I wrote to you on 15-Dec-1997 requesting an increase in the RTA's annual budget allocation for bicycle infrastructure to $60m per year. Since then I've learned that you had a meeting with a group of cyclists from Critical Mass. At that meeting, the cyclists requested that $100m per year be spent on cycling facilities. I am writing to strongly endorse and support their request.
Please find attached the Executive Summary of the landmark December 1994 SACTRA report "Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic". The report was important because it represented the first official recognition of the phenomenon of induced traffic. That is, the unintended generation of additional traffic volumes when road capacity is increased.
The report showed that in the (quite short) medium to long term, the construction of major arterial roads had the opposite effect to that put forward by the proponents of motorway construction. Instead of resulting in a decrease in congestion, travel times and pollution, traffic levels rapidly grew to fill (and overwhelm) the available capacity. The result was worse not better conditions, despite billions of dollars having been spent.
Are you aware of this report? Has the RTA ever provided you with a briefing of the report's contents and recommendations? Have you ever sought an unbiased briefing on the report from organisations or individuals, such as the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney, who don't have a vested interest in the continued unchecked expansion of the road system? (The RTA, planning consultants who depend on the RTA for work, and the NRMA, are all excluded by this requirement.)
The report has an interesting history. The years of the Thatcher Government were characterised by a massive, sustained increase in funding for, and resulting rapid expansion of, the motorway system in the United Kingdom. Many billions of pounds were spent on intercity and intracity (internal) motorways. Many suburbs and areas of wilderness were destroyed in the name of, in Margaret Thatcher's words, "the great car economy". (It is ironic to observe this Labor Government so assiduously following her precepts.)
Despite the resulting huge increase in road capacity, the public soon noticed that contrary to promises by the Department of Transport (the British equivalent of the Roads and Traffic Authority), traffic levels actually increased, instead of decreasing, with the result that single occupant vehicle trips, congestion and pollution all increased. (The situation in Sydney has exactly parallelled that of United Kingdom, but I'm in no doubt I would be safe in saying that the RTA has never pointed this out to you.)
It says much about the residual intellectual honesty of the British Government that it was able to produce such a report in the first place, despite the powerful vested interests arrayed against it (in particular The Department of Transport and its associated large construction company "stakeholders"), and its commitment to the public good by accepting its recommendations. Equally, it says much about the state of public administration in NSW that no equivalent report has ever been produced, and the fact that its findings have never been accepted by the RTA (and hence the government of the day).
One needs only to look out the window at the appalling state of Sydney's air to know who is right and who is wrong. (Just to make things clear, it most definitely isn't the RTA.)
Despite its protestations to the contrary, and the demonstrated futility of doing so (see the SACTRA report), the RTA is still actively pursuing the expansion of the road system. Consider these facts:
I urge you to examine Chapter 1, entitled "Atmosphere", of the 1997 NSW State of the Environment report to see just how wrong the RTA has been. This report shows how the RTA's car-based transportation policies which have underlined the development of Sydney's transport infrastructure for the last 50 years are directly responsible for the appalling and steadily deteriorating state of Sydney's air. The report is available online via the World Wide Web and its URL is:
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/soe/Why not browse its contents and inform yourself of the real consequences of the RTA's policies for you, me, your family, your friends, your colleagues, and the people of Sydney?
As a result of the SACTRA report, the level of funding for motorway development in the United Kingdom was more than halved and transportation policy shifted towards the development of a better balanced and integrated transportation system. The urban environment in Sydney would greatly benefit if the same thing occurred here.
By allocating $100m per annum to the development of bicycle infrastructure beginning in the 1998-99 state budget, the Labor Government can initiate the process of developing a balanced transportation infrastructure for Sydney and regional NSW that offers people a choice of transportation modes. A choice that will result in fewer cars on our roads, reduced demand for additional road capacity, improved air quality (eg, less benzene, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, suspended particles), fewer road accidents, reduced road trauma health costs, an overall improvement in community health, and a reduction in energy (especially petroleum) consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
An example of how the RTA's transport planning policies have failed the people of Sydney can be found in an article by Linda Morris, transport writer for the Sydney Morning Herald. In an article on Wednesday, November 26, 1997 entitled "The Stubborn Curse of the Car", Ms Morris noted that:
The high level of car registrations and the low utilisation rate among commuters can be attributed to the absence of alternatives to car-based transportation. These people are buying cars and driving them because they have no practical choice in the matter. It is the best option available to them given that Government has not actually provided practical and efficient alternatives for them to use.
It needs to be recognised and acknowledged that people like cars because they provide the convenience of point-to-point travel. However, it should be recognised that bicycles can also provide the convenience of point-to-point travel for many trips but at a much lower cost.
The advantages of providing effective bicycle transport infrastructure (eg, reduced traffic congestion, reduced spending on roads, greater individual mobility, reduced air pollution, improved urban environments) have been recognised in Europe for many years. Unfortunately for the people of Sydney, these advantages have been deliberately ignored by the RTA. When compared with Holland at 28%, the extremely small percentage of individual transport movements undertaken by bicycle in our highly urbanised society (about 2%), demonstrates the RTA's active discouragement of cycling. One cannot expect people to ride a bicycle when there are no safe (or even existent) routes available.
I am not suggesting that people be barred from using their cars. This is the typical straw man argument put forward by the RTA and its apologists. What I am suggesting is that people be given a choice which does not oblige them to use their cars all the time. I would have have thought this to be good planning practice but clearly the concept is anathema to the RTA.
The provision of bicycle facilities is extremely cost effective when compared with the cost of extending the road system. Consider, for example, that a single kilometre of the M5 East project will cost the people of NSW approx. $48m to build. A single kilometre of good quality cycleway can be provided for as little as $20,000 (or 0.04% of the cost of the M5 East). That is, 1km of the M5 East will get you 2500km of quality cycleway. Clearly, 2500km of quality cycleway offers far greater benefits, to many more people, than 1km of the M5 East.
My letter of 15-Dec-1997 showed that should $100m annually be allocated to the development of cycling infrastructure, there are comprehensive, detailed plans in existence, and committed, capable individuals who can realise them.
I would have thought that the benefits of good quality bicycle infrastructure (improved mobility, a reduction in traffic congestion and greenhouse emissions, improved air quality, fewer road accidents, and more choice in personal transportation modes) would be an easy (and electorally popular) message to sell. All that is required is a willingness on your part to promote the long term interests of the community at large in place of the destructive, discredited policies and narrow corporate interests of the RTA.