Assumptions you could drive a train through
- Author:
- Shant Fabricatorian
- Posted:
- Thursday, 24 September 2009
The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the CBD Metro has been put on display until October 12 at various public locations (although it was not on display at Leichhardt Library as advertised). Already copping a lot of flak from locals and experts alike, key problems identified include cost, effect on Rozelle’s streetscape, the six-year-long construction timetable and the fact that it represents, at best, a questionable use of resources when other transport projects should have priority. There are even claims that the State Government is using its enhanced planning powers to push through a project which is not part of an integrated transport policy, but rather to create a ‘hero’ project to freshen up Sydney’s big-city status.
This project could, and in all likelihood will, easily blow the $5.3 billion earmarked for it. Even allowing for the potential of extension to the west at an (unspecified) future date, transport experts say this is a huge sum of money to spend on a branch line when there are rail projects dotted all over Sydney which have been deferred or simply abandoned in the last twenty years. It might certainly be put to better use preventing the huge commuter bottlenecks currently developing in the city’s north-west and south-west.
Remarkably, according to Sydney Metro, peak-time patronage figures are in fact expected to be even lower than those previously incorrectly reported in the media. “The Environmental Assessment has revised the estimate for the year 2016 to 12,500 – 16,500; the number reported (21,000 – 28,000) is for 2031, some 15 years later,” a spokesperson said.
The entire full-time working population of the Leichhardt Local Government Area (LGA) was about 20,000 at the 2006 census, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). ABS census figures also show that 19 per cent of adults in Sydney used public transport, and a further five per cent either walked or cycled as their main form of transport to work or study. Using 20,000 as a baseline and assuming that 4,000 people in the entire LGA use public transport to commute, passengers coming from the Rozelle Metro ‘public transport catchment area’ could reasonably be expected to make up, at most, one-quarter of this daily figure, or 1,000 people. So the bulk of trips are going to be made by commuters, resulting in hundreds of buses a day stopping at the station.
A dedicated bus lane is proposed on the city-bound side of Victoria Road, and a large bus terminus on the outbound side. Bus passengers from the west will need to walk 60 metres to the entrance, another 20 metres through a narrow tunnel, and then descend 35 metres underground to the platform on the outbound side of Victoria Road, using three sets of escalators (see above). This is one-and-a-half times deeper than the lowest platform level at the City Circle Town Hall station, or about the same as the height of an eight-storey building.
Sydney Metro strongly tout the benefits of the increased pedestrian safety and amenity on what must be one of the nastiest inner-city intersections in Sydney. Unfortunately, the concourse will be located three metres underground, and people may still prefer to wait for the lights rather than going up and down escalators to cross under Victoria Road through a fluoro-lit, three-metre-square pedestrian tunnel.
Back in the Bradfield coal age, the mindset of the autocratic state government was that people needed to be led, not take part in the planning process. For all intents and purposes, it seems that sentiment is well and truly alive in Macquarie Street today. And if you live in the inner city and are unlucky enough to be on the back of a napkin in the Parliament House lunchroom – them’s the breaks.
by Jeremy Brown
N.B. Since the Independent went to press, we have been informed by Sydney Metro the EA is at the information desk within Leichhardt Library and posters are in place to let the community know it is on display.
September 26th, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
This is a very strange, backward-looking article. Back in the Bradfield age itself, or even further. Before we had electricity, maybe? I am quite interested in the Metro, as I live in Rozelle, and had no trouble finding the information Jeremy indicated he couldn’t. Presumably that’s because Metro are some sort of evil conspirators trying to keep us in the dark.
They are trying to build us a modern public transport system Jeremy! Why is that such a problem for you? That you will have to go three meters underground to walk safely across the road? Are you sure! What is the real problem here, Jeremy Brown?
Whose interests are you representing? Its not the commuters, or the people like me who live in Rozelle.
I think you probably go to the bridge which carries the Bradfield’s name – The Sydney Harbor Bridge – and groan like Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, “the horror, the horror”
Am I wrong Jeremy? Are you one of those grumpy old men who can’t see anything positive about change and the modern world?
BTW, there isn’t a chance in the world The Harbour Bridge would have been built in your ideal world. In fact, nothing would happen at all.
Crawl back into your cave Jeremy Brown. Why is this reactionary junk being published in a local newspaper?
Nat
September 28th, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
Bradfield, as I was taught in history, was the visionary who designed the Harbour Bridge. A progressive, an agent of change, a brilliant, single minded intellect whose force of will and ambition propelled our city from a colonial backwater into a first world city. And in the process, gave us an engineering icon which still defines us, eighty years later.
A “problem”, according to Jeremy Brown, follower of the regressive philosophy which defines this new publication. Jeremy would have been up there with the fascist New Guard, trying to turn back the clock, to stop the ribbon from being cut. Now he wants to do that to Rozelle too.
He will fail, I’m sure of it. These people are scared of the modern world, Nat You seem like a kindred spirit, I’m glad you live in Rozelle like me. We are in the majority, despite what these odd publications like Village Voice and the Independent say.
Maybe I’ll bump into you some time? I go to the markets a lot, About Life and Piccolo Padre
September 29th, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
September 26th, 2009 @ 2:45 pm Natalia said,
I live in Rozelle, and had no trouble finding the information Jeremy indicated he couldn’t.
I went on the Monday after the launch and the two librarians I asked did not know. Although one helpfully suggested I should walk up to the Town Hall.
Presumably that’s because Metro are some sort of evil conspirators trying to keep us in the dark.
Its not a evil conspiracy it’s an expensive bureaucracy.
They are trying to build us a modern public transport system Jeremy! Why is that such a problem for you?
In my opinion the really new technologies are light, low-energy, redeployable, low-footprint and autonomous. Any sort of rail, cars are ok if they shrink about 50%, Buses are a pain but needed for peak hour. Cycling is noble. Walking is good for you. There’s nothing wrong with cars or trains in tunnels.
My Problem – I think what really worries me is the ad hoc nature of your planning. And among the hundred other things, the fact that this huge project is going to take maybe ten years and be a real nuisance in terms of dust and noise pollution, vehicle and pedestrian inconvenience and that for a big group of the older residents of the LGA it is going to take the rest of their lives and they will get nothing from it except falling land prices and health problems.
That you will have to go three meters underground to walk safely across the road? Are you sure! What is the real problem here, Jeremy Brown?
I am sure a few people have been run down at that intersection! But really, forcing pedestrians underground is to make better traffic flow topside. Just maintains the status quo, really.
Whose interests are you representing? Its not the commuters, or the people like me who live in Rozelle.
I’m not an advocate for anyone – I think anybody should be allowed an opinion, including me. People who drive to work aren’t evil. Some of my best friends live in Rozelle.
I think you probably go to the bridge which carries the Bradfield’s name – The Sydney Harbor Bridge – and groan like Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, “the horror, the horror”
The Harbour Bridge is one of the heavy engineering marvels of the world, maintained in top quality by the government, extremely useful and fun to drive or cycle over. Brando – I liked him better in ‘Last Tango in Paris’.
Am I wrong Jeremy? Are you one of those grumpy old men who can’t see anything positive about change and the modern world?
Yes you are. No I am not.
BTW, there isn’t a chance in the world The Harbour Bridge would have been built in your ideal world. In fact, nothing would happen at all.
I don’t have an ideal world. I try to work in this one.
Crawl back into your cave Jeremy Brown. Why is this reactionary junk being published in a local newspaper?
I am sorry you found my article so offensive as to make you compare me to a cave-man. You can stop having the newspaper for free any time if you don’t like it!
September 30th, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
Nat, it is being published on behalf of a political party – The Liberals, through their front groups and patsies. The Greens have joined in because they have done a deal for the seat of Balmain. This media group has willingly gone along with that
October 2nd, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Nat raises a good question about “representing interests”.
To be fair to Jeremy, I don’t think he has a clue about what’s going on here. I thought that about his whole story and the statement in reply to nat about “noble” acts proves it. Save us please from people acting politically out of their sense of nobility!
And anyway, forget the political maneuvering. That is obvious and banal. The seat of Balmain is marginal. The Libs think they can get it if they deal with the Greens, and they are well advanced in their plans. Or vice versa, essentially its the same thing.
The interest groups affected most directly are not the property owners (their losses will be very temporary), but those involved in the operation and construction consortiums bidding for the Metro. They include Downer EDI Rail, Bovis Lend Lease, Veolia (the present light rail operators) Theiss, John Holland, Siemens, Lang O’Rourke and of course, Macqaurie Capital Group.
Lots of money there Jeremy, some of it – the Greens keep telling us – might be flowing freely in certain directions. Even to (and who would have guessed it?) political parties, local councils and their publishing agents and various other transport lobby groups who claim to speak on behalf of the environment or the community.
You still with me Jeremy?
Now that the two preferred tenderers have been announced, we can expect a lot more stories like yours in the “free” press.
But I really do hope that you are not doing it for “free”.
That would take “nobility” too far. And anyway, I would call it something else.
October 3rd, 2009 @ 8:01 am
I’m not as angry as when I called you a caveman Jeremy, but I still think you are either seriously deluded or you are blinded by a reactionary ideology. That noble stuff about bike riding indicates both.
It is not a “free” newspaper Jeremy, it is paid for by someone. It should be obvious who, even to you. If you are writing it for free and believe that you are just expressing your opinion, then you have been misled.
It is not even a newspaper. A newspaper does not express only one opinion. The same “opinion” that the Liberal Party and News Ltd have.
You were either commissioned to write that article, or you volunteered because you are “noble”. Which was it Jeremy?
I wasn’t going to bother arguing with your reply, it it just nonsense. If you are concerned with old people why do you expect them to walk to the light rail stop in Lilyfield? Or do you think they should be noble and ride a bike too?
But when you mention house prices, then I get your point. All resident, community political action is concerned with property values. The whole focus of your concerns is selfish and reactionary, like the North Shore demonstrators last weekend
So are you and so is your “free” newspaper. I don’t like it, and nor do any of the Rozelle people I talk to. They are not the business owners who have property affected, they are the ordinary people, and your “free” newspaper does not speak for them. Your paper is paid for by property interests and the power elite.
Of course its a “free” paper and we can all take it or leave it. That at least is good advice Jeremy, thank you for offering it.
Nat
October 5th, 2009 @ 7:19 am
Nat, Russell, you are both on the wrong track! I thought this publication was being funded too and I posted that (moderated out of existence) a couple of days ago in response to this bizarre story – and all the other anti Labor anti Metro propaganda being churned out by this lot of right-on zealots
But since then I’ve figured it out. The Libs and all the other Metro players couldn’t give a stuff about the Independent and City Hub. Why should they? They don’t even need to pay them. The publisher is supporting them and doing all this out of the kindness of his heart! Or as poor silly, deluded Jeremy bizarrely suggested, because he is blessed with a sense of “nobility”.
Why do I see old men with grey beards, and righteous fury in their eyes?
Red Ted
October 8th, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
Thank you all for your comments. Natalia, who has her finger on the pulse of reactionary thinking, Red Ted who is obviously a deep thinker on political matters, Rachell with her keen knowledge of the important place the Harbour Bridge plays in our lives and Russell who obviously has a bit of inside knowledge on the financial side of things.
Unfortunately none of you have answered any of the issues I raised in the original article about cost, effectiveness and transport planning in general. None of you has made a single constructive criticism of what I said, but instead seem to be singing from the Sydney Metro EA songbook.
The first point I want to make is the use of the term modern with respect to city metros. The Paris metro was built in the 19th century! This ‘new’ metro is really just heavy rail with driverless high speed trains and carriages. And I want to make it clear that in my opinion there is nothing wrong with the metro concept as such. But I think there are serious problems with this particular metro:
It is very expensive for what it does (even if it is going to be extended in 10 or 20 years time)
it will take too long to build (as long as the Harbour Bridge took).
It has the potential to turn Rozelle into a bus terminus like Bondi Junction.
Public consultation has been almost zero and planning has been secretive – frankly, the EA presents as a fait accompli.
Any reference to the future metros to the South, North, West and East lack any dates at all. All we know is that they will be far in the future.
There is a considerable body of opinion among local town planners and transport experts that it is the wrong way to go about it.
NSW transport history is littered with failed rail projects and this could easily become another one.
With regard to comments about nobility I hate to say it, but I was being a little bit sarcastic, thinking of the image of cyclists struggling up a steep hill in the wind and rain. I think Sydney is the wrong place for bikes – the traffic is heavy and the topography is hilly. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.
Finally I think that mounting such a personal attack on someone you don’t know is very rude and indicates a colossal arrogance. Everybody in this society has a right to make their opinion known, and everyone has the right to disagree. But not by character assasination – you need to answer the questions, not shoot the messenger.
October 9th, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Forget the personal attacks Jeremy. If you write political opinion for publication, expect it.
In this case there are several reasons.
Money: I do about that stuff. $5+ billion is a lot. Whether or not that is not that is being spent wisely is immaterial. What most people are focused on is that it is being spent. The person who printed your story is. If you are not getting some of it by writing in their interests, what does make you?
Political: An ideological warrior, maybe? Forgive me (and I wasn’t alone) for not seeing the irony of your “nobility”. Being a cyclist (mostly ex, these days), I can see it – now that you have pointed it out. I find it quite funny. But cyclists are not known for their sense of humour. Or tolerance.
“Red Ted” does pinpoint a problem. That person, who I do know, is an ex-Green, who left the party after their role in the inner west as the new DLP was being developed. If you know a bit of recent political history in Australia, maybe you’ll also appreciate the bitterness. The DLP were Labor people who split from the ALP in the late 50s, and for the next 30 years, dedicated themselves to fighting and blocking the ALP left, hence ensuring the Coalition stayed in power. This is what the Greens in the inner west (and inner city Melbourne) are doing now. They have declared war on the left because they see them as the obstacles. The Inner West Independent is being paid for by them (via Barry O’Farrell’s man Jamie Parker), hence there there is some bad political blood around. You stepped (unwittingly?) right into the centre of that fight.
Local interest: The inner west will benefit from the Metro. Why would you think local commuters (and especially local business) would support a campaign against their interests? Your publisher has made a calculation that he can too. But he is a local publisher and has done that by taking for granted the financial support (and assuming he can deliver) of one very opportunistic local politician.
That, Jeremy, where those slings and arrows – which have apparently bothered you – are coming from. You’d be mad to let them bother you.
If you are convinced you are RIGHT, thats all that matters. But its worth pointing out, not all urban planners agree with you. Nor do those of us who LIKE living in vibrant, sustainable cities.
October 10th, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Jeremey needs to get a thicker skin. The poor dear… But if he writes anti Metro stories in a Rozelle newspaper, what does he expext? That we going to applaud him for wanting that money spent elsewhere? Or no train at all? And he looks back to bicycles and trams.
Jeremey, we live here and work here. Do you? It is OUR future you and your newspaper are campaigning against. And guess what? We don’t like it!
October 11th, 2009 @ 11:30 am
I was pointed to your newspaper. Someone told me it was a Leichhardt Greens publication. Though I live in Rozelle, I had not seen it before. I read the anti Metro stories and quotes from the Greens, and all the comments here with interest.
What a pity I voted for them. Now I feel like a fool.
As for Jeremy’s story, enough has been said already, and I agree with most of the criticisms. I am not singing from Metro’s songbook Jeremy, but you got it wrong.
Once the Greens were telling us we needed more public transport and that there too many people living here already. Now you are contradicting them, saying we don’t and there are not enough of us.
The only things new in the story was that it was planned on a “napkin” (the Liberal Party line is “back of an envelope”. How did you get that wrong Jeremy?). And that those of us who live in Rozelle will be too terrified of modern technology to use an escalator.
Were you serious? You insult us. You want to deny us a Metro. You slant together a few selective “facts” and accuse lots of professional people of gross incompetence. Then you get all sniffy at those who took you to task? Of course they think you are an idiot or a party stooge. Now I do too.
The stuff about how expensive it all is and how we the inner city shouldn’t get it comes from directly from the Liberal Party. They want to spend it in seats they think they can win in outer Sydney.
If that accurately represents where the Greens are now coming from – I feel like a double fool.
Ok, so you are not a professional writer. They wouldn’t get all teary if they ruffled a few feathers. But I do wonder why you wrote it, because its not opinion as in a letter to the editor, like the ones party hacks churn out for the local papers. It was an article in what is obviously an commercial political publication which is clearly paid for by Leichhardt Council which I am assuming was asked for by them and you also got paid for.
My advice Jeremy – don’t give up your day job.
As for this publication – now I know why I hadn’t seen it before and why I won’t need to again.