Guy Beres

Like many folks living in Sydney I suspect, I am not sure quite what to think about the Iemma Government’s grand metro proposal. Let’s consider the negative aspects to the proposal to begin with. The current government’s record on delivering successful PPP agreements is less than stellar. The project would be a massive one, taking a significant amount of time to complete, and highly likely to require the involvement and support of multiple governments. The project would represent a highly significant infrastructure investment specific to the Sydney metropolitan area, and would not really benefit all those people in New South Wales living outside this area. It is not clear what the benefits and negative impacts of the project to the city of Sydney would be precisely, in the absence of any detailed inquiry commissioned by the government. When you combine all these factors and consider them together, it would be a brave soul who does not have a doubt in his or her mind that a project of this magnitude can be carried off.

But then let’s consider the flip side of the coin. The proposed metro line would open up a fantastic and much needed transport option for Sydney’s burgeoning north-west suburban zones. The suburbs through which the metro lines pass would likely undergo something of a rejuvenation, with residential and commercial interest increasing, and traffic decreasing due to the increased use of public transport. I think it’s fair to say that anyone who values public transport and appreciates the potential economic, cultural and environmental benefits that it can bring can not help but feel a little excited about the proposal, whatever their doubts might be. The transformative possibilities that a big public infrastructure development like this would bring to Sydney are arguably hard to overestimate.

Few policy proposals in the modern history of NSW state politics come burdened with so much doubt and yet uplifted with so much hope. On the slightly sceptical side, Scott Rochfort had quite a good piece in the SMH yesterday that took an interesting line on the Iemma Government’s recent track record with PPPs. This line in particular captures something quite important, I think, and something the NSW Opposition would be on to in a hurry if they were smart:

Mr Roozendaal should realise PPP stands for private public partnership. Mr Roozendaal, like his private partners, should “accept the risk” of the road, whose opening was delayed until a week after the last state election.

When two people enter into a “partnership” they usually both take responsibility if a joint venture fails to deliver. The Government so far only appears to know the concept of taking credit for infrastructure projects that have not made it off the drawing board. Such as the new $12 billion metro.

The NSW State Government has played a generally quite adversarial role in the public eye in relation to its PPPs; more than happy to portray its private partners as the “bad guys” trying to make a buck at the taxpayer’s expense. Perhaps with this massive infrastructure project now on the table for discussion, it is time to take stock and repent for the sins of the past. Minister for Roads Eric Roozendaal should admit what is bleedingly obvious to everyone in NSW; the recent PPP agreements for the Cross City Tunnel and the Lane Cove Tunnel were far short of optimal for the people of Sydney. The government should come out, and publicly admit that it should have done better. And most importantly, the government should then make it crystal clear that it will do a far superior job with this next proposal, and outline exactly how it intends to deliver on that promise.

This sort of openness and transparency is just what the Iemma Government needs at the moment if it is to bring the people of NSW along for the ride on this ostentatious metro scheme. Without public support for the proposal and a reason to have a renewed sense of faith in NSW Labor, there is no credible way forward for the government. Indeed, without the justified confidence of the people, the average punter is more likely than not to inform Mr. Iemma and Mr. Roozendaal at the next available opportunity that based on the current form guide, they’re dreamin’ with this metro stuff.

When living in Sydney I did make use of the buses between North Sydney and the CBD quite often and found the service good, although this route is effectively the least onerous test of Sydney’s bus network that one can possibly conceive of. Despite this positive experience, by comparison, I have to conclude that London’s bus network puts Sydney’s bus network to shame. The ubiquitous double-decker red buses that roam the streets of London come surprisingly frequently, with the often complicated maze of available routes and stops quite well explained on signage throughout London and on the excellent Transport For London quango website. Displays at many major bus stops throughout the city provide a countdown of how long it will be until the next bus for each relevant route, and the displays are often pretty well on the money.

Probably the quality I admire most about London’s approach to public transport is that the city is seemingly not satisfied with just “good”. Whatever the quality of the service is at the current time, there seems to be a lot of political will and public pressure to continue to make the system even better, and then, after that, even better. Arguably at least some of this can be contributed to the drive of somewhat controversial lefty mayor “Red” Ken Livingstone.

The latest manifestation of this is the gradual unveiling of an advanced communication system for London’s buses. Sean Dodson explains further in The Guardian, in a report that gives you a teasing taste of the cornucopia of potential avenues for improvement that could be explored for a service so basic, political will and funding allowing. Finland’s awesome public transport system is justifiably provided as a reference to strive towards:

Passengers on routes such as the 148, between Camberwell and Shepherd’s Bush, may have noticed that each time the bus approaches a stop, a recorded voice tells them which one it is, similar to the announcements made on the tube.

…
Every bus and tram in Helsinki and the surrounding cities of Vaanta and Espoo are being fitted with Linux servers and GPS units. Every bus and tram in the conurbation will not only become a wireless hotspot serving broadband internet throughout the vehicle - for free - but every bus and tram is visible on a Google map (the beta version is at tinyurl.com/2gftso) that uses the same real-time passenger information as the controllers in their command centre.

I actually have had the pleasure of catching the buses that Dodson alludes to in London, and the stop announcements have often proved useful for reminding me whereabouts in London I am at various strange times of the day and night. The fact that the announcements are quite frequent may well prove annoying to travellers who catch the same bus everyday, but I suppose as an alternative they could instead be flashed up on the information displays that seem to be present on most of London’s buses. Either way, the ability to know the location of the bus at any given time is a godsend for tourists or those unfamiliar with the city, or even locals who are in a part of town they are not too familiar with. Not to mention folks too intoxicated to pay too much attention to the world outside after a night out.

As for Finland, sounds like science fiction compared to what we are used to, eh? I will actually be visiting Helsinki in May, if all things go according to plan, so I will be able to report back further then on whether the Fins really are the world leaders with regards to public transport.