Action for Public Transport (NSW)

Dear Mr. Christie,

In releasing your preliminary report of the Independent Public Inquiry for a Long-Term Public Transport Plan for Sydney on 13 February 2010, the Sydney Morning Herald invited responses from the public, with a closing date of 8 March 2010. We are pleased to accept.

We commend you, your team, the financiers, and the Herald, for initiating the Inquiry and producing a remarkably readable and comprehensive report. It is all the more commendable when seen in the light of the comparatively inferior report on the same subject released by the NSW State Government a week later.

In choosing to explore the “European” growth model as the most likely course of Sydney's expansion you appear to have backed the same horse as the state government.

We have few criticisms, other than to recommend further analysis of the following topics. We hope this will enhance the value of your final report -

1. - “Intertwining” of CityRail and Metro railways-

We are aware of some submissions, including our own, recommending the gradual introduction of “Metro” style rail services, using portions of, but not necessarily sharing, some existing CityRail tracks and infrastructure. It can be a cost-effective way of incrementally improving rail services, leading to an optimally mixed, CityRail+Metro network. This approach offers considerable potential for reducing capital costs. The ultimate network would have shorter journeys made on Metro lines and longer journeys in conventional CityRail double-deck trains with their higher seating capacity. We suggest this needs further study.

2. - The Warringah Peninsula-

In your “European” model Sydney's north-eastern suburbs gain only bus services. The government's plan assumes likewise. We would have thought that the Warringah Peninsula, with its attractive climate and geography, would attract high density residential development in the long term, sufficient to warrant a rail-based transport system. This could happen in defiance of government policies directed at encouraging development elsewhere.

The long, narrow, form of the high-activity coastal strip lends itself to good service from a single route of a high capacity mode. The necessary land and strata corridors need to be defined and preserved as soon as practicable.

3. - Light Rail -

Your light rail proposals appear to have been adopted directly from an earlier Glazebrook plan. They lack substantiation. We are concerned that forced transfers between modes can discourage public transport use. A rather glaring example is your proposal for transfer between bus and light rail on the relatively high-patronage Victoria Road corridor at Drummoyne, in your European model. Perhaps your final report can help dispel this concern. Where light rail is proposed for mixing with other street traffic, due regard should be given to the fact that two generations of Sydney motorists have had no experience of mixing with trams. Operational difficulties might prevail for some years until those drivers learn to deal with the new phenomenon of the tram.

4. - Ferries -

We believe the retention of large ferries is justified on Sydney Harbour. A more detailed response will be provided in a separate submission.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Eadie
Convener
Action for Public Transport (NSW) Inc.