Wildly successful Mawson Park and Ride expanded

If a car costs $46663.39 a year just in tax then the roads should be empty, because almost nobody should be able to afford one.

c` said :

00davist said :

For all you viewers at home, heres the answer.

I added 2 further assumptions tbefore I calculated:

1) they both needed rear brakes & 2 services this year
2) the car also has comprehensive insurance.

remember, this is not the cost payed in the hypothetical year, it is juat the tax payed.

Cyclist: $288.65
Driver: $46663.39

That’s a s***load of petrol…

You missed the assumption where the driver actually drives everywhere in reverse and the cyclist can actually levitate. I can afford to buy a second car but I looked at the cost and thought better of it. You make your choices, you get to live with them. Now I agree that riding a bicycle is not suitable for everyone, but for many of those who think it is not are just making excuses. Or expressing their choice. Both of which they are free to make.

Given the choice between cheap and expensive, I’ll take cheap in this case.

What, that’s less fuel than most people use.

To calculate fuel cost (tax) I used 25 km times 2 per day, times 5 days a week, times 52 days a yers (yes, i skipped leave, but i forementioned it, and lets face it, holiday & weekend trips would exceed fuel saved on leave in the real world)

I then used that figure, and the average consumption for the mentione car on redbook, by the price of fuel i gave, then worked out GST on that fuel and the additional fuel tax.

it’s actually f*ck all fuel mate, mostly everyone who drives, does more than just go to work.

The overall cost includes tax on purchase of car, tax on insurance, rego, tax on parts, tax on service, all calculated from the actuall tax charged on real world quotes.

if you exclude purchase from the equasion, the car is $1, 607 and the bike is $25

Remember thats tax payed in the year, not money spent.

My point is, considering cyclists have so much they are asking for, how can they stand in front of those paying over $1500 more tax each year, and balk at the idea of an annual $50 rego?

IT IS SELFISH!

c` said :

00davist said :

For all you viewers at home, heres the answer.

I added 2 further assumptions tbefore I calculated:

1) they both needed rear brakes & 2 services this year
2) the car also has comprehensive insurance.

remember, this is not the cost payed in the hypothetical year, it is juat the tax payed.

Cyclist: $288.65
Driver: $46663.39

That’s a s***load of petrol…

You missed the assumption where the driver actually drives everywhere in reverse and the cyclist can actually levitate. I can afford to buy a second car but I looked at the cost and thought better of it. You make your choices, you get to live with them. Now I agree that riding a bicycle is not suitable for everyone, but for many of those who think it is not are just making excuses. Or expressing their choice. Both of which they are free to make.

Given the choice between cheap and expensive, I’ll take cheap in this case.

If you’re paying $46 663.39 a year to run a car you’re doing something terribly wrong.

The whole cyclists not contributing to infrastructure arguement is bullflop imho. It would be a rare adult cyclist that did not also own or contribute to the registration of a vehicle. With 258 904 registered vehicles in the ACT there has to be some crossover.

Ok. So now that that pre-biased hypotheticals aren’t cool what are we going to do with your motorists contribute more than cyclists theory?

All you’ve proven is that owning a motor vehicle is more expensive than owning a bike, or are we going to pretend the cyclist doesn’t spend the money they have saved on something else, and that GST only apply to car brake pads?

Variables are a nuisance when you want to make generalisations.

BicycleCanberra said :

alaninoz said :

. Car rego goes into the general pot, car infrastructure come out – which may be more or less than went in. Bicycling infrastructure comes out of the pot, but no bicycling specific taxes go in.

There is an argument here that Pedestrians don’t put in any more either, so what we wouldn’t build footpaths? Of course not, we want people to be physically active which benefits the whole economy , with less sick days lost at work and on the health system (obesity, heart disease etc.)

I note you didn’t quote the second part of my comment. Did you bother to read it?

00davist said :

How about basing the idea of bicycle rego on how much extra infrastructure they keep demanding, as opposed to what they break.

Public Policy Flag being waved.

What P*isses me off is not sharing the road, it the fact That so many cyclists DON’T, they cut in and out between roads and footpaths, pay no attention to other vehicles, and generally do whatever they want, while everyone else hast to dance around them, then they go at cars about sharing the road!

http://theconversation.edu.au/helmet-cam-captures-bike-accidents-and-could-make-cycling-safer-3540

to top of the selfish attitude, you have motorists paying through the teeth constantly in taxes (see prior list, my service costs this year alone outweigh your damn bike) while you balk at the idea of contributing $50 a year to improve your own infrastructure.

You too can choose to rise a bike as well and avoid excise, GST, and most of the servicing costs. Don’t whinge because of the choices you made.

Arrogant, ignorant, selfish bludgers!*

Bludgers indeed.

*(Sorry to those cyclists who actually know and follow the rules, pay attention to their surroundings, and use the road courteously, and as well to those who would be willing to register their bike, like the p plater doing the speed limit, or the responsible commodore, no one knows any actual figure of how many of you there are, because you glide past unnoticed)

You’re not really, because you’ve already singled me out as ‘one of them’. Come for a ride with me one day and see how many rules I break.

00davist said :

For all you viewers at home, heres the answer.

I added 2 further assumptions tbefore I calculated:

1) they both needed rear brakes & 2 services this year
2) the car also has comprehensive insurance.

remember, this is not the cost payed in the hypothetical year, it is juat the tax payed.

Cyclist: $288.65
Driver: $46663.39

That’s a s***load of petrol…

You missed the assumption where the driver actually drives everywhere in reverse and the cyclist can actually levitate. I can afford to buy a second car but I looked at the cost and thought better of it. You make your choices, you get to live with them. Now I agree that riding a bicycle is not suitable for everyone, but for many of those who think it is not are just making excuses. Or expressing their choice. Both of which they are free to make.

Given the choice between cheap and expensive, I’ll take cheap in this case.

00davist said :

Postalgeek said :

Remedial question: Gary pays $40000 in taxes and cycles to work. Billy Bob pays $15000 in taxes, plus $800 in rego, and drives his pick-up truck everyday to the local shops to buy beer. Gary pays tax on food, clothing, and cycle parts. Billy Bob pays tax on beer, fuel, and car parts. Billy Bob believes he contributes more to infrastructure.

1. Is Billy Bob right? Where does the money come from for infrastructure? (Hint: starts with ‘Consolidated Revenue Fund’)
2. Who subjects the roads to more wear and tear ?
3. Who will contribute more tax for road maintenance?
4. Who requires more resources to be spent on infrastructure to get them from A to B?
5. Based on averages, do motorists kill more people in one day than cyclists have in the last 30 years?

No cheating.

PS “So do some reaserch, and tell me, can you show that the overall save in health infrastructure would outweigh the lost revenue from cars”

You have created a pre-biased hypothetical, unless you can provide evidence that there is a substantially hight average income for cyclists over driver (make sure to include all cylclists, the northborne druggies who cant afford cars, and the struggling students)

How about 2 people, on the same wage, who live lives that are essentially finnancially parralel, except for, one drives, one rides.

lets assume they both live 25km from work.

the driver has an my07 Honda accord euro, 1.4L manual, fuel is at $1.32, he gets it serviced at the honda dealership in belco, 2 times per year, he needed brakes this year with his 100,000km service, which was the first service of the year.

We will also assume they both bought their vehiles in January, the car 2nd hand for $25,000, the bike new for $2,900.

Neither have had time off this year, they work 9-5 weekdays.

Who has paid more tax, and by how much, calculating based only on the drive/ride to and from work?

For all you viewers at home, heres the answer.

I added 2 further assumptions tbefore I calculated:

1) they both needed rear brakes & 2 services this year
2) the car also has comprehensive insurance.

remember, this is not the cost payed in the hypothetical year, it is juat the tax payed.

Cyclist: $288.65
Driver: $46663.39

Bluey said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Bluey said :

Havent seen the bicycle cage on flemington road have more than 3 bikes in it ever.

Why spend more money on things not being used. You can bleat about spending money on cycling infrastruture but if its not used you just look like a whinger.

Yeah, you tell them. Before they can have a bicycle shed in Mawson they’ll have to fill the Flemington Road one first. Damn cyclists, get off my lawn etc. etc.

It’s funny how building infrastructure before it’s expected to be fully utilised attracts just as much vitriol as waiting until there’s a congestion issue.

Just saying, cyclists demand all this infrastructure but wheres the proven demand? the business case? Maybe now its warming up things will change but like I said, put the infrastructure in when theres a case to justify its existence not ‘ oh wouldnt it be convenient/nice/green if…’

That’s a bit of a Catch 22, don’t you think?

Postalgeek said :

Remedial question: Gary pays $40000 in taxes and cycles to work. Billy Bob pays $15000 in taxes, plus $800 in rego, and drives his pick-up truck everyday to the local shops to buy beer. Gary pays tax on food, clothing, and cycle parts. Billy Bob pays tax on beer, fuel, and car parts. Billy Bob believes he contributes more to infrastructure.

1. Is Billy Bob right? Where does the money come from for infrastructure? (Hint: starts with ‘Consolidated Revenue Fund’)
2. Who subjects the roads to more wear and tear ?
3. Who will contribute more tax for road maintenance?
4. Who requires more resources to be spent on infrastructure to get them from A to B?
5. Based on averages, do motorists kill more people in one day than cyclists have in the last 30 years?

No cheating.

PS “So do some reaserch, and tell me, can you show that the overall save in health infrastructure would outweigh the lost revenue from cars”

You have created a pre-biased hypothetical, unless you can provide evidence that there is a substantially hight average income for cyclists over driver (make sure to include all cylclists, the northborne druggies who cant afford cars, and the struggling students)

How about 2 people, on the same wage, who live lives that are essentially finnancially parralel, except for, one drives, one rides.

lets assume they both live 25km from work.

the driver has an my07 Honda accord euro, 1.4L manual, fuel is at $1.32, he gets it serviced at the honda dealership in belco, 2 times per year, he needed brakes this year with his 100,000km service, which was the first service of the year.

We will also assume they both bought their vehiles in January, the car 2nd hand for $25,000, the bike new for $2,900.

Neither have had time off this year, they work 9-5 weekdays.

Who has paid more tax, and by how much, calculating based only on the drive/ride to and from work?

qbngeek said :

The main thing that I got from watching the video of your utopian cycling wet dream was the distinct lack of tossers in lycra and racing jerseys and the lack of ‘look how expensive mine is’ racing bikes. If I support your calls to make Canberra like these European cities, can we ban lycra, racing jerseys, and people who think they need the latest racing bike to ride to work?

I agree totally. I think that mammals (MAMIL middle-aged-men-in-lycra) do more harm than good for the cause of cycling. It creates the impression that cycling is some sort of sport that you need lots of expensive equipment to participate in. Surveys in the UK have found the same effect where regular people view cycling as something only children or the sports mad do, whereas in other European countries it is more seen as a means of transport.

BicycleCanberra said :

The total bicycle parking would be less than $20 000 out of the $1.2 million spent on the whole facility. Car parking spaces is expensive, between $5000 – $10 000 for surface parking, $20 000 – $30 000 for multi – story car parking and $40 000 – $ 50 000 for underground car parking. In one car park space you could fit 30 – 40 bicycles.

The main thing that I got from watching the video of your utopian cycling wet dream was the distinct lack of tossers in lycra and racing jerseys and the lack of ‘look how expensive mine is’ racing bikes. If I support your calls to make Canberra like these European cities, can we ban lycra, racing jerseys, and people who think they need the latest racing bike to ride to work?

00davist said :

c` said :

00davist said :

BicycleCanberra said :

alaninoz said :

. Car rego goes into the general pot, car infrastructure come out – which may be more or less than went in. Bicycling infrastructure comes out of the pot, but no bicycling specific taxes go in.

There is an argument here that Pedestrians don’t put in any more either, so what we wouldn’t build footpaths? Of course not, we want people to be physically active which benefits the whole economy , with less sick days lost at work and on the health system (obesity, heart disease etc.)

Yes but many footpaths are denoted as access to residential area’s, and provisioning for the delivery of services (such as post) and as such are funded by the rates on your house.

Further, whilst you may think that cyclists have a net gain for the govt, you might want to dig deeper inot that.

Sure, if we were to all be riding, the overall health benifits would see less people needing medical intervention for poor lifestyle related issues (such as obesity) however, at the end of the day, pople still get sick, people still die, there will be a little less miney needed, but it’s still going to be needed.

So do some reaserch, and tell me, can you show that the overall save in health infrastructure would outweigh the lost revenue from cars (consider here Rego, MVT, tax on insurance, Feul taxes, GST on oild, fluids, brake pads, tires, service labor, repairs, clutch pads, plus road tolls, stamp duty, money lost from further decline on the taxable automotive industry)

On the other hand, how must extra damage does a cyclist do to a road? If we can quantify that, then perhaps we have a basis for calculating a registration fee. Public policy takes care of the rest of your argument – it’s not all about money.

You should also remember that every bike commuter you see is one less car s***ting up your daily commute.

Bicycle Rego is a bad idea. Full stop. And it’s one peddled by motorists who are sick to the stomach that might actually have to share the road, their road, they one *they* paid for. This notion has already been dismissed as patent rubbish.

I would hazard that overall, I pay more in taxes than most people do. Big deal, it means nothing. I don’t get to choose how that money is spent. Should I be affronted because my dollars pay for roads that cars and trucks will ultimately destroy?

How about basing the idea of bicycle rego on how much extra infrastructure they keep demanding, as opposed to what they break.

What P*isses me off is not sharing the road, it the fact That so many cyclists DON’T, they cut in and out between roads and footpaths, pay no attention to other vehicles, and generally do whatever they want, while everyone else hast to dance around them, then they go at cars about sharing the road!

to top of the selfish attitude, you have motorists paying through the teeth constantly in taxes (see prior list, my service costs this year alone outweigh your damn bike) while you balk at the idea of contributing $50 a year to improve your own infrastructure.

Arrogant, ignorant, selfish bludgers!*

*(Sorry to those cyclists who actually know and follow the rules, pay attention to their surroundings, and use the road courteously, and as well to those who would be willing to register their bike, like the p plater doing the speed limit, or the responsible commodore, no one knows any actual figure of how many of you there are, because you glide past unnoticed)

Remedial question: Gary pays $40000 in taxes and cycles to work. Billy Bob pays $15000 in taxes, plus $800 in rego, and drives his pick-up truck everyday to the local shops to buy beer. Gary pays tax on food, clothing, and cycle parts. Billy Bob pays tax on beer, fuel, and car parts. Billy Bob believes he contributes more to infrastructure.

1. Is Billy Bob right? Where does the money come from for infrastructure? (Hint: starts with ‘Consolidated Revenue Fund’)
2. Who subjects the roads to more wear and tear ?
3. Who will contribute more tax for road maintenance?
4. Who requires more resources to be spent on infrastructure to get them from A to B?
5. Based on averages, do motorists kill more people in one day than cyclists have in the last 30 years?

No cheating.

PS “So do some reaserch, and tell me, can you show that the overall save in health infrastructure would outweigh the lost revenue from cars”

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Bluey said :

Havent seen the bicycle cage on flemington road have more than 3 bikes in it ever.

Why spend more money on things not being used. You can bleat about spending money on cycling infrastruture but if its not used you just look like a whinger.

Yeah, you tell them. Before they can have a bicycle shed in Mawson they’ll have to fill the Flemington Road one first. Damn cyclists, get off my lawn etc. etc.

It’s funny how building infrastructure before it’s expected to be fully utilised attracts just as much vitriol as waiting until there’s a congestion issue.

Just saying, cyclists demand all this infrastructure but wheres the proven demand? the business case? Maybe now its warming up things will change but like I said, put the infrastructure in when theres a case to justify its existence not ‘ oh wouldnt it be convenient/nice/green if…’

I ride to work occasionally, straight down flemington road and northbourne in the thick of it and dont feel that besides the risk of some idiot cutting me off or being sideswiped by a semi that I need any extra infrastructure to get work safely.

c` said :

00davist said :

BicycleCanberra said :

alaninoz said :

. Car rego goes into the general pot, car infrastructure come out – which may be more or less than went in. Bicycling infrastructure comes out of the pot, but no bicycling specific taxes go in.

There is an argument here that Pedestrians don’t put in any more either, so what we wouldn’t build footpaths? Of course not, we want people to be physically active which benefits the whole economy , with less sick days lost at work and on the health system (obesity, heart disease etc.)

Yes but many footpaths are denoted as access to residential area’s, and provisioning for the delivery of services (such as post) and as such are funded by the rates on your house.

Further, whilst you may think that cyclists have a net gain for the govt, you might want to dig deeper inot that.

Sure, if we were to all be riding, the overall health benifits would see less people needing medical intervention for poor lifestyle related issues (such as obesity) however, at the end of the day, pople still get sick, people still die, there will be a little less miney needed, but it’s still going to be needed.

So do some reaserch, and tell me, can you show that the overall save in health infrastructure would outweigh the lost revenue from cars (consider here Rego, MVT, tax on insurance, Feul taxes, GST on oild, fluids, brake pads, tires, service labor, repairs, clutch pads, plus road tolls, stamp duty, money lost from further decline on the taxable automotive industry)

On the other hand, how must extra damage does a cyclist do to a road? If we can quantify that, then perhaps we have a basis for calculating a registration fee. Public policy takes care of the rest of your argument – it’s not all about money.

You should also remember that every bike commuter you see is one less car s***ting up your daily commute.

Bicycle Rego is a bad idea. Full stop. And it’s one peddled by motorists who are sick to the stomach that might actually have to share the road, their road, they one *they* paid for. This notion has already been dismissed as patent rubbish.

I would hazard that overall, I pay more in taxes than most people do. Big deal, it means nothing. I don’t get to choose how that money is spent. Should I be affronted because my dollars pay for roads that cars and trucks will ultimately destroy?

How about basing the idea of bicycle rego on how much extra infrastructure they keep demanding, as opposed to what they break.

What P*isses me off is not sharing the road, it the fact That so many cyclists DON’T, they cut in and out between roads and footpaths, pay no attention to other vehicles, and generally do whatever they want, while everyone else hast to dance around them, then they go at cars about sharing the road!

to top of the selfish attitude, you have motorists paying through the teeth constantly in taxes (see prior list, my service costs this year alone outweigh your damn bike) while you balk at the idea of contributing $50 a year to improve your own infrastructure.

Arrogant, ignorant, selfish bludgers!*

*(Sorry to those cyclists who actually know and follow the rules, pay attention to their surroundings, and use the road courteously, and as well to those who would be willing to register their bike, like the p plater doing the speed limit, or the responsible commodore, no one knows any actual figure of how many of you there are, because you glide past unnoticed)

00davist said :

BicycleCanberra said :

alaninoz said :

. Car rego goes into the general pot, car infrastructure come out – which may be more or less than went in. Bicycling infrastructure comes out of the pot, but no bicycling specific taxes go in.

There is an argument here that Pedestrians don’t put in any more either, so what we wouldn’t build footpaths? Of course not, we want people to be physically active which benefits the whole economy , with less sick days lost at work and on the health system (obesity, heart disease etc.)

Yes but many footpaths are denoted as access to residential area’s, and provisioning for the delivery of services (such as post) and as such are funded by the rates on your house.

Further, whilst you may think that cyclists have a net gain for the govt, you might want to dig deeper inot that.

Sure, if we were to all be riding, the overall health benifits would see less people needing medical intervention for poor lifestyle related issues (such as obesity) however, at the end of the day, pople still get sick, people still die, there will be a little less miney needed, but it’s still going to be needed.

So do some reaserch, and tell me, can you show that the overall save in health infrastructure would outweigh the lost revenue from cars (consider here Rego, MVT, tax on insurance, Feul taxes, GST on oild, fluids, brake pads, tires, service labor, repairs, clutch pads, plus road tolls, stamp duty, money lost from further decline on the taxable automotive industry)

On the other hand, how must extra damage does a cyclist do to a road? If we can quantify that, then perhaps we have a basis for calculating a registration fee. Public policy takes care of the rest of your argument – it’s not all about money.

You should also remember that every bike commuter you see is one less car s***ting up your daily commute.

Bicycle Rego is a bad idea. Full stop. And it’s one peddled by motorists who are sick to the stomach that might actually have to share the road, their road, they one *they* paid for. This notion has already been dismissed as patent rubbish.

I would hazard that overall, I pay more in taxes than most people do. Big deal, it means nothing. I don’t get to choose how that money is spent. Should I be affronted because my dollars pay for roads that cars and trucks will ultimately destroy?

Bluey said :

Havent seen the bicycle cage on flemington road have more than 3 bikes in it ever.

Why spend more money on things not being used. You can bleat about spending money on cycling infrastruture but if its not used you just look like a whinger.

Yeah, you tell them. Before they can have a bicycle shed in Mawson they’ll have to fill the Flemington Road one first. Damn cyclists, get off my lawn etc. etc.

It’s funny how building infrastructure before it’s expected to be fully utilised attracts just as much vitriol as waiting until there’s a congestion issue.

BicycleCanberra said :

alaninoz said :

. Car rego goes into the general pot, car infrastructure come out – which may be more or less than went in. Bicycling infrastructure comes out of the pot, but no bicycling specific taxes go in.

There is an argument here that Pedestrians don’t put in any more either, so what we wouldn’t build footpaths? Of course not, we want people to be physically active which benefits the whole economy , with less sick days lost at work and on the health system (obesity, heart disease etc.)

Yes but many footpaths are denoted as access to residential area’s, and provisioning for the delivery of services (such as post) and as such are funded by the rates on your house.

Further, whilst you may think that cyclists have a net gain for the govt, you might want to dig deeper inot that.

Sure, if we were to all be riding, the overall health benifits would see less people needing medical intervention for poor lifestyle related issues (such as obesity) however, at the end of the day, pople still get sick, people still die, there will be a little less miney needed, but it’s still going to be needed.

So do some reaserch, and tell me, can you show that the overall save in health infrastructure would outweigh the lost revenue from cars (consider here Rego, MVT, tax on insurance, Feul taxes, GST on oild, fluids, brake pads, tires, service labor, repairs, clutch pads, plus road tolls, stamp duty, money lost from further decline on the taxable automotive industry)

Havent seen the bicycle cage on flemington road have more than 3 bikes in it ever.

Why spend more money on things not being used. You can bleat about spending money on cycling infrastruture but if its not used you just look like a whinger.

alaninoz said :

. Car rego goes into the general pot, car infrastructure come out – which may be more or less than went in. Bicycling infrastructure comes out of the pot, but no bicycling specific taxes go in.

There is an argument here that Pedestrians don’t put in any more either, so what we wouldn’t build footpaths? Of course not, we want people to be physically active which benefits the whole economy , with less sick days lost at work and on the health system (obesity, heart disease etc.)

BicycleCanberra said :

The total bicycle parking would be less than $20 000 out of the $1.2 million spent on the whole facility.

So parking for 24 bicycles costs less than five rubbish bins – http://the-riotact.com/new-bins-in-civic-erm-which-one-is-the-recycling-with-poll/59193 – not the the way this government spends money!

Felix the Cat said :

If you had been paying attention during previous motorist vs cyclist wars on here you would know that car rego just goes into a big consolidated revenue pot and isn’t used specifically for infastructure.

While true, this does not invalidate the argument. Car rego goes into the general pot, car infrastructure come out – which may be more or less than went in. Bicycling infrastructure comes out of the pot, but no bicycling specific taxes go in.

Don’t assume from this that I support registration for bicycles. I don’t – for some of the reasons that BicycleCanberra has pointed out. A case could be made, though, for some form of competency testing before bicycle riders are allowed to ride on the roads.

thatsnotme said :

So how many of the existing bike parks are full every day? Given that, by my reading of the article 10 of the existing lockers have already been moved to areas where demand is high, there must have been plenty of spares at Mawson.

Your right there, given that there is poor cycle paths on the east side, from Farrer, south Mawson and Issacs, and who would ride their bike when you can park your car for free!

thatsnotme said :

I’d also think that a fairly good chunk of the money allocated would be going towards the new cage they’re building there. So I’m not quite sure why you’re bleating about funding, when quite clearly money is being spent on upgraded bike parking, despite the fact that it appears to be under-utilised at the moment anyway.

The total bicycle parking would be less than $20 000 out of the $1.2 million spent on the whole facility. Car parking spaces is expensive, between $5000 – $10 000 for surface parking, $20 000 – $30 000 for multi – story car parking and $40 000 – $ 50 000 for underground car parking. In one car park space you could fit 30 – 40 bicycles.

BicycleCanberra said :

Watson said :

BicycleCanberra said :

This is a free park and ride, not a voucher one. So anyone can park there whether or not they are using public transport.

No, because than there would be no reason to call it park and ride. http://www.canberraconnect.act.gov.au/Services/p/park-and-ride

The Mawson Park & Ride does not require a permit
http://www.transport.act.gov.au/park_and_ride.html

Wow, I hope they change that after this investment. Though do that many people work in Mawson?

BicycleCanberra said :

00davist said :

Yep, it highlights the disparity in funding from cycling.

Have you considered that, considering car driver pay alot in registration and taxes for the PURPOSE of infrastructure, and cyclists do NOT, that perhaps car infrastructure might be greater??

Of course not, you were to busy shining your halo!

Then you have to factor in the destructive capabilities of the a motor vehicle. The costs in road deaths,serious injuries ,property damage and wear and tear on the roads. But hey! lets not argue about the true economics lets all modes of transport have an equal share of the pie!

You want an equal share, how about you contribute an equal share!

Felix the Cat said :

00davist said :

BicycleCanberra said :

Watson said :

You have to provide your residential and employer’s address when you apply. And they can (will?) call your employer to verify this. I don’t know how often the parking inspectors visit, but I would think they would go regularly.

This is a free park and ride, not a voucher one. So anyone can park there whether or not they are using public transport. 170 car park spaces and only 24 bicycle parks! just shows you the disparity in funding allocation for cycling and walking.

Yep, it highlights the disparity in funding from cycling.

Have you considered that, concidering car driver pay alot in registration and taxes for the PURPOSE of infrastructure, and cyclists do NOT, that perhaps car infrastructure might be greater??

Of corse not, you were to busy shining your halo!

Most cyclists pay taxes too. 1/11th of the cost of the bike is tax as are the lycra outfits that are often worn by cyclists.

If you had been paying attention during previous motorist vs cyclist wars on here you would know that car rego just goes into a big consolidated revenue pot and isn’t used specifically for infastructure.

Money goes into the pot, money comes out, fact of the matter still stands, the amount payed in taxes, by a driver pales the taxes of a cyclist to the point of negligable, especially if you want to bring into it the taxes on purchase of vehcle and consumables/optional accessories.

the line of money may not be direct, but we pay the big bucks, and at the end of the day, there would not be the money there to spend without it.

you want more infrastructure for YOUR mode of transport, then pay for it, like everyone else does!

Watson said :

BicycleCanberra said :

This is a free park and ride, not a voucher one. So anyone can park there whether or not they are using public transport.

No, because than there would be no reason to call it park and ride. http://www.canberraconnect.act.gov.au/Services/p/park-and-ride

The Mawson Park & Ride does not require a permit
http://www.transport.act.gov.au/park_and_ride.html

BicycleCanberra said :

This is a free park and ride, not a voucher one. So anyone can park there whether or not they are using public transport.

No, because than there would be no reason to call it park and ride. http://www.canberraconnect.act.gov.au/Services/p/park-and-ride

BicycleCanberra said :

This is a free park and ride, not a voucher one. So anyone can park there whether or not they are using public transport. 170 car park spaces and only 24 bicycle parks! just shows you the disparity in funding allocation for cycling and walking.

So how many of the existing bike parks are full every day? Given that, by my reading of the article 10 of the existing lockers have already been moved to areas where demand is high, there must have been plenty of spares at Mawson.

I’d also think that a fairly good chunk of the money allocated would be going towards the new cage they’re building there. So I’m not quite sure why you’re bleating about funding, when quite clearly money is being spent on upgraded bike parking, despite the fact that it appears to be under-utilised at the moment anyway.

00davist said :

BicycleCanberra said :

Watson said :

You have to provide your residential and employer’s address when you apply. And they can (will?) call your employer to verify this. I don’t know how often the parking inspectors visit, but I would think they would go regularly.

This is a free park and ride, not a voucher one. So anyone can park there whether or not they are using public transport. 170 car park spaces and only 24 bicycle parks! just shows you the disparity in funding allocation for cycling and walking.

Yep, it highlights the disparity in funding from cycling.

Have you considered that, concidering car driver pay alot in registration and taxes for the PURPOSE of infrastructure, and cyclists do NOT, that perhaps car infrastructure might be greater??

Of corse not, you were to busy shining your halo!

Most cyclists pay taxes too. 1/11th of the cost of the bike is tax as are the lycra outfits that are often worn by cyclists.

If you had been paying attention during previous motorist vs cyclist wars on here you would know that car rego just goes into a big consolidated revenue pot and isn’t used specifically for infastructure.

watto23 said :

BicycleCanberra said :

00davist said :

Yep, it highlights the disparity in funding from cycling.

Have you considered that, considering car driver pay alot in registration and taxes for the PURPOSE of infrastructure, and cyclists do NOT, that perhaps car infrastructure might be greater??

Of course not, you were to busy shining your halo!

Then you have to factor in the destructive capabilities of the a motor vehicle. The costs in road deaths,serious injuries ,property damage and wear and tear on the roads. But hey! lets not argue about the true economics lets all modes of transport have an equal share of the pie!

I’m all for cyclists doing their thing, but I bet if you look at the costs for providing for cyclists versus the income, cyclists would be doing quite ok.

I still can’t see why a cyclist doesn’t have to pay say $50 pa to ride on the road. The money could be then used to provide more bike lanes and bike racks etc.

Well that’s it, theres allot of resistance to bycicle registration suggestions, but a damand for more infrastructure. The money has to come from somewhere.

Pardon the pun, but I’m sick of these bludgers being after free ride!

BicycleCanberra said :

00davist said :

Yep, it highlights the disparity in funding from cycling.

Have you considered that, considering car driver pay alot in registration and taxes for the PURPOSE of infrastructure, and cyclists do NOT, that perhaps car infrastructure might be greater??

Of course not, you were to busy shining your halo!

Then you have to factor in the destructive capabilities of the a motor vehicle. The costs in road deaths,serious injuries ,property damage and wear and tear on the roads. But hey! lets not argue about the true economics lets all modes of transport have an equal share of the pie!

I’m all for cyclists doing their thing, but I bet if you look at the costs for providing for cyclists versus the income, cyclists would be doing quite ok.

I still can’t see why a cyclist doesn’t have to pay say $50 pa to ride on the road. The money could be then used to provide more bike lanes and bike racks etc.

00davist said :

Yep, it highlights the disparity in funding from cycling.

Have you considered that, considering car driver pay alot in registration and taxes for the PURPOSE of infrastructure, and cyclists do NOT, that perhaps car infrastructure might be greater??

Of course not, you were to busy shining your halo!

Then you have to factor in the destructive capabilities of the a motor vehicle. The costs in road deaths,serious injuries ,property damage and wear and tear on the roads. But hey! lets not argue about the true economics lets all modes of transport have an equal share of the pie!

BicycleCanberra said :

Watson said :

and only 24 bicycle parks! just shows you the disparity in funding allocation for cycling and walking.

That’s because more people drive than cycle. And I’m fairly sure people that walk don’t need parking spaces….

BicycleCanberra said :

Watson said :

You have to provide your residential and employer’s address when you apply. And they can (will?) call your employer to verify this. I don’t know how often the parking inspectors visit, but I would think they would go regularly.

This is a free park and ride, not a voucher one. So anyone can park there whether or not they are using public transport. 170 car park spaces and only 24 bicycle parks! just shows you the disparity in funding allocation for cycling and walking.

Yep, it highlights the disparity in funding from cycling.

Have you considered that, concidering car driver pay alot in registration and taxes for the PURPOSE of infrastructure, and cyclists do NOT, that perhaps car infrastructure might be greater??

Of corse not, you were to busy shining your halo!

BicycleCanberra said :

170 car park spaces and only 24 bicycle parks! just shows you the disparity in funding allocation for cycling and walking.

187 car parks spaces

Watson said :

You have to provide your residential and employer’s address when you apply. And they can (will?) call your employer to verify this. I don’t know how often the parking inspectors visit, but I would think they would go regularly.

This is a free park and ride, not a voucher one. So anyone can park there whether or not they are using public transport. 170 car park spaces and only 24 bicycle parks! just shows you the disparity in funding allocation for cycling and walking.

Bluey said :

It has nothing to do with it being free all day parking and the shops being a short walk for the people who work there?

You have to provide your residential and employer’s address when you apply. And they can (will?) call your employer to verify this. I don’t know how often the parking inspectors visit, but I would think they would go regularly.

It has nothing to do with it being free all day parking and the shops being a short walk for the people who work there?