The United Nations has recommended that governments dedicate 20% of transport funding to non-motorised or active transport. To see how Australia compares against this target, we looked at budgets for three capital cities and all the states and territories.
Hidden data
Compared to the widely available expenditures for roads and public transport, it’s hard to pin down spending for cycling and walking. The data are spread across a myriad of documents, and entities report them differently. For example, walking infrastructure figures might be reported separately or bundled with cycling or road projects.
Unclear reporting, in itself, indicates active travel’s low status in the transport funding hierarchy.
To gather the expenditures reported here, we had to draw on a variety of sources. Our data are not perfect or perfectly comparable across time and place, but do indicate relative spending levels.
State and territory spending
The 2015-2016 state and territory budgets are disappointing in that they continue the trend of . The difference between active transport and is staggering: most states devote less than 2% of funding to cycling.
All Australian states and territories are far below the United Nations target of 20%. With the exception of the Australian Capital Territory at 14%, the national average is 1%. Per capita dollar amounts devoted to active transport are low everywhere (under A$20 a year). As a benchmark, Copenhagen – regarded as the – has spent A$30 per capita a year for the past decade.
The future of cycling in Australian cities
Australian cities are ideal for cycling and walking for . But cyclists and pedestrians are being short-changed while infrastructure spending continues to .
This situation reflects the blinkered vision that Australia cannot and need not be a world leader in active travel. Our cities, which have some of the widest roads in the world, are supposedly too difficult to retrofit for walking and cycling. Many older cities overseas have redesigned much narrower streets for active transport.
In Australia any such retrofit requires long public consultation processes. Australians must accept incremental increases in active transport funding while road funding continues to dominate transport budgets.
Not only is this vision shortsighted, it is , ageist and classist. Cars cost their owners more than on average. This limits travel options for youth, low-income people and . These groups are already vulnerable to , and failing to fund cycling and walking projects can make their situation worse.
is unacceptable in a wealthy OECD country. We need and can have world class active travel infrastructure. This type of investment makes .
This article was co-authored by , The University of Queensland; , The University of Queensland; , The University of Queensland, and , The University of Queensland. It has been adapted from the published on The Conversation.
