Background : I attended the Community Information Session at Newcastle Museum on Thursday 28 th April.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Background : I attended the Community Information Session at Newcastle Museum on Thursday 28 th April."

Isabel Pearson
5 years ago
Views:

1 Background : I attended the Community Information Session at Newcastle Museum on Thursday 28 th April. I asked many questions, had my say and perused the REF (Review of potential Environmental Factors) documentation available. Personnel spoken with were (and I trust I have the correct spelling), initially Aaron Klasen (AK) ( Transport ), who introduced himself to me and then took me to and introduced me to an UrbanGrowth representative, Greg Le Quesine (GlQ) and also there was Michael Uegh (MU) (GH&D). The three (3) of us discussed my concerns and they tried to allay my many concerns, mostly to no avail as they didn t have any answers. The concerns raised are again noted below and remain a concern re the Newcastle Light Rail project. It was of concern that some of the official personnel at the REF speaking in favour, explaining and providing answers to public issues weren t even locals and had little knowledge of Novocastrian culture or any background history of the light rail project. Another gentleman, Malcolm Northey (I think from NSW Transport) (MN), also became involved in the discussion but seemed completely out of touch with Novocastrian culture and kept referring to how it is in Sydney... Sydney is NOT Newcastle however! My observation of this particular session I attended was that it was quite demeaning to Newcastle, mainly due to the chosen REF organisers representatives lack of a complete knowledge of the project they were trying to defend. Issues: 1. Chosen Alternative. 2. Overhead vs underground wiring. 3. Parking 4. Running times 5. Cost analysis 6. My independent survey 7. Set down zones / Court House / University/ Post Office: 8. History and Culture 9. Moving forward to the region 10. Summary 1. Chosen Alternative : There has been a disservice imposed on Novocastrians by the duplicity and arrogance shown by NOT having them been given the Alternative in their decision process of running the light rail down the existing heavy rail corridor. AK and GlQ stated that the reason for moving the light rail out of the corridor was to get it in front of business. This statement is ludicrous for the following reasons:

2 a. From the western end of Scott Street, where the rail is to be brought into Scott Street, to the Pacific Park termination point there are few businesses to get the light rail in front of, as along this stretch there are mainly Apartments. The fronting businesses if you like are the RSL, the Post Office, Three Bears café, the NAB, a bike shop, Slater and Gordon legal, plus a couple of others but hardly a huge number. Going hand in hand with this is: b. The only stops for the light rail is in the vicinity is to be adjacent to the Post Office and at the Pacific Park termination point. This then means that I were to come out of CGU Insurance (adjacent to cnr Watt and Scott Street), I have to walk / run, mostly open to the elements, either to the east to Pacific Park or to the west to the Post Office to join the light rail. If I miss this this I might have to wait for > 12 minutes to catch another rail car. This is just ridiculous and counters any argument of putting the light rail in front of businesses that both AK and GlQ had regarding this matter. What exactly would be the difference to the light rail being contained within the heavy rail corridor between the beginning of Scott Street and Pacific Park please explain! c. When questioned on the trees in place on both north and south sides of Scott Street, AK stated that they may have to be trimmed but would stay. Could it please be succinctly stated the degree of trimming necessary so it will not be a similar trimming to that made by the NSW Government to the Moore Park trees in Sydney? If the line is to run down the centre of Scott Street it would only be 40 metres away from the existing heavy rail corridor. 2. Overhead vs underground wiring: This matter was discussed with GlQ giving his explanation that underground wiring was more expensive and there were more manufacturers of overhead vs the few currently offering the underground technology. I stated that I thought we were looking forward and revitalising Newcastle, so why offer old technology because it is cheaper. I asked how sensible is was to get involved with overhead wiring now when the current many companies offering this technology will drop off and the many soon will be the offerors of the new underground technology and this will be sooner rather than later... no answer! Also I posed (and still request feedback on) why is there a concern for cost when the alternative chosen (according to the not discredited Document 71) is to cost $100 million more than taking the light rail down the existing heavy rail corridor. This $100 million could easily pay for the better and latest technology if placed in the heavy rail corridor PLUS with enough left over to build an Adamstown gates overpass, Maitland Hospital, link to Callaghan Campus, etc. no answer! 3. Parking: I posed the question re parking and what this proposal will do to Newcastle parking. MN said everybody in Sydney takes public transport. I said Malcolm, not in Newcastle. Novocastrian culture is to use a car.

3 Two aspects I quoted, backing my argument to which not one of them had specific answers. These were: a. The Arvia Apartment building was built by Mr K Stronach and approved by the Councillors (not the Council) based on the fact that Owners living in these Apartments wouldn t have a car, all being older people or students, etc. WRONG! Novocastrians, old and students have cars and drive. To this end parking is very restricted in Watt Street south as this is where the Arvia residents (100 Units.. 3 car parks) park. So huge was the problem here that Police had to have an parking area quarantined for them coming on shift or there would be no parking available. b. When someone from Charlestown, Mayfield, Lambton just about anywhere in the suburbs wants to come to the Court House, NIB, etc to drop off a document or whatever, they now hop in their car and come into Newcastle, park, deliver or do whatever their business is and get in their car and drive home... a relatively easy task and happens all the time now. I asked how would the light rail affect them in doing such with even more limited parking available due to where the light rail will be located and only now exacerbated by the introduction of the University and Court House no answer! Secondly, I asked why wouldn t anyone from these localities currently be anything but apathetic about the light rail as it doesn t concern them right now but wait until they want to slip into town for a few minutes to do business when the light rail is installed in Hunter / Scott Streets? MN s answer was they catch public transport so far out of touch. It will become a half day trek. Novocastrians are car transport oriented and are completely different to Sydneysiders. c. I asked, with current bike passing laws being at least 1 metre clearance, how will that affect traffic flow in Hunter / Scott Streets, especially if it is a raised track? d. I went on to query, who paid for punctured low profile tyres traversing the rail, especially if they are raised lines at say turning into Darby Street or actually if they hit the rail whilst travelling along Hunter / Scott Streets. Answer there would be cat s eyes, I think was said, to resist hitting the rail and for traversing there would be ramps go figure! e. Ask the several Police (that come in cars) who have a coffee every morning at the Three Bears café, how hard it is already to get a park in Scott Street. Ask the hundreds of people who come to the Post Office in the morning and in the afternoon how hard already it is to get a drop off / pick up, park. This will become a serious concern. f. I asked, how / where are the lost 267 car and 17 motorbike lost parking places along Hunter / Scott Streets and the 83 lost places in King Street going to be relocated? No answer. King Street east of Darby Street is narrow enough now and is a hub for the movies at night and weekends where people come to town BY CAR, have a meal and go to the movies. This will be a thing of the past. There be no parking available in King or Hunter Streets and I can guarantee people will not travel by public transport for that cultural / social outing.

4 g. I spoke about the December 2013 NSW Cabinet Minute, Document 71 and how it specifically nominated parking and serious traffic congestion by any other than a down the heavy rail corridor alternative being chosen. They spoke of the proposed light rail alternative as FAILING 7 out of 9 tests. It is beyond logical comprehension that this alternative was still chosen by the NSW Government / UrbanGrowth, under the guise that it was what Newcastle selected, save a yet to be discovered reason such as the value of a sale of the corridor land. 4. Running Times: How ludicrous is it that travel time will be (if you can organise going straight from the interchange to a light rail just leaving with no wait time ) three to four times longer than the heavy rail running time of four (4) to five (5) minutes, even stopping at Civic! That s real progress NOT! We ll apparently have to pay more for this pleasure also. Novocastrians will not be happy if and when this becomes a reality. Situating the light rail in the heavy rail corridor could better handle inclement weather conditions and safety measures also than having it situated in the middle of Hunter / Scott Streets. Just wait for the first pedestrian / light rail traveller fatality in Hunter / Scott Street! What risk assessment / safe work method statement comparison of the chosen alternative vs locating the light rail in the heavy rail corridor was performed? 5. Cost Analysis: Novocastrians have never been afforded the courtesy of having costings given to them. Many figures have been bandied around but surprise, surprise only one side of the ledger has been mentioned. What is required and eventually (perhaps too late) will become available through documents obtained through freedom of information (or the likes of the damning Document 71, for example), is what will be the NET SUM GAIN for Newcastle assuming the current Hunter / Scott Street running of the light rail alternative after the credit for the sale of the corridor land is deducted. What expenditure is actually being made on the revitalisation of Newcastle. Estimates based on 2013 King Street land valuations put the value (excluding air space above value) at about $175 million, at the very least ie. 2,000mtrs * average 45mtrs width * $1,945 per square metre. Why has this credit NOT been documented anywhere in the public arena? Never has the alternative been given to Novocastrians of placing the light rail down the existing heavy rail corridor and it has now been revealed that the option taken could cost about $100 million extra over the heavy rail option. This $100 million could pay for a new Maitland Hospital, an Adamstown overpass, light rail link to the John Hunter Hospital, Callaghan Campus, etc. just imagine what that could do for Newcastle.

5 6. My independent survey: Personally, I have walked along Hunter and Scott Streets asking businesses randomly, what would they rather for the light rail, in or out of the corridor. The vast majority don t even have to ponder the question, they say in the corridor! Has a survey specifically been done by the proponents seeking this opinion or is it as stated by GlQ, it is a fait accompli! This EMPHATIC Statement deems this SUBMISSION practically useless a waste of time, energy and passion for the plight of Newcastle. 7. Set down zones / Court House / University / Post Office: Set down or drop off zones will create a nightmare, especially at the Wickham interchange, University, the Post Office, etc. especially in the mornings and afternoon. The through traffic along Stewart Avenue will be disrupted with light rail for a longer period per hour than it was under heavy rail and certainly students or people attending court cannot be hanging around waiting for a light rail train to arrive for extended periods of time. We are going to very much have the same situation at Wickham Interchange as we now have at the Hamilton terminus as this now will become extremely busy with buses, cars, taxis Hamilton is chaos, especially at peak times. This aspect better be extremely well thought out moving forward. Where have the people arriving at the Wickham interchange come from? How did they get to the interchange? Have these questions been extensively studied. Novocastrians are not public transport commuters like Sydneysiders but the heavy rail corridor used for a light rail system utilising a gauge of rail that can extend out to outlying areas like Maitland, Dungog, the Airport, etc. can be, and should be, progressed. 8. History and Culture: Newcastle does not have (nor needs) an infrastructure / culture of public transport like Sydney. Newcastle is a destination place NOT a hub to radiate from or around. Newcastle is the end of the road. It needs to stay an open promontory with Nobbys as the outcrop. It does not need to be concentration of buildings and people stuffed into this small narrow area. If they live in the city they WILL have cars and not need to utilise a light rail. They will be able to walk most places quicker than take the light rail a fact! It had a culture of a heavy rail termination and with that came good and bad. Bad was that we had barriers blocking the view or feel of closeness to the foreshore / harbour BUT the good was that it was a ONE STOP / straight through terminus for: People (and a lot of young people) coming from the Central Coast, Maitland, etc. to functions, festivals, the beach, etc. Parents could know they were there in one stop and same in reverse. Young kids with bikes and boards arriving in droves Backpackers from all over Germany, UK, France, Sweden, China / Asia, etc These now have VIRTUALLY vanished and I see very unlikely to return with the hub as it is. This is a very sad for Newcastle. The perhaps archaic heavy rail did bring this culture to the east end. The Wickham Interchange has become a barrier and not opening up of the foreshore. A sad, but true, fact!

6 9. Moving forward to the region : Although the glossies were there at the REF, when personnel were questioned, there was a very obvious a lack of forethought and seemingly commitment as to how the proposed light rail system was to be linked into the region in the future Maitland, Dungog, Callaghan Campus, the Airport, John Hunter Hospital, etc. the gauge of the rail, locations, process, etc. Tome there was very much no substance around the bones. 10. Summary: If the light rail Hunter / Scott Streets alternative system chosen by Novocastrians (called corralling ) (NSW Government / UrbanGrowth) is proven to be wrong, and the odds are pointing seriously to this by informed Novocastrians, then this chosen alternative could very much become known as Baird s Biggest Bungle, a great epitaph, the biggest white elephant NSW has seen and a real tragedy for Newcastle! The NSW Government / UrbanGrowth should address Document 71 immediately, inform Novocastrians of the additional costs of the Hunter / Scott Streets proposal and other parking cost criteria to the proposal AND nominate the sale value of the heavy rail corridor land as it will become available at some stage via freedom of information / purchase price paid by any developers to Real Estate vendors, etc. I m sure I don t have to remind the promoters of this, I feel, flawed Hunter / Scott Streets alternative of the 6 * P s Prior Planning Prevents P*** Poor Performance Although I have been told by my clients and friends that I am wasting my time putting the above forward AND that was virtually backed up by my discussion with GlQ, I trust this emotional but factual plea will be given more than lip service! Neil Allen

Southwest Bus Rapid Transit (SW BRT) Functional Planning Study - Executive Summary January 19 LPT ATTACHMENT 2.

Southwest Bus Rapid Transit (SW BRT) Functional Planning Study - Executive Summary 2011 January 19 1 of 19 Introduction This executive summary presents the results of the Southwest Bus Rapid Transit (SW