Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

fat and old wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 17, 2023 12:17 pm

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 17, 2023 6:36 am

fat and old wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 17, 2023 6:27 am

While it's hard to argue with the bloke's passion and intent, it's equally hard to listen to the snarkiness as he glosses over the intent of the US Highway system as Eisenhower signed into being. It really was an impressive undertaking, and the likes of GM just jumped on the bandwagon for purposes that had little to do with the reality of the day.

That viewpoint glosses over the way the motor industry lobbied government, and continues to do so, for road infrastructure spend. They know full well that building more roads induces more demand for their product. In fact, they depend on it.

Not at all. The interstate system was a done deal, with or without the motor industry lobby. That was my point. In no way or manner did I comment on the MV lobby industry beyond that example.

Documented history disagrees. The prioritisation of roads over alternatives like rail was 100% a consequence of effective lobbying and propaganda by the motor industry, and technocrats moving back and forth via the revolving door between roadbuilding companies and public sector authorities playing the American version of The Game of Mates, just as it did here post WW2.

www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 17, 2023 1:05 pm

Documented history disagrees…

Don’t forget the “Beeching Axe” or convincing someone that it was better to burn the rolling stock (Sydney) than sell or scrap them.

Similar direct and indirect (eg Public Utilities Holding Company Act (US) 1935) policies and processes continued nearly into the eighties (Perth-Freo rail) all in the name of “progress”.

After all, busses were the future. And trams were old-fashion and “causing” congestion. And rail was “costing money” but roads are free!

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 17, 2023 1:05 pm

Documented history disagrees. The prioritisation of roads over alternatives like rail was 100% a consequence of effective lobbying and propaganda by the motor industry, and technocrats moving back and forth via the revolving door between roadbuilding companies and public sector authorities playing the American version of The Game of Mates, just as it did here post WW2.

www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com

??? You want me to purchase something to provide proof you are correct? How about we just agree that you are then. I was mistaken, thanks for clearing that up

fat and old wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 18, 2023 6:16 am

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 17, 2023 1:05 pm

Documented history disagrees. The prioritisation of roads over alternatives like rail was 100% a consequence of effective lobbying and propaganda by the motor industry, and technocrats moving back and forth via the revolving door between roadbuilding companies and public sector authorities playing the American version of The Game of Mates, just as it did here post WW2.

www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com

??? You want me to purchase something to provide proof you are correct? How about we just agree that you are then. I was mistaken, thanks for clearing that up

Not suggesting you buy it at all. That's entirely up to you. The link was to provide a citation.

Just like most other citations such as papers presented in peer-reviewed academic journals, if you want to read the paper you have to pay for access.

However, if you want to educate yourself about the history of roads, the fact that the movement for good roads was started by cyclists, and how it morphed into and was co-opted by the motor industry, then I highly commend the book to you. There was a free e-book with the text but not the illustrations, but I'm not sure if it's still available.

Here's another book that should be on everyone's reading list:
Rigged: How networks of powerful mates rip off everyday Australians - recommended as "need to know" by SMH Economics Editor Ross Gittins.

It is particulalry salient to how things like casinos and major road projects get proposed and approved despite having low or negative benefit-to-cost ratios, and obviously better alternatives such as investment in light and heavy rail get excluded from scope.

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 18, 2023 9:44 am

fat and old wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 18, 2023 6:16 am

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 17, 2023 1:05 pm

Documented history disagrees. The prioritisation of roads over alternatives like rail was 100% a consequence of effective lobbying and propaganda by the motor industry, and technocrats moving back and forth via the revolving door between roadbuilding companies and public sector authorities playing the American version of The Game of Mates, just as it did here post WW2.

www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com

??? You want me to purchase something to provide proof you are correct? How about we just agree that you are then. I was mistaken, thanks for clearing that up

Not suggesting you buy it at all. That's entirely up to you. The link was to provide a citation.

If I was to provide a citation to back my argument, I'd pick one that is freely available, or at least quote the salient text. Otherwise, I'm asking you to take me at face value, which is not the way it works hereabouts. That's just me, we're all different.

However, if you want to educate yourself about the history of roads, the fact that the movement for good roads was started by cyclists, and how it morphed into and was co-opted by the motor industry, then I highly commend the book to you. There was a free e-book with the text but not the illustrations, but I'm not sure if it's still available.

I remember when it was first put up as a kickstarter (or whatever funding method was used), and the subsequent rapture upon its release. While the co-opting of road construction (as opposed to roads) is indisputable, Documented History shows roads pre-existing both cycles and motor vehicles. One could say that roads were indeed co-opted by cycles with regards to horse and carts, which were predated by hand pulled carts which were predated by humans with big assed panniers on their backs which were predated by humans with hands. At each juncture, their was another group of humans looking to make an easy dollar out of this, whether it was taxes, rent seeking, tariffs or just gold old plain corruption. Why were patents invented?

Here's another book that should be on everyone's reading list:
Rigged: How networks of powerful mates rip off everyday Australians - recommended as "need to know" by SMH Economics Editor Ross Gittins.

I've read it, but thanks for the reference.

As before, I agree with your basic premise that I was incorrect. Thanks for the follow up

fat and old wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 18, 2023 4:48 pm

I remember when it was first put up as a kickstarter (or whatever funding method was used), and the subsequent rapture upon its release. While the co-opting of road construction (as opposed to roads) is indisputable, Documented History shows roads pre-existing both cycles and motor vehicles. One could say that roads were indeed co-opted by cycles with regards to horse and carts, which were predated by hand pulled carts which were predated by humans with big assed panniers on their backs which were predated by humans with hands. At each juncture, their was another group of humans looking to make an easy dollar out of this, whether it was taxes, rent seeking, tariffs or just gold old plain corruption. Why were patents invented?

You're quite right about much of that. What I guess is being missed is that for multiple decades roads were allowed to fall into quite a bad state of disrepair when rail began to displace horse-drawn vehicles for freight and travel when significant distance was involved, from the middle 19th century. Towns became quite badly disconnected and highly dependent on rail operators. Here in Australia it was between river travel and rail.

(As an aside, some of that history runs in my family - my paternal great-grandfather was a shipwright in the Manning River area in the 19th century/early 20th. It sounds grandiose but was that time's equivalent of a truck dealership except they made their own stock. My maternal grandfather managed a butter factory on the same river, receiving raw materials by milk boat in the 1920s and 30s. One of those boats operates as a tourist boat on Sydney Harbour today.)

It is that disrepair to the point of being often impassable that triggered the good roads movement. Without many of the conditions being set up by the cycling industry, it's very likely that the motor industry would not have started, or would have taken much longer to get moving.

You've nailed it on the easy dollar motivation.

Proving that the Raptor and RAM were only the beginning

The weaponised SUV set to terrify America’s streets (The Guardian)

Oliver Wainwright wrote:In southern California, parking lot warfare just got real. Not content with their supersized pickup trucks and child-killing SUVs, America’s road warriors can now go full military apocalypse, with the arrival of the Rezvani Vengeance.

While its competitors offer heated seats and optional roof-racks, this souped-up SUV boasts bulletproof glass, blinding strobe lights, electrified doorhandles, and wing mirrors that can shoot pepper spray – handy for putting those pesky cyclists in their place.

You need $250,000 for the entry level model, double to option it up ( no riff-raff need apply).

As he says, at least this manufacturer is honest in their marketing :

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, drivers behind the wheel of an SUV are two to three times more likely to kill a pedestrian in a collision than when driving a regular car. A study in Michigan found that, at 20-39 mph, 30% of SUV crashes resulted in a pedestrian fatality, compared with 23% of car crashes. While, at 40mph or above, 100% of SUV crashes resulted in a pedestrian death, compared with 54% of car crashes.

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:13 pm

Proving that the Raptor and RAM were only the beginning

The weaponised SUV set to terrify America’s streets (The Guardian)

Oliver Wainwright wrote:In southern California, parking lot warfare just got real. Not content with their supersized pickup trucks and child-killing SUVs, America’s road warriors can now go full military apocalypse, with the arrival of the Rezvani Vengeance.

While its competitors offer heated seats and optional roof-racks, this souped-up SUV boasts bulletproof glass, blinding strobe lights, electrified doorhandles, and wing mirrors that can shoot pepper spray – handy for putting those pesky cyclists in their place.

You need $250,000 for the entry level model, double to option it up ( no riff-raff need apply).

As he says, at least this manufacturer is honest in their marketing :

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, drivers behind the wheel of an SUV are two to three times more likely to kill a pedestrian in a collision than when driving a regular car. A study in Michigan found that, at 20-39 mph, 30% of SUV crashes resulted in a pedestrian fatality, compared with 23% of car crashes. While, at 40mph or above, 100% of SUV crashes resulted in a pedestrian death, compared with 54% of car crashes.

It's not going to take off. All that money and it only has the same interior as a Cadillac Escalade? Meh... I think people are getting into a fuss about nothing. Some celebrities will probably have it for about 3 months while they think it is cool, or maybe some far right types will buy it to enhance their notoriety, but I think it will probably flop.

A regular sized car is also harmful to pedestrians or cyclists in the wrong hands, but it doesn't get as much attention because it has sedate styling.

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:03 pm

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:13 pm

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, drivers behind the wheel of an SUV are two to three times more likely to kill a pedestrian in a collision than when driving a regular car.

...
A regular sized car is also harmful to pedestrians or cyclists in the wrong hands, but it doesn't get as much attention because it has sedate styling.

That "styling" (high front bonnet, big and high bumper, high dash) contributes to both the accident rate (due to poor visibility) and the lethality of large SUV-style vehicles (and "pickup trucks").

IIHS wrote:showing that SUVs were more likely than cars to throw pedestrians forward and nearly twice as likely to cause severe hip and thigh injuries. These injuries were mainly caused by impacts with the bumper, grille or headlights. That’s likely because the high point of the front profile, or “leading edge,” of most new SUVs is still considerably higher than that of the average car.

IIHS wrote:In a crash with a traditional, block-front SUV, the grille strikes the pedestrian’s pelvis or chest split seconds after the bumper hits the lower extremities, transferring more energy to the pedestrian’s body. It’s possible that a more sloping profile could do less damage.

NBC wrote:“The problem has gotten worse with the increased popularity of SUVs, pickup trucks and minivans as family vehicles,” says Mike Quincy, an automotive expert with Consumer Reports. “Some of the blind spots are incredible.

The current "pick up trucks" would likely fail the current London truck visibility standards

Those "styling" choices (including actual size) are killing people.

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:27 am

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:03 pm

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:13 pm

...
A regular sized car is also harmful to pedestrians or cyclists in the wrong hands, but it doesn't get as much attention because it has sedate styling.

That "styling" (high front bonnet, big and high bumper, high dash) contributes to both the accident rate (due to poor visibility) and the lethality of large SUV-style vehicles (and "pickup trucks").

IIHS wrote:showing that SUVs were more likely than cars to throw pedestrians forward and nearly twice as likely to cause severe hip and thigh injuries. These injuries were mainly caused by impacts with the bumper, grille or headlights. That’s likely because the high point of the front profile, or “leading edge,” of most new SUVs is still considerably higher than that of the average car.

IIHS wrote:In a crash with a traditional, block-front SUV, the grille strikes the pedestrian’s pelvis or chest split seconds after the bumper hits the lower extremities, transferring more energy to the pedestrian’s body. It’s possible that a more sloping profile could do less damage.

NBC wrote:“The problem has gotten worse with the increased popularity of SUVs, pickup trucks and minivans as family vehicles,” says Mike Quincy, an automotive expert with Consumer Reports. “Some of the blind spots are incredible.

The current "pick up trucks" would likely fail the current London truck visibility standards

Those "styling" choices (including actual size) are killing people.

The thing is hardly going to be seen at all, it's a tiny manufacturer and extreme low volume to a "select" crowd.

Did anyone have any grumbles about the pedestrian or cycling safety of BMW 3 series in South Africa fitted with flame throwing devices.

The best thing we can do with this pretender wannabe heap is to give it no publicity.

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:27 am

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:03 pm

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:13 pm

...
A regular sized car is also harmful to pedestrians or cyclists in the wrong hands, but it doesn't get as much attention because it has sedate styling.

That "styling" (high front bonnet, big and high bumper, high dash) contributes to both the accident rate (due to poor visibility) and the lethality of large SUV-style vehicles (and "pickup trucks").

IIHS wrote:showing that SUVs were more likely than cars to throw pedestrians forward and nearly twice as likely to cause severe hip and thigh injuries. These injuries were mainly caused by impacts with the bumper, grille or headlights. That’s likely because the high point of the front profile, or “leading edge,” of most new SUVs is still considerably higher than that of the average car.

IIHS wrote:In a crash with a traditional, block-front SUV, the grille strikes the pedestrian’s pelvis or chest split seconds after the bumper hits the lower extremities, transferring more energy to the pedestrian’s body. It’s possible that a more sloping profile could do less damage.

NBC wrote:“The problem has gotten worse with the increased popularity of SUVs, pickup trucks and minivans as family vehicles,” says Mike Quincy, an automotive expert with Consumer Reports. “Some of the blind spots are incredible.

The current "pick up trucks" would likely fail the current London truck visibility standards

Those "styling" choices (including actual size) are killing people.

The book I am reading on the subject of (the lack of) SUV safety confirms the above.

Fun fact: they are more than twice as likely to kill children in driveways than conventional vehicles.

Back in the day there was concern about pollution including motor vehicle pollution. Half a century later we still have a lot of problems that motor vehicles are a part contributor
https://youtu.be/udqxt6gKogI

Cyclists Now Outnumber Motorists In City Of London

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... 393bfc2236

Canberra developers could soon have the option to argue for fewer parking spots, but would it work?
Niki Burnside, ABC Online, 12 April

Quotes from various punters including

ACT vice chairman of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport Michael de Percy said while encouraging people to use their cars less was a worthy goal, the plan could have unintended consequences.

Not a lot of new stuff

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:41 am

Canberra developers could soon have the option to argue for fewer parking spots, but would it work?
Niki Burnside, ABC Online, 12 April

Quotes from various punters including

ACT vice chairman of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport Michael de Percy said while encouraging people to use their cars less was a worthy goal, the plan could have unintended consequences.

Not a lot of new stuff

In Sydney a significant component to the resistance of cycle paths is the reduction of on road parking spots. If developers reduce the number of parking spots in their development there will be more parking on the street and therefor more resistance to the on street parking area being reallocated to another purpose

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 14, 2023 8:51 pm

In Sydney a significant component to the resistance of cycle paths is the reduction of on road parking spots. If developers reduce the number of parking spots in their development there will be more parking on the street and therefor more resistance to the on street parking area being reallocated to another purpose

Certainly. In Paris they've kept local parking by removing lanes, to the point of making certain roads one-way (for MVs only, bikes can go either way).

The real issue in most Australian cities is the lack of alternatives to The Car once you're off the main train lines. Only MEL has it's trams and (AFAIK) no city has seriously prioritised busses over general traffic (Perth has some bus lanes, but simple stuff like policing them or having busses have priority at traffic lights is still missing).

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 15, 2023 10:25 pm

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 14, 2023 8:51 pm

In Sydney a significant component to the resistance of cycle paths is the reduction of on road parking spots. If developers reduce the number of parking spots in their development there will be more parking on the street and therefor more resistance to the on street parking area being reallocated to another purpose

Certainly. In Paris they've kept local parking by removing lanes, to the point of making certain roads one-way (for MVs only, bikes can go either way).

The real issue in most Australian cities is the lack of alternatives to The Car once you're off the main train lines. Only MEL has it's trams and (AFAIK) no city has seriously prioritised busses over general traffic (Perth has some bus lanes, but simple stuff like policing them or having busses have priority at traffic lights is still missing).

There is quite a bit of prioritised bussing in Melbourne. Many multi-lane DOT roads have received bus only lanes and prioritised signaling at intersections. Bus lanes are typically built in the last 2-400m of one of these roads before an intersection. As for enforcement, to be honest from what I've seen self enforcement has/is working pretty wee. There will always be dongos who DGAF, but for the most part i's pretty good.

I believe that Canberra is pretty good as well, but that's from old memories and could well be wrong.

MB is quite correct re the reduction of parking spots I think. I've already noted the specified parking for share cars out front of those "no car" developments in Melbourne. I noted two nights ago a Red Rooster car park in Preston that was 3/4 full at 3.00am. It was full of cars from the apartment block next door. This is common in that area; many 4-8 story blocks are built along a main road (app. 2k long section), have 1 park space. Council has modified the road to reduce parking to a large degree, as a result the side streets are absolutely chokkas with cars. These are all within a 5 minute or less walk to the 3 local brand new rail stations or 2-3 minute walk to a tram stop. FWIW, cycling facilities are excellent with off road paths connecting to both the new paths beneath the OH rail and main path into the CBD and are heavily used, with a large uptake of legal e-bikes in evidence.

Continuing on within the title topic, I got an email from North Sydney Council (my favourites!) due to my submission regarding changes to "car parking requirements for new high-density developments in areas with high public transport accessibility".

The response is below:

North Sydney Council email wrote: Dear Submitter,

Please be advised that Council formally considered your submission, as part of its post exhibition report at its meeting of 26 April 2023. Council subsequently resolved to adopt the amendment to North Sydney Development Control Plan (NSDCP) 2013 to revise the car parking requirements for new high-density developments in areas with high public transport accessibility with some minor amendments. In particular it resolved to:

• amend the 2-bedroom dwelling rate from 0.6 spaces per dwelling to 0.7 spaces per dwelling; and
• amend the 3-bedroom dwelling rate from 0.7:1 to 1:1

A copy of the report and minutes to the meeting can be found here:
https://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/coun ... il-reports

The amendment to NSDCP 2013 come into effect on 4 May 2023 following its publication on Council’s website. A copy of NSDCP 2013 as amended can be found here:

https://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/deve ... ntrol-plan

Regards,

I've omitted the authors name but note it has come from a 'Student Strategic Planner'. Quite the way to throw a junior staffer under a bus, well done, NSC.

Councils considered response to public transport proximity, both present and incoming, is to increase the parking requirements. Well done, again, NSC. I can only think that this will give some people additional income by way of leasing parking spaces within a building to someone willing to drive into a station closer to the city and catch a train/future metro. While there was no chance of them being reduced, that they have gone up is not a slight surprise. Also buried in this was a removal of visitor parking requirements to a great extent. Again, not a bad thing, as most of it seems to be taken up by residents fighting for a place to park anyway.

Interestingly, if you refer to the original report that this is in response to, it says:

NSC report of July 2022 wrote: This report outlines amended off street parking requirements for private development for
those areas that will be served by excellent levels of public transport represented by the
operation of Crows Nest and North Sydney Metro stations. The fundamental direction
adopted by this report, consistent with Council’s Ecologically Sustainable Development Best
Practice Project (2014) and the North Sydney Transport Strategy (2017), is that in areas of high
public transport accessibility, as represented by walking catchments of the future metro
stations and existing railway stations located within existing commercial centres, off street
parking rates should be managed accordingly.

More specifically, this report recommends that all types of high density residential
development within areas that have been identified as having high levels of public transport
accessibility, should have a reduced rate of off-street parking provision. Similarly, the lower
rate of parking that is currently applied in the North Sydney CBD, St Leonards and Milsons
Point for commercial type development, should also be applied in these areas of high public
transport accessibility.

This approach supports the principle of more sustainable transport options like walking,
cycling and public transport as well as managing traffic growth and cumulatively assisting in
creating and or preserving, safer environments of higher amenity for people.

The surge of development that has been and continues to occur in these areas, requires an
immediate policy response to capture the benefits of the higher levels of accessibility
represented by the commencement and operation of Metro.

Also of note, the majority of objections were based on how difficult it was to find on-street parking now, and that lowering the ratios would make this harder. Given the allowances are logical now, one wonders how many locals have packed their car space or garage with furniture and other storage and are left parking on the street? It seems to be quite a common theme in the objections. If you can't find street parking now, go park in your garage or allotted car space, yeah? This should be a question and automatically exclude everyone who does this (yes, I do this and accept that sometimes I park 400m from home). There is also a lot of "this will increase traffic congestion" objections. How? By leaving stationary objects on a roadside, theoretically out of the lanes of travel? Or by making people double park or circle the block a dozen times sweating on someone to move?

familyguy wrote: ↑

Fri May 05, 2023 2:42 pm

Continuing on within the title topic, I got an email from North Sydney Council (my favourites!) due to my submission regarding changes to "car parking requirements for new high-density developments in areas with high public transport accessibility".

Think you may enjoy this.
Oh and yes North Sydney Council remains a joke

https://the-riotact.com/is-it-finally-a ... -no/661727
Is it finally about to become easier to find a car park in Braddon? The short answer is no...

18 May 2023
No long-time local needs to be told it’s nigh impossible to find a car park in Braddon.

So when the City Renewal Authority (CRA) sets to work on an “exciting milestone” for the inner-north suburb – designed to “encourage more people to enjoy Braddon’s array of retail shops, cafes, bars and restaurants” – you might be hoping the days of circling Lonsdale Street in your car waiting to pounce on an empty spot are finally numbered.

They’re not.

There will actually be up to 25 fewer car spaces along the main road when construction wraps up in late 2024.

Local businesses have previously described this attempt to curb cars as a “death blow”.

“Without convenient parking, customers will head elsewhere and desert our boutique small businesses for large franchises in the malls with multistorey parking,” Kel Watt from Braddon’s United Retailers and Traders (BURT) told Region in 2022.

But the forecast is decidedly less dire for local community group, The Braddon Collective. They’re all for fewer cars.

Spokespeople Susan Davidson and Nick Seefried essentially get around town either on foot or on bicycle and say the changes are years overdue.

“When my kids were younger, I would never let them walk through here unaccompanied and my youngest is now 25,” Susan says.

“We’ve had traffic problems for a very long time.”

As Braddon fills in with more and more apartments, more and more people are taking to the streets on foot, on bikes, on e-scooters, and with prams and wheelchairs. Throw in cars and it’s a risky mix.

“At the moment, there are no pedestrian crossings in Braddon, so people have to cross at the roundabouts,” Susan says.

“This is very dangerous, especially for older people, parents with prams and children.”

Over the next year and a half, the local government will pour about $4 million into upgrading the intersections at either end of Lonsdale Street with landscaped pedestrian crossings. All the footpaths in between will be widened and given new paving, improved lighting, more bike racks, bins, garden beds and urban art. The car parks in the central median strip will also be swapped out for garden beds and bench seats.

Even though the 40 km/h speed limit will remain, the change in focus is clear.

“This is the shopping centre model,” Nick explains.

“Make spaces where people are not the lowest transport priority on the pyramid.”

Although they’ve received mixed reactions, Susan and Nick aren’t worried about the flow-on effects fewer car parks will have on business.

“Foot traffic is actually what brings people to your business – not necessarily being able to park right outside,” Susan says.

It’s also why they don’t see another multistorey car park as the answer to complement the Canberra Centre’s.

“This is a residential area so we prefer it didn’t take that route,” Nick says.

“We prefer the government set about trying to balance how people get here rather than building for what they have. Currently, the car is king here, but we have to start increasing the share of other forms of transport – walking and cycling.”

Build for active travellers and the active travellers will come is the general philosophy. It’s also why residents would ideally like upgrades to go further – into Mort Street and Elouera Street – and include amenities like a public toilet block and a proper playground in Haig Park.

“The whole of Braddon needs looking at, to be honest,” Susan says.

“It has the second highest density of all the Canberra suburbs, and it’s only getting more and more dense.”

Nick expects there will still be enough parking in the area to cater for those who can’t find other ways into Braddon, and even regular events like the Summernats Fringe Festival, when hundreds of cars descend on Lonsdale Street every January for a ‘show and shine’ event.

“Braddon is a place of pilgrimage for Summernats fans and we love it,” he says.

“The Fringe Festival may expand and move up the other streets, but if anything, the upgrades will make the owners cruise a bit slower so people can actually take a good look at all the hard effort they’ve put into their cars.”

But until light rail reaches Tuggeranong, or bus connections between the outer suburbs and the city improve, Susan says there will be “growing pains”.

“We’re transitioning from a big country town to a city, and there are always growing pains when that happens,” she says.

“But it will happen and people will adapt. Every Canberra town centre is experiencing this. We need to think of long-term solutions.”

But '15 minute cities are a NWO depopulation scheme!' Very good. Carry on, Braddon.

It appears that Melbourne is really on the move to ban cars or unnecessary motor vehicles from the CBD in favour of Pedestrians/bicycle riders and Public Transport. https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-u ... a370eee300

It would be easy for Melbourne to do this due to the grid pattern of Melbourne CBD streets.

It appears unrealistic for private cars in general to be used in the Melbourne CBD as Trams are free to use for everyone within the CBD limits (no such luck in Sydney) It's quite flat and easy to walk all around the city, I know because walked pretty much all of it from corner to corner, North to South,East to West.

So, if this happens, then the roadways that run alongside of the Tram lines, will be great for Bicycles with lots of space.

I wonder if this has something to do with the Greens winning much of Melbourne's inner city seats during the last election.

Less than a 4 hour train ride from Albury would place me in amongst all the great riding infrastructure you have down there, after my house is sorted, it feels like a possibility.

brumby33

Another movement taking on huge SUVs and pick-up trucks:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/moto ... 49c61a52cd

Not my idea.

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 7:10 pm

Another movement taking on huge SUVs and pick-up trucks:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/moto ... 49c61a52cd

Not my idea.

I like it, way too many of those urban assault vehicles on city roads. They don't carry tools, they don't tow anything and they never go off road. Endemic where I am, at least 30KMs from the edge of Melbourne.

DS

DavidS wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 9:06 pm

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 7:10 pm

Another movement taking on huge SUVs and pick-up trucks:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/moto ... 49c61a52cd

Not my idea.

I like it, way too many of those urban assault vehicles on city roads. They don't carry tools, they don't tow anything and they never go off road. Endemic where I am, at least 30KMs from the edge of Melbourne.

DS

I predict flame war coming in 3, 2, 1.... (not from me though)

Even small cars are urban assault vehicles in the hands of a bad driver, we've seen that before - one of my worst experiences was not with a big SUV but with a little Subaru Impreza hatchback, two days in a row - the same one.