In a future post I’ll talk a bit more about the investments in Istanbul’s infrastructure but for now I’ll take a quick look at the fare system. For the most part, Istanbul is a flat-fare, token-based transport network. Tramways, buses, metros, light rail and railways require token entry, either on-board or at a turnstile, with each “jeton” or token costing 1.75 Turkish Lira or about 95 cents Australian, irrespective of the journey length.

This entitles you to a single trip on a single mode or vehicle, with no interchanges. I’ll come back to the Istanbul concept of “interchanges” in future as part of my discussion on infrastructure, but for the moment all you need to know is that for the most part, each change of mode or even vehicle requires use of an additional token. Ferry journeys use the same concept but here the price can vary with the journey length. Even simple curbside tram stops have token entry through turnstiles.

Istanbul tramway token and smartcard turnstiles

In addition Istabul has not one but two forms of integrated ticketing. The first “Akbil”, which is reputedly being phased out, is my favourite. According to Wikipedia, Akbil is an acronym formed from “akıllı”, which stands for “smart”, and “bilet” meaning “ticket”; Akbil is actually a small stainless steel “button” that looks remarkably like a large watch or clock battery but which has a computer chip inside.

The Akbil is used to store value for public transport use; once purchased from a kiosk or shop it can be topped up using fare machines at major transport hubs. Every time you pass through a public transport turnstile or board a bus you touch the Akbil to a little receiver which deducts the fare, giving you a discount of roughly 6% on the cost of a token.

In addition an Akbil can be used for more than one passenger by touching on again for each person. More significantly, it also provides a further deduction for multiple use within a two-hour period (though not when you are using it for multiple passengers), thus overcoming the penalty inherent in the token system for users who have to change modes or vehicles on the same journey.

Akbil is supposedly being phased out in favour of the Istanbulkart, a stored-value “electronic wallet” similar to the Oyster card. Apart from it’s credit card format, Istanbulkart operates in a very similar fashion to Akbil; you purchase it and top it up the same way and place it on the readers on every turnstile at the start of each trip. The card format is slated for wider use to pay for parking fees, taxis, admission to museums, movies, theatres and other cultural venues and even as a form of ID (see Turkey Travel Planner for more details).

Istanbul Akbil and Istanbulkart smart tickets

So what can Sydney learn from Istanbul’s experience in introducing electronic ticketing? Well, the first and most obvious thing is that they’ve actually gone and done it in all the time that NSW has talked about doing it, in large part because of the simplicity of the fare structure.

While I’m not a fan of flat fares, it’s obvious that Istanbul’s token system made it much easier to introduce electronic ticketing. Not only is there (pretty much) only one fare to incorporate, there is no need to make people touch off at the end of each journey. Touching off is probably unavoidable in any multiple-fare system (otherwise people get charged the maximum fare) but a simple zone-based structure is obviously going to be much easier to integrate into an electronic system.

The second is that, surprisingly, barrier entry seems to work even in the most unlikely of places, provided (again) the system is simple to use and fares are relatively low. Istanbul can be a fairly chaotic at times, but people seem to respect the system and even in the many places where it would be easy to get away with I did not see any attempts at fare evasion. No doubt it occurs, but it does not seem widespread.

The third is the commitment to overcome flagfall costs inherent in the flat-fare token system by offering discounts for multiple journeys. While Sydney does not have flat fares, bus users in particular suffer from the same problem that their Istanbul counterparts do (or did) – a journey involving multiple vehicles ends up costing much more than one of equivalent distance which can be made using a single bus. To a large extent the Akbil and Istanbulkart overcome this with the introduction of what is effectively a time-based ticket, which seems to work very well.

And why do I prefer Akbil over its more “modern” card replacement? I think it’s partly subjective – the little Akbil button and holder has a more tactile feel than a transport card – and partly practical. The Akbil can reside happily in your pocket attached to your key-ring, making it easy to pull out at turnstiles, while using the card involves digging out your wallet or purse, finding the Istanbulkart among all the other cards, placing it on the reader and then putting it away again.

The announcement also echoes many of the governance recommendations of the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) Independent Public Transport Inquiry. This called for a similar coordinating transport authority, though the government’s ITA will have a much bigger remit. There are other key differences, but let’s start with the similarities which are striking (and pleasing for those of us who worked on the SMH Inquiry).

The SMH Inquiry proposed a transport coordination authority managed by an independent board to plan and manage all aspects of Sydney’s public transport. Rail, bus and ferry operators would have been contracted on a contestable basis to provide services to the authority, which would have taken over and integrated their planning powers.

The SMH Inquiry report also proposed that the authority would prioritise customer service and the importance of providing each public transport user with a complete journey to meet their requirements rather than a set of disconnected bus, rail or ferry trips. This would have involved a branch dedicated to integrating all aspects of service provision including fares, ticketing, timetables, interchanges and information provision.

While the SMH proposal did not incorporate the management of car-based transport, the authority would have had a strong say in the approval of major new road projects.

The government’s ITA is very similar in that it will also integrate all aspects of public transport. It also emphasises customer service; there will be a division specifically dedicated to “Customer Experience”, which in the words of the Ministerial media release, “will make sure journeys are as simple and seamless as possible”.

There are other structural similarities, with divisions responsible for planning, services, projects and policies. The ITA will also take over planning powers from the individual transport agencies, much as the SMH Inquiry proposed, and use these resources to develop a comprehensive transport “masterplan”.

There are however some significant differences. These can be summarised as follows:

• The ITA will not be managed by an independent board, although an independent advisory board will be appointed by the government. The exact relationship of this to the ITA is unclear.
• The ITA will take over procurement, long-term planning and policy-making from the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) as well as from public transport agencies, thus giving it direct oversight of major road projects.
• The ITA will also manage freight transport and oversee transport across the State, not just in greater Sydney.
• However, it will not have the final say on major infrastructure projects, with the government intending to establish a state infrastructure body.

Despite these differences, the government’s new body is a huge step forward for transport planning and management in NSW. It is hard to disagree with the sentiment in the joint ministerial media release about the need to replace the current disconnected transport “silos” with a “streamlined agency which plans and delivers for all modes” and to concentrate on improving the transport user’s experience.

There is also compelling logic in integrating and extending the planning and management of transport statewide and to include road and freight transport as well as public transport. However, the government’s new approach is very ambitious and not without its risks:

• The first challenge for the new body will be getting on top of this enormous range of responsibilities and the associated expectations. While the primary reason for not including roads planning and transport management outside Sydney in the SMH Transport Inquiry recommendations was that these areas were outside its main terms of reference, there was also a desire to keep the proposed authority as lean as possible and focussed on Sydney’s public transport, which is a big enough challenge in its own right. The ITA has been handed a much more complex role and will need to be able to balance the competing demands of city and country, roads and public transport.
• Taking over planning powers from the current piecemeal collection of agencies and in particular the RTA will involve not just a short-term period of dislocation but also a long-term process of major cultural change, both within the agencies and at the political level as well. This will not be easy; for example, the attempted merger (by the previous state government) some years ago of infrastructure, transport and landuse planning had similar aims. However it began to unravel soon after the departure of the responsible Minister and was quietly dismantled shortly thereafter.
• Indeed, the Roads Minister has openly acknowledged the need to change the public perception of the “arrogance” of the RTA. Given the dominant role it has played in NSW infrastructure planning for decades and its success in getting motorway projects built, it will be fascinating to see if the RTA meekly accepts its new role of being just another transport provider.
• Having created a “mega-authority” with such far-reaching powers over all aspects of transport, it is understandable that the government has decided to separate the process of managing the state’s overall infrastructure program from transport planning. However, it will need to clarify the relationship between the two authorities and also how the additional funds required to meet the huge shortfall in public transport infrastructure will be provided.

Despite these concerns, the Government is to be congratulated on what is, in “Yes Minister” parlance, a “courageous” decision.  Given the widespread public cynicism regarding previous public transport plans and announcements, it will need to be equally courageous in ensuring that the planning and prioritisation processes to be implemented by the authority are also credible and transparent and above all, that the resulting projects are funded and built.

The piggery is located in the corridor for the South West Rail Link currently under construction and close to the proposed Leppington town centre, which will form the centrepiece for the south west growth centre’s planned 100,000 new homes. Not only is it the only piggery left in Sydney, it also has a pathogen-free herd which means that it supplies hospitals with organs for research and use in transplantation.

While the government wants to resume only a portion of the site, the area required is essential to the piggery’s waste management procedures and if it is resumed the piggery will have to close. Unfortunately even if its owners received full compensation it would be unlikely to reopen anywhere near Sydney. As one of the owners observed, few councils would agree to approve an application for a new piggery; “we’re just above, or below, nuclear waste dumps on the scale of developments that governments want. It’s the smell.”

As I pointed out in my response, intensive animal farming has its limits in an increasing urban setting – even if it was there first. This is particularly if the farm is close to a new town centre or other planned high-density development; obviously more people are affected and it is more difficult to either screen the farm area or provide a significant buffer zone, especially if the farming operation involves noise or small.

However, I was also at pains to point out that it was vital to retain agricultural land in the Sydney basin, especially for the city’s food security. As Sinclair, Bunker and Holloway note in their 2003 paper, the Sydney basin (at that time) produced the greatest amount of perishable produce in NSW. They also observed that as land became more valuable because of its potential for conversion to residential use, agricultural uses also became more intensive, especially as farmers relocated from other areas as they were developed.

However, as more and more land is turned into housing lots, farms start to close down. From my observations, the resulting collapse in agriculture can happen surprisingly quickly. Farmers rely upon a range of support services such as transport providers, farming equipment and other specialist suppliers and in some cases packing and distribution facilities. In turn, these suppliers rely on a “critical mass” of farms to provide demand.

As farms cease to operate these support services become unviable and also close down. Without these specialist services in the local area the remaining framers struggle to hang on and in turn also decide to shut up shop, a decision aided by the increasing value of the land in terms of its potential for urban development.

Another point which I raised briefly when I was contacted by the paper but which wasn’t included for space reasons was that the way in which the planning process for the south west and north west growth centres had been rolled out had resulted in these issues not being adequately addressed. The original plans had included “green wedges” which would preserve some high-amenity natural bushland and farming areas within the growth centres.

North West and South West Growth Centres (from Planning NSW website)

However this caused a furore when the plans were released. The problem was that those property owners whose land was directly affected by the new development would be fully compensated whilst those in the “green wedges” would receive no compensation at all. Not surprisingly the latter objected. The government went to water and announced it would acquire all the land including that which was set aside in the plan to be preserved as rural.

To “compensate” for this the government also increased the number of dwellings it was proposing to develop in the growth centres, in part to off-set the additional land acquisition costs involved. As a result the green wedges disappeared overnight.

Without a detailed comparison of the piggery’s location with the original growth centre plans it is impossible to know whether it was located in one of the original green wedges or would have been acquired for development anyway. However this is beside the point; a proper planning and land acquisition process for the growth centres would have at least attempted to identify and protect key aspects of agriculture within an urban setting.

This hasn’t happened and the new state government has announced that it was to expand development at the urban fringe even further. Unfortunately it now looks increasingly likely that food production will fade away on the urban frontier.

Much has been made in the media about the two new MPs, Robyn Parker (Maitland) who is Environment and Heritage Minister and Graham Annesley (Miranda), who takes over Sport and Recreation. Victor Dominello (Ryde) who was in the previous parliament but not the shadow Cabinet has been appointed Minister for Citizenship, Communities and Aboriginal Affairs.

There are however a few other interesting things about the new Ministry, based on the list reproduced below from the Australian:

• Consistent with his election commitment, O’Farrell has brought planning and infrastructure together under one Minister, Brad Hazzard (Wakehurst), who is also Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW (another election promise). However he has also appointed Andrew Stoner (Oxley), the Nationals leader, as Minister for Regional Infrastructure and Services. In effect this means that there are two Ministers with responsibility for infrastructure, as well as by implication the Premier. It will be fascinating to see how this pans out.
• O’Farrell has retained and broadened the regional ministry concept introduced by the previous Labour government back in 1997. The previous government also adopted then gradually abandoned a corresponding regional approach to the delivery of both State-wide initiatives (eg, the State Plan) and metropolitan ones (eg, the Metropolitan Strategy), while retaining the regional minsters, often in name only.
• Under the new government, regional ministries now cover most of the state. Three of these regional ministries (Central Coast, North Coast and Western NSW) are held by MPs with seats in the relevant areas. Two (Hunter and the Illawarra) are held by MLCs, while the sixth (Western Sydney) is held by O’Farrell himself (again an election commitment). The new Government’s embrace of regional ministries and the appointment of Stoner as Minister for Regional Infrastructure  and Services may signal a return to a more regionalised approach to deliver, though what that means within Sydney is yet to be seen.
• While it is an encouraging sign of the region’s significance to the new government that O’Farrell appointed himself as Western Sydney Minister, it is unfortunate that not one of the new faces in the Ministry is from Western Sydney, despite its strong representation in the new government. The Cabinet is overwhelmingly made up of members from the North Shore and rural areas – understandable to some extent, given the nature of the Coalition government and the fact that virtually all the Western Sydney MPs were neophytes, but still disappointing.  O’Farrell should move to redress this imbalance in the appointment of positions such as Parliamentary Secretaries and Committee Chairs and members.
• The appointment of George Souris (Upper Hunter) as Minister for the Arts (as well as Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing) was a surprise to some who had expected the addition of the Arts to Robyn Parker’s (Maitland) portfolios of Environment and Heritage. While keeping Arts with Souris’s other responsibilities may be more consistent with the current Departmental structure, linking it to Environment and in particular Heritage would have seemed a more natural fit. Hopefully the Arts portfolio will enjoy a higher profile and more funding under the new Government, irrespective of who has Ministerial responsibility for it.
• The Ministries of Climate Change and Water have disappeared from the new Cabinet. The implications for the corresponding departments are yet to be announced, though one possibility is that responsibility for Water will fall under the Resources portfolio and Climate Change – assuming it has a future as a separate entity – under Environment.

The new Premier has got off on the right foot by announcing that he will implement a first 100-day action plan which will have a primary focus on transport issues. Although there is some debate about whether the electorate regards transport or health issues as the highest priority for action, there is no doubt that the previous government’s underinvestment in public transport infrastructure and its chaotic administration of the transport portfolio were the most public symbols of its failure.

Just as success has a thousand parents while failure is an orphan, new governments find themselves with lots of new friends and plenty of people offering free advice about their policy priorities (unlike new oppositions, which only get post-mortems for free). I’m joining a long queue, but in this spirit I’d like to offer seven suggestions on what the Premier should do in the next 100 days, specifically relating to planning and transport:

1. Don’t reinvent the wheel – just get it turning. There is no need for the new government to restart all transport and metropolitan planning from scratch. Transport in particular has been the subject of exhaustive planning processes, through the previous government’s transport strategies and those prepared independently, most notably the Sydney Morning Herald’s Public Transport Inquiry (in which I participated).  These have identified the key infrastructure projects required in the next 10 to 15 years.

While existing plans will need to be updated and the whole planning process rebuilt in the longer term (see suggestion no. 3), there are already more than enough planned projects on which work can begin. What we really need is a commitment to their funding and implementation, the things that have been sadly lacking in the past three decades. In the first 100 days the new government needs to consolidate the existing plans as a basis for immediate action.

Epping Station (from Wikipedia)

2. Repeal Part 3A – but clarify what it will be replaced with. The new government’s commitment to repeal Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which allows the government to take over from councils the assessment of “state significant” development applications, is very welcome. Under the previous government the definition of “state significant” had been increasingly widened to the point where it no longer had any meaning.

This commitment can easily be implemented within 100 days. However, there will still be some need for government input on the really major project proposals that will have a significant impact on a wider region.  To deal with these – and to reduce the temptation for future governments to reintroduce Part 3A-type powers via the back door – a collaborative framework between state and local governments needs to be established at the same time Part 3A is abolished (see next suggestion).

3. Set up a real partnership with local government to run the planning process. The promises made by the new government and reiterated by shadow ministers in the run-up to the election to consult and work with councils and Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs) are also welcome, especially in the context of regional and metropolitan planning.

This initiative requires a meaningful and sustained commitment from both sides. The new Government should establish a dialogue with local government in the first 100 days to develop a new medium and long-term planning process as well as a mechanism to handle major development proposals – a difficult task with over 150 councils. This means that councils will also need to cooperate through the ROCs or other structures to present a coherent and strategic response.

4. 50:50 or 30:70 – it’s also a case of where people want to live. Mr O’Farrell has already made a commitment to change the target for the ratio between the population urban redevelopment in existing suburbs and new housing in greenfields areas from the current 70 to 30 percent to a 50:50 balance.

This needs to be carefully considered. Population movement is usually gradual process – people tend to move outwards in a “shuffle” as they change houses in Sydney, and not by leaps and bounds. While cheaper housing at the urban fringe might cause an initial flurry of interest, this demand may not be sustained as people increasingly consider the cost of transport and limited range of services available in these areas.

The new government therefore should commit in the first 100 days to a process to examine whether people actually want to move out to the outer suburbs in such numbers. And if the government proceeds, it must to commit to providing all the infrastructure required when these new suburbs are developed. To do otherwise would be to continue the vicious cycle of backlog and underinvestment that has plagued development in Western Sydney since the 1950s.

5. Sort out who’s going to prioritise transport infrastructure – and make sure the RTA doesn’t get in first. The new government has proposed the establishment of a new body called Infrastructure NSW to oversee all major infrastructure decisions as well as a separate Independent Transport Authority to oversee all public transport planning and operations.

While the infrastructure authority concept has drawn on the Herald’s Transport Inquiry’s recommendations, the proposal to create two separate authorities is an important difference. The Inquiry’s proposal was for a single authority to oversee all aspects of public transport, including infrastructure.

Having two bodies instead of one creates a potential for duplication and even conflict. The new transport authority will presumably have to pitch its proposals to the infrastructure body, competing with other departments including experienced hands such as the Roads and Traffic Authority. There is also a danger that public transport could be disadvantaged if Infrastructure NSW adopts narrow assessment frameworks to assess these projects.

To avoid this happening, the new government needs to move quickly to clarify the relationship between the two authorities. It also needs to ensure that public transport receives the priority it deserves and that Infrastructure NSW uses a broad range of environmental and social criteria in project assessment.

6. Recognise that the money for infrastructure has to come from somewhere. The Sydney Morning Herald’s Public Transport Inquiry not only identified and costed a range of transport options, it also looked at how to fund these projects.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, or a free transport system.  The Inquiry nominated a mix of funding options to raise the funds required, including fare increases, parking, registration and other levies, congestion charges and Commonwealth Government support. While at first glance none of these would seem to be very popular, the Inquiry also found that a significant majority of people are willing to pay for the redevelopment of the public transport network, so important do they regard this issue. The 100-day plan needs to include a commitment to identify funding sources for public transport infrastructure.

If both governments dig in, there is a strong risk that the Federal Government will simply trouser the $2.1 billion it has offered for the Parramatta-Epping link and use the money elsewhere. This would be a dismal result for NSW and Mr O’Farrell and the new Transport Minister should quickly exercise some nimble footwork to reach a compromise.

One solution would be to treat both links as a single, staged project, effectively providing a link from Parramatta via Epping to Rouse Hill and incorporating the full extension of the North West link to meet the existing Richmond Line.

The total cost would be considerable, but (along with the South West Link under construction) would be a major investment in Western Sydney’s future. It would mean that all major employment centres and residential release areas in the region would be linked by rail to each other, as well as to major destinations in eastern Sydney.

There would also be major savings in combining the projects, which lend themselves to a staged approach. Planning for the North West project is much more recent and considerably more advanced than for Parramatta-Epping, especially as the route for the latter is yet to be finalised.

This means that tunnelling could start in the North West and then continue straight after completion onto the Parramatta-Epping Link once planning for that is finished. Fit-out of both sectors could proceed in the same way and then North-West line completed to the Richmond Line.

I noted that of the “200,000 plus” councils, all but Sydney City Council are in outer-ring suburbs and that nine of the 14 are located in Greater Western Sydney. The GWS region is expected to grow by over a million people or over 58%, significantly higher than the projected metropolitan growth rate of just under 38%, resulting in GWS having over 40% of the total metropolitan area population by 2036.

There was a strong correlation between the so-called mega-councils and those which are forecast to experience above-average growth, either in terms of rates of increase or total numbers. This perspective reinforced the pattern of Sydney’s growth as occurring most strongly in an arc running from the Hunter through most of Greater Western Sydney and tapering off into the Illawarra, with smaller concentrations of growth around Sydney city and parts of the inner west.

There are some interesting conclusions to be drawn from this, some of which I’ll look at under the broad headings of demographics, infrastructure and governance:

    DEMOGRAPHICS 

• Managing Sydney’s growth will always be an issue, irrespective of population policy or overall levels of migration. Whatever policies are adopted in the future, Sydney’s pattern of growth is likely to continue to be highly differentiated between high-growth and low-growth areas.
• Under almost any scenario, Greater Western Sydney (GWS) will experience by far the greatest bulk of this anticipated growth, reflecting lifestyle choices, competitive (though not cheap) housing costs and natural increase.

    INFRASTRUCTURE 

• The outer suburban areas likely to experience growth, particularly in GWS, are those which already suffer from marked under-investment in infrastructure, particularly transport and to a lesser extent in health, education and cultural infrastructure.
• If existing and proposed suburbs in these areas are to continue to accommodate rates of growth significantly higher than the metropolitan average,  then they will need comprehensive planning and early investment in infrastructure to avoid both new bottlenecks and compounding the mistakes of the past.
• Just as they are unlikely to reduce significantly overall  rates of growth, changes in population policy are unlikely to affect the demand for new infrastructure to support transport, education, health, employment social and cultural opportunities in these communities.

    GOVERNANCE 

•  Sydney’s forecast growth and the highly differentiated nature of this growth will pose particular challenges for Sydney’s future urban management
• The growth of Sydney’s outer suburbs in particular will pose significant challenges in terms of resource allocation as well as in attempts to provide additional employment in these areas. This growth is also going to continue to put strain on the environment of these areas, particularly those suburbs at the urban-rural interface.
•  There are likely to be further challenges resulting from the complexities of governance in a city with 53 councils estimated to range in population size by 2036 from under 20,000 to over 480,000.
• The 14 potential “mega councils” (those estimated to be over 200,000 in population by 2036) will experience particular problems because of their high growth but are also likely to have greater capacity to deal with some of these issues.
• It is clear that meeting Sydney’s infrastructure demands will have to involve the Federal Government as well as the State Government and councils. It is also likely to require a review of Sydney’s current governance structures.

According to the NSW Bureau of Transport Statistics  (BTS – formerly the TDC) forecasts, the Sydney Greater Metropolitan Area (GMA) will be 37.8% (the average growth rate per council will be slightly higher, at 39.5%, but for the purposes of this exercise I will stick with the GMA average). There are 16 councils which are forecast to experience growth higher than this average rate.

The average increase in population per council over this period is 37,225 persons and there are 15 councils whose growth in terms of total population will exceed this figure, according to the BTS forecasts (the usual caveats and qualifications as outlined in earlier posts apply). I have decided to bring together these two groups – those with projected higher-than-average growth rates and those with above-average population growth numbers as a highly arbitrary but quite interesting way of identifying “high growth” councils.

SYDNEY

As shown in Table 1, seven councils are forecast to experience above-average growth rates but below-average growth in terms of numbers, while six councils are forecast to demonstrate the reverse below-average rates but higher-than-average increases in terms of numbers. Nine councils belong to both groups.

This group of 22 councils (42% of the GMA’s 53 councils) is an interesting bunch. 74% of all of Sydney’s population growth will occur across these councils and the average rate of growth will be 53.8%.

 Not surprisingly, all 12 “200,000 plus” Councils I identified in previous posts that are forecast to be added by 2036 are members of this group as well. One of the two existing 200,000 plus councils, Blacktown, will also grow strongly, leaving only one council, Sutherland, which is currently over 200,000 but not on this list as it will grow comparatively slowly over the next 25 years.

Greater Western Sydney (GWS) tends to dominate this list. Table 2 summarises regional figures for these councils (don’t forget the numbers refer to the “high growth” councils in each region, not the total numbers of councils, anticipated total population increases or forecast regional rates of growth).

SYDNEY

Twelve of the GWS region’s 14 councils are in this group and these councils account for over 70% the high-growth council increase, 52% of the total GMA increase and 95.4% of GWS growth. All these figures are substantially higher than those in the remaining 10 high-growth councils, which are spread across four other regions.

In summary, the picture of Sydney’s future growth is of an arc, or crescent, starting in the north with Hunter councils such as Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland and Port Stephens, moving down through Wyong to a thick band around the Western edge of Sydney containing almost all the Greater Western Sydney councils and tapering off into Wollongong and Shoalhaven in the Illawarra.

Meanwhile other, smaller clusters of strong growth will occur in Sydney City (which will increase substantially both in numbers and rate of growth) and around Burwood and Strathfield (which will show strong growth rates but off a small population base).

What is equally significant are the councils not shown in these tables, the other 31 that are forecast to experience below-average growth rates and comparatively lower increases in total populations. For example, there are no councils from Sydney’s north and south, none from the eastern suburbs and only two comparatively small councils in the inner west.

I’ll discuss some of the overall implications of the BTC population forecasts in a future post.

To reiterate, the projections I’m discussing are based on forecasts released by the NSW Government Bureau of Transport Statistics (BTS – formerly the Transport Data Centre) and the usual caveats apply about their reliability or otherwise.

In the last article I discussed the 14 Sydney councils that will have populations over 200,000 in 2036, compared to the two we had in 2006. As I noted, no less than nine of these councils are located in Greater Western Sydney (GWS). However, the story of forecast growth in GWS does not end just with these “mega-councils”.

The table below shows the projected population increases and growth rates across the 14 GWS councils. In total, the BTS forecast predict that the region will grow by over a million people or over 58%, significantly higher than the projected Greater Metropolitan Area (GMA) growth rate of just under 38%. This will result in GWS having over 40% of the total metropolitan area population, compared with 35.5% in 2006.

GWS Councils population forecasts

It should be noted that the GMA includes the Hunter and Illawarra; if these are excluded, Greater Western Sydney would hold about half of Sydney’s population by 2036.

Not surprisingly, the councils with populations over 200,000 each will experience the lion’s share of the region’s growth and in fact the average size of a GWS council would be just over 209,000 by 2036. Five of these councils (Blacktown, Camden, Campbelltown, The Hills and Liverpool) will also experience growth rates above the metropolitan average – in the case of Camden, Liverpool and Blacktown, substantially so.

Of the five councils not expected to grow to over 200,000 by 2036, Auburn, Wollondilly and Hawkesbury will still experience growth rates above the Sydney average. Only Blue Mountains and Holroyd are expected to reach neither 200,000 nor an above-average growth rate, though Holroyd’s forecast growth rate is only just under the metropolitan average.

I’ll discuss the implications of the high rates of growth in Greater Western Sydney and elsewhere in a future post.

To reiterate, the projections I’m discussing in these articles are based on forecasts released by the NSW Government Transport Data Centre (TDC – now renamed the Bureau of Transport Statistics) earlier this year and the usual caveats apply about their reliability or otherwise. I should also stress that I’m not taking a position about population issues or the optimum size of councils, but just pointing out some of the more interesting implications of the distribution of Sydney’s growth as forecast by the TDC. 

In the last article I noted that if we accepted the TDC’s projections based on the current boundaries, the number of councils in Sydney with populations over 200,000 would grow from just two in 2006 (Blacktown and Sutherland) to 14 in 2036. OK, so which councils will be over the 200,000 mark by then? 

The following table identifies the councils in this group and their projected growth over the 30 years from 2006 to 2036. Its important to note that the “top 14” in 2036 were not necessarily the largest councils in 2006 and they are not all necessarily the fastest-growth Sydney councils – although their average rate of growth is well above the Sydney average of around 38% and the average forecast numerical increase is almost 50,000 more than the average for Sydney councils. Combined, they will house just over half of Sydney’s population in 2036.

Councils forecast to be over 200,000 in 2036

The other interesting aspect is their location. All but Sydney City Council are in outer-ring – or at least on the outer edge of the middle ring – suburbs. They form a “donut” around the city from Wyong and Lake Macquarie to the north, through Greater Western Sydney (where nine of the 14 are located) to Sutherland and Wollongong to the south. 

In summary, the 14 councils forecast to have over 200,000 people each by 2036 will: 

• Be home to over 1.2 million additional residents, or nearly 62% of Sydney’s overall growth;
• Grow by an average of 50% or over 87,000 people, compared to a city average rate of around 38% and 37,300 per council, with Camden set to grow by a staggering 390%;
• As a result, accommodate over 3.6 million people or over half of the city’s forecast population of just under 7.19 million.
• Have average populations of nearly 260,000 each (almost double the forecast Sydney average of 135,600), though this figure is skewed by the projected size of Liverpool (over 324,000) and Blacktown (over 48,1000)
• With the exception of Sydney city, be located around the city’s middle to outer suburban ring, with nine of the 14 in Greater Western Sydney. 

I’ll explore a few more implications of Sydney’s projected population growth at the council and regional levels in future posts.

In fact, as somebody pointed out to me recently, if Sydney’s population grows in the way that State Government forecasts suggest, the mega-councils, or at least the reasonably large councils, will come to us without a single boundary change or amalgamation. 

A check of the latest forecasts from the NSW Transport Data Centre (TDC – in the process of becoming the Bureau of Transport Statistics) makes this clear. These assume that the population of the Sydney Greater Metropolitan Area (GMA, which also includes the Hunter and Illawarra) will grow by almost two million people, from 5.21 million to 7.19 million, an increase of around 40%. The TDC has also made forecasts of Local Government Area (LGA) population growth based on the current council boundaries. 

Before I go on I should make all the usual qualifications – population forecasting this far out, especially at the LGA level, is an inexact science, reliant on all sorts of assumptions about factors such as migration and decentralisation policies. Lately some of these factors have come under intense scrutiny as part of the “Big Australia” debate. 

These forecasts are also based on another fundamental presumption – that the current council boundaries will not change at all in the next 25 years. However, it is instructive to run with this and see what happens if the current boundaries are left intact. 

First, a 40% increase in Sydney’s population would mean a similar substantial increase in average council size, from 98,300 to 135,600. Naturally this growth rate will not be uniform across all councils but even if it is, the outcomes in numerical terms are obviously going to be much more noticeable in the larger councils. 

The graph below shows the distribution of councils in 2006 and 2036 in population bands starting with zero to 50,000, 50,000 to 100,000 and so on. Councils with over 200,000 have been grouped together in a single band. The number at the bottom of each column is the number of councils in that band for either 2006 or 2036. 

Sydney Councils: projected growth by population bands, 2006-2036

It should be noted a similar number of councils in 2006 and in 2036 in a particular band does not necessarily mean that these are the same councils. Some 2006 councils may have increased in population to the extent that they have moved into a higher band, to be replaced by councils increasing in population from the band below. 

With that qualification in mind, let’s have a look at the estimates. The middle bands, 50,000 to 100,000 and 100,000 to 150,000, remain relatively stable both in terms of the number of councils and population. However the number of councils under 50,000 is halved from 12 to 6, while the number of councils in the 150,000 to 200,000 band decreases from 11 to 6. Both bands will also experience similar proportional declines in total population. 

The story for the 200,000 councils is a marked contrast. In 2006 there were only two (Blacktown and Sutherland), totalling just under half a million. By 2036 there could be 14 such councils with a combined population of over 3.6 million. 

It can be argued that most of the projected 12 additional members of the “200,000 club” were in the 150,000 to 200,000 category in 2006 and that this change is merely one of degree. To an extent this is true, but there are a few interesting exceptions. Campbelltown and Wyong leapfrog from the 100,000 to 150,000 band into this group, but the most spectacular change is that projected for Camden, which is estimated to grow from under 51,000 to nearly 250,000 in this period as a result of the development projected for Sydney’s south-west. 

It also has to be acknowledged that the forecast overall increase in the proportion of Sydney’s population in the largest councils, at around 2%, is relatively incremental. However if the overall population projections prove to be accurate and council boundaries remain unchanged, there could be some interesting challenges and opportunities in having 14 councils of this size collectively responsible for providing local services and infrastructure to over half of Sydney’s population by 2036.