Suspect this is the sum total of what it has to offer on cycling:
from p316 (Chapter 9). Out of 366 pages, this is
all they could offer for cycling.
The other 365 pages is pie-in-the-sky dreaming from people who haven't a clue
about sustainable futures and think that tolls will answer every call.
Building tollways for the wealthy to get to their work/business is apparently
a vote winner. Wonder how long it will take them to figure out their workers
won't have the money to get there to staff the place ? Or are they just
going to dump a few containers out the back for them to live in -running
water, sewage etc.,. optional, but plentiful cheap grog to keep them thinking
they're happy ?
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
Izzit related to this article?
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/transport-pla ... 25bkn.html
One of the comments was spot on: plan - funding = no plan at all.
MY RIDES: My Velospace Profile
I see there is a bio of Les Wielinga on there. He recently resigned from the Infrastructure NSW board as they seemed to have conflicting ideas compared to Transport for NSW. So even at the very top there is disagreement re the direction and plan for infrastructure in the state. At least Clover Moore got some bike lanes in as I think it could be some time before we see any new cycling infrastructure.
It seems that the SMH is realising that more roads will not equal less congestion
solving the gridlock: more roads
I think it was Mulger Bill who put it most poignently along the lines of combating congestion by building more roads is like tackling obesity by buying a bigger belt.
. . . . . . .
I have a feeling most of this won't happen at all. There is no money, the government is scared about doing anything other than bashing up the Public Service. That's the only thing that wins it kudos, regardless of actual realities on adequate staff levels for proper service delivery.
So yeah, I don't feel very confident about any of this. And if Clover loses out, those bike lanes are going to be gone.
Long term is a synonym sometimes for "lofty ambitions that will never go anywhere".
Will it be as long-term as the VFT project?
Wish I could claim authorship over it Read it somewhere and loved it. My googlefu deserts me every time I try to find the original
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
I certainly hope there is a second rail crossing of the harbour, and it needs to be built to take full size trains (possibly even HST) rather than metros, just to cater for the future. I used to work up on the North side of Sydney and lost count of the number of times I was stranded in the stinking heat at North Sydney station in a silver heat-box because something happened in the tunnels.
I also see there is a bus interchange plan being proposed to limit the number of buses in the city. That's a reasonable idea but it might struggle if the passenger loads are high. Already people complain about being left behind because the buses are already full.
What they really mean:
•• We'll make a website
•• We'll get a consultant to write a project plan and infrastructure guide
•• We'll buy more shipping containers to install at railway stations in Sydney
•• We'll give the project plan and infrastructure guide to local government and ask them to do something with it
•• As above with different wording to make it seem like we a doing more
•• Tacked on to the end because no-one wants to make regional centres feel left out even though they are
Ours is not to reason why...merely to point and giggle
If we build more roads we just get more cars.
Do electric bikes or folding bikes on trains and buses have much role to play or am I just talking crap?
Motorists hate cyclists and cyclists hate the motorists and the pedestrians hate the bikers and everybody hates the trucks.
The latest announcement is based around extending from Strathfield to Camperdown by digging up paramatta rd and sinking it. Then turns, tunnels and ends up at the Airport. Some of the existing motorway infrastructure gets extra lanes. All part of a master plan that links up all of the existing motorways by about 2030. The bulk of the funding is tolls, but there's still significant govt funding.
Railways are pretty much ignored, the big looser being the exclusion of a second harbor bridge crossing
There's a small mention of bicycles somewhere, states there's an opportunity to put in some bike paths.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?
I'm fortunate enough to have worked on the masterplan for the sydney road network about 8 years ago. I'm also fortunate enough to say that these plans are almost identical to the ones rolled out recently, quite possibly they will be the same in another 8 years
The gap between money they need and the money they have is quite large still!
n=10 (2013 & 2004 roads,2010 track,2x 2009 foldups,1990 hybrid,1992 trainer,2007 rental,1970's step through,1980's zeus)
LOL you had me at NSW and plan in the same sentence!!!! You guys!
NSW, backwards and transport is more suitable to the BS that is going on at the moment.
Very sad indeed, pander to the lowest common denominator.
I listened to ABC radio a few days ago when the head bureaucrat of the Transport Plan was interviewed and they had some questions from an academic for him. She pointed out that building more roads reduces the cost of motoring and discourages urban consolidation. Moreover, the problem at Sydney Airport is that 97% of employees drive there so building a new motorway won't discourage driving nor encourage the use of mass transport. As she pointed out, roads are inefficient since cars take up much space and transport few people versus buses or trains. The bureaucrat mumbled something about Sydney being a driving city and that this won't change in a hurry! Of course it won't change if more roads are being built! I'm simply stunned that the "answer" to traffic congestion from the bureaucrats remains to build more roads. It will be another huge waste of taxpayers money.
Bike paths would be a good thing, even though a lot of people here appear to despise them and would, unless I'm mistaken, prefer they aren't built (though it could be some people playing devils advocate).
I'd like to hope that this plan might go somewhere, but I suspect it's unlikely to be built unless they start tomorrow. I'm thinking there will be land acquisition needed, this will take a lot of effort, maybe some people won't want to sell up - in which case there is a big fight and the government would need to use heavy handed methods, which equals bad PR. Difficult.
Sydney remains a driving city because there are very powerful lobby groups with vested interests in making sure it remains that way. If you factor in motoring lobby groups and the one man Pedestrian Council (Harold Scruby and his fax-machine), that's a powerful block.
I have never been able to get my head around the fact that almost all buses crossing the bridge all cram into Wynyard on York St causing massive backlogs. Why don't the route a balance of buses round the other side going up Macquarie St.
Lots of very important people work on Macquarie Street. None of them use public transport.
These large peasant carries would be unsightly and get in the way of their cars.
Cramming them into small, one way streets at the back of a train station where they are hard to find is a better outcome for me.
Thank you for your input but in future try to avoid being progressive the Daily Telegraph does not like it.
Sydguy, that is priceless!
I read now that they want to take some of the CBD rail network out of action so they can modify the platforms to take single-deck trains. Apparently the platforms are not suitable for single deck carriages. Any thoughts and lingering memories of "H" and "W" sets going through the City Circle with lights out are absolutely mistaken.
Yes, I must be mistaken about all those trips through wynyard tunnel on a dilapidated red rattler, doors wide open, sucking in the ozone!
I can't believe we're still making ridiculous plans. I lived in Tokyo many years ago and their train network is a huge collection of public and private lines all criss-crossing each other. To get to school I had to change trains twice. It was easy because trains came every few minutes, so by the time you walked from one platform to the next, the train was there.
I also marvelled at how in my local area they relocated the entire train line underground by excavating underneath the existing line while it remained operational, then switching over with no break in service!
Sydney has a crazy train network that funnels every line to the city. This is daft. In Tokyo they have a line that circles the entire metro, and a plethora of lines cutting through the circle. They also have an extensive subway network, and seem to be able to build new lines faster than our politicians can decide on what to include in the next plan!
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '09 Electra Townie Original 21D
I see only two real ways to reduce congestion in Sydney without MAJOR infrastructure upgrades.
1. Use current alternatives.
Things like your buses, trains, cycling. Even consider the possibility of reducing taxes for things like motorbikes and scooters. Or even cut some red tape for electric bicycles. If alot of people made the switch congestion would be heavily reduced.
2. Introduce incentives for new businesses to move.
The alternative CBDs are slowly improving, being Parramatta and soon Penrith. Give businesses incentives, say like tax breaks or bonuses or something for them to set up elsewhere instead of Sydney.
So in summary, either change the method of transportation or change the destination. Two easiest methods without major infrastructure projects.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users