From The Age: Bracks missing the train to liveability
The administrative structure reflects this. After the last election, the transport portfolio was split into separate portfolios, with roads given to a strong minister, Tim Pallas, who was formerly Bracks’ chief of staff, and public transport to a weak minister, Lynne Kosky.
Yes, Kosky doesn’t want to converse with the lumpenproletarian.
Pallas showed his contempt for non-car users and the Melbourne City Council when, within 24 hours of the public announcement, he vetoed a well-thought-out plan by the council to introduce dedicated lanes for bicycles along St Kilda Road. His decision ignores research that shows that both modes of transport benefit from being separated.
Pallas probably doesn’t ride a bike. Or maybe he does now, since Jon Faine strongly suggested he do so during a recent interview on ABC 774.
Bicycle usage is inhibited by cyclists’ justifiable fear of being struck by a speeding car or colliding with opening doors of stationary cars.
Each bicycle carries as many commuters as the overwhelming proportion of cars that enter and exit the city each day. The decision is not even good politics, as increased road space devoted to bicycles will reduce congestion in the central business district, and postpone the need for congestion taxes, as bicycles have outsold cars in the past seven years.
Bracks rides a bike but needs a bigger frame or more suitable fitting. From memory Thwaites and Batchelor ride clunkers, but at least that’s a start. On the subject of mode separation I’m not entirely convinced that either strictly aligning discussions, or indeed, bicycle advocates, into pro or anti separate facilities camps really assists in trying to get utility cycling gently accepted in the public consciousness.
Taking sides sounds too much like toeing the (political) party line, and that’s something I really don’t have the time of day for. Any decisions regarding planning for transport infrastructure should be taken on a pragmatic needs basis, taking into consideration road architecture, existing conditions and shared user requirments. In short, the slightly fluffy term Sustainable Transport would be better served by referring to more accurately as Integrated Transport. That’s probably the subject of a lengthly discourse if anyone is suitably interested. I need a coffee.
