Uncategorized

Independent Sydney public transport plan released

<span class="" id="parent-fieldname-description"> An independent public inquiry released its own long term public transport plan for Sydney, just one week before the NSW Government released its transport blueprint. </span> <p>At 450-pages, the inquiry’s report, which is intended to inform future decisions by governments on Sydney’s transport priorities, is regarded to be one of the most substantial plans on long-term public transport for Sydney to date.<br /> Dr Garry Glazebrook, who has been heavily involved in the <em>Sydney Morning Herald </em>inquiry, speaks with <em>Rail Express</em> about the report’s key solutions to Sydney’s long-standing public transport issues.</p> <p>RE: What are some of the key recommendations of the report for the integration of Sydney’s existing public transport services and infrastructure as well as future expansions of these?</p> <p>GG: Firstly, we recommended delaying the previous government’s idea of a whole new standalone metro system, as we believed this was not the right priority at this time. Interestingly, this seems to have been reflected to some degree in what the government have put in their recently released transport blueprint. <br /> One of our first priorities, which is based on a “European” scenario for the development of the city, is to extend and really make the most of our heavy rail system – to build the North West and South West rail links and to start as soon as possible. While this was also reflected in the government’s blueprint, they have said they won’t start building the NW rail link until 2017. <br /> We also recommended extending Sydney’s light rail system, which the government has also decided to do.<br /> Another key thing the report identified was the need for integrated fares in Sydney. We have to get rid of the transfer penalty between modes or services which would then enable a re-orientation of actual services. So for example, you wouldn’t have to have all buses coming into the city, you could have more cross regional routes linking with light rail and so forth. The Government has made a start in that area with the “My Zone” announcement, but this needs to be taken further.</p> <p><br /> RE: Sydney has a poor history of political ‘football’ when it comes to transport planning. What kinds of governance arrangements does the report recommend?</p> <p>The report recommends that Sydney needs a new organisation which we dubbed ‘Transport for Sydney’ – a multimodal agency which would organise all modes of transport in Sydney in an integrated way. This organisation has to be at arm’s length from government, somewhat removed from day to day political interference, if you like. It needs to have a long-term secure funding base and has to fit in with both the long term land-use plan for Sydney on the one hand, but also fit in with all the transport operations. This agency would effectively come up with a long term plan for the design of the public transport system for Sydney and all of the various service operators which is renewed every four years. This is so Sydney’s transport plan can be something that the whole of Sydney believes in and will be implemented steadily over time.</p> <p><br /> RE: What kinds of recommendations does the report make for short and long term funding?</p> <p>The inquiry carried out extensive market research to find out how many people in Sydney would be prepared to pay for an improved transport system. We found they that 62% favoured high investment in public transport, 21% high investment in roads, and 17% low investment in transport generally. Overall we estimated that the public would be willing to pay for additional capital spending over the next three decades of around $36bn. This is sufficient to fund many major public transport expansions, but not everything one would wish for. So our preferred approach involved priority for extending and expanding heavy rail, light rail and bus-based systems, and with about 50% of new spending in Western Sydney. This meant delaying the metros which would be focussed mainly in the eastern suburbs. We recommended a mix of higher fares, charges on motorists (parking, congestion charges) and a new household based levy, which in combination with some funding from the Commonwealth and from business was sufficient to cover the additional operating costs and interest as well as the additional capital expenditure required.</p> <p>RE: How does the plan address key environmental and sustainability issues?</p> <p>The plan enables a doubling of public transport and a tripling of walking/ cycling over the next thirty years. Together with a small (10%) reduction in per capita travel, this means that total vehicle kilometres of travel should be held constant, despite 30% population growth. Rail-based modes can be switched to green power, and energy efficiency measures for cars and buses will mean oil usage and greenhouse gas emissions from Sydney’s transport can be reduced by more than 50% over the next three decades.</p> <p>RE: The report is the first of two, which are intended to inform decisions on Sydney’s public transport priorities by future governments over the next 30 years. How has the NSW Government and Opposition reacted to the report so far?</p> <p>The government appears to have accepted the inquiry’s recommendations in a number of areas, including scrapping the CBD metro, extending light rail, re-instating the NW rail link, and introducing a small increase in registration charges for cars over a certain weight. It has also re-stated its support for its own “City of Cities” Metropolitan strategy, which was released in 2005 and envisaged growth in centres such as Parramatta as well as the CBD.<br /> The Opposition already favoured construction of the NW rail link, light rail and reform of the arrangements for transport planning and delivery. The hardest part for both Government and Opposition will be agreeing to new funding measures. It will be interesting to see how their respective policies develop in the run up to the election in 2011.</p>