Submission in response to the Report on the Environmental Factors for the Newcastle Light Rail Project Rick Banyard 27 May 2016-05-27

1.The document The REF is a very poor quality document that contains large quantities of false, inaccurate and misleading information. Some of that material has been changed on the fly as errors, omissions and untruths have been brought to attention. The document has large sections of required essential information missing and or not addressed. It is quite obvious that the original web published REF is quite different from the current material. Many sections of the REF and support material have been changed during the exhibition period. This is not only confusing to those trying to study and comment on the REF but could also be consider as an unscrupulous practice. The REF and supporting documents on public exhibition also would seem to be incomplete. For example Newcastle City Council has been provided with additional documents that are not readily available to the public. Again this is a questionable practice as it conceals information that could be of great importance to those prepared to lodge submissions commenting on the project. Following a radio interview on ABC and a number of statements made in that interview by Anna Zicki I sent the following email to her. Hello Anna This afternoon you told Paul Bevan that you would make available on request all documents that relate to the REF. May I request three documents. 1. Can you please provide to me the document or documents that provide the details of the light rail patronage by stop. Preferably showing the origin and destination of the predicted journeys. I believe this document is the origin of material presented in the Transport Technical Paper section 4.2.4. 2. Could you also provide the projections of the mode of travel to be used and the daily uptake by the 3,300 daily passengers of the fare free zone if that service is cancelled. 3. Could you also provide the document that shows the number of people by month that visit Newcastle Beach in a typical calendar year.

I can not comprehend how the REF could have been produced without this patronage and statistical data. I look forward to your prompt response. Rick [email protected]

In the radio interview Anna Zicki stated that a number of groups and individuals had been supplied with supplementary documents. As a minimum the list of documents and the recipients should have been published on the REF web site. The failure to do so shows a total lack of transparency and in my view is calculated deception. Certainly not a practice permitted to entrepreneurs when placing a prospectus in the public arena. Had a company produced the REF document as a prospectus I believe it would have been severely condemned and prosecuted. I propose passing this submission on the Department of Public Prosecution and request they act appropriately.

2.Population of Newcastle

Newcastle is not one of the largest cities in Australia. Newcastle is certainly not the second largest city in NSW. Newcastle in the context of revitalisation is little more than three small suburbs of the Newcastle Local Government area. The area covered by the REF has a population of less than 4000 people making it smaller than the area on the Stockton side of the Harbour and about 1/3 the size of the suburb of Mayfield. The following table provides the reality. The definitions listed in the report fail to define Newcastle. Newcastle in the context of this proposal is clearly not the “second biggest city in NSW” Newcastle is not even the largest city in the Hunter Region. Name Newcastle

Unit Suburb

Population 2384

Newcastle East Newcastle West Newcastle Newcastle Newcastle Newcastle Newcastle Newcastle Newcastle Newcastle Newcastle Newcastle

Suburb Suburb CBD City Centre State Electorate Federal Electorate Local Government Area Metropolitan area Greater Newcastle Statistical District Lower Hunter (1) Lower Hunter (2)

991 594 3979 4200 54,000 (electors) 92,000 (electors) 154,000 308308 540796 540796 540796 604,600

Notes Lower Hunter (1) includes the LGA of Newcastle, the LGA of Lake Macquarie and the southern portion of the Port Stephens LGA 308,308 Lower Hunter (2) includes most parts of the Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Cessnock, Maitland and Port Stephens local government areas All of the LGAs in the Hunter region maintain their own individual identities I contend that the Government and a number of Ministers and the Project team are being highly dishonest in mis-representing the demographics of Newcastle. Statistics used to identify growth in the Newcastle LGA would also seem to be highly distorted to levels that are simply not conceivable, Suburb Newcastle., N East & N West Stockton Carrington Maryville Wickham Hamilton Hamilton South, Hamilton Cooks Hill Islington, Tighes Hill Mayfield, Mayfield East Mayfield West Georgetown Waratah Adamstown

2014 3992 4354 1958 2492 4321 5256 3650 3649 11429 4085 6990 6061

2036 7146 4476 1938 3207 4819 5366 3914 3865 13371 4173 7548 7266

Percentage Change 79.4 2.8 -1% 28.7 11.5 2.1 7.2 5.9 16.5 2.2 8.0 19.9

The wild 79.4% groth rate is numerically only about 3150 people The very low population growth of Newcastle LGA should be of huge concern to the REF. 144,273 people in 2003

144,511 people in 2011 148,000.people in 2015 As a contrast Wollongong had 203,000 people in 2015 In the absence of accurate demographic statistics I question how projections and estimates in the REF and the supporting technical reports can be realistic.

3. Village movement The area referred to in the REF is three very small suburbs containing a very low population of about 4000 residents many of whom are elderly. The proposed light rail only provides public transport within that very lowly populated locality. There is very little need for the population of that area to move within the area serviced by the light rail. For most all is within easy walking distance. Given the high level of promotion given to cycling and the flat terrain there is little evidence to suggest that light rail will attract a viable patronage. The REF certainly does not provide any evidence to suggest that the residents of the area will use the tram or details of the patronage for each of the tram stops. The REF does not adequately detail the employment activities of the area covered by the REF. Numbers, work hours, origin of the workforce and current travel to work modes details are not provided. The REF does not detail those residents who may live in the City Centre but work outside the city centre. Without this data how can travel projections be determined? The fare free bus zone operates in a much larger area as it extends to Hamilton and many other areas greater than 500 metres from the proposed light rail. The fare free zone transports about 1.2 million passengers per year at almost no cost as it simply makes seats available on operating route services that pass through the fare free zone. My estimate would be that the fare free zone scrapping would only provide about 250,000 passengers per year to the proposed light rail. That is 28 passengers per hour on average. Certainly not a viable number to justify light rail. There is no evidence to justify the scant light rail patronage figures published in the REF.

4. OPAL Ticketing Statistics of little help.

The failure of the OPAL ticketing system to provide real time accurate passenger journey statistics simply means that the REF is based on passenger projections that are little more than wild guesses. Most transport statistics in previous reports and documents have proved to be very unreliable. The passenger numbers on the trains at Hamilton and on the 110 Bus route are clear evidence that the interim transport arrangements have turned people away from travelling to Newcastle CBD by public transport. The REF does not contain the passenger data for the trains or for the 110 bus. Clearly the passenger loss from both the buses and from the trains since truncation has been huge. A key function of the introduction of the OPAL ticketing system was to provide real time accurate travel information. It was claimed by the Minister and Transport for NSW that OPAL would provide full journey details in order that accurate planning for public transport would occur. The BTS web site does not provide this information. Nor does the REF or its Technical Reports provide the required information. Clearly from this perspective OPAL has been a total failure as little if any information is available. OPAL cannot provide the patronage statistics for the 110 bus, for the fare free zone or for any other bus arriving or departing in the Newcastle City Centre area. There is considerable information to prove that the tap on tap off process is not working and that the information is not being accurately collected. OPAL has also not been able to provide sound school student journey information about the schools located in the city centre or for schools attended by city centre resident school pupils. In the absence of public transport patronage statistics the REF is simply pap. Based on this pap it would seem that the REF is not capable of reliably predicting transport patronage or passenger movements. This is surely a very serious shortcoming that must terminally undermine the credibility of the REF.

5. No overhead wires Diagrams within the REF documents and support information conflict as some show the light rail system with overhead power and others without overhead power. This is highly dishonest.

Despite this misrepresentation the REF text would seem to indicate that the light rail will be using overhead wires. This is a second rate option as it will totally spoil the view of the harbour from the southern side of the rail line. The poles and wires will clearly be a risk hazard to pedestrians, motorists, cyclists and others however this risk is not addressed in the REF. The REF does not seem to have any information about the health impacts of ectromagnetic induction due to the overheard wiring. Research and reporting into this issue should be mandatory before the REF is adopted. There is information that this report has in fact been done however it appears that it has been withheld from publication in the REF. The proposed light rail system lends itself to be battery electric or hybrid technology. Charging would be at the tram depot and at the Wickham terminus. In a locality that has a large proportion of the taxi fleet made up of hybrid vehicles surely a very minor tram provision can also operate without overhead wires.

6. Who goes to the beach A key reason given for the installation of light rail as replacement for the heavy rail was the ability of the tram to take people further and the importance of the beach was regularly sited as a major draw card. No statistics have ever been produced to support the need for the tram to facilitate movement to the beach. The REF does not provide reasons or patronage estimates for extending the rail service beyond Newcastle Station. It is also noted that there is no tram stop proposed for Newcastle station despite the 4,000 per day that used the Newcastle Station heavy rail service. Why does the 110 shuttle service stop at Newcastle Station if there is no demand? The proposed route will not provide access to Newcastle’s main beach and activity areas. Namely Nobbys beach, Camp Shortland, the Foreshore and the Nobbys breakwater. Given this major shortcoming the patronage generated by a tram to the Newcastle Beach stop at Pacific Park must be close to zero. The REF provides no information to support the Newcastle Beach stop, the numbers visiting Newcastle Beach or an explanation as to why the other key areas are

ignored.

7 Fares There are two key issues that impact on the choice of public transport. They are the cost of the fare and the time for the journey. In the past for most passengers the fare for travel to Newcastle was at no cost when travelling east past Hamilton. Currently most travelling in the City Centre pay no fare either because the 110 bus does not bother with the OPAL facility or the fare on the bus is free. It has been clearly stated that the tram will attract a fare although the value of that fare has not been determined by IPART. The REF would seem to have totally ignored the impact of this additional fare on projected patronage. The time take to travel from Wickham to Newcastle Station by most passengers was perceived to be almost zero. It will according to the REF be 12 to 17 minutes. That huge time delay will certainly impact very significantly on patronage.

8 How to get to Market Town etc

Market Town is a very major retail, commercial and residential centre. The only part of the city centre that is booming. Market Town is a proven major growth centre within the REF area with major long term plans for continuing development. Despite this the REF would seem to be totally rejecting the needs of this focal point. Issues that are ignored by the REF include the remoteness of the light rail and light rail stops from Market Town. The removal of bus services especially the fare free zone will also have a major negative impact. The withdrawal of bus services that feed Market Town from areas like Wickham, Maryville, Hamilton etc will discourage people from visiting the area and make other centres like Kotara, Charlestown and Mayfield far more attractive. Clubs, major entertainment facilities, most motels, accommodation venues, function centres and alike are not located on the light rail route. Wests Newcastle City is one of the largest venues and is currently undergoing a major a revamp that includes the development of a sizeable quality conference centre and major catering facilities. Almost all of these are not serviced by the proposed light rail or the Wickham transport interchange. Withdrawing bus services will also act negatively.

Why does the REF not consider this extremely important factor?

9 Light rails expansions

Newcastle has a long history of trams. The past tram network was extensive and some routes were well used for much of the history. The old tram system was rarely profitable. New technology, better bus provision a change in demographics and the reduction of labour intensive activities made the tramway incapable of meeting the needs of the Newcastle region. The trams were withdrawn and were all gone by the 10th June 1950. The REF does not explain how the proposed tram system will address the shortcomings of the failed tram network. If the REF can not provide valid reasons to explain how the new system will not be a failure as was the past system then there is no point of proceeding. A coastal light rail system from Nelsons Bay to Manly has been proposed however this is not mentioned in the REFdespite its obvious advantages.

10 Ref vs doc 71 The REF would seem to be a reversal of document 71. It would seem that the advantages and disadvantages are simply swapped. Which is correct? The REF or Doc 71?

11 Fare free zone must stay One of the most important transport initiatives in the Hunter Region was the introduction of the fare free zone, This was a real benefit to the day time use of the city centre as it provided free travel at almost no cost by simply allowing free travel on existing bus services. The revitalisation of the city area could be boosted significantly at little if any cost by expanding the fare free zone to a 24 hour service and by extending the service beyond the existing boundaries by about 3km in each direction.

This extension would boost patronage considerably and facilitate extensive park and ride options. This expansion would offer real value for money for huge economic gain. Patronage of 2 million passengers per annum would be realistic.

12 Fix the buses A viable bus service for the Hunter is paramount to increasing public transport. The continuing operation of a “stretch limo” fleet with about 1 passenger per kilometre travelled by Newcastle buses can no longer be tolerated. Fixing the buses will not only greatly assist the revitalisation of Newcastle city centre but also be a major boost to the Hunter and a huge revenue saver to the State Government. Fixing the buses is dead easy and very low cost. Step 1 Recognise the core issues 1. 2. 3. 4.

Patronage is in continual decline Bus patronage is about one passenger per kilometre travelled People hate buses Disabled transport is a sham, extremely expensive an fails to meet the needs 5. Buses cost about $6.00 per passenger to operate 6. Bus revenue is about $3.00 per passenger carried 7. Buses do not match the peoples needs Step 2 Set goals to fix the problems 1. Set a patronage growth target of doubling each year of the next three years 2. Introduce a new on call disability transport service 3. Reduce bus operating cost by 75% per Km 4. Make buses provide car like travel Step 3 Implement the strategy. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Send all the 165 Newcastle State transit buses to Sydney in one batch Install 330 12 seater mini buses Use the existing timetable for half the mini bus fleet Make a second timetable that effectively doubles the frequency and operate this timetable with the second half of the mini bus fleet..

5. Implement an on call bus service to deliver public transport to the disabled and people with special needs. 6. Halve the size of all bus stops and convert to parking 7. After the first month start modifying the routes to better meet the passenger needs. Notes  



The government has a bus purchase program with each bus costing about $500,000 The 330 mini buses should be purchased with supplier provided maintenance contract http://www.fleetpartners.com.au/business/products/fully-maintainedoperating-lease/ Based on 5 year lease term the monthly total cost would be about $1000 per month. The oncall disability bus service would use mini buses with four wheel chair spaces plus some normal seating and would be funded by the huge saving of making the heavy buses (about $50,000) DDA compliant. Fares would be similar to the main stream buses.

Outcome     

Car like public transport Double frequency of buses Much higher patronage. A high quality solution to provide public transport to the physically disadvantage The end of the “stretch limo” era!

13 Gold Coast and other light rail is not comparable To compare the light rail system proposed for Newcastle with other Australian and overseas localities is dishonest unless all the information about the locality is provided. The Gold Coast as an example has a population far greater than Newcastle's 4000 people, heavy rail expansion is also underway and patronage levels are certainly dissimilar to Newcastle. Morgantown in West Virginia is the smallest city in the USA to have a form of light rail. Their city has 26,000 residents, that is about 7 times bigger than Newcastle. Their PRT has a very high ridership of about 15,000 per day due largely to their no car owning college students.

The Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) has been in use since 1975. University students use the system for free to travel between the spread-out campuses. The 16 kilometer route PRT system includes 73 vehicles resembling miniature buses. They are 15 feet 6 inches (472 cm) long, 8 feet 9 inches (267 cm) high and 6 feet 8 inches (203 cm) wide and weigh 8,760 pounds (3.97 t), powered by a 70 horsepower (52 kW) motor that allows them to reach 30 miles per hour (50 km/h).[11] It has five off-line stations that enable non-stop, individually programmed trips. They have no overhead wires. The REF does not provide any examples of viable light rail systems from anywhere in the world that have characteristics matching Newcastle.

14 Light rail failure A Google search for failed light rail systems delivers a large number of failed systems. The prime causes are a lack of patronage and non viability. The REF does not explain the predicted patronage for the Newcastle proposal and certainly provides no information that the light rail provision will be viable. The REF provides no information to explain how the city centre will generate financial benefit to the locality that will generate funds to subsidise the non viable light rail venture. Clearly if the light rail is a total failure the revitalisation efforts are severely threatened.

15 Car numbers The absence of sound statistical information about the patronage of public transport it would seem impossible to determine the future use of the city centre. Certainly the current trend would seem to be shop top residential with a high proportion of affordable housing. Recent social housing information suggests that affordable housing residents only have $14 per day to spend after meeting their accommodation expenses. This does not indicate a viable city centre. A popular opinion would seem to be that in the absence of quality public transport people will drive their cars. There is no information in the REF to support this. Why will people simply stop visiting the city centre and be attracted to other localities and activities out of the city centre.

With King St traffic rising from 12500 per day to 20100 and with Hunter St falling from 18100 to 12300 it would seem that the net car increase of 1800 car movements will barely keep up with natural growth. This would indicate that the environmental effect of the light rail proposal will be to kill the city centre.

16 Government Policy Government policy especially by the Baird Government has been to move people out of the Newcastle City Centre. A large number of government and semi government employees have been moved out of the City centre to other localities. The government also has a policy to pay people to locate to other Local Government Areas. The government’s policy to truncate the heavy rail line at Hamilton has stripped large numbers of people from the city centre with devastating outcomes. The REF fails to provide details of these activities and explain the impact of these policies on the light rail and revitalisation projects.

17 Need to import people The area under study by the REF is devoid of people. Without people there can be little economic activity and certainly no sustainability growth or development. Light rail will not import any people to the Newcastle LGA and certainly will do very little to import people into the city centre as it does not originate from a source of bulk people. The airport is also of little value as patronage is low, fares high and it is remotely located. Destinations for NSW figures repeatedly showed that the heavy rail brought more people to Newcastle city centre than did aircraft. The heavy rail provided 169,000 seats per week direct to Newcastle Station in a highly efficient and low cost manner however that is now lost. Heavy rail connected about 4.5m people to Newcastle city centre however that is now also lost.

The REF does not explain from where people to populate Newcastle will come from or the jobs that will be created.

18 The way forward. The government must now recognise that light rail as an option for the revitalisation is now totally dead. The way forward is to 1) permanently terminate the electrified heavy rail at Hamilton 2) extend the diesel services from Hamilton to Newcastle station with a modern single track and advanced signalling using the existing stations (with shortened platforms) 3) Construct platform crossings at each station. 4) build a new station midway between Wickham and Civic to replace the previously removed Mortuary Station 5) Extend the diesel train services to Morisset, Tamworth, Taree and Dubbo. 6) Strongly promote the availability of rail services to Newcastle Station. Many would consider the DMU to be a heavy duty, high floor, high speed, high seating capacity long distant form of light rail. Others may classify them as a metro service. The new track would be along the existing route. This proposal would give the Lower Hunter and beyond a suburban rail service that would undoubtedly support revitalisation. It would be very low in cost and the rolling stock is currently available. New rolling stock could complement and upgrade the current rolling stock. Existing rolling stock could in time be redeployed to meet other state needs as new better suited rolling stock is introduced. The REF does not provide a comparison of options other than light rail that includes Hunter Street running.

Conclusion The Review of Environmental Factors clearly does not adequately support the case for the construction of light rail from Wickham to Newcastle East and therefore the project must be not approved.

The REF failed to identify and address all the issues. The REF lacked openness and transparency. The REF as published was incomplete. All stakeholders were not treated in a similar manner as some parties were clearly not provided with all the relevant documents. The Public exhibition did not include all the necessary documents, data and support information. The REF contained information that was contrary to other previous documents and reports. The REF continued to promote information that has previously been discredited. The REF consultation sessions were manned by people who were unable to answer the questions and points raised by those who attended the sessions. The REF has failed to involve the public to a professional level.

Finally I believe the REF is so poor that the Government should demand that all moneys paid out to prepare this REF should be refunded as the work does not meet even elementary performance standards.

Rick Banyard [email protected] 0419993867