Lower Hunter Transport Working Group
FINAL REPORT
22 December 2003 Lower Hunter Transport Working Group Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Third and Final Report of the Lower Hunter Transport Working Group sets a challenging new direction for public transport services in the Lower Hunter to better meet the needs of the community.
Over its three reports, the Working Group has significantly advanced the debate over the future of public transport in the Lower Hunter – revealing the very low levels of patronage and advancing reasons for this lack of support for public transport.
The Working Group is now in a position to recommend comprehensive changes to the public transport system in the Lower Hunter. This represents a rare opportunity to break from outdated and discredited service patterns and a simplistic belief that public transport services in their current form can be sustained in the face of low patronage, poor service delivery and high financial losses.
The Working Group offers a new direction that can regain the initiative for public transport utilization in the Lower Hunter. It is based on the following key actions:
• Development of a Lower Hunter Integrated Transport Plan - based on a comprehensive Newcastle Travel Model.
• Establishment of a locally-controlled Hunter Buses and Ferries to deliver a higher level of commitment and accountability to the local community.
• Total reconstruction of bus routes and services in the Lower Hunter – including private buses - based on the principles set down in the “Review of Bus Services in NSW” (the Unsworth Review). These include the introduction of Strategic Bus Corridors between key activity centres as the backbone of a new service culture.
• The expansion of community transport systems to undertake lower level, localised tasks that buses cannot – and should not be asked - to perform.
• The option to remove the Newcastle City rail line to Broadmeadow and replace it with a fast, frequent bus service – an option that will remove the rail barrier between Newcastle CBD and Newcastle Harbour, improve accessibility and enable significant urban renewal adjacent to a protected transport corridor.
• Funding options to generate revenue for new infrastructure and provide an ongoing revenue stream for transport services throughout the Lower Hunter.
The rationale for this new direction is the need to respond actively and decisively to the parlous state of public transport patronage in the Lower Hunter.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 1 - Term of Reference 1
The First Report of the Working Group assessed “current routes and patronage of rail and bus services” - as required by Term of Reference 1 - and found compelling evidence of a chronic decline in public transport patronage in the Lower Hunter, particularly for rail services.
In February 2002, the Transport Data Centre estimated that bus and train trips account for only 5% of weekday trips in Newcastle. The Newcastle rail network carries 15,000 passengers daily – just 0.8% of total trips. Buses are the preferred public transport mode in Newcastle - accounting for 84% of public transport patronage (or 4.2% of total weekday journeys).
This decline was particularly evident in the Broadmeadow – Newcastle corridor. In May 2003, the SRA reported that 7,198 passengers per day were using the Newcastle – Broadmeadow line – a 17% reduction since 1997. This included a decline in patronage of 59% at Wickham Station and 29% at Hamilton Station.
Some submissions in response to the Working Group’s First Report suggested that the passenger count in May was low due to seasonal variation in patronage.
The Working Group now reports that this decline has been reconfirmed by a further patronage count on Tuesday 9 December 2003.
The SRA advises that the total passenger load travelling east from Hamilton between 7:00 am and 9:00 am and exiting at Wickham, Civic or Newcastle Stations between 7:00 am and 9:15 am on that day was just 664 passengers. This represents an average of just 51 passengers per train during the daily peak - 18% less than the May 2003 count.
Term of Reference 2
The Working Group extensively reviewed proposals to improve transport services as required by Term of Reference 2 including Woodville Junction interchange.
Report 1 examined options such as light rail and undergrounding the rail corridor.
Report 2 contained a detailed analysis of the proposed Woodville Junction Interchange in the context of options to replace the rail line to Newcastle City.
The key finding of the Working Group in relation to improving transport services was the need for a Lower Hunter Integrated Transport Plan, based on extensive travel modelling. The Working Group was pleased to note in Report 2 that the Sydney Travel Model is to be extended to the Lower Hunter to commence this process.
Term of Reference 3
Report 1 identified three options for replacing the rail line to Newcastle City with a dedicated transport corridor for a superior frequent bus service – as required by Term of Reference 3. These options were removal of the rail line to Civic, Hamilton or Broadmeadow Stations. They were tested against the cost of the ‘base case’ – retention of the existing line.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 2 - In Report 2, the Working Group released a joint State Rail Authority (SRA) / Rail Infrastructure Corporation (RIC) Report and found that:
1. The cost of operating the rail service on the Newcastle Branch Line exceeds revenue generated by over $9 million each year.
2. The capital cost of retaining existing services on the Newcastle Branch Line is $148 million over the next 20 years – that is $27-37 million higher than the cost of removing the rail line to an upgraded Broadmeadow Station.
3. The lowest cost rail option is Broadmeadow – Option 2, which is costed at $111 million.
4. The proposed Woodville Junction Interchange would incur capital costs of $253 million over 20 years – over twice the cost of Broadmeadow.
5. The discounted cash flow analysis of costs - including capital, operating, maintenance and decontamination costs - indicates that, over 20 years, Broadmeadow Option 2 would save $43 million in comparison with retention of the Newcastle Branch Line. The Working Group’s preferred option is the removal of the rail line to Broadmeadow Station (Option 2) and the introduction of a free bus service as proposed by the Unsworth Review. This finding will need to be subject to detailed appraisal to demonstrate the feasibility of establishing an efficient new interchange on the western (Showground) side of the rail line at Broadmeadow as well as the introduction of an effective schedule for the free bus service. The successful implementation of the preferred option would generate the following requirements and opportunities:
• Retention of a corridor for future public transport uses with its boundaries to be finalised by the Ministry of Transport - including the introduction of any legislative or regulatory amendments that will be required to ensure its preservation and protection.
• Urban renewal of areas adjacent to the transport corridor with major community access points at key locations (Hamilton, Civic, Wickham and Newcastle Stations).
• Redevelopment of SRA land adjacent to the preserved corridor at three key accessibility points (Hamilton, Civic and Newcastle Stations) with revenue dedicated to improved transport services and facilities in the Lower Hunter.
• Provision of space for establishing cycleways in the corridor.
The Working Group noted in Report 2 that the Minister for Transport Services has stated that there will be no job losses in the event that the rail line was removed. It supports this announcement.
In undertaking a preliminary strategic assessment of the bus priority and access measures that could reasonably be provided at Broadmeadow, the following assumptions have been adopted:
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 3 - • The free bus route between Broadmeadow interchange and Newcastle CBD will operate via Brown Road, Chatham Road, Donald Street, Parry Street, Tudor Street, Hunter Street and Scott Street;
• All bus access to the Broadmeadow interchange will be provided on the western side of the rail line;
• Bus access arrangements would be interim pending the development of a Master Plan for the longer term development of the Broadmeadow interchange;
• The proposal will not result in any reduction in background traffic using the route; and
• Bus priority measures on the route would have to be contained within the existing road carriageway to avoid significant cost implications and environmental impacts. In the short term, provision of peak hour bus lanes should be sufficient to ensure a fast service.
Access to the interchange for the dedicated free bus service will require the provision of traffic signals and associated roadworks at the intersection of Chatham Road and Donald Street. The RTA has provided a conservative preliminary strategic estimate for improvements at this intersection of $1.5 million.
Term of Reference 4
Term of Reference 4 related to a revision of bus routes in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie areas.
Buses account for the overwhelming majority of public transport journeys in the Lower Hunter – but have the potential to achieve much higher patronage levels because their flexibility makes them adaptable to the dispersed settlement patterns across the region.
There is considerable spare capacity on existing services as well as additional capacity which could be unlocked if the cumbersome system of private bus contracts and zones was removed. The limited ability to ‘pick up’ and ‘set down’ outside contract zones was a particular complaint to the Working Group.
This is an area where the Working Group has developed a challenging new direction for service provision based on major governance reform through the proposed establishment of Hunter Buses and Ferries.
Community dissatisfaction with the performance of Newcastle Buses was brought into sharp focus by the introduction of the Newcastle Bus Plan in 2002. There was also concern at the lack of integration between public and private bus operations.
A critical feature of this dissatisfaction is the sense that decisions on bus services do not adequately reflect the needs of the local community.
The Working Group supports the establishment of Hunter Buses and Ferries as a State Owned Corporation. Responsibility for rail services should be retained by the SRA.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 4 - The service principles for Hunter Buses and Ferries are set down in the First Report of the Unsworth Review (November 2003):
• Development of a network of Strategic Corridors providing fast, frequent, direct and convenient links to regional centres. The strategic corridors for the Lower Hunter are represented in Map 1 of this report.
• To support this network of Strategic Corridors, the establishment of two contract regions.
• Integrated planning of strategic and local bus services - with the Government leading network design in partnership with operators.
• Targeting bus priority on all Strategic Corridors under an expanded Bus Priority Program, supported by effective regulation and enforcement.
• Replacing the Minimum Service Level policy with more flexible service and frequency guidelines that respond to identified travel demand and support the Strategic Corridors.
The Working Group also believes that community transport must play a greater role in meeting the needs of individuals and small groups. Many submissions that were critical of Newcastle Bus Plan related to specific personal issues that should have been addressed by community transport services.
A Hunter Community Transport Plan should be developed to augment public transport services with flexible, effective community transport. The Working Group believes that a Hunter Local and Community Transport Regional Coordinator should be appointed to commence development of this Plan as soon as possible.
Term of Reference 5
Funding options for transport facilities and services was the subject of Term of Reference 5.
The Working Group has focused on two potential funding sources:
• Redevelopment of government land assets adjacent to the rail corridor; and
• Introduction of a Parking Space Levy and increased parking meter charges.
The Working Group commissioned the Urban Design Advisory Service (UDAS) to prepare a concept report on potential urban redevelopment that could be achieved at key accessibility points while protecting a transport corridor for future uses. The UDAS is working with both Newcastle City Council and the Honeysuckle Development Corporation on projects in this vicinity – and is well placed to develop concepts for the transport corridor.
The UDAS prepared three concepts for Newcastle, Civic and Hamilton Stations. These concepts are consistent with current planning regulations and offer the opportunity for the station precincts to become genuine activity centres with residential, retail and parkland development.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 5 - SRA land assets can support urban renewal at these three key accessibility points with the potential to generate between $25-30 million for use on transport infrastructure and services throughout the Lower Hunter – such as the construction of a new transport interchange at Broadmeadow.
In addition, the opportunity to dispose of Hamilton Bus Depot – which requires significant maintenance investment in the short term – should be seriously examined by the new Hunter Buses and Ferries with the proceeds used to support the construction of a new bus interchange at Broadmeadow.
The Working Group also examined funding sources which can generate ongoing revenue for transport services throughout the Lower Hunter – such as the funding of a free bus service in the Newcastle corridor.
The Working Group believes that the Ministry of Transport should prepare a proposal to introduce a Parking Space Levy in Newcastle CBD at the Category 2 level – which is the same as Parramatta, Bondi Junction, St Leonards and Chatswood. The rate of the levy per space per year for Category 2 areas is currently set at $420 per annum.
This is a very modest impost for a commuter who has the benefit of car travel to work. A levy of $420.00 per year represents an additional cost of around $0.20 per hour – based on an 8 hour day, 5 days a week for 52 weeks per year.
A conservative total of 2,500 spaces in Newcastle CBD and Honeysuckle would generate $1.05 million per year (at a Category 2 level) for public transport services.
The Working Group also believes that Newcastle City Council should consult with the community to review its Parking Strategy provisions, including parking charges. The Working Group notes that the Parking Space Levy does not apply to metered parking operated by Newcastle City Council.
The comparative cost of car parking as opposed to public transport should be noted.
A typical weekly car space in a Newcastle City Council car park can cost as little as $4.50 per day – or $3.50 per day if paid monthly. On the other hand, a typical weekly rail pass between destinations such as Beresfield and Newcastle will cost an average of $5.60 per day.
This pricing regime enshrines the use of motor vehicles ahead of public transport in the Lower Hunter – and particularly in Newcastle CBD.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 6 - FINDINGS
1. A Lower Hunter Integrated Transport Plan to be developed based on the flexibility of fast bus services to link key activity centres and integrated with heavy rail services and other transport modes including community transport. 2. Establishment of Hunter Buses and Ferries as a State Owned Corporation with responsibility for bus and ferry services throughout the lower Hunter including integration with private buses and community transport. 3. Hunter Buses and Ferries to be established with the objective of delivering an integrated safe and reliable bus and ferry services in an efficient, effective and financially responsible manner that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having close regard to the interests of the local community. 4. Hunter Buses and Ferries to be governed by a Board made up of seven directors with relevant expertise - including an employee representative. 5. Hunter Buses and Ferries, in coordination with the Ministry of Transport, plan and implement the strategic bus corridors developed by the Unsworth Review as the foundation for an integrated Lower Hunter bus network (see Map 1, Page 27). 6. Hunter Buses and Ferries to establish routes and services based on the operating principles established by the “Review of Bus Services in NSW” (Unsworth Review). A complete revision of routes and services to integrate with community transport and rail services is required. The extension of the Transport and Population Data Centre’s Sydney Travel Model to the Lower Hunter will enable accurate modelling of travel patterns to inform the development of an Integrated Lower Hunter Transport Strategy. 7. Hunter Buses and Ferries to review the utilization of bus depots with a view to the disposal of the Hamilton Bus Depot with revenue dedicated to improved transport services and facilities in the Lower Hunter. 8. The Ministry of Transport coordinate with Hunter Buses and Ferries to review private bus contracts as recommended by the Unsworth Review with the intention of establishing two contract regions for Newcastle as well as introducing contestability and the flexibility to ‘pick up’ and ‘set down’ outside existing contract areas. 9. The State Rail Authority (SRA) to retain full responsibility for heavy rail services in the Hunter. However, its services should be reviewed as part of the development of the Lower Hunter Transport Integrated Plan. 10. A Hunter Community Transport Plan to be developed by the Ministry of Transport to augment public transport services with flexible, effective community transport. A Hunter Local and Community Transport Regional Coordinator should be appointed to commence development of this Plan as soon as possible. 11. The Working Group’s preferred option is the removal of the heavy rail line from Broadmeadow to Newcastle CBD and replacement with a free bus service as
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 7 - proposed by the Unsworth Review, subject to further detailed study to demonstrate the feasibility of establishing an efficient new interchange in the vicinity of Broadmeadow on the western (Showground) side of the rail line and an effective replacement fast bus service. 12. Subject to the preferred option being implemented: a. Retention of a corridor for future public transport uses with its boundaries to be finalised by the Ministry of Transport - including the introduction of any legislative or regulatory amendments that will be required to ensure its preservation and protection. b. Urban renewal of areas adjacent to the transport corridor with major community access points at key locations (Hamilton, Wickham, Civic and Newcastle Stations). c. Redevelopment of SRA land adjacent to the preserved corridor at three key accessibility points (Hamilton, Civic and Newcastle Stations) with revenue dedicated to improved transport services and facilities in the Lower Hunter. d. Provision of space for establishing cycleways in b. and c. above. 13. The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) to develop a strategy and timeframe for the grade separation of the St James Road, Adamstown level crossing. 14. Ministry of Transport to prepare a proposal for the introduction of a Category 2 level Parking Space Levy (PSL) in Newcastle CBD. This will involve the preparation of boundaries for the PSL area in consultation with Newcastle City Council and key stakeholders. It will also need to consider equity issues - for example, the impact on lower paid employees, etc - as any exemptions will need to be specified in the amended regulation. The revenue from this levy should be used to fund new transport services in the Lower Hunter including the free bus service proposed by the Unsworth Review. This will require the funding provisions of the legislation to be broadened to include funding of “transport services”, rather than only transport infrastructure. 15. Newcastle City Council to consult with the community to review its Parking Strategy provisions, including parking charges. The Working Group notes that the Parking Space Levy referred to in finding 14 does not apply to metered parking as operated by Newcastle City Council. 16. Other funding mechanisms to be investigated by Government in conjunction with the Newcastle City Council, Honeysuckle Development Corporation, relevant government agencies and key stakeholders. 17. The planned Glendale Interchange to be given increased priority so that it can come into service at the same time as the proposed Broadmeadow Interchange, enabling a strategic revision of bus services around these two important key transport hubs. 18. The Government coordinate a whole of government response to the Working Group’s findings in Reports 1, 2 and 3.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 8 - Introduction
The Lower Hunter Transport Working Group was established in April 2003 by the Hon Michael Costa MLC, Minister for the Hunter and Minister for Transport Services.
The Terms of Reference for the Working Group are:
1. Assessment of current routes and patronage of rail and bus services in the Lower Hunter;
2. Review of existing proposals for improvement of transport services, including the Evaluation of Woodville Junction Proposal, by SGS/Maunsell commissioned by Newcastle City Council;
3. Investigation of the replacement of the rail line to the Newcastle City with a dedicated transport corridor for a superior frequent bus service;
4. A revision of bus routes in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie area; and
5. Consideration of funding options including private sector investment through a mix of residential and commercial development, such as restaurants and shops, and preservation of all heritage sites including Newcastle station.
The Working Group is focused on improving transport services across the entire Lower Hunter - which is defined as the Local Government Areas of Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Newcastle and Port Stephens.
The Working Group has extended the closing date for public submissions and has received over 350 submissions as at 15 December 2003. It has also conducted consultation with key stakeholders.
The Working Group presented earlier reports on 19 September 2003 and 21 November 2003.
Contents of Report 3
Report 3 brings together the work addressed in earlier reports and adds analyses of bus services, urban design issues relating to the transport corridor, and development opportunities associated with a new transport interchange.
Findings of Report 1
The focus of Report 1 was an assessment of current routes and patronage of rail and bus services in Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Newcastle and Port Stephens – as required in Term of Reference 1.
The Working Group’s findings are summarised in Chapter 1 of this Report.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 9 - Findings of Report 2
Report 2 addressed the following Terms of Reference:
2. Review of existing proposals for improvement of transport services, including the Evaluation of Woodville Junction Proposal by SGS/Maunsell commissioned by Newcastle City Council;
3. Investigation of the replacement of the rail line to the Newcastle City with a dedicated transport corridor for a superior frequent bus service.
The Working Group’s findings are summarised in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report respectively.
Whilst Report 2 specifically dealt with the two terms of reference listed above, the Lower Hunter Working Group ensured that the significance and impact of these Newcastle based Terms of Reference was examined in a way which will enhance services to and from Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Newcastle and Port Stephens.
An enhanced and integrated public transport system to critical trip generators was also given a priority in assessing these terms of reference. These key centres were determined as Newcastle City, Woodville Junction/Broadmeadow, Merewether, Charlestown, Glendale, Kotara and Wallsend - plus other key destinations such as the University of Newcastle, John Hunter Hospital and the Newcastle (Tighes Hill) and Lake Macquarie Campuses of the Hunter Institute of TAFE.
Next Steps
The Working Group has achieved significant steps in advancing the debate over the future of public transport in the Lower Hunter. It is proposing some exciting and challenging actions to regain the initiative for public transport in the Lower Hunter:
• The development of a Lower Hunter Integrated Public Transport Network based on comprehensive modelling of travel patterns.
• A new service structure for buses and ferries - through the establishment of Hunter Buses and Ferries - that will deliver local control over transport services and utilise local expertise. This will result in a higher level of commitment to the local community and enhanced accountability for performance because of immediacy to the local community.
• The reconstruction of bus routes and services based on the principles set down in the “Review of Bus Services in NSW” (the Unsworth Review) including the establishment of Strategic Bus Corridors between key activity centres.
• The expansion of community transport systems to undertake lower level, localised tasks that buses should not be required to perform.
• The option of the removal of the Newcastle City rail line to Broadmeadow where a new interchange could be developed – an option that would also enable significant urban renewal to take place at key accessibility points including the Newcastle CBD itself.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 10 - • However, the Working Group cannot be expected to undertake the detailed analysis, project development and validation processes that represent the next steps. These tasks are the responsibility of relevant government agencies.
The Working Group believes that the key to maintaining credibility with the Lower Hunter community during this process is transparency in terms of timelines. This will ensure that the community is not ignorant of the status of the Working Group’s initiatives – a state that encourages suspicion and cynicism.
For this reason, the Working Group’s last finding in Report 3 requests that the Government coordinate a whole of government response to the Working Group’s findings in each of its Reports – and publicly releases this response by the end of March 2004.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 11 - Term of Reference 1: Current Routes and Patronage of Rail and Bus Services
Term 1 of the Terms of Reference requires the Working Group to make an “assessment of current routes and patronage of rail and bus services in the Lower Hunter.”
In Report 1, the Working Group examined this matter extensively and made key findings in relation to both the current performance of public transport in the Lower Hunter and set out the principles and path for renewing public transport services.
In Report 1, the Working Group found that public transport use in the Lower Hunter is in chronic decline. Patronage levels are very low - and their erosion is accelerating.
In February 2002, the Transport Data Centre estimated that bus and train trips account for only 5% of weekday trips in Newcastle. The Newcastle rail network carries 15,000 passengers daily out of the 1.9 million weekday journeys – just 0.8% of total travel. Buses provide the remaining 4.2% of weekday journeys that are undertaken by public transport. This means that buses are the preferred public transport mode in Newcastle - accounting for 84% of public transport patronage.
Patronage on the Newcastle Branch Line has declined significantly in recent years.
In May 2003, only 7,198 passengers per day were counted using the line – a 17% reduction since 1997. This included a decline in patronage of 59% at Wickham Station and 29% at Hamilton Station. Significantly, the number of interchange passengers increased at Hamilton by 14% – suggesting that the number of passengers who could benefit from a new Woodville Junction or upgraded Broadmeadow interchange is increasing.
Passenger Entry and Exit Survey (Weekday Patronage = Entries plus Exits)
Station 1997 1 2003 (May) % Variation Weekday Patronage Weekday Patronage 2003 vs 1997 Newcastle 2,740 2,948 8% Civic 1,660 1,527 -8% Wickham 1,540 635 -59% Hamilton 2,300 1,638 -29% Hamilton (Internal) Interchange 396 450 14% TOTAL 8,636 7,198 -17% 1. Compendium of Really Useful Statistics, CityRail 2001
The Working Group noted that this total of 7,198 passengers per day is spread over 170 trains per day – an average of just 42 passengers per train. The highest count on any train was 100 passengers (source: State Rail - May 03).
Morning peak information – which typically contains the highest passenger loads due to commuting to work - exemplifies the low level of patronage for Newcastle City rail services.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 12 - The Working Group noted that:
• Seven electric trains passed through Hamilton between 7:00 am and 9:00 am carrying passengers travelling to Newcastle, four originating in Sydney, one in Hornsby and two in Gosford. The total seating capacity was 2376. The passenger load count travelling east from Hamilton was approximately 560 (23% of seating capacity). • Six diesel trains passed through Hamilton between 7:00 am and 9:00 am carrying passengers travelling to Newcastle, four originating in Telarah (Maitland), one in Scone, and one in Dungog. The total seating capacity was 1116. The passenger load count travelling east from Hamilton was approximately 250 (22% of seating capacity). • The total morning peak (7:00 am – 9:00 am) capacity from Hamilton to Newcastle is 3492. The current morning peak patronage between Hamilton and Newcastle is 810 (23% of seating capacity). • The 13 morning peak trains carry just 810 passengers (average 62 passengers per train). Some submissions in response to the Working Group’s First Report suggested that the passenger count in May was low due to seasonal variation in patronage. A further count was therefore undertaken on Tuesday 9 December 2003. The total passenger load travelling east from Hamilton between 7:00 am and 9:00 am and exiting Wickham, Civic, and Newcastle Stations between 7:00 am and 9:15 am on that day was just 664. This represents an average of just 51 passengers per train during the daily peak, 18% less than the May count.
Personal transport in Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Newcastle and Port Stephens is dominated by the car. Motor vehicles account for 81.3% of average weekday trips in Newcastle. Average commuting to work by car in Newcastle is accomplished in 19 minutes - compared to 32 minutes for Sydney. This is a testament to the good quality of the road network and lack of traffic congestion in Newcastle. With high car ownership, low levels of traffic congestion, readily available parking (either free or at low cost) and dispersed destinations, there are few incentives for travellers to shift to public transport in the Lower Hunter.
The Working Group recognised that declining public transport use in the Lower Hunter must be halted. This will require major institutional reform and service delivery changes. It is not just a matter of attracting recently lost passengers back to public transport – volumes have been stagnant or declining for many years.
The pace, form and location of urban development in the Lower Hunter has outstripped the capability of public transport to provide sufficient services. On a regional scale, most new urban development in the Lower Hunter is occurring within a radius band of approximately 10-20 km from the CBD - especially to the west in what is often characterised as ‘urban sprawl’ development.
The Working Group recommended the development of a Lower Hunter Integrated Public Transport Network based on principles of equity and efficiency across Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Newcastle and Port Stephens giving equal weight to inter-connectivity between key centres. The Working Group identified likely centres such as Newcastle City, Woodville Junction/Broadmeadow, Merewether, Charlestown, Glendale, Kotara and Wallsend, plus other key destinations such as the University of Newcastle, John Hunter
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 13 - Hospital and the Newcastle (Tighes Hill) and Lake Macquarie Campuses of the Hunter Institute of TAFE.
In this regional context, it must be recognised that - in transport terms - Newcastle City is no longer the primary destination point for the people of the Hunter. While it retains a key regional role as a commercial, retail and administrative capital providing some higher order services not available elsewhere, Newcastle City is now one of number of centres and is the easternmost point of a sprawling metropolitan region of 500,000 people.
The Working Group recommended that the performance of rail services to Newcastle City should be considered in the regional context of the Lower Hunter – rather than as a totemic piece of infrastructure that must be defended at all costs. The fact is that the Newcastle City heavy rail service:
• Achieves extremely low patronage levels.
• Shadows frequent, efficient bus services down Hunter Street.
• Contributes to congested transport arteries between Newcastle City and Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland and Port Stephens.
• Severely affects connectivity and accessibility between Newcastle CBD and the foreshore of Newcastle Harbour.
• Acts as a genuine barrier to the continued urban and economic revitalisation of Newcastle.
Given this situation, the Working Group resolved that urban renewal and economic development opportunities should be given maximum weight in decision-making. A similar approach was advocated by Newcastle City Council in its submission: “the future of the inner city rail corridor is not just a transport issue, but a major urban design and planning issue and needs to be examined in a holistic context”.
For these urban design and planning reasons, the Working Group strongly supported the announcement by the Minister for the Hunter and Minister for Transport Services that the Newcastle City rail corridor will be preserved as a transport corridor without ground level or airspace development - in the event that the removal of the heavy rail service is recommended.
The Executive Summary and Findings from the First Report are contained in Appendix 1.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 14 - Term of Reference 2: Review of Existing Proposals for Improving Transport Services
Term 2 of the Terms of Reference requires the Working Group to undertake “a review of existing proposals for improvement of transport services, including the Evaluation of Woodville Junction Proposal, by SGS/Maunsell commissioned by Newcastle City Council.”
Report 1 contained a detailed summary of previous studies and proposals for improving transport services including the Evaluation of Woodville Junction Proposal, which was a peer review of the Proposal to Boost Public Transport Usage at a Regional Level prepared by Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) for the John Hunter Hospital and the University of Newcastle on behalf of the Newcastle Transport Reference Group.
Report 2 looked at the Woodville Junction proposal in more detail, along with other interchange options.
The feasibility studies of Woodville Junction have indicated that it is not well suited as the site for a major station and interchange, primarily due to the tight curvature of the track at that point. This curvature severely constrains platform, station and interchange design and adds greatly to the capital cost of the facility. The complex platform layout that results would also increase interchange walk distances and times for passengers. The design involves terminating platforms for intercity services, restricting options for future extension of electric train services towards Maitland.
Construction of a major interchange within the Woodville Junction triangle is therefore not recommended.
A major interchange could still be considered in the vicinity of Woodville Junction. A site immediately to the west is not possible due to interference with freight lines and services. A site immediately to the south towards Broadmeadow is possible but would still cost much more than an interchange at the existing Broadmeadow Station. In the short-medium term, the development of an interchange at Broadmeadow Station is the Working Group’s preferred option.
Report 1 also looked at other options such as light rail, grade separation of existing level crossings and undergrounding the rail corridor. None of these are considered to be cost effective solutions in the current Newcastle circumstances.
Strategic Transport Issues
A key finding of the Working Group in Report 1 in relation to improving transport services was the development of a Lower Hunter Integrated Transport System based on the flexibility of fast bus services to link key activity centres.
The Working Group noted in Report 2 that comprehensive travel modelling - based on detailed transport data - needs to be completed to prepare a Lower Hunter Integrated Transport Strategy Plan that can renew public transport services and handle the impact of future urban growth in the Lower Hunter.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 15 - The Working Group was therefore pleased to note in Report 2 that the Transport and Population Data Centre of DIPNR has commenced the extension of the Sydney Travel Model to the Lower Hunter.
The Working Group therefore reiterates its previous recommendation that a Lower Hunter Integrated Transport Plan should be developed – based on the outcomes of Transport and Population Data Centre modelling of travel patterns across the Lower Hunter and integration with the needs of all Hunter communities.
In later Chapters, the Working Group makes wide-ranging findings that will inform this process – particularly in relation to the future of bus and ferry governance structures to support a revitalization of public transport service delivery.
The Working Group also notes that the Interim Report of the “Review of Bus Services in New South Wales” (Unsworth Review) recommended:
• greater integration of metropolitan planning with transport planning policies to support regional centres;
• development along Strategic Corridors providing fast, frequent, direct and convenient links to regional centres;
• local councils implementing local planning policies under which developers contribute to public transport costs;
• developments that better accommodate public transport services; and
• council and transport planners co-ordinating their activities to anticipate service requirements.
The Working Group strongly supports these recommendations and its findings in the remainder of this Report in relation to the Lower Hunter are entirely consistent with the thrust of the Unsworth Review.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 16 - Term of Reference 3: Replacement of the Rail Line to Newcastle City
Term 3 of the Terms of Reference requires the Working Group to conduct an “investigation of the replacement of the rail line to Newcastle City with a dedicated transport corridor for a superior frequent bus service.”
In Report 1, the Working Group examined existing proposals for the improvement of transport services in the Newcastle City rail corridor. One of the key findings of Report 1 was that three options warranted evaluation against the retention of the existing rail line to Newcastle.
Report 2, Appendix 2 is a report by the SRA and RIC on the costs and benefits of these four options from an operational rail perspective: 1. Base Case – continued operation of the Newcastle Line 2. Closure of branch line to Civic Station 3. Closure of branch line to Woodville Junction Triangle 4. Closure of branch line to Hamilton Junction with an upgraded Broadmeadow interchange. Two sub-options for accommodating Hunter services are examined.
The undiscounted capital cost of each option is:
• Base Case - $148 million • Civic - $191 million • Woodville Junction - $253 million • Broadmeadow (Option 1) - $121 million • Broadmeadow (Option 2) - $111million Over 20 years, the discounted cash flow financial analysis indicates that the cost (including capital, maintenance, operating and decontamination costs) of each option is:
• Base Case - $181 million • Civic - $230 million • Woodville Junction - $273 million • Broadmeadow (Option 1) - $148 million • Broadmeadow (Option 2) - $138 million
The Working Group reached the following conclusions from analysing this data:
• The capital cost of retaining existing services on the Newcastle Branch Line is $148 million over the next 20 years – a figure that is $27-37 million higher than the cost of removing the rail line and upgrading Broadmeadow Station (Option 1 and Option 2).
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 17 - • The Woodville Junction option has the highest capital cost at $253 million over 20 years and contains a number of additional unscoped elements which would increase its cost. • Both options at Broadmeadow are significantly lower in capital costs in comparison with other options for relocating rail services. Both of the Broadmeadow options are less than half the cost of Woodville Junction - and 30-40% less costly than Civic Station. The discounted cash flow analysis of costs, including capital, operating and maintenance costs over 20 years indicates that:
• The Broadmeadow options will save $33 million and $43 million respectively against the retention of the Newcastle Branch line. • Woodville Junction would cost $92 million more than the Base Case (although $66 million could be saved by retaining CountryLink services at Broadmeadow). • Civic Station would cost $49 million more than the Base Case. In summary, over 20 years the Base Case – retaining existing services – is $33-43 million more expensive than the Broadmeadow options, but $27 million less expensive than the next cheapest option (Woodville Junction Interchange, with CountryLink services staying at Broadmeadow).
It should be noted that this analysis includes rail cost and revenues only – it does not include bus costs or revenues, nor does it include revenues from potential development opportunities.
The SRA/RIC Report estimated the following duration of construction works for the various options:
• Civic Station: 2 years
• Woodville Junction: 3 years
• Broadmeadow (Option 1): 1 year
• Broadmeadow (Option 2): 1 year
In the event that the rail line was removed, the SRA/RIC Report indicates that the best case scenario for completing the project is 2007/08 based on fast-tracking one of the Broadmeadow options.
Broadmeadow Interchange
The proposed development of a new bus/rail interchange on the site of the current Broadmeadow railway station and the replacement of rail services with bus services between a new Broadmeadow interchange and Newcastle CBD will require the provision of appropriate bus priority and access measures. The objectives of these measures will be to:
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 18 - • Provide efficient ingress and egress between the Broadmeadow interchange and the adjacent bus corridor;
• Provide reliability in bus service travel times between Broadmeadow interchange and Newcastle CBD; and
• Minimise, as far as practicable, any time penalties between the current rail service and the proposed bus service between Broadmeadow interchange and Newcastle CBD.
In undertaking a preliminary strategic assessment of the bus priority and access measures that could reasonably be provided, the following assumptions have been adopted:
• The free bus route between Broadmeadow interchange and Newcastle CBD will be via Brown Road, Chatham Road, Donald Street, Parry Street, Tudor Street, Hunter Street and Scott Street;
• All bus access to the Broadmeadow interchange will be provided on the western side of rail line;
• Bus access arrangements would be interim pending the development of a Master Plan for the longer term development of the Broadmeadow interchange and entertainment precinct;
• The proposal will not result in any reduction in background traffic using the route; and
• Bus priority measures on the route would have to be contained within the existing road carriageway to avoid significant cost implications and environmental impacts.
Interchange Planning
Master planning of the Broadmeadow area needs to be undertaken as part of an interchange development process. The establishment of Broadmeadow as a new “gateway” to the City of Newcastle needs to be balanced with existing and future land-uses in the area.
The master plan should include consideration and identification of medium to long term development of the interchange at Broadmeadow and the opportunities created through its location within a sports/entertainment precinct.
The provision of commuter carparking needs to be considered within the framework of the wider land-use and transport planning undertaken as part of the master plan development process.
Interchange operation and location
If in the future it becomes cost effective to develop a bus transitway using the corridor, location of the interchange on the western side of the station would place additional costs on the project because of the requirement to traverse the rail line. Placement of the interchange on the eastern side would avoid these issues but raises additional issues with respect to the
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 19 - availability of space and land acquisition. The location of the interchange should be subjected to further consideration and analysis as part of the project’s development.
A future light rail option should be taken into consideration in planning the interchange.
Cost
A preliminary order of cost, not including any land acquisition, has been estimated based on experience at other interchanges:
1. At grade bus interchange including allowance for taxis, kiss & ride, bicycles and pedestrian matters: approximately $5M.
2. Commuter car park, at grade, for (say) 200 to 250 vehicles (this figure would depend on the identified strategic need): approximately $2M.
Costs of Master Planning and other studies need to be provided for.
There is likely to be a significant cost risk associated with the development of the interchange and further costing and scoping of this development as well as detailed planning needs to be undertaken.
Interchange Access
Access to the interchange for the dedicated free bus service would require the provision of traffic signals and associated roadworks at the intersection of Chatham Road and Donald Street. The RTA has provided a conservative preliminary strategic estimate for improvements at this intersection of $1.5 million.
The review of bus routes may determine that Lambton Road services should stop at the new Broadmeadow Interchange. To provide efficient bus access between Lambton Road and the interchange site on the western side of the rail line, two major facilities would need to be provided:
1. Provision of traffic signal at the intersection of Lambton Road and Curley Road.
2. Provision of a ‘Bus Only’ left turn slip lane between Brown Road and Lambton Road, on the western side of the railway overbridge for buses leaving the interchange and travelling towards Newcastle CBD.
A conservative preliminary strategic estimate by the RTA for the provision of these interchange access facilities is between $5 million and $10 million.
Hunter Street Route Bus Priority
Bus priority infrastructure in the form of Bus lanes or the like within the existing carriageway along the Hunter Street route is somewhat problematic. Existing traffic demand could not be adequately accommodated if one of the existing travel lanes in each direction was permanently dedicated as a Bus lane. Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 20 - In the short term, provision of peak hour Bus lanes should be examined. Because this will require the removal of kerbside parking during peak hours, consultation with the affected residents and business community will be required. In the longer term, the removal of kerbside parking and provision of permanent Bus lanes could be considered, again in consultation with the community. Alternative parking could potentially be provided in the preserved transport corridor. This solution may be more cost effective than construction of a dedicated bus transitway in the corridor.
Localised intersection bus priority infrastructure in the form of Bus only queue jump facilities should investigated for critical intersections adversely impacting on bus travel times between Broadmeadow interchange and Newcastle CBD.
Vehicles travelling west along the proposed free bus route are currently prohibited from turning right from Tudor Street into Parry Street. This traffic restriction will need to be changed to permit buses to turn right. In addition to new signage, minor road and/or traffic light work might be required. This has not been designed or costed.
The installation of dynamic bus priority measures that manage the traffic signal control system along the bus corridor to favour on-time running of buses between Broadmeadow interchange and Newcastle CBD should be considered in order to ensure reliability of bus travel times
The dynamic bus priority system developed by the RTA is known as the Public Transport Information and Priority System (PTIPS). The system utilises the Global Positioning System (GPS) to determine the location of a bus, then with knowledge of the bus timetable and traffic information it forecasts time of arrival at a bus stop (for passenger information purposes) or traffic signals (for bus priority purposes). If the bus is running late PTIPS can request the RTA’s traffic signal control system SCATS (Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System) to provide priority via a "green window" (i.e. extend a current green or recall a previous green for the bus movement).
The system is currently under trial on State Transit Route 400 services between Bondi Junction to Burwood via Kensington, Airport, and Bexley.
The system requires investment in on-board equipment for buses such as GPS, data communications, and interface to on-board information on current route/service. It also requires a timetable database and on going communications costs.
The strategic estimate for introducing this system to support the Broadmeadow interchange to Newcastle CBD route, which would require fitting all 180 buses in STA’s Newcastle fleet with the necessary equipment that is assumed to have a five year life, is $1 million plus $100,000 per annum communication services cost.
The cost of real time passenger information displays, either on-bus or at bus stops that can be linked to the system has not been estimated.
These bus priority measures, when combined with improvements in general traffic flow resulting from elimination of the railway level crossing delays and reduced boarding delays associated with a free bus service, will result in a bus service that is significantly quicker than the current bus service operating from Broadmeadow to Newcastle. A preliminary estimate
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 21 - by STA and Newcastle Buses and Ferries of the travel time for the service is approximately 11 minutes.
Further detailed study is required to optimise bus priority measures and stopping patterns in order to minimise passengers overall journey times. Extending the service to the east and/or south beyond Newcastle Station may also reduce overall journey times for some passengers.
Dedicated Bus Route
The STA has estimated, based on experience gained at the Liverpool – Parramatta Transitway, the travel time for buses using a dedicated bus transitway along the exiting rail corridor as 9 to 10 minutes. The Working Group considers that the small travel time advantage offered by such a Transitway is insufficient to offset the high capital cost and reduced stopping flexibility of the Transitway. This assessment may need to be reviewed in the medium to long term if increasing traffic congestion causes significant increases in travel times for the on-road bus service.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 22 - Term of Reference 4: Revision of Bus Routes in Newcastle and Lake Macquarie
Term 4 of the Terms of Reference requires the Working Group to conduct “a revision of bus routes in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie area.”
Other Terms of Reference impact on this review of bus routes:
• Term 1 – assessment of current routes and patronage of bus services in the Lower Hunter;
• Term 3 – investigation of whether a superior fast bus service could replace the Newcastle City rail line.
The Working Group also noted the need for coordination with two other major reviews that had been commissioned by the Minister for the Hunter and Minister for Transport Services – the “Review of Buses Services in NSW” (Unsworth Review) and the “Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable Transport in NSW” (the Parry Report). This integration has been achieved with the independent work of these reviews complementing each other to produce a body of documentary evidence that represents a mandate for change in the way that public transport is delivered in NSW – and specifically in the Lower Hunter in the case of this Working Group.
In Report 1, the Working Group reported that buses attract 84% of public transport patronage in Newcastle and offered the best option for developing an integrated public transport network in Newcastle because of their flexibility in linking the Lower Hunter’s dispersed urban development patterns.
Report 1 also acknowledged that there was significant community concern over the Newcastle Bus Plan which needed thorough review.
The Newcastle Bus Plan was designed to re-allocate bus services to ‘best use’ routes and create the opportunity for growth. It was the first major network review for over 15 years. In that period, bus use had declined by 13% and the funding gap for bus services had risen to over $10 million. Route and timetable changes were introduced in March 2002 with additional bus hours added in September 2002 in response to community feedback.
The Newcastle Bus Plan was criticised for having too narrow a focus - as it did not review private bus or rail timetables. Submissions to the Working Group also raised concern that the Newcastle Bus Plan was primarily a cost-cutting exercise.
However, it should be accepted by the community that the Newcastle Bus Plan was a response to longstanding patronage decline and high financial losses.
The Working Group’s review of the Newcastle Bus Plan and the performance of Newcastle Buses has resulted in findings that are designed to completely change the governance structure, culture and services for both public and private bus and ferry services throughout the Hunter region.
The Working Group recommends the establishment of Hunter Buses and Ferries as a State Owned Corporation with responsibility for bus and ferry services throughout the lower Hunter including integration with private buses and community transport.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 23 - The type of service principles that should inform the work of Hunter Buses and Ferries are set down in the First Report of the Unsworth Review in November 2003.
These service principles are examined by the Working Group in the remainder of this Chapter.
Establishment of Hunter Buses and Ferries
The Working Group recommends that Hunter Buses and Ferries should be established in accordance with the State Owned Corporations Act 1989 using the Rail Corporation and Sydney Ferries model.
Under the Act, the principal objectives of every statutory State Owned Corporation (SOC) are:
(a) to be a successful business and, to this end:
(i) to operate at least as efficiently as any comparable businesses, and
(ii) to maximise the net worth of the State’s investment in the SOC, and
(b) to exhibit a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates, and
(c) where its activities affect the environment, to conduct its operations in compliance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development contained in section 6 (2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, and
(d) to exhibit a sense of responsibility towards regional development and decentralisation in the way in which it operates.
Hunter Buses and Ferries would be required to enter into a service contract with the Director- General, Ministry of Transport detailing the service to be purchased. The contract would be developed in consultation with the Treasurer and the Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator.
The voting shareholders of the corporation should be the Treasurer and the Minister for Transport Services.
Hunter Buses and Ferries should be governed by a Board made up of not more than seven members - including one employee representative - appointed by the voting shareholders.
The Board members of Hunter Buses and Ferries should be selected to provide an appropriate mix of skills to best contribute to the objectives of the corporation.
There should not be any requirement for representation of particular groups. A more appropriate mechanism for input from community representatives might be through a consultative committee reporting to the Board. The Chief Executive Officer might be appointed to the Board.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 24 - Service Principles of Hunter Buses and Ferries
The Interim Report of the Unsworth Review examined strategic issues surrounding NSW bus services in great detail.
The Working Group believes that the findings of the Unsworth review constitute a template – or set of service principles – upon which Hunter Buses and Ferries and the Ministry of Transport can successfully plan and establish services.
The Unsworth Review identified that a comprehensive and integrated policy, planning and service delivery strategy is essential if public transport services are to meet community needs.
The Unsworth Review suggested the following solutions in relation to bus services in the Lower Hunter:
• Development of a network of Strategic Corridors for Newcastle providing fast, frequent, direct and convenient links to regional centres.
• To support this network of Strategic Corridors, the establishment of two contract regions for Newcastle.
• Integrated planning of strategic and local bus services - with the Government leading network design in partnership with operators.
• Targeting bus priority on all Strategic Corridors under an expanded Bus Priority Program, supported by effective regulation and enforcement.
• Replacing the Minimum Service Level policy with more flexible service and frequency guidelines that respond to identified travel demand and support the Strategic Corridors.
The Lower Hunter Transport Working Group strongly supports these recommendations of the Unsworth Review – which should be accepted by Hunter Buses and Ferries as guiding principles for developing its service strategy.
The Unsworth Review also identified buses as an obvious option for serving urban growth because they can be put into service at an early stage of urban development; provide flexibility to respond quickly to changing service needs; and are less reliant on high cost upfront infrastructure than other modes (such as heavy and light rail). The travel patterns that are built at this time support public transport and the patronage achieved by buses can then position Government to determine whether and when to move to higher volume transport modes.
The Working Group supports this recommendation.
As noted in Chapter 1, the Unsworth Review also recommended:
• Greater integration of metropolitan planning with transport planning policies to support regional centres.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 25 - • Development along Strategic Corridors providing fast, frequent, direct and convenient links to regional centres. (See Map 1)
• Local councils implementing local planning policies under which developers contribute to public transport costs and developments accommodate public transport services;
• Council and transport planners co-ordinating their activities to anticipate future service requirements.
The Working Group strongly supports these recommendations. Its own findings in relation to the need for a Lower Hunter Integrated Transport Plan are entirely consistent with the thrust of the Unsworth Review.
The Working Group believes that the objectives of Hunter Buses and Ferries must include a requirement for integration with other transport modes in order to achieve the best service outcomes for the community. The ‘silo’ mentality of transport agencies must be eradicated so that rail, buses and community transport work together to perform the tasks for which they are best suited.
Private Bus Services
Regular private passenger bus services (including school bus services) are provided through service contracts with the Director General of the Ministry of Transport (MoT) under the Passenger Transport Act 1990).
In the Lower Hunter Area, seven private operators as well as the State Transit Authority (Newcastle Buses) have service contracts with the MoT which give them exclusive rights to provide services in their exclusive contract areas. Operators are each responsible for planning and developing services within their area.
According to the Review of Bus Services in New South Wales Interim Report (November 2003), exclusive rights to a defined geographical area, and the travel restrictions that apply to operators once they enter another’s exclusive territory, make it difficult to establish viable services which cross contract boundaries. As a result, key travel routes, employment patterns or regional growth may not be reflected in services, forcing passengers into choosing an indirect or interrupted bus route or choosing not to use public transport at all.
Current regulatory and contracting arrangements under the Passenger Transport Act therefore lack overall flexibility, do not promote an integrated network approach, and do not provide sufficient incentives for operators to grow patronage and improve services.
These issues are adversely affecting service provision in the Lower Hunter region.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 26 - Map 1 - http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/busreview/newcastle_strategic_routes.pdf
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 27 - Newcastle Strategic Bus Rou tes
TO MAITLAND
TO CESSNOCK TO RAYMOND
TERRACE
TO PORT
STEPHENS
MARYLAND
UNIVERSITY 5
MATER
HOSPITAL HAMILTON
BROADMEADOW
WICKHAM
5 GLENDALE NEWCASTLE 5 JOHN HUNTER
CIVIC
HOSPITAL
CARDIFF
5
CHARLESTOWN
WARNERS BAY
FASSIFERN
TORONTO
BELMONT
SWANSEA N
W E
S
2 0 2 4 Kilometres
(c) Map produced by the Transport Data Centre October 2003 (i03128) Bus routes supplied by the Ministry of Transport It is recommended that Hunter Buses and Ferries review private bus contracts and private bus zones with the objective of consolidating zones, streamlining bureaucracy and introducing the flexibility to ‘pick up’ and ‘set down’ outside existing contract areas. This will immediately improve bus services across the Lower Hunter.
Bus services in new urban development areas should be planned and introduced from the time the areas are first developed in order to establish the practice of using public transport.
Glendale Interchange
In examining the broader needs of the Lower Hunter, the Working Group reviewed progress in the development of the Glendale Interchange.
The SRA have been developing plans for the construction of a regional bus - rail interchange at Glendale at a cost of approximately $19 million. The interchange will serve Lake Macquarie, south west Newcastle, new land release areas, and the major Glendale regional shopping centre. It includes a major road overpass to link existing transport networks with employment areas in Cardiff.
This project was included in “Action for Transport 2010” in late 1998. It is currently in the Concept Development Stage.
The Working Group believes that the planned Glendale Interchange should be given increased priority so that it can come into service at the same time as the Broadmeadow Interchange, enabling a strategic revision of bus services around these two important transport hubs.
The Working Group also recommends that the scope of the Glendale Interchange be reviewed to ensure that the proposed road infrastructure is necessary.
Community Transport
Community concern over the impact of the Newcastle Bus Plan may be justified – but the solution may not be found in reinstating services that are not economically viable. While buses are a much more flexible form of transport than heavy rail, they are not a taxi service and cannot be expected to bear the burden of a task that rightly belongs to community transport.
The Working Group has examined the potential role of community transport initiatives in providing direct services for small numbers of people in Newcastle with specific needs – such as medical appointments or going to church.
The Review of Bus Services in New South Wales Interim Report (November 2003) recommended the development of innovative solutions to ensure access to local transport services, such as better integration of community transport services with the bus network.
Many of the submissions received by the Working Group related to personal difficulties created by the Newcastle Bus Plan - or to problems which would be created by the
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 28 - replacement of the Newcastle City rail service. The Working Group believes that many of these concerns should be dealt with in the context of community transport initiatives.
The “Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable Transport in New South Wales” (Parry Report) found that there is a substantial unmet need for community transport services across NSW, particularly in rural and regional areas. Many services rely on volunteers to operate them, and providers are concerned that this is not sustainable as the population ages. Increased funding would allow more needs to be met.
Specific Recommendations of the Final Parry Report regarding community transport are:
• Bring local providers and users of community transport services together to develop plans for better services and promote coordination of available resources.
• Broker streamlined funding and administrative arrangements for community transport services that meets local needs—including funding from Home and Community Care, the Community Transport Program and funding from other agencies including NSW Health.
• Redirect underutilised assets from proposed changes to the School Student Transport Scheme (SSTS) and pensioner excursion tickets to increasing community transport services.
• Establish a network of regional community transport development workers across the state that are funded and coordinated by the Ministry of Transport.
Further detailed information on Community Transport and the Government’s response is provided in Appendix 3.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 29 - Term of Reference 5: Funding Options and Development Issues
Term 5 of the Terms of Reference directs the Working Group to examine residential and commercial development options adjacent to the Newcastle City rail line corridor that could provide funding for transport services.
The Working Group noted in Report 1 that the Minister for the Hunter and Minister for Transport Services had already announced that the rail corridor would be preserved for transport purposes in the event that the heavy rail service was replaced. The Working Group supports this decision.
Chapter 3 has detailed the reasons for the Working Group’s preferred option that the rail line to Newcastle City should be replaced from Broadmeadow with a superior, frequent bus service. The preferred option recognises that significant urban renewal that will become possible with the removal of the barrier created by the rail line between Newcastle CBD and the Newcastle Harbour.
The Working Group commissioned the Urban Design Advisory Service (UDAS) of the DIPNR to prepare a concept report on the quality and types of urban redevelopment that could be achieved at key accessibility points across the existing corridor. The UDAS is working with both Newcastle City Council and the Honeysuckle Development Corporation on projects in this vicinity – and is well placed to use its experience and expertise on concepts for the transport corridor.
The UDAS prepared three concepts for the Working Group at Newcastle Station, Civic Station and Hamilton Station. These concepts offer the opportunity for the station precincts to become genuine urban centres with mixed use development that includes residential, local retail and parkland components.
SRA land assets can support this urban renewal around key accessibility points while retaining a corridor of sufficient dimensions to facilitate future transport uses.
This has the potential to generate between $25-30 million for use on transport infrastructure and services throughout the Lower Hunter – such as the construction of an interchange at Broadmeadow.
In addition, the Working Group has proposed the that Hamilton Bus Depot – which requires significant maintenance investment in the short term – could be subject to disposal with proceeds used to support the construction of a new bus interchange at Broadmeadow. This concept was first raised by transport workers in consultations with the Working Group. Hunter Buses and Ferries should seriously examine this opportunity to consolidate depot operations in preparing its routes and services – including the option of building new depot facilities at Broadmeadow.
The Working Group has also examined funding sources which will generate an ongoing revenue stream for Hunter Buses and Ferries to improve transport services throughout the Lower Hunter.
The Working Group believes that the option of introducing a car parking space levy should be thoroughly investigated by the Ministry of Transport.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 30 - Newcastle City Council should also be encouraged to increase the cost of on-street parking meters to provide a revenue stream for the proposed free bus service between Broadmeadow and Newcastle. This reflects its responsibility to contribute to public transport services as a prime financial beneficiary of the removal of the rail line which will result in increased rates from existing properties and a major new source of revenue from urban renewal.
The Working Group details the methodology used to reach these findings in the remainder of Chapter 5.
Potential Funding Sources
The Working Group is aware of the difficulties of funding transport services and new infrastructure – and has therefore focused its attention on generating funding options which can offset the cost on the initiatives proposed in this report. The removal of the Newcastle rail line will generate significant improvements to the amenity of the Honeysuckle Growth Area and Newcastle CBD. These benefits should be recognised and the beneficiaries should contribute to funding the cost of related public transport enhancements such as the free bus service and construction of new interchange facilities.
The Working Group has examined a range of options for beneficiaries to help to fund these transport initiatives in Newcastle.
The Interim Report of the Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable Transport in NSW (August 2003) proposed a range of revenue options for public transport (Chapter 5 + summary p.xix). These options included:
• Parking Levies – increase the Car Parking Space Levy and consider parking levies in existing or new car parks.
• Developer Bonus - offer bonuses to developers who contribute financially to public transport. Development rights such as floor space bonuses could be offered, subject to the payment of a public transport levy.
• Development Density Rights - sell development density rights to developers for use within infrastructure value capture districts, subject to predetermined urban planning and development outcomes, with the funds raised dedicated to public transport investment.
• Section 94 Contributions Plans - consider either an expansion of Section 94 Contributions Plans - to reflect both existing and new local and regional contributions - or separate value capture legislation.
• Utilisation of Government Land – realise opportunities around public transport facilities from the sale of government land for urban redevelopment to generate revenue for public transport services and infrastructure.
The Sustainable Transport Inquiry’s Interim Report noted that many people benefit indirectly from the existence of the public transport network - even if they do not use it. For example, other forms of transport may be less congested or land values rise because of proximity to
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 31 - public transport. To date, most indirect beneficiaries in NSW have not been charged for this gain.
The Sustainable Transport Inquiry’s Interim Report concluded that Development Charges - where development levies and taxes are linked to the sale and leasing of development opportunities within, around and above current and new transport infrastructure – were one of the best potential sources of generating revenue for transport services.
The Working Group believes that the feasibility of this option should be the subject of detailed consultation with key stakeholders – such as Council, business and the Honeysuckle Development Corporation - before a final decision is made on the feasibility and sustainable level of developer contributions.
Comparative Costs - Rail and Motor Vehicles
The Working Group has demonstrated in previous Reports that the quality and capacity of the road network in the Lower Hunter encourages the use of the motor vehicle as the primary transport mode. Clearly, there are direct benefits to road users from good public transport systems – predominantly, ease of travel.
This predisposes the Working Group towards supporting ‘beneficiary-pays’ principles – such as car parking levies and parking space levies – to fund public transport initiatives.
However, equity is an important issue in developing such an approach. Many people in the Lower Hunter have little choice at present but to use cars for commuting to work, shopping or personal travel.
Therefore, the scope of any levies needs to be confined and targeted.
A key issue when individuals make choices about transport modes for specific travel activities is the comparative cost of services.
The Working Group has examined the cost of travel in the Lower Hunter and concluded that the current transport pricing system does not support the choice of public transport because of the existence of free or very low cost car parking.
Simple examples can illustrate this point. The cost of return rail tickets between major destinations in the Hunter is detailed in the Table below – based on prices effective from August 2003.
SRA – Fare Costs
From To Peak Return Off-Peak Return Weekly Broadmeadow Newcastle $5.60 $3.40 $22.00 Cardiff Newcastle $6.00 $3.60 $25.00 Beresfield Newcastle $7.20 $4.40 $28.00 Maitland Newcastle $8.80 $5.60 $34.00 Branxton Newcastle $13.20 $8.00 $44.00
Newcastle bus services have a similar cost structure – as indicated in the Table below. Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 32 - Newcastle Buses – Fare Costs
Newcastle Bus Fares Adult Concession Adult Time TimeTen 1 Hour $2.60 $1.30 $21.50 4 Hour $5.10 $2.50 All Day (includes $7.80 $3.90 Ferry)
The costs of a Newcastle 7 day Travel Pass – which provides different extents of unlimited travel – are contained in the following Table.
Orange Yellow Pink (Bus & Ferry (with rail) (with longer only) distance rail) Newcastle 7 day $36.00 $44.00 $47.00 travel pass
By comparison with public transport costs, car parking in Newcastle CBD is extremely inexpensive.
Newcastle City Council operates 3 major car parks – known as The Mall, Civic West and Court House. Highlights from the parking fees of the car parks are contained in the Table below.
Newcastle Council – Car Parking Costs
All figures 1 hour 4 hour 8 hour Long Stay Weekly Permanent Permanent - are $ Special – Standard Designated Rate (over (monthly) Space 7 hours) (monthly)
The 1.20 4.80 9.70 5.50 33.00 115.00 130.00 Mall
Civic 1.20 4.80 9.70 4.00 22.50 70.00 85.00 West
Court 1.20 4.80 9.70 5.00 28.00 95.00 110.00 House
The Working Group notes that the cost of travelling by motor vehicle to Newcastle CBD is cheaper than public transport – and that it becomes much cheaper for commuters who work in Newcastle:
• A return rail ticket from Beresfield to Newcastle costs $7.20 in the peak period.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 33 - • A weekly rail ticket from Beresfield to Newcastle (averaged over 5 days) – costs $5.60 per day.
• A seven day Yellow Travel Pass (averaged over 5 days) costs $8.80 per day.
• Commuter car parking (Long Stay Special rate) costs $4.00 - $5.50 per day.
• Weekly car parking (averaged over 5 days) costs $4.50 - $6.60 per day.
• Monthly Standard car parking (averaged over 20 days) costs $3.50 – 5.75 per day.
• Monthly Designated Space car parking (averaged over 20 days) costs $4.25 – 6.50 per day.
This pricing regime enshrines the use of motor vehicles ahead of public transport in the Lower Hunter – and particularly in Newcastle CBD.
A typical weekly car park space can cost as little as $4.50 per day – or $3.50 per day if you pay monthly. On the other hand, a typical weekly rail ticket will cost $5.60 per day.
The Working Group believes that a combination of improved transport services and modest pricing signals to motor vehicle users – through a Parking Space Levy - can influence travel mode choices or, at the very least, provide a new revenue stream from car users to invest in public transport. The potential levels and limits of this approach are outlined below.
Parking Space Levy
The Working Group has examined the feasibility of extending the existing Parking Space Levy to Newcastle.
The Parking Space Levy (PSL) was introduced in Sydney to discourage car use in major commercial centres, encourage use of public transport and to improve air quality. The PSL funds the construction of interchange projects that make it easier and more convenient for people to access public transport services.
Over $120 million has been collected from the levy since its introduction in 1992 and invested in building and maintaining bus, rail and ferry interchanges, commuter car parks, bus shelters, taxi stands, kiss and ride facilities, bicycle lockers, light rail systems and better passenger information and security systems.
In the NSW Budget 2003/04, $25 million from the Levy was allocated to continuing capital works and $20.6 million was provided towards the cost of bus stations on transitways.
The PSL applies to commercial parking spaces in Sydney’s CBD and North Sydney/Milsons Point (Category 1 - $840 per space per annum) and Parramatta, Bondi Junction, St Leonards and Chatswood (Category 2 - $420 per space per annum).
The PSL is exempt from GST and is automatically adjusted to reflect movements in the consumer price index. The owner of the parking space is liable for the payment of the PSL to the Office of State Revenue.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 34 - The Parking Space Levy Act 1992 provides the legislative basis for administrative arrangements to collect the levy. The Act also provides that some parking spaces are exempt from the PSL, including where a space is used:
• as a designated space for persons with a disability;
• by a resident of the premises where the space is provided;
• for loading/unloading of goods or passengers; and
• by a public charity or benevolent institution.
The Working Group believes that the extension of the PSL to Newcastle is consistent with the objectives of the Act and with past application of the levy.
The Working Group also recommends that the Ministry of Transport investigate amendments to the PSL legislation to broaden the funding provisions to include funding of “transport services”, rather than only transport infrastructure. This will enable PSL funds to be used to fund the proposed free city bus service and services into newly developed areas.
The Working Group proposes that the Ministry of Transport should develop a proposal for the Parking Space Levy to be applied to Newcastle CBD as a Category 2 area - alongside Parramatta, Bondi Junction, St Leonards and Chatswood.
The rate of the levy per space per year for Category 2 areas is set at $420 per annum.
This is a very modest impost for a commuter who has the benefit of car travel to work. A levy of $420.00 per year represents an additional cost of around $0.20 per hour – based on an 8 hour day over 52 weeks per year.
This proposal would require an amendment by the Minister for Transport Services to Parking Space Levy Regulation 1997.
The Ministry of Transport should prepare a proposal to introduce the Parking Space Levy in Newcastle in consultation with Newcastle City Council, Honeysuckle Development Corporation, business groups and the community in order to identify the details of any proposed exemptions - as they will need to be specified in the amended regulation. In this regard, the Working Group is most concerned about equity issues for lower paid workers who drive to work.
The potential revenue from introducing the Parking Space Levy in Newcastle cannot be exactly quantified at this point – as the final boundaries of the designated area and any exemptions are yet to be determined.
However, it is possible to roughly estimate the potential revenue which could be generated for public transport by combining the total car parking spaces of Council, Honeysuckle Development Corporation and major employers in Newcastle.
A total of 2,500 spaces would generate $1.05 million per year (as a Category 2 area) for public transport services.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 35 - On Street Parking
There is ample, cheap on-street car parking in Newcastle in addition to the availability of ample on-site car parks. Newcastle City Council has 229 multi-bay parking machines with 1 to 10 spaces per machine – as well as 80 pay and display meters that cover 10-15 spaces per machine.
Indeed, on-street parking is even more economical than car parks with Ticket Machines providing 10 hour zones at the rate of $0.40 - $0.50 per hour - or $4-$5 per day.
In addition, general metered parking charges are as low as $1.00 per hour in many areas.
The Parking Space Levy cannot be applied to on-street metered parking.
Given this situation, the Working Group believes that Newcastle City Council should consider a modest increase to metered parking charges with this revenue dedicated to funding the free bus service from Broadmeadow to Newcastle – as it primarily benefits the Newcastle City Council area.
Redevelopment of SRA Sites
As noted in the introduction to this Chapter, the Working Group commissioned the Urban Design Advisory Service (UDAS) of the DIPNR to prepare a concept report on urban redevelopment options that could be achieved at key accessibility points across the existing corridor. The Working Group confined the project to SRA sites and insisted that the concepts should be consistent with current planning regulations.
The UDAS is working with both Newcastle City Council and the Honeysuckle Development Corporation on major projects in this region – and is therefore well placed to use its experience and expertise on concepts for the transport corridor.
The UDAS prepared three concepts for the Working Group at Newcastle Station, Civic Station and Hamilton Station. These concepts offer the opportunity for the station precincts to become genuine urban centres with mixed use development that includes residential, local retail and parkland components.
The complete UDAS Report is attached as Appendix 5.
It delivers a snapshot of what key points in Newcastle would look like without the barrier created by the rail line.
UDAS has reported that SRA land assets can be used to support urban renewal around these three key accessibility points - while retaining a corridor of sufficient dimensions to facilitate future transport uses.
The following quantum of urban renewal could be conservatively generated from the concepts prepared by UDAS:
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 36 - • Hamilton Station Area: Total Gross building area: 9,830 sqm o 6,930 sqm gross/ approx. 70 units (gross 99 sqm each) + basement car parking o 2,900 sqm gross/ approx. 11 x 2 storey houses with 3 storeys at each corner to emphasise the corner element and provide transition with adjacent blocks • Civic Station Area: Total Gross building area: 23,650 sqm o 4 Storey carpark: 18,000 sqm gross o 3 Storey Artist Studios: 5,650 sqm gross • Newcastle Station Area: Total Gross building area: 39,200 sqm (6 building blocks) o Ground level : Commercial with active frontages: 8,725 sqm (also contains the residential entries and basement carpark entries
o Above levels: Residential, 3 levels with the top floor set back: 30,475 sqm The Working Group sought an indicative valuation for these SRA land holdings based on this conservative level of urban renewal. It found that there was the potential to generate around $32 million for the land assets before site preparation and sale costs were considered. A net value of $25-30 million is considered achievable - which could be used to develop transport infrastructure and services throughout the Lower Hunter.
Hamilton Bus Depot
The Working Group has received conflicting advice from transport authorities on the long term viability of the Hamilton Bus Depot and the future costs of maintaining the depot as ‘fit for purpose.’ Already, some buildings have been removed from service because of safety concerns. There is also evidence that the pavement surface requires major refurbishment. The State Transit Authority – on behalf of Newcastle Buses – has recently advised the Working Group that major maintenance work will be required in the short term.
The Working Group has also received evidence that there may be efficiencies in relocating the Hamilton Bus Depot to a new site in the vicinity of the Broadmeadow Interchange or even consolidating depot operations at Glendale.
This would mean that the Hamilton Bus Depot site, located in a prime residential area, could become available for urban redevelopment.
The Working Group has not been able to place an exact value on this site – or ascertain the costs of future maintenance and liabilities. It is also unable to determine whether a depot in this area is necessary for bus operations.
The Working Group believes that Hunter Buses and Ferries should review the utilization of its bus depots with a view to the disposal of the Hamilton Bus Depot and proceeds dedicated to improved transport services.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 37 - Appendices:
1. Executive Summary and Findings from the First Report.
2. Findings from the Second Report.
3. Community Transport
4. Submissions Received
5. Urban Design Concepts
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 - 38 - APPENDIX 1 Lower Hunter Transport Working Group First Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This First Report of the Lower Hunter Transport Working Group details the progress of the review established in April 2003 by the Hon Michael Costa MLC, Minister for the Hunter and Minister for Transport Services.
The Terms of Reference for the Working Group are: • Assessment of current routes and patronage of rail and bus services in the Lower Hunter; • Review of existing proposals for improvement of transport services, including the Evaluation of Woodville Junction Proposal, by SGS/Maunsell commissioned by Newcastle City Council; • Investigation of the replacement of the rail line to Newcastle City with a dedicated transport corridor for a superior frequent bus service; • A revision of bus routes in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie area; and • Consideration of funding options including private sector investment through a mix of residential and commercial development, such as restaurants and shops, and preservation of all heritage sites including Newcastle station.
The Working Group has defined the Lower Hunter as comprising the Local Government Areas of Newcastle, Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland and Port Stephens.
The Minister called for public submissions, which closed on 31 July 2003. However, the Working Group has continued receiving submissions. A total of 320 submissions had been received as at 7 August 2003. The Working Group has also conducted meetings with stakeholders and interest groups.
The Working Group will present a Second Report in October 2003 and a Third Report in December 2003.
The Executive Summary is structured according to the Terms of Reference.
Terms of Reference 1 & 4 The Working Group has reviewed current routes and patronage of rail and bus services in the Lower Hunter – and commenced its review of bus routes and services in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie areas.
The quality of rail and bus services in the Lower Hunter and Newcastle has been an issue of major community concern for many years – as evidenced by the continuous stream of studies which have flowed from government, stakeholders and interest groups.
Each of these studies has consistently identified the core problems which plague public transport in the Hunter: extremely low levels of patronage – largely because public transport
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App1 - 1 APPENDIX 1
does not match increasingly dispersed urban settlement patterns - compounded by a good road network that encourages vehicle use.
Public transport use in the Lower Hunter is in chronic decline.
Patronage levels are very low - and their erosion is accelerating. In February 2002, the Transport Data Centre estimated that bus and train trips account for only 5% of weekday trips in Newcastle. The Newcastle rail network carries 15,000 passengers daily out of the 1.9 million weekday journeys – just 0.8% of total travel. Buses provide the remaining 4.2% of weekday public transport journeys. This means that buses are the preferred public transport mode in Newcastle, accounting for 84% of public transport patronage.
Patronage on the Newcastle City rail line has declined significantly in recent years.
In May 2003, only 7,198 passengers per day were counted using the line - a 17% reduction in patronage since 1997. This included declines in patronage of 59% at Wickham Station and 29% at Hamilton Station. Significantly, the number of interchange passengers increased at Hamilton by 14% – suggesting that the number of passengers who could benefit from a new Woodville Junction or upgraded Broadmeadow interchange is increasing. 7,198 passengers per day may seem to be a reasonable patronage; however these passengers are spread over 170 trains per day – an average of just 42 passengers per train. The greatest passenger count on any train was 100. (StateRail count 21 May 03)
Regular passenger bus services (including school bus services) are provided through service contracts with the Director General of the Ministry of Transport (MoT) under the Passenger Transport Act (PTA). In the Lower Hunter Area, seven private operators as well as the State Transit Authority (Newcastle Buses) have service contracts with the MoT which give them exclusive rights to provide services in their particular contract areas.
However, current regulatory and contracting arrangements under the PTA lack flexibility, do not promote an integrated network approach, and do not provide sufficient incentives for operators to grow patronage and improve services.
These issues are adversely affecting service provision in the Lower Hunter region. They are being addressed by the Review of Bus Services in NSW, announced by the Minister for Transport Services on 2 July 2003, and chaired by the Hon. Barrie Unsworth. The Review will include a focus on improved network planning and service integration in the Hunter area, and maximising the use of school buses and community transport resources to deliver improved transport options.
An interim report from the Review is due to be provided to the Minister in November 2003 and a final report in February 2004. It will be important for the Working Group and the “Review of Bus Services in NSW” to work in close cooperation to maximise outcomes and to ensure that appropriate short and longer term strategies to improve bus services are identified.
Personal transport in the Lower Hunter is dominated by the car. Motor vehicles account for 81.3% of average weekday trips in Newcastle. The total time that people spend travelling in their cars on weekdays (over basically the same distance) is much lower in Newcastle than
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App1 - 2 APPENDIX 1
Sydney – 67 minutes as opposed to 79 minutes. The average commute to work by car in Newcastle is accomplished in 19 minutes - compared to 32 minutes for Sydney. This is a testament to the good quality of the road network and lack of traffic congestion in Newcastle. This dominance is likely to continue as car ownership at 1.5 per household is already ahead of Sydney’s rate (Transport Data Centre, Travel in Newcastle & Wollongong, February 2002). With such wide car ownership, low levels of traffic congestion, readily available parking (either free or at low cost meters) and dispersed destinations, there are few incentives to travellers to shift to public transport
The declining public transport use in the Lower Hunter must be halted.
This is a difficult task - given the above statistics. It will take time and involve major institutional reform and service delivery changes. It is not just a matter of attracting recently lost passengers back to public transport – volumes have been stagnant or declining for many years.
At present, there is no integrated public transport network in the Lower Hunter. Rather, there are historical linkages maintained by rail and bus operators - augmented with newer bus services that respond to urban planning decisions by retrofitting some level of public transport. The relocation of the John Hunter Hospital is a prime example of this condition.
In essence, urban form in the Hunter must become more conducive to public transport use – by reconfiguring public transport to match the existing urban form of the Lower Hunter.
The pace, form and location of urban development has outstripped the capability of public transport to provide sufficient services. On a regional scale, most new urban development in the Newcastle area is occurring within a radius band of approximately 10-20 km from the CBD - especially to the west in what is often characterised as ‘urban sprawl’ development unsuited to public transport penetration. This is not a unique scenario. Just like many other metropolitan areas in Australia, the Lower Hunter has experienced:
• Urban development on remote Greenfield sites – responding to the need for more affordable housing; • Emergence of major shopping centres - creating new regional hubs at some distance from established commercial centres, community services and established public transport networks; • More dispersed employment patterns and a more mobilised workforce – reflecting the changing face of the urban industrial base.
Coming to terms with this urban form will require remedial, region-wide planning strategies that focus urban development near public transport nodes that are served by flexible transport services. The Lower Hunter councils have prepared settlement strategies aimed at guiding future development in the sub-region. These settlement strategies highlight the lack of potential greenfield development sites and as such, are proposing to direct anticipated population growth into established areas, particularly around existing centres well serviced by public transport.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App1 - 3 APPENDIX 1
In this regional context, it must be recognised that - in transport terms - Newcastle City is no longer the primary destination point for the people of the Hunter.
While it retains a key regional role as a commercial, retail and administrative capital, providing some higher order services not available elsewhere, Newcastle City is now one of number of centres and is the easternmost point of a sprawling metropolitan region of 500,000 people.
The development of a Lower Hunter Integrated Public Transport Network is essential. It should be based on principles of equity and efficiency across the Lower Hunter - giving equal weight to inter-connectivity between key centres. Likely centres include Newcastle City, Woodville Junction/Broadmeadow, Merewether, Charlestown, Glendale, Kotara and Wallsend, plus other destinations such as the University, James Hunter Hospital, Newcastle (Tighe’s Hill) Campus of the Hunter Institute of TAFE.
The Working Group will examine this matter in more detail in its Second Report in October 2003. In support of this work, the Working Group awaits the outcomes of a study commissioned by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) into the impact of different transport options on Newcastle’s future development. This report is due in September 2003.
Term of Reference 2 The Working Group has commenced its assessment of options to improve transport services in the Newcastle to Woodville Junction corridor.
Term of Reference 2 specifically directed the Working Group to examine the Evaluation of Woodville Junction Proposal, by SGS/Maunsell. In summary, SGS/Maunsell concluded that the Woodville proposal appears to be highly meritorious and that the earlier Sinclair Knight Mertz (SKM) Proposal to Boost Public Transport Usage at a Regional Level of November 2001 made out a prima facie case to this effect.
SGS/Maunsell also observed, in relation to the SKM report, that:
• The report has met the terms of its brief but the brief did not require the necessary full evaluation against all options. • The report does not deal extensively with the ‘urban village’ aspects of the Newcastle Urban Strategy. • Key reports (most notably by Transit Planners) confirm that a ‘project initiated’ approach to achieving an integrated transport system may well fail. (p.33)
The SKM study did not fully test the feasibility of the Woodville Junction options from a rail perspective. The feasibility is currently being evaluated by StateRail and Rail Infrastructure Corporation (RIC).
SGS/Maunsell recommended the development of a transport model for the region - in collaboration with the Transport Data Centre of the DIPNR - to create a base for sound future decision-making.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App1 - 4 APPENDIX 1
Term of Reference 3 The performance of rail services to Newcastle City should be considered in a regional context – rather than as a totemic piece of infrastructure to be defended at all costs.
The fact is that the Newcastle City heavy rail service:
• Achieves extremely low patronage levels. • Shadows frequent, efficient bus services down Hunter Street. • Contributes to congested transport arteries between Newcastle City and the Lower Hunter. • Severely affects connectivity and accessibility between Newcastle City and the foreshore of Newcastle Harbour. • Acts as a genuine barrier to the continued urban and economic revitalisation of Newcastle.
Given this situation, the Working Group believes that urban renewal and economic development opportunities must be given maximum weight in decision-making.
This approach was promoted by the Newcastle City Council in its submission: “the future of the inner city rail corridor is not just a transport issue, but a major urban design and planning issue and needs to be examined in a holistic context”.
For these urban design and planning reasons, the Working Group supports the announcement by the Minister for the Hunter and Minister for Transport Services that the Newcastle City rail corridor will be preserved as a transport corridor without ground level or airspace development - in the event that the removal of the heavy rail service is recommended.
The Working Group has examined existing proposals for the improvement of transport services in the Newcastle City rail corridor. It has determined that three options for the replacement of the rail line to Newcastle City should be tested against a Base Case:
1. Civic Station. 2. Woodville Junction. 3. Broadmeadow Station (Showground side – Chatham Road).
The Base Case involves maintenance of existing infrastructure, with a detailed review of existing services and improvement of road and pedestrian access across the tracks.
These options are being assessed by StateRail from an operational perspective to determine their technical feasibility. The Working Group expects this work to be completed in late September 2003 and intends to report on a preferred option in its Second Report in October 2003.
In the event that one or more of these options is superior to the Base Case, the Working Group will then determine whether a “superior frequent bus service” can be effectively introduced into the corridor and develop routes and service levels.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App1 - 5 APPENDIX 1
Term of Reference 5 The Working Group is examining funding options - including residential and commercial development - which could offset the cost of a new interchange and/or related transport initiatives. It has become clear during this work that there is significant potential for major urban renewal and economic development throughout the project area from Newcastle City to Woodville Junction – particularly if it is considered as a single, interconnected precinct.
The Honeysuckle Development Corporation has a proven track record of success in urban renewal projects and represents local expertise in the Hunter. The Honeysuckle Growth Area was extended in 2001 to encompass the International Sports Centre site – and now roughly corresponds to the project area being considered by the Working Group.
The Working Group recommends that the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources designates the Honeysuckle Development Corporation as the agent for urban renewal in the project area.
The Working Group will work with the Honeysuckle Development Corporation on fully- scoping residential and commercial development opportunities for its Third Report in December 2003.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App1 - 6 APPENDIX 1
FIRST REPORT - FINDINGS
1. Current public transport patronage levels in Newcastle are in chronic decline largely because transport services do not match increasingly dispersed urban settlement patterns. This situation is compounded by a good road network that encourages motor vehicle use.
2. There is no basis for assumptions that public transport levels in the Lower Hunter will rise on the basis of current routes and services. Major institutional reforms and service delivery changes will be necessary.
3. A “Lower Hunter Integrated Public Transport Network” should be developed based on the flexibility of fast bus services to link key activity centres. Existing rail services should be integrated with this network. The Working Group will develop a draft list of key activity centres - which will form the basis of this network - for its Second Report in October 2003.
4. The future of the Newcastle City rail line should be determined equally on the basis of the performance of transport services and the potential benefits for urban design and planning. The rail service generates extremely low levels of patronage and acts as a barrier to further urban renewal in Newcastle City.
5. In the event that the removal of the rail service is recommended, the Newcastle City rail corridor should be preserved as a transport corridor with no ground level or airspace development.
6. The Working Group has selected four options for technical assessment in relation to the replacement of the Newcastle City rail line: a Base Case (retention of existing services); an upgraded station and interchange at Civic; a new station and interchange at Woodville Junction; and an upgraded station and interchange at Broadmeadow. The Working Group will report the outcomes of this analysis in its Second Report in October 2003.
7. The removal of the Newcastle City rail line would remove four level crossings. This means that the last two level crossings in Newcastle would be at St James Road, Adamstown and Clyde Street, Hamilton North. The Chair of the Working Group will approach the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) to develop a strategy and timeframe for the grade separation of the busy Adamstown crossing in the event that the branch line is removed.
8. The Newcastle City rail line and multiple roadways create a ‘transit funnel’ through Civic and Newcastle West that effectively inhibits urban renewal. The Chair of the Working Group will approach the RTA and Newcastle City Council to develop methods for consolidating and streaming traffic flow through this precinct to create an attractive and safe environment for urban renewal.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App1 - 7 APPENDIX 1
9. The Honeysuckle Development Corporation could be appointed by the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources to act as the agent for urban renewal in the project area. The current Honeysuckle Growth Area includes all potential interchange and urban development sites – meaning that Honeysuckle could undertake this task without seeking additional powers.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App1 - 8 APPENDIX 2
SECOND REPORT - FINDINGS
1. The cost of operating the rail service on the Newcastle Branch Line exceeds revenue generated by over $9 million each year.
2. The capital cost of retaining existing services on the Newcastle Branch Line is $148 million over the next 20 years –that is $27-37 million higher than the cost of removing the rail line and upgrading Broadmeadow Station.
3. The least cost capital investment option for rail is Broadmeadow – Option 2, which is costed at $111 million. Broadmeadow Option 1 is costed at $121 million.
4. The proposed Woodville Junction Interchange would incur capital costs of $253 million over 20 years – over twice the cost of either of the Broadmeadow Options.
5. The discounted cash flow analysis of costs, including capital, operating, maintenance and decontamination costs, indicates that, over 20 years, the Broadmeadow Options would save a total of $33 million or $43 million in comparison with retention of the Newcastle Branch Line.
6. The proposed Woodville Junction interchange would cost up to $92 million more than the Base Case, while the cost of terminating services at Civic would also exceed the cost of the base case by $49 million.
7. The Working Group acknowledges the capital costs of each option from an operational rail perspective – but reserves its decision on a preferred option for Report 3 when it can consider the full range of issues including optimal land uses, highest level of community benefit and the cost of bus infrastructure and services.
8. In the event that the rail line was removed, the SRA/RIC Report indicates that the best case time frame for completing the project is 2007/08 based on fast-tracking one of the Broadmeadow options, commencing the project in 2006/07 with a 12 month construction period.
9. The Honeysuckle Development Corporation is the appropriate agent for addressing the future of significant rail heritage assets and the need for decontamination in the rail corridor. Honeysuckle has a proven track record of success in revitalizing heritage assets and completing major site remediation works in the adjacent precinct.
10. The Minister for Transport Services has stated that there will be no job losses as a result of any decisions on the future of the Newcastle Branch Line. The Working Group strongly supports this decision – and believes that the redeployment of staff can augment service levels in other parts of the Lower Hunter. It also believes that the development of an Integrated Lower Hunter Public Transport Network is the best means of securing long term employment opportunities in the transport sector.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App2 - 1 APPENDIX 2
11. The Working Group supports the decision by the Transport and Population Data Centre of DIPNR to extend the Sydney Travel Model to the Lower Hunter so that accurate modelling of travel patterns can inform the development of an Integrated Lower Hunter Transport Strategy.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App2 - 2 APPENDIX 3
COMMUNITY TRANSPORT
The Review of Bus Services in New South Wales’ Interim Report (November 2003) recommended the development of innovative solutions to ensure access to local transport services, such as better integration of community transport services with the bus network. Many of the submissions received by the Working Group related to personal difficulties created by the Newcastle Bus Plan - or to problems which would be created by the replacement of the Newcastle City rail service. The Working Group believes that many of these concerns should be dealt with in the context of community transport initiatives.
The “Ministerial inquiry into Sustainable Transport in New South Wales” (Parry Report) found that there is a substantial unmet need for community transport services across NSW, particularly in rural and regional areas. Many services rely on volunteers to operate them, and providers are concerned that this is not sustainable as the population ages. Increased funding would allow more needs to be met.
Specific Recommendations of the Final Parry Report regarding community transport are:
• Bring local providers and users of community transport services together to develop plans for better services and promote coordination of available resources. • Broker streamlined funding and administrative arrangements for community transport services that meets local needs—including funding from Home and Community Care, the Community Transport Program and funding from other agencies including NSW Health. • Redirect underutilised assets from proposed changes to the School Student Transport Scheme (SSTS) and pensioner excursion tickets to increasing community transport services. • Establish a network of regional community transport development workers across the state that are funded and coordinated by the Ministry of Transport.
The NSW Government has adopted the following response to the Parry Report:
Community and Local Transport
• Developing local and community transport plans with local communities to improve service provision and intergovernmental coordination; • Appointing local and community transport coordinators and advisory teams to audit local demands and improve local supply; • Brokering streamlined administrative arrangements for community transport providers; • Harnessing underutilised buses from SSTS providing improved community and local transport; and • Reviewing the Taxi Transport Subsidy Scheme to better allocate taxi services to those most in need.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App3 - 1 APPENDIX 3
The NSW Government will also appoint a Hunter Local and Community Transport Regional Coordinator, to develop/implement a community transport plan which best meets community needs in the Hunter.
What is Community Transport?
Community transport refers to a range of transport services provided in situations where conventional passenger transport services are not available or not appropriate.
Government funding for community transport is provided to 130 organisations across New South Wales. They provide mainly transport services to the frail aged, disabled and the economically or geographically disadvantaged (particularly in rural and regional areas). However, community transport is not appropriate for passengers with acute health needs.
Most community transport providers are not-for-profit community-based organisations and many rely on volunteers to provide services. They include local government bodies, indigenous organisations, charitable organisations, and religious and community groups. Other groups also provide community transport on an informal basis and without government funding.
The purpose of community transport is to meet the needs of specific transport disadvantaged groups in the community including isolated families, the frail aged, younger people with disabilities, and their carers or any other citizens that might have diminished access to conventional public transport services. The Community Transport Organisation Annual Report 2002-03 estimated that over 36,000 residents of NSW use community transport for over 645,000 trips per year.
Users of community transport tend to ‘pre-book’ their transport, which is generally provided using a variety of vehicles, with the majority of trips undertaken by buses operated by community transport organisations.
Community transport is provided primarily by non-government, community-based organisations to ‘transport disadvantaged’ citizens to allow them access to the range of community services available to all citizens.
A ‘Transport disadvantaged’ person is a person who’s economic, social, geographic or physical circumstances are such that access to conventional transport systems is not available or not reasonable in the circumstances. Transport disadvantaged people therefore have limited or no access to private transport and they have difficulties in accessing mainstream transport systems to meet their daily needs.
Services are provided for a variety of needs with day care, social/recreation, shopping/access, and medical the main four.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App3 - 2 APPENDIX 3
Funding for Community Transport
Community transport is often government funded or subsidised as the focus of community transport is on the needs of passengers, rather than on the operating requirements of transport systems. However, a large number of community transport service providers currently request ‘donations’ from customers in order to defray the costs of providing the service.
The NSW Ministry of Transport has direct administrative responsibility for three community transport programs that are targeted at transport disadvantaged people: • Home & Community Care Community - Transport Sub-Program; • Community Transport Program; • Area Assistance Scheme - Community Transport Pick-up Projects.
The Home and Community Care (HACC) program is jointly fund by the Commonwealth and State. The Community Transport Program (CTP) and the Area Assistance Scheme (AAS) are State-funded programs.
During 2000-2001, $13.34 million was allocated to 134 organisations under the Home and Community Care Program, the NSW Community Transport Program and the Area Assistance Scheme.
It is reasonable to assume that combined funding for these community transport services exceeds $50 million though not all sources can be easily identified and accounted for. There are differences in eligibility criteria, administrative arrangements and reporting requirements for programs from each funding source. This limits the effectiveness and efficiency of the services that can be provided within the total funding pool.
Organisations that provide community transport services report that they cannot keep pace with demand. In particular, NSW Health has found that the lack of transport to access health services is one of the most significant health concerns of the community and a barrier to providing effective health care. There is also concern that the current reliance on volunteers to provide services is not sustainable as the population ages.
Home and Community Care - Community Transport Sub-program
The Home and Community Care (HACC) program funds services designed to help frail older people and people with a disability to live independently at home. HACC is a national program, with the costs shared between the Commonwealth Government (60%) and State Government (40%). Since 1997, approximately 134 organisations have received $66.1 million from HACC. Funding for HACC amounted to $21.6 million in 2002-03. Funding has increased by 50 per cent over the past three years.
Within NSW, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care undertakes the planning and policy development of transport services provided through the HACC Community Transport sub-programs. They then sub-contract the Ministry of Transport to administer the community transport component of the HACC program on its behalf. The Ministry of
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App3 - 3 APPENDIX 3
Transport distributes funds and administers the Community Transport Sub-program services on a day to day basis and works directly with service providers.
HACC Target Group
People eligible to receive a HACC service are frail older people, people with disabilities, including children, and their carers. The people who are most in need are given priority of access to services. Within this overall population a number of special needs groups are identified: • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders • people from non-English speaking backgrounds • people with dementia • financially disadvantaged persons • those in rural and remote areas.
HACC Funding
Organisations eligible to apply for and provide HACC Program services include local governments, community organisations, religious and charitable bodies, State Government agencies, health agencies and private (for profit) organisations.
Non-government organisations are required to be incorporated under the appropriate Act, except where services are provided as a component of a larger agency which already has its own legal status.
Funds are generally allocated through an expression of interest (EOI) process that is managed by the Department Of Ageing, Disability and Home Care. However, existing funded services generally continue to receive funding so long as the identified need for the service continues and all accountability requirements are met. This recognises that existing service providers already have infrastructure in place (e.g. vehicles, offices, equipment and staff). To date, where expressions of interest for transport funds have been called, all grants have gone to existing HACC service providers.
Agencies that are funded to provide HACC services are required to implement the HACC fees policy. This requires agencies that have the capacity to provide services for a fee. However, clients will receive services regardless of their capacity to pay. Agencies are required to provide additional service with client fees collected.
NSW Community Transport Program
The Community Transport Program (CTP) is funded by the NSW Government and aims to address transport disadvantage at the local level by primarily facilitating efficient use of transport resources that exist within the community. The CTP program has provided 80 organisations with over $11.3 million since 1997. Funding for the CTP is provided by the Ministry of Transport, which allocated $2.5 million in 2002-03.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App3 - 4 APPENDIX 3
The CTP program can provide either individual or group community transport. For example, this program may assist isolated families with transport to regional centres, while other transport disadvantaged people may receive assistance to travel to play groups, after school care, youth groups and senior citizens' centres.
As a State funded program, CTP offers a wider range of transport assistance to the NSW community than HACC. All HACC clients would be eligible for funding under the CTP program. However, the CTP program is not restricted to the HACC population groups. It is aimed at people who are ‘transport disadvantaged’.
The Ministry of Transport then applies mobility, isolation and age based criteria to define eligibility more concretely. It is the acceptance of temporary conditions, isolation criteria and younger people (in specific circumstances) that sets CTP apart from HACC transport.
However, the great bulk of CTP clients are older people and due to this crossover, there is often considerable resource sharing between funded programs, to the advantage of both. Duplication of administrative support, infrastructure and vehicles is avoided and both HACC transport and CTP transport are closely aligned.
CTP Target group
People whose access to mainstream transport services is limited by physical, social or geographical factors. Transport disadvantage is a circumstance or set of circumstances, that leaves those who are affected by it in a situation where they have limited or no access to private transport and they have difficulty in gaining access to conventional transport systems.
CTP Funding
CTP growth funding is allocated using an expression of interest process. When funds become available all funded community transport groups and other organisation that have expressed an interest in receiving funding are sent an expression of interest package and invited to apply for funding.
Organisations eligible to receive funding under the scheme include non-profit community based organisations, local councils or statutory agencies.
Funding is approved primarily to increase the level and range of transport options to the target group. This is undertaken by increasing the usage of existing transport resources within the community. The purchase of vehicles is considered as being outside the scope of the program. However, the program will consider funding applications that seek to modify new or existing vehicles that ultimately increase the access of these vehicles to members of the target group.
The CTP scheme funds transport services to help the elderly, sick, disabled, less mobile people, youths, and those isolated by long distances.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App3 - 5 APPENDIX 3
Money from the grant program goes towards helping people whose access to mainstream transport services are restricted by physical, social, or geographical factors.
CTP Operator Accreditation/Licensing
Operators of community transport vehicles are accredited by the Ministry of Transport to be able to provide services in NSW.
Accreditation enables an operator of community transport vehicles, which seat more than 8 people to provide public passenger services.
It is also a requirement that an accredited operator needs to comply with the conditions of accreditation, standards and guidelines as prescribed by the Ministry of Transport in order to remain accredited.
Accreditation conditions may be varied from time to time. Operators granted accreditation will be required to comply with any new conditions, whether prescribed by Regulation or by the Director-General of the Ministry.
Area Assistance Scheme (AAS)
The AAS is a State-funded program that is administered by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR). Thirteen organisations have received over $2 million from the AAS scheme since 1997.
The AAS facilitates and supports community development and the integrated provision of services in regions undergoing rapid urban growth or change. It provides grants to local organisations for projects that improve community infrastructure and how communities function. The scheme focuses on areas that are experiencing significant social and economic stress and change. It currently operates only in the coastal regions of Western Sydney, Macarthur, Hunter, Central Coast, Illawarra and North Coast. No similar scheme is available in the Far West.
The scheme actively involves the community in developing and managing community projects and in making funding recommendations to the Minister of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. The scheme focuses on the following three outcomes: • connects communities through partnerships • builds community leadership and capacity • promotes safe communities.
AAS Target Groups
To qualify for funding, projects must address at least one of the following objectives: to develop the types of services appropriate to meeting the needs of priority categories:
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App3 - 6 APPENDIX 3
• to increase the level of service development to disadvantaged groups • to enhance the involvement of state and local government in the planning and delivery of services • to increase the level of community involvement in the provision of services • to improve coordination and planning of services at the local and regional level.
AAS Funding
Funding can be used to provide: • equipment • skills development program • transport projects • counselling • service development program • neighbourhood development • advocacy • assessment and referral • accommodation • administrative support.
While the target groups and types of services to be funded are very broad, the Ministry of Transport addresses only the transport issues. Eligible organisations to receive funding include local government and non-profit community organisations from the nominated regions.
To be eligible for AAS funding, organisations must be: • an incorporated non-profit community organisation • a local council • a regional organisation of councils • and hold a current Australian Business Number (ABN).
The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) allocates funds through an expression of interest process. The Ministry of Transport is asked to comment on expressions of interest relevant to transport, in regard to whether the project could be more appropriately funded by another Government program and whether the Department would "pick up" the project in the event of the project being funded by AAS.
After the initial funding period of two years under the AAS, funded community transport projects are jointly evaluated by the Ministry of Transport and DIPNR. If the evaluation is favourable, funding for AAS community transport projects is transferred to the Ministry of Transport.
NSW Health also provides funding for non-emergency health-related transport services. NSW Health estimates it spends more than $26 million each year on these services through a variety of programs.
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App3 - 7 APPENDIX 3
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App3 - 8 APPENDIX 4
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED
• Mrs Kathleen Abraham • Ms Pat Carlton • Access Committee of Port Stephens • Vic Carroll • John Adams • Karla Casey • Advancing Lake Macquarie Transport • Ms Janice M Chapman Taskforce • Mr Rob Chenery • Ms Janet Aisbett • Ms Elizabeth Chow • Henry and Joan Allan • Mr Graham Chow • Andrew Amos • Miss Marie Clack • Tony Apthorpe and Jennifer Foskett • Roy Clarke • Greg Archibald • Mr Kevin and Mrs Cathy Claydon • Dick and Marion Armstrong • Coalfields Cancer Support Group • Association of Independent Retirees • Ms Wendy Cogan • Ms Bev Atkinson • Warren Collison • Ms Lola Austen • Tracey Colley • Australian Labor Party (Hamilton Branch) • Mrs Doris Collingwood • Australian Labor Party (Maitland Branch) • Russell Collins • Australian Labor Party (New Lambton • Community and Public Sector Union Branch) • N Cooper • Australian Labor Party (Newcastle City • Alan and Anne Cooper Day Branch) • Gregory Cope • Australian Labor Party (Newcastle State • Brad Coulter Electorate Council) • Dr Leonie Crennan • Australian Labor Party (Stewart Branch) • Graham Crichton • Australian Labor Party (Wangi Branch) • John Csanki • Australian Labor Party (West Wallsend • Michael Currow Branch) • Ms J Elaine Darby • Australian Services Union (Hunter Central • John Dart Coast Sub-Branch) • Trix Davidson • Mrs Patricia Bailey • Mr Geoff Dawson • Michael Baker • Ms Vera Deacon • Mrs E Battersby • Brian Debus • Mrs E Bennett • M E Delaney • R Bennett • Mr John Delaney • Robert and Marion Bentley • Andrew Dixon • Dr Greg Berry • Jim and Denise Donnelly • Allan Birch • Jim Donovan • Betty Bochenek • Mrs A Dougherty • Mr T J C Boulton • Stephen Dovey • Ian Bowes • Duc Associates • Mrs Margaret Bridgford • Beverley Dudman • Dianna and Maurice Brookes • Helen and Tony Duffell • Maureen and Bob Bruce • Pom Duffman • Alex Buring • Dungog and District Neighbourcare • Kevin Burrows • Mr Geoff Dunlop • Mrs Irene Butterworth • Ms Noelle Egeressy • Russell Butterworth • Mr Neville Elliot • Ms Patricia Campbell • Ms Rosanne Embury • Ms Una Campbell • Mr Daniel Endicott • Mr Michael Carlin • Ms Eunice English
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App4 - 1 APPENDIX 4
• Jean and Ray Esdaile • Mr Roy Howarth • Mr David Evans • Mr Alex Hudson • Mrs N Evans • Mr John E Hughes • Tracey Evans • Mrs M Hughes • Mr Michael Fagan • Dr Mick Hunter • E Fahey • Hunter Blind & Visually Impaired Social & • Mrs A Falkiner Support Group • Mr Mat Farr • Hunter Commuter Council • Colin Fitzsimons • Hunter Planners Network • Mr Craig Fitzsimmons • Islington-Hamilton Combined Pensioners • Mr Ross Foley Friendship Branch • Mrs Diana Ford • Sean Ison • G Fraser • Mr Mel James • Mr Max Frew • Mrs James • M Galvin • Ms Joanne Jaworowski • Ms Judith Gatland • Margaret Jennings • Sharon Gibb • Mr A Johnstone • Mr Greg Gibbon • David Jones • Eric Gibbons • Kathleen Jones • Mr Neal and Ms Elizabeth Gibson • Mr J Jones • Mr Richard Gibson • Mr R A Jones • Robert Gibson • Steve Jordan • Dianna Grant • Kathy Jordan • Mr John Grainger • Pat Keating • Robert McKay Gray • Mrs Patricia Kelly • S C Gray • Mr Andrew Kennedy • Janet Grevillea • Robert Kingsland • T B Grierson • Mrs Monique Knight • Joan Halford • Mr Rodney Knock • Mr Dennis W Hall • Patricia Kohen • Michael Hansen • Ms Janine Laidler • Mr Darrell Harris • Ms Catherine Laing • Mrs Mavis Harris • Lake Macquarie City Council • Ms N Harris • Mr Tony Lawler • Ronda Hartwig • Mr John Lee • Mrs Edith Hatton • Brian Leedham • Ms Margaret Helme • Barry and Wendy Lewington • Ms Fiona Hemmingworth • John Lewis • R L Hennessy • Mrs Lewis • Councillor Margaret Henry, Newcastle • Mr John and Ms Narelle Lewis City Council • Mr Mervyn Lindsay • Deborah Heusz • S Livingston • Mr John Highfield • Joy Llewellyn-Smith • Mr Arthur Hill • Sandra Love • D G Hinchliffe • A J Lowther • Greg Hincks • Mr Clive Maclean • Geoff Hodgson • Mr David Mansbridge • Mr Keith Homard • David Marley • Jenny Hope • Ms Leah Mason • Peter Hopkins • John Masson • Mr D Hort • Mary and Leigh Maughan • Bill and Leonie Hosking • Boyd McCallum
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App4 - 2 APPENDIX 4
• Allan Mcdonald • Ms Amanda Plumsted • Sharon McGregor • Mr Raymond Power • Ms Aimee Mehan • Philip Pollard • Cheryl Mellan • Mrs Rowan Poten • Ms Louise Micallef • Mr Mark Power • Mr Allan Miles • Mr R G Power • John Mills MP, State Member for • R G Preston Wallsend • Mr Edward Proudfoot • Mr and Mrs Milton and Janice Ebert • Jill Punch • Steven Moate • Rail, Tram and Bus Union • Alan Moore • Beverley Rees • Mr Keith Morgan • Mr Trevor Reeves • Lorna Morris • Regional Youth Development Officers • Martin Morrell Network Committee • Mathew Morris MP, State Member for • Mr Brian Rivers Charlestown • Mr Norm Roberts • Mr Kevin John Morris • Ms Jill Roberts • Mrs Win Murdoch • Ms Alison Robin • Mr Colin Myers • Gregory Rose • Pat Nash • Joanne Rose • National Trust (Hunter Regional • Ms Dianna Rose Committee) • Shirley Rusden • John and Liz Nella • Allan Rusden • Mr Alan Nelson • Allan Russell • Newcastle City Council • Dean Rutledge • Newcastle Greens • James Ryan • Newcastle East Residents Group • Mr and Mrs Sager • Newcastle Residents Group • Mr Werner Sandner • Mr Leon Newton • Peter Sansom • Mr Geoffrey Nicholls • Ms Peggy Schubert • Ms Julie Nixon • Mrs B Scott • NSW Rural Doctors Network • Ms Vicki Scott • Mr Martin O’Donnell • Mr Jonathan Scutt • Mr Robert J Ogram • Philip Seccombe • Mark Olive • Robert Selman • Mr G J O’Neil • Maxine Shakespeare • Greg O'Neill • Ms Maureen Shaw • Mr Cameron Onions • Mr Gregory Shearman • Geoff Booth and Dianne Pacey • V Sheather • Mr Kevin Parish • Bill and Rosalie Simkus • Parks and Playgrounds Movement • Singleton HACC Service • John Pascoe • Terry Skinner • Damien Passmore • Mrs Anne G Smith • Mr W Patman • Father David J Smith • Frank and Shirley Payling • Ms Debbie Smith • Robert Payne • Mr Greg Smith • Trevor Payne • Mr Ray Smith • Ms Sarah Pearce • Ms Sherynne Smith • Mr David Pearson • Mr Richard Snedden • Andrew Pennington • Socialist Alliance • Mary Petersen • Mrs Nesta Spencer • Leanne Piller • Jon Spring
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App4 - 3 APPENDIX 4
• Mr Allan Spruce • Mr Bob Young • Mr Alan Squire • Ms Janet Young • Geordie Stauffer • Lorraine Yudaeff • Roger Steel • Garry Zimmerman • Mr Basil Stemp • David Stewart * Note that this list contains 349 names out of • Stockton Chamber of Commerce a total of 354 submissions. The remaining five • Stockton Community Forum submissions did not contain a full name, were submitted in confidence or were anonymous. • Stockton Historical Society • Darrell Stone • Loiuse Stuart • Mr Graeme Stuart • William Stuart • Mark Sullivan • Surfrider Foundation (Hunter) • Mr Bob and Mrs Jenny Sutton • Mrs V Symington • Dennis Taylor • Mr R J Taylor • Telarah Neighbourhood Watch • The Newcastle Alliance • Wendylee Thompson • Ms Sandra Thomson • Mr David Threlfo • Mr Greg Timms • Mr Gary Townsend • Mrs B L Triggs • Union of Australian Women • Upper Hunter Community Care • Dawn Upton • Mrs May Vaughan • Ms Helen Vorlicek • Mr John Waddell • Margaret and John Walmsley • Mrs L D Watson • T M Watt • Mr Gary Way • Ms Doreen Westbury • Ms Trish Wheeler • Ms Barbara Whitcher • Trevor Whitney • Mr Harry Wickens • Mrs Carole Wickham • Mrs Lucy Wickens • Ms Megan Williamson • Graham Wilson • George Winning • Mr Bertram L Wood • Mr Ron Worpel • Mrs Joan Worrad • James Wright • R P Wright
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App4 - 4 APPENDIX 5
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS
NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR
Urban Design Advisory Service, December 2003, 35pp
Lower Hunter Transport Working Group – Report 3 App5 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR
DECEMBER 2003 Prepared by Urban Design Advisory Service
For Infrastructure Coordination Unit, DIPNR
© Crown copyright 2003 Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources
Henry Deane Building 20 Lee Street Sydney NSW AUSTRALIA 2000 www.dipnr.nsw.gov.au Printed December 2003
Disclaimer. While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this document is correct at the time of printing, the State of New South Wales, its agents and employees, disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document. CONTENTS
OVERVIEW 4 Context plan 4 Background 5 Objectives 5
AREA ONE HAMILTON 7 Overview 7 Aerial of Existing 8 Proposed Plan 9 3D Massing Model of Existing 10 3D Massing Model of Proposed 11 Character Sketches 12
AREA TWO CIVIC 17 Overview 17 Aerial of Existing 18 Proposed Plan 19 3D Massing Model of Existing 20 3D Massing Model of Proposed 21 Character Sketches 23
AREA THREE NEWCASTLE 25 Overview 25 Aerial of Existing 26 Proposed Plan 27 3D Massing Model of Existing 28 3D Massing Model of Proposed 29 Character Sketches 31
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 3 OVERVIEW Context Plan
HAMILTON STUDY AREA CIVIC STUDY AREA NEWCASTLE STUDY AREA
4 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 OVERVIEW Introduction
BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES FOR THE NEWCASTLE RAIL CORRIDOR
This report has been prepared by the Urban Design Advisory Service on behalf of DIPNR to illustrate indicative approaches for the In the event that the Broadmeadow to Newcastle heavy rail line is removed there are a number of urban design issues which would use of the existing rail corridor between Broadmeadow and Newcastle Train Stations in the event that the existing heavy rail line need to be considered as part of any proposal to regenerate the rail corridor. They are : between these two stations is removed. a) allowance for future public transport options either within the existing corridor or adjacent street systems b) the safety and passive surveillance of the corridor lands for public use Assumptions c) public access and use of the space d) the ability to create positive, useable spaces and built form that enhance and assist the character of the corridor and the Three sections of the rail corridor have been selected to illustrate possible approaches. These proposals illustrate only one possible adjacent areas approach, and are purely illustrative. They do not represent any final or developed proposals. e) potential retention, reinterpretation and/or reuse of any rail related heritage items
Final proposals would need to be based on a detailed analysis of the corridor and its context, informed by consultation with the To ensure that the issues above are addressed, the following urban design objectives should apply to any future use of the rail community and other stakeholders, economic viability assessments and cultural heritage assessments. corridor land: 1) connection of the existing street patterns on either sides of the rail corridor The proposals are provided in good faith and are based on indicative ownership patterns supplied by the State Rail Authority and a 2) enhance existing public pedestrian links across and into the corridor site inspection. 3) public access for pedestrians and cyclists along the full length of the corridor 4) activation of the corridor by encouraging the introduction of active edges and mixed uses along the corridor in any new or All proposals indicate an easement for a future light rail or a bus transitway if desired within the existing corridor although some existing development, alignments may have been adjusted. 5) any new development provided along the edges of the corridor must address the corridor and be in keeping with the existing character or desired future character of the area, The options in this report do not necessarily indicate UDAS’ opinion or comment on the best use of the corridor or the proposed 6) development of a landscaping strategy for the corridor including identification of any possibilities for the expansion and removal of the existing heavy rail line. connection to existing parks where appropriate, 7) the conservation of any heritage items associated with the rail use and reinterpretation of the historic use of the corridor. 8) retention of appropriately sized transport easement free from obstruction for the length of the line to allow for future public transport options.
Following are indicative design proposals which interpret the above objectives for three locations along the existing corridor. Each is illustrated with aerial photographs of the existing situation and plans, 3D massing models and perspective sketches of the possible future character of each area.
Each proposal allows for a transport easement along the full length of the rail corridor indicated by the dotted red line in each proposal.
The three locations chosen are: 1) Hamilton Station and surrounds 2) Civic Station and surrounds between Worth Place and Merewether Street 3) The corridor adjacent to Scott Street terminating at Newcastle Station (from Perkins St to Watt Street).
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 5 AREA ONE: HAMILTON Photos of Existing
1. Linear Park (looking north-west) 4. Linear Park, Existing Hotel & Station Car Park 7. Existing car park and Hamilton Station
2. Existing Linear Park looking north-west 5. Linear Park, looking south-east 8. Rail Corridor between Hamilton Station and Fern Street
iV Y S T R E 3. Linear Park & Eva Street HAM ET 9. Photos from pedestrian overpass, (looking over Hamilition S T I L A T TIO O Station to city in south-east) T N N WICKHAM EE
R PARK
T
S
T
N
UMO
6. Existing Linear Park looking north-west towards Beaumont A LIN E BE A Street R PA R K
D O N A L D ST R E E T
Photo Key
6 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA ONE: HAMILTON Overview
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OPPORTUNITES FOR THE RAIL CORRIDOR
Hamilton Station is currently located on the northern end of Beaumont Street. Beaumont Street is a vital and active café and retail If the heavy rail line was removed the priority for the rail corridor land in this area would be to connect the two sides of Beaumont strip south of Donald Street. However the retail character changes north of Donald Street. Street, whilst improving the accessibility, activation, character and extent of the existing pedestrian route (both the linear park and Wickham Park). On the southern side of the station is a linear park that currently serves as a limited pedestrian connection from Donald Street through to the train station. The housing that borders the park does not front the park, the side fencing is graffiti marked and the In developing the proposal, an easement has been preserved for possible future provision of light rail or a bus transit way. park could be perceived as unsafe. Connections - Public Space On the northern side of the train line there is a mix of residential and industrial uses that are ‘sandwiched’ between a rail line and an Linear Park arterial road (Maitland Road). On the other side of Maitland Road is a large park with sport facilities known as ‘Wickham Park’, Expansion of the existing open space connection to a landscaped linear park is proposed. The design would preserve the existing currently isolated from residents living to the south due to the rail line and the Maitland Road rail overpass. large trees. Ideally the Maitland Road rail overpass would be removed to allow the creation of a green connection through to Wickham Park for both the residents to the south of Donald Street and the village centre of Beaumont Street. The current development control plan active along Beaumont Street is Newcastle City Council’s DCP 25. This DCP limits development on this street to two storey commercial with the possibility of a third storey residential set back from the street. It also Public Plaza identifies the Hamilton station buildings and square as important heritage items as well as the Sydney Junction Hotel (cnr of A public plaza could be provided for the land currently used for the Hamilton Station car park. The existing neighbouring uses would Beaumont and Hudson streets) as an important corner identity. be encouraged to open their frontages onto the plaza perhaps with a beer garden and or café activating the plaza. The Heritage Hamilton Station buildings would be retained and reused as a possible retail or café use. A new plaza has the potential to become the town square and active heart of Hamilton whilst still acting as a public transport hub.
Streets: A new north-south connection is proposed connecting Eva Street and Ivy Street. A new east-west street is also proposed that will edge the park to provide for greater public access and increased surveillance opportunities. Both streets would be local in character, edged with street trees and public parking to facilitate public access to the new linear park and plaza.
Built form New residential development only to the north of the new park focused on and around the linear park, the pedestrian plaza, Fern Street and Threadneedle Lane. This will contribute significantly to the vitality of the northern end of Beaumont Street. These residential developments will also contribute passive surveillance onto the linear park and the public plaza.
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 7 AREA ONE: HAMILTON Aerial of Existing
FLEMIN G STREET
T
E
E
R
T
S
N
O
D
D
E
FERN STREE H S EET STR ERT ALB H A M T S IL TA T T T O T IO E E N E E N TR R S T Y IV M S A T IT N L O A T N M E D U E R A R O T E A B S D
VA
E
DONAL T DS TREE E T
E
R
T
S
T T
T E
E E T
N T R T E
E N T E E
E E E R S R B R T N T T
S O
S S V N
T N E O
N O D S
E S
W K IL A
L W
N 0 50 100 200m
8 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA ONE: HAMILTON Proposed Plan
T
S
ON
D
FE
SSHED R N S T S T R T ALBE
VY ST IVY ST
STREET
T
N WICKHAM PARK
MO
U EVA S EVA M A
BEA ITLA List of Improvements T 1) Linear Park and the demolition of the Maitland Road N overpass creates a green connection through to Wickham DRO Park. DO N A L D STREET 2) A public plaza is proposed for the land currently used for the A Hamilton Station car park. D 3) Heritage Hamilton Station buildings are retained and reused as possible retail and or café.
4) A new north-south connection is proposed through connecting Eva Street and Ivy Street.
5) A new east-west street will edge the park to provide for greater public access and increased surveillance opportunities.
6) A new residential district focused on and around the linear park, the pedestrian plaza, Fern Street and Threadneedle Lane.
0 20 50 m Transport Easement
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 9 AREA ONE: HAMILTON 3D Massing Model of Existing
WICKHAM PARK
M A ITL A N D R O A D
HAMILTON STATION
EET TR S ALD D ON
10 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA ONE: HAMILTON 3D Massing Model of Proposed
WICKHAM PARK
MAITLA N D R OAD
E ET T R L D S N A D O
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 11 AREA ONE: HAMILTON Photo of Existing
Fern Street Islington, looking south-east
12 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA ONE: HAMILTON Character Sketch
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 13 AREA ONE: HAMILTON Photo of Existing
Threadneedle Lane Islington, looking south-east
14 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA ONE: HAMILTON Character Sketch
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 15 AREA TWO: CIVIC Photo of Existing
16 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA TWO: CIVIC Overview
DESCRIPTION OPPORTUNITES FOR THE RAIL CORRIDOR
Currently the train corridor running from Worth Place to Merewether Street is bounded by a rear service/access lane to the south Connections and the Honeysuckle redevelopment area to the north. If the heavy rail line was removed, the priority for the rail corridor land in this New connection to the waterfront area would be to integrate the emerging tourist and entertainment district of the Honeysuckle redevelopment in this area with the A new street is proposed running from Hunter Street to the west side of the land currently used as Civic Station and through to the city’s civic precinct to the south. waterfront. Substantial tree planting is proposed along this street to generate a ‘boulevard’ character to the street.
In developing this proposal an easement has been preserved for possible future provision of light rail or a bus transit way. A realigment of the existing road system known as the ‘square about’ could also be considered to provide connected open space to the wine centre proposed in the Lee Wharf development application and the heritage wharf building on the waterfront. Local Area Principle The establishment of a strong connection between the Civic district of Newcastle and the emerging tourist and entertainment district Worth Place could also be connected to the city through the rail corridor land. and investigating the possibility of reducing traffic pressures along the waterfront road to support the pedestrian character of the narrowed section adjacent to the heritage railway workshops. Built form Rear service lane behind Hunter Street A rear lane behind Hunter Street currently runs from Civic Station - this lane could be expanded into the railway lands to provide a delightful new street. The current fine grain of development along Hunter Street in this location lends itself well to small bohemian uses such as artist studios etc.
The existing buildings could be encouraged to open their frontages onto the new street. New active uses would be encouraged in new development to the northern side of this street which would consist of a car park (accessed at the rear) surrounded by two to three storey artist studio space or incubator business spaces which continue the fine grain of development opposite.
The street character would also be improved by public parking and street trees to both sides of the street. The width would also be sufficient to enable the public transport easement to be accommodated in the centre of the new street. The character of the street could encourage the street over time to provide weekend artist markets.
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 17 AREA TWO: CIVIC Aerial of Existing
THROSBY BASIN
W HARF ROAD E RIV T LE D K EE SUC NEY R HO T
S
R E RY ROAD
CENTENA E
ETH C
W
LA CIVIC RE STATION E
M OT P WORTH
T HUNTER STREE
N 0 50 100 200m
18 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA TWO: CIVIC Proposed Plan
THROSBY BASIN
rf Heritage Wha LIST OF IMPROVEMENTS Building 1) New street and development of an Artist District, adding vitality and connection between the Civic District and the Entertainment and Tourist district developing at the Forecourt for waterfront. Heritage Wharf Building 2) Introduction of a new street to provide a treed ‘boulevard’ connection between the civic precinct and the waterfront
3) Realignment of the roads in the ‘square about’ to provide green space and the extension of the grape vine planting on the south west side and the introduction of a forecourt in front of the heritage wharf building (possible site of maritime museum)
4) Provision of parking station and onstreet parking (original Honeysuckle masterplan)
Extension of Lee Wharf Development Grape Vine Planting L E DRIVE (Proposed DA) C K ailway YSU N HeritageR E s E rkshop H ON Wo ing W ritage Build Existing He iety) ne Soc S (Hunter Valley Wi T
R New NCC E
E Building
T (proposed in Civic Masterplan) R
T
H PLAPLACE
et New Stre
T T R E E T E R S H U N AUC
K L N AND S
0 20 50 100m Transport Easement
T
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 19 AREA TWO: CIVIC 3D Massing Model of Existing
20 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA TWO: CIVIC 3D Massing Model of Proposed
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 21 AREA TWO: CIVIC Photo of Existing
Lane behind Civic Station, looking west
22 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA TWO: CIVIC Character Sketch
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 23 AREA THREE: NEWCASTLE Photos of Existing
1. Hunter Street Pedestrian Mall 4. Scott Street from Pedestrian Overpass Perkins Street
5. Foreshore from Queens Wharf Pedestrian Overpass 2. Hunter Street Pedestrian Mall 7. Queens Wharf Pedestrian Overpass from Hunter Street Pedestrian Mall
QUEENS WHARF
WHARF ROAD
SCOTT STREE T
T E PEDE E S TRIA N M ALL STR
S T
E
KIN E
R
PE STR
E T
E
E
3. Foreshore from Pedestrian Overpass Perkins Street WOLF 6. Scott Street from Queens Wharf Pedestrian Overpass STR
N
COME
W
E
N Photo Key
24 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA THREE: NEWCASTLE Overview
DESCRIPTION OPPORTUNITES FOR THE RAIL CORRIDOR
Currently the train corridor running from Brown Street to Watt Street in the City of Newcastle is limiting the possible north-south Connections connections between the city of Newcastle and the foreshore park. If the heavy rail line was removed, the priority for the rail corridor The proposal illustrated here is the extension of the existing street structure though to the foreshore. This facilitates the introduction land in this area would be to facilitate connection between the city and the waterfront. In developing the proposal an easement has of north-south vehicle and pedestrian links that connect the new development along the waterfront to the existing city, and the been preserved for possible future provision of light rail or a bus transit way. existing city to the foreshore.
Priority Hunter Street pedestrian mall, the retail centre and the Waterfront Introduce connections from the city to the waterfront and extend the city to the water. Currently the Hunter Street pedestrian mall is connected to the foreshore via a pedestrian overpass and rail bridges. These bridges could be demolished and replaced by an at-grade pedestrian plaza between Wolfe Street and Newcomen Street, edged by development to provide activation. As part of such a scheme the Newcastle Signal box would be preserved and adaptively reused due to its heritage significance. A shared zone is proposed on both Wharf Road and Scott Street corresponding with the plaza.
The positioning of the pedestrian plaza reflects the historic axis of the Christ Church Cathedral and the Market Square and formalises the connection of the city/pedestrian mall/retail centre to the foreshore.
Future Transport An easement is proposed that allows for the possible future introduction of light rail or a bus transit way. Provision has also been made for a bus (current) or light rail (future) terminus on the land currently occupied by Newcastle Station.
Heritage Adaptive reuse into retail or commercial of the Newcastle Station. This would encourage the opening out of the building onto Scott Street to provide an active street frontage.
Built form Also proposed is the addition of mixed use buildings on the new blocks resulting from the extension of the city’s street grid to Wharf Road. These will contribute to the revitalisation of Newcastle city centre, the viability of the mall and provide active street frontages and passive surveillance onto the foreshore.
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 25 AREA THREE: NEWCASTLE Aerial of Existing HUNTER RIVER
WHARF ROAD
S COT T T ST E REE E T T
R E T E (P S R ED T T E N ST E RIA S N W E M S AL O R L)
R IN T
B S
T ERK E P LFE E O R W T HU NTE S R S T T N RE E ET E E
M R KIN O T G C ST S RE T E W N T E E E N R LTO
O ST B T
T A
W
CHU RCH STR EET
T YRR ELL STR EET
N 0 50 100 200m 26 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA THREE: NEWCASTLE Proposed Plan
Queens Wharf
W H A R F ROAD
Proposed Mixed R F ROAD Proposed Mixed Existing W H A Use Proposed Mixed Signal Box Use Use Proposed Pedestrian Proposed Mixed Proposed Mixed Plaza Use Proposed Mixed Use Use Pro pose d Bu s Term inus
Ada ptive Ne Reu wca se of stle S tation S C OT T S T RE E T Exis ting Pede strian Mall
T
E
PERKINS STREET RE
T HU N T E WOLFE STREET RS T T RE E E T
N RE T KING STREET COMEN S T S 0 25 60 125m E
Transport Easement NEW RE
T List of Improvements S
T 4) Improvement to the pedestrian amenity along Scott Street BOLTON 1) Connection of the foreshore to the city via an extension of the T by the provision of development with awnings and active city’s street network A frontages along with the planting of street trees. W 2) Demolition of overhead pedestian paths and introduction of an on-ground pedestian plaza connecting existing pedestrian mall to the foreshore
3) Adaptive reuse of the heritage Newcastle Station and the Signal box.
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 27 AREA THREE: NEWCASTLE 3D Massing Model of Existing
28 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA THREE: NEWCASTLE 3D Massing Model of Proposed
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 29 AREA THREE: NEWCASTLE Photo of Existing
Foreshore, Wharf Road, looking east
30 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA THREE: NEWCASTLE Character Sketch
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 31 AREA THREE: NEWCASTLE Photo of Existing
Queens Wharf, looking towards Christ Church Cathedral
32 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA THREE: NEWCASTLE Character Sketch
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 33 AREA THREE: NEWCASTLE Photo of Existing
Scott Street Newcastle, looking East
34 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR DECEMBER 2003 AREA THREE: NEWCASTLE Character Sketch
URBAN DESIGN CONCEPTS DECEMBER 2003 NEWCASTLE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR 35