Let's take the easier group first. We found that several things can be done to enhance the mobility options of Sydney residents, before the next election. First, there is room in our rail system to run faster, simpler and more frequent services, but it will require higher standards. RailCorp's last solution to problems of on-time running was to write slower schedules, allowing their worst-case performance to define the new norm. Leaders must push back against these efforts to lower our expectations. We also found opportunities to create a vastly more useful bus system, with higher frequencies, longer hours, straighter paths of travel, and more effective integration with rail. The key is to design the network to make connections easier. Still, bus service levels will need to keep growing at least in pace with population, and may need to grow even faster in the inner city. Ferries, too, can be made much more frequent and effective, especially around the inner harbour. Finally, Sydney's chaotic jumble of public transport fares (which was revised, renamed, but not exactly reformed last year) inhibits the easy use of public transport. It requires you to choose among ticket types in advance, discouraging spontaneous trips. It penalises you if your trip requires a connection. Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth all fixed these problems years ago. So the immediate question for the candidates is: will you commit to delivering these improvements in your first term?

Because that was the easy part. The real leadership challenge is long-term. First, it's clear that the urgent priority for most of Sydney is public transport, not major roads. New suburbs in the west will need new road networks, but building more road tunnels towards the core of Sydney is futile. These tunnels deliver traffic faster than city streets can absorb them, and any new capacity they offer is quickly filled. All big cities discover this sooner or later, and most Sydneysiders have figured it out. More than 60 per cent of our survey respondents agreed that public transport, not major roads, must be the priority. Sydney's biggest infrastructure needs are the long-deferred expansions to the rail network. These projects are not new ideas. They include the North West line to Rouse Hill but also the Epping-Parramatta link, the purpose of which is to open up a new orbital path between western Sydney and the job centres of Macquarie Park and the lower north shore. Soon, we will also need a second harbour crossing to relieve the crushing capacity problems at Wynyard and Town Hall. Without action, these chokepoints will limit economic potential in Sydney's "global arc", the chain of major job centres that includes Macquarie Park, the lower north shore, the greater central business district, and the airport and seaport areas on Botany Bay. Sydney also needs higher-capacity local services in the densest parts of the city, where many people will choose not to own cars. Here, and possibly also around Parramatta, light rail has a crucial role.

For longtime city dwellers this list will sound familiar, and that's the point. Most of these projects have been studied for years. They fit the existing vision for Sydney's orderly growth. It's time to move forward on them. We can't afford endless debates about which crucial project should happen first. You may think your part of Sydney is in dire need, but in fact there are critical needs almost everywhere. Sydney needs a government that will build consensus on how to fund an entire package, for the entire city. Improvements will need to be phased, but people must see that a complete plan, one that meets all of Sydney's needs, is being implemented. Other cities have made the commitment. Since 1990, for example, Los Angeles has opened 127 kilometres of rapid transit lines, and their mayor is advancing a plan to build about that much again in the next decade. Few cities went further than Los Angeles in planning for total dependence on cars, but today voters there have decisively rejected that vision. In 2008 67 per cent of Los Angeles area voters approved a half-cent sales tax (like adding 0.5 per cent to GST) to fund urgently needed infrastructure. Of the money raised, 65 per cent goes to public transport, mostly new rail and bus rapid transit lines. Roads will get 20 per cent. Councils get 15 per cent for local needs. Australians aren't used to voting on specific taxes tied to specific purposes, but our survey found that such a proposal (in this case, a carefully crafted mixture of levies, tolls and congestion charges tied to a set of infrastructure projects) could win majority support, and finally allow Sydney to begin a program of improvement. So the long-term questions for the major parties are these: First, are you sure that such an aggressive building program is politically impossible? If not, will you explore that possibility, in candid conversations with the people of Sydney? Finally, once a plan and its funding sources have been identified, will you support the legislation and governance systems needed to lock the plan in place, so that it cannot be changed every time someone in power has a "great new idea"?

This last point is critical. The private sector has crucial roles to play: as sources of financing, as vendors of crucial technology and skills, and as investors in new urban development. When governments change their minds, or when the opposition promises to undo all the government's plans when they get in, these businesses get nervous. Engineering and construction firms, for example, demand higher prices for their work, to cover the risk that government intentions might change part way through the project. For these reasons, a government will need to consciously sacrifice some of its own flexibility, so that the plan is hard to change once it's in place. It's hard to set up a long-term process with long-term payoffs when leaders must face elections every four years. But we have to find a solution: either state government leadership, or new legislation that will allow Sydneysiders to vote up or down on funding these projects. As I've watched the state budget crises in my native USA in the past two years, I've come to appreciate the stability of the Australian system, where major projects are funded out of state budgets rather than individual voter-approved measures. Badly designed referenda have tied California in knots, imposing so many conflicting mandates that government is almost impossible. But the Australian system is not so good at expressing an urgent public consensus, as Los Angeles voters have done. If the voters had the power to set up a funding stream, and endow an authority with the power and responsibility to do the job, most of the infrastructure Sydney needs could be done within a decade. Instead, Sydney waits for one of the major parties to propose a complete investment plan. Sometimes the people are ahead of their leaders, and need a way to say so. That's why California's system, where voters often decide on individual plans and funding streams, is so popular there. The only alternative, in Australia, is for governments to face the urgency of the problem, ask citizens to do their part, build consensus on the details, and lead.

Loading Which party is ready to do that? Jarrett Walker is a principal consultant with MRCagney and the author of the blog humantransit.org.