Cycling in Sydney Australia
Bourke St Cycle Path Meeting
I attended the Bourke St Cycleway Meeting tonight. Just thought I'd give a status report.
They had a whole bunch of speeches from people for and against the cycle path (limited to 3 minutes each). Basically, everyone who was against the plan was a resident and the people in favour of the path were cyclists. There were a few local residents that spoke up in favour and a couple of people representing organisations (such as Alex Unwin from BNSW) who spoke up in favour also.
Most of the objections were pretty ridiculous. Of course, a loss of parking was a huge issue. Pedestrian safety was rolled out as usual. Also, the loss of trees (5 trees over 4 kms) was raised. The councillors acknowledged that these concerns have all been taken into consideration.
A couple of councillors spoke at the end, with 3 of them very much in favour and one saying that she wanted more community consultation. Generally it seems that the councillors were quite resolute about moving forward with the plan for the path. They are having a meeting to decide on the next step on Monday, so we should keep our eye out for the result of that meeting.
http://cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/AboutSydney/ParkingAndTransport/Cycl...
They had a whole bunch of speeches from people for and against the cycle path (limited to 3 minutes each). Basically, everyone who was against the plan was a resident and the people in favour of the path were cyclists. There were a few local residents that spoke up in favour and a couple of people representing organisations (such as Alex Unwin from BNSW) who spoke up in favour also.
Most of the objections were pretty ridiculous. Of course, a loss of parking was a huge issue. Pedestrian safety was rolled out as usual. Also, the loss of trees (5 trees over 4 kms) was raised. The councillors acknowledged that these concerns have all been taken into consideration.
A couple of councillors spoke at the end, with 3 of them very much in favour and one saying that she wanted more community consultation. Generally it seems that the councillors were quite resolute about moving forward with the plan for the path. They are having a meeting to decide on the next step on Monday, so we should keep our eye out for the result of that meeting.
http://cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/AboutSydney/ParkingAndTransport/Cycl...
Tags: bourke, cycleway, pedestrian
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew on -
i took a few phone calls from residence early on, when it all came down to their problems (they all started with trees and safety) it was really car parking, they all believed they owned a spot outside their house
-
Permalink Reply by Paul on -
Let's just hope that objections about losing "their parking" are given no consideration then.
-
Permalink Reply by weiyun on -
That's inappropriate. This is just the same "shove it" mentality of some motorists have towards cyclists. By positively address local residents' legitimate concerns, we'll have a much easier time in pushing through our agenda. Getting local residents off-side would just land us with glass strewn bike lanes in front of their houses.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul on
-
Not really. My point was that a complaint about "their parking" should be looked at from the point of view that it is a public street. Not that it would really help because it is exactly this sort of NIMBY behaviour that saw the Shrimptons Creek Cyclepath get diverted around a perfectly usable Sydney Water easement. The fact the residents were using public land as their own private backyard was not mentioned by the residents when they objected. Instead, they objected on the grounds of "security" and "noise". Truth is, they just wanted a place to keep their trampolines.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony A on -
From what I've heard from the people I know involved in Local Council, half the time spent addressing community concerns is spent addressing the issue of on-street car parking. It is just one more example of how public space is privatised so that the road space is no longer a right of way to be enjoyed by all. It becomes MY parking space (on public land).
Here is Japan's solution to the problem:
Parking Space Certificate
In order to own a car in Japan, you must show proof that you have a parking space. This parking certificate is called shako shoumei (車庫 証明） This is a way that the government can restrict the number of cars on the roads of an already crowded Japan. Your parking space may be at your home or at a garage or parking space within a certain distance of where you live. You must register the garage or parking space at the police station where you you live. You will be given a "Automobile Storage Sticker" and it is to be placed on the rear window of your car.
While I agree that the concerns of local residents have to be carefully considered, I also have seen plenty of examples of NIMYism that get in the way of developments that would benefit everyone.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul on
-
Yes, and the local police actually come to your house and physically sight that the parking space exists. We had to go through this with our car when I was living in Japan.
Thankfully in Japan we didn't need to use the car a whole lot. After my dad took us on a trip to Mt Fuji one day, we got stuck in a traffic jam for six hours. That was the last time we used the car for such trips.
In Tokyo there is not much excuse for avoiding the trains. They are super efficient and go pretty much everywhere. Most places you need to visit are within walking distance of at least one train line.
-
Permalink Reply by yogi on -
Thanks for the report.
Will cyclists be able to ride faster than 22 km/h in the lanes? Some of Bourke St is 40 km/h (more if you pedal a bit).
THAT is as fast as some of the cars between speed humps...
design is important here.. not all cyclists will want to roll slow ... in between dividers that separate lanes. (I could be wrong about design)
-
Permalink Reply by Doddsy on -
Nice work Tony.
Did anyone manage to address and dismiss the Pedestrian argument?
You know like saying something like "last year in New South Wales motor vehicles in killed 68 pedestrians - 82 if you include cyclists, yet cyclists did not kill any pedestrians. The streets will be safer both for pedestrians and cyclists, especially with the removal of door zones."
Sounds pretty positive.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony A on
-
Unfortunately, everyone just got up and had their rant, then the councillors said a few words. Throughout the stupid rants from residents I had exactly the types of things you've mentioned in my head, but there was no opportunity for anyone other than councillors to provide a voice of reason.
Besides, the residents don't want to hear sensible reasoning. They would just jeer and cough as though they don't believe a word of it. Good thing is, we have some visionary people on the CoS council (as far as I could tell) and they are determined to make things happen. Lets hope they are in power for long enough to get stuff done.
-
Permalink Reply by sara P T on -
Hi Tony
I'm Sara P, I study journalism at UTS and I'm writing an aritcle about THE CYCLEPATH NETWORK PROJECT IN THE CITY AREA. I live in darlinghurt.....What is you general opinion on this subject, and Do you know anyone that is against it that I could get in touch with???
I JUST NEED DIFFERENT OPINION SO THAT MY ARTICLE IS BALANCED......\
thanks very much
© 2010 Created by DamianM
