Submission to Brighton Council for the Bridgewater Bridge Northern Interchange Precinct Masterplan
The Bridgewater Bridge Northern Interchange Precinct Masterplan is a draft plan for activating the Bridgewater waterfront precinct adjacent to the Bridgewater Bridge. It also includes plans for greenfield development in North Bridgewater/Dromedary, medium-density development, and public and active transport.
Introduction
The Bridgewater Bridge Northern Interchange Precinct Masterplan is a visionary plan for the development and growth of areas around Bridgewater and its waterfront.
It is primarily a land use plan, however due to the significant movement corridors which traverse Bridgewater, transport is a fundamental element to the design and scope of the Masterplan.
In this submission I will be addressing key issues noted around land use, including car parking infrastructure, public transport, and travel demand. I will also discuss public transport, including the interface with rail infrastructure, existing and planned bus networks, and ferries/maritime transport.
Land use
The Masterplan concentrates on the land use changes and growth around the interchange precinct. Infill development is important for the potential of any area.
Infill development should be considered ahead of any potential land releases and greenfield developments. This is in order to ensure that places are constructed with access to services from Day One and to reduce reactive planning towards implementing services in new estates.
Any new estate should be considerate of appropriate guidelines and AustRoads rules about road size, width, and parking space. This is to ensure that if public transport were to use these roads, then there would be no issue with necessary passing of vehicles.
With respect to services, the primary places of activity in the region include Cove Hill shopping centre, Green Point Plaza and Village shopping centres, Jordan River Learning Federation schools, and Bridgewater Community Health Centre.
Bridgewater already has two shopping centres, each competing for increased lengths of stay and revenue. By adding a third area for retail space without the adequate services and facilities that may be already available at other sites, it may dilute the anticipated potential that the site proposes. There is no discussion regarding the demand for retail space in Bridgewater, and whether there are likely tenants to fill these leases.
This also imposes issues around car parking provision. Car parking in the Brighton municipality is generally free, without any expectation for visitors to pay. This is namely because of socio-economic and commercial reasons. As a result of this, there is high car ownership and usage due to the travel time and travel distances from Brighton municipality to areas of interest. Intra-regional connectivity is important and should be considered within this development, including what are the established movement corridors, what could be calmed for traffic, and connecting these effectively by public and active transport.
Land use proposals for the Bridgewater waterfront should consider the transport modes of rail, ferry, and road, which all establish the high potential for transit-oriented development within the precinct. Future travel needs within and outside of the Bridgewater area means that planning a successful transit-oriented development can maximise the social and economic benefits derived into the community, whilst maintaining good connectivity and reducing traffic. Not every business requires a car park on their shop front.
The land use plan does have some regard with its preclusion of rail as a primary mode of transport. The long-term provision of space suitable to construct a transport terminal, with adjoining connections to rail, road and ferry transport, have the potential to unlock massive demand for housing and commerce in the Bridgewater area. Further information will be provided below.
Historic public transport in Bridgewater
Bridgewater and the Brighton municipality has been well served by public transport since the area was established.
The railway was developed in the area as its major transport mode; however this was primarily used for taking goods to market. Country passenger rail services commencing in the 1870s and were supplemented with regularly timetabled suburban rail services, increasing until 1954. Suburban services started to dwindle following increased competition with road transport services. These ended in the area in 1974. Finally, day-return country passenger rail ceased in 1978.
From at least the mid-1970s, the Metropolitan Transport Trust (MTT) provided regular bus services from the area to central Hobart. In 1978, two routes served the Bridgewater area, with only limited weekday peak services. Most services ran hourly through the weekday off-peak. Weekend services were sparse. (Appendix 1)
By 1989, the services had increased substantially alongside growth of the suburbs. Services now operated around half-hourly in weekday off-peak, and with more inter-regional connections to Gagebrook and beyond, owing in part to the opening of the Bowen Bridge in 1984. (Appendix 2)
In 1991, Metro introduced ‘Metro Express”, a faster limited-express service offering, the first of its kind in Tasmania. Buses only stopped at designated, branded ‘MX’ stops, and were supplemented in the Bridgewater area with a community bus, which connected with the express services.
These services remained relatively consistent, with minor changes such as the resumption of regular route services in and around Bridgewater. (Appendix 3, 4) As part of the network review in 2014, a new network was established in 2016, which is the current network as it is today.
Public transport
The Masterplan has correctly identified that public transport will be fundamental for the growth of the Bridgewater and Brighton regions, however, it is failed to acknowledge possible planning issues with respect to the network.
The Masterplan has included the provision of a ferry wharf and a bus stop to cater for public transport. At this time, there is little to no public information suggesting the introduction of a ferry service to Bridgewater.
Likewise, the installation of a bus stop on Old Main Road to provide multi-model connectivity has not considered the likely future public transport network for the area, as well as growth with the greenfield development to the north of the precinct.
There has not been a high demand for public transport in this area before, and the Masterplan is leveraging the proposed residential developments to generate demand for it. This should be planned from the outset and not be a reactive measure. Engagement should include stakeholders such as Metro Tasmania (who operate buses in Bridgewater), the Department of State Growth (who manage contracts), and developers to ensure that there is necessary services available from Day One. It may be required that Council, or the developer, pay to upgrade and establish DSAPT compliant bus stops in the area that provide high quality amenity to the user, as well as the installation of signalised intersections and pedestrian infrastructure to ensure safety.
The Midland Highway also by design creates a division between the northern and southern sides of the under-construction Bridgewater Bridge. Buses travelling to and from Hobart will have to make lengthy deviations to travel underneath the new bridge, to provide coverage to the new precinct. This is factored into bus contracts and costs, which are dependent on State Government funding.
The provision of bus stop infrastructure within the plan is important, however consideration must be made on how such infrastructure feeds into the wider transport network. Greater Hobart will require multi-modal transport options to enable future growth and reduce dependence on internal combustion engine vehicles.
Brighton Council must engage early with public transport stakeholders to ensure that proposed transport connectivity is available.
Existing rail usage
The Masterplan correctly highlights the importance of the railway to the fabric of the Bridgewater waterfront. The railway has been a key piece of strategic infrastructure for generations, and up until 2014 was in regular use for freight.
The railway is still active on the northern side of the Bridgewater junction and presents challenges for the Masterplan to appropriately deliver its placemaking strategy for the Bridgewater waterfront.
As a significant movement corridor, it should be noted that people and railway tracks do not mix. There will be a requirement to upgrade rail crossings such that they meet the appropriate Australian Standards, and safety management regulations of TasRail, stipulated by the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator.
There is also the issue of possible discomfort for residents around an all-hours freight railway, with multiple level crossings in a small area, and where safety management requires horn blasting to alert road traffic. Whilst there are potential mitigations, including the reduction in horn blasting, this needs to be discussed with the rail operator early, to reduce friction in later development stages.
The rail operator was noted as not being engaged as part of the Masterplan consultation.
Long term rail usage
The Masterplan has correctly identified the long-term opportunities available for passenger or freight rail on the disused sections of the railway at Bridgewater Junction.
It is well known that the existing Tasmanian rail network is circuitous, has major infrastructure constraints for the delivery of passenger rail, and poor land use and engineering decisions have prevented density and population growth around the railway.
I have been personally developing a study on Tasmanian passenger rail, and its feasibility as a public transport option.
Through developing the report it is recognised that there is future potential in the business development of Scenic, and Tourist/Heritage passenger rail in Southern Tasmania. These markets are a multi-million-dollar industry across Australia and New Zealand, and a major driver for visitors to areas of rail operations.
Bridgewater now remains the southern-most railhead still connected to the active Tasmanian rail network. It is conveniently the location of the original Bridgewater Junction station platform, which is a considered part of the Masterplan design proposal. For any future intrastate passenger rail operations, Bridgewater is now the gateway to Greater Hobart.
Rail would not be reconnected to the western shore of the River Derwent without some investment and demand forecasting. This does not discount the future use of rail at Bridgewater, and the infrastructure should be managed and preserved in a way that enables it to be reused easily.
Heritage operators are likely to be the first passenger users of the rail network, including the Derwent Valley Railway in New Norfolk and Don River Railway in Devonport.
These organisations, with the guidance of the Tasmanian Association of Tourist Railways, have developed business plans for expansion and use of the main Tasmanian rail network, as well as safety management regulations and policies.
The island platform and rail infrastructure at Bridgewater remains critical for the successful operation of these activities, including the ability to turn around locomotives using the wye of the junction. The wye has been disconnected since 2014, however the Masterplan should not preclude the ability for this to be reinstated in the future.
The Tasmanian Transport Museum also has plans to gain access to the Hobart suburban line as far as Granton station. There is a possibility that heritage rail operators may use a ferry service to bridge the gap for passengers and connect the isolated Hobart line to the rest of the rail network.
As for other service types, with the continued growth that Tasmania experiences, there is a long-term need for future Intercity services which provide modern emissions-friendly connectivity to Outer Metropolitan areas, such as New Norfolk or Brighton.
Beyond heritage rail, the next business development may be offering a scenic rail experience between Hobart and Launceston, Devonport or Burnie.
These services use old formations which may not be competitive to road transport and have journey times of four hours or more to principal terminals. They are not strictly public transport services, moreover they are tourist services which differentiate themselves with the price of the product, and the product they are marketing.
Potential offerings within the Scenic and Tourist rail industry have established potential for the development of such an enterprise in Tasmania, with notable examples in Australia and New Zealand.
It is my belief that it is important to maintain the existing rail corridor sections within the Bridgewater Junction site, and not simply maintain them as they are, but even upgrade them.
The new Bridgewater Bridge design plans have stipulated that it does not preclude the future use of the rail corridors at Bridgewater and Granton.
It should be noted that Train Operating Companies may not necessarily have the capital to reinstall rail infrastructure, and that it is not in their purview as the corridor is managed and maintained by TasRail. Any removal or covering of the existing rail track may remove the potential for any future operation without significant cost.
Following the removal of the 1940s-era river crossing and notwithstanding the development of a new rail crossing, Bridgewater will be the southernmost terminus for any mainline trains in Tasmania. This is a potential opportunity for Brighton Council to capitalise on, as a major transport interchange, and as a place for tourists to visit.
It is quite likely that in the next 25-30 years that regular passenger rail will return to Tasmania.
Ferries/maritime transport
The Masterplan fails to acknowledge that there may be constraints regarding the construction of a ferry wharf, because of retention of the original causeway and bridge abutments of the heritage Bridgewater Bridge.
According to design plans for the new Bridgewater Bridge, the navigation channel will be located where the original lift span of the old bridge is. (State Growth 2022) This means that planned repurposing of the old bridge of the Bridgewater side into a ferry terminal may have challenges for how vessels pull in and dock at the roadway.
This also means some care would be required by vessel masters to slow down and turn without crossing the beam of other vessels, so that they can pull into the ferry wharf from the southern side.
This also impacts the Masterplan’s objective to keep the railway in situ for potential future operations.
Conclusion
The Masterplan has merit in the way that it wishes to transform the northern side of Old Main Road, and the area adjacent to Bridgewater Junction.
It is vital that the plans laid out by the proposal actually include greater understanding of public transport provisions, servicing, and travel demand in the area.
It is not sufficient that it is proposed to introduce a ferry and/or bus network without consulting the relevant operators or authorities. It is also no sufficient to propose removing strategic infrastructure corridors such as railways, without consultation.
Any plan such as this must take an active approach to the way it looks at public transport. Whilst it is in the remit of Brighton Council to implement plentiful active transport solutions, the provision of public transport services is not something that is meant to be a reactive part of the planning process.
A considered and thoughtful approach to the railway which respects its capabilities as an underutilised asset, should be made as part of the plan to either remove or repurpose the existing corridors. Tourist and heritage operators should be consulted about the potential interface, and any potential infrastructure that can be recycled for use by these groups.
All in all, I believe it is important that the North Bridgewater area be developed, however, it needs to be more than a land sell-off. Services must be present on Day One of residents and commercial tenants moving in, as well as public transport services.
References
State Growth 2022, Developed Concept Plans Set 1 – General Layout Plans, New Bridgewater Bridge, Sheet No 27014, https://bridgewaterbridge.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/420809/Developed_Concept_Design_Plans_Set_1_-_General_Layout_Plans.pdf
Appendix
Appendix 1 – Timetable of services for Bridgewater. Metropolitan Transport Trust Guide effective January 1978 (Source: MTT/Tasmanian Transport Museum Archive)
Appendix 2 – Timetable of services in Bridgewater, Metropolitan Transport Trust effective November 1989. (Source: MTT/M Sharp Collection)
Appendix 3 – Timetable of services in Bridgewater, Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd effective 15 May 2005 (Source: Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd/M Sharp Collection)
Appendix 4 – Cropped map of routes covering Bridgewater, April 2012. (Source: Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd/Archive.org, https://web.archive.org/web/20130410164600/http://metrotas.com.au/uploads/file/HBT%20Timetables/04%202012%20April/MetroTas_Timetable_Bridgewater_APR12.pdf)
Appendix 5 – Current Bridgewater route map effective 11 October 2020, (Source: Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd, https://www.metrotas.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/DSG_tt_520_web2.pdf)
