NEWS RELEASE: APTNSW Response to NSW Government "Urban Transport Statement" of 20 Nov 2006
The NSW Government's recent Urban Transport Statement rates a pass mark, but only just, according to the consumer group Action for Public Transport (APTNSW).

A spokesman for APTNSW, Allan Miles, said that while there were many positive ideas, others were of doubtful value, and possibly even counter-productive.

APTNSW COMMENDS: 
<ul>
<li>the commitment to increasing the use of public transport
<li>the extended duplication on the Richmond line 
<li>the government's recognition of the interdependency of road and rail, the need for better integration, and incorporating the road and rail policies in one document. 
<li>the fast tracking the northwest rail link by two years 
<li>the realistic assessment of CBD light rail proposals, and the adoption of the bus mode (this includes the recognition of passenger reluctance to change modes at the edge of the CBD)
<li>the analytical approach to the M4 East and other motorways ("studies", "modelling") rather than the previous gung-ho attitude of "we will build" ...
<li>the extra funds for Strategic Bus Corridors 
<li>the recognition of the "potential" for metro trains 
<li>the additional funds for rail clearways program 
</ul>
APTNSW QUESTIONS:
<ul>
<li>why the government hasn't gone further in "increasing the use of public transport" on the Victoria Road corridor
<li>the need for an additional, very expensive, Iron Cove bridge (it will create induced traffic. It would be better to spend the funds on more incentives to get motorists to transfer to buses) e.g., why is there no car-to-bus interchange on the corridor? Is the cost of the bridge included in the $100 million? 
<li>the ability to complete the Victoria Road upgrade by 2009. 
<li>how the removal of "pinch points" on the road network won't just induce more traffic and transfer the pinch point to another location. It's cheap, but isn't it still wasteful? "Congestion is the answer to congestion", is a maxim stated by traffic experts (Blunden, et al). 
<li>the cheapening of the northwest rail link by "surfacing" instead of tunnel. What is the enduring operational cost? 
<li>the government's weakness in failing to abandon the F6 freeway in this document 
<li>the omission of public transport access to East Darling Harbour
<li>the Park St / QVB bus terminal and what it means for passenger door-to-door travel times 
<li>the commitment to more commuter parking at railway stations. This can only ever be a minor component of upgrades because of
<ol type=a>
<li>the lack of space around existing stations and alternative uses for what is available;
<li>the cost of multi-storey car parks and resistance of local residents;
<li>the stations with the most stopping trains already have the best bus connections and the buses will be delayed in the peaks by the extra cars and lose even more patronage. 
</ol>
</ul>
<table>
<tr><th>Contact:<td>Allan Miles<td>9516-1906
<tr><td><td>Kevin Eadie<td>9819-6052
</table>