Dear Minister Michael Costa,

I have read in the weekend papers that the Newcastle rail line “could be torn up by the end of the year” following a “big lift in efficiency” by you. (Newcastle Herald 7/6/03:9.  The editorial agrees saying that the “century old barrier has to be ripped up.” NH 7/6/03:28. Elsewhere, the rail line is described as “an ugly scar that troubled the city’s burghers and is of decreasing use to its people” and “has always divided Newcastle’s city centre from the harbour.” Sunday Telegraph (8/6/03:56).

Well, I am baffled that the NSW Government working group is calling for public comment, as everyone appears to have already made up their minds.

Let us examine the arguments put forward as to why the Newcastle Train station and rail line be ripped up:

Argument 1. That it is an ugly barrier between the City and the harbour.

I don’t think it any more ugly than such high-rise developments as the “Becton wall” that currently separates the city from the Harbour. Removing the rail line will only enable developers to replace the rail barrier (which serves the public good) with a plethora of private ones that serve wealthy individuals able to afford it.

Recommendation 1. That a valuable public asset such as the Newcastle rail line not be ripped up because some people believe it to be ugly.

Argument 2. That no one uses rail any more and it costs too much.

For a public transport system to be used it needs to be frequent and affordable. Our regional bus system for instance has recently been given a huge shake-up. It is now more expensive and less frequent. Therefore it will soon die. Since it is more expensive and less frequent, why would any one want to use it?

In order to cost cut, Government agenda appears to be put the hatchet into services under the “efficiency” argument. You then either move the services farther away, or make them more difficult to use. When people stop using them, repeat the cycle and then slowly take them out of the system.  Sydney’s in contrast is cheaper, has a service every 10 minutes, and will have a future at the expense of the regional commonwealth.

It doesn’t matter how many people use it. A public transport system is there to get people from A to B any time they want. E.g., You don’t illumine a street simply because x number of cars are travelling on it at a certain time. No, you illumine it to provide safe passage from one point to another in the darkness. A free and frequent system is what we should be aiming for. Madness? Well, is gridlock caused by millions of cars all polluting their heads off in a twisted wreck of a road system sane? That will be our future if we don’t invest in a visionary public transport system. Read Ben Elton’s book Gridlock on the subject.

I had to catch a bus last Friday night to Customs House, just adjacent to the Newcastle station. It was extremely reassuring to see a hive of activity there. It represents light and life in the city’s centre, and made me feel personally safe because there were people there. Catching a bus on the way home at 8pm was a different story. There is only one service per hour; the bus stop was dirty and dark. I didn’t feel safe, and if not for the train station, I probably would not have been standing there waiting for one of your more “efficient” buses to arrive.  I probably wouldn’t have gone into town at all.

Recommendation 2. Our public transport (including the Newcastle Train Station and rail line) is properly maintained, enhanced and free.

3. That public transport could be much more efficient through integration.

Why does improving the system have to mean ripping up the infrastructure? Your aim as public servants is to integrate and improve a system that is funded properly to achieve the aim of being used. That means a future vision of plenty of public transport running frequently and free of charge everywhere in the state.

Recommendation 3. That our public transport be made more efficient integrated and frequent without the destruction of valuable public infrastructure.

In conclusion, it is worth asking whether anyone involved in making such decisions have ever used public transport? If they depended upon it, like I do, they would understand why we deplore the continued erosion of our public services.

Some believe that our current form of  “democracy” resembles a tyranny, where self serving politicians appear more interested in Sydney’s fireworks, their own political power, and superannuation perks than in the future public good. If there are no public services, then there is no future need for politicians either.

Yours sincerely,

Gionni Di Gravio
8th June 2003