Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models and their potential in Queensland

Abstract

The Queensland Cycling Strategy 2017-2027 (QCS) has a vision for more cycling, more often. Safe and connected cycling infrastructure plays a key role in encouraging more people to ride bikes – especially for women, young people and other riders who are less confident or more vulnerable. Cycling infrastructure provides a safer environment for people who choose to ride. Better infrastructure improves the attractiveness of bike riding for everyone. Unfortunately, much of Australia’s road infrastructure tends to have high posted vehicle speeds with few separated facilities for bicycle riders. The Queensland Government has raised its expenditure towards cycling infrastructure considerably in the last decade and a strong pipeline of infrastructure is being delivered by state and local governments. The task to retrofit infrastructure in existing neighbourhoods and to provide new cycling infrastructure is challenging as Government expenditure is highly contested. The Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) commissioned Griffith University to investigate innovative funding models that could help local authorities and community organisations to find additional funding sources to further accelerate delivery of the bicycle network in Queensland. The goal was not to find alternative funding streams, but to find sources that could be used in addition to those already being made available by the department. This report includes: i) a desktop review of current funding streams available in Queensland, looking across State, Federal and private sector sources; ii) a review of new innovative schemes that could be employed; and, iii) the outcomes of a set of stakeholder workshops that tested these new options, evaluating their suitability in Queensland. The current set of funding options is extensive, however the sums available from many schemes are modest. Importantly, the Commonwealth Government plays a much lesser role in funding cycling in Australia than in almost all other OECD nations. It is difficult to envision rapid increases in Australia’s bicycle networks if current Commonwealth funding levels continue as they are. The innovative funding options examined include examples from Australia, the United Kingdom, North America and Asia. Eleven types of funding were taken forward into the stakeholder workshops. The workshops revealed some modest differences in government and non-government perceptions regarding the feasibility of different schemes. Industry-led tourism schemes and gambling funds scored highly for implementation in Queensland. Opportunities also exist for micro-mobility services (such as dockless bike sharing or e-scooters) to help fund cycling infrastructure, and for schemes where motorists help pay for alternatives to driving. Workshop participants perceived the funding levels available from most schemes as relatively modest. Barriers must be overcome to initiate many of these schemes. None of the options that might deliver large sums are easy for governments to introduce. While innovative funding options may offer additional funding, the role of government remains important in coordinating, planning and approving cycling infrastructure. Lobbying for greater Commonwealth involvement in infrastructure, and cooperation between all levels of government and the non-government sector, appear key to develop a larger and more robust bicycle funding schema in Queensland.