Action for Public Transport (NSW)

Dear Mr Christie,

Introduction

Action for Public Transport (APT) is an advocacy group for public transport consumers. We applaud the initiative of the Sydney Morning Herald and other parties in seeking to establish what the governments of today and yesterday have failed to do - produce a Long-term Public Transport Plan for Sydney.

We note that the plan is designed to assist both the public and future governments to make informed decisions about priorities for transport investment.

We do not have the resources to produce a large, detailed document, but we hope that these brief points will be of assistance to your inquiry. Our comments are presented under the headings of the various Terms of Reference.

Note that APT has made a separate submission relating to Sydney ferries.

General

The timing of the inquiry is such that its findings should be in a format which can be readily endorsed or rejected by the three major political parties in the lead-up to the 2011 election.

The inquiry should devote some time to contemplation on a higher plane than "transport". What people want is access. Ideally, people should have access to a maximum range of goods and services with a minimum requirement for "transport" other than walking.

There is no mention in the terms of reference of future road improvements. They will happen, and they will inevitably have an effect on any public transport improvements. It seems illogical to ignore major road upgrades in this inquiry.

It is "planning", not "transport", which has failed the people of Sydney. Long-term planning has been allowed to be over-ridden by short term political or vested interests. For APT's critique of one aspect of the failure of the NSW planning process, see http://www.aptnsw.org.au/documents/InnerWestPlan1.html.

The optimisation and integration of existing public transport operations (including ferry, bus, light rail and heavy rail).

Fares and Tickets

There is a degree of confusion or overlap in the public's mind between "fares" and "tickets". Most of the talk is about an impending smartcard, that is, a ticket. However it is Sydney's fares policy which needs attention. The fares policy must be reformed. We call for one fares policy across all modes. The current complex arrangement (one hesitates to call it a "system") should be jettisoned. Any new system should be much simpler, perhaps built around zone fares. Flag-fall penalties for change of mode or vehicle should be eliminated.

The failed T-card project offered an integrated ticket, not an integrated fare. We are concerned that the replacement project will offer more of the same.

CityRail Speeds

Integrated Modal Transfers

1. The expansion of public transport services and infrastructure, as well as cycle commuting infrastructure, over a 30-year planning horizon, taking into account existing transport accessibility problems and integration with future land use changes.

The inquiry should be wary of making recommendations about preferred mode based primarily on the technical advantages or theoretical capacity of particular modes. Sydney has active lobby groups for particular modes, especially for light rail versus buses. People want convenient access to services. Most wouldn't care what "mode" provided that access. A case in point is Glazebrook's proposed bus-to-LRT interchange at Drummoyne, on the Victoria Road corridor. That proposal seems to be at least partly based on the assumption that the available demand justifies the provision of a mode with a higher theoretical capacity than buses. However, forced modal change, especially in wastelands where there are no supporting retail or cultural attractions, might actually discourage public transport use.

The one essential characteristic of attractive public transport is frequency. Glazebrook's proposed rail-based routes seem too complex to be able to provide sufficiently frequent services. The inquiry should attempt to refine any recommended rail-based routes into those having a "trunk-with-a-split-at-each-end" pattern. Routes which then pass through a CBD (eg, Sydney, Parramatta) can then provide double the frequency through the CBD compared to the services on the branches. A simple network is also more easily understood, and is therefore more attractive to users.

The Inquiry should devote due consideration to the sequencing of all of its recommendations. Present and impending congestion points, and network elements which are under-performing, need to be dealt with first.

Any proposed program for new or improved transport links must also address the impact of that link on the transport network as a whole, to ensure that, as far as possible, the benefits of that link are compounded. Every improvement should have a symbiotic or synergetic effect, and should certainly not result in a negative impact elsewhere. As an historic example, the project to provide expanded rail capacity between Sydenham and the City achieved added value by routing the additional tracks via the airport.

Currently, inner city councils are funding a study into extending the existing light rail from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill. The purpose of the study appears to be to show that the extension is justified, rather than to enquire as to whether it would improve the local transport network (roads, trains and buses) as a whole.

APT supports the building of a Metro network for Sydney but is not impressed with the Government's approach to date. For more detail see- http://www.aptnsw.org.au/cgi-bin/item.cgi?20090602Tue171809.txt.

2. The most appropriate governance arrangements to guarantee the plan's longevity to remove the negative impact of single-term party politics and to optimise investments.

At present, Sydney's transport is a patchwork of public or private buses, trains, ferries, trams, etc, which may or may not recognise each other's existence.

There needs to be one co-ordinating body for all public transport. This body would manage all modes - rail, bus, ferry and any large scale light rail system. Operators would enter into contracts to provide specified services. All fare revenue would go to the central body, and the operators would be paid the contracted amount, plus bonuses and minus penalties. The contract bus system in the metropolitan area already works this way, and it should be extended to embrace rail and ferries,

This body needs to be removed from the direct influence of the Minister for Transport.

Another benefit of a single transport authority would be the ability to offer the public a single marketing name for all modes of public transport. Other cities have TransPerth, TransLink, MetroTas, AdelaideMetro and The Met. Sydney draws a blank.

3. Key environmental sustainability issues.

An improved public transport system, followed by a consumer modal switch from private vehicle to public transport would help in reducing levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over short, medium and long term.

3. Key social and economic issues.

The inquiry should give due consideration to land use when making recommendations about transport. The two are inextricably linked. There is a need to build rail lines into greenfield suburbs before families arrive. Otherwise new residents build their lives around cars and are reluctant to use rail when it eventually comes.

A report issued recently warns of the need to plan for Australia's ageing population. This would include transport access, rolling stock and infrastructure. See "Sun-Herald" 4th October 2009 http://www.cotansw.com.au/page1080258.aspx.

If more of the population accept the idea of even a short walk to a station or bus stop rather than making every trip by car, overall levels of health would improve.

5. Proposals for short term and long term funding.

Bus and ferry services could benefit from short term funding, while generally light rail and heavy rail require longer term funding.

Short term funding could come from road user tolls and cordon tolls. Longer term funding from roads would require complex algorithms including time, distance, zone and vehicle type factors to apply road, parking and congestion pricing.

Government bond issues should be considered as a source of funds for capital projects. Past governments have sought praise for reducing or eliminating public debt. There is nothing wrong with raising funds by responsible borrowing - most businesses and private citizens do the same. It would remove the pitfalls inherent in the current era of shonky private funding deals. See http://www.borrowandbuild.com.au/.

On 20th August 2009, the Australian Senate released its report titled: "Inquiry into the investment of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services". http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/rrat_ctte/public_transport/index.htm This would be a useful reference for the Inquiry.

6. The cost-effectiveness of solutions, taking into account short term financial costs and benefits, and longer term environmental, congestion and other external costs and land use and accessibility benefits.

For too long, transport investment decisions have been made on the basis of short-term costs and benefits. The "costs" and "benefits" extended well beyond traditional accounting into areas such as politics, marginal seats, cosy deals, etc. All planning should focus on longer-term solutions.

New or improved public transport infrastructure often brings with it an increase in the value of properties in the immediate vicinity of the access points. Government should act to ensure that such escalations in property values are captured for the public good. In some cases the improved value of the property can be directly applied to pay for the infrastructure. The Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTR) has developed this principle to the extent that MTR property developments over railway stations contribute significant income to the Corporation, which in turn enables lower fares.

7. Other Matters

We will be happy to provide further information on any of these items if required.


Yours faithfully,





Allan Miles
Secretary
Action for Public Transport (NSW)