In February 2010 the NSW Government released its Metropolitan Transport Plan. It invited public comment on the document, with a closing date of 30 April 2010. This submission by Action for Public Transport is in response to that invitation.
The release of the Metropolitan Transport Plan (MTP) had been long awaited but oft deferred. Perhaps because of this, public expectations of its content may have grown over-optimistic. Instead of a long term, public-transport-based plan for ridding Sydney of its car-dependency, we got a list of transport projects which, in budget terms, the government considered were affordable. We now conclude that the document's title was misleading.
After discussing the MTP with our peers, advisers, and the Premier's office, we realised the document was primarily a list of funding allocations for the next ten years, and that it was more a product of Treasury forecasters than of transport planners. Any additional transport improvements which might become necessary within the specified 25-year horizon (p.3) were mentioned, but were lacking in detail. We suggest the government now proceed to prepare a genuine metropolitan transport plan which will forecast the options for the physical shape of the ultimate CityRail heavy rail network, long term options for likely light rail transit (LRT), and likely developments of intermediate technologies such as metro.
For the record, the release of the MTP also needs to be placed in political context. It was released in an atmosphere of abrupt changes to government policy regarding the public transport infrastructure projects it intended to build. This was especially true of “Metros”. In the public's mind, those changes had more to do with changes in the leadership of the ruling political party in NSW rather than any process of professional transport planning. As a result, the public might be excused for being cynical about the proposals detailed in the MTP, and especially about the promise that the projects are “fully funded” (Premier's Foreword, p.3).
We nevertheless welcome the plan, distilled to a single document, which facilitates the public's involvement in designing Sydney's future. As transport consumers – passengers – we are principally concerned with the ease of use of public transport, and its relationship with land use, which has the potential to minimise the need to travel in the first place.
We note that it was intended that the MTP should be read in conjunction with the government's Metropolitan Strategy Review, released in March 2010. This submission is restricted to commenting on the MTP. The comments are in the same order as they appear in the MTP.
If we accept the MTP as only a list of those projects which the government guarantees to fund over the next ten years, then we need another document which shows how those projects prepare Sydney for completing its “ultimate” transport network. Every change to a transport network, and especially a rail network, needs to contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of the ultimate network. Everything which is built in the next ten years should contribute to the efficiency of an agreed ultimate network. This agreed ultimate network has yet to be defined. In the MTP, the Government has not stated how its ten-year-funded projects will lead toward that ultimate plan.
While roads expansion may be necessary “to support freight movements”, there appears to be no strategy for discouraging motorists from immediately absorbing such expansion for private car use.
The amalgamation of a number former departments into NSW Transport & Infrastructure (NSWTI) and the creation of a single transport budget (p.16) should reduce the historic and infamous roads bias in transport funding. However, the “silo” syndrome, if it has been suppressed at all, may re-emerge with the creation of the MDA. We recommend that the government issue as soon as possible an organisation chart showing the relationships, but more importantly the accountabilities, of the new agencies, and their relationships to the portfolio ministers involved.
This concept presumably provides the additional capacity which was to have been provided by the now abandoned Parramatta to Chatswood and Metro West rail projects. Given that WECR is claimed to be fully funded, the MTP provides scant detail of the project(s). We recommend the early release of more information about them, and in particular, the proposed Wynyard Terminal station. How can the capital and operational costs of reversing 12-car trains be justified for an extended period? Why, in a 25-year plan, is there no commitment for extending beyond Wynyard Terminal, or any reference as to how any such extension will contribute to network efficiency?
The government's very recent embracing of LRT raises questions about the planning process. Is it simply the Premier's “we have listened” response to some self-appointed transport experts in Sydney's inner west? Why should the Barangaroo line connect with the existing line at Haymarket? How can six-services-an-hour be so confidently assured at this stage of planning? How did the Dulwich Hill corridor achieve priority over other, already intensively used corridors such as Anzac Parade, which also has an “under-utilised” right-of-way?
We recommend the release of the LRT patronage, route-definition, and cost-benefit studies for public scrutiny at the earliest possible date.
Of all the proposals in the MTP, the strongest response from our members and advisors is that the North West and South West Rail Links should be significantly advanced in the budgeting and construction calendar. We also detect continuing public support for a rail link between the western suburbs and the “global economic corridor” - Macquarie to North Sydney. Sydney has severe road congestion now. These three heavy rail projects need to be completed, or well advanced, within the 25 year horizon of the MTP.
We support the MTP's “City of Cities” philosophy, but the document is weak on inter-centre rail connectivity, mentioning it only as a long term “consideration” (p.43). We suggest a much stronger commitment to inter-centre rail is desirable within the plan's 25-year horizon.
As mentioned above, the MTP gives no hint as to the shape of the ultimate CityRail network. A glaring omission is if, or how, the new Wynyard Terminal might connect to lines on the north side of the harbour.
We welcome the commitment to purchase new ferries. Harbour-side residential density is likely to increase significantly in the next 25 years. We are disappointed that no new ferry routes or wharves are planned. As a document primarily concerned with funding, the plan should also canvass options for reducing revenue loss through fares leakage.
We are disappointed that the MTP does not seriously consider road pricing. Many of Sydney's car journeys are under-priced and such travel must surely be the cause of much of the dreaded road congestion. We believe aggressive road pricing offers a solution. It should be embraced with vigour.
We are concerned that the M2 and M5 motorway widenings are programmed ahead of the North West and Parramatta – Epping rail links. This road capacity increase may be required for freight and commerce, but the government needs to specify how it intends to prevent this capacity being absorbed by private car use.
We are opposed to the government's continuing support for the M4East motorway (p.43). Inner-city radial freeways are long out of date.
Walking is by far the most common form of transport in Sydney. The MTP does not even recognise it, perhaps because to Treasury, it doesn't cost anything. This may be yet another reason why we still need a proper transport plan, as distinct from a Treasury forecast.
Abrupt changes in government transport policy over the last five years have resulted in much wastage of government funds and delays in the commissioning of new facilities. We want to see evidence of reform on the government's part to remove these encumbrances to good governance.
There is no plan for marketing Sydney's public transport system as a single brand. The current plethora of brand names (CityRail, Metro, Veolia, ...) serve no useful purpose other than to differentiate “product” in a competitive sense. Such distinctions are actually counter productive in urban public transport services. They are a disincentive to inter-modal travel and to new patronage. “Sydney Transit”, for example, could be implemented at little cost.
As the MTP is essentially a funding guarantee document, it is disappointing that there is no discussion of the funding options available. Federal funding is only hinted at (p.3). Public-private partnerships (PPPs) will almost certainly play a role. Given the uneasy record of PPPs in NSW, this form of funding mix deserves open discussion now.
The removal of the station access fees on the Airport Line stations may not be a planning matter, but the fees are certainly a disincentive to rail travel. Since the MTP concerns itself with funding, consideration should be given to finding ways of removing the access fees in order to encourage greater use of the existing infrastructure and services.
The MTP doesn't say much about integrated fares or tickets, despite the high cost of the smartcard project. Surely the smartcard project is funded! Why doesn't this 25-year plan discuss the costs and benefits of smartcard, and how it is expected to impact on Sydney's public transport system?
In an era concerned with peak oil, global warming, and sustainability, a 25-year transport plan might be expected to make at least some reference to the likelihood of, and provision for, long distance high speed rail services.
We would appreciate the Government's response to each of the matters raised herein.
(Kevin Eadie)
Convener
Action for Public Transport (NSW) Inc.
26 April 2010