With the Rudd government’s promise to speed up infrastructure funding, and the impending release of the Victorian Government’s transport statement, there’s been a couple of transport infrastructure plans floating around the media.
The first, splashed on the front pages of the Herald Sun, is a new freeway, is a leak from the Victorian Goverment’s transport plan. It joins the recently built Eastlink tollway in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs, to the Mornington Peninsula freeway in Melbourne’s far south-eastern fringes, bypassing the suburbs of Carrum Downs, Frankston and Mount Eliza. The government wants federal money, from infrastructure Australia, for the project to build it without charging tolls. The second, put together by the Cycling Promotion Fund, a consortium of bicycle-related businesses big and small, proposes to spend a similar amount of money over four years building cycling infrastructure across Australia’s big cities, with the goal of “a doubling of cycling trips in capital cities by 2012 and tripling cycling trips by 2029 based on the 2006 census data.”
While it’s perhaps unfair to compare a public submission by what I imagine is a relatively small lobbying organization to a state government-backed inquiry can do, it strikes me that there’s a fundamental weakness in this document, and most proposals for large investments in cycling infrastructure over the years. The result is usually a pat on the head and a dribbling of money for cyclists, with the rivers of money continuing to go to the road builders.
When the Victorian government puts together its submission to Infrastructure Australia, it will have the combined resources of Vicroads, Treasury, and any external consultants desired, to crunch the numbers on the project, and provide an estimate on the project costs and benefits, and translate the benefits to a dollar figure. The earlier Eddington Report proposals had just such documents. Infrastructure Australia will presumably be able to run a ruler over their figures, compare it to similar projects around Australia, and determine whether it offers a good return to the community on the investment. Sure, that estimate will probably not properly account for pollution costs and the like, but there’s numbers for the beancounters!
The proposal does try to place the benefits of cycling in a financial context to keep the aforementioned beancounters happy, by calculating the effects of the reduced congestion, energy usage, pollution, and the improvement in health outcomes per kilometer of cycling compared to car usage. On this basis, they calculate the effects of achieving their targets of increased patronage, compare it to the costs of the infrastructure, and come out with rather impressive-looking cost-benefit ratios. But – and here’s the large but – they don’t present a quantitative case to establish that the level of spending proposed would cause the increase in cycling that they target. Undoubtedly, the general principle that building bike paths increases cycling is sound. But there’s no particular indication of how much you need to spend, and where, to achieve the desired benefits.
So, where does that leave us? For cycling advocates, there’s clearly a need for better information about the quantitative effects of various types of bike trails on ridership levels, allowing a more solid financial case to be made. But it just might be that such data is too hard to collect. If that’s the case, however, we can probably expect years more of cyclists receiving tidbits from government rather than the large-scale investments that might just establish cycling as a mainstream option for short trips that its advocates (and anybody that’s visited Copenhagen, or even Berlin) believe that it can become.
Well speaking cynically Robert, I reckon the impressive amount of ‘facts’ that the business cases for the roads rely upon are a bunch of rubbish, they mrely provide a veneer or figleaf of due diligence and accountability when they’re all based on massive numbers of assumptions and backward-looking analysis.
Put the price of petrol at $8/l, the price of concrete and steel massively increased through an ETS, include the road trauma and respiratory damages, then start talking about the cost of the roads.
But that’s not how these things get looked at as we know. The cycling figures are as robust as the road figures, they just don’t have respectability.
I’d like to see KPMG or Ernst&Young do some pro bono work for these sorts of things.
It’s not quite that simple. Subsequent to writing this post (last night) I spoke to a mate of mine who is active in transport research. He reckons there are no quantitative models that can relate cycling infrastructure with ridership levels. None.
The road lobby, however, does. Yes, you might argue that there’s a hell of a lot of fudge factors in them, but they exist, and they cover the beancounters’ backsides.
The technical report from the Eddington Inquiry I linked to analysed pollutant levels and ascribed costs to them.
Is this true though? I hate bike paths – poorly maintained, narrow, littered with ipod wearing shufflers and gawkers. Shared roads are safer – we’d be better off investing dough into teaching drivers that their cars are not mobile lounge rooms, the windscreen is not a TV and other road users need some respect.
Also, a magpie culling program needs desperate funding
David: that’s just the kind of question that needs examining.
However, my guess is that to some extent it’s a gender and age thing. If you’re fit and experienced enough to ride at upwards of 25km/h, pedestrians become a major nuisance, and cars probably don’t bother you quite so much. Novice cyclists wobbling along at 15 km/h, different story.
Given that the cyclists we’re trying to attract are the less-fit novices, perhaps that’s a reason to build the bike paths.
I also suspect there’s a significant gender difference here.
Just in case anyone hasn’t seen this website:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/search/label/n%C3%B8rrebrogade
I’ve linked to the recent posts tagged ‘Nørrebrogade’ – a street in Copenhagen that has recently been closed to motorised traffic with the aim of increasing the 35,000 bike movements per day on that particular street.
sigh
Now that it’s been reported that Rod Eddington has been working for Hakluyt & Co, surely the government must rethink his position as head of infrastructure, seriously. Besides the fact that they deal in dirty tricks (e.g. infiltrating Greenpeace), their clients include Shell, BP and Enron. I’m sure LP readers don’t have to be told the potential conflict of interest that could arise between having worked for fossil fuel companies, and in opposition to green groups, and heading an organisation that needs to make the hard decisions to cut down on our love affair with roads and get more people onto public transport and bikes. Eddington’s history leaves me in no doubt that pronouncements on public transport and “bicycle friendliness” will be soothing pabulum and the freeway and bypass-building will continue as before.
If you’re not sympathetic to the need for more public transport/bicycle infrastructure, consider the fact that Enron was one of Hakluyt’s clients and Eddington has been in the news also for the dismal performance of Allco, of which he was a director. So he’s likely to satisfy no-one.
Please, please, Kevin, re-think. I know the Labor Right probably loves him for all the reasons I’ve cited above…So the rivers of money will continue to go to the road builders, as you said, Rob.
Also, yes, David Rubie’s outlook is one that will keep cycling *mainly* for the young and fit minority… as it is now. We need to re-think the desirability of shared bike/pedestrian paths.
There is a new section of the bike path on Footscray road – separated from the traffic and trucks not just by kerbing, but by a metre-high concrete wall. Bliss. That’s how it should be done on main roads.
Robert Merkel wrote:
If the numbers of males vs. females in the average weekend bunch ride are any indication, then yes there’s a huge gender difference. Commuting? I’m sure the ABS have the statistics on it and they should be easy to find.
There were organised “bike buses” in Sydney back when I lived there, as a decent compromise (especially where the average speed of traffic is only 15km/h) I think they could work for inexperienced cyclists but need organisation.
The absolute, major flaw of bike paths to me is the permanent reduction of status of cyclists to second class road users in a place like Australia where cycling is no longer ingrained in our culture. I’m probably not helping much (a little too eager with the middle finger/shouting at numbnut car drivers/aggressively taking the lane at intersections where I need to turn right). What else do you do to increase your visibility though?
It’s these reasons I’d rather see funding directed at making existing roads more cycling friendly (including turning bays at major intersections) rather than trying to remove cyclists from the roads. I can’t see the average timid/15km/h wobbler on a K-Mart mountain bike commuting regularly because the weather is such a big hurdle for most people who can’t be bothered with sweaty hot days or cycling in the rain or cold. Not to mention the low reliability of your average Huffy that won’t stand up to commuting anyway. Most dedicated cycling commuters spend more on clothing than a Huffy costs.
David: if you go to some parts of Europe, there are plenty of 15 km/h riders on hub-geared, dynamo-lit, and metal-mudguarded utility bikes cruising around the major cities. Everyone from children to grandma cycles in Copenhagen, and most of them on the bike lanes.
The other exercise I’d suggest (if you get the chance) is go ride one of the more popular off-road bike paths on a weekday. You get these large mixed groups of sixtysomethings toddling along on comfort bikes. You never ever see them on the road.
I don’t like the design of a lot of bike paths either, but I appreciate they’re not aimed at me.
“The other exercise I’d suggest (if you get the chance) is go ride one of the more popular off-road bike paths on a weekday. You get these large mixed groups of sixtysomethings toddling along on comfort bikes. You never ever see them on the road.”
You may even get to take in the hilarious sight of a carpark near Yarra bend full of 4WDs with bike racks, which is how many such groups actually get around.
Robert Merkel wrote:
I don’t know who they’re supposed to be aimed at Robert. Here in Armidale there’s a decent set of bike paths through the central part of town, which couldn’t have been designed better to attract bottle smashers at night and dog walkers during the day. Even at 15km/h they are a hazard, no matter how lofty the intentions were.
Now, I realise that bottle smashers make up a significant part of the community, but pandering to them seems a little OTT
FDB: sure, but that just demonstrates the point that there are substantial groups who will ride off-road, but don’t/won’t deal with traffic.
Would they ride their bicycles down to the local Tabaret if there were a bike path? Quite possibly.
David Rubie, there are indeed bike buses in Sydney. I know a couple of the inner west ones are particularly organised. Some have websites and info on them can easily be found.
I share your dislike of bike paths, because most of the time, in inner-city Sydney at least, that means they have cars parked in them, it’s where the glass from accidents has been swept, and most of the off-road ones have pedestrians in them. My particular irritation is with bike paths which run alongside pedestrian paths, because even though they have their own clearly signed path, pedestrians STILL wander all over the bike path. With their dogs, on extendable leads. On their phones or using an iPod, meaning the part of their brain responsible for looking where they’re going and showing courtesy is rendered useless. The path around Iron Cove Bay is actually a semi-decent one, but I refuse to use it on the weekend, as it’s just too full of walkers who can’t/won’t use the dedicated pedestrian path. Furthermore, I would never dream of cycling on a walker-dedicated path. So why do walkers use the bike path, even when they have a path of their own?
“There is a new section of the bike path on Footscray road – separated from the traffic and trucks not just by kerbing, but by a metre-high concrete wall. Bliss. That’s how it should be done on main roads.”
I want one of these!
“We need to re-think the desirability of shared bike/pedestrian paths.”
Helen, I strongly agree. AFAIC, a shared bike/pedestrian path in practice often ends up being no place to cycle at all, despite making every effort to be visible and let people know you’re coming or trying to pass.
I don’t know any figures about the female-male ratio, but speaking purely anecdotally, I only have one female friend who regularly commutes by cycling, and one more who occasionally does. AFAIK, I’m the only female in my workplace who cycles to work, while there are several males. I’d be interested to know, actually, what the stats are, if they’re available.
Also anecdotally, I have several friends who say they would cycle IF it was safer to in their particular area. They don’t cycle because they understandably don’t want to have to use the road.
I used a bike path in Canberra from Hackett to ANU quite a lot in the late 70s. It was fine. No broken glass, dogs etc. Of course in Canberra there was a fair bit of space to use. But that also applies to our outer suburbs.
Oh definitely Robert – didn’t mean to be too judgemental, just find the sight amusing that’s all. The inner north is crammed with people who’d do more cycling with better facilities, and cycling’s not the half of it. Problems include many of the nice, safe, relaxing paths run east-west, and not in any particularly commute-y direction. All along Merri creek, the whole length of Linear Park… while someone in Coburg has to brave a narrow arterial car-and-tram-riven deathzone like Sydney Road to get anywhere worth going.
David, you are right and wrong. Bike lanes are somewhat over-rated for safety, not so much because they don’t reduce on-road accidents, as because those type of accidents are comparatively rare in comparison to accidents at intersections where, routinely, bike-lanes disappear making it more dangerous for the cyclist. Incidentally, the current push for “Copenhagen” style lanes is a gross waste unless they include Copenhagen style intersection treatments. Currently they don’t and that makes them more, not less dangerous.
In general though, there is a reasonable match between places with more bicycling infrastructure and the number of cyclists, so lanes seem to help. The problem, as Rob has said, is that we can’t quantify exactly how much more cycling a given lane might produce. Nor does the provision of lanes follow any sort of strategic plan to target cycling. They get put in where there is a slab of road space available. When all you are paying for is a few litres of paint on the road, using this kind of approach doesn’t matter much. But we are reaching the stage (in Melbourne anyway) where further improvements mean splashing some real money around and/or removing traffic lanes on major roads.
To their credit, Bicycle Victoria are somewhat more politically astute than the PTUA. They generally only advocate for lanes where they think there are enough cyclists to fill it, recognising that if the government strips a lane of traffic for bicycles and they don’t get the numbers, then the likely response to future requests will be: “we tried that, and it didn’t work”. It is a slow process, but to date it is working.
On gender, the male/female ratio varies from about 1.2 to 4. The lower figure is generally in suburbs with high levels of commuting, indicating that perceived safety matters more to female cyclists. From observation, females are also far more likely to ride their K-Mart specials, so if the goal is increased cycling, it makes sense to target them. Funnily enough, local councillors who obsessively promote new cycling infrastructure, rarely (nay, never!) mention that Copenhagen have a vastly better policy framework for improving cycling, and cyclists’ perceptions, as well.
The ABS Census data from 2006 (I wish I could provide a link – the site is navigable but not external link friendly) suggests that in Armidale, the number of commuting cyclists is 5:1 male to female (compare 1:1 car driving, 10:1 motorcycle riding). Raw figures are 100 male cyclists and 100 male motorcycle riders (and 6000 odd car drivers).
Now, Armidale is a small, quiet town with well maintained roads and light traffic, so it’d be interesting to compare with Sydney but I’m too lazy at the moment other than peeking at my old suburb (cherrybrook in the north west). There, we have 13 motorcyclists and 9 bike riders, all male. 5500 odd car drivers.
It looks like Robert and CFQ are onto something about not wanting to use the road due to safety issues, although travel distances would account for much of the differences between Cherrybrook (a tough 60km round trip to the city) and Armidale (where you have to try very hard to live more than 10 minutes from anywhere else).
On the safety front, how much of it is perception vs. reality though? Is it just the perception of safety that needs to change? Or is it really a distance/comfort thing?
Yes, lots of people ride bicycles in places like Copenhagen and Amsterdam. Could this be because they are as a flat as a table top?
Sydney and Brisbane are all hills. Not everyone is Lance Armstrong.
Speaking as a dedicated pedestrian, I think it is pointless to blame one group over another. You can have thoughtless and rude pedestrians, cyclists and drivers – no one group has a monopoly on this sort of behaviour – indeed I have almost been run over by speeding cyclists zooming past me on the pavement a number of times.
The thing is of course that thoughtless drivers have more potential to cause damage, which is why they need to be separated from other road users. Until such times that decent, dedicated and well designed cycle paths are introduced into Australian cities, bike use a commuting will remain at its current low levels.
Better driver education would help also.
For example, I’d cycle on this: [LINK]
Spiros, I’ve lived in different parts of the Sydney (north-west, in the Hills district, inner west, inner west but heading south), and when I started cycling again after many years of not, I was unfit and nervous. Even while unfit and overweight, I still managed the hills, and they truly become a lot easier in not much time. If you have a basic knowledge of using gears, you’re away.
To their credit, Bicycle Victoria are somewhat more politically astute than the PTUA. They generally only advocate for lanes where they think there are enough cyclists to fill it, recognising that if the government strips a lane of traffic for bicycles and they don’t get the numbers, then the likely response to future requests will be: “we tried that, and it didn’t work”. It is a slow process, but to date it is working.
Bicycle Victoria are somewhat more politically astute? Sorry Russell, your comment illustrates how out of touch both BV and yourself sadly actually are.
Care to read The Age this week for further evidence of Harry Barbers grandiose arrogance, his total detachment from Melbourne’s cycling community and continuing avoidance of concerns raised by BV’s membership? A casual glance at BVs own forums confirms people at less than enthused about his unending series of media-related gaffs and lack of any real strategic direction.
In bizarre side story from early this year, the PTUA were actually more proactive towards bicycle advocacy than the state cycling organisation! Bicycle Victoria only changed their stance when shamed by a backlash from their own membership!
Go figure.
I ride a bike. A spend more money servicing my bike per year than my car. In fact my bike is probably worth more than my car at the moment because V8s are out of favour. I have spent large amounts of money on national and international bike trips and am looking forward to travelling to SA to see Lance next January.
Yet, riding a bike to work or for any domestic purpose just doesn’t work – I need a shower, I need to store clothes, need to transport clothes to and from and the bag of fruit doesn’t cope well being rolled and stuffed in the back pack. I want flexibility on my way home to do things – I can’t transport two kids safely in peak hour or hours of darkness. Hot in summer, cold and wet in winter. It just isn’t an option.
Just to be controversial – if we’re serious about increasing cycling, how about revoking helmet laws
Personally it doesn’t bother me, but there’s a reasonable amount of evidence floating about that forcing people to wear helments discourages cycling.
I’ll also note that improving bicycle facilities along main roads doesn’t necessarily mean removing car lanes. Several of the major roads around here have plenty of room for cycling lanes outside the existing road edge, but are currently too dangerous for cycling.
As far as concerned about mixed-used pedestrian/cycling lanes go – yes, as a cyclist it can be a little frustrating having to slow down to avoid pedestrians, but it’s very rare that serious accidents actually result. I feel much safer on shared walking/cycling paths than on shared driving/cycling lanes anyway!
Razor: It’s not going to work for everybody, sure. But if it works for a significant fraction of people for a significant fraction of trips – and I’d argue the European (and Chinese) experience shows that it can – it unclogs the roads and public transport for those who can’t.
wizofaus wrote:
Anybody who doesn’t cycle because of the helmet requirement shouldn’t be cycling in the first place. Ditto for people who are afraid of exerting themselves up a hill, can’t keep their suit at work, or hasn’t got the cojones to ask their employer to install a shower in the dunnies.
In fact, if you’re prone to whining, insist on living too far from your kids schools and are generally afraid of being outdoors, don’t go anywhere near a bicycle. Do what most people do and use your bicycle as an expensive and dusty garage decoration.
1) More and more workplaces have showers, and places to store business clothing. Treat your ride to work as your exercise, and have a shower afterwards.
2) Ride slowly. If I ride at 30 km/h, I get sweaty. If I ride at 20 km/h, I generally don’t.
3) Electric-assist bicycles are another option for hills and sweat reduction.
“On the safety front, how much of it is perception vs. reality though? Is it just the perception of safety that needs to change? Or is it really a distance/comfort thing?
Perception IS key. We’ve all got a lazy streak so cars are naturally attractive and they are obviously ingrained into our transport consciousness. Probably at least half of the people I know conceive of moving around town only in a car and also would not believe that within a few months or less they could develop the basic skills and fitness to be a good cycle commuter on any suburban road. Testimony to this in my experience in Perth are the generally good but under-used cycling (and public transport) facilities – in commuting at rush hour I might pass one other cyclist per 5 km. Some networks are disconnected, admittedly: eg cycle lanes ending abruptly where the money ran out. But it’s basically a good cycling environment – plenty of recreational riders on roads and cycle paths.
IMO, to really recruit new cyclists to any network, old, new or just the existing roads, will require much stronger economic imperatives (eg CBD tolls), banning a proportion of car commuters (eg daily alternating license numbers a la Beijing) or marketing. Given the first two are politically unpalatable or impossible I reckon the cycling promotion fund’s proposal needs to focus on the third, which Travel Smart did successfully by targeting individuals and households. Showers at work are good too!
“Just to be controversial – if we’re serious about increasing cycling, how about revoking helmet laws”
Yep – controversial. I recently had a bike accident, on a bike lane on a reasonably major road. Spent two nights in hospital. Thank heavens for my helmet – it was mangled, but better than my skull.
My family is one of the 4wd owning with bike racks that FDB finds amusing. There’s no way I’d let my kids ride bikes on the roads – even with the bike lanes marked. So for a weekend ride down the Yarra Trail we load the bikes onto the car, drive down to the trail and ride into the city from there.
Razor – I work a city job in a suit – it works for me. We have a shower in the office and I keep all my work gear here.
Who’d have thought it?
I’m in Sydney and try and cycle in to work in the CBD (from Emore) 3 or 4 times a week. Almost invariably the first question a non-cyclist asks when they learn this is “How to you deal with the traffic?”. Anecdotally, concerns about traffic is a huge impediment for anyone interested in riding to work. As I said, I ride quite frequently, and I’ve become much more confident in dealing with the traffic since I’ve started, but, my word, I wish that I didn’t have to.
Wizofaus has the right idea. Pedestrians can be annoying on bike paths, but they aren’t going to kill you if either of you makes a mistake.
By the way the Cycling Promotion Fund’s site seems to be down. Does the proposal say anything about marketing or how they might increase cyclist numbers other than “build it and they will come”?
Extracting extensive cross-locational data from the ABS website is like pulling teeth. The CData is being released in a fortnight so it might be worth revisting the problem then. From memory (meaning, it could be north Yarra or Northcote), the most cyclo-happy SLA in Melbourne is Brunswick (XLS) with 946 male and 629 female cyclists (ratio: 1.5). That’s with a 9.2% mode share, and gives a sense of what is possible, given the right mix of decent infrastructure, a mid-range distance, disfunctional tram line and the right demographic (lots of students). Keeping in mind too, that the census generally under-counts cycling because it is taken in winter.
I don’t really know the answer to whether it is a perception or an actual safety issue. Is it actually unsafe to have a small truck go a foot past your shoulder at 60 km/h? I’m inclined to think that they are not so much safety issues as comfort ones, such that being uncomfortable makes people feel they are unsafe. The number of cycling deaths per cyclist in Australia is high relative to other countries, but that may be an artifact of the risk profile of Australian cyclists.
Joe, they don’t address it very well. It’s basically “build it and they will come”.
Would it be possible to put bike paths in alongside railway tracks in Melbourne?
‘Anthony’ @31 was actually me. Sorry Anthony whoever you are.
The perception of safety is a big one. I still get nervous in a car when a big truck is next to me, and getting a bit close to the white line. I can’t even contemplate being next to a truck without some solid metal walls between us. The idea of riding on a main road with traffic is just horrifying.
Thanks Robert. Then they definitely need to address the social side of the equation. Unless they do cars have them beat because they appeal on so many levels (other than logical ones). Ask any teenager.
BTW Laura/Anthony some Perth railways have top-quality cycle paths alongside – _most_ of the way. It’s an excellent network, and a great use of the rail reserves, but sadly some bits are disconnected which makes cycling with kids a lot more difficult. I wrote to DPI people who said the money was limited and they also had some problems with different government landowners along some sections.
“My family is one of the 4wd owning with bike racks that FDB finds amusing.”
I should clarify in case you think I’m a sneerer at such things, that what I found amusing was seeing a car park full of them, and the similarity to a boatramp carpark – as is a bicycle is some special vehicle you need to trasport somewhere in order to use. Which it unfortunately is for many people due to crap facilities and a quite healthy fear of the roads.
Of course a bike rack makes sense for holidays, kids on picnics etc etc. I envy people with them when the Lady Friend and I have to dismantle our bikes to get them in the station wagon for a trip.
Russ wrote:
Or the basic stupidity of the average Australian driver, examples of which are legion, and exclusively stem from the idea that somehow a car makes you invincible and entitled. I can’t remember the name of the eponymous law that states “you can’t solve sociological problems with technology” so bike paths do nothing to solve this. Unless we have a fundamental rethink of how drivers are educated, expect cycling accidents to continue unabated at every intersection. In Dave’s Perfect World(tm), all of your driver instruction up to and including a P plate would be done on bicycles and foot. Learn the road rules from the most vulnerable perspective.
Joe D wrote:
They won’t – it’s a solution in search of a problem. As soon as you solve the safety perception issue you’ve still got to contend with the weather/comfort/distance issues which in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane are basically insurmountable. People say they’ll ride, but they’re also really adept at cooking up excuses not to. It’s got to be easier than driving (i.e. cheaper isn’t good enough), it has to suit their lifestyle choices (where they live, work, schools etc) and those choices have 50 years of car centric decision making behind them.
Copenhagen is a particular poor example for Australia – the PDF linked to above says that Copenhagen has been building cycling infrastructure for 100 years, is compact and relatively flat. We’ve spent that time exclusively pandering to motor vehicles by spreading out our cities in extremis.
Oh, and a good place to look for information on why it might be a better idea to integrate bicycles into normal roads can be found on Wikipedia under Vehicular cycling. The article is short but the links are worth visiting.
Laura, I think you could classify potential cycling paths near railway lines in four ways:
- probably to a majority of lines, with existing roads or parks next to them that are suitable for bicycles, but which need better connections between them, and across major roads;
- particularly in the inner city, lines through cuttings, or over bridges where there is no way to squeeze a path in;
- lines with space next to them, particularly around sidings, and even a working path, but where there are legal liabilities and other hassles trying to get bikes in there; and
- lines and/or reservations (and include water and electricity in this) with loads of space for cycling lanes, but where other parties are proposing to use the space for an actual train line.
If the Dept. of Transport hunted around, there are probably lots of potential new bike paths, but it would be a slow, and probably expensive, process trying to negotiate them through various governmental, and quasi-governmental, agencies.
I think that catering for different types of cyclists is very important. I’m a main road rider and want to get quickly from A to B, so want lanes on thoroughfares. I don’t mind traffic as long as there’s room for every type of road vehicle. Given that I sometimes want to cycle 35 km into the city for meetings, public bike facilities (shower, lockup) even for a fee would be great.
Dedicated bike paths for commuting suit some, so some commuting-dominated arterial routes to important destinations are good. There are some in Melbourne, mainly along creeks and rivers
The third group are shared recreational pathways for the dawdlers and family groups. Some of these may be commuting routes on weekdays.
Re the Mornington Freeway. This will go straight through The Pines Flora Reserve, send some orchids and local bandicoots extinct and accelerate urbanisation on the Peninsula. It is bad for the environment, not least because of the numbers of SUVs carrying single passengers it will carry after having wiped out much of the local flora and fauna. Bad, bad, bad
Even better, here’s the analysis of Copenhagen cycling facilities and safety
Pretty damning, even in Copenhagen. Key quote:
Woohoo!, cycle paths must be good, but…
They give the combined number an overall increase of accidents at 9-10%, thanks to those safe cycle tracks. It’s sobering reading.
On the compulsion for wearing helmets:
I have been in two car v me accidents and needed a new helmet after both. Doubt I’d be here today without one.
I support voluntary helmet wearing if the non-wearers waive their right to all government funded health and welfare services in the event of an accident causing head injury.
Amusingly enough, a bicyclist can very easily kill a pedestrian if either one makes a mistake! Oh wait, that’s not funny at all.
Toowong is blessed with some of the most ineptly designed bike paths in Brisbane – the pedestrian side is narrow, sometimes obstructed by foliage, and frequently interweaves with the bike path. Bicyclists use it as a high-performance racetrack or think nothing of riding two abreast and diving into the footpath to avoid bikes coming the other way.
Endless numbers of them illegally fail to dismount at pedestrian crossings and foot bridges.
I have very little patience left for Brisbane bicycle riders.
By the way, Razor, interesting that you mention you’re going to SA to see Lance ride.
While he’s a hell of a rider, isn’t it just going to be a training ride for him – and, indeed, most of the field?
Robert,
I am actually going to be in Adelaide to compete in the 2009 Commonwealth Bank Etchells Australian Championships and will extend my stay to see a couple of days of the Tour Down Under (TDU).
Yes, it is basically a training ride. That said, the opportunity to see Lance their is no different to if Bradman was appearing at the annual Lilac Hill Tour match here in Perth – it is not full on competition, but is an opportunity to see one of the greatest ever.
Even thought the TDU is basically a training ride it is still a great event. I have been to the Tour de France (TDF) and TDU and I can say that the TDU offers a better viewing experience for the average punter than the TDF. Whether this is due to good organisation or the fact that the TDU operates from a hub in Adelaide where as the TDf moves daily is open to discussion.
Going on the comments you can almost see an evolution in cycling: experienced cyclists using roads only; cyclists and pedestrians sharing paths posing problems for both; dedicated bike paths or road lanes.
Any submission for infrastructure funding should probably favour the latter two. One to encourage the nervous novice with the expectation the they will graduate to the serious commute. History should pervade the case. Prior to WW1 there were more bikes than horses and infinitely more than cars. Bikes were how people got around this continent according to Geoffery Blainey. Who better to quote to the conservative Rudd and his infrastructure czars.
Razor: good luck, and remember to duck when you gybe the boat
pablo wrote:
The idea that cycle paths are for recreation is pretty sound in my view. However, the proposals for what are always going to be recreational facilities keep getting larded up with grandiose promises of extra commuting which will come with extra pressure from motoring lobbies to remove bicycles from roads (and nothing has changed since the car appeared on roads – motorists complaining about other users “impeding their progress” is as old as the car itself).
So, rather sadly, the new motorway proposal in Roberts original post is a far sounder use of public funds. That’s a pretty sad state of affairs which indicates to me that the cycling organisations need to get a lot smarter.
God, where to start with all this? So many myths…
In inner-Sydney there is a massive increase occurring in cycling numbers. Out in the suburbs…I don’t know, but I doubt the increase is as big, or if it exists at all.
Cycling for transport occurs when it is cheaper/quicker/more convenient than other modes of transport. Building bike lanes may have a small impact on that, but the things that would really make cycling take off are greater population density, less (or more expensive) parking, more expensive fuel, changes to road rules to advantage cyclists over motorists, and the repeal of the helmet law.
Bike lanes are not particularly desired by cyclists – I certainly don’t want them. All I want is more cyclists and less motorists because that’s what makes roads pleasant to ride on. The odd bit of off-road path to get around a particularly horrendous bit of road design is OK though.
Helmet laws…have been shown in Australia to slightly increase the ratio of serious head injuries compared to injuries to other parts of the body. Australia has done it’s job throughout the world as the bad example not to follow whenever some well-meaning person wants to make helmets mandatory – “Just look at Australia” is the response – reduced cyclist numbers and reduced cyclist safety.
Colin: it’s not that simple. Compare population density and cycling rates in London and Copenhagen, or Berlin, all of which are flat European cities with miserable winters.
As pablo has pointed out, asking what an existing cyclist would like, and figuring what gets people who currently don’t cycle to do so, do not necessarily have the same answers.
Might I suggest to you that perceived safety is a big issue for a proportion of these people.
London, Berlin, Copenhagen – if we can get cycling rates anything like the worst of those cities we’ll be doing great.
There’s a whole spectrum of sensitivity to “perceived safety”. Targeting the very nervous nellies is unnecessary and unproductive. We’re already making great headway in attracting people onto bikes for transport – there’s a massive transportational bike boom occurring right now in the areas of the city where cycling is more convenient than driving. The more nervous progressively join this process as they see the slightly less nervous riding around in large numbers.
But it doesn’t work if you live in a place where you always have to ride >5km to get to the places that you usually go. It’s an urban design/planning thing more than a “bike/transport” thing.
Thanks Robert. I am normally wrestling with a spinnaker pole when we gybe, trying to avoid taking a dip.
By the way – Adelaide is a great place to ride. Hopefully the sailing is as good.
What about 3,000 to 4,000 cyclists using the Gardiner’s Creek cycle path per day?
There are heaps of people that don’t cycle much (or at all) because they don’t feel safe mixing it with cars.
I commute by bike nearly every day about 12-14km. Very few effective on-road bike lanes – and they are dangerous with car doors and motorists frequently “nosing out” across the “bike lane”. And the lanes disappear at intersections.
I also use dedicated paths along creeks, rivers and freeways. They are mostly (now) to narrow for the volume of cyclists and often circuitous with dangerous and disruptive road crossing. And they have pedestrians on them.
It is time for some good quality bike paths – along railway line easements would be a good start – but this would take leadership from government, which is lacking.
Another huge freeway project is no great surprise – it is all that Victorian governments have done since they last put in a suburban rail line in 1930.
The road lobby wins, and “no government was ever voted out for building a road”.
Except now we have gridlock, high fuel prices and climate change. . .
Time for electric cars and safe effective bike routes.
You are right Pertec. Bikes mixing it with cars is bad. All of the travel related injuries or deaths that I have been personally close to relate bicycle and motorbike accidents. So creating that seperation is essential. All of these motorways swing on daily traffic volumes. And to date there has not been one that has achieved their targets. If this proposal achieves multiple cycleways in multiple cities then i do not see how it can miss achieving far greater passenger kilometer performance than a single road section.
Here is another way to use a cycle way….
http://www.zuumcraft.com/page.php?2
PeterC: I call that number of cyclists good news.
If I were Infrastructure Australia, think cycling was something mad twentysomethings and dirty hippies do, and you came to me with a proposal to spend $200 million on cycle paths, I’d call it an interesting anecdote and say “so if I give you this $200 million, how many cars are you going to take off the road”. My followup might be “what’s the additional benefit over spending $100 million, or $50 million. Heck, what if I give you $400 million?” And, at this point in time, the cycling lobby doesn’t have a good answer to those questions.
Now, you can bitch about the system being biased towards roads. And it is. But there are ways to work the system. Sprinkle some money on the appropriate academics, and you might just get the kind of research that enables good answers to those currently unanswerable questions.
Yes, look at the IPA – they’ve got the answers to everything! All wrong!
Very few effective on-road bike lanes – and they are dangerous with car doors and motorists frequently “nosing out” across the “bike lane”.
Yes that’s a whole ‘nother problem, isn’t it? Councils and VicRoads or equivalent paint a bike lane on a road and pat themselves on the back for being cycle friendly. Never mind that
-they don’t care how many ruts and potholes there are in that bit;
-The cycle lane puts the cyclist right in the deadly “door zone”
-It’s harder to ride outside the “door zone” because the existence of the bike lane makes the motorists believe you shouldn’t be outside it
-There are cars parked right IN the bike lane.
In LaTrobe st there is a bike lane about half a metre wide WITHIN a car parking zone. In other words the car parking zone overlaps and is wider than the bike path. What genius dreamed that up? Do they believe in physical objects being able to pass through others?
Colin,
Helmets: smashed two, a fair bit of claret, but head intact. When I got hit pre-helmet days, I had a pack on full of LPs (returning from an all-nighter at the local community radio) that stopped my head smashing on the tram tracks. Otherwise I would have Bob-Dylaned my way to the other place.
Every protection technology will sometimes exacerbate a shock, but the avoided trauma far outweighs the cost. In my case, the trauma would have been serious and possibly terminal.
I would say to those who’ve brought up examples of where helmets have saved them from permanent injury or even death: a) the studies I’m aware of show there’s actually very few types of accidents where helmets are likely to prevent either and b) if you hadn’t been wearing a helmet, it’s entirely possible that 1) you would have been riding more carefully and 2) drivers would have been more careful to avoid you – indeed there are studies showing that both these effects are real.
Compulsory helmets tend to put off a class of people that might be interesting in getting into cycling, but consider helmets a nuisance or unfashionable – it seems like there should be some sort of room for compromise: instead of simply fining anyone seen riding without a helmet (been there!), fines are only issued if the cyclist is either a) involved in an accident or b) is riding in a reckless manner (including trying to overtake cars in the same lane as the car, which we all do, but I believe is technically illegal). Once people get interested in cycling, and get to level of considering it for commuting purposes, they are pretty likely to want to wear a helmet anyway – though in many European cities, most regular cyclists seem to ride around without helmets, especially Paris where the Velib system doesn’t (AFAIK) offer helmets, and very few people carry them around as pedestrians.
I think actually the single biggest thing that makes cycling safer and more attractive is the degree to which roads are not so suitable for cars. In European cities where cycling is popular, the streets are narrow, often not great surfaces for driving (you’d think this would make them even less great for riding, but seemingly not), and parking is either very difficult or expensive. Whereas in Australia governments have consistently ensured that cars are extremely well provided for, with wide and very well surfaced roads, and even regulations that ensure shopping centres etc. provide large amounts of free parking. Until governments decide that cars don’t entirely deserve the massive amount of special treatment they get, I doubt we’ll see much change here, despite the advantages we *should* have over European cities – the weather, and the fact that changing transport infrastructure is just generally much easier in modern cities.
I hate those geekey cycle helmets. So I wear a construction helmet when cycling (as distinct form motor cycling), this makes me look dawkey instead. I can live with that.
News that Premier Rees might introduce a congestion tax in Sydney will be a huge boost to cycling/commuting I believe. As Wizofuas points to in the European scene, the parking disincentive is a big plus to cycling and I can see the cycling retailers in Sydney rubbing their hands….hang on, Rees introduce a congestion tax? As a political decision he’s inviting a tsunami of vested interests on his head. I just can’t see it happening but he’s in a losing party with two years max to turn things around. Why not leave a political legacy that will be hard to chuck?
BilB,
Some of these sites are even putting in an effort to encourage this beyond the front gate.
Sounds like some of the large industrial sites I visit – nothing like seeing a bloke with massive beer gut, hard hat, full safety gear (including goggles) and steel caps riding a pile of rust. The riding pace could be described as “stately”
FWIW – I find all the above comments very interesting and agree with Robert that there definitely needs to be more research.
From a Sydney perspective it would be good to be able to point out how many people could be taken off the M5 or Parra Rd if a decent bike path existed (both of these are no-go due to glass most of the time).
Helmets – personal choice I say.
Driver training – methinks that having it like motorbikes (fixed course, demonstrable ability before going on a real road) would help a lot. Even in a car it is scary, not to mention the wonderful habits being passed on from one generation of crap drivers to the next.
Attitude has a massive effect -it’s only since I restarted riding 5 years ago that I really kept my eyes open and made sure I gave riders enough room/time.
Thanks for blogging about this Robert. There are survey methodologies for understanding who cycles, who is likely to cycle if given the right conditions and facilities and what needs to be done. It’s an elimination model that identifies those most likely to cycle and then determines the most effective response.
In the early 1990s as an undergraduate in Environmental Studies I got some grant funding from Griffith Uni to conduct a survey on uni staff and students and identified the maximum impact improvements (a better path through the forest and good parking at uni). A friend did a subsequent project that took my research further.
This approach could be easily combined with costings of the improvements to identify value for money. I think a few local governments have used my survey after I gave a paper on it at a bicycle planners conference as people contacted me asking for it.
BilB. Love the hat. Bet you have the handlebars turned up like horns. Why pay $30 for a bit of fancy polystyrene I say.
I’m gonna pick a fight with Nick Caldwell @43 – as a cyclist, sometimes commuter, and a definitely militant pedestrian without a car or drivers licence via choice, I have to put up with complete idiot pedestrians, four abreast on the cycle lane, random lateral movements, in just about every shared path I ride in Brisbane. I despise it particularly when they look offended that I use my bell (and voice and gestures for egregious cases) to indicate to them to clear the path clearly marked with the cycle symbol. I bet these are the same people who stop for a chat in a group six strong right outside the entrance to Fruity Capers in Toowong Village (it’s a big chokepoint in the shopping centre), i.e. people with only six inches of spatial awareness, which is at least 40% of the population.
Joggers at nighttime are the worst. In all-black outfits even! A jogger should have to wear a light like a cyclist.
Another thing, a little bit more related to the actual topic, is the new foot-bridge they are putting across the river at Turbot St to the art gallery. It doesn’t seem like it will connect up on the north side with the existing pedestrian/cycling infrastructure! What is point of forcing everyone up to Turbot St or North Quay to get onto this new, expensive bridge when the william jolly bridge is only 100 metres away and suffering from the same fate?
I wish they’d just put a standard car-based bridge connecting local streets (not freeways) across at Toowong-West End. And another at New Farm-Hawthorne. Stupid transport planners.
Wow, as many different opinions as there are cyclists.
As I understand it, 90% of all road fatalities are head injuries, which would be prevented by helmet wearing. We could massively reduce the road toll by legislating for all car occupants to wear helmets (now that’s what I call a level playing field). As I understand, they prevent injury not just from the impact, but because the smooth plastic surface slides along the rough road surface slowing you down more gently that the quick stop if your head hit, which tends to break the neck leading to death or severe disablement.
As far as I know, the helmet laws initially caused a rise in cyclist fatalities, as many people stopped cycling, so cyclists were less visible and so more vulnerable, but as people have gotten used to the helmet laws, cycle fatalities per person riding are now lower than they were before the introduction of the laws, which I guess was the point of the laws.
So I may not like a helmet, but I’d rather be dorky than dead, as getting hit by a car (non-fatally) certainly reminds you.
I bet these are the same people who stop for a chat in a group six strong right outside the entrance to Fruity Capers in Toowong Village (it’s a big chokepoint in the shopping centre)
They’re the same people that go through the turnstile to validate their ticket at the railway station, with a queue of people just behind them, and stop immediately at the exit of the damn turnstile to fish out their mobile and start yakking!
Then there’s the people who never close their italics tags properly.
Then there’s people who shouldn’t be allowed out of their houses, let alone in control of a car:
car driving and alcohol makes you stupid, fat and dangerous
Let’s hope they catch the bastards.
There was an interesting article in the AGE yesterday comparing the performance of a cyclist, a motorcyclist, a driver and a train traveller using a kind of road test on the same journey. It was interesting to me that the train traveller took 57 minutes and the cyclist 32 minutes. The cyclist was a lycra lout with a road bike, so I would expect I’d take at least twice as long as he would but that would only make it about the same as taking the train. Furthermore it would have the enjoyment factor that, naturally, I don’t get from taking the train.
In practice, it takes me longer to get to my work by bike than by train because I need to get to East melbourne from Footscray and after Footscray road I have to go up bloody horrible La Trobe street and then Victoria street, which is something I really hate, so I just ride to Footscray and train the rest of the way. Of course, this means this only happens relatively rarely as you can only do that off peak – they lifted the bike ban on trains but the overcrowding in peak hour makes it practically impossible.
Interesting to note that the Herald Sun accompanied the story that Dave Rubie with a poll “Are cyclists responsible road users?”. I mean WTF?
There’s a companion comments thread here which makes for some disturbing reading.
Yaz, if compulsory bicycle helment laws are the difference between a class of people choosing to drive instead of riding, then the helmet laws have effectively made those people far more likely to be involved in a serious accident.
If, for instance, the probabilities of serious injury or death occurring for various modes of transport on an average trip were:
* cycling with a helmet: .1%
* cycling without a helment: .2%
* driving: .5%
but compulsory helmet laws caused 1/4 of all cyclists to drive instead, then I’m fairly sure the actual probability of somebody being injured or killed has increased, even though the cyclists are now twice as safe (assuming nobody rode with helmets to begin with).
I don’t have real numbers, so I don’t know the above phenomenon is real or not, but it’s certainly plausible.
mal,
The HUN is pretty notorious for it’s anti cycling threads (although that comment thread at ninemsn when the incident in Sydney happened last May was very similar in sentiment).
It’s high time car licenses were issued as a privilege, not a birthright. bi-annual testing at the motorists expense ought to fix it along with psychological profiling
Helen, my experience is the same as yours basically. Takes me 30 minutes to work on the bike, 35 on the train – though now I walk a bit further to Footscray station to avoid the sydenham line and get a Willy line train so it takes a bit longer.
When riding I can measure my performance against cars quite often, and if the traffic’s heavy I always win along Dynon road.
There’s a couple of quite dangerous spots on Dynon Rd that I’ve written to both Council and VicRoads to fix, but they both replied expressing a distinct lack of interest. No priority. One particular intersection all I wanted was a give way to cyclists and pedestrians sign, just a reminder of what is legal. VicRoads said they didn’t want to sign every intersection because the onus should be on the drivers to know. That’s great, a comfort to me when I almost get wiped out once or twice a month.
Wizofaus,
Not defending the helmet laws, just commenting on them. As I have come of cycling age since they were introduced I do not feel they are too onerous. I am amused at the strange sensations of bicycle joy that I get when I accidentally forget my helmet, however as soon as I notice this sensation, my joy disappears, and I merely feel vulnerable!
At least we aren’t all still wearing stackhats (shudder).