tip off
6

Is this why infrastructure costs are escalating?

Sydney Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, is calling on the O’Farrell Government to get the recently announced eastern suburbs light rail line off the streets of Surry Hills and under the ground

Proposed key network enhancements, from Connecting Our City, City of Sydney, 2012

Sydney’s progressive Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, has called for a section of the NSW Government’s proposed $1.6 billion south-eastern suburbs light rail line to be put underground.

Residents of inner city Surry Hills are worried the NSW Government’s plan to run the line along Devonshire St will “destroy the heartland of Surry Hills”.

The Lord Mayor is reported as saying:

While action to improve transport is welcome, there are real concerns that people’s homes and Moore Park will be impacted if the light rail line is built at street level…. A tunnel will be faster, cheaper over the life of the system, and will provide a far better service for events at Moore Park.

As I’ve noted before, Clover Moore is doing some fantastic things in Sydney in relation to cycling.

But sadly, progressive politicians can be as cynical, opportunistic and hypocritical as the rest of them (as the Victorian Greens repeatedly demonstrate e.g. see here and here).

Have a good look at the first exhibit. It’s from Sydney City Council’s showpiece 2012 transport report, Connecting Our City.

Notwithstanding the Lord Mayor’s concern for the welfare of Surry Hills voters, the report shows Council itself proposes light rail should run along Devonshire St as far as Crown St, with a possible future extension to Anzac Pde!

There’s no indication of a tunnel – it’s all at street level! Further, Council prioritises Devonshire St ahead of Foveaux St, even though the latter is considerably wider and is largely commercial uses.

Ms Moore appears to be playing politics. After all, the State Government’s paying for the project, not Council.

Curiously, despite its recency and strategic importance, the Connecting Our City report showing Council’s preference for Devonshire St is no longer available on Council’s web site. Perhaps it’s just a technical oversight?

Be that as it may, as a former resident of Surry Hills, I can appreciate the concerns of residents. While they’ll get an accessibility benefit from light rail, Devonshire St is predominantly residential and relatively narrow.

Light rail would probably eliminate all on-street parking spaces along this alignment. It could also bring more noise to the neighbourhood.

Modern steel-wheeled vehicles are better than in the past but they’re not silent. Moreover, the enhanced accessibility could promote more night-time activities and increase the level of nuisance.

But from the wider community’s perspective, undergrounding of transport infrastructure is very costly. Digging a tunnel from Central Station to Anzac Pde could cost $1 billion or more and delay implementation by a year.

The net cost will depend on the value of compulsorily acquiring an apartment block, as well as bridging works over South Dowling St, that a tunnel would avoid. That’s unknown but I’d expect the additional cost of tunnelling to still be high – it appears Council arrived at the same conclusion as the NSW Government on this point.

That’s money that wouldn’t be available for other worthwhile uses, including public transport improvements. For example, it could be applied to extending light rail along Oxford Street to Bondi Junction.

I think the Lord Mayor’s politicking conveniently misrepresents the nature of light rail on this occasion.

Its great advantage is it mostly runs on streets using existing road space, preferably within its own right-of-way. Indeed, it wasn’t so long ago we called them ‘trams’ (they still do in Melbourne) and in the US they were known as ‘streetcars’.

Using road space largely avoids the high cost of acquiring properties, digging tunnels or constructing elevated platforms typically required for heavy rail. Light rail also saves on engineering costs because it can negotiate steep grades and tight turns.

So we should expect light rail – trams or streetcars – to use streets predominantly. Being at-grade and an integral part of the streetscape is how it contributes positively to the functioning of the public realm.

Some have suggested that Oxford St should be used instead of Devonshire St – it’s wider and already has lots of commercial activity.

As the first exhibit shows, though, an Oxford St alignment wouldn’t provide a direct link to Central Station – an important consideration for clearing crowds out of Sydney Football Stadium and the Cricket Ground.

Foveaux, Albion or Cleveland streets are other possibilities, but these are major traffic arteries and the cost to efficiency of freight and buses could be too high. Council evidently thought so when it released Connecting Our City last year and nominated Devonshire St.

Devonshire St is straight so it can accommodate long light rail vehicles but it’s narrow. Wider streets are preferable if they’re available but there are plenty of examples of light rail systems elsewhere using narrow streets e.g. San Francisco, Lisbon, Amsterdam (see second exhibit).

I’ve written a number of articles before on the important theme of why and how the cost of infrastructure projects escalates (e.g. see here, here and here). The Lord Mayor illustrates one reason – residents demand their amenity be protected and are very good at wielding their political muscle.

That cost could come directly in higher capital and/or operating costs e.g. a tunnel. Or it could come in reduced efficiency e.g. re-routing via Oxford St or another major artery.

Land owners want to be insulated from, or compensated for, any detriment in land value arising from new infrastructure. Yet they don’t want to be deprived of any increase in land value arising from public investments either.

Unless it can be shown the cost difference is small – which seems unlikely – the NSW Government should ignore the Lord Mayor’s politicking and push ahead.

However it should work hard to minimise the noise from light rail vehicles. That would benefit all land uses along the 12 km route, as well as passengers. It would create a more receptive environment for further expansions of the light rail network.

Washington St, San Francisco

6

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



  • 1
    Smith John
    Posted February 16, 2013 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    Southeast light rail should run from Central Station Eddy Ave generally along Foveaux / Fitzroy Streets directly to the north west corner of Moore Park, to allow future option to extend along Moore Park Rd (north side of Moore Park) to Bondi Junction.

    From either South East or Bondi, the most efficient route for operations and interchange is a single route via Central Railway to Circular Quay. A line via Oxford Street to Circular Quay would require either a branch line, or a transfer, to get to Central. Very undesirable.

  • 2
    Steve777
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    A classic case was the Chatswood to Epping railway in Sydney. It was planned to have four stations including one at Kuringai TAFE. It would have required a bridge over the Lane Cove River in Lane Cove National Park. The railway bridge would have been close to a pre-existing busy road and would have had minimal impact on the park as a whole. After all, it is hardly pristine wilderness. It was a trade-off – a local detriment to the park in exchange for improved public transport.

    However, conservationists and locals successfully lobbied to replace the bridge with a tunnel. The result? Well, after the construction phase, no impact to the park and local residents, but greatly increased construction costs and the loss of the station at Kuringai TAFE, significantly reducing the utility of the line.

  • 3
    Colinbong
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    Hi Alan,
    Thought you might be interested in Edinburgh’s experience with new ‘Trams’

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/edinburghs-trams-will-be-a-millstone-around-the-necks-of-all-city-council-taxpayers-for-many-decades-to-come.198

  • 4
    Austin M
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    Whilst not quite the same magnitude as Amsterdam there are plenty of examples of residential or restrained road space trams in Melbourne i.e. Acland St, Chaple St, etc. If the street is wide enough for a parking lane and traffic lane, it should be wide enough for a traffic/tram lane and a parking lane.

  • 5
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    Colin, that’s hardly an article about “Edinburg’s experience with…Trams” – it’s some fairly uninformed individual’s opinion about what might happen if a lanes on a busy road are given over to light rail. An individual who obviously hasn’t given much thought to the carrying capacity of a well-used light rail service vs that of a road full of single-occupant cars.

  • 6
    hk
    Posted February 20, 2013 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Long term land use planning needs to achieve sustainable transportation favouring active transport modes. The more it is possible to satisfy urban dwellers transportation needs in pleasant and safe surroundings the more active transport by walking and cycling there will be. The more ground level environments for people to enjoy by walking are provided, the better the commercial outcomes of a precinct will be.
    Below ground level tram routes already exist in many city centres. Central Strasbourg, is one fine example recently visited.

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...