Tag: Lilyfield

Submission to the Transport for NSW Haberfield, Ashfield and Leichhardt Local Network Improvements project

On May 15, 2020

I put on my angry (former) local resident hat for this one. The scope of the project can be viewed here for the next 10 days and feedback can be sent to ni@rms.nsw.gov.au.

I came across this road widening project as it affects the immediate vicinity of my proposed metro station Leichhardt North. It’s frustrating to see the state government going in, what I see as, the completely wrong direction. Turning inner city communities over to wider highways and faster roads. Cities around the world are going in a different direction and the Covid-19 pandemic could be our chance to do things better. Unfortunately, this project is probably just about ‘shovel ready’ and so, in a horrible twist of so-Sydney irony, the pandemic might actually justify worse pedestrian amenity.

I encourage anyone affected by this project to make a submission. Here’s mine for inspiration:

I’d like to make a submission regarding the Transport for NSW ‘Haberfield, Ashfield and Leichhardt Local Network Improvements’ project. My objection to this project is that it is focused solely on the movement of vehicles and takes no consideration of pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users or urban amenity.

Part of the justification for the Westconnex project was to reduce the volume of surface traffic and allow surface roads to act as neighbourhood assets rather than high volume, high speed traffic corridors. Given this, why is the City West Link being upgraded to handle ever greater volumes of traffic at the expense of local amenity and less harmful modes of transport? And why does this roughly coincide with the opening of the Westconnex M4 East and Rozelle Interchange projects? Wouldn’t this be the time to look at projects to return surface roads to meet community needs?

The benefits of supporting non-automobile based modes of transport are well documented, but I will touch on them briefly. Active and public transport create healthier and happier communities by reducing the impacts of pollution, encouraging incidental exercise and helping people reconnect with place in their neighbourhoods. Absolutely, through transport is essential in a large city, but a 6 lane toll road that duplicates the City West Link is partially complete already.

The planned developments of this project are particularly problematic because of the nature of accessibility in the area. The Inner West is dense mixed use area and the Bay Run is an extremely popular site of recreation.

The Mortley Ave/Timbrell Drive redesign still fails to feature pedestrian crossings on all 4 roads. Instead, to get from the extremely popular walking and biking route on the Bay Run to Haberfield, one would need to cross the intersection 2-3 times instead of just 1. Yes, the northern side of City West Link is the busiest road in that intersection, however a pedestrian crossing there could be timed with the Timbrell-Mortley movement, with a red left hand turn for the Timbrell traffic if pedestrians are present.

Placing the fast movement of vehicles ahead of all else at this intersection discourages people from enjoying the Bay Run, annexes the recreational spaces from the adjacent residential areas and will lead to frustration for pedestrians and cyclists, dramatically increasing the risk of injury or death to our most vulnerable road users.

This is exactly the kind redesign that goes against the spirit of what Westconnex was supposed to achieve for affected communities. Our harbourside surface roads should be made usable for pedestrians and cyclists as well as cars and trucks.

The planned rebuild of the Norton and James Streets intersection is even more disappointing. The total lack of regard for pedestrians is obvious, as the mapping tool on your consultation portal (https://v2.communityanalytics.com.au/tfnsw/iwlocal/map) showing traffic movements through the new mega-intersection doesn’t even feature pedestrian movements.What is most galling about this is that this isn’t a large remote highway interchange, but is immediately adjacent to a light rail station and several important bus corridors in a walkable neighbourhood.

According to the indicative map a pedestrian trying to simply get from the light rail station to the area around Amato’s bottle shop will need to cross 4 sets of lights, rather than the current 2. Do you honestly expect pedestrians to wait patiently, day in, day out for all these lights to change? People will cross against the lights in frustration at being totally designed out of their neigbourhood and, eventually, someone will be killed.

Waiting on barren concrete traffic islands by large highways is extremely unpleasant and can even feel unsafe at night. This redesign deliberately makes the pedestrian environment much less pleasant and safe and will directly result in less people walking, cycling and using public transport in the immediate area. Thus inducing people to use private vehicles and justifying the sorts of decisions that lead to projects like this in the first place.

This intersection redesign will likely ease congestion on City West Link and in the immediate vicinity, however it will induce extra traffic onto all of the affected roads. None of these roads can handle this. Darling Street in Rozelle is extremely congested, particularly on weekends. Norton Street is a low speed shopping street and bus corridor, not a through road for private vehicles. Darley Street leads to congestion hot spots at Parramatta Road and in Lewisham.

I am not a traffic engineer, however it strikes me that reducing the variety of movements through the intersection could relieve traffic somewhat. Norton Street is an asset to the community and a greater focus should be placed on turning this into a bus, cycling and pedestrian route, as well as maintaining local vehicle access.

Perhaps removing the right turn option from City West Link heading south could free up space in the intersection? Cars and trucks could still use Ramsey Street or turn left onto James and then loop onto Balmain Road. Similarly there is a right turn off City West Link heading north, why does this need to be available? There is already a right hand turn at Balmain Road.

It seems to me the most important movements through the intersection are people continuing on City West Link, traffic heading from Darley citybound on City West Link and vice versa, traffic movements from Darley north to James and vice versa, buses on Norton St and pedestrians coming to and from the light rail station. Let’s think creatively about how we can facilitate all these important movements without marginalising people from the space entirely and further ripping this suburb in two.

We cannot build our way out of traffic congestion in the inner west. The last 50 years of road building is a testament to that. How many communities recreational and other transportation needs must be sacrificed in this pursuit?

I hope that the RMS is able to see beyond a blind desire to increase vehicle movements through this intersection to understand the impacts that successive projects of this nature have on the health, accessibility and livelihoods of the affected communities. Please go back to the drawing board on this project and figure out how Westconnex can be used as an opportunity to return surface roads to the neighbourhoods within which they exist.

Adventures onboard the 445

By Jed C

On January 10, 2019

In Sydney Transport

Last month I explored the idea of a bus route typology; sorting buses into either buses we choose to catch or buses we have to catch. Sydney is rife with places where this antagonism plays out in weird and wonderful ways, but my personal favourite is in the checkered history of the 445 through Leichhardt.

The history of the ‘Balmain to Canterbury line’, as it was once known, is intrinsically tied in to the history of trams in Sydney. The service commenced as a tram in the 1920s until it was closed and replaced by the 445 bus on the 21st of November 1954. The service continued to operate, albeit on rubber instead of steel, for another 46 years until the return of trams to Sydney’s streets precipitated a change to the service.

In August 2000 the light rail was extended to a new terminus at Lilyfield and the 445 was diverted, for the first time in its history, to provide an interchange. This diversion substantially slowed the bus route and made it a much less attractive option for users. So painful was the detour that in the late-2000s a facebook group celebrating the infamous ‘Loop’ appeared, in much the same vein as ‘The universe would cease to exist if the 370 bus came on time‘. The page has since disappeared and if anyone has knowledge of its whereabouts, I’d love to know!

Then, in 2009, realising that the diversion made the 445 all but useless and no one was interchanging to the light rail anyway, State Transit proposed to restore the direct bus route. Obviously something went awry in the community consultation phase (you may recall the days when we had these) because when the bus changes were implemented the deviation continued. Only now it was supplemented with an additional deviation to Marketplace, and a new direct route 444. Both routes were extended to Campsie.

In 2014 the extension of the light rail saw a new station open at Leichhardt North that provided an interchange with the 444, thus completely negating the original justification for the route deviation back in 2000.

Curious as to why the deviation was still in place four years later, I contacted Transport for NSW in September 2018 who advised me that “the route path taken by Route 445 was retained to provide Lilyfield residents continuing direct access to shopping at Leichhardt Market Place and Norton Street, as well as provide interchange opportunities with the Light Rail.”

It seems that the deviation now had a small but vocal constituency who were loathe to have their service taken away. Who can blame them? On the other hand the suggestion that the 445 somehow provided a better light rail connection than the 444 by driving one kilometre down the road is nonsense.

A transport agency that doesn’t know what it wants

When I first started this article in September (I know…) it was business as usual. The 444 and 445 were operating different routes at different times of day as they had since 2009.

It was complicated. And that mere fact that it was complicated isn’t good. As anyone who’s tried to catch public transport outside of their regular commute can attest, simplicity is one of the most important principles of good network design.

In an effort to provide an efficient through service as per the original tram (and then bus) route, as well as please local users of the modified 445, Transport for NSW had opted to run both services, but at different times of day.

Basically, the 445 ran through Leichhardt in ‘shopping hours’, between roughly 9am and 4pm, 7 days a week. The 444 operated everyday before and after this period.

Travel times vary a lot due to traffic conditions, but you were looking at least an additional 8 minutes travel time by taking the 445. Not to mention exposure to some serious traffic congestion and delays turning on and off City West Link.

16 minutes onto your daily commute is significant. But more than that, sitting on the bus while it leaves the usual route to wind around in back streets and sit at traffic lights is extremely frustrating. It makes passengers aware of the fact that this service is not designed to get them anywhere quickly.

Where are we now?

Then, in November 2018, Transport for NSW announced a round of minor network changes starting on December 2nd. These occurred without the community consultation we saw in 2009. The 444 turned out to be short lived (vale 444), the 445 detour to Lilyfield light rail station was removed (they must have gotten my memo), the detour to Marketplace was retained, the service was annexed at Gladstone Park instead of Balmain East Wharf and a new bus route 447 between Lilyfield and Marketplace was introduced.

A small section of Transit System's Region 6 bus map, centred on Leichhardt. It shows the large number of buses running on each of the Norton Street and Marion Street corridors. — An easy interchange between Norton Street and Marion Street services to get to Marketplace (on the corner of Marion and Flood). Not featured on this map: the 370 from Coogee to Marketplace that is operated by State Transit rather than Transit Systems.

All in all, it’s not the worst compromise. The loss of the ferry interchange is disappointing, but I suspect it was poorly used anyway. Through Leichhardt, peak hour and evening riders will suffer a 3 minute penalty due to the loss of the 444. Daytime riders will enjoy a 5 minute quicker journey thanks to the removal of ‘the loop’. The thing is though, everyone could enjoy a quicker journey by removing the unnecessary deviation to Marketplace. A high frequency bus corridor down Marion Street already connects Marketplace to Norton St and the light rail. All someone wanting to get from the 445 route on Norton Street to Marketplace would have to do is get off at Leichhardt Town Hall and take a 370, 436, 438 or 439 down the hill.

Perhaps it’s a gesture to Sydneysiders’ disinclination towards interchanging. It harks back to a less reliable age; a time of costly double dipping of traveltens, a time before metrobuses, opal cards and real time bus tracking.

The inclusion of the 447 is an interesting one and I’ll be keen to see how it goes. The route has an extremely limited function, taking residents of a small part of Lilyfield to Marketplace. It seems that the same residents that managed to keep the 445 deviation in 2009 have secured themselves a direct hourly service. At least now it operates in its own ecosystem and doesn’t impact on the operation of the 445.

With hourly frequency and operating only in daylight hours the 447 isn’t exactly a bus we choose to take. Then again with the 370, 445 and light rail all running frequent nearby services, it’s not a bus that anyone will have to take either. As far as pleasing constituents while minimising the impact on the rest of the transport system, I guess it does the job.

For older and less mobile people one seat rides from home to local destinations are going to be favourable. But at what price? Clearly we can’t have frequent services connecting everyone’s house to everywhere they might need to go. On-demand transport has a role to play here, and Transport for NSW are experimenting enthusiastically.

Interestingly the December 2nd timetable changes largely sought to encourage interchanging in the southern suburbs, so why not in Leichhardt?

Navigating Norton Street

The new 445 timetable simplifies operation by providing a single bus route that runs at a decent frequency all day with service continuing at night. Unfortunately it seems that Transport for NSW lack the confidence in riders’ willingness to interchange and so it suffers an unnecessary 3 minute detour.

Imagine you were trying to get from somewhere on the Inner West Line, say Ashfield, to Rozelle. The sad fact of the matter is that you’d probably just end up taking the train to Town Hall and taking a bus from there. This increases demand for busy CBD-bound services by funneling people unnecessarily through the city. A problem we’re currently in the process of building our way out of, at great expense. If you were driving or cycling on this route there’s no way you would go anywhere near the CBD.

Until our cross-town bus services run with the frequency, reliability and directness that our radial CBD services do; detouring to Central, Town Hall or Wynyard for a cross-town trip will remain de rigeur.

The Canterbury-Balmain corridor has been an important cross-town link for almost 100 years. It connects 2 train lines, 2 high frequency bus corridors, countless local bus routes, 2 light rail stations, a ferry wharf, two hospitals and an almost continual stream of shopping strips. The most recent timetable changes are an improvement in regards to ease of use and frequency, but adding a deviation for morning and evening riders is a step in the wrong direction. In order to be a bus we choose catch the 445 needs to be not only frequent, reliable and easy to use, but also direct.