Sydney’s waterborne transport network is growing. Commuters
on the Manly Fast Ferry now enjoy a service every 10 minutes in the peaks and
20 minutes off peak. Captain Cook Cruises have extended their commuter
offerings to Watsons Bay and now run regular timetabled services to the
International Convention Centre and White Bay plus direct trips between Darling
Harbour and Manly.
Services under the subsidised Sydney Ferries’ contract have
also expanded with higher frequencies for Parramatta River runs and a more
regular Eastern Suburbs timetable. Passenger comfort and convenience have
lifted with six new Emerald Class ferries joining the fleet and a new terminal
at Barangaroo. Redevelopment of Circular Quay is imminent.
But what may not be widely appreciated is how complex the Sydney
ferry system has become. The complexity is partly due to Sydney’s diverse maritime
environment. This makes differences in vessel design requirements unavoidable. The
form of a ferry passing by Sydney Heads to Manly is not suited for operations
in the calm, shallow waters of the Parramatta River or the narrow coves of the
inner harbour. The problem is compounded by past ad hoc decisions on wharf
infrastructure, network design and fleet replacement. There has also been a
somewhat laissez faire approach to approving non regulated services.
Complexity has serious consequences. It has led to a poor
fit between the design of vessels and wharves so passenger exchange is slow and
needlessly adds time to journeys. Complexity makes operations more expensive with
the cost ultimately borne by taxpayers who pay for operator subsidies. And
Sydney Cove has become dangerously congested and is sorely in need of de-cluttering.
Above all, it is confusing and inconvenient for passengers.
Your Opal card works on some trips but not others and there is no guarantee of
a convenient bus connection or ferry to ferry transfer. It can be plain hard to
get to where you need to go at a time that suits you.
Back in the 1970’s, engineers tackled the problem of
complexity in another field of technology. Computers were becoming so complex
that it was no longer practical for a person or single team to quickly build a
complete system. To overcome this, the overall architecture of computers
started to be designed to accommodate modularity. Different parts of a computer
could be built by independent teams or firms so long as they followed explicit
rules for integration. We are reminded daily of this advance through the magic
of smartphone apps.
Modularity in the computing industry saved money and enabled
the technology to evolve quickly.
The same principles can also be applied to public transport technology.
Sydney’s ferry system could be so much more efficient and more useful for
passengers if its architecture was also modular.
How? In a modular ferry system, services with similar
requirements for speed, freeboard (vessel deck height above water level),
passenger capacity and other vessel design parameters are grouped into separate
“chunks”. For the main current local operator, Harbour City Ferries, the most
logical arrangement is to split its network into four modules – outer harbour
(Manly); Watsons Bay/ Rose Bay; inner harbour and Parramatta River - and for this
structure to be reflected in the design of the redeveloped Circular Quay.
Modularisation simplifies. The team managing and seeking to
improve one module can do so without disruption to or by other modules. Instead
of wharves being a “one size fits all” compromise, they can be customised to match
exactly the requirements of a particular vessel class. Wharf 3 at Circular Quay
is already designed especially for the Freshwater Class Manly Ferry and works
very effectively in loading and unloading large numbers of passengers. But
other wharves at the Quay need to be customised too. For example, Wharf 2 could
be adapted for high speed catamarans with a high freeboard. If each pontoon at
the Quay was tuned to a particular vessel class, passenger exchange could be
sped up significantly.
Non-subsidised operators can continue under this model, but they
too should comply with rules for integration. These include timetables which
make it easy for passengers to transfer from one service to another and full
ticket integration. The fare structure must not penalise a passenger for
transferring between ferries, or from a ferry to a bus or train, in order to
complete a single journey.
To fix the congestion problem in Sydney Cove, it may
also be necessary to reconfigure some routes to reduce the number of ferry
lines terminating at Circular Quay.
One of the strengths of modular networks is their
adaptability. Future demand is hard to predict, but a modular network can be
easily extended to meet demand fluctuations over time. For ferries that may mean
adding a module or increasing service frequency in an existing module. Sydney’s
developing Bays Precinct, including the Fish Markets, Glebe Point and White
Bay, is a logical candidate for a new module. Seamless integration with the
rest of the ferry network could be accomplished with timed transfers at
Barangaroo to ferries headed for Parramatta and Circular Quay. Low emission,
full electric ferry systems are now operating in Europe and could be ideal for
use in the Bays Precinct. Independent but integrated, the Bays Precinct services
could be run by either an existing or new operator.
There is a place for multiple ferry operators on Sydney
Harbour, but the time has come for proper integration under a unified, modular
network plan. This should be the number one policy priority for Sydney ferries.
It is then possible to turn attention to the infrastructure required to support
the network, including design of a redeveloped Circular Quay.
Note: this is a longer, more technical version of a short
opinion piece published in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday 2 March 2018.
For those who would like to read more about modularity in design, I strongly
recommend a book by Baldwin and Clark, “Design Rules: the power of modularity”.
