the Lord Mayor StephenYarwood sent me a message (and communicated by Facebook to his supporters) that he is going in to a funding meeting where one of the major elements being discussed and he is pushing to be endorsed and adoped is the city's Bicycle Action Plan.
The plan, and I might be reading incorrectly, is worth $2mil give or take over three years.
It's hard to communicate the significance of this here, and perhaps some of my fellow Bicycle Institute committee members might help, but this is big. This is the reason why many of us pushed and promoted Steven's campaign to become Lord Mayor over the usual business people and developers - he is a planner and he understands that a city like Adelaide needs a Bicycle Action Plan and needs it now.
The other major point - and this is where you all should be congratulated - is the document name checks this website and community and The Bicycle Insitute as a source for ideas and discussion and evidence the plan is needed and money should be spent.
Well done. I for one am very proud.
This is just an exerpt from the document. Read the full document (page 64 onwards) here.
Bicycle Action Plan 2011-13
Strategic Alignment: Program & Value Proposition:
Outcome 3 - Accessible and Connected Capital City Accessible City - World renowned design
Alan Perkins, PM Accessible City
Public Justin Robbins, A/PM Accessible City
That the Corporate Planning, Governance & Finance Committee recommends to Council that
1. Endorses the Bicycle Action Plan 2011-2013, Attachment A to Item 5 on the Agenda for the meeting of the Corporate Planning, Governance & Finance Committee held on
11 October 2011.
2. Refers the additional funding required for the Bicycle Action Plan in 2011-2012 to the first 2011/12 Budget Reconsideration.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
1. To ensure that improvements for cycling in the City are undertaken in 2012 and 2013 while the Integrated Movement Strategy is being completed.
1. The proposed Bicycle Action Plan (BAP) for 2011-2013 forms Attachment A. It is intended to succeed the Bicycle Action Plan 2008-11. The achievements of the previous Plan are outlined in Attachment C, although it is noted that not all actions in the previous plan were completed due to funding constraints or the potential adverse impact on general traffic.
Corporate Planning, Governance & Finance Committee Meeting - Agenda - 11 October 2011
P a g e | 2 I t e m 5
2. The BAP has been prepared concurrently with the review of the Integrated Movement
Strategy (IMS) that will be the subject of a Council workshop on 26th October 2011. The cycling community has been consulted, and their suggestions can be found on the website www.adelaidecyclists.com A budget submission provided by the Bicycle Institute of South Australia and subsequent discussions with the Institute also contributed to the development of the plan.
3. The BAP is an interim Action Plan to cover the years 2011-13. Thereafter a new plan will be prepared that fully reflects the directions set by the IMS, or cycling actions will be incorporated into the 4-year IMS implementation program.
4. The Council’s initial cycling budget allocation for 2011-12 is below the average of the previous 3 financial years due to lower than average State Government funding received for Park Lands Trail funding. The BAP proposes additional funding for this financial year that includes cycling works, plus the design of cycle lanes for implementation in 2012-13.
Features of the Bicycle Action Plan 2011-13
5. The proposed actions fill in some of the most critical gaps in the cycle lane network, provide improved cyclist safety at intersections, more bike parking on-street and in UParks, change facilities, signage and bike racks.
6. Promotion and organisation of cycling events and the city cycling network, and cycling artwork is included.
7. The design of dedicated cycle routes is proposed for 2011-12, with implementation in 2012- 13 for:
7.1 Pulteney Street between Pirie Street and North Terrace;
7.2 Regent Street/Frome Street;
7.3 King William Road from Brougham Place to North Terrace.
8. The completion of the Waymouth Street Cycle lane is already included in the 2011-12 budget, with 50% funding from the State Black Spot program. Design of the remaining section of cycle lane on North Terrace is proposed for 2012-13, with implementation in 2013-14. Attachment B maps the cycle lane extensions proposed in the Plan, overlaid on existing daily cycling volumes.
Monitoring 9. It is proposed to establish a reference group to oversee the implementation and delivery of the draft Bicycle Action Plan 2011-13. Members will be drawn from Council staff, the State Government’s Office of Cycling and Walking, city users who are cyclists and a Council Member nominee.
Were they thinking? Or were they only thinking of "the nut on the steering wheel"?
And you should be proud Angus. You've done a great job fostering and growing the AC community.
The table on pages 69 & 70 indicates where the money will be spent. In addition to additional bike lanes, bike boxes and bike parking there are some interesting items in there:
Excellent news for cycling in the ACC area. Let's hope the Council accept the recommendation and support it fully.
Had a quick read through. There's some good ideas, especially infrastructure as well as safety. Good work Angus. You should be proud, you do a great job here. Cheers!
Great news, well done to Gus and Bicycle Institute.
The real test as to whether this BAP is worth much is not what is done on the main roads and straight routes mentioned, but what eventuates in improving effective and safe connectivity with bicycle routes into the city and for those then riding across the city area to specific 'trip generator' destinations. What's the point of having a square mile where it's easy to ride around on the main and straight bits when the real problems are encountered in getting into the city or then getting to where you need to go?
If you think about it, with average vehicle speeds within the Adelaide square mile on the main roads in the order of 20km/h or less one has to ask what all the fuss is really about (or perhaps what it should really all be about). Yes - I know perfectly well that the ACC has great potential to set an example for other Councils, to 'prove' that innovative approaches are worth pursuing and to provide high-profile evidence to (and for) Sate Government of acceptance of politically 'risky' policies (of which supporting bicycle use appears to be one). So I applaud the L/Mayor's advocacy and determination etc etc. However it's all more complicated than simply winning people over and getting votes on the table.
The debacle in Sturt St is surely evidence for this. If you want to experience the 'complications' involved in making the square mile bike friendly and bike-functional, try riding your bike up from the Western suburbs to the Central Market. Or to Adelaide Uni or the RAH. Or to the Courts. Or through the city to the Eastern or Inner Southern suburbs. You encounter a chaos of disappearing lanes, uncontrolled road crossings (or bicycle crossings placed on sweeping curves with poor sight lines, no warning and excessive speeds), a complete lack of adequate lighting at night (especially where functional bike routes cross main city thoroughfares), an absence or marked, continuous and high-profile bicycle routes or priority-bike ways, no suitably speed-controlled mixed traffic zones and a complete lack (apart from the West Trc bike path and the parklands pathways) of any real gesture towards those who (through age, infirmity or disability) do not wish to or cannot ride safely in traffic (ie; that is, on the roadway).
There is also nothing in place as far as I can see in the BAP that is aimed at generating 'cycling culture' within the city, particularly as it might be expressed in terms of workplace accommodation, employer support and cycling profile. There's no attempt to register public or private bicycle parking, no obvious process for guaranteeing that new developments follow ACC bike parking and storage requirements and no organised and comprehensive resourcing support for employees or visitors to adopt the cycling option! Such strategies have been actively used in many cities around the world for the past 2 or 3 decades yet we are still to see them here in our leading local government precinct!
I guess what I'm saying is let's not fool ourselves - what the ACC BAP demonstrates for me is that despite Stephen Yarwood, despite the excellent folk at ACC and despite all the public flimflammery at local and state gov't levels (and in the 'Tiser), the bar is still set unbelievably low in Adelaide and generally only focuses on what is straightforward, requires easy engineering and looks good on a short-term plan! It's the more complicated ways in which a bike network needs to function for those using it that always seem to be too hard to grasp or set objectives for! This is what Melbourne CC obviously understood when they closed Swanson St (equivalent to King William here) off to private and through-traffic! Swanson St has now become Melbourne city's 'bike backbone' providing a secure entry and through-way for bicycle users and commuters.It's such a backbone that Adelaide needs.
I noted that Jan Gehl's initial comment this week on arriving back in this city (for another 'thinkers in residence's session) is that Melbourne and Sydney have overtaken Adelaide because they have done what was advised over the last decade whereas we have not (or 'have done one or two things' as he so nicely put it!) So all power to SY, the ACC planners, BISA and Adelaide Cyclists. But we also need to continue to say, 'lets get real!' too.
It would be great if these could all be made into helmet optional riding zones akin those enjoyed by cyclists in the Northern Territory which has 3* the participation rate in cycling as SA and is safer.
Every year many thousands of helmet infringement fines are issued to bicycle users in SA (based on national figures) and probably many thousands of warnings. Having the most repressive helmet laws in the world has failed to deliver any benefits to bicycle users and should be revoked it is an unfair attack on the rights of bicycle users - in some cases even leading to people being imprisoned.
It has also lead to increased fatalities to cyclists who are mislead to believe they are safe just by wearing a helmet this is completely irresponsible advice to give when the helmets are so ineffective and other measures are then ignored. Mandatory Helmets Laws are not the final solution to bicycle safety but ill informed government mislead by helmet manufacturers implemented a scheme which may sell more helmets but fails to save any lives. - this law should be repealed.
People may even suffer increased risk of certain types of injurys especially spinal injury as a result of wearing a helmet - including the deaths of several children as a result of helmet strangulation. The death of rider last year on ride to work day who was hit when he rode erratically is a good example the only information cyclists seem to get is "wear a helmet" and "helmets save lives" so is it any wonder people get killed.
Here are some relevant links >>
If you like this then vote for your cycling freedom on getup!
While people can be passionate about all sorts of things
I had a heavy fall and broke my helmet.
Without helmet laws I would not have been wearing a helmet.
Would I have had less injuries if I had bashed my head in the road?
I am not volunteering for the experiment to find out.
It seem at least some people believe I would have but how can you have less than no injury?
It is junk science to say because many people don’t us a product properly and understand what it can (or cant) do that the product is without merit.
Stephen has held this opinion for quite some time, heard all the arguments and won't be moved, right or wrong. Regardless of opinion I do think his use of this thread to push his point again is pretty poor form. He does have his own Helmet-less Riders Group within this site which is probably the right place to continue the argument.
I agree Don. Although Stephen is commedably restrained in his posts, we really do not need this argument bought up time and again. It's got its forum, let it be argued there.