Bike Lanes

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Over 10,000 cyclists commute into Melbourne’s inner city every morning.
Many popular routes are located along residential streets. Secret Agent wanted to find out if the presence of a bicycle lane had any impact on house sale prices within a suburb. 
Our sample consisted of 103 period house sales in Carlton North, 83 houses in Clifton Hill and 121 houses in Fitzroy North from 25 May 2015 to 8 June 2017. At least a third of the sample from each suburb consisted of houses facing bike paths.
A bicycle lane was defined as a pathway for cyclists clearly distinguished on both sides (left and right) from street parking and the main motorist thoroughfare. Lanes with a bicycle symbol on the road, but without clear delineation on either side, were excluded. 
A hedonic linear regression model was used to study the effect of having a bicycle lane on the sale price of the property in each suburb. Other factors taken into account included the sale date, land area, number of bedrooms, bathrooms and car spaces.
We found that the presence of a bicycle lane had a strong positive effect on the sale price of a house in Carlton North, adding up to $250,000 in value. With
a median sale price of $1,371,000, this implies a premium of nearly 20%.
However, it had little to no effect on houses in Clifton Hill and Fitzroy North.
This result isn’t to be read merely on face value. The price premium in Carlton North could very well be a result of many positive characteristics combined - one of which is a bicycle lane. A street with a bike path in this suburb tends to have wider roads, more vegetation and even a median strip. These greener, wider streets boost social appeal and safety, adding up to a rather attractive streetscape for prospective buyers, as evident by the prominence of Drummond, Rathdowne and Canning streets. 
A three bedroom house on 288 Richardson Street, Carlton North, recently sold for $1,550,000.
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/07/07/Screen%20Shot%202017-07-07%20at%209.51.47%20AM.png" alt="">
A two bedroom house with two bathrooms, <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-vic-carlton+north-125856038" target="_blank">384 Canning Street </a>Carlton North, is up for auction with expectations between $1.5 and $1.6 million.
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/07/07/Screen%20Shot%202017-07-07%20at%209.59.24%20AM.png" alt="">
 
For more information, <a href="https://secretagent.com.au/">click here</a>.
 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Carlton North homes benefit from bicycle lanes: Secret Agent

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Only in a few active travel strongholds, typically in the inner city, do Australian cycling and walking rates get close to those in Europe. 
Australian city planners are seeking ways to make cities better for walking and cycling.
Walkability and cyclability are attractive and “green” urban amenities. They reduce pollution and improve health. They are also economic assets.
In developing countries, active transport is key to improving accessibility for the urban poor. In developed countries, the walkable and cyclable city can be a magnet for attracting and retaining the “creative class”.
In Australia, plans and projects are being developed to extend pedestrian malls and cycling paths, restrict car traffic, remove street parking and install more lighting.
Have these efforts paid off?
Yes and no. Recently released 2016 Census data reveal some disappointing commuting patterns in Australian cities.
Across metropolitan areas, typically plagued by sprawl and segregated land uses, cars still dominate. Car-based commuting rates have decreased by only 1-2%.
Public transport use remains relatively low. Even in Sydney, it captures only about one-quarter of commute trips.
Since 2011, Sydney, Melbourne and Darwin have made modest gains (2-4%) in public transport use. Brisbane has had an incremental decline. Public transport use is stagnant in Perth, Adelaide, Hobart and Canberra.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203650/original/file-20180128-100893-12cw2vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Meanwhile, rates of walking and cycling remain constant and low – even in smaller centres such as Hobart, Darwin and Canberra. Even in the most “cycling-oriented” places (Darwin and Canberra), only about 3% of commuters cycle.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203651/original/file-20180128-100929-e5r516.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
City-level data tell a different story. Here, walking is more popular than at the wider metro level. This reflects the mono-centric nature of Australian cities, where most jobs are located in the CBD.
In larger cities, between a quarter and a third of the population walks to work. Similar proportions of commuters use public transport. Brisbane is an exception, with less walking, lower public transport use and much more driving than Sydney, Melbourne or Perth. Hobart and Darwin have low walking rates and are very car-dependent, which is surprising considering their small size.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203733/original/file-20180129-100899-4wj80w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Average cycling rates are low everywhere – only 2-5%. This is true in both large and small cities, tropical (Queensland and Northern Territory) and oceanic (southeastern Australia) climates, flat and hilly topographies.
However, averages are deceptive. In Melbourne’s “top cycling suburbs” (Fitzroy North and Carlton North/Princes Hill) cycling rates are as high as 15%. Similarly, in Brisbane’s “top cycling suburbs” (West End and Highgate Hill), about 8% of people cycle to work. Sydney’s cycling rates are only 5% even in its “top cycling suburbs” (Erskineville/Alexandria and Newtown/Camperdown/Darlington).
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203734/original/file-20180129-100905-1433pkw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
To compare, cities in Northern and Western Europe have average active transport rates at least twice as high as those in Australia. Over half of Copenhagen’s commute trips are via cycling or walking.
However, while Australian cities as a whole fall much behind international best practice, some suburbs are comparable. In Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, the “top active-travel suburbs” – the CBDs and their immediate surroundings – have walking and cycling rates in the 40-50% range.
Overall, improvements in walking and cycling rates have been minimal since the 2011 Census. For most cities, this undermines urban prestige and competitiveness – not to mention the health and environmental implications. Conversely, Melbourne’s higher active travel rates might provide part of the explanation for it topping “most liveable city” lists.
Why isn’t Australia an active travel mecca?
In theory, Australian cities are ideal for walking and cycling. They have mild climates, stable and wealthy governments, as well as sporty, outdoorsy and increasingly health-conscious residents. Despite this, the data show that overall active travel (especially cycling) is still marginal.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203617/original/file-20180127-100929-8c2duh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Barriers to active travel, grouped into ‘ideas’, ‘interests’ and ‘institutions’ – a popular theoretical framework in public policy studies. Pojani &amp; Stead, 2014, Author provided
Academic research has unequivocally demonstrated that substantive changes can occur only through a combination of high-quality infrastructure, pricing policies and education programs. In Australia, as elsewhere, myriad barriers conspire against such an integrated approach.
What needs to be done?
Three main areas require intervention.
<ul>
<li>
Ideas: Active travel must become normalised as an integral part of transport planning. Footpaths, crosswalks and bicycle lanes must be standard elements of street templates and guidelines, just like telephone lines and fire hydrants.</li>
<li>
Interest: Councils must secure strong political support for walking and cycling, as well as unity and collaboration within the active travel community. Solid evidence is needed on the benefits of high-quality walking and cycling environments and on the impacts on businesses and households of removing traffic and parking lanes to accommodate footpaths, bike paths and pedestrian malls.</li>
</ul>
Persistence and consistency in messages to the public, and a non-antagonistic stance, are also important. To embrace active travel, people must feel positive about creating a more just, fun, safe and healthy world through their informed travel choices.
<ul>
<li>
Institutions: More government funding for active transport – independent of political cycles – must be provided, while at the same time allowing more local planning autonomy. The most recent United Nations’ recommendation is that 20% of transport funding go to non-motorised modes.</li>
</ul>
Australia falls short of this target, but finding out exactly how far off is a challenge. The Australian government makes no mention of active travel in its 2017-2018 infrastructure budget allocation. Each local and state government reports on it differently.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87331/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">In 2016, the combined state and territory investments in cycling infrastructure totalled only A$121.8 million. That’s a small fraction of road funding (A$20.2 billion in 2011-12). Data on walking infrastructure spending are unavailable.
Dorina Pojani, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, The University of Queensland
Elizabeth Butterworth,The University of Queensland
Jim Cooper, Senior Research Fellow, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland
Jonathan Corcoran, Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland
Neil Sipe, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, The University of Queensland
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-cities-are-far-from-being-meccas-for-walking-and-cycling-87331" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Australian cities far from mecca's for walking and cycling

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Many cities are keen on dockless share-bike schemes such as oBikes or Reddy Go, and for good reason. They promote greater physical movement, help solve transport problems in congested cities, and can be fun.
But there’s a downside. Share-bikes can litter our cities and be found in rivers, up trees, in gutters, and strewn around public places. One of the reasons for this is culture.
There are three factors influencing the use of share-bikes:
<ul>
<li>
There’s behaviour, or making choices about how to act.
</li>
<li>
There’s cognition, or how our brain works to process information.
</li>
<li>
And there’s context, or the environment we’re in at the time of the behaviour. National culture is a significant aspect of context.
</li>
</ul>
Cultural differences
To understand Australian culture and see why it’s problematic for share-bikes, let’s compare it to one of our neighbours – Singapore.
While there has been poor behaviour with share-bikes in Singapore, there are three key cultural reasons why a business model that could be successful in Singapore is much less likely to be so in Australia: power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance.
The Hofstede model describes national culture using six dimensions, three of which apply here. A comparison of Australian and Singaporean national culture is shown in the figure below.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/1/31/5362a5da41204752a04209d06c15b397.jpg" alt="">
Power distance could be thought of as respect for authority, or as the likelihood to be influenced by an injunctive norm.
Australians are much more likely to consider an edict from someone in authority as a general guideline or the starting point for negotiation, whereas Singaporeans are much more likely to take such messages literally. This is reflected in the relative scores on the Hofstede model, showing much greater power distance for Singapore at 74 versus Australia at 36.
So, how might this impact share-bike use?
Australians and Singaporeans both know share-bikes should be returned to a designated parking space, but Singaporeans are more likely to be open to messages telling them to park appropriately than Australians.
Put together with injunctive norms in Australia having been quite faint and you can see why Australians are not as likely to do the right thing at the end of a trip.
The second major difference is individualism. Australians are reported to be much more individual than Singaporeans; Singapore is a more collectivist society than Australia. If you add in the other differences in indulgence and long-term orientation, you can see why Australians are more likely to do what feels good for the individual in the short term rather than what’s best for society in the long term.
So, at the end of a share-bike trip, an Australian is more likely to leave the bike in a non-designated area if it suits them than a Singaporean is.
Uncertainty avoidance, or worrying about the unknown, is the third major way the two countries differ.
Singapore has one of the lowest uncertainty avoidance scores in the Hofstede database. This means Singaporeans are much more likely to be open to change, for instance, than almost any other country in the world. As a result, Singaporeans are more open to being influenced by what they see their friends do than almost anyone else.
This openness helps the adoption of new business models such as share-bikes. And if the right social norms around behaviour can be engineered, Singaporeans are much more likely to behave in pro-social ways, such as leaving the share-bike in the right place.
What Australia can do about share-bike littering
Changing national culture to make Australians better users of share-bikes would be extremely difficult, if not downright impossible in the short term. It’s questionable whether that would be a good thing to do, anyway.
So, if we can’t or shouldn’t change our culture, then we should try to modify the share-bike business model to better fit Australian ways.
It’s highly unlikely that the dramatic examples of share-bike littering we see, such as bikes in rivers or up trees, are caused by share-bike users themselves, as they would pay a penalty under most business models. What’s much more likely is that share-bikes are left in awkward or undesignated places for the “free spirits” in society to take advantage of.
By their carelessness, known users are contributing to the problem. As such they are a priority target for behavioural change.
Loss-aversion theory says we are much more likely to be motivated by the prospect of a loss than a gain. And the sense of being observed – for example, a visible police presence – can change our behaviour.
So, if it was made clear to a user that they were being watched when they were about to return a bike to a non-designated place – and that there would be immediate and certain consequences – they would be much more likely to do the right thing.
While most share-bike business models have deposits, incentives and penalties, they are too vague and uncertain when it matters.
The sense of being under scrutiny needs to be front of mind at the time of the behaviour. For some share-bike operators, such a solution is either in development or close at hand. And much more precise geolocation capability could give users a sense of being watched.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90312/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">If the share-bike business model is tweaked, Australians could embrace a clever and fun form of transportation.
Conor Wynn, PhD Candidate at BehaviourWorks, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-reasons-why-share-bikes-dont-fit-australian-culture-90312" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Three reasons why share-bikes don’t fit Australian culture: Conor Wynn

<html><body>
It comes as no surprise that <a href="https://www.walkscore.com/AU-NSW/Sydney" target="_blank">Walk Score's list</a> rates Sydney as the most walkable large city in Australia. 
The waterfront city has also been deemed <a href="https://images.arcadis.com/media/0/C/0/%7B0C0BECF6-FA5B-49B2-B332-900D50833DEE%7DAAP_MOBILITY%20INDEX_spread.pdf?_ga=2.141593266.1201163471.1579477286-416334874.1579477286" target="_blank">the second most transit-friendly</a> in the country behind Brisbane and in-front of Melbourne. Sydney provides a wide range of transport with ferries, trains, metro and the recently welcomed light rail amongst the many options available. 
Opportunities to cycle have also risen as the city's biking infrastructure has improved in recent years. Significantly more councils have bike lanes with <a href="https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/explore/getting-around/cycling/dockless-bike-sharing" target="_blank">stationless shared bikes</a> located and accessible across the city.
<a href="https://mobike.com/au/download" target="_blank">Mobike</a> and <a href="https://www.li.me/en-us/home">LimeBike</a> operate in multiple suburbs and can be tracked and paid on their website and app. LimeBike have, since late 2018, provided <a href="https://www.li.me/electric-assist-bike" target="_blank">electric assisted bikes</a> which has helped encourage more users. 
Sydney is also diverse, home to nearly 200 nationalities, and offers a unique cultural experience with its range of cuisine, museums, galleries, and beaches. 
These are all of metrics Walk Score takes into account when deciding the rankings for each of Sydney's neighbourhoods. Without further ado, here are the <a href="https://www.walkscore.com/AU-NSW/Sydney" target="_blank">top neighbourhoods</a>. 
<h2>1. Haymarket </h2>
Walk Score: 99 | Population: 5,365
"Haymarket is a Walker's Paradise", states Walk Score. "Daily errands do not require a car in Haymarket Sydney." 
Adjacent to Darling Harbour, Haymarket includes much of Sydney's Chinatown, Thaitown and Railway Square localities. 
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2020/1/20/1_HAYMARKET%20PADDYS.jpg" alt="" width="557" height="338">
Amongst the neighbourhood's many perks, the proximity of restaurants, bars and coffee shops is highly regarded. There are about eight restaurants, bars and coffee shops, and people in the area can walk to an average of two restaurants, bars and coffee shops in five minutes. 
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2020/1/20/2_Haymarket.jpg" alt="" width="557" height="338">
Source: WalkScore 
<h2>2. The Rocks </h2>
Walk Score: 98 | Population: 683
This neighbourhood of historic laneways in the shadow of Sydney Harbour Bridge, has a diverse cluster of people. Interaction mainly takes place at the open-air Rocks Market where street food and handmade items are sold. 
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2020/1/20/2_THE%20ROCKS%20MARKET.jpg" alt="" width="553" height="336">
Source: <a href="https://www.timeout.com/sydney/things-to-do/the-rocks-night-markets" target="_blank">TimeOut</a>
The Rocks is home to Sydney's oldest pubs and many upscale harbour-view restaurants. 
This hub of culture is an urban stage of buskers who perform live along the harbour front promenade. The Museum of Contemporary Art offers local and international exhibits. 
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2020/1/20/2_Rocks.jpg" alt="" width="555" height="337"> 
Source: WalkScore 
 
<h2>3. Sydney </h2>
Walk Score: 98 | Population: 14,287
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2020/1/20/3_Sydney.jpg" alt="" width="550" height="334">
Source: WalkScore 
 
<h2>4. Ultimo</h2>
Walk Score: 98 | Population: 7,106
Located in the inner-city suburb of Sydney, Ultimo is only 2 km south-west of CBD. Broadway is amongst the many attractions of the neighbourhood as well as a range of heritage listed buildings. 
The corporate headquarters and Sydney studios of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) are located in Ultimo Centre which houses an auditorium and recording stood. TCS, NITV and Aurora are also located at Ultimo Centre. 
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2020/1/20/3_Ultimo.png" alt="" width="552" height="335">
Source: WalkScore 
 
<h2>5. Surry Hills </h2>
Walk Score: 97 | Population: 15,379
A constantly evolving area, Surry Hills is notorious for its in-trend scene and cafe culture.
Hip coffee joints, fashion boutiques and global eateries can be found in terraced houses on Crown and Cleveland streets.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2020/1/20/4_SURRY%20HILLS%20CAT%20WALL.jpg" alt="" width="552" height="335">
Source: <a href="https://www.piqsels.com" target="_blank">Surry Hills Cat Wall</a>
This trendy neighbourhood is home to pubs, wine bars, galleries and the Surry Hills Library. 
There is a Surry Hills Market held once a month where street food and vintage goods can be found. 
 
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2020/1/20/4_Surrey%20Hills.jpg" alt="" width="553" height="336">
Source: WalkScore 
 
<h2>6. Chippendale </h2>
Walk Score: 97 | Population: 4,069
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2020/1/20/6_Chippendale.jpg" alt="" width="545" height="331">
Source: WalkScore 
 
Following shortly behind are the following:
<h2>7. Millers Point </h2>
Walk Score: 96 | Population: 1,742
<h2>8. Darlinghurst </h2>
Walk Score: 96 | Population: 10,096
<h2>9. Newtown</h2>
Walk Score: 95 | 14,142
<h2>10. Rushcutters Bay </h2>
Walk Score: 94 | Population: 2,378
 
 
 
</body></html>

Bike Lanes

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Bike Lanes

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News