[sustran] The future is concrete?

Christine Laurence & Peter Wright pwcl at wr.com.au
Thu May 28 14:08:37 JST 1998


An edited version of this article was published in the city hub 28/5/98
© Gabrielle Kuiper - may be reprinted with permission.



Under the guise of blue skies, the future is concrete.

The car industry and State Government ministers have been meeting under the
auspices of the NRMA's Clean Air 2000 initiative to develop solutions to
Sydney's smog problem. The results of these meetings are now becoming
apparent. State Government policy appears to be mimicking that of the NRMA.

For the last four decades Sydney has had a transport crisis. And for the
last four decades successive governments have been in the process of
producing a transport plan to solve all the problems. Public transport
proposals, like new heavy and light rail lines, have been conspicuously
absent from these numerous plans. Road budgets have become bigger and rail
budgets smaller; freeways and tollways have been built through people's
neighbourhoods,  congestion has become worse and smog levels have risen.

Meanwhile, community unrest has steadily grown. Mums and dads have been
arrested at motorway construction sites; large numbers of cyclists
habitually ride through Sydney streets demanding cyclepaths, community
groups have taken to the courts; calls for public transport proposals have
intensified; and now, one of Sydney's cultural highlights has become the
random barricading of streets by thousands of people, who, sick of the
traffic, 'just wanna party'.

In the face of so much protest, you might think our politicians would
become savvy, show some leadership and initiate a raft of public transport
proposals and upgrades. It would be one of the best ways to get re-elected.

Instead, the Olympic city's new transport proposals have come from the
NRMA. After a succession of transport ministers unable to govern
independently of the RTA, the NRMA stepped forward to fill the leadership
void. The NRMA listened to the growing concern, including that of their own
membership. Then, after years of meetings behind closed doors, the NRMA
became the loudest voice of all. "Something had to be done about Sydney's
smog" they claimed, "Targets need to be set". Many people thought this was
the beginning of a new era. However, closer inspection of the NRMA's
rhetoric reveals a sophisticated public relations facade enabling motorway
building to continue as usual.

Greenwashing
"When a corporation wants to oppose environmental regulations, or support
an environmentally damaging development, it may do so openly and in its own
name. But it is far more effective to have a group of citizens or experts
and preferably a coalition of such groups-which can publicly promote the
outcomes desired by the corporation whilst claiming to represent the public
interest. When such groups do not already exist, the modern corporation can
pay a public relations firm to create them."*

This is how Dr Sharon Beder from the University of Wollongong describes the
newly emerging corporate tactic of 'greenwashing'. In many ways it is a
tribute to the power of community action and the environment movement. To
counteract it, corporations have had to imitate them.

Since the organisation began in 1920 as a motorists' lobby group, the NRMA
has grown to become Australia's largest motoring organisation. In June 1995
the NRMA launched its Clean Air 2000 initiative. Directed by a task force
which includes representatives from Shell, the Motor Traders Association of
NSW, General Motors Holden and Boral (suppliers of concrete and asphalt to
the road construction industry), Clean Air 2000 was set up to "lead the
agenda" according to NRMA spokesperson, Alan Finlay.

The taskforce is described as consisting of "high profile leaders from
federal, state and local government, the environment movement, business,
industry, health, science, labor, the arts, youth and the community". The
NRMA publicity brochure paints a picture of harmonious community
cooperation. Representatives from public transport user groups, cycling and
pedestrian organisations and key public transport providers like CityRail
and the State Transit Authority, are conspicuously absent however. Also
absent are respected professionals known for their advocacy of public
transport. Yet there are sporting personalities and managers from symphony
orchestras on the team.

Of the 23 members of the taskforce, two are from environmental groups: Jeff
Angel, Director of the Total Environment Centre and Ian Keirnan, CEO of
Clean Up Australia. When questioned about this minority  involvement
Alan Finlay of the NRMA said, "There was no conscious decision
to exclude more [environmental] groups. I believe Jeff regarded the current
arrangement as the best option."

Jeff Angel acknowledges his key role: "At this point, I am happy with my
participation.  I must say though, they do tend to use my participation to
legitimise the entire process." Jodie Brough, media liaison for the
Minister for Roads and Transport, confirmed this, "His [Jeff Angel's]
involvement ensures that the process will not become corrupt."

Christine Laurence, transport spokesperson for the Nature Conservation
Council said "Jeff Angel is a token greenie on a committee organised by the
road lobby."

Sceptics may doubt the sincerity of such a taskforce but one thing that
cannot be doubted is the impact the campaign has had State Government
decisions. "I believe we [Clean Air 2000] have made an impact," said Jeff
Angel "Sometimes corporations do begin to change. If these corporations
[Shell and Holden] don't change, then environment groups will have no
impact. At the end of the day it is their decisions that will have the
largest impact."

Carl Scully, the Minister for Roads and Transport, Pam Allen, the Minister
for the Environment and Craig Knowles, the Minister for Urban Affairs and
Planning, are all members of the Clean Air 2000 taskforce. Alan Finlay,
NRMA spokesperson, highlighted the advantages of the process: "We are able
to have quite a healthy approach by having industry representatives at the
table. We can get immediate feedback from the government perspective and
the government can hear what industry representatives think."

Jodie Brough, media liaison for the Minister for Roads and Transport
explained, "Certainly from a government perspective we have worked with
Clean Air 2000, as a result we have brought up some of the boldest plans.
For the first time ever, we are introducing an auto inspection, every car
in four years time will get a regular emissions test."

Cynics argue such policies are futile and fail to address the fundamental
issues. Jeff Angel dismisses these suggestions, "I'm satisfied with the way
Clean Air 2000 has posed a threat to government policies.  I have achieved
far more than environmental groups would have on their own."

It's your fault
The primary emphasis in the Clean Air 2000 publicity is on individual
action and voluntary measures. The public campaign focuses on three
messages: walk or cycle for short trips; catch public transport one day a
week; and keep your car well tuned.

Critics suggest this is change at the margins, drawing debate away from
fundamental issues like the government's commitment to road building, the
absence of cycling infrastructure, and proposed budget cuts to public
transport. "Clean Air 2000 tells people the problem is you - the
individual. You want the convenience of driving a car and you are so
wicked," said Christine Laurence. "They ask people to use public transport
as though it is like doing penance for their sins."

"Clean Air 2000  is clever and the NRMA have worked hard to appear
reasonable so that we [transport user groups] are portrayed as the
problematic fringe. The reforms they propose are the ones that will allow
the road transport industry to continue business as usual."

In response, NRMA spokesperson Alan Finlay said, "I don't see how promoting
clean air necessarily works against automobile use. The Clean Air 2000
proposal is not asking people to not own cars, rather we're asking people
to use them in a more intelligent way ." For the NRMA, the purpose is not
to discourage car growth. "Sydney is continuing to grow anyway. We have to
acknowledge how society functions and see how people live their lives ...
Cars allow for personal freedom." he said.

Targets
The Clean Air 2000 strategy seems comprehensive. It has objectives, it has
infrastructure proposals, and it also has 'targets', a concept renowned for
striking fear into the heart of politicians and government bureaucrats.

A key target is to achieve zero annual growth in VKT (vehicle kilometres
travelled per person) by 2020. A great deal of debate centres around
increases in VKT. Growth in car use increases smog levels. Reducing VKT
would reduce air pollution. Over the last eight years VKT levels have
increased. What many people aren't told, is that VKT had begun to level-off
during the 1980s because governments did not build any major motorways
encouraging increased car use. VKT began to increase again after new
motorway constructions like the Harbour Tunnel, Gore Hill Freeway, M4 and
M5 West were completed in the early 1990s. The relationship between an
increase in road space and an increase in car use is known as induced
traffic growth. When new roads are built, traffic grows to fill the
available road space.

These points are crucial when examining the NRMA's position on setting VKT
targets. The targets set by the NRMA could not be reached unless more
motorways are built.

In contrast, EPA studies show air quality in the Greater Sydney region will
not improve unless VKT is reduced by at least 20% of 1992 levels by 2021.
However, the State Government's target, recently announced in Action for
Air, the Air Quality Management Plan, is to end VKT growth by 2021, one
year after the NRMA target.

The spin doctors
Managing public relations for NRMA Clean Air 2000 are Hill and Knowlton,
one of the world's largest public relations firms. In 1993, their net
income from environmental public relations was $10 million. Hill and
Knowlton have an impressive resume. They have helped keep petrol taxes low
on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, campaigned for the American
Truckers Association and assisted the Chinese government with public
relations following the Tiananmen Square massacre. They are also well known
for designing the fictitious testimony of the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter
during the Gulf War. She posed as an ordinary Kuwaiti who had witnessed
Iraqi soldiers taking babies from humidi-cribs and killing them.

In addition, Hill and Knowlton conducted public relations work for
Clean Air 2000 partner Shell in Nigeria following the murder of Ogoni
leader Ken Saro Wiwa and helped the nuclear industry to come up with
assertions like "Nuclear power protects the public against an unacceptable
level of peril from air pollution".

The NRMA's slick blue skies campaign to promote reductions in air pollution
needs to be understood in the context of their attitude to road
construction. A quick glance at the history of road-building in Sydney
reveals that the NRMA have supported every freeway proposed by the Roads
and Traffic Authority, including the controversial Eastern Distributor. The
latest issue of 'Open Road' (the NRMA magazine), argues that the M5 East
needs to be built in time for the 2000 Olympics. This is despite fierce
community opposition and the fact that a parallel heavy rail line is under
construction.

Tunnel vision
In March the NRMA announced details for at least nine major projects. Most
of these were for motorways and busways. In particular, the NRMA stressed
that the construction of a tunnel under the CBD needs to take place before
any light rail extensions. They claim light rail vehicles will interfere
with car movements and cause traffic delays. This ignores the fact that
origins and destinations of most CBD traffic is in the CBD itself, making a
tunnel irrelevant. A construction like the William Street Tunnel is likely
to cost somewhere between $600 and $800million.

According to Felix Laube, a Swiss transport engineer currently working in
Sydney, "Sydney needs light rail. It could solve a lot of problems and
improve access." Laube has worked for the Zurich Transit Authority, World
Bank and the International Union of Transit Providers.

When asked about whether light rail would make CBD traffic conditions
worse, he said: "You need to 'optimise' light rail and car movements at
intersections. This means time delays are reduced by programming traffic
lights to give light rail vehicles priority. The capacity of light rail is
greater than buses and the vehicles easier to enter and exit. Giving them
priority moves more people more quickly. This is how you really reduce
congestion."

Somalie Engineering, a French light rail company, has developed a piece of
software which could optimise movements at intersections for around three
million dollars. This would be preferable to spending hundreds of millions
on a motorway underpass.

It seems certain the William Street Tunnel would induce traffic growth in
the same way the Harbour Tunnel did. Three months after opening, an
additional 15,000 car trips per day were made on average through the
Harbour corridor. Increased car use under the CBD would increase air
pollution. Exhaust emissions would have to be pumped to the surface through
exhaust stacks as is the case with the Eastern Distributor. Most buildings
in the city have their air conditioning in-take vents at the same height.

Despite the inevitability that another tunnel would increase car use and
air pollution, the NRMA regards it as a priority. "We don't see the tunnel
as contradicting the overall Clean Air 2000 initiative." said Alan Finlay,
NRMA spokesperson. "The tunnel would help reduce car use by allowing people
to travel through the CBD more quickly. Our proposal is to make the CBD car
free. That tunnel is designed to let cars pass under the city." he said.

Committee for Sydney
The William Street Tunnel (which would act as an extension to the Eastern
Distributor) is supported by both the Lord Mayor of Sydney, Frank Sartor,
and the Committee for Sydney. The Committee for Sydney consists of 35 high
profile members, including lawyer Rod McGeogh, chair of the Clean Air 2000
taskforce. The Committee is modelled on the Committee for Melbourne who
were instrumental in promoting the $1.7billion CityLink motorway.

In fact, the Committee for Sydney has been involved in discussions with
financial and construction companies over options for the William Street
Tunnel. One of these is Macquarie Bank, who also organised the financing of
the Eastern Distributor.

The State Government are yet to announce their position on the William
Street Tunnel. With an election in just under a year, and public transport,
or the lack of it, on the minds of many voters, the Labor government will
need to show their commitment to real solutions. No matter how guilty the
Clean Air 2000 publicity might make people feel, if the public transport
does not exist where people live, they cannot use it.

It appears most people in Sydney are not being consulted about their real
transport needs. Instead a select group are putting forward the most
detailed proposals for the future of transport in Sydney. Under the guise
of blue skies, the future is concrete.

* Global Spin by Sharon Beder, Greenbooks 1997.








More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list