But what you’re neglecting there is the fact that our road network is already complete. Aside from new developments, all it needs is maintenance. Our bike network is woeful. There are almost no trips that can be taken entirely on separated bikeways. There are hundreds of kilometres of bikeways needed in Brisbane alone before we could be considered to have even a moderately successful bike network.
And, again, this is positive ROI.
Also: we have too much of a reliance on trucks as it is. Any inter-city road that gets more than half a dozen road trains per day should probably have actual trains to take that freight far more efficiently. Ditto roads seeing the equivalent of that in regular semis. But that’s a conversation for another thread.
Y’all apparently pave it with asphalt, which has sky high maintenance costs compared to concrete + rebar. That would be something I consider to be the actual issue, especially when you run super heavy truck trains like y’all do. If I was in charge of your road network, which I’m not, I’d start paving your big roads properly. But that’s neither here nor there.
To grossly simplify a very expansive topic of concrete vs asphalt, vs bitumen…
Concrete = more upfront cost, slower to built. It is more durable. Costs more to repair.
Less traction.
More noisy to drive on due to joints.
Bitumen = cheapest up front to build.
Less durable, but can still get a fairly good life out of it if designed to meet expected loads. Can be repaired more cheaply.
Asphalt. Middle ground between the two. (It’s effectively bitumen with cement binder added)
Most of our freeways, major arterial roads here are asphalt.
Things that effect the choice:
Different CAPEX vs OPEX strategies, especially with politics for public roads.
Local availability of materials.
Local environmental conditions i.e. freeze / thaw cycles we don’t have to deal with in most of Australia. High temperatures we do get, which does effect bitumen.
Fair to say that costs in one country for different labour and materials look a bit different too.
We don’t do them anywhere near as much as America apparently does but since I believe you’re around Brisbane I can pretty much guarantee you’ve driven on concrete roads (it’d be a lot less likely if you lived in Woop Woop). Look for it on primary routes that get a lot of heavy vehicle traffic - for example head south on the Pacific Highway and you’ll find large sections of concrete.
Oh damn. I don’t go that way often (my whole life is northside or within one kilometre of the river on the southside), but I have been down there a few times. I don’t think I’ve ever actually noticed the road being concrete. That’s wild to me.
Have you ever looked into what goes into a road? And what goes into a bike path/sidewalk?
Have you? I’ve seen wide ranging figures around the world, but Australian data says every dollar spent on bike paths returns $5 to the economy. Meanwhile, money spent on roads costs the economy, returning less than $1 per dollar spent.
Nobody is saying we shouldn’t have roads, but the amount spent on them is obscene, considering the opportunity cost.
Where do you get the ridiculous assertion that a bicycle is just a hobby? Plenty of people cycle to work, shops, visit friends etc. I am one of them.
Brisbane City Council openly publishes counts of cycle paths around Brisbane. There are literally thousands of people using these on weekdays to commute.
Bicycles are not essential. Get rid of bicycles and nothing will happen, get rid of the trucks and cars and everything stops. It is people choice to use them, not necessity. Which is a definition of a hobby.
Haha tell me, what car or trucks were used by the silk road traders to move people or cargo across continents? Did the Romans wait 2000 years for cars to be invented before they could use the roads the my built?
If you want a more modern example, cargo ebikes can carry a family and some can carry payloads up to 500kgs. Ever seen bike couriers, pizza deliveries on bikes? Trains are pretty good for freight too.
Your car brain is showing. Cars and trucks are a modern convenience, that is all. They are dangerous to humans, wildlife and the environment, but the only reason you think they are essential is because that’s what you grew up with and our infrastructure builders (govco) have prioritised them over other forms of transport - or more efficient forms of transport such as a bike. Fuel companies and car manufacturers do political donations…
If I want to go to a shop for a litre of milk, why do I need to lug a 1600kg lump of steel with me? Its inherently ridiculous to travel in this fashion for short to medium distances. Not suggesting we get rid of cars, but other forms of transport should be prioritised. You will never, ever solve congestion no matter how many lanes you add or roads you build. The only way is to reduce the amount of vehicular traffic using them.
And what about those who cannot drive, be it for age, medical reasons, lack of income to afford a car etc?
I can get everywhere by bike, train or bus. No need for a car. I have one, but by your reasoning, my car to me is just a hobby.
Roman example is just not applicable, we are in 21th century now.
“Cars and trucks are a modern convenience, that is all”. Do you really see that modern economy can function without cars and trucks? No, this is why we have to live with all their drawbacks,costs and dangers. There is simple no alternatives.
“I can get everywhere by bike, train or bus. No need for a car. I have one, but by your reasoning, my car to me is just a hobby.” And what made that possible, truck and cars.
When you ride your bike to shop to buy a milk, how that milk get there ? By truck.
“And what about those who cannot drive, be it for age, medical reasons, lack of income to afford a car etc?” and what about those who can’t ride?
Roman example was to show the silliness of your argument, that the only way to get around or move things is by car or truck, when for millennia humans have used other forms of transport for the exact same purpose and effect.
Milk used to be delivered by horse and cart. Auspost now uses small epowered buggies for deliveries. Many countries use canal boats for deliveries. Humans adapt and always find solutions is the point, so no, things wouldn’t just stop.
Our society is built in recent times to prioritise motor vehicles, so that is what is currently in use, but it is unsustainable in the long run both socially and environmentally. There are better ways and other methods of transport that would be cheaper, greener and more efficient if we build infrastructure to support them. That’s what this thread is about, if you remember.
You also keep thinking we are advocating to get rid of cars and trucks, but nobody said that.
So you keep enjoying sitting in traffic congestion, thinking how wonderful it is to be in a car, and I will continue to ride in fresh air, sunshine with no traffic. I can see you aren’t interested in having an open mind to your thoughts, so I think we can agree to disagree and move on. Good luck.
Get back to Earth, mate, we’re talking about today’s Australia. It will, for the foreseeable future, be run by cars and trucks. As I mentioned initially, bicycles are a hobby, not an essential. And so far, you haven’t provided any arguments to prove I’m wrong. So, the expectation that spending money on a hobby for a small minority, as opposed to something essential for the majority, is somehow justified, sounds strange to me
Any arguments? Discussion needs some, otherwise it just tossing shit to each other. Completely pointless, and harms both sides.
Bicycles as mode of transportation is relic of the past now. We are not in Vietnam. Public transit, cars and trucks is what move this country.
All the data shows that the number one indicator of cycling rates is the quality of infrastructure. You’re begging the question by saying “we shouldn’t spend money on cycling infrastructure because nobody rides”.
When did I say that nobody rides? I just find it ridiculous to compare expenses on non-essential infrastructure with essential infrastructure. Non-essential infrastructure deserves only a small percentage of funding. If we were talking about something like playgrounds or bicycle paths, it would be a different story. Both are non-essential, but both make cities better. So, it becomes a matter of discussion as to which should receive more investment.
I’m not sure why you mentioned, ‘All the data shows that the number one indicator of cycling rates is the quality of infrastructure.’ It’s obvious, but it doesn’t explain why we should spend more on cycling paths."
Cycling infrastructure is essential. It’s by far the most efficient form of transport, and not having it costs people their lives.
It returns 5x to the economy what we spend on it, in contrast to road spending, which returns less than 1x what we spend on it.
It benefits everybody, because contrary to the belief of our politicians, building ever more, wider roads does not help with traffic congestion. The only solution to traffic is alternatives to driving. And that means building excellent bike paths and funding excellent public transport—as much as possible, public transport that doesn’t use the same roads as cars, which means light or heavy rail, with BRTs as a supplement. One of the reasons bike paths are able to return 5x is because by reducing the number of cars on the road, those who still do drive—which will disproportionately be those who genuinely do actually need to drive, which currently is a tiny fraction of the total users of the road—can get to their destinations faster.
But if you cared one iota, you’d have heard this already. I’ve said it. Others in this thread have said it. Doubtless this one thread isn’t the only time you’ve seen this debate come up. So what’s your excuse? Do you just wilfully ignore reality and substitute your ideological bias?
0.1% makes sense? Jesus that’s a dumb take.
Actually I decided to look it up. It’s about $2.5 million per mile for a basic 2-lane asphalt road. https://www.welovepaving.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-pave-one-mile-of-road-in-california/#%3A~%3Atext=Paving+one+mile+of+a%2Ccosts+of+%24560%2C000+to+%241%2C050%2C000.
That number can get much higher very quickly if you use concrete, have more lanes, need bridges or tunnels, and whatever else comes up.
A mile of 4 ft wide concrete sidewalk is about $182,265.6
https://www.lawnstarter.com/blog/cost/concrete-sidewalk-price/
And very few are walking/bicycling from Perth to Brisbane, but there’s still trucks going in between which depend on the road network.
More money per mile and more miles means it costs more.
But what you’re neglecting there is the fact that our road network is already complete. Aside from new developments, all it needs is maintenance. Our bike network is woeful. There are almost no trips that can be taken entirely on separated bikeways. There are hundreds of kilometres of bikeways needed in Brisbane alone before we could be considered to have even a moderately successful bike network.
And, again, this is positive ROI.
Also: we have too much of a reliance on trucks as it is. Any inter-city road that gets more than half a dozen road trains per day should probably have actual trains to take that freight far more efficiently. Ditto roads seeing the equivalent of that in regular semis. But that’s a conversation for another thread.
Y’all apparently pave it with asphalt, which has sky high maintenance costs compared to concrete + rebar. That would be something I consider to be the actual issue, especially when you run super heavy truck trains like y’all do. If I was in charge of your road network, which I’m not, I’d start paving your big roads properly. But that’s neither here nor there.
Wait, where are you that they make roads out of concrete? I’ve never heard of such a thing.
Can be fairly sure they are in the USA.
To grossly simplify a very expansive topic of concrete vs asphalt, vs bitumen…
Concrete = more upfront cost, slower to built. It is more durable. Costs more to repair. Less traction. More noisy to drive on due to joints.
Bitumen = cheapest up front to build. Less durable, but can still get a fairly good life out of it if designed to meet expected loads. Can be repaired more cheaply.
Asphalt. Middle ground between the two. (It’s effectively bitumen with cement binder added) Most of our freeways, major arterial roads here are asphalt.
Things that effect the choice: Different CAPEX vs OPEX strategies, especially with politics for public roads.
Local availability of materials.
Local environmental conditions i.e. freeze / thaw cycles we don’t have to deal with in most of Australia. High temperatures we do get, which does effect bitumen.
Fair to say that costs in one country for different labour and materials look a bit different too.
Huh. I had no idea bitumen and asphalt were even different things.
We don’t do them anywhere near as much as America apparently does but since I believe you’re around Brisbane I can pretty much guarantee you’ve driven on concrete roads (it’d be a lot less likely if you lived in Woop Woop). Look for it on primary routes that get a lot of heavy vehicle traffic - for example head south on the Pacific Highway and you’ll find large sections of concrete.
Oh damn. I don’t go that way often (my whole life is northside or within one kilometre of the river on the southside), but I have been down there a few times. I don’t think I’ve ever actually noticed the road being concrete. That’s wild to me.
What are these miles and ft you speak of ?
Sorry, 1.69 (nice) Kilometers and .305 Meters, or roughly 1/2 of a Futball/Soccer Ball
Sorry we’re not big on soccer here. Got that in football lengths? (I’ll accept either Aussie Rules or rugby footballs.)
A foot is about two cm longer than a Rugby ball
How much do you think a road costs versus a bike path? If anything, bike paths are over funded.
Have you ever looked into what goes into a road? And what goes into a bike path/sidewalk?
Have you? I’ve seen wide ranging figures around the world, but Australian data says every dollar spent on bike paths returns $5 to the economy. Meanwhile, money spent on roads costs the economy, returning less than $1 per dollar spent.
Nobody is saying we shouldn’t have roads, but the amount spent on them is obscene, considering the opportunity cost.
It just reflect usefulness of each applications. You needs trucks but bicycle is just a hobby. Walking just do not need much infra at all.
Where do you get the ridiculous assertion that a bicycle is just a hobby? Plenty of people cycle to work, shops, visit friends etc. I am one of them.
Brisbane City Council openly publishes counts of cycle paths around Brisbane. There are literally thousands of people using these on weekdays to commute.
Bicycles are not essential. Get rid of bicycles and nothing will happen, get rid of the trucks and cars and everything stops. It is people choice to use them, not necessity. Which is a definition of a hobby.
Haha tell me, what car or trucks were used by the silk road traders to move people or cargo across continents? Did the Romans wait 2000 years for cars to be invented before they could use the roads the my built?
If you want a more modern example, cargo ebikes can carry a family and some can carry payloads up to 500kgs. Ever seen bike couriers, pizza deliveries on bikes? Trains are pretty good for freight too.
Your car brain is showing. Cars and trucks are a modern convenience, that is all. They are dangerous to humans, wildlife and the environment, but the only reason you think they are essential is because that’s what you grew up with and our infrastructure builders (govco) have prioritised them over other forms of transport - or more efficient forms of transport such as a bike. Fuel companies and car manufacturers do political donations…
If I want to go to a shop for a litre of milk, why do I need to lug a 1600kg lump of steel with me? Its inherently ridiculous to travel in this fashion for short to medium distances. Not suggesting we get rid of cars, but other forms of transport should be prioritised. You will never, ever solve congestion no matter how many lanes you add or roads you build. The only way is to reduce the amount of vehicular traffic using them.
And what about those who cannot drive, be it for age, medical reasons, lack of income to afford a car etc?
I can get everywhere by bike, train or bus. No need for a car. I have one, but by your reasoning, my car to me is just a hobby.
Roman example is just not applicable, we are in 21th century now.
“Cars and trucks are a modern convenience, that is all”. Do you really see that modern economy can function without cars and trucks? No, this is why we have to live with all their drawbacks,costs and dangers. There is simple no alternatives.
“I can get everywhere by bike, train or bus. No need for a car. I have one, but by your reasoning, my car to me is just a hobby.” And what made that possible, truck and cars. When you ride your bike to shop to buy a milk, how that milk get there ? By truck.
“And what about those who cannot drive, be it for age, medical reasons, lack of income to afford a car etc?” and what about those who can’t ride?
Roman example was to show the silliness of your argument, that the only way to get around or move things is by car or truck, when for millennia humans have used other forms of transport for the exact same purpose and effect.
Milk used to be delivered by horse and cart. Auspost now uses small epowered buggies for deliveries. Many countries use canal boats for deliveries. Humans adapt and always find solutions is the point, so no, things wouldn’t just stop.
Our society is built in recent times to prioritise motor vehicles, so that is what is currently in use, but it is unsustainable in the long run both socially and environmentally. There are better ways and other methods of transport that would be cheaper, greener and more efficient if we build infrastructure to support them. That’s what this thread is about, if you remember.
You also keep thinking we are advocating to get rid of cars and trucks, but nobody said that.
So you keep enjoying sitting in traffic congestion, thinking how wonderful it is to be in a car, and I will continue to ride in fresh air, sunshine with no traffic. I can see you aren’t interested in having an open mind to your thoughts, so I think we can agree to disagree and move on. Good luck.
Get back to Earth, mate, we’re talking about today’s Australia. It will, for the foreseeable future, be run by cars and trucks. As I mentioned initially, bicycles are a hobby, not an essential. And so far, you haven’t provided any arguments to prove I’m wrong. So, the expectation that spending money on a hobby for a small minority, as opposed to something essential for the majority, is somehow justified, sounds strange to me
What about them?
Spending 20% of the budget on active transport infrastructure would help those people, not hurt them.
bullshit
reality.
You’re delusional mate.
Any arguments? Discussion needs some, otherwise it just tossing shit to each other. Completely pointless, and harms both sides. Bicycles as mode of transportation is relic of the past now. We are not in Vietnam. Public transit, cars and trucks is what move this country.
All the data shows that the number one indicator of cycling rates is the quality of infrastructure. You’re begging the question by saying “we shouldn’t spend money on cycling infrastructure because nobody rides”.
When did I say that nobody rides? I just find it ridiculous to compare expenses on non-essential infrastructure with essential infrastructure. Non-essential infrastructure deserves only a small percentage of funding. If we were talking about something like playgrounds or bicycle paths, it would be a different story. Both are non-essential, but both make cities better. So, it becomes a matter of discussion as to which should receive more investment.
I’m not sure why you mentioned, ‘All the data shows that the number one indicator of cycling rates is the quality of infrastructure.’ It’s obvious, but it doesn’t explain why we should spend more on cycling paths."
Cycling infrastructure is essential. It’s by far the most efficient form of transport, and not having it costs people their lives.
It returns 5x to the economy what we spend on it, in contrast to road spending, which returns less than 1x what we spend on it.
It benefits everybody, because contrary to the belief of our politicians, building ever more, wider roads does not help with traffic congestion. The only solution to traffic is alternatives to driving. And that means building excellent bike paths and funding excellent public transport—as much as possible, public transport that doesn’t use the same roads as cars, which means light or heavy rail, with BRTs as a supplement. One of the reasons bike paths are able to return 5x is because by reducing the number of cars on the road, those who still do drive—which will disproportionately be those who genuinely do actually need to drive, which currently is a tiny fraction of the total users of the road—can get to their destinations faster.
But if you cared one iota, you’d have heard this already. I’ve said it. Others in this thread have said it. Doubtless this one thread isn’t the only time you’ve seen this debate come up. So what’s your excuse? Do you just wilfully ignore reality and substitute your ideological bias?