Freight myopia in Sydney's strategic economic future

It has been revealed that Infrastructure NSW (iNSW) has pulled back from its intentions to link Port Botany's intensive truck movements with the new strategic road asset, WestConnex, for financial reasons. WestConnex is a set of roads which will link various freeway discontinuities into a cohesive network.

The revelation came in Jacob Saulwick's "WestConnex solution falls 8km short" (SMH 26 January). He quoted Sydney Ports as saying there is no point in proceeding with the overall road project without the port connection; and an iNSW spokesperson as saying less expensive local changes would suffice. Saulwick concluded with the expectation that Infrastructure Australia would be annoyed with the lack of Port access improvement.

iNSW and its partner agencies had said that the Port would be serviced and that "The scale and complexity of these problems requires a transformational solution…. It must also enable and support urban renewal, local business growth and liveability…. it must also change the way in which projects of this nature are financed and funded so that it is realistically achievable."

This is a worrying decision for Sydney but reassessment of the original iNSW and related reports points to the conclusion that the whole freight issue – an intrinsic element of every city's prosperity and sustainability – was under-valued. "myopia" is a chronic feature of Sydney's planning culture and now another pane opens on that window, added to heavy rail and trams.

Sydney disregarded freight infrastructure in the nineteenth century and Melbourne pushed ahead; as it and Brisbane are doing now. As for importance, iNSW's consultancy on economic matters reported that trucks on local and arterial roads are a significant cause of congestion: "The economic effects … include reduced productivity for road transport (the higher costs then flow on through the economy), lost leisure time for individuals and distortion of housing, work and transport decisions. In a dynamic sense, congestion also affects the desirability of Sydney overall and so makes it difficult to attract and retain highly skilled, mobile workers". The impact of tolls on businesses and households have to be added.

The 15 Southern Sydney ROC (SSROC) councils and about five neighbouring councils experience the problems of inadequate infrastructure and associated policies – some through Port trucks; some suburban trucks around inland depots; some the car carriers between Wollongong and Sutherland; some the sheer lack of a choice when it comes to daily movements across and through Sydney. SSROC does not participate in strategic transport issues so much as resource sharing; and where sub-sets such as the three St George councils cooperated with a regional transport study in 2000-01, they were ignored by State government. One SSROC participant has written: "I agree we need to increase the use of rail from Port Botany rather than increasing traffic on the already congested road network. It is an issue SSROC recognises and should be lobbying over".

This is a critical region in Sydney's demographic planning as it will absorb up to a third of the infill load of growth – some 200,000 to 350,000 additional residents (depending on geographical definitions) to about 2036. In the absence of transport reforms that were excluded from iNSW's and the Transport Masterplan, congestion will escalate as will other effects.

A variety of reports have been produced by Infrastructure Australia (IA), Sydney Ports Corporation, iNSW, RDA/Sydney, various submitters to inquiries, and industry bodies. IA's "National Land Freight Strategy Update" (2012) reported the failure of "planning" and "collaboration". Not one has got the framework right – for example, the issues that have been under-stated include:

• A tripling of container movements to and from Port Botany then Port Kembla within a medium timeframe (20 years) but much higher than that within Sydney's economic sustainability timeframe (40+ years) – thus about a million truck movements a year rising to an unbearable crescendo – with a 30-year planning pipeline which requires decisions sooner rather than later.
• An eventual reduced relevance of the only Port-related road project, WestConnex, due to container volumes and destinations, Port limitations and local traffic conflicts; but with the absence of better alternatives which have long lead-in times.
• The employment imbalance between eastern and western Sydney – 300,000 jobs growing to double that fairly quickly - which leads to road and rail over-loading, public and private costs (including toll imposts), and inefficiency in the logistics, transport, waste, land use development and infrastructure investment communities.
• Need for strategic integration of land use, transport and waste management planning on a much better basis. There is ambiguity about the timing and functions of various rail and road projects around the Ports, between the Ports and InterModal Terminals, into likely employment zones, and between cities.
• The impact of congestion, tolls, car ownership and operating costs, and health effects, on more than a million people.

Trucking and associated planning would be an excellent place for the O'Farrell Government to start with its policy of restoring local government's engagement in planning. Brisbane and Melbourne are also more advanced in this aspect. The alternative direction on the table is a strong commitment to railing all containers destined for the greater west of Sydney to an employment zone in Western Sydney – at Eastern Creek and nearby. The only truck movements left on the eastern seabord would be local movements – probably no more than 15 per cent of the total.

Is this practicable? (The long history back to 1979 will not be repeated here.) The following distribution map shows the current pattern which is continuing in direction:

Sydney Ports Corporation, Logistics Review 2010/11

Governments cannot direct boxes onto rail or road and indeed they do not know consignee details. The point is, regardless, as the iNSW inquiry said, "most attention has focused on lifting rail share by boosting rail supply capacity, without a similar level of focus on demand generators. This can be traced back to at least the … Freight Infrastructure Advisory Board, which recommended that the then 40 per cent rail share target be met through additional intermodal terminal capacity, without adequately assessing the factors that drove freight users to travel by road". (The rail share is down to 14 per cent, less than half of rail's capacity.)

iNSW was not aware of a Shipping Australia report, "Metropolitan Intermodal Terminal Study (SAL, 2011). It contained many relevant observations but notably summarised the costs involved in moving a 20' container from the Port to its end point on the first leg. Rail is already competitive by SAL's numbers and relative changes will occur as land-side and road/rail systems improve:

Empty containers are held at container park for separate on-transport to port or to be filled elsewhere

With this in mind, we can re-interpret iNSW's own words (they deferred all strategic rail freight improvements to future dates) –

… it is argued rail has the potential to compete with road freight. Analysis … suggests that rail could be cost competitive or cheaper than road freight for these movements providing the following circumstances were met:

• volumes to increase substantially to gain economies of scale

• portside handling movements to be reduced through terminal reconfiguration

• investment in intermodal terminal capacity, enabling rail to road transfer (and vice versa)

• investment in warehousing and empty container facilities close to these intermodal terminals.

Not one regional body has risen to the challenge, all being deliberative and consultative in a context where available State funds are hypothecated to northern Sydney long-term passenger projects of marginal benefit. An example is RDA/Sydney which is charged with Commonwealth/State planning of Sydney and which issued Strategic Plans in 2011 and 2012. It pushes an outer circumferential rail line that would service Badgerys Creek employment lands; but no agency has done an assessment of that against the alternative E-W options raised by Ron Christie and the Government.

RDA/Sydney's 2012 edition omitted the following words from the earlier edition without counterbalancing the loss:

· "expanding rail in Western Sydney is a high priority"

· "despite the substantial increase in freight movements, Sydney still lacks a freight strategy" (while acknowledging TfNSW's moves in that direction)

· congestion and transport bottlenecks affecting investment and livelihood (a challenge)

· text on freight and priorities for a Regional Plan.

To summarise, an alternative vision that would re-balance logistics and employment and promote sustainable economic and infrastructure development through improved strategic plans and budgets would include:

· Re-engineering the legacy radial rail system within the metropolitan area through an extension from Hurstville to Strathfield/Parramatta, together with duplication of the Port Botany freight routes within 5 years (with connections to Enfield and Moorebank), and high-voltage AC power systems replacing diesel locomotives within 10 years

· The Maldon-Dombarton line – to be completed within 5 years, the expense is minor and all regional submissions to IA, iNSW and TfNSW supported it

· Western Sydney employment lands' potential in all land use, logistics, employment and related aspects

· Replacement of existing governmental and related consultative mechanisms with more effective ones in line with the Premier's election commitments.

The final pattern might look like this:

It is suggested that a "regional assembly" or like exercise reviews the robustness of current proposals against the matters not considered and/or concluded. This would review policy, planning and implementation processes and structures so as to achieve economic, community and political credibility and reverse Sydney's slide into economic oblivion.