http://www.aptnsw.org.au/
Mr. Sam Haddad
Director General
Planning NSW
GPO Box 39, Sydney, 2001.
(email – metrostrategy@planning.nsw.gov.au)
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your March 2010 invitation to participate in this review. In February and March 2010, the NSW government released two discussion papers, The Metropolitan Transport Plan (MTP) and the Metropolitan Strategy Review (MSR). Action for Public Transport (APT) responded to the former on 26 April 2010. It is posted here.
This submission set out to respond to the latter discussion paper. We felt that there was an imbalance between the broader goals of the MSR and the narrower available-funding considerations of the MTP.
The MTP's expansion of the M2 and M5 motorways, combined with the Western Express CityRail project, seems to over-emphasise CBD access at the expense of access to the lesser “City of Cities” centres, which is the theme of the MSR. Our MTP submission also sought an earlier start and completion of rail-based access to the various centres, a strategy which we would argue is suitably aligned with the MSR.
We have long held the view that as Sydney grows, so will the need for new high-capacity rail links, unencumbered (where it is practical to achieve this) by the 1920s technology and operational constraints of the CityRail network. We have also argued in favour of the potential economies available through intertwining the two, rather than isolated operation, as was proposed for Sydney Metro. We are disappointed that Sydney Metro has been abandoned, and that the MSR only hints at its possible resurrection (Planning for high capacity....p 13). The MSR's grid pattern of services post 2036 (p 15) seems to confirm our fears that Planning NSW places all its hopes in bus services instead of high-capacity rail.
Lacking in-house expertise to competently analyse the MSR, we cast around for external opinions which might assist us in preparing a submission. In that process we encountered the MSR submission prepared by Mr. Peter Mills, whose understanding of transport networks we have long respected.
We find Mr Mills' submission to be considered and enlightening. It offers a credible alternative approach that addresses many of our concerns. It reinforces our thoughts (above), exploring high-capacity rail in much greater detail. We thus attach the three papers which constituted his submission. As they are inter-related, they should be read together. We acknowledge that Mr. Mills has already submitted the same papers on his own behalf. The papers are titled-
All of the above conveniently ignores the so-called elephant in the room. We refer to the forthcoming state election and the fact that it is politicians, not planners, who ultimately make the big decisions on urban transport. But this submission must necessarily be confined to commenting on the MSR.
Yours sincerely,
(signed) Kevin Eadie
Convener
Action for Public Transport (NSW) Inc.
25 May 2010.
(3 attachments)