Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

Cycling projects under threat – the letter that Pedal Power refused to print

By Leon Arundell 17 February 2011 12

To the editor, ‘The Canberra Cyclist’

Cycling projects under threat.

A magnificent Pedal Power effort, in the lead-up to the 2008 election, led to the ACT Government committing $9.3 million in the 2009 Budget for new capital cycling works.

At the first meeting of the Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Working Group, in November 2010, the ACT Government presented Pedal Power and other participants with a proposal to fund a small number of expensive projects, rather than a larger number of more cost-effective projects.

This proposal is likely to succeed, unless Pedal Power insists that the Government prioritise projects according to their cost-effectiveness rather than according to their “Multi-Criteria Analysis” (MCA) scores.

This is especially critical, given that the Government can only fund a small proportion of the $50 million of potential projects.

70% of the MCA score is determined by factors for which projects score higher simply by being larger: connectivity; demand; network enhancement; and strategic importance. Larger projects tend to be more expensive.

If the Government chooses more expensive projects, it can fund fewer of them.

Pedal Power needs to present its position to the Government by the February 2011 meeting of the Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Working Group.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
12 Responses to
Cycling projects under threat – the letter that Pedal Power refused to print
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
cleo 12:47 am 09 Apr 11

I really can’t understand why so many cyclists do not use protective head wear, what is worse, they get away with it, and just fly across zebra crossings, with no thought of the motorist.

Diggety 3:12 pm 08 Apr 11

Solution: get a mountain bike.

Davo111 11:05 am 18 Feb 11

Letter is useless without examples.

Aeek 9:01 pm 17 Feb 11

thy_dungeonman said :

Perhaps they would save money if they didn’t build those stupid barriers that narrow down the path to one lane in some sections. It is supposedly some kind of safety thing but I don’t know why it is safer to bring pedestrians and cyclists closer together at some points.

The barriers are to stop idiot drivers from using the paths. Agreed, better if we could simply eliminate them.

BlackIce 8:33 pm 17 Feb 11

thy_dungeonman said :

Perhaps they would save money if they didn’t build those stupid barriers that narrow down the path to one lane in some sections. It is supposedly some kind of safety thing but I don’t know why it is safer to bring pedestrians and cyclists closer together at some points.

It’s supposed to slow the cyclists down in those areas (like down Barry Drive before Clunies Ross).

I’ve seen a number of cyclists go scarily fast in that section, considering pedestrians pop out from behind those tall fences without checking. Maybe they should also put pedestrian-slowing mechanisms at those points.

Grail 5:20 pm 17 Feb 11

Which projects does Leon think should be prioritised?

The use of broad, vague terminology is triggering my “bullshit ranting” and “self-interest lobbying” detectors.

thy_dungeonman 5:17 pm 17 Feb 11

Perhaps they would save money if they didn’t build those stupid barriers that narrow down the path to one lane in some sections. It is supposedly some kind of safety thing but I don’t know why it is safer to bring pedestrians and cyclists closer together at some points.

videodrome 1:40 pm 17 Feb 11

If these clowns are responsible for the installation of bike racks along Wentworth Ave then I fear what other proposals they have to soak up our valuable taxes.
Metres of grass have been concreted for a couple of bike racks next to the existing bus stops.
If these ever get used I’d be baffled enough to fine the rider for not spending another 10 minutes to get to the city on their own steam.

Erg0 12:18 pm 17 Feb 11

This headline should really contain the word “ban”.

Nightshade 11:49 am 17 Feb 11

Is this letter suggesting that selecting projects based on connectivity, demand, network enhancement and strategic importance is not appropriate? That funding a larger number of bitsy projects that don’t improve the overall transport network as much is better? The government’s approach sounds sensible to me.

housebound 11:14 am 17 Feb 11

Actually, anyone can insist all they want. Whether it will be effective is another question entirely.

monomania 10:44 am 17 Feb 11

Leon I can’t comment on the merits or otherwise of these cycling/pedestrian projects but would like to point out that Pedal Power was not elected to govern the ACT. All PP can do is present its position. Insisting is for those with the power to do so.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site