EcoTransit, Light Rail and Density

We are indebted to Russell Edwards for these probing questions.

Q1. Do you have links with the major political parties? (including the Greens).

EcoTransit has no links with any political party. We lobby all political parties, and the projects and policies advocated by us are available to be adopted by any party. In the last local government elections, candidates from across the political spectrum supported the extension of light rail to Dulwich Hill.

Q2. Do you believe that these two proposals, the Metro and the Light Rail extension, are mutually exclusive?

Two metro proposals affect the Leichhardt/Balmain area. Neither of these proposals are well developed, and both were all but rejected for federal funding by Infrastructure Australia. Our position regarding each is limited to high level questions, as there is very little information available for a more detailed dissection of the projects in question.

We are opposed to the CBD Metro proposal for several reasons.

In the first place it would utilise the Pitt Street underground corridor through the CBD, choking off any possibility of expanding heavy rail services in this corridor. There is considerable extra capacity within the Sydney-wide heavy rail system provided that a few choke points are addressed. Specifically, two additional tracks are required through the CBD and the Pitt Street Corridor is the only place where the additional tracks could run owing to underground space having been used for building footings, car-parks, etc. It has been reserved for this purpose.

Secondly, there are extreme technical difficulties with the CBD Metro. There are two very difficult water crossings between the CBD and Rozelle creating gradients that are at the limits of metro rail technology, and stations that are very, very, deep underground - a circumstance that means there would be fewer stations. Our third objection arises directly from the costs associated with these circumstance - the line will be extremely expensive and dominate the public transport budget for years to come.

Finally, the $5.3B CBD Metro would be of very little value at all in the absence of other funding for fast-tracking the rest of the system that is seen as the justification for the 'trunk route' to Rozelle. At a minimum this would require the Western Metro ($8.1B) and/or the N-W Metro ($12B). For this price tag we could have two extra heavy rail tracks through the CBD, the N-W heavy rail link, the S-W heavy rail link and a couple of hundred kilometres of light rail.

There is, however, some merit in the variation upon the Western Metro between Parramatta and Strathfield, proposed by Dr Glazebrook of University of Technology, Sydney. You can see his proposals at the following address - http://www.dab.uts.edu.au/research/outcomes/30yr-sydneytransport-plan.pd... - but the most striking difference is that his proposals for Metro projects contribute to the wider transport network. They begin in the communities for which they are being built (ie the NW) and integrate with the rest of the system. Heavy rail continues to develop under Dr. Glazebrook's plan and light rail also has several roles to play.

Q3. What is Eco Transit’s relationship the present operators of the light rail?

MetroRail are prepared to provide us with statistics for their operations, when we ask for them, and answer questions about the situation that they face as operators. Beyond that, there is no relationship - we receive no financial contribution from them, nor did we consult with them before initiating our campaign.

Q4. There are presently several high density mixed developments closely associated with the extension, EG Property’s one at Allied Mills and Demien Construction’s proposal for 14 story towers at Lewisham. Do you have any links with these developers?

We have no links with the developers nor have we received any financial contribution from them.

Q5. Should the extension go ahead, there will be a lot more justification for similar high density developments at newly created stations, eg at MarketPLace, Iron Cove, Lilyfield and White Bay. It will be argued that they are desirable and green outcomes for the city as a whole as they will allow more and more people to live near the city and to not be reliant on cars. Do you agree or disagree?

In the current circumstances, in which public transport usage is increasing very rapidly, and in the specific local circumstances of relatively densely populated suburbs we see no reason why the light rail extension will not receive abundant patronage without the need for high-rise development in the vicinity of stops. Whether, and to what extent, such development should take place should be a matter for local government and local communities not administative 'fiat' by the NSW government. We note that, in any case, there are few places where such development could take place along the route. Much of this has already been redeveloped for low-rise, medium density, housing such as the industrial areas along Constitution Road in Dulwich Hill.

Q6. The inner west is pretty wealthy now and I have heard the light rail denigrated as “a yuppie carousel.” There is some uncomfortable truth in this. The goods rail line is not a direct route from anywhere to anywhere. Without extensive high density urban consolidation, it will only service only a very small number of relatively well off people. Patronage is likely to remain light and hence ticket prices will be high (it is privately run and there is a conductor on every tram). Do you envisage some sort of subsidy whereby the rest of the State’s taxpayers are paying for we lucky ones in our inner west “villages” to travel in secure comfort?

We wouldn't say that there is any truth in this accusation. The extension will act very effectively as an 'orbital' or cross-city route – a valued feature of all good urban public transport plans, but one that is poorly developed in Sydney. It is a 'direct route' from the western line to the bankstown line that takes pressure off the City Loop. It is also a direct line from one of the most densely populated suburbs in the inner west to the most popular destinations in the inner west - traffic along this route is horrendous on weekends, when people across the inner west flock to the Rozelle Markets, Orange Grove Markets, Callan Park, Balmain Markets and other trip generators in the area.

Patronage of the current, very limited, service is currently just under 4 million trips a year, and rising fast. The extension is likely to accommodate a further 2 million trips per annum.

Ticket prices are high because Metro LightRail is excluded, by contract, from the normal range of fare concessions. This is a matter on which we have lobbied the government - as of this date they have been unwilling to change this arrangement. As for a 'subsidy', its worth noting that Metro LighRail is the only private transport operator that is not being offered one.

As for the rest of the states taxpayers, the extraordinarily low price tag for the extension will enable billions to be spent in Sydney's West – as the Hills Shire Times noted earlier this year.

Q7. Why are you be lobbying so hard against the Metro system, which has massive potential to get vast numbers of people out of their cars, and favour only a very limited light rail meandering through the less populated bits of one small bit of affluent Sydney?

We've said very little about the 'metro system' other than that it is extraordinarily expensive, representing an opportunity cost for every other part of the transport system. See our comments above.

Q8. Where does Eco Transit get its funds for newsletters, posters and campaigning?

Our funds come entirely from membership dues and personal donations from members and supporters. All the things we do are cheap, in campaigning terms. An 8 page 4 colour tabloid works out at 10 cents a copy. We do all our own writing and layout. Members and campaign supporters in affected areas help us do the distribution.

Regarding your final comment on the Crikey piece: "There is more than enough negativity, whinging and political point scoring going on, and I’m tired of hearing it."

So are we, however the piece in Crikey draws attention to the taxpayer-funded tactics being employed by the NSW State Government in pursuit of what can only be referred to as a pet project. Neither the federal government, nor Ron Christie (who was commissioned by the Labor state government to plan Sydney's transport system for 2050) support the current proposals.