Action for Public Transport (N.S.W.) Inc.

M4E Options Study
Reply Paid 78864
Strawberry Hills, NSW, 2012.

In December 2003 the NSW Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) issued an Overview Report as part of a study into the proposed building of an M4 East Motorway (M4E) which would connect the existing M4 Motorway at North Strathfield, to Parramatta Road and the CityWest Link road at Haberfield, in Sydney's inner western suburbs. The Report invited public comment on its content. The closing date for submissions, after extension, was 1 April 2004.

This submission by Action for Public Transport (NSW) Inc. (APTNSW) is in response to that Overview Report, other RTA material, and government announcements made at about the same time.

SUMMARY

The so-called Overview Report is perhaps better described as a marketing brochure for a new road, issued by the RTA, the state agency whose principal task is the building and management of roads. It offers the community three options; a road, a road, or a road. APTNSW's recommendation is that all three options be withdrawn, that the Government restrain the promotional work of the RTA, and develop and implement a holistic transport and land use policy for the Sydney region. Further recommendations appear at the end of this submission.

BACKGROUND

In about December 1999, the NSW Government issued a transport planning policy document entitled "Action for Transport 2010". That document listed five major road projects as part of the Government's transport plan to the year 2010 and beyond. Two of those roads, the Eastern Distributor and the M5East, have been completed. The other three, the Cross City Tunnel, the M2-to-Gore Hill connection, and the Western Orbital, are under construction.

The M4E was not mentioned in that plan. It is likely that the M4E has been quietly advanced by the privately-owned tollroad industry as that project which is most likely to improve the profitability of tollroads in the Sydney region. (It will directly connect the M4 tollway with the Cross City Tunnel tollway). Any public benefit could be coincidental.

"Action for Transport 2010" also emphasised the urgent need to contain the growth of car use in Sydney.

Government announcements since 2000, advancing road construction projects and cancelling or deferring planned rail projects, seem to indicate that the Government has abandoned "Action for Transport 2010" although no formal withdrawal of the plan has been declared.

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE OVERVIEW REPORT

APTNSW has identified a number of shortcomings in the Overview Report and its accompanying documents-

1. The Report admits (p 6) that the M4E is only the first stage of a longer freeway which would link the South Sydney Growth Centre (SSGC) and Sydney Airport to the M4E at Haberfield, but gives no hint, let alone detail, as to the location, form, or timing for the complete project.

   Such a link would presumably bisect the densely populated residential suburbs of Marrickville and Petersham. In the meantime, this traffic would be encouraged to use the circuitous City West - Cross City - Eastern Distributor route, adding significantly to the toll revenue for those privately-owned motorways.

2. It is interesting that there is no mention of a previous RTA proposal for a tunnel below Cleveland Street in Redfern. Since such a tunnel would connect directly to the Eastern end of Parramatta Road it would have significant relevance to the current proposal, and the public interest would have been better served by a reference to it.

3. It makes only guarded reference to the phenomenon of induced traffic, and then only for the "long" tunnel option ("would encourage an increase in traffic", p8). There is no admission that the other options would also create induced traffic. Much is made of the reduced traffic on Parramatta Road between North Strathfield and Haberfield, but scant mention is made of the effects of increased traffic on the same road East of Haberfield, especially through the already congested commercial centre of Leichhardt. In its January 2004 brochure announcing the options study, the RTA admits only that the long tunnel option "could ...encourage more private vehicles commuting into the CBD and nearby areas". The use of the word "could" is misleading.

4. The chapter headed "Planning context" has little to do with transport planning. There is no comparative evaluation with other transport options and no economic justification for any of the road proposals. This is despite the listing of "Economic and financial analysis" as an earlier stage of the development process (p 18). Describing the proposal as an "enhancement" (Key Objective, page 2) is meaningless without numerical evaluation. The report only "allows for" improved public transport and alternative modes like cycling. To be consistent with stated government policy over the last decade, the report would need to show that there would be a net transfer of trips, especially peak trips, to public transport, and a flattening of the Vehicle-Kilometres-Travelled (VKT) curve. This being a radial freeway, the opposite is the case. In terms of transport planning, radial freeways were thoroughly discredited as far back as the 1970s. It is worth noting that the "improvements" to bus services promised as a result of the construction of the Eastern Distributor motorway largely degenerated into a cost-cutting exercise for the bus operator.

5. There is no admittance to, let alone analysis of, the impact of "toll-avoiders". This impact is obvious and significant in the local streets which parallel each of Sydney's existing tolled motorways.

6. The study highlights selected localities where air pollution might be expected to be reduced ("in the study area", p15). Nowhere is there any acknowledgement that air quality generally, or in other areas, may deteriorate.

RECOMMENDATION

All three options for an M4 East motorway should be rejected.

Transport planning in New South Wales has once again been hijacked by the roads lobby, led overtly by the cashed-up, brazen, Roads & Traffic Authority. The government should quickly advise the electorate of its current strategy, if it has one, for the development of the whole transport sector in the Sydney region, including the land-use implications. "Action for Transport 2010" was a commendable format for communicating such a plan to the public. Community response should then be incorporated into a more detailed long term, integrated, transport and land-use plan for the Sydney region.

Our view is underwritten by the final report of the "Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable Transport in New South Wales" conducted by Professor Tom Parry and released on 9 December 2003. That report recommended the preparation of a strategic, multi-modal transport plan, integrated with urban planning. It suggested that the RTA should be just one of the agencies contributing to the plan. The report suggested that that plan should be the basis of choosing infrastructure projects, based on rigorous cost-benefit analysis. The government said it agreed with that approach.

Kevin Eadie.
Convener,
Action for Public Transport NSW (Inc)

29 March 2004.
Minor amendments 1 April 2004.

f\md\M4e2