ANALYSIS: The real challenge is finding appropriate ways to invest in public transport that will not only take pressure off the system but also support improved travel on all modes, including cars, David Hensher writes.
The working year has not got off to a good start for Sydney trains and the New South Wales government. The rail network went into meltdown with chaos at many stations and trains delayed or cancelled. To add to this woe a 24-hour train driver strike (over pay increases) is planned for January 29, when most of the workforce will be back at work following the Australia Day holiday.
So what caused all of this? We will start with the immediate contributions but recognise that there is a longer story that starts from the inaction of past governments.
The January day of woes started with a major weather event. Lightning struck part of the rail network and closed sections down. Buses and coaches were called in to bypass the closed part of the network.
In addition, significant upgrade work at a major junction, Hornsby, was already affecting services, with buses being used to shuttle between stations in the upper north shore. The new timetable also had an impact. This had been in place since November but required more train drivers since services had increased significantly (especially frequency).
Then came a spike in patronage in January. This was partly expected, but not to the extent observed – especially from tourists using the system. Coupled with some services being cancelled due to too few train drivers being available (too many approved leave and not enough of those being trained ready to take over), and the travelling public was delivered a cocktail of chaos.
You could say that the Sydney train system has become a victim of its own success with the best patronage growth in years – 20% in the last 12 months. But the system clearly is struggling to cope with such success. The events in January, which were in part out of the control of the system (i.e. the extreme weather), have become a big continuing news story.
Crisis a long time in the making
In taking a closer look at what happened and being asked to explain why, one must step back and take a broader strategic assessment of public transport in general and trains in particular in Australia’s largest city.
Previous governments (at least over the ten years prior to the current Coalition government winning office) failed dismally in terms of actionable investment in public transport. Lots of plans led to no real action.
Since coming to power, the Coalition government has started to invest in better rail infrastructure and services. This includes the NorthWest rail, the Western Metro, station upgrades, major improvement in service levels, integrated ticketing (Opal) and better customer-focused communication and service. There has also been a significant increase in bus service capacity, as well as light rail initiatives.
However, rail investment in new corridors takes time and money. The first part of the enhanced network will only come on line in another year or so, with much of it listed for 2023. The catch-up is admirable, but is it enough?
Solutions must involve all transport modes
As population grows, as attitudes to car use change – the Millennials in particular are increasingly not getting drivers’ licences – and as tourism booms, there is a real risk that we may only be buying a few years of growth. And then we will be back to where we are today, with crowded stations and lack of coverage throughout the metropolitan area.
The sums being spent on rail improvements are significant but not enough to make a difference in delivering attractive capacity even for current users. But where will the money come from? The Coalition has prioritised investment in new public transport (train and bus), which is admirable, but more will clearly be needed if the government wants both to attract more people out of cars and manage an efficient and acceptable customer-focused rail and bus network.
With car travel dominating Sydney (typically 80% of all passenger trips),
even a small switch has an impact. A 1% shift from cars is equivalent to a 5% increase in public transport use. This is enough in itself to create severe crowding on the trains. In peaks, the crowding is often not dissimilar to the Tokyo metro where someone has to push people onto the trains so the doors can close!
So what to do? Industrial relations issues can be resolved in the short term. So too can delays due to network malfunctioning (for whatever reason). The real challenge is finding appropriate ways to invest in public transport that will not only take pressure off the system but also support improved travel on all modes (including the car).
We are unlikely ever to build our way out of this situation given expected funding. Specifically, hundreds of billions are required and not tens of billions. What we need, then, is a new funding model that looks at the entire transport system. This will have to deliver sufficient funds to keep pace with growing demand, while ensuring that those who benefit also pay for the benefit.
For example, some of the wealthiest people in Sydney who work in the city use heavily subsidised train services (over 80% of peak trips to the CBD are by bus and train). Why are they not paying more?
The response is that if we were to charge them more they would switch to using their car. Fair comment. But why not reform car use pricing as well? The time has come – we have had many inquiries and commentaries on the urgent need for road-pricing reform.
Revenue raised can be used to support all transport but in a way that we get a balanced multimodal system that aligns with the goals of a truly world city such as Sydney. It is never too late to start this journey.
David Hensher is Director, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article here.
Although road-pricing reform has been proposed for some years now, governments of either persuasion have been reluctant to adopt it because of a perceived political fall-out. It’s questionable if it’s needed in the Sydney CBD anyway as there is already a pricing disincentive to drive in the form of the limited and high cost of all-day parking. As pointed out, the CBD already has an extremely high proportion of public transport usage, unlike the broader Sydney Region. In this instance, there is a need for high standard road links, such as motorways/freeways to actually by-pass the CBD, not to funnel traffic into it, which is often erroneously portrayed by opponents.
There may be a case for introducing such a scheme to places like Parramatta and Chatswood, but even then the best way to control car usage is through the limits on long term parking. Short term parking will still be needed to support the viability of the regional shopping centres.
Macquarie Park is a different matter. It developed as a widely dispersed business park, where car parking is plentiful. Even with the rail line, soon to be converted to the metro, I doubt if car usage will be significantly reduced.
What is really needed is a more meaningful investment in upgrading the existing Sydney Trains’ network. Both Labor and Liberal governments alike have failed in this area over the last couple of decades and the chickens are now coming home to roost with the current disruption to services, particularly since the new timetable was introduced.
It’s all very well to construct a new metro system, which will inevitably be required, but despite assertions to the contrary, it will achieve very little in providing relief to the most congested part of the network on the Inner Western Line corridor from Granville to the CBD. Neither will the proposed West Metro. This is where funding for upgrading in the short to medium term should be focussed, not on the metro expansion.
The Christie Report in the early 2000’s under the then Labor government proposed a number of infrastructure upgrades to enable the network to meet the future demand. It included a future segregated metro system. A good start was made with the initial Clearways program, but it was never completed with several projects being cancelled. This is when the rot set in.
Instead of continuing to invest in the current network with track amplifications and signalling upgrades, they attempted to by-pass it with a new separate metro system, cannibalising parts of it. No doubt part of their thinking was to sideline the unions, because of the high operating costs, which nonetheless COULD be reduced if they had the intestinal fortitude and a willingness to confront the issue with the unions head-on.
Despite the attractiveness of a new driverless metro system, it will take many years before it can be expanded to the point where it will provide any meaningful relief to the existing network. We can’t wait that long. Further upgrading to the existing network should be prioritised to provide more immediate relief.
We need a Clearways 2.0 program to fast track upgrades to the existing network. The ultimate goal should be to expand capacity by way of track amplifications through the inner city for outer suburban express services and to untangle the network by providing completely separate lines through the CBD to eliminate merging.