Remove blinkers for public transport fix
- Author:
- Pam Walker
- Posted:
- Wednesday, 20 May 2009
The underground metro proposed by the State Government is not an idea whose time has come. It is a product of the “big project” mentality that has dominated government thinking in recent years, where government and public pay a premium for the private financing of public infrastructure.
At $5.3 billion for 4.8km and growing, with “possible completion” in 2015, this very short and very expensive railway will greatly benefit tunnelling contractors and concrete makers, but not be good value as public transport. Compare this price tag to that of the recently approved Gold Coast Rapid Transit light rail project of $900 million for 13km – three times the length at a fifth of the cost, with a third of the time required for construction.
The metro makes inevitable high-density redevelopment around stations that will disrupt and destroy the character of long established neighbourhoods. Already, this proposal has heritage-listed buildings on its demolition list, and at Rozelle locals are outraged that vital community assets including a childcare centre will be demolished.
There is nothing in this metro proposal that cannot be done better with a surface light rail extension to the Balmain peninsula and through the CBD, for a cost of $150 million, and a two-year construction period. Rather than the wide construction and demolition impact of the metro, the light rail route would use disused railway lines and street alignments. Construction would be carried out with minimal disruption in a series of small worksites.
Sydney is latticed with unbuilt railway lines, and the city has unused tunnels and junctions under the streets. The Eastern Suburbs Railway was never finished beyond about 20 per cent of what was intended; Bradfield’s Inner West Railway, planned with the City Railway and the Harbour Bridge, was never built. These were expensive plans that were unaffordable after World War I and the onset of the Depression, and were abandoned after World War II.
It’s highly likely the proposed west and northwest extensions to the CBD metro will fare no better. At the CBD end the metro alignment blocks long-preserved underground easements for future heavy rail expansion. Transferring passengers to the metro at Central would return to the pre-city underground days, when hordes had to pour off steam trains onto trams to get into the city.
By contrast, the extensive Sydney tramway system was built up in the 30 years before WWI, providing efficient transport for the development of the suburbs. After the war, tramway expansion stalled. From then on tramways were neglected and abandoned at the behest of the interests promoting roads and motoring, the same oil, insurance and automotive interests that are driving the anti light rail policy today.
Surface light rail has many advantages over underground or elevated metros. Interchange with buses is cross-platform, so there’s no need for the long escalators and lifts required for a deep tunnel metro. Power consumption and maintenance of underground stations for lighting, ventilation, lifts and escalators is substantial, where a light rail stop requires only a low platform and a shelter shed.
Detailed study over five years for the Gold Coast Rapid Transit – as opposed to six months of an ad-hoc justification exercise by panicked politicians – rejected a subway metro system as it would offer no advantages in capacity or travel time over a surface light rail operation, with inferior accessibility.
And the issue of safely evacuating passengers from a deep tunnel during an emergency doesn’t exist. Light rail can move 10-12,000 people per hour and 100,000 per day in each direction, taking two road lanes to carry the same as ten lanes of motor vehicles. The only proponents of a subway or elevated system were motorists who wanted public transport out of their way.
Internationally, surface light rail transit is now preferred. Experience from other cities shows that it provides a more pleasant journey for passengers, and is easy to find and access. A frequent and predictable passenger service also encourages pedestrians and cycling, instead of isolated travel by car through streets empty of people.
The $91 million share from the federal budget to “plan” where their western metro “might go” would be better spent on extending the existing light rail line, from Central into the CBD, from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill to the south, and through White Bay to Rozelle and Balmain. Public transport users shouldn’t be forced down an overpriced hole in the ground to preserve the privileges of the motorists.
City streets choked with polluting traffic would be transformed into quiet, pleasant thoroughfares with quiet, frequent light rail cars enhancing a people-scaled cityscape. The metro is a shackle to the car-dominated past while light rail is a ride into a cleaner, quieter and sustainable future.
That this State Government can’t see the way is no surprise.
- BY TONY GALLOWAY
May 22nd, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
Tony,
Please refer to my website.
I support Light Rail-Tramways although if given half a
chance I will ensure that Railway expansion proceeds and
does not send us broke in the meantime.
Serious political will is required for either Heavy or Light Rail expansion to occur.
It is the Road lobby who is the opponent.
Victor P Taffa
vpt000@y7mail.com
http://www.isput.com.au
YOUR RAILWAYS:OUR FUTURE
May 24th, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
How strange… The City Hub and the once Alternative Media Group has joined forces with the Liberal Party, News Ltd’s suburban weeklies in the inner west and Fairfax to once again pour rubbish on the Metro.
The Liberal’s new best friends, The Greens and Leichhardt’s Mayor Jamie Parker, have joined this unholy alliance too. But that’s only natural, as the new power elite now running the show in Leichhardt, they have local property interests in to protect. As Tony Galloway (page 11, City Hub) notes, “at Rozelle locals are outraged.”
And then there’s the operators of the existing light rail, Metro Transport. As a privatised company with close links to developer interests along the existing goods line at Summer Hill, they too are “outraged.”
The Greens were not always so “outraged”. In fact, back before the State election they actually proposed “a fast rail link under Victoria Road”. Now they’ve changed their minds. Back then they were not so pally with the Libs or Metro Transport either. In an election broadsheet they blasted both groups as having transport policies “that would hold the community to ransom.”
But apparently not now.
What they and Tony Galloway want is a return to the 1940s and earlier, when picturesque, jaunty little trams trundled noisily and draughtily along a convoluted network of public roads. Tony states that this paradise from the distant past was destroyed by a conspiracy of evil men in suits.
And then helpfully adds that these same men are now conspiring to push the Metro! Oh Tony, doesn’t anyone check your work for totally nutty 70s-style howlers before you press SEND?
Tony, if you and that reactionary alliance of self-interested property spruikers, their political servants and paranoid ex-hippies are so intent on taking us back to the past, here’s a solution. Prince Charles, whose trenchant opposition to building anything new is well known, has an ideal village in the south of England. It’s called Poundberry, and it was described on Radio National’s By Design show recently as being “full of gentlemen of a certain age wearing golfing attire”. And as having no life or vitality, the “sort of place Margaret Thatcher would retire to.”
If that’s the future for Sydney as seen by City Hub, count me out.
May 25th, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Reactionary ? It was the New Guard backed NRMA and the thrusting, ruling class motoring lobby (Hitler and Mussolini loved cars, hated trams ) that began the push for abandonment of electric surface transit 75 years ago, backed by oil, auto industry and insurance companies.
All I can assume, Russell, is you are a shill for the real developer lobby that wants to rape the inner west or one of the resentful ”motorists who just want public transit out of their way”. Your idea of ”progress” is the same one General Motors was pushing with their Futurama exhibit at the 1939 New Work Worlds Fair, and the resulting automotive dystopia that led to is the source of the disaster our urban areas have become.
And ”gentlemen of a certain age wearing golfing attire” sounds to me like a bunch of property developers and construction contractors getting together to conspire to stuff up other peoples lives in places they don’t live themselves.
The CBD metro s a waste of money, unnecessary, backed by greed driven spivs and more than likely will never be built. Light rail on an existing railway is cheap, easy and attainable now, not in some undefined future. It is sustainable and accessible with low energy consumption and minimal impact on the surrounding area.
As for the operator, the light rail is privately operated because of the refusal of the state government to recognize has any other role than brown-bagging developer kickbacks and generating moral panics to enable police state laws to be imposed. As the police commissioner Andrew Scipione said, ”that’s the way we do business in NSW”.
I’m still puzzling how you managed to drag that strange inbreed Charlie Windsor into this, but one thing’s for certain – Those ”jaunty little trams” you disparage were capable of moving more people in two traffic lanes than buses could move in four or cars could move in ten. So if you think paving over the world to make space for cars is the hot ticket you’re just wrong. Drag yourself out of the 1940s Russell. Your own words show who the real reactionary is here.
May 26th, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Russel Edwards, I think you’ve totally missed the point of this article. The metro is being rubbished because it is a blatant waste of money, money that could be better spent elsewhere – such as light and heavy rail expansion. Pretty simple really.
“…a return to the 1940s and earlier, when picturesque, jaunty little trams trundled noisily and draughtily along a convoluted network of public roads.”
We no longer build tramways (or light rail, same thing) in this manner. Modern trams are quiet, fast, high capacity vehicles. Look to Europe for plenty of fine examples. That aside, Sydney DID have an extensive and efficient tramway system, sorrily lost to the rise of the motor car. We’d be in better shape had we retained that system.
Oh and I’ll think you’ll find the ‘outrage’ displayed is largely a result of the immense cost of such a poorly thought out, short-distance line to (effectively) nowhere. $5 billion…to Rozelle? Where’s the value in that? Especially when you consider that only those near enough to the stations will benefit from it? How about NW & SW rail links. We need light and heavy rail expansion before any metro lines.
It’s hard to imagine how any reasonable person could possibly see sense in such a “beer coaster” proposal.
May 27th, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Wrong in all your assumptions Tony, I’m not a resentful motorist (actually a pedestrian, ex-cyclist), a shill for developers, not even born in the 40s and I certainly would not want to “rape” anyone. Especially not my beloved inner west.
I wouldn’t mind somewhere affordable my kids could live around here. But that’s another issue. Or is it?
I was spruiking for the Metro, not cars. Admittedly bringing Charlie into it was a stretch, but not quite as much as Hilter and Mussolini. Remember that old debating rule? The first person who mentions Hitler looses.
So what next? Those “evil, corrupt” ALP politicians have put the Light Rail extension back on the table to save Verity. The SMH gives it qualified support, but makes a few telling points. One problem seems to be how much a ticket all the way to Dulwich Hill will cost. To the terminus at Lilyfield its $4.20, already more than a bus or train.
How much to Lewisham? $8? Its twice the distance. And interestingly, site of a proposed 14 story, five-tower development. Those “greed driven spivs” sure are quick off the mark.
Now doubt you will say that $8 cost has to be paid for by people who live in Blacktown and Broken Hill, who will subsidise it but never have a use for it. The Mayor of Leichhardt, a great supporter of this “yuppie carousel” (not my description) has already indicated as much.
Well, he would.
The goods line would be better served as a link for the NW and West Metros. But yes Tony, you, like the Mayor’s political party, are a negative cynical knockers who don’t believe those lines will ever be built.
Maybe you are right, but there is one thing about the 40’s mindset I don’t mind.
Optimism. The can-do spirit. Faith in the future. All in short supply in your words and the pages of the “progressive” press like City Hub.
June 10th, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
That’s a one way ticket. A return Central-Lilyfield is $5.70 full fare. That is competitive with the 470 bus. The light rail is not subsidised at all – how much do you honestly think a ticket on the CBD metro will cost if passengers had to foot 100% of the operating costs? A lot more, I can assure.
You should read this on subsidies:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/train-ride-subsidies-pay-off-expert-20090609-c2a0.html
I’ve got nothing against metros, where and when they are appropriate. Right now Sydney needs money spent on improvements to it’s existing heavy rail system and expansion of tramways to get the maximum return out of every dollar spent. The suburban rail system is currently the most important piece of transport infrastructure in Sydney (no matter how poorly it is performing – without it we’d be totally stufed). It will remain so for a long time yet. We need to invest more money in this system before any metro. We need tramway expansion to replace major bus routes that are at or beyond capacity at present, to create cross-suburban links that do not exist and to supplement and feed the heavy rail system. Buses will remain important as feeders to the rail systems above and service on quieter corridors.
We are entering into uncertain times. Though most politicians ignore it, we are now moving into a post-peak oil era. Subsequently our use of surface corridors will be very important, as tunnelling projects are likely to be too expensive and impractial to build (diesel shortages). Biofuels are unlikely to meet demand, and electric or other means of boring tunnels will take time to develop – time we won’t have to sit around waiting to drill tunnels. This is where the electric tram will be an extremely important tool in the task of moving people efficiently.
August 7th, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
Sydney got rid of trams along time ago and with good reason… We don’t want to go back to the past… The CBD Metro is the beginning of what will be the future of Sydney transport… You “tram lover’s” 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…
September 25th, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
A great article and it has to be agreed that flexibility is required when planning for Sydney’s public transport future. Sadly, that is not the case with the various instruments & departments working under the aegis of the current NSW State Government.
There is a put it all underground/big project mentality that will likely put this state further behind in catering for our transport needs, as billions are poured into projects that will not untie the ‘Gordian knot’
As for those spruiking for the Metro, you are welcome to your opinion but at times I wish you’d save the pro Metro/’Dorothy Dix’ questions, rants against light rail/Greens for the official Metro message boards (or save it for a local ALP branch meeting).
Trams were taken out of service in Sydney to save the NSW Government further investing in that form of transport infrastructure, add the roads lobby into the mix, et voila the end of a transport option that was, by & large, efficient enough to deal with passenger numbers that buses [that replaced the trams] have trouble in dealing with today. Not exactly good reasons to eliminate Sydney’s public infrastructure (in this instance, trams).
Then I suppose contemporary transport situations like gridlocked buses in the CBD (no trams to blame for that), or justifying the expense of 5 billion dollars (& rising) for a boutique transport option like the CBD Metro instead of applying a metro or heavy rail to areas that need improvement is the way forward? (the West Metro would have been a more convincing project than the CBD metro, but let’s see, that isn’t even funded yet either)
If extending light rail to Dulwich Hill is merely a “yuppie carousel”, what does that make the CBD Metro?..and I’ll be interested to see the cost for metro tickets will be given the poor projected patronage figures (from the NSW transport minister’s mouth I might add) for the CBD/Rozelle service.
If we did extend the current tramway network, according to a number of studies conducted re tramway expansion (check the reports in the Sydney media section of the SCC website), I’d imagine that passenger numbers would increase drastically, & enough to cater for the increased population densities expected over the next few decades & beyond(remember that metro cars do not hold anywhere near the passenger numbers of heavy rail & light rail cars hold more passengers than buses).
Oh, if the CBD metro is such a well planned venture, it is interesting that the Gold Coast light rail received full funding via Infrastructure Australia & the CBD metro didn’t (CBD Metro received marginal funding for testing).
So yes, there might be so-called “tram lovers” out there, but perhaps people see trams/light rail as one transport option amongst others like metros, heavy rail, buses & ferries (while we have them) that combine to make a good transport mix.
To doggedly pursue the underground/boutique options for transport, at the expense of other transport possibilities, will be the legacy of this State Governmnent & likely its downfall.