Can cycling benifit from Tony Abbott's direct action plan?

So I heard in the news, that the way this supposed scheme will work is like an auction, who can get the biggest CO2 reduction for the lowest price.

Compared to say roads, bike paths are dirt cheap, and bike produce no net CO2, where as cars produce a huge amount.

So if we built a bike path for $X, and thus removed Y cars off the road, we'd have reduced Z tonnes of CO2.

Anybody have any idea what the above numbers would be, and what other projects would typically be talking about?

I assume councils would use this to fund the paths, or could an independent organisation get the funding then build the path without council?

Views: 451

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So if we built a bike path for $X, and thus removed Y cars off the road...

On its own, building a bike path is unlikely to affect the number of cars on the road, even if the bike path was very well used. If you want to remove cars from the road you need to reduce the amount of road space given to cars, and also the amount of green light time they're given through intersections.

So yes, build a bike path, but make sure it takes away space and time from cars.

I never said direct action was a good way of dealing with climate change, or anything for that matter, just that we may be able to exploit it. Can't leave all the money to big business now can we.

If someone is riding a bike, then they can't be driving a car, so there is an impact on car numbers. Again though, I'm wondering if we can come up with a case for getting dollars. Even if it doesn't take cars off the road, but prevents or slows the growth that would have occurred had nothing been done, that is still a CO2 reduction that could be claimed.

If someone is riding a bike, then they can't be driving a car, so there is an impact on car numbers.

This is the part I think is wrong. The demand for travel is not fixed - it changes as the supply of travel infrastructure goes up and down. Building a bike path is likely to increase bike travel and leave car travel unaffected, ie, the total amount of travel increases.

Even if you "take one car off the road" there's a lot of unmet demand for driving on uncongested roads that is ready to fill that gap.

To reduce driving we need fewer lanes dedicated to motor vehicle traffic and/or implement road user fees. Creating alternatives (bike paths, public transport etc.) is necessary, but not sufficient.

Agree with Colin's comments but there is, for the example, the Sydney Harbour Bridge cycleway (the mostly heavily used cycleway in NSW) where in excess of 800 cyclists an hour ride across the bridge during the morning peak. Enhanced access (HarbourLink ... www.sydneyharbourlink.com) by providing ramped access and elevated structures would increase these numbers.  Unfortunately in the current political climate (including shock-jocks, a former CoS councillor, etc.) won't allow road space to be re-allocated. 

An efficient car would generate around 150gm of CO2/km. So to save 1 tonne of CO2 equivalents you would need to replace your car use to the tune of around 6000km.

If you did this on the rejected carbon tax you would save $23. Or about $0.003 / km / person.

Shows how cheap the carbon tax  price was and how much petrol and coal is currently being emitted!

 

Tony Abbott's direct action plan is specifically talored to give his mates money.  So unless Tony Abbott's mates are in the bike infrastructure business then there is little chance here.

"Nothing says progress like big roads" said our brainless leader.

Just because he rides a bike doesn't mean he has a clue about providing for them or even any desire to do it.

Pandering to the mates is the game, as Human says.

You gotta laugh how despite his pugnacious reputation Abbott is so conscious of ideological purity (cos cycling is associated with "the Left" y'know) that he refuses to promote cycling in any way, shape or form,
unless you count exhibitionist appearances at charity events.

I guess there is the added benefit that it's hard to be exposed as an economic/scientific/public policy lightweight while you're pedalling.

I wonder whether his attitude would change if he had to put up with the tin pushers the same way that we do!  Having a couple of AFP boys riding shotgun sure makes him impregnable, or will the Terror start talking about the threat of bomb carrying, burqa and Manly jumper wearing, speeding cyclists without helmets trying to get close to help him see the light!

BTW, the Sun-Herald had a great cartoon on the shining lights around the place and how they appear as a beacon on the hill.  Sadly there was no light on in the PM's office nor his brain.  Unfortunately I can't get a copy of it to post.  It was well done.

I wonder whether his attitude would change if he had to put up with the tin pushers the same way that we do! Having a couple of AFP boys riding shotgun sure makes him impregnable

I imagine he's spent much of his life riding without AFP protection. The problem is more that his cycling is purely recreational and so he is unlikely to have any affinity with cycling as a transport solution relative to other forms of transport. In Abbott's mind, giving money to cycling would be like a golf-mad PM giving money to golfers, and he's smart enough to know how bad that would look.

You're probably right!

I remember Tone saying that shoulders on high speed roads were sufficient infrastructure.

He is a disutility cyclist.

RSS

© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service