View Full Version : Money wasted on cyclists; New article from Evan, #61
johnny
09-01-2008, 11:54 PM
Money wasted on cyclists: NRMA
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/money-wasted-on-cyclists-nrma/2008/01/09/1199554742667.html
Alexandra Smith
January 10, 2008
TAXPAYERS are pouring millions of dollars into lining motorways with cycleways that are barely used - and are building a new bicycle lane the NRMA says will effectively cost $300,000 for every cyclist that uses it.
Despite pleas from Sydney's Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, for bicycles to reclaim the streets, the motoring organisation says residents are sticking to four wheels.
In a submission to the Roads and Traffic Authority it accuses the Government of wasting millions on cyclists at the expense of motorists, who are forced to battle worsening congestion as lanes are removed from busy roads.
The cycling lane on the M2 attracted just 130 cyclists a day. The Iemma Government is building a cycleway alongside choked Epping Road, despite as few as 25 cyclists using that corridor each day.
At $7.6 million for the Epping Road cycleway, the NRMA says that would amount to spending $300,000 per cyclist on a lane that is unlikely to attract many more riders, based on the experiences of the M2 motorway.
The NRMA wants the Epping Road cycleway to be scrapped to allow lanes to be widened for trucks and cars.
The Westlink M7 cycleway added $60 million to the cost of that project, a legacy of the former roads minister Carl Scully. [good on you Carl, you didn't get much else right, that's for sure!]
The Government has paid $25 million to Connector Motorways, which owns the Lane Cove Tunnel, to delay narrowing Epping Road from three lanes to one in each direction, leaving room for a bus lane and cycleway. The intention of narrowing the road is to funnel motorists into the tunnel.
The M2 dedicated a breakdown lane to cyclists when it opened 10 years ago but only 130 cyclists a day used it.
Cr Moore has accused the Government of being anti-bicycle and pro-car, and has flagged a plan for a cheap bicycle rental system in the city.
But the president of the NRMA, Alan Evans, questioned the value of cycling lanes, and said Sydney motorists would suffer when the Epping Road-Lane Cove Tunnel roadworks were completed.
"When you have high traffic volumes of more than 35,000 vehicles per day, this is not a sensible use of resources," Mr Evans said. "Cyclists appear to be the only winners on Epping Road, at the expense of thousands of motorists."
A spokesman for the RTA said the cycleway would attract many more cyclists than those now using Epping Road. He said the NRMA's figure was not a true reflection of how popular the new cycleway would be once completed.
"If you give cyclists a dedicated facility instead of riding in normal traffic, they will use it," the spokesman said.
The acting Opposition Leader, Andrew Stoner, said the traffic gridlock on Epping Road was a sign of things to come.
"Current traffic on Epping Road is bumper-to-bumper and most people haven't even returned from their holidays," he said. "Morris Iemma and [the Minister for Roads] Eric Roozendaal spent $25 million of taxpayers' money to delay the road changes until after the state and federal elections and now motorists know why."
Bicycles stay home
- M2: 130 cyclists a day
- Westlink M7: 40 km cycleway, cost $60 million
- Epping Road: $7.6 million, 25 cyclists using the road each day
mongoosedh
10-01-2008, 12:10 AM
Haha, what a joke. Glad I don't pay tax.
Kirky
10-01-2008, 12:19 AM
Thats because the bike lanes are on the roads next to pollution emitting noisy automobiles. I hate riding nears busy roads, well, I hate riding near cars in general.
Thats why instead, they should be putting tax payers money into more bike paths and let bikes on the peak trains.
Interesting reading Johnny.
Your point is? Besides they dont care.
I've had a few beers so I may be missing the obvious!
johnny
10-01-2008, 01:22 AM
The point is more people need to get out there and use the facilities being provided for us to justify them.
They obviously do care if they are spending this much money on the bike lanes. But this will cease if it is not used.
tnankie
10-01-2008, 02:12 AM
yeah, I dunno.
A lot of those cycle lanes are crap. I think car volume needs to be brought down.
Me I'd force more people to use bikes rather than cars, introduce congestion charges etc.
then again I'd also ask a cyclist to design the cycleways.
sawtell
10-01-2008, 02:22 AM
The cycling lane on the M2 attracted just 130 cyclists a day.
At $7.6 million for the Epping Road cycleway, the NRMA says that would amount to spending $300,000 per cyclist on a lane that is unlikely to attract many more riders, based on the experiences of the M2 motorway.
yeah and thats 130 cyclist a day, who ha dprobaly about a 95 percent less chance of being hit by a car on the way to work that morning... which means probaly 130 less cars a day, which is how many less emisions a day, on the road.. to me, who cares how much it cost, if they widen the lanes, they will then complain about cyclist being hit? or cyclist taking up to much of the road, when technicaly a cyclist is a vechile and desievres his/her own lane if no alternate route is giving? isnt that another one of their stupid arguments... i hate pollitics. goverment, and major companies tat influence our life and talk aboustle utter garbage.
Refreshinglygood
10-01-2008, 04:49 AM
Haha, what a joke. Glad I don't pay tax.
you will, thats for certain
Refreshinglygood
10-01-2008, 04:51 AM
it won't take long before the general population are complaining that there aren't enough cycle ways.
Petrol isn.t going to all of a sudden return to 90c
ozelise
10-01-2008, 06:15 AM
Yet more bikes than cars were purchased last year. Provide the right infrastructure and we will use it.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bike-sales-riding-high/2008/01/07/1199554537911.html
Customjimmy
10-01-2008, 07:58 AM
Yet more bikes than cars were purchased last year. Provide the right infrastructure and we will use it.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bike-sales-riding-high/2008/01/07/1199554537911.html
True, but more cars were bought than ever before also.
The sad fact is that the majority of people are stupid, ignorant and selfish, explaining why 'Border Security', 'Sea Patrol' and 'A Current Affair' are top rating shows.
Climate change and environmental issues are now the MOST important things ever in the history of humanity (with the possible exception of an ice age or two) and people still shrug their shoulders and want to drive a metre of somebody's bumper for an hour a day in a carcinogenic fog. No surprise that the National Roads and Motorists Association wants more roads for the motorists which feed it, but in a couple of decades when there's no oil and food is 10 times the price there may well be 6-lane cycleways all over the place!
skybustim
10-01-2008, 08:04 AM
I think the feeling here, form the posts anyway, and is my feeling, is not o much that the cycle ways are being built. But how they are being built.
as stated who wants to ride along side cars, but this is unavoible in built up areas, and you always get that smug feeling when riding past a line of cars....right till one turns left in front of you and uses the excuse that I had my indicator on and you are not supposed to pass, no witnesses so bad luck (sorry rant from when my wife was knocked off and that was the excuse).
The bigger thing is when new freeways, and a strip of bitumen is laid beside it,
"there you go young man you have a cycle way now use it"
"what do you mean you won't use it?"
"exposed to wind? well cars don;t mind.....boring? but you are in the fresh air....No we won' put any sort of vegetation in......It would help the environment and encourage people to ride? DOn't be silly we just put armco along roads and people drive along those, you are a "vehicle" you know, and besides that would cost money in the future, you know trees require work.."
Maybe if "peak bodies" got involved in the planning stages new cycle ways would be more cycle friendly and lead to more use...as part of my rides I used to ride along some of the Western Ring road in Melbourne..how exiting to ride beside a freeway with a wire fence between you and the freeway and factories on the other side.....
Wandering rant over....
axertes
10-01-2008, 08:16 AM
I wonder how much they spend on motorways which I don't use?
mtb1611
10-01-2008, 10:56 AM
Interesting article, cheers for posting it Johnny.
Unfortunately, as is the case with any contentious issue, the article is not objective in that it provides the perspective of only one side: where are the comments from cycling bodies to balance those of the NRMA? the govt needs to continue to povide funding for such resources, as only once the resources are actually in place will people gravitate towards them; who's going to buy a commuter bike JUST IN CASE a cycleway is constructed? When they see the viable alternative, then they start sniffing around and embracing it. (I'm talking about bikes, not drunken tomfoolery).
PDogg
10-01-2008, 12:09 PM
As 'local' to the cycleways in question, I have to say that the potential is great. The M2 travels from the city's nothwest to Lane Cove. Form here you're dumped onto some suburban raods if you want to travel to the city. Some are very steep, and the route is less than direct. There is little encouragement to cycle to the city.
With the new cycleway on Epping Road you will be able to go from the city's northwest / west / and south if you also use the excellent M7 cycleway, all without being run over (hopefully).
Rather than asking for cycleways to be pretty or away from smog (this is why we like to ride off road too), cycleways should provide a practical and efficent alternative mode of transport to the private vehicle.
I think the new Epping Road cycleway has a great opportunity to increase patronage on the M2 by providing a valuable link in efficient delivery of cyclists to Chatswood, North Sydney, and the CBD.
Perhaps when decent cycleways that deliver you to a destination safely and efficiently are available more people will use them to make commuting journeys, and the potential for the infrastructure will be realised? Cycleways that don't go from A to B, but from A to A and a bit don't achieve a whole lot!!
johnny
10-01-2008, 12:51 PM
Yeah from what I remember, once you reach the end of the M2 on a bike, you're pretty well farked, aren't you? I tried to ride to Nth Sydney from Channel 10 once and got lost because I couldn't ride on road that goes past the tunnel entrance. Had to go all the way up Mowbray Rd almost to Chatswood!
Do what we a number of us are doing on MTB-OZ.
E-mail Alan Evans from NRMA (alan.evans@mynrma.com.au) and let him know how you feel about his comments.
Here is what I sent
I would just like to say I am appalled with the attitude coming from the NRMA concerning bike paths being a waste of money. What is a waste is for the councils to make bike lanes that go no where and force cyclists back on to the road and risk being run down by death cage drivers. I suggest you take a day out of your environmentally polluting vehicle and go for a ride along these roads with some cycle commuters and see what they have to put up with. Bike lanes that go no where, covered in broken glass and bad attitudes from death cage drivers, like yours. The worst thing is you probably alienated a large percentage of your customers, who may commute on bikes or weekend cyclists, or whole families that ride.
I urge you to publicly recant your comments and to come forth with viable solutions and work with councils to improve the safety for cyclists.
Here are all the facts behind Bikes outselling cars (http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/images/stories/MediaReleaseDocs/Media%20Release%20Bicycle%20Sales%20Jan%202008.pdf ).
floody
10-01-2008, 12:58 PM
You can't buy a 5 year old kid a new commodore for his birthday/christmas though, nor a new falcon for $50 from Kmart. I live in a town with almost as many bicycle retailers as new car dealers...
I think the figures are fudged a LOT by children and gifting of bicycles, not to mention recreational use. It could be 3 million bikes but 2.9 million of them would probably still be in the garage 6 days of the week. Unlike the cars.
I feel the sales figures are probably not very useful in evidencing the value of bicycle lanes etc.
Yes, we do all need to use our bikes more.
Interesting article, cheers for posting it Johnny.
Unfortunately, as is the case with any contentious issue, the article is not objective in that it provides the perspective of only one side: where are the comments from cycling bodies to balance those of the NRMA?
They don't want an objective article, that is why you cannot comment either. The papers in general don't like cyclists and will do anything they can to put them in a bad light IMHO.
Yes bike sales outstipped car sales but sales dont convert into use, a lot of those bikes might still be sitting in sheds.
Oh and Macr thats great emailing the guy from NRMA to put forwad your opinion but a few points. If you are going to mail him dont insult him and put a little more time into checking the grammar and spelling of your mail.
Calling cars Death cages and complaining about car polution just annoys people or makes them write you off as some enviro loony. You dont make change by reinforcing the stereotypes these people already brand us with.
johnny
10-01-2008, 01:15 PM
Oh and Macr thats great emailing the guy from NRMA to put forwad your opinion but a few points. If you are going to mail him dont insult him and put a little more time into checking the grammar and spelling of your mail.
Calling cars Death cages and complaining about car polution just annoys people or makes them write you off as some enviro loony. You dont make change by reinforcing the stereotypes these people already brand us with.Couldn't agree more. Motivation = excellent. Execution = poor. REsult = probably ignored or laughed at with office buddies.
oldbean
10-01-2008, 01:16 PM
10 January 2008 For Immediate Release
Bicycles: Take Twice Daily to Avoid Congestion
Cyclists dispute NRMA’s claims: Sydney needs more bikes paths, not less!
NRMA claims that cycle paths are a waste of money show the motoring group to be out of touch with the realities of city liveability, transport planning and even other motoring organisations.
“Cities around the world are rediscovering the benefits of cycling. Soaring world oil prices, the urgent need to combat climate change and crippling traffic congestion have all converged to cause a surge of interest in boosting bicycle use” said Elliot Fishman, Policy Advisor at the Cycling Promotion Fund.
Contrary to the NRMA’s claims, bicycle paths actually improve traffic congestion, as a cyclist uses only a fraction of the road space taken up by a car. Furthermore, the evidence shows increasing road space to relieve congestion actually makes it worse, by inducing new traffic.
“Widening a road to relieve congestion, as the NRMA suggests, is like putting more holes in a belt to solve an obesity problem” said Fishman.
Leading cities such as Paris, London and New York have all begun ambitious bicycle infrastructure projects to ease congestion and promote a cleaner, healthier and more sustainable urban liveability. Paris recently unveiled a 20,000 strong public bicycle system and London is planning a similar system with 80,000 bikes.
Australians too have shown a willingness to swap four wheels for two where appropriate infrastructure is provided. “According to the latest Census, bicycle commuting in Melbourne jumped 42% between 2001 and 2006, coinciding with significant infrastructure development” said Rosemarie Speidel, Program Director at the Cycling Promotion Fund.
Figures released this week by the Cycling Promotion Fund show Australians purchased 1.47 million bicycles in 2007, a new record which outnumbers cars for the 8th consecutive year.
The Cycling Promotion Fund urges the NRMA to familiarise itself with the new realities of cycling. “Census figures show 18,000 people cycled to work in NSW during winter, with 12,000 of those cycling to work in Sydney, an increase of 9% from 2001 “stated Fishman.
With more than 50% of car trips less than 5km, significant potential exists to boost cycling in Sydney. Improving bicycle infrastructure across the city will help more Sydneysiders leave the car at home and make the trip by pedal power. This will help alleviate traffic congestion, reduce the pain at the pump, cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the obesity epidemic” concludes Speidel.
SIX THINGS YOU MIGHT KNOW ABOUT CYCLING
• Over 50% of car trips in Australian cities are under 5km and 30% are less than 3 km, an ideal cycling distance
• The majority of children’s car trips to school are less than 3km
• Cycling is the 4th most popular physical activity in NSW with more than 487,000 adults cycling in 2006.
• 12,000 people cycled to work in Sydney on census day in 2006
• At a recent Ride 2 Work Day an estimated 90,000 riders participated
• Transport is responsible for 34% of household greenhouse gas emissions
• According to Medibank Private, if more Australians were physically active for just 30 minutes a day, the Australian healthcare system could save $1.5 billion a year
• Australians currently riding to work save $72 million annually in traffic congestion
Media inquiries: Elliot Fishman 0438 547 450
johnny
10-01-2008, 01:21 PM
James, where was that published ^^^^^ please post a link if you have one.
nizai
10-01-2008, 01:25 PM
Are these cycle ways in Sydney just widened roads? ie: the effective width of an emergency stopping lane on the side of the road?
Ill tell you how we do it in Perth. We build a 3 to 5 lane freeway with an emergency stopping lane, then a chainlink fence, then a two lane cycle path, the ENTIRE LENGTH of the freeway from Joondalup to Rockingham. Plus we built them down the lengths of the Roe and Tonkin Hwy's too. Then we built them along train lines too. Don't piss about Sydney, get some decent facilities going.
Even in the CBD we have major two lane cycle/pedestrian ways that criss cross the place, and if you have to go on the road, there are recommended cycle roads, some of which include a dedicated cycle lane.
Maybe the NRMA is going all militant because it realised Peak Oil is real and they will cease to exist in a couple of decades.
N
PS: im aware Perths cycling infrastructure isnt perfect, but it sure seems a damn site better than Sydney's, despite me never having been there.
oldbean
10-01-2008, 01:26 PM
http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/blogsection/1/9/
Couldn't agree more. Motivation = excellent. Execution = poor. REsult = probably ignored or laughed at with office buddies.
Yeah, the more I re-read, it the worse it looks :o. And I rewrote it twice. I'm ashamed of that one. Next time, I tells ya, next time!
Here's my email to Alan Evans, that guy should shut his mouth and go back to working on important stuff like reversing road closures due to tunnel openings.
Alan
I write to you in response to your public comments regarding the Epping Rd Cycleway. Perhaps some perspective in your comments is needed.
The RTA’s total Capital Expenditure budget in 06-07 was 1,594.5 million dollars. The cycleway is planned at 7.6 million, which is less than 0.48% of the total annual capital expenditure budget.
To say that it amounts to $300,000 per cyclist is a fudge of the numbers from the M2 – the M2 is a vastly different road to Epping Road, the M2 has traffic regularly at between 80 and 120Km/h, dangerous speeds for unprotected cyclists in the event of accident caused by either car or cyclist. Epping road however is a main interurban link road, that services a number of suburbs and has much lower traffic volumes since the introduction of the LCT.
Using your numbers of $300,000, which I assume points to the total cost of the cycleway divided by the estimate of the number of users, makes the cost sound a lot bigger than it really is, which I assume will make people like Miranda Devine quote you as gospel in the continuing attacks on cyclists in the Sydney area. If the total cost is annualized to the lifetime of the cycleway, which would not require anywhere near the same maintenance budget as the road next to it, over about 25 years, the total annual cost is around $304,000 per year, and if we use your estimate again of 25 cyclists the total annual cost is more like $12,100 per year, or using the M2 cyclist numbers of 130, around $2338 per year per cyclist, or a measly $6 per day (as a side note, as they say, there is lies, damn lies and statistics).
With petrol prices increasing at an ever increasing rate I have taken matter into my own hands and started commuting from Stanmore to St Leonards. I am surprised at how easy it was to get on the bike and just do it. If more people took my attitude, then we would see a shift in public perception from cyclists being a nuisance on the roads because they can’t go at 60kmh up hills or up narrow streets due to possibility of impacting an ignorant road user’s opening door and all the other stereotypes commonly perpetuated in society and the media, to one where we genuinely want to say that cycling is a legitimate form of transport and one that will ease the burden of record high world crude oil prices, with the associated shift in attitudes towards people that have the guts to duke it out in the tough, roadrage filled, traffic deadlocked streets of Sydney.
Then again we could just go back to the dark ages and just drive our tin cans to work, 1500kg of metal carrying one passenger!
scblack
10-01-2008, 01:42 PM
Are these cycle ways in Sydney just widened roads? ie: the effective width of an emergency stopping lane on the side of the road?
Ill tell you how we do it in Perth. We build a 3 to 5 lane freeway with an emergency stopping lane, then a chainlink fence, then a two lane cycle path, the ENTIRE LENGTH of the freeway from Joondalup to Rockingham. Plus we built them down the lengths of the Roe and Tonkin Hwy's too. Then we built them along train lines too. Don't piss about Sydney, get some decent facilities going.
Even in the CBD we have major two lane cycle/pedestrian ways that criss cross the place, and if you have to go on the road, there are recommended cycle roads, some of which include a dedicated cycle lane.
Maybe the NRMA is going all militant because it realised Peak Oil is real and they will cease to exist in a couple of decades.
N
PS: im aware Perths cycling infrastructure isnt perfect, but it sure seems a damn site better than Sydney's, despite me never having been there.
In Sydney, courtesy of the State Labor rabble, and their side-kicks the RTA we do this:
Make M2 motorway
2 lanes each way
Breakdown lane doubles as cycleway
Works OKTHEN
Election looms
Along with Lane Cove tunnel completionGovt/RTA response:
Pay Lane Cove tunnel operators $25m so surface roads remain open despite contract.
Lane Cove Tunnel opens DAY AFTER election (coincidentally, mind you:eek:).
Traffic from Lane Cove tunnel to M2 becomes a shit fight.
SO, we turn breakdown/cycle way into a third lane on M2. Problem solved right????
Cycle lane each way gone.
Traffic shit-fight on M2 moves further up the tollway, and tollgates/tunnel area becomes the shit-fight zone.These are the dickheads we have running Sydney transport.:mad:
johnny
10-01-2008, 01:55 PM
Correction; These are the dickheads....:p
I think the worst thing is how they've sold out public interest to business interest. Also, as has been displayed in one of the above posts, the NRMA's statistics are ridiculous.
PDogg
10-01-2008, 02:00 PM
And my message to Mr Evans (for those that are interested)
Hi Alan
Rather than attempting to point out to you all the ways in which I disagree with your sensationalist comments published in today’s SMH and telling you how to fix them, I’m merely going to convey my disappointment and ensure that another message of protest reaches your inbox. As my vehicle is insured through NRMA I cannot help but fell partially responsible for the hate inducing comments you’ve levelled at cyclists in a very public forum.
If the NRMA is consistently run on such ill considered & ill reasoned arguments, and intelligence insulting doctored statistics, then you truly have your work cut out for you. I wish you the best of luck in avoiding future embarrassment in front of your members, and the educated general public.
johnny
10-01-2008, 02:08 PM
My letter to the SMH. Although it probably won't get printed as it was sent too late in the day.
I am writing in disgust of the statistics used by the NRMA in
yesterday's article concerning cycle paths. The stats given by the
NRMA were that an average of 25 cyclists per day use a cycle lane that
cost the tax payer $7.6 million. Somehow they've come to the
conclusion that this means that the lane is worth around $300 000 per
cyclist. Oh please! This would be true if these cyclists were the only
people to ever use the path during its whole existance. Also, if these
people used this lane twice daily for the next ten years, how does
this change the perspective of the stats? How many roads are built in
NSW that I never drive down? How many roads are built for dead end
streets that only the residents use, how much are these roads worth
for each person using them?
Sure, the discussion needs to be had, but let's please base it on
reliable information. Oh, and PLEASE do not let Miranda Devine spot
that article, we'll never hear the end of it!
Shit! I forgot to spell check :mad:
dcrofty
10-01-2008, 02:12 PM
From bitter experience, its best to write that sort of letter, let it sit for a day and then reread it and if its still good then send it.
Curlz12
10-01-2008, 02:15 PM
Thats because the bike lanes are on the roads next to pollution emitting noisy automobiles. I hate riding nears busy roads, well, I hate riding near cars in general.
Thats why instead, they should be putting tax payers money into more bike paths and let bikes on the peak trains.
Agreed
cars are pricks to ride next to.
johnny
10-01-2008, 02:17 PM
My computer doesn't like Alan Evans' email link for some reason and a quick google was unsuccessful. Can some one please post the actual address up so I can have a crack at him too?
Cheers.
oldbean
10-01-2008, 02:22 PM
alan.evans@mynrma.com.au
ABC as usual have a far less biased article
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/10/2135610.htm
mtb1611
10-01-2008, 03:33 PM
They don't want an objective article, that is why you cannot comment either. The papers in general don't like cyclists and will do anything they can to put them in a bad light IMHO.
Agree 100%.
tupper
10-01-2008, 03:35 PM
ABC as usual have a far less biased article
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/10/2135610.htm
Good old ABC!
Got a reply:
Dear Mark
Thank you for your email regarding NRMA's position on cycle lanes. It
is important to note that our recent comments were made specifically
regarding the current changes on Epping Road in Sydney.
NRMA believes that the priority for Sydney's road network is to keep
traffic moving and ensure that those limited resources are directed
towards achieving this goal.
When it comes to Epping Road, we believe this is simply not occurring.
At present 35,000 vehicles per day use Epping Road and recent roadwork's
and lane reductions has seen this result in serious congestion. By
comparison just 25 cyclists a day are using the taxpayer funded $7.5
million cycle lane. We do not believe that this is a sensible use of
resources.
Traffic delays resulting from a crash in the Lane Cove Tunnel could
easily stretch back to the CBD, impacting on all road users as the
proposed single lane on Epping Road simply will not cope.
Our concern is that Sydney motorists will be the biggest losers when the
Lane Cove Tunnel roadwork's are completed and new bus lanes, a cycleway
and single traffic lanes become permanent fixtures on Epping Road. We
have put forward a number of alternatives to the Roads and Traffic
Authority to ensure motorists are not forced to use the Lane Cove
Tunnel.
These measures include:
* Changing the bus and transit lanes to a T2 transit lane. The
current proposal for a T3 transit lane leading into a bus lane and then
changing to a T2 transit lane is inconsistent and deters people from
car-sharing.
* Widening the general traffic lanes, which have been squeezed to
make way for the new cycle path and will not be wide enough to cater for
the petrol tankers and other vehicles that are not allowed in the
tunnel, or alternatively introducing a tidal flow traffic lane to keep
Epping Road moving.
We will continue to work with the RTA - and in the public arena - to
ensure that motorists get a fair deal when it comes to Epping Road.
NRMA supports cycling in areas that are safe for the cyclist and safe
for the motorist.
NRMA's position on this, and indeed on all the issues that we address,
are derived from extensive and continuing research and surveying of our
Members.
We will not resile from defending our Members' interests on important
issues such as this.
Thank you again for taking the time to inform me of your views.
Regards
Alan H Evans
President
NRMA Motoring & Services
Got a reply:
that's a form letter. Fiona here got one too. I'll bet after he was besighed by email complaints that he quickly typed one up and started to auto reply.
I'm betting that he's not read anything after the first one. (asuming thet he.. and not his assistant... actually read that one)
Elvis.
My reply
Thank you for your reply. One simple answer, promote people to start riding! More people would then use the bike path and less congestion. Problem solved and the earth is better for it.
hochiki
10-01-2008, 04:23 PM
Yes bike sales outstipped car sales but sales dont convert into use, a lot of those bikes might still be sitting in sheds.
Oh and Macr thats great emailing the guy from NRMA to put forwad your opinion but a few points. If you are going to mail him dont insult him and put a little more time into checking the grammar and spelling of your mail.
Calling cars Death cages and complaining about car polution just annoys people or makes them write you off as some enviro loony. You dont make change by reinforcing the stereotypes these people already brand us with.
That may be true, and I guess we all get a little carried away at times, but at least Macr has taken the time to actually voice his opinion outside of MTB forums. Too many people like to have a safe whinge, but wont go that next step to letting the people who can do something about the problem know what they think, and so become that famous "silent majority" who have things messed up for them by the noisy minority.
Good on ya Macr.
Thanks hochiki, but I must say my emotions did get in the way of what I wrote. It definitely is not one of best literary efforts :o. Next time I will take a few deep breaths and leave it for a day or so.
And yes, being the silent majority, just means you are not willing to put your butt on the line for what you believe.
NBN news made an attempt at a balanced article and actually interviewed Alan Evans, RTA and a cyclist. It was a better example of journalism, compared to the inflammatory article by the SMH.
Those figures are wildly inaccurate, I'm sure. Do we all forget the farce of the tunnel traffic figures etc?
You have to be very right, very controversial, a liar, or a complete twat to get airplay nowdays, looks like NRMA has the twat part down.
Haha, what a joke. Glad I don't pay tax.
Another pearl of wisdom from the genius. You pay tax. It's called GST - which is applied to most products you buy - Goods and Services Tax. Goose.
Bike lanes dangerous, cyclists warn (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bike-lanes-not-save-cyclists-warn--a-hrefhttpblogssmhcomaunewsblogarchivesyour-say016945htmlbyour-sayba/2008/01/10/1199554832979.html)
Alexandra Smith
January 11, 2008
NSW spends less per person on cycling than any other state, resulting in cycleways that were poorly planned and often dangerous, bike lobby groups warned yesterday as the Government denied that under-used bicycle lanes were a waste of money.
The motoring group NRMA has accused the Iemma Government of wasting millions of dollars on building cycleways that attract few cyclists, including a new bicycle lane on the choked Epping Road, which the NRMA says will in effect cost $300,000 for every cyclist who uses it.
A $60 million cycleway was also built next to the Westlink M7, but cycling groups say it is barely used because of its location.
A BikeSydney spokeswoman, Fiona Campbell, said the Government had an "opportunistic" view of cycleways and expanded them where it was easy to build, rather than where they were needed or wanted.
"This government builds things but not with the intention of them actually being used," Ms Campbell said. "NSW is lagging so far behind the rest of Australia and the Western world that Sydney is often described as the worst place to cycle."
Figures compiled by the Greens show NSW will spend $7.6 million - or $1.20 per capita - this year on "bicycle-specific programs". This compares with $3.16 per capita in Queensland, $4.93 in Western Australia and $3.89 in Victoria.
The Cycling Promotion Fund said Paris, London and New York had ambitious bicycle infrastructure projects to ease congestion and promote a sustainable urban environment, but Sydney lagged behind in its cycle programs.
Despite claiming to be pro-bike, the Iemma Government has no plans to replace the general manager of the bicycles and pedestrian branch of the Roads and Traffic Authority, sacked by Michael Costa when he was roads minister.
The Greens MP Lee Rhiannon said the NRMA had an agenda to redirect funding away from cycleways in favour of road building. "The NRMA's anti-cycleway campaign is a crude attempt to boost money for road building. It's time the NRMA leadership came into the 21st century and recognised that encouraging more cyclists is an easy way to reduce road congestion," Ms Rhiannon said.
"The NRMA's submission to the RTA is grossly misleading. Half of the M2 cycleway has been removed and the Epping Road cycleway has not been completed so it is not surprising that bike use is so low on those routes."
Ms Rhiannon said cyclists were often forced onto busy roads when bike lanes ended.
"Cycling in parts of Sydney can be extremely dangerous because there is no integrated network of cyclepaths," she said.
A spokesman for the RTA said: "The RTA takes a balanced approached to providing for the needs of all road users, including cyclists, motorists and public transport users. There are now more than 3900 kilometres of cycleway in NSW.
"There has been an average of 233 kilometres of cycling facilities provided each year, and more than $291 million committed towards bicycle programs by the NSW Government, since 1999."
Stubags
11-01-2008, 08:25 AM
Very interesting contributions. Just thought I would add this from todays Herald.
Bike lanes dangerous, cyclists warn
Alexandra Smith
January 11, 2008
NSW spends less per person on cycling than any other state, resulting in cycleways that were poorly planned and often dangerous, bike lobby groups warned yesterday as the Government denied that under-used bicycle lanes were a waste of money.
The motoring group NRMA has accused the Iemma Government of wasting millions of dollars on building cycleways that attract few cyclists, including a new bicycle lane on the choked Epping Road, which the NRMA says will in effect cost $300,000 for every cyclist who uses it.
A $60 million cycleway was also built next to the Westlink M7, but cycling groups say it is barely used because of its location.
A BikeSydney spokeswoman, Fiona Campbell, said the Government had an "opportunistic" view of cycleways and expanded them where it was easy to build, rather than where they were needed or wanted.
"This government builds things but not with the intention of them actually being used," Ms Campbell said. "NSW is lagging so far behind the rest of Australia and the Western world that Sydney is often described as the worst place to cycle."
Figures compiled by the Greens show NSW will spend $7.6 million - or $1.20 per capita - this year on "bicycle-specific programs". This compares with $3.16 per capita in Queensland, $4.93 in Western Australia and $3.89 in Victoria.
The Cycling Promotion Fund said Paris, London and New York had ambitious bicycle infrastructure projects to ease congestion and promote a sustainable urban environment, but Sydney lagged behind in its cycle programs.
Despite claiming to be pro-bike, the Iemma Government has no plans to replace the general manager of the bicycles and pedestrian branch of the Roads and Traffic Authority, sacked by Michael Costa when he was roads minister.
The Greens MP Lee Rhiannon said the NRMA had an agenda to redirect funding away from cycleways in favour of road building. "The NRMA's anti-cycleway campaign is a crude attempt to boost money for road building. It's time the NRMA leadership came into the 21st century and recognised that encouraging more cyclists is an easy way to reduce road congestion," Ms Rhiannon said.
"The NRMA's submission to the RTA is grossly misleading. Half of the M2 cycleway has been removed and the Epping Road cycleway has not been completed so it is not surprising that bike use is so low on those routes."
Ms Rhiannon said cyclists were often forced onto busy roads when bike lanes ended.
"Cycling in parts of Sydney can be extremely dangerous because there is no integrated network of cyclepaths," she said.
A spokesman for the RTA said: "The RTA takes a balanced approached to providing for the needs of all road users, including cyclists, motorists and public transport users. There are now more than 3900 kilometres of cycleway in NSW.
"There has been an average of 233 kilometres of cycling facilities provided each year, and more than $291 million committed towards bicycle programs by the NSW Government, since 1999."
source- http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bike-lanes-not-safe/2008/01/10/1199554832979.html
Stubags
11-01-2008, 08:26 AM
beat me to it MACR :D
You can delete yours if you wish. But none the less on with the show:
Cycling the way to go in this overcrowded city
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/cycling-the-way-to-go-in-this-overcrowded-city/2008/01/10/1199554826137.html)
Clover Moore
January 11, 2008
Advertisement
THE NRMA, unsurprisingly, claims that few cyclists use the Epping Road corridor each day. The NRMA, like the big oil companies, has a vested interest to protect, and it is depressing that private car use in Sydney is still rising, with vehicle kilometres travelled increasing at twice the rate of population growth.
We are past the day when we have any choice but to pursue alternatives: oil is running out and global warming is increasing at an alarming rate. Our streets are becoming impossibly congested, polluted and unpleasant to use. The health costs, in respiratory disease and obesity, to name but two, are well-documented.
Many people choose cars over bikes because they can get directly to any destination. Get on a bike, and you'll be lucky to find continuous safe passage.
Cyclists are expected to levitate through impassable gaps in the network and risk their lives inches from tonnes of speeding metal on car-dominated roads.
Despite this, nearly 1.5 million bicycles were sold in Australia last year, 40 per cent more bikes than cars. And this is the eighth year in a row that bikes have outsold cars.
At last year's C40 Large Cities conference in New York, I cycled with the mayor of Copenhagen. In the Danish capital 40 per cent of people use bikes to get to work and study. International experience shows that if you provide the facilities, people will use them - but it does not happen overnight.
Our top need is for a clean, efficient, sustainable and integrated transport system that includes cycleways and mass transit to move the million-plus people who use the city daily to their destinations.
Recent research by the City of Sydney indicates that Sydneysiders would be more likely to cycle if there were dedicated cycle lanes and better awareness by motorists of bicycle safety.
Even under the present, less-than-ideal conditions, the Roads and Traffic Authority has reported a 45 per cent increase in bicycle traffic in the CBD in the three years to 2005. The city's own counts show that about 500 cyclists use Oxford Street each weekday between 7am and 9am - a sixfold increase over the past decade.
While there are major recreational cycleways - such as the Sydney Harbour route and the planned Alexandra Canal path - the city's cycle strategy aims to create an effective and accessible network with major routes less than five minutes' cycle from every residence.
It also includes strategies to increase community awareness about the benefits of cycling, to provide better signage and safer, separated cycle lanes. We are encouraging end-of-trip facilities including the provision of parking, storage, change and shower facilities - which progressive firms like Lend Lease are now providing in their headquarters.
On the other side of the harbour, North Sydney Council has its own proposals for getting cyclists safely to the bridge, and local governments across the metropolitan area are looking at ways of creating a cycling network that can get people to work, recreation and educational destinations.
According to the British urbanist Charles Landry, the average US male devotes more than 1600 hours a year to his car - driving it, sitting in traffic, parking it. Adding in the time spent working to pay for it, for petrol, tolls and other charges, he calculates that same person spends over 18 per cent of his life on his car.
Sydney people have surely got better things to do with that 18 per cent of their lives.
Clover Moore is Lord Mayor of Sydney and the independent state MP for Sydney.
A few letters to SMH
Join up the cycleways and the pedallers will come (http://www.smh.com.au/letters/?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)
As Alan Evans well knows, cycleways are underused because they mostly start and finish nowhere ("Empty cycling lanes cost millions: NRMA", January 10). If the disparate strands of Sydney's cycleways were to link up cyclists would take to them in droves. I am a member of the NRMA and a cyclist. If it was safe, I would cycle much more than I do and thousands of Sydneysiders feel likewise. I am appalled that the NRMA is against cycling and will reconsider my membership.
Tom McGinness Randwick
Taking advice from the NRMA about road building is like asking Coke for advice on obesity.
R. Fisher Downer (ACT)
Where has the NRMA been? All over the Western world urban people are increasingly turning to cycling for transport and recreation. Sydney City Council research shows people want to take up cycling for environmental, health and economic reasons but are reluctant because of the lack of safe, coherent cycling infrastructure. This is where the NRMA's rubbery financial figures fall down. The cycling infrastructure that today's governments are finally building is an investment for generations to come. As an NRMA member I should point out that in any one week I drive my car, catch public transport, walk to work and ride my bicycle. Our road infrastructure must be understood in a balanced and sustainable context if it is to serve Sydney for generations to come.
Councillor Shayne Mallard Sydney
Would the NRMA apply the same logic to rural roads? Only small numbers of cars use the road to Ivanhoe, for example, so why should we spend money on a road for them? What price do we put on heart disease and serious injury and death from motor vehicle accidents? I would presume it is more than the cost of a few hundred kilometres of cycleway.
John Holstein Northmead
In 2007, the NSW Treasurer, Michael Costa, boosted the annual state budget for roads to a record $3.7 billion. Of that, Costa and the equally myopic NSW Government allocated barely $7 million, or a pathetic 0.2 per cent, to bicycle-specific programs.
Yet this 99.8 per cent of road funding for cars and trucks is simply not enough for the incensed Alan Evans and the NRMA.
Jim Hope Coogee
The Epping Road cycleway is still under construction and will have few users until it is completed. The NRMA would have been better using figures for the cycleway around the north of Sydney Airport, which is teeming with cyclists who are able to speed past the gridlocked cars at a standstill on Qantas Drive every morning. The NRMA may have an interest in campaigning for more cars on our roads but more cars is not necessarily in the best interests of its members.
Lester Ranby Newtown
As motorists, NRMA members need a breakdown service for their cars but, as cyclists, they find themselves members of an organisation that continually opposes safe cycling facilities and incites motorist hatred against them.
My household solved this problem by joining the RACV, for it is a little-known fact that residents of NSW and the ACT have a choice of road service organisations. The RACV has increasingly turned its attention to public transport, pedestrian and cycling issues; it even provides a breakdown service for bicycles.
Terry George Watson (ACT)
News Blog
Bikes in busy Sydney
Recent statistics say more bikes are being bought than new cars in Australia. So why aren't more Sydneysiders getting on two wheels?
Riding on this city's main roads and inner city streets can be dangerous nightmare for riders and drivers.
And, bike groups say the Iemma government has done a poor job planning and building bikeways. The result: few cyclists use them.
Have your say. (http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/your_say/016945.html)
My household solved this problem by joining the RACV, for it is a little-known fact that residents of NSW and the ACT have a choice of road service organisations. The RACV has increasingly turned its attention to public transport, pedestrian and cycling issues; it even provides a breakdown service for bicycles.
Thumps up RACV, thumps down NRMA
Good to see he provoked some well-leveled outrage, talk about stirring up a hornet's nest
nizai
11-01-2008, 09:24 AM
These are the dickheads we have running Sydney transport.:mad:
scblack, I have a bruise on my chin from where my jaw hit the desk, thanks.
That is PATHETIC.
N
mattyd
11-01-2008, 10:32 AM
That story is inexcusable on the NRMA's part. I have my car, home and contents and Building insurance plus I am a premium member of roadside assist.
I am going to change all of them this year. There are plenty of other insurers who don't promote such backward thinking. As a cyclist I feel it's my duty to boycott them.
Good on you Mattyd. People can protest with there feet, by telling them why they are leaving. Tell them on your way out that they are an embarrassment to vehicle and cycling community because of Alan Evans actions.
joemax
11-01-2008, 12:11 PM
Sprurred on by Alan Evan's comments I decided to ride into Sydney to work today.
I normally take the train so I didn't save any carbon, I also have a season ticket so I didn't save any money but I did at least add one more cyclist to the NRMA's distorted statistics and, hopefully, I delayed a few NRMA members and supporters by a few seconds as they made their car bound commutes along the Pacific Highway :D
Trevor_S
11-01-2008, 12:19 PM
The point is more people need to get out there and use the facilities being provided for us to justify them.
or perhaps the reverse is true and they should build facilities that bikes care about and they will use them. My guess, it is people that drive cars for a living building shit they THINK cyclists need.
Techno Destructo
11-01-2008, 03:25 PM
Do we, as NSW motorists, have an alternative to the NRMA, because I'll change in a second. I looked at the RACV and that seems to be just for Victoria.:(
Do we, as NSW motorists, have an alternative to the NRMA, because I'll change in a second. I looked at the RACV and that seems to be just for Victoria.:(
The MTA was offering some sort of roadside assistance a while back, not sure how that went because i can't find any record of it. The other option is the private companies that offer roadside assistance as part of lease deals, talk to a fleet company about that...
but if you look at the RACV signup page, all states are listed
https://www.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/Internet/Primary/roadside+assistance/get+roadside+assistance/?CACHE=NONE
Probably just means that an NRMA truck will still service your car, however you're not providing money (directly) to a anti-cycling mouthpiece.
scblack
11-01-2008, 08:10 PM
Do we, as NSW motorists, have an alternative to the NRMA, because I'll change in a second. I looked at the RACV and that seems to be just for Victoria.:(
I have roadside assistance directly with Ford - I owned the vehicle from brand new. Try the company you got yours from - Hyundai wasn't it, and from memory yours was brand new too.
cileo
11-01-2008, 09:34 PM
Heads up - listening to ABC 774 here in Melbourne.
Just after the 10pm news, Rod Quinn, the fill-in announcer for Tony Delroy mentioned that they will be discussing the topic 'is there too much money spent on bicycle paths' on Monday evenings (14/01/08) Nightlife program (http://www.abc.net.au/nightlife) (10pm-1am) with a 'cycling organisation'.
Who or what the 'cycling organisation' wasn't mentioned. So as the Nightlife show is national, listen in to your local ABC station (http://www.abc.net.au/radio/localradio/) for the segment.
Plenty of discussion about Alan Evans comments are the interwebs, especially on Sydney Cyclist (http://www.sydneycyclist.com) and Alan Odds media release (http://www.ratbagitinerant.com/stuff/nrca_press_release_100108.pdf). ;)
johnny
14-01-2008, 12:27 PM
Epping hell will be no nirvana for motorists - or cyclists
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/epping-hell-will-be-no-nirvana-for-motorists--or-cyclists/2008/01/13/1200159272326.html
Alan Evans
January 14, 2008
Last week NRMA Motoring & Services released its plan for Epping Road. Motorists face severe congestion when large sections of the road, between Mowbray and Longueville roads, are permanently narrowed to a single lane of traffic, a cycleway and a bus lane in each direction.
The NRMA's goal is to keep Sydney's road network moving and ensure that the limited resources we have are directed towards achieving this goal.
We certainly do not believe creating the cycleway adjacent to a heavily congested major arterial is the best or safest option for Epping Road users, particularly since it will create more congestion and emissions by constricting the width and number of traffic lanes.
At present more than 35,000 vehicles a day are using Epping Road, and current roadworks with lane reductions and peak-hour delays are just a taste of the chaos to come.
A traffic lane has been taken away to provide a $7.5 million cycleway. We question the viability of this cycleway when our own counts show only 25 cyclists a day are using Epping Road. We do not think this is the most sensible or safest use of resources.
When the cycleway is installed, the remaining lanes will be narrower, leaving an unsafe road corridor, particularly for petrol tankers and other heavy vehicles banned from the tunnel, which will be competing with buses for road space.
What will happen when there's a crash in the Lane Cove Tunnel and traffic is diverted into the single lane on Epping Road? This will cause havoc for cars and buses, which could be stuck in queues stretching back into the city.
This is a recipe for disaster and we have called on the NSW Government for an urgent rethink.
The NRMA has put forward suggestions to the Roads and Traffic Authority about Epping Road, including some alternatives for making better use of the road corridor to ease congestion.
One of these involves converting the bus lane into a T2 transit lane to encourage people to car pool. The current configuration is for a T3 lane to lead into the bus lane and then into a T2 lane. This is inconsistent and confusing for motorists.
The NRMA wants the general traffic lanes, which will be squeezed to accommodate the cycleway, to be widened.
If Epping Road proceeds as planned, motorists will be disadvantaged for years. Will they have no option but to give in and pay a toll to use the Lane Cove Tunnel?
Each year the Commonwealth Government collects almost $15 billion in fuel excise from motorists, supposedly to pay for building and maintaining roads, yet only $2.5 billion a year is returned. Yet in arguing for more of the money collected from motorists to be spent on roads, the NRMA has also supported funds being spent on public transport and safe amenities for other road users.
The NRMA wants to reassure cyclists that we fully support cycling in areas that are safe for the cyclist and safe for motorists. But imposing cycleways on major arterial roads and worsening traffic congestion in the process simply does not make sense.
We do not subscribe to the view that if we build a plethora of cycleways on Sydney's main roads we will transform the city into a car-less nirvana and Sydney's congestion problems will be solved.
To use London as a comparison is misleading: it has a totally different infrastructure to Sydney and is no longer a city where lower-income groups can readily afford to live or work.
We make no apologies in pushing for a fairer deal for motorists and will continue to fight for better roads for the benefit of all road users, including cyclists.
Alan Evans is the president of NRMA Motoring and Services.
cileo
14-01-2008, 12:41 PM
When the cycleway is installed, the remaining lanes will be narrower, leaving an unsafe road corridor, particularly for petrol tankers and other heavy vehicles banned from the tunnel, which will be competing with buses for road space.
What a load of Chicken Little bullshit, pulled that one of his arse didn't he? If peak oil kicks in the last thing the authorities will be worried about is road clearance, more like Mad Max-themed hijackings for petrol tankers.
Alan Evans: GAFC
johnny
14-01-2008, 12:48 PM
Sorry, but isn't "Peak Oil" a bit "Chicken Little" too?
He's obviously been inundated by emails and phone calls about this to have another article saying almost the same thing less than a week later.
cileo
14-01-2008, 12:56 PM
Sorry, but isn't "Peak Oil" a bit "Chicken Little" too?
He's obviously been inundated by emails and phone calls about this to have another article saying almost the same thing less than a week later.
Oil shortages are a more serious concern than the bollox Evans is coming out with. Even if peak oil is still a theory to some, the combined threats of global warming, pollution and all the related nasties should be enough notice of 'Wrong way, go back' in regards to traffic planning & infrastructure.
nizai
14-01-2008, 01:08 PM
I think Johnny's point was that you were accusing the NRMA of "the sky is falling!" reteric and then mentioned mad max in the same sentence.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Anyway, theres no one who thinks peak oil is a "theory". They know it exists, the US oil reserves history shows it. The debate is over WHEN it will peak, rather than IF or whether Hubbert's idea is right.
N
scblack
14-01-2008, 01:24 PM
I think Johnny's point was that you were accusing the NRMA of "the sky is falling!" reteric and then mentioned mad max in the same sentence.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Anyway, theres no one who thinks peak oil is a "theory". They know it exists, the US oil reserves history shows it. The debate is over WHEN it will peak, rather than IF or whether Hubbert's idea is right.
N
Peak oil happens at some theoretical point in time.
No one knows exactly what was in the ground at a point before they started extracting. No-one knows exactly whats there NOW.
But SO WHAT if we are past half the reserves of oil there once was? Cars are more efficient (though there are many more of them), manufacturing processes are more efficient than they were, prices have risen before, alternatives will become more cost effective/efficient. Oil usage has changed from what was used 100, 75, 50, 25 years ago.
We all know oil will run out one day - or at the very least become so expensive various alternatives will be the only valid option. Who cares WHEN we are past halfway through an imprecise estimate of reserves.
Why an obsession with the term "peak oil"? Thats not just you I pinpoint Nizai - it is a term bandied about by various people.
cileo
14-01-2008, 01:34 PM
I think Johnny's point was that you were accusing the NRMA of "the sky is falling!" reteric and then mentioned mad max in the same sentence.
Put that down to further evidence that a ironic font should be designed for sole use on the internerds.
Peak oil (http://www.peakoil.net/), also known as Hubbert's Peak, was the term coined by M. King Hubbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._King_Hubbert) in 1956 describing oil production and demand. Google is your friend in regards to finding out more. As the ABC Crude docu (http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/) recently pointed out, there's possibly nothing more useful to our energy needs than the carbon-carbon bond, but overuse can come at a high cost.
nizai
14-01-2008, 01:40 PM
Peak oil happens at some theoretical point in time.
No one knows exactly what was in the ground at a point before they started extracting. No-one knows exactly whats there NOW.
But SO WHAT if we are past half the reserves of oil there once was? Cars are more efficient (though there are many more of them), manufacturing processes are more efficient than they were, prices have risen before, alternatives will become more cost effective/efficient. Oil usage has changed from what was used 100, 75, 50, 25 years ago.
We all know oil will run out one day - or at the very least become so expensive various alternatives will be the only valid option. Who cares WHEN we are past halfway through an imprecise estimate of reserves.
Why an obsession with the term "peak oil"? Thats not just you I pinpoint Nizai - it is a term bandied about by various people.
I think the peak in supply is more important in the short term than the peak in reserves. In terms of headroom in the current supply there is virtually no room to move. The economic impacts of this alone in the following few years is going to make WHEN a pretty important factor for governments right down to individuals tailoring their share portfolio. I certainly wouldn't want to get caught with Woodside shares when the realisation hits the market that the world is running out ;)
Probably not the place to discuss it :) Sorry for the thread hijack.
N
PINT of Stella, mate!
14-01-2008, 01:54 PM
Peak oil happens at some theoretical point in time.
No one knows exactly what was in the ground at a point before they started extracting. No-one knows exactly whats there NOW.
.
Yup, Peak Oil is a term that's complete nonsense. AS Scblack's mentioned, nobody has ANY idea how much oil is left. Vast fields are still being discovered regularly and existing fields are producing more than was ever thought possible due to increases in well development technology over the years. Hell, the first major developments in the North Sea (the Forties and Brent fields) were deemed to have been exhausted long before ow, as such the platforms were built with a 20-25 year life span. This was back in the mid-late '70's. They are still producing to this day. Also advances in technology have led to exploration and development off the continental shelf of West Africa and other deepwater regions. The last job I did out there was on a field sitting in over 1500m of water. 10 - 15 years ago it would have been considered to be too costly and too difficult to drill and produce in such depths. These days it's a common occurrence.
Meanwhile the worlds love affair with the internal combustion engine grows and grows with more and more cars being produced every year to supply a growing world population and massive social and economic changes in developing countries. We're flying around the world a lot more than before and the uncertain weather conditions caused by climate change have led to increased power usage in some areas (In Australia, increased temperature = more A/C) and a reduction in others (In the UK increased temperature = less central heating).
To take into account all these unknown factors and produce a date driven concept such as 'Peak Oil' is just plain ludicrous and any 'learned' experts who use it are either ignorant or are willing to lie to pursue a hidden agenda.
Nobody can even remotely guess how fast energy consumption is going to increase over the years and it would be prudent to err on the side of caution but producing scare stories such as 'peak oil' will just prove to be counter-productive as they are too easily de-bunked.
scblack
14-01-2008, 02:07 PM
I certainly wouldn't want to get caught with Woodside shares when the realisation hits the market that the world is running out ;)
NDo you really think there is ANYONE in the world who does not realise petrol is going to run out one day in the future?
Seriously, do you really think that?:confused:
PINT of Stella, mate!
14-01-2008, 02:32 PM
I certainly wouldn't want to get caught with Woodside shares when the realisation hits the market that the world is running out ;)
N
On the contrary I'd prefer them (well, not Woodside but maybe some BP or ExxonMobil shares) the scarcer the oil becomes, the greater the demand for it therefore the higher the price for a barrel of oil. Since the oil price started going mental a few years ago there's been a massive surge in exploration and production, this has fed down through the ranks to increased wages for skilled contractors as the companies are trying to retain the best staff. This doesn't affect the oil companies as much as it would a service industry company as it just gets added on to the price of a barrel and we'll always want barrels of oil...
{ScarFace}
14-01-2008, 03:09 PM
Nice article but I think the M7 cycleway is a good track and is used quite regularly. (I've never seen so much Lycra in my life). Its a nice long 80 km ride for me and my dad to do. on my 18kg bike.
scblack
14-01-2008, 03:15 PM
Nice article but I think the M7 cycleway is a good track and is used quite regularly. (I've never seen so much Lycra in my life). Its a nice long 80 km ride for me and my dad to do. on my 18kg bike.
My neighbour used to regularly do it - with a roadie.
nizai
15-01-2008, 12:08 AM
Do you really think there is ANYONE in the world who does not realise petrol is going to run out one day in the future?
Seriously, do you really think that?:confused:
Did I SAY that? Merely pointed out that there is not a single company on the share market today that is not priced according to the inherent assumption that oil will remain cheap and easy to access. Increasingly this will no longer be the case and there are economists and speculators out there who believe that there may well be a sudden market realisation someday that causes something big. Like 1930's big. People acknowledge the world will run out someday, its just many would like not to think about it.
Whether oil and energy companies are on the up side or bottom side of that remains to be seen (you could make an argument that scarcity might drive a companies price upward being that they're going to be the ones expected to offer some solutions to shortages of supply).
To rebutt, POSM. I agree technology has driven things along way, that the peak as it were IS nigh on impossible to predict. Thus most "early toppers" state a timescale up to 20 years wide. Heck, some are calling it 40 years wide. But to call it complete nonsense suggests that there wont be a worldwide peak someday, which is untrue, of course there will be someday, whether we know it or not, a point at which the theoretical known recoverable reserves are beyond halfway.
The problem with assuming that scarcity will drive demand and thus price is that it causes massive yoyo's in the oil price. In that the tighter supply and demand get together, the volatility increases. ie: scarcity drives demand, the price rises, demand drops because its too expensive, scarcity drives it up again.
This is the same reason why you have one lot of pundits claiming oil will be $150 by next Xmas and the other set claiming it will be at $80. Why? Because one assumes demand drives price full stop. And the other assumes demand drives price, but only until people stop buying it. Who knows for sure?
Im still not sure how you can call it nonsense when even "late toppers" believe that it will still peak, eventually. Maybe the scare campaign around it is nonsense, but the theory itself is sound. Its predicted and shown peaks in many countries, including Australia. Why can there not be a theoretical "world peak" at some point?
Despite your assurances that vast fields are still being discovered, there will never be another Ghawar. No one disputes that there will be alot of oil available for many many years to come. Its the shortfall between current and forecasted levels of demand and production that has people worried.
Anyway, its late, im off to bed :D
N
johnny
15-01-2008, 12:56 AM
Yup, Peak Oil is a term that's complete nonsense..Not according to the CEO of General Motors: http://forums.farkin.net/showthread.php?t=55392 Post #52
PINT of Stella, mate!
15-01-2008, 05:47 AM
If you read my post you'll notice that I'm not saying that the concept isn't impossible. I'm saying that being able to point out when it happened/or will happen is.
For Rick Wagoner to declare that peak oil has been reached is akin to him declaring that he knows what the lottery numbers are this week.
To somehow predict a Peak Oil point is to deal with an unknown quantity of supply versus a constantly changing demand. Or in Algebraic terms Peak Oil = X divided by The Winner of the 2009 Melbourne Cup.
As for Wagoner's credibility? He put flames on Optimus Prime FFS!
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=UPEZnYDX2VcSh_2bg3gO78Gg_3d_3d
beatlloydy
15-01-2008, 03:52 PM
I actually use that route in my weekly commute to work...I have the privelege of WFH the other 4 days. I live at Grays Pt (near Sutherland) and commute to West Pennant Hills (approx 60 km or so)....going via North Sydney/Epping road (believe it or not) is the safest way.
I will try that cycleway when it is finished but I usually just ride the road on Epping road as the cars move so slowly anyway. I commute on a MTB to avoid the many punctures/buckled rims etc a road bike encurs. It may be a little slower but it is still good training.
I know when I come across the harbor bridge around 7 am or so there would be at least 15 cyclists in that 5 min space....I would hazard that there are literally thousands commuting, particularly around Newtown and Oxford street where when I go those ways (I get bored riding the same way every time) I see a heap of cyclists compared to say 5 years ago.
I find cycleways in most instances meander too much for the serious commuter. I much preferred the M2 as it was a direct link for me.
johnny
15-01-2008, 04:54 PM
Yeah, I used to do the bridge commute every day too. There we hundreds that used that dedicated path each and every day.
hochiki
15-01-2008, 08:14 PM
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=UPEZnYDX2VcSh_2bg3gO78Gg_3d_3d
For those of us that are nervous about following links on forums, the above link is to a survey being conducted by Bicycle NSW on this subject. I can only guess that they will use the statistics from this survey to whack the NRMA's claims with some credible evidence.
Get on and register your opinion.:cool:
McBain
16-01-2008, 09:30 AM
Yeah, I used to do the bridge commute every day too. There we hundreds that used that dedicated path each and every day.The bikepath on the big coathanger, as well as Anzac and Pyrmont bridges, not to mention the bus/bike lanes on Oxford St get pretty full of bikes on good days, and it is great to see.
alchemist
16-01-2008, 09:51 AM
Do we, as NSW motorists, have an alternative to the NRMA, because I'll change in a second. I looked at the RACV and that seems to be just for Victoria.:(
For road service? Maybe
http://www.ultratune.com.au/road_side_premium_assist.html
No idea what the service is like.
placebo
18-01-2008, 07:25 PM
Not everyone at the SMH is a bike hater:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/sydney-is-cyclists-oyster-as-nrma-provides-grit-for-culturalchange/2008/01/11/1199988589357.html
As petrol becomes more expensive, cycling (and other options) will become more attractive. Then we might begin to see some integrated transport planning (though I wouldn't count on it, Sydney can't even produce integrated public transport ticketing). Imagine being able to ride to work without being abused, or worrying you might die because someone in a car isn't paying attention, or just won't give you any space because they hate cyclists "clogging" up the roads.
Hell, even car mags have editorials on cycling these days, and they're about riding, not about getting cyclists off roads.
sasfish
19-01-2008, 08:22 AM
It is my opinion that firstly the NSW government spends too much money. It's nice to see that the cycling lobby is reaching out and forcing the government to act on health and infrastructure that benefit us as cyclist’s. Better roads for biker’s are the beginning of the revolution baby. So as fuel prices rise and the average Australian could become less dependent on cars; the cycling option becomes more attractive. Lets face it we spend to much on our cars, on average $350 on blue slip, $280 in rego, $35 in pink slip per year and insurance is $450. In addition to this I pay around $4,000 in fuel per year, The tune ups run about $500 twice a year. Now I have paid off my 2005 x-trail but if I paid monthly that would be another $500 + ( $6000 per year). So I pay per year for my x-trail $4665 that’s not counting any other things like $550 in Thule bike racks , cd players or parking . Look companies like Dirt works are leading the charge with employee showers and actively encouraging biking to work. Its this type of leadership that is needed. It’s time to embrace the healthy lifestyle and set the standard for the rest of the world. Australia is a great place to live and has some of the best riding anywhere so let learn to put more pressure on government to build smarter with our money and find ways to actually benefit us as Sydney residents. Rather then complaining, stop taking it in the backside then telling everyone it hurts. The government on whole could give a S*&T about you as john p citizen, They only care about what keeps them in their jobs end of story. If we as a people stood up and said spend our money in better it would happen. These are my humble thought’s..
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.