Epping Road’s cycleway – good, bad or mad?
NRMA Motoring & Services’ President Alan Evans last week questioned the logic and safety of the proposed $7.5 million cycleway on Epping Road (SMH 14/01/08). Given that only a small number of cyclists use it, compared with the 35,000 cars each day, he said that motorists face severe congestion between Mowbray and Longueville Roads when Epping Road is converted to a singe lane of traffic, a bus lane and a cycleway.
Alan Evans states that the NRMA supports cyclists where it is safe but “imposing cycleways on major arterial roads and worsening traffic congestion in the process simply does not make sense.”
He believes that placing the cycleway next to a heavily congested arterial is not the best or safest option for Epping Road. The cycleway could create more congestion by constricting the width and number of traffic lanes. If there is a crash in the Lane Cove tunnel and traffic is diverted to the single lane on Epping Road, cars and buses could be queued back to the city.
Some of the NRMA’s suggestions forwarded to the RTA include converting the bus lane into a T2 lane to encourage car pooling and widening the traffic lanes.
Have your say about the planned cycleway for Epping Road.
Read the full article here
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Cycleways on major arterials are NOT the solution to traffic congestion or encouraging more cyclists to ride to work and thinking so is ridiculous.
Motorists have little to no regard for cyclists. The only solution is to create a separate cycleway, away from cars and roads and traffic.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:14 am
I think we need more cycleways and more facilities for cyclists and less cars on the road
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 am
Cycleways are great but need to be well planned and a separate and safe place to ride away from the dangers that major roads present. Only then will the general public embrace this wonderful form of transport that will help the nation fight obsesity and pollution. $7.5 million? Cheap at half the price.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 am
As an NRMA member (since 1992) and cyclist I am of the opinion that for every major road that there should be a cycling lane. Just as motorists expect to be able to articulate easily from one type of road to another, cyclists would like to be able to do the same.
At present, cycling around Sydney is fraught with danger. Cycle lanes, in general, do not connect. It is safer for motorists and cyclists (and there would be less frustration all round) if cyclists and motorists could be separated on all main roads.
Cycling is environmentally friendly and healthy. It also frees up road space so there is less road congestion.
I look forward to the day when the NRMA becomes the National Roads, Cyclists, and Motorists Association (NRCMA) - representing all road-users - and offering roadside assistance to bicycles as well as cars.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I used to Cycle on the M2 to and from work each day but was put off by the increasing use of Motorcyclists and cars driving down the Breakdown/Cycle lane. It is my understanding that this has now been converted into a extra lane of traffic, which would mean I would now have to drive or risk my life on riding up long steep hills in 80km a hour traffic. This would be a accident waiting to happen.
Ideally cycle ways separate from traffic but on the same gradients as the main roads need to be provided on main arterial routes.
I also think you should be allowed too cycle on the footpath on all roads that have a speed limit 70km/h or above, provided you travel at a safe speed and give way to all cars and pedestrians.
As a motorist I am dismayed by the governments decision to reduce Epping road to one lane to poor profits into the tunnel. They should instead widen the road to include a separate cycleway, bus lane T2 lane and 2 lanes of traffic.
I too look forward to the day of NRCMA
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I would like to know how can it be healthy for cyclists when the cycleways are not seperate from the main roads? Surely all the fumes from the cars, buses and trucks must be detrimential to the cyclist’s health? Seperate cycleways, away from the main roads, is a must for both cyclists and motorists.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I am a NRMA member and I also have a bike. If a road does not go to your destination then it would be pretty silly to drive on it in attempt to get to your destination. So what we need are more integrated network of cycle paths not less so that we can ride all the way to our work safely.
Transport around Sydney is not a competition and its time for the NRMA to recognise that increased safe transport options will improve everyone’s lot. I want some real choice in transport to work around Sydney and that needs both good roads and a network of safe cycle paths that gets me to my destination. So building cycle lanes with new roads is a cost effective method of providing that. The harder part is retrofitting older roads with dedicated cycle lanes. How about The NRMA get behind its members who both drive and cycle to lobby for a solution where we all benefit. If I can cycle to work safely on a dedicated cycle lane then I will not have my car on the road that day.
Seems everyone is a winner with this. I look forward to the NRMA taking a big picture strategy. NRCMA sounds good to me.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Epping Road Bike Path – The missing link for cyclists
We at Renegade Cycles and our clients are pleased to see the development of the Epping Road Bike Path.
We have had conversations with 100’s of cyclists waiting for the completion of this path. It is the missing link in joining the North Western suburbs with suburbs from Lane Cove to North Sydney.
Many of the cyclists who visit us are excited to see this project nearing completion. Many live in the Lane Cove area and work in North Ryde/Macquarie Area. This ‘missing link’ will provide a suitable cycling route for commuter and recreational cyclists alike.
We approached Alan Evans of NRMA for confirmation of his so called study on the number of cyclists in this area but he chose not to comment. We also question that his statistics where based on an uncompleted section of the motorway. Mr Evans needs to review the statistics of the cycleway usage of Melbourne. Melbourne experienced a huge increase in cycling when end-to-end cycleway were established, something that Sydney is lacking
We also asked Alan why he was in favor of forms of transport that where so damaging to the environment. He again declined to comment.
Our research indicates that almost 40 cars per minute use this corridor in peak hour, with just 1.1% having 2 occupants in the vehicle. During our peak hour research, we were unable to spot a single vehicle with 3 or more occupants.
These drivers may well be heading to different destinations which makes this makes a perfect opportunity for these ’solo’ drivers to use cycling as their preferred form of transport.
ABS reports that more new bicycles are sold in Australia each year (compared to new cars).
The number of cyclists just waiting for this path to be completed is huge and we are expecting a surge of cyclists in this area.
Regards,
Mark Pountley
Store Manager, Renegade Cycles
NRMA Member
Bike North Member
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
It is a lovely thought that people could ride to work everyday, but what about people who live too far to travel all that way by bike and if they did they would spend hours and hours away from home and their families due to travel time, let alone whatever work pressures might exist that contribute to Australian workers already working long hours. I thought the Lane Cove Tunnel was designed to help ease traffic congestion, not make it worse for those people who live or work above the tunnel. I don’t think too many people would have an issue with the bus lane but surely 2 lanes for other vehicles isn’t too much to ask for when you’re talking about a major Sydney road.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Stop being conned, the cycleway is just an excuse to funnel cars into the tunnel. How cunning is the Iemma government to distract you all into discussing cycleways instead of their disgusting removal of publicly owned roads. I support cycleways, but not when they are done like this.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Cycleways need to be considered a mandatory part of our urban transport infrastructure. A coherent, connected network of cycleways will be good for all concerned, motorists and cyclists alike. Alan Evans has displayed an error of judgement with his comments and does not represent the views of (some) members. (Yes, I do own a car, and a bike)
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Converting a two lane congested main arterial road to one lane will just infuriate drivers and endangers cyclists. As a cyclist-want-to-be and a mum with potential little riders I would prefer a cycleway that isn’t on a main road. Even the pollution from the cars is enough to discourage potential riders.
Congestion will always be a problem - the solution is to keep the congestion moving - smarter traffic flows - government incentives (maybe tax rebates for using public transport) could be a solution.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Sydney is too hilly for cycling to ever be used en masse.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I think the cycleway is a waste at the price indicated and for the number of cyclists who use it. I think the existing road should be expanded to maximise the traffic flow to and from the city. The use of the bus lane as a T2 lane has merit.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I too am a cyclist and NRMA member since 1973, my father was a member for 20+ years before.
Having been knocked off my bike once, I am keen to see safe bicycle routes around Sydney. And I consider the breakdown lane of a freeway as anything BUT a safe bcycle route. My aunt was killed having stopped in a freeway breakdown lane by an errant motorst.
I am all for the development of safe separate cycleways. The M7 cycleway s far more sensible than the M2 version. M7=separate road, M2=breakdown lane.
My only worry about the Lane Cove situation is for the residents. My Mum is finding it harder to get out onto Epping and Longueville Roads with the current roadworks. Now that I only visit Lane Cove rather than live there, I fear for bottlenecks on Epping Rd reduced to one lane.
But if the current cycleway wll deliver a safe cycle route from Lane Cove to Macquarie Uni, my only comment is, why wasn’t it there 25 years ago when I could have used it? Then I had no option but to use my car since no way would I ride on Epping Rd, even in the 70s or 80s.
I too support the change of name to NRCMA.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I have three cars insured with NRMA and have been a member for more than 25 years. I believe that motor vehicles use is a major issue in terms of short term (air pollution) and long term (climate change) impacts on human health and the environment.
I expect the NRMA to take a more balanced attitude to social and environmental outcomes as a responsibel Australina company (as many of their members do), even if they are principally a motor vehicle lobby. NRMA’s proposition to resolve the political problem of the government trying to force cars into the Lane Cove tunnel by grabbing a cycle lane is deplorable.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Every major road in Sydney should have an associated cycleway or cycle lane, depending on the various conditions on that road. Epping Road represents a major link for cyclists, just as it does for motorists. Motorists on this corridor have been given an extra lane. With the completion of the Epping Road cycleway, cyclists will, for the first time, gain a safe facility along SOME of the same corridor. A fair go for all.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Cycles should be kept in parks and OFF the road.
Realistically these days, they are simply unsuitable for city streets … unless there are dedicated cycleways totally separate from the road … with barriers of some sort dividing the two. And that’s not going to happen in Australia to any great extent. Is it?
Otherwise, cycles are just a traffic menace.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Sue Theophilus Says: Surely all the fumes from the cars, buses and trucks must be detrimential to the cyclist’s health?
Sue, studies show this is no worse than driving with the window down in you car, however the biggest threat is still the car driving beside you.
I totally agree with having separated cycle lanes and anything that may deter the use of a car and burning of fossil fuels.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
It is so scary riding in some parts of Sydney especially going from, eg., Artarmon to Olympic Park especially near Gladesville. The cycleway/paths run out.
With so much pollution in the city, cars should be discouraged from the city and more pedestrian/cyclist friendly streets designated.
Bikes are just as entitled to be on the roads as cars. If motorists are concerned with cyclists they should be lobbying politicians for safe bike lanes and STOP whingeing. There are 2 cars in my household as well as 4 regularly used bikes.
It is time that the NRMA did what RACV have done, and that is provide a service to NRMA member cyclists, too.
Also, NRMA need to do a lot more for country motorists and especially push for road improvement. The Pacific Highway is a great case. Include wide shoulders for cyclists.
Numerous cyclists come through the Northern Rivers. Come and visit the Northern Rivers to view and do the rides listed on the Ballina BUG website. Beats living in smoggy Sydney.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
As an NRMA member of forty years standing and long term cyclist I was extremely disapointed with the NRMA’s attitude. Every cycling commuter is of assistance to motorists by 1. taking up less space when parking, 2. not poluting the air, 3. if cyclist are in sufficient numbers they will reduce the need for construction of more freeways & lastly less people (cyclists) using petroleom products assist in such resources being available for a longer period and costing less by reducing demand.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I think putting in a cycleway is great, even if I don’t live in Lane Cove or North Ryde (who are the ones who will benefit) but to remove two lanes to create one cycleway can’t be justified. And why two 24 hour bus lanes? Surely the road could have been arranged to have movable lane markers (like it did) to have more lanes for the peak hour flow.
The real reason for all this (and the time taken to construct it) is simply to increase the tunnel usage.
As a motorcyclist I refuse to use the tunnel on safety grounds as there is no shoulder to use to avoid cars swerving into your lane and at each end there is a massive wind gust (poor design?) which if you aren’t careful can push you to one side.
Why does do we live in a time when public roads are being reduced?
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I am an NRMA member, motorist and cyclist and I support the proposed cycleway for Epping Road. More lanes for cars only temporarily alleviates traffic congestion. Sustainable solutions must include cycling and public transport expenditure - hence the dedicated cycle and bus lanes in this proposal.
There is evidence of the increase in cycling trips that has occured with concurrent expenditure on cycling infrastructure in NSW - bikes currently outsell cars, social research shows more people want to make more cycling trips. Only time will tell, but the modest goals for increased cycling trips set in cycling plans like the City of Sydney’s Cycling Strategy for 2007-2017 can be achieved, and the benefits for human health and our environment are worth pursuing. These plans have been informed by information including a cycling social research survey and focus group report that clearly show the cycling traffic will increase in the period of the plan. With similar local planning and support from local government’s (Ryde, etc), health workers (Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health), bike clubs (Bike North), peak cycling bodies (Bicycle NSW, Cycling Promotion fund), Macquarie University and students and Sydney residents Epping Road cycle lane traffic will be substantial.
Weak evidence like counts of cyclist on current poor cycling infrastructure Mr Evans refers to in his article do not help answer the questions his article attempts to raise. Asking members to respond to comments in the article does not really inform the debate either. Why not inform debate about the viability of the proposed cycleway by commissioning some obejective research (like the City of Sydney’s reports completed by Envirometrics) in partnership with relevant government bodies, or advocate that they do it themselves (if they have not already), and present members and the public with some useful information to consider (ie. whether this proposed infrastructure is likely to increase cycling traffic). As a member I think this would be good use of your time.
The North West of Sydney deserves similar major cycling and public transport infrastruture links to those planned or already in places accross Sydney.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I am a NRMA and a Bicylcle NSW member. I catch the bus to work in summer and ride my cycle in winter. I consider my self a revolutionary. The papers are full of stories of high petrol prices, conflict over oil, the obesity epidemic and social breakdown (caused by greed and laziness). So anything that will reduce our dependence on import oil, reduce obesity and get people outdoors is going to be attacked by the consumerists. So come on join the revolution. Get out your car, off your arse and on yer bike!
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
As a resident of Lane Cove, I’m all for reducing the width of Epping Road. Before the tunnel, Epping Road was a complete nightmare, with wall-to-wall traffic. One of the promises of the tunnel for local residents was that it would remove much of the through-traffic from Epping road. That’s only going to happen if the existing road is narrowed.
Hey, some of us have to live in the suburb. How would you like a six-lane carpark next to your place?
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Disgusting waste of money IN SYDNEY again while the roads in areas outside Sydney are in a very poor state and critically need millions to bring them up to minimal standards. Just cut backs all the time in funds for Councils and for the State roads they have to maintain.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Can’t wait until there is a major accident in the Lane Cove tunnel and 35,000 cars are sent down the single lane of Epping Road. Won’t everyone be happy then with the Government for closing those 2 lanes?
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
As a NRMA Gold member with over 40 years membership I am far from happy with the NRMA’s approach on this matter.
I fully support Judy’s comment “Stop being conned, the cycleway is just an excuse to funnel cars into the tunnel. How cunning is the Iemma government to distract you all into discussing cycleways instead of their disgusting removal of publicly owned roads.” The Cross City Tunnel debacle shows what is wrong with the Epping Road closures and it has nothing to do with cycleways or reverting bus lanes to general lanes at the expense of public transport users (the majority of whom are ’surprise’ members of the NRMA! What the NRMA is currently supporting in a de facto way is the policy of closing down public roads such as Epping Road for the benefit of the tollway companies and to the detriment of the average motorist and the community in general.
As the population ages we will require viable public transport to ensure that people who should not be driving will use public transport and thus make our roads safer. We also need to ensure that a significant proportion of peak hour travel is by public transport as we will never be able to build or afford enough roads to enable everyone to drive in peak hours.
We also need to ensure that roads are built where they are needed and are cost effective. This means not expanding roads in the inner suburbs where their is no where for the traffic they will attract to go anyway. There is no space for more parking in the CBD or the inner suburbs. Let’s concentrate on areas where roads are really cost effective and productive such as our major highways (the expenditure on the Cross City Tunnel and the Lane Cove Tunnel would have upgraded a lot of the Pacific Highway and saved lives)!
I trust the NRMA will reconsider its current position on this issue and move to represent the real needs of its members and the general community by supporting a realistic mix of roads, public transport and cycleways as the only way our city can develope in a sustainable and safe way with a healthy environment. Please ensure that we do not waste precious fuel in irresponsible peak hour motoring by single occupant cars.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
It might be best to view the status of status of a survey already conducted.
The poll showed that people who ride bikes are also people who drive cars, indicating that framing this discussion as ‘motorists versus cyclists’ is an unhelpful simplification.
The key figures are:
* Three quarters (74%) of respondents ride a bike AND drive a car (or motorbike etc) at least once a week.
* 56% of respondents were both Bicycle NSW and NRMA members.
* 71.5% of respondents were NRMA members.
* 80% of the NRMA members who responded specifically supported the shared user paths under construction on Epping Road.
For more results, you can download the Summary Report of the poll results at: http://www.bicyclensw.org.au/Advocacy.asp
Regards,
Dick
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I don’t own a bike but would dearly love to be able to cycle safely around Sydney. We need connected safe cyleways as a priority in this city - then watch the use of bikes go up! So much better for public health and the environment. Obviously cycleways are safer and more relaxing if separated from the cars as per the M7. As an NRMA member for over 45 years and a car owner I am disappointed with the attitude of Mr Evans. At the same time I think one lane for cars on Epping Road adjacent to the tunnel entrance is madness. I am in favour of making the bus lane a T2 and keeping the cycleway. Bring on the NRCMA; what a wonderful idea.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Motorists got their two traffic-light free lanes under Lane Cove, bus commuters now have a good run into the city (leave the car behind) and cyclists get some decent facilities.
Good for all.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
The Epping Rd cycleway is acutally a widened foot path, with crash barriers separating it from the road. You can already see what it looks like in the completed Mowbary Rd to Wick Rd section. So all this talk about cars and bikes not mixing doesn’t make much sense, the design minimises the mixing as much as possible, and is very safe.
Also, if you include the Lane Cove Tunnel, we have 8 lanes for cars, 2 for buses and one for cyclists, a very fair distribution.
The whole point of the the building tunnel was to reduce pollution and congestion and make Lane Cove a more liveable area. If you must drive, why not pay a few dollars for a fast and easy trip under ground rahter than crawl along Epping Rd at 10 km/h in peak hour?
I think the NRMA has presented this issue very poorly, by using bogus statistics, and supporting the the motorists at all costs.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
The NRMA is unfortunately dodging the real issue and supporting the RTS’s spin on the cycleway.
The real problem is the taking away of traffic lanes to force traffic into the tunnel. The cycleway is a side issue. NRMA would better spend its efforts on the real issue, not cycles. If all the traffic lanes were retained then there would be sufficient lanes for cycle lanes and motor vehicle lanes.
Cycleways including dedicated bike lanes are a good thing, and remember the cyclists have as much right to be on those roads as other vehicles. NRMA should support all road users including cyclists.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Am a NRMA member, car driver, tax payer and cyclist (recent). I try to cycle to work each day from Crows Nest.
Alan Evans - your views are from the car advocacy view, rather than including cyclists. How are we to encourage this unless we invest in the infrastructure?
And for those of you that are grumbling about it - get off your butts & try it or pay the toll.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Its a great laugh reading the drivel condemning cycling that so obviously comes from motor vehicle drivers who don’t cycle hence have little idea what they are talking about.
Get real! your petrol wont last forever, certainly not at current prices. Every price rise puts more bikes on the road. More bikes would be used now excepting for all the over weight & unfit drivers who’d die the moment their unhealthy bodies even saw a hill let alone actually tried to push themselves up one. Getting your backsides on bikes might just help reduce your personal burden on our health system.
Maybe the cycleway under discussion is being used as a revenue raising tool but that does not take away from the fact that it is an important part of the greater cycleway system that Sydney so badly needs developed. You only have to look at all the other completed cycleways around Sydney to see that it will be widely used and not just by cyclists.
Yes I’m a cyclist, my whole family cycles but we also own two cars and have been NRMA members fro some 25 years. Is this the NRMA’s way of trying to remain valid in modern society?
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
The closure of lanes on Epping Highway is a total obscenity. The Government is spending millions of dollars of taxpayers money to close lanes on a public road to force motorists into an overpriced private tunnel. There should be no bus lane and no cycleway unless it is continued to the City. The NRMA should exert more pressure on the Government. The ended up capitulating over the Cross City Tunnel.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I think cycleways are a good idea, (at least it will stop them weaving through traffic in an 80k zone), but not to the detriment of cars.
I’ve been travelling epping road for 35 years watching it get revamped over and over again improving traffic flow. I used to live on it and watch the work being carried on at night, I usually appreciated the work they did. When the tunnel opened I thought that finally we would have decent traffic flow until the dillIemma government decided to restrict the flow. Kevin Rudd must be fuming knowing he just signed the Kyoto protocol to reduce carbon emmisions and his state labor member has negated this by producing more through traffic congestion. What would it be like if there were an accident on the new road? I’d hate to think about it.
I live at Eastwood now, near Epping road but now drive to Artarmon to work via Hunters Hill, it’s quicker than the short route down Epping road and I drive home via Mowbray road.
Why don’t some of these d***head ministers drive around Sydney during peak hour and see what idiotic decisions the voting public have to put up with instead of making decisions from behind a desk. Maybe one day they’ll come to their senses.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:45 am
was born and spent my first 20 years in Holland, the country of bicycles,
when I settled in Australia my wife and I brought our bikes with us, but as we found distances in this vast country so much greater. Our bikes were never used
I support cycleways, but as an addition to the roadways not at the expense of.
The way the NSW government goes about this ireminds me of the dictatorship of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia and I hope very much that the NRMA will increase their action to call a halt to this highway robbery of forcing us to use the toll roads
January 24th, 2008 at 8:41 am
An interesting headline chaser. I wonder if the NRMA has considered other factors associated with the bicycle lane such as:
- viable topography for cycle routes
- network connectivity (and therefore trip viability) for cyclists
- the significant burden on CTP insurance costs to motorists for impacts with cyclists
- impact on lane capacity from a cyclist travelling in a ‘normal’ traffic lane
- passenger capacity of bus lanes versus passenger vehicle lanes (if network capacity and cost is the issue)
- the extra capacity afforded by the LCT and existing benefits to motorists (see prior NRMA submissions)
- potential urban amenity improvements such as bus and cycle lanes and kerb widenings afforded by the LCT (see again prior NRMA submissions)
- likely effectiveness of a T2 lane (see prior NRMA surveys)
- Sydney’s health costs associated to vehicle use (see various surveys)
NRMA public policy (which now appears to be Alan Evans alone) seems to have returned to peering into it’s own smoky exhaust. If you disagree with the NRMAs position, google ‘roadside assistance’ in Australia and consider your options. If you agree, please consider moving to LA.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
My husband and I have been NRMA members for over 30 years. Our family has 4 drivers and runs 3 cars but are also avid cyclists and would prefer to ride rather than drive for the purposes of health, enjoyment and protection of the environment. We also do not want to add to the level of congestion on Sydney’s roads.
As an organisation that has stated its support for environmentally sustainable transport solutions, your lobbying to remove an essential cycling link for commuters to the city in favour of attracting more commuter cars is untenable. It is worth noting that there are few cyclists on the current Epping Road cycleway because it does not as yet link up!
I hope that your organisation can wake up to Sydney’s transport needs and be supportive of all forms of commuting, particularly those that do not add to pollution and congestion.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Many motorists are not going to give up theirs car voluntarily. The public transport system is poor. Commuting in Sydney is extremely difficult. Some (many) cycleways proceed nowhere. They are good where they exist but often end on a busy traffic street with no room for both motor traffic and bicycles. What has happened on Epping Road is a step in the right direction and I think more lanes could be given over to bicycles. We only need a metre: a metre preferarbly that vehicles cannot impinge upon.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Would there have been all this ranting about Epping Rd losing a lane if the bi-pass (The tunnel) wasn’t a toll road ?
Traditionally when a bi-pass was built, the old road was ‘let go’ and returned to being a local road. I imagine there wouldn’t have been half as much controversy if the bi-pass wasn’t a privately funded toll road.
It’s the toll that’s the real issue. People are feeling that efforts are being made to force them to pay it.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
With increasing fuel costs and an ever expanding Sydney metro its high time the government actually supported greener alternatives such as a light and heavy rail upgrade/ expansion rather than building more road ways and encouraging vehicle use by single occupants.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:33 am
The narrowing of Epping Road to a single lane is not a result of the cycleway. It was to be done anyway, and the cycleway is a reasonable use of the space created. Massively costly road projects ultimately do not relieve congestion anyway - they just move it elsewhere, and more people are encouraged to drive which increases overall congestion, making the situation worse. Motorists should be discouraged from driving, not encouraged to drive more.
January 25th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Its a chicken and egg scenario. Unless there are cycleways which actually go somewhere rather than the fragmented system we have now then they are useless. The NRMA should be encouraging more cycleways - every cyclist is a car off the road in time less money needs to be spent on more roads.
It is in every motorists interest to get more people on bikes.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Has the Govt. considered the people who work or do business in the industrial area, which can only be accesed by Sam Johnson Way, which runs off Epping Rd. Using the tunnel is not an option for these people.
The cycle lobbby seems to forget that the road is not just used for commuters who may or may not be able to find alternate ways of getting to work but by trucks, tradesmen, and service vehicles. If they have to spend more time on the road it will cost everybody more.
Finally, if cyclists want respect from motorists the should start obeying the road rules and making a financial contribution to the roads that they use.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
The only reason cyclist numbers are so low in Sydney is that the facilities for SAFE riding are so poor. The Epping road alterations are a step in the right direction and need to be applauded for being forward thinking.
Great cycling facilities turn motorists into cyclists. You only need to look at Melbourne and Canberra to see how good cycling facilities encourage cycling. Cycling is environmentally positive and is good for community health, both of which are positive for the community as a whole, not just the individual. We need to encourage cycling, not use unrealistic examples such as reviewing cyclist numbers on an unfinished cycleway to benefit the Sydney community now and most importantly, into the future.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:52 am
In response to Tony (January 25th, 2008 at 6:09 pm),
My wife and I have been an NRMA member for over 25 years, Own a car, a motorbike and 2 pushbikes. I therefore feel quite entitled to use the roads I financially contribute to through all the taxes I have paid and carry on paying, directly or indirectely, and this regardless the mode of transport I choose to use - including public transport.
I cycled to work for over 3 years until a change of job meant facing an ugly choice of unconnected cyclepaths and basic lack of infrastructure.
Please read some of the comments above and understand that most cyclists ARE motorists too and have simply made the choice to switch over for everyone’s benefits, including yours - less cars = less congestion + less polution, etc…
When I drive, I use tollroads whenever I need to. They have their reasons to be there. We cannot fix overnight 30-40 years of underfunding in basic infrastructrue - Roads & Public transport.
It is terrible for those who live in outer suburbs where buses or trains are non-existent (or unreliable) and who have little choice but to get to work by car. But car polling should be encouraged both by governement and business alike (Tax incentives, not just T lanes) as it makes good business sense (less cars = less wear & tear on road system, and less parking spots to pay for by businesses)
The RTA, NRMA and governement must get their act together to make our roads safer, and this must include all altenative modes of transport: Motorbikes & scooters, pushbikes & public transports.
Putting more cars on the road is a short-sighted and non-viable proposition.
Let’s stop the blame game and get on with the job!
What future do we want for our city, our suburbs, our children?
January 26th, 2008 at 12:55 am
And looking forward to NRMCA in the very near future!!
January 27th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Anything that detracts from the efficiency of existing infrastructure, such as this cycleway is not in the best interests of commuters. While not against cycleways, this is a major arterial road used for workers to get to and from work over long distances for which cycling is not practical. Lane ways should never have been closed, just biased towards more efficient transport means such as busways and transit lanes. Even a T2 lane can take one car off the road for every car that uses it.
January 27th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
The idea that “cyclists should pay for the roads they use” has got to be the most incorrect arguments ever made.
1) Most if no all cyclists also own a car for which they pay rego. If they choose to use a bike instead, if anything they deserve a discount since they do not cost as much as a regular car driver. Bikes do almost no road damage, cars and trucks do lots. (Road damage scales roughly with the 4th power of the axle weight.)
2) If more people use bikes, we would need less roads and we would all save a lot of money on road building.
3) The cost of rego and fuel taxes go nowhere near covering the cost of a road network. Most of the money comes out of general taxation, which cyclists also have to pay.
I hope Tony, and people who use his financial argument, will understand that they are simply wrong.
As for the road rules, I agree that all road users should obey the road rules. Predictable traffic is safer traffic. What people fail to realise, however, is that the rules are stacked against bicycle riders who constantly have to give way in to cars. A good way to encourage better habits for cyclists is to change the rules so they make more sense.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Why would anyone in their right frame of mind destroy a good road with a smooth traffic flow even during the morning peak hour rush which with the opening of the Lane Cove Tunnel, has improved even further with the construction of a cycle way.
My suggestion is for cyclists to share the footpath with pedestrians as they do in some countries. Doing this will mean no additional construction of a cycleway, thus Epping Road can be reinstated again.
Does a cycleway specialy for cyclists mean that they now have to pay road taxes like motorists do for using the cycleway?
And why were the public’s opinion not sought prior to the start of construction?
January 28th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
The best way to improve the congestion in Sydney is to aim for a 10% reduction in traffic (like there is during school holidays) and hold it there. We have to make it less attractive to drive around Sydney, not easier. The Epping Road cycleway should be applauded as a constructive first step in achieving a reduction in car based transport.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
build the cycleway and then see what will happen. you can’t solve the petrol price increases and seems you maybe have scant ideas on the change going on with cycling being part of the future in road construction. let this cycleway go ahead. maybe the bottleneck drivers will use their bikes to work so no problem. regards. john (nrma member 31 years)
January 29th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I agree with Judy and many others: “Stop being conned, the cycleway is just an excuse to funnel cars into the tunnel”.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I am with Yves and Liz above - as both a motorist and cyclist, I think that it is looking to the future to promote cycling. I don’t agree with making it harder for motorists either, though sometimes there may be an unresolvable conflict of land use. I think that this problem on Epping Rd has arisen because of the government’s approach to having transport infrastructure built by private companies and charging a toll. The government should have invested in public transport as a higher priority than a road extension. If public transport were faster and cheaper it would be an easy choice for motorists to make the switch for many trips. Now that the government has built these toll roads they have wasted resources. Ditch the toll for a start - then traffic would move off the Epping Road and into the tunnel. Longer term I would like to see a much more thorough form of public participation in planning for Sydney’s transport, driven by goals of reduced environmental impact, rather than how AAA credit ratings can be maintained, and oil companies and car manufacturers kept in strong profits.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
As a long term (>20 year) member of the NRMA who lives adjacent Epping Road, who regularly drives on it and who used to occasionally cycle along it, I am really disappointed in what I believe is a lack of professioalisme and objectivity by an otherwise very professional organisation. Let me make a few specific points about the campaign:
1. Firstly, I am amazed that the NRMA found 25 cyclists willing to brave the perils of Epping Road with the present construction works. With grooved roads, road plates, temporary merges and only a single lane with no bus lane, Epping Road is at present highly dangerous for cyclists and is effectively closed to them. Cyclists who used to use Epping Road are now forced to wind their way around the hilly back streets. This statistic is simply invalid.
2. The plans for Epping Road have been the subject of extensive and long term community consultation, and have been publicly available for years. The NRMA should have engaged more rigorously in the consultative process and raised any objections more strongly at the concept phase, when perhaps a solution that catered for the needs of all users and would not result in additional costs to taxpayers could have been found.
3. Unlike the RACV, the NRMA does not “fully support cyclists”, and it is disingenuous to suggest that you do. If the NRMA did fully support cyclists, then they would demonstrate this. For example, their proposal would include options for an alternative dedicated cycleway routes to complete this link - optoins that do not involve additional risks, hills or significant distance. Instead, the NRMA is simply lobbying strongly to delete the cycleway just so that road lanes can be wider.
On the cycleway, my specific comments are:
1. Those who drive along Epping Road west of Mowbray Road will know that the bike track is effectively just a widened footpath. Surely the RTA’s compromise of having slightly less wide traffic lanes to facilitate this is not an unreasonable one.
2. The Epping Road cycle way cannot be considered in isolation. It is part of a cycle path that will soon lead all the way to North Sydney and the City. As with roads, the cycleway cannot all be built simultaneously, and the RTA is quite properly completing this section now whilst the opportunity exists. The RTA is also completing concept designs for the Warringah Freeway section this year (so how about getting involved now - although I don’t think there is any impact on vehicle lanes), which will finalise the link.
It is also not true to say that usage will not increase significantly. The bike path currently ends at Naremburn. As not many workers or students commute to Naremburn, the initial bike track usage will be lower than the usage in a year or two’s time when the link to the North Sydney and the City is built. If the vehicle lanes on the Gore Hill Freeway ended at Willoughby Road Naremburn, as the bike track does, its usage would be lower too.
3. There is strong evidence of latent demand for bike infrastructure. Bikes are currently outselling cars, despite the fact that there are few places in Sydney where they can be safely used.
4. Riding a bike is not just an alternative to driving cars - bikes serve people who are too young to drive.
It is not surprising that obesity is endemic in young people in NSW. There are few options for incorporating excersise as part of everyday activity. Unfortunately, given current Sydney traffic, I wouldn’t dream of allowing my kids to ride a bike or scooter to school as I did when I was a kid without a safe, segregated bike track.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:54 am
In reply to Tony Jan 25 and Benedict Jan 28, Good onya! draging up the oldie, cyclists do not pay Rego ! Question to you both, if there was a Rego fee on Bicycles would you treat us any different???
February 7th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Why wasn’t a bicycle and bus tunnel built instead of the Lane Cove Tunnel ?
All motorists are people with transport needs and most probably have a bicyle. Who is going to ride from the hills into or past the CBD every day ?
Open a toll road, close down a major route GOOD Management Right ? Well for the investors. How about the biggest investors in this state (the tax payer) get a ticket to ride? I’d say free ticket to ride but what are those taxes for ?
Who’s getting the kick back anyway ? Carr ? Egan ? Morris ? RTA ?
The government should give everyone a free bike with all that money they don’t spend on what they say they tax us for. You never know you might actually see more than 50 people use that brand new white elephant.
What I say to the whinging residents along side Epping Road, you want to live in a growing major city, deal with it.
And Those people who say you should have been involved in the planning process well your dreaming if you think anyone who made the decisions actually listened to the concerns of the public. You only have to look at the outcome to realize that this situation dose not benefit anyone but the LCT.
On behalf of the decent and indecent citizens of NSW, where has the foresight gone ? Oh that’s right to a corporation with it’s best interests at heart.
BTW Sydney is not Amsterdam, Melbourne, Canberra or any other city…
Last word: Who did invent that Wheel ?
Peace, Love and Mungbeans…
Gavin
February 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Tony Says:
January 25th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Finally, if cyclists want respect from motorists the should start obeying the road rules and making a financial contribution to the roads that they use.
Tony - We do. They are called income taxes.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Congestion is caused by CARS.
(Not by bikes, not by buses). Cars quickly make up the gaps in traffic that bikes and less so buses create anyhow.
With astonishmet I looked out of the bus today whilst it crawled through the Lane Cove Tunnel to see car after car containing 1 selfish driver only. The bus in the meantime contained 60 people or so.
1 bus = 60 cars. But 60 people in a bus were being held up by these mean cars with 1 selfish driver. Cyclists? Well cyclists have no facility at all - having instead to share a road where many car drivers are abusive or worse, as if cyclists were not human also.
Car drivers, get out of your cars and get on a bike/bus/train and watch the congestion go.
I am all for the cycleways. And I am all for more bus only lanes. And I am all for the Labor state government finally delivering on its so-far failed promise to provide rail to the Hills district.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I live at one end of Epping rd and use it reasonably often. Presumably I should be cheering on the NRMA for that media statement about doing away with the cycleway. Actually I deplored what NRMA said. Go after the Strawman why don’t they. They didn’t go after the bus only lanes because the patronage that will travel along those is already proven. So instead - clamour about so few people using a cycleway that is not yet complete.
And by the way, the Epping road path is for pedestrians too.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Its great to see the Government building better cycle ways and a dedicated bus route.
I am a member of NRMA but dont share NRMA’s views on the cycle and bus ways. There maybe 35000 cars using Epping Road, but there are also probably more that 35000 people travelling by bus on Epping road too. And the number of people using cycles will rise very quickly. I know I will change my train travel to ride the bicycle.
Car users from far car park their car in a side street and use a bus instead or when the new stations come up, use the train instead. Bicycles are allowed in trains, so you can cycle to the train station and then cycle from the train station to your destination!
April 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Cyclists are a menace - always have been. They make up their own rules and whether there is a path there or not, they will decide whether they want to use it or use a main road. Cyclists = selfish people.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I travel this road everyday and believe there should be 2 lanes for cars.
The insane sudden merging of lanes is dangerous and serves no purpose.
Secondly, I am a biker but for the number of people I see riding bikes does not justify a bike lane.
Why also do bike riders not follow the road rules? They even push in front of car lanes knowing they will hold up lanes and not follow road rules.
Of course the mean little speed cameras are there too so if the congestion and dumbo merger lanes don’t get you the cameras do.
Its very police state indeed. You could not of made a road more unpleasant if you tried.
Lets face it they want you to fork out for the tunnel.
I would not mind a bike track away from main roads. Its ok for idiots out there to say get on a bike but unless you have iron man fitness it is not a feasible option for people that live far away.
Now I realise only to well why I refused so many jobs at North Ryde.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Would a cycleway bridge built on top of the Road be more effective?
April 29th, 2008 at 9:45 am
We live in a world of user pays. Motorists pay petrol tax to fund the road network and increasingly we are being charged tolls to travel on new motorways. I think it is only fair that any new cycleways should be built at the expense of cyclists. This could easily be done via a tax on new bicycle sales as well as a bicycle tyre tax.
There should also be greater enforcement of the road rules as they apply to cyclists. In this regard they should be treated equally to motorists.
Many cyclists are quick to point out that there are health and fitness benefits that come from cycling. What is not clear to me, however, is the extent to which these benefits are offset by the cost of injuries to cyclists. Cars and bicycles do not mix and when cyclists come off their bike or are hit by a vehicle (a motor vehicle) the injuries tend to be very serious. Given the seriousness of these injuries they tend to be expensive. This expense is largely bourne by the public health system and likely offsets some (if not all) of the health and fitness benefits from cycling.
I applaud the NRMA on its stance towards cyclists. Cyclists need to stop freeriding off motorists and contribute to the funding of infrastructure. They also need to be treated equally and fairly when it comes to road safety.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
A large majority of cyclists also own cars and pay all of the same costs and taxes as motorists to fund road infrastructure. However, when there are safe and interconnected bike lanes we will ride a couple of days a week, maybe even five, leaving our cars at home for the weekend. Bikes don’t cause significant wear and tear on infrastructure, so we are contributing the same but costing less.
I have no argument with road rule complaints. Cyclists weaving through traffic and not using lights at night really disheartens me. Not only is it dangerous but it gives the rest of us, who try hard to work with motorists, a bad name. We teach people how to drive and enforce the rules but not how to ride, so more has to be done to address that.
Please don’t use the argument of number of cars vs number of bikes. If there were no roads you wouldn’t be driving, if there are no safe and connected cycle lanes, we won’t be riding. Let them finish it before you say that it’s not being used. If after a year it is still under utilised by all means turn it into another car lane at say that you told us so.
We don’t freeride off motorists, we are motorists and we are sick of sitting in traffic too. Turning Sydney into a Los Angeles is not a solution that I find very appealing, so I am doing my little bit to find alternatives that ensure that the city in which we live is enjoyable, not just convenient.
If you live in an area not serviced by public transport, fair enough if you drive. If you commute more than 15kms then fair enough. I ride from the city to Epping 3 days a week and it takes me 1 hour each way. It takes the same on the train and fifteen minutes less by car in light peak hour.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Cyclists are freeriders under the current system. To understand why take someone who lives at Lane Cove and drives to William Street in East Sydney to work.
As a resident that person pays council rates and as a working citizen of Australia he or she also pays taxes to the Federal Governmnet. Now because there is insufficient public transport and because time is important to this person they may choose to drive. If they do drive they will also pay petrol taxes and if they use the Sydney harbour bridge to get to work they will pay a road toll. These last taxes are user charges.
Now lets say take the same scenario except that the person cycles to work. He or she would still pay council rates and income tax. But he or she wouldn’t pay petrol tax nor do they pay the harbour bridge toll. They would not pay user charges although they use the same roads and bridges etc.
Although petrol excise revenues are not hypothicated to road funding they were originally introduced as a tax to cover the cost of providing roads and transport infrastructure. So too are tolls. In this respect they are user charges (albeit not very transparent or effective ones). So good policy should dictate that if you use the road either by bike or by car you should pay. Maybe bikes should not pay the same amount as cars but they should pay nonetheless.
We could avoid all this debate if we simply replaced petrol excise and road tolls with a network wide congestion tax. This would mean that people would pay for causing congestion. The net effect is that people would change their behaviour because they would be forced to pay for the negative effects (i.e. congestion) arising from their choices Because cyclists do not add to congestion they would noy have to pay.
But the introduction of a congestion tax would require much political courage and I do not see much of that.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Just for the record, I believe the 3 lanes each way on Epping Rd should have been changed to 1 bus lane and 2 car lanes in each direction. Then widen one of the footpaths into a bike path by using the existing nature strip and hey presto! Bicycles should also be able to use the bus lane if sensible to do so (i.e. westbound on the downhill stretch from Pacific Hwy where speeds of 50-60 are normal for a road bike).
As noted by many people in this thread, the narrowing of Epping Rd is all about funnelling cars into the tunnel to increase profits (or reduce losses!) so most of this debate is just irrelevant.
But while I’m here, I’ll weigh into the debate everyone is having about cyclists. Here are a few reasons why cyclists make the world a better place…
The evironmental arguments:
- A bicycle uses about 1% the resources of a car to build.
- A bicycle uses no resources to run.
- A bicycle emits no greenhouse gases.
The health arguments
- Cyclists suffer less obesity related illness.
- Cyclists inflict much lower road trauma (the key here is not that cyclists SUFFER less injury, it is that they CAUSE less injury). Cyclists can still get hit by those pesky motorists, but they are far less likely to kill others.
The time arguments
- In peak hour traffic, the average speed of cars is actually not that different to bicycles (I average almost 30km/h on my bike commute).
- If more people rode bikes, then congestion would reduce and everyone’s commute time would reduce.
- If you add all the time people work to pay for their cars (initial purchase, petrol, insurance, rego, servicing etc) then using a bike means you have more time for living.
The road funding arguments:
- Most cyclists pay income taxes which is where the majority of road funding is sourced.
- Most cyclists also own a car so they pay rego, insurance, etc (not that this makes much difference to road funding although many people believe it does).
- The 7.5 million dollar cycleway is less than 1% the cost of the more than 1 billion dollar Lane Cove tunnel. So who is subsidising who? In my opinion, cyclists pay far more than their fair share towards infrastructure.
Other arguments
- If we didn’t require oil for petrol, do you think Iraq would have been invaded? So bikes even stop war!
The economic arguments:
All the points above confirm that bikes are cheaper than cars:
- to build
- to run
- to dispose of
- to provide infrastructure for
- to deal with pollution
- to deal with congestion
- to pay for road trauma recovery
- to pay for obesity related illness
- to pay for acquiring fuel (wars, exploration etc)
I just don’t get how people could be against cycling!
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Bicycles are an 18th century technology. Cycling does not represent an efficient or effective way of moving goods and people around in today’s modern world. Unless of course we go back to 18th century standards of living and everybody (including cyclists) will have to do without their cafe lattes and SMEG ovens.
While Cycling may be the choice of transport for some, it will never be a substitute for cars, buses and trucks. Therefore we will always need roads. In a user pays world if cyclists use those roads they should help contribute for them as cyclists. This is regardless of whether they own a car.
The thing that amazes me the most about this debate is that it is all based on conjecture and opinion. There is no evidence that a $7.5 million capital expenditure for a cycleway is money well spent. There is no evidence that building cycleways relieves congestion or pollution (one more cyclist on the road or an additional cycle way may mean one or more less people on a bus or a train or fewer people car pooling). There is no evidence that there is a net health gain from cycling (what about the cost of injuries?).
A case in point is that my local city council have been putting in bike ways on existing roads for several months now. When I rang and enquired as to why they were doing this I spoke directly to one of the council’s traffic planners. She was very helpful.
She told me that the reason why the council was putting in cycle ways was “for traffic calming measures and health benefits”.
I then asked whether they have any evidence to suggest that cycle lanes were the best way to achieve the council’s objectives? The reponse I got was “the council did a survey and public consultation”.
I then asked who they surveyed and consulted with? The response? Cyclists…specifically the lycra bigrade
I then asked whether I could see the results of the councils’s research. I was told that hadn’t been made public. I must say this is good democratic government in action.
From where I stand, this debate is purely one sided. Unless there is some hard evidence, and by evidence I mean a rigourous cost benefit analsyis taking into account all the costs and benefits that arise from building a cycle way, we run the risk of inefficiently spending tax payers money simply to cater for a loud and organised minority.
Let me just say… that if someone can show me a credible cost-benefit study concluding that speding millions of dollars on a cycle way does reduce pollution, lowers health care costs, and reduces traffic congestion, I will be the first to say that I am wrong. My interest is purely one of good public policy, I have nothing against cyclists!!!
Maybe this is something that the NRMA could do.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
James says, “Bicycles are an 18th century technology.”
Walking is an even earlier technology, but we still do it and should do more of it. If you are truly looking to the future you will know that modern concepts in urban planning are recognising that cars are a no-win battle and that cities are more efficient and pleasant to live in when walking and cycling is encouraged.
James says, “In a user pays world if cyclists use those roads they should help contribute for them as cyclists.”
Are we really in a user pays world? Do you pay every time you walk on a pavement that has been built with tax-payers money? Do you pay the FULL COST of education, health care or water supply? No. You expect that your taxes will provide some basic level of amenity. Of course we should have good roads, public transport etc just as we should have safe options for cycling.
James says, “The thing that amazes me the most about this debate is that it is all based on conjecture and opinion.”
The statistics involved in proving any of these “opinions” is complex. In fact, with the huge number of factors and the long time-frames, “proving” anything is very difficult. It really just comes down to common sense. For example, if you think that the cost of bicycle injuries are in any way comparable to the cost of motor vehicle injuries then you are very lacking in common sense. How often do you hear about the “cycling death toll”? If any cyclist is killed, it is almost always by being hit by a car!
James says, “I have nothing against cyclists!!!”.
But you call them the “lycra brigade” and a “loud and organised minority”.
Cycling is not just for elite athletes or for lycra-clad speedsters. It is for everyone. I bought a bike 2 years ago and love riding to work. Fresh air, exercise and a nice feeling that you are doing the right thing.
As oil prices continue to reach record highs again and again, it is only a matter of time before we will be thankful for Sydney’s expanding cycle network.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:35 am
Thank you Tony A for your informative comments, you really offer invaluable insight into this important debate about how government’s and local councils should be using scarce and valuable resources.
I have done a 20 minute web search. The patchy data that is available shows that cyclists are over-represented in the road trauma statistics compared to their share of total trips. This suggests that cycling relative to private motor vehicle use imposes a cost burden on society as whole in the form of medical costs and the cost of life.
According to the Household Travel Survey 2000, conducted by the Transport Data Centre at Transport NSW:
- bicycle trips account for 0.5% of total trips during the week and 0.9% of trips on weekends.
- the average duration of bicycle trips during the week is 17 minutes and on the weekend it is about 23 minutes.
Based on this data one would expect that Cyclists would account for less than 1% of road deaths and hospitalisations. However according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau:
“cyclists account for around 2 per cent of road deaths and about 11 per cent of seriously injured each year.”
Hence, Cyclists are over represented in the road trauma statistics. To quote the ATSB:
“Cyclists have a higher representation among people seriously injured and killed. They accounted for 2.2 per cent of road deaths between 2000 and 2001 compared with 11.1 per cent of seriously injured. While there are more than seven times the number of pedestrians killed than cyclists each year, the number of seriously injured cyclists and pedestrians is similar.”
To compare these figures with motor vehicles, Private motor vehicle trips accounted for about 70% of total trips in Sydney in 2000. This does not include commercial related motor vehicle travel such as trucks, taxis and other related trips. This would suggest that cars should account for more than 70% of road deaths and injuries.
The ATSB report states that vehicle occupants accounted for 70.1% of deaths and 58.7% of injuries between 2000 and 2001. So cars and trucks are under-represented in the statistics.
The ATSB also states that:
“The overall community benefits gained from regular cycling are likely to outweigh the loss of life through cycling accidents”
However it is important to note that this is an assertion and that this statement is not based on any hard evidence. Furthermore, bicycles are not getting any safer. By comparison cars are becoming more technologically advanced every day… airbags, side impact protection, crumple zones, seat belts… need I go on.
The health benefits (or dis-benefits) of cycling is just one factor our policy makers should consider when looking at this important debate. Perhaps the most important is productivity issues which is driven by the value of time and the relative efficiency of the various transport mode
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
Ok, so you want to get into nitty-gritty detail about one point out of 20 points because you think this is one argument you can win with a few statistics. As usual, statistics can be used to prove many things if you don’t compare apples with apples.
Firstly, I hope you agree that general public health is improved if people exercise. Let’s just assume that exercise is good for humans (unless you want to find some stats that prove otherwise). So this is a positive thing about cycling.
On the point of road trauma stats, of course cyclists are over-represented. In any collision with a car, the cyclist will always come off second-best. If you want to get really ridiculous about this, why not compare collisions involving just a bicycle and car. Then you will reach the conclusion you want to reach. I can just imagine the stats…… “In 99 out of 100 collisions between a bicycle and a car, the car occupant suffers fewer injuries.”
I’m not arguing that cycling is safer for the cyclist, I’m arguing that there are far fewer deaths caused by the impact of a bicycle on another person/cyclist/car. If everyone were riding bikes, the death toll would be much lower.
Your arguments are like saying, “Driving a semi-trailer is safer than walking because the number of deaths of semi-trailer drivers per kilometre travelled is lower than that of pedestrians.” But James, if everyone was walking, there would be NO deaths at all because when two people crash into each other they don’t cause death! I’d hate to see what would happen if everyone were driving semi-trailers. Imagine peak hour. And parking the city would be a nightmare!
Do your statistics compare collisions involving ONLY cyclists to collisions involving ONLY motor vehicles? If they did, I’m sure that they would show that there are far fewer deaths INFLICTED by bicycles. This is an important point that I tried to make in my last post.
We could argue about every point to the smallest detail, but at the end of the day, people value different things in life. I know I won’t convince you to change your values no matter how many statistics I find in a Google search. At the end of the day, you like the comfort and convenience of driving a car just as I do on many occasions.
I’m just saying that there are valid reasons why cycling should be taken seriously as a mode of transport and that there should be some basic level of facilities provided. By the way, if you still have doubts that bicycles could ever be a serious mode of transport, bike sales in Australia for the past couple of years have been higher than car sales. So come on James, get yourself a bicycle. Cars are so last century!
May 24th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I found some statistics too! Just to show that it is easy to find things that support an argument.
I wanted to see whether cycling deaths were caused because cycling is inherently dangerous or whether cars and other motor vehicles played a significant role (as I suspected).
Australian Government - Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Circumstances of Cyclist Death, Australia, 1997-2004
Collision with:
- pedestrian = 1%
- pedal cycle or other non-motor vehicle = 0%
- car, pick-up, van etc = 64%
- heavy transport vehicle = 22%
- railway train or vehicle = 1%
- fixed or stationary object = 4%
Not a collision = 5%
Unknown = 3%
Wow! So, 86% of cyclists deaths are from collisions with cars and heavy transport vehicles! Only 6% of cyclists deaths involve a pedestrian, railway or a fixed or stationary object. Then the other 8% are not collisions or are unknown.
So if cyclists were totally separated from cars and heavy transport vehicles, then at least 86% of cyclist deaths would not have occurred. What a great argument for providing decent cycling infrastructure!
James, when you criticise cyclists for being a drain on our medical system, remember that 86% of the time a cyclist is killed, it was due to a collision with a motor vehicle. By complaining about the cost of cycling accidents you have really just reinforced the message that we need adequate infrastructure so that bikes can be separated from cars.
I’m not saying that cars were “at fault” for all these accidents because it is obvious that a large portion of these accidents would have been the cyclist’s fault. This just shows that providing safe bicycle facilities is critical.
Also, I do admit that there are still many injuries sustained from falling off bicycles and that these contribute to public health costs. To see the other side of this coin, lets look at some data from the ABS:
4719.0 - Overweight and Obesity in Adults, Australia, 2004-05
“Overweight and obesity have become a world-wide concern, reaching epidemic proportions. Excess body weight contributes to medical risk for conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, some cancers, high blood pressure and high cholesterol (WHO 2003). High body mass was responsible for 7.5% of the total burden of disease and injury in Australia in 2003 (AIHW 2007). It has been estimated that overweight and obesity and their associated illnesses cost Australian society and governments a total of $21 billion in 2005 (Access Economics 2006).”
21 billion dollars! That is 21000 million dollars in 1 year! It makes 7.4 million dollars spent on a cycle path seem pretty small…
A couple of other points:
1. How do people without a licence (such as people under 16 years) get around if there are no bicycle facilities? Get their parents to drive them everywhere?
2. Cyclists are usually motorists and they understand that bicycles are not suitable for transporting goods and travelling long distances (we are not stupid!). We don’t advocate abolishing cars and roads, we just think that using a bicycle is suitable for many trips.
3. In countries where cycling infrastructure is excellent (Netherlands, Denmark, Germany etc), cycling can make up as much as 30% of all trips! Australia is really lagging well behind at only around 1% of trips.
Do we want Australia to be full of cities like Los Angeles where freeways and carparks fill the landscape (and people are still sitting in traffic for hours each day) or do we want Australia to take a lead from many European cities that have vibrant cultural centres that are fueled by pedestrian and cycle-friendly streets?
May 25th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Given that most of the vehicles on the road are cars I am not surprised that most of the injuries to cyclists are because they collide with a motor vehicle. But as Tony correctly points out, this does not mean that drivers of cars are at fault. In fact there is often a presumption that the motorist is at fault.
If cyclists want to have a safer travelling environment, there are a number of choices for policy makers:
1. Cyclists can pay for separate cycle ways. This is no different from motorists having to pay for less congestion by paying a toll to travel on the Lane Cove Tunnel or the Cross City Tunnel.
2. There is a rethink the whole system of taxation when it comes to roads. I would recommend a move to a network wide congestion tax and abolish the tax on petrol which has been ineffective instrument for dealing with congestion and pollution. (BTW cyclists do not really contribute to congestion so they would not have to pay anything, unless of course they ride in packs and slow down traffic).
At the moment what is happening is that motorists are being charged tolls and petrol tax when cyclists who use the same roads do not. In fact in the case of Sydney’s recent toll roads the cost of cycle ways are being recouped from drivers in the form of higher tolls. This is despite the fact that many drivers who pay the tolls will never use the cycleway.
The system is currently punishing those people who pay for the infrastructure (i.e. motorists) and rewarding those who do not pay (i.e. cyclists). This is wrong and unfair.
Tony…
About your point regarding pedestrians, we all use walkways and footpaths and the majority of us pay taxes. We do not charge some pedestrians for using footpaths, while not charging others.
Also your statistics regarding the cost of obesity… does the Access Economics report say that: if everybody cycled there would be no obesity? Does it recommend that people should cycle more? Does it recommend building cycle ways?
What I want is an Australia where we have a sensible debate about how we pay for essential infrastructure. I want an Australia where our taxes allow everyone to be treated equally and give everybody a fair go… not just a loud, well organised minority.
May 25th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Taxes pay for a whole range of things that a particular individual may or may not use, but that are good for society. You can’t simply “opt out” of anything that doesn’t directly benefit you (although bike paths do actually benefit you by getting bicycles out of your way).
I’m not disabled, but my tax dollars pay for ramps and lifts for disabled people. I don’t smoke, but I’m sure my tax dollars go towards illnesses of those who do. I’m fit and healthy, but I’m sure my tax dollars get spent on those who are obese or unhealthy. And the list goes on….
This is what living in a community is all about.
James says, “I want an Australia where our taxes allow everyone to be treated equally and give everybody a fair go… not just a loud, well organised minority.”
Are you serious? I suppose you would have to ride a bike to know how difficult it is to get around without getting killed. Trust me, cyclists aren’t given the royal treatment in Australia.
Perhaps James statement should be, “I want an Australia where our taxes allow everyone to be treated equally (except for cyclists who aren’t allowed any facilities and better not get in my way on the roads)”.
I know that the government talks a lot about all the cycle paths they are creating and this must really annoy people who don’t want money spent on cycle paths. But most of these so-called cycle paths are actually just suburban roads with white bike outlines sprayed on the road and a sign saying “Watch for cyclists”. Or my personal favourite, the white line painted about 1m from the line of parked cars (so that it is impossible for the cyclist to avoid the doors of parked cars).
Thank God that paths like the Epping Rd Cycle Path and the Harbourlink project are being developed (see the following link http://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/www/html/5539-harbourlink-project.asp)
Even in these cases though, the paths are shared cycleway/footpaths. Surely this is a dilemma for James who says it is ok to fund pedestrian paths but not bike paths.
China has done very well with bicycle transport over the years. Just watch how the cities become clogged with congestion and pollution as everyone aspires to have their own car.
About the only argument that seems to be a definite win for cars is that they are faster. But in reality, cycling speeds are about 25-30km/h for an average cyclist on a road bike. Compare that to figures from the following article for cars in Sydney.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23645556-5013110,00.html
For example, during peak hours:
22km/h - Victoria Rd
25km/h - M4/Parramatta Rd/CityWest
In fact, at 8am in the morning, I could ride my bike from anywhere within 10km of the city to the city quicker than a car. It would just be nice if I didn’t have to fear for my life every time I did so.
May 26th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
From The American Public Health Association…
Extract…
“The European countries with the highest levels of walking and cycling have much lower rates of obesity, diabetes, and hypertension than the United States. The Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden, for example, have obesity rates only a third of the American rate, while Germany’s rate is only half as high. Moreover, the average healthy life expectancies in those 4 European countries are 2.5 to 4.4 years longer than in the United States, although their per capita health expenditures are only half those of the United States.”
Full article at:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1448001
Health expenditure is half!
Life expectancy is 2.5 - 4.4 years longer!
So James, where are the huge costs of cycling to the health budget?
I don’t think that there would be a single study that would even attempt to justify the position that the net cost of cycling (to the community or to the individual) is higher than driving.
How can you still defend your position James?
I’m sure you’ll try and say that not ALL of the lower health costs and lower obesity are from cycling. No-one ever said that ALL obesity-related illness would disappear if people cycled more. But it makes a huge positive impact. Isn’t that good enough James?
By the way, why is it always up to cyclists to defend cycling?
If you want to attack the use of cars, it is far easier:
- Cars use 100x more resources to build and result in 100x more waste material per vehicle than bikes.
- Cars use fuels that are in limited supply and bikes use no fuel.
- Cars require huge areas of land to be dedicated to freeways, roads, garages and car parks. Bikes require far less of all.
- Cars cause air pollution and noise pollution. Bikes cause none.
- Cars kill pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists. Bikes don’t tend to kill anyone except for the cyclist occasionally.
But cars are good for:
- comfort
- carrying capacity
- speed (where there is no traffic congestion)
- long distances
If I was going to start getting all annoyed about something, it would cars!
However, I don’t hate cars. I believe that there is a time and a place for cars, and a time and a place for bicycles…
May 26th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Tony… if you read through each of my comments my position is lets get all the facts on the table. Then lets weigh the pros and cons of spending millions of dollars of tax payers money on cycle ways. Economists call this a cost benefit analysis.
I have never said that cycling doesn’t decrease the incidence of obesity. I have never said that cycling didn’t have health benefits. What I said was that we should weigh up the costs and benefits.
This is what our policy makers should be doing.
The fact is many of our cycleways are being constructed as part of PPP road projects (i.e. toll roads). These roads are a user pays infratsucture. But they charge motorists and not cyclists… this is unfair. This is like the phone companies charging mobile phones subscribers for the cost of offering fixed phones. Or making Commonwealth Bank Customers pay the bank charges of Westpac customers.
Another fact is that the States cycleways are being underutilised. According the the NRMA only 25 cyclists use Epping Road each day. This makes the Epping Road cycle-way a very expensive piece of infrastructure.
Tony if you had to pay to use the Epping road cycle way Road would you still do it? Motorists choose to pay petrol tax to use their cars and they pay tolls when they use the cross city tunnel or the lane cove tunnel.
Tony obesity rates are lower in countries with lower standards of living and lower national incomes (i.e. the people are poorer). Urban planning has a big impact on obesity and health. Diet also has an important impact on health. Simply saying that a country with a high number of cyclists proves nothing. It simple proves a correlation but it does not prove a causal relationship.
I personally go to the gym and run on a treadmill… this keeps me healthy and prevents me from being obese. But I am not asking taxpayers to pay for my gym memebership. I am not asking those who choose to do other forms of exercise to pay for gym membership.
My questions are why can’t cyclists pay registration fees and user tolls to contribute to the huge costs of building infrastructure? Why can’t they be fined when they break the road rules? Why can’t cyclists be treated like everybody else who use the road? Why are cyclists so adverse to having to pay for the services that they use?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:15 am
James, there are thousands of studies done on the kinds of issues we are discussing. Just because you haven’t personally read them, don’t assume that policymakers, academics and others haven’t. Just because one town planner couldn’t answer your questions adequately, don’t assume that there aren’t people who do understand the issues.
You keep asking for the facts to be put on the table, but when I give you information, you just say anything to justify your position and ignore all the arguments that are irrefutable. You didn’t bother to defend cars against the issues I raised because you insist on ignoring the numerous drawbacks of cars.
The study I quoted on obesity used figures from the US compared to places with similar standards of living such as Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. This was no-doubt to try and remove some of the obvious factors James mentioned. We all know that diet AND exercise help to keep people trim. I’m sure that the academics who are writing papers on these subjects realise this too?
EVERYONE in academia and government is saying that our sedentary lifestyle is causing an obesity epidemic. Why do I have to spell it out any further?
I’ll put it simply… Exercise reduces obesity. Cycling is exercise. Therefore, cycling reduces obesity. And, daily cycling as a preferred mode of transport results in more exercise and therefore reduces obesity more.
I still don’t understand how anyone could argue about this?!
Many people have brought up bike registration as a way for bikes to pay their fair share. Can you imagine the cost of administering a system like this? Given that motorbikes pay $100pa in NSW and registration is based on vehicle weight (since heavier vehicles do more damage to roads), the fee for a bicycle would be very small ($10 or less if you were really being fair). Do all bikes pay it or just bikes that ride on roads? Or maybe just people over a certain age? What about skateboards, scooters or tricycles?
The headaches go on and on and the administration costs go up and up.
But that is not the only reason why charging cyclists is not worth it. At the end of the day, the government (and hence the taxpayer) subsidises activities that the government believes are better for society. This is why they subsidise public transport, build parks, pay for medicare, subsidise schooling. On the flip side, they discourage undesirable behaviour by taxing it.
In particular, governments supply ovals, parks and other recreational facilities as part of their obligations to the community. Isn’t a cycle path very similar to this but with the benefit that bike paths are also a very useful piece of infrastruture for doing productive things like commuting, shopping etc. All the benefits of a park and a road in one facility (that costs much less than a road). What a bargain!
By the way, the NRMA figure of 25 cyclists on the Epping Rd route was taken BEFORE the cycleway was built, so it can hardly be used as evidence that cycleways are not used. The NRMA has to learn how to use statistics appropriately.
Speaking of Epping Rd and the Lane Cove tunnel, the deal that the government makes with private companies to build toll roads includes more than just building the tunnel. It includes landscaping, bus interchanges, footpaths, cycleways and even choking surface roads to funnel cars into the toll roads (which many of us hate and which is the real reason Epping Rd is being narrowed, not because of the cycle path). Not all of these things are “user-pays”, but the government includes them in the contract as part of the government’s obligations to the community.
It is not as simple as James makes it out to be. Just because cyclists don’t put money in a slot every time they travel on the actual path doesn’t mean they don’t pay. Just one way cyclists pay is through income tax which actually funds roads more than petrol excise, tolls or registration.
Given that bicycles do far less damage to roads and require far cheaper paths than cars, cyclists actually subsidise motorists by paying more than their fair share of income taxes (even taking into account the couple of roads where the get a “free ride” as James put it).
Why are cyclists seen as free-riders? You have to look at the big picture which includes the long term environmental and health costs as well. This is why the government encourages cycling as a green, healthy mode of transport.
Of course cyclists should follow the laws and should be fined when they don’t. It disappoints me when I see cyclists do illegal things.
Also James, I thought time was so important to you that you HAD to drive a car instead of use a bike. Why do you waste time at the gym or on a treadmill? Just ride to work instead.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:34 am
I totally agree with Tony.
Cycling is an alternate means of transport, and increasingly the only reliable one available to me if I want to arrive at work on time.
People have a right to use the roads in whatever way they choose. We ALL pay for them not just the drivers. We pay when we buy food, we pay when we pay our taxes. We don’t split up the tax pool by individuals and only tax them for things they use because its a stupid, time wasting concept.
The people as whole all pay taxes to pay for the things the people as a whole need - such as infrastructure. I don’t go to school, but my taxes pay for that, do you see me whining?
I cycle to work three times a week. I pay income taxes, I pay council rates AND I pay registration for my car. I CHOOSE to use the infrastructure I’ve helped to pay for to cycle on rather than drive my car. Why should I pay again?
Infrastructure is not built for the sole purpose of cars and trucks and other petrol guzzling vehicles. Infrastructure is built by the government, using TAX payers money, to connect people, maybe you walk, maybe you drive, maybe you ride a horse or skateboard, and yes, maybe you cycle.
If you CHOOSE to drive, then yeah, you’ll pay for petrol and any associated taxes for you vehicle, if you CHOOSE to cycle then you pay for the food you eat to fuel your ride as well as all the associated taxes with the food, like GST and the costs of transport that already added in.
ALL people have a right to infrastructure. After all, we each pay taxes. I bet the same people whining about a cycle path also called council and complained about cyclists sharing the road with them.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Tony…. yes you have stated a few facts like there are lower obesity rates in countries that cycle more. Yes cycling is exercise. But what you haven’t done nor have any of the cycling community is establish a clear CAUSAL LINK between cycling and lower pollution, lower obestiy and lower congestion.
In the grand scheme of things cycling may have little impact on these things. For example if say 1 milion more people cycled every day to work… people may want work places to install showers at work… this may lead to more water use and electricity use (burning coal) so the environmnetal benefits may be somewhat offset. As for obesity… people may substitute cycling to work for other types of physical activity… so it may no effect on obesity. Do you see what I am saying…. we need a causal relationship. I don’t know what the net impact is but beforethe government spends millions of dollars of other peoples money they should do their homework.
Also you do not understand what PPPs are. They are private projects paid for by user charges. If the project includes a cycle way then that means the private business needs to charge a higher user charge as a result. Taxes have nothing to do with PPPs. It is motorists who use the road who pay. Not taxpayers and unfortunately not cyclists.
Go look at the taxation figures… look to see whether or not the petrol excise revenues exceed the cost of roads. According to the AAA 2008/09 budget submission, in 2007-08, revenue collected by the Federal Government from fuel excise is estimated to be $14.42 billion - yet Commonwealth expenditure on roads is estimated to be $3.41 billion. This expenditure is equivalent to revenue from only 9.02cpl of the 38.143cpl petroleum products excise. Income tax does not pay for roads…. fuel tax does and then there is about $11 billion left over to spent on other things.
Roads and motor vehicles result in a real benefit to everybody. According to a 2005 study by CEDA ” For every $1 invested, the economy reaps a return of up to $5″ In NZ it was estimated that for every dollar invested in the road network would return between $4.209 to $5.60. This means roads are good and they more than pay for themselves.
I don’t know of studies like this for cycleways…. some should be conducted. Lets have an informed debate….
May 27th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
James, you are right that people have showers after riding, but they do so after any exercise. So unless we believe that people should just not shower or just not exercise, then this is irrelevant.
As for obesity, the likelihood of everyone suddenly exercising for an hour each day is pretty small (if they did, they’d use more water and electricity right?!) Cycling is a way of building exercise into your daily life. You don’t need to get up early or stay back late to go to the gym and there is no feeling of “I should do this so that I stay fit”. It is enjoyable and time-efficient.
Of course the Australian Automotive Association would skew the costs and revenues in favour of automobiles. To see another take on the same data, see the Public Transport Users Association of Victoria page:
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml
They show the complete opposite story.
Like I’ve said in other posts, statistics can be used to prove many things if you include the right data. This is why our war of stats will not get us anywhere. You believe one thing and I believe another. It is easy to find stats that support either argument.
I’d prefer to rest on some emperical analysis (since stats can be skewed so easily).
If EVERYONE drove cars everywhere we would have:
- More congestion
- More air pollution
- More noise pollution
- More obesity
- More expensive road systems
- More deaths from accidents
- More landfill
- Move mining and habitat destruction
If EVERYONE road bikes everywhere we would have:
- Less congestion
- Less air pollution
- Less noise pollution
- Less obesity
- Less expensive roads
- Fewer deaths from accidents (maybe more bruises or broken arms though)
- Less landfill
- Less mining and habitat destruction
In my mind, these are facts. I know that James will need some study that proves an absolute causal relationship with no other correlating factors, but to me this is just obvious. All the stats confirm it, but James still says that these relationships COULD be due to something else and that we don’t have any real data! There ARE plenty of studies. There is a LOT of informed debate.
Here is just one carried out by Trafitec in Denmark (surely this is not as biased as a study by the Australian Automotive Association):
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/05/rewarding-cyclists.html
The study even states, “For every 1 krone spent, society would save 5 kroner.”. So there you go James, there ARE studies that say exactly the same about cycle paths as your studies show about roads.
James, why is all the evidence I’ve given so doubtful, but evidence from the Australian Automotive Association so believable?
Besides, I’ve never argued that roads are not useful. Proving that roads are useful and economically beneficial is a no-brainer. The economy definitely wins by being able to transport goods by road. I also drive a car and definitely benefit from its use.
Does the study prove that there is a benefit when an extra person decides to drive to work instead of cycle? This is really what we are talking about. Doesn’t that extra person actually descrease the efficiency of the road network for things like goods transportation?
Places like Copenhagen still have roads, but they don’t clog the inner city with cars. Especially for trips under 10km. The city streets are designed for walking and cycling as well as providing community and culture.
You can argue about stats until you are blue in the face. I just know that I’d prefer to live in Copenhagen than Los Angeles. We need to collect data and study it. But we also need to look at the big picture and use some common sense. Then we can actually have an informed debate.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Himan behaviour shows us that where people gain real value from something they are normally prepared to sacrifice something (or pay) for it… so if there is real value in cycling then people should be prepared pay to do it.
$7.5 million for 25 cyclists ad ay is a joke. It is bad policy and it is a waste of money. Cyclists should stop free-riding on the wallets of motorists.
Over and out!
May 27th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
If everyone thought like James, then cycle paths would indeed be a waste of money. While building cycle facilities is great, the hardest thing to do is to change people’s values. As can be seen from this thread, no matter what the evidence is to the contrary, people will still hang onto their value system. Therefore, it takes a long time to change the culture of a city.
In Sydney, we have a “car culture” which will take a long time to change. However, we have improving cycling infrastructure, great weather and a beautiful city to encourage us to get out there and experience all the pleasures of cycling. Maybe one day we will be listed with some of the top pedestrian/cycling cities in the world and benefit from all the things I’ve mentioned in previous posts!
“When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race.” — H.G. Wells
I’m with H.G. Wells on this one!
May 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
The figures quoted by the Australian Automobile Association are based on an accounting analysis of costs versus revenues in a given financial year period. This is a credible and consistent framework and is not biased or one-sided. It is the way your accountant would look at the issue.
By comparison the analysis by the Public Transport Users Association that Tony provides a link to is completely bias and is an incomplete analysis. The reason why is that it includes as costs a number of non-cash costs such as Noise, Climate Change, Urban air polution etc. These are negative externalities (which do have a cost) but if you include these externalities you should also include positive externatilites such as reduced travel times, economic benefits from facilating the efficienent movement of goods and services and productivity benfits. These are not included.
Also the inclusion of land use is simply wrong. Land is not a cost (in fact it can not be depreciated under taxation rules) it is an asset and it retains its value over time.
Also the analysis double counts the subsidies on petrol. On the revenue side they include “petrol and diesel excise net of rebates”. But on the cost side they also subtract the cost of any rebates and subsidies. This is double counting…
Also the cost of trauma includes many intangible costs which do not result in cash costs but instead refer to a reduction in the quality of life or the value attached to a loss of life.
An accurate analysis should compare like with like. The Australian Automobiles Association’s figures do this. It is a fair way of looking at the issue.
By comparison The Public Transport Users Association’s figures do not compare like with like. In fact its analysis is self servinge and incorrect.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:37 am
The AAA’s analysis does not show the complete picture when all they count is fuel excise and “cost of roads”. Which roads are they including anyway? Major highways, freeways, local roads?
COMMONWEALTH expenditure on roads is all that is included in the AAA numbers. Of course, local councils do not collect fuel excise, so where does their revenue come from to pay for local roads??
James, don’t pretend that the AAA study is perfect. It is not!
I’ll say it again for James…. STATISTICS ARE EASY TO MANIPULATE!!
Just as the AAA has a vested interest in showing automobile use to be a huge win for society, the study I quoted has an interest in taking the opposite position. Don’t try and prove this to me with fancy accounting terminology. You are just proving my point once again!
Stop getting so attached to small-picture concepts, like what an accounting standard defines as a cost or an asset. If the whole of Sydney was turned into one big car park, that would be a cost to society. Maybe your accounting book would still say, “oh, but the land is still an asset”. I think that everyone else would say, “This city is terrible”.
James, you keep missing the point entirely! You still haven’t addressed any of the real issues I’ve raised in my posts. If you can’t ackowledge anything I’ve said to be true and you just want to try and pick little holes in insignificant details, you will never see the other side of the story.
Remember…
If EVERYONE rode bikes where possible we would have:
- Less congestion
- Less air pollution
- Less noise pollution
- Less obesity
- Less expensive roads
- Fewer deaths from accidents (maybe more bruises or broken arms though)
- Less landfill
- Less mining and habitat destruction
And… I nicer city to live in.
That is a huge list of positive externalities.
Sure, we still need roads for goods transport and the many trips that can’t be made with bicycles. I’ve never said that we don’t need roads.
Open your mind just a little bit…
Stop looking at only the small-picture ideas…
Look at the big picture…