A P T N S W logo

Action for Public Transport (N.S.W.) Inc.

APTNSW Metro Policy

posted Tuesday 2 June 2009

APTNSW METRO POLICY

A submission to the Sydney Metro Authority, 1 June 2009.

This paper was prepared by APTNSW in response to a request from the Sydney Metro Authority dated 15 May 2009. Primarily a statement of APTNSW policy, it also addresses issues raised in the Metro Authority's "CBD Metro Draft Environmental Assessment" (the DEA) which was placed on public display during March and April 2009, and certain "fact sheets" (FS) of about the same date. We acknowledge that some of the matters raised herein are outside the direct control of the Metro Authority. They are nevertheless important to the functioning and effectiveness of the ultimate metro system.

In this paper, the use of capital "M" in the word metro signifies a specific reference to one or more of Sydney's metro lines, or its network.

The paper is in two parts, 1 - Principles, and 2 – Detail Requirements.

1 - PRINCIPLES

APTNSW supports the establishment of a metro network for Sydney.

We also support the CBD Metro (Central to Rozelle) insofar as a start has to be made somewhere, but especially because the Central to Barangaroo section has the potential to relieve the serious overcrowding already evident on CityRail's Town Hall and Wynyard stations.

The Sydney Metro network should be completed to the stage of two intersecting lines as quickly as possible, in order to reap the economic and social benefits which only the completed network can provide. Put crudely, CBD bus services are already suffering from insufficient individual vehicle capacity, traffic congestion, and inferior passenger comfort. CityRail's train network is century old in technology, work practices, and passenger convenience, and Metro can dispense with all that. "Light Rail" lacks the speed and passenger capacity required of, and available from, the ultimate metro network.

1.1 - GOVERNMENT POLICY VERSUS PUBLIC INTEREST

APTNSW is of the opinion that one of the greatest threats to the success of a Sydney metro network is the potential for conflict between government policy and good transport planning. The four-year election cycle, and the political decisions and directives associated with it, are inevitably at odds with the decisions which need to be made by transport planners and Metro executives when considering long term infrastructure projects like a metro network.

Symptoms are already evident. The concept of the CBD Metro itself arose suddenly out of government deliberations over its emergency mini-budget in November 2008. We acknowledge that metros, in the broadest sense, had been canvassed in the government's Urban Transport Statement of November 2006. But there was no sign of them in the Department of Planning's regional planning documents of recent times.

Direct conflict is also already evident in the plans for Rozelle Station. The Metro Authority's draft Corporate Plan states that much of Sydney's future growth will be in the inner and middle ring suburbs (page 8) and that commercial development around station precincts will be carried out on a "case by case" basis (page 10). Yet the CBD Metro Rozelle Fact Sheet of March 2009 says "the NSW Government has resolved that there will be no high-rise development above the (Rozelle) station".

1.2 - FUNDING

Metro is expensive, but intensive public transport investment in the immediate future can be seen as reasonable when viewed as a "catch-up" to the under-investment of the past. The new-found availability of federal funding should be exploited to the full. The high capital cost of a metro network makes shared public and private financing highly attractive to government. However, in NSW, public-private partnerships (PPPs) have a disappointing history of favouring private interests at the cost of public benefits. Examples include the privatisation of stations on the airport line and the failed Tcard smartcard ticketing system.

Metro needs to demonstrate early that its chosen form of public-private partnership will succeed.

1.3 - FARES, TICKETS

APTNSW is pessimistic that Metro fares can be made attractive to passengers, given that they must integrate somehow with the present Sydney public transport fares system, which is complex, confusing, and irritating for passengers. The overall fares system, and the ticket strategies which follow, should be designed with a proper balance between convenience for passengers, and the "big picture" imperatives associated with climate change, peak oil, and the overall efficiency of the Sydney transport network, including roads. The present, narrow, "bottom-up" fare-setting approach used by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART), where fares are set based on the funding needs of the operating authorities, is not in the public interest.

The Central - Wynyard section of the CBD Metro duplicates the existing CityRail line. Ideally, the fares on each should be the same. Any significant difference in fares would be irritating, to say the least. There are probably other similar anomalies which deserve attention.

1.4 - INTEGRATION WITH OTHER MODES

Sydney's lack of an all-modes transport planning and operations authority will make it difficult for Metro to provide convenient inter-modal travel, at least in the short term. Again, APTNSW is pessimistic that the government and the present structure of transport administration agencies can deliver in the short term, inter-modal travel which is attractive, efficient, and competitive with the private car.

APTNSW seeks an assurance that a future CBD rail corridor, using the disused Wynyard upper level platforms and what is generally termed the "Metro West" route under Sussex Street, has been preserved under the CBD Metro plan, and that provision can be made for interchange within the CBD between that route and one or both of the two new Metro lines.

1.5 - OPERATION

Driverless operation should be confirmed.

1.6 - PUBLIC CONSULTATION

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the development of the Metro but long experience with other authorities places us on guard as to whether the interaction will be truly consultative or just "public relations". We are committed to exposing half truths and political "spin", as and when we detect it.

2 - DETAIL REQUIREMENTS

2.1. - STATION DESIGN

One or more of the Sydney CBD stations is likely to become the interchange station with a future second metro line. Cross-platform interchange between the two lines is highly desirable. It is of great concern to APTNSW that this principle, common on most metros in other cities, and even on CityRail's eighty-year-old CBD stations, has not as yet been adopted. Interchange requiring the use of escalators and stairs would be very second rate.

For the record, we note that as at April 2009, "island" platforms were planned for Central, Pyrmont, White Bay and Rozelle, and "lineside" platforms at Town Hall, Martin Place and Barangaroo. It seems obvious that lineside platforms could provide for future cross-platform interchange, whereas island platforms could not.

At selected stations, in order to reduce walk-up distances and to maximise the station catchment area, two concourses should be provided, one at each end of the platforms, instead of one concourse at the centre of the station.

Station identification at platform level, for on-train passengers, deserves special attention. Platform-level identification on the new Epping-Chatswood line is poorly executed, the interior of all stations looking much the same, and the station name boards being invisible from some parts of the trains. The Eastern Suburbs line set a fairly high standard, with its "3-decker" platform signs.

We strongly recommend individually themed station interiors, as used in Paris and elsewhere. Thousands of regular users would benefit from instantly recognising their location. Others could simply enjoy the contrasts.

2.1.1. - ROZELLE

APTNSW is of the opinion that Rozelle should not be opened at all as a terminal station. In its initial phase, the CBD Metro can serve the community quite well by providing access to the high-traffic stations from Central to Pyrmont (inclusive). Rozelle Station can then be seen as coincidental to having to bring the CBD Metro out into daylight to provide the above ground Lilyfield maintenance facility.

We would rather the initial line be extended by one station at the other end, to serve the major traffic generators of Newtown, Sydney University, and/or Broadway Shopping Centre.

The government's commitment to "no high rise" at Rozelle is regrettable. We note that it is in conflict with Metro's Draft Corporate Plan. High rise development is inevitable for Sydney if it is to constrain urban sprawl and it is best provided at public transport nodes like metro stations.

Passengers on Victoria Road buses should not be required to interchange with the Metro at Rozelle. The buses should continue into the city. The history of enforced and unpopular interchange at Edgecliff, on the new Eastern Suburbs Railway in 1979, is instructive.

2.1.2 - BUS/RAIL INTERCHANGES

While the DEA boasts the quality of design around station precincts, we draw attention to the findings of the NSW Audit Office in 2007, which was critical of the planning and management of existing CityRail interchanges: http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/publications/reports/performance/2007/public_transport/publictransport-contents.htm.

2.2 - OPERATIONAL ISSUES

2.2.1 - BICYCLES

The DEA emphasises convenient bicycle parking at stations. This could be interpreted as a veiled threat to ban bicycles on the trains. Bicycles should be allowed on the Metro, at least until such time as higher passenger densities make bicycle carriage dangerous.

2.2.2 - CARRIAGE DESIGN

The end cars should be designed for public access to the front of the car, to view the track, tunnels, and approaching stations. It makes for good public relations, especially for children, tourists, and adults who remember when they were children!

2.3 - ROUTE

APTNSW suggests the terminal stations should be Pyrmont and a new station at Victoria Park, rather than Rozelle and Central, as planned. There are many advantages. The town planning and bus interchange problems at Rozelle would be avoided. Central would become a through station, rather than a terminus, and the traffic generators of Sydney University and Broadway Shopping Centre would be served. There would be presumably little change in the construction and operating costs.

Latest revision - 2 June 2009.



Action for Public Transport home page

Twitter Facebook webcounter