White line fever: a sociotechnical perspective on the contested implementation of an urban bike lane network Roger Vreugdenhil and Stewart Williams School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia Email: Stewart.Williams@utas.edu.au Revised manuscript received 28 February 2013 In this paper we discuss the introduction of the Launceston Bike Network, a local government project progressed in Tasmania, Australia. The project’s implementation became subject to intense community conflict, or what we refer to here as white line fever because it arose in relation to the white traffic lines used to mark the on-road bike lanes. Our analysis of textual data gathered from relevant documents and interviews with key stakeholders relies on the development of a sociotechnical perspective. Adopting this perspective allows us to recognise the various agencies emerging collectively from the technical and social aspects and interactions analysed. The findings add to how cycling and infrastructure might be reconceptualised as an urban sociotechnical system, and assist in its transition towards the transport mainstream through policy and planning. Key words: bike lanes, cycling, sociotechnical, Australia, contested, infrastructure Introduction Cycling in Australia appears to be on the rise, with sales of bikes now outstripping that of cars (Australian Bicycle Council 2010) and over half of Australian households owning at least one bike (ABS 2009). However, the modal share of cycling as the usual form of weekly commuting to work or full-time study in Australia lags well behind many European counterparts, and with cycling comprising just 1% of all trips taken, is comparable to rates in the UK, USA and Canada (Austroads 2010). A key national strategy aims to ‘create a comprehensive and continuous network of safe and attractive routes to cycle’ as ‘countries that have achieved significant levels of cycling activity have benefitted from extensive and sus- tained investment in their cycling networks’ (Austroads 2010, 22). Investment by Australian local governments in cycling infrastructure has nearly doubled between 2007 and 2011 (Australian Bicycle Council 2012). However, when cycling infrastructure projects have been imple- mented in Australian cities, unanticipated community opposition has resulted in perverse and costly outcomes (Vreugdenhil 2011). In 2010, for example, after opposi- tion from local residents, businesses and a school com- munity, the Adelaide City Council agreed to remove $400,000 of newly installed bike paths (ABC News 2010). Such a response is problematic as the strategic objectives of Australian government (at local, state and Common- wealth levels) are to increase cycling numbers with a national goal of doubling the modal share of cycling transport over the period 2011 to 2016 (Austroads 2010). In 2010, residents of Launceston in Tasmania became embroiled in a divisive public debate involving the Launceston City Council and the introduction of its Launceston Bike Network project, which aimed to deliver a comprehensive and integrated network of on-road bike lanes (Launceston City Council 2009). The bike network received extensive reporting and attention in the local press through letters, articles and opinion pieces, demanding Council revisit what had previously seemed a straightforward case of minor physical infrastructure pro- vision. This contestation over the bike lanes involved the white, on-road line markings in what we describe here as white line fever. It had the hallmarks of a ‘hot’ situ- ation where, in ‘ “hot” situations, everything becomes controversial . . . These controversies, which indicate the absence of a stabilized knowledge base, usually involve a wide variety of actors’ (Callon 1998, 260). This Area (2013) doi: 10.1111/area.12029 Area 2013 ISSN 0004-0894 © 2013 The Authors. Area © 2013 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)