Infrastructure NSW's 20 year plan for NSW - a substantial and impressive piece of work

Last week Infrastructure NSW released its report “First Things First”, setting out a NSW infrastructure strategy for the next twenty years. The report is a substantial and impressive piece of work. It sets out an ordered list of priorities for NSW infrastructure investment, based on a rational, fact-based assessment of which projects will deliver the greatest economic and social benefit; how much projects will cost; how much money there is available to spend; and available funding sources including both general government revenue (funded by taxes) and user charges (particularly tolls for users of motorways.)

The report finds that the top three priorities for new motorways are extending the M4 (from its current termination point at Strathfield towards the city); widening and extending the M5 east; and the missing link between the F3 and M2. It also identifies key public transport priorities such as a light rail connection from Central Station to the University of NSW, and an underground busway in the CBD. Infrastructure NSW has made some hard-nosed recommendations on priorities. For example, it finds that the proposed second Sydney harbour crossing for rail would be extremely expensive (over $10 billion), and there are lower cost approaches that would deliver significant benefit. Specifically, it proposes using single deck instead of double deck trains. This shortens the time trains must spend at each station; in turn it would allow trains per hour on the Harbour Bridge to rise from 20 to 30, increasing passenger capacity per hour by some 50 per cent. This twenty year plan, with its priority list of projects, will make it much easier for the state government to decide what projects to support – and what to do next.

It also points the way to better cooperation between the NSW and Federal Governments in bringing critical infrastructure to NSW. The previous NSW Labor Government did not work well with its federal counterpart. It regularly put up proposals for federal funding of projects – only to have them rejected by the Rudd-Gillard Government’s Infrastructure Australia. By contrast, Infrastructure NSW has worked closely with the federal government’s Infrastructure Australia in developing its priorities – as I have been told directly by Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese. With the Federal Coalition committed to maintaining Infrastructure Australia, if we win government the good working relationship between the two infrastructure organisations will be even more important. It marks a welcome change from short term, politically motivated infrastructure announcements by state and federal Labor in recent years.

NSW Labor announced the CBD Rail Link in 2005, then cancelled it and announced the North West Metro in 2008, then changed the North West Metro to the CBD Metro, before cancelling the CBD Metro in 2010 and announcing the CBD Relief Line. Federal Labor has played this game too, announcing the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link in the 2010 election, in a desperate (and unsuccessful) attempt to get Labor candidate Maxine McKew back in Bennelong. An important feature of Infrastructure NSW’s plan is its careful focus on how much will need to be spent – and where the funds can be found. After analysing the financial position of the NSW Government, the report concludes: “Within the next few years, only very limited new Government funding will be available, due to the scale of existing project commitments.” Given this reality, the report gives considerable emphasis for the potential for motorways to be wholly or partly funded by tolls. For example, in recommending the WestConnex motorway scheme as the highest priority – at a cost of $10 billion – Infrastructure NSW identifies that up to $7.5 billion can be funded through tolls. Since its release the report has attracted some criticism. Some have argued that Infrastructure NSW has shown a bias for road construction over public transport. In fact, its priorities are based on an assessment of how much benefit will be delivered for the capital spent.

For example, the report recommends against a light rail line down George Street, largely because the evidence suggests that it won’t necessarily maximise passenger carrying capacity – and would also conflict with the objective of making George Street a more attractive environment for pedestrians. Instead, it proposes an underground busway, with capacity of 20,000 customers per hour (compared to 9,000 on light rail.) However in other areas it supports light rail, for example between Central Station and the University of New South Wales. Others have criticised the difference between the views of Transport for NSW – which earlier this year issued a report calling for a second Sydney rail crossing – and Infrastructure NSW. I disagree with this criticism. What we are seeing is a transparent, open public debate about the pros and cons of the different options – a debate informed by the fact-based analysis in both reports. When the NSW government makes its decision the people of NSW can be confident it has done so after full consideration of the merits of the issues.

This is a vastly better than the approach of the previous NSW Labor Government to infrastructure issues – making decisions behind closed doors largely for political reasons. One of the welcome features of Infrastructure NSW’s report is its recommendation that the F3-M2 Missing Link should be a high priority. For my electorate of Bradfield this is a real priority: in fact it’s so important that I’m going to comment separately in another blog piece. I’ll conclude this piece by congratulating Nick Greiner and Paul Broad, Chair and CEO respectively of Infrastructure NSW. They and their team have produced a really useful piece of work. The people of NSW will have reason to thank them for many years.