a news article that is for bikepaths

[jasonc]

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/how-a-bike-track-was-considered-bad-for-the-environment-20121218-2bl2f.html

yes, it's an opinion piece, but it still counts

[g-boaf]

Yeah it does count - and I have to agree with the comment on dogs being more harmful to the wildlife than bikes. I love dogs and cats, but I've also seen what they can do to wildlife in my previous employment, and it's not nice. Seeing wallabies that have been mauled to death by a domestic dog which was let loose is horrible.

So a good victory, but 17 years for 1.8km is a bit sad, isn't it? That should have happened much more quickly and in future authorities could do well to ensure that these kinds of things don't turn bureaucratic. Bike tracks that are linked together and like the one in the photograph (ie, not crumbling footpaths) are a huge benefit to the community. They get people out of their cars and encourage a healthy lifestyle.

These sorts of things shouldn't be held up by environmental legislation unless there is clearly some kind of "endangered" or "critically endangered" flora or fauna in the area that will very clearly be seriously impacted by the bike path (in NSW, such things could be determined from the schedules of the TSC Act 1995). And even then that should be balanced against the need for this kind of infrastructure.

The point in the article is clear, the motorways get built because there are millions of cars that depend on them, so there is a very big amount of backing behind these motorways that gets them over the line, while bike tracks are not considered important. It's a sad situation.

In Sydney, it could be said we've got a complete network of bicycle tracks already, so we don't need to do any more. But some councils seem to think more can be done to make the 'network' better, and I agree, even though some cyclists and other community members disagree.

[lump_a_charcoal]

They had me until the 7th paragraph.

[il padrone]

The good residents of Kew really need to read "Car Wars" and get a big picture view of the dramatic changes that the motor car has reaped on our society, culture, environment and economy. Then decide what really constitutes an environmental threat.

[m@]

They had me until the 7th paragraph.

Same; I seriously doubt that it was genuine environmental concern that led to the appeals; just a stalling tactic from NIMBY locals (which the author seemed to acknowledge before he started ranting about wind farms and Orange-Bellied Parrots).

[jasonc]

They had me until the 7th paragraph.

Same; I seriously doubt that it was genuine environmental concern that led to the appeals; just a stalling tactic from NIMBY locals (which the author seemed to acknowledge before he started ranting about wind farms and Orange-Bellied Parrots).

+1. we're all selfish. we want better faster longer more bikepaths. these "environmental crusaders" want to be able to walk their dog/play with their kids in their own private park. has to be a political marginal seat for them to get away with it for that long. the needs of a few vs the needs of many. we're having the same issue south-west of brisbane at the moment. the lnp government have scrapped a 7million bike way to a suburban area to spend 100million adding another lane. there's only so much bitumen you can lay down....

[il padrone]

Same; I seriously doubt that it was genuine environmental concern that led to the appeals; just a stalling tactic from NIMBY locals (which the author seemed to acknowledge before he started ranting about wind farms and Orange-Bellied Parrots).

Nor is that complaint any sort of environmental issue, but a beat-up instead

[Ozkaban]

love this line

..the tracks that are painted on bitumen roads that can annoy motorists when they have bikes in them and even more when they do not.

How ridiculously true...

[m@]

+1. we're all selfish. we want better faster longer more bikepaths. these "environmental crusaders" want to be able to walk their dog/play with their kids in their own private park. has to be a political marginal seat for them to get away with it for that long. the needs of a few vs the needs of many. we're having the same issue south-west of brisbane at the moment. the lnp government have scrapped a 7million bike way to a suburban area to spend 100million adding another lane. there's only so much bitumen you can lay down....

Yep, ref: also the "proposed" Battery Point walkway/cycle path in Hobart; a few wealthy property owners have held this up for years, if not decades. Many of them have actually built illegal fences across public land to block access and the proposed route was re-routed around Bob Clifford's place to avoid an unapproved slipyard, again built on a public easement!

[marty_one]

I think that the real issue here is that cycling infrastructure is not made to be part of any new road/rail investments. If it is built at the same time as the project then we would have some seriously good ways of getting around and not being on the main roads.

The flip side of this is that even though bike tracks are a good way of getting around there are a lot of non-cyclists that also use these tracks, people walking their dog, going for walks and running as well as families out for a ride. Unfortunately there are some out there that travel very fast and are very obnoxious when dealing with other track users and vice versa.

I thought that the article itself was quiet good although very skewed towards a cyclist point of view. I do have an issue with the environmental impact being used as an excuse:

I was ready to give up when I read that the scheme was a threat to the environment because three trees were to be cut down on the Yarra bank to make way for a bike bridge.

are you serious? near where I live group of model aircraft enthusists basically had their airfield (which they had been allowed to by council to occupy for the last 20 years) relocated for a new sports stadium. All they wanted to do was change the proposed location of the airstrip for their rc planes so that there was enough space to take off and land safely. In order for that to happen they had to remove five trees (yes five tress out of the 50+ around there) but the request was denied because there was some birds living there.

The best part though for me was the set back to the residents:

They suffered a setback when a consultant's report found that their dogs were more threatening to the native wildlife in the billabong than bikes.

In my area (foothills of mt dandenong) there is a curfew for cats (they have to be indoors after 10pm) and dogs must be on lead at all times and in a secure area. IE: properly fenced off back yard. I just wish that people would step back from the situation a lot more and look at the bigger picture. Removing a tree here or there should not be an issue as long as each tree removed a new one is planted to replace it, is not a big deal or even a small deal, its a non issue.

[Mod edit—language]

[Red Rider]

I think that the real issue here is that cycling infrastructure is not made to be part of any new road/rail investments. If it is built at the same time as the project then we would have some seriously good ways of getting around and not being on the main roads.

In WA there is a rule that if a major road/rail is built, bike infrastructure must also be built. This is due to simple economics; it costs 10 times more to retrofit cycling infrastructure than if it is built at the same time as the road is.

[marty_one]

In WA there is a rule that if a major road/rail is built, bike infrastructure must also be built. This is due to simple economics; it costs 10 times more to retrofit cycling infrastructure than if it is built at the same time as the road is.

You mean there is some parts of the government that actually think logically! As far as I know the only time this has partially happened in victoria is when eastlink was built. It was still kind of an afterthought but they built a new bike track that almost ran along it and almost for the full length, they stopped at the land which melbourne water owns, but im sure they could of easily negiotiated with melbourne water and paved all the way down into patterson lakes/carrum where the track ends.

There are some bike tracks that do follow along the train lines here but not as far as they should.

[g-boaf]

I think that the real issue here is that cycling infrastructure is not made to be part of any new road/rail investments. If it is built at the same time as the project then we would have some seriously good ways of getting around and not being on the main roads.

In WA there is a rule that if a major road/rail is built, bike infrastructure must also be built. This is due to simple economics; it costs 10 times more to retrofit cycling infrastructure than if it is built at the same time as the road is.

I think that is here in NSW as well, hence the frankly awesome M7 "shared path" (more like purpose built cycling speedway!!!) However in Sydney, most of motorways are built and certainly, we won't be getting any new rail lines in the near future - so the chances of more cycling paths built in that manner are fairly slim (although M4 has one alongside parts of it, and the breakdown lane if you consider it a cycling track). Most railway lines do have enough room around them to allow cycling tracks to be in the area outside the fence.

However it's so slow to get anything done in this state that most major projects drag on. We need a dictatorship - just so long as I'm the leader.

[lump_a_charcoal]

We need a cyclists party in Government.

[greyhoundtom]

We need a cyclists party in Government.

I think we may need a few more bums on bike seats before we can swing that one..........nice thought all the same.