Redfern Station is one of the
busiest in Sydney, with over 40,000 commuters using it every day to access Sydney
University, the Australian Technology Park, North Eveleigh, or simply to
transfer to one of numerous suburban lines. The increasing pedestrian traffic,
with only one entry point to each platform, and a narrow entry on Lawson
Street, makes it more and more congested and difficult for commuters, as well
as not very safe in the eventuality of a fire or accident and the need to
evacuate people. Poor accessibility also makes it hard, sometimes impossible,
for people with disabilities, prams or heavy luggage to use the station. The
need for an upgrade has seen several plans considered by the previous state
government. These plans have only just been released to the public.
The SSH has obtained documents released
by RailCorp regarding “information relating to planned upgrades at Redfern
Train Station”. The documents show the various plans for redevelopment, from
the mid 2000s until about 2010, including one favoured by RailCorp for which
construction was planned to start in July 2011, over three financial years (or four,
depending on the documents).
The documents show that in 2007 Sydney
architecture firm Jackson Teece was commissioned by RailCorp and the Redfern-Waterloo
Authority to review the designs from previous studies and prepare a set of
station upgrade options, that would make the station compliant with fire and
safety regulations and the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), and therefore
more easily accessible. They recommended three options for the redevelopment,
which later formed the basis for a Cox Arup Bovis Report used for the Gateway
funding proposal in 2010 submitted to the Treasury:
(1) A Base Case (Option D) that would address Easy Access (lifts),
fire and other compliance issues (pedestrian evacuation) on the same footprint
as it is now. This option was estimated to cost $29.5m. This solution, while
the cheapest and fastest to implement, might not alleviate congestion problems.
It is described by the Australian Centre for Value Management (ACVM) as a
“band-aid” solution which won’t help promote Redfern nor serve as a “catalyst for
development”.
(2) A Base Case Plus (Option E) that would include the basic
upgrade, but also provide a connection with the surrounding areas thanks to
additional interface works and remodeling the entry on Lawson and Gibbon
streets – $55.5m. This was the RWA’s preferred option, but considered “poor
value for money” by ACVM, not solving congestion issues and not going far
enough in terms of DDA compliance.
(3) A Full Station Redevelopment (Option C). This option suggested
a centrally located concourse, relocating the Gibbons Street entrance of the
station further down Gibbons Street and the Lawson Street entrance on Little
Eveleigh Street. The plan shows a high-rise building on the eastern side of the
station to the left of the Gibbons Street entry. The plan also included the
construction of a non-paying pedestrian bridge going from Marian Street over to
Little Eveleigh Street that would alleviate congestion and allow a pedestrian
link between the ATP and North Eveleigh. The Lawson Street concourse would be
closed and only used as fire egress.
Option C was considered the
worst option regarding the heritage of the station, as all the platform
heritage buildings except those on Platform 1 (and the booking office on
Platform 1) would be removed. This option, preferred by RailCorp, would be the
most expensive with an estimated $143.3m budget. Due do the high cost and
magnitude of the enterprise, this option might also take the longest time to
complete (about four years), which raises the question of how long Redfern
Station can sustain the steadily increasing flow of commuters. A cheaper and
faster option could at least address the urgent issue of accessibility.
The cheapest option, however, would
not much improve the fire and safety compliance of the station. The documents
all highlight the issues around accessibility, as well as fire safety issues, especially
with underground platforms 11 and 12, where there is only one exit point.
According to egress calculations indicated in the Jackson Teece Report, it
turned out that it took almost double the time normally required to evacuate platforms
11 and 12 at Redfern, with 8.8 minutes instead of the four minutes required by
RailCorp Standards and NFPA 130 (the Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and
Passenger Rail Systems). For Platform 2/3, the busiest of the station, the
platform evacuation time using NFPA criteria was of 16.3 minutes, four times the
required time.
Obviously, nothing happened in
July 2011 and it is not yet known what the new government plans to do regarding
an upgrade. As indicated in the pages of recent SSH issues, the NSW cabinet has
put together a proposal for the redevelopment of the Central-Eveleigh corridor,
so there is hope that an upgrade of the station will be in the plans as well.
As per the ACVM Report, a
“deferral of these works for an indefinite period is not an option for RailCorp
as it must comply with the legislative requirements with respect to disabled
access and fire and life safety. Deferral is also not an option given the
growth in demand that will keep Redfern as one of the network’s busiest and
critical points.”
The SSH has contacted RailCorp
in order to know if any of the plans considered previously are being considered
by the current government, but has not received a reply at the time of
printing.
These documents were released under a GIPA request initiated by Lift
Redfern. REDWatch, a member of Lift Redfern, has made the documents available
at www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/statesignificant/station/studies
Source: South Sydney Herald November 2013