Following up on the weekend kybosh on the proposed bike lanes in St Kilda Rd by Tim Pallas, today's editorial in The Age quotes the Minister for Roads and Ports as saying
"My job … is to fix congestion, not to cause it," … Cars, he said, are "critically important for the liveability of the city".
To answer the rhetorical question — aren't bicycles also a critically important factor in this liveability? — in the affirmative, we return to Copenhagen. It is a smaller city than Melbourne and with less than half the population, but it has an international reputation as a bicycling city…Copenhagen's bicycle culture is surprisingly recent and not, like Amsterdam's, based on history. In the 1970s, bicycling in Copenhagen was at an all-time low. It has reached its present levels only through the combined efforts of government, local government, planners and engineers. Bicycle planning and funding is at the same level as public transport, and more than 32 per cent of the city's workers cycle to their jobs…
Melbourne could, with foresight, application and determination, become as bicycle-friendly as Copenhagen.
Now there are three traits that you don't find much in politics (unless you mean foresight as far as the next election, application to the task of getting re-elected, and determination to be more populist than the other guy). In other words, politically it'll take some extraordinary vision and leadership to complete a Copenhagen-like transformation on Melbourne.
Meanwhile, cyclists (in increasing numbers) will ride anyway.
Cycling is healthy, environmentally sound, practical and popular. It is in the interests of commonsense and the community to encourage rather than discourage. So why the long face, Minister? Mr Pallas, instead of putting the car before the bike, should re-evaluate the importance of the bicycle in the life of this city, as well as its potential to make Melbourne even more accessible, vibrant and liveable.
Wow, and all I was going to do today was post this photo of the Copenhagen-style lanes currently being installed on Swanston Street…
That's the east side of Swanston St, just north of Queensberry St, looking south.
I'm not entirely convinced by breezy comparisons between Copenhagen and Melbourne either. Not least of which is the difference in population and populations density. But I think Russ is onto something there: not just dropping Copenhagen's solutions down in Melbourne, but looking at the process they used to solve their problems.
I rode on the new bike lanes in Swanston Street and almost got killed by a car flying out of an apartment car park.
I'm not sure how safe these new bike lanes are. You have people getting out of the passenger side of cars to contend with. Pedestrians in general floating around. Cars sitting across the bikelanes before they turn, or simply treating the outermost edge of the bikelane as the edge of the street.
Just like the new tram stops where the bikelanes cut around off the road and onto the footpath- I'm not sure that the new bike lanes are safer for cyclists and pedestrians.
- There is the problem of driver familiarity. If the bikelanes only exist on one street in Melbourne, drivers will may not be aware of how riders use these facilities.
I'm not sure they're a good idea, or good use of resources.
The North end of swanston street is pretty safe for cycling anyway- the reason why is that thousands of people ride to Melbourne Uni- and as a result, drivers know that they will be likely to encounter riders in the Carlton, north carlton area.
I don't think removing cyclists from the road is the best option for enhancing safety in general.
Interesting. I love how people get so hung up on the Copenhagen thing. Has anyone ever been to Copenhagen and seen the complete mayhem on the roads there, even with dedicated cycle lanes? I've been to Copenhagen three or four times over the past 7 years and, as a pedestrian, I am always amazed to escape with my life: the number of near misses and sheer lunacy on two wheels has to be seen to be believed!!
That said, seeing the number of cyclists there is truly impressive and it always makes me smile. Aside from a lot of work by planners, government etc. I believe the popularity of cycling is largely due to the fact that Copenhagen is a relatively compact city, so it's easy to get from A to B. Melbourne, by comparison, is GIGANTIC. I guess what I am trying to say is that urban sprawl isn't always conducive to cycling... unless, of course, the facilities are there to make cycling a good option.Mind you, I've not lived in Melbourne, for more than a decade so I'm not really in a position to comment.
There was a really good video doing the rounds last year (I think it was Copenhagen - City of Cyclists) that showed much of what was going on with cycling facilities in that city. It featured interviews with cyclists, all of whom were generally positive about cycling in Copenhagen. And I can remember thinking at the time: where are the dissenting views? In a city the size of Copenhagen there must be some people who aren't totally enamoured of the priority given to cycling. So I share kimbofo's concern that people from other parts of the world blithely swallow the idea that Copenhagen is some kind of cycling utopia. I've never visited Copenhagen but while I'm sure cycling is great there, I'm also realistic enough to realise that there must be some problems that don't get as much attention as the famous separated lanes.
Which brings me to Timboy's comments. In my first substantial entry on Copenhagen-style lanes I questioned the wisdom and need for such lanes on this particular part of Swanston St. So I think we have similar views on the decision to allocate resources to this particular project.
Comments
Treadly, the main claims of that Age editorial are spurious. What Copenhagen considers their "low point in the mid-70s" was a 25-30% commuter cycling rate, 10 times what we have in Melbourne, and 5-6 times higher than Melbourne had in the 1950s. For various reasons they never lost their cycling culture, and worked hard to retain it - unlike other European cities - but the "gains" they've achieved are fairly small (a few percent mode share increase, not that we'd complain).
Similarly, while bicycle funding is matched to public transport by the City of Copenhagen, this is the same as saying the City of Melbourne funds cycling more than public transport. State funding for public transport and major roads is an order of magnitude higher than what the municipality gives to cycling infrastructure.
Not that we can't get something from Copenhagen. The most significant difference with Melbourne is the emphasis they have on local traffic impacts, and good urban design. And they have a cycling plan devoted to safety, perceptions and access - not infrastructure. Consideration of local outcomes, not city-wide processes, give them different solutions to similar problems. Unfortunately there is limited support for doing this at any level of government, and not much amongst the public either.