[bikeqld] Kurilpa Bridge opening Sunday 4 October

Wed Oct 7 18:41:52 CDT 2009

Thanks Mich ...

The weekly metric hides all the different types of users and/or trip 
types as well as those who make multiple trips ie the degree some 
people use the facility more than others.

It is a bit similar to the counts that indicate bicycle use is 
increasing based on a day or even part of a day "count" or survey. 
These don't differentiate between the various recreational, "group" 
and/or "utility" uses ... yet are used to imply success ... but are 
only a success in terms of what is actually measured.

So what exactly are "users"?

Does this term "user" equate with trips ie total use in both 
directions or is it a person who might use the bridge once ie in one 
direction as distinct from someone else who might use the bridge 
twice eg to visit GOMA during a lunch break? Are there people who 
will use it several times a day eg for exercise or as couriers? Does 
it mean anything anyway?

One view (and one well supported) is that it is extremely important 
to ensure a facility is (always) seen to be in use ie so this not 
only encourages others (eg this is a crucial marketing and promotion 
reason why cycle facilities should ALWAYS be highly visible and NEVER 
"hidden" out of view) but also so the obvious constant use reduces 
the likelihood and credibility of complaints of "not being used" and 
"waste of money" etc. If it is seen being used, then it is highly 
likely it will be used more if it does what is needed well.

This issue arises each time BCC (or anyone else) announces that 
cycling is increasing based on a survey of the number of cyclists 
passing survey points. While other info can be implied, it is not an 
indicator that people are changing modes eg from car to bike etc. 
Indeed it is only a measure of what is being measured ...!

An example from the opening period of the SEBusway may be a useful 
illustration. During the first week of the SEBusway, a group of us 
from SmogBusters went out to the Garden City station to ask 
individuals about their previous and current transport choices. Some 
had changed from train to bus and were driving much further to do so 
(generating more parking and traffic congestion and more air 
pollution etc) and others were going to the CBD to go shopping or for 
lunch but they had NEVER done that previously (exporting the local economy).

These trips were counted as trips that demonstrated the success of 
the SEBusway ie as gross numbers.

However, at least from some perspectives, these trips were additional 
or longer trips generated by the SEBusway ... and while there was 
obviously a novelty factor as well as a benefit in seeing and using 
the novel facility, the "real" benefit in say reducing congestion and 
pollution could not be assessed from the gross counts. It really can 
only be assessed from individual case study research for much the 
same reasons the IndiMark travel information projects only work well 
at the individual or household level ... the information needed is individual.

So I would expect not only an inflated prediction of use of the 
bridge from the government for political purposes (but would we also 
like to know how many people walk or cycle across the Sydney Harbour 
Bridge?) but also it will take time for the novelty trips to reduce 
and for those who don't find much utility to return to their 
preferred routes ... while for some, the bridge will no doubt be a 
benefit ... and for a lucky few, a huge benefit. Some may even leave 
the car and take up walking or cycling or public transport if the 
bridge makes the trip safer, quicker, more convenient ... but how 
many and how would we know? Will it have any benefit in reducing 
traffic or parking congestion or air pollution? Who knows?

On my two recent trips to the CBD this week, I purposely travelled 
through these streets but have yet to see a cyclist on them ... but 
that was around 4pm -  perhaps the least likely time for them to be 
used. Are they being used? Photos? Times? Comments? Critiques? Anybody?

These are important questions too because the EXTRA facilities are 
extremely expensive and there can be NO DOUBT, they are NOT cost 
effective ... so IF the (implied) intention is to encourage more 
walking, cycling and/or public transport trips, then not only should 
the facilities for these be very obvious and obviously used (rather 
than hidden), they should also appear to be useful to those who are 
not already using them ... and further if the mode change is from 
cars, then LESS road space will be required for less cars ... 
therefore it is the road space that is the cost effective space ... 
and expensive additional facilities are indeed a waste of scarce resources.

If anything, these types of questions have a vital role .. if only to 
encourage cyclists who currently head for and are hidden in the 
"hidden" bikeways eg from QUT to Hale Street Coro Drive underpass, 
may perhaps consider using the new green lanes instead ... if only to 
(i) be able to critically review their utility and (ii) perhaps more 
importantly, show others that cycling is more popular than it appears 
... surveys and various PR releases can do neither of these.

Back to Sydney comparisons ... the Sydney Harbour Bridge is said to 
carry more people not in cars than in cars ... so is the Kurilpa 
Bridge really little more than a 20th Century "symbolic gesture" for 
PR "spin" purposes to help hide the reality as Brisbane continues to 
build massive capacity for more cars and the Premier and Deputy 
Premier shake hands to celebrate another bridge with very poor 
walking and cycling facilities and NO public transport priority 
facilities at all?

As Brisbane City Council is (hopefully) learning (?), constrained 
demand is very hard to reduce ... provide a few more buses, and the 
constrained demand emerges as the better the facility, the more 
demand ...! It seems obvious that this principle is still being used 
AGAINST walking and cycling ... as the "symbolic gestures" are being 
rolled out and in particular, the $100m shared path projects ... but 
what is the extent of the constrained demand for walking and cycling?

Is the Kurilpa Bridge a useful place to look for answers to all these 
questions? Almost certainly yes ... but (only?) by individual 
interview or survey.

MY......................

At 11:55 PM 7/10/2009, mich rolling wrote:

>http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26163713-3102,00.html
>
>Well the Kurilpa Bridge is open and projected to reach 37,000 users a week
>  (the 'week' is a strange metric commonly used for non-motorised transport
>  usage for some reason; Michael Y. any explanation?). This will make those
>  unfortunates in Sydney jealous 
> http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/kurilpa-bridge-a-world-first-bligh-20091004-ghq3.html
>
>
>Great stuff.
>
>I didn't know that it is also solar powered.
>
>Has there been any comment (motorist backlash) against the George St 
>bi-directional bikelanes?
>
>
> 
>__________________________________________________________________________________
>Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail.
>Learn more: http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/
>
>_______________________________________________
>bikeqld mailing list
>bikeqld at bikeqld.org.au
>http://www.bikeqld.org.au/
>http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld
>This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland.
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.5/2419 - Release Date: 
>10/07/09 05:18:00