Cycling in Sydney Australia
This is the outcome of longterm efforts by a lot of cycling advocates, mostly amalgamated under We Ride. https://www.weride.org.au/
With the improving price and availability of home battery storage systems e.g. Tesla Powerwall, EVs will more popularly recharge at night from the home battery pack.
And the more batteries in the network, the more even and predictable the network will become.
zero emissions? tyres and brake pads contribute to overall vehicle emissions?
true and so often there was no safe and clear cycling opportunity.
Name your spot where you know it is just too hard for most people to take on a needed journey by bike. Typically because it's dominated by fast cars. My favourite example is the hill on Kurraba Rd just up from Clarke Rd to the Ben Boyd Rd junction. This bit of road pretty well must be ridden if you wish to traverse by bike from much of Cremorne, Neutral Bay, Kurraba Point Mosman to either Milsons Pt train, or the Harbour Bridge cycleway. Almost 100% of cyclists that ride that hill are TWM (thin white men), in the gear, on their road bikes. Most come down Wycombe and may be from much further away anyway.
The casual person that uses the Bourke St bike path, if they moved to this lower harbour area, would stop riding.
Blowing 40 mill on a single iconic project like the nearby SHB approach will do nothing for them. Yet tied Federal funding at the proposed level can get to these places and make them cyclable. It may take 10-20 years but until now there seemed to be no path ahead. It has needed to become a national policy all along. Then the activism at state and local level has a wick lit so will find it easier to get projects designed and built. 50/50 funding. The majority (not all) of local government has just ignored cycling.
For one, I don't want this to be spent on recreational bike paths. Let the tourism folk get their MTB parks done with Destination NSW money as they can now. I'm hoping the focus will be on kids riding to school and town centers plus main commuter routes. Normal people riding the normal places they go, from a young age.
(Reply to John Knight above).
John - agreed, a home storage system will solve the individual's power needs, and will 'smooth' the local distribution of a few dozen houses.. but the distribution network is not designed to handle distributed sources. It is designed around central power sources (stations) which control the grid frequency and voltage. Too much local power input from household solar will disrupt and damage the grid. There are already problems with local rooftop solar capacity generating over-voltage conditions, and conversely problems with streets with too many teslas trying to charge at once.
I'm not saying any of this stuff can't be solved, but it all adds to the overall cost, so just waving airily '50% cars electric' ignores the gory details and knock-on effects f quite significant infrastructure costs.
What we really need is a commitment from all three levels of government to permanently dedicate say 0.5% of road building funds to cycle way construction.
And to force cooperation between the three levels.
Half the problem, beside the money, is an almost total lack of coordination between the two or three or even four councils that major commute routes run through.
At a meeting with one of my local LGA's, I asked how they prioritize what's going to be built in the ensuing year. I suggested that there could be some sort of weighting for each project with the criteria covering things like connectivity, safety, likely usage, etc. They would not discuss how they decided what was to be done, nor would they consider something like a pre-determined weighted priorities list. Makes that end of the council smell of pork cooking!
While any bicycle riding is good (for individuals & community) there has to be a distinction between "recreational" and "transport" (for want of a better description) cycling infrastructure the latter increasing connectedness facilitating use as an actual alternative to driving. Also a lot of "cycling infrastructure" we get which is justified as improving safety actually has a primary purpose of improving traffic flow for motor vehicles by removing bicycles from the road, this should be counted as motor vehicle infrastructure rather than cycling. I dream of having usable shoulders on all higher speed country roads which is supposed to be the standard but rarely achieved when new and always deteriorates from there by neglect and cut price maintenance.
Also saw this, not surprising, yet more reason for seriously promoting active lifestyles rather than just making the "right" noises about it and pursuing policies promoting the opposite
The major cycling route on the North side is North Sydney to Macquarie Park - And it has had some major investment - there are many kms of pretty fantastic cycling infrastructure there - but it will never be a proper cycling superhighway until all the missing links are filled in. It is still largely disconnected and just disappears at various places along the way.
Bizarrely, from St Leonards shops to Mowbray Rd Artarmon, the Northbound lanes of the Pacific Highway are Lane Cove. The Southbound lanes are Willoughby. And you have North Sydney and Ryde Councils in there too.
We've had some small involvement with one Lane Cove Councillor who is interested and he did start up a cooperative group across Lane Cove, North Sydney and Willoughby Councils.
And then North Sydney Council at various times has been either very pro-cycling, or quite anti-cycling. Lace Cove rests on their laurels (don't give a rats arse) and say they have the best cycleway in Sydney (which the State Gov't fought for and built). Willoughby and Ryde ????
But it really is like pulling teeth until some proper direction is finally put in place.
there's also a failure of coordination between councils, RMS, State transit and other bodies who control various reserves and byways.
The World Health Organisation figure is 20%
$100 million for the initial discovery of where in the country the infrastructure is to be considered.
$100 million for the feasibility studies into the economic benefits of the investment that is under consideration.
$60 million for the administration of the tender process to build the infrastructure that is under consideration.
Infrastructure under consideration is to be shelved indefinitely due to a lack of funds.
You forgot about the 32million for a walking bridge across a hwy, perhaps ANZAC pde