Action For Transport 2050
Ron Christie put forward his vision for how the public transport network would need to expand to meet our needs by 2050. At the time the proposal was thought to cost around $50 billion. Of course nothing was done about it, so it will cost more now...but Morris Iemma announced today that there was 190 billion in unallocated funds lying around, so even if the cost has doubled this could be a goer! Get a better view of the map by clicking on it.
Covering letter from Ron Christie
...A timely reminder from Mr Ron Christies report of 2001 follows below. This was the report whose release was ordered by the Legislative Council, when one printed copy was given to each MLC. In 2002, I could not even find a copy in the State Library. If the full report ever made it to a website, that would be good to know.
Letter from Mr Ron Christie – Coordinator General of Rail , Office of the Coordinator General of Rail to the Hon Carl Scully, MP Minister for Transport, Long-term Strategic Plan for Rail: Greater Sydney
metropolitan region, Overview report, June 2001
A pragmatic and integrated plan
The Long-Term Strategic Plan for Rail is long overdue.
In contrast to the attention paid to road network development needs in recent years, there had not been a detailed and comprehensive examination of the needs of the greater metropolitan rail system since
the former State Rail Authority was split up in 1996. As a result, planning was undertaken on an independent basis by Rail Access Corporation (now part of Rail Infrastructure Corporation) and the State Rail Authority, rather than in unison.
Further, it is generally acknowledged that by its very nature the Government’s 1998 transport strategy Action for Transport 2010was not able to “drill down” to the level of detail required to fully analyse what was (and is) needed to achieve an efficient and effective metropolitan rail system.
The Long-Term Strategic Plan for Rail seeks to redress these deficiencies by setting out, with expressly acknowledged assumptions and clearly argued justifications, a comprehensive programme of short-term, medium-term and long-term operational, infrastructure and rolling stock changes to the metropolitan rail system.
In doing so, it should be regarded not as “the final word” but rather as the starting point for ongoing strategic planning. For example, the timeframes for individual projects are based on the best advice on
likely future patronage growth patterns available at present, but will need to be continually reassessed in the light of (for example) changes in land-use and employment patterns and changes in the economic climate.
The Long-Term Strategic Plan for Railrecognises the importance of State Rail’s taking a more proactive role than in the past in indicating its requirements for the future– both as the sole operator of suburban and
intercity passenger services in the metropolitan region and as the organisation now legally responsible for the timetabling and control of all passenger and freight train movements on the metropolitan rail network. With State Rail providing the necessary guidance, initially through this Long-Term Strategic Plan for Rail, Rail Infrastructure Corporation will no longer be left to “second guess” what its future requirements are.
Similarly, the development of the Long-Term Strategic Plan for Rail provides an opportunity for the Government to guide the private sector in more productive directions, by making it clear what the
overall requirements for the metropolitan rail system are. In this regard, valuable lessons have been learnt in the late 1990s concerning the importance of ensuring private sector projects deliver what is actually required for an efficient and effective rail system, rather than being developed almost in isolation from these requirements. If a summary of the rail system requirements and responses set out in the Long-Term Strategic Plan for Railwere publicly released, private sector organisations submitting ideas for new rail infrastructure etc would be much better placed to put forward proposals that are likely to prove acceptable and attractive to the Government and the rail agencies.
Some changes in priorities
As already indicated, the starting basis for the Long-Term Strategic Plan for Railis Action for Transport 2010.The Long-Term Strategic Plan for Railbuilds on this foundation by specifically addressing:
In some instances the new analyses, using a range of projections for the most likely growth in rail patronage on different rail corridors, now point to a reordering of priorities, with a greater emphasis on
reliability and capacity improvements before some (but not all) of the more ambitious projects proceed.
For example, the original objectives of several Action for Transport projects will simply not be able to be achieved unless capacity-enhancement projects in other areas already subject to severe congestion, especially the inner city, are completed first.
A longer-term conceptual framework
At the same time, the new analyses have permitted the development of a more coherent long-term viewof a possible “ultimate” form of a greater metropolitan rail system, serving the multiple social, economic,
employment and educational access and other transport needs of a metropolis of (perhaps) six million people.
This provides an essential long-term but non-prescriptive context for all rail development proposals, in much the same way as long-term regional and corridor plans have guided road network development over the last 55 years.
Just as vital road corridors have been reserved in the past, there is now an urgent need to take action to protect future rail corridors,and especially the corridors identified in alignment studies for new rail
lines required in the next 10-20 years, through planning controls, land acquisitions and other measures.
Choosing the most appropriate mode of public transport
The Long-Term Strategic Plan for Railfocuses heavily on the transport tasks most suited to heavy rail – for passenger transport, the movement of large numbers of people at comparatively high speeds.
In doing so, however, the Long-Term Strategic Plan for Rail expressly recognises that in many situations other public transport modes, including road and “transitway”-based bases and light rail, are more suitable,especially when relatively small numbers of people are involved.
For example, in the case of several of the possible new longer-term rail corridors in suburban Sydney the Long-Term Strategic Plan for Rail suggests that other modes should probably be used at the outset,
with rail modes being adopted for a corridor only if and when the much higher speeds and capacities of heavy rail become important or when constraint such as road congestion prevent buses from fulfilling their
transport tasks.
In sort, transitways and other “feeder” bus services will serve a vital role in combination withheavy rail.
The Long-Term Strategic Plan for Railalso expressly recognises the importance of easy inter-modal and rail-rail inter-changing.As the metropolis develops, the amount of interchanging required will inevitably increase, although rail operation studies suggest that even in the long term rail-rail interchanging should be able to be minimised for the most heavily trafficked routes.
Innovative approaches
A range of “non-traditional” options for enhancing the capacity,performance and safety of the metropolitan rail systemhave also been examined.
With the Long-Term Strategic Plan for Railmakes it clear that there are no “magic-bullet” solutions, as has sometimes been claimed, a series of investigations and pilot installations are recommended, and several of
the options, including communications-based signalling and new “metro”-style railway lines operating independently of the existing rail network, are identified as having potentially important benefits,
especially in the medium to longer term.
The critical issue of capacity constraints
Probably the most important single aspect of the Long-Term Strategic Plan for Rail, however, is its clear identification of the seriousness of the looming problem of severe capacity constraints on the metropolitan rail network.
This problem reflects the fact that in the last 50 years there have been almost no track amplifications – the equivalent of road widenings to provide extra traffic lanes – on the metropolitan rail network.
This means all types of services – fast and slow, and to and from a wide variety of locations via a wide variety of routes – are forced to share the same overcrowded tracks, with few if any overtaking
opportunities and with major congestion at the routes’ numerous junctions.
The system is rapidly approaching gridlock.This is already manifest in the extreme day-to-day sensitivity of CityRail services to even the most minor of disruptive incidents.
The Long-Term Strategic Plan for Railsets out a detailed program of changes in rail operating patterns and essential capacity – enhancing works for the next decade, with another prime objective being to
restore the physical separation of different types of CityRail services in order to improve on-time running.
This program of works is essential regardless of whether a communications-based signalling system – sometimes presented as an “alternative” – is adopted.
But the Long-Term Strategic Plan for Railalso makes it clear that by between about 2011 and about 2015 the relief provided by these corridor-based enhancements will be effectively exhausted and a new rail route through the inner city and the CBD, between Eveleigh and St Leonards, will be essential. Again, this conclusion applies regardless of whether a communications-based signalling system is adopted.
In essence the situation now is analogous to that before the Eastern Suburbs Railway was built in the 1970s. By providing a new route through the inner city and CBD, the Eastern Suburbs Railway provided vital relief for the City Circle and the North Shore lines through the CBD, but this capacity relief will shortly be completely used up, even with all the capacity augmentations proposed for the next ten years, and another additional route through the CBD will once again be required.
Initial investigations into the new route are now underway. Once the route and staging options and their operational implications have been identified, a relatively early decision will need to be made by the
Government, as a lead time of at least ten years is likely to be required before construction of even the first stage or stages could be completed.
Because of the complexity of almost all aspects of this project, it will be essential to start serious planning for this new line immediately.
Budget Available and here's the admission
North-West Metro 'won't drain budget' - March 28, 2008 - 4:08PM SMH
NSW Premier Morris Iemma has denied $12.5 billion allocated for a north-western Sydney metro line will leave the state transport budget short for other key projects.
Treasury officials have told The Australian newspaper they've been briefed that the investment for additional road and rail projects built between now and 2021 will be $16.5 billion.
But the state government has already allocated three-quarters of that figure - $12.5 billion - for the metro rail line which will run between Sydney's north-west and the CBD.
The NSW opposition said it was worrying that only $4 billion would be left for commuters using roads and rail services in other parts of the state.
But Mr Iemma said the $16.5 billion figure for transport could be increased by dipping into $190 billion of unallocated capital if the government felt it was needed.
"That's always open for governments to change the mix," Mr Iemma told reporters.
"If we decide to invest more in transport, then it's always open for governments to do that.
"What we have done is set aside what we believe is a prudent, conservative, discretionary spend of about $16.5 billion."
Mr Iemma said governments change their priorities from time to time and that his government currently saw transport, and particularly a north-west metro, as a priority.
"The metro is too important for the future of the state not to make the investment - it's going ahead, it's fully funded, it's not dependent on private sector being involved," the premier said.
"If there is a viable private sector proposal it will help defray the cost of $12.5 billion which will then boost the $4.5 (billion) that's left."
Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell said he wanted to see the 38-kilometre metro-rail delivered, but he was worried about how much was left to be spent on other commuters.
"There is $4 billion left over to apparently deliver, amongst other things, world-class services across 11 other rail lines," he said.
"Treasury clearly isn't behind this project, and that's a worry for any project being delivered by government."