NSW transport report fiasco

by Peter Mac

The Carr Government's latest report on the NSW transport system is bad news 
for those who actually use the system. If carried to their logical 
conclusions, the report's findings could result in the replacement of most 
of the state's rural rail services with private buses contracted to the 
government, the privatisation of Sydney's ferry services, the elimination 
of periodical rail ticket concessions, the replacement of the current $1.10 
"seniors" ticket with a half normal price ticket concession, and reductions 
in the free student travel scheme.

The report, Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable Transport in NSW, Options 
for the Future, has a fundamental flaw in that it focuses almost 
exclusively on the profitability, at the expense of the public's right to 
expect a good public transport system. Although the transport system has 
always been largely funded by taxation, the report concludes ominously (but 
with no argument to back it up) that this cannot continue to happen.

Flaws in assumptions

The report uses the complexity of Sydney's public transport system (which 
largely reflects the complexity of its geography) as an excuse to advocate 
the elimination of less frequently-used services.

The report's authors, and the Minister for Transport, Michael Costa, both 
ignore basic principles in transport planning. In his introduction to the 
draft report, Costa criticises the public transport system, and by 
implication its passengers, as responsible for the costs which have to be 
met by the taxpayer in order to keep it running. However, he fails to draw 
attention to the huge imbalance in taxation revenues directed to the 
construction of new roads, as opposed to rail systems.

Commuters will travel by either road or rail, depending on the quality and 
speed of the available options. But a good rail system takes up far less 
land surface, consumes far less energy, causes far less pollution and can 
deliver far more people to urban destinations in a given time than private 
vehicles.

For a major city like Sydney it is therefore simply more efficient to have 
the vast mass of commuters travelling by rail, and to have the road system 
used primarily for public transport where there are no rail connections, 
emergency vehicles and occasional trips or trips to inaccessible areas.

Construction of tunnels for new roads is also far more extensive than 
required for rail systems carrying the same number of passengers. This is 
particularly so in cities like Sydney which are now subject to increasing 
pressure for higher density development in order to curb urban sprawl.

One case in point is the proposed construction of a tunnel system for 
vehicles to access the northern beaches. Use of the tunnel for train 
travel, as an element in the long-awaited northern beaches rail line, would 
be a far more efficient method of improving the accessibility of those 
living along the northern beach suburbs to the city.

Regional rail services to be chopped

The report's myopic focus on dollars rather than service is nowhere better 
exemplified than in its statement that "Few of the CountryLink intrastate 
services are justifiable"!

The logical conclusion of this statement is that almost all rural rail 
services in NSW should be discontinued, with some replaced with coaches. 
The report's reference to CountryLink coach services is a furphy. All 
country link coaches are privately-owned, and are simply on contract to the 
State Government. The service is effectively privatised.

The Sydney/Canberra rail service has already been cut for a short period 
this year, on the excuse that there were was a shortage of both train 
drivers and passengers. When the service was resumed it was reduced to two 
services per day.

The situation will be reassessed in October, the options being maintenance 
of the existing service, a further reduction in service, or a transfer to a 
CountryLink coach service. Improving the rail service will apparently not 
be considered as an option, even though this would inevitably draw far more 
passengers.

This case illustrates the Carr Government's reliance on the "self-
fulfilling prophecy" of rail services being allowed to fall into disrepair, 
and other transport options being sought when the patronage inevitably 
drops as a result.

The abandonment of a Sydney/Canberra rail service would, of course, free up 
the existing rail tracks for conversion to use by the proposed privately-
owned high-speed intercity rail service between Melbourne, Canberra and 
Sydney.

In a seemingly contradictory statement, the report does state: "It is 
surprising that the large transfer of taxpayer funds ($348 million in 2002-
03) to private bus operators is not being used to purchase a much more 
extensive and appropriate range of community transport services across the 
state."

But note that the alternative suggested is not an improvement in the rail 
services. The reality is that widespread conversion of the regional rail 
system to a coach service would not only involve a loss in capacity, 
reliability, comfort and safety compared to a good rail service.

It would also set the stage for the progressive abandonment of regional 
public transport in favour of fully privatised coaches and force many more 
cars onto the roads.

Will harbour privateers get Sydney ferry services?

Regarding Sydney ferries, the report contains the highly objectionable — 
and stupid — statement that, "We have . a costly public ferry service that 
includes what is effectively a subsidised water taxi service for mainly 
middle to high income earners and tourists."

Apart from its inaccuracy (there are plenty of working people living in 
Sydney's harbour suburbs and travelling to work on the ferries) this 
blanket criticism of ferry passengers is one of a number of highly 
insulting statements in the report.

The report also suggests that the administration of Sydney ferries should 
be split off from the state transport network, and should be established as 
a corporation. This sort of move is now the standard initial procedure in 
the process of privatising public services.

Privatisation would definitely fit with the report's description of the 
ferries as serving mainly tourists and silvertails.

"Seniors" to pay up big

The report suggests that those holding "seniors cards" are not worthy of 
the same rate of concessions on their tickets as pensioners, because of 
their higher incomes. The report suggests that only those meeting means 
test criteria, such as pensioners and health card holders, should receive 
the current concessions, and that others should only qualify for a half-
price concession.

Apparently both the Carr Government and the coalition MPs are in agreement 
on this issue. Opposition leader John Brogden even presumed to speak on 
behalf of "seniors" when stating that they would, of course, agree to a 
hike in their fare prices.

Unfortunately, most self-funded retirees, superannuants and other non-
pensioner aged people don't enjoy many of the benefits that are currently 
available to pensioners, even though in many cases their income is only 
marginally higher than the pensioner income limit.

Moreover, there is already a means test applied for applicants for senior 
cards, with regard to paid income. The extension of this test to include 
all income would be a savage blow to superannuants and self-funded 
retirees, and a supremely mean act on the part of the government.

The $1.10 daily ticket enables many "seniors" to get around and lead more 
active lives.

The report also introduces a highly insulting and discriminatory 
description of aged people as effectively clogging up public transport 
during peak hours. It suggests that they should in effect be penalised by 
being charged normal rates for travel during such periods.

Significantly, the report suggests that the aged person concession scheme 
should be extended to include private transport, in particular coaches, 
thus reinforcing its support for privately-owned non-rail public transport. 
It does not, however, address the current outrageously high cost of travel 
on Sydney's rail network to the four privately-operated stations, including 
those at the airport terminals.

A comparison of fares between public and private gives some idea of what a 
privatised future would mean: a single fare of $11.60 (an 11-minute trip 
from Central to the private international air terminal station) compared 
with $2.80 for a comparable trip to a public station (say Central to Bondi 
Junction)!

Periodical ticket concessions to go

According to the report, many passengers don't deserve periodical ticket 
(e.g. weekly tickets) concession rates because they earn more than average 
incomes. The introduction of a means test, an idea canvassed in the report, 
is fraught with difficulties, and would if introduced eventually reduce the 
availability of current concessions to a "safety net" provision.

Schoolkids, pay up!

The report suggests that free travel for school children should be limited 
to the nearest public school. This implies that those who travel long 
distances to selective public schools should pay an extra charge, i.e. that 
they should, in effect, be penalised for being outstanding students.

The report questions whether private school students should receive free 
travel to school at taxpayer expense. The NSW Parents and Teachers 
Federation thinks not, but they're unlikely to receive a sympathetic 
response from the current state government.

Travel on public transport for school children should be free and 
universally available.

A highly divisive document

The report implies that rail workers are no longer concerned with safety, 
ignoring the progressive replacement of the "safety culture" with one 
focused primarily on the almighty dollar. It points to the Olympic 
transport successes, but fails to point out that this was achieved by 
hiring an extra 3000 temporary workers.

One of the most objectionable aspects of the report, and Costa's press 
statement with regard to it, is the consistent attempt to set one group of 
commuters against another.

Pensioners are described as being more worthy of major concessions than 
"seniors" card holders; those living in Sydney's northern beach suburbs are 
depicted as silvertails receiving unjustified benefits from the public 
purse; passengers on frequently used city services are described as 
effectively subsidising those on less utilised regional routes; aged 
concession passengers are depicted as clogging up peak-hour services; and 
regional health and community transport is said to be more worthy of 
funding than school student free travel and aged person concessions.

The report even poses spending on the transport system itself against other 
areas of government expenditure, e.g. education and health. The report 
should be rejected because of this dishonest and manipulative ploy, which 
is clearly intended to set one part of the community against another and 
open the way for the destruction of the presently integrated public 
transport system and its replacement by an inferior, more expensive and 
inadequate for-profit system.

As the privatisation of public transport in Victoria has shown, the public 
will pay twice, through higher fares and government subsidies.

The solution lies in avoiding dependence on private "loan-sharks" to fund 
new, private transport initiatives, and in adopting policies that will 
boost the efficiency, comfort and safety of public transport, particularly 
rail, and ensuring its affordability for all the public.

This latest report on public transport in NSW is an outrage and should be 
rejected out of hand.