By Stephen Coulter & Krystyna Weston
Our recent article “Why Do Micromobility Advocates Have Tiny-Demand Syndrome?” highlighted how small-minded most micromobility advocates are. Well-intentioned, but seeking modest projects rather than major infrastructure truly connecting commuters with cities safely.
The pictures from Transport for NSW’s web site could not be a clearer example of this. Motorways are planned, connected and allocated tens/hundreds of billions of dollars. They induce demand from motorists creating even more traffic and pollution.
Cycleways are a hotchpotch of bits and pieces of bike paths — some shared footpaths, some bike only, but very few protected mobility lanes.
Most bike paths are on roads separating cyclists by a coat of paint from buses, trucks, and cars. It’s no wonder the cyclist death toll is increasing while car-related deaths are decreasing on a kilometers travelled basis.
Not surprisingly, Sydney has a low percentage of cycling commuters. If major infrastructure was provided enabling connected, safe commuting, there would be induced demand in far more sustainable transport.
If cities want large increases in active travel — particularly cycling and micromobility, they must cater to the silent majority. Cyclists wearing work clothes, not lycra, who want to have an easy, safe ride and arrive at work with no sweat! This means electric bikes and electric scooters in connected, planned protected mobility lanes and exclusive micromobility “freeways”. Most people feel threated having heavy motorised vehicles next to them separated only by a coat of paint — if they’re lucky.
This is a global issue — not unique to Sydney. The eScoooter Policy Recommendations for Local Government, released in Berlin this month cited studies in Portland showing cyclists propensity to illegally ride on footpaths, depending on the cycling infrastructure provided:
The snapshot of Sydney’s cycleways shown at the start of this article highlights only bike paths which are off-road. All other options are on roads, many with medium to a high degree of difficulty (hills). This highlights the other planning requirement — cycleways should be planned with minimum hills and designed to enable easier hill climbing when required rather than excessive uphill and downhill sections — they might even require bridge infrastructure built exclusively for bikes and pedestrians like some cities are doing.
As stated by Terenig Topjian in his recent article:
Let’s dare to design something that can actually make a difference and imagine micromobility infrastructure that goes beyond bike lanes and that leapfrogs piecemeal local approaches. Let’s create a blueprint that can have real, lasting impact, to excite the masses, bring together many groups, companies, special interests, and demographics, create real mode shifts, and actually make a real difference in pollution, climate, and car deaths.
Micromobility leaders and advocates, we need to THINK BIG, not micro.
