What chance they will take it seriously?

[rangersac]

Good result for cycling and PT advocates. Don't supposed there is much chance though that Napthine will take it seriously

[warthog1]

No chance the current lemmings in gvt will pay it any heed. They are spending a fortune on a stupid tunnel that will achieve nothing. Complete cretins


Blame tapatalk

[sankari]

Of course this is serious. Bicycle faster than car? Unacceptable!

Build more motorways!

[warthog1]

Of course this is serious. Bicycle faster than car? Unacceptable!

Build more motorways!

Yep, if anything they will use it as justification to spend more on roads.
Certainly they won't see it as evidence that bicycles are a valid alternative to cars with only a fraction of the capital spend cars consume.

[sankari]

It's interesting to consider using some numbers how effective building motorways actually is.

One lane of motorway carries under ideal conditions 1800 cars per hour. With an occupancy of 1.1, this is about 2000 people per lane per hour. 3 lanes of carriageway can thus transport 12000 people into the CBD over a 2 hour peak period.

Now let's calculate how much CBD office space 12000 people actually fills. A typical office, half open plan half private office, is around 23 square meters per person. Given a floor space ratio of 8*, which is the ratio of usable office space in a tower to the land area at ground, each office worker effectively occupies 2.9 square meters of CBD land. Thus a 3 lane carriageway fills 3.5 hectares of CBD office land. This is less than a single block of the Hoddle grid (200mx200m)!

We have yet to consider the surface roads needed to service the motorways, which carry far less than 1800 cars per hour due to traffic lights. And, in bumper to bumper traffic, motorways never achieve 1800 cars per hour anyway. But even disregarding this, you begin to realize what lunacy it is building more roads when you need a 3 lane carriageway for each city block.

European and Asian planners have looked at this and realized that motorways are the problem, with public transport and cycling the solution. American planners instead reckon floor space ratios are the problem, with decentralization the solution! The effectiveness of this is really the subject of another discussion. Australian planners have realized none of this and have done stuff all.

*This is City of Sydney's limit, since I couldn't find Melbourne's planning documents. 8 is in fact quite low, since every new office development in Sydney desperately squeezes every last drop of their allowable floor space ratio.

[yugyug]

Australian planners have realized none of this and have done stuff all.

lol! Great post. I do wonder though about the mental agility of urban planners advising our various governments - surely some realise that benefits of cycling, but the lack of implementation is a political failing. Then again, what was behind Barry O'Farrell recent barrel flip? I can easily imagine an intelligent urban planner simply sitting down with him and explaining that maths until a little light above his head flickered on....

[ColinOldnCranky]

What chance they will take it seriously? Maybe. I certainly don't take any of these challenges seriously.

Mostly they are just light amusement for a quiet news day.

Typically they pit a number of commuters on bikes, buses, trains and cars. While they may all take off together, the end-point is almost always defined in a way that favours the cyclist. So the cyclist arrives at the workplace foyer first. The driver had to park his car some distance and hoof it to the same place. That is his point of arriving. Now he just has to take the lift to his floor and he is ready to work.

The cyclist, on the other hand, is also timed at the foyer. No allowance is made for the further time he now has to spend getting to the showers, maybe queueing up for a spare shower, doing all the necessaries, hanging the towel out to dry. Only then is he about ready for work.

Not to mention many other overheads that go with a ride. And we have far more trips interrupted by breakages than we do in a car or equivalent standard.

I work in the CBD. Even in days past when I rode a REAL(!) bike to work, it cost me time.

I leave home about 5:30 to 5:45, stop off for a coffee and get to my desk around 8:15. The train is far faster and I like them. But most weeks I ride in every day, winter or summer.

Commuting by bike is about far more than time!

[human909]

The cyclist, on the other hand, is also timed at the foyer. No allowance is made for the further time he now has to spend getting to the showers, maybe queueing up for a spare shower, doing all the necessaries, hanging the towel out to dry. Only then is he about ready for work.

Says who? Many, (probably most) cyclists in Melbourne don't do this before work. In the case of the winner of this race, it was a short trip to the train station, showers not necessary. (Though in this case the 30km at 30kph to office job probably would need a shower.)

Not to mention many other overheads that go with a ride. And we have far more trips interrupted by breakages than we do in a car or equivalent standard.

You obviously haven't caught Melbournes PT! I would say PT has far more delays than I've ever had on a bike. In general I'd would have 1 or two breakages/flats a year on my commuter. (touch wood)


For me I never shower at the end of my commute. I simply ride a little slower, I don't ride 30kms to my destination so YMMV.

[rdp_au]

Well, everyone has their own story I suppose, but my experience is that cycling to work costs no more, and in fact saves me time and money. My current commute is just over 25km each way across Sydney. I live on a major train line and can get an express train to within a ten minute bus ride to my workplace. I normally leave home at 7 am for the five minute drive to the station, and arrive at my desk around 8:15. On the days I ride the bike, I leave at the same time (7 am) and arrive at my desk at the same time (8:15) – and this includes time to shower, change, and pick up a coffee on the way into the building.

In any event I agree with Colin, cycle commuting is about far more than just time – I regard the time I spend as ‘free exercise’, taken when I would otherwise be sitting idly on a train/bus.

[bychosis]

Glad I don't live in a big city. As for the showering for cyclists comments in this example the difference between the cycle and drive times allows more than enough for the cyclist to shower before the car driver arrives and the car driver has already spent that time at home before leaving as well.

For a good run my car commute is about 10min door to desk while my cycle commute is around 30min door to desk. Would hate to think how long by public transport, if there is any that goes my way! Decentralisation for the win.

[rangersac]

For what it's worth my commute doesn't save me time, but it does save me money and sanity. I live 25km south of Hobart, about a 55 minute commute each way for me on average. Driving at peak times (which are pretty restricted here) would be 40-45 minutes, otherwise 25 minutes. I have a car parking space at work, but driving to work would double my annual mileage incurring far greater maintenance costs for the car as well as fuel. Interestingly commuting by bike is still on a par or slightly faster door to door than catching the bus.

Time required to shower and change is a non argument. I'd be spending the equivalent time showering at home before I left if I didn't ride.

[ColinOldnCranky]

For what it's worth my commute doesn't save me time, but it does save me money and sanity.

Now THAT'S the truth.

(Saving money! Saving time! I have enough of both already. Though I would still preach the financial virtue of couples dropping the second car for a bike, especially in places like Perth and Adelaide.)

[DavidS]

For me riding a bike and taking public transport is pretty much the same time. The worst thing to happen with trains in my experience is getting stuck near Flinders St and that can add a fair bit of time.

By far and away the slowest is car, but I do work just North of the CBD and live South.

DS

[human909]

I haven't caught public transport since Myki was introduced. I bike most places for most of my needs. However for anything not nearby I take my car for convenience. But I simply refuse to drive during peak hour.

Until recently I was driving 30km to work. But it was 30km in the opposite direction to peak hour traffic and work generally started at 7am so it was <30mins. Public transport and regular cycling were not practical for that location or suited to the needs of my work.

Now I'm working from home.

[simonn]

No allowance is made for the further time he now has to spend getting to the showers, maybe queueing up for a spare shower, doing all the necessaries, hanging the towel out to dry. Only then is he about ready for work.

Do they time drivers and PT users from the time they enter the shower at home? IOW, I do not shower at home before I ride.

Not to mention many other overheads that go with a ride. And we have far more trips interrupted by breakages than we do in a car or equivalent standard.

I have not had a puncture or mechanical in my previous ~6000km commuting. However, I do agree with you though and I suspect this is largely the route I take - low traffic - and experience (e.g I avoid glass, make sure tyres are pumped up almost every ride etc).

FWIW, my commute is 24km riding and similar with car. With the car we travel just before the peak and we drop my wife at a train station so we can use T3 lanes and it takes ~45-50 mins normally, but up to 90 mins each way. In peak it would take at least 60 mins each way. Riding takes a pretty much standard 60 mins +-5 (I used to say 65+-10, but I seem to have got fitter and as I only commute twice a week now fatigue does not play a part). PT would take 90 mins if everything worked perfectly, but realistically you'd be looking at close to 2 hours each way door to door.

It is not so much about saving money because fuel is neither hear nor there with a 1.3L Jazz. The exercise is good and it is not wasted time like in a car.

[zero]

It's interesting to consider using some numbers how effective building motorways actually is.

One lane of motorway carries under ideal conditions 1800 cars per hour. With an occupancy of 1.1, this is about 2000 people per lane per hour. 3 lanes of carriageway can thus transport 12000 people into the CBD over a 2 hour peak period.

Now let's calculate how much CBD office space 12000 people actually fills. A typical office, half open plan half private office, is around 23 square meters per person. Given a floor space ratio of 8*, which is the ratio of usable office space in a tower to the land area at ground, each office worker effectively occupies 2.9 square meters of CBD land. Thus a 3 lane carriageway fills 3.5 hectares of CBD office land. This is less than a single block of the Hoddle grid (200mx200m)!

We have yet to consider the surface roads needed to service the motorways, which carry far less than 1800 cars per hour due to traffic lights. And, in bumper to bumper traffic, motorways never achieve 1800 cars per hour anyway. But even disregarding this, you begin to realize what lunacy it is building more roads when you need a 3 lane carriageway for each city block.

European and Asian planners have looked at this and realized that motorways are the problem, with public transport and cycling the solution. American planners instead reckon floor space ratios are the problem, with decentralization the solution! The effectiveness of this is really the subject of another discussion. Australian planners have realized none of this and have done stuff all.

*This is City of Sydney's limit, since I couldn't find Melbourne's planning documents. 8 is in fact quite low, since every new office development in Sydney desperately squeezes every last drop of their allowable floor space ratio.

Great post, but its even worse than that, as their car occupies 10sqm of land, aisling to access the car requires another 10sqm of land that can't be used for storage without blocking the first car, if the storage is multilevel, then ramping is a further space waster, the carparks can only be approached at a few hundred cars per hour - ie a lane of highway traffic can't fill a carpark at highway traffic rates, nor can it fill 4 blocks in a row on the same street.

and a motorway won't flow 1800 without extensive distance between ramps and huge merges, ie stuff you don't get on urban motorways. Also a motorway that does have the requisite gaps between ramps, has another problem in that increasing the distance between ramps, increases the distances people have to travel on the bypassed grid to get to the ramps, and given too much traffic for any ramp, you wind up recreating the congestion in the bypassed area and passing it back onto the motorway.

The American solution just raises journey distances, which undoes the value in having a car. ie I'd prefer travel 5km on a bicycle than 10 on a car if its going to take the same time, and I certainly don't want to exchange 5km on a bicycle for 30 in a car. That's a significant net negative that actually reduces the number of destinations you can get to in a day.