I recently was interviewed by a TV channel in Sydney to discuss, in their words, congestion busting strategies for the southwest and northwest growth centres in Sydney. Before the interview, I was shown a map of existing and proposed rail extensions and road investment to cater for the needs of the growing population, with the anticipated dialogue to focus in my interview on my views on various rail initiatives. In pre-interview discussions, I suggested that a much broader agenda is required. An underlying assumption of most discussions on the need to invest in more public transport, mainly rail, and build more roads or expand capacity of existing roads, is an old school view in the belief this will contain congestion through a switch away from the car toward public transport and deliver improved travel times for the predominant continuation of car use.

I offered the following commentary as a way of trying to place such claimed congestion busting solutions into perspective. Opening statements included my view that ‘to make public transport more attractive we must make the car less attractive’ and any investment to improve public transport must accord with the three criteria of ‘increased frequency, connectivity and visibility’. Moreover, a focus only on transport strategies will not work unless they are planned in tandem with land use strategies. While investment in new rail facilities is to be encouraged, it must be assessed in the context of other public transport solutions and far too often the ideological view is that it must be rail or rail. This is expensive, and it is often stated that such an investment, within the budgets available, can only buy a few years of patronage growth before we are back to where we were in previous years. Why is this? There are many reasons, but the most obvious one relates to the dominant convenience of the car, but also the recognition that many passenger-related trips can only be achieved by car, notably trades people who are a growing amount of trip activity, as well as the freight distribution sector. This points to the need to find ways to tame the car, the ute, and the truck, and rail investment as part of a public transport plan. Public transport investment is sadly hardly going to change the dial in terms of modal share which in Sydney has fluctuated for years around 20% public transport with little change.

1. The first is the re-pricing of the use of cars, utes and trucks, in a way that makes users and state treasuries no worse off. It can be done, with my best example being to give everyone a choice and deliver benefits to individuals and society. The key feature is the option for people to switch from a fixed annual registration fee to a distance-based charge during peak periods (for a portion of the fee) and ensuring that the total cost does not exceed the full registration fee. This structure enables those who opt out of a certain number of peak trips to avoid the distance-based charge, reaping financial savings while enhancing travel times for those who drive during peak periods. We know that about 60% of all peak car trips can switch out of the peak if the incentives to do so are there. We can show that not only are car users better off, but Treasury is also better off.

2. Transit-Oriented Development (ToD) to encourage higher-density housing and commercial development near transport hubs to reduce reliance on cars. This is where rail projects may deliver their greatest benefits, but this can also be achieved by significant investment in bus-based hubs.¹

3. Staggered Work Hours and Remote Work Incentives as policies to spread peak demand and reduce overall traffic volumes. We know that this has, since Covid-19, resulted in a significant amount of switching of car use out of the peak periods to off-peak periods. Citing the March 2025 Transport Opinion Survey (TOPS)², a biannual survey of adults aged 18 and over across Australia, launched in March 2010, for all commuters (including both office only and hybrid workers), Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday have the higher percentages of people leaving home during peak hours (61% to 62%), either in the morning or afternoon peaks (i.e., afternoon peak for working the night shift). On Thursday, 60% of workers leave home on their commute during peak hours. Overall, there are minimal differences in peak-hour commuting across the weekdays, but importantly we see a significant amount of commuting departing outside peak periods (see the first graph for all cities in Australia). In the second graph for the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Area (GSMA) we can see that, except for Tuesday, the move to the off-peak is significant for workers who undertake blended work that involves part of a day in the main office and part at a remote location such as at home. Ironically, the increase in flexible remote working has achieved many of the aspiring aims to reduce congestion in the peak periods on our roads, although it has resulted in a drop in use of public transport as traffic levels are less constraining on the road network.

4. Smart Traffic Management, especially the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS): This real-time traffic control system adjusts signal timings based on traffic flow, helping to reduce delays and improve efficiency, and also incorporates bus priority requests which reduces delay variability relative to schedule.

5. Focussing much more on in-filling public transport as a system of bus-based corridors that also allow, initially, at least, multi-occupant cars to share the dedicated lane(s) as a politically clever way of appeasing the car market and demonstrating efficient use of road space. Bus systems can deliver the same or better service capacity (which is far more relevant than vehicle capacity) than light rail, while also improving on connectivity beyond the linehaul offer of rail that still requires significant first and last mile connections. Bus, sadly, is still regarded by many planners as a mode to connect to a rail hub (and as a school child service) with the implicit adage that ‘buses are boring, and trains are sexy’.

6. Parking can play a big role as a disincentive to car use that comes with either not being able to park at the destination - this is unfortunately not an issue for many destinations in Sydney - or making parking expensive. Road capacity can be dramatically increased if roadside parking, particularly on arterial roads is banned, leaving the opportunity for an extra lane in each direction.

In summary, a strategic approach to achieving objectives associated with sustainability and equity outcomes in the provision of improved mobility and accessibility, should consider multiple policy initiatives since the overall net impact on modal share, emissions and pollution, for example, is insightful and impactful in contrast to isolated initiatives. We encourage transport planners to stop focussing on single initiatives (e.g., reduced fares), but to break down barriers of multi- department working to co-ordinate meaningfully with land use planners so as to assess combinations of initiatives that can not only be better value for money outcomes but make a real difference in achieving the goals sets under strategic policy aspirations.³

Acknowledgement. I thank John Nelson and Corinne Mulley for comments on an earlier version.