Public Transport & Land Use Planning in North West & South ... · TUFigure 41: Total no. of trips between SWRL Corridor and other parts of Sydney. UT 75 UT 75 Calvin Cheng 3103753

Public Transport and Land Use Planning in North West and South West Sydney

Calvin Cheng

An undergraduate thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement of the Bachelor of Planning

Degree at the University of New South Wales.

November 2007

November, 2007

Public Transport & Land Use Planning in North West and South West Sydney

Calvin Cheng 3103753 PLAN4132 Thesis Project

PLAN4132 Thesis Project Calvin Cheng 3103753

This thesis and the information within are solely for meeting the assessment requirements of course PLAN4132 Thesis Project, submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement of the Bachelor of Planning Degree at the University of New South Wales.

Author: Calvin Cheng...........................................................................................

Signed: .................................................................................................................

Reviewer: Bruno Parolin ..........................................................................................

Signed: .................................................................................................................

Approved by: Bruno Parolin ..........................................................................................

Signed: .................................................................................................................

Date: 13 P

thP December 2007.................................................................................

Distribution: UNSW Bachelor of Planning Program, RailCorp, NSW Ministry of Transport, Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia (PB)

Calvin Cheng 3103753 Public Transport and Land Use Planning in North West and South West Sydney Page i

Table of Contents

Page Number

TUAbstract UT........................................................................................................................................................................ 1

TUAcknowledgementsUT...................................................................................................................................................... 2

TUList of abbreviations used UT........................................................................................................................................... 3

TU1. UT TUIntroductionUT ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 TU1.1UT TUProblem Statement and ObjectivesUT 5 TU1.2UT TUOverview of methodology UT 6

TU2. UT TUIntegrated Land Use and Transport Planning UT................................................................................................. 7 TU2.1UT TUEstablishing the sceneUT 7 TU2.2UT TUIntegrated Land Use and Transport ModelsUT 9 TU2.3UT TUIntegrated Land Use and Transport Planning in North West and South West Sydney UT 16 TU2.4UT TUInterstate and Overseas Examples of Integrated Land Use and Transport PlanningUT 30

TU3. UT TUHeavy Rail-Land Use Relationship UT ................................................................................................................. 35 TU3.1UT TUIntroduction and Heavy Rail Service Planning PrinciplesUT 35 TU3.2UT TUHeavy Rail Network Development in Sydney UT 38 TU3.3UT TUHeavy Rail and Land Use ConnectionUT 41 TU3.4UT TUAlternative Public Transport Modes for the North West and South West Transport CorridorsUT 42

TU4. UT TUNorth West Land Use and Transport Corridor Planning Analysis UT ............................................................. 47 TU4.1UT TUIntroductionUT 47 TU4.2UT TUNorth West Rail Link Project DescriptionUT 48 TU4.3UT TUExisting Public Transport ServicesUT 48 TU4.4UT TUNorth West Transitway UT 50 TU4.5UT TUPlanning analysis of the North West Rail LinkUT 54 TU4.6UT TULand Use and Transport AnalysisUT 58 TU4.7UT TUFuture Influences on the CorridorUT 65

TU5. UT TUSouth West Land Use and Transport Corridor Planning Analysis UT ............................................................. 66 TU5.1UT TUIntroductionUT 66 TU5.2UT TUSouth West Rail Link Project DescriptionUT 67 TU5.3UT TUExisting Public Transport ServicesUT 67 TU5.4UT TUPlanning analysis of the South West Rail LinkUT 69 TU5.5UT TULand Use and Transport AnalysisUT 72 TU5.6UT TUFuture Influences on the CorridorUT 76

TU6. UT TUEvaluation and Conclusion UT .............................................................................................................................. 77

TU7. UT TUReferencesUT ......................................................................................................................................................... 78

Calvin Cheng 3103753 Public Transport and Land Use Planning in North West and South West Sydney Page ii

Table of Contents (continued) Page Number

List of tables TUTable 1: Comparison of Bus and Rail Mode.UT 43 TUTable 2: Selected Travel Zones for the data analysis.UT 60 TUTable 3: Selected Travel Zones for the data analysis. UT 73 List of figures TUFigure 1: North West and South West Rail Link in the Metropolitan Rail Expansion Program (MREP)

context. UT 5 TUFigure 2 Integration of transport and land use outcomes. UT 7 TUFigure 3: Freeways vs. rail development patterns. UT 8 TUFigure 4: Sequence of activities in the Lowry Model. UT 10 TUFigure 5: Schematic representation of an integrated urban land use-transport model. UT 11 TUFigure 6: Institutional model for land use transport integration. UT 12 TUFigure 7: Screenshot of the TOD Trips Tool showing integrated land use and transport patterns. UT 14 TUFigure 8: Screenshots of output tables from the TOD Trips Tool. UT 15 TUFigure 9: Sydney Region Outline Plan. UT 21 TUFigure 10: City of Cities Metropolitan Strategy 2005.UT 23 TUFigure 11 (left to right): Metropolitan Strategy progress reports and draft Sub-regional Strategies.UT 24 TUFigure 12: Sydney Strategic Bus Corridor Network. UT 25 TUFigure 13: An example of an integrated network. UT 26 TUFigure 14: NSW State Plan and its relationship to other strategic documents.UT 27 TUFigure 15: Responding to Sydney’s Urban Travel and Transport Challenges. UT 28 TUFigure 16: Ultimate preferred rail network in Hong Kong SAR. UT 33 TUFigure 17: Rail planning cycle process. UT 37 TUFigure 18: Trouble spots in the rail network. UT 39 TUFigure 19: Reason for using car instead of Public Transport to work in North West and South West area. UT 46 TUFigure 20: Reason for using Public Transport instead of car to work in North West and South West area. UT 46 TUFigure 21: North West Rail Link Route Overview. UT 47 TUFigure 22: Contract region 4. UT 49 TUFigure 23: North West T-way network. UT 50 TUFigure 24: Parramatta Transport Interchange. UT 51 TUFigure 25: North West T-way passenger count heading into Parramatta Station on Wednesday 12UPU

thUPU

September 2007.UT 52 TUFigure 26: North West T-way passenger count heading into Parramatta Station on Thursday 13UPU

thUPU September

2007 UT 52 TUFigure 27: North West Rail Link Study Area. UT 59 TUFigure 28: North West Study Area Population Forecast. UT 61 TUFigure 29: North West Study Area Employment Forecast. UT 62 TUFigure 30: Total no. of trips into and out of NWRL Corridor by mode. UT 63 TUFigure 31: Total no. of trips into and out of NWRL Corridor by purpose. UT 63 TUFigure 32: Total no. of trips between NWRL Corridor and other parts of Sydney. UT 64 TUFigure 33: South West Rail Link Route Overview. UT 66 TUFigure 34: South West Growth Centre Structure Plan. UT 67 TUFigure 35: Contract region 2. UT 68 TUFigure 36: South West Rail Link Study Area. UT 72 TUFigure 37: South West Study Area Population Forecast. UT 73 TUFigure 38: South West Study Area Employment Forecast. UT 74 TUFigure 39: Total no. of trips into and out of SWRL Corridor by mode. UT 74 TUFigure 40: Total no. of trips into and out of SWRL Corridor by purpose. UT 75 TUFigure 41: Total no. of trips between SWRL Corridor and other parts of Sydney. UT 75

Calvin Cheng 3103753 Public Transport and Land Use Planning in North West and South West Sydney Page iii

List of photos TUPhoto 1 (left): A Sydney Bus at Epping Station.UT 35 TUPhoto 2 (right): CityRail Intercity “V” set arriving at Epping Railway Station.UT 35 TUPhoto 3: Proposed location of SWRL stabling facility at Leppington.UT 40 TUPhoto 4: Rouse Hill Town Centre Stage 1.UT 40 TUPhoto 5: Parramatta Transport Interchange.UT 41 TUPhoto 6 (left): Rail based land use development patterns.UT 42 TUPhoto 7 (right): Road based land use development patterns.UT 42 TUPhoto 8: Half completed Dombarton-Maldon Line.UT 44 TUPhoto 9: Existing Wynyard York St Bus Terminus in AM peak weekday.UT 45 TUPhoto 10: Park and Ride Facility at Burns Road T-way Station.UT 53

List of appendices Appendix A Household Characteristics, Population and Employment Forecast Data provided by Transport Data Centre, NSW Ministry of Transport.

Calvin Cheng 3103753 Public Transport and Land Use Planning in North West and South West Sydney Page A-1

Abstract

North West and South West Sydney are two growth areas where land use planning has evolved

around the private car as the dominant form of transport. This is evident by the multi-car

households, abundance of car parking at shopping centres, business park developments, and new

and existing road upgrade projects. The Government has recently announced major planning

initiatives and projects in both sectors to accommodate Sydney’s growing population and to

provide housing and job opportunities away from inner Sydney. Public transport is a crucial

variable in the planning process. This thesis analyses the planning processes for the projected

North West and South West Rail Links. The North West Rail Link is a new planned heavy rail

link in an existing built-up area, whereas the South West Rail Link is planned for a future

developing area. The thesis will critically examine the transport-land use relationship in these

two contrasting areas and attempt to answer two fundamental questions. First, how successfully

might these two rail links influence future land use patterns and redress the imbalance between

private car and public transport usage. Second, and if they cannot, can Sydney afford to continue

down the path of car dependency to the point where even its ‘global city’ status is questionable?


Acknowledgements

The research and completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the

acknowledgement and assistance of the following people and organisations.

o I would like to acknowledge the support of my family and friends who have been a great

support and encouragement throughout my journey at University, without them, I would

not be here writing this.

o RailCorp and Gary McGregor for awarding me the Scholarship in Railway and Transport

Planning and for providing advice and assistance which has made the development and

research of this thesis topic possible.

o Bruno Parolin, my thesis advisor for his valuable input, guidance and dedication in the

research and development of this thesis from “conception” to “production”.

o Annette Hay and Luxshme Ranjan at the NSW Ministry of Transport (Transport Data

Centre) for the provision of the Household Travel Survey data sets which has enabled a

detailed transport-land use analysis of the North West and South West Rail Links in this

thesis.

o The entire Traffic and Transport Planning group at my workplace, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Australia (PB), particularly Wendy Adam and Graeme Steverson for their great support,

advice and flexibility throughout my student and work life. PB has provided me with

many opportunities through the involvement of various projects which has enhanced my

interest and knowledge of transport planning.


List of abbreviations used

DoI Department of Infrastructure (Victoria)

LEP Local Environmental Plan

NWRL North West Rail Link

SWRL South West Rail Link

HTS Household Travel Survey

DoP NSW Department of Planning, (post August 2005)

DIPNR Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (pre August

2005)

MoT Ministry of Transport NSW

MREP Metropolitan Rail Expansion Program

PB Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia

TIDC Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation

GCC Growth Centres Commission

RTA Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy

TOD Transit Oriented Development


1. Introduction “If ever there was proof that Sydney has become too big and is beyond a

comfortable lifestyle, it must be the difficulties with commuting. The further Sydney

spreads and the denser it becomes the greater the delays will be from heavy traffic.

As Sydney grows the solutions to traffic congestion become more expensive and

complicated. There is a desperate need for the State Government to provide safe and

reliable public transport so that commuters have an alternative to driving or an

alternative to high property prices closer to the City".

(Sydney Morning Herald reader’s opinions Thursday 5th May 2005)

“I used to commute daily from Castle Hill to the city via WestBus - and after 3.5

years of spending 20+ per week (on top of the fifty plus hours working) and half of

those commuting hours standing on a packed bus - I spat the dummy and moved

closer.

A rail network out that far would make all the difference, traffic in around the hills

district is a nightmare, with poor planning and a government body that appears to

listen to the council for its' traffic recommendations, yet make a recommendation to

the council - and they send you to the RTA.

Development and redevelopment of the area has caused traffic levels to increase

dramatically in the last ten years, yet nothing has been done to match this in terms of

public transportation, other than a bus service.

I agree that dropping the price of bus fares probably made it more attractive to use

public transport - but far more needs to be done”

(Blog post on The Sydney Morning Herald Sydney’s Transport Future Blog 25P

thP

September 2007)

These two “reader’s comments” on the Sydney Morning Herald are evidence of the

extent of the transport and land use problems existing as Sydney grows and develops

further out away from inner Sydney. Land use and transport have been two important

variables in the planning process to “ensure an equitable and efficient distribution of

resources”. The development of the North West and South West growth areas have

been put as the way forward for developing and extending and enhancing Sydney’s


“global city” status beyond Sydney CBD. This thesis will examine and analyse the

North West and South West Rail links which are part of the Government’s

Metropolitan Rail Expansion Program (MREP, see figure 1 below) and is a major

component of “transport” in the City of Cities (Metropolitan strategy) in December

2005.

Figure 1: North West and South West Rail Link in the Metropolitan Rail Expansion Program (MREP) context. (Source: Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation, 2007)

1.1 Problem Statement and Objectives North West and South West Sydney are two growth areas where land use planning

has evolved around the private car as the dominant form of transport. The continued

reliance on the private car in these areas without sufficient public transport as

planning, growth and development continues raises questions about the

“sustainability and “liveability” in these two areas, and how it may affect Sydney in

the overall picture in the long run.


The objectives of this thesis are to examine and analyse:

o The planning process of the proposed North West Rail Link in an “existing

built up urban area” context.

o The planning process of the proposed South West Rail Link in a “future

developing growth centre” area context.

o The role that “heavy rail” transport mode plays in integrated land use and

transport relationship.

o Whether the North West and South West Rail Links are the answer to address

the imbalance between public transport and private car usage?

o The consequences of land use planning in North West and South West

Sydney if the two rail links were not to be built.

1.2 Overview of methodology The methodology for the research and development of this thesis involves the

collection and analysis of transport and planning theory literature to ground the

research question and objectives of this thesis as discussed before. Primary sources

for this thesis include personal notes, photographs and observations made during site

visits to the North West and South West Rail Link corridors, including an

examination of existing transport and land use patterns on site. These primary

sources were then reviewed with existing theory and practice literature and the

numerous planning studies and reports done to date for these two areas.

To determine the potential land use planning impacts and demands of the two

projected rail links, a comprehensive analysis of the Household Travel Survey (HTS)

data sets supplied by the NSW Ministry of Transport was carried out to understand

the travel patterns, population and employment forecast growth for the North West

and South West Rail Link corridors.


2. Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning

2.1 Establishing the scene To understand and achieve the objectives of this thesis, we need to define and

examine the development of the integrated land use and transport planning concept.

Transport and land use planning are intricate linked and related in shaping a town or

region. Transport is a derived demand to “carry” people or freight from one place to

another, and in order to achieve this, it requires planning and decisions on land use in

order to actually provide the infrastructure to transport people or freight. Perhaps it is

best described as a “co-ordination” of transport and land use planning (policy)

outcomes. This is shown in figure 2 below which shows a Western Australian

Government example of “integration” when the Department of Planning and

Infrastructure (DPI) was created as the “central agency” or policy and planning lead

role within the portfolio. NSW also made a similar attempt with the creation of the

now defunct Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources from

2003 till August 2005.

Figure 2 Integration of transport and land use outcomes. (Source: Curtin and James, 2004)

But when most people think of, discuss or practice the integrated land use and

transport planning, there is a notion that it’s all about land use and “public transport”

and not land use and the “private car”. I use the term “private car” as taxis and any

other form transport service involving a payment by a passenger on “four wheels”

are arguably a form public transport, whereas if I use the term “motor vehicle”, the

distinction is not clear. So a question to consider is whether the integrated land use


and transport planning concept will be significantly different if we apply it to either

public or private transport. An example of how development differs between

freeways and railways is shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: Freeways vs. rail development patterns (Source: Newman and Kenworthy 1993)

Transport planning has developed in parallel with urban planning but seems to have

avoided the major theoretical debates which have influenced social scientist

thinking. Two possible explanations might be that transport is immune to debate or

that the unique combination of engineers, economists, and social scientists working

in transport make it difficult to have such a critical review. The latter explanation

may be more likely as most of the criticism come from outside, but even then it

seems to have been aimed at planning in general. Transport planning seems to have

escaped (Banister, 1994)

Potter and Skinner (2000) consider the different approaches to transport integration.

They consider what exactly is integrated with what? Rather than attempt a single

definition, they argue that integrated transport is better viewed as scalar in nature,

with higher levels incorporating lower, or narrower understandings of the term

“integrated transport”.

Potter and Skinner (2000) constructed these “nested” definitions of integrated

transport from reviewing the available literature to indicate some of the points on a

scale of meaning.


o Functional or modal integration: A policy enabling different travel modes

to compliment each other, making multi-modal journeys easier

o Transport and Planning Integration: Land use and transport are closely

linked in that the patterns of land use and facilities are direct influences on

travel generation. Such as policy employs land use policy as a means of

managing and reducing travel demand.

o Social Integration: At this level, all those who have a stake in transport have

their needs considered. Adoption of such a policy would involve those who

use and provide a transport service, and others such as organisations that are

major trip generators (schools, shops, employment etc) and those suffering

noise and vibration from transport.

o Environmental, Economic and Transport Policy Integration: Essentially,

all of the above policies are combined in a holistic way. This has the effect of

maximising the benefits from the transport system, providing the best

opportunity for more sustainable transport.

2.2 Integrated Land Use and Transport Models To integrate transport and land use planning outcomes, and establish a platform for

influencing the development of cities and regions, this section will examine some

land use-transport models and policies.

Integrated urban-transport land use models have gained popularity since the 1980’s.

Their development represents increasing recognition of the of the intricate

connections of the between land use and transport systems, and of the corresponding

need to model these systems in a fully integrated way (Bureau of Transport

Economics 1998, p35)

The Lowry Model Lowry’s Model of Metropolis views the principal spatial properties of an urban area

in three broad sectors of activities which are:

1. Employment in basic industries;

2. Employment in population serving industries; and


3. The household or population sector.

With the Lowry model, the spatial distribution of basic employment is allocated

exogenously to the model, and the spatial distribution of households and population

serving employment are calculated by the model. The zonal allocation rules for both

households and population serving employment are specified within the model

structure. In addition, the constraints on the maximum number of households for

each zone and the minimum population serving employment thresholds for any zone

are specified. (Hutchison 1974 p150). The basic structure of the model is illustrated

in figure 4.

Figure 4: Sequence of activities in the Lowry Model. (Source: Hutchison, 1974)

Schematic Representation of an Integrated Urban Land Use-Transport Model Figure 5 on the next page provides a schematic representation of an integrated urban

land use-transport model. The model consists of two sub models; one for the land

system and the other for the transport system. The representation of the land use

system is rather simplified, focusing largely on components that directly interact

with the transport system. Land use submodels are intended to explain how spatial

choices are made for residential and employment locations. These are basically

stipulated as a function of, among other things, locational accessibilities, which in

turn depend on zonal attractiveness and travel costs.

The spatial distribution of residents and firms are assumed to create major demand

for travel, which drives the development of the transport system. The interplay of


demand and supply through transport costs forms the nucleus of interconnected

causes and effect within the transport system.

The land use and transport systems are integrated through a mechanism of feedback

between the two systems. The land use system supplies the transport systems with

the estimates of the location and volume of travel generators. The transport system

affects the land use system through the notion of accessibility, often in a temporary

lagged manner. An integral part of such accessibility, changes in travel costs become

part of the mechanism used to relocate labour, residence, and other urban economic

activities. (Bureau of Transport Economics 1998, p37)

Figure 5: Schematic representation of an integrated urban land use-transport model. (Source: adapted from Southworth 1995)


An Institutional Model for Land Use and Transport Integration This institutional model for integrating land use and transport was proposed by

Curtis and James 2004 after the merging of the transport and planning agencies of

the Western Australian State Government in 2001. The “traditional” institutional

approaches based on separate transport and land use planning departments fragment

and compound the ability to deliver an integrated and sustainable solution. The

traditional approach tends to allow these separate agencies to maximise the

achievement of their own objectives rather than deal with the compromises that may

often be associated with effective integration.

The model developed as shown in figure 6 is a complex inter-related web, driven by

the Western Australian Government policy and guided by the integration principles.

Figure 6: Institutional model for land use transport integration. (Source: Curtis and James 2004)

The model draws together the principles of transport planning, land use planning,

public policy and organisational behaviour. A case study of the Brighton-Butler area

illustrates the operation and potential use of this institutional model. The Brighton

Butler area comprises of Greenfield release areas accommodating 25,000 residents,

provision for 10,000 jobs and a district centre with 23,500 sq.m of retail space. The

aim of the planning exercise was to maximise “accessibility through proximity” by

integrating the suburban railway into the proposed urban development, with a focus


on mixed use transit-oriented development (TOD) and town centres as the location

for employment (Curtis and James 2004, p293)

TOD Trips TOD Trips is a spreadsheet based tool developed by PB and Senior Transport

Consultant Neil Prosser. TOD Trips allows for the rapid development and appraisal

of integrated land-use transport scenarios. TOD Trips is implemented in Microsoft

Excel and combines the following three elements of Excel:

1. Geospatial representations using scaled drawing elements

2. Spreadsheet data storage

3. Visual Basic macros

Scenarios are developed on screen and to scale using drawing tools. Scenarios

combine land use zones within transit networks and capture the important geospatial

relationships between the two. The geospatial representations of TOD trips

overcomes the limitations of traditional transport models which represents land use

zones as single centroids because the geospatial format is drawn according to actual

boundaries (e.g. on an scaled aerial photograph or land use zoning map). The output

from TOD trips is similar to the traditional transport model outputs including:

o Link, service and station patronage data

o Total patronage data by time period and purpose (e.g. work vs. non-work)

o Mode share results.

Additionally, TOD trips incorporate modules to allow for:

o Estimation of capital and operating costs

o Calculation of fare revenue

o Quantification of impacts on vehicle use e.g. VKT (vehicle kilometres

travelled)

o Quantification of external costs associated with car usage such as noise,

atmosphere, water pollution, climate change and severance

o Cost benefit analysis


o Multi criteria assessment

o Capacity constrained transit assignment.

Figures 7 and 8 show a few screenshots from the TOD trips tool and output tables

that was used to assess the feasibility of a new light rail system in Melbourne,

Victoria.

Figure 7: Screenshot of the TOD Trips Tool showing integrated land use and transport patterns. (Source: PB, 2007)


Figure 8: Screenshots of output tables from the TOD Trips Tool. (Source: PB, 2007)


2.3 Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning in North West and South West Sydney “The Government is taking a new approach to land release to avoid making mistakes

of the early 90’s to ensure that communities in new suburbs of Sydney have good

access to transport, jobs and services” (NSW Department of Planning 2005.

Managing Sydney’s Growth Centres)

The acknowledgement by the Government in its past policy failures in land releases

without the provision of good transport and other infrastructure and services has

planned and developed North West and South West Sydney the way they are today.

This section will look at the key state government agencies involved in land use

planning and transport planning and also examine the land use and transport

planning components of two post-war metropolitan plans for Sydney, being the 1968

Sydney Region Outline Plan and the 2005 City of Cities (Metropolitan Strategy).

Growth Centres Commission The Growth Centres Commission has been established by the NSW Government

under the Growth Centres Commission Act 1974 to ensure that new development

proceeds with infrastructure and services planned, funded and linked to the sequence

of land release.

The Commission has the planning, development and financial management

capabilities of a development corporation. The Commission will design and manage

a streamlined planning and development approval process along with the timely

provision of infrastructure promoting high quality new development.

The Commission is responsible for working with infrastructure agencies, industry,

local councils, landowners and the community to make the plans for the Growth

Centres a reality.

The Growth Centres Commission’s functions are:

o Preparing plans for the funding and development of regional infrastructure

o Controlling Precinct Plans for each precinct (or part of a precinct where

anomalies exist in the boundaries) within the North West and South West

Growth Centres


o Recommending to the Minister for Planning new precincts for staged land

release

o Administration - including collection, holding and management - of the new

Special Infrastructure Contributions to pay for regional infrastructure

o Implementing regional infrastructure in consultation with state agencies to

support new development; and

o Negotiating with government, landowners and developers to ensure

development is facilitated in a sustainable and timely way.

By Establishing the Commission as a new body, the NSW Government, through the

Metropolitan Strategy, can achieve:

o The orderly sequencing of land release in time with the provision of

infrastructure

o The sustainable urban structure and form incorporated in the structure plan

o The protection of biodiversity, regional open space and water resources

o Contributions from new development for regional and local infrastructure

o Contributions from the State budget in recognition of the broader

beneficiaries of many projects in the Growth Centres

(Source: Growth Centres Commission 2007: http://www.gcc.nsw.gov.au/the-

commission.aspx)

NSW Department of Planning The NSW Department of Planning’s role is to lead strategies and decisions to

support orderly growth and employment, generating activities that are

environmentally and economically sustainable.

The department is the principal state government agency vested with statutory,

policy and administrative responsibility for strategic land use planning,

environmental planning impact assessment and development approvals. The

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) provides the basis

for the department’s role in administering the framework for Government activities

and decisions in these areas.


The major functions of the department are to:

o Oversee and implement Government policy in relation to land use planning

and development, including supporting local Government functions

o Lead and co-ordinate state-wide planning strategies to guide growth and

development in NSW and inform infrastructure planning, staging and

delivery; and

o As the lead agency, advise the Minister and Government on the approval of

major development and infrastructure projects of significance to the state’s

economy and employment

(Source: NSW Department of Planning Annual Report 2005-2006)

NSW Ministry of Transport The Ministry of Transport was established in 2003 as a lead agency of the transport

portfolio group, and is responsible for:

o Developing and coordinating high level transport priorities in NSW

o Providing funding for NSW public transport services and major capital works

o Planning and implementing NSW transport priorities in collaboration with

other agencies

o Integrating policies, regulations and service initiatives across metropolitan

and rural and regional NSW

o Regulating the NSW bus, taxi and hire car industries

o Managing NSW bus and ferry contracts.

(Source: NSW Ministry of Transport:

http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/trans-portfolio.html)

NSW RTA The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) is a statutory authority established in

1989 under the Transport Administration Act 1988. Its key responsibilities include:

o Managing the road network to achieve consistent travel times

o Provide road capacity and maintenance solutions


o Test and licence drivers and inspection and registration of motor vehicles

o Improve road safety

(Source: NSW RTA Annual Report 2005-2006)

Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation The Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation (TIDC) is a State owned

corporation established under the Transport Administration Act 1988 to develop

major transport infrastructure projects for the NSW Government.

TIDC’s role is to develop and deliver major transport infrastructure projects as

directed by the Minister for Transport, with the support of the “Shareholder

Ministers”, in an efficient, effective and financially responsible manner.

The corporation is responsible for managing the development, planning, design,

construction and commissioning of each project it undertakes. It is also responsible

for ensuring environmental and safety standards are met during every project phase

and in operation, for liaising with the community and stakeholders and for providing

fiscal accountability to the NSW Government.

The aim of TIDC is to cost effectively deliver transport solutions in a timely manner

that incorporate the most appropriate standards and technology, support the growth

of New South Wales, enhance its natural and urban environments, provide tangible

benefits for commuters and represent value to Government.

(Source: TIDC Annual Report 2006)

RailCorp RailCorp is a New South Wales Corporation consisting of the merged entities of the

State Rail Authority of New South Wales and the metropolitan functions of the Rail

Infrastructure Corporation. RailCorp was established as a corporation on 1 January

2004 under the Transport Administration Amendment (Rail Agencies) Act 2003.

(Source: About RailCorp: http://www.railcorp.info/about_railcorp)

Under the RailCorp organisation are CityRail and Countrylink which provide

(operate) passenger train services within Sydney and regional and interstate rail


services respectively. RailCorp is responsible for development and maintenance of

railway infrastructure such as tracks and overhead wiring.

(Source: CityRail About Us:

http://www.cityrail.info/aboutus/content/au_content_1.jsp)

Local Councils The responsibility (majority) for detailed strategic planning and development

assessments is delegated by the states and territories to the Local Government. Local

Government, overseen by elected representatives who form a local “council” refers

to a specific jurisdiction or “Local Government Area” (LGA). The policy,

administrative, procedural, financial responsibilities of Local Government in

Australia, is wholly regulated by state legislation. (Gurran, 2007, p97). At Local

Councils, “development” is controlled and regulated by the Local Environmental

Plan (LEP), Development Control Plan (DCP), both of which fall under the NSW

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In the event of inconsistencies

between local and state planning instruments, controls etc, the state one normally

prevails.

Sydney Region Outline Plan (1968) The Sydney Region Outline Plan (SROP) of 1968 was the third metropolitan strategy

for Sydney (see figure 9 on next page) which arose out the creation of a new state

level agency, the State Planning Authority in 1964. The SROP was based on the

population of Sydney reaching about 5.5 million by the year 2000 and that

development was to be based along existing transport corridors which had radiated

out away from the Sydney CBD, these corridors in turn was the basis for job and

housing opportunities.

Corridors were also especially reserved for transport and utilities such as water and

electricity. To achieve those aims, the “outer” suburbs of Camden, Campbelltown,

Blacktown, Mount Druitt and Penrith were designated as “cities” to provide services

and jobs for the growing population.


The SROP was different from its predecessor, the Cumberland Plan, in that it was

not a statutory document and thus was never formally adapted by Government.

Nevertheless, its legacy, success and failure can be seen in Sydney today, such as the

pattern of Sydney’s development over the last 40 years as originally proposed in the

SROP, but also the abandonment of freeway projects such as the original Warringah

Freeway which was to eventually link up with Wakehurst Parkway and the Northern

Beaches and the Gladesville Bridge which was part of the original Sydney-

Newcastle Freeway Alignment.

Figure 9: Sydney Region Outline Plan (Source: www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au)


A major factor which led to the “failure” of the SROP was the Sydney Area

Transportation Study (SATS) 1974. This study was lead by an overseas expert and

there was great interest amongst the public in observing how this study would solve

the transport problems at the time. This study was based on the year 2000 population

projections of the SROP and adopted a methodology used in the United States in the

1960s “forecast future land use and population, generate a matrix of future trips

between zones, create hypothetical future transport network options, assign trips to

public transport and road networks and then assess the network options in terms of

capacity and criteria” (Watters B, Toon J and Folk J Ed 2003, Sydney Planning or

Politics P100). By the time this study was released in 1974, it was 6 years after the

original SROP was release and questions hung over the pessimistic population and

job forecasts and assumptions. The SROP was also criticised for its lack of

integration with transport planning, due to the lack of data available for journey to

work figures from the census. “More in tune with (flawed) predictions of high rates

of economic and population growth, this plan offered strategic guidance in the

British trend-friendly, structure plan rather than a statutory blueprint”. (Connell ed

2000, P128)

City of Cities Metropolitan Strategy (2005) The City of Cities of 2005 (see figure 10) recognises and reinforces the message and

status that Sydney is “Australia’s only global city” (Metropolitan Strategy P3). As

Bob Meyer noted, “never before has a strategy been under such media scrutiny and

never has a strategy been so eagerly awaited” (New Planner June 2006, P12).

As the Sydney Region Outline Plan officially “expired” in 2000, it’s probably easy

to understand why City of Cities is so discussed about; “Until now the Carr

Government has resisted industry calls for a major new plan for Sydney, choosing

instead to update the Sydney Region Outline plan, first drawn up 1968. But Mr Carr

said the long-term blueprint would now be a major project.

“The new plan will be built, bottom up, over the next 12 months within sound

guidelines. The first major outing of the powerful new Infrastructure and Planning

Department, the plan will be shepherded by an impressive list of experts and

embrace community ideas using models which have succeeded elsewhere” (Sydney

Morning Herald 23rd April 2004)


Figure 10: City of Cities Metropolitan Strategy 2005 (Source: www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au)

Like the SROP, and as the title suggests, cities within a city were a major element of

this metropolitan strategy, however, there is an attempt to have all the cities within a

city play a part in being a “global Sydney” instead of being “isolated” and

concentrated around the Sydney CBD. This is evident with the Sydney Orbital

Motorway System and the North West and South West Rail Links providing the

linkage and connection between major centres around Sydney as shown in figure 9

above and the regional city symbol and status given to places such as Parramatta,

Penrith and Liverpool.

The North West and South West Growth Centres have been planned to accommodate

future population and a Growth Centres Commission has been established to monitor

land releases and the planning and supply of infrastructure.

The City of Cities is different in that there is a strong emphasis (and existence) of

implementation and governance. This is evident with the planning reforms (such as


standard LEP templates) currently taking place, other plans and policies related to

the City of Cities (see below, the creation of the Growth Centres Commission and

the Cities Taskforce Project and the release of subregional strategies (see figure 11)

Figure 11 (left to right): Metropolitan Strategy progress reports and draft Sub-regional

Strategies (Source: NSW Department of Planning 2007)

The progress reports (see figure 11) which shows how much progress has been made

to date implementing the metropolitan strategy despite “Some urban planners and

economists have proposed that an independent authority be created to monitor the

strategy in case it loses direction under the influence of political expedience”

(Sydney Morning Herald December 3 2005)

Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable Transport (Parry Report) 2003 In December 2003, Thomas Parry released the final report into the sustainability of

transport in New South Wales. After the interim report was released in August 2003,

over 800 submissions were received and taken into account for the final report.

The main points of the report were:

o A large amount of taxpayer money goes to fund passenger transport services

of one sort or another across NSW every year. This funding is equivalent to

one-fifth of the NSW government annual health budget and about the same as

the annual State police budget

o The current arrangements are not delivering the most appropriate transport

solutions to best meet the needs of the broad community. Taxpayers are not

getting the best possible value from the large amounts of money being spent


each year on public transport. This has been a problem for many years, facing

governments from all sides of politics

(Source: Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable transport in New South Wales Final

Report December 2003 Page vii)

Review of Bus Services in NSW (Unsworth Report) 2004 In February 2004, the Unsworth Report into the review of bus services in NSW was

released and the key recommendations were the development of strategic bus

corridors (see figure 12) and the establishment of contract regions with minimum

service levels, standard ticket prices across Sydney and integrated network planning

(see figure 13).

Figure 12: Sydney Strategic Bus Corridor Network (Source: NSW RTA 2007)


Figure 13: An example of an integrated network (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport)

Figure 13 illustrates how bus routes are developed, using the principles of integrated

planning. Regional cities, major and town centres have been identified in the City of

Cities Metropolitan Strategy. The Centres contain different concentration of services

and hubs of the transport network. Ideally, a bus would travel back and forth from a

local shopping and employment area, through residential areas, possibly via a

hospital or educational institution before arriving at a major centre.

(Source: NSW Ministry of Transport: Fact Sheet – Integrated Planning)

NSW State Plan Whilst the City of Cities Metropolitan strategy is an important document planning

and shaping Sydney for the next 25 years as did the SROP did back in 1968, the

metropolitan strategy now falls under the NSW State Plan (see figure 14). The State

plan is a document detailing the Government’s priorities and approaches to

delivering services and infrastructure to the community.

Recently, and in the future, the NSW Department of Planning update reports will

also mention and link to which aim is mentioned in the State Plan (e.g. E8, Improved

Urban Environments)


Figure 14: NSW State Plan and its relationship to other strategic documents (Source: NSW Government)

It is interesting to note that one of the new priorities of the State Plan is to “improve

the efficiency of the road network” whilst it also wants to “increase the modal share

of public transport and locate jobs closer to home (30 minutes within people’s homes

from a city or major centre by public transport). The State Plan also lists “improving

the efficiency of the road network” as part of “improved urban environment”, whilst

public transport is under “delivering better services”. This is an indicator that public

transport is merely considered as a “service” in its own right with no connection to

land use planning (improved urban environments), whereas improving the efficiency

of the road network is.

State Infrastructure Strategy The State Infrastructure Strategy was launched in May 2006 and is a plan detailing

the timing and funding for the provision of infrastructure in NSW. It links with the

planning goals and objectives mentioned in the City of Cities Metropolitan Strategy.

Under the State Infrastructure Strategy, $129 million was committed over 2006-07 to

acquire land for the North West and South West Rail Link corridors. However, like

the State Plan, it appears that the State Infrastructure Strategy is more focused on

“road infrastructure” with more focus and attention to new and upgraded road


projects (compared with the North West and South West Rail Link projects) such as

$121 million for the upgrade of Old Windsor and Windsor Roads, and $37 million

for various road upgrade projects around the Campbelltown and Ingleburn areas near

the proposed South West Rail Link.

Urban Transport Statement 2006 The Urban Transport Statement was launched in November 2006 and is a detailed

road and public transport infrastructure projects and initiatives plan to respond to

Sydney’s Urban Travel and Transport Challenges. Figure 15 below details the

number and complexity of issues that must be considered when undertaking detailed

transport planning involving integration of transport modes.

Figure 15: Responding to Sydney’s Urban Travel and Transport Challenges (Source: NSW Urban Transport Statement 2006, p68)

The Urban Transport Statement also recognises the need to integrated transport and

land use planning; “For strategic planning to be effective, it is essential that it is

based on accurate information and reliable projections on travel patterns and trip

numbers, population growth, transport mode use, road network service levels and

development trends. Strategic land use and transport planning must be linked to


detailed land use and transport operational planning. (Source: NSW Urban

Transport Statement 2006, p69)

Under the Urban Transport Statement, the North West Rail Link as part of the

Metropolitan Rail Expansion Program will be brought forward by 2 years to 2015

instead of 2017. Nearby to the proposed North West Rail Link, the Rail Clearways

Program was expanded with the extension of the Richmond Rail Line duplication

beyond Schofields to Riverstone by 2010 and Vineyard by 2012.

As part of the Urban Transport Statement implementation, the former Transport and

Population Data Centre (TPDC) within the NSW Department of Planning was

relocated and renamed as the Transport Data Centre (TDC) within the NSW Ministry

of Transport. The population and demographics unit remain within the NSW

Department of Planning.

These changes will support the Statement’s plan of establishing the Transport Cluster

Group, which will have an advisory role to the newly established Transport Planning

and Product Development Group within the Ministry and be a “clearing house” for

all major Government Transport Initiatives. Whilst the newly established centre will

assume the planning for a number of metropolitan transport planning initiatives, the

Urban Transport Statement notes, that detailed project planning and delivery (of the

Metropolitan Rail Expansion Program) remains with agencies. This structure will

need to be evaluated in the future to examine whether the overall aims and objectives

of the State Plan and the Metropolitan Strategy will be met.


2.4 Interstate and Overseas Examples of Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning

Melbourne, Victoria. In July 2006, the Victorian Government Public Transport Division of the Department

of Infrastructure (DoI) released the Draft Public Transport Guidelines for

Development. These guidelines fall under the “Meeting our Transport Challenges”

which in turn, fall under the strategic directions of “Melbourne 2030” (the equivalent

of Sydney’s City of Cities Metropolitan Strategy). These guidelines are similar to the

draft State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 66 Integrating Land Use and

Transport released in 2001 by the then Department of Urban Affairs and Planning

(DUAP) in conjunction with the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority and NSW

Ministry of Transport.

Good public transport planning will produce better planning outcomes across

Victoria. Public transport has a significant influence on the way our cities and

regions grow and develop. Land use patterns will also have a significant influence on

how well public transport services can be delivered and utilised.

The major focus of this document is on the public transport planning process that

should be followed when land use developments or strategic planning proposals are

being developed and considered. In addition, these guidelines provide broad design

principles and advice on where to access relevant detailed public transport design

and planning information. (Source: Draft Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use

Development. Victoria Department of Infrastructure 2006)

Under the Planning and Environment Act (Victoria), the Director of Public Transport

(DPT) is a referral authority under section 55 of the Act for major residential, retail,

commercial, office and industrial developments. Therefore, authorities such as local

councils must refer nominated applications to the DPT to help integrate land use and

transport planning. The Public Transport Guidelines for development will assist the

Minister in determining the conditions or refusals on planning permits.


The following types of planning applications must be referred to the DPT for

consideration:

o A residential development of more than 60 dwellings or lots

o A new retail premises of 4,000 or more square metres of leasable floor area

o An increase to the leasable floor area of an existing retail premises which is

20,000 or more square metres leasable floor area

o A commercial or office development of 10,000 or more square metres of

leasable floor area

o An industrial subdivision of 20 or more lots

o A development which closes a road adjoining a public transport stop or

which would use land within a closed road adjoining a public transport stop.

(Source: Department of Infrastructure, Victoria)

In undertaking the referral function, a broad range of matters will need to be

considered. For example:

o The protection of options that will in the long term improve the functioning

of the public transport system

o Avoiding creation of new bottlenecks/system constrictions

o Balancing the needs of all users including pedestrians, cyclists and private

motor vehicle users

o Ensuring that the design of major residential, retail, industrial or commercial

developments incorporate provision and future:

o Public Transport Facilities

o Pedestrian Linkages

o Facilities of non-motorised transport

(Source: Australian Planner, Vol 43, No.3, p7)


Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), China The development of Hong Kong in the past has been dominated by the creation of

“satellite” new towns in the New Territories with the objective of providing jobs and

housing opportunities within the new towns and shifting population away from the

crowded urban areas of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. Hong Kong has an

extensive highway network connecting the New Territories, Kowloon and Hong

Kong Island, and these highway networks formed the backbone of bus services as the

dominant form of public transport. Apart from the Hong Kong Island Tramway

network and the Kowloon Canton Railway Corporation (KCR) East Rail, transport in

Hong Kong’s before the 1990’s was dominated by road (franchised buses) or water

based (commuter ferries) transport.

By 1979, the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) opened in Hong Kong and was the

answer in relieving overcrowding and demand for transport along the Nathan Road

Corridor and Cross Harbour journeys between Kowloon and Hong Kong Island. The

network has since expanded out beyond the Kowloon area out towards the new

towns in the New Territories. Part of the success in the MTR in influencing land use

is the exclusive rights to property development around the MTR stations to allow the

company (MTR) make a return on investment and development around the stations.

The latest strategic document released by the HKSAR Government is the “Hong

Kong Moving Ahead – A transport strategy for the future” which builds upon the

earlier 1997 “Third Comprehensive Transport Study”. Both these studies recognise

the need for an integrated approach. In order to reduce the need for travel, and

thereby reducing the need for further infrastructure and the impact on the

environment, an approach is required in which land use, transport, and the

environment are considered in an integrated manner in both strategic and sub-

regional strategies. (HKSAR Third Comprehensive Transport Study 1997)


Since the opening of the KCR West Rail in 2003 and more recently, the Ma On Shan

Rail Link in 2004, the HKSAR Government has recognised the value in rail transport

providing a positive influence and impact on land use planning. There is more rail

links being planned (see figure 16) with a view that heavy rail will eventually

become the dominant form of public transport, with the franchised bus routes

becoming “feeder routes” to the railway stations.

Figure 16: Ultimate preferred rail network in Hong Kong SAR (Source: HKSAR, The Second Railway Development Study 2000)

As a result, Hong Kong’s heavy rail network has been seen as an attractive

alternative to road based transport systems, and the potential for better integration

with land use planning. The 2007 “Hong Kong Moving Ahead – A transport strategy

for the future” gives “priority” to railway development is evidence of this occurring.

Integrating transport and land use planning can reduce the public's reliance on road-

based transport, which in turn alleviates the demands put on the transport system and

lessens the impact on the environment. Greater emphasis will be placed on the needs

of pedestrians in transport and land use planning. Initiatives to be pursued include:


o Siting intensive developments and employment centres within easy

pedestrian reach of rail stations

o Pedestrianising selected roads, and providing grade-separated walkways, to

reduce the number of short motorised trips and the conflict between

pedestrians and vehicles. This will increase mobility, enhance road safety and

improve local air quality

o Encouraging through the planning process non-polluting travel such as

walking and cycling which will reduce the need for motorised travel at the

local level

Despite these initiatives, increases in population and economic activity will place

additional demands on existing and future transport systems, making it vitally

important to provide new systems, and improve existing infrastructure, in a timely

manner. This will be achieved by:

o Regularly reviewing the need, scope and timing for strategic highway

projects to ensure they dovetail with current or future land use and population

parameters

o Devising plans and environmental mitigation measures to cope with an

expected significant increase in cross-boundary traffic

o Giving priority to railway development

(Source: HKSAR Hong Kong Moving Ahead – A transport strategy for the future

2007)


3. Heavy Rail-Land Use Relationship

3.1 Introduction and Heavy Rail Service Planning Principles The relationship between heavy rail and land use is often difficult to define because

its planning and operations are considered in its own “right of way” compared with

light rail and buses which share space with many pedestrian oriented activities. (See

photos 1 and 2)

Photo 1 (left): A Sydney Bus at Epping Station (Source: Author)

Photo 2 (right): CityRail Intercity “V” set arriving at Epping Railway Station (Source: Author)

A bus passenger (photo 1) wishing to go to their place or activity for example would

simply have to alight from the bus at street level and walk to their intended

destination or activity (or reverse), the same could also be applied to light rail, which

also runs at street level, with the added advantage of its own right of way and is less

prone to traffic disruptions. A train passenger (photo 2) on the other hand would

have to alight from the train carriage, travel up the concourse, through the ticket

barrier and then continue to their destination or activity.

These two different transport modes bring together different circumstances when

planning for them in conjunction with land use such as accessibility and operation of

the transport mode (i.e. service scheduling). The rail planning processes adopted by

the Ministry of Transport, RailCorp and TIDC are highly conventional and iterative

(see figure 17, page 37).


o The analysis of employment, population and land use trends and existing and

future rail operational constraints.

o The prediction of future transport demands

o The development and testing of train plans to accommodate these demands

and meet other defined service objectives

o The development and testing of alternative rail infrastructure, train operation

and rolling stock responses

o The investigation of promising concepts in detail

o The preparation of overall strategies reflecting the finding of these

investigations, and

o The implementation of projects to achieve the desired results

(Source: Long Term Strategic Plan for Rail 2001)

The report also notes that to meet the process, cooperation and liaison between all

Government stakeholders is needed. However, having said that, this still appears to

be “fragmented” due to each agency trying to achieve its “own objectives” (see

section 2.3) and this could be interpreted as cooperation and liaison as existence by

words only and not necessarily action.

The 2005 City of Cities Metropolitan Strategy identifies the North West and South

West Rail Links as part of objective D1 in the strategy, which is to improve transport

between Sydney’s centres. Whilst there is no specific mention of timeframe in the

process, the Metropolitan Strategy recognises the value of heavy rail:

o Improve the level of rail services in Western Sydney

o Support Sydney’s growth in an increasingly global economy; and

o Provide access to jobs in the Macquarie Park to Airport Corridor

(Source: NSW Government City of Cities 2005, p165)


Figure 17: Rail planning cycle process (Source: Long Term Strategic Plan for Rail. 2001)


3.2 Heavy Rail Network Development in Sydney Sydney was very unique in that the rail infrastructure was in places like Richmond,

Penrith, Newcastle and Wollongong well before Sydney’s population expanded into

these areas to now where they are considered part of the “Greater Sydney” region.

Sydney’s rail system was an example and pioneer to the world of what potential of

the rail system and the benefits it brought to society, thanks to Dr. Bradfield’s vision

for a modern urban transit system for Sydney.

"We have done very well out of Bradfield's legacy," says Dr Philip Laird, a transport

expert from the University of Wollongong. "The trouble is that his legacy is so good -

the recent and current generation of policymakers have let far too many

opportunities go." (Source: Sydney Morning Herald 21 P

stP July 2007)

Sydney’s rail network over the years has been built up to be one of the world’s most

advanced and complex, the electrification from the 1920’s and the introduction of

double deck carriages from the 1960’s enabled Sydney to have a rail system that was

envy of the world. The rail network reached into the outer areas of Sydney and

electrification reaching areas such as Newcastle, Lithgow, Richmond, Port Kembla

and Kiama enabled commuters the choice of living in areas not limited to the Sydney

metro and by use of electric rail, journeys to town, work and other centres was

convenient. However, by the late 1990’s organisation restructure and lack of

investment has made rail travel very unattractive. This has been compounded by the

negative media coverage, especially in the wake of the 1999 Glenbrook and 2003

Waterfall accidents.

Long Term Strategic Plan for Rail 2001 and Clearways Project In June 2001, Ron Christie released the long term strategic plan (Christie Report) for

rail that highlighted the (then) current problems facing the network (see figure 18

next page) and recommendations to Government to create a sustainable rail system

in the long term. It recognises that the current network was “rapidly approaching

gridlock” and that major investment of funds and rail projects were needed to ensure

the long term viability of the rail system. These “operational” problems will lead to

difficulty in promoting heavy rail and land use integration. It’s no use having good

land use planning to promote sustainable transport and land use integration if the

current rail system is not performing well, let alone plans to add new lines to


promote rail usage which aims to have a positive impact and influence on good land

use planning integration.

Figure 18: Trouble spots in the rail network (Source: SMH Thursday 21st August 2003)

An outcome of the long term strategic plan for rail was the creation of the “clearways

project” The clearways project comprises of 15 key projects that will eventually

“separate” the existing CityRail network into 5 distinct “independent clearways” to

minimise “chain reaction” operational problems throughout the network. It is

anticipated that this will lead to better reliability and be able to meet the growth in

patronage, which will then in turn be a “platform” for promoting heavy rail as an


attractive alternative mode of transport and to realise its potential for better

integration with land use planning.

Metropolitan Rail Expansion Program (MREP) The Metropolitan Rail Expansion Program is a 50 kilometre expansion of the Sydney

Rail Network-the largest since 1930-into the growing areas of the North and the

South West (see figure 1). In the South West, it will extend services from Glenfield

to Leppington (see photo 3) while in the North West, it will build upon the new

Epping to Chatswood Rail Line to provide rail services to established areas like

Castle Hill and growing areas such as Norwest and Rouse Hill (see photo 4). The

MREP program will also provide for an additional CBD Harbour Rail Crossing to

provide additional rail capacity. (Source: NSW Urban Transport Statement 2006).

Photo 3: Proposed location of SWRL stabling facility at Leppington (Source: Author)

Photo 4: Rouse Hill Town Centre Stage 1 (Source: Author)


3.3 Heavy Rail and Land Use Connection A significant potential benefit of rail is its ability to support land use objectives. Rail

transit stations often serve as a catalyst for higher-density, mixed use development,

known as Transit Oriented Development (Litman 2004, p6). Whilst this may give the

impression that rail transit is a “trigger” in influencing land use, it is also true that

land use affects how transport systems are planned. If we look at the context of

heavy rail, a well designed rail interchange for example will attract people to use it

who will then (more than likely) use the rail service. The recently completed

Parramatta Transport Interchange (see photo 5) is an example where its good design

and layout has attracted more people, the transport service stops are well laid out and

its permeability has improved greatly, particular the linkage with Westfield

Parramatta.

Photo 5: Parramatta Transport Interchange (Source: Author)

Rail systems are also perceived to increase land value all along their routes,

compared with freeways, and concentrate commercial development (and compact

housing) around stations. In this way rail systems attract more development, with

nodes of life, commercial activity and jobs clustering around suburban stations (see

photo 6), while freeways disperse development over wide areas usually only

reachable by car (see photo 7). The ability of rail to increase land values is now

being used as a way of paying for new rail systems in European and North American

Cities, by encouraging joint public and private development of the rail system and

associated commercial and residential projects. (Source: Newman and Kenworthy

1992)


The rail link(s) (North West, South West and CBD Harbour Rail Links) have the

potential to lead development across Sydney and support renewal in established

areas. It would improve accessibility from the new Growth Centres to centres

providing jobs and other services within the existing urban area. It would integrate

with the existing rail network and improved bus networks, connecting centres across

the city. (Source: NSW Government City of Cities 2005, p165)

Photo 6 (left): Rail based land use development patterns (Source: Author)

Photo 7 (right): Road based land use development patterns (Source: Author)

Photos 6 and 7 illustrate the difference between road and rail based land use

development impacts. The road based development is low density whereas the rail

based development is high density.

3.4 Alternative Public Transport Modes for the North West and South West Transport Corridors On September 25P

thP 2007 there was a newspaper headline entitled “Costa push to

derail Hills link”. The article highlighted that the NSW treasury wanted the North

West Rail Link “reassessed” in favour “cheaper” bus rapid transitways. Then on 26P

thP

September 2007, was the headline “Rail line will proceed: Watkins” reaffirming the

Government’s position on the North West Rail Link. Politics and costs aside, this

provides an opportunity to examine and analyse the difference between heavy rail

and bus rapid transitways, both of which perform different roles and have different


relationships and consequences with land use pattern impacts, and this is described

in Table 1 below using a basic “bus” and “rail” comparison.

Bus

Rail

Flexibility. Bus routes can change and

expand when needed. For example, routes

can change if a roadway is closed, or if

destinations or demand changes.

Requires no special facilities. Buses can

use existing roadways, and general traffic

lanes can be converted into a busway.

More suitable for dispersed land use, and

so can serve a greater rider catchment area.

Several routes can converge onto one

busway, reducing the need for transfers.

For example buses that start at several

suburban communities can all use a

busway to a city centre.

Lower capital costs.

Is used by more people who are transit

dependent, so bus service quality

improvements provide greater equity

benefits.

Greater demand. Rail tends to attract more

discretionary riders than buses

Greater comfort, including larger seats

with more legroom, more space per

passenger, and smoother and quieter ride.

More voter support for rail than bus

improvements.

Greater maximum capacity. Rail requires

less space and is more cost effective on

high volume routes.

Greater travel speed and reliability, where

rail transit is grade separated.

More positive land use impacts. Rail tends

to be a catalyst for more accessible

development patterns.

Increased property values near transit

stations.

Less air and noise pollution, particularly

when electric powered. Rail stations tend

to be more pleasant than bus stations, so

rail is more appropriate where many transit

vehicles congregate.

Table 1: Comparison of Bus and Rail Mode (Source: Litman 2004)

Whilst Litman made the point of rather than debating whether or not rail is superior

to bus, it is generally better to consider which is more appropriate in a particular


situation. If we consider this particular situation of the North West Rail Link corridor

(and the initial reasons for having a heavy rail link), a “bus route” running along the

North West Rail Link Corridor to the City would make it one of Sydney’s longest

bus routes. This option totally goes against the original strategic aims, goals and

objectives of the State Plan and the Metropolitan Strategy.

In addition, the existing bus services running along the North West corridor to the

CBD is at “near capacity” as indicated by Westbus Chief Executive Owen Eckford

where it has added 16 buses to the services it runs along the M2 Motorway into the

city and North Sydney after a steep rise in passenger numbers. The boost was its

latest attempt to meet the needs of 8000 to 10,000 workers travelling by bus to the

office every day from suburbs in the North West. The demand is so great that even

the “bendy” (articulated) bus is not big enough, despite having a capacity of 63

seated passengers. (Source: Sydney Morning Herald, 16 P

thP March 2007)

Despite the 25P

thP September article floating the idea of (by “private investors”)

initially building an underground tollway, with the intention of converting it later to

rail, there is no guarantee that it will happen, it could end up being a normal toll

road, which “guarantees income” like the other toll roads in Sydney which investors

have a stake in. The second scenario, if this underground tollway were to go ahead

and not be converted to heavy rail use, it could end up being like the half built

Dombarton-Maldon Line located south of Sydney, a waste of resources and

taxpayers money (see photo 8).

Photo 8: Half completed Dombarton-Maldon Line (source: NSWrail.net)


The second issue with the bus service replacing the proposed North West Rail Link,

is where are all these “additional” buses (including other CBD inbound buses from

other parts of Sydney) going to be parked for unloading in the AM peak and loading

in the PM peak. It appears (see photo 9) that the existing Wynyard Bus station at

York St (near the Harbour Bridge) is at “near capacity” in the AM peak and that it

would be likely there wouldn’t be any more capacity for extra inbound bus services.

The same could be said for the PM peak, with the buses leaving Sydney CBD.

Should this eventuate, one could question whether there’s any difference at all in

driving, after all buses and cars travel on the “same road”.

Photo 9: Existing Wynyard York St Bus Terminus in AM peak weekday (Source: Author)

Whilst the South West Rail Link Corridor is “less complex” than the North West

because the area is not “built up” and developed (the concept plan having recently

being approved by the Minister for Planning), there would also be parallels with the

North West should the South West Rail Link be replaced by a bus service. However,

in this circumstance/scenario there are two differences compared with the North

West. Firstly there is an existing rail line at Glenfield (near the proposed South West

Rail Link) which connects to the City via the East Hills line and the South Western

M5 Motorway which offers cashback to privately registered vehicles whereas the M2

Motorway does not. Nonetheless, one would hope that by the time the South West

Rail Link is built, those “new” residents can look forward and early establish their

travel habits by using the new rail link rather than drive and add to the already peak

hour congested M5 Motorway and M5 East Freeway.


Reason for using public transport to travel to work in NW and SW area

18%

6%

14%

5%

13%4%

12%

7%

8%

2%

1% 10%

Parking problems/costs

Don't have car

Cheaper

Car used by someone else

Faster

Arrives closer to destination

Less stressful

Live/work close to public transport

Enjoy time to read/relax

Environmental reasons

Employer assists with publictransport costs

Other specify

Reason for using car instead of public transport to travel to work in NW and SW area

20%

13%

19%5%5%

4%

6%

6%

6%

8%1%

7%Bus/train unavailable/inaccessible

Problems with public transport

Vehicle faster

Provided by company/business

Need vehicle for work

Need vehicle for other trips

Can make trip whenever I like

No timetable/waiting constraints

Arrives closer to destination

More comfortable

Carpooling arrangements

Other specify

Figure 19: Reason for using car instead of Public Transport to work in North West and South West area (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)

Figure 20: Reason for using Public Transport instead of car to work in North West and South West area (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)

Figures 19 and 20 show the combined North West and South West Study area of the

reasons why some people use cars and others use public transport to travel to work.

Due to the data being provided as a combined total for both areas, it was not possible

to separate them. Figure 19 had a total response of 197,096 respondents whilst figure

20 had a total of 40,087 respondents. It is interesting to note in figure 20 that 18% of

the respondents (being the largest representative total) have cited parking problems

and costs for not using a car, surprising given these areas are thought to have ample

parking, whilst 13% have cited faster public transport. Appendix A has a full

breakdown of the household and number of cars owned in each of the travel zones.


4. North West Land Use and Transport Corridor Planning Analysis

4.1 Introduction This chapter will focus on analysing the planning process for the North West Rail

Link and undertake a strategic land use and transport analysis of the North West Rail

Link corridor using the Transport Data Centre Household Travel Survey to

understand the travel patterns and demands in this corridor. As mentioned earlier, the

analysis of the North West Rail Link corridor will be limited to the “Stage 1”

(Epping to Hills Centre) and “Stage 2” (Hills Centre to Rouse Hill) of the link only

to establish a picture and understand how this rail link is planned in an existing

environment context. The proposed North West Rail link is shown in Figure 21

below.

Figure 21: North West Rail Link Route Overview (Source: TIDC NWRL Preferred project report by GHD May 2007)


4.2 North West Rail Link Project Description The North West Rail Link (NWRL) is a proposed 22 km passenger heavy rail line

running from Epping to Rouse Hill via Castle Hill. It includes six new stations;

Franklin Road, Castle Hill, Hills Centre, Norwest, Burns Road, and Rouse Hill (with

an interim train stabling facility. As part of the NSW Government Metropolitan Rail

Expansion Program, (MREP), the proposed NWRL will provide links between new

employment and growth areas within Sydney.

The NWRL is proposed to be built in two stages. The first stage between Epping and

Hills Centre is proposed to be operational by 2015, whilst the second stage between

Hills Centre and Rouse Hill is expected to be operational by 2017.

(Source: Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation NWRL Planning Update

No. 3 June 2007)

4.3 Existing Public Transport Services Within the North West Rail Link Corridor as indicated in Figure 21, CityRail runs

train services on the Western and Blue Mountains line (along the bottom left of

Figure 21) and the Northern and Central Coast/Newcastle line (to the right of Figure

21). Parramatta, Blacktown are the nearest rail stations serving travellers in the

NWRL corridor area. Strictly speaking though, in the context of this study, it would

be fair to say that the area around the NWRL Corridor is not served by rail.

The majority of buses serving the study area are run by Hillsbus and Busways

Blacktown. These routes are illustrated in Figure 22 on the next page. The study area

is known as “Contract Region 4” and encompasses the suburbs of Blacktown, Rouse

Hill, Castle Hill, Dural and Parramatta. Strategic bus corridors 3, 6, 5 and 40 run

through the corridor as indicated on Figure 12, page 25.

In the absence of a heavy rail service in the study area, Figure 22 on the next page

indicates a comprehensive bus route network serving and linking many centres in the

North West. However, should travellers wish to travel to other parts of Sydney, a

connection to the rail service at Parramatta, Blacktown or the Richmond Line may be

necessary (especially in off peak and on weekends).


Figure 22: Contract region 4 (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport)


4.4 North West Transitway In March 2007, the first stage of the North West Transitway (T-way) opened

between Rouse Hill and Parramatta railway station. The second stage between

Blacktown and Parklea is due to open on Saturday 3P

rdP November 2007 (see Figure

23).

Figure 23: North West T-way network (Source: HTUwww.t-way.nsw.gov.au UTH)


The North West T-way is a dedicated daily high frequency service that runs parallel

on a dedicated busway to Old Windsor Road. The Blacktown section runs parallel to

Sunnyholt Road. The T-way routes (and journey time each direction) are as follows:

o T61: Blacktown and Parramatta (35 mins)

o T62: North Kellyville and Parramatta (42 mins)

o T63: Kellyville Ridge and Parramatta (45 mins)

o T64: Rouse Hill and Parramatta (via Beaumont Hills) (60 mins)

o T65: Rouse Hill and Parramatta. (38 mins)

During September on two weekday morning peaks, a passenger count of the

alighting passengers from the T-way heading into Parramatta rail station (Western

Concourse) was conducted at the Parramatta Transport Interchange stand A1 (see

Figure 24). This assumes that all of the passengers counted in the survey who walked

into Parramatta Station will be catching a train to the city. Because of the departing

T-way services at stand B4, it was not possible to conduct a detailed count and

observation of passengers moving from the rail station exits to stand B4. So it is also

assumed, for the purposes of this exercise, that the “same” passengers in the morning

count will also make the return trip in the afternoon peak after catching the rail

service from the City. These counts (Figures 25 and 26) are detailed on the next

page.

Figure 24: Parramatta Transport Interchange (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport)


North West T-way passengers heading into Parramatta Station (Wednedsay 12th September 2007)

87

15

11 12

32

16

21

18

9

18

15

6 7

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

07:0

2:00

07:2

1:00

07:3

0:00

07:3

5:00

07:4

0:00

08:0

0:00

08:0

7:00

08:0

7:00

08:0

9:00

08:1

0:00

08:2

6:00

08:2

6:00

08:4

0:00

08:4

0:00

08:5

0:00

T65 T62 T65 T64 T63 T65 T62 T63 T61 T64 T65 T61 T64 T62 T62

T way route & arrival time

No.

of p

asse

nger

s

North West T-way passengers heading into Parramatta Station (Thursday 13th September 2007)

5 5

17

8

14

10

18

25

12 12

27

15

22

27

2

2119

15

911

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

06:5

9:00

07:0

0:00

07:0

6:00

07:2

2:00

07:2

3:00

07:2

5:00

07:3

3:00

07:3

3:00

07:4

6:00

08:0

2:00

08:0

2:00

08:0

2:00

08:0

4:00

08:1

0:00

08:2

7:00

08:2

7:00

08:2

7:00

08:4

0:00

08:4

5:00

08:4

7:00

08:5

7:00

T65 T63 T65 T61 T65 T62 T63 T64 T65 T61 T62 T63 T65 T64 T61 T65 T62 T63 T64 T65 T62

T way route & arrival time

No.

of p

asse

nger

s

Figure 25: North West T-way passenger count heading into Parramatta Station on Wednesday 12 P

thP September 2007 (Source: Author)

Figure 26: North West T-way passenger count heading into Parramatta Station on Thursday 13 P

thP September 2007 (Source: Author)


Figure 25 indicates the total number of passengers (216 in total) that arrived at

Parramatta Transport Interchange heading into the rail station concourse between

7:00am and 9:00am on Wednesday to alight from the T-way, with a total arrival of

15 services. Figure 26 indicates the total number of passengers (306 in total) that

arrived at Parramatta Transport Interchange heading into the rail station concourse

between 7:00am and 9:00am on Thursday to alight from the T-way, with a total

arrival of 21 services, 7 services more than Wednesday.

Thursday appears to be a busier day than Wednesday with more services and

passengers arriving within the same time period compared with Wednesdays. Both

days indicate that the majority of passengers arrive between 7:30am and 8:30pm. the

route T65 appears to be very popular with passengers judging by the arrivals as well

as having the fastest trip route of all T-way routes at 38 mins. During both days of

the survey, it was also observed that there were 8 cars parked at the Burns Road Park

and Ride (5% usage, see photo 10) and 79 cars parked at Riley Park and Ride (59%

usage)

Photo 10: Park and Ride Facility at Burns Road T-way Station (Source: Author)

As the North West T-way has only been in operation for a few months, this is a good

start and will continue to build up as the New Rouse Hill Town Centre fully opens

soon. The Liverpool to Parramatta Transitway (route T80) in the South West also

had a low patronage in the beginning, but on the day of this survey at Parramatta

station, it was observed that every T80 service that arrived was at “crush capacity”

and the North West T-way also has the potential to achieve similar patterns. The

North West T-way will play a “complimentary” role when the NWRL is completed

and offer the North West a comprehensive and efficient public transport option

which will have a positive influence on future land use planning.


4.5 Planning analysis of the North West Rail Link This chapter will focus on the planning process of North West Rail Link (NWRL)

and how it will integrate with land use planning. The following documents prepared

in planning for the NWRL will be reviewed and analysed in this chapter:

o GHD, November 2006. North West Rail Link Environmental Assessment and

Concept Plan. Prepared for Transport Infrastructure Development

Corporation

o GHD, May 2007. North West Rail Link: Preferred Project Report. Prepared

for Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation

The first report is the initial concept plan and environmental assessment, which is

then put on exhibition for comment whilst the second report is in response to the

submissions and issues raised by stakeholders in the first report.

North West Rail Link Environmental Assessment and Concept Plan The NWRL is a Part 3A Project under the NSW Environmental Planning and

Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979. Part 3A of the EP&A Act establishes an assessment

and approval regime for development that is declared to be a Part 3A project by

either a State Environmental Planning Policy or Ministerial Order (section 75B).

Section 75B states:

o This Part applies to the carrying out of development that is declared under

this section to be a project to which this Part applies:

o by a State Environmental Planning Policy, or

o by order of the Minister published in the Gazette

(Source: NSW Legislation, EP&A Act 1979)

The project was declared to be a project to which Part 3A applies by an order made

by the Minister on 7 April 2006. Division 3 of Part 3A provides a process for the

environmental assessment and approval of concept plans for projects where the

Minister has authorised or required a proponent to submit a concept plan under

section 75M of the EP&A Act. On 3 July 2006 the Minister authorised TIDC to

prepare this concept plan for the project.


Under s75M(2), a concept plan is to:

o outline the scope of the project and any development options, and

o set out any proposal for the staged implementation of the project, and

o contain any other matter required by the Director General.

(Source: NSW Legislation, EP&A Act 1979)

The concept plan assessment and approval process enables a proponent to obtain

approval for the key parameters of a major, complex project whilst allowing

necessary flexibility to undertake more detailed design and assessment of the specific

components of the project. This would enable matters such as the suitability of a

site/route and environmental issues to be resolved early in the project planning

process.

The concept plan approval process is particularly relevant to large scale, long-term

and complex infrastructure projects (such as the project) for which conceptual

strategic planning work has already been undertaken. A concept plan approval would

ensure better integration of land use and transport planning in the local government

areas affected by the project. Importantly, submission of a concept plan would also

enable further community involvement in the strategic planning phase and in the

refinement of the project.

(Source: GHD, November 2006. North West Rail Link Environmental Assessment

and Concept Plan p 2.8)

The Environmental Assessment and Concept plan goes into a lot of detail addressing

a wide range of social, economic and environmental issues considering a project of

this scale in an existing urban area. The draft Statement of Commitments details 40

points for further consideration in accordance with section 75F(6) of the EP&A Act.

Land Use Impacts and Planning The project has the potential to act as a catalyst for residential and commercial

development, with an increase in land use intensity, in the vicinity of the six new

station sites. In particular, there is the potential for development with a transit

oriented focus in the vicinity of Franklin Road, Burns Road and Rouse Hill Stations.

Burns Road and Rouse Hill Stations are located within new release areas (the


Balmoral Road Release Area and the Rouse Hill Regional Centre) and the presence

of a station has already been taken into account in the planning and development of

these areas. Existing land uses within the vicinity of the other stations would be able

to take advantage of the increased access that the stations provide. Intensification of

existing land uses around Castle Hill, Hills Centre and Norwest Stations may also

occur. (Source: GHD, November 2006. North West Rail Link Environmental

Assessment and Concept Plan, p viii)

Whilst the project is recognised for having the potential to integrate with land use

planning, the actual process of how to achieve it is not explained in great detail

because the scope of the report is to address the environmental impacts during

construction and to present a concept plan for approval under part 3A of the EP&A

Act. Another issue with the NWRL link is that it’s built in a developed area and land

use rezoning or increased development density changes (i.e. compatible “new” and

existing” developments located in same precinct) will occur as a result of the NWRL

been built. Whilst part 3A “reduces red tape” and allows for a streamlined planning

approval process, it is too focused and concentrated on “getting it approved” by the

Minister for Planning (and not the Minister for Transport as well for example)

without any real opportunity for all the stakeholders to get involved.

Indeed part 3A has not been without its controversies with developers trying to

bypass local authorities to get “direct” approval from the Minister and also the

powers granted to him to “call in” any developments. It appears also, from an

examination of this Environmental Assessment, that an opportunity is missed to

“practice” integrated land use and transport planning, stakeholders merely just

respond to what is presented from an environmental assessment perspective.

North West Rail Link Preferred Project Report The preferred project report is a response from the Transport Infrastructure

Development Corporation to the submissions it has received from the exhibition of

the Environmental Assessment and Concept Plan in accordance with section 75H(6)

of the EP&A Act 1979. Whilst the NWRL has undergone some design modifications

to address some issues raised in the submission, there is still a lack of a “plan

forward” to a process of how to integrated transport and land use planning. This is


evident with some of the issues raised by stakeholders detailed below with regard to

land use planning and the impacts on land during construction.

Baulkham Hills Shire Council o Opposition to any part of the rail line above ground

o Consideration of a rail station at Samantha Riley Drive

o Development limitations and development potential in the vicinity of

Franklin Road Station

RailCorp o Integration of station precincts with surrounding land uses

Blacktown City Council o Integration of the stabling facility with future surrounding land uses

NSW Ministry of Transport o Integration of any future extension with planning for the North West Growth

Centre

Hornsby Shire Council o Significant land use implications in the vicinity of Franklin Road Station

(consistency with the relevant Development Control Plan and commercial

centres hierarchy to be investigated)

Landcom o Deliver the project faster and stages 1 and 2 concurrently

o Consult with Landcom and other key stakeholders to integrate the design of

Rouse Hill Station

o Commence detailed project approvals for the Rouse Hill Station to coincide

with other development

o Development adjacent to or above the rail tunnel

(Source: Adapted from GHD, May 2007. North West Rail Link: Preferred Project

Report. Table A1)


In addressing each of the concerns, the report directs the reader to the relevant

section where it addresses the issue. In some cases, the actual section does not exist

in the report (e.g. 5.8.5), and there isn’t any evidence of a “concrete proposal” to

seriously address the concerns, only what measures are implemented to address the

“environmental impacts”.

Staged Delivery of NWRL The staged delivery of the NWRL was also a concern raised as it will impact on the

overall land use planning timeframe. Western Sydney Regional Organisation of

Councils (WSROC) notes that because the NWRL is being delivered in two stages

that “A major disadvantage of stopping the construction at the Hills Centre Station

for the first stage is the lost opportunity to connect with the new Rouse Hill Regional

Centre (currently under construction) and the Norwest Business Park which

currently employs some 25,000 people (with Woolworths alone employing 7,000

people) with an anticipated total employment of 35,000 people by 2010” (Source:

WSROC Response to TIDC NWRL Environmental Assessment and Concept Plan,

February 2007).

4.6 Land Use and Transport Analysis The objective of this chapter is to undertake a strategic land use and transport

analysis of the North West Rail Link corridor and present the corridor’s existing and

forecasted travel and land use characteristics. This is carried out by an analysis of the

Household Travel Survey data sets and Small Area and Employment Forecasts

supplied by the NSW Ministry of Transport, Transport Data Centre (TDC). The full

details of the Household Characteristics, Population and Employment Forecast Data

of the North West Rail Link Corridor (together with the South West Rail Link

Corridor) are in Appendix A.


Figure 27: North West Rail Link Study Area (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)

Figure 27 above represents the entire North West Rail Link corridor and surrounding

areas; the orange line represents the North West Rail Link whilst the blue line

represents the North West Transitway (discussed earlier). Each of the three digit

numbers shown in Figure 27 represent a “travel zone” and hold data such as purpose

and mode of trips within that particular travel zone. The study area falls mainly

within the Baulkham Hills Council area with part of the proposed North West Rail

Link in Hornsby Council area.

In developing the data set analysis, only travel zones “immediate” to the North West

Rail Link were used for this analysis, so not all the zones shown above were used for

this exercise, either because they are not near the North West Rail Link or are

already close to both the existing Western and Northern Lines of the CityRail

network. The suburbs listed in figure 27 are for travel zone data classification

purposes only and does not necessarily match the actual suburb name in the street

directory (e.g. West Pennant Hills (east)).


The zones selected out of Figure 27 are:

Table 2: Selected Travel Zones for the data analysis: (Source: adapted from data set provided by NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)

Land Use analysis Population and employment forecasts at travel zone level are estimated using

forecasting models that are managed by the TDC. These forecasts are provisional

small area estimates which are normally used as inputs in other modelling processes

such as in Sydney Strategic Travel Model. It should be differentiated from the

official Population Projections produced at a broader geographical level which are

sectioned by the NSW Government. (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport, TDC

2007)

TDC Data Coverage Suburbs (North West Rail Link)

TZ (refer to fig. 27)

Baulkham Hills 454 Baulkham Hills East 621 Baulkham Hills Southwest 455 Baulkham Hills West 622 Beaumont Hills 624 Bella Vista 769 Box Hill 627 Castle Hill 755 Castle Hill North 620 Castle Hill Showground 753 Castle Hill South 756 Castle Hill West 453 Cherrybrook 470 Glenhaven 690 Glenhaven East 691 Glenwood 748 Kellyville 456 Kellyville North 752 Kellyville Ridge 747 Kellyville South 623 Norwest Business Park 754 Rouse Hill 750 Rouse Hill South 751 Rouse Hill West 752 West Pennant Hills (east) 757 West Pennant Hills (west) 452


North West Study Area Population Forecast

221,977212,764203,465

190,338175,382

161,119

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031

Year

No.

of j

obs

Population forecast

The land use analysis is based on data from TDC’s Small Area Population and

Employment Forecasts. An analysis of the study area’s population and employment

characteristics was undertaken using the most recent 2006 data to present the

existing situation, and using the forecasted year of 2031 to present the future

situation for the corridor. The 2031 forecast year was selected because over the next

25 years initiatives such as the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and the North West

Rail Link will have been implemented.

Population

Figure 28: North West Study Area Population Forecast (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)

The land use analysis revealed that the study area accommodates a population of

161,119 people in the year 2006, forecasted to grow to 221,977 in the year 2031. The

study area’s majority of existing population are located in Baulkham Hills, Castle

Hill and West Pennant Hills. The bulk of the study area’s future population growth is

accommodated in Kellyville, Rouse Hill and Glenhaven; these areas are near the

future North West Growth Centre and are an indicator of population shifting further

out. (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport, TDC 2007)


North West Study Area Employment Forecast

99,57597,58994,07390,019

78,680

61,776

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031

Year

No.

of j

obs

Employment Forecast

Employment

Figure 29: North West Study Area Employment Forecast (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport

TDC 2007)

The land use analysis revealed that the study area accommodates an employment

forecast of 61,776 jobs in the year 2006, forecasted to grow to 99,575 jobs in the

year 2031. There is a notable “sharp growth” between 2006 and 2016. The majority

of the employment growth is accommodated in the Norwest Business Park with

around 35,000 jobs in the year 2031, more than double the 2006 forecast of around

16,000 jobs. Rouse Hill is the next suburb in the study area with the biggest jobs

growth, with 8,000 jobs forecast for the year 2031, up from 1,388 from the year

2006. (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport, TDC 2007). These results indicate that

the North West Rail Link’s two stations of Rouse Hill and Norwest Business Park

will be a major trip generator for people working in the area.


Total trips into and out of NWRL corridor by purpose

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Weekdays out Weekdays in Weekends out Weekends in

Trip purpose

No.

of t

rips

Commute

Education/chilcare

Home

Other

Personal business

Serve passenger

Shopping

Social/recreation

Work related business

Total trips into and out of NWRL Corridor by mode

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000


Tr i p M ode

Bus-government

Bus-pr ivat e

Ot her

Train

Vehicle Driver

Vehicle Passenger

Walk

Transport Analysis

Figure 30: Total no. of trips into and out of NWRL Corridor by mode (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)

Figure 31: Total no. of trips into and out of NWRL Corridor by purpose (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)


Total trips into and out between NWRL and other parts of Sydney

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000


Other parts of Sydney

No.

of t

rips

Eastern Suburbs

Forest District

Greater Western Sydney

Hills District

Inner West

North Shore (Low er)

North Shore (Upper)

North Western

Northern Beaches

Other (outside Sydney)

South Eastern Sydney

South Western Sydney

Southern Sydney

St George Area

Sydney CBD

Figure 32: Total no. of trips between NWRL Corridor and other parts of Sydney (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)

Figures 30 to 32 show the total trips into and out of the NWRL corridor by mode

purpose and between the NWRL corridors and other parts of Sydney. Whilst figure

30 “confirms” the private vehicle as the dominant form of transport into and out of

the area, this unsustainable trend could continue if the NWRL were not to be built.

The high number of trips into and out of the NWRL corridor for “home” purpose

indicates that trips into and out of the area is primarily for commuting purposes. If

the land uses mix changes, this trend will also change. The most surprising thing

figure 32 reveals is that a high number of trips is between the NWRL corridor and

Greater Western Sydney. This is a possible indicator that people are working in jobs

primarily in Greater Western Sydney rather than the traditional Sydney CBD. An

implication for the NWRL is whether this will balance and spread the trips to other

parts of Sydney, particularly for work commuting.


4.7 Future Influences on the Corridor

Burns Road and Balmoral Road future release area The Balmoral Road Release Area is located in the Baulkham Hills LGA in the

vicinity of Balmoral Road and Burns Road. It was originally identified as an urban

release area under the State Government’s Urban Development Program in 1998.

The Balmoral Road Local Environmental Plan was gazetted on 13 April 2006. This

plan rezoned rural land to allow development of the release area. The release area,

which has an area of approximately 500 hectares, adjoins the suburbs of Kellyville,

Bella Vista and Castle Hill.

It is proposed to accommodate approximately 15,000 people and 6,000 dwellings.

Other proposed land uses include a transit interchange/transitway stop in the vicinity

of the proposed Burns Road Station, commercial and employment development,

public services and facilities such as open space and schools.

The part of the land release area that is partially affected by the project has been

identified and zoned as land for railway purposes by the Balmoral Road Local

Environmental Plan.

(Source: GHD, November 2006. North West Rail Link Environmental Assessment

and Concept Plan, p3.24-3.25)

Other significant impacts on the NWRL will be the future development of the North

West Growth Centre and the Rouse Hill Town Centre full opening next year. These

changes, because of the NWRL link corridor, will produce a highly transit oriented

development along the North West Corridor. One possible interim impact in the area

may be the future third lane addition of the M2 motorway. As it is likely that this

will occur before the opening of the NWRL, this could be a factor in people’s travel

mode choice preference as the extra capacity could possibly encourage more car

drivers.


5. South West Land Use and Transport Corridor Planning Analysis

5.1 Introduction This chapter will focus on analysing the planning process for the South West Rail

Link and undertake a strategic land use and transport analysis of the South West Rail

Link corridor using the Transport Data Centre Household Travel Survey to

understand the travel patterns and demands in this corridor. The proposed South

West Rail link is shown in figure 33 below.

Figure 33: South West Rail Link Route Overview (Source: TIDC SWRL Environmental Assessment and Concept Plan by PB May 2007)


5.2 South West Rail Link Project Description The South West Rail Link (SWRL) is a proposed 13 kilometre twin track passenger

rail line from Glenfield to Leppington via Edmondson Park (South West Growth

Centre, refer to Figure 34). It includes two new stations at Edmondson Park and

Leppington, an upgrade to Glenfield Station and a new train stabling (train parking)

facility west of Leppington.

(Source: Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation SWRL Planning Update

No. 3 May 2007)

Figure 34: South West Growth Centre Structure Plan. (Source: NSW Department of Planning 2005. Managing Sydney’s Growth Centres)

5.3 Existing Public Transport Services Within the South West Rail Link Corridor as indicated in Figure 33, CityRail runs

train services to Campbelltown via Granville and East Hills Line. Glenfield and

Macquarie Fields are the nearest rail stations serving travellers in the SWRL corridor

area. The majority of buses serving the study area are run by Busabout and Interline;

these routes are illustrated in figure 34 on the next page. The study area is known as

“Contract Region 2” and encompasses the suburbs of Liverpool, Glenfield,

Ingleburn, Bringelly and Hoxton Park. Strategic bus corridor 31 runs near the SWRL

corridor as indicated on Figure 12, page 25.


Figure 35: Contract region 2 (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport)


5.4 Planning analysis of the South West Rail Link This chapter will focus on the planning process of South West Rail Link (SWRL)

and how it will integrate with land use planning. The following documents prepared

in planning for the SWRL will be reviewed and analysed in this chapter:

o Parsons Brinckerhoff, November 2006. South West Rail Link. Concept Plan

and Environmental Assessment. For Transport Infrastructure Development

Corporation

o Parsons Brinckerhoff, May 2007. South West Rail Link Concept Plan and

Environmental Assessment. Submissions Report For Transport Infrastructure

Development Corporation

The first report is the initial concept plan and environmental assessment, which is

then put out onto exhibition for comment whilst the second report is in response to

the submissions and issues raised by stakeholders in the first report.

South West Rail Link Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment The NSW Minister for Transport and the voting shareholders of TIDC have granted

consent under Section 18(1) of the Transport Administration Act 1988 for TIDC to

undertake preparatory work required for the Metropolitan Rail Expansion Program

(MREP), which includes the SWRL.

Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 establishes an

assessment and approval regime for major infrastructure projects. It applies to

development that is declared to be a Part 3A project by either a state environmental

planning policy or a Ministerial Order published in the Government Gazette (under

Section 75B of the Act). The SWRL was declared to be a project to which Part 3A

applies by an order made by the Minister on 9 April 2006 pursuant to Section 75B.

(Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, November 2006. South West Rail Link Concept Plan

and Environmental Assessment p30)

Compared with the NWRL, the SWRL planning process is assisted by the Growth

Centres Commission which co-ordinates the land releases and the provision of

infrastructure, this ensures that when people move in, there will be infrastructure

ready. The commission works closely with the relevant Local Council to prepare


detailed plans for land use. With this process in mind, the provision of the SWRL

will allow certainty in planning for precincts around it. A new State Environmental

Planning Policy (SEPP) Sydney Region Growth Centre 2006 was gazetted in July

2006 which sets out the statutory plans and processes that will apply in the North

West and South West Growth Centres. Central to the SEPP is the coordination of

sustainable land release for urban development within each growth centre.

Land Use Impacts and Planning As the SWRL is a new rail link to be built in a future developing area, the main issue

with the land use impacts (currently) is the reservation and acquisition of land from

private owners. When the SWRL is built, the following land use changes around the

two proposed stations are expected to occur:

Edmondson Park

o a town centre, comprising 25,000 square metres of retail floor space,

including two supermarkets

o 7,333 dwellings

o highway retail uses along part of the southern side of Camden Valley Way

o six local villages, including two villages on Camden Valley Way, that will

include local

o retail uses (e.g. convenience stores and cafes), high density residential

development, schools, community facilities and neighbourhood parks

o four schools, comprising a high school in the town centre and primary

schools at three of the local villages

o a hierarchy of public open space, including conservation areas (154 hectares),

riparian parks, district parks and neighbourhood active and passive recreation

areas.




Leppington

The South West Growth Centre Structure Plan divides the Leppington local area into

three development precincts: Leppington North, Leppington and East Leppington.

The proposed Leppington Station is located in the Leppington North precinct. The

SWRL corridor also crosses into the northern edge of the Leppington precinct west

of the Station. The Leppington precinct was not among the first precincts identified

for development by the Growth Centres Commission. Planning for the Leppington

precinct has not progressed beyond the level of detail contained in the South West

Structure Plan.



South West Rail Link Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment Submissions Report The submissions report is a response from the Transport Infrastructure Development

Corporation to the submissions it has received from the exhibition of the Concept

Plan and Environmental Assessment in accordance with section 75H(6) of the EP&A

Act 1979.

The report notes that many of the issues raised matters of detail that cannot be fully

addressed at the Concept Plan level. These issues have been noted and would be

addressed as part of further design development and environmental assessment

planned for the next stage. The main issues were

o property impacts (from valuation/acquisition process)

o Existing parking at Glenfield station

o Land use impacts, during construction and future

o Operation of the rail link in the future


5.5 Land Use and Transport Analysis The objective of this chapter is to undertake a strategic land use and transport

analysis of the South West Rail Link corridor and present the corridor’s existing and

forecasted travel and land use characteristics. This is carried out by an analysis of the

Household Travel Survey data sets and Small Area and Employment Forecasts

supplied by the NSW Ministry of Transport, Transport Data Centre (TDC). The full

details of the Household Characteristics, Population and Employment Forecast Data

of the South West Rail Link Corridor (together with the North West Rail Link

Corridor) are in Appendix A.

Figure 36: South West Rail Link Study Area (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)

Figure 36 above represents the entire South West Rail Link corridor and surrounding

areas; the orange line represents the South West Rail Link (indicative). Each of the

three digit numbers shown in Figure 36 represent a “travel zone” and hold data such

as purpose and mode of trips within that particular travel zone. The study area falls

mainly within the Liverpool Council area with part of the proposed South West Rail

Link in Campbelltown Council area.


South West Study Area Population Forecast

41,336

53,253

69,80977,270

88,87399,315

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031

Year

Popu

latio

n

population forecast

Table 3: Selected Travel Zones for the data analysis: (Source: adapted from data set provided by NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)

Table 3 above lists the selected travel zones for the analysis

Land Use analysis

Figure 37: South West Study Area Population Forecast (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport

TDC 2007)

The land use analysis revealed that the study area accommodates a population of

41,336 people in the year 2006, forecasted to grow to 99,315 in the year 2031. The

majority of the existing population is in Hoxton Park with 16,475 people in 2006, but

forecast to grow only to 21,092 by the year 2031. By contrast the bulk of the study

area’s future population growth is accommodated in Edmondson Park and

Leppington, their population is expected to grow from 2,016 in 2006 to 15,026 in

2031 and 747 in 2006 to 9,123 in 2031 respectively. (Source: NSW Ministry of

Transport, TDC 2007)

TDC Data Coverage Suburbs (South West Rail Link)

TZ (refer to fig. 36)

Austral 671 Edmondson Park 366 Hoxton Park 365 Hoxton West 583 Ingleburn 379 Leppington 666 Macquarie Links 601 Prestons 670 Varroville 599


South West Study Area Employment Forecast

27,36324,196

21,65020,467

18,37615,991

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031

Year

No.

of j

obs

Employment Forecast

Total trips into and out of SWRL corridor by mode

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000


Trip mode

No.

of t

rips

Bus-government

Bus-private

Other

Train

Vehicle Driver

Vehicle Passenger

Walk

Figure 38: South West Study Area Employment Forecast (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)

The land use analysis revealed that the study area accommodates an employment

forecast of 15,991 jobs in the year 2006, forecasted to grow to 27,363 jobs in the

year 2031. There is a notable “sharp growth” between 2006 and 2016. The majority

existing and future (minimal) of the employment growth is accommodated in the

suburbs of Hoxton Park, Ingleburn and Prestons. (Source: NSW Ministry of

Transport, TDC 2007). These results indicate that the South West Rail Link’s two

stations of Edmondson Park and Leppington will be focus of residential home trips.

Transport Analysis

Figure 39: Total no. of trips into and out of SWRL Corridor by mode (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)


Total trips into and out of SWRL corridor by purpose

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000


Trip purpose

No. o

f trip

s

CommuteEducation/chilcareHomeOtherPersonal businessServe passengerShoppingSocial/recreationWork related business

Trips into and out between SWRL Corridor and other parts of Sydney

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000


Other parts of Sydney

No.

of t

rips

Eastern SuburbsForest DistrictGreater Western SydneyHills District Inner WestNorth Shore (Lower)North Shore (Upper)North WesternNorthern BeachesOther (outside Sydney)South Eastern SydneySouth Western SydneySouthern Sydney St George AreaSydney CBD

Figure 40: Total no. of trips into and out of SWRL Corridor by purpose (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)

Figure 41: Total no. of trips between SWRL Corridor and other parts of Sydney (Source: NSW Ministry of Transport TDC 2007)


Figures 39 to 41 show the total trips into and out of the SWRL corridor by mode

purpose and between the SWRL corridors and other parts of Sydney. Whilst figure

39 also (like the NWRL) indicates that private vehicle as the dominant form of

transport into and out of the area, however on weekdays in, there is a high proportion

of trips heading into the study area being undertaken by the train . The high number

of trips into and out of the SWRL corridor for “home” purpose indicates that trips

into and out of the area is primarily for commuting purposes. If the land uses mix

changes, this trend will also change. Figure 41 reveals that a high number of trips are

between the SWRL corridor and South Western Sydney. This makes trips into and

out of the area still “within” the context of Western Sydney if we look at it from a

whole of Sydney perspective, cross commuting trips to other parts of Sydney very

minimal. This is a possible indicator that people are working and living within the

South Western Sydney Region. A “challenge” for the SWRL is whether this will

encourage more commuting to other parts of Sydney, or indeed, the future jobs

forecast attract people from other parts of Sydney.

5.6 Future Influences on the Corridor Whilst the future plans for the South West Growth Centre are well in various stages

of planning, ready to accommodate the future jobs and populations, the SWRL

corridor has the potential to influence other projects, such as the future extension of

the actual link, and be a platform for more detailed precinct planning in the South

West Growth Centre. The SWRL will provide an opportunity for to achieve an

optimum development of mixed land uses and also enhance the area’s long term

success and hopefully assist with the continual planning system improvement and be

an example of where good cooperation exists between all levels of Government and

stakeholders.


6. Evaluation and Conclusion In conclusion, this thesis has examined and analysed:

o The planning process of projected North West Rail Link in an “existing built

up urban area” context.

o The planning process of projected South West Rail Link in a “future

developing growth centre” area context.

o The role that “heavy rail” transport mode plays in integrated land use and

transport relationship.

o Whether the North West and South West Rail Links are the answer to address

the imbalance between public transport and private car usage?

o The consequences of land use planning in North West and South West

Sydney if the two rail links were not to be built.

The North West and South West Rail links are an opportunity to promote heavy rail

in being an influence on future land use patterns rather than just be a “rail system”.

The North West Rail Link planning process was challenging as it had to fit in an

“existing” built environment, whereas the South West Rail Link, one could argue, we

are starting a new challenge on a new piece of paper. The continued use of the car is

not sustainable, but having the new rail links provides “choice”. The progression of

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy 66: Integrated Land Use and Transport

should be reviewed as a result of these two rail links, and perhaps use as a case study

for “best practice”.

There is still a need for improvement in clarifying the roles of each level of

Government and stakeholders in the planning process. Indeed it would be better if

Sydney had followed other examples in other states or countries to practice good

integrated transport and land use planning. Each individual Government department

and stakeholders focusing on “achieving” its own objectives, the common goal of

making Sydney a better place to live becomes lost and it affects everyone, and then

one would ask: “Is Sydney Australia’s Global City?”


7. References o Banister, D. (1994). Transport Planning. Second Edition 2002. Spon Press

London and New York

o Bureau of Transport Economics, 1998. Working Paper 39: Urban Transport Models: A review. Australian Government, Canberra.

o Christopher Stapleton Consulting Pty Ltd. May 2004. SW Sector Transport Demands and Public Transport Networks. For Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources

o Christie R, (June 2001) The Christie Report-Long Term Strategic Plan for Rail HTUhttp://www.aptnsw.org.au/christie/ UTH Date accessed: 20/10/2007

o City Rail Website: HTUhttp://www.cityrail.info/ UTH (accessed 25 P

thP September 2007)

o Connell J, (ed) (2000) Sydney: The Emergence of a World City, Oxford University Press Melbourne.

o GHD, 2006. North West Rail Link Environmental Assessment and Concept Plan. Prepared for Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation

o GHD, May 2007. North West Rail Link: Preferred Project Report. Prepared for Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation

o Gurran, N. (2007). Australian Urban Land Use Planning. Introducing Statutory Planning Practice In New South Wales. Sydney University Press.

o Hutchinson, B.G. (1974). Principles of Urban Transport Systems Planning. Scripta Book Company USA

o Hanson, S and Giuliano, G. (eds) (2004). The Geography of Urban Transportation, Third Edition. The Guilford Press New York and London

o Lowry I.S. (1964). A model of metropolis. Technical Memorandum RM-40535-RC. The Rand Corporation. United States

o Toon, J and Falk, J. (eds) (2003). Sydney: Planning or Politics. Town Planning for Sydney Region since 1945. The Planning Research Centre, University of Sydney.

o Curtis, Carey and James, Bruce. An institutional model for land use and Transport Integration. Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 22, No. 3 P277-297, September 2004. Urban Policy and Research Melbourne, Australia

o Alford, Gavin. Integrating public transport and land use planning. Perspectives from Victoria. Australian Planner, Vol.43, No.3, P6-7, September 2006. Planning Institute of Australia, Canberra.

o HKSAR Government 1997. The Third Comprehensive Transport Study: Final Report. HTUhttp://www.td.gov.hk/publications_and_press_releases/publications/free_publications/the_third_comprehensive_transport_study/index.htmUTH (Accessed 30th September 2007)

o HKSAR Government 2007. Hong Kong Moving Ahead – A transport strategy for the future.


HTUhttp://www.thb.gov.hk/eng/psp/publications/transport/publications/hk_move_ahead_txt.htmUTH (Accessed 30th September 2007)

o Litman, Todd (2004) Comprehensive Evaluation of Rail Transit Benefits. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Canada.

o Meyer, Bob, Fifty years of Sydney’s Planning, New Planner P10-15, June 2006

o Newman, P and Kenworthy J 1992. Winning Back the Cities. Pluto Press, Sydney, Australia

o NSW T-way website. HTUhttp://www.t-way.nsw.gov.au/ UTH (accessed 9 P

thP September

2007)

o NSW Legislation. Environmental and Planning Assessment Act 1979. HTUhttp://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/ UTH (Accessed 1 P

stP October 2007)

o NSW Government November 2006. Urban Transport Statement. Responding to the Challenges of Travel and Transport within and across Sydney.

o NSW Government December 2005. City of Cities A Plan for Sydney’s Future (Metropolitan Strategy)

o NSW Government 2006. State Infrastructure Strategy

o NSW Government October 2006. State Plan. A new direction for NSW

o NSW Department of Planning 2005. Planning Report for the South West Growth Centre

o NSW Department of Planning 2005. Preliminary Infrastructure Report for the North West and South West Growth Centres

o NSW Department of Planning 2005. Managing Sydney’s Growth Centres

o NSW Department of Planning 2006. Annual Report 2005-2006

o NSW Department of Planning 2005. Metropolitan Development Program (MDP) Residential Forecasts 2005/06-2014/15

o NSW Ministry of Transport 2003. Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable Public transport. HTUhttp://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/inquiries/parry-final-report.pdfUTH (Accessed 29th September 2007)

o NSW Ministry of Transport 2004. Review of Bus Services in NSW. Final Report. HTUhttp://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/inquiries/unsworth-final-bus-report_full.pdfUTH (Accessed 28th September 2007)

o NSW Ministry of Transport. Fact Sheet – Integrated Planning

o NSW Ministry of Transport, Contract Region 4 Profile. HTUhttp://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/abouttrans/Region-4.pdfUTH (Accessed 20th October 2007)

o NSW Ministry of Transport, Contract Region 2 Profile. HTUhttp://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/abouttrans/Region-2.pdfUTH (Accessed 20th October 2007)

o NSW Ministry of Transport Data Centre: HTUhttp://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/tdc/UTH (accessed 20 P

thP September 2007)


o NSW Ministry of Transport, Transport Data Centre (TDC) 2007. Household Characteristics, Small Area Population and Employment Forecast and Household Travel Survey Data Set for the North West and South West Rail Link Areas.

o NSW Roads and Traffic Authority. Annual Report 2005-2006

o Ministerial Inquiry into Sustainable Public transport (Parry Report) NSW Ministry for Transport December 2003 HTUhttp://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/ministerial-inquiry/UTH (accessed 18 P

thP October

2007)

o NSWrail.net website. HTUhttp://www.nswrail.net/UTH (Accessed 17 P

th PSeptember 2007)

o Parsons Brinckerhoff, November 2006. South West Rail Link. Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment. For Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation

o Parsons Brinckerhoff, May 2007. South West Rail Link Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment. Submissions Report For Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation

o Potter, S and Skinner, M.J. 2000. On transport integration: a contribution to a better understanding. Futures. Vol.32. No.3. P275-287

o RailCorp Website: HTUhttp://www.railcorp.info/ UTH (accessed 25 P

thP September 2007)

o TSouthworth, F, 1995. A technical review of urban land use-transportation models as a tool for evaluating vehicle travel reduction strategies. Centre for transportation analysis. HTUhttp://www.bts.gov/NTL/DOCS/ornl.htmlUTTTH. (Accessed 11th September 2007)

o TTransport Infrastructure Development Corporation (TIDC) Annual Report 2006.T HTTTUhttp://www.tidc.nsw.gov.au/Documents/900_anrpt06.pdfUTTH (Accessed 26th September 2007)

o Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation. North West Rail Link Planning Update No. 3 June 2007

o Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation. South West Rail Link Planning Update No. 3 May 2007

o Victoria Department of Infrastructure. Draft Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use Development, 2006

o Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils. Response to TIDC NWRL Environmental Assessment and Concept Plan, February 2007

o TAt last, Sydney may get a plan. Sydney Morning Herald April 23 2004.

o TBlueprint fails to fix city’s woes, Sydney Morning Herald December 3 2005 HTUhttp://smh.com.au/news/national/blueprint-fails-to-fix-citys-woes/2005/12/02/1133422108598.html UTTTH

o How does commuting to and from work effect you? Sydney Morning Herald Readers Opinions Thursday 5 P

thP May 2005.


o Rail passenger numbers fall by half a million in two years Sydney Morning Herald 3rd May 2005 HTUhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Rail-passenger-numbers-fall-by-half-a-million-in-two-years/2005/05/02/1114886318685.htmlUTH

o Transport could land $1.7bn levies. Sydney Morning Herald September 10, 2003. HTUhttp://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/09/1062902056696.html UTH

o Can we afford not to build an effective public transport system? Sydney Morning Herald May 31, 2005. HTUhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Can-we-afford-not-to-build-an-effective-public-transport-system/2005/05/30/1117305563805.html UTH

o NSW fast-tracks plan for rail links. Sydney Morning Herald August 22, 2007 HTUhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nsw-fasttracks-plan-for-rail-links/2007/08/22/1187462312437.html UTH

o On the rails to nowhere. Sydney Morning Herald July 21 2007. HTUhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/national/on-the-rails-to-nowhere/2007/07/20/1184560040323.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1UTH

o Costa push to derail link. Sydney Morning Herald September 25 2007. HTUhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/national/push-to-derail-hills-link/2007/09/24/1190486226330.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1UTH

o Rail Line will proceed: Watkins. Sydney Morning Herald. September 26 2007. HTUhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rail-line-will-proceed-watkins/2007/09/25/1190486313208.html UTH

o Top deck plan for crowded buses. Sydney Morning Herald. March 16 2007. HTUhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/national/top-deck-plan-for-crowded-buses/2007/03/13/1173722471230.html UTH

Calvin Cheng 3103753 Public Transport and Land Use Planning in North West and South West Sydney Page C-1

Appendix A

Household Characteristics, Population and Employment Forecast Data provided by Transport Data Centre, NSW Ministry of Transport.

North West, South West Rail link corridor Household characteristics by House hold Travel zoneHousehold zone Household Travel zone Household Population Usual Vehicle Extra vehicleNW_rail_link Westmead 3,514 9,385 4,459 639NW_rail_link Schofields 1,081 3,308 1,579 293NW_rail_link Marayong 7,303 23,158 10,165 1,672NW_rail_link Seven Hills 1,732 5,335 2,211 558NW_rail_link Blacktown Hospital 1,961 4,506 2,269 530NW_rail_link Blacktown 1,884 4,267 2,123 219NW_rail_link Kings Langley 2,522 8,190 5,035 693NW_rail_link Lalor Park 4,635 11,825 6,375 2,005NW_rail_link Toongabbie 3,160 8,465 4,937 872NW_rail_link Wentworthville 3,800 10,911 5,799 1,026NW_rail_link Winston Hills 4,912 14,252 8,941 1,428NW_rail_link Winston Hills East 2,160 5,423 3,504 305NW_rail_link Westmead - Westmead Hospital 2,683 6,967 2,447 486NW_rail_link Northmead 1,200 2,873 2,050 152NW_rail_link Carlingford 4,007 12,253 7,868 728NW_rail_link West Pennant Hills (west) 2,700 8,912 5,368 418NW_rail_link Castle Hill West 2,568 6,827 4,285 904NW_rail_link Baulkham Hills 2,074 5,557 3,555 137NW_rail_link Baulkham Hills Southwest 2,751 9,011 5,072 930NW_rail_link Kellyville 2,119 6,731 4,192 344NW_rail_link Kenthurst 1,625 5,273 3,935 97NW_rail_link Cherrybrook 2,669 9,374 5,652 546NW_rail_link Thornleigh 3,620 10,014 5,638 871NW_rail_link Cheltenham 1,837 5,438 3,611 485NW_rail_link Beecroft 4,324 13,117 7,777 1,487NW_rail_link Epping West 3,849 11,104 6,319 1,210NW_rail_link Vineyard North 1,037 3,505 2,421 246NW_rail_link Vineyard 1,390 2,988 2,615 280NW_rail_link Rouse Hill West 1,348 4,282 2,638 285NW_rail_link Quakers Hill 2,741 8,896 4,367 428NW_rail_link Parklea 1,559 4,720 2,751 400NW_rail_link North Rocks 1,357 4,349 2,868 173NW_rail_link Castle Hill North 1,807 5,794 3,965 75NW_rail_link Baulkham Hills East 2,669 7,955 5,151 510

NW_rail_link Baulkham Hills West 1,723 5,432 3,414 912NW_rail_link Kellyville South 964 2,764 1,711 111NW_rail_link Beaumont Hills 941 3,391 2,208 537NW_rail_link Annagrove 561 1,863 1,891 0NW_rail_link Box Hill 386 989 791 58NW_rail_link Glenhaven 2,299 7,861 4,924 521NW_rail_link Glenhaven East 2,466 9,076 5,035 746NW_rail_link Schofields South 1,411 4,608 2,313 100NW_rail_link Schofields East 687 1,608 1,260 282NW_rail_link Kellyville Ridge 804 2,928 1,827 100NW_rail_link Glenwood 1,442 4,136 2,321 264NW_rail_link Rouse Hill 1,043 3,743 2,251 230NW_rail_link Rouse Hill South 610 1,603 1,482 77NW_rail_link Kellyville North 538 1,485 1,342 0NW_rail_link Castle Hill Showground 848 3,211 2,690 0NW_rail_link Norwest Business Park 672 2,496 1,472 249NW_rail_link Castle Hill 865 2,432 1,766 51NW_rail_link Castle Hill South 1,085 2,497 1,437 255NW_rail_link West Pennant Hills (east) 2,095 8,199 4,685 972NW_rail_link Dural 823 2,524 1,527 205NW_rail_link Bella Vista 2,038 7,653 4,734 264NW_rail_link Riverstone South 1,843 4,751 2,113 745NW_rail_link Riverstone 1,622 5,213 2,628 219NW_rail_link Riverstone North 683 2,358 1,881 92NW_rail_link Riverstone East 998 3,391 3,176 332NW_rail_link Epping - Boronia Park 567 1,237 795 122NW_rail_link Epping 887 1,758 798 26NW_rail_link Epping East 1,335 2,936 1,238 135NW_rail_link Pendle Hill 878 2,627 1,286 207SW_rail_link Hoxton Park 2,231 6,699 3,734 333SW_rail_link Edmondson Park 798 2,934 2,079 181SW_rail_link Ingleburn 1,191 2,864 1,167 244SW_rail_link Hoxton West 1,124 3,668 2,614 181SW_rail_link Leppington 753 1,459 897 320SW_rail_link Prestons 1,283 4,074 2,311 828SW_rail_link Austral 1,578 5,219 3,260 0Total 132,666 396,656 232,996 31,327

Reason for using Car instead of public transport for travel to work in North West and South West area

Reason for Car Weekday Weekend

Bus/train unavailable/inaccessible 39,548 11,760

Problems with public transport 25,487 4,641

Vehicle faster 38,292 10,902

Provided by company/business 9,510 1,499

Need vehicle for work 9,648 3,588

Need vehicle for other trips 8,292 1,539

Can make trip whenever I like 11,221 2,722

No timetable/waiting constraints 12,032 2,454

Arrives closer to destination 11,663 1,887

More comfortable 16,338 3,529

Carpooling arrangements 1,594 595

Other specify 13,471 4,434

Total Response 197,096 49,549Total People To Work 86,667 25,385

Reason for using Public transport for travel to work in North West and South West area

Reason for Public transport Weekday Weekend

Parking problems/costs 8,415 410

Don't have car 2,953 413

Cheaper 6,896 0

Car used by someone else 2,265 135

Faster 6,316 0

Arrives closer to destination 1,928 0

Less stressful 5,965 410

Live/work close to public transport 3,408 0

Enjoy time to read/relax 3,727 0

Environmental reasons 1,155 0

Employer assists with public transport costs 376 0

Other specify 4,684 0

Total Response 48,087 1,368Total People To Work 20,784 958

* One person can chose more than one response.

Employment and Population forecast for North West and South West area by Travel zone

emp2006 emp2011 emp2016 emp2021 emp2026 emp2031 erp2006 erp2011 erp2016 erp2021 erp2026 erp2031331 Westmead Holroyd (C) 2,887 2,886 2,861 2,859 2,829 2,787 10,566 10,898 10,936 11,023 11,099 11,153365 Hoxton Park Liverpool (C) 2,808 2,948 3,036 3,130 3,199 3,255 16,475 19,090 21,896 21,651 21,390 21,092366 Edmondson Park Liverpool (C) 398 537 1,167 1,291 1,408 1,520 2,016 5,852 13,075 13,237 14,121 15,026379 Ingleburn Campbelltown (C) 7,326 7,659 7,979 8,270 8,532 9,788 4,236 4,327 4,748 5,202 5,631 6,026404 Schofields Blacktown (C) - North 197 212 226 238 248 256 2,685 3,220 5,582 8,849 8,948 8,879405 Marayong Blacktown (C) - North 7,785 7,516 7,795 7,589 7,465 7,968 24,919 25,145 25,461 26,108 26,703 27,215419 Seven Hills Blacktown (C) - South-East 881 953 1,016 1,072 1,113 1,149 3,539 3,670 3,737 3,870 3,993 4,099420 Blacktown Hospital Blacktown (C) - South-East 9,088 9,128 9,214 9,279 9,262 9,229 4,501 4,953 5,540 6,361 7,145 7,878421 Blacktown Blacktown (C) - South-East 7,331 7,343 7,410 7,407 7,318 7,209 9,075 9,977 10,783 11,957 13,073 14,109422 Kings Langley Blacktown (C) - North 3,499 3,744 3,976 4,175 4,316 4,431 13,200 13,098 12,829 12,629 12,422 12,194423 Lalor Park Blacktown (C) - South-East 1,214 1,304 1,387 1,459 1,514 1,560 15,301 15,047 14,792 14,648 14,488 14,295424 Seven Hills North Blacktown (C) - South-East 10,308 10,432 10,814 11,026 11,107 11,098 614 642 659 690 719 744425 Toongabbie Parramatta (C) 732 718 691 674 655 634 6,702 6,671 6,685 6,730 6,769 6,793426 Wentworthville Parramatta (C) 1,702 1,617 1,520 1,449 1,377 1,308 9,162 9,321 9,435 9,590 9,735 9,859427 Winston Hills Parramatta (C) 992 951 898 861 822 782 11,575 11,649 11,773 11,953 12,134 12,300428 Winston Hills East Parramatta (C) 328 328 321 317 310 303 4,840 4,845 4,927 5,030 5,129 5,217429 Westmead - Westmead Hospital Parramatta (C) 14,397 15,071 15,602 16,302 16,916 17,558 7,198 8,542 9,301 10,104 10,929 11,762450 Northmead Baulkham Hills (A) 1,036 1,084 1,117 1,146 1,160 1,167 6,471 7,573 8,981 10,844 12,649 14,381451 Carlingford Baulkham Hills (A) 2,605 2,768 2,897 3,010 3,082 3,130 12,706 12,884 13,213 13,767 14,290 14,764452 West Pennant Hills (west) Baulkham Hills (A) 2,565 2,713 2,827 2,930 2,994 3,034 9,647 9,901 9,963 10,139 10,302 10,440453 Castle Hill West Baulkham Hills (A) 4,201 4,425 4,589 4,704 4,739 4,722 7,477 7,339 7,308 7,347 7,376 7,387454 Baulkham Hills Baulkham Hills (A) 2,635 2,805 2,945 3,069 3,150 3,205 7,987 8,822 9,473 10,381 11,258 12,095455 Baulkham Hills Southwest Baulkham Hills (A) 3,490 3,689 3,822 3,933 3,986 3,997 7,884 7,728 7,664 7,666 7,659 7,633456 Kellyville Baulkham Hills (A) 1,570 1,637 1,694 1,749 1,782 1,801 17,261 19,603 19,511 19,209 18,899 18,549457 Kenthurst Baulkham Hills (A) 2,063 2,176 2,261 2,337 2,385 2,413 5,346 5,230 5,124 5,046 4,966 4,881470 Cherrybrook Hornsby (A) 1,892 1,983 2,055 2,119 2,156 2,173 12,385 12,164 11,989 11,847 11,703 11,544471 Thornleigh Hornsby (A) 5,126 5,473 5,745 5,977 6,122 6,213 10,940 11,191 11,404 11,514 11,615 11,692472 Cheltenham Hornsby (A) 1,166 1,211 1,252 1,293 1,323 1,344 4,373 4,426 4,482 4,505 4,523 4,530473 Beecroft Hornsby (A) 3,546 3,739 3,892 4,039 4,140 4,211 13,361 13,195 13,063 12,949 12,837 12,712474 Epping West Hornsby (A) 2,604 2,624 2,611 2,596 2,559 2,514 12,260 12,139 11,995 11,864 11,723 11,560583 Hoxton West Liverpool (C) 501 545 576 605 626 643 6,593 7,317 7,497 7,419 7,336 7,241599 Varroville Campbelltown (C) 163 184 200 215 229 242 163 186 214 244 273 301601 Macquarie Links Campbelltown (C) 578 650 703 755 801 846 2,172 5,632 9,754 9,617 9,477 9,323609 Vineyard North Hawkesbury (C) 485 526 553 575 590 598 827 811 797 1,154 2,943 4,662610 Vineyard Blacktown (C) - North 1,826 1,908 1,977 2,030 2,056 2,069 669 1,041 2,823 5,599 5,493 5,382611 Rouse Hill West Blacktown (C) - North 158 172 183 194 202 210 472 473 715 1,701 4,108 4,847

Employment Forecast Population ForecastTravel zone

codeTravel zone Name Statistical Local Area

612 Quakers Hill Blacktown (C) - North 1,371 1,469 1,555 1,629 1,681 1,725 13,293 13,309 13,761 14,537 15,653 16,774613 Parklea Blacktown (C) - North 365 402 437 469 496 520 7,308 8,521 8,672 8,732 8,878 9,067619 North Rocks Baulkham Hills (A) 3,858 4,007 4,058 4,091 4,072 4,017 5,408 5,315 5,321 5,387 5,444 5,486620 Castle Hill North Baulkham Hills (A) 2,466 2,667 2,818 2,948 3,037 3,093 5,762 5,709 5,750 5,863 5,967 6,053621 Baulkham Hills East Baulkham Hills (A) 1,590 1,647 1,695 1,740 1,767 1,782 8,336 8,175 8,116 8,128 8,130 8,112622 Baulkham Hills West Baulkham Hills (A) 1,023 1,079 1,120 1,159 1,186 1,207 7,701 7,551 7,496 7,506 7,507 7,490623 Kellyville South Baulkham Hills (A) 421 629 1,339 1,848 1,854 1,857 3,083 6,115 13,503 19,565 19,198 18,793624 Beaumont Hills Baulkham Hills (A) 214 223 231 239 245 250 5,512 5,803 6,486 7,344 7,580 7,456625 Annagrove Baulkham Hills (A) 250 255 259 263 265 266 651 635 1,821 4,022 4,755 4,651627 Box Hill Baulkham Hills (A) 57 62 66 169 671 1,470 445 442 620 1,684 6,749 14,995666 Leppington Camden (A) 298 529 851 1,066 2,374 3,375 747 748 739 2,783 5,947 9,123670 Prestons Liverpool (C) 3,130 4,460 5,034 5,356 5,436 5,385 6,448 7,613 8,465 8,446 8,419 8,376671 Austral Liverpool (C) 790 864 921 963 1,591 2,308 2,488 2,487 3,422 8,671 16,279 22,806690 Glenhaven Baulkham Hills (A) 1,394 1,446 1,493 1,537 1,564 1,578 8,873 8,725 8,743 8,860 8,964 9,043691 Glenhaven East Hornsby (A) 1,786 1,879 1,952 2,020 2,066 2,098 10,657 11,021 10,926 10,868 10,835 10,816743 Schofields South Blacktown (C) - North 160 173 283 591 1,296 1,998 1,134 1,117 2,431 6,178 12,743 19,592746 Schofields East Blacktown (C) - North 136 439 1,039 1,239 1,538 1,935 974 4,631 10,214 12,228 15,881 19,706747 Kellyville Ridge Blacktown (C) - North 569 787 902 916 927 937 5,489 8,287 9,644 9,520 9,434 9,344748 Glenwood Blacktown (C) - North 988 1,067 1,139 1,204 1,255 1,302 10,118 10,404 10,181 9,999 9,806 9,597750 Rouse Hill Baulkham Hills (A) 926 977 1,017 1,050 1,068 1,076 6,301 6,321 6,565 6,918 7,044 7,030751 Rouse Hill South Baulkham Hills (A) 303 2,209 4,213 5,816 6,717 7,116 2,123 4,553 7,211 7,574 7,603 7,431752 Kellyville North Baulkham Hills (A) 68 73 77 80 83 84 237 232 985 2,379 2,846 2,784753 Castle Hill Showground Baulkham Hills (A) 6,853 7,683 8,280 8,674 9,007 9,379 725 836 870 905 939 970754 Norwest Business Park Baulkham Hills (A) 16,884 28,417 34,559 34,444 35,239 35,060 3,338 5,052 5,976 6,564 6,548 6,516755 Castle Hill Baulkham Hills (A) 2,882 3,171 3,379 3,538 3,623 3,656 766 1,115 1,337 1,626 1,907 2,175756 Castle Hill South Baulkham Hills (A) 2,341 2,498 2,631 2,750 2,830 2,888 1,613 2,342 2,687 3,142 3,582 4,001757 West Pennant Hills (east) Baulkham Hills (A) 3,843 4,056 4,281 4,509 4,691 4,839 8,971 8,825 8,842 8,957 9,059 9,141761 Dural Hornsby (A) 1,022 1,077 1,113 1,140 1,151 1,151 1,267 1,255 1,248 1,241 1,235 1,228769 Bella Vista Baulkham Hills (A) 656 685 710 734 749 759 7,954 7,845 7,778 7,774 7,762 7,733824 Riverstone South Blacktown (C) - North 646 691 730 763 789 811 2,723 2,791 3,227 3,828 3,845 3,815825 Riverstone Blacktown (C) - North 391 425 459 490 517 542 2,638 2,716 3,193 3,833 3,780 3,720826 Riverstone North Blacktown (C) - North 35 37 40 43 46 48 89 133 362 808 1,347 1,508827 Riverstone East Blacktown (C) - North 96 98 101 103 103 103 236 241 448 1,275 3,291 3,915828 Epping - Boronia Park Parramatta (C) 959 998 1,029 1,058 1,077 1,094 1,274 1,435 1,447 1,466 1,483 1,498829 Epping Hornsby (A) 348 368 386 402 414 423 648 650 659 665 670 674830 Epping East Hornsby (A) 2,271 2,359 2,420 2,475 2,504 2,517 1,369 1,375 1,391 1,404 1,415 1,424845 Pendle Hill Parramatta (C) 1,165 1,123 1,067 1,025 978 930 2,365 2,378 2,397 2,427 2,457 2,484