VICTORIA ROAD "UPGRADE"

(Application No MP 08 _0136)

Submission No 1 in response to the RTA Environmental Assessment, October 2008, from Action for Public Transport

WHY THE RTA'S PREFERRED PROJECT (A SECOND IRON COVE BRIDGE AND TIDAL FLOW) IS NOT THE BEST SOLUTION

Background

In 2007, the Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) proposed a second Iron Cove Bridge and associated tidal flow traffic arrangements as an "upgrade" for Victoria Road between Gladesville Bridge and White Bay. The proposal was initially heavily marketed to the public, using newspaper advertising and brochures, as primarily a measure to improve bus services. This ploy has since been shown to be somewhat misleading. The RTA's December 2007 brochure conceded that one purpose of the so-called "upgrade" was to "assist general traffic flow" on Victoria Road. In a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald published on 23 April 2008 the then roads minister went further, saying "Getting buses, with their stop-start movements, out of the general traffic lanes is the first step to improving traffic flows on this road". Confirmation came in the RTA's "project objectives", one of which is to "maintain peak direction traffic flow as defined by travel times" (Environmental Assessment, ["EA"] Vol 1, p3-8).

Non-compliance with Government Policy

The new bridge-plus-tidal-flow arrangement in fact increases the general traffic capacity by a theoretical 50 percent, from two lanes to three. In practice, it would be less than 50% because of rampant illegal use of the existing Transit Lane.

Both the above project objective, and the expansion of general-traffic capacity, could be seen as inconsistent with earlier stated government policies-

"Building new capacity just to meet peak needs is very expensive, and as has been demonstrated in other cities, will not solve transport problems or improve accessibility on its own" (Metropolitan Strategy Supporting Information, December 2005, p160), and

"Reallocating existing road space to public transport requires restricting the road space allocated to general traffic". (MS-SI, p 171).

Inbound general traffic would today be confined to two lanes if the RTA and/or Police had not allowed illegal use of the Transit Lane during the last 30 years to become entrenched.

Bus Lane Alternative has un-quantified potential - deserves more holistic analysis-

APT objects to the methodology of the RTA's Environmental Assessment. It appears to defend the RTA's preferred project, rather than treating all alternative projects equally.

Bus services could be improved immediately with proper enforcement of the existing Transit Lane. The enforcement could be fully funded from the interest on about $4 million. A holistic approach to bus lanes, including interchanges and fares strategies, could be implemented in the near term at far less cost than the $156 million bridge-and-tidal-flow proposal preferred by the RTA. The bus lane alternative has the potential to move more people, more quickly, than the RTA's preferred project. Its lower capital cost leaves funds available for adapting it to significant impending, but as yet undefined, elements - climate change, peak oil, and Metro Rail.

Faults with the RTA arguments against the "Bus Lane" alternative-

  1. The Project Objective, to "maintain peak direction traffic flow", is ill-advised, and inconsistent with the government's Metropolitan Strategy, quoted above.
  2. The bus lane alternative would cause "queues of about 1.2 km approaching Gladesville Bridge ..causing a negative impact for citybound bus operations" (EA, Vol 2, p iv). The EA fails to explore the means of having buses avoid such queues, e.g., extending the bus lanes.
  3. The EA fails to acknowledge that any such queues would be temporary. Motorists would seek alternatives, including the use of the improved bus services.
  4. The EA fails to approach bus service improvements in a holistic way, as a "product", as recommended in the government's 2006 Urban Transport Statement (UTS) "A better alternative is to see a road project as a package of transport products, with potential benefits far greater than the piece of road which goes from point A to point B".
Proper assessment of the bus lane alternative would have considered the provision of satellite car-bus interchanges in the Ryde/Gladesville area, improved bus shelters akin to Melbourne's "super-stops", improved passenger information systems, both on-street and on-bus, and a fares regime to optimise mode shift from cars and to increase the carrying capacity of Victoria Road in terms of people rather than vehicles.

Details of a Bus Lane alternative were submitted to the Premier and the relevant Ministers by Action for Public Transport on 20 May 2008.


Kevin Eadie
Action for Public Transport (NSW) Inc.
PO Box K606, Haymarket, NSW, 1240.
http://www.aptnsw.org.au
24 October 2008.
Amended 27 October 2008.