Australian Infrastructure Audit

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15583
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Australian Infrastructure Audit

Postby AUbicycles » Fri May 22, 2015 9:00 pm

Today the Federal government realised the Australian Infrastructure Audit - news summarised that the findings with the effect of $53 billion cost of congestion (in the future).

How does cycling rate?

Infrastructure is more than just transport, but looking into the report on the transport, the word "cycling" has two mentions... one to talk about Hobart having a higher than national average bicycle commuting rate, and to Darwin who had the highest national average. That's It.

The Prime Minister announces that congestion is a problem.... so we need more roads and bigger roads and more public transport. I agree with public transport, right now there are serious deficits. With motorised transport - sure, to an extent improving road infrastructure is progress and necessary.... but we all know that bigger roads get more cars and more congested so action is also need create alternative transport alternatives, make public transport more attractive, personal mobility and of course... cycling. Cycling is a transport solution and together with public transport creates viable transport alternatives which reduce congestion.

Here is the link to the main page of the Audit where the key findings and complete documents can be viewed (PDF).
http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov. ... Audit.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Cycling is in my BNA

warthog1
Posts: 14305
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit

Postby warthog1 » Fri May 22, 2015 10:57 pm

Cycling and public tpt dont directly serve any big business vested interests. Hence the lack of support or consideration.
It needs a groundswell of support from the public to make our pollies worry about votes. Its hard to get that going when popular media is controlled by conservative thinking individuals.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15583
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit

Postby AUbicycles » Sat May 23, 2015 10:06 pm

Generally alternative transport needs to be considered for any major developments, though consideration doesn't mean it will happen.

The value of the audit however is that the federal government now focusses on infrastructure, including transport infrastructure so cycling interest groups need to ensure that this alternative transport is also part of the mix... and it is not just more roads and bigger roads - without cycling provision.

You are right, the power of cycling bodies is more limited than other bodies... but persistence and activity is still important.
Cycling is in my BNA

Top_Bhoy
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:19 pm

Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit

Postby Top_Bhoy » Sun May 24, 2015 2:45 pm

There are many cycling groups at the grass roots doing great stuff at a local level. Has it been agreed as to which organisation(s) would/is best able to, represent the interests of cycling and cyclists in these higher level discussions? Who is best place to do so? I'd personally rule out organisations such as Cycling Australia where the primary role is the organisational sporting aspects of cycling.

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15583
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit

Postby AUbicycles » Sun May 24, 2015 7:57 pm

Yes and no. Firstly a lot of organisations don't or won't work together (they feel it is a competition)

But through the different levels of government, this is a basic overview of which cycling groups are, or should be active.

Local = BUGs / local groups

State = State adocacy organisations

Federal = National Body


There is cross-over, state groups can be active in local issues. Likewise, speciality interest groups such the Amy Gillet Foundation are active on different levels, and in some states together wuth the main state advocacy group.

On a federal level, one group is trying to move from state to national. Otherwise on a political front the CPF directly connects with Federal politicians and also consciously doesn't have and end user (cyclist) member base, rather is industry.

There is a lot of interest for a single united representative body, but power plays, personalities and history has unfortunately always blocked this...although it is what we also need.
Cycling is in my BNA

User avatar
yugyug
Posts: 1826
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit

Postby yugyug » Sun May 24, 2015 8:12 pm

AUbicycles wrote: Federal = National Body

~

On a federal level, one group is trying to move from state to national.
Pity us all if its BN(v) you mean.

So if Cycling Australia is sports focussed it's an inappropriate advocate at the national level. Personally I think AGF is inappropriate for the same reason, more or less. Who else operates at the national level?

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15583
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit

Postby AUbicycles » Sun May 24, 2015 11:21 pm

Cycling Australia was traditionally never interested in the advocacy part, even on the state level there were attempts but it never really worked. Currently Cycling Australia is branching out, and while my view is that they will not take on an advocacy role, they are seeking a broader and non-competitive audience which naturally means advocacy connection - eg. with the AGF.

Nationally, aside from the Cycling Promotion Fund (CPF) mentioned earlier (BNV chose not to attend the recent summit in Canberra, which was attended by all other state advocacy groups and a few other key interest groups such as the AGF and Australian Cyclist Party).

On the AGF, they have a specific agenda. At one time it was suggested that they wanted to be a peak Australian advocacy body to effectively replace others. As time has past, their focus has become clarified and means that they work well on this and often in partnership with other groups - for example the with state advocacy groups generally have a much broader role in cycling advocacy (i.e. the often have long term relationships with planning departments and are regularly involved as an interest group representative for planning decisions). AGF also have a different organisational model - more corporate alignment and the charitable fund-raising whereas the state organisations have a paid member paid.

While there are different groups out there, the best way that they can represent cyclists is actively working together to unit and provide support and access across all government levels. The summit in Canberra run by the CPF was an approach to unite the various groups to agree on common objectives, such as the min. 1 metre safe passing distance. The CPF is not a national cycling advocacy managing body but has down very well in bringing the groups together to talk.
Cycling is in my BNA

Top_Bhoy
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:19 pm

Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit

Postby Top_Bhoy » Tue May 26, 2015 5:37 pm

AUbicycles wrote:There is a lot of interest for a single united representative body, but power plays, personalities and history has unfortunately always blocked this...although it is what we also need.
A very sad state of affairs that it appears there are too many egoists and drama queens who, at a national level, would rather not have a single united representative body than compromise or look at alternative methods.

Cycling is the only loser. It will be too late if Govt level decisions are taken while cycling is too busy in-fighting one another.

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit

Postby Xplora » Wed May 27, 2015 10:54 pm

It is quite obvious why this has happened, TB. There is no unity because there are big differences in opinion. I do not want a group advocating MHL or against 1m passing laws. Any alternative is not acceptable. Many agree with me. Some don't. Hence different groups.

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15583
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit

Postby AUbicycles » Thu May 28, 2015 9:52 am

Xplora, it is good that you know what you want.

Though adding to the mix, many groups know the affect of MHL on cycle participation and as we call all see in the Mandatory Helmet Laws discussion forum, there is no single view when it comes to the safety value.

In the content of advocacy, the MHL is something I have discussed with many advocacy groups and the unlying theme is that most acknowledge that it is a valid topic for cycling advocacy... however it is 'too hot'. Far from shying away from important topics, the reason that advocacy groups choose not to deal with this is that there far more progress can be made in other areas.

For example the "1 metre minimum safe passing distance" has been adopted by all of the main Australian cycling advocacy groups, except for one. It comes down to choosing the topics which the organisations can make a realistic positive impact and the MHL is not one of this at the moment. Of course it means that they have to encourage their members to abide by the laws which govern us.
Cycling is in my BNA

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6605
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit

Postby Thoglette » Fri May 29, 2015 5:28 pm

AUbicycles wrote:there is no single view when it comes to the safety value.
Indeed, there's plenty to argue that safety is the wrong point to focus on.

Further, (and as mentioned by others), "official national bodies" have a bad habit of becoming mouthpieces of "industry" and unwilling to "upset key stakeholders"

The League of American Wheelmen is suffering exactly this problem
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

Top_Bhoy
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:19 pm

Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit

Postby Top_Bhoy » Fri May 29, 2015 8:05 pm

Thoglette wrote:
AUbicycles wrote:there is no single view when it comes to the safety value.
Indeed, there's plenty to argue that safety is the wrong point to focus on.

Further, (and as mentioned by others), "official national bodies" have a bad habit of becoming mouthpieces of "industry" and unwilling to "upset key stakeholders"

The League of American Wheelmen is suffering exactly this problem
Expressed in the context of cycling, safety is very much an all encompassing word. However, what would you argue on if you don't concentrate on safety? What in your opinion is the way forward to reduce cycling fatalities and serious injuries resulting from vehicular collisions every year?

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6605
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Australian Infrastructure Audit

Postby Thoglette » Sat May 30, 2015 1:03 am

Top_Bhoy wrote: Expressed in the context of cycling, safety is very much an all encompassing word. However, what would you argue on if you don't concentrate on safety? What in your opinion is the way forward to reduce cycling fatalities and serious injuries resulting from vehicular collisions every year?
I didn't talk about it in the context of safety, I talked about it in the context of MHL. MHLs (as AUbicycles points out) are a long way down the ladder.

Attitudes are the biggie.
What will help?
* Enforcement of existing safe-passing/reckless/dangerous driving laws
* Public education campaigns - including in driver (re)testing.
* advocacy groups taking the hard line and supporting cyclists in the courts
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users