WalkSydney

Reflections on the need to upgrade the draft Pyrmont Ultimo Transport Plan

WalkSydney acknowledges Transport for NSW is evolving to develop  more place based approaches to planning by developing the Pyrmont-Ultimo Transport Plan. 

The plan has some helpful elements including addressing walking, cycling and place improvements on the peninsula.  The Transport Plan is somewhat aligned to the Department of Planning’s Pyrmont Peninsula Place Strategy (PPPS), and this is a step in the right direction. However, it remains flawed, by failing to fundamentally address the reduction of vehicles through Pyrmont and the impacts of motorways that dominate the western and eastern sides of Pyrmont and Ultimo. 

As experienced transport professionals, we have witnessed time and again that when TfNSW does make place improvements or provide priority for people walking and cycling, it is never at the expense of a reduction in the number or priority of vehicles.  This is problematic when road space reallocation is clearly required (and in fact is TfNSW policy).  Speaking also as residents (where more than half of us walk and cycle), we have to ask, if not here then where?

To the extent that the plan is silent on vehicles, especially the Western Distributor “improvements”,  this plan stands to be seen by the community as nothing more than a lip service, to allow TfNSW to continue to build more motorways and bigger roads. 

We do not see how the plan can seek any improvement to walking and cycling on Harris Street  for example, and simultaneously justify the Western Distributor project.  Here is a project that should be  cancelled immediately if any hope of avoiding further deterioration (and because the fundamentals given for undertaking the changes are factually flawed, as set out in our previous submissions). The Western DIstributor project is inconsistent with the PUTP, as well as prior strategic documents such as the PPPS. 

Specifically these aspects (stemming from the Western Distributor Project) should be reversed:

• Retaining a four-lane peak operation on Harris Street south of Allen Street with ‘dynamic kerb reallocation’, which is a retrograde step from the “upgrades to public transport, footpaths and shopfronts” in the PPPS,
• Identifying the intersection with Allen Street as one to investigate improving pedestrian priority – TfNSW should not worsen the pedestrian priority at this intersection in the first place through the Western Distributor Program (ie, apply the precautionary principle).
• Making no commitments regarding a four lane configuration being used only to provide public transport priority,

The Transport Plan is vague, for example will the regional cycle corridors such as on Bridge Road be delivered through road space allocation. 

• Where will footpaths be widened, exactly? 
• What are the key walking routes that will be facilitated by the plan. 
• How has TfNSW determined the trade offs that have led to ‘balancing’ road space on Harris Street with four general traffic lanes?
• How will children walk safely to school?
• How will people generally walk to the new Metro station from the new fishmarket?
• …from Ultimo? 

The Transport Plan should be significantly strengthened.  For example, road space reallocation and pedestrian priority is only mentioned in the context of investigation around the Metro, and no specific investments are committed. The Peninsula enjoys a 50% active transport mode share at present.  Harris Street already has a vision in the PPPS that should be reiterated and given substance.

The Transport Plan would be improved by :

• making  tangible and time-based commitment to key outcomes that improve walking and cycling, such as restoration of old Pyrmont Bridge in the next 5 years, wider footpaths on Harris Street and no removal of crossings (such as those contemplated by the Western Distributor project)
• explicitly developing options to remove the influence of the motorway and place the PUTP above project level decisions such as the Western Distributor Upgrade.  
• walking and cycling subject to “further investigations” will limit the ability to permanently reallocate space and time to walking, and trial improvements now such as temporary footpath build outs.  These have been used successfully to make the case and give real time data of impacts, including in Pyrmont (eg the Bridge Road cycleway deemed ‘impossible’ by Network Operations until the COVID temporary trial)
• review the plan for conscious or unconscious car bias – for example:
  • the bias in favour of traffic growth (despite evidence to the contrary on the Peninsula – see our previous submissions on the Western Distributor project), 
  • the commitment to road improvements in the short term but deferring most active transport improvements to the long term, including those that could be implemented now such as speed zoning, and that fall below the Government’s business case threshold
  • the lack of recognition of the urgency of (or indeed the need for) broad mode shift by 2030 to achieve the government’s emissions targets passing through Parliament, despite the clear priority placed on this by the new government.  
  • the passive acceptance of traffic flowing through Pyrmont to the City rather than recognising the physical limitations of the precinct as a tool in gating traffic, as is done in other cities seeking to manage car growth 
  • the insistence on further investigation (i.e. a higher bar) for public and active transport improvements
  • marginal commitment to reduced speed zones including 30km/hr speed limits on Pyrmonts significant network of high pedestrian priority streets