| Action for Public Transport (N.S.W.) Inc.
|
| | P O Box K606
|
| | Haymarket NSW 1240
|
| | 15 February 2023
|
|
|
|
|
ATAP Secretariat
Australian Transport - Assessment and Planning
GPO Box 594
Canberra ACT 2601
email: ATAP@infrastructure.gov.au
Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines
Comments on M4 - Active Transport draft January 2023
Submission
Introduction
Action for Public Transport (NSW) is a transport advocacy group, which has been active in Sydney since 1974. We promote the interests of beneficiaries of public transport - passengers and the wider community alike. We make the following submission on the document M4 Active Travel draft released for public consultation in January 2023.
Comments
The draft does not emphasize some matters that we consider important. Active transport should include walking to and from public transport stops. Public transport and active transport are complementary in that case; both are necessary. If the walking is made too difficult or unpleasant or dangerous, fewer people will use the public transport. As a result, there will be more cars on the road (contravening Australia's commitment under the Paris climate change accord) or people will be deterred from making trips (with adverse social or economic consequences).
Regretfully, it is easy to find examples of dysfunctional provision for active transport around Sydney. Consider:
This cycle path (below) in Livingstone Rd, Marrickville, is unable to keep cyclists separate from both road vehicles and pedestrians. At several breaks like this, cyclists must choose to ride among cars or walkers. One wonders how the plan was approved.
Google
The picture below, taken in November 2020, is of Eastern Valley Way in Chatswood near the Smith St intersection.
A touch of green helps mitigate the traffic dominance.
Note the footpath and the shelter at the bus stop with waiting passengers. Not many outbound bus stops warrant a shelter so this must be an important stop.
Google
The same site in August 2022 (below). An area approximately 100 metres long and 12 metres wide has been fenced off, taking the footpath, bus stop and all the vegetation, to enable works. Note the signs encouraging pedestrians to use the path opposite. Does that apply to bus passengers? The buses which stop on the other side of the road will run in the wrong direction.
The site in February 2023 (below). Unfortunately, not much seems to have happened over the summer. Bus stops, especially those which warrant shelters, are too important to be decommissioned arbitrarily for long periods. Nuisance to walkers should have been minimised by completing the disruptive works promptly. Commendably, the site now displays notices telling bus passengers where they should go to board their buses.
Railway Square, Sydney (below). Despite the name, railway platforms are a long walk away. Railway planners never thought to put direct paths from the platforms. Perhaps Railway Square should be renamed Broadway Square or Roadway Square to emphasise its remoteness from railway facilities.
Wikimedia Commons
Active transport users often need to cross roads. When the road is busy, there is a risk of collision in which the active transport user could be hurt. Unfortunately, motorists often drive in a way which raises a fear of collision. This is partly because of the rules (on a marked pedestrian crossing, motorists need only give way if there is a risk of collision) and partly because of widespread ignorance of rule 72, This rule requires motorists entering a street to give way to pedestrians who have already begun their crossing. It applies to intersections with and without traffic signals but does not apply at roundabouts. See
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/sl-2014-0758#sec.72. Even if they understand rule 72, pedestrians cannot assume that drivers of oncoming vehicles are aware of it.
Unfortunately, some active transport users put other active transport users at unreasonable risk. Regardless of their legal status (which varies from state to state), many types of small battery-powered vehicles can be seen mingling with pedestrians in cities. This poses a risk to the riders of those vehicles and to pedestrians around them. Not enough is being done to mitigate the risks.
Conclusion
APTNSW suggests that the above matters should be attended to before developing protocols based on benefit/cost analysis to determine where active travel resources should be placed.
APTNSW thanks ATAP for the opportunity to comment on this document.
