|
| Action for Public Transport (N.S.W.) Inc. |
| P O Box K606 |
| Haymarket NSW 1240 |
| 28 October 2016 |
Action for Public Transport (NSW) is a transport advocacy group, which has been active in Sydney since 1974. We promote the interests of beneficiaries of public transport; both passengers, and the wider community. We make the following submission on the discussion paper "Western Sydney Rail Needs" issued in September 2016.
1. What is the key challenge that should be addressed by rail services for Western Sydney?
The key challenge in our view is to establish a web of high frequency, interconnected services capable of taking passengers to many possible destinations, not just to the established CBD. It is no longer practical nor acceptable, if it ever was, to expect passengers to travel all the way into the CBD and out again to access a destination on a different rail line.
In particular, the very high level of public transport accessibility characteristic of the established CBD now needs to be replicated at Parramatta, to enable it to function as a true second CBD. Achieving this requires much stronger north-south rail connections, linking existing east-west rail lines.
2. What areas of Western Sydney are most in need of new or upgraded rail services? Why?
APTNSW suggests that this question needs a fresh approach. We suggest that Transport for NSW should identify the areas in which traffic congestion is growing most strongly. Instead of taking the "business as usual" approach of attempting to provide additional road capacity to deal with the problem (an effort doomed to failure), these should be the areas regarded as most in need of new or upgraded rail services. The reason for this approach is to stop wasting money on projects we should know by now will not achieve their stated aim of reducing traffic congestion. See http://www.aptnsw.org.au/documents/new_m5_eis.html.
Another way to consider which areas are "most in need" is to identify areas beyond walking distance of a railway station, with higher than average levels of unemployment and disengagement from education. Providing greater opportunity to the people of such areas by improving rail access to a wide range of jobs and educational facilities has both social and economic benefits. See our Submission to Senate Committee inquiry on role of public transport in delivering productivity outcomes http://www.aptnsw.org.au/documents/roleofPT.html.
3. What rail services would help you access employment, health, business and education precincts in Western Sydney?
The discussion paper suggests (p.12) that the major employment, health, business and education precincts in Western Sydney are at Parramatta, Norwest, Westmead and Penrith, and the campuses of Western Sydney University (Werrington, Campbelltown and Parramatta). Future employment areas are nominated on p.13, and these lie in a north-west pattern from the "Western Sydney Employment Area" south of the western freeway (remote from rail), through the airport precinct and then in an arc towards Leppington and west of Leppington.
The problem for many people is that even getting to the existing centres is difficult because they involve such long and circuitous trips. A train passenger hoping to get to Westmead hospital from Rouse Hill (once the north-west line is completed) would have to travel via Strathfield, join the T1 line and head back in the opposite direction. The same is true for a train passenger starting at Hornsby. A train passenger heading to work in Parramatta from Hurstville must go via Central Station.
More north-south rail services, and filling missing links in the rail system would help people to access these destinations and new employment areas. Colouring areas purple on a planning map and calling them "employment areas" with no guaranteed delivery of these links would be a disastrous path to follow.
Looking at the issue from a broader perspective, the untangling of freight rail from passenger rail would assist passengers to access employment, health, business and education precincts in Western Sydney (and elsewhere). The scope for better timetabling and frequency of passenger services is often hindered by the valid but conflicting needs of freight rail operators.
We include in this comment the option of an inland freight rail line, long on the Federal government's radar, but still awaiting construction funding.
4. What other challenges should the Scoping Study address?
The other key challenge the Scoping Study should address is the practical application of the idea of integrated transport and land use planning. We have been trapped in a pattern of doing the land use planning (or more precisely, rezoning land) first, dutifully recording the necessity of better public transport links, and then failing to fund and provide them. APTNSW is dismayed to see this pattern recurring with the premature Greater Macarthur "Priority Growth" area http://www.aptnsw.org.au/documents/greater_macarthur.html.
APTNSW points out what ought to be obvious – this is not integrated land use and transport planning.
Without real commitment to public transport provision by the time residents or businesses move in, land rezonings are premature. The example to follow is that of the Leppington line, which is capable of shaping land use and travel patterns because it is there in advance.
A second challenge is to rebut the received wisdom (repeated at p.24 of the discussion paper) that "people living in Western Sydney are more dependent on cars for transport than other parts of the city due to lower urban density". This matters, because of the common misapprehension that people cannot expect good public transport unless they are prepared to live at high densities, and/or in high-rise developments. The second part of the comment on p. 24 is soundly based, observing that people living in Western Sydney are more dependent on cars due to: "having less access to bus and rail services".
In truth, the parts of Sydney with the best public transport have a variety of housing types to choose from, including detached homes, terraces and human-scale apartment developments. Density gains are achieved by the existence of walkable neighbourhoods and active streets, close to public transport, requiring less land to be given over to roads and parking.
Last but not least, the Scoping Study should look critically at the underlying assumption that the only way to accommodate Sydney's growing population is to expand Sydney to the west and southwest. The sacrifice of fertile agricultural land and natural areas is presented as inevitable.
APTNSW suggests that the ability of fast transport links to bring existing centres closer together has not been appreciated in these assumptions. Fast (or just faster) rail from Newcastle to Sydney to Wollongong would enable some growth to be shared between established cities with existing social and physical infrastructure. For residents of some areas, fast links to Canberra would provide access to high-order job opportunities.
Infrastructure Australia has noted the huge imbalance in growth rates between Australia's cities and seems open to creative thinking about alternatives http://aptnsw.org.au/documents/infr_au_audit.html. We too think it is time to rethink population distribution assumptions and to question whether we are taking as 'inevitable' suboptimal outcomes that could be averted.
5. How could governments best take an active role in encouraging greater use of public transport given the potential benefits to the environment and sustainability?
Our first comment is that greater use of public transport has benefits beyond the environment and sustainability, important though these are. Greater use of public transport delivers economic benefits, increases productivity, and produces health benefits. These benefits are systematically underestimated or not recognised at all in the cost benefit analyses that underpin transport decisions.
We have made several submissions touching on the subject to IPART and to a recent House of Representatives inquiry, available at http://www.aptnsw.org.au/documents/ipart_ext_benefits.html, http://www.aptnsw.org.au/documents/ipart_ext_benefits_2.html and http://aptnsw.org.au/documents/connectivity.html.
In answer to the specific question raised, we suggest that the best way to encourage greater use of public transport is to improve services: frequency; speed; coverage; and connections. We do not suggest that this is sufficient, but it is the necessary first step. Key ancillary actions include tight parking policy and pricing (a very effective policy lever), and the support of key centres rather than office 'parks' and car-dependent shopping malls. Road pricing is of course another option.
It is worrying to see that the 'local' bus route category countenances services 30-60 minutes apart on weekends (p.17). Times have changed, and the weekday commuter mentality is inappropriate for public transport service provision. There are real problems with the idea of timetables that 'depend on demand'. Infrequent services tend to be poorly used, but this does not necessarily reflect a lack of demand; it probably reflects the lack of a useful service.
6. What rail services should be delivered as the highest priority to service a Western Sydney Airport?
We are inclined to favour Option 1 (Leppington to WSA) plus Option 4 (link to T1 western line via St Marys) in the short-term. We agree with the proposition on p.37 of the discussion paper that the simplest way to provide a train service to the proposed Western Sydney Airport would be to extend the South West Rail Link from Leppington via Bringelly to service the airport site, using the double-deck suburban trains.
As well as providing connections to Sydney's south-west and ultimately Parramatta and Sydney, as noted in the discussion paper, option 1 also provides public transport access between the two airports. Presumably there will be passengers needing to transfer from a flight landing at one airport and a flight departing from another.
We also agree with the proposition in the discussion paper (p.37) that Option 4 combined with a new tunnel from Parramatta to Sydney (option E) could provide a reasonably direct link from the airport to Parramatta and Sydney.
7. What other rail options should be considered in this study to service a Western Sydney Airport?
Longer term, APTNSW would like to see Option 5 (Direct rail express service: WSA to Parramatta) delivered and Option 6 (Macarthur-WSA-St Marys- Schofields) considered further.
A fast rail link between Parramatta and Sydney is important in its own right to support Parramatta as a second CBD and that section of Option 5 is needed as soon as possible. We note on p.38 that initial assessments indicate that such a line could achieve journey times of 15 minutes from the proposed Western Sydney Airport to Parramatta and 12 minutes from Parramatta to the Sydney CBD (based on a maximum speed of 160 kilometres per hour).
Option 6 (Macarthur-WSA-St Marys- Schofields) has the advantage of providing a north-south link, but as Figure 10 on p.26 shows, the Cumberland line is under less stress than others, so a parallel to it (south of Leppington) may not be such a high priority. See also our comments on Question 4.
Other options that could be considered would address 'missing links' in the system at the same time as servicing the new airport:
8. What is the highest priority rail service required for the Western Sydney region?
APTNSW considers on balance that the 'missing link' created by the truncation of the Chatswood to Parramatta line needs to be remedied as the highest priority. We strongly urge the construction of a rail link from Parramatta to Epping via Carlingford (with a stop at Carlingford Court). Medium to high density residential development is proceeding apace in this area.
This link is critical because it opens up access to the important Macquarie employment and education cluster to people living in Sydney's west and south-west.
9. What other rail options should be considered in this study to service other parts of the Western Sydney region?
As well as closing the Carlingford to Epping gap, a concerted effort is needed to fill the other missing links in the system, including those between:
We do not see this as the salient question. Both rail services to WSA, and better rail services for Western Sydney, should have priority over Westconnex and other urban motorways.
11. If a rail connection is provided to the proposed Western Sydney Airport, should it be provided when the airport opens or when there is sufficient demand?
Waiting for 'sufficient demand' to build is the wrong approach. From the day the Western Sydney Airport opens it will need workers (indeed this is so during its construction). The analysis on p.30 (Table 3) treats them as a footnote, despite employment opportunity being one of the key arguments for the WSA.
The analysis does not specify taxi usage rates, and assumes a WSA rail link would attract around the same proportion of trips as the only two airport rail links in Australia. Looking at the pictogram on p.29 however, it is clear that distance from the city (10km in the case of KSA, 16km in the case of Brisbane Airport) is a critical factor.
Narita airport and Gatwick Airport seem to be more appropriate yardsticks at 43km and 76km from the city respectively – too far to make travel by taxi a practical proposition. They attract 43% and 48% of passengers respectively. In time the growth of Parramatta as a CBD will reduce the distance to the nearest CBD, but this will take time, and access to the current CBD will remain critical.
12. Is it more important to be able to travel (by rail) to the proposed Western Sydney Airport or to other locations in Western Sydney? Why?
This is a question closely related to question 10. Rail travel to WSA and to other locations in Western Sydney both matter more than being able to commute by car to the Sydney CBD (via what used to be Haberfield, Newtown, Sydney Park and Rozelle).
13. What other assessment criteria should the Scoping Study consider?
APTNSW considers the assessment criteria in Chapter 7 of the discussion paper essentially sound, but they could be improved in one respect. On p.43 'disruptions to the travelling public' are seen as a 'delivery risk', but we submit that they are also very much a customer service issue. Minimising disruptions to the travelling public should (also) be included within the description of the customer focus objective on p.42.
It is for this reason that we oppose options that involve the conversion of existing lines to metro operations. Option 3 (WSA to Liverpool using the proposed Sydney Metro extension from Bankstown to Liverpool, i.e. Option C) suffers from this drawback, as does Option B on p.39 (convert the T2 airport line between Revesby and Sydney CBD to a separate metro –style service).
Taking the rail line from Epping to Chatswood out of operation for many months is a backward step that will cause enormous disruption for passengers. If it cannot now be avoided, it should at least not be repeated. The metro system should be conceived and built as a way to add to Sydney's rail system, not cannibalise it. See http://www.aptnsw.org.au/documents/sydmetchatsyden.html and http://www.aptnsw.org.au/documents/bankstown2liverpool.html.
14. How do you think rail services in Western Sydney should be funded?
The capital cost of building new rail lines, and the recurrent costs of maintaining lines and operating services raise different considerations and lead to different conclusions. We have addressed both in our recent submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities Inquiry into role of transport connectivity in stimulating development and economic activity http://aptnsw.org.au/documents/connectivity.html.
In summary:
APTNSW is very pleased to see the Federal and State governments engaging in a joint effort to provide for sorely needed rail infrastructure in Western Sydney. It is a great relief to see the Federal government moving away from the 'roads only' stance taken under an earlier administration.
There are clearly opportunities to provide rail access to the Western Sydney Airport (from the day it opens) and simultaneously improve rail services in Western Sydney. We suggest this is the most appropriate approach to further developing the scoping study.