Well, Victorians go to the polls this weekend and the campaign has the populace at a fever pitch of ennui. Quite frankly, I don't see why we don't save everyone the bloody hassle and just ask Antony Green what the electorate wants.
Anyway, I thought it would be mildly diverting to know where the parties stand on cycling for transport. What's in it for we utility cyclists? Bicycle Victoria has a bit of a summary of the two major parties with some good points that I hadn't noticed (like Ted's promise to lift the parking levy in the CBD). But I'm particularly curious to know to what degree cycling features in transport and other policies and party web sites in general.
So I thought I'd add to the stream of dross by doing a quick whip-around of party web sites. Duly armed with the Google search box, here's what I found…
Labor Party
The ALP has a number of transport policies, but they are distinctly lacking in anything concrete about cycling. Possibly they think they have established their pro-cycling credentials back in May when as the Government du jour they announced the Transport and Livability Statement.
A bit of poking around the web site finds a few bits and pieces on things like riding to school
As part of the 2006/07 Go for your life budget, $9.5 million is being invested in bicycle riding programs including Ride2School - a specific childrenís cycling program, which includes a 4,000 bike giveaway and $400,000 to build bike shelters at more than 40 schools. Schools will be selected based on having programs which encourage riding and walking to school, with a particular focus on schools in disadvantaged areas.
cycling infrastructure in the Eastern Suburbs
- Invest $800,000 to open the OíShannassy Aqueduct walking and cycling trail at Warburton.
- Invest at least $300,000 to develop a new bike path for Knox along the Corhanwarrabul Creek.
- Construct the Lilydale to Warburton Rail Trail Bridge over the Maroondah Highway in Lilydale.
- Improve the Warburton Rail Trail with $448,000 for a bike crossing.
- Re-establish the Nicholas Tan Track in the Dandenong Ranges National Park with a $150,000 investment at Kallista.
- Build a trail from Belgrave Station to the Lysterfield Park network of trails to make this major park more accessible from the north.
and Geelong
Labor will build onroad connections between the Barwon , Bay and Bellarine Rail Trails to the centre of Geelong. The Government has allocated $3.5 million from the Meeting our Transport Challenges funds for bike lanes to create on road connections between Geelong's three main recreational and commuter bike paths ñ
- The Bay trail along the Corio bay foreshore
- The bike paths along both sides of the Barwon River
- The Bellarine Rail trail which currently ends in East Geelong
The on road connections will ensure cyclists can safely access these off road paths and creates Geelongís own network of bike trails.
…and that's about it.
Liberal Party
The Alternative Government has transport policies—from which A Liberal government Plan to Improve Metropolitan and Country Roads and A Fairer Deal for Motorists seem to be of direct relevance. Not a mention of cycling in either (and it was probably the height of optimism to expect anything in that second one).
Further searching on their site finds that Ted is going to fix up a bike track along Mullum Mullum Creek:
Ms Wooldridge said she hoped Manningham City Council would match the project's funding, which would allow the completion of the last section of a bike track and pathway between Park Rd and EastLink.
and the Libs take a bit of a swipe at the Greens' transport policy:
The Greens' transport policy is incredibly narrow,Mr Davis said.
The policy includes an extensive section on cycling and walking, but absolutely no plan for country roads.
Is this because The Greens would like us all to abandon our cars and ride push bikes, walk everywhere or take public transport?
In country Victoria we do not have the luxury of choice, we depend on cars for transport.
Riding a bike every day is just not an option if you have to travel up to 100km to work.
And so onto the minor parties:
National Party
The Nats have a transport policy but it comes as no surprise that there's no mention of cycling in it (but it's highly amusing to find the promise Lowering the P1 driving age to 17
under the heading Improve the safety of roads and drivers
!)
I could find no mention of cycling in a transport context anywhere on the National Party web site.
Democrats
The Democrats' tranport policy is long on wholesome goodness, but short of detail:
Cycling and other transport modes
- Properly resource the State Principal Bicycle Network and develop a Bicycle Works Program, with projects prioritised and costed.
- Increase substantially both the number and the range of dedicated cycling tracks for greater safety and convenience.
- Improve on-road cycling designated lanes through widening, smooth surfaces, intersection continuity and European-style separation from other transport.
- Provide adequate tamper and weather-proof individual bicycle lockers and scooter parking facilities in safe, well-lit locations at all train stations and major transport nodes.
Not much else to be found on their site regarding cycling.
Greens
The Greens' transport policy is probably the most extensive with regard to utility cycling:
3.6.1. Ensuring adequate provision of bike parking and other cycling facilities in activity centres, new developments and at train stations.
3.6.2. Increasing the proportion and quality of road space allocated to walking, cycling and other mobility needs.
3.6.3. Completing the principal bicycle network by 2008, and the metropolitan trail network by 2010.
3.6.4. Expanding on-road bike lanes into activity centres, town centres and major educational institutions.
3.6.5. Improving the safety and locations of on-road bicycle lanes, and begin relocating lanes between footpaths and parked cars where feasible.
3.6.6. Installing more secure bicycle parking and lockers at train stations and major end-of-trip locations.
3.6.7. Requiring new commercial buildings to provide end-of-trip bicycle facilities.
3.6.8. Implementing pilot projects to improve bicycle-to-public transport connectivity, including bicycle carrying on public transport.
3.6.9. Developing a network of public pedestrian-priority streets which link railway stations to shops and other significant destinations.
3.6.10.Connecting schools with walking and cycling paths, and building more and safer routes to schools.
3.6.11.Requiring (and resourcing) local governments to incorporate walking, cycling and mobility plans into their integrated transport plans.
But again, not much beyond this on their web site.
And finally practically nothing from the alliterative minor minor parties:
People Power
People Power has policies but nothing on cycling either in their policies or on their web site.
Family First
Family First has policies but nothing on cycling either in their policies or on their web site.
Comments
"Is this because The Greens would like us all to abandon our cars and ride push bikes, walk everywhere or take public transport?"
Where practicable, yes. And it's not unreasonable.
It's fair criticism that the Greens don't seem to have a policy position on country roads. But it is totally illogical—and a fairly typical political trick—to link that criticism to the Greens' position on a cycling and other non-car transport options.
There's no doubt that Victorians who live outside Melbourne are generally more reliant on the car. But it's misleading to say that they "do not have the luxury of choice" and the conclusion that follows from that is that they must totally "depend on cars for transport" is also false.
The truth is that hundreds of thousands of country Victorians live in urban environments in places like Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong, Shepparton, Wodonga, and the Latrobe Valley. And in urban settings there is no need to make every journey by car. You don't need a car to take the kids to school, collect a handful of groceries from the shops, or even to get to work if your job is in town. In fact many people in regional cities would have a shorter bike commute than I have.
Maybe the Hon Philip Davis assumes that many Liberal and (more importantly) swinging voters think that cycling is some kind of "fringe" activity, so it's an easy free kick using it to beat-up on the Greens. Unfortunately, it's probably a valid assumption.
But it's not important. I mean, who the hell has even heard of Philip Davis, let alone cares what was attributed to him in some boilerplate press release from months ago? I only brought it up because it's one of the few references to cycling on the Liberal Party web site…
Here it always helps to read between the lines a little. As a life-long utility cyclist (i.e. I've never so much as driven a car in my life), I find most cycling "facilities" actually cause far more problems than they solve. Off-road bike paths are useless for anyone riding to an appointment with a deadline because of the slower speed. Not to mention promoting the "bikes as toys" attitude which sees cyclists being abused if they dare take to the road. Having had plenty of days where I have ridden over 100km purely for transport purposes, it's this that concerns me above all else.
Positioning bike lanes between footpaths and parked cars is a recipe for disaster when you consider that people will get out of their cars on that side without looking (yes, it happens on the other side too, but at least being on the traffic side gives me the space to avoid it). And where are you going to go when the bike lane is strewn with broken glass or other debris during Schoolies' week?
Most of this sounds like rhetoric aimed at making inexperienced cyclists feel safer, with nothing at all for those who ride everyday, which is fine until they discover the limitations of such infrastructure, at which point they'll probably ditch the bikes because of all the places they "can only get to by car". The simple fact is that when you try to combine cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, it's the interests of the cyclists that will always be compromised.
A far better option for anybody who actually cares about utility cycling is to work on the existing roads, and look to promote the idea that cyclists can go anywhere. Any party that promoted the idea of actually enforcing traffic laws would do far more for the cause of cyclists than all the above policies combined. Sadly, most of the above is the same old idea of building purely recreational facilities without any thought given to the different requirements of transportational cyclists.
I give a nod to everything Chris L says, although I'm not sure I agree entirely.
I think it's important to distinguish between end-of-trip facilities (e.g. secure bike parking, showers, lockers) and bitumen-on-the-ground cycling facilities. Few would argue against the former, but the latter will forever be up for grabs. (Actually, it's probably possible to extend Chris's argument to end-of-trip facilities: will people choose not to ride simply because they can't take a shower when they get there?)
In terms of off-road cycling facilities, this is an engineer's solution: build something then stand back and say "look at this good thing we've made especially for you". Sometimes that's the right thing to do, sometimes it's not but it's the solution a local council engineer (for example) will almost always recommend.
More subtle things—like constructing roads that are safer for all legal modes of transport and not just the automobile—are harder concepts to "sell" to the public consequently there are fewer political brownie points in them. (When was the last time you saw some notable dignitary cutting the ribbon on a traffic-calming device?)
So what we get is a procession of politicians saying to cyclists, "look at this bike path we're promising to make especially for you". It's an easy concept to sell and therefore an easy win.
That said, most of my commute is along shared pathways and I don't think it would be any faster for me to find an on-road route. Therefore I'm forced to conclude that shared pathways do have a role to play in cycling infrastructure. The trick is to work out in what way and to what degree.
I have no problem at all with end-of-trip facilities (although i've learned to live without them), and in general terms, I don't have a problem with off-road facilities either. Where it becomes a problem, is when these facilities are accompanied by an expectation that cyclists must use them. The simple fact is that if I relied solely on them in this city, I wouldn't have access to very many areas that I need to visit. Yet I've lost count of the number of times I've been berated by so-called cycling "advocates" for simply pointing this out.
It's not usual for me to ride from the Gold Coast to Brisbane (the rough equivalent of riding from Geelong to Melbourne) for pure utility purposes. If I'm doing that with a deadline, I want a direct route, the same as I would if I was driving a car. If you're going to try to compel me to use an indirect route (which is what many off-road paths are, if they connect at all), then I'm going to find another transport option.
The social compulsion to use those facilities simply follows from the "engineer's solution" approach that I mentioned above. It goes like this: "tax-payer/rate-payer dollars have been used to provide these facilities especially for you, now use them or else."
You can't win against this sort of logic. Because there are "special" facilities for cyclists, we're told to "get on the bike path" regardless of whether it follows a route that we want to take. The flip side is that non-cyclists object when cycling facilities are proposed because there are already "special" facilities for cyclists, regardless of where they are. (See the Wantirna Rd objections for a classic example of this kind of nonsense.)
I think I might start telling motorists to "get on the freeway" because those are "special" roads built just for them—and surely it won't matter if takes them the long way around…