The myth that ferries don't compete on cost with other public transport modes

There is a common assumption that urban transit ferries cost more to operate per passenger journey - and attract greater taxpayer subsidies - than other modes of public transport. 

Often this is true, but it is not always the case. 

A previous post on this blog debunks the myth that Sydney Ferries attract much higher subsidies than buses or trains. 

But the misunderstanding persists and often leads to  
rhetorical questions like "why should battlers in the western suburbs subsidise rich ferry riders from the north shore or eastern suburbs?" I have even heard it raised at IPART hearings. 

So it's time to restate the facts.

The NSW Auditor-General's Financial Audit Report - Volume Seven 2014 - provides a helpful table showing the operating costs and revenue per passenger of three modes of public transport in NSW (trains, buses and ferries) in the 12 months ending June 2014. A graphical version is shown below:

Source: NSW Auditor-General's Financial Audit Report Volume 7 2014, p. 17

Net cost per passenger journey, after deducting farebox revenue, is $10.61 for rail, $6.24 for ferries and $5.88 for buses. This means the subsidy per passenger for rail is more than $4 higher than ferries. The difference between buses and ferries is almost negligible. 

Now there will be arguments about what the Audit Office includes as a cost. And the average rail journey is longer than either ferry or bus journeys (this raises another question - why aren't train fares commensurately higher for longer trips?). 

All of this does muddy the water, but the difference in operating costs are really not that great.  

When other issues come into play, such as the impact on CBD congestion caused by conga lines of buses entering and leaving the city, the argument for ferries becomes more compelling. Ferries certainly have a competitive advantage over buses in near city suburbs with good waterway connections. 

Putting the horse before the cart in ferry infrastructure

Not since the opening of the Harbour Bridge in 1932 has Sydney seen more major projects planned to support its ferry network. The recent announcement of a major upgrade to Circular Quay is one of many major ferry infrastructure investments, including a new hub to be built at Barangaroo South and the acquisition of six new inner harbour ferries.

The thought of shiny new terminals with glamourous retail areas affording sparkling views of Sydney Harbour can bring a rush of excitement. But let’s not forget the main purpose of a ferry terminal is to provide for the safe and efficient berthing of vessels and the safe and efficient exchange of passengers. And before we can say with confidence that the new terminals will perform these functions adequately, a more fundamental question needs to be answered: what should the ferry network of the future look like? Only then can the operational specifications of the new terminals and vessels be settled.

Why does the network matter?

One obvious example is the level of connectivity that passengers should expect. If Sydney was to adopt world’s best practice in network design, all lines hubbing at Circular Quay would operate to a pulse timetable, as practised by the Swiss and in other parts of continental Europe.  All ferry services would arrive at Circular Quay shortly before the hour and half hour and depart shortly after the hour and half hour. This would enable lines intersecting at Circular Quay (or at Barangaroo for that matter) to connect conveniently with just a short transfer wait time.

It would also make Sydney Cove safer to navigate, as arriving vessels would no longer interfere with those that are departing.

Opting for quality in network design has consequences.  A well connected network must be punctual or planned connections will fail. This requires more advanced gangway technology at wharves and on vessels, so services are not delayed by slow passenger loading.  And if timed connections become the norm, pontoon ramps and the passenger concourse at Circular Quay and Barangaroo must allow free movement of passengers transferring between vessels.

One of the biggest questions is how to make better use of Barangaroo in the network. The current King Street Darling Harbour terminal is a poor relation to Circular Quay, but this is now changing with developments on the western side of the CBD. By the time King Street wharf is replaced by a four berth terminal at Barangaroo in late 2016, ferry passengers coming from the west of the city will find this to be easily the most convenient point of entry to Sydney’s CBD. This is thanks in part to the Wynyard Walk project, which will provide easy pedestrian access to Wynyard Station and George Street.

The best option would be for all ferry lines west of the harbour bridge to hub at Barangaroo, including a new line to the White Bay Power Station in anticipation of the Bays Precinct development. There is no reason why the Darling Harbour, White Bay and Parramatta lines should not all pulse at Barangaroo, adding significantly to the utility and liveliness of this terminal.

The building of a new transport interchange does not of itself improve the connectivity of a network. Only timetables make connections, but they need well designed infrastructure to support them. It is time for Sydney to stop putting the cart before the horse. Let’s design our networks first before building the supporting infrastructure.

Pyrmont Bay Terminal Review

The new ferry wharf at Pyrmont Bay opened on Tuesday 8 September. It is one of the many new terminals built by Roads and Maritime services over the last five years, starting with Milsons Point (completed December 2010).

At the outset, it must be questioned whether Pyrmont Bay has a long term future as a ferry terminal. As the crow flies, it sits 200 metres from King Street wharf, a distance perfectly suited to a pedestrian/cycle bridge. That would be a much more convenient way for people to move between Pyrmont Bay and King Street or Barangaroo South.

A ferry terminal on Darling Island, situated on almost a direct line from Barangaroo South to the Rozelle Power Station in the Bays Precinct, would make a lot more sense than Pyrmont Bay, especially if the current cruise terminal at Balmain is developed into a major residential precinct. A new line from Barangaroo with stops at Darling Island, Balmain South, Glebe Island and Rozelle Power Station is a far better option.

But aside from whether or not it was necessary to build a new terminal at Pyrmont Bay, how does the wharf perform?

Well, it is better than the old stepped wharf, but not much better.

A previous post pointed out some serious design problems, which have unfortunately not been addressed. The small pontoon and single ramp are not adequate for crowds likely during major events, especially the Vivid Festival. Disembarking passengers will be met by a wall of people trying to board. That's not safe and will cause delays. 

The other curious feature is that although the pontoon is perpendicular to the shoreline, there is only one berthing face. This is a wharf used by other ferry operators and party boats, so two berth faces would seem an obvious requirement.

And when did Opal readers stop being located close to the pontoon? At both Pyrmont Bay and the recently opened Balmain East wharf, the only Opal card readers are on the landside, a sizeable walk from the pontoon. Woe betide the poor passenger who only remembers to tap on just as the gangway is planked. The sprint back to the Opal card reader may cause them to miss the ferry.  

It is time for a re-think about the Sydney Ferry network and some fastidious planning to make sure wharf infrastructure investments better match operational and customer requirements. 

Why the inconvenience of carrying whitegoods on a train is not very important

As restful as it may be to leave our prejudices quietly undisturbed, there are times when habits of thought need to be shaken up by a dose of empirical evidence. The great American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce called it the irritation of doubt.

And where better to start this unsettling journey than a visit to the NSW Bureau of Transport Statistics website?

We can be lulled by the belief that the "main game" in Sydney's transport is moving people into and out of the central business district. That's probably why Sydney's transport network is a radial pattern, funnelling passengers on trains, ferries and conga lines of buses into the small area bounded by Circular Quay to the north and Central Station to the south.  

There can also be a lingering assumption that most trips are journeys to and from work.

None of these beliefs are true.

According to the BTS Household Travel Survey, Sydney's residents make an average of 16.7 million trips each week-day. Even if the Central Business District is broadly defined as the Sydney LGA (covering the area from Alexandria (south) to Circular Quay (north) and from Glebe (west) to Moore Park (east)), then this is the destination of just 10% of those trips. 

Some may pretend that travel that is not work related is unimportant, or "discretionary" (perhaps an "indulgence"), but we are human beings and as humans we meet friends, shop, watch movies and go on picnics. The data shows that commuting to work is not the main purpose of our travel. There are more shopping trips each day than journeys to work!    

   
The BTS Journey to Work data provides a more detailed picture of commuter travel.  This shows that only 12 per cent of jobs in Sydney are located in the central business district.

If travelling to work in the CBD is such a small component of all our travel needs, why is Sydney's public transport network so focussed on the CBD?       

This dose of reality goes some way to explain why the private motor car is still king and public transport makes up only 12% of the trips we make each week-day. It is not taking us where we need to go. This is a more fundamental cause of low mode share in this city than, say, the inconvenience of carrying whitegoods on a train. 

We need only look to continental Europe to see what needs to be done to achieve the mode shift necessary to make Sydney a more liveable, less congested city - designing public transport so residents can get from wherever they are to wherever they need to go, at a time that suits them. This, in combination with a little demand management of private car use, can lead to some habit changing about when to ride a bus or catch a train.  

There must also be a rethink about fare structures to encourage greater use of public transport, not ration it, which is what the "pay as you go" Opal card does. And let's not penalise transfers between modes nor differentiate prices based on mode. 

None of this is about extravagant infrastructure projects. The city's mobility problems will not be solved by a new cable car to Barangaroo or a big new rail project. We just need a change in thinking, as uncomfortable as that may be.                                                       

Bays Precinct Ferries Revisted

Action to transform the Bays Precinct - the 80 hectares of land surrounding waterways on the western edge of Sydney's central business district - is ramping up. An international summit about the project in November 2014 has been followed by a community open day and a "Sydneysiders Summit" on 16 and 17 May.

Work on developing the Bays Market District (currently Sydney Fish Markets), the White Bay Power Station and area around the White Bay Cruise terminal will start over the period from 2015-2019. All indications are that the beautiful old Power Station site and Market District will be major destinations and areas of residential development. Residential development is also likely around the Cruise Terminal, which may eventually be relocated. 

There is wide recognition that new public transport infrastructure is critical to the success of the whole project. But what mode and where?

From a ferry network perspective, the elephant in the room has always been the Superyacht Marina in Rozelle Bay. As long as it remains, this corner of the bays is condemned to 4 knot speed limits, hardly an appropriate speed for world class public transport. Not sure that superyachts add much to Sydney's rich fabric, but obviously they must or the marina would be moved elsewhere.

Realistically, the superyachts will probably stay and developments around Rozelle Bay will need to be serviced by other modes of transport. This means the suggestion in a previous post that Sydney Ferries establish a new line to Glebe Point is probably not a goer.

So is there a place for ferries in the Bays Precinct?

The logical option is a new line running from Barangaroo to White Bay, with possible intermediate stops at Darling Island, somewhere near the Cruise terminal and the wharf located at the temporary convention centre site at Glebe Island. 

Even with a speed limit of 8 knots, this would make a competitive journey time of 10-12 minutes from the Power Station to Barangaroo.  It offers a direct connection to the western side of the CBD, not just for the new residential developments, but also for existing residents on the eastern edge of Rozelle and south-east Balmain.

As with any ferry line, it must be viewed in the context of the whole ferry network. If the integrated regular-interval timetable advocated in early posts is adopted, then timed transfers could be made at Barangaroo for services to the Parramatta River, Circular Quay and north Sydney.  

  

 

 Another line could also be contemplated to the Market District with one stop at the densely populated Jacksons Landing.

Quality public transport is critical to the Bays Precinct development. Transport planning must happen in tandem with urban planning, recognising that one is not the tail of the other.

Is a new ferry terminal at Rhodes really a good idea?

At first blush, the State Government’s plan to build a new ferry terminal at the currently wharfless Rhodes sounds like a great plan. The population density is high and growing, the area is an employment hub for over 10,000, and it’s a major destination for shoppers. And it would be just one extra stop on the existing F3 line between Meadowbank and Sydney Olympic Park. 

What could go wrong?

Quite a bit actually, especially if the impact on other passengers using the F3 line is taken into account. 

Rhodes is a peninsular suburb, sandwiched between Homebush Bay to the west and Bray’s Bay to the east. The current plan is to locate the wharf at Mill Park on the northern tip. This is a fair hike from the Rhodes train station (840 metres) and 1.2 km from the entry to the retail centre, Rhodes Waterside.

So why not build the wharf at Bray’s Bay, or on the Homebush Bay side of the peninsular? There could be good connectivity with the train and better access to the commercial area. Unfortunately, neither of these sites are realistic because the water is too shallow. Dredging is not an option because of the cost and toxic waste still remaining from the area’s industrial past.
 

Even if it was possible to locate a wharf closer to Rhodes station, the need for vessels to divert into the maritime equivalent of a cul de sac would add significantly to transit times for passengers travelling from Sydney Olympic Park, Rydalmere or Parramatta.  

This means a new wharf must be located in the main channel of the Parramatta River.

Okay, why not go with the RMS plan then and position the wharf at Mill Park? The resident population of this Travel Zone will be nearly 6,000 by 2021.  Currently 34% of the working population work in the Sydney CBD, so the commuter peak demand case seems convincing.

Regrettably, there are two significant problems with Mill Park:

• Mill Park is almost directly opposite the existing Meadowbank wharf. Meadowbank is on the north side of the river, just east of the railway bridge.  Mill Park is just west of the bridge on the south side. The line of approach for vessels between the two points will be very awkward, with consequent safety issues. There will again be the problem of a much extended transit time for passengers up river.

• Even at Mill Park the river is shallow, so a long ramp is required to position the wharf pontoon on a navigable channel. It could be nearly a third of the width of the river at this point. This will adversely affect rowers and other users of the southern side of the river, who will find the pontoon and its ramp a difficult barrier to navigate around.

The only way Rhodes will become a workable new terminal is if Meadowbank Wharf is relocated further east at Anderson Park to provide a straight line of approach for vessels traversing to and from Mill Park. The Travel Zone surrounding Anderson Park has a rapidly growing population (forecast to reach 5,700 by 2041 or nearly three times the population residing near the current Meadowbank wharf) and access to other public transport is poor.

But this of course doesn’t solve the navigation problems for rowers.

Perhaps there are good reasons why we haven’t had a public ferry wharf at Rhodes before now. It seems those reasons are still valid today. They mean the Sydney Ferry network will probably be better off if Rhodes remains wharfless and the interests of passengers travelling from Sydney Olympic Park and other locations up river are better protected.
 

The Public City: Essays in honour of Paul Mees

A regular theme of this blog is the need for urban ferry planning to be approached from the perspective of transit planning theory. Mariners who take on the task of network planning without a proper understanding of public transport network theory do themselves a great disservice.
(Equally, public transport planners who tinker with waterway networks, without first developing a deep understanding of the peculiar constraints of maritime environments, do so at great peril).

An excellent recent contribution to public transport policy is "The Public City: Essays in Honour of Paul Mees", edited  by Brendan Gleeson and Beau Beza and published by Melbourne University Press. The essay by Tim Petersen, Public transport beyond the fringe,  provides a beautifully clear explanation of how low density populations can be effectively served by public transport.

The essay has relevance to urban transit ferry systems where demand levels may not justify high frequency services.

Low frequency services are normally equated with low quality, but Peterson shows that quality, and high usage, is still possible with 30 or 60 minute headways  

Petersen uses the small town of Trullikon (population 600) in the Canton of Zurich as an example of how public transport can achieve a high mode share without high population density.

Trullikon is not on a railway line, but it has a bus service which connects with the train and operates at 30 minute intervals from 6 am to 8 pm, Monday to Friday and hourly between 8 pm and midnight. A modified span of service operates on week-ends. 

Despite its low density and small population, 19% of journeys to work from Trullikon are by public transport. No city in Australia, apart from Sydney, achieves this level of public transport use for the journey to work.

According to Petersen, Switzerland's pulse timetabling and high punctuality are critical ingredients to success.

He states further:

"Overarching bodies like Zurich's ZVV (the co-ordinating government transport agency) or Graubünden's AEV are essential for the planning and governance of a Swiss-style network. Standardised system headways and operating hours are basic requirements of an effective pulse system, and there will inevitably be some lines that have weaker patronage levels and must be subsidised by stronger services. A multi-modal fare system that allows transfers without penalties is needed and a large pool of long-term travel pass holders is also an advantage".

We have in Sydney the co-ordinating agency (Transport for NSW), but unfortunately pulse timetabling and the right fare structure do not appear to be on the agenda.