Tag: roads

Toll Relief Mania

In the lead up to next month’s state election Chris Minns and NSW Labor have been dropping transport policy ideas like they’re going out of fashion.

Much of it seems to be ill-thought-out populist dogma that is, at best, harmless: mobile phone chargers at busy train stations, or manufacturing more trains locally. The first is a cute irrelevance, while the second could be a boon for Newcastle but is really an employment and business policy, rather than a transport one.

Last week’s high-profile policy unveiling is anything but harmless.

If elected, NSW Labor has promised to introduce a $60 weekly cap per vehicle on toll roads in Sydney thus ending ‘Toll Mania’. Their argument is simple and easy to pitch in the short-attention-span world of social media: public transport fares are capped, so tolls should be too.

The logic is flawed and if this policy is introduced it will be bad news for the state. Let’s have a look at why.

  1. Public transport is a social good, cars are not. We, collectively, want people to take public transport. Cars, usually carrying just one person, produce a negative externality to the city. They cause congestion, they pollute, they need to be parked somewhere all day and night and, once in awhile, they crash into a pedestrian or cyclist and kill them. We subsidise public transport because we can all get around faster, more healthily and safer when people use it. Just because we cap Opal fares does not mean we should cap tolls.
  2. Induced demand. Cheaper tolls will encourage people to drive more. If you’re planning a trip for Saturday and you’ve reached your Opal cap, you know that you can take the train for free. Hooray! If Chris Minns’ policy becomes reality this logic will apply to toll roads. You could do laps on the M5/M7/M2/Eastern Distributor all weekend if you fancy. For free. Free for you, anyway.
  3. There is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to tolls. The NSW government collects all public transport fares in the state and uses them to (partially) pay for all public transport service. This applies even if the bus or train is run by a private operator. Tolls do not work like this. One company, Transurban, owns almost all the toll roads in NSW. Contracts have been signed stipulating toll prices. If the NSW government changes the pricing structure, they will have to pay the shortfall to Transurban. If a driver hits the $60 weekly cap the rest of their ‘free trips’ will be paid for directly by the taxpayers of NSW.
  4. NSW stands for New South Wales, not Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong. Minns’ is keen to point out that that the brunt of road tolls are worn by residents of Western Sydney. This is undoubtedly true. After all, our toll roads are in Sydney and the people that use them generally come from areas that lack high quality public transport or walkable mixed-use neighbourhoods. If this policy is enacted, residents from regional NSW, public transport users and anyone that does not regularly take toll roads will be directly subsidizing the road use of those that do. It’s a transfer from rural to urban, from public transport to motorists, from have-nots to haves.
  5. This policy is regressive. It is targeted firmly at the middle. Labor have stated just 51,000 car owners will benefit from the policy. The rich don’t care about tolls, although they will benefit too. The poor are less likely to own a car and less likely to take toll roads often. This policy doesn’t reduce tolls in a way that benefits occasional users such as people from the country, public transport users and those that work locally. It will only benefit regular toll users that are clocking in more than $60 a week.
A photo of Chris Minns standing on a freeway overpass appearing to be in animated conversation.
Chris Minns is promising to end Toll Mania in Sydney by giving our state’s heaviest 50,000 users a free ride on the roads courtesy of the rest of the state. Photo credit: The St George Leader

A lot of people, I’m thinking about taxi and rideshare drivers, tradies and long-distance commuters, spend a lot more than $60 a week on tolls. These users will have their toll bill reduced dramatically and will take more trips on toll roads than they otherwise would. Why not? They’re free! All this extra money will go straight to Transurban shareholders, courtesy of the NSW taxpayer. This policy isn’t just populist, it is corporate welfare on a staggering scale.

The people of NSW deserve a government that can think critically about the rapidly changing world we live in and introduce infrastructure and policy to help us all survive and thrive. This policy demonstrates that NSW Labor are thinking only about residents of Sydney, do not take climate change or urban congestion seriously and are playing fast and loose with our collective wealth.

A toll cap will push more people onto motorways and off public transport. It will be expensive, diverting transport funding away from public transport projects and towards corporate profit. It is a regressive policy that demonstrates a profound ignorance of the complexity of our state’s transport system.

If you’re thinking of taking a punt on Labor to win the election next month you should put your money where your mouth is and buy a few Transurban shares, too.

Both Sides of the Political Divide

If you’ve spent any time in Sydney in the last 30 odd years it goes without saying that building new toll roads, alongside approving new fossil fuel projects ($), is about as close as we get to bipartisan policy in NSW. The M4, M2, M5, Eastern Distributor, Cross City Tunnel, Lane Cove Tunnel and the M7 all opened well before Westconnex got underway and it’s a he said/she said as to which major party is more responsible for the excess of toll roads in Sydney.

‘Toll relief’ projects go back almost as far and enjoy similar bipartisan support. The catch being that, with the exception of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Tunnel tolls, any ‘toll relief’ scheme is a direct cash transfer to our privately owned tollway operators and the name ‘Transurban’ just keeps cropping up.

A screenshot of a web search for 'who owns sydney's toll roads'. There are a bunch of results and they prominently mention Transurban.
A quick search doesn’t leave much doubt as to who owns Sydney’s toll roads.

Bob Carr kicked off this habit all the way back in 1995 when he was elected on the promise of offering cashback for drivers on the M5 motorway; now part owned by the State Government and part owned by Transurban.

As toll roads spread like tentacles across Sydney a more holistic approach to toll relief was deemed necessary, one that didn’t quite so obviously porkbarrel a few swing seats in Southwestern Sydney.

In 2017 Gladys Berejiklian announced free car rego if you rack up a big enough annual toll bill. In 2019 the scheme was expanded to give discounted registration to moderate toll road users. Just last year the Perrottet government expanded the scheme even further and adopted the cashback model whereby drivers receive a portion of the tolls they pay back directly, in this case after exceeded a given threshold.

Not to be outdone by the Liberals, Minns’ is keen to make sure that the Labor party are offering the biggest boon to Transurban and incentivising car usage the most.

What’s most problematic about the latest iteration as put forward by NSW Labor is that it offers totally free toll road use beyond a threshold. Perrottet’s version only offers a partial discount on toll fees and spreads this benefit to a wider number of people, not just our state’s heaviest toll road users. The Labor version is more costly, less inclusive and less progressive.

Just one more toll road bro

What’s obvious through all of this is that the dream of ‘Build-Operate-Transfer’ was always too good to be true. We were promised massively discounted motorway construction where the brunt of the cost would be borne by the user and seamlessly managed by the private sector.

What we’ve ended up with is a classic late-stage-capitalism grift: the Government splits the construction bill with the private sector who sign lengthy operational contracts with over inflated toll rates and guaranteed quarterly increases, voters complain and so the taxpayer steps back in to foot the bill, only now instead of just paying for the construction of the thing we have to meet the terms of a contract designed to provide ongoing return to Transurban’s shareholders. One of whom, incidentally, is the now former Finance Minister. Although if you have a managed super fund, which is basically every person that has ever had a job, then you’re probably one too.

At this point the road out from the downward spiral is long and politically treacherous. It’s a safe bet that the two major parties will continue their one-upmanship when it comes to new toll roads and subsequent ‘toll relief’.

Come to think of it, whichever way you’re punting this election the safest bet is on Transurban.

Submission to the F6 Stage 1 EIS

I would like to make known my objection to the RMS’s EIS for the F6 Stage 1. I am not an engineer and I only intend to object to the parts of the proposal that I am informed enough to speak to.

At a macro level the entire premise of criss-crossing our city with an ever larger network of toll roads is fundamentally at odds with all evidence regarding congestion outcomes. The entire notion that we can build our way out of congestion in a large and rapidly growing city is inconsistent with the experience here (it was not so long ago that the first incarnation of the M5 East opened) and internationally. It seems that the planners at the RMS are either unfamiliar with, or willfully ignorant of, the concept of induced demand.

This project, like so many before it, is being touted on the grounds that is fulfills a ‘missing link’ in Sydney’s motor transport infrastructure. This is neither the case, nor particularly relevant. If the F6 Stage 1 is indeed a missing link, it’s a missing link between Scarborough Park, immediately south of where the new road will dead end onto President Avenue, and an as yet unbuilt Stage 3 of Westconnex. In reality it is a 4 lane tollway that will open as a stand alone road linking Kogarah and St Peters. Hardly a ‘missing link’.

The health implications of car-centric transport planning

In considering the impacts of this project I was pleased to see that the RMS are aware of the health challenges facing our community as outlined in NSW Health’s publication ‘South Eastern Sydney Local Health District. Our Community, Our Services… A Snapshot’. It is great to see that the architects behind this project taking the relationship between transport infrastructure and health into consideration. They have rightly highlighted that the key health issues facing our community are obesity, alcohol consumption and respiratory problems. These are three major health issues that are exacerbated by car use and car-centric planning. I refer you to here to the Heart Foundation’s work on the myriad health issues associated with automobility.

Obesity is a huge health problem in Australia, especially with rising commute times eating into free time that might’ve been spent exercising. Luckily for many there is a solution. People that commute on foot, bicycle or by public transport are significantly more likely to reach the recommended weekly target of at least 150 minutes of moderate activity than those that commute by car.

Alcohol consumption is a part of life here as in much of the world, and with a higher rate of risky drinking and hospitalisations from alcohol in St George it would be preferable to provide transport options that accept this reality. Investing in public transport at all times of day and night would help minimise these risks.

Respiratory problems are exacerbated by car and truck fumes, a problem which pushing vehicles underground does not solve. As the city grows we should be encouraging those that can make trips by other modes to do so, which in turn would leave space on the road for those that need to be there. This benefits the health of the commuter and helps us all to breathe a little easier.

Misunderstanding the potential of public transport

It is disappointing, but not surprising, to see that the RMS has an entirely outdated view of the basics of public transport network design. Perhaps some cross departmental liaison could have benefited this project. The EIS claims that “with about 60 per cent of employment dispersed across the Sydney metropolitan area, public transport alone cannot viably serve many of these locations.” The idea that, in a city of close to 5 million, demand is only sufficient for CBD radial public transport infrastructure is archaic. Yes, our public transport network as it currently stands is extremely radial, but this need not be the case. An efficient public transport system is one that operates as a network. Where users can interchange between lines and services to make their way across the city.

20 years ago a train line was proposed by the NSW Government to connect Hurstville to Strathfield, interchanging with the East Hills and Bankstown Lines on the way. This sort of project would provide the type of public transport connection from St George to those dispersed locations that we all seek. It would also reduce the number of unnecessary trips through the CBD, increasing capacity on our train lines.

Investing in public transport infrastructure should not be seen as a competing priority to free-flowing roads. The majority of road users are in single occupancy vehicles on their way to work at a fixed address. These users can and will opt for public transport if it is the quicker, more comfortable or cheaper. Doing so frees up road capacity for trucks and tradies who need to be on the road all day.

A token gesture to active transport

Finally, I am extremely disappointed to see that a project of this scale, estimated to cost over $2 billion for Stage 1 alone, includes such poor provision for active transport. Cycling is not only a healthy and emission free form of transportation and recreation. Well implemented active transport infrastructure can encourage people out of their cars, leaving room on the road for those that need to be there.

The F6 corridor is absolutely begging for the sort of long distance, separate-grade cycleway that runs alongside the M7 or the NW T-Way. The path alongside Botany Bay is beautiful, but it is busy with cars and people enjoying the beach front. It suffers an extremely long detour in Kyeemagh around Muddy Creek and thus does not provide a useful commuter active transport link to the area. Commuting cyclists tend to favour the Francis-Crawford-O’Connell-Chuter route to San Souci. At Bestic Street this route connects with the Cooks River cycleway allowing riders a trip almost entirely safe from cars all the way to Sydney CBD via Bourke Road or Parramatta CBD via Homebush.

It is great to see the F6 extension includes an active transport exclusive bridge over President Avenue. From the EIS it sounds like it will be designed as part of an active transport corridor, rather than to facilitate local trips across President Avenue. It is also good to read that pedestrian access across President Avenue will be retained at O’Connell and West Botany Streets. Separate grade alternatives are great, but maintaining safe street level crossing points is essential to ensuring the Avenue won’t become a car-choked wall dividing the suburb as the Grand Parade separates us from the Bay.

Unfortunately the route outlined for the active transport corridor north of President Avenue is ridiculous. If anyone is expected to seriously consider leaving their car at home in favour of cycling, new cycleways must adhere to the same standards as car or rail infrastructure. A route is only as strong as its weakest link, and running a wide, graded path onto a series of suburban streets and trafficable roads defeats the purpose of the exercise entirely. The lack of planning or willingness to make hard decisions regarding route alignment will undermine any potential uplift in active transport participation in the area. In the EIS the RMS mention the F6 corridor alignment that has been set aside for transport in the area for over 60 years. Building the active transport corridor that our area needs only requires utilisation of an alignment set aside for this purpose. How great it would be to see the corridor manifest as a tree lined cycleway rather than the motorway that was initially intended.

A map showing part of the proposed F6 stage 1. It shows two direct parallel road tunnels and a winding bike path that is redirected onto local streets for a 500m long section.
If we’re going to talk about ‘missing links’, how about the gap in the off-street cycleway around Bay Street? Source: F6 EIS  Executive Summary

If 5 houses stood in the way of a road project it would be considered a small price to pay. This isn’t hypothetical. 2016 estimates indicated that over 400 properties were to be acquired to build Westconnex. If the RMS is serious about promoting active transport in St George the route needs to be considered in the same way as any other piece of transport infrastructure, even if this involves property acquisitions. The current route is totally unacceptable and shows the tokenistic mention of active transport for what it is.

There’s no doubt that Southern Sydney is calling out for better transport infrastructure. But the F6 is a project of its time, the postwar period. It isn’t popular with the electorate. The State Opposition have come out and said that they will stall the F6 project in favour of investigating public transport alternatives. I implore the NSW Government to reconsider how they are implementing new transport projects in St George and across the state and to look to 21st century solutions that emphasise public and active transport.


Submissions to the F6 Stage 1 EIS can be made until Friday the 14th of December on the Department of Planning and Environment website.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén