An Air-Land..... Bus?

A crazy innovation from China



While I will continue to discuss Sydney's public transport issues in my next post, I want to quickly discuss this amazing new technology that has been mooted in China and even better, it is relevant to my discussion on alternatives to cars!

So an innovative company in China has unleashed a proposed "Land Airbus" as a solution to its public transport and congestion issues.


Essentially the Airbus is a large train-like vehicle, that would straddle roadways. It does not require elevated tracks or tunnels, it just sits on top of major roads and moves along, as passengers disembark above the road at stations.

This would mean that cars just pass underneath!!!

So the benefits of this proposed technology are:

• Operates even when traffic is at a standstill 
• Capacity of over 300 passengers
• Does not require extensive infrastructure, it simply needs tracks as a tram would need 
• It does not add to traffic congestion 
• It acts as a beautiful viewing platform for the surrounding area, as it is made up of glass and clear ceilings 

Please have a look at this amazing promotional video, which shows the Airbus in full flight.

So let's look at the other side of the argument. While it appears to be an amazing innovation, is it feasible within a city such as Sydney or Melbourne?

The negatives of the Airbus are:

• Has not yet been implemented, so it is an unknown invention 
• Yet to be seen if it could be put in place in older cities that have certain road infrastructure 
• Safety must be an issue, how can trucks and other large vehicles go underneath 
• How much will it cost?

I personally think it looks amazing, and highly innovative. Yet it would appear an impossible implementation for Sydney because of its narrow roads and hilly geography.

I think it could work in a city such as Melbourne, with its tram infrastructure in place.

Regardless, I would love to have a ride on one!

My next post will continue to focus on Sydney's public transport, if you are interested in the Airbus, check out these articles:

http://audi-urban-future-initiative.com/blog/revolutionary-urban-mobility

http://inhabitat.com/land-airbus-straddling-bus-as-the-future-of-public-transportation-in-the-city/

 http://www.earthday.org/greencities/portfolio/chinas-land-airbus/

Public Transport: The highs and the lows

More alternatives to cars.....Public Transport

I have been spruiking bikes for a number of posts (mainly because I love riding) but now it is time to move on to other alternatives to driving private cars. I have chosen to discuss public transport, a form of travel that really should be the most widely used out of any vehicle choice.


Personally, I have mixed feelings about public transport.

Sydney's public transport is to put it mildly, terrible. It is second rate in nearly every facet. There are enormous gaps in the public transport network, such as the lack of train-line to the northern beaches, rarely are services on time, they are crowded, overworked and most worryingly they are relatively expensive to use.

The below video is an interesting comparison between Sydney's public transport, and that of a third world country. Please check it out, it is illuminating. 

Yet public transport could hold the key to Sydney's traffic, congestion and pollution woes. Public transport has a wide number of benefits, including:

• Saving money. Regardless of the cost of catching Sydney's buses, trains and ferries, the overall cost savings of public transport is huge compared to owning a car. Think no registration fees, fuel, maintenance and the money adds up. 
• Environmental impact. Public transport is much more energy efficient. A full train has the potential to take over 600 cars off the road! Amazing. 
• Congestion/Traffic: The cost of congestion, in terms of time lost, is huge. Public transport, especially trains and ferries, have clear access to their destination. Taking cars off the roads and using public transport has the potential to get workers into the city quicker and ensure less congestion on the roads. 
• Health: Using public transport ensures greater mobility, with people having to walk to bus stops, train stations and to their final destination. This only adds to the health benefit.

 There are not too many negatives associated with public transport. However, they might include:

• Infrastructure cost. Public transport can cost a lot in infrastructure and maintenance. With the fees generated not covering all expenses. Generally will be a loss for the government. 
• Time. For some cities, such as Sydney, public transport is unreliable and does not run all the time, making it difficult to trust that it will get you where you need to be.

There is a lot to like about public transport. When put in place properly, such as in Singapore/Hong Kong or Shanghai, public transport can mean moving around a city with unlimited mobility at a fraction of the cost of driving. However, Sydney is a city of public transport gone wrong.

I actually want to further explore Sydney's public transport issues and how they could be fixed in my next blog, because it is a huge issue and one that I struggle with everyday.

If you are interested, check out these articles on the novelties of public transport:

• http://bigthink.com/think-tank/should-all-public-transit-be-free
• http://www.sustrans.org.uk/change-your-travel/reducing-your-car-use/why-use-public-transport
• http://www.vexen.co.uk/notes/public_transport.html

  

A rebuttal

Answering a question from a fellow cyclist


I was lucky enough to have a comment on my blog from a 'fellow cyclist' who gave me a number of questions to think about and to blog about.

It was in response to my cycling article, which pushed for a more cycling friendly city. My main argument was that cyclists should be more welcome and catered for in cities such as Sydney, because cars are becoming unsustainable in terms of their environmental impact and indirect impacts of congestion, fuel consumption and infrastructure costs.

Matt Coulton (from the comments section) has raised some great points, they are:

• Firstly, car uses contribute a lot of extra government revenue including fuel tax, registration, paid parking etc. Should cyclists be expected to contribute more if they wish to enjoy the benefits of public infrastructure?
• 
  
• Secondly, if we want safety on the roads, surely cyclists have to be law-abiding and accountable, just like drivers. At the moment, some cyclists ride on footpaths and across pedestrian crossing, yet they also want to switch to roads and bike paths when it is more convenient for them.
•  
• Thirdly, the unregulated, unpredictable nature of urban cycling makes it dangerous; especially if numbers are to increase. Furthermore, cyclists speed, fail to give way and stop at red lights and ignore pedestrian crossings, yet there is no system of registration or identification.

I agree to some of these points. Through registration and parking, cars do contribute revenue to be used for other government spending. One of the biggest complaints regarding cyclists has been the lack of accountability in terms of registration and licencing, which gives cyclists a certain 'freedom' on the road. However, if forced to register bikes, people may not even make that effort.


However, I would argue that with more cyclists on the road and less cars, it would make financial sense in the long term.

How so?

Less cars would mean less parking, which means car parks and car parking lots could be sold for residential development or other developments beneficial to the community. With less traffic congestion, commuters would be more productive and more efficient, with less time lost to being stuck in traffic.

If more cyclists were to come onto the road, there would have to be greater accountability to the law. Road rules ensure safety, and cyclists (I do this too) feel that to be safer, we must flaunt some road rules.

This might take the form of more police officers on bikes controlling cyclists, or greater fines for breaking road laws.

Lastly, I personally think that forcing cyclists to register would impede casual cyclists, however, Matt brings up a good point. For a greater mass of cyclists to ride around the city and outer areas, they need to be accountable.

Small registration fees, with a tag on your bike or helmet, would mean that you are recognisable as a rider and can be picked up for your discretion's.

Obviously there would have to be greater infrastructure in place for cyclists, but overall I am still a believer that more cyclists would mean a better and cleaner city. Thank you Matt for your comments, and I hope you continue to argue.

For my next blog I want to continue to explore the alternatives to cars.


For articles and arguments on this topic, check out these articles:

• https://australian-cyclists-party.org/latest-media-release/rego-history/
• http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/fitness/on-your-bike/18-reasons-why-registering-bicycles-is-a-bad-idea-20150318-1m23gh.html
• http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/fitness/on-your-bike/why-cyclists-should-never-pay-rego-20120614-20bk6.html

Where to, Driver?

The enigma that is the Driver-less Car

I had a very interesting response from one Matt Coulton on my last post that I want to address in my next blog however for the moment, I want to look at what could be the future transport option in cities, the driver-less car.

It is important that a decision and strategy is created regarding what form cars of the future should take, because personal transport is an enormous issue for both Sydney and the world, due to its environmental impact and sustainability.

There are currently more than a billion cars on the world’s roads, a figure that has doubled in the past 25 years. Developing economies in Brazil, India and China are behind this surge in car ownership.

Transport is responsible for a fifth of global oil use, and forecast to be the primary source of future oil use and emissions growth, this is a trend that cannot be sustained for the long term. 

Driver-less cars have recently come into the picture (and if you want a look at this incredible technology, check out the link below) as an alternative to our current private vehicles. 

Basically, they use GPS and sensor technology to allow the car to drive itself. I do not want to get into the specifics of the design and the controversy of safety, hazards etc, but rather the potential (or detriment) this invention could bring for the environment and the sustainability of cities. 

                                                         A video on the Google Driver-less Car

 So how could this help?? 

Advantages

• Those who cannot drive could now have access to personal transport

•  Safer cities, with obstacles, mood changes and human error taken out 

• Once widely available, it should allow a foregoing of car ownership in favor of car-sharing, where the vehicle comes to you, charged and ready to go, as needed. Thus the result could be far fewer cars on the road than today (and conversely, less parking lots, spaces for our cars which means more space)

• The brain of these cars will also reduce inefficient routes and decrease overall driving time, leading to better air quality and lower carbon emissions

 Disadvantages

• Self driving cars may encourage MORE cars on the road, as people might buy as additional cars

• Just because the car is driver-less, doesn't mean it will be smaller or more fuel efficient. There are fears that cars will get bigger and more luxurious as space is added to recline, relax and enjoy the less-stressful ride. 

• Could potentially lead to greater urban sprawl, as commuting could become more tolerable without the hassle of driving

Personally, I am relatively skeptical of driver-less cars. Not because of the 'the robots will get smarter and take over the world' scenario, but because it does have the potential to lead to greater environmental discomfort. 

I think the biggest question surrounding the sustainability of the cars is whether or not they will use fossil fuels to power them. If the car is powered by petrol, then it will have environmental repercussions. However, if it could be electrically powered, or sustainably generated, then it has the potential to solve a great number of issues within cities, including congestion, pollution and space restraints. 

For my next post, I want to respond to Matt's comment on my past blog, which will discuss the role that cyclists could play in cities instead of cars. 

Interesting blogs/resources to check out on driver-less cars include: 

• http://theconversation.com/cops-may-feel-biggest-impact-from-driverless-car-revolution-38767

• http://www.google.com.au/about/careers/lifeatgoogle/self-driving-car-test-steve-mahan.html

• http://www.driverless-future.com/

I want to ride my bicycle

A recap, a way forward and acknowledging that cars are not the answer

I just want to give a little recap of my blog so far.

I started off with intentions and aspirations of looking at green buildings and the benefits and hazards of high rise living. 

However, after reading a fascinating article on the Compact City Fallacy, I changed my angle.

I looked at urban sprawl in both Sydney and Canberra, and compared them to the density of Shanghai. I then went on a number of tangents, looking at Canberra from a variety of angles, and have settled on looking at the impact in the push for cycling in cities.

First I touched on the wonderful Vienna, and its 1200km of cycle paths. I would like to explore Vienna and other cycle friendly cities, but for now I want to briefly discuss Sydney again and its cycle paths.

While I am yet to fully comprehend how important cycle paths and riding your bike are in terms of the environmental and social impact, I know that cars are not the answer for the future sustainability of cities.  

So my new tangent will be to discuss alternatives to cars as transport within cities. Let’s start with one of man’s greatest of inventions, the bicycle.

For the rest of this blog, I wanted to deliver a stinging critique to Sydney and its feeble attempts at integrating cycling into the city. `

Sydney, as I have touched on, is a cyclist’s nightmare of high traffic, narrow roads and hot-headed drivers. However, there are a few brave and hardy souls who ride through the CBD to get to work, which is discussed here.

 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/08/21/is-cycling-more-dangerous-than-driving/

In a recent article, it was revealed that one of the few workable and decent bike lanes on College Street, was to be shut down by the Roads Minister in Duncan Gay. To counter this decision, Gay is attempting to create an alternative route through Castlereagh Street. 

**Have a look at the article here, and be outraged. 

However, along certain sections of Castlereagh Street there are carparks and loading zones. Gay has suggested a ‘part-time’ bike lane, which would be shut during the day, and opened in peak times.

Is he kidding?

Sydney’s half-hearted attempts at bringing in cycle paths are pathetic. How would anyone consider selling their car to ride there bike to work and catch public transport everywhere?

As someone who rides regularly, and who understands the benefits and savings of riding bikes, it is frustrating that Sydney has not done more about making cycling and other alternatives of transport more appealing.

Due to the fact that I do love riding, I want to explore cycling and bikes as a viable alternative to cars within cities. I have a number of articles and papers that I want to read and discuss. Following on from there, I want to look at other methods of transport that are more sustainable.

Vienna: Cycling and Living Nirvana

The World's Most Liveable City 


I was reading the Sydney Morning Herald at work yesterday and stumbled upon an article about cycle-friendly Vienna. This ties in with my last couple of blogs about cycling in Canberra and Sydney. The article can be found here:

Vienna: The Cycling City


Vienna is the capital of Austria and is by far the largest city in Austria with a population of more than 1.7 million. It forms Austria's cultural, economic, and political centre. As the former home of the Habsburg court and its various empires, the city has an historic background.

In the article, the author embarks on a cycling tour of Vienna. The tour guide says that "I would never bother owning a car in the city, although I do have 6 bikes". Bikes are described as a status symbol and are used to ride to work, functions and nights out.

Vienna is relatively flat and has over 1200km of bike paths and 120 public rental bike stations!! 

(Check out the Bike Stations here: http://www.radverleih-hochschaubahn.com/Radverleih/English/)

Vienna has just come out on top of the world's most liveable city survey, conducted by consulting firm Mercer. The survey compares the political, social and economic climate, medical care, education, infrastructure and environmental conditions of global cities.

Could Vienna's push for less cars, and more cycling, be a major factor in their liveability?

 The City of Vienna. ('Cycling in Vienna' Van der Jagt, 2015)


I did some more research, and discovered that Vienna is one of a number of cities which has committed for a target of 15% of trips made by bicycles out of the total trips made in the city.

This also ties in with a project called 'Bike City', where a residential apartment block has been built for middle-income residents, with bike racks on every floor and wide corridors especially for bikes.
This meant that there was millions saved in the project by not building a major carpark underneath the building.

Another project that Vienna is investing in is the second largest shopping centre is being made car-free.

The push for cycling over cars has seen congestion drop and a lesser environmental impact. It is also healthier and cheaper than cars.

But what does this all mean?

Are bikes the answer to Australia's problems?

Vienna is more compact when compared to many of Australia's cities and it would take years of planning to put in place the infrastructure to rival to the European city. 

I think that the main point of Vienna being such an attractive city and resorting to bikes is that cars are not the answer. Alternatives are needed for transport to cities and around cities.

Apart from bikes, what are these alternatives?

For next time....


Sources Used: 

Van der Jagt, Kerry. 2015. Cycling in Vienna. Accessed 9/4/2015 < http://www.traveller.com.au/cycling-in-vienna-austria-the-best-way-to-see-the-worlds-most-liveable-city-1m8iih >

Bi-Cycling

The Dangers, Advantages and the Dramas of Bike Paths


I ride my bike constantly. I am a exercise fanatic, and I train for triathlons nearly full time, so whenever I get a chance to get out and ride, I will.

When I lived in Canberra, I could ride almost anywhere without a care in the world. I could ride over 150km in a single sitting and all I would have to do is ride out my door. The majority of drivers were cyclists themselves, gave me plenty of space and nearly no issues. If I didn't feel like being on the roads, I could leisurely ride the cycling paths scattered around Canberra.

When I moved back to the big city of Sydney, one of the things that I missed about Canberra was that I now lacked any real area to ride in. To safely ride in Sydney, one must either get up before 6am to avoid any traffic or drive to safe area such as the Ku-ring-gai national park. If you try to ride around Sydney as if it were Canberra, you will be abused by drivers, be involved in numerous close encounters, which should ensure either an accident or the selling of your bike.

I've seen cycling accidents firsthand involving cyclists and cars where the car simply did not have the foresight and the care to avoid the incident. Cycling in Sydney is frightening. This video summarises riding in a bustling, car-centric city.

Canberra has a beautifully laid out bike path network (Have a look! http://www.visitcanberra.com.au/getting-around/cycling).

While the city has sprawled outwards at an alarming rate, within the city and nearly every suburb, you will see cyclists everywhere. Many of my friends in Canberra do not have a car, or if they do, use it very minimally, due to the accessibility of cycling paths.

I haven't checked the emissions data for Canberra or for Sydney, but I think that you would find that more people would ride to and from work in Canberra than for nearly any other city (Melbourne would be a close second).

Sydney has narrow roads and due to its poorly planned sprawl, it means that while it is not impossible to ride everywhere, you would be foolish to try.

I have heard rumblings out of the City Mayor's office of more cycle paths, but riding still remains so dangerous because there are an excess of cars on our roads.



Sydney might ignore Canberra and look down upon the little capital city, but being able to move around Canberra on my bike is a great joy, which sadly cannot be said about Sydney.

Not being able to cycle freely in Sydney translates to more drivers on the roads, more congestion and a greater environmental impact for a city already trying to figure out how to cut down all of these aspects. So for my next post, I will continue to look at bikes, cycling and the joys of self-propulsion.



Check out the benefits of cycling:

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Cycling_health_benefits?open

http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/bicycle-fitness

http://www.bikeradar.com/au/road/gear/article/30-reasons-to-take-up-cycling-23965/