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

Action for Public Transport (NSW) Inc. is a transport advocacy group which has been active in Sydney since 1974. We promote the interests of beneficiaries of public transport - passengers and the wider community alike.

We make this submission on the Central Precinct rezoning proposal described on T4NSW's page https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/current-projects/central-precinct-renewal-program/.

Page numbers refer to the State Significant Precinct Study - Central Station Significant Precinct (172-page PDF).

Discussion

Although this consultation is described as a rezoning, it is really much more than that. The intention is to prepare a planning instrument that will describe what is intended to be done at different parts of the large area covered. The following comments are intended to inform the preparation of that instrument.

Sydney Terminal Station is a building (ensemble) of outstanding quality and representative of public buildings in the NSW of its early-20th century construction. There are many parts to these values:

• the totality seen from a distance;
• the external office buildings;
• the interior of the concourse for passengers;

1. A train shed - these can be breathtaking where preserved (Kings Cross, St Pancras in London; Gare du Nord, Paris). The recent additions to Parramatta have a similar effect though as a "slotted" shed. But Sydney never had a large roof for trains but only for the passenger concourse.
2. Individual platform canopies - passengers are sheltered, but open to the sky. Ventilation from trains is no problem.
3. Platforms built over, as proposed for Central platforms 1-12. This is already in effect at many of the world's "great" stations - Euston in London, Montparnasse in Paris, Grand Central and Penn in New York. However it can lead to a loss of visual amenity for passengers moving through the station. There is little detail in the Study on planned provision for platforms 1-12, but the ventilation diagram on page 117 suggests the ceiling (i.e. deck above) will be low, possibly the minimum allowed by standards. Already in many stations, such platform areas are hurried through as fast as possible, having aesthetic and environmental likeness to a car park. They add nothing valuable to the experience of the journey.

We also agree with the preservation of the passenger concourse. However, APTNSW urge Transport for NSW to design with regard to visual amenity for passengers passing through as well, especially for the actual platforms. The role of long-distance rail in NSW is likely to increase with high-speed rail plans under development by both Federal and State governments. Not only daily commuters pass through. It is a gateway or threshold to the city for visitors from regional NSW and beyond. It is not only Country for Indigenous people of the Sydney region - but the gateway to Country for people coming and going all around Australia. (see p.128)

We realise the inevitability of development over tracks due to economic pressures, and the potential social and aesthetic benefits this may bring (e.g. connecting communities on either side). However we note that the suburban tracks and platforms 15-23 are not proposed for building over. Are they being kept in reserve for a second stage? Or is this from a realization that the aesthetic experiences - the air, sunlight and views - of these daily commuters, are too important to remove? Or for safety?

A very special case is the infrequent operation of steam trains out of the station. An implication of rebuilding may be that steam would not be allowed at Central, and these specials would have to start from a suburban station. However we believe that due to the heritage value and meaning of both the station, and moveable heritage of NSW steam locomotives and rolling stock, the connection of the two should be kept.

Recommendations

• We understand that it is intended to construct two new crossings of the track between Devonshire St pedestrian tunnel and Cleveland St. That is excellent; walking distances there such as Central-UTS are far too long due to the lack of a direct path. However much more could and should be done to improve conditions for pedestrians:
  1. We think that pedestrians should be separated from other forms of "active transport". We note that bicycles, skateboards and a variety of powered wheels can frequently be seen in the Devonshire St pedestrian tunnel, despite crowded conditions there.
  2. The Devonshire St tunnel needs attention. It is too long and frequently is (or was pre-COVID) at capacity. For example, cutting a connection between the tunnel and the steps up to platforms 16-17 would take c.100 metres off many trips. So would connecting the new Metro platforms direct to the tunnel. If only for safety, the tunnel should have an escape point somewhere along its length. At the very least, the tunnel should be widened or duplicated.
• Because it will be impossible to alter track layout once construction starts on anything above the tracks, extreme care must be taken to ensure that the layout will be suitable for the future.
• Design of rebuilt platforms 1-12 should aim for as high a ceiling as possible - i.e. maximisation of the height of the deck above for pedestrian areas and building bases.
• Passengers' environment on platforms 1-12 be made as light and airy as possible.
• Buildings over the terminal platforms should be low rise and of lightweight materials. This will reduce dimensions of columns on platforms. Concrete lift, stair and service cores need to be avoided - perhaps external timber and steel, or timber as with planned Atlassian building.
• Window and skylight space from the deck to the platform space should be maximised.
• Design should be revised to give an open space above platforms 1-3 at the City end, with a length of 2-3 carriages (50-75 metres). This would provide visual relief for the platform spaces below, and for the pedestrian spaces above, a feature unique to the site and link to the transport function underneath. It would improve ventilation for diesel trains including the weekly Indian Pacific, and enable operation of steam trains using the open air terminus.
• In any case ventilation of platforms should be sufficient to allow diesel operation. This might only need to apply to (say) five platforms, the rest being all electric.
• The Mortuary Station should retain its trackage and be kept in working order. If not actually revived funeral trains (how about that of the first Australian President?) then as a means of accommodating steam specials.
• Visual impact planning for the precinct (e.g. p117) should include analysis of experience of passenger passing through / arriving / leaving by train.
• A station for long-distance coaches should be integrated with the concourse, always minimising walking distances.
• The bus layover area near Mortuary Station needs to be preserved in some form. It is less used at present than previously (bus re-routing e.g. truncation of Northern Beaches routes to Wynyard) but needs to be in place to allow flexibility.
• Construction of the overall project should be managed to minimise, as far as possible, curtailment of train services and bus replacement.
• APTNSW supports the low provision of parking spaces (see pages 61, 140).