Yours sincerely,
Kevin Eadie
Advocacy Manager
Action for Public Transport (NSW) Inc.
PO Box K606
Haymarket 1240.
13 September 2013
Dear Sir,
In September 2013 the NSW government's transport planning agency, Transport for NSW, released documents and staged public exhibitions of its plans for a new light rail transit (LRT) system between Circular Quay and Randwick / Kingsford. Public submissions were invited, for consideration in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the project. In this submission from Action for Public Transport Inc. we attempt to provide comments from the potential users of the service - the passengers.
We are disappointed that this initial project information provided by TfNSW focuses almost solely on the physical location of the proposed rail tracks and platforms, and the effect that these structures might have on adjacent land-holders, businesses, other-vehicle traffic lanes and (extraordinarily) even car parking.
Little information has been provided about the effect of the LRT service on people - especially the facilities for passengers, how their diverse off-vehicle requirements and movements might be managed, and the means by which they might transfer between the LRT and other modes. This has made it difficult for us to comment on the construction project, and the completed LRT service, from the viewpoint of the prospective passengers.
Members of the exhibition team have explained that while detailed analysis of pedestrian and passenger movements is ongoing, there is no requirement for such detail to be incorporated into the EIS process. While this may be the legal position, it limits our ability to comment on the human aspects of both the construction project and the finished LRT service.
Given this lack of detail, we are obliged to make some assumptions. We offer the following broad observations:
We do NOT support the provision of a "catenary-free" power supply, on the grounds that it would represent unnecessary capital expenditure on the LRT vehicles and increased running and maintenance costs. There is also a risk of reduced reliability, given the complexity of the power supply to the vehicles. In our view, modern overhead power supplies are very unobtrusive.
There being no detail as to how the diverse pedestrian and inter-modal passenger movements are to be managed at this site, we must express our concern for pedestrian amenity and safety.
We fully support the cut-and-cover tunnel, both on visual amenity grounds and because it preserves the playing fields for the 1200 students at Sydney Boys High School. The need to minimise "land-take" from the Centennial Parklands is also a growing community concern. We assume a tunnel might also facilitate grade-separated crossings for pedestrians at the Moore Park platforms.
TfNSW staff have informed us that tram and pedestrian movements will be grade separated for major events, but there is insufficient detail available for us to make informed comment. We feel that the ~300m distance from the Football Stadium to the platforms will be seen by the public as excessive.
In an earlier submission we suggested that grade-separation might be justified at this location, based on the accumulated time-savings for passengers. Exhibit staff have assured us that the present signal phases for buses are adequate for the light rail movements.
We understand this intersection is presently operating at capacity and wonder how the LRT movements are to be accommodated.
Consideration should be given to incorporating provision for an air-rights development over this facility, as an alternative, or at least as an offset, for the large scale and widespread building proposals currently being canvassed by the Centennial Parklands in their euphemistically titled "Vision Statement".
There would be many timesaving benefits for visitors to the hospital and the Belmore Road shops from an additional stop in High Street, just west of the Clara Street intersection. We understand the platform-grade compliance difficulties associated with this site but urge the designers to persevere with innovative ideas in order to harvest the long term benefits.
The anticipated long-term expansion of UNSW to the west side of Anzac Parade should justify centre-of-road platforms at this site, with a pedestrian underpass. Small retail outlets in the subway would enhance the amenity. There could be significant accumulated travel time savings by not requiring trams to leave and re-enter centre-of-road running using traffic signals, as is presently planned.
We are disappointed that light rail vehicle (LRV) priority at signalised intersections has not been raised in the exhibition. While it may not be an essential input into the EIS process, it is nevertheless, in our view, an essential component of the LRT system, especially given the importance of minimal travel times to the success of the LRT service. The apparent slothfulness of the existing LRT service as it crosses George Street does not present a positive image for LRT. We are informed that Melbourne trams currently spend 17% of their service time halted at traffic lights.
We suggest the preservation of an easement between (former) Wynyard Station platforms 1 & 2 and George Street via Wynyard Street, for a possible future LRT connection from George Street to North Sydney / Crows Nest via the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
We support the CSELR project, and the improved travel experience which the completed service should bring to Sydney, but we remain deeply concerned about the current lack of detail available regarding pedestrian and passenger amenity and movement. The writer may be contacted on 9819-6052.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Eadie
Advocacy Manager
Action for Public Transport (NSW) Inc.
PO Box K606
Haymarket 1240.
13 September 2013