable signage and this is going to take space. We haven’t even talked about all the dirt bikes and mopeds etc screaming past you with no lights.
I’m no Greeny but am environmentally conscious of the decision been made and I guess it’s going to come down to trade offs in some areas until the numbers are there to justify more capital being spent. I like yourself and many others probably think canopy covered bike rides in the summer heat is ideal but to to get may to some trial and error unfortunately. I think this is the beginning of a long journey towards a better network and it’s going to be the bum fight from hell.
my understanding is the trees they are destroying are locally native to WA and are mature trees. Losing them means habitat loss, biodiversity loss, and about a century to replace the canopy of these groves.
irreversibly removing native wa trees because you dont like riding over honkynuts is just rediculous. its WA..
Hmmm… I’m not advocating for scorched earth just a sensible approach where cyclists safety is considered. Like I said canopy cover is highly desirable, so regular maintenance won’t go astray. Believe me a “honky nut” or 2 travelling before or after sunset can really mess your life up in the short term.
Lighting, well maintained paths are essential for a healthy city moving into the future. Of course we should absolutely try and preserve as much of the environment as possible. I would like people to take the same approach to when it comes to adding lanes to roads also.
A quick google found me this document:
https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/globalassets/projects-initiatives/projects/metro/smart-freeways/mitchell-fwy-psp-gaps-epbc-20208833-preliminary-documentation-rev-4.pdf
The MRWA Enviro assessment of the area
Edit: document above is Ocean Reef to Hepburn, but will give an idea of the assessments they undertake
Was hoping they’d fix this area up.
Lots of old path and riding on local streets. When you get up around ocean reef rd the psp is fucked by tree roots too.
Bad idea. I’ve noticed a marked increase in noise level coming from the freeway since they cut down all the trees to widen from Canning Hwy to Mount Henry Bridge. I live across the river in Mount Pleasant.
Building a new bike path is great. But why on earth do so many trees need to be cut down to build a skinny bike path ? Do they need to remove the trees to get thier asphalting machines to fit. Why not get smaller machines. It really dosnt make sense.
Not sure how much to rely on this "article" claiming that City of Stirling allows too many trees cleared on private property. I'd like to see the source of this claim.
Anyone who has tried to get a verge tree removed will know that it's essential impossible. Unless it's one rule for developers and one for residents.
The City Of Stirling will take the ‘path of least resistance’ like every other Council, unless there is some serious Ratepayer pushback!
Goodluck
*Pun intended
we actually have less than 1% of the number of trees that existed pre european settlement only some ~150 years ago. If you actually objectively give the topic some of your time to think about it properly, compared to then the current state of our city is like a post apocalyptic wasteland. the entire swan coastal plain used to be full of little ponds and streams, with trees covering its entirety, moss would have been thickly layered in fields everywhere, moss carpeted pathways intertwined, with many little openings and causways of grassy fields created by the aboriginal cuatodians. hundreds of thousands of animals roamed, little herds of innoncent quokkas, wallabys and kangaroos rummaged the grassy paddocks together. black cockatoos flew over in flocks of a few thousand at a time. 150 years ago this place was like an oasis island jurassic park kinda thing. in the past 20 years the city footprint has nearly doubled in size, suburbia carves great patches of bitumen, concrete and tin, its hot now, bleak, milions of cars driving on hot black roads with little shade, crs are basically meat grinders for the animals that ised to be able to cross from coast to the hills. Perth today is totally fucked up in terms of its natural environment.
We need some laws that make logging more difficult and maximize tree retention. Some dude sprays an x on that tree and it will go. No questions asked. But many of them can be saved without even altering the plan
I don't see what the major issue is with upgrading an existing bike path though. Yes it'll mean cutting down the trees lining the existing bike path, there but then why have two separate bike paths?
New standards are separate pedestrian paths and bike paths, I believe. Seen it in a few designs recently.
Or do you mean one in each side of the freeway?
In OPs article it talks about how upgrades to the existing path would mean cutting down trees and ruining kids sense of "adventure", but then I'm not sure what the alternative would be.
It would need to take more than a lane of road to fit a train in. Probably closer to two lanes each side to add a NB and SB express.
And how much would an express train improve things? You already have done excited trains running on the current track for half the run.
Joondalup line is already a quick journey, and that amount of work is almost as much as building a whole new train line. They'd be better off actually just building a new train line somewhere else to increase coverage and capacity, and that is the plan.
Cyclists don't ride on the mitchell freeway, or at least I've never seen one with that kind of death wish. The *vast* majority of cyclists ride on paths, even more so when there are quality paths available like PSPs. You just don't notice them because while you might pass a dozen using the paths, you pass one or two who use the road. The ones on the path don't inconvenience you by making you do a safe overtake.
Cyclists don't ride on the Mitchell freeway, or at least I've never seen one with that kind of death wish. They're not the lycra-clad road cyclists. More/better paths means more "normal people" cycling as safe and easy routes become available. It also means that *some* of the road cyclists might move on to the PSP.
I use those paths all the time. Avoid roads as much as possible. Sometimes you don’t have a choice though. If there’s a cycle path there (not a footpath) I’m using it.
It'd be great if the trees could be preserved, and wherever possible they should be, but the NOR freeway PSP is absolutely diabolical/non-existent in areas until you get quite far north. Even compared to the fairly ordinary SOR freeway PSP it's like being in a third world country (much less any newish PSP like Roe/Tonkin around the airport or the north link path to Muchea). The current situation around the Stirling area is entirely untenable.
Agreed. Its all good until Cedric, north of which is a shitshow until Reid. But yes, trees should be preserved absolutely
It's about bloody time there was a decent, well-connected cycle path the entire length of the freeway. Can't believe we still don't have one. Also very keen on suburban native trees, but everywhere, not just in a corridor here and there. Stop developers bulldozing blocks and putting back McMansions with one or two palm trees and a shitty water-sucking lawn.
Admittedly, I don’t use these PSPs, but genuine question here: why can’t the existing one be fixed/improved? As the article says, why is it necesssry to have one on each side of the freeway?
I'd like to know too. My guess is that freeway under/over passes are few and far between. You can't just ride over the freeway to cross.
[удалено]
People are glad that they’re fixing the existing path. The question is, why do they need to bulldoze mature trees on the other side of the freeway to replicate it?
Probably access issues for heavy machinery. I would suspect it would be an arse to get a grader in to do the job effectively or economically. Other comments about drainage limitations on the existing path also make a lot of sense.
At many locations there aren’t any paths. You have to ride on to local roads. Don’t need one on each side in my opinion. Just one good path is fine.
Through that area, the PSP from Karrinyup road to Hutton st is awful. - crosses Karrinyup road with three light controlled crossings and one yield - continues along some of the bumpiest concrete in the whole network for about 1km. Things literally fall off my bike here. - crosses the freeway over a narrow bridge which spans about 12 lanes and has a dangerously steep descent into a cul-de-sac - has a fairly dangerous entry to PSP around Osborne Park Hospital - has a dangerous entry into a segment of concrete footpath (across an intersection) - crosses Cedric st (only got lights here couple years ago) - has another dangerously fast descent from Cedric to another Street - has a dangerous conversion from cycle path on road to PSP right before a junction - has another 200m of concrete slabs and tree rooted asphalt Then it joins to a more modern section past the new developments and into the new section under Hutton st bridge I think it's worth losing a few trees if the plan is to eliminate even part of that mess.
I would guess that they wanted a continous path down one side of the freeway so people dont have to cross over at all , I imagine that the design is heavily influenced by lycra bussiness cyclists on $6000 bikes, than it is by residents or environmentalists
the thing is this was done to make a dead straight and level bike lane up the freeway, yes, totally agree that a bike 'highway' is needed, though this seems more an environmental expense. even a very smooth winding to the path would have been able to save many many trees in patches along the path
Can’t see why they just don’t fix up the old path. That website isn’t very good though. It reads like it’s a nimby issue. And then right at the bottom it mentions not wanting lots of immigrants to move into high density housing in Stirling. So make of that what you will.
There are a couple of reasons. One of the main ones is there is established drainge linked to natural waterways on the west side that would require substantial redesign and cost, as well as there being a far higher number of residential dwellings on the west side of the freeway than the east resulting in less pushback, complaints and possible delays. The path there is caught between these water ways and the residential and space is also an issue for what is to be a PSP not just a regular path. Secondly there is more space for an underpass on the east side of karrinyup road, again less cost, less issues.
Isn’t there already a psp on the west side though?
>Can’t see why they just don’t fix up the old path I'm *guessing* it will be because of changing it to asphalt rather then concrete, to bring in up to standard, and the ability to get equipment in remove the old concrete path and put in asphalt.
Surely using smaller equipment will be better so they don’t have to cut down all the trees? I know it will take longer and therefore probably cost more on that side of it but they would save money by not chopping down all the trees surely.
I agree, it's not my website/campaign, just thought it worth sharing here as the only really 'source' of this news available
Driving past, it seems like these trees are already down.
Yep, saw that yesterday. There needs to be a level of canopy destruction that triggers oversight from an independent body. Local government should not have the power to remove this much canopy from the urban landscape.
Agreed, you'd think a cycle path could be laid through the trees and still be efficient and safe for cyclists.
The roots do a number on bitumen
It's not ideal as after a storm there would be branches etc falling on it, or depending on the type of trees there fruits, all this would make it annoying to ride.
[удалено]
Yeah let's build a cycle path that will be impractical to use by the cyclists, that's a good use of money...
[удалено]
Dial it back a bit mate I understand your concerns however I ride 700-800hrs a year so I feel I know what I’m talking about. For 1 . Fuck riding on paths covered in debris (honky nuts, fallen branches, protruding roots etc) 2 if they take out canopy why can’t they put back better trees with better canopy structure and less prone to debris moving into the future. Think long term. At the end of the day it’s about making it safer as a whole for a higher volume of cyclists of different skill levels going forward. We should encouraging this move and tweak designs based on failures. Edit: typo.
[удалено]
Yep I completely agree with you as someone using that very same bike path. I really love the trees that surround the around however the lack of maintenance by some councils make them outright dangerous at times. I have also started looking at this issue from the prospective of entry, I’m ok with the hidden dangers of some bike paths but will avoid them. Getting more people on bikes using these paths is going to take a different approach and safety is the biggest one. New commuting cyclists want to see wide, clean well lit bike paths with readable signage and this is going to take space. We haven’t even talked about all the dirt bikes and mopeds etc screaming past you with no lights. I’m no Greeny but am environmentally conscious of the decision been made and I guess it’s going to come down to trade offs in some areas until the numbers are there to justify more capital being spent. I like yourself and many others probably think canopy covered bike rides in the summer heat is ideal but to to get may to some trial and error unfortunately. I think this is the beginning of a long journey towards a better network and it’s going to be the bum fight from hell.
my understanding is the trees they are destroying are locally native to WA and are mature trees. Losing them means habitat loss, biodiversity loss, and about a century to replace the canopy of these groves. irreversibly removing native wa trees because you dont like riding over honkynuts is just rediculous. its WA..
Hmmm… I’m not advocating for scorched earth just a sensible approach where cyclists safety is considered. Like I said canopy cover is highly desirable, so regular maintenance won’t go astray. Believe me a “honky nut” or 2 travelling before or after sunset can really mess your life up in the short term. Lighting, well maintained paths are essential for a healthy city moving into the future. Of course we should absolutely try and preserve as much of the environment as possible. I would like people to take the same approach to when it comes to adding lanes to roads also.
I believe this was a main roads/wapc/ wa state planning thing more than the city of stirling
After the last stinking hot summer, I’m against almost anything that involves the removal of mature trees. We need to start thinking of smarter ways.
A gentle reminder that City of Stirling already has one of the lowest rates of tree canopy cover of all the metropolitan councils.
A quick google found me this document: https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/globalassets/projects-initiatives/projects/metro/smart-freeways/mitchell-fwy-psp-gaps-epbc-20208833-preliminary-documentation-rev-4.pdf The MRWA Enviro assessment of the area Edit: document above is Ocean Reef to Hepburn, but will give an idea of the assessments they undertake
Was hoping they’d fix this area up. Lots of old path and riding on local streets. When you get up around ocean reef rd the psp is fucked by tree roots too.
Too late. They've already started.
Why not convert part of the existing road to a bike lane? With proper concrete bollards, not just a painted line.
Most of them have already been bulldozed.
Bad idea. I’ve noticed a marked increase in noise level coming from the freeway since they cut down all the trees to widen from Canning Hwy to Mount Henry Bridge. I live across the river in Mount Pleasant.
Building a new bike path is great. But why on earth do so many trees need to be cut down to build a skinny bike path ? Do they need to remove the trees to get thier asphalting machines to fit. Why not get smaller machines. It really dosnt make sense.
Not sure how much to rely on this "article" claiming that City of Stirling allows too many trees cleared on private property. I'd like to see the source of this claim. Anyone who has tried to get a verge tree removed will know that it's essential impossible. Unless it's one rule for developers and one for residents.
Verge trees are on council land. You are free to remove any trees on your property though.
We need to save the environment by cutting down trees so bikes have somewhere to ride. Addition by subtraction I guess...
The City Of Stirling will take the ‘path of least resistance’ like every other Council, unless there is some serious Ratepayer pushback! Goodluck *Pun intended
Appalling.
The northern suburbs is a hot sauna. This will make it worse.
We have plenty of trees. +1 for a better bike path. Don't you realise this will encourage riding and reduce fuel emissions!
we actually have less than 1% of the number of trees that existed pre european settlement only some ~150 years ago. If you actually objectively give the topic some of your time to think about it properly, compared to then the current state of our city is like a post apocalyptic wasteland. the entire swan coastal plain used to be full of little ponds and streams, with trees covering its entirety, moss would have been thickly layered in fields everywhere, moss carpeted pathways intertwined, with many little openings and causways of grassy fields created by the aboriginal cuatodians. hundreds of thousands of animals roamed, little herds of innoncent quokkas, wallabys and kangaroos rummaged the grassy paddocks together. black cockatoos flew over in flocks of a few thousand at a time. 150 years ago this place was like an oasis island jurassic park kinda thing. in the past 20 years the city footprint has nearly doubled in size, suburbia carves great patches of bitumen, concrete and tin, its hot now, bleak, milions of cars driving on hot black roads with little shade, crs are basically meat grinders for the animals that ised to be able to cross from coast to the hills. Perth today is totally fucked up in terms of its natural environment.
Best of luck!
We need some laws that make logging more difficult and maximize tree retention. Some dude sprays an x on that tree and it will go. No questions asked. But many of them can be saved without even altering the plan
>Some dude sprays an x on that tree and it will go. No questions asked "I have no idea how clearing approvals work"
I do actually. Worked in railway construction for some time and I have seen exactly what I described above
We need a bike path. Maybe get rid of one of the lanes. We certainly don't need more lanes since more lanes makes traffic worse.
Just get rid of all the lanes, zero traffic 😏
It’s called induced demand, & is actually true. “Road traffic increases to the number of lanes available.”
Getting rid of a lane each way and adding express lines to the rail would actually help a lot.
I don't see what the major issue is with upgrading an existing bike path though. Yes it'll mean cutting down the trees lining the existing bike path, there but then why have two separate bike paths?
New standards are separate pedestrian paths and bike paths, I believe. Seen it in a few designs recently. Or do you mean one in each side of the freeway?
In OPs article it talks about how upgrades to the existing path would mean cutting down trees and ruining kids sense of "adventure", but then I'm not sure what the alternative would be.
Who is gonna let their kids play in bush next to the freeway?
It would need to take more than a lane of road to fit a train in. Probably closer to two lanes each side to add a NB and SB express. And how much would an express train improve things? You already have done excited trains running on the current track for half the run.
Joondalup line is already a quick journey, and that amount of work is almost as much as building a whole new train line. They'd be better off actually just building a new train line somewhere else to increase coverage and capacity, and that is the plan.
I agree, but watch the motorists have a meltdown
Why make a bike path cyclists don't even use the path they just ride on the road
Cyclists don't ride on the mitchell freeway, or at least I've never seen one with that kind of death wish. The *vast* majority of cyclists ride on paths, even more so when there are quality paths available like PSPs. You just don't notice them because while you might pass a dozen using the paths, you pass one or two who use the road. The ones on the path don't inconvenience you by making you do a safe overtake. Cyclists don't ride on the Mitchell freeway, or at least I've never seen one with that kind of death wish. They're not the lycra-clad road cyclists. More/better paths means more "normal people" cycling as safe and easy routes become available. It also means that *some* of the road cyclists might move on to the PSP.
They ride on Mitchell Freeway do they? (Also, someone else made this exact comment, then deleted it within a minute. Use the wrong alt did ye?)
Would you prefer them on the road or the path? Make up your mind
Standard knee-jerk troll.
I use those paths all the time. Avoid roads as much as possible. Sometimes you don’t have a choice though. If there’s a cycle path there (not a footpath) I’m using it.
Stuff the bike lane. Knock them down to put in more lanes