Inner Sydney Mass Transit Options

In considering the transport needs of Inner Sydney, the unique attributes of all modes need to be considered in relation to the conditions in the CBD and Inner Sydney. The cheapest option in capital costs for meeting the growing public transport needs of Inner Sydney would be to continue with conventional diesel and CNG-powered buses. However this option is not considered to be sustainable into the future as travel demand rises:

• The number of State Transit Buses travelling to and from the CBD daily would rise from 7,400 per day now to 9,400 per day by 2021 to cater for increasing employment and population in the inner suburbs, and a small mode shift to public transport. There are also likely to be increased numbers of private buses and tourist coaches.
• This will add to the already existing noise, emissions and amenity impacts from buses in the city and on major arterials.
• It will also add to bus congestion and to problems with finding enough bus layover space.
• Buses operating in such numbers represent an inefficient use of resources, as operating costs are high because of slow speeds in congested conditions and the relatively limited capacity per vehicle.

• Providing priority for public transport
• Using higher capacity vehicles
• Introducing electrically powered modes

• Articulated diesel/CNG buses
• Guided electric bus-based systems
• Light rail
• Underground metro-rail
• Various forms of above-ground automated systems

Evaluation of the Options

• The Central Sydney Light Rail Strategic Context Study (Martin Walsh and Associates, 2003) examined this issue in depth, and found that light rail was the preferred mode for the CBD, scoring higher than the alternatives on most criteria, and in overall terms. The criteria considered were cost efficiency, service quality, external impacts and capacity (see graph opposite).
• A study by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2004b) compared the options of continuing with current buses, introducing high capacity buses, or introducing light rail for the CBD. It found light rail was the best or equal best option when evaluated against all criteria except for the cost of the necessary supporting infrastructure. (See table opposite).
• The Inner Sydney Transport Working Group examined options for various corridors in Inner Sydney, concluding that underground metro was the preferred mode for these corridors, followed by light rail, on the basis of all criteria except capital cost. However most Inner Sydney corridors only require 4,000 _ 8,000 passengers per track/lane per hour, even in twenty years time, and only the northern corridor has sufficient demand to justify the high cost (around $100 m per kilometre) and capacity (20,000 passengers / hour) of metro rail. (See Attachment 2 discussion).

Experience Elsewhere

• Over 100 cities have built new light rail / tramway systems, or expanded their existing systems, in the last decade (see attachment for full list). Altogether there are over 400 light rail systems now in operation world wide.
• By contrast, only around 10 cities have introduced guided bus systems, despite the first such system (the Adelaide 0-bahn) being first adopted two decades ago (see attachment).
• A number of cities are building busways, usually with conventional diesel or CNG powered buses. These are appropriate for suburban areas, particularly low density suburbs, where the flexibility and low capacity of buses matches the demand.
• However those cities which have invested heavily in buses have found it can create congestion problems for the city centre. For example, Brisbane had to build an underground bus station under Queen Street, and is now investing over 40 million for a one kilometre tunnel to link this to the Inner Northern Busway. This reflects the adverse impact of large numbers of buses in city centres, and the problems of congestion and inefficiency arising from trying to move too many buses through crowded city streets.

• Strasbourg re-introduced light rail in 1995, after previously abandoning its tram system. The initiative was combined with re-organising bus routes to feed the light rail, introduction of park and ride stations at 12 light rail stations and at the edge of the CBD, and pedestrianising the city centre. Total public transport patronage has jumped from 42 million before light rail to 78 million 8 years later, while the number of journeys (discounting transfers) has risen 56%.
• A key feature of the approach was the use of welldesigned interchanges, coupled with highly attractive Eurotrams operating at high frequencies. This allowed total capacity to be increased while reducing the number of buses in the city. The success of the approach has led to introduction of high capacity LRT vehicles carrying up to 270 passengers, while a fifth line and extensions to the other lines are to open in 2008.
• Portland in Oregon is another leading city in the light rail revolution, after a citizen movement stopped construction of a downtown motorway. The first line was opened in 1986, and was extended in 1988. Subsequently the Airport line and the red lines have opened, with the yellow line due to open shortly, with daily patronage expected to increase to close to 100,000.
• Following in Portland's footsteps have been many other US cities, including many of the cities most dependent on automobiles such as Phoenix, Houston, Dallas and Denver. Light rail patronage in US cities grew strongly in the 1990s to be over 320 million pa by the year 2000, up 12% on 1999, one reason why transit as a whole grew faster than use of automobiles in that decade. Patronage on many of the light rail systems exceeded expectations, such as Denver, where the Southwest corridor line was 56% ahead of Ridership projections, and Salt Lake City, where the TRAX system carried 20,000 passengers per day in 2000 compared with a predicted 14,000.
• Cities like Melbourne, which retained their tram networks, are now re-investing in modern, articulated easy-access light rail vehicles, upgrading their infrastructure with new super stops with real-time information and better passenger facilities, and are also extending their networks further into the suburbs.

More recently, several other guided bus systems have been developed or are under development, including:

• The TVR / GLT system developed by Bombardier, uses a mechanical guidance system provided by a central rail, with electrical power picked up by single or double overhead wires.
• The Translohr system, which also uses mechanical guidance with a track in the roadway.
• The CIVIS bus developed by IRISBUS, which uses optical guidance to allow articulated buses to pull in at stops more accurately. Buses can be diesel or CNG powered.
• Various systems using magnetic guidance, such as the Phileas system being developed in Eindhoven.

• Nancy, in France, has had to close its new TVR system for periods due to technical problems with the guidance system, and there have also been problems with blown tyres with some systems (UITP 2004).
• Another issue with guided buses is that the various systems being offered by suppliers are not compatible, as they use different guidance technologies. Consequently a decision to purchase a system can lock a city into a single vehicle supplier.
• A third issue is that none have been in operation for long enough (other than the O-Bahn, which is not relevant for Sydney CBD or inner suburbs) for confidence as to their long run operating costs.

Affordability and Cost-Effectiveness

• The Cross-City Tunnel, estimated to cost around $1 billion, and other major road projects totalling well over $10 billion in the last decade.
• Major heavy rail projects such as the Airport Rail Line ($900 million), Epping Chatswood line ($1.6 billion), and Rail Clearways project ($1 billion).

Integration of Modes

However buses will remain the most practical option for some inner Sydney corridors, as well as for middle and outer suburbs. Similarly heavy rail and ferries will continue to play a key role in Sydney's transport system. Heavy rail provides the backbone for high capacity, longer distance travel, and the system needs upgrading, with a new link between Central and Chatswood required by 2015-2020 to handle increased commuting from the outer south-western and north-western suburbs. There is also need for further growth in ferry services to service the redevelopments along the Parramatta River.

A fully integrated, multimodal system is needed with:

Public Transport Priority. This will need to be extended from the current bus lane system to include separate rights of way where possible, shared transitways with pedestrians and light traffic, and signal priority at intersections.

Conclusion

Inner Sydney needs an upgraded mass transit system. The key initiative is to introduce a light rail system on major routes, as indicated both by evaluations undertaken in Sydney and by experience overseas. This network needs to be fully integrated with all other modes including a rationalised bus system.

South-East Queensland achieved an immediate 10% lift in public transport patronage earlier this year when it introduced the world's largest integrated fares network, covering the region between Noosa and the NSW Border.

Light rail vehicles are electrically powered, with no local emissions and low noise, enable fast loading and unloading and have proven passenger appeal. Their full guidance on tracks allows higher capacity vehicles, reducing congestion and improving efficiency. Their characteristics make them more compatible with pedestrians and cyclists and with the needs and environment of the CBD and Inner Sydney, than conventional buses