Confusion reigns over inner west transport plans
- Author:
- Shant Fabricatorian
- Posted:
- Thursday, 28 January 2010
The recent surprise announcement by NSW Premier Kristina Keneally that property acquisitions for the CBD Metro in Rozelle had been put on hold has people in the area very excited – and confused.
Just ask proprietor of the threatened Adore Pharmacy in Rozelle, Chadi Tahan, who has ridden a rollercoaster ride of uncertainty these last few months about the fate of his recently-renovated business. “We haven’t been told formally yet [about their plans] – we have only heard about it from newspaper reports, and they all have conflicting stories,” he said. “We don’t know what to do. The Premier said the property acquisition has been put on hold, but that the final decision will be made in late February. That doesn’t help us in any way.”
Mr Tahan said that the lack of certainty surrounding the issue was becoming a scandal. “We have not received any formal notification. When the Premier put the acquisition process on hold, we only received a phone call, and this is apparently not legally binding,” he said.
According to Mr Tahan, approval from the Transport Minister meant Sydney Metro Authority had already progressed on certain acquisitions. “Even if this whole project is cancelled, some properties on Darling Street have already been acquired and will be owned by the Transport Department,” he said. “They have also acquired properties on Victoria Road, not essential for the metro but for the Tigers Leagues Club redevelopment. These properties are in key positions for traffic access to the Leagues Club. But until the metro is confirmed or cancelled, the Tigers are holding back on the development.”
Leichhardt’s acting mayor, Michele McKenzie, said she would be very pleased if the Rozelle leg of the metro was cancelled, describing it as “incredibly unpopular” throughout the area. “It doesn’t form part of an integrated planning system and Rozelle certainly wouldn’t work as a bus interchange,” she said. She noted, however, it was difficult to ascertain the true state of affairs, due to the lack of official detail.
Media leaks have suggested that if the Rozelle station is scrapped, plans for the West Metro may be brought forward. If [such a proposal] is part of an integrated transport system, we are all for it,” Cr McKenzie said. “It would a far better way to help commuters than widening the M5, which is being discussed.
Cr McKenzie noted her preference for the area remained a light rail line along Parramatta Road. “All the research shows that people will go from cars to light rail, but not to buses,” she said. “And light rail has a flow on effect on local business and employment, [plus] it’s cheap to build. Instead of digging these huge tunnels that will take 15 years to bring online, you could get the light rail up and running in a few years.”
The near-simultaneous announcement by Minister Campbell that the study for light rail was going out to tender has raised hopes that after fifteen years of proposals and studies, some real progress is on the horizon. But Gavin Gatenby of EcoTransit Sydney, an advocacy group which supports the expansion of light rail, described it as a strange situation. “They announced last year they were going to do a study, then the government announced the brief for the consultant without consulting the steering committee,” he said. “Then, Clover Moore button-holed Campbell and made her view [representative of] all the other mayors, with the result that the study was pulled.”
Consequently, the brief was delayed over Christmas, with a new brief finalised and again put out to tender in recent weeks. “This time, it included the light CBD rail loop in the city and other elements like the cycleway – things that had been left out of the first brief,” Gatenby observed.
Mr Gatenby believes the recent array of leaks demonstrate the fate of the Rozelle metro is effectively sealed. “My understanding is that the Metro authority was absolutely livid with the government that they did not get their EA approved before Christmas,” he said. “They were expecting that to happen so they could go on and push through the compulsory purchase of the properties and start doing something – and clearly, they suddenly saw the writing on the wall, and were really, really angry about it.”
For her part, Balmain MP Verity Firth has long advocated her enthusiasm for the metro, but has in recent times qualified support for the Rozelle leg. “I continue to support the Sydney Metro as a 21st-century solution to Sydney’s public transportation needs,” she said. “I welcome the decision to pause the acquisition of properties until the Transport Blueprint is finalised in late February. This will ensure that whatever the outcome, it will be considered within the context of an integrated vision for land use and transport planning.”
by Jeremy Brown
The future of Leichhardt? With the fate of the Rozelle metro hanging in the balance, light rail has recently returned to the forefront of public transport calculations in the inner west
Like this article? Register as a subscriber here. It's free! We'll keep you up to date with new stories on the site.
January 29th, 2010 @ 3:48 am
Michel McKenzie is dead wrong. The Metro is not “incredibly unpopular” in Rozelle.
I live in Rozelle, and I am “incredibly saddened” by what has happened to the Metro. And the attitude of her party, the Greens. Who I voted for, and supported, until Michele and her Mayor Jamie Parker “enlightened” me about what they actually stood for.
They don’t want any change at all. How tragic, they’ve become the party of the establishment in the inner west, protecting a few selected business interests, and the wealthy, SUV driving Balmain residents who don’t want “the riff-raff” coming to “their” suburb.
I am one of those undesirable, unfortunate people who use public transport. I will not vote for The Greens again. I know many people who feel the same way. They are just confused by you now.
Michele and Jamie, you have bitterly disappointed your electoral base, and most of the people in the Leichhardt area. I suspect you will regret siding with the Libs come next election. Michele seems to be getting ready to oppose the West Metro too. Incredible…
Michele and Jamie, you seem to have considerable access to this newspaper, so I hope you’ll take some of the space you pay for to explain yourselves!
January 31st, 2010 @ 10:01 am
Having lived and grown up in the Inner West & Rozelle I know how unpopular the Metro is. If this Metro actually went anywhere and didn’t cost so much it might be a different story. However for a cash strapped state with far more reasonable and cost effective solutions on the table the Rozelle Metro is a ridiculous proposition.
With the enormous growth of population in the the north west they need rail and public transport solutions now – not promises that may eventuate decades in the future.
I frequently use public transport from Rozelle and Balmain and have always loved it. Sure it might have it’s ups and downs but this does not compare to the complete lack of public transport in other areas of Sydney where they are forced to use their cars.
It’s great to see the Greens holding this Government to account for a lack of planning and foresight as well as a flagrant waste of public funds. Keep it going – I’m glad I voted for you!
January 31st, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
So, we have a major public transport project under threat because –
1. A couple of businesses in Rozelle were unhappy with the price they were offered.
2. The Greens, who are unable to approve building anything, anywhere, side with the Liberal Party. The Greens Deputy Mayor Michele McKenzie, who is dead set against any Metros going anywhere, has recently been involved in a fight to preserve car parking spaces in Rozelle. The Victoria Rd bus lane project involved the lose of a couple of car spaces, so she backed carbon based fossil fuel consumption over public transport. Nice one, Michele… Now tell us what you REALLY stand for.
3. Developer interests who have several major projects along the goods rail corridor at Lewisham and Summer Hill at stake, have managed to convince a very naive “advocacy” group to agitate on their behalf.
4. We know why the Liberals are supporting this lot, the donation dollars are already flowing in their direction, abandoning the lame-duck Labor Party. Do we know why The Greens and this “alternative” newspaper group are aiding the same people?
Do they know themselves?
January 31st, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
Dear City Girl,
Jamie Parker here. Thanks for your feedback on the metro. Our view is that there is a place for metro but there are major problems with the location and design of the current metro proposals. There is also a compelling argument (as Ron Christie has argued) that is is a huge misallocation of resources for such a small line and requires billions more that the government does not have to make viable. Not to mention all of the issue City Rail has raised in objection. Moreover there are critical public transport needs in the north and south west that need urgent attention in order to deliver significant outcomes for the environment, family life and business needs. Despite a string of of broken promises these heavy rail lines NW and SW have not been delivered. I’d be please to talk to you or anyone else in order to out line the views we hold. Feel free to contact me in my office on 9367 9191. I’d be pleased to talk to anyone about it ! Regards Jamie
January 31st, 2010 @ 11:23 pm
Hello ‘city girl’, what a pity you aren’t prepared to tell us who you are … funny, I almost feel that I know you.
The Greens have campaigned for public transport for years, myself since 2003, and have been convinced by the arguments for light rail: cheaper than other options (the govt could build an extension of the light rail to dulwich hill and it would take about 18 months, cost about $50 mill and take a million car trips per year off the road network) sustainable, accessible, facilitating positive land use change wherever it has been introduced. All the experts
including Michelle Ziebots and Gary Glazebrook from UTS argue against
the multi billion dollar metro (the plan pulled out of somebody’s pocket without any research or planning or analysis of implications) so bad that the feds wouldn’t even fund it.
At the recent state labor party conference none of the labor branches supported the metro although they furiously campaigned to keep the ferries public, and nobody, apart from a couple of labor councillors, the local mp and the usual suspects want it. City Girl because I am out in the streets doing stalls and talking to residents all the time, I am very happy that I am representing the views of the majority, and if I am not representing your views then it’s regrettable, but I suppose inevitable given that some people will disagree before they are properly informed.
I am not ” all for” the western metro. The western suburbs need public transport desperately, they need it now and it would be far better for the govt to investigate light rail rather than the multi billion dollar metro which will make labor donors happy but take many years to finish. Meanwhile drivers sit in gridlock every morning fuming and imagining what they will do when they get into the ballot box come the next state election.
February 1st, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
Hello Michele, and thank you Jamie
Michele, I have never met you, and I have no idea what you mean by your first sentence.
I only know about you and the mayor from what I read in the local papers, this one, and the Courier. And from ABC radio, I hear Jamie a lot on that, so often that I have begun to wonder why.
Jamie, I thought you were OUR Mayor. Not the local member for other parts of Sydney. What a disappointment you have proved to be for us in Rozelle.
I have lived in cities which have light rail (Denver), and visited many with Metros. Not only the well known ones like Paris and London, but also cities with newer, modern metros (Seoul, Beijing and Nanjing). There is no comparison. Modern metros are incredible, they wipe Denver’s dinky, clunky system right off the map (and it was touted as “state of the art” when recently built while I was there). Sydney’s light rail is expensive, slow, and (more importantly) privately run. I am surprised the Greens are now so keen on privatised services.
It also winds through underpopulated parts of the inner west. It will only ever be viable if high density developments are approved along its route. I guess thats what you mean by “land use change” Michele, and I’m surprised to hear that too.
So will your remaining supporters.
Sydney was to get a state of the art, modern fast and super green Metro system, and the soon-to-be cancelled line to Rozelle was to be only the beginning. There are lines being planned for the West and East. And I HAVE researched this, Michele you have no reason to make the insulting suggestion that I don’t know what I am talking about.
But that does show you have no respect for dissenting views, and I do find that very disappointing. I DID vote Green at last election, but like so many others, I will not do so again.
You and Jamie have given us lots of reasons to say no to the Metro. But I will continue to believe in change and hope.
You Greens are NOT showing leadership.
You are just saying NO.
Katie
* that’s my real name Michele, but it is usual to use pen names on blogging web sites, there is no other reason.
February 2nd, 2010 @ 2:20 am
I love the way politicians respond! Thanks michelle, we now know that you suppport privatized transport operations and high rise developments in the inner west. Nice work, city girl!
These are both liberal party positions. No reason to be surprised…
February 3rd, 2010 @ 10:20 am
Dear City Girl and Road Runner, its great to hear your views. We will be very happy to take them into consideration.
Kind regards,
Michele McKenzie
February 3rd, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
city girl said on February 1st, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
I have lived in many cities with new, modern metros (Denver, Seoul, Beijing, Nanjing, Paris and London). Modern metros are incredible.
Well aren’t you lucky dear – did you win the lottery or travel on a government junket?
Sydney’s light rail is expensive, slow, and (more importantly) privately run.
Why is that more important than the previous two adjectives? (which are wrong anyway as anybody who has caught the light rail knows).
It winds through underpopulated parts of the inner west. It will only ever be viable if high density developments are approved along its route. I guess that’s what you mean by “land use change” Michele, and I’m surprised to hear that too.
Actually it ‘winds’ as you quaintly put it through some of the most densely populated seats in the country both state and federal. And I suppose you are implying something about the post industrial area languishing at the base of Summer Hill near the decommissioned flour mill, maybe like a developer wants to build there? So? Well why don’t you come out and say it? And why are you surprised – I thought the governments’ idea was to build up inner city population densities to save expensive metros and train lines to remote suburbs?
City girl, I have to say this ‘I am not going to vote for you again’ routine sounds really childish and repetitive. And given your obvious bias I don’t see how you can even imagine what Cr Mckenzie’s supporters think about anything!
Sydney was to get a state of the art, modern fast and super green Metro system, and the soon-to-be canceled line to Rozelle was to be only the beginning.
Yes, what a lovely idea, but it would have taken 5 years to build and caused annoyance and discomfort to residents, travelers and visitors all. And it looks like ‘It would only be viable if high density developments are approved along its route’ to quote what you said scornfully about Metro Light Rail. Rozelle is already split in half by Victoria Road. Maybe we should bulldoze all those white ant infested old workers cottages down and build big blocks of flats on either side of the highway above the metro!
As for ‘soon-to-be canceled’, maybe you know the facts about something that everybody else is just guessing about?
February 4th, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
No Fred, no cushy government junkets or lottery wins. I have only even lived in Denver and Sydney, but have travelled quite a bit in my 36+ years. I like city life, and visiting other great urban centres.
You are right about to rebuke me about the vote jibe. Its was a stupid thing to say, but I feel so stupid now for allowing myself to hope and believe the Greens were different. Their attitude on the Metro has proved they are as opportunist and short sighted as the others.
The light rail is a long way from me (I live on the Balmain side), and it doesn’t even go where I want to go. I am not a fan of the trams Denver ended up with (after much debate). Their system is much more extensive than anything now being proposed in Sydney, but is not well patronised. The lines often run alongside freeways, and the journeys are tortuous compared to cars.
A metro system is the only way to go if we are to get commuters out of their cars. Yes Fred, that is my “bias.”
Your last paragraph is typical of the selfish nimby attitude which means that can never happen. “A lovely idea but no thanks, not if it affects my residential amenity”.
Fred, its an underground train!
Scared politicians (Verity Firth) and opportunistic ones (Jamie, Michele, Gladys) will respond if those complaining are wealthy and well resourced. That happened with the M4 (which was a bad idea) and it has happened at Rozelle over a good idea. I fear the Metro is indeed now doomed. (gut feeling Fred, I have no “inside” knowledge)
Rozelle will then go on being split and dominated by the roar of Victoria Rd traffic – because commuters will not have any choice. Thank you Fred, thank you gormless, self serving politicians. That’s the same traffic which has obliterated much of the once vibrant inner west along the Parramatta Rd spine. Rozelle is now sure to go the same way.
It’s nimbys like you who have made that happen.
Fred, its a dismal legacy…
February 5th, 2010 @ 7:37 pm
Thank you for your observations, CG.
A few comments.
<>
Well it wouldn’t be of much interest to you, but I can see why you’d love the Rozelle metro.
<>
I live far enough away from Victoria rd not to be inconvenienced at all by the construction. My concern is for the locals and the GREAT BIG WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY.
<>
How would the metro have any effect on V rd traffic? Except buses, if they built a terminus near the metro.
<>
I have lived here about 30 years and I must have missed that moment of vibrancy. Where exactly are you talking about? The bits of 4 lane clearways with RTA affected properties on either side?
The pizza place in Camperdown near Rays Outdoors?
When Mama Mias used to be upstairs near Balmain Rd? BP University cafe? I’d love to know.
<>
Well its not my fault, or that of the local politicians you insulted. It is the Transport Department which has left a dismal legacy. There is chaos all over Sydney caused by internally competitive and ad hoc transport planning. So we build more roads and tunnels.
Then – “Oh I know – a metro!” CG, Its a magic bullet and it wont work.
And to forestall another favorite insult of yours I think the Liberal Coalition would probably stuff it up even more if they ended up with the balance of power next year.
February 5th, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
Please excuse editing glitch above. Read this instead.
Thank you for your observations, CG.
A few comments.
“The light rail is a long way from me (I live on the Balmain side), and it doesn’t even go where I want to go.”
Well it wouldn’t be of much interest to you, but I can see why you’d love the Rozelle metro.
“selfish nimby attitude”
I live far enough away from Victoria rd not to be inconvenienced at all by the construction. My concern is for the locals and the GREAT BIG WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY.
“Rozelle will then go on being split and dominated by the roar of Victoria Rd traffic”
How would the metro have any effect on V rd traffic? Except buses, if they built a terminus near the metro. And what a dumb place to do it on the side of a steep hill.
“That’s the same traffic which has obliterated much of the once vibrant inner west along the Parramatta Rd spine.”
I have lived here about 30 years and I must have missed that moment of vibrancy. Where exactly are you talking about? The bits of 4 lane clearways with RTA affected properties on either side?
The pizza place in Camperdown near Rays Outdoors?
When Mama Mias used to be upstairs near Balmain Rd? BP University cafe? I’d love to know.
“Fred, its a dismal legacy”
Well its not my fault, or that of any of the local politicians you denigrate. It is the Transport Department which has left a dismal legacy. There is chaos all over Sydney caused by internally competitive and ad hoc transport planning. So we build more roads and tunnels.
Then – “Oh I know – a metro!” CG, Its a magic bullet and it wont work.
And to forestall another favorite insult of yours I think the Liberal Coalition would probably stuff it up even more if they ended up with the balance of power next year.
February 5th, 2010 @ 11:49 pm
CG and RR:
There won’t be much change of land use on the lilyfield and dulwich hill line because it’s not on a road. When light rail has been introduced in other international cities on roads there has very quickly been a change of land use, the positive land use change I referred to, with mixed use development, decentralisation of employment, pedestrians and enrichment of community.
Light rail on Parramatta road or Victoria Road or Military Road would have the same effect as the trams did on King Street, Newtown and what is now a wasteland of closed shops and concrete buffers because of six lanes of traffic, would become a vibrant pedestrian strip. Go read Peter Newman’s (former sacked NSW Sustainabilty Comissioner) research, instead of spouting the failed policies of the discredited nsw state govt. Writing this felt like putting a message in a bottle, but what the hell?
February 8th, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
Hey Michele, not that I have any interest in giving you political advice, but maybe a catchier slogan than “what the hell” when talking to voters?
Its not the greying nimbys who flock to your shindigs in the town hall who you have to convince, its younger, green-minded more progressive ones, who are pretty disappointed by your party’s performance in Leichhardt and on the Metro
You’ve won the Rozelle fight, now nothing will happen. That must feel good. But don’t expect commuters there to thank you.
February 10th, 2010 @ 7:56 pm
I agree with city girl – An extensive inner city light rail system will be slow, infrequent & out of scope within 20 years. It has no long term future in Sydney. All light rail will do is replace current buses with trams. This will increase capacity by no more than 15%. The people pushing trams lack vision and foresight and do not understand the principles of transport planning for the densities being created in and around the inner city & CBD areas of Sydney. Like it or lump it, if Australia is going to have a substantial increase in population over the next 20-50 years higher densities & urban consolidation will have to happen, so it is imperative that we start building/ planning a superior transport system now which will be able to cope. An extensive metro system is the way to go. Hopefully in 10 years instead of just realizing that light rail was a waste of time & money we will be at a stage where we have Metro Line 1 running from Westmead to White Bay via the city and are starting to plan an extension to the north-west from White Bay to Macquarie Park &/or Epping, and are at an advanced stage of planning for the beginning of Metro Line 2 from Maroubra Junction to the city via Anzac Parade.
I’d also like to congratulate the “Leichhardt Greens” for supporting everyone in Sydney but the people that voted for them/ the people they represent. They have now almost surely campaigned successfully enough to rob the Rozelle part of their electorate of this modern, green, efficient public transport system. So in 2 weeks when the West Metro is announced from Westmead to White Bay via the city are they going to campaign against it & try to rob the people on the other side of their electorate in Leichhardt from getting this modern, green, efficient public transport system???
February 12th, 2010 @ 8:30 pm
Michael said
“An extensive inner city light rail system will be slow, infrequent & out of scope within 20 years.”
Are you sure your crystal ball is working properly?
“..they do not understand the principles of transport planning for the densities being created in and around the inner city & CBD areas of Sydney.”
Me neither – what densities and what plans are they? So far pretty secretive.
“…so it is imperative that we start building/ planning a superior transport system”
Which is what every struggling incumbent government says before an election.
“rob the Rozelle part of their electorate of this modern, green, efficient public transport system. ”
Please explain what is ‘green’ about digging a huge expensive tunnel under the Balmain Peninsula to provide a new service to a tiny number of commuters?
“rob the people on the other side of their electorate in Leichhardt from getting this modern, green, efficient public transport system???”
Repetition like that makes you sound like a PR contractor reading from a script. Think carefully before committing to anything, especially when contemplating hire purchase.
Hope this helps!
February 13th, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
In response to Fred’s reply…
I don’t need a crystal ball, the stats speak for themselves. How is getting on a tram at Leichhardt (If the extension is built) or Rozelle Bay after waiting 10-15 minutes, then a slow trip of another 15-20 minutes to the southern end of the Sydney CBD where no one wants to go, ok let add an extension up George St which will add another 5-10 minutes to Martin Place, a total of 30-45 minutes travel time to go as the crow flies only 3-5km’s a world class public transport system? Sounds very similar to what they have in Denver. Compare this to a metro which will have a frequency of 2-5 minutes & the following travel times:
Rozelle to Martin Place (The middle of the city) in 6 minutes.
Rozelle to Sydney University in 12 minutes.
Leichhardt to Martin Place (The middle of the city) in 9 minutes.
Leichhardt to Sydney University in 3 minutes.
Leichardt to Olympic Park in 11 minutes.
Leichhardt to Parramatta in 18 minutes.
So which system represents the long term future of public transport in Sydney?
Urban consolidation of old industrial areas like White Bay/ The Bay Precinct will happen regardless of which side of government is in power. Medium to high density housing will be built in this area & will need adequate public transport. Surely you don’t expect all these new residents to use the slow, infrequent light rail system to get to/ from the city?
If you don’t know/ understand now what’s green about starting an extensive new public transport system then I rest my case.
February 16th, 2010 @ 7:51 am
I’m going to answer Michael’s question on the Leichhardt Greens behalf, as they seem to have gone silent on this, despite rushing to their own defense earlier in this post.
Michele is already on record as opposing the West Metro at Leichhardt. Of course Jamie will oppose it, he opposes everything and stands for nothing except his own election to the seat of Balmain.
But notice their enthusiasm for the Ron Christie transport report, presently getting lots of promotion in the Herald. Notice also the unpleasant undertones of that report’s “east Asian” horrors if we get a Metro. European model “good”, Asian “bad.” Just pathetic…
This is not new territory for Michele and Jamie. They were the ones who campaigned hard against “international” students polluting the pure grounds of Callan Park.
February 18th, 2010 @ 5:24 am
As a non-resident of the area in question, it is nice to hear that Sydney is supposedly getting “an extensive new public transport system”, or should that read expensive new public transport system that only serves passengers between Rozelle & the CBD?
How can this project truly serve Sydney as a whole?
Using the city of Denver as a comparison model for public transport implementation to Sydney is as ludicrous as insisting on a metro system for Sydney because Jakarta or some other such city has one. All cities have their own demographic, historical & geographical planning issues.
If I were to highlight the public transport strategies as seen in other cities, I’d recommend that some of you take a look at Paris, Hong Kong or London. All have Metro systems, all have trams/light rail. This is because these cities have the densities to support comprehensive below ground rail systems & also have the flexibility in their transport strategies to apply light rail where practicable.
I’m already seeing a pattern here, take a pot-shot at the local Greens, then proceed to criticise any attempt at expanding the light rail system in Sydney as somehow a misguided attempt to implement an outdated, outmoded future public transport problem. Of course, this avoids looking at holistic attempts to remedy the public transport issues that blot Sydney, city-wide.
Why?…well I’m sure a few of you would cite preference for a Metro system as simply showing a preference for an ‘ideal’ mode of transport, but I’d suggest that this fits into a strategy of lambasting light rail or tram options in every instance because some are short-sighted enough to view light rail as the ‘opposition’ to the CBD Metro project. There is growing support for light rail, & really the CBD Metro (in this form) was largely a ‘show project’ that was expected to pick up marginal votes on the transport issue. It failed in that respect.
Towing a party-line to discredit light rail at every turn is foolish given the current public transport issue ‘climate’. If I am not mistaken, proposed journey times for the Metro have been called into question as far as safety is concerned (travel speeds have been queried), and as of yesterday it appears that there are concerns about reports issued about Metro statistics and the like.
Whilst I understand the disappointment of some with the possible abandoning of the Rozelle leg of the CBD Metro, others will be happy to see the Metro re-routed to area where it is actually needed, to leave a metro station option at White Bay/sections of the goods yards is really using (massive) public funding to enable private development on what is largely public land. This will be housing for the wealthy & not enough housing to make a significant dent in the housing crisis for wider community. Those who oppose the Metro Light Rail on the basis that it is a private company should also be critical that public land would be given up to the private sector.
Where is the Government’s commitment to an extensive Metro system?, no funding even for the West Metro at present (perhaps that will change with the release of the NSW Government’s transport strategy) but let’s drop the catchphrases “it’ll be the first stage of a new network” or the “step-change” that will ‘free’ us from heavy rail. There is not the funding or commitment to build a comprehensive metro network at present, or in the foreseeable future. If so, please prove me wrong. Let me know when the metro crosses the Parramatta River from Rozelle.
You can criticise (so-called) NIMBYS, but what is worse is the lack of concern some have in seeing the bulk of the state’s public transport kitty lavished upon one small section of the city leaving millions of people in other areas of Sydney desperate for adequate public transport relief.
Ron Christie’s plan is the best plan we have seen in Sydney since 1909. The ‘East Asian’ scenario as outlined in that plan is perhaps a model to largely avoid. Creating a divide that ignores a vast swathe of Sydney to cater for luxury high density corridors is as absurd as expanding cities further into the greenbelts. Moderation is required. Sydney is doomed to fail if bureaucrats control this issue any further and the tail continues to ‘wag the dog’.
I mean, what would experts like Christie, Blakely, Zeibots, Gehl know about getting votes?… they’re ‘only’ experts in planning & transport issues.
February 18th, 2010 @ 8:41 pm
The SMH’s enquiry is a complete snow job and has been created so that it is politically correct and appeases the majority of SMH readers.
This report has been produced mainly by old school planners/ people that have had a long history entrenched/ working at Cityrail & Railcorp so they are unable to look outside of the heavy rail only square. The so called modelling using “European” & “East Asian” is a misrepresentation. Sydney is neither. Why does the preferred option, the “European” model only include one metro line for a future population of more than 6 million people? Name one city in Europe with a population of more than 6 million people that doesn’t have an extensive metro system? This anti-metro sediment is further highlighted by the “European” models proposal for a heavy rail link from the city to Maroubra Junction. If ever there was an ideal corridor for a metro in Sydney this is it. This corridor as the crow flies is just over 10km’s from the middle of the city, already has medium density housing & significant sporting/ entertainment facilities along its route. If you are going to build a heavy rail link to Maroubra Junction surely wouldn’t it be more practical to extend the Eastern Suburbs line from Bondi Junction?
The “European” model also does nothing to address urban sprawl (One of the main concerns of modern day planners) with very long extensions of the south west rail link way beyond Leppington & north west rail link way beyond Rouse Hill to the Richmond line within 20 years. Urban consolidation is the way of the future for Sydney but it doesn’t need to be on the so called “East Asian” scale. This is merely a scare campaign for the “European” model to gain overwhelming support. Cities in Europe have successfully addressed this problem without creating so called “East Asian” scale densities/ scenario’s & have still managed to built extensive metro systems.
The “European” model also robs a vast area of central Sydney of direct rail access to the city by closing 9 stations between Cabramatta, Lidcombe & Bankstown by converting this to a light rail shuttle service. The only reason for this conversion is so that the existing Cityrail system can be squeezed even further. Surely there is no need for this if an effective metro system is built.
I’m not against expansion of the Cityrail system & think that the north west rail link, south west rail link & the Epping to Parramatta rail link are urgently needed but with individual projects given different priorities the “East Asian” model with an extensive metro system does seem to be the better long term solution for Sydney.
February 19th, 2010 @ 8:11 pm
I suppose those reading the Fairfax papers & heaping their ‘politically correct’ praise on the ‘Christie’ report have had very little else to praise planning-wise in this city for decades. With the exception of Garry Glazebrook’s plan, we have had very little by way of adequate public transport planning in this state for decades. This issue should transcend petty political concerns or local what’s-in-it-for-me-? selfishness.
Planning our state’s public transport system should mean more that jotting down a few ideas on the back of an envelope. I agree that both the ‘Christie’ & Glazebrook plans (like any major plans) will need some further refining, however, there has been no credible alternative to either of these plans presented thus far. Let’s hope that the State Government take heed of some of the ideas presented within these reports & learn from the many mistakes made in the roll-out for the Metro project (& there have been many).
Whilst I agree that there are worthy sites to place metro lines in Sydney, it seems that the chance to implement a well planned series of metro routes has been impeded by the tepid reception that the CBD metro has received due to concerns over cost, implementation, the project’s route & the impact on the delivery of other public transport infrastructure given the project’s cost. When the CBD metro was proposed, no thought was given to the SW or NW of Sydney as far as spending was concerned, the public saw the bulk of our public transport spending being concentrated in an area that for all intents & purposes had existing pubic transport services.
Neither of the aforementioned plans attempt to eliminate metro systems from a future public transport network in Sydney, & if anyone chooses to use large European cities as an example to justify a large amount of our state transport’s budget upon just one option, perhaps take a look at the wide ranging & varied public transport systems that exist in many of them. Berlin has the U-Bahn (underground rapid transport network), as well as, the S-Bahn, a hybrid commuter system that works in a way similar to our own City Rail heavy gauge system (wider commuter train network also using the city’s underground network), these railway options work in conjunction with a well used tram network & buses. Istanbul which is more than double the population figure of six million has a metro system plus an expansive light rail system to serve its population.
The point is that a considered transport mix is required to work in with a city that evolves in a measured & appropriate way, that benefits all of its citizens.
It would be nice to halt further sprawl into greenfield/arable areas, but the fact is, it already exists. Choosing to turn a blind eye to the fact that a large segment of Sydney’s population already lives further out than the metro’s potential reach is no way to plan for this city. All we can do is attempt to stop further urban sprawl but this can only be done by providing adequate housing/transport options city-wide.
The (so-called) ‘East Asian’ model will not, in truth, solve this problem [of urban sprawl]. The sheer cost for housing in the wealthier eastern side of the city next to metro lines will not stop the drift to the outer suburbs by those who cannot afford housing nearer the CBD. Providing transport for a wealthier strata of our society whilst ignoring the needs of the wider city population is one way further degrade the Sydney Public transport network even further than it has been already.
If there is one suggestion that we can take from the ‘Christie’ report, it is that there needs to be a central authority/coordinating body for this city’s transport needs. The reference to Railcorp’s “old school planners” only highlights the pointless inter-departmental/authority jousting (interesting because a number of the planners involved in the ‘Christie’ report have worked in other fields too, so is that correct?). The multi-authority management model is tosh, all we end up with is departments/authorities competing for their own interests ahead of the interests of the commuter.
February 21st, 2010 @ 2:55 pm
Thats a good post Jack (Feb 19), and even though I don’t agree with everything there, its nice to see such a well thought out and considered argument on this site, which doesn’t always get them…
Part of the problem with the Christie Report is that the Herald is clearly playing politics. It wants to be able to claim the scalp of another Premier (before the Tele does), and believes that it is arresting its terminal decline in readership out west by championing that part of Sydney’s public transport needs.
But very few people out there get the Herald anyway, and they’re unlikely to start now.
Then there’s The Urban Taskforce, the developer’s lobby group who have also supported the Christie Report. They’re the ones who fell out with Frank Sartor because he wouldn’t give them want they wanted. So he was ousted. They thought they had someone more amenable in Kristina Keneally, but they were wrong, and now they’ve thrown their weight (and donations) behind the Libs and Barry O’Farrell. For years they’ve been arguing that more greenfield land be released out west to “help housing affordability.” It would help their members’ profitability too, but that’s just an agreeable coincidence. What would be even more lovely is that the state’s taxpayers could contribute by forking out for a railway line (or two).
With forces like that aligned against the Metro and its inherent urban infill strategy, it’s a wonder that it was ever proposed. And as we now know, it has been killed anyway by the bean counters in treasury.
The real wonder in all this has been The Greens. I’ve read most of what they’ve said (must admit I’m getting bored with it. Especially as Michele McKenzie indicates that she can’t even be bothered arguing her case.) And I’ve got to say, I agree with some of the posts above. The Leichhardt Greens in particular have been duped by the Liberals and a bunch of property developers. Either that or they are total hypocrites, because they’ve now opposed several major public transport projects.
Now the Metro is gone, they don’t even have a grievance issue at Rozelle to campaign on. How will they cope without something to whinge about?!
On I forgot. There Tigers to get rid off now, and all those horrid working class types like me!
February 24th, 2010 @ 8:15 pm
I suppose what you are not seeing, Mr. The Red Brigade, is the absolute miracle of a NSW State government considering a light rail / tram system in Sydney. This is far more important than the abandoned metro and will serve the inner west, east and south far better, all the way from Barangaroo to Botany if it’s done properly.
And statements like ‘The Leichhardt Greens … have been duped by the Liberals and a bunch of property developers’ are also pretty pathetic, if you ask me. The Greens conspiratorially colluding with developers and the far right? get a grip on yourself, man. You are so obsessed with celebrity politics that you have become dysfunctional.
Why not concentrate on the issue of simple, cheap, quickly deployed and effective transport for this crowded city rather than worrying about Wal King and his bleeding mates, with their big trucks and drilling machines and out-of-pocket tendering costs. Buncha.
As for pulling out the old “horrid working class types like me” cliche, that is so century before last. Time to upgrade your mindset, mate!
December 4th, 2011 @ 6:04 pm
[...] http://www.altmedia.net.au/confusion-reigns-over-inner-west-transport-plans/15687 [...]