Public Transport System In Sydney Tourism Essay
Public transport faces severe problems in almost all countries although the situation varies from one country to another and even from one city to another. The referred study pertains to Sydney in Australia. Sydney is Australia’s only truly global city, the world’s most culturally diverse cities and one of the world’s great metropolises. Public Transport is an integral part of the fabric of society and is a right, not a privilege. Transportation along with Health and Education are basic building block of any community. The public sees public transport as a core state responsibility. Sydney has the highest level of public transport accessibility to any city in Australia. The different type of facilities available is Airport Link, Buses, Trains, Ferries, Light Rail, Monorail, Taxis, Sydney & Bondi Explorer and City Hopper.
Based on the report Sydney by 2036, State Plan and the 2005 Metropolitan Strategy (City of Cities: A Plan for Sydney’s Future) set out the long-term growth management plan for Sydney. According to this by 2036 Sydney will need to accommodate 6 million people. Nearly 70% of Sydney’s population growth will be driven by natural increase. Migration will account for just over 30% of the population increase. Sydney’s population is expected to reach 6 million by 2036 – an increase of 1.7 million since the last Census in 2006. That means 760,000 more jobs and 770,000 more homes than in 2006. This growth brings with it significant implications for transport and infrastructure, so it’s vital we get the planning right to ensure we build on our advantages.
Executive Summary
Sydney is Australia’s largest city with an approximate population of 4.4 million. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) forecasts that by 2036, the City is expected to have population of approximately. One of the critical issues facing the City is the continuing failure to invest in public transport infrastructure to meet the needs of its growing population. Public Transport System in Sydney has not improved due to various reasons. There has been so many different plans made by different political parties but majority of these plans remain as paper document and were not implemented. The history of failure to implement public transport plans and infrastructure promises is matter of concern with different authorities and public at large.
One of the major reasons of failure of implementation is the lack of long term funding arrangements. Though privatisation has been allowed in Ferry and bus business but the improvement in overall transportation system is not as per standards the other major Cities of Australia have achieved. This has caused Sydney falling behind other Australian and world cities in its public transport performance.
Current Situation
The public at large who uses public transport in Sydney face the problems. Public using the public transport in Sydney whether buses, ferries or trains know that the system is groaning under the pressure of the regular infusion of funds. Not because Sydney is growing rapidly (although it is) but because the state government has refused to invest in bringing an ageing system up to scratch. It is felt by the public that Public transport networks, designed in the 1940s, are straining to service growing cities. In Sydney alone, patronage of the City Rail network increased by more than 8 million journeys in 2008/09. As demand for public transport has risen, modest rises in services have not kept pace. The pressure of overcrowding has led transport authorities to design more “realistic” timetables: bus and train trips now take longer than in past years. In the outer suburbs of Australian cities, public transport is simply non-existent or woefully inadequate. Since last two decades, NSW governments declares number of plans and documents about improvement in public transport system, however, non implementation of the declared plans is indication of deferment denial of the need for the government to lead the development of public transport services and infrastructure in Sydney. The past slow developments indicate that since the opening of the Eastern Suburbs Railway in 1979 only three segments have been added to the suburban rail network, and one of these, the Airport line, relied on private sector construction and operation of its stations, leading to excessive fares and thus preventing the city from making the best use of this important infrastructure.
All these factors conclude the public transport infrastructure deficit which has placed Sydney well behind comparable cities in Europe, Asia and in some cases even North America. The situation in Brisbane where the bus way network and Perth’s new Mandurah rail line in Australia proves that Sydney is comparatively behind these metro areas. The solution to this problem is not easy and can be resolved immediately with Government support especially in implementation of planning of building public transport infrastructure.
NSW Transport and Infrastructure has been established as the lead public transport agency of the NSW Government. NSW Transport and Infrastructure is responsible for transport coordination, policy and planning, transport service and infrastructure. It will also manage budget allocation for rail, bus, ferry and taxi services and related infrastructure in NSW. (Ref: Transport & Infrastructure, http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/aboutus).
One of the debateable issues is the privatisation of the transport system. For example the Walker Report inquiring into Sydney Ferries mentions that there is a real threat regarding Sydney Ferries could be sold off by the NSW State Government. This means higher prices and reduction in services for a profit driven private owner as opposed to a government service offered to the people. Sydney Ferries give people modal choice and are considered to be a cheaper way for the government to move people then cars on roads so it just doesn’t make sense. Mr Walker recommended the government to form a public-private partnership to operate and manage the service while also is calling for the entire current ferry fleet to be replaced. The report is critical of the current performance of Sydney Ferries, saying it is less than satisfactory and beset by cultural problems. Premier Morris Iemma said the Walker report would be the “road map for change” within Sydney Ferries and supported the call for a new fleet of ferries.
An independent Public enquiry was conducted to look into Long Term Public Transport Plan for Sydney which published the Preliminary Report dated February 05, 2010. The Sydney Morning Herald is right to say that Sydney needs a long term plan that guides the way in which services and infrastructure are planned and delivered. That work is well underway, and builds on the infrastructure, and planning that this Government has already delivered.
Historical facts, figures and scenario
Public transport operators in NSW carry over 2 million passengers each weekday on rail, bus, ferry and taxi services. Around 72% of trips to the Sydney CBD each weekday are made using public transport. The transport sector employs about 20,000 people across. NSW Government has looked into major areas of the transport sector, implementation of the projects for improvement in customer service.
Manly has had both a conventional and a high speed ferry service to the city since January 1965. The Hydrofoil service became more regular with the entry to service of the second larger 140 seat Fairlight. The Manly Hydrofoil service became difficult and costly to run following the introduction of two larger and slightly faster Hydrofoils in September 1984 and July 1985. It finds that there have been a number of considerations and attempts to withdraw the Jetcat service from Manly since 1996 and the recent withdrawal was simply the final and successful attempt. Manly Jetcats have been poorly managed by Sydney Ferries due to progressive Jetcat service degradation and associated failure to properly manage maintenance of the vessels. There were incidents of failure to organise sufficient crew to run both the Manly Ferry and Jetcat services.
The incidents of transport plans are announced and then re-announced. New rail lines are proposed but then abandoned and governments claim increasing costs and global financial problems.
Abandoning the proposed light rail service to the North-West & postponing indefinitely the proposed heavy rail service to the South-West are examples of wrong priorities, inadequacy of funds and inefficiency of the existing transport system which could have added more profits. South West Rail Link has recently been re-announced by the State Government, the future of the North West link is yet to be confirmed. What is implicit in the interim report is the real danger that if the government does proceed with prioritising the construction of an expensive metro network, no further infrastructure is likely to be provided in Western Sydney beyond the South West Rail Link and the Western Metro for many decades to come – if ever.
News regarding introducing an (unsuccessful) ‘congestion tax’ tolling system on the Harbour Bridge and Harbour Tunnel appeared in media. The Government view was that it is introduced to prompt some people to change their travel times or take public transport for trips during peak hours. It was to encourage commuters who can take their journey outside of the peak period. The Government wanted to reduce congestion on Australia’s busiest road corridor. Some were of the view that it is unsuccessful as congestion could not be reduced.
In the Ministerial enquiry into sustainable transport in New South Wales during December 2003, it emerged that Govt. cannot continue with the current arrangements for providing and funding transport services as they are not delivering the satisfactory services to meet the needs of the community. It was suggested that public transport operators (especially CityRail) must overhaul their management and workplace practices to deliver better, safer services, and reduce their operating costs. For passengers the report has suggested that must pay a fairer share of the costs of the system, particularly to help fund improvements. The report recommended that the Government must make amendments to provide concessions for senior citizens, school students and other groups and examine how specific road use pricing could be used to encourage more people to use public transport instead of private cars.
Ref: Ministerial inquiry into sustainable transport in New South Wales dated December 2003.
Based on this report the expenses needed to operate public transport services in NSW are expected to increase substantially over the next seven years. Based on estimates provided by SRA and STA the total costs to maintain existing CityRail, Sydney Buses, Newcastle Buses and Ferries, and Sydney Ferries services (and to allow for some growth in patronage due to population growth) will be nearly $2.7 billion per year over the period 2003-04 to 2010-11. Assuming that passenger fares and government contributions do not increase in real terms, the total revenue for these public transport operators is expected to be nearly $2.3 billion per year. This means there will be a gap of some $400 million per year between the money that they spend and the money they receive. If CityRail and STA were to expand or improve their services significantly, the gap would be even greater.
Total average annual expenditure needs of NSW government public transport operators, 2003-04 to 2010-11
Costs
$m
Operating
2 043
Capital
620
Total
2 663
Revenue
Farebox and other revenue
884
Government contributions
1 377
Total
2 261
Funding gap
402
All financials expressed in cash flows and in 2003 dollars.
Source: Data provided by SRA and STA, 2003.
It was estimated that CityRail will need to spend nearly $2.1 billion per annum from 2003-04 to 2010-11 to maintain existing services, and make some service improvements. This estimate includes the additional investment needed to implement the rail clearways plan, which should result in improved service levels across the network. It represents an increase of 17 per cent over CityRail’s 2001-02 expenditure. CityRail’s total revenues per annum are expected to be more than $1.7 billion, including more than $600 million from fares and other revenue, and $1.1 billion from government contributions. This means there will be a funding gap of $332 million per annum if there are no real fare increases or increases in government funding.
Forecast average annual expenditure for CityRail, 2003-04 to 2010-11
Costs
$m
Operating
1 527
Capital
553
Total
2 080
Revenue
Farebox and other revenue
614
Government contributions
1 134
Total
1 748
Funding gap
332
All financials expressed in cash flows and in 2003 dollars.
Source: Data provided by SRA, 2003.
Sydney’s Buses forecast needs:
The report estimates that Sydney Buses requires about $437 million per annum to maintain its network of services over the period 2003-04 to 2010-11. The forecast includes the cost of replacement of old buses with new air-conditioned, low floor buses. The forecast expenditure represents an increase of 18 per cent (or $66 million per annum in real terms) over Sydney Buses’ 2001-02 expenditure. The report estimates that Sydney Buses total revenues over the period will be $410 million per annum. This means there will be a funding gap of $27 million per annum.
Forecast average annual expenditure for Sydney Buses, 2003-04 to 2010-11
Costs
$m
Operating
378
Capital
59
Total
437
Revenue
Farebox and other revenue
221
Government contributions
189
Total
410
Funding gap
27
All financials expressed in cash flows and in 2003 dollars.
Source: Data provided by STA, 2003.
The report also indicate the estimates that Newcastle Buses and Ferries requires approximately $50 million per annum to maintain existing services for the period 2003-04 to 2010-11. This represents an increase of 38 per cent (or $14 million per annum in real terms) compared with 2001-02 expenditures. Total revenues are estimated to be $30 million per annum over this period, resulting in a funding gap of $19 million per annum. Forecast average annual expenditure for Newcastle Buses and Ferries, 2003-04 to 2010-11
Costs
$m
Operating
46
Capital
3
Total
49
Revenue
Farebox and other revenue
8
Government contributions
22
Total
30
Funding gap
19
All financials expressed in cash flows and in 2003 dollars.
Source: Data provided by STA, 2003.
The report has forecasted that Sydney Ferries requires $97 million per annum from 2003-04 to 2010-11 to maintain its existing services. This is a decrease of four per cent, or $4 million per annum in real terms, compared with 2001aˆ‘02.
Forecast average annual expenditure for Sydney Ferries, 2003-04 to 2010-11
Costs
$m
Operating
92
Capital
5
Total
97
Revenue
Farebox and other revenue
41
Government contributions
32
Total
73
Funding gap
24
All financials expressed in cash flows and in 2003 dollars.
Source: Data provided by STA, 2003.
The total costs include $5 million per annum for capital expenditure. This relatively low level of capital expenditure follows a large capital program totalling $65 million over the previous three years. Expected increases in operating costs of 23 per cent on 2001-02 levels will be offset by this lower level of capital expenditure resulting in an overall decrease in costs.
The report pointed out that there is considerable scope for operators to reduce the funding gap by improving efficiency. The operational efficiency will deliver more value from the public funds they receive. The efficiency will lead to higher profitability and low funding requirements in future.
Future scenario, Aims, Objectives and Strategy
The past history reveal that planning for improvement of the Public Transport System was made by the ruling Government on periodical basis but the proper implementation was not done in most of the plans. There was an independent Public inquiry in the Lon term Public Transport Plan for Sydney which has been published in February 2010 which includes two of these future plans as supporting documents. It is also reported from the survey that there have been number of plans both before the inquiry was initiated. The fact that plans were made but not executed indicate that the crisis in transport in Sydney needs to be addressed by much more than just a plan if the Government really wish to achieve an efficient transport system. The emphasis should be more as Sydney is a worthy of a world-class city and capable of meeting the massive population and employment growth, social, environmental, energy and global warming challenges of the future. If the improvement does not commensurate with the time there will be slow growth in revenue as compared to other metros like Melbourne where the systems have been improved in short span of time.
The immediate steps required are to introduce a system of underground electric railways for city and suburban passenger traffic, serving the North Shore, the Eastern Suburbs, and Balmain and adjoining suburbs. In the past there has been a heavy investment in radial freeways and toll roads as governments sought to meet the increasing demand. The tram network was closed down and dismantled. Majority of the public is of the view that there is need for the long term commitment rather than the short term political gains. The general public view is to have efficient and competitive public transport system in spite of the fact that public will be required to pay extra for the improvements.
Recently, there has been improvement in the efficiency of bus based systems for Sydney, including two bus ways in western Sydney; provision of bus lanes and bus priority measures; use of articulated buses; and introduction of pre-paid only buses and Metro buses. These initiatives need to continue. Sydney’s ferry system could be enhanced by provision of bike parking facilities at ferry terminals, while taxi services could be improved by the use of multi-hiring at peak times, which will increase productivity and reduce costs.
Ref: Thirty Years Public Transport Plan for Sydney
Aim: The aim is to streamline transport structure. The improvement is Public Transport System will deliver integrated transport planning and service delivery, and consolidation of like-functions to reduce costs and provide additional funds for front-line staff and services. This aim is defined by NSW Transport and Infrastructure which is the lead public transport agency of the NSW Government, with primary responsibility for transport policy, planning and coordination functions as well as oversight of infrastructure delivery and asset management. NSW will encourage the collaboration with other transport agencies as key service initiatives to deliver a more capable, safe and reliable transport network across metropolitan, regional and rural NSW.
Ref. Transport & Infrastructure: http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au
Impact from Population and Environment
Sydney’s population would grow by 1.1 million to 5.3 million by 2031, necessitating 640,000 new dwellings and 500,000 new jobs. The population is expected to grow by up to 35% over the next thirty years, while energy use; oil use and greenhouse gas emissions would all rise with adverse impacts on health. There is another contributor to growth in population is increase in life expectancies. Australians live longer as such Sydney will need to adapt to meet the needs of older residents, especially those in heavily car-dependent areas with limited public transport. Public transport infrastructure should take into consideration the aged and people with mobility impairments or disabilities.
The transport systems in Sydney is heavily oil dependent, and latest data suggests that global oil production flattened out from 2005 and is now likely to go into decline. This could lead to further serious economic consequences (Hamilton, 2009), particularly for those cities which are most reliant on automobiles. Key thirty years objectives and strategies for Sydney were established for passenger transport in Sydney:
Reduce Overall Greenhouse Gas emissions by at least 50%
Reduce Overall Oil use by at least 50%
Improve Health by increasing active transport (walking and cycling), reducing air pollution and traffic accidents
The strategies to be followed are:
Limit population growth
Reduce per capita travel through travel demand measures
Increase energy and greenhouse efficiency
As no single specific strategy will enable to meet the aim & objectives combination of the strategies are required to meet the key objective.
Forecasting and Trends
Forecasting furnished below has been taken from the published report: Independent Public Inquiry Long Term Public Transport Plan for Sydney. The figures have been accepted based on the assumptions and the assumptions of three scenarios:
The first is European Scenario which assumes significant and employment growth so as to accommodate six million people by 2040. It also assumes continuation of 2005 Metropolitan strategies which see Sydney to develop as City of Cities.
The second is East Asian scenario assumes the same overall additional population and employment growth but focuses more heavily on the traditional city centre and inner areas of Sydney, with very strong employment growth (higher than under the “European” scenario) in the City of Sydney and high levels of residential development along major new metro lines.
A third scenario, a “US” scenario, which would involve much lower density residential development with more urban sprawl, more dispersed employment locations and a heavy focus on road development, with only half of its funding being directed to public transport.
Ref. Independent Public Inquiry Long-Term Public Transport Plan for Sydney-Preliminary Report dated February 2010
Recommendations
From the past records it is felt that the problem in Public Transport System in Sydney continues in spite of change in ruling political party. One of the major issues is the funding arrangement by the Government. It is recommended that the Government should allow privatisation to some extent and the rates should be semi controlled by the ruling Government. Like in Melbourne privatization can be allowed in Sydney as a form of
Public-Private Partnership.
NSW Transport and Infrastructure should develop its Corporate Plan which must be implemented without deviation. Short plans, if required, should be implemented but if these are linked to major plan should only be implemented along with other linked projects. Doing half way is a loss to the Government and also the tax payer’s money is not utilised properly.
Government has already got published the independent studies wherein different long term plans have been suggested and especially the long term strategy for next 30 years is published for public opinion and suggestions. It is recommended that Government should implement the strategy which provides subsidised or concession travel to a wide range of people within specified target groups. The Ministry of Transport’s role is to provide advice to Government on concession policy issues and administer the contractual arrangements for transport concessions on regulated bus, train and ferry services.
Conclusion
In collaboration with other transport agencies, NSW Transport and Infrastructure is progressively implementing key service initiatives to deliver a more capable, safe and reliable transport network across metropolitan, regional and rural NSW.
All transport infrastructure projects must be compared and evaluated using rigorous cost benefit analysis which takes full account of economic, social and environmental costs and benefits.
