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.      

A better approach to public transport commitments

In State election campaigns, we have come to expect political parties to make commitments to individual transport projects - a new rail line, bus route or ferry wharf.

But the quantity of projects, or their dollar value, are not synonymous with community benefit. 

A better approach would be to articulate principles and present a well thought out long term strategy.

New infrastructure is needed, but what are the principles that guide the selection and specification of individual projects? Without those principles, NSW will not get value for money, and is unlikely to achieve a discernible mode shift from car to public transport.

Here is a list of four things that need to be included in a public transport strategy for Sydney:

1. A long term commitment to building a multi-destinational network. Only a small percentage of travel in Sydney is the trip from home to work - and a small fraction of these are trips to Sydney CBD. A substantial increase in public transport travel (and a drop in car trips) will only happen when PT can be used to travel to wherever you need to go, at a time that suits you. This is not as unrealistic or costly as might be assumed, but it does require intelligent network planning and integration. And it does mean Sydney PT users must get used to more journeys which include a transfer.
2. Speed, frequency and simplicity are key elements of a successful network plan, plus measures to increase reliability. Practical strategies include fewer, straighter routes, greater distance between stops and more bus priority lanes.     
3. Priorities for infrastructure projects will be determined by the network plan. Developments which have the biggest impact on achieving the long term network plan should proceed first.
4. A modified fare structure to remove disincentives to public transport travel. This means removing penalties for transferring between modes, adopting the same fares for all modes and offering heavily discounted monthly, quarterly and annual travel passes. We don't want people to ration their use of public transport, as happens in the current pay as you go system. We want them to treat it as though it is free!   

Thoughts on expanded NYC ferry services

The history of ferries in New York City and Sydney have plenty in common.

Both cities relied heavily on ferries for urban transit in the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century, before bridge building, metropolitan rail systems and private motor vehicles shrunk the market.

A double ended screw propelled ferry, the Wallaby, first operated in Sydney in 1879, designed by innovative colonial naval architect Norman Selfe. Double ended screw ferries started in New York nine years later with the launch of the Bergen in 1888 by the Hoboken Ferry Company. 

Both cities embraced this style of vessel because of their suitability for short haul transport. As double enders, they saved lost time on reversing manoeuvres and screw propulsion was more efficient than the traditional paddlewheel.

Sydney naval architect Walter Reeks, who perfected the double ended screw ferry in the Lady Class boats from 1891, commented on the "wonderful similarity" between the solutions independently developed by the New York and Sydney ferry operators.



Launch of Walter Reeks designed doubled ended screw ferry the Lady Mary at Lavender Bay in 1891. Source: Australian National Maritime Museum (William Hall photo collection)   

While New York's ferry operations declined more rapidly than Sydney's, a rejuvenation is happening in both cities in the twenty-first century.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in February an expansion of the NYC ferry network from 2017 to reach all five boroughs. This will complement the existing East River Ferry which started in 2011.      

Source: www.gothamist.com

It has to be said that ferry ridership around New York is not huge. The free Staten Island ferry carries 22 million passengers each year, but the NY Waterway ferry ridership was a more modest 8.5 million in 2014. That compares with 1.7 billion passenger journeys on the New York subway.

Where geography dictates that water transport offers a more convenient alternative to other modes, it sometimes surprises that ferry ridership is not higher. This can lead to some scepticism about service expansion, especially where taxpayer subsidies are involved.

Without pretending to be an expert on New York City transit, here are three suggestions (unsolicited) for making urban transit ferry expansion more successful:

1. Think network and multiple destinations - don't focus on single origin-destination paths. Discussions about transit often assume that travel to work downtown is its only purpose. Wrong! Most journeys are for reasons other than work and most work destinations are not downtown. Think instead about how ferries integrate with the overall transit system, catering for the widest possible range of travel purposes and destinations.
2. Make transfers easy. As a rule, passengers don't enjoy transfers, but if you work at making them as convenient as possible, they can multiply the number of possible origin-destination pair connections. Convenience includes timeliness of the connections (ferry to ferry and with other modes), no fare penalty for transfers and ease of movement between modes.  
3. Legibility. If the ferry timetable is clockface, the connections always work, the span of service is sufficient and the ticketing is straightforward, you have the basics of a legible, easy to use service. But if passengers have to consult a timetable, check that the connection will work and pay separately for different parts of the trip, they will will probably drive their car instead.               

       

About Speed

Almost everyone likes to travel quickly to where they need to go. Speed is a fundamental need of transit users, but it is a mistake to think speed in urban transit ferry systems is the same as vessel speed.

There are many reasons why fast ferries, with operating speeds of more than 20 knots, are not suitable for urban transit networks in narrow waters, covering relatively short distances. There is a substantial increase in wash at higher speeds and safety risks are also greater.

From a commercial perspective, fuel efficiency declines rapidly at higher speeds and minimum crewing levels, determined by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), are also affected. Speed is one of the risks considered by AMSA in setting minimum crew levels, so labour costs can be much higher on fast ferries.

For all of these reasons, a focus on achieving speed purely by acquiring faster boats is not necessarily a good idea.

A far smarter strategy is to look at the other things that affect how quickly a passenger moves from origin to destination. Here are five ways to speeding up the end to end journey:

1. Gangways: single gangways only allow about 50 passengers to load per minute. Wider gangways and/or deployment of two gangways speeds up passenger loading and reduces variation in transit time.

2. Passenger ingress and egress: better designed terminals which separate disembarking passengers from boarding passengers and better design of vessels to allow free movement of boarding passengers to stops bottlenecks. 

3. Vessel manoeuvrability: incorporate steerable propulsion and manoeuvring systems in new vessels to speed up vessel berthing. 

4. Align pontoons with vessel line of approach: it might seem obvious, but it is a common error to construct new terminals where vessels must make slow complicated manoeuvres to berth or, even worse, reverse on departure. Where ever possible, pontoons used for intermediate wharves should minimise a vessel's deviation from its path.

5. Integrated regular interval timetables: timetables which ensure timed connections at interchange nodes minimise the wait for passengers who need to include a transfer in their journey. The periodicity of a regular interval timetable can also eliminate berthing conflicts in the timetable.             

A well designed transit network is a safe network

Sydney Ferries has an excellent safety record. In the last eight years, with over 110 million passenger journeys, there have been no fatalities related to Sydney Ferry operations.

It would be wrong, though, to be complacent. Congestion on Sydney Harbour and the risks posed by passenger crowding on poorly designed wharves mean that a tragedy may not be far away.

An often neglected cause of safety risk is poor network design and timetabling. Timetables which are not periodic - where there is inconsistency in stopping patterns or departure times through the day - make it difficult for crews to develop safe muscle memory. As a vessel leaves Circular Quay for Mosman, for example, the movements of other vessels around them may be different depending on the time of day, so potential risks may not always be anticipated.

On its return to Circular Quay, the Mosman ferry may berth at Wharf 4 (east or west) or maybe somewhere else if the crew are about to take a crib break. This inconsistency simply adds to complexity at our main ferry hub.      

A ferry system is not a closed system. Other vessels using Sydney Harbour are impacted by ferry operations and they also are put at greater risk by the lack of a regular pattern in ferry movements.

A recently introduced "solution" to the problem at Circular Quay is a decision by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) to fine ferry masters $500 for breaches of the code of conduct for navigation in Sydney Cove. A breach may include proceeding south of the knuckle at the northern edge of the Passenger Terminal before a berth has become available at Circular Quay. The problem with this solution is that, in some instances, the timetable does not schedule a sufficient buffer between departing and arriving vessels. This means passengers are inconvenienced by being forced to sit in motionless vessels at the Sydney Cove waiting line.

A more sensible approach would be to implement integrated regular interval timetables. In my proposal:

• all western lines, including Cockatoo Island/Woolwich, will hub at Barangaroo to free up berths at Circular Quay.
• all ferries on eastern lines, plus the Darling Harbour line, arrive at Circular Quay between 2-7 minutes before the hour and half hour; all depart Circular Quay 2-7 minutes after the hour and half hour.     

This means there is a minimum separation of four minutes between arriving and departing vessels from the Quay.

It also creates two 15 minute windows every hour when there are no ferry movements at Circular Quay, enabling other vessels, including cruise ships, to operate without interfering (or being interfered by) ferry movements.

This 30 minute periodic timetable would operate all day, but could be supplemented in peak periods on some lines if justified by demand (eg an extra Rose Bay service could run to create 15 minute headways in the peaks only) without disturbances to the underlying structure.

In a timetable designed this way, vessel movements become very predictable. What happens in one period also happens in all periods. The mitigation of a systemic risk in one period will also mitigate that risk in all periods.

Not only that, RMS would not have to fine ferry masters $500 for observing the timetable.      

   

 

   

The upgraded Cremorne Point wharf reviewed

I haven't always been a massive fan of the Roads and Maritime Services' wharf upgrade program.

The first upgrade was Milsons Point in December 2010. As new transport infrastructure goes, this wharf was a great disappointment. The pontoon is tiny, passenger ramps are confusing and it lacks the vital ingredient of a ferry terminal at this particular location - a second berthing face so two ferries can load passengers at the same time.

These shortcomings did not stop the Milsons Point wharf winning an architecture prize. The architect's description suggests functional considerations were not front of mind:

"The design responds to the varied and sinuous nature of the harbour's edge and its remnant forests by developing forms, material and colour selections that provide a sophisticated and complimentary group of elements."

Whatever happened to form follows function?

But RMS should not cop all the blame. The upgrade program would have been strengthened by earlier, more detailed planning for the network and fleet replacement. Sydney would then have wharf infrastructure that properly matched the fleet and network.

But let's turn now to the immediate.

The upgraded Cremorne Point wharf reopened yesterday. 
It is certainly impressive. And that's not just because of the crystal clear waters of Sydney Harbour lapping on the pontoon, the dappled shade cast by the fig trees on the shore or the views of the Opera House.

While it has the same look and feel of all the wharves in the upgrade program, it is the subtle changes which make a difference. RMS, and probably those who were consulted in the design process, have obviously learnt from earlier mistakes.

For a start, the pontoon is a generous size with the seating area located at the eastern end. As the seats are off to one side, they do not interfere with passenger ingress and egress as they do at Rose Bay, Neutral Bay and Thames Street Balmain. 

Fenders are widely spaced and the deckhands seem to have little difficulty tying lines or planking the gangway. The pontoon sits a little high in the water for a First Fleeter, but this can't be helped because of the unfortunate variation in freeboard in the Sydney Ferry fleet. 

I haven't seen the Lady Herron berth at the new wharf yet so don't know whether the hydraulic gangways on this vessel pose any problems.

The pontoon should be big and stable enough to withstand the gales that Cremorne Point is famous for.

The one nagging concern is whether the pontoon should be just that little longer to accommodate dual berthing at a future point in time. It works fine now with a five minute separation in departures for inbound and outbound vessels, but if we are to have a big pontoon, why not make it that little bit longer so two First Fleeters can berth bow on bow? It might come in handy with future timetable changes.  

But this is nit picking. Well done Roads and Maritime Services!