MOD 2 - Central Walk

Please consider the need for an undercover secure bike storage area at Central station, similar to ones currently being rolled out across other stations in Sydney.
(http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/opalactivated-bike-sheds-give-options-to-sydney-commuters-20160603-gpanp6.html)

Currently the small amount of outdoor bike racks are insufficient to meet the current demand, and are subject to bike theft and weather. Secure, high capacity bike storage at major trains stations mean that commuting cyclists that use the train can leave the bike at a station rather than bring it on a train with them.

Bike storage is cheap and easy to implement, and can provide for many more people than the equivalent number of car spaces.

The overall concept of Central Walk is excellent.

But it is incredibly short sighted not to extend it to go all the way through the station to connect to the Broadway side as well. It is so obvious that is needed and adding it in future will only be more expensive. Do the project properly - once. Platforms 1-12 have a fair bit of spare capacity at the moment so, even if the extended tunnel couldn't be mined and had to be done as cut and cover, taking some of those platforms out of service periodically as the tunnel progressed wouldn't cripple operations.

Users from the Broadway side wanting the suburban platforms currently have to walk all the way through Devonshire St tunnel (often very crowded and only going to get worse) or the Grand Concourse. If in future they want the Metro they'll either still have to use that tunnel then come half way back through Central Walk (crazy) - or walk above ground through the Grand concourse and then down. Neither makes sense.

Another possibility might be to at least add a link from the Devonshire St tunnel down to the far end of the Metro platforms? It must run pretty close.

I suggest that central walk include a tunnel under Elizabeth St, with an entry/exit point at Centennial plaza.

At peak hours, there is too many people queuing in front of Woolworths, with people sometimes being forced onto the street.

An access point at Centennial plaza would mean people coming/going from north east Surry Hills could access the tunnel.

The eastern entrance proposed at 20-28 Chalmers Street should open onto Randle Lane at rear of the site as well as Chalmers Street to provide easy access to the area south/east of Central Station.

EAGLE PARTNERS
TRANSPORT CONSULTANTS
21 ST. GEORGES CRESCENT, DRUMMOYNE, NSW, 2047.

NSW Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39, SYDNEY, NSW, 2001.

Attention: Director - Transport Assessments,

Dear Sir / Madam,

SUBMISSION, RE -

APPLICATION NO. SSI 15_7400 MOD 2.
SYDNEY METRO - CHATSWOOD TO SYDENHAM - "CENTRAL WALK"

Display advertisements in the Sydney press of 21 June 2017 invited public comment on a proposed modification to a current planning approval for Sydney Metro Central Station, which would incorporate a new eastern entrance and underground pedestrian passage, described as "Central Walk", and escalator access to the new and existing platforms. The closing date for submissions was to be 2 August 2017.

We support the proposal, with the following conditions.

1 - TOTAL TRAVEL TIMES, AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE WEST.

Transport for NSW's Design Guidelines for Sydney Metro require that station designs "optimise timeliness" and "reflect pedestrian desire lines" (3.1.2).

Earlier public documents released by Sydney Metro confirmed the need to reduce door-to-door travel times, and not just the on-train travel times. Chapter 6 of the current "Central Walk Modifications Report" continues to refer to improving accessibility and connectivity. However, it only promises that "provision" has been made for extending Central Walk to the west, or Pitt Street end of the station at some indeterminate future date.

The Report records that, of customers leaving the station in the morning peak, 36% exit to the west (9.2.2, p.105). This figure is higher than that for any of the other exits.

The document's analysis of expected pedestrian movements in the underground passages is noted (Chapter 10). However, that analysis focuses on coping with anticipated congestion. It does not consider minimising passenger walk-up times, or pedestrian desire lines.

If this Modification is approved as is, pedestrians from the west of the station must continue to access the station via the northern concourse or the eastern concourse. Both routes are circuitous and therefore time-consuming.

There are, even today, at least four major tertiary institutions immediately to the west of Central Station. They generate large numbers of public transport trips. There is also a large bus interchange at Railway Square. These significant generators of train and Metro passengers deserve infrastructure which will minimise walk-up times.

Pedestrian access between the southern end of the Metro concourse and Railway Square must therefore be improved. One option would be a 150m long pedestrian tunnel between the southern end of the Metro concourse and Henry Dean Plaza. Given the density of current pedestrian flows to and from the west and south-west of the station, and the likelihood that those numbers will increase markedly over time, we believe such a pedestrian tunnel can be justified on cost-benefit grounds. It should be in place for the commencement of Metro services.

It should be a Condition of any Approval of this Application that direct pedestrian access be provided between the Metro concourse and Henry Dean Plaza.

2 - PROVISION OF "LOW-TECH" INFORMATION.

Quoting Metro's 19-page "Central Walk" brochure dated June 2017, "State-of-the-art technology will keep customers connected at all stages of their journey, from smart phone travel apps, to real-time journey information at metro stations and on-board trains". This enthusiasm for incorporating modern technology is understood and commended, but it should not be at the expense of making life more difficult for those passengers not immediately equipped to take advantage of it.

There is a need for a satisfactory level of "low-tech", or paper-based Metro information, required by those in the community who, for a variety of reasons, may not at any given moment have access to hand-held electronic devices.

The Legislative Assembly Committee on Community Services, in its December 2016 Report, said, in Recommendation No. 11, "That Transport for NSW publish travel information in paper format. It should be in locations where it is easily available to people who do not have access to
online information, such as community centres and doctors' surgeries in rural and regional areas."

The NSW Government, in its response dated April 2017, supported the Committee's recommendations.

We expect Transport for NSW and Sydney Metro to comply with government policy. Such compliance should be a Condition of any Approval of this Application.

3 - CESSATION OF THE "METRO" BRAND.

At an appropriate time, the "Metro" branding for this project should cease.

So far as the travelling public is concerned, this new railway is just that - a new railway. Retaining the Metro brand is unnecessary. It will be confusing for the thousands of travellers who will use Sydney's railway network over the coming years. It will complicate the provision of wayfinding and service information. The potential for this confusion is already illustrated by the unnecessarily complex destination signage depicted in the artist's impressions of Central Walk in the public promotional material. Also, the artist's impressions in the Central Walk brochure dated June 2017 clearly show Sydney Metro Northwest as part of the Sydney Trains network, which it is not.

Metro's ticketing and fares are to be integrated with the other modes of public transport in Sydney; specifically, Sydney Trains. The new railway's service information, wayfinding, stations and platforms should be similarly integrated. In particular, the Central Station Metro platforms should be numbered sequentially to reflect their physical location, and to conform with the platform numbers already in existence at Central, even if some existing platforms would need to be re-numbered. It would help in wayfinding.

4 - METRO WEST

In November 2016 the government announced plans for a second Sydney metro - Metro West, to be operational some time after 2025. There has been no public announcement as to whether, or where, the two metro lines will intersect. On the assumption that they will intersect, it is important to minimise overall travel times for passengers by minimising transfer times between the two lines. One obvious point of intersection to be considered would be Central.

Whilst it is too late for Metro West to be considered under this Application to Modify Approval, the Department of Planning (or other body) should promptly initiate measures to arrange for the Central Metro platforms, as currently planned, to be reconfigured into a "stacked" arrangement, one above the other, to leave open the option of having the two Metro West platforms arranged alongside, for "across-the-platform, same-direction" interchange between the two Metro lines.

It should be a Condition of any Approval for this Application that a cost/benefit analysis of the reconfigured Central Metro platforms be investigated.

5 - DECLARATION
No reportable political donations have been made by the authors of this document in the previous two years.

Kevin Eadie
Partner
Eagle Partners.

[email protected]

31 July 2017.
f - MetroCentWlk1

Dear Sir / Madam,

RE - SYDNEY METRO - CHATSWOOD TO SYDENHAM - "CENTRAL WALK"

Public comment was invited in the Sydney press of 21 June 2017 on a proposed modification to current planning approval for Sydney Metro Central Station, to incorporate a new eastern entrance and underground pedestrian passage, described as "Central Walk", with escalator access to the new and existing platforms by 2 August 2017.

10,000 Friends of Greater Sydney (FROGS) give our support to the proposal generally accepting the views expressed by Kevin Edie of Transport Consultants Eagle Partners.
FROGS particularly stresses the need for the new pedestrian way to connect to pedestrian destinations on the western side of Central, especially to provide as direct access as possible to the major tertiary institutions on the western side and also to the existing bus interchange.
Secondly with this new connection it will be most important to provide clear signage for users to capture the accessibility benefits of the proposal.



Yours faithfully




Desmond Dent CEO

Desmond Dent
Secretary and CEO
10000 Friends of Greater Sydney

It is disappointing that this plan will do nothing to alleviate the existing peak-hours crowding of the Devonshire St < > Railway Square pedestrian tunnel. Indeed, will probably make things worse. This walkway is usually at, and often over, safe capacity during peak hours. I have seen a couple examples of "pedestrian rage" (like 'road rage') and many instances of encounters which could easily head that way. Would be a prime target for anyone who wanted to make mischief.

The modification of the approved Sydney Metro project to include a new eastern concourse and Chalmers St entry to Central Station is supported.

I would like to raise one issue that may be considered not within scope of the proposed modification, but is however relevant to the metro project and its overall pedestrian connectivity at Central Station.

As depicted in Figure 2-2 of the modification report, the existing concourse for the Eastern Suburbs railway, as constructed in the 1970s, provides the only north to south accessible flow between Central Station's other concourses, and from the Devonshire Street tunnel.

This degree of connectivity is not being replicated with the new north to south Metro concourse indicated in the approved project - namely, there is no reference to a southern entry and exit from the metro concourse in the figures provided.

It is appreciated that some 'back of house' infrastructure may be required in association with the concourse level of the metro. However, it remains a substantial missed opportunity not to contemplate a ticketed entry into the metro concourse from the Devonshire tunnel. Using the scale provided on Fig 2-2, a southern ticket gate into the metro concourse would reduce the interchange distance for pedestrians from the Railway Square buses hub by some 200-250 metres.

All other aspects of the proposed new pedestrian network and street-level entry are well conceived and worthy of support.

I propose the new stations be built east of the current Rail system on Chalmers street.
All efforts should be made to preserve the current precinct of Sydney Terminal- Platforms 1 to 15.

Dear Sir,

This project places the Metro in the wrong location.
The Metro or whatever system is being introduced to achieve travel to the Sydney's north-west should be located east of the current Central station platforms 16 to 24.
This would preserve the heritage status of Sydney Terminal consistent with the objective to
"Accentuate Central Station as a grand heritage asset"
It would also critically allow for future expansion of terminating trains at Sydney Terminal such as for high speed rail links to the Illawarra south western or northern railway and reduce the congestion of Sydney Terminal and Central placing the Metro inconveniently under platforms 12, 13, 14 and 15, and introducing there associated vertical transport (lifts and escalators).
Currently public transport is increasing by 68% on weekends as well as increases yearly for commuter work requirements and general travel. The need for more terminating platforms at Sydney Terminal will arise quite quickly in the coming decade requiring a more terminals and a maximum of space.
By placing the Metro east of Central station platforms 16 to 24 the following would achieve the objectives stated on Page 23 of the report as follows:

2.3 Central Station objectives
The objectives to support Transport for NSW's vision for the Central Station precinct are:
1. Provide an intuitive and easy to use station environment for customers
In this regard the new platforms would be intuitive and easy to access from the east
2. Accentuate Central Station as a grand heritage asset
The heritage nature of the building would preserved and no damage would be inflicted in any construction phase for the new railway.
3. Re-establish Central as an iconic destination within an expanded CBD footprint
Sydney Terminal is already one of the leading iconic buildings in Sydney and has been since construction and its opening 4th August 1906. Placing the new railway to the east expands its footprint.
4. Develop a highly functional multi-modal transport interchange that accommodates long-term demand
This proposal makes the interchange faster without having to build a further tunnel system under Central station. The more tunnels the greater the threat of terrorism and loss of safety with underground evacuation and rescue.
5. Improve accessibility, permeability and connectivity within and across the station precinct
By placing the new platforms east of Platforms 16 to 24 greater ease exiting the station and reduced congestion would be achieved.
This could be handsomely achieved by widening the existing northern pedestrian tunnel system.

It is also noted in the Executive study under the section Environmental assessment on page iii
The current proposed modification would primarily support the objectives regarding the efficient operation of the station,
but,.....
despite this, a number of adverse environmental impacts would remain. These include:
Direct and indirect impacts to the State heritage listed Sydney Terminal and Central Railway Station group, and demolition of the locally listed Bounce Hostel (former MGM) building
Building the new platforms east of Platforms 16 to 24 would eradicate this concern.

This suggestion would be quite cost effective saving excessive tunnelling under platforms 16 to 24. It would also save the cost of moving the platforms 1 to further out in to Sydney yard.
I would oppose any further intensification of suburban traffic in or around the terminating platforms of Sydney Terminal platforms 1 to 15.

Ian Hill

City of Sydney submission

OEH's Greater Sydney Planning Team has no formal comments to make regarding flood risk, biodiversity or Aboriginal cultural heritage. We have no further need to be involved in the assessment of this proposal.

Please note that the Heritage Division in the Office of Environment and Heritage may wish to provide separate comments.

Please see attached.

See attached PDF

Submission on behalf of constituents

Submission from DPI

NSW Environment Protection Authority submission

City of Sydney submission

Heritage Council of NSW submission