SMH article on traffic congestion....

open topic, for anything cycling related.

SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby AndyTheMan » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:25 pm

So whilst the Daily Smellograph is printing articles today about 'arrogant Sydney Cyclists...

(you can see the thread I started about it here - viewtopic.php?f=12&t=59207 )

The Sydney morning herald is running articles about the shocking state of commuting by car in Sydney, where the morning peak travel speed is 30km/h ON KEY MOTORWAYS and the afternoon peak travel speed is 40 km/h....

http://smh.drive.com.au/roads-and-traff ... 2aukj.html

So, wouldn't one of the options to improve transport times be to encourage more people to use alternatives (such as cycling)....

Good work Daily Smellograph
AndyTheMan
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:52 am

by BNA » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:30 pm

BNA
 

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby george-bob » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:30 pm

HA! Victoria Rd averages 23km/h, I go MUCH faster than that!

Kinda satisfyting :P
Image
george-bob
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:01 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby AndyTheMan » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:43 pm

What I REALLY don't understand is the bogan attitude that bikes are holding up traffic. I just REALLY REALLY don't understand.

I'll be honest and say I drive to work most days (I know, I know....its only 15km each way, and I should be ashamed of myself - but the reason is that I am often out of the office several times a day for various meetings all over the region - I promise I will commute more in the new year, OK - jeez you guys are tough)....

Anyway, my commute takes about 25 mins to drive. and I know I can commute on the bike in about the same....

But when I see a cyclist on the road I think "wow, thank god - that's one car not queued up in front of me at the lights..."

What I get confused as is people that see a cyclist and go 'look at him holding up traffic'.... or whatever

About once a fortnight I have to go into the city (Sydney) for meetings - I can't recall a time that I was stuck in traffic on the F3, or M2 or any other major road that was caused by a cyclist/s..... I mean, there are 10,000 cars in front of me...in what world would it make sense for me (one person using a whole car to get to where I'm going) complaining about cyclists when I am surrounded by tens of thousands of other idiots sitting in single occupant cars wondering why they are going nowhere....

People are stupid....
AndyTheMan
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:52 am

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby diggler » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:56 pm

I already this posted on the site.

It takes me 50 minutes door to door to cycle 15 km to the city. If people are unfit, they can get an electric bike to do the hard work. These drivers could be getting some exercise as they commute, and it wouldn't cost them any time, but they are too lazy to ride a bike to work. I have no sympathy for these people. They can stew in the mess they created.




By the way, I'm not the world's fastest cyclist, nor am I the slowest, yet every person who posts here seems to travel at twice my speed. I don't get passed by that many people on my ride, but they all seem to be on this website.
That's what a fool does. I'm invincible, I'm paying money ... uh ... The girl's happy, she's got no money, I got my rocks off. How good is this?
diggler
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby Ozkaban » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:01 pm

diggler wrote:If people are unfit, they can get an electric bike to do the hard work.

I hear "I'm not fit enough to cycle" a lot... I don't cycle because I'm fit. It's the other way around.

diggler wrote:By the way, I'm not the world's fastest cyclist, nor am I the slowest, yet every person who posts here seems to travel at twice my speed. I don't get passed by that many people on my ride, but they all seem to be on this website.

I've noticed this phenomenon too :mrgreen:
Ozkaban
 
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby Xplora » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:27 pm

I've done 20kms in 40 minutes... more than a few hills as well :) Takes time to build the fitness... but yeah the situation is nuts, 95% of people driving on Victoria Road would be quicker on a bike. I've actually been taking Victoria Road in between Rydalmere and Parramatta just to get some longer stretches of straight road on the bike, really hard to build up the legs with the short tight roads. I'm not much slower than the cars in the middle of the night 8)
Xplora
 
Posts: 5629
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby AndyTheMan » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:39 pm

diggler wrote:I already this posted on the site.

By the way, I'm not the world's fastest cyclist, nor am I the slowest, yet every person who posts here seems to travel at twice my speed. I don't get passed by that many people on my ride, but they all seem to be on this website.



Ok, so I may have overestimated my speed on my commute (if I cycle).... It's prob more like 35 mins for the 15kms to work (if pushing it.) or perhaps 40 or so if I'm dawdling along..... Just got carried away making a point!......
AndyTheMan
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:52 am

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby Sydguy » Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:42 pm

Does anyone know a non cyclist who thinks it is a good idea to have cyclists on the roads and that they do not hold up traffic?

I've never even heard of such a creature. If you don't cycle you don't get it. Simple.

Education can be tried, but I think people will be doubtful until they throw a leg over and get some kms into their legs.

JM
Sydguy
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: Sydney (Rhodes to City Commuter)

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby ldrcycles » Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:52 pm

AndyTheMan wrote:.

But when I see a cyclist on the road I think

People are stupid....

There is the difference, you think, the cannon fodder bogans who are constantly wailing about cyclists not paying rego don't think. What you've said about congestion is absolutely right, but the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to get their heads around it.
When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.
User avatar
ldrcycles
 
Posts: 6385
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: Kin Kin, Queensland

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby Howzat » Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:49 pm

AndyTheMan wrote:But when I see a cyclist on the road I think "wow, thank god - that's one car not queued up in front of me at the lights..."

+1. Exactly right. More bikes = less traffic congestion. Can't repeat it enough.

diggler wrote:By the way, I'm not the world's fastest cyclist, nor am I the slowest, yet every person who posts here seems to travel at twice my speed.

Funny... I'm just the opposite. I ride about twice as fast as everyone else in this forum. :wink:
User avatar
Howzat
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby g-boaf » Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:53 pm

Sydguy wrote:Does anyone know a non cyclist who thinks it is a good idea to have cyclists on the roads and that they do not hold up traffic?

I've never even heard of such a creature. If you don't cycle you don't get it. Simple.

Education can be tried, but I think people will be doubtful until they throw a leg over and get some kms into their legs.

JM


Bingo! :lol: Meanwhile these arrogant red-light running Sydney motorists continue to choke up the roads. The authorities have got to prevent this 1 person commuting to their office in their car in peak hour. The roads can't handle it.

My goodness, I could beat the average speeds of these motorists.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3871
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby Xplora » Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:02 pm

g-boaf wrote:My goodness, I could beat the average speeds of these motorists.

Pull your finger out, you CAN. You can probably beat the PEAK speed of the crush as well... I know that no one beats me past Westmead on the M4 in the morning 8) It's quite pathetic really, for the cars that is :lol:
Xplora
 
Posts: 5629
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby diggler » Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:15 pm

I've given up. Car drivers will never get it. In the last census only 1% of commuting was done by bicycles. When I see a car, I just think that is a fat, lazy, stupid person and nothing will get their fat bums out of their cars.
That's what a fool does. I'm invincible, I'm paying money ... uh ... The girl's happy, she's got no money, I got my rocks off. How good is this?
diggler
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:42 pm

AndyTheMan wrote:By the way, I'm not the world's fastest cyclist, nor am I the slowest, yet every person who posts here seems to travel at twice my speed. I don't get passed by that many people on my ride, but they all seem to be on this website.


Welcome to the world of virtual reality - web forums.

There is a longstanding thread on one of the unicyclist forums where people post their max speeds. The number of riders who exceed the world record is amazing. A world record that took the rider two years of focussed training and has stood for some twenty years.

Now where is that picture of Mel Gibson in his younger days. I need to change my avatar.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby dude18 » Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:56 am

Sydguy wrote:lf you don't cycle you don't get it. Simple.

JM



Spot on
dude18
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:29 am

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby sogood » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:01 am

Just bear in mind one thing. Severe traffic congestion is the best thing to promote the cycling cause. It's the best thing to justify additional cycling infrastructure spending. So there you go, traffic congestion is our friend! 8)
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16922
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby biker jk » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:26 pm

sogood wrote:Just bear in mind one thing. Severe traffic congestion is the best thing to promote the cycling cause. It's the best thing to justify additional cycling infrastructure spending. So there you go, traffic congestion is our friend! 8)


Perhaps not. The NSW Transport Plan involves spending billions more on roads "to ease congestion" and win the vote of drivers and next to nothing on cycling infrastructure. Since State Govt's won't ever introduce congestion charges our only hope is for the Federal Gov't to massively raise petrol excise tax (instead, it exempted fuel from the carbon tax).
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:44 pm

Someone much wiser than me once wrote:Building more roads to ease congestion is like buying a bigger belt to cure obesity.


I'm afraid the only way we'll ever get long term policies out of Govt will be to massively extend terms of office or instal a benevolent dictator.
Neither of which really fills you with optimism.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25567
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby find_bruce » Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:35 am

Mulger bill wrote:
Someone much wiser than me once wrote:Building more roads to ease congestion is like buying a bigger belt to cure obesity.


I'm afraid the only way we'll ever get long term policies out of Govt will be to massively extend terms of office or instal a benevolent dictator.
Neither of which really fills you with optimism.

So how do we vote for you as benevolent dictator? I would volunteer but even my friends wouldn't describe me as benevolent & that's before I become all powerful
Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 3576
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby g-boaf » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:24 am

Mulger bill wrote:
Someone much wiser than me once wrote:Building more roads to ease congestion is like buying a bigger belt to cure obesity.


I'm afraid the only way we'll ever get long term policies out of Govt will be to massively extend terms of office or instal a benevolent dictator.
Neither of which really fills you with optimism.


Dictators are fine, so long as I'm the leader. Hang on, I'm stealing that from Bronwyn Bishop.

biker jk wrote:Perhaps not. The NSW Transport Plan involves spending billions more on roads "to ease congestion" and win the vote of drivers and next to nothing on cycling infrastructure.


The billions spent on new roads and highway tunnels in Sydney are a waste of money, because they just won't reduce congestion. Only more off-road dedicated bike paths that are designed for commuter riders who want to get somewhere useful will really make a big step towards easing the traffic jams. Hopefully they will realise this before they start spending all this money.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3871
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby AndyTheMan » Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:22 am

The billions spent on new roads and highway tunnels in Sydney are a waste of money, because they just won't reduce congestion. Only more off-road dedicated bike paths that are designed for commuter riders who want to get somewhere useful will really make a big step towards easing the traffic jams. Hopefully they will realise this before they start spending all this money.


Exactly this x1000!!

New motorway spend in Sydney costs around $1 BILLION per km (this is for the proposed F3 to M2 link, for example, which requires some tunneling...)

So for that 11km section of road we are looking at a cost of more than $10 billion...

The cost vs benefit of that sort of spend is basically stupid - for $10 billion we basically improve road transport times by five minutes, for one road - but in reality, this will be a short lived benefit because these projects just move the problem 10kms further down the road.

In the long term effect is that motorways encourage more cars, which cause more congestion, which leads to more spending on road to 'solve' congestion, which leads to more cars....its an expensive and stupid cycle! We have a system that promotes traffic congestion, rather than solving it...

The only way to improve transport in cities in the long run is to transition as many people as possible to alternates (public transport, rail, cycling, walking) as well as proper urban planning that reduces the need to travel.

For the cost of just ONE km of motorway, you could make a fair impact on a city with appropriate cycling and walking infrastructure.

But common sense has nothing to do with it!
AndyTheMan
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:52 am

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby m@ » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:02 am

AndyTheMan wrote:What I REALLY don't understand is the bogan attitude that bikes are holding up traffic. I just REALLY REALLY don't understand.

They're the same morons who tailgate other cars while driving up to a red light...

And yeah, like all political decisions transport/infrastructure policy is driven by polls not practicality. :(
harmonix1234 wrote:Forecast for Hobart next week is rain, sleet, ice and all kinds of hell.
HTFU harmonix.
User avatar
m@
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:20 pm
Location: Northlandia

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby Strawburger » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:27 am

Think about this though, those freeways and highways provide cycle facilities (anyone been on the m7 cycleway?) plus they also put more cars on those freeways and less on the local roads around them. Don't forget less emissions we have to breathe in.

The m2-m7 link is only 8km, the cost of a constructed tunnel is not 1 billion dollars per km and nowhere near the cost per km of built road with or without tunnels! I think you need to google better sites to get more accurate construction costs.
n=10 (2013 & 2004 roads,2010 track,2x 2009 foldups,1990 hybrid,1992 trainer,2007 rental,1970's step through,1980's zeus)
User avatar
Strawburger
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:19 pm
Location: Dulwich Hill, Sydney

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby g-boaf » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:06 pm

Strawburger wrote:Think about this though, those freeways and highways provide cycle facilities (anyone been on the m7 cycleway?) plus they also put more cars on those freeways and less on the local roads around them. Don't forget less emissions we have to breathe in.

The m2-m7 link is only 8km, the cost of a constructed tunnel is not 1 billion dollars per km and nowhere near the cost per km of built road with or without tunnels! I think you need to google better sites to get more accurate construction costs.


You only get those cycle facilities if those are motorways are built. But what about putting in those facilities in places where they are needed, like linking up existing cycle infrastructure so that it is all off-road, building other missing links between already good cycling paths so that people can be off-road the entire way. Experienced road-cyclists will scoff at that and roll their eyes, but it's essential to get more people out of their cars.

This needs to happen in addition to the new motorways and done quickly.

Also, there are some scenarios where these freeways or motorways will be built without cycling infrastructure, particularly those ones that are just huge underground tunnels.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3871
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: SMH article on traffic congestion....

Postby Strawburger » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:40 pm

g-boaf wrote:
Strawburger wrote:Think about this though, those freeways and highways provide cycle facilities (anyone been on the m7 cycleway?) plus they also put more cars on those freeways and less on the local roads around them. Don't forget less emissions we have to breathe in.

The m2-m7 link is only 8km, the cost of a constructed tunnel is not 1 billion dollars per km and nowhere near the cost per km of built road with or without tunnels! I think you need to google better sites to get more accurate construction costs.


You only get those cycle facilities if those are motorways are built. But what about putting in those facilities in places where they are needed, like linking up existing cycle infrastructure so that it is all off-road, building other missing links between already good cycling paths so that people can be off-road the entire way. Experienced road-cyclists will scoff at that and roll their eyes, but it's essential to get more people out of their cars.

This needs to happen in addition to the new motorways and done quickly.

Also, there are some scenarios where these freeways or motorways will be built without cycling infrastructure, particularly those ones that are just huge underground tunnels.


Yes true, there is a lot of stand alone cycling infrastructure like the m7. My point is that if the m7 wasn't build there would be no m7 path, which I think is a fantastic bicycle (shared) path.

Most if not all road projects must allow for cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. So once roads are upgraded, the cycling routes will start connecting. Unfortunately for a bike path to go in you need to alter the road.there are very few roads out there with enough width to construct these paths. The government departments base their decision on upgrade via a long term plan or where they see a real requirement for it (be it politically based or not). There are so many roads under rms (rta) control and only so much funding so it will take time to join those dots.
n=10 (2013 & 2004 roads,2010 track,2x 2009 foldups,1990 hybrid,1992 trainer,2007 rental,1970's step through,1980's zeus)
User avatar
Strawburger
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:19 pm
Location: Dulwich Hill, Sydney

Next

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], fatherofmany, ironhanglider, jules21



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter