The current Draft Bicycle Strategy recently released by Council proposes to spend $2.4 million over the next few years. Whilst well written, the recommendations are extravagant, piecemeal and unjustifiable. . A thorough debate of the proposals must occur. Other considerations and priorities must also be examined, especially in light of a scarce Glen Eira budget and heavy borrowings. Any bicycle strategy must be viewed in the broadest context. The issue isn’t solely about bikes – it’s about Sustainable Transport as a whole. Cycling is only a very small part of a much larger issue and problem.
Here are the facts taken straight from the draft report and from enumerated ABS statistics of the 2001 and 2006 Census. Things to note are:
- An expected increase in cyclists of only 500 in the next 5 years
- The heavy reliance on both private cars and trains
- Cycling is only the 8th most popular activity in Glen Eira parks – walking the most popular
The most telling statistics however are listed below:
| On Road Traffic | Year 2001 | Year 2006 | % Increase | % Total Current | % Total Overall |
| Private-Car/Taxi | 35,542 | 36,531 | 2.60 | 93.01 | 73.56 |
| Private-Bikes | 740 | 1,009 | 0.71 | 2.57 | |
| Private-Trucks | 420 | 309 | -0.29 | 0.79 | |
| Public-Tram/Bus | 1,317 | 1,429 | 0.29 | 3.64 | |
| Total | 38,019 | 39,278 | 3.31 | 100.00 | 79.10 |
| Off Road Traffic | Year 2001 | Year 2006 | % Increase | % Total Current | |
| Private-Bicycles | Not Available | Not Available | |||
| Walks | 1,083 | 1,438 | 4.07 | 13.85 | |
| Public-Train | 7,645 | 8,943 | 14.87 | 86.15 | 18.01 |
| Total | 8,728 | 10,381 | 18.94 | 100.00 | 20.90 |
| Overall Total | 46,747 | 49,659 | 6.23 | 100.00 | |
| Population | 118,138 | 123,047 | 4.16 |
The other data of interest are key On Road results:
- About 16% cyclists go to work within Glen Eira;
- About 23% of Glen Eira cyclists go to Melbourne to work, but none are coming to Glen Eira;
- About 65% go to surrounding Councils or further;
- Only 19% cyclists from other Councils come to Glen Eira to work.
So what does this all mean?
Ratepayer and taxpayer dollars, in this case $2.4m, must have benefits that are worthwhile and seen to be worthwhile. The key benefits of cycling are in terms of environment i.e. reduction in carbon pollution, and health of cyclists. Let’s examine those 2 benefits in light of the figures provided. The fundamental basis for comparisons must be the increase of population, which for the statistical period covered was 4.16% i.e. 5,000 additional souls.
The on road bike increase (which includes motorcycles) is very small, just 0.7% with 250 more bikers. Say we double the increase of cyclists on the road for the next 10 years, which will cost nearly $500 per year per additional cyclist. This seems extravagant. Will it reduce carbon pollution in Glen Eira? NO. Not unless there is a decrease of cars on the road. The increase of cars on the road was 4 times greater than the increase of cyclists. Will the expense improve health of cyclists? Probably, but $240k per year expenditure can be used in many ways to improve both environment and the health of more than just 500 people. It is clear that there is no pre-condition in Glen Eira to have such a large expenditure for on the road cycling.
The outstanding result is the increase in Public Train patronage by nearly 15%. That contributes to reduced environment pollution and health of those using Public Transport. Unfortunately, even here the overall impact is not encouraging. The train benefits are mainly due to its off road advantages. The off-road traffic is only about 21%, whereas the on-road (mainly cars) is 79%. And the increase of train patronage is only slightly better than car increase. As long as there is an increase of cars on the roads the net benefit on environment and health will be negative.
Can Governments, particularly Glen Eira do something about the critical issue of cars on the roads? Let’s assume that we spend an equivalent $500 per additional person per year on improving environment and health. That amounts to $25 million just for Glen Eira. With 30 Councils in the metropolitan area that becomes a substantial sum. Regardless of the money available, the focus for measurably reducing the carbon pollution and improving health requires reducing on road traffic and pollution, increasing off-road traffic and actively shifting On-Road traffic to Off-Road traffic. Does the strategy address any of these issues? NO!
And how do you see this transport issue and how would you spend $500 per person per year in Glen Eira to improve environment and health?
Over to you.
Should Glen Eira Council establish a Sustainable Transport Strategy before or after spending money on bicycle road lanes?online survey
June 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM
I think an increase of 250 cyclists is pretty good given the terrible state of bicycle infrastructure in Glen Eira. Several “bike lanes” are currently less than 30cm wide which, in my opinion, is more dangerous than not having a bike lane at all. Would you feel comfortable if your children cycled on such a narrow bike lane?
The money spent on the strategy is not only for the new cyclists it would attract but also the selfless cyclists that suffer under such dangerous conditions on Glen Eira roads.
I’m not sure where you get the $500/cyclist figure. If we assume 500 additional cyclists in the next five years (say, 1000 in ten years – the stated duration of the strategy) then there will be about 2000 cyclists. Of the $2.4m for the strategy, this would represent $120 per cyclist per year.
I don’t think $2.4m over ten years is much. Especially compared with expenditure from surrounding councils which far exceeds this (Yarra 2010-2011 will spend $1.2M, Port Phillip 2009-2010 proposes $1.45M, Boroondara 2009-2010 proposed $520,000). Glen Eira has some serious catching up to do. Bicycle Victoria recommends councils spend $5/person on bicycling. This equates to about $645K/year for Glen Eira.
My main issue with your argument is that it is defeatist. Were you against installing ramps for wheelchair access to public buildings because there are such a small number of people who use wheelchairs? I’ll bet that the number of people using such buildings with wheelchairs was pretty low until the infrastructure was put in place to make it convenient.
I am staunchly in favour of better cycling infrastructure but I am not really a regular cyclist. I’ll become regular when I feel that I can be safe on the roads. I am not aware of any statistics that identify how many people are like me.
We need to spend the money on cycling first – then we’ll see an increase in the number of cyclists.
Good to see some discussion on the topic.
June 30, 2010 at 1:38 PM
I don’t think that the post is defeatist or lacking in sympathy for bicycle riders and the issues of safety. To my way of thinking, it’s all about cost effectiveness and the need to think and see the big picture. If people continue to depend on trains and private cars at the current rate, then congestion, pollution, bad tempers will only become worse. Reducing parts of Centre Road to single lanes as proposed in the strategy is madness leading to further congestion, slower car travel and hence, more pollution.
There needs to be a comprehensive policy (strategy) that looks at transport as a whole. Bicycles are merely a tiny component of transport in Glen Eira and from these figures will remain so for the forseeable future.
June 30, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Paul, If you take $2.5 million into 10 years that gives $250,000 per year. Divide that by 500 new cyclist, a very optimistic target, gives you the $500 per cyclist per year. If you do a financial analysis with 5% compound on borrowed money the result is even worse. However at issue is that this spend just does not do much for anybody. Where is the value for money here.
June 30, 2010 at 11:07 PM
Right, so it is $500 for every new cyclist. Nothing for existing cyclists?
Surely the aim is not just to encourage more people to cycle but to make our roads more safe for existing cyclists too.
June 30, 2010 at 11:30 PM
Surely you would like to see a big increase of cyclists. I do. So you should think in terms of that money devoted to getting as many of them as possible. The real problem with the strategy is that it ignores totally the Off Road possibilities. The figures are not even available. The whole effectiveness of this plan is undermined.
July 1, 2010 at 10:44 AM
“The real problem with the strategy is that it ignores totally the Off Road possibilities.”
What about:
01 Upgrade path at Allnutt Park
02 Continue the existing shared path, Caulfield Park, Caulfield North
08 Dandenong Railway line btwn Hughesdale and M’beena Stns
09 Dandenong Rail line: Caulfield to Murrumbeena
26 Boyd Park Path, Murrumbeena
55 Signage on Rosstown Rail Trail
Since Glen Eira has no rivers, mountains, beaches or other natural features that usually attract off-road paths, I think the strategy includes quite a lot. Also, building a new off-road path is a lot more expensive than painting a line on an existing road.
How much more off-road paths do you want?
July 1, 2010 at 5:11 PM
You have just answered my fundamental problem with this Report and lack of proper consideration of Off Road paths. There is nothing about Moorabbin to Caulfield rail line, which is our longest line with greatest number of residents living around it. Also nothing about Gardenvale to Ripponlea rail line paths. And how do the other bits fit into the overall picture. Do you know? Is the whole thing integrated properly? And will it lead to much greater utilization? Here is a quote of what a Bicycle Network Plan is supposed to do:
“The development of a bicycle friendly environment requires the provision of a well planned, integrated network of bicycle routes. The linking of bicycle lanes (on road) and paths (off road) with residential areas, shops, schools, workplaces and recreational reserves will improve the usability of the bicycle network.”
Does this Strategy do that? Do we have any figures to support that Glen Eira bicycle network utilization has grown and where the growth is? Surely, to have a well based decision on a bicycle network you want to know the traffic detail of roads and paths. Mayor Tang says that Glen Eira is growing in number of cyclists by 5% per year. I do not know what they do and cannot see them in Glen Eira going to shops, workplaces, or even schools or reserves. As for recreational reserves, we really have to consider what is better, walking for the greatest majority or cycling for a minority. May be we are able to satisfy both? Has anybody established the cycling traffic patterns in Glen Eira? Let’s have facts, than we can have a debate on what, why and how we could improve things.
I am not the only one critical of that Strategy. Rachel Mackay of Glen Eira Bicycle User Group thinks it’s a “token” strategy, which requires more focus on safety and education. The safety issue is at the heart of On Road-Of Road divide. Don’t you agree?
Let’s keep talking. I think we may have more in common than it first appears.
June 30, 2010 at 12:56 PM
I agree with the post that the focus should be on the On Road vs Off Road traffic. The problem in Glen Eira is that there is no Sustainable Transport Strategy to fit the Bicycle Strategy on to it. Other Councils have done that work already, so the bicycle network makes overall sense. For example, why should we not have an Off Road path through the Caulfield Racecourse. There was an access through that area many years ago. Now there is none. There are plenty other Off Road paths, which could/should be used for cyclists to go to work or school or uni or to enjoy for pleasure. This Report sounds like a ‘grab for money’ without knowing how it all fits into the transport situation in Glen Eira.
June 30, 2010 at 9:45 PM
As a GP with a strong interest in public health, I strongly support the bicycle strategy. $240,000 a year will encourage residents to ride more, and reduce traffic and emissions. Melbourne is a relatively flat city, and well suited to transform into a major cycling city such as Amsterdam. Car dependency is not only expensive and polluting, but also socially isolating and contributing to our record rates of obesity and diabetes. With good infrastructure cycling will increase considerably, and with it improve the health of Gle Eira residents. Glen Eira Council is to be commended for looking positively into the future, to improve the lives and the health of its residents.
June 30, 2010 at 10:53 PM
Agree wholeheartedly on ‘car dependency’ and the health issue. But Amsterdam is designed for walks and bikes, while Glen Eira is designed for cars. As a GP I am sure you could suggest more effective ways to use $500 per person per year than what is proposed. I’d rather put all this money directly into health promotion.
June 30, 2010 at 11:20 PM
I’m sorry but saying the bike strategy is about spending $500 on each new person to take up cycling is as ridiculous as saying that the millions spent on upkeep of the roads each year is entirely for the benefit of new drivers.
June 30, 2010 at 10:36 PM
If you want to set up a debate area on Glen Eira issues it would be useful to stick to the facts (NB it should be noted I drive to work). Here are some facts.
The $2.4M quoted is incorrect and is not over a few years – the actual figure is $2.1M and is over 10 years. The $2.1M is not council’s commitment – the strategy clearly states external funding will be available for projects related to Vicroads roads and the Principle Bike Network so the councils commitment is under $200k per annum.
With a population of 130,000 thats a massive commitment of $1.50 per person. Why are we even debating this? For my rates bill that’s a big $6 extra.
There are numerous other holes in the arguments provided and no real solutions offered. One thing you have got right is the need for an overall plan and walking, cycling and public transport are the answers – not cars
This website needs to get real and debate something of interest and based on some facts. If you think cancelling this is going to get Glen Eira better off, you’re mistaken.
June 30, 2010 at 11:14 PM
You are right on the figure of $2.1m with 60% to come from the Council according to Cr Pilling blogsite. It does not change much of the argument. But to suggest that this is not a real issue to debate is ‘suss’ as comments already expressed suggest. As you agreed let’s first have an overall transport plan and I am sure solutions can be found to satisfy bike riders to their and everybody else delight.
June 30, 2010 at 11:41 PM
OK so the figure is roughly $1.2M, if that’s the case I’ve overestimated the $6 of my rates bill – it’s actually $4. With a rates bill of $1800 per annum, I’m not going to miss $4 per annum. There are bigger issues than this – the pool complex is greater than $20M alone (though this may have changed with federal grants) and that’s not over 10 years.
June 30, 2010 at 11:22 PM
If you carefully read the final costings of the draft then you should see that the quoted figure of $2.4 million is in fact an underestimation. What the report doesn’t include (and should) is that the funding already gained has not been added on to the figures, yet included in the current budget. For example the opening item is the Bambra Road/Thomas St to Allnutt Park track. Funding was $140,000 from the Commonwealth, whilst the track is reported as costing $295,000. Then there’s the funding for Caulfield Park recently announced. But what we’re not told is how much this is costing ratepayers. Further, there is continual maintenance that is yet to be accounted for and included, as well as other incidentals. Given inflation, and other factors, your claim of only $2.1 million is nowhere near the mark. Besides, as a ratepayer my taxes also pay for the grants which are supposed to generate local employment. Wouldn’t it be nice to know how many LOCALS actually get the contracts?
June 30, 2010 at 11:47 PM
Don’t know which strategy you’re reading but it’s not the same as the one on the web site. I’m not sure where the continual maintenance comes from. With the exception of any off road tracks (which are minimal in the plan), on road lanes are on existing roads. The maintenance for these is already there – bike plan or no bike plan.
Not sure where you get the idea that locals only should be employed – this would be a very strange requirement and runs counter to running a competitive council.
June 30, 2010 at 10:41 PM
Don’t think bikes are the problem. Refer http://randomdude.com/images/car-bus-bike.jpg for a good example