The Sydney Contention

ay be As I noted in my recent post about the future of transportation investments in Melbourne,  one of the most intellectually exciting parts of this experience has been to engage with some serious debates about the future of transportation infrastructure in Australian cities and be able to engage with an openness that can only come from not having a personal or professional stake in the outcome. This is the first of two posts of my observations about the investment future of these cities. 

In Sydney the debate is vigorous between the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Infrastructure New South Wales (INSW) and their respective media champions, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph. To be fair to both papers, they have a range of reporting on transportation issues, but their leanings are not in dispute. The Department of Transportation’s State Transportation Strategy would heavily weight investments toward public transportation investment.  INSW and Telegraph argue that with billions in public transit investment in the last decade an investment in highway connections is what is needed. In addition to the highway the INSW proposes a light rail extension to the University of New South Wales.  Further, they argue the economic returns on highway investments are higher and quicker and their top priority highway project can be paid for by its users, unlike transit.

No doubt there is plenty to critique about the state of America’s federal, state and local inability to even maintain what we have, no less have a serious debate about expanding our infrastructure.  My critique of both plans comes from a place admiration for a public and politicians who are willing to aggressively debate these issues. I also share a frustration that many feel around debate that fails to lead to action. One can always pick apart any cost/benefit analysis, but I would argue that there are some fundamental problems with both strategies.

For the DOT, the lack of clear funding strategy, a collection of public transit assets that doesn’t act as a system and labor agreements that stifle innovation in public transit poses real challenges for their approach. These challenges shouldn’t be understated.  From the best I can tell rail network work rules are crippling the system with costs, operational inefficiencies and poor quality of service. The state operated busses are not as easy to use as the should be and a lack of coordination with other transportation assets including the rail and ferry network means Sydney is not getting all it can out of its system.    

For INSW, I think there is a more fundamental problem with not thinking about the right time frame for their investment. Major transportation infrastructure lasts a minimum of 30 years and can often be around for a century, so decisions made today will shape development patterns for decades. US experience, no less international experiences, demonstrates that building capacity doesn’t reduce congestion.  This is especially true when the highway capacity is not priced for demand – higher charges during rush hour to encourage travel at other times or by other modes.  To paraphrase the Harvard economist Ed Glaeser, any Soviet Commissar will tell you that free bread leads to endless lines.  Freeways are free bread and there are endless lines (congestion). I would fear that the west connects project will ultimate increase congestion by facilitating auto-oriented development.   

Where the INSW plan does expand transit I believe it does not adequately considering the economic development impacts of suggested investment. Cities like Adelaide and Melbourne in Australia and Denver and Portland in the U.S. are seeing the positive impacts of adding light rail systems to the urban core. Developing the proposed underground bus way will perpetuate an auto dominated central business district. What CBD retail and restaurants need to thrive are not cars driving by, but people walking by, and that is exactly what light rail provides. A line to a University will experience heavy use while the uni (as they would say here) is in session, but the rest of the year they won’t get as much from the system as they would from taking it through the core of the CBD. 

No strategy or plan is perfect, but no action may be the worst case scenario. INSW deserves credit for putting forward a plan with a compelling strategy for delivery. The State Department of Transport deserves credit for putting forward a plan that considers what the impacts of investments will be decades from now. As one private sector leader vented to me, “The government just needs to do something.  Probably anyone of the top five highway or transit projects is a positive investment for the region.”