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…

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.

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!

$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!

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.

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….

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.

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.

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?

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…