Submission Transport Future 2056

Introduction This submission is largely based on a submission I have made to the Greater Sydney Commission.

Given that the objectives of the Greater Sydney Commission and the Transport Future 2056 are the

same, it is appropriate that these submissions are very similar.

Note however, I have expanded out on certain sections such as the benefits of housing and

economic activity of the scheme, the stronger linkages with the road systems around Strathfield

(particularly with West Connex but also importantly the West Harbour Crossing and the Northern

Beaches Link), which will provide greater access to the rail system for regional and inter-urban rail

trips. I have also expanded on the economic impacts on the joint precincts of Burwood-Strathfield

with agglomeration economic impacts but separate and distinct local characteristics for each

precinct.

Finally, I have expanded the section of the timing of this development.

Background The TfNSW is to be commended for its focus on the customer. Having this grounding ensures that

the products and services we deliver are matched by the expectation and desires of our customers.

We are not delivering infrastructure for the sake of infrastructure alone, but because efficient

infrastructure can deliver the services customer expect in an open and market-based economy. We

must remember however that there are always constraints and limits on our knowledge and this

impacts the extent to which customers are at the centre of everything we do. In the 1840’s rail

engineers were developing the rail system as part of the industrial revolution and in response to

general NSW development. In 1915 Bradfield developed a rail plan, which today many people pine

over, as visionary. Both of these historical events could not be considered “customer focused” plans,

but rather a general development plan. Looking at road transport, in particular the tollways around

Sydney, these also could not be considered “customer focused”, but rather market or commercial

focused ventures.

It is only in highly serviced-orientated industries such as air services and public transport services

that “customer focus” comes to the fore. Even in these cases, there is a requirement to get the

fundamental economic aspects right, to enable the leveraging of customer “features” or customer

“services” to meet the contemporary expectations of customers. The planning has to be well

grounded in the economic domain to enable higher levels and sophisticated approaches to customer

servicing.

The 30-minute Trip and How Will It Occur? The Greater Sydney Commission (the Commission) and the Transport Futures 2056 make a strong

case for the identification of three distinct cities. This is a significant policy change from the

Metropolitan Plan of 2014 which identified Growth Centres in their own right. The Commission’s

Paper represents a shift in emphasis, more so that practice. The most significant policy change the

NSW Government adopted recently was the amalgation of smaller Local Government Councils into

27 larger councils. This particular policy will provide a better institutional framework to deliver

outcomes on the ground and should be supported further.

This amalgation of councils will assist in developing the capability to plan, to integrate and to deliver

from a bottom-up approach, at a local level. This bottom-up approach can easily be overlooked

when setting the overall strategy of urban planning or transport planning. Localisation is a key

defining feature of urban planning, bringing the unique characteristics, charm and appeal that make

each locale an attractive place to live. It sets the amenity tone and the feel for each locality.

There is still more work to be done to further build the institutional capability within the Local

Councils.

One of the top ten directions outlined in the Commission’s Paper, under the heading of Productivity

is “A well Connected City”. As the Paper states “A majority of people to commute to their nearest city

within 30 minutes”.

The question is, of the three cities (Eastern Harbour City, Central River City or Parklands City) will

Sydneysiders identify these cities as intrinsic “cities” and live and commute to the centre of their

“city” for work, health and entertainment? Or will they want to commute across areas. Will they

want a 30-minute commute time to their “city centre” or will they want a 30-minute commute time

between home and any city centre? Or indeed wherever their jobs and homes are, across the wider

Sydney basin.

The continuing development of the road system is providing very good access to a network of roads

albeit at an increasing cost to the commuter and the economy. The rail system development has not

kept pace with the road development, and has yet to reach the network maturity level of the road

system.

Not everyone has a 30-minute commute as their primary goal. Many people make choices, be it

lifestyle or economic to live in places further than 30 minutes to their work. For example, many

people commute to work from the Central Coast because of the beaches or lifestyle. Many people

prefer the larger houses and open spaces rather than apartment living in inner west of Sydney.

The 30-minute commute is a very worthwhile measure as a target for the greater percentage

population of Sydney but it should not be a hard and fast rule. There needs a percentage threshold

placed on this target, more so than just a “majority”.

Strengthening Rail Hubs to Provide Better Commutes The spoke and hub centric rail network configuration of the greater Sydney region has been a legacy

that has outgrown its time. The configuration of the rail network that sees trains going into and out

of Central has served the centre of Sydney since its early development.

The Clearways Program was an attempt to unclog the spaghetti of lines, so that they do not conflict

with one another and thus provide commuters with a more resilient rail system.

The Commission’s paper implies that Parramatta will be another spoke and hub PT system.

I commend the Commission and Transport for NSW to think of better networking the rail system in

order to better meet the customer expectations, in a scaled-up environment.

There are huge advantages of networked systems, be it operational, economic or customer

satisfaction.

Can I suggest that the Hurstville to Paramatta node to node rail link would take significant time for

demand patronage to evolve and even then, further interchanges onto local services would be

required to provide the access necessary to support local jobs.

Perhaps a more immediate rail system that in-fills the south and west (on the border of the River

City and the Eastern Harbour City) could provide early gains in access and networking to western

Sydney as well as providing resilience to the existing Sydney rail system.

I suggest it is now time to look at the merits of a cross rail link that will support further interchanging

of PT networks, particularly for the Sydney CBD and Parramatta CBD.

My suggestion is to look at the Hurstville (or Kogarah) link to Burwood and Strathfield and then

perhaps onto Rhodes.

This cross-metro link should be reviewed in conjunction with Metro West and City and Southwest

Metro.

Attached is a map and scheme that shows the proposal.

Cross-Metro The Cross-Metro would have connections with the Illawarra Line, East Hills Line, Metro Southwest,

the Metro West, the Main West Line and the Northern Line.

These interconnections would provide resilience to the existing rail network during any

perturbations of the wider rail network, or maintenance of lines, and provide public transport users

and commuters in general, options and choice to move around the network.

This would provide significant customer service benefits for commuters in western Sydney as well as

eastern and southern Sydney.

In conjunction with Metro West and Metro Southwest, by having this Cross-Metro on the fringe of

the Central River City and the Eastern Harbour City geographical boundary, this would provide the

greatest network benefit to population densities in the central, southern and western areas of

greater Sydney. It would provide network wide efficiencies, and access to large parts of western,

central and southern the western part of Sydney, both in terms of origin and destination.

It would increase the “..majority of people to commute to their nearest city within 30 minutes”.

The proposal relies on Metro West going through both Burwood and Strathfield and Cross-Metro

interchanging at both of these stations. The attached scheme provides a concept of how cross

platform interchanging would work for the customer.

It is important to recognize the combination of the utility value of efficient interchanging and the

high frequency services of metros (4-minute headway – turn up and go) as part of the wider trip

configuration for the customer.

It should be noted that the Commission’s paper for a city centre at Parramatta does not detail the

interchanging utility of customers to connect to places and events.

It is also important to recognise the historical legacy of Strathfield and Burwood in the rail network

and to leverage off this legacy where it is economical to do so. Leveraging off existing patterns of rail

use can be lead to a more certain and cost-effective way to ramp up PT patronage. Strengthening

Strathfield as a rail hub, in conjunction with the West Connex road network allows commuters to

have options to park and ride, to access the New Interurban Fleet at Strathfield (for Northern and

Western Lines), to access new Regional Rail at Strathfield as well as Sydney Trains systems. It may

also provide wider access to Faster and Higher speed trains through Strathfield / Burwood.

The combined interchanges of Strathfield and Burwood would provide significant agglomeration

benefits for these two precincts. Although the two stations act in combination for Metro

interchanging, the separate precincts could and should have distinctive differences in their character

and urban form. It will be this combination of common purpose and different character, which will

provide the interest and appeal for increased amenity and utility value.

Connections to the road system It is unrealistic to expect a majority of road users using the West Connex system will exit the West

Connex system at Strathfield to undertake an urban commute on the rail system. However, it is not

unreasonable to expect a significant proportion of road users to use the urban rail system at

Strathfield if interchanging was efficient and access to their final destination was efficient by rail.

Just how much interchanging would occur would depend on the utility of park and ride facilities or

other interchanging option for western Sydney commuters and Sydney-wide commuters as well as

the economic and financial costs of these interchanging options.

In particular the connection to the West Harbour crossing and the Northern Beaches Link provides

an exceptional opportunity to have regional rail connections and interurban connections at

Strathfield.

The West Connex and West Harbour and Northern Beaches Link, connected to a well-designed

metro, urban, interurban and regional and even Faster and Higher Speed rail interchange at

Strathfield and Burwood is a “once in a generation” opportunity to connect transport systems

together in an integrated and customer focused manner.

The ability to change modes efficiently from a private motor vehicle to a public transport system

represents a transformation by the user from a tollway to a customer focused service (i.e. a public

transport system).

Impact on Housing of a Networked Metro System The Southwest Metro is spurning a renaissance in housing stock along the Bankstown corridor. This

renaissance is in response to increased demand for apartment living and in response to demand for

high quality public transport.

A Cross-Metro that intersects the corridors of the Illawarra line, the East Hills Line, the Bankstown

line and the Main West line will provide the opportunity to in-fill areas between these corridors. It

will in fact spread the renaissance through a wide spatial area, rather than along corridor lines. This

in-fill renaissance would be characterised with an uplift in amenity, liveability and connectedness in

the local areas which hitherto had been reliant upon the development of the arterial road system.

The arterial road system has historically served these communities well, but is increasingly

undermining the liveability and the capacity of these communities to function in a more

sophisticated manner within a connected and new age economy.

This renaissance leads to higher functioning and increased activities within these areas. This urban

form brings increased economic activity and value and with population increase delivers benefits

that far exceed the costs of the metro construction.

Timing and Risk Southwest Metro is programmed to be operational by 2024 with the Metro West timeline of “late

2020’s”. A Cross-Metro is reliant on both Southwest Metro and Metro West being successful.

However, the opportunity costs for a Cross-Metro being delayed until 2056 is too much. Cross-Metro

should be staged so as it is introduced 1-2 years after Metro West. This would make Metro West

operational circa 10 years from now and Cross-Metro should be no more than 12 years from now.

It is true that lessons need to be learnt from City and Southwest Metro, and the delivery timeline for

CBD and Southwest Metro is challenging. However, the nature of the Southwest Metro project, as a

brownfield conversion, is different to Metro West (or Cross-Metro) which is a greenfield project and

many of the operational risks and delivery risks, particularly around systems and safety assurance

will be known and resolved following the introduction of Northwest Metro in 2019.

Much can change within 10 years, particularly with the economic growth and the nature of

development of Sydney and its influence in the Asia Pacific area as a first-world city. Obviously,

Sydney has some natural geographical and climatic advantages, however the quality of its public

transport systems, specifically its mass transit metro network is still in its infancy. Waiting until 2056

is too long to have an interconnected metro system with interchanging to surface rail systems and

road systems.

Sydney needs to be ahead of the curve in its development of an interconnected rail system

interchanging to other transport systems.

If we look at where the constraints exist to develop public transport systems, they are not from a

funding point of view. Whether it is superannuation capital, direct foreign investment or value

capture funding, there are many channels to access funding, provided there is a well proven

business / economic case and evidence of delivery success.

Indeed, parking station and precinct development around interchanges are particularly attractive

commercial ventures that demonstrate strong interest.

Much of the delivery risk is well know: Tunnel boring through Sydney sandstone is one of the most

proven and efficient tunnelling techniques around the world. There is much evidence and

experience in tunnelling in Sydney.

Similarly, the use of rail systems will be well proven by the time Northwest Metro is commissioned.

The use of standard rolling stock based on well proven European Norms (EN standards) and proven

existing car builders will be seen as one of the critical success factors in the de-risking of rolling stock

procurement within NSW.

The use of Computer Based Signalling Systems (CBTC) for driverless trains have also been well

proven with a number of standard products on the world market. The application of one of these

systems will be proven with the Northwest Metro and the learnings from a systems assurance point

of view, and indeed from an operations point of view, will be well proven by 2019.

The constraints and risks exist in the practice of integration. Top down policy settings for integrating

land use with public transport are well known. It is the practice, or the bottom-up implementation of

well-integrated systems which is new for communities and agencies. For example, the strong

support and capability of local communities and local councils in conjunction with transport

agencies, planning agencies and commercial enterprises to develop a well-functioning interchange at

Strathfield that achieves the achieves both the objectives of efficient interchanging as well as high

levels of precinct liveability and amenity are both emerging and necessary practices, and are critical

success factors for a well-connected, efficient and customer focused transport system.

Key Benefits of Cross-Metro The benefits sought, subject to modelling are:

• Strengthening and resilience of the rail network for the Central River City and the Eastern

Harbour City by allowing commuter options to interconnect to the Illawarra Line, the East

Hills Line (including Sydney airport), Metro southwest-CBD, Metro West and Sydney Train

services in an interconnected network.

• Achieving the goal of connecting Paramatta and greater western Sydney commuters to

southern Sydney.

• Increasing the “...majority of people (able) to commute to their nearest city within 30

minutes

• Direct rail access to St George Hospital and Concord Hospitals to the wider community.

• Access from Southern Sydney to Mero West including the Bays Precinct and Western Sydney

Airport.

• Corridor and wider spatial development of in-fill areas.

• Efficient interchanging for passengers for the different levels of rail services, road network,

and bus network. Connecting the “customer service” better to the motor vehicle user.

• Opportunity to significant shift mode from private vehicle to PT and the decrease Vehicle

Kilometres travelled for large parts of southern and western Sydney.

Footnote on Cross-Metro The Cross-Metro alignment shows the line stopping south of the Paramatta River at Rhodes.

This is deliberate, in order to stage the development of Cross-Metro in a time frame that is

accelerated with Metro West, well before 2056.

An extension north of the river, initially to Top Ryde and further north either to Macquarie Park or

Chatswood could be contemplated at a later date. However, I did not want to raise expectations or

set priorities that could undermine the Hurstville to Burwood-Strathfield link. It is a priority to look

at the early gains of this link. It is unlikely that patronage or network effects of a connection north of

Paramatta River would show any benefits until well after the late 2020’s.

It is also important the Cross-Metro be evaluated and if beneficial developed quickly after Metro

West in order to accelerate the up-take of public transport usage, and provide a real choice to

commuters between the private vehicle and rail. Sydney cannot afford to wait long after Metro West

is built, to have an integrated network rail system.

Cross-Metro is not seen as a threat to the road network or commercial tolling arrangements, but is

providing the global city of Sydney with a high quality public transport network that provides choice

in both private usage and public transport. Indeed, Cross-Metro has the ability to further promote

the combination of both modes as part of the customers’ journey.

Conclusion The introduction of these new Metro technologies by the NSW Government is a courageous and far

sighted decision. All credit is to be given to the NSW Government for this first step. Having taken this

first step, and having gained acceptance, the way is now open for this technology to be rolled out in

a wider context and for the Government to leverage off this technology by developing higher levels

of customer focused services in a sophisticated system involving public and private transport.

By Government undertaking a high level economic cost benefit analysis and a transport modelling

assessment of this scheme, communities can be assured that all efforts are being made to ensure a

cost effective transport system is being delivered with a robust urban planning framework.

1

From Hurst to

Rhodes From Rhodes to

Hurst Strathfield Station

underground

From Parra

to Sydney

From Syd

to Parra

From Parra

to Sydney

From Rhodes

to Hurst From Hurst to

Rhodes

From Syd

to Parra

Burwood Station

underground

Plat 1 Plat 2 Plat 3 Plat 4 Plat 5

Plat 1 Plat 2 Plat 3 Plat 4 Plat 5

Metro West

Cross Metro

Cross Metro route

Route

Route

Hospitals

St George Hospital

Canterbury Hospital

Concord Repatriation GeneralHospital

Strathfield Private Hospital

St John of God BurwoodHospital

Interchange tables

West to South / South to West

Passengers from Parramatta direction wanting to go Hurstville direction

Metro West to Cross Metro Interchange at Strathfield

Passengers from Hurstville direction wanting to go Parramatta direction

Cross Metro to Metro West Interchange at Strathfield

East to South / South to East

Passengers from Sydney direction wanting to go Hurstville direction

Metro West to Cross Metro Interchange at Burwood

Passengers from Hurstville direction wanting to go to Sydney direction

Cross Metro to Metro West Interchange at Burwood

North (Rhodes) to East / East to North

Passengers from Rhodes direction wanting to go Sydney direction

Cross Metro to Metro West Interchange at Strathfield

Passengers from Sydney direction wanting to go Rhodes direction

Metro West to Cross Metro Interchange at Strathfield

North (Rhodes) to West / West to North

Passengers from Rhodes direction wanting to go Parramatta direction

Cross Metro to Metro West Interchange at Strathfield (no direct cross platform interchange – up and over)

Passengers from Parramatta direction wanting to go Rhodes direction

Metro West to Cross West Interchange at Strathfield (no direct cross platform interchange – up and over)

Visualisation of Main Passenger Flows through Strathfield and Burwood Interchanges

Strathfield

interchange

west to south and

south to west

Burwood

interchange

east to south and

south to east