Cycling dollars flow

johnboy 8 November 2011 71

simon corbell

Simon Corbell has announced a $9 million spend on cycling and walking infrastructure:

    — The City cycle loop;
    — Kings Avenue on-road cycle lane and off-road cycle path improvements;
    — accessibility improvements to walking infrastructure in the main town centres (Woden, Tuggeranong, Belconnen and Gungahlin) benefitting visually and mobility impaired people; and
    — interim off-road footpath improvements at Kingston Foreshore;
    — further examination of converting sections of Bunda Street in the City and Hibberson Street in Gungahlin to “shared spaces? of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers;
    — construction of a missing link between the shared paths along Tuggeranong Parkway and Melrose Drive near Chifley and,
    — the provision of cycling facilities along both sides of Yamba Drive between Yarra Glen and The Canberra Hospital.

More information is available from the TAMS Walking and Cycling Trunk Infrastructure Report

[Photo courtesy Simon Corbell’s office]


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
71 Responses to Cycling dollars flow
Filter
Order
Bluey Bluey 3:35 pm 01 Dec 11

No shared zone on hibberson street or any other street. Theyre the worst idea to implemented since…. I cant think of a worse road related decision honestly.

Hanksinatra Hanksinatra 2:44 pm 01 Dec 11
Hanksinatra Hanksinatra 12:05 pm 01 Dec 11

just a quick addendum
“According the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), the replacement cost of Portland’s entire bikeway network (300 miles) are approximately $60 million (2008 prices). As they point out in a document: “This included every off-street path, every bicycle
lane, every bicycle signal and associated civil improvement made to create Portland’s network of bikeways.”
How do these $60 million compare to other infrastructure projects? Well, at first I could not believe the number myself, but this is that the PBOT document says: “That is roughly equivalent to the construction costs of one mile of urban freeway.”

Having a decent infrastructure for cycling really is ridiculously cheap!”

Hanksinatra Hanksinatra 11:58 am 01 Dec 11

As for who bears the cost of roadways lets have a look at
http://www.velo.info/Library/Cycling_Economics.pdf
http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/publications/the_british_cycling_economy.htm
http://www.cyclingresourcecentre.org.au/page/economic_benefits_of_cycling
http://economicsintelligence.com/2011/03/11/the-economics-of-bike-lanes-%E2%80%93-how-can-john-cassidy-get-it-so-wrong/
shoploppen.dk/Velo-city_presentations/Emmanuel%20Roche.pdf
and finally from a Canberra researcher Paul Tranter at ADFA
http://www.adrawa.com.au/…/Studies/Effective_Speeds.pdf
Now those are just a small sample of the studies available on this topic and I’d be truly interested in finding an economic refutation of the general principle contained in all of them which is this.
Not only are cyclists not free-loading parasites on the road, but they are paying for cars which is great for me because I own a car but I submit , not good for society in general. I’m predicting that the great weight of opposition will come from a cultural perspective rather than an economic one.

Hanksinatra Hanksinatra 8:43 am 28 Nov 11

If you Okwhatever are concerned about motorcycle safety then you are the natural ally of the cyclist. The thing that is dangerous about both is car traffic so we can see a natural 2 wheel alliance. As a commuting cyclist I am therefore 100% in favour of “making our roads safer for motorcyclists” by the introduction of policies which, by carrot or stick, reduce car traffic.

fromthecapital fromthecapital 3:49 pm 27 Nov 11

Okwhatever said :

Almost everyone pays car rego but a very small number of those people will actually ever use the cycling infrastructure that has cost so much to the community. Yes yes, you should all be applauded for your “greeness” but how about the squeaky wheel not getting all the grease for a change. It’s a lot of money being spent on a monority. I pay my rego for a car and 2 motorcycles but I don’t see my money going to good use, especially in terms of making our roads safer for motorcyclists.

This is about cycling and walking. Are we to stop building footpaths? Do you understand that income, company tax, gst that the general public are paying are going towards to building roads? If we as a society were a bit more efficient about how we traveled we wouldnt have to spend so many billions…

Anyway, if you aren’t happy about paying the rego on these 3 vehicles then nobody is holding a gun to your head. Sell them and choose a different mode of transport.

thy_dungeonman thy_dungeonman 10:44 am 27 Nov 11

I do find it funny that all the ardent motorist are begrudging us $9 million over 3 years when hundreds of millions is spent on roads and there’s hardly anywhere you can’t access via road and the same can’t be said for cycling.

If they realy are going ahead with the city cycle loop it’s a pity they didn’t start now while they are repairing the pedestrian areas anyway.

Hanksinatra Hanksinatra 9:28 am 27 Nov 11

Thanks “Openyourmind” for the useful link in your comments which support the thrust of my argument http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml
However as detailed a list of costs as these lists first appear, they in fact only scratch the surface. There are many more costs to support the car meme for example why not subtract the value of every house, just in Sydney say if it lopped off a garage. This would inherantly decrease block sizes thereby condensing the city and lowering building costs; flow on financial benifits add infinitum.
Or how much money does an RTA itself consume by promoting up carism?
What percentage of police work is devoted to traffic offences?
Just a start. The latest estimates from the UK estimate the cost to the economy (again not counting by any means all costs) of carism is around $100 billion. It could hardly be less in this country.

OpenYourMind OpenYourMind 10:27 pm 26 Nov 11

Okwhatever, do you realise that only the tiniest, tiniest proportion of any road funds go towards cycling infrastructure?

matt31221 matt31221 8:41 pm 26 Nov 11

Okwhatever said :

Almost everyone pays car rego but a very small number of those people will actually ever use the cycling infrastructure that has cost so much to the community. Yes yes, you should all be applauded for your “greeness” but how about the squeaky wheel not getting all the grease for a change. It’s a lot of money being spent on a monority. I pay my rego for a car and 2 motorcycles but I don’t see my money going to good use, especially in terms of making our roads safer for motorcyclists.

+1

The roads definitely need to be made safer for motorcyclists.

Okwhatever Okwhatever 8:03 pm 26 Nov 11

Almost everyone pays car rego but a very small number of those people will actually ever use the cycling infrastructure that has cost so much to the community. Yes yes, you should all be applauded for your “greeness” but how about the squeaky wheel not getting all the grease for a change. It’s a lot of money being spent on a monority. I pay my rego for a car and 2 motorcycles but I don’t see my money going to good use, especially in terms of making our roads safer for motorcyclists.

Mumbucks Mumbucks 7:35 pm 26 Nov 11

See p1 post regarding previous comment.

Mumbucks Mumbucks 7:31 pm 26 Nov 11

And they don’t pick up their horse poo!

farnarkler farnarkler 3:21 pm 26 Nov 11

They’ve done a rather odd thing on Ellenborough St right where the turn off is for the Barton Highway. The newly painted lines now include a bicycle lane on the city bound lane…………about 20 metres away from a purpose built bike/pedestrian path. Not the best idea.

OpenYourMind OpenYourMind 11:08 am 26 Nov 11

On this topic, here’s some interesting figures to get things into perspective:
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml

The link is from a public transport user organisation, but their sources are Government figures.

Hanksinatra Hanksinatra 10:45 am 26 Nov 11

It seems all comments on this topic, even those apparently from the point of view of cycling, are made within a particular orthodoxy of the certainty of “car is king”. For example, actually it is irrelevant the division of financial support given by cyclists compared to carists. Without cars ( and get used to that idea) we don’t need to spend a fraction of the current amount on transport infrastructure.
The fact is car culture is extremely expensive and is a financial burden imposed upon us all by what is now, a tyranny of the majority. To engage in debate concerning cycling’s “fair share” would therefore be nonsensical except for the fact that by joining the debate, one acknowledges the fact of the superiority of car culture over other philosophies.
Why not place human beings ahead of cars as a starting point?

Aeek Aeek 10:05 pm 09 Nov 11

Henry82 said :

Surely the congestion argument would be enough for most people. When driving to work, every time you pass a cyclist riding in their special lane, think of it as one less car you have to overtake.

Also, if you feel that a cyclist riding on the road is being insane, be very glad that they aren’t driving a car or bigger. You really want to share heavy metal with someone you’ve just judged insane?

Unfortunately, both points rely on common sense.

BicycleCanberra BicycleCanberra 9:22 pm 09 Nov 11

Holden Caulfield said :

[Well, now that you mention it, if you want to drive a car on the road you have to reach a certain age/maturity level and sit a test. Then you need an experienced driver alongside you to assist you through the learning phase. If, after a set period of minimum time, you want to drive a car by yourself on the road, you need to sit a further test to prove your credentials and knowledge of the road rules.

Despite these measures my own personal opinion is it is still too easy to get and maintain a drivers’ license in Australia; evidenced by the number of numpties I see driving most days.

But, if you want to ride a bike on the road you can be any age and simply need a pulse and a push bike (helmets are optional it would seem).

Go on, beat me with your big “BicycleCanberra” stick and tell me that’s reasonable.

No I agree with you about the Drivers licence, now that it is competency based and log book recording. I would rather see the test brought back in and advanced driver training for those needing to do so.

In Canberra we used to have road safety education for school students and the use of traffic training centre’s in Deakin and Belconnen. Belconnen only closed a few years ago after a consultant recommended that artificial traffic environments weren’t good for children to learn skills in.

So it is up to parents now days to provide that education. The Netherlands of course continue traffic education leading to a cycle test for students in the last year of primary school.

http://vimeo.com/31545084

Henry82 Henry82 7:48 pm 09 Nov 11

actually, ignore my previous comment, my argument was crap.

I just don’t think that people will “try” cycling if they have to get their bike registered every year.

Surely the congestion argument would be enough for most people. When driving to work, every time you pass a cyclist riding in their special lane, think of it as one less car you have to overtake.

Henry82 Henry82 7:43 pm 09 Nov 11

Jungle Jim said :

I think I agree with this the most. Fine – don’t force cyclists to pay registration, but maybe it’s a good idea for a ‘number plate’ system to ensure cyclists can be held accountable for infractions of the road rules (running red lights, hitting pedestrians etc).

So if i hit a pedestrian or run a red, do i get a fine? or lose points on my drivers license? If its the latter you’re imposing registration, which would discourage many people from giving cycling a go

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site