Perth Stadium bicycle travel zone

I have written about the transport issues for the proposed Perth Stadium recently, here and here.

Since that time, I have learnt some news from the Perth Stadium people.  The new bridge between East Perth and Burswood will be ten metres wide and cyclists will be permitted to ride across. There are not any other details available at this stage because the bridge has not yet been designed. At ten metres wide, it seems that pedestrians and cyclists could have there own space and conflict could be avoided.

I do wonder about this piece of infrastructure. It will be in quite a prominent position at the eastern end of the city, the part that most visitors see first. There is potential to make this bridge something wonderful. Not only an important link for bicycle riding and walking, but a stimulating and interesting structure that could add to the culture of our city. There is potential to create a bridge that is both functional and artistic.

The movement of people on game days has been the major focus of the Perth Stadium transport plans, but we need to remember that for the rest of the week, any infrastructure built to accommodate those peak times will become part of Perth's transport network. Hopefully, there would be some significant additions to the bicycle network. Unfortunately, apart from the new bridge, the Perth Stadium planners are not showing much interest in bicycles.

The research to date has determined that bicycle use will be insignificant and as such, it has not been included on any publicly-available documents. I know that bicycle use on game days will be a low percentage of modal share but I am not satisfied that the research has been done correctly. It would be good to find out how the research was conducted and a more detailed explanation of the results.

There was a 'walkability' map shown in the Master Plan document last August. It got me thinking about what a 'bikeability' map might look like. There is nothing available from the Perth Stadium planners, so I thought I would do a quick map myself.

My idea was to show the potential catchment area for people who might travel by bicycle to attend the stadium. The area does not show the catchment for seasoned commuters or the enthusiasts, it shows the much smaller area for people who know how to ride but are not confident in traffic. People who have basic skills and prefer to relax and enjoy the ride.

The first step was to decide on the journey time. For this, I took a guess at 45 minutes from home to stadium. That seemed to be a reasonable period of travel for the total journey in comparison with a the various combinations of the alternatives such as 'drive-walk-train-walk'. At an average speed of 15 kilometres per hour, the furthest point from the stadium would have to be within a radius of 10 kilometres.

The various routes to the stadium would have to be on bicycle paths or shared paths that are separated from motorised traffic. I imagined that riders would probably be OK with travelling for approximately one kilometre through quieter suburban streets to reach the paths.

It is interesting once you examine the position of the stadium. There are a number of good paths that already feed into the Burswood area. Most of Perth's best bicycle infrastructure has been built along routes that have been easy to secure. Routes on public land without too many conflicting interests such as railway reserves and following the banks of the Swan River. The stadium site is in a great position to take advantage of this existing infrastructure. You can see examples of these paths in the photographs below.

Shared path Burswood, 1.5 km from stadium site

Shared path East Perth, 2 km from stadium site

Shared path East Perth, 2 km from stadium site

Shared path Bayswater, 5 km from stadium site

Shared path Perth 7 km from stadium site

Here is how the 'bikeability' map looks. I have shown all the existing separated paths that radiate from the stadium site in red. The shaded blue area is the zone that fits all of the criteria. The people who live or work in the blue zone would be able to reach the stadium by bicycle with a 45 minute ride.

The stadium site is shown with a blue 'S' near the centre of the map. The new bridge will extend the catchment area for bicycle riders in the areas west of the stadium. My rough estimate is the bridge would reduce the distance by one kilometre which will help extend the range of the 45 minute travel zone further into the suburbs of Crawley, Nedlands, Subiaco, Shenton Park and Leederville.

Conversely, if the proposed Elizabeth Quay and Riverside developments restrict the movement of bicycles by severing the paths to the west of stadium, much of the advantage of the new bridge will be lost.

Elizabeth Quay and Riverside are being controlled by the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority and the Perth Stadium is being handled by the Department of Treasury with the Department of Sport and Recreation. All parts of the Western Australian state government. My question is: are they talking to each other?

Riverside development

The map is based on the following:

• Fully separated cycle paths or bicycle/pedestrian shared paths for 90% of the journey. The remaining 10% quiet streets.

• A travel time of 45 minutes, door-to-door (house to stadium).

• An average speed of 15 kilometres per hour.

• Maximum distance 9 kilometres on a separated path plus up to 1 kilometre on the road.

• The area around the Perth central business district and Northbridge shows a smaller radius  to allow for walking with bicycles for 500 metres to reach the paths instead of riding on the roads

• Distance calculations have included the proposed new bridge between Burswood and East Perth.

A child dies

On Friday, 13 year-old Max Ward was killed when he stepped into the path of an oncoming truck.

He was walking across Gnangara Road with his 14 year-old sister when one of his thongs slipped off. He turned back to get the footwear and was hit by an earthmoving truck towing a trailer.

This is a tragic loss and I would like to offer my sincere condolences to his family and friends.

One of the first reports came from ABC News. This report included the police opinion that the driver of the truck was travelling at the speed limit and also included a statement from Senior Constable Graham Daisley who said

“Obviously this was not something that was waiting to happen – it was just a tragic incident that’s occurred, that’s lost the life of a very young boy and that will have a major impact on the family, especially his young sister.”

I think it is wrong to accept that Max Ward’s death is just a tragic “accident”. As a community, we need to protect our children. The way we design our urban environment needs to be carefully considered. The speed of vehicles and the lack of provision for pedestrians in this area should be examined.

The speed limit on Gnangara Road near the corner of Losino Boulevard is 70 km/h and it has a high volume of traffic. There are quiet residential suburbs on each side of Gnangara Road. The road severs Henley Brook on the southern side, from Ellenbrook on the northern side. It is a difficult road to cross either on foot or using a bicycle. The timing, speed and volume of traffic make it difficult even for a fit, agile adult with fully developed cognitive skills.

Children do not have the same decision making abilities as adults and we can expect them to make an occasional error in judgement. This is predictable and normal behaviour. It should not be life threatening.

It is wrong to create a community where children are prevented from being able to move freely. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement. Not just people who are able to own and drive cars.

A minor attempt has been made to connect these two suburbs for pedestrians and cyclists by the provision of a bridge (shown on the Google view below). The bridge crosses Gnangara Road in the central area, and there are two other designated pedestrian and cyclist crossing points at grade. However, these latter two are not crosswalks, they are simply places where two paths meet the road and motorists have some advance warning that people may cross. 

There is no speed reduction at these designated crossing points. It was at the western crossing where Max died.

For people who are not travelling by car, the footbridge is the only safe place to cross Gnangara Road in the three kilometre stretch alongside the Ellenbrook community. There are a few roundabouts to slow the motorised traffic, but as I explained in my previous post, these are not safe places for a pedestrian.

The western crossing point, near Losino Boulevard, is 600 metres from the bridge. It is unfair to expect any pedestrian to add 1.2 kilometres to a simple journey in order to maintain basic personal safety. One safe crossing between these two suburbs is not enough. The speed limit of 70 km/h is too fast. This is a residential area.

Why do our speed limits just protect children on school days? Why do we protect them near school but not near their homes?

This quote from the UNICEF website sums it up

"The actions, or inactions, of government impact children more strongly than any other group in society. Practically every area of government policy (for example, education, public health and so on) affects children to some degree. Short-sighted policymaking that fails to take children into account has a negative impact on the future of all members of society…"

Roundabouts - An Australian perspective

I had been thinking about doing a blog post on roundabouts for some time. James D. Schwartz on his blog The Urban Country recently posted about them and his opinion was mostly favourable. Unlike mine. 

I am not happy at the thought of having more roundabouts and decided I had better put my opinion forward.

James was writing about Canada where they seem to be relatively new. In Western Australia, we have had them for a long time. I remember roundabouts being used at each end of the Causeway bridges in the early 1970's. 

Roundabouts are one of my least preferred traffic calming devices. They have become increasing popular with our road designers and are spreading like a disease throughout Perth.

Why am I against roundabouts? The Urban Country presents a logical argument and backs it up with facts from the website of the Town of Collingwood, Ontario. I do not dispute them, however there is a problem with how roundabouts are designed in Western Australia. The roundabouts shown in Ontario have pedestrian crossings. This is possible in Western Australia but extremely rare. Our roundabouts create conditions that are worse for pedestrians and cyclists.

At a standard intersection, pedestrians in Western Australia have priority (right-of-way) over turning vehicles. If that same intersection is changed to a roundabout, pedestrians lose that right. All turning vehicles then have priority. 

A few months ago I tried to check this law by telephoning the state government Office of Road Safety. It took some time to get an answer. The person who took my call did not know what the laws were but tried to be helpful and explained that I should not attempt to cross the road near a roundabout. I should walk somewhere else and attempt to cross. As amazing as this sounds, this response was not totally unexpected. The Office of Road Safety is part of the department of Main Roads. Apart from building major infrastructure, one of their major goals is to reduce deaths on the roads to zero. Unfortunately this is often being done at the expense of pedestrian and cyclist amenity. Safety is everything. Sometimes it seems they would prefer there to be no pedestrians or cyclists on the roads. That way, their figures would be a lot better.

The only way for pedestrians to regain this loss of priority is for a crosswalk to be installed. There are hundreds of roundabouts throughout Western Australia. The City of Fremantle is the only local area, that I am aware of, that has provided them.

Cantonment Street and Queen Street Fremantle

Bicycle riders also have a difficult time at Western Australian roundabouts. Here is an example of what happens. Even with a good on-road cycle lane, at the point where the road meets a roundabout, the lane  disappears and a dangerous pinch-point is created.

Centennial Place Midland

The example below is on Carrington Street in Palmyra. At this location, the bicyclists are meant to ride up onto the footpath where it technically becomes a "shared path". In Western Australia is it illegal for adults to ride on a footpath. The shared path is not a good option on rubbish removal day.

Carrington Street Palmyra

And there is a cafe on the corner which also means bicycle riders would need to weave around the tables and be careful of pedestrians.

Carrington Street Palmyra

Roundabouts increase the travel distance for pedestrians. The designated routes for crossing the road are shifted away from the desire lines. The dropped-kerbs are moved away from the intersection so that people in wheel-chairs or those people with prams have to go off-course. If people travelling this extra distance were rewarded by having priority over motor vehicles it might be worth the detour, but that is not the case with Western Australia's current laws.

Here are two examples in Subiaco that show 'before' and 'after'. The first is Hamersley Road. The red and yellow lines show the pedestrian path. In April 2009, before a roundabout was installed we had a very straight, logical path to cross the road.

'Before' - April 2009

Once a roundabout was built at the intersection, the pedestrian crossing paths became much less direct. Also note how the radius of the corners has been changed to allow the vehicles to corner at higher speed.

'After' - February 2011

The second example is Churchill Avenue. The yellow east-west crossing path has not changed a great deal but the red north-south has been moved several metres to the east. You can also see that the radius has been has again been changed for faster vehicle cornering. There is no need to slow down for pedestrians!

'Before' - July 2009

'After' - September 2011

Here are photographs of the Churchill Avenue intersection. The majority of younger pedestrians ignore these new paths and cross illegally through the roundabout.  It is only those who need to use the dropped-kerb who travel the extra distance. People such as the elderly or those with babies in prams.

Churchill Avenue Subiaco

Churchill Avenue Subiaco

I think Australian road designers and local governments have read the statistics about how roundabouts are efficient and safe for motorists. Also safe for pedestrians and cyclists, if built correctly. The trouble is, the Australia roundabout is usually built in a way that allows for the fast flow of motor vehicles. Pedestrians have no priority and cyclists are pushed into the motor vehicle lane or have to retreat to the footpath with the pedestrians. Our roundabouts are not the same as the rest of the world. There are important issues such as local laws and design elements that need to be considered when comparing their effectiveness.

Roundabouts look a lot different in The Netherlands as you can see below. Three modes of travel, separated, and with priority given to bicycles and pedestrians. 

The Netherlands

I can't remember where I found this photograph. I don't like to use images without permission, if it is yours and you don't want me to use it, just let me know.

If you want to read more about how roundabouts work in The Netherlands, Bicycle Dutch has lots of examples including this video.

Don't park a ship in our city

Is this the ugliest building in Perth?  Probably not.  It could be the most anti-social.  This is not a warehouse in an industrial zone, this is an office building in urban Perth. 

Just two kilometres from the heart of the city and 400 metres from the Leederville train station.  It holds a prime position on the corner of Cambridge Street and Harrogate Street, Leederville.  A landmark building in what is becoming a high-volume pedestrian area.

The design is similar to an ocean-going car carrier. 

This is the view at ground level.

Why would someone design a building like a ship? 

To hold cars.  Those first two levels are for car parking and the upper three levels are offices. 

I am sure that the occupiers of this building have a fine view from the "bridge".  They would be able to look out across the city from their elevated position.  Unfortunately the rest of us, at street level, have been given a towering wall of concrete.

How does this happen?  The current local building requirements from the Town of Cambridge specify that for every 100 square metres of office floor area, 3.3 car bays must be built on site.  This is a lot of space for cars.  Once you combine the parking bays, turning areas, driveways and ramps, this rule means the floor space dedicated to storing cars is nearly 40% of the total building. 

Most importantly, this "need" for car parking can affect what happens at street level quite dramatically.  A liveable street can be turned into a concrete canyon.  The amenity of walking and bicycling can be removed.

I have no objection to a five-storey building.  Actually, I think increasing the density of Perth's urban areas should be encouraged.  However, we deserve better than this.  If we keep allowing this type of construction, our quality of life will be degraded.

Why does this building have all the car storage above ground?  With Perth's sandy soils it is relatively simple to go down a level or two.  It will probably cost more.  Property developers, looking for short-term profits, are not likely to spend this extra money unless they are given no option.  That is exactly what we need to do.  We need to protect the liveability of our streets and ensure that the public zone is active.

To be fair, I will show the other sides of the building.  It is not blank concrete all the way around.  There is a small cafe space on the south-west corner.  It is currently vacant, but this small area has potential to become active.

Apart from the cafe, the majority of the building is dead for the first two levels.  The southern facade has the addition of vented grills, they break up the walls, but there are still two floors of car park.

There are two issues to address: firstly, if we accept that buildings need to provide some car parking for the occupants and visitors, what design requirements should be applied?  And secondly, does the 3.3 car bays per 100 square metres rule make sense?

The Town of Cambridge has recently reviewed its parking strategy.  It was done by Luxmoore Parking Consulting and is very extensive.  Over 200 pages about parking, probably more than you would ever what to know.  Here are a few quotes from the report:

• The commercial centres have been designed more to accommodate vehicles rather than people because for too long, parking policies have assumed that all trips will be by car and all parking should be free.
• Free parking contributes towards a host of expensive and undesirable consequences which are not fully appreciated by many drivers.
• Based on the current 'predict and provide' approach, the estimated future requirement for parking supply for development proposed over the next 30-40 years is unreaslistic. In addition, the current road network will not support the volume of traffic that will be created by this level of parking.
• Parking for cyclists should be given a high priority and planning requirements should ensure that adequate parking provision and end-of-trip facilities for cyclists be incorporated into all new developments.

Having said all the above, when it came to the recommendations about parking ratios for office developments, Luxmoore have recommended a reduction to 2 car bays per 100 square metres but not until 2017.  A further reduction to 1.25 car bays per 100 square metres should happen before 2022.

In my opinion, this is not soon enough.  I want a better city now. 

Luxmoore also stated that:

• It is recognised that changes to the management of parking and to existing attitudes towards parking supply will not be achieved quickly. Gradual changes and education are necessary to alter the mindset of stakeholders and to create a more sustainable transport and access environment in the Town.

Policies to reduce the number of cars should come from our governments: local, state and federal.  We need people in government with guts and vision to cut through this "waiting time". 

The Town of Cambridge are calling for public comment on their new parking policy revision until 25 January 2013.  If you want to give them encouragement and let them know it is OK to reduce those ratios now, you can use the link here.  And perhaps ask them why some buildings look like ships.

A year of videos

Here are some of my favourite videos from the past year or so. I thought it would be good to have them all in one place.

SENATOR LUDLAM ON CYCLING

His presentation of the Greens political party Bike Vision 2029 Perth Bike Plan. Common sense thinking about the bicycle. "We've got to kick this idea that only serious infrastructure is freeways, railways and ports". 

CYCLING WITH MEREDITH

This one is from the video bloggers Cycling with...

We ride through the streets of Amsterdam with a charming girl for ten minutes. What's not to like. "Meredith is originally from the Bay Area in California. Her father being dutch, she has always wanted to live in the Netherlands." She tells us about why she enjoys her new home and we get to see the streets of Amsterdam that we hear so much about. A simple idea, done very well.

 

HOW THE DUTCH GOT THEIR CYCLE PATHS

The Dutch are have not always had great cycling infrastructure. This film explains some of the history and the important decisions made in the 1970s that put them forty years ahead. One of several great films by Mark Wagenbuur at Bicycle Dutch.

CYCLING FOR EVERYONE

This film introduces the recently established organisation the Dutch Cycling Embassy. There is no point trying to reinvent the wheel. The Dutch have the knowledge and they want to share.

 

CICLOVIA: BOGATA, COLOMBIA

This film has been around since 2007. Produced by Street Films it shows us the weekly event in which 70 miles of city streets are closed to traffic. Perth's Freeway Bike Hike could learn a few things from this.

MELBOURNE: A PEDESTRIAN PARADISE

Another one by Street Films. A great explanation of some of the things that Melbourne has done to revitalise the city area. It was produced in 2008 but is still relevant for Perth.

SAN FRANCISCO: REMOVAL OF THE EMBARCADERO FREEWAY

Also by Street Films. This story about freeway removal has relevance to Perth's new Elizabeth Quay development and the rerouting of Riverside Drive. They removed the freeway and the sky didn't fall in. The traffic "disappeared" and life was improved. I will probably expand on this later.

MESSAGE... FROM DUBLIN BIKES

A film by Mike Rubbo. A bike share scheme will not work in Perth until after the helmet law is repealed. Mike interviews Dublin councilor, Andrew Montegue and we learn about the success of the bike share scheme in Dublin.

HAL GRADES YOUR BIKE LOCKING

New Yorker, Hal Ruzal tells us how to lock a bike. This is the third in a series. You can find the others here, along with more than a hundred other short films from Street Films.

BIKE LANES BY CASEY NEISTAT

New York again. Casey Neistat reacts to getting at ticket. This one has had over six million hits on YouTube.

MY CAT CAN RIDE...

I can't have an internet video collection without a cat.

LADY ON A CROSSWALK

This one has been around for a long time. It is still one of my favourites.

DANNY MACASKILL - WAY BACK HOME

MacAskill is the bicycle rider's Ken Block.

Shopping with a bicycle

On Friday I decided to visit Claremont to buy some new socks. It was a beautiful day and I wanted a reason for a ride. I could have gone into central Perth but I decided to find out how the "shared space" in Bay View Terrace was progressing. I did a blog post about it in October. At that time there were no bicycle racks installed. I was not too critical of that issue because there were still a few jobs being finished within the street and I hoped they would come later. Well, it has been two months and there are still no bicycle racks. In practical terms it is probably OK. As you can see from this photo, the tree protectors serve as convenient places to lock our bicycles. 

Bay View Terrace, December 2012

There are two racks around the corner in St Quentin Avenue but they were not being used, perhaps because they are a bit out of the way and in a section of dead space next to the side wall of a bank. 

St Quentin Avenue, December 2012

The tree protectors are not ideal because the metal is sharp and care needs to be taken if you want to avoid scratching your frame. This lack of official bicycle parking prompted me to research what the Town of Claremont had provided prior to the change. A quick look at Google street view, which still shows the old street, reveals there were previously eight u-rails spaced along the two blocks. 

Bay View Terrace, Google street view, January 2010

From eight to zero! That does not fit with the new movement hierarchy we were promised.

One change since October has been the reduction of the posted speed limit. It was previously 20 km/h and it has now been reduced to 10 km/h. From my observation, the new limit has made no difference to the actual speed of vehicles. Cars still dominate the space and motorists are ignoring the speed limit. In desperation, the Town of Claremont have installed this huge illuminated sign that flashes between  showing the speed limit and a plea to motorists to slow down.

Sad isn't it. The Town of Claremont do not understand what they have done. Despite spending a lot of money on attractive paving, they still have a street the welcomes motorised traffic. What could be an attractive pedestrian mall is still used as a short-term car park. They have even increased the number of car bays from 31 to 32 and removed eight bicycle u-rails. A sign is not going to fix anything. The answer is simple.  Just get rid of the cars.

It is time for some thinking from this century. I noticed that the Heart Foundation in South Australia has been doing some useful research and have commissioned this Good for Business - Discussion Paper. 

Written by Dr Rodney Tolley, the report gives information "for built environment professionals and business people to show the positive financial benefits of making streets more walking and cycling friendly". This should be essential reading for all Western Australian Local Government decision makers. Some of the key findings shown in the report are: 

• Space allocated to bicycle parking can produce much higher levels of retail spend than the same space devoted to car parking.
• Car parking is of less significance to local retail activity than is often thought. Space for people on foot is a more significant attribute.
• Retail vitality would be best served by traffic restraint, public transport improvements, and a range of measures to improve the walking and cycling environments.
• There is evidence that improving walking and cycling environments raises property values by statistically significants amounts.

My shopping trip was a great example. I found the socks and then bought new underwear as well. I remembered that I needed to replace my swimming goggles, so I walked around looking for a sports store. I was not in any hurry.  I had ridden by bicycle instead of driving my car, I did not have to worry about any parking time-limits. After buying goggles, I decided that because Christmas day is getting close, I should not procrastinate about buying gifts any longer. I eventually spent three hours shopping in Claremont. I started with socks, then ended up buying six additional items plus some fresh vegetables to have with dinner.

Importantly, most of my time, and money, was spent away from the Bay View Terrace car park and in the Claremont Quarter Shopping Centre.

Merry Christmas to all 

Perth Stadium transport plan

The transport plan for the new Perth Stadium was released yesterday (3.1MB PDF).  Bicycles do not get a mention. I am tempted to turn this into a rant but I will try to contain myself.

The alternative title could have been How to move 60,000 people in a short space of time and ignore the world’s most efficient transport device.

I have written about the stadium in an earlier blog post. At that time I also sent an email directly to the Perth Stadium people via their website. I asked them to explain what plans were in place to travel to the stadium on a bicycle and if the proposed "pedestrian bridge" would be designed to accommodate bicycles as well.

I received this response:

The Public Transport Authority transport modelling has identified that the number of cyclists on game days as generally low due to the large pedestrian flows. While these figures may be low on game day, the new Perth Stadium will transform the Burswood Peninsula by taking advantage of its riverside views and central location and the improved cycle/pedestrian network opportunities. Linking these improved cycleways will enhance the existing network and will activate the sports precinct on non-game days.

For those patrons who do choose to access the Stadium on event days on bicycle, consideration will be given during the stadium and precinct design process to select a suitable location for bicycle parking and end of trip facilities in proximity to the Stadium which minimises conflict with other modes of transport and high volume pedestrian areas.

The full extent of these improvements will be determined through the Transport Project Definition Plan due for completion by late 2012. The Transport Project Definition Plan will then be considered by Government and the extent of the work will be confirmed in early 2013. This includes the form of the pedestrian bridge, and whether cyclists will have access on both event and non-event days.

The Transport Project Definition Plan was delivered on time but it does not contain any of the promised information relating to bicycle transport. They seem to have decided that incorporating bicycles was too hard because there will be so many pedestrians, and not many people ride bicycles anyway.

The statement about the Pubic Transport Authority modelling identifying a low number of cyclists would be true, if there are no paths for us to ride on. The task here is to provide the infrastructure to solve the transport problem. They need to do the work and design separated infrastructure which will enable bicycles to become part of the solution.

The Burswood peninsula site for the stadium has limited motor vehicle access. Only 1000 car parking bays are planned. The area already has some cycle paths, it is absurd not to include planning for bicycles.

I suspect that once people think about the options of crowded trains and buses, or paying for parking on the city side of the river, quite a few of the rarely used bikes will be dragged out of the garage and dusted off. There is huge latent potential for bicycles to be used to get to the stadium. 61% of all households in Western Australia have at least one working bicycle. When surveyed in 2011, 22% of Perth people had ridden in the past seven days (Australian Cycling Participation report) but many people will only ride on separated paths where they feel safe.

Other stadiums seem to be able to cope with the idea of pedestrians and bicycle riders going to the same event. The Allianz Arena in Munich opened in 2005 and has a seating capacity of 71,135. On their website they offer several transport options, bicycles are included. There is a 10 km illuminated cycle path from the city centre to the stadium.

Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany

San Francisco's new Santa Clara Stadium will have a capacity of 68,500 seats, which is also comparable to Perth Stadium. Even though they have transport options of both light and heavy rail, good road access and 21,000 car parking spaces a short walk away, they are still proud to be providing convenient bicycle parking.

Santa Clara Stadium, San Francisco USA (opening 2014)

Closer to home, AAMI Park in Melbourne also accepts that bicycles are normal. On their website they state: "we do encourage this mode of transport".

AAMI Park, Melbourne Australia

How about the same for Perth?