Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Patchy progress in the EU
Fare deal: Ireland joins Europe-wide efforts to coax people out of cars (The Guardian)

Myth busted: "Motorists pay more in taxes and fees than is spent on roads".

This is a very well-researched piece that is kept up-to-date by the Public Transport Users Association.

https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax/

The funding shortfall is $24bn. With 20.1m vehicles registered in Australia, that's an average of about $1,200 shortfall per annum per vehicle.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/indus ... 0in%202016.

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:37 am

Myth busted: "Motorists pay more in taxes and fees than is spent on roads".

This is a very well-researched piece that is kept up-to-date by the Public Transport Users Association.

https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax/

The funding shortfall is $24bn. With 20.1m vehicles registered in Australia, that's an average of about $1,200 shortfall per annum per vehicle.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/indus ... 0in%202016.

From the linked PTUA article:

The important point here is that all the benefits of the road system (like those of public transport) accrue privately, to individual motorists and to the purchasers of goods and services delivered by road. A person driving a car does not generate any ‘positive externality’ that benefits unrelated members of the public. There are only indirect ‘financial benefits’ to the general public, in the form of direct payments by road users to the public purse – tallied in the ‘Revenue’ table above.

They lost me there. Trying to shade out the fact that everyone benefits by virtue of buying goods and services, not to mention PT bus routes. The benefits of roads accrue publicly, not privately.

Otherwise, yeah, myth busted.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:01 pm

From the linked PTUA article:

The important point here is that all the benefits of the road system (like those of public transport) accrue privately, to individual motorists and to the purchasers of goods and services delivered by road. A person driving a car does not generate any ‘positive externality’ that benefits unrelated members of the public. There are only indirect ‘financial benefits’ to the general public, in the form of direct payments by road users to the public purse – tallied in the ‘Revenue’ table above.

They lost me there. Trying to shade out the fact that everyone benefits by virtue of buying goods and services, not to mention PT bus routes. The benefits of roads accrue publicly, not privately.

Otherwise, yeah, myth busted.

The key phrase there is "A person driving a car does not generate any ‘positive externality’ that benefits unrelated members of the public. "

You obtain exactly the same benefit from the multiplier effect of having money circulating in the economy from the activity of buying goods and services, whether or not the purchase was made as a result of driving a car. So it seems to me the statement is correct. The activity of driving a car does not of itself generate positive externalities, but it does generate plenty of negative ones.

The deadliest road in America (Vox.com)
Being a pedestrian in the US was already dangerous. It’s getting even worse.
By Marin Cogan@marincogan Updated Jul 25, 2022, 6:51am EDT

For every 100 miles on US-19, there have been at least 34 deaths since 2017

Across the USA in 2020: 6,700 pedestrians killed, and 39,000 odd car users. 2021 was worse.

It’s a longish read and there’s a pile of links to other articles and papers. The short version is: too many lanes, travelling too fast in an urban area.

Excellent article, but as you say, it's long. I like this quote:

When fatal crashes happen, the questions — from law enforcement, the media, commenters on Facebook — inevitably turn to human behavior: Was the driver drunk? What was the pedestrian wearing? Was the driver texting? How fast were they going? Was the cyclist wearing a helmet? What was the pedestrian wearing? Could they be easily seen in the dark? In other words, we look for ways to blame individual behavior, rather than consider the larger systemic forces at play.

That instinct, to attribute a fatal crash to some failure of personal responsibility, distracts us from the bigger picture: that many of our road designs are inherently unsafe.

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 5:24 pm

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:01 pm

From the linked PTUA article:

The important point here is that all the benefits of the road system (like those of public transport) accrue privately, to individual motorists and to the purchasers of goods and services delivered by road. A person driving a car does not generate any ‘positive externality’ that benefits unrelated members of the public. There are only indirect ‘financial benefits’ to the general public, in the form of direct payments by road users to the public purse – tallied in the ‘Revenue’ table above.

They lost me there. Trying to shade out the fact that everyone benefits by virtue of buying goods and services, not to mention PT bus routes. The benefits of roads accrue publicly, not privately.

Otherwise, yeah, myth busted.

The key phrase there is "A person driving a car does not generate any ‘positive externality’ that benefits unrelated members of the public. "

You obtain exactly the same benefit from the multiplier effect of having money circulating in the economy from the activity of buying goods and services, whether or not the purchase was made as a result of driving a car. So it seems to me the statement is correct. The activity of driving a car does not of itself generate positive externalities, but it does generate plenty of negative ones.

I don't disagree with your statement, for me the Key phrase is "all the benefits of the road system (like those of public transport) accrue privately, to individual motorists and to the purchasers of goods and services delivered by road". The article revolves around busting a myth "Motorists pay more in taxes and fees than is spent on roads". And yes, myth busted. And yes, plenty of negative externalalities. There are still benefits to the general public in having roads, and yes, through motor cars. Uber drivers, food delivery types etc. Using a private vehicle, almost always a car. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but wishing the gig economy away won't make it so.

Maybe I'm reading to much into this. Approaching as I am....that is assuming the report is being used to say that roads are not good....may be wrong. That is however where this conversation goes at one point or another. Or we accept that roads can only be used as part of a social benefit mechanism and create a them/us type of grading system to decide who gets to use them.

I would like to know what the "road deficit" would be if we took private vehicles off the road?

fat and old wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 5:49 pm

I would like to know what the "road deficit" would be if we took private vehicles off the road?

I think perhaps you are reading a little more into the article than is there. It's purely to scotch the argument that private motor vehicle owners are hard done-by, when it is in fact quite the opposite.

In relation to your last question, I don't have the tools or the data to answer. However, I do know one thing: we would need a lot less than the current 40% of land area in our cities, that is currently devoted to the road network. Who knows, if the percentage was reduced we would have more houses and less housing crisis. Private motor vehicles are the most wasteful use of the limited road space we have.

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:06 pm

fat and old wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 5:49 pm

I would like to know what the "road deficit" would be if we took private vehicles off the road?

I think perhaps you are reading a little more into the article than is there. It's purely to scotch the argument that private motor vehicle owners are hard done-by, when it is in fact quite the opposite.

Yes, I probably am. I guess I'm conditioned by the apparent need by many people to take such an argument and extrapolate it out to a point that has little to do with the original intent.

As for this

However, I do know one thing: we would need a lot less than the current 40% of land area in our cities, that is currently devoted to the road network. Who knows, if the percentage was reduced we would have more houses and less housing crisis. Private motor vehicles are the most wasteful use of the limited road space we have.

That's a whole different discussion. I would refer anyone who wonders what the future would look like without private transport to Dune, Star Wars and their ilk. In fact, One day the Western Governments will wake up to the fact that having a population dependent on walking and cycling is a population that's easier to control.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:31 am

That's a whole different discussion. I would refer anyone who wonders what the future would look like without private transport to Dune, Star Wars and their ilk. In fact, One day the Western Governments will wake up to the fact that having a population dependent on walking and cycling is a population that's easier to control.

The issue is one of balance. At the moment we are over-dependent on the private motor vehicle and all other modes of transport have been pretty much bullied off the streets. The movement to lift prioritisation of active travel is about re-democratising our streets, and restoring balance and community. It is no coincidence that Australia has levels of obesity exceeded only by the US, and I had heard that we have since exceeded them.

Our current trajectory is leading us to the world of Wall-E.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:31 am

One day the Western Governments will wake up to the fact that having a population dependent on walking and cycling is a population that's easier to control.

How does that work? If the population doesn't need money to fill up their car everyday and isn't so reliant upon the government to provide infrastructure to drive their money burners how does that make the population more docile? If by being more active the population reduces the incidence of social disease how does that make the population more docile? I would have thought the opposite and it'd be more likely to be the first step on the way to anarchism (not anarchy). And of course anarchism is every power grubbing persons (politicians and "leaders") worst nightmare.

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 1:19 pm

fat and old wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:31 am

One day the Western Governments will wake up to the fact that having a population dependent on walking and cycling is a population that's easier to control.

How does that work? If the population doesn't need money to fill up their car everyday and isn't so reliant upon the government to provide infrastructure to drive their money burners how does that make the population more docile? If by being more active the population reduces the incidence of social disease how does that make the population more docile? I would have thought the opposite and it'd be more likely to be the first step on the way to anarchism (not anarchy). And of course anarchism is every power grubbing persons (politicians and "leaders") worst nightmare.

Bicycle riders must be anti-establishment? So I guess they will all get shipped off to a gulag or re-education camp somewhere. Just so fortunate I'm not riding bikes.

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 2:23 pm

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 1:19 pm

fat and old wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:31 am

One day the Western Governments will wake up to the fact that having a population dependent on walking and cycling is a population that's easier to control.

How does that work? If the population doesn't need money to fill up their car everyday and isn't so reliant upon the government to provide infrastructure to drive their money burners how does that make the population more docile? If by being more active the population reduces the incidence of social disease how does that make the population more docile? I would have thought the opposite and it'd be more likely to be the first step on the way to anarchism (not anarchy). And of course anarchism is every power grubbing persons (politicians and "leaders") worst nightmare.

Bicycle riders must be anti-establishment? So I guess they will all get shipped off to a gulag or re-education camp somewhere. Just so fortunate I'm not riding bikes.

Not at all. My point is that a population "dependent" on walking and cycling is a more independent population than one that is dependent on petrodollars. Anyway I was just pitching my tent in no man's land, fat and old's premise makes zero sense to me.

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:29 pm

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 2:23 pm

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 1:19 pm

How does that work? If the population doesn't need money to fill up their car everyday and isn't so reliant upon the government to provide infrastructure to drive their money burners how does that make the population more docile? If by being more active the population reduces the incidence of social disease how does that make the population more docile? I would have thought the opposite and it'd be more likely to be the first step on the way to anarchism (not anarchy). And of course anarchism is every power grubbing persons (politicians and "leaders") worst nightmare.

Bicycle riders must be anti-establishment? So I guess they will all get shipped off to a gulag or re-education camp somewhere. Just so fortunate I'm not riding bikes.

Not at all. My point is that a population "dependent" on walking and cycling is a more independent population than one that is dependent on petrodollars. Anyway I was just pitching my tent in no man's land, fat and old's premise makes zero sense to me.

I'm with you on that and agreeing.

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:29 pm

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 2:23 pm

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 1:19 pm

How does that work? If the population doesn't need money to fill up their car everyday and isn't so reliant upon the government to provide infrastructure to drive their money burners how does that make the population more docile? If by being more active the population reduces the incidence of social disease how does that make the population more docile? I would have thought the opposite and it'd be more likely to be the first step on the way to anarchism (not anarchy). And of course anarchism is every power grubbing persons (politicians and "leaders") worst nightmare.

Bicycle riders must be anti-establishment? So I guess they will all get shipped off to a gulag or re-education camp somewhere. Just so fortunate I'm not riding bikes.

Not at all. My point is that a population "dependent" on walking and cycling is a more independent population than one that is dependent on petrodollars. Anyway I was just pitching my tent in no man's land, fat and old's premise makes zero sense to me.

Slightly off topic perhaps but related. Keeping the common folk docile has a long history in Australian city design according to this youtube vid.
https://youtu.be/pt_1nk5ITHo

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 1:19 pm

fat and old wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:31 am

One day the Western Governments will wake up to the fact that having a population dependent on walking and cycling is a population that's easier to control.

How does that work? If the population doesn't need money to fill up their car everyday and isn't so reliant upon the government to provide infrastructure to drive their money burners how does that make the population more docile? If by being more active the population reduces the incidence of social disease how does that make the population more docile? I would have thought the opposite and it'd be more likely to be the first step on the way to anarchism (not anarchy). And of course anarchism is every power grubbing persons (politicians and "leaders") worst nightmare.

I didn't say docile, just easier to control. If your get away speed is limited to how fast or far you can run or cycle, you're more likely to think about consequences and more likely to be caught. Think about that demonstration last year when the tradies in Melbourne got upset and marched up the West Gate Bridge.....until they worked out they had to go back down and there was nowhere to go. Cops in front, cops behind. Imagine if they were in vehicles? No probs, wreak havoc.

Brisboy's vid shows what I'm getting at. Don't even give them the opportunity to talk about rebelling!. If you have to walk 30 km's into the city to wave your upside down flags around you're gonna be thinking about how committed you really are to that cause.

My local council (BCC) cancelled multiple green bridges, and cycling projects like the North Brisbane Bikeway. They claim to be poor after the flooding.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-19/ ... /101081012

But they are happily doing all normal road works like enhancements and resurfacing.

They are now plugging a nearly TEN BILLION dollar tunnel... As advocates we must always remember that even at special bikeway inflated pricing - they are cheap compared to road projects for vehicles.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-09/ ... BbLghzAUzA

Comedian wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:13 pm

My local council (BCC) cancelled multiple green bridges, and cycling projects like the North Brisbane Bikeway. They claim to be poor after the flooding.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-19/ ... /101081012

But they are happily doing all normal road works like enhancements and resurfacing.

They are now plugging a nearly TEN BILLION dollar tunnel... As advocates we must always remember that even at special bikeway inflated pricing - they are cheap compared to road projects for vehicles.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-09/ ... BbLghzAUzA

Unfortunately it appears to be a continuation that the solution to traffic is to build more roads which encourages more motoring which requires more roads. I'm not that familiar with Brisbane but I'm assuming that upgrading public transport and cycling would help provide viable alternatives to driving everywhere

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:54 am

Comedian wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:13 pm

My local council (BCC) cancelled multiple green bridges, and cycling projects like the North Brisbane Bikeway. They claim to be poor after the flooding.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-19/ ... /101081012

But they are happily doing all normal road works like enhancements and resurfacing.

They are now plugging a nearly TEN BILLION dollar tunnel... As advocates we must always remember that even at special bikeway inflated pricing - they are cheap compared to road projects for vehicles.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-09/ ... BbLghzAUzA

Unfortunately it appears to be a continuation that the solution to traffic is to build more roads which encourages more motoring which requires more roads. I'm not that familiar with Brisbane but I'm assuming that upgrading public transport and cycling would help provide viable alternatives to driving everywhere

Also.. the new tunnel doesn't go into the city. It stops in the Stafford area (about 6k from city). The inner city area is a gridlock now. You could argue that the issues in the outer suburbs are due to the inner city congestion. These tunnels just won't help the problem.

Comedian wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:00 pm

Also.. the new tunnel doesn't go into the city. It stops in the Stafford area (about 6k from city). The inner city area is a gridlock now. You could argue that the issues in the outer suburbs are due to the inner city congestion. These tunnels just won't help the problem.

a congestion tax is the solution. get rid of tolls on all toll ways (in brisbane, as they all go around the city, not to the city), and replace with a $10 congestion tax. then make PT free

Comedian wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:00 pm

Also.. the new tunnel doesn't go into the city. It stops in the Stafford area (about 6k from city). The inner city area is a gridlock now. You could argue that the issues in the outer suburbs are due to the inner city congestion. These tunnels just won't help the problem.

So they haven't learnt from what happened in other cities when the motorways stop before reaching the main destination. Sydney was just like that and they are gradually fixing that mess with expensive underground tollways to link up the disconnected motorways

Railway tunnels are a lot cheaper than motorway tunnels to build so could include the 6k to the CBD easily. I had a look for a rail map but didn't find a geographic one so not being familiar with Brisbane couldn't work out if that direction was already rail serviced
.

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:33 pm

Comedian wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:00 pm

Also.. the new tunnel doesn't go into the city. It stops in the Stafford area (about 6k from city). The inner city area is a gridlock now. You could argue that the issues in the outer suburbs are due to the inner city congestion. These tunnels just won't help the problem.

So they haven't learnt from what happened in other cities when the motorways stop before reaching the main destination. Sydney was just like that and they are gradually fixing that mess with expensive underground tollways to link up the disconnected motorways

Railway tunnels are a lot cheaper than motorway tunnels to build so could include the 6k to the CBD easily. I had a look for a rail map but didn't find a geographic one so not being familiar with Brisbane couldn't work out if that direction was already rail serviced
.

They employ plenty of people who understand induced demand - but the incumbents have a history of building tunnels. I'm sure they have their reasons. Genuinely addressing traffic issues doesn't seem like it's even on the list.

Comedian wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:46 pm

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:33 pm

Comedian wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:00 pm

Also.. the new tunnel doesn't go into the city. It stops in the Stafford area (about 6k from city). The inner city area is a gridlock now. You could argue that the issues in the outer suburbs are due to the inner city congestion. These tunnels just won't help the problem.

So they haven't learnt from what happened in other cities when the motorways stop before reaching the main destination. Sydney was just like that and they are gradually fixing that mess with expensive underground tollways to link up the disconnected motorways

Railway tunnels are a lot cheaper than motorway tunnels to build so could include the 6k to the CBD easily. I had a look for a rail map but didn't find a geographic one so not being familiar with Brisbane couldn't work out if that direction was already rail serviced
.

They employ plenty of people who understand induced demand - but the incumbents have a history of building tunnels. I'm sure they have their reasons. Genuinely addressing traffic issues doesn't seem like it's even on the list.

As we both know the general public doesn't understand induced demand so politically providing more for private vehicle use is popular with the general public. Is it the publics fault for not understanding induced demand or the governments fault for not educating the public on induced demand?

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:02 pm

As we both know the general public doesn't understand induced demand so politically providing more for private vehicle use is popular with the general public. Is it the publics fault for not understanding induced demand or the governments fault for not educating the public on induced demand?

i'm in a gold coast facebook group as it has some funny content. someone was complaining about the cost to drive every day to Brisbane return 5 days a week. My response was "imagine living 100kms from work and complaining that it costs a lot of money to get to work". no response

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:02 pm

Is it the publics fault for not understanding induced demand or the governments fault for not educating the public on induced demand?

Nah, it’s the government’s fault for not understanding induced demand.

Or worse: being in denial.