Integrated transport planning – what is it really?

I’ve been very frustrated with the chaotic process and results around the multiple attempts of the NSWALP government to develop an integrated transport plan. They must be up to number 16 by now in the 15 years since Bob Carr fluked becoming premier.

As an aside, I feel, and I suspect Carr does too, fluking it was not in NSW long term best interests. He has intimated that the NSWALP was still undergoing ‘regeneration’ from Wran era cronyism into Bracks era ‘listening’ and was caught on the hop, with Carr himself really a transition manager rather than Premier materials, in the way Brumby was. So as a context to why government policy has been so awful, especially transport policy, this may provide some explanation. Certainly a ‘listening’ government might have heard the problems earlier than that one did, whether they acted is another matter.

Returning from the digression, I’m not a supporter of government centrally planning an economy; it doesn’t work. However, a modicum of city or metropolitan planning is essential, even in a free enterprise system. Most of the counter examples are from developing countries, and while many of them ‘bustle’ with economic activity, few are efficient while urban development is unplanned.

And many of them, such as Bangkok, were late comers to the need for heavy fixed rail transport. Fortunately, an underlying template of growth means that as rail facilities appear, urban fabric can be quickly remodelled around them. However, it can still leave useful development orphaned from a system for years.

In mature capitalist democracies, the change will always be slower, and hence important to get right.

Planning is always fraught with the question ‘top down versus bottom up’ – should objectives be framed at the top and intepreted down, or should realities at the bottom be synthesised into themes and then handed down as the plan. The answer is, of course, it should be a two way street, but that is unsatisfying as that will always cause conflicts and it is the resolution of conflicts, rather than utopian rational policy development that is the planners’ real job.

However, I can say for sure that in advance of a metropolitan transport plan should be a metropolitan plan (ie land use, settlement and economic activity). This should state for certain, based on current uses and efficient future uses, what will happen where.

And while I prefer a measure of ‘horizontal’ separation between planning, regulation and executive functions, so that the people writing the plan aren’t influenced or corrupted by the wrong influence, there should be a vertical alignment in the system between those doing the planning and those holding the funds. For example, I don’t favour a Department of Planning doing such a plan, but rather a Premiers Department, holding hands with the Treasury who will have to pay for it. Keeping the objectives Achievable within the SMART acronym requires that sort of Premier level blessing.

In terms of transport, it is important for such an urban plan to acknowledge existing transport networks and how to get best value from them by appropriate settlement and economic activity policies – but that is where it should stop. The final step at this level is simply a capacity analysis, how much more each of the existing transport corridors can take, as this informs decisions about either new settlement patterns, or new investment in transport. But don’t jump to that decision just yet.

It is at the next level, where a comprehensive transport needs analysis is undertaken, based on the flows of people that the urban plan predicts are likely to generate.

This is the key weakness with the Dulwich Hill LR. I can see no evidence of analysis revealing what key flow of people it is supposed to be supporting. And even if such a flow of people exists, what priority it takes over hundreds of other flows.

It is far too early in the planning cycle to be talking technology.

Once the needs analysis is complete, it is then important, in light of the metropolitan urban plan, to then priorities these flows according to their impact on economic activity and urban amenity, and also how well served these flows are by current networks.

If, for example, a policy suggests the ‘international financial centre’ arc crosses Sydney Harbour and heads up to Chatswood and Macquarie, as they currently do, then what is the transport potential or deficit currently, in terms of volume and time.

And then rank this issues as a priority against hundreds (and I mean hundreds) of others, for example, policies of investing in Western Sydney business, or relieving housing shortages by expanding the sprawl, or making the Central Coast a more attractive place to live, or densifying Southern Sydney inner urban areas. A long list. They need to be prioritised.

Then, and only then, do you then develop options for solving these problems. There is no point considering options for improving Leichhardt to Dulwich Hill transport if it is a low ranked priority. Now it might be a high ranked priority if , for example, the urban plan had said that high density settlemenet would occur along the corridor, but it was clear such settlement would overwhelm road-based transport.

The options will probably be framed around different technologies, but even here, the focus should be on volumes and times. For example, a metro and a LR line might be similar transit time options, one is clearly a different volume response. A clear ‘curve’ should be plotted of the volume based response and the cost attributabl to it. Publishing the curve will help outside stakeholders see that cost-effectiveness is being sought.

Then second order effects should be shown. The consequences to the urban plan of the preferred option versus do nothing. This would include the economic costs, such as the opportunity cost of the capital used, but also of business chocked off by poor transport.

These plans should not be specific about location of transport networks. While it should be assumed existing fixed rail corridors remain, it should be enoguh to say, for example, that a Parramatta to North Shore link is required -not a Parramatta to Epping one. That may be the result,but it rules out other options, such as a Victoria Road-West Ryde-St-Leonards option as was also floated.

Implementaiton plans separate from the metro transport plan should consider this level of detail.

With Dulwich Hill, even worthwhile isues such as should the line go to Ashfield, or Five Dock, or Campsie, or Wolli Creek, are hard to consider while we have no higher plan which actually identifies the flow we are trying to solve. Dulwich Hill itself is low in the urban planning hierachy but the proposed line misses some much higher order development. If we knew, for example, that Wolli Creek was a high priority urban settlement, and needed high quality transport links around Sydney, then we might have some sense of whether the line should go there. Or Ashfield, or Five Dock, or whatever.

The line will be a policy orphan, as well as an operational one.

Sydney’s metro proposal suffered the same problem, not just that it didn’t feature on proper plans, by no metropolitan planning and needs analysis informed it. No priority for Rozelle in urban planning, for example. No publications on exactly where the congestion points in the CBD rail network were, and how simply upgrading Cityrail was not enough. No prioritised list of demand management, bus, light rail or Cityrail alternatives and how they ranked on benefit or cost.

This comes back to Wran-era cronyism I mentioned above. No scope for ‘listening’ and no stomach for major plans, lest the caravan of development lobby funders took fright.

In NSW, a decision to favour TOD and town centres favours Frank Lowy and his Westfield empire, and the major resi builders like Meriton, while road-based developments favour other developers such as DFO and the big suburban house developers. This is an undercurrent of improper influence that even other states seem to be able to avoid at the metropolitan planning level, though I’m sure it impacts at lower levels like local government.

None have clean hands on transport planning though. From the ‘demand’ end, we have the toll road companies wanting to profit from transport deficits, at the other end, we have the unions wanting control and influence over public transport delivery.

Even Dulwich Hill is partly orphaned by the fact that you would in no way want to hand the operation over to Cityrail or their cronies with the public sector administrative and operational unions.

This entry was posted on Friday, June 11th, 2010 at 7:20 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.