Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models - and their potential in Queensland - Griffith ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Innovative Cycling
Infrastructure
Funding Models
and their potential in Queensland
Final Report
March 2019
Prepared for:
Queensland Government
Department of Transport and Main Roads
griffith.edu.au
This page is intentionally left blank
Innovative Cycling
Infrastructure
Funding Models
and their potential in Queensland
Final Report
March 2019
Prepared for:
Queensland Government
Department of Transport and Main Roads
griffith.edu.au
Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models and their potential in Queensland Final Report Copyright © Cities Research Institute, Griffith University 2019 Project Lead: Abraham Leung Contributors: Matthew Burke, Bruce James, Aidan Brotherton COPYRIGHT: Except as permitted by the Copyright Act, reproduction by any means (photocopying, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise), making available online, electronic transmission or other publication of this material is prohibited without the prior written permission of the Cities Research Centre. Reproduction of this page is authorised. LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Cities Research Institute’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between CRI and its Client. CRI accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party. DISCLAIMER: This report outlines the findings of the independent research undertaken by Griffith University. The contents of the report do not reflect Queensland Government policy. This document should be cited as: Leung A., Burke M., James B., Brotherton A. (2019). Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding and their potential in Queensland - Final Report. Cities Research Instititue, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Executive summary
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.
This report outlines the findings of the independent research undertaken by Griffith University.
The contents of the report do not reflect Queensland Government policy.
Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models 1
Executive summary
Contents
Executive summary 1
1. Introduction 6
1.1 Objectives and scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Report structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Background 9
2.1 Cycling infrastructure policies, plans and provision in Queensland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.1 Overall policy direction and strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.2 Transport and land use plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Delivery and funding mechanisms of cycling infrastructure in Queensland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1 State funding by TMR for State-owned network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.2 State funding by TMR for non-State-owned network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.3 State funding from sources other than TMR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.4 Local government funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.5 Federal funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.6 Private funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3. Innovative funding models 29
3.1 Public-private partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.1.1 Top-down PPPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.1.2 Bottom-up PPP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2 Private sponsorship of naming rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.3 Industry-led schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.4 Philanthropic contributions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.4.1 Philanthropic financial contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.4.2 Volunteer time/labour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.5 Gambling and lottery grants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.6 Value capture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.7 User pays (bicycle riders pay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.8 Mobility/congestion pricing (motorists pay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.9 Share scheme levies (micro-mobility operator pays) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.10 Social impact bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.11 Health-related funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4. Assessment of funding models on their suitability to Queensland 54
4.1 Funding scheme evaluation and best practice identification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.2 Stakeholder scoring workshops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.3 Stakeholder scoring results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.3.1 Scoring of the funding models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.3.2 Importance score of the criteria as weights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.3.3 Summarised scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5. Lessons for future cycling funding in Queensland 61
5.1 The key barriers and opportunities of cycling infrastructure funding in Queensland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2 Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models
Executive summary
5.2 Key recommendations / next steps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.2.1 Better information provision on funding opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.2.2 Better coordination of funding / Partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.3 Limitations of the study and future research directions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Appendix A: Information sources and acknowledgements 65
Appendix B: Government funding for cycling infrastructure in Queensland 66
Appendix C: Local government’s perspective of cycle infrastructure funding 69
Appendix D: Further information for innovative funding cases 75
Appendix E: Detailed tables of the scoring results 76
Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models 3
Executive summary
List of Figures
Figure 1 Flowchart of project process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2 Strategies, land use plans & delivery mechanisms for cycling infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 3 Major funding arrangements for cycling infrastructure in Queensland (Indicative only). . . . . 12
Figure 4 Artist impression of the TMR-funded Veloway 1 Stage E bikeway under construction at
Tarragindi, Brisbane (Source: TMR, 2018). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 5 An example of State-local co-funding: Railway Parade to Logan Gardens shared pathway . 17
Figure 6 Atherton Tablelands Rail Trail, June 2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 7 Cycle and pedestrian bridge as part of D2N2 Local Enterprise Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 8 Green line refers to the completed parts of Downtown Greenway as of 2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 9 The BCS plan in July 2011, note the sponsorship logo is featured. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 10 The growth of YouBike service and bikeway length in Taipei. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Figure 11 NZCT Logo and the West Coast Wilderness Trail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 12 Screenshot of the Northern River’s Community Trail crowdfunding page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 13 Map of the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 14 Volunteers building the Bristol and Bath Railway Path in 1979. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 15 Cirkelbroen in Copenhagen, a turnable bridge designed by Nordea-fonden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Figure 16 Plague showing the funding source - National Lottery, and Shoreham harbour bicycle and
walking bridge completed in 2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 17 Map of Multimodal Transportation District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 18 The financial flows of the Newpin Program, an example of social impact bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 19 Unweighted scoring of the funding models by stakeholder group type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 20 Importance scoring of the evaluation criteria by stakeholder group type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 21 Mean adjusted view of overall stakeholder scoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4 Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models
List of Figures
List of Tables
Table 1 State (TMR) administered funding to State-owned cycling network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 2 State (TMR) administered funding to local/non-government owned cycling network . . . . . . 16
Table 3 State (non-TMR) administered funding to local/non-government owned cycling network. . 19
Table 4 Local government funding to local-owned networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 5 Key barriers and opportunities for local government to fund cycling infrastructure . . . . . . . . 21
Table 6 Federal funding schemes for cycling infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 7 Private sector contribution for cycling infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 8 Funding break down of Shoreham-on-Sea project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 9 Funding schemes by sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 10 Scoring scheme used for the evaluation matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 11 Final summarised scores of stakeholders including government and non-government
stakeholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 12 Interviews conducted for this project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 13 Stakeholders participated Workshop One – 10/10/2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 14 Stakeholders participated Workshop Two – 14/11/2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 15 Sports and recreation based cycling funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 16 Tourism based cycling funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 17 Community Benefit Gambling Fund scheme 2015-2018(up to May) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 18 Key barriers and opportunities for cycling infrastructure funding identified from local
government transport plans or policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 19 Share of cycle infrastructure funding by LGA in QTRIP 2018-2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Table 20 Share of cycle infrastructure funding by LGA in QTRIP2018-2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Table 21 Table 21: NZCT governance and management structures of NZCT (selected trails). . . . . . . . . . 75
Table 22 Average unweighted scores of the scheme rated by stakeholders by groupings. . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 23 Scoring differences of government and non-government stakeholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models 5
List of Tables
1. Introduction
Griffith University’s Cities Research Institute was engaged by the Queensland Department of Transport
and Main Road (TMR) to investigate Queensland, national and international examples of innovative
funding models to support the delivery of cycling infrastructure and their applicability to the Queensland
Government. This is to support the overarching vision of the Queensland Cycling Strategy 2017-2027 (QCS),
which is “more cycling, more often” – to improve bicycle participation in Queensland.
1.1 Objectives and scope
This project will provide TMR with the research, knowledge and tools to facilitate future discussions on
cycling infrastructure funding and draws experience from other international and national case studies.
The project also responds to the Queensland Cycling Action Plan 2017-2019, Action Item 1.6 – ‘to research
innovative funding models to support the delivery of cycling infrastructure and publish the findings’.
The key objectives of this study are:
1. To research options for innovative funding models to deliver cycling infrastructure with consideration
to:
ūū Current state of play in Queensland – funding sources and key challenges (Chapter 2).
ūū Types of funding models and sources (Chapter 3).
ūū Best practice examples, case studies and key learnings (Chapter 3).
ūū Application of strategic analysis tools such as multi-criteria or SWOT analysis (Chapter 4).
ūū Implications and pros and cons for TMR and local governments in Queensland (Chapter 4).
2. A feasibility assessment of the models for their applicability to TMR and local governments in
Queensland (Chapter 4), including recommendations for future actions required by TMR to progress
feasible options (Chapter 5)
This study focuses on identifying funding mechanisms that may be suited to supplement cycling infrastructure
funding in Queensland. The intent is to explore innovative funding models that could help local authorities
and community organisations find additional funding sources to further accelerate cycling infrastructure
delivery in Queensland. The goal was not to find replacement or alternative funding streams, but to instead
find sources that could be used in addition to those already being made available by the department.
This report covers: 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. For the workshops, a scoring scheme was developed to evaluate the relative suitability of
funding schemes to Queensland (See Chapter 6) and the report makes a set of recommendations for TMR.
Griffith has not been requested to review current cycling policy or to explore the appropriateness of current
government funding levels. These issues should be considered in other policy research processes.
This report outlines the findings of the independent research undertaken by Griffith University.
The contents of the report do not reflect Queensland Government policy.
6 Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models
Introduction1.2 Approach
Griffith’s approach to the investigation of current and innovative funding models consisted of three stages
(visualised in Figure 1):
1. Research and investigate
2. Feasibility study and stakeholder engagement
3. Final reporting and dissemination.
Figure 1: Flowchart of project process
Stage 1: Research and investigate
The first phase of this study was to understand funding models used both within Queensland and beyond.
This was informed by a review of the Australian and international policy and academic literature on funding
models and a search for best practice cases. A list of the overseas experts that participated in this stage is
included in Appendix A.
Queensland’s existing funding arrangements and their sources were first examined (Chapter 2). Innovative
funding models outside Queensland and successful cases were then explored in detail and then characterised
into broad types to allow further assessment (Chapter 3). Once a database of schemes was developed it was
prepared for discussions with TMR and external stakeholder informants. Based on literature about funding
models in transport, a scoring framework was developed. The assessment framework was derived from
similar research that looked at funding models, and key transport policy principles that relate to the suitability
of schemes in Queensland. This framework set the basis for the feasibility and stakeholder engagement.
The key findings and scoring methodology were summarised into a briefing package for the stakeholder
evaluation in Stage 2.
Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models 7
IntroductionStage 2: Feasibility study and stakeholder engagement
Two workshops were conducted to obtain stakeholders’ views about the shortlisted schemes. The first
workshop was conducted in October 2018 with participation from both TMR and local government. The
second workshop was conducted in November 2018 with non-government stakeholders including cycling
groups, rail trail advocates and bicycle tourism operators. These workshops explored the potential of the
funding schemes and their feasibility. Participants were asked to rank each scheme against particular scoring
criteria, which allowed for comparative analysis.
Stage 3: Final Reporting and Dissemination
The final stage involved the analysis of the stakeholder’s viewpoints and their scoring on the funding
schemes. The completion of this stage allowed for the development of this final report and a summary
document (approx. 4 pages) providing the key findings for publication on the TMR departmental website.
1.3 Report structure
The report comprises five chapters:
1. Introduction outlining the project rationale, approach and background
2. A review of the cycling infrastructure funding mechanisms available in Queensland
3. Case studies of innovative funding
4. Assessment of the innovative funding models including stakeholder perceptions
5. Recommendations
8 Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models
Introduction2. Background
This section provides an overview of cycling infrastructure funding in Queensland – including current
funding arrangements, delivery mechanisms and challenges. The key barriers and opportunities of the
available funding schemes are reviewed.
There are three main sources of funding for the construction and maintenance of transport infrastructure,
which have different payers and beneficiaries:
1. Government funding, provided on behalf of the community as a public good. This is the most common
way we fund transport, on the basis that transport brings benefits to wider society.
2. User pays, wherein the user partially or fully pays for the costs involved of providing services or
infrastructure. This is used typically for public transport fares, parking, registration, tolls, or industry-
built roads/railways.
3. Non-user payers, wherein non-users partially or fully pay for services and infrastructure. Examples
include developer contributions and infrastructure charges. For this case, developers are not direct
users of the infrastructure but are required to pay for infrastructure that facilitates future development
and value uplift.
4. Other sources that fall somewhere between these types, such as philanthropic giving.
These funding sources are explored further in Section 2.2 (Government funding) and 3 (non-government
funding).
Funding transport services and cycling infrastructure is supported. A survey in 2015 revealed that the majority
of residents in Australian capital cities support increasing government funding on infrastructure alternatives
to the motor car and to ensure the safety of active travel users1. The same survey, however, also found that
the public is not yet ready to reduce existing levels of road spending to help fund cycling infrastructure.
Cycling infrastructure funding represents a small portion of transport funding across Australia2 with State
and local projects in Queensland in 2018-2019 only 2.16% of the transport investment program3. Major
roads, highways or railway projects attract greater support to help improve vehicular movement and for
supporting economic activity.
There is growing demand for cycling infrastructure. However, construction costs have been driven up in part
through competition from the building sector during recent booms4, which is difficult to predict. Securing
funding has been difficult for many key bicycle projects as traditional government funding is unable to keep
up pace with growing community expectations. Alternative funding opportunities such as public-private
partnerships and new forms of philanthropic giving offer an opportunity to fund and deliver more cycling
infrastructure.
Unfortunately, the suitability of these schemes is not well understood. Successful schemes elsewhere may
1 National Heart Foundation and Cycling Promotion Fund. (2015). Investment in Active Transport Survey. Retrieved from www.heartfoundation.org.au/
images/uploads/publications/CPF-2015-Survey-Investment-in-Active-Transport.pdf. (Accessed March 2019).
2 Data compiled by Pojani et al., 2018, at theconversation.com/cycling-and-walking-are-short-changed-when-it-comes-to-transport-funding-in-
australia-92574 and Australian Bicycle Council, 2017. National Cycling Strategy: Implementation Report 2016. Austroads Ltd., Sydney, Australia at www.
onlinepublications.austroads.com.au/items/AP-C93-17. (Accessed March 2019).
3 Estimated transport expenditure for cycling projects sourced from QTRIP 2018-22 data. Total transport spending on State and local projects are 2.6b
and 193m respectively in the Financial Year of 2018-19. Based on keyword and category search, 62m worth of cycling projects owned by State and local
governments are budgeted for 2018-19. This meant approximately 2.16% are cycling related in the overall transport budget for State/local networks.
Federal owned assets accounted for 3.6b, but none is cycling related. Maintenance costs are not included in QTRIP.
4 WT Partnership. (2018). Construction market conditions 2018. Retrieved from http://wtpartnership.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018-Market-
Report-FINAL.pdf. (Accessed March 2019).
Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models 9
Backgroundnot be applicable in Queensland.
The following section reviews the current funding mechanisms for cycling infrastructure in Queensland,
which are scattered in many different policy domains. Gathering and disseminating further information
on these schemes may help others to better understand and coordinate funding, however, this is beyond
the scope of this report. Similarly, this report cannot provide a detailed description of cycling infrastructure
projects or the historical development of cycling policy in Queensland. Only limited information is provided
here.
2.1 Cycling infrastructure policies, plans and provision in
Queensland
This sub-section provides an overview of how cycling infrastructure is being planned and provided for in
Queensland.
Figure 2 shows how cycling infrastructure projects are planned for and delivered in Queensland. This
includes both land use planning (in green) and transport planning (in purple) mechanisms. These can be
further classified as occurring at four levels, with from higher-level policies and strategies (top), more detailed
transport and land use plans (second tier), delivery mechanisms (third tier), and, finally, outcomes (bottom).
Planning Transport
Policies and
strategies
Regional plans in Queensland Queensland Cycle Strategy Transport Coordination Plan
2017-2027
Relevant transport plans
land use plans
Transport and
Planning schemes (regional transport
plans, area strategies)
Principal Cycle Network
Local cycling plans Plan Detailed plans /
feasibility studies
mechanisms
Delivery
Transport Infrastructure Capital investments by
Conditioning of Local government Cycling
Development Scheme / Transport and Main Roads
-
development investment Infrastructure
Cycle Network Queensland Transport and Roads
Policy
Local Government Grants Investment Program (QTRIP)
Facilities constructed by Local government cycle Transport and Main
Outcomes
private development infrastructure projects Roads cycle
infrastructure projects
Figure 2: Strategies, land use plans & delivery mechanisms for cycling infrastructure
(Adapted from the South East Queensland (SEQ) Principal Cycle Network Plan 20165)
5 Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2016). South East Queensland (SEQ) Principal Cycle Network Plan 2016. Retrieved from www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/
media/Travelandtransport/Cycling/Principal-Cycle-Network-Plans/SEQ_PCNP.pdf?la=en. (Accessed March 2019).
10 Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models
Background2.1.1 Overall policy direction and strategy
The overall vision, direction and strategy for cycling in Queensland are outlined in the ten-year QCS. The
latest iteration of QCS was released in 2017. This Strategy is accompanied by the Queensland Cycling Action
Plan for implementation, and the Queensland State of Cycling Report for monitoring progress – both are
updated every two years. Further, the Transport Coordination Plan 2017-20276 also provides the framework for
strategic planning of key active travel corridors and their coordination with other modes, in particular roads
and public transport. This is supported by land use planning strategies under the twelve existing regional
plans across Queensland7.
2.1.2 Transport and land use plans
Transport and land use plans are in place to implement the QCS. Central to this are the Principal Cycle
Network Plans (PCNPs), which indicate the core routes that should be reflected in regional and local plans.
PCNPs are intended to support, guide and inform the planning, design and construction of cycling network
infrastructure at local level planning. They are also a key mechanism for State and local governments to work
closely together to deliver a connected and cohesive cycle network across Queensland through targeted,
planned investment. PCNPs are currently in place in seven regions in Queensland8.
2.2 Delivery and funding mechanisms of cycling
infrastructure in Queensland
As of 2017, 444.6km of Principal Cycle Network had been built as part of the Active Transport Investment
Program9. Significant progress is needed to complete the total 10,237km principal cycle network across
Queensland, which will eventually service 98.9 per cent of the State’s population.
Cycling infrastructure varies greatly in terms of ownership (i.e. State, local or non-government owned/
managed) and funding source (i.e. Federal, State, local or private sector). Figure 3 summarises the main
funding arrangements currently used in Queensland.
TMR is responsible for the funding and creation of state-owned networks, through which many of the
key arterial bikeways (including the Veloway 1 and Centenary Bikeway) are delivered. Federal, State, local
government and the private sector all contribute to local government bicycle networks, which forms the
bulk of Queensland’s cycling infrastructure. In some rare cases cycling infrastructure is non-government
owned. This tends to be located on private land or premises, for example, on certain rail trails, cycle paths
that cross private communities, and especially end-of-trip facilities (parking, lockers, showers, etc.).
6 Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2017). Transport Coordination Plan 2017-2027. Retrieved from www.tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Corporate-
information/Publications/Transport-Coordination-Plan. (Accessed March 2019).
7 Queensland Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning. (2019). Regional plans. Retrieved from https://planning.
dsdmip.qld.gov.au/planning/better-planning/state-planning/regional-plans. (Accessed March 2019).
8 Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2018). Principal Cycle Network Plans. Retrieved from www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Travel-and-transport/
Cycling/Principal-Cycle-Network-Plans. (Accessed March 2019).
9 See Queensland State of Cycling Report 2017, p.8. Networks outside the Principal Cycle Network may include bikelanes (shared with traffic) or rail trails.
Information of these are maintained by local governments or other agencies. For example, Brisbane’s network size is around 830km as of 2016, however
only about 130km can be considered as high quality dedicated bikeways.
Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models 11
BackgroundRoads to Recovery Smart Cities and
Federal Program Suburbs Program
Building Better Natural Disaster Relief
(co-fund with State/Local Govt)
Regions Fund and Recovery Arrangements
Federal funded projects
(BBRF) (NDRRA)
Black Spot Program
Financial Assistance Grant Program
(co-fund with Local Govt) Local Government Grants
Cycle Network Local Government and Subsidies Program (LGGSP)
Grants Program (CNLGP)
Transport Infrastructure Local Government Building our Regions
Development Scheme (TIDS) Programs (BoR)
Rail Trail Local Government Works for Queensland
Grants program Local (W4Q)
Community Road Safety Grants Sport and Recreation
(CRSG) Programs
Local Owned Network
Active Travel Tourism Programs
Infrastructure Program (ATIP)
Non-govt. Community Benefit
Cycling Infrastructure State Owned Owned Gambling Fund
Policy (CIP) Network
Safer Roads
Sooner
State - Other
Priority Development Areas
State - TMR Infrastructure Charges/
Agreements Private
Figure 3: Major funding arrangements for cycling infrastructure in Queensland (Indicative only)
Further information of these arrangements is provided below. The key funding types are:
1. State funding through TMR for the State-owned network
2. State funding through TMR for the non-State-owned network
3. State funding from other agencies (non-TMR)
4. Local government funding
5. Federal funding
6. Private-sector funding
TMR’s involvement is guided by the Active Transport Investment Program. From 2006 to 2017, more
than $211million has been invested under this program, creating up to 444.6km kilometres of cycling
infrastructure10 that are either state or local government controlled. TMR funded projects are announced
annually in the Queensland Transport and Road Implementation Program (QTRIP)11.
10 Queensland State of Cycling Report 2017, p.10
11 Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2018). Queensland Transport and Roads Investment Program (QTRIP). Retrieved from www.tmr.qld.
gov.au/About-us/Corporate-information/Publications/Queensland-Transport-and-Roads-Investment-Program.aspx. (Accessed March 2019).
12 Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models
Background2.2.1 State funding by TMR for State-owned network
Table 1 outlines the TMR funded schemes, including directly funded capital works programs, Cycling
Infrastructure Policy, and the Safer Roads Sooner scheme.
TMR directly funded capital works
TMR directly funds and deliver capital works to complete the Principal Cycle Network. The Active Transport
Investment Program (ATIP) Cycling Works sub-program) is for such purpose. A key example is the V1, along
the M1 Pacific Motorway. In rare cases, Federal co-funding is available, such as with the Moreton Bay Rail Link
project (discussed further in sub-section 2.2.5).
Figure 4: Artist impression of the TMR-funded Veloway 1 Stage E bikeway under construction at
Tarragindi, Brisbane (Source: TMR, 2018)
Cycling Infrastructure Policy
The Cycling Infrastructure Policy requires that TMR funded projects on principal cycle routes will explicitly
provide cycling facilities within the project’s scope, and projects elsewhere will make implicit provision.
Explicit provisions are required as part of projects on Principal Cycle Network routes and are typically higher
quality solutions, such as marked bicycle lanes, dedicated crossing facilities, cycle paths and shared paths.
Implicit provisions are included on routes that are not on the Principal Cycle Network. They can be described
as ‘cycle friendly’ provisions as they service cyclists without necessarily being designed only for their use,
such as setback traffic islands or rubber caps on guard rail posts.
Safer Roads Sooner
The Safer Roads Sooner initiative provides small funding amounts for road treatments for cycling safety12 as
part of the Targeted Road Safety Program (TRSP). The initiative aims to provide ‘cost-effective high-benefit’
projects to treat high-risk locations on the state-controlled network. Funding sources of this program include
revenue raised from the Camera Detected Offence Program operated by Queensland Police Services.
12 Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2017). Building safer roads. Retrieved from www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Community-and-environment/
Planning-for-the-future/Building-safer-roads.aspx. (Accessed March 2019).
Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models 13
BackgroundTable 1: State (TMR) administered funding to State-owned cycling network
Funding Project examples
Program source and indicative Analysis
and total cost
recipient
TMR directly State Veloway 1 Stage E project Strengths
funded capital government (Birdwood Road, Holland • Dedicated program through which large funding amounts are obtainable for
works: Active funding for Park West to Gaza Road) strategic projects (e.g. dedicated cycleways).
the state- commenced in late • QTRIP process coordinates with other TMR projects.
Transport controlled August 2018 - $45 million Weaknesses
Investment network (2018/19 QTRIP) • Generally limited to cycling infrastructure projects along state-controlled assets
Program (ATIP) (e.g. main roads, motorways).
- Cycling Works • Focus on connections are expensive.
sub-program Barriers
• Funds allocated for cycling is lower compared to most other modes.
• Direct funding processes subject to multiple levels of scrutiny. Project aims are
at times completing to each other, such as safety, cost benefit, and potential
demand.
• Time consuming as capital works subject to great level of scrutiny.
Opportunities
• Opportunities to coordinate with other funding sources (e.g. local, private sector,
philanthropic).
• A more supply-driven approach could be explored.
• Options to develop further improved metrics to estimate benefits (e.g. estimate
the induced demand for cycling use from high quality projects).
Cycling State Strengths
Infrastructure government • TMR funded projects on principal cycle routes will explicitly provide cycling
Policy (CIP) funding for facilities within the project’s scope, and projects elsewhere will make implicit
the state- provision.
controlled • Able to fund important corridors including bicycle links.
network • Large funding amounts can be obtained.
Weaknesses
• Generally limited to cycling infrastructure that is part of state-controlled assets
(e.g. main roads, motorway corridors).
• Often limited to new roads and road widenings that are built for non-cycling
priorities (e.g. traffic congestion relief) and not necessarily areas of most need for
the overall bicycle network.
Barriers
• Most of the funded projects are road connections.
Opportunities
• Future major infrastructure in Queensland offers important opportunities for
new cycling paths as part of these projects.
Safer Roads State 2013: Mackay - Slade Point Strengths
Sooner government Road bike lane ($156,000) • Focus on road engineering treatments that are “high benefit, cost effective” at
funding for 2007: Bike lane on sections known and potential crash locations
the state- of Cairns Western Arterial Weaknesses
controlled Road ($250,000) • Limited to state-controlled roads and on-road treatments.
network Barriers
• The main aim is limited to improved safety and tends to focus on vehicles as it
targets high severity outcomes (fatalities and serious injuries).
Opportunities
• Possible to include areas with high number of serious cyclist-related accidents.
14 Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models
Background2.2.2 State funding by TMR for non-State-owned network
TMR provides grants to local governments for transport infrastructure (see Table 2). These usually operate
on a co-funding basis (i.e. 50/50). Similar co-funding arrangements are also found in many other States/
Territories in Australia. The applying local government body is responsible for prioritising and specifying the
delivery of the Principal Cycle Network Plan routes on local roads and land.
Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme
Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme (TIDS)13 is a grants program through which TMR provides
funding to local governments, as members of a Regional Road Transport Group, for the development of
transport related infrastructure. In 2016/17 dedicated cycleway facilities received a total of $254,00014. TIDS
includes road projects that support cycling safety such as bike lanes and general road upgrades. TIDS is a
mechanism for the State government to allocate Federal Black Spot funding (discussed further in Section
2.2.5).
Cycle Network Local Government Grants
Cycle Network Local Government Grants (CNLGG)15 is a program that provides grant funding to local
governments to accelerate delivery of the Principal Cycle Network. Funding is usually provided on a dollar
for dollar matched basis (50/50). Local governments with a Principal Cycle Network Plan are eligible to apply
for this grant for the design and/or construction of cycling infrastructure. Special grants are also available
from TMR to encourage completion of higher-priority projects, consistent network design (One Network
Projects) and on-road improvements (Priority Design Treatments) and behaviour change programmes
(Infra+ Projects).
Rail Trail Local Government Grants program
The Rail Trails Local Government Grants is a program that provides grants funding to local governments
to plan, design and construct rail trails on disused rail corridors. The objective of the program is to support
the planning and delivery of recreational bike riding, walking and horse trails on disused state-owned rail
corridors.
Community Road Safety Grants
TMR offers funding to community groups for projects/programs that address road safety issues in support
of the Queensland Road Safety Strategy 2015–2021. Until 2018, $14m worth of grants has been funded. For
small scale local projects, up to $20,000 are available for project that last within 12 months.
13 Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2017). The Roads and Transport Alliance. Retrieved from www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/
Business-with-us/Alliances/The-Roads-and-Transport-Alliance.aspx. (Accessed March 2019).
14 Roads and Transport Alliance. (2017). 15 Years of Partnership - Progress Report 2016–2017. Retrieved from www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/busind/
businesswithus/Alliances/localstategovt/progreports/2016-17-rta-progress-report.pdf?la=en. (Accessed March 2019).
15 Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2018). Cycling infrastructure grants. Retrieved from www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Travel-and-transport/
Cycling/Cycling-infrastructure-grants.aspx. (Accessed March 2019).
Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models 15
BackgroundTable 2: State (TMR) administered funding to local/non-government owned cycling network
Funding Project examples
Program source and indicative Analysis
and total cost
recipient
Transport Federal In 2016/17, the Lytton Strengths
Infrastructure or State Road, Apollo Road and • A well-established mechanism with coordination to allocate State or Federal
Development Government Thorpe Street intersection funds (such as Black Spot funding).
to local upgrade was jointly Weaknesses
Scheme (TIDS) government funded by State providing • Not cycling specific
owned $628,637, 27% of total • Some examples in the past of shared path projects that have delivered little as
network project cost) through cycling infrastructure.
TIDS) for new on-road bike Barriers
lanes, footpaths and kerb • Coordination with RTA and RRTGs can take time.
ramps. Opportunities
• Options to increase the share of TIDS funding for cycling infrastructure, or to
establish a specific cycling infrastructure funding target.
Cycle Network State Toowoomba’s $1.13m Strengths
Local Government City Golf Club Cycleway • Provides incentives for local government to create and deliver the Principal Cycle
Government to local completed in 2018 was Network.
government co-funded under CNLGG on • Cases of combined funding with other non-TMR schemes (LGGSP).
Grants owned a 50-50 cost sharing basis • Program improvements to connect with local network (one network), priority
Program network design treatments, Infra+ and highest priority route options analysis.
(CNLGG) • Competitive
Weaknesses
• Passive approach (requires local government to apply for grants).
• High demand for funding.
• Must have PCNP to apply.
Barriers
• Local governments that do not win the grant may opt not to develop their bicycle
network.
Opportunities
• Options to move from a fixed 50:50 funding ratio to a more flexible cost-sharing
regime that could suit different needs.
• Possibilities to incorporate private/non-government sources via development
application processes to supplement funding.
Rail Trail Local State New program started in Strengths
Government Government 2019 • Support local governments to plan, design and construct rail trails.
Grants to local Weaknesses
government • Passive approach (requires local government to apply for grants).
program owned Barriers
network • Need to identify suitable rail trail corridors
Opportunities
• Rail trail are increasingly popular with tourism and local economy benefits
Community State In 2017, the ‘Road Safety Strengths
Road Safety Government Bicycle Park’ at the • Foster community efforts and improve social capital.
Grants (CRSG) to local Colmslie Beach Reserve • More than just infrastructure.
government includes a road safety Weaknesses
owned bicycle track, a bicycle • Focused on safety awareness programs.
network storage and maintenance Barriers
facility. ($9,457.5) • Small funding amount.
• Not infrastructure based.
Opportunities
• Options to coordinate with other programs.
• Options to increase the share of funding for cycling infrastructure.
16 Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models
Background2.2.3 State funding from sources other than TMR
There are many schemes are being administered by various State Government departments that are
outside TMR’s scope of influence (see Table 3). These schemes cover policy areas ranging from community
development, sports, tourism and disaster recovery. While these schemes are not transport-oriented, they
may contribute to new cycling infrastructure.
Local Government Grants and Subsidies Program
Local Government Grants and Subsidies Program (LGGSP)16 is an application-based funding program through
which the State government provides funding to deliver key community priority capital infrastructure projects.
The program of grants and other initiatives is administered by the Department of Local Government, Racing
and Multicultural Affairs (DLGRM). Funding tends to be on a 50:50 basis. Integrated funding across different
State departments and local government is also possible - In 2017, the $2.2 million shared pedestrian and
cycle pathway that connects Railway Parade to Logan Gardens was supported by TMR through the CNLGG
Program ($760,609 funded) and DLGRM through the LGGSP ($338,847 funded)17, with State contributions
totalling $1.1 million. Logan City Council funded the remainder of the project costs.
Figure 5: An example of State-local co-funding: Railway Parade to Logan Gardens shared pathway
(Source: Draft Way2Go Connecting Logan Plan 2018, Logan City Council)
16 Queensland Department of Local Government, Racing and Multicultural Affairs. (2018). 2017–19 Local Government Grants and Subsidies Program.
Retrieved from www.dlgrma.qld.gov.au/local-government/grants/2017-19-lggsp.html. (Accessed March 2019).
17 See media reports www.logan.qld.gov.au/about-council/news-and-publications/media-releases/vl-news/new-pathway-officially-opens and www.
couriermail.com.au/questnews/logan/woodridge-pathway-leads-to-election-praise/news-story/71ed3565366c271ee248a6c4cb423555. (Accessed March
2019).
Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models 17
BackgroundBuilding our Regions (formerly Royalties for the Regions)
Building our Regions (BoR)18 is a targeted regional infrastructure program to fund local government projects.
The purpose is to provide funding for critical infrastructure in regional areas of the state that meet the specific
needs of regional communities and that support economic development, including jobs generation.
Managed by the Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDMIP),
BoR consists of four funds, with different eligibility requirements based on the location of the applying local
government.
1. Regional Capital Fund ($250,000 to $5 million)
2. Royalties for Resource Producing Communities Fund ($250,000 to $5 million)
3. Remote and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities Fund ($50,000 to $1,000,000)
4. Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme (TIDS) managed by TMR also source funds from BoR
Works for Queensland
Another program of the DLGRM is aimed at employment creation. The Works for Queensland19 program
aims to support regional councils to undertake job-creating maintenance and minor infrastructure projects.
Only councils outside South East Queensland (SEQ) are eligible and they must demonstrate the creation or
the sustaining of jobs.
Sport and Recreation Grants
Sports-related cycling infrastructure can be funded by sport or recreation grants20, which are administered
by the Department of National Parks, Sports and Racing. Local governments or sporting organisations are
eligible for these grants. A full list of available sports and recreation grants are listed in Appendix B, Table 15.
Tourism grants
Tourism routes that are not on the Principal Cycle Network struggle to secure funding via some of the
programs identified earlier. They might instead be eligible for tourism-related programs21. These schemes
are offered by the Department of Innovation, Tourism Industry Development and Commonwealth Games.
A full list of available tourism grants or programs is listed in Appendix B, Table 16.
Community Benefit Gambling Fund
The Queensland Government established the Gambling Community Benefit Fund (GCBF) in 1994 to provide
funding to community groups in Queensland. This is administered by the Department of Justice and Attorney
General. The fund allocates grants to not-for-profit community groups, to enhance their capacity to provide
services, leisure activities and opportunities for Queensland communities. This fund is Queensland’s largest
one-off grants program, distributing approximately $54 million per year. Not-for-profit groups operating in
Queensland can apply for grants from $500 to $35,000 through the granting process. While the amount of
funding is relatively small per grant, it nonetheless helps to construct cycling infrastructure, especially in
regional areas. From 2015 to 2018 (up to May), $469,758 was granted for cycling-related purposes. This fund
can support community efforts to construct non-government owned cycling infrastructure. Further details
of these projects are tabled in Appendix B, Table 17. Box 1 shows an example of a project funded by this
Fund on the Atherton Tablelands.
18 Queensland Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning. (2019). Building our Regions. Retrieved from www.
statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/regions/building-our-regions.html. (Accessed March 2019).
19 Queensland Department of Local Government, Racing and Multicultural Affairs. (2019). Works for Queensland program. Retrieved from www.dlgrma.qld.
gov.au/local-government/grants/works-for-queensland. (Accessed March 2019).
20 Queensland Government. (2017). Sport and Recreation Grant Registration Portal. Retrieved from www.qld.gov.au/recreation/sports/funding/grants-
portal. (Accessed March 2019).
21 Queensland Department of Innovation and Tourism Industry Development and Minister for the Commonwealth Games. (2018). Tourism Industry
Development. Retrieved from www.ditid.qld.gov.au/tourism. (Accessed March 2019).
18 Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models
BackgroundTable 3: State (non-TMR) administered funding to local/non-government owned cycling network
Funding Project examples
Program source and indicative Analysis
and total cost
recipient
Local State Main Street in Tamborine Strengths
Government Government Mountain project • Large funding stream for capital projects for local governments.
Grants and to local undertaken by the Scenic • Cases of combined funding with other non-TMR schemes (LGGSP).
government Rim Regional Council and Weaknesses
Subsidies owned funded by the 2017-19 • Not cycling specific
Program network round. This project Barriers
(LGGSP) secured $870,000 funding • Passive approach (requires local government to apply for grants).
and includes pathway Opportunities
improvements. • Options to work with local government and LGGSP for coordination with cycling
projects – including identifying high priority projects.
Building our State The 2 million Kingaroy Strengths
Regions (BoR) Government to Kilkivan Rail Trail • Mining royalties is a large funding stream and relatively stable source of income.
to local (completed in 2017) Weaknesses
government was funded by State • Only applicable for local government at regional areas.
owned government using the • Must be “critical infrastructure” that supports economic development and
network former Royalties for generate jobs and cycling infrastructure initiatives can struggle to make a clear
the Regions). Urangan case.
Pedestrian Cycle Shared Barriers
Pathway ($500,000) and • The majority of the projects funded are not cycling related.
Hinchinbrook Shared Opportunities
Footpath Project ($1.6m) • Work with local government and DSDMIP for coordination with cycling projects.
were also co-funded by • Looking to projects with proven economic development track record (rail trails,
BoR and local councils the Derby mountain biking trails, etc.).
Works for State $21.8m for 51 projects was Strengths
Queensland Government allocated to Townsville City • Able to direct cycling infrastructure to areas with high unemployment
(W4Q) to local Council, which included Weaknesses
government funding towards the Ring • Only applicable for employment creation projects.
owned Road bike pathways and Barriers
network the Nelly Bay walkway (a • Tends to fund smaller scale projects.
shared pathway). Opportunities
• Work with local government and LGGSP for coordination with cycling projects.
Sport and State Ipswich City Council to Strengths
Recreation Government develop a recreational • Foster cooperation with sporting groups and promote cycling sports.
Programs to local trails network plan for • Pathways to sport facilities and cycling learning parks have been funded
government the White Rock Spring previously.
owned Mountain Conservation • Not 50/50.
network or Estate under the Sport Weaknesses
sport groups and Recreation Planning • Only applicable to sports-related projects.
Program (State: $78,750, Barriers
Local: $26,250) • Aims are focused on sports. May not target other cycling activities.
Opportunities
• Work with local government, sporting groups and LGGSP for coordination with
cycling projects.
Tourism State As part of a Gold Coast Strengths
programs Government 2018 Commonwealth • Strong policy level support (most tourism strategies in Australia at different
to local Games project, the Nerang levels acknowledge cycling tourism is important).
government Mountain Biking Trails Weaknesses
owned were funded $3.2 million. • Only applicable to tourism-related projects.
network Project completed in 2017 . Barriers
or tourism • Most of the funded projects are road connections.
operators Opportunities
• There is potential to fund tourism cycling infrastructure such as rail trails,
especially under the Transport and Tourism Connections Program and to help
promote cycle tourism.
• Options to better target Commonwealth tourism funding streams.
Innovative Cycling Infrastructure Funding Models 19
BackgroundYou can also read
