CITY TRAM LOOP
Central Sydney light rail proposal From Central Railway to Circular Quay
Prepared by Ted Floyd: for Friends of the Earth Sydney, Aug 2001
"At the end of every road there is a carpark" Mori 1997
Summary
It is highly recommended to proceed with the construction of new tramlines rather than build a Cross City Road Tunnel. Construction of the City Tram Loop and extension of the Inner West Tramline to Leichhardt, Ashfield, Five Dock or Dulwich Hill should occur. An Eastern Suburbs Tramline serving the University of New South Wales and connecting into the existing tramlines at Central Railway should be built.
These tramlines should be built in stages so as to minimise disruption during construction. Stage 1 of the City Tram Loop needs only to be built from Central Railway to Park Street. Stage 1 of the Eastern Suburbs Tramline should be built so as to serve the More Park area. It is desirable to build the different tramlines (central, eastern and western) concurrently.
Competition between: roads and public transport
An analysis of resources needed for public transport and road transport shows the two transports systems are in direct competition.
Competition occurs for:
1 Capital for infrastructure
2 Patronage of services.
Competition may also occur for land, especially road space.
Two major transport systems have been recently proposed to serve the CBD, the Cross City Road Tunnel and the City Tram Loop. These two systems do not serve the same transport needs, but proponents for each system claim cars are removed from city streets and gridlock is reduced in the CBD.
Many people wish that both roads and public transport will be improved and many politicians promise to improve both roads and public transport.
In a finite world the construction of roads greatly reduces the investment in public transport because roads and public transport are direct competitors.
Spending $400million on a Cross City Tunnel greatly reduces the capital available for construction of public transport and cars travelling in this road tunnel will reduce the number of passengers using public transport.
New Tramlines in the inner Sydney region
For $400million the City Tram Loop could be built plus new services to inner suburbs. Estimated cost of Central Sydney Tram Loop was $140mill (1997 EIS) Estimated cost of tramline to Uni NSW $150mill (1999 DoT Feasibility study). The City Tram Loop was not approved because of strong pressure from CBD businesses and the Department of Transport study claimed the eastern suburbs tramline was not financially viable. In Nov 1998 the extension of The inner western tramline to Lilyfield was approved and the Minister for Transport Mr Scully announced the City Tram Loop would not be built until the Cross City Tunnel was completed.
Planning for the City Tram Loop could be greatly improved so as not to cause the same amount of disruption, especially during construction, as the original plan in 1997. The Eastern suburbs tram line to Uni NSW would be more financially viable if this tram line connected into the Inner West Tram line at central railway and also connected into a City Tram Loop.
It is highly recommended to proceed with the construction of new tramlines rather than build a Cross City Road Tunnel. An Eastern Suburbs Tramline serving the University of New South Wales and connecting into the existing tramlines at Central Railway should be built. Construction of the City Tram Loop should begin as soon as possible. Extension of the Inner West Tramline to Leichhardt, Ashfield, Five Dock or Dulwich Hill should occur.
These tramlines should be built in stages to reduce disruption during construction. Stage1 of the Eastern Suburbs Tramline should be built so as to serve More Park. Stage 1 of the City Tram Loop needs only to be built from Central Railway to Park Street.
The major objectors to the earlier City Tram Loop proposal were landowners and retailers along the Pitt Street Mall. If Stage 1 of City Tram Loop did not disrupt the Pitt Street Mall, then there should be fewer objectors. Disruption during construction could be greatly reduced if the tramline is built in stages.
The viability of Stage 1 of the City Tram Loop will improve with additional patronage from Eastern Suburbs and extended Inner West Tramline. The patronage of trams after the above tramlines are built will indicate if the completion of the City Tram Loop to Circular Quay through Pitt Street Mall will be viable and acceptable to the public and major stakeholders. Comparison of new trams and roads in Sydney CBD
|
|
City Tram Loop |
Cross City Tunnel |
|
Cost |
$200,000,000 |
$400,000,000 |
|
Length |
4.4km |
2km |
|
Number of trips/year |
22,000,000 |
25,000,000 |
|
Capacity one way |
3,600 people/hr |
4,000/hr |
|
Road space tram/car |
1 tram |
4 cars |
|
Passengers tram/car |
1 tram |
35 cars |
This table indicates trams can provide an economically competitive passenger transport service for Sydney's CBD. The above transport options can not be directly compared but the evidence is clear the construction of major roads in the inner Sydney region is very expensive and public transport is economically superior.
Community Support
Community organisations and local councils have prepared many proposals for the reintroduction of trams to Sydney:
1 J Gerofi report prepared for Glebe Society.
2 Light Rail Association
3 Bay Light Express proposed by Ecotransit
(Local Government areas:)
4 Leichhardt
5 South Sydney City Council
6 Marrickville
See appendix for maps and policies.
Economic evaluation of transport options
The financial viability of new transport systems is often evaluated by carrying out a cost/benefit analysis. If the financial benefits are greater than the costs then the proposal is deemed to be viable and therefore a high recommendation is given to proceed with the proposal.
Cost/benefit analysis should not be the only analytical technique used in determining the viability of transport systems. A comparison of the costs of different options should be used.
In the table "Comparison of trams and roads in the inner Sydney region". Trams compare favourably with new road tunnels. The economic superiority of trams indicates new major roads are an economic burden on Sydney and society is heavily subsidising road transport.
A problem with the EIS procedure is comparisons made between different options are all made by the proponents. In their enthusiasm to support their proposal the proponents tend to be slightly biased. Options should be presented by organisations who are not associated with the proponents.
The government could use a tendering process for transport systems. Basically the government could ask for solutions to a transport need and different service providers would present their bids. Bus, rail, trams,roads would all present their bids. This system would help to eliminate extraordinary high cost projects such as the Cross City Tunnel and hidden agendas will be more difficult to hide, such as the attraction of cars onto existing tollways.
References
Central Sydney light rail proposal EIS 1997
Cross City Tunnel EIS July 2000
Eastern Suburbs Light Rail Dept of Transport 1999