Comments by Robin Sandell on Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056

1. Executive Summary

The rapid population growth forecast for over the next 40 years creates enormous challenges for mobility and the quality of life of its residents. The current high level of dependency on cars is not sustainable in a city with a total population that could exceed 8 million by 2056. Reducing car dependency requires a concerted effort to:

 Improve the design of public transport networks, cycling infrastructure and pedestrian friendly streets. The objective should be to make sustainable transport a realistic alternative to the car for all travel needs, not just the journey to work.  Adopt a fare structure that promotes more use of public transport, including periodical ticket products which offer significant savings over single fares. The current “pay as you go” model is not effective as it encourages users to ration their travel on public transport.  Adopt demand management strategies that make car travel less attractive.

A number of specific improvements are proposed to make the Sydney more useful and efficient:

 A reconfiguration of the network to create pulse interchanges at and Barangaroo, with timed transfers scheduled between lines at these two hubs. This would lead to an almost four-fold increase in network connectivity, a safer, less congested Sydney Cove and a reduction in State Government subsidies.  Better integration of non-regulated ferries with the regulated Sydney Ferry system, which would facilitate expansion of ferry services to the Bays Precinct, including the Sydney Fish Markets and Glebe Point.  Equalisation of fares across all modes of public transport, including ferries. Differences in cost per passenger journey or cost per passenger km between modes are small and do not justify the complexity of having different fares for different modes.

1

2. General Observations

The draft transport strategy appears to be built around two main guiding principles:

 Need to plan transport infrastructure to support a metropolis of three cities - the Harbour CBD, Greater and Badgerys Creek/Aerotropolis  A desire to increase the proportion of residents “who live within 30 minutes of their jobs, education and health facilities, services and great places”.

While I have no objection to these objectives, the document would be strengthened if it had a greater focus on strategies to reduce the dependency of Sydney on private more vehicles and set explicit, achievable mode shift targets. There are currently no targets in the plan for reducing car mode share or increasing sustainable mode shares, including public transport, cycling and pedestrian journeys.

The report reads as though the transport plans are built around what is necessary to achieve the three city/ 30 minute city outcome, rather what is needed to reduce car dependence or increase sustainable transport.

The companion plan prepared by the Greater Sydney Commission forecasts that, even with the three city strategy, most growth will be around the Eastern Harbour CBD. The population of the area described as the Eastern Harbour CBD is expected to grow to nearly 3.5 million, with significant growth in density. This points to the need for a high frequency grid public transport network within the Eastern Harbour CBD area, which offers a similar level of connectivity as the London Underground, or Singapore or Paris Metros. This would provide multi-destination mobility and lead to a substantial mode shift from cars to public transport.

3. Financial Sustainability

The report is correct to highlight the decline in farebox recovery in NSW. It is true that London public transport fares are higher than Sydney’s but the report is misleading in relation to Munich fares (page 94) and needs to be corrected. Munich fares are only more expensive in relation to single trip fare products.

Munich, like most continental European cities, has high farebox recovery and high public transport mode share. Also like most European cities, residents predominantly use periodical fare products - weekly, fortnightly or monthly travel passes - which provide very substantial discounts for regular users. This is demonstrated in the table below, which shows current Munich fares in $A based on the current exchange rate (source: http://www.mvv-muenchen.de/en/tickets- fares/fares/index.html#c7013 )

Examples of Munich Public Transport Fares:

Single Trip Single tickets Tariff Zone 1 $4.34 Tariff Zone 2 $8.68

Weekly Monthly Periodical tickets Up to 2 rings $23.25 $84.48 Up to 3 rings $28.21 $101.99 Up to 4 rings $33.48 $121.21

2

Sydney no longer has a periodical fare option, but prior to the implementation of the Opalcard, MyMulti weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual passes were available. When a single bus ticket fare was $2.10, the corresponding MyMulti 1 weekly fare was $43. This means the ratio of single to weekly fares in Sydney was 1:20, compared to 1:5 in Munich.

The approach taken in Munich and many other European cities is therefore to make periodical ticket products far more attractive than single tickets, so use of periodical tickets is standard practice. Passengers with periodical tickets are less inclined to ration public transport use to only those journeys where it is essential, like travel to work.

Unfortunately the fare structure in Sydney has never provided strong incentives to use periodical tickets and they are now not available under the Opalcard system. This contributes to low utilisation of capacity in off peak periods and less efficiency in public transport operations1.

4. Ferry Network

4.1 Issues with current network

Sydney Ferries perform an important role in Sydney’s public transport network, carrying over 40,000 passengers each day. They are also a major tourist attraction for the city. Ferries are rated in the top 2% of Sydney’s attractions by the travel website Trip Advisor.

Given the low mode share of ferries, however, it is understandable that they do not feature prominently in the Future Transport Strategy. Perhaps separate strategies for each mode, including a ferry plan, would make useful supplementary documents. Even without a separate ferry specific plan, it would be helpful for the Future Transport Strategy to address some of the pressing issues in waterborne transport.

While valuable improvements are being made to the ferry fleet, wharf infrastructure and network design, some aspects of the system need attention to make ferries more efficient and more useful for passengers:

 line connectivity: with 36 ferry wharves in the current network across eight routes, there is potential to connect 630 origin-destination (OD) pairs. But the current line structure, which follows a conventional radial pattern focussed on trips to and from Circular Quay, only makes limited provision for timed transfers. This reduces the range of destinations that can be reached conveniently by ferry. Line connectivity is now improved between Watsons Bay and through implementation of the Cross Harbour Service. All day timed transfers are now possible between Cockatoo Island and Double Bay, but timed transfers are not scheduled between other lines. Only 115 O-D pairs in total have convenient all day connections  passenger loading speed: current Sydney Ferries gangway technology does not support rapid passenger loading. This adds to travel time for passengers, is cost inefficient and affects service reliability during periods of heavy demand, especially on Sundays and during events like the Vivid Festival.

1 A contrary view is presented by the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART), which argues that greater efficiency is achieved if users ration their public transport use. The overwhelming international evidence suggests that IPART is not correct, hence the widespread use of heavily discounted periodical fares in European cities like Munich, Berlin and Zurich. Encouraging residents to ration public transport use actually reduces public transport mode share and leads to less efficient utilisation of capacity in off-peak periods.

3

 sharing Sydney’s busy waterways: Sydney Ferries compete with other vessel traffic on our waterways, including cruise ships, non-regulated ferries and recreational boats. More structured management of vessel movements is necessary, especially in Sydney Cove, to avoid congestion.  integration with non regulated ferries: the expansion of non regulated ferry operators is welcome, but to be effective these services need to better integrated with regulated Sydney Ferry services, both in scheduling and ticketing. 4.2 Recommended Solution

A more sophisticated approach is needed to network design and timetabling. For networks where demand does not justify high frequency services (ie services which operate at intervals of 15, 30 or 60 minutes, or more), world best practice is to adopt integrated pulse timetables2. This approach is now widely followed in continental European countries including Switzerland, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Belgium. Networks optimise connectivity between lines and between modes by ensuring transfers at network interchanges are timed appropriately, even where headways are set at 30 or 60 minutes. The key to the riddle is that the circle time of each route (time required for the vehicle/vessel to make its round trip, including layovers at either end) is a whole integer multiple of the headway.

If applied to Sydney Ferries, passengers travelling on any service from Barangaroo to Circular Quay, for example, would be able to transfer at the Quay for an onward journey to Manly, Watsons Bay, Neutral Bay or any other destination east of Circular Quay, with just a short waiting time in both the outbound and inbound directions.

To achieve this outcome, some reconfiguration is necessary to simplify the network and de-clutter Circular Quay. The best option would be for lines originating west of the Harbour Bridge to terminate at Barangaroo and lines from the east to terminate at Circular Quay. The Quay is linked to Barangaroo by the Barangaroo line. Ferries would arrive at Circular Quay a few minutes before the hour and half hour, and depart a few minutes after the hour and half hour.

 In place of the new Cross Harbour service, the Barangaroo route through lines with Taronga Zoo. It can start at White Bay (to coincide with the Bays Precinct development) and terminate at Taronga Zoo via Barangaroo and Circular Quay. This means passengers do not need to change vessels if travelling from White Bay to Taronga Zoo or return.  The Woolwich line terminates at Barangaroo, but passengers can transfer to the Darling Harbour line at Balmain East in order to reach Circular Quay with a transfer wait of four minutes in both directions. There is an option to through line this route to Glebe.  A line would operate to Circular Quay, via McMahons Point and Milsons Point, in peak periods only. All other River services terminate at Barangaroo.  The Double Bay line acquires an extra stop at Elizabeth Bay.  Neutral Bay and Double Bay routes form a through line via Circular Quay.  All routes terminating or through lining at Circular Quay have symmetrical stopping patterns in the inbound and outbound directions.

2 Nielsen, G Nelson, J Mulley, C Tegner, G Lind, G Lange, T (2005) Public Transport – Planning the Networks HiTrans Best Practice Guide 2: Interreg IIIB European Union. Stavanger.

4

So long as pulse scheduling “rules” are met, many variations on this configuration can be designed with the same or similar improvements in connectivity.

The concept of a “through line” has already been adopted by Transport for NSW in the new Cross Harbour service which connects the Watsons Bay and Barangaroo routes from 26 November. This particular combination is not ideal, however, as the two routes do not have a complementary demand profile. Demand in the Eastern Suburbs requires a 20 minute frequency service in the week- day AM and PM peaks, but a 30 minute frequency is adequate for the Barangaroo section.

Figure 1: Proposed reconfiguration of Sydney Ferry network

The final design of the future ferry network depends in part on decisions about other modes. For example, the proposed light rail service from Sydney Olympic Park to Parramatta removes the need for Sydney Ferry services to continue west of Wentworth Point. Speed restrictions, shallow water levels and a narrow navigation channel significantly impair the usefulness of a ferry service to Parramatta. The capacity for ferry passengers to transfer at Wentworth Point to the light rail service would be a better outcome for passengers than continuing to operate the ferry to Parramatta.

Integrated pulse timetables are periodic. What happens in one period is repeated all day, seven days a week, but there is scope to slot in extra services during peak periods without changing the underlying off peak pattern. For example, services from Sydney Olympic Park to Barangaroo move from 30 minute intervals outside peak periods to 15 minutes in the peak. The same would happen with Rose Bay.

The network reconfiguration proposed above “de-clutters” Circular Quay:

 Services to Taronga Zoo and Barangaroo depart from Wharf 5 East and West. These could be operated by the new Emerald class vessels only, so it is possible for the pontoon deck to be aligned to the vessel freeboard to facilitate faster passenger loading.  Services to Mosman, Neutral Bay and Double Bay depart from Wharf 4 and could all be operated by Class vessels. The Mosman ferry arrives first on the western side of the pontoon, unloads passengers and moves into the “corner”. The ferry to Neutral Bay arrives five minutes later, also on the western side. It leaves first, allowing the Mosman ferry

5

to move out of the corner, load passengers and depart five minutes later. The Double Bay ferry departs from the eastern side of the pontoon.  Manly ferry services continue to operate from Wharf 3.  Rose Bay/Watson Bay services, operated by SuperCats, depart from Wharf 2 west. The eastern side of Wharf 2 is available for out of service vessels or non-regulated ferries. This is a structured approach instead of the current non-regular pattern of vessel berthings. There is scope for either additional services to be slotted in during peak periods, or for cruise ship and tourist vessel movements to be scheduled between ferry departures and ferry arrivals.

Figure 2: Proposed scheduling of ferry berthings at Circular Quay

4.3 Passenger benefits

The reconfiguration will substantially increase the usefulness of ferries for residents and tourists:

 Convenient connections occur consistently at all nodes in the network, including Circular Quay. The number of origin-destination pairs with convenient connections all day increase from 115 to 419 (maximum of one transfer; transfer wait of 5 to 11 minute at Circular Quay and 4 to 10 minutes at other nodes ).  Intermodal connections are also improved because nodes in the network can become pulse interchanges for bus services (eg at Sydney Olympic Park and Rose Bay).  The timetable is strictly clock-face. The timetable is very memorable because ferries always depart at the same minute intervals all day and on week-ends, with additional services scheduled in peak periods as required.  Services for a particular route always depart from the same boarding point at Circular Quay.

The transfer wait for ferries hubbing at Circular Quay is in the range of 5 to 11 minutes for all combinations except Manly- Mosman connections, which are 13 minutes. Walking distance for all

6 transfers have been measured to ensure all connections can be made comfortably with a 4 km/h walking speed and a two minute buffer in case of minor delays.

The proposed allocation of arrivals and departures to wharves at Circular Quay makes it possible to align pontoon decks with vessel freeboards. This allows more advanced gangway technology to be used at Circular Quay for faster passenger loading and fewer delays.

4.4 Operational and safety benefits

The improved connectivity is achieved with about the same revenue hours compared to the current timetable (less than 1% increase) and no increase in peak vessel requirements. The modularity of the timetable will lead to rostering efficiencies, so a future operator can deliver the ferry service at a lower cost per revenue hour. This means that even with modest increases in patronage and farebox revenue, the proposed timetable will require significantly less government subsidy.

The network has a modular structure, which makes it easy to increase service frequencies or add extra services providing they conform with integrated pulse timetabling rules. New lines or line extensions can be added as modules, without disturbing the existing network structure. This can include additional services for events, such as festivals at Cockatoo Island or permanent line extensions and extra peak services.

Two features of the timetable will significantly reduce safety risks and address issues raised in the recent Office of Transport Safety Investigations report on harbour congestion:

 The time separation of arriving and departing vessels at Circular Quay avoids the risk of a reversing ferry colliding with an arriving ferry.  The repeating pattern of the timetable makes vessel movements regular and more predictable. It allows ferry masters to anticipate possible risks and makes it easier to eliminate systemic causes of safety risk. 4.5 Waterway management

The proposal allows other waterway users to operate with less interference by or to ferry operations. Outside of the peaks, there will be two 15 minute periods every hour in Sydney Cove when ferries are neither arriving nor departing Circular Quay. This creates a window for cruise ships or tourist vessels to safely navigate in Sydney Cove and address many of the concerns raised by the Office of Transport Safety Investigations about congestion in Sydney Cove.

4.6 Options for future contracting

Although there is a high level of connectivity in the proposed network, individual lines or pairs of lines operate independently so it would be possible for the NSW Government in the future to contract these out to separate operators, either individually or in “chunks”. This would be invisible to passengers if the is used by all operators. This is similar to the model adopted for the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (MRT).

It would also allow tourist ferry operators, such as the Captain Cook “tubby boats”, to integrate their timetabled services with Sydney Ferries. For example, tubby boats could operate between Barangaroo and the Sydney Fish Markets, with timetables co-ordinated so passengers from the Fish Markets can transfer conveniently to a Circular Quay, White Bay or Parramatta River ferry.

Depending on decisions taken about the Glebe Island Bridge, either Tubby boats or an Inner Harbour class ferry could operate between Barangaroo and Glebe Point.

7

Integration of non-regulated ferries with regulated Sydney Ferry services could substantially increase the connectivity of the network, but does depend on all operators accepting the Opalcard and Barangaroo operating as a pulse hub.

4.7 Transition

Successful implementation of this model requires a considered approach to fleet replacement and infrastructure planning. A possible timeline is provided in the table below:

Stage Year Network changes Fleet/ infrastructure 1. 2018 or 2019  Implement model proposed  Build new wharf at Elizabeth Bay. in Figure 1, except for White  Lady Class vessels retired; Six Bay component. Emerald Class vessels in service.  Implement CQ berthing  All four SuperCats retained or plan shown in Figure 2. Watsons Bay/ Rose Bay line contracted to separate operator  Upgrade Watsons Bay wharf to floating pontoon 2. Circa 2025  Implement full model  Build new wharf at White Bay. proposed in Figure 1,  Relocate Pyrmont Bay wharf to including White Bay end of Wharf 8/9. component and Glebe if  Upgrade of Circular Quay to allow required. variable pontoon deck heights  Possibility of combining and new technology for faster Manly services into single passenger loading. fast ferry operation at 15  Possible retirement of Freshwater minute off peak interval and Class of ferries, with all Manly 7.5 or 10 minute peak services contracted to a fast ferry interval. operator. 3. Circa 2030  Retirement of First Fleet Class vessels and replacement with additional Emerald Class vessels.

This transition plan would lead to a simplification of the ferry fleet over time, reducing maintenance costs, lowering crew training costs and creating more flexibility for the deployment of vessels between routes. By around 2030, the Sydney Ferries fleet would comprise one class for River services, one for the Inner Harbour and one for the outer harbour.

4.8 Fares

A significant barrier to patronage growth on ferries is that fares are significantly higher than other modes of transport and fare structures are different:

 Adult Opal ferry fare are $5.88 for 0-9 km; $7.35 if more than 9 km;  Adult Opal bus opal fares are $2.15 for 0-3 km; $3.58 for 3-8 km; and $4.61 for 8+ km;  Adult Opal rail fares are $3.46 ($2.42 off peak) for 0-10 km; $4.30 ($3.01 off peak) for 10 – 20 km (higher rates for longer distances)

These fares are not reflective of the difference in the cost per passenger journey of the three modes. The 2016 NSW Audit Office Report on Transport (Volume 9), shows that the cost of services per passenger journey is $6.00 for buses, $8.40 for ferries and $11.70 for rail. After adjusting for distance

8 travelled, the cost difference per passenger km between buses and ferries are not so different that higher fares for ferry travel are justified. At an individual trip level, the mode differentiation in fares creates significant perverse incentives not to use ferries. For example, the ferry ride from Balmain East to Barangaroo takes six minutes and covers a distance of less than one km. To reach the same destination by bus is a trip of more than 6 km and takes 26 minutes in peak periods (if running to schedule). It would be more efficient to carry passengers by ferry from Balmain East to Barangaroo, with less adverse external effects (road congestion, street amenity etc), than the alternative bus service. But the bus fare is $2.30 cheaper than the ferry fare.

Source: NSW Audit Office, 2016 Financial Audit Report on Transport

It is recommended that the existing differentiation in fares by mode should be removed and that a common fare structure apply to ferries, buses, trains and light rail.

4.9 Conclusion

Ferries are a much loved and iconic part of Sydney. This does not mean they cannot be improved or made more efficient. Reconfiguring the network to provide for multi-destination travel, not just trips to and from the central business district, is a key to ferries contributing more to the public transport task in Sydney.

Adopting integrated pulse timetabling for Sydney Ferries, similar to what has already been demonstrated by Swiss and other European rail systems, will substantially increase the usefulness and efficiency of services. The version of such a network and timetable proposed in this submission a more than four-fold increase in convenient connections between origin and destination points in the ferry network, no increase on current peak vessel requirements and will require less subsidisation from Government.

The proposal also reduces safety risks, increases flexibility for extending services, reduces waterway congestion and provides an opportunity to speed up passenger loading for faster, more reliable services.

The ferry network, fleet and terminal infrastructure are interdependent. It is more efficient and better for passengers if the design of the network is the primary strategic driver. Performance specifications for the fleet and terminal infrastructure can then be developed with more clarity about what is necessary and what is not.

Submission by Robin Sandell, an independent ferry planning consultant (email address: [email protected])

9