Cycling and walking are short-changed : The conversation

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4199
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Cycling and walking are short-changed : The conversation

Postby Thoglette » Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:42 pm

Cycling and walking are short-changed when it comes to transport funding in Australia

Pojani et al. wrote:To understand why Australian cities are far from being meccas for walking and cycling, follow the money. Our research has collated data for all the states and territories and our three biggest cities. We found that cycling and walking receive a tiny fraction of overall transport infrastructure funding. To improve cycling and walking infrastructure in our cities, funding will have to increase significantly.

The United Nations has recommended that governments dedicate 20% of transport funding to non-motorised or active transport. To see how Australia compares against this target, we looked at budgets for three capital cities and all the states and territories. Commonwealth funding was not included because the federal government only funds active travel as part of larger infrastructure projects.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4199
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Cycling and walking are short-changed : The conversation

Postby Thoglette » Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:48 pm

Thoglette wrote:Cycling and walking are short-changed when it comes to transport funding in Australia

Pojani et al. wrote:To understand why Australian cities are far from being meccas for walking and cycling, follow the money. Our research has collated data for all the states and territories and our three biggest cities. We found that cycling and walking receive a tiny fraction of overall transport infrastructure funding. To improve cycling and walking infrastructure in our cities, funding will have to increase significantly.

The United Nations has recommended that governments dedicate 20% of transport funding to non-motorised or active transport. To see how Australia compares against this target, we looked at budgets for three capital cities and all the states and territories. Commonwealth funding was not included because the federal government only funds active travel as part of larger infrastructure projects.



The best effort is 14% (ACT) with most states in low single digits. Compared to (direct*) road funding all states are below the 1.6c mark

* direct being money by goverment. This ignores private infrastructure spending: both mandated (e.g. multiple floors of car parking spaces in office and apartment buildings) or discretionary that two car garage)
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 9825
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Cycling and walking are short-changed : The conversation

Postby g-boaf » Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:13 pm

Thoglette wrote:Cycling and walking are short-changed when it comes to transport funding in Australia

Pojani et al. wrote:To understand why Australian cities are far from being meccas for walking and cycling, follow the money. Our research has collated data for all the states and territories and our three biggest cities. We found that cycling and walking receive a tiny fraction of overall transport infrastructure funding. To improve cycling and walking infrastructure in our cities, funding will have to increase significantly.

The United Nations has recommended that governments dedicate 20% of transport funding to non-motorised or active transport. To see how Australia compares against this target, we looked at budgets for three capital cities and all the states and territories. Commonwealth funding was not included because the federal government only funds active travel as part of larger infrastructure projects.



The Australian public has recommended that we withdraw from the United Nations and wonders why we waste our money on this organisation when it does makes recommendations like that. :roll:

Signed, typical Shock Jocks.

-------

It's a shame that our governments do so little about this. Cities overseas are much better sorted for walking and riding. This is how we really should be doing things:


Experience Innsbruck: the capital of the Alps

Innsbruck is one of the most enjoyable cities I've been in. Riding there is very easy, walking is also very easy, public transport is fine. Pedestrians and cyclists are well catered for. It is a city that is just very pleasant to be in.

Some more on riding in this video too:


What they have different is plenty of bike lanes around the city, bike paths in the outer areas, open areas and you can ride on pretty much whatever roads you wish to use without being harassed. Said to be well set up for mountain bikers too, but I didn't experience that bit. My riding experience was exploring around the city. Enough riding in the time I was there to really love the city and what the local government has done.

When you come back to Sydney in particular, even the efforts Clover Moore has made seem fairly minimal in comparison, and yet her efforts to help cycling in Sydney are seen here as outlandish and ground-breaking and have caused an enormous uproar from her opponents.

It's not just about riding or walking, it's about making our cities a better place to live in.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users