I Would Like to State First and Foremost That I Am Not Affiliated with Any
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
I would like to state first and foremost that I am not affiliated with any political or action groups and speak here as a long time citizen of inner Newcastle (Newcastle East, Newcastle The Hill and Tighes Hill). I think the rail corridor should be used for the use it was originally designated for: Heavy Rail. I cannot make economic, or otherwise, sense of removing working heavy infrastructure from a major city with a direct link to a capital city as well as the pulse of the region: the Hunter Valley. It just does not make any sense. Re‐install the heavy rail, immediately. You can build over the rail, if you must, for more units and commercial space and interconnectedness between Hunter Street and the harbour. Perhaps reinvigorate the second storey of buildings either side of the rail corridor. Then with all the money saved by not wasting it on the world's shortest tram route spend it on real and useful public transport options. Such as a tram (or other) route from Newcastle heavy rail terminus to Nobby's, Newcastle beach, King Street, Darby St, Bar Beach, The Junction. Or perhaps extend the rail to Wallsend and the build a tram (or other) from the growing residential areas of Cameron Park and Fletcher etc to the new rail at Wallsend or to Cardiff. Perhaps a tram or rail from Nelson Bay, via Newcastle air port, to Newcastle rail station. Maybe a decent ferry route incorporating Carrington/Linwood and lower end of Stockton. My point here is, keep heavy rail in the Newcastle rail corridor. Save your money for other projects that will have a much greater impact. I would vote for that. Name withheld. This is on behalf of all our family NO DEVELOPMENT IN RAIL CORRIDOR, SUPPORT LIGHT-RAIL OR TRAM-TRAINS IF WE CAN’T HAVE TRAINS RETURNED TO NEWCASTLE STATION We are one of the many of the people that support returning train services to Newcastle Station. Since that is not going to happen, the next best alternative is to run either light-rail or tram-trains down the FULL length of the rail corridor from Hamilton to Newcastle Station. No other major city would take efficient and WELL USED trains out of a city – except unless they may have been influenced, possibly by developers? And many believe, that this is nothing more than a land grab, which is what we believe, which will not allow efficient access to Newcastle Harbour. A question that Urban Growth has failed to answer so far, is why have you considered a proposal of building OVER the Central to Eveleigh with the existing rail line and trains running underneath, but will not consider the same option for Newcastle to Wickham? Light-rail or tram-trains along the full length of the Newcastle Rail Line between Newcastle & Wickham or Hamilton would actually benefit development. But it needs to be appropriate development, NOT over or bad development. Development in the rail corridor is over and bad development. The best idea would have been to slow the trains down to tram speed. Urban Growth has claimed that RailCorp is no longer allowed to build new level crossings and that fences need to be built near heavy rail lines. That is totally incorrect, as RailCorp has very recently built new level crossings. And there are many places that have heavy rail lines that go near roads that are not fenced, eg: Bombo & Koorangang Island, are just two of many examples, just in NSW itself. We may not agree with Paul Broad, but he is correct when he states why has the state government allowed Urban Growth to take over? — I believe the all old Store building could be used to provide 'park and ride' facilities for commuters that work in Sydney and the central coast but also provide parking for travellers coming into Newcastle, as there is limited parking in the West end. The Store could also be used to provide an under cover bus interchange ‐ something that would really add value to the project as a whole. The Store could also provide food venders like at Central Station ‐ although you would not want to compete with the Mall development. — I would also like to see a name Change for the railway station when it completed as Wickham is not a destination that those outside of Newcastle would be familiar with ‐ I propose that the new interchange should be called 'Newcastle Gateway Station' to reflect the importance of this project and distinguish it from the existing Newcastle Station. Name withheld. NEWCASTLE CYCLEWAYS MOVEMENT INCORPORATED ABN 12 674 844 570 Submission to Revitalising Newcastle September 2015 From Newcastle Cycleways Movement Inc. Newcastle Cycleways Movement has been the premier advocacy group campaigning for a better environment for cycling in the greater Newcastle region since 1977. As an affiliated Bicycle User Group (BUG) of Bicycle NSW we represent hundreds of their members in our region. We are pleased to be able to participate in this consultation process because of the importance of Hunter Street and the parallel rail corridor in the future transport solution for a revitalised Newcastle CBD. Getting it right now, by ensuring the adopted plans are following the leading global best practice trends of encouragement of active transport is going to be far cheaper than repairing mistakes and retrofitting compromised solutions to problems not addressed, sometime in the future. NCM has actively participated in local government and state government consultations in a spirit of good, since our formation. We only participate again, in this process, in the sincere expectation that this is a genuine open minded consultation and our ideas and contribution will be fairly considered. This submission addresses only the transport and related issues relevant to the cycling interests of NCM, and does not intend to address the merit or other of increasing inner city population, or repurposing Newcastle railway station. The issues presented have been discussed in the NCM committee but may not represent the opinions of all members. NCM’s previously stated positions NCM has always supported the retention of a mass transport rail services into the CBD that encourages cycling as part of a mixed mode transport solution. We have also supported the expansion of the rail network and improvements to the service quality. If this is done through a transition to light rail, then this new service must also be able to support the carriage of bicycles to accommodate mixed mode travel. NCM supports the cycleways plan for Hunter Street as proposed in the Newcastle council document Trial Changes to Hunter Street, Sept 13. That plan outlined a pair of separated, one-direction lanes down either side of Hunter Street with bicycle users travelling in the same direction as the motor vehicle traffic. 4 solutions proposed by Revitalising Newcastle NCM does not support any of the 4 proposed concepts for the rail corridor and Hunter Street, as provided for discussion in the survey. While there may be some merit in them, they do not acknowledge the need for protected cycle lanes down both sides of Hunter Street. All of the options focus on one consideration for the light rail route coming out of the existing rail corridor at Worth Place thus making it difficult to include the separated cycle lanes in the rest of Hunter Street further east. If it is the government’s intention to consider some development in the existing rail corridor, there is nothing restricting that future development from including light rail at ground level, and appropriate scaled development above. On several occasions, in previous presentations, plans by council, or other public opinions expressed, it has been proposed to put a cycleway along the existing rail corridor. NCM would strongly advise against this because in our experienced opinion, for the reasons listed below, this option would produce a very poor cycleway, with comparatively low patronage compared with the paired one direction option in Hunter Street. 1. The existing buildings have all been developed with frontages to either Hunter Street or Wharf road, or other minor streets. Therefore the visual appeal for cycling through this area would be very minimal. It would take extensive refurbishment of these buildings to rectify this orientation, and considering most of these buildings are privately owned this refurbishment is not likely to take place without extensive public funding. The lack of frontage to this corridor will make this an unsafe corridor with very little passive surveillance compared to shop front placed cycle lanes. 2. Cycling in the back lane, as it were, does not appeal to cyclists who are going into the CBD for a commercial reason, as the preferred option will be to ride on the road to the front door. Even if cyclists chose to ride a “rail corridor” cycleway to the block containing their destination, in many cases they would still be required to ride along Hunter Street, or others, to get to their destination. 3. A large portion of the existing rail corridor east of Merewether Street, through to the last big building north of the corridor, the Fair work Commission building, is in shadow for the majority of the day through winter. The nature of the existing buildings and Foreshore Park also make this corridor quite the wind tunnel. This corridor is cold and windy, exactly the opposite conditions that make cycling appealing. 4. The greatest return on investment for the State government, in building a separated cycleway system, would be from placing it along Hunter Street. There have been many studies into the spending habits of the bicycle commuter or comparing different modes of transport.