From long and bitter experience, I must admit to being deeply sceptical about the Bike Plan 2010 process due to the RTA's decades-long inability and/or unwillingness to deliver genuine improvements in facilities for cyclists. This section discusses some of the topics that underscore this (justifiable) sense of scepticism:
I believe Mr Salomon has a keen appreciation of the impediments to the development of cycling as a viable transportation mode. The "On the Street" columns in recent issues of Australian Cyclist (June-July 1997, August-September 1997, December 1997-January 1998) offer insightful analyses into the problems facing cyclists and the consequences of successive governments' uncritical, craven acceptance of RTA policy prescriptions. I found the August-September 1997 column (pp. 40-41) to be especially applicable. The article begins by saying:
He goes on to make the point that:A senior bureaucrat confided in me recently. One of his superiors had voiced similar thoughts to his, that we are all passengers and crew of the good ship Titanic sailing optimistically but blindly toward the iceberg.
The context of the conversation was the transport system and how current policy is totally committed to actively encourage greater use and dependence on motor vehicle based transport.
Unfortunately car dependence has led to car dominance. The issue I raised in a previous column about the need to devote actual operating space on the road to bikes as an essential way of giving bike users a fair-go in a system which is normally weighted against them is a good case in point. Roads and tracks are as old as civilisation and they have always been about the movement of people and their goods. In a heavily mechanised age where the movement of people and goods has been taken over by large and fast machines, the under-powered or under-mechanised user has been designed out of the system.
As a former Executive Director of Bicycle NSW, Mr Salomon is even more familiar than me with the way in which the RTA deals (and has dealt) with cyclists. It's a case of here is what we (the RTA) are going to do for you, and you should be damned grateful we're doing anything at all. Regretfully, we can say with absolute certainty that any genuinely effective proposal for improving cycling conditions and infrastructure that passes through (RTA CEO) Mr Ron Christie's office for approval on the way to (Minister for Roads) Carl Scully's desk will have zero, zip, nulla, nada chance of being accepted in any way, shape or form. We can be sure of this because we've gone down this path before.
TopI think it's worth remembering what sort of organisation we're dealing with here. The treatment cyclists have received during the M4 widening project is not indicative of an organisation that treats cyclists fairly.
Cyclists were excluded from the M4 for quite illegitimate reasons of cost, and cost alone. The figures involved were ludicrously small (some $600,000), but the most disturbing aspect was the RTA's willingness to deliberately pervert engineering practice and standards in order to justify its negligent abandonment of its duty of care towards cyclists. As anyone who has dealt with the RTA has discovered, the excuse of "cost effectiveness" can be used to hide a multitude of sins.
At a meeting with the RTA and State Wide Roads on Wednesday 7 August 1996, cyclists were presented with the results of a survey of cyclist usage at one unrepresentative point on the M4 for part of one day. This survey was then used to justify the exclusion of cyclists from the 35km of the M4 during the almost three year period of roadworks.
As a method for estimating cyclist usage on the M4, the survey undertaken by the RTA was extremely suspect. This survey would have only had some validity if one regarded the M4 as essentially a pipe, with one end at Church St, Parramatta and the other end at Russell Street, Emu Plains. In this view, cyclists would be travelling the entire length of the M4 so sampling at a single point would yield a uniform measure of cycling usage. In reality the M4, and cyclists' trip patterns, are nothing like this.
Because it is so long, for modelling purposes the M4 should be regarded as a series of discrete sections, each a few kilometres long, bounded by on ramps and off ramps. Trips on the M4 are a mix of locally generated trips (bounded by a section's on and off ramps) and longer trips, of varying lengths, bounded by arbitrary combinations of on and off ramps.
The former (unrealistic) model was used to justify the exclusion of cyclists. It was not only morally dubious, but an appalling example of third-rate engineering practice.
The consequences for cyclists were extremely negative. They were effectively barred from using the only safe, usable East-West route between Parramatta and Emu Plains during the period of the M4's "upgrading". The RTA compounded the injustice by falsely claiming that the use of its nominated alternate route along the Great Western Highway represented no more than a "temporary inconvenience" for cyclists.
The RTA perpetuated this poisonous fiction in the Ministerial Briefing Notes it prepared in response to letters from the public. Yes Minister, the RTA has proven to be remarkably economical with the truth. It has been deeply disillusioning to observe Ministers for Roads and their Parliamentary Secretary, whether for reasons of ignorance, indifference, or incompetence, participating in this surreal, Potemkin-like denial of justice and reality.
For other members of our community, the results were more tragic. It was only last October 14 1997, that a cyclist, Mr Greg Borkowski, was killed on the M4 because the RTA wasn't willing to spend a lousy $600,000 out of a project budget of over $90m. That's all it would have taken to safely accommodate cyclists during the M4's "upgrading". Less money than it cost the RTA's former CEO, Mr Max Moore-Wilton, to refurbish the office Mr Ron Christie currently occupies.
Take a moment to think about the underlying corporate morality, ethical paradigm, and attitude towards cyclists embodied by this decision. The RTA found it acceptable to spend well over $600,000 so its CEO could have (among other things) nice glass doors, but it was unwilling to spend $600,000 so that cyclists were not put at risk of being smeared all over the M4 and Great Western Highway.
Cyclists were essentially told to go play in the traffic on the Great Western Highway (a road characterised by heavy traffic, non-contiguous shoulders, narrow lane widths, inappropriate intersection treatments, and poor surface conditions) for a period of almost three years. This is despite warnings of its unsuitability by cyclists, the Police and the RTA's own bicycle experts. It is worth recalling that Mr Salomon (while Executive Director of Bicycle NSW) recognising the injustice and danger of this decision wrote to the RTA on 9 September 1996 saying in part:
In essence you are stating that cyclists in this area should not cycle during the period of reconstruction, which I understand may last well over one year. The alternative that you state is for cyclists to use the Great Western Highway, This is not an option if the RTA is serious about promoting cyclist safety, and this been stated by officers of your organisation and the NSW Police in meetings with our members.The RTA contemptuously ignored Bicycle NSW's objections.
Appalled at the RTA's attitude, I wrote to the Minister for Roads (via my local member, Mr John Murray) on 12 September 1996, concerning the grossly inequitable (and negligent) treatment of cyclists by the RTA during the widening of the M4 to six lanes, and pleading for the Minister to overturn the RTA's decision. Regrettably, my pleas fell on deaf ears.
In response to my warning that someone was going to be killed, the Minister for Roads (at the time Mr Michael Knight) through his (still current) Parliamentary Secretary Mr Grant McBride referred to the "temporary inconvenience" of having to use the Great Western Highway. It turned out to be much more than an inconvenience for Mr Borkowski and his family.
At the time, I turned to the Minister in desperation because of the gross inequity of the RTA's actions. As part of Mr Salomon's discussion of the impediments to cycling, I would strongly urge him to investigate the quality and veracity of the advice sent to the office of the Minister for Roads in response to Ministerial queries. I would strongly urge him to ask of Mr McBride why in response my letter, he gave credence to an RTA briefing note that essentially said "War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", "Ignorance is Strength"? Why in the face of the objective, compelling evidence outlined in my letter, he chose to ignore the welfare of cyclists? This is not an isolated case. It is typical of the response cyclists receive from the Office of the Minister for Roads based on RTA briefing notes.
As citizens of NSW, cyclists are owed a duty of care by the RTA and the government. Since the first day of the M4 upgrading project, the Labor Government (through its Ministers for Roads and Parliamentary Secretary) and the RTA have shown they hold that duty in complete contempt.
Regrettably, the treatment accorded cyclists during the M4 upgrading project was not an abberation. It did not result from the actions of a rogue element within the RTA. In reality, it represented a microcosm of the systemic hostility and indifference shown to NSW cycling citizens by the government of the day and the RTA through many, many turns of the political wheel.
TopIf one judges the RTA by what it does, not by what it says, one quickly realises that its actions are predicated on several underlying assumptions: that motoring citizens Jim and Jenny are more deserving of public funds than cycling citizens John and Jane; that application of the notion of duty of care is only mandatory if the citizens affected are motorists; and fundamentally, that cycling is an illegitimate form of transport (since the bicycle is really a toy) and therefore not deserving of proper consideration and encouragement.
Here are a few other points to consider about the actions of the RTA with regard to cyclists:
By changing the fundamental rules under which the RTA (which is still essentially a large engineering organisation) operates, many of the problems outlined in this submission will disappear. They will disappear because the RTA's officers will be obligated under their own rules and regulations to properly consider cyclists in their traffic planning, engineering design and project management tasks.
As a result, cyclists will be shown the same degree of concern and commitment that is currently shown towards motorists. They will be less likely to be ignored, marginalised or discriminated against because they will be considered legitimate users of the road system and deserving of the some consideration as motorists (the complete converse of what presently occurs).
Many of these routes could and should represent primary commuting routes for cyclists. A commuting cyclist has the same reasons for wanting to use these routes as a commuting motorist. Convenience, directness, favourable grades and speed of travel are all factors when commuting. A government serious about encouraging cycling as a viable form of transport would have ensured that practical alternatives were made available. No such alternatives exist. Given the RTA's priorities (that's RTA code for indifference, contempt, and hostility towards cyclists), nor are they likely to exist in the future.
The RTA has actively discouraged cycling demand by failing to provide facilities for cyclists. At the end of the day, it's all about the provision (or lack) of facilities. It's all about the perceived difficulty of using particular transportation modes. It's all about the perceived danger of using particular transportation modes. It's all about transport policy discouraging or encouraging particular modes of travel. It's all about the RTA actively discouraging cycling as a viable transportation mode.
To illustrate this phenomenon in operation, consider what the effects have been of the F3 motorway on commuting patterns in northern Sydney. Before the F3 was opened it was extremely rare for people to commute by car from areas around Gosford to Sydney. Since the opening of the F3, commuter suburbs north of the Hawkesbury River have developed because the F3 has made such commuting possible. The RTA's transport planning decisions have given the people of the Gosford area the opportunity to use a particular mode of transport (the private car) in a manner that was not previously feasible. And they have grabbed the opportunity with alacrity.
The same principle applies to commuting by bicycle. Provide good facilities and people will take advantage of them. Don't provide facilities and it will discourage that transportation mode. The relatively small number of commuting cyclists is a perfect example of how a particular transport mode (commuting by bicycle) can be actively discouraged by a transport authority (the RTA) through its refusal to provide decent facilities.
One can pick any common commuting trip in the Sydney area and unfavourably compare the ease with which one can travel by car, and the corresponding extreme inconvenience, difficulty and commensurate danger of travelling by bicycle. No wonder people are so unwilling to commute by bicycle.
What is common to the so-called commuting routes identified by the RTA is that they're slow, indirect, often discontinuous and poorly connected. A cyclist's time is just as valuable as that of a motorist and the last thing they want to do is meander along glass strewn backstreets, to risk damaging their wheels as they negotiate their way around potholes and debris, to crawl along narrow paths in parks dodging children and rollerbladers, to constantly have to stop because the roads they are forced to travel along never have priority at intersection treatments.
Bicycle NSW, and more recently Critical Mass, have always sought to make bicycles a viable transport mode; that means high speed trunk routes (ideally veloways). The RTA has refused to even consider this idea. I can think of lots of reasons for this stance. Imagine that a practical network appeared overnight (veloways, regional routes, local routes, the whole deal). I'd be willing to bet that given our weather we could do even better than the Dutch (28% of trips by bicycle) in very little time. Imagine what that would do to the RTA's traffic volumes?
The RTA depends of increasing traffic congestion to justify its continued expansion of the road system. It just moves the gridlock around to where it wants to build the next bit of its 1948 County of Cumberland road network. Having destroyed the urban amenity of a particular area, it waits for local political pressure to generate calls for a "solution" to the terrible traffic faced by residents. "Well," says the RTA, "we have these plans for a motorway that are just what you need". And on it goes. An article by Linda Morris, entitled "Pressure on for underground link as M2 opens", in the Sydney Morning Herald of Monday, May 26, 1997 provides a perfect example of this process in operation.
The RTA will never countenance giving cyclists decent conditions because it would threaten the level and rate of increase in traffic congestion that their budget and their control of transport and urban planning in Sydney depends upon. (They of course deny this, but please judge them by what they do, not what they say.)
In my view, Bicycle NSW and cyclists have always been stymied by the RTA. All their meaningful advocacy work has been frustrated and opposed by the RTA. All the official channels (eg, the Bicycle Advisory Council) flow through the CEO's office. The Rhodes Thompson report, for example, asked for $20m for ten years but the RTA (or someone within the RTA) said no. Because the report originated from within the RTA, they were able to kill it off, claiming in their favourite phrase when dealing with cycling issues, that it wasn't "cost effective". Genuine, rapid improvements in cycling conditions and usage can only come from a planning process which is outside the direct control of the RTA.
TopSince the beginning of my involvement with advocacy issues, the Bicycle Advisory Council (BAC) has been a source of screaming frustration for Bicycle NSW. As a tool for advancing the interests of cyclists, the BAC has proven to about as useful as a bucket of warm spit. (In passing I note that the current manager of the RTA Bicycle Section is the Secretary of the BAC.)
The BAC has ignored or obfuscated numerous Bicycle NSW initiatives. Typical of the BAC's behaviour was the treatment accorded "A Draft Policy for Cyclists on Freeways and Motorways", written in July 1996 by Geoff Holland and myself for Bicycle NSW. The draft policy addressed issues of "Shoulder Maintenance", "Vibra Lines (Rumble Strips)", "Grade Separation", "Push Buttons", "Signage", "Motorist Education". The draft was submitted to the BAC and has since disappeared into a black hole.
Since all recommendations from the BAC flow through the office of the RTA's CEO, the RTA is in a position to veto all measures that would improve conditions for cyclists. And as history shows, it has exercised this veto regularly.
An alternate mechanism for representing the interests of cyclists within the bureaucracy is needed. It must be totally independent of the RTA, able to report directly to the Minister for Roads, and have the power to direct other departments to implement its decisions.
One possible model is the Public Transport Advisory Council. This was established by legislation, and is therefore not subject to summary termination on the capricious whim of a rogue Minister, is free to investigate matters related to public transport, and has the power to direct the Department of Transport to implement its findings. Under the previous government, it proved remarkably successful in forcing through worthwhile initiatives (such as Light Rail projects and the Southern Railway) in the face of Department of Transport intransigence.
TopThe RTA regularly portrays itself as being committed to the adoption of World's Best Practice. Unfortunately, this commitment rings very hollow to cyclists. The near total lack of facilities, the appalling percentage of commuting cyclists in Sydney (0.4%), and the over-representation of cyclists in traffic accidents and hospital admission rates makes a complete lie of this stance.
I suggest that the RTA be held accountable to its corporate aim. World's best practice in the (developed) world is Holland with a modal split of 28% for cycling. Demand that the RTA focus on an outcome (a better than 28% modal split) in Sydney and regional NSW to be achieved within five years and let the RTA worry about the process for achieving it. By specifying a precise, achievable outcome cyclists, the community and Parliament could progressively monitor the veracity of the the RTA's oft-stated commitment to the cyclists of NSW.
Given the glorious weather we have in Sydney (certainly in comparison to Holland) why can't we do the same (or even better) here? Nobody would argue that the Dutch are inherently more civic minded or environmentally sensitive than Sydneysiders. They are able to undertake so many journeys by bicycle because their Government has made it feasible for them to do so. As in Sydney, their behaviour has followed the money. Unfortunately for Sydney, our money has largely gone into a single transportation mode: the car.
TopThe phenomenon of induced traffic, that is, the unintended generation of additional traffic volumes when road capacity is increased, needs to be considered when asking why, despite having spent billions of dollars since 1988 on increased road capacity, Sydney's traffic congestion problems have been getting worse, not better.
Although the RTA has never publicly admitted to the existence of induced traffic, it is real and was the subject of the landmark December 1994 SACTRA (The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment) report "Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic". The report was important because it represented the first official recognition in Britain of induced traffic.
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.
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.)
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 and road freight "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 the SACTRA report's findings have never been accepted by the RTA (and hence the government of the day).
Although the RTA (and hence the executive which depends on it for policy advice) has refused to accept the existence of induced traffic, other elements of the NSW government, who do not have a vested interest in the continued road building and increased car dependence, have not been so reticent. The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) discusses induced traffic in the subsection entitled Road infrastructure in section 5.6.5, Influences and Responses of the EPA's 1997 State of the Environment report.
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 basis for the maintenance and acceleration of this fundamental policy shift was outlined in the July 1998 Government White Paper "A New Deal for Transport, Better for Everyone". An important component in this better integrated transportation system was the provision of improved cycling infrastructure (for trips up to 20km) and dual mode transport facilities (for trips over 20km). The urban environment in Sydney would greatly benefit if the same thing occurred here.