Planning for Better Transport

PLAN9018: Planning Report Semester 2
GUIDELINES FOR INTERCHANGE DESIGN
A Study of Parramatta Transport Interchange
Allan Borg | 310335000
Supervisor | Martin Payne
2012

Study for Parramatta Transport Interchange
Page | iii
ABSTRACT
A new emphasis has been placed on the need to reduce user costs and improve perceptions associated with
transport interchange. The notion of ‘seamless transfer’ has increasingly become a key policy goal in providing
more attractive alternatives to transport users.
This report will cite findings from an in-depth review of Parramatta Transport Interchange against international
best practice. Further, the report also examines how interchange facilities are designed and evaluated while
providing insights into decision-making processes and types of considerations that are made by users.
Parramatta Transport Interchange is a major transport interchange facility within the CityRail network and
significant as a gateway to the western suburbs of Sydney. The evaluation of interchange practice draws upon
Interchange Best Practice Guidelines developed in the United Kingdom by Transport for London.
To plan effectively for future interchange facilities, there is a need to get frameworks in place and to ensure best
practice. The Interchange Best Practice Guidelines assist in optimising the quality of interchange and passenger
functions, providing framework in which all stakeholders can design, assess and audit interchange facilities.
‘Getting it right’ generates long-term dividends. The ability to co-ordinate and integrate interchange facilities with
a common vision, provided both a benchmark and platform for ‘joined up’ thinking bringing about improved
interchanges that promote public transport and sustainability.

Page | iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge the assistance of my colleagues in the Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning at the
University of Sydney in the preparation of this report. I would like to express my very great appreciation to my
supervisor Dr Martin Payne who assisted substantially with the research of this report. His guidance, patience
and confidence in my ideas has provided me with the confidence to write this report
I am particularly grateful for the assistance given by Honorary Associate Dr Jennifer M. Gamble for her excellent
peer review and editorial feedback. She is clearly gifted in editing and writing and I will continue to strive in areas
of editing and writing at her level. Many thanks to my academic peers, particularly Shaun Walsh for his valuable
insights and constructive guidance. Finally, I wish to thank my family for their support and encouragement
throughout my study.

Page | v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................................ III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................................IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................................................V
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................................................VII
GLOSSARY............................................................................................................................................................XI
ACRONYMS..........................................................................................................................................................XII
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT.............................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 AIM OF RESEARCH..................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 RESEARCH APPROACH............................................................................................................................. 3
1.4 RATIONALE FOR INTERCHANGE STUDY................................................................................................. 4
2 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 DEFINITION OF TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE.......................................................................................... 5
2.2 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Organisational Structure......................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 PLANNING CONTEXT.................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3.1 NSW State Metropolitan Plan................................................................................................................. 8
2.3.2 Centres and Corridors............................................................................................................................ 9
2.3.3 City of Cities......................................................................................................................................... 10
2.4 INTERCHANGE THEORY.......................................................................................................................... 12
2.4.1 Functions of Interchanges.................................................................................................................... 13
2.4.2 Interchange Zones ............................................................................................................................... 14
2.4.3 Commuter Choice ................................................................................................................................ 15
2.5 INTERCHANGE DESIGN ........................................................................................................................... 17
2.5.1 Value within the Civic Precinct ............................................................................................................. 17
3 REVIEW OF GUIDELINES............................................................................................................................. 19
3.1 NSW GUIDELINES FOR INTERCHANGES............................................................................................... 19
3.2 WORLD BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES................................................................................................... 20
3.3 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON DESIGN AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK.............................................. 21

Page | vi
4 EVALUATION OF PARRAMATTA INTERCHANGE......................................................................................25
4.1 THEME 1: EFFICIENCY..............................................................................................................................26
4.1.1 Operations............................................................................................................................................26
4.1.2 Movement within an interchange facility...............................................................................................29
4.1.3 Movement within the wider interchange zone.......................................................................................30
4.1.4 Sustainability ........................................................................................................................................32
4.2 THEME 2: USABILITY.................................................................................................................................33
4.2.1 Accessibility..........................................................................................................................................33
4.2.2 Safety and accident prevention ............................................................................................................34
4.2.3 Personal security..................................................................................................................................35
4.2.4 Protected environment..........................................................................................................................36
4.3 THEME 3: UNDERSTANDING....................................................................................................................37
4.3.1 Legibility................................................................................................................................................37
4.3.2 Permeability..........................................................................................................................................38
4.3.3 Wayfinding............................................................................................................................................40
4.3.4 Service information...............................................................................................................................41
4.4 THEME 4: QUALITY....................................................................................................................................43
4.4.1 Perception ............................................................................................................................................43
4.4.2 Built design...........................................................................................................................................44
4.4.3 Urban realm..........................................................................................................................................45
4.4.4 Sense of place......................................................................................................................................46
RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................................47
5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................51
6 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................53
APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................................................57

Page | vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Parramatta Interchange (Hassell, 2012).................................................................................................2
Figure 2.1 Original Parramatta Interchange Plan by JCTW (Jackson Teece, n.d.) .................................................6
Figure 2.2 Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 (NSW Department of Planning, 2010) ............................................9
Figure 2.3 Sydney's 46 Key Transport Corridors (NSW Department of Planning, 2010).......................................10
Figure 2.4 City of Cities (NSW Department of Planning, 2010) .............................................................................11
Figure 2.5 Towards a Network City (NSW Department of Planning, 2010) ...........................................................12
Figure 2.6 Three Sustainable Dimensions to the Transport Interchange (Edwards, 2011) ...................................14
Figure 2.7 Station as node (Bertolini and Spit, 1998) ............................................................................................15
Figure 2.8 Station as place (Bertolini and Spit, 1998)............................................................................................15
Figure 2.9 Station as node and place (Bertolini and Spit, 1998)............................................................................15
Figure 2.10 Artist Impression of Civic Place Redevelopment (Parramatta City Council, 2012).............................18
Figure 3.1 Transport for London (2009) Defining Spaces......................................................................................23
Figure 4.1 Parramatta Interchange (Hassell, 2012)...............................................................................................25
Figure 4.2 Limited bus information in concourse ...................................................................................................26
Figure 4.3 No real-time rail information on Argyle Street.......................................................................................26
Figure 4.4 Limited capacity on platforms ...............................................................................................................27
Figure 4.5 Commuters forced over the yellow line.................................................................................................27
Figure 4.6 CityRail ticket machines with no option for bus ticket ...........................................................................28
Figure 4.7 Bus tickets limited to convenience stores.............................................................................................28
Figure 4.8 Bus right of way on Argyle Street .........................................................................................................29
Figure 4.9 Bus layover from Darcy Street..............................................................................................................29

Page | viii
Figure 4.10 Pedestrian conflict on Darcy Street access.........................................................................................30
Figure 4.11 Pedestrian conflict at Church Street mall entry...................................................................................30
Figure 4.12 Bike lock facility on Darcy Street.........................................................................................................31
Figure 4.13 Access to carparks..............................................................................................................................31
Figure 4.14 Future portal access to Civic Place.....................................................................................................32
Figure 4.15 Grocon Civic Place Redevelopment Plan ...........................................................................................32
Figure 4.16 Interchange access via Darcy Street ..................................................................................................33
Figure 4.17 Lift and escalator access to Argyle Street...........................................................................................33
Figure 4.18 Pedestrian conflict with bus right of way .............................................................................................34
Figure 4.19 Police obstructed by barrier on Argyle Street......................................................................................34
Figure 4.20 Inactive frontages along Darcy Street.................................................................................................35
Figure 4.21 Overall lack of natural surveillance .....................................................................................................35
Figure 4.22 Lack of appropriate shelter in bus waiting area...................................................................................36
Figure 4.23 Pedestrian conflict with outdoor dining................................................................................................36
Figure 4.24 Signage in concourse area .................................................................................................................37
Figure 4.25 Connection to bus area.......................................................................................................................37
Figure 4.26 Pedestrian counts (Parramatta City Council, 2012a) ..........................................................................38
Figure 4.27 Desire lines as per Parramatta Council pedestrian counts (by author)...............................................38
Figure 4.28 Insufficient bus waiting area................................................................................................................39
Figure 4.29 Information board obstructing pedestrian movement..........................................................................39
Figure 4.30 Wayfinding map provided by Parramatta Council...............................................................................40
Figure 4.31 Wayfinding map provided by CityRail .................................................................................................40
Figure 4.32 Real-time rail information in Parramatta Westfields ............................................................................41

Page | ix
Figure 4.33 No real-time information at entry points..............................................................................................41
Figure 4.34 Service information limited to signboards ...........................................................................................42
Figure 4.35 Location of information easily missed by commuters .........................................................................42
Figure 4.36 Potential redevelopment site on Darcy Street.....................................................................................43
Figure 4.37 Inactive redevelopment site on Argyle Street .....................................................................................43
Figure 4.38 Pedestrian movement on Darcy Street...............................................................................................44
Figure 4.39 Barriers to pedestrian movement........................................................................................................44
Figure 4.40 Civic Place proposals following current setback.................................................................................45
Figure 4.41 Inactive space along Darcy Street......................................................................................................45
Figure 4.42 Disconnected kiss and ride and taxi zone...........................................................................................46
Figure 4.43 Poorly activated area along Argyle Street...........................................................................................46

Page | xi
GLOSSARY
BUS PRIORITY
Bus priority includes both electronic priority and physical infrastructure measures to give buses priority over other
vehicles. Physical infrastructure includes bus only lanes and queue–jumps at traffic lights.
CENTRE
A place where varying concentrations and combinations of retail, commercial, civic, cultural and residential uses
are focused around transport facilities.
CITY OF CITIES
The ‘City of Cities’ concept describes a compact and multi–centred city structure, where people and businesses
do not need to travel long distances to access work, services, markets and regional facilities.
GLOBAL ECONOMIC CORRIDOR
The part of eastern Sydney stretching from Sydney Airport and Port Botany through Sydney City and North
Sydney to Macquarie Park which provides links the world economy of Sydney.
INTERCHANGES
A facility to transfer from one mode of transport, or one transport service, to another. This can include a major rail
station or bus facility.
LEGIBILITY
The extent to which visitors can ‘read’ the environment and find their way around it.
MODE
The type of vehicle or method used for a trip, e.g. train, bus, walk.
OPEN SPACE
Areas that are set aside within the city boundaries for recreational uses with unrestricted public access, such as
parks, playing fields, landscape buffers and community paths, but does not include National Parks or nature
reserves.
PERMEABILITY
The extent to which an environment allows choice of routes through and within an environment.
REALTIME INFORMATION
Information about current services (e.g. expected arrival times, delays and alterations to routes)

Page | xii
SEAMLESS TRAVEL
Seamless travel ensures that transfers between these services can be made easier, quicker, and more
conveniently.
TRANSPORT FOR NSW
The centralised transport department responsible for improving the customer experience, planning, program
administration, policy, regulation, procuring transport services, infrastructure and freight in NSW.
WESTERN SYDNEY
Fourteen local government areas that includes Auburn, Bankstown, Baulkham Hills, Blacktown, Blue Mountains,
Camden, Campbelltown, Fairfield, Hawkesbury, Holroyd, Liverpool, Parramatta, Penrith and Wollondilly.
WAYFINDING
Improving the ease with which people can navigate themselves to, from and within an interchange facility or
zone.
ACRONYMS
CBD Central Business District
NSW New South Wales
TFL Transport for London
TIDC Tra nsport Infrastructure Development Corporation
UK United Kingdom

Page | 1
1 INTRODUCTION
In most developed economies, mobility accounts for an average of two hours travelling time per day. This is
constant irrespective of how they travel. Commuters are travelling longer distances with homes being built further
away from traditional centres. The ability to connect different nodes of transport in a coherent and more efficient
fashion is critical toward building more efficient and sustainable communities.
The notion of ‘seamless travel’ has been a key policy focus in creating more efficient public transport systems.
The act of ‘transferring between nodes’ has become a barrier for commuters with interchanges assuming greater
significance in recent transport agenda (Hine and Scott, 2000). Seamless travel ensures that transfers between
these services can be made easier, quicker, and more conveniently. Central to the requirement of seamless
travel is the ability to provide more attractive, user-friendly public transport supported by improvement in the
frequency of services as well as high quality passenger facilities and traveller information (Australian Institute of
Traffic Planning Management, 2001).
The planning process behind transport interchanges entails a high degree of complexity. The operation of
interchanges has followed a much broader understanding in methods to achieve seamless transfer, however
there are still many issues for which a consensus has not been achieved. The requirement for a seamless public
transport journey is the need to reduce the costs associated with interchange, both perceived and actual costs.
The cost of interchange can influence the demand for public transport in terms of time-spent waiting, time spent
transferring between nodes of transport and inconveniences that are involved with this activity (Hine and Scott,
2000).
Various studies have highlighted a range of interchange attributes that are desirable for travellers which include
personal security, travel information, ticketing arrangements, predictability of service, low waiting times, and a
reduction in organisational and institutional barriers (Hine and Preston, 2003). The design of interchanges is also
dependent on the frequency of connecting services, which will also dictate the levels of seating, lighting, space
and weather protection needs. Whether the interchange is an outside urban place or an enclosed one, the task
remains of joining it with existing patterns within the urban environment.
Within Sydney’s transportation network, interchanges assume greater importance in delivering easy and effective
transfer for passengers as well as being a catalyst for urban regeneration. This is supplemented by the ability to
provide improved access to buses and rail with upgraded waiting facilities in a safe and secure environment. The
function of much of the public space may be strongly influenced by the connection between public transport and
feeder modes. In order to help planners identify the impact that interchange functions place on different public
spaces, design guidelines for interchanges should be set out accordingly (Transport for London, 2009).

Page | 2
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The interchange is a form of transport building that integrates various modes of public transport. Despite the
accumulation of empirical information with regards to transport interchange, only a few sources detail specific
design attributes (Edwards, 2011, Blow, 2005). Recent focus on design has centred on placing the needs of the
passenger first.
Interchanges within NSW were first identified through the ‘Interchange Improvement Program’ in 1998. The
Interchange Improvement Program commenced with the construction of major interchange facilities at Blacktown,
Liverpool, Bondi Junction and more recently Parramatta and Chatswood. The design and construction of these
interchanges have been coordinated by State Government agencies working independently, sometimes at
cross-purposes and with competing priorities. In 2007 the Auditor General’s Department commissioned a report
in which it was the view that insufficient information was available to assess the accessibility, capacity or
utilisation of Sydney’s interchanges.
In NSW, as of 2012, there is a lack of related literature, which should guide and assess design the provision of
interchanges. This represents a serious gap in the knowledge required for the efficient design of interchange
facilities. The idea of ‘interchange’ is becoming increasingly relevant to all facets of metropolitan planning in
regard to more recent networks of strategic bus corridors connecting centres across the city. The transport
strategy involves improving access to jobs, ports and other economic activities, with emphasis on sustainable
development, energy efficiency, social cohesion, access for both disabled and elderly, and urban regeneration.
Figure 1.1 Parramatta Interchange (Hassell, 2012)

Page | 3
1.2 AIM OF RESEARCH
The aim of research is to enable assessment of quality focused multimodal interchanges towards providing
‘seamless travel’, improving the interchange experience by making transfers as smooth, seamless and stress-
free as possible. This report examines literature relating to the design of transport interchanges, relevant strategic
planning policy documents and guidelines, which apply, to the management of interchanges in NSW.
Many key aspects of integration come together at interchanges including information, ticketing, network
accessibility, service coordination and personal security. The review of Parramatta Transport Interchange will
review the effectiveness of interchanges facilities in promoting increased use of public transport in Sydney. More
particularly, we asked three questions:
Has the Government adopted a set of guidelines to develop seamless and efficient interchanges?
Does Parramatta Interchange measure against world best practice in provision of interchanges?
Identify issues with the interchange facility and make recommendations
The report has includes a review of strategic policy, highlighting the importance of interchanges as part of the
strategy to develop accessible locations and improve transport between Sydney’s centres. This report also gives
insights of currently available (2012) Guidelines for the Development of Public Transport Interchange Facilities by
the (NSW Ministry of Transport, 2008). The report reviews Parramatta Interchanging adopting best practice in
interchange assessment providing a set of criteria in which the quality of an existing or planned interchange zone
can be scored.
1.3 RESEARCH APPROACH
To achieve the aim of research this report will evaluate a method capable of assessing interchange design, from
integrating efficiency and cohesion. The research approach begins with a consideration of the related policy and
site-specific background information. This will be followed by a review of key academic literature, including
reviews of theory and practice, providing both local and international insights into the area. This will be followed
by an evaluation of the subject site (Parramatta Interchange), in which current best practice is being examined.
This report presents design principles for transport interchanges and offers analysis of best practice in the UK.
The assessment will be conducted within the framework of interchange design considering local intensification in
regional centres within NSW. The intention is that an informed set of guidelines can ensure that design issues are
appropriately addressed, pre- and post-construction. A further intention that guidelines can also act as a basis of
an on-going interchange audit.

Page | 4
In order to fulfil these objectives, a number of derived objectives will concentrate on the following with respect to
the Parramatta interchange case study:
Identifying current guidelines and framework for the delivery of functioning transport interchanges.
Identify role of Parramatta within wider infrastructure network development that shape modal changes to,
from and between centres.
Document urban design theory and principles that relate to the design of interchanges design
Analyse connections, particularly the relationship between pedestrians and interchange movements as
well as other forms of active transport.
Propose both design and policy recommendations for the case study of the Parramatta interchange in
order to gain transit usage through changes and efficiencies in the urban form.
The research covers multiple aspects of interchange, such as route choice, performing activities, and boarding
and alighting from public transport vehicles. The objectives reinforce the primary aim of this report, in which is to
assess current practice in design of interchanges in NSW against international practice, which will therefore
assist in the future benchmarking and auditing of interchanges.
1.4 RATIONALE FOR INTERCHANGE STUDY
High quality passenger interchange facilities are a vital element in the success of any integrated public transport
system, but also potentially, its weakest link (Australian Institute of Traffic Planning Management, 2001). Rail
stations in particular, have long provided potential points for the growth of nodes and in more recent times set the
scene for intensive development. However, this potential is contingent upon the way in which these areas are
used, as well as how they are regulated and developed (United Nations Human Settlements, 2009).
Although recent literature reflects broader understanding, surprisingly little has been put into effect. Both transport
and local planning continue to take place quite separately, resulting in combinations of public policy barely
reinforcing each other. Therefore, organisations need to share a set of common objectives, particularly in terms of
how their objectives support wider policy goals such as economic growth, social inclusion and socio-economic
and physical regeneration. Shared objectives should be identified at an early stage and play a more significant
role in shaping the design of interchange facilities (Transport for London, 2009).
This report cites how organisations involved should work together to identify common inputs into the evaluation
process. It is for this purpose that a common, more evaluative set of guidelines provides consistency, which can
be maximised, using a common evaluation framework for useful guidance on assessment of current and future
interchange schemes. What will be demonstrated is how this complex building type integrates with the city, and
with different types of transport.

Page | 5
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 DEFINITION OF TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE
The focus of this report is on interchange between one mode of public transport and another, for example
between bus and train. It also considers interchange between public transport and the 'feeder modes' used to get
to and from the interchange e.g. walk, cycle or motor vehicle. Transport for London (2009) define and apply the
word 'interchange' in several ways. To avoid ambiguity, the following terminology is used throughout this report:
Interchange - the act of transferring between modes of transport
Interchange facility - a purpose-built facility where interchange takes place, such as a railway station,
bus station or bus/tram stop
Interchange zone - a wider area encompassing one or more interchange facilities creating a multi-modal
hub, and public space
The function of an interchange facility is to literally interchange. The function of interchange in itself is the means
of transfer, which can be measured in many ways including; total transit time, convenience, security,
environmental impact, and proximity to transit itself are all factors. Because multi-modal commuting relies on a
certain degree of coordination, scheduling issues with mass transit can often be an issue.
2.2 STUDY AREA
Parramatta transport interchange is a public transport interchange facility linking Parramatta to the Sydney
Central Business District (CBD), and the north-western and south-western suburbs. Parramatta has developed as
a centre for Western Sydney, connecting two major bus transit ways covering a 40km radius. Future demand, if
policies work, would be centred on people coming to Parramatta and distributing around, rather than through it,
as currently happens for the majority of movements.
Parramatta Station builds on one of the oldest remaining railway buildings in Australia. The City of Parramatta
has recently benefitted from renewed government attentions, planning initiatives and, most importantly,
investment in public projects such as the new Police and Sydney Water headquarters, the Justice Precinct and
Civic Place (Thalis, 2012). As the major transport hub in Greater Sydney, Parramatta’s transport interchange
already connects more than 50,000 people to Parramatta every day. With projected population growth figures of
20% and an additional 30,000 jobs expected in Parramatta alone to be created in the next 20 years, Parramatta’s
role becomes pivotal as a viable social and economic partner to Sydney’s CBD (Parramatta City Council, 2012).
However Parramatta Transport Interchange is a fragment of the ambitious project originally announced. An
earlier master plan (Figure 2.1) for the interchange was put forward by David Chesterman, of Jackson Teece, and

Page | 6
the NSW Government Architect. This plan involved relocating bus and rail services underground to overcome the
division in which the rail system currently functions. These plans also included the crucial rail link from Parramatta
to Epping which was in turn deleted, so the project brief had changed to remove the proposed underground
station, leaving the renewal of the above ground station and interchange only, albeit with a budget of $200m.
The NSW Government established the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation (TIDC), formerly the
Parramatta Rail Link Company, to act as the client and to deliver the project. After earlier aborted international
and local design competitions, the project was awarded to the Sydney office of Hassell, the team led by Ross de
la Motte (Thalis, 2012).
Figure 2.1 Original Parramatta Interchange Plan by JCTW (Jackson Teece, n.d.)
The Parramatta Transport Interchange was redeveloped to upgrade the station for future patronage growth,
improve passenger facilities and to provide new bus facilities. In addition to the new facilities at the station, a new
bus interchange was constructed on Argyle Street with the aim of providing easier multi-mode travel with the
consolidation of bus stops to a dedicated area, adjacent to the station (Transport for NSW, 2012a).
However, the interchange is poorly integrated with the surrounding City Centre, in turn compromising the quality
of Parramatta’s urban environment. The interchange lacks place-making characteristics that mediate between
competing activities, affording appropriate share of space. The dominant above ground structure with at grade
bus priority may disadvantage or deter other street users.

Page | 7
2.2.1 Organisational Structure
The design and construction of interchange facilities in NSW has a history of fragmentation between several
State Government agencies often working independently, with in most cases competing objectives. As a result of
successive organisational reforms all planning and policy functions have now been consolidated into one
authority.
This restructure followed the Christie report, which was severely critical of “the inconsistent, fragmented and
politicised nature of Sydney’s public transport governance” (Mees and Dodson, 2011). The ‘Christie Report’
released publicly in 2010, identified a range of issues including: inadequate funding and forward planning for new
public transport infrastructure; poor integration of different public transport modes; poor orbital and cross-regional
links;; and ‘fragmented and politicised’ governance arrangements (Christie, 2010).
These institutional barriers have been a core issue with RailCorp, Sydney Buses, and Sydney Ferries having lost
their status as statutory corporations, consolidated and renamed Transport for NSW (Mees and Dodson, 2011).
However Stone (2011) argues that despite wide-ranging reforms to the institutional structure there is no explicit
requirement of rail services bodies to co-operate with other transport modes. Therefore the success for such
prospects of current reforms awaits further research.
2.3 PLANNING CONTEXT
State Governments within Australia have shared similar themes in land use policies, which intend to alter urban
form for greater urban efficiency. The commitment for compact development has been a long-standing feature of
planning policy across most states. These policies include measures for urban intensification, mixed use
development, transit oriented development matched by limits for outer urban growth (Buxton, 2006).
This emphasis of land-use planning is identified through activity centres within the NSW Metropolitan Strategy.
This polycentric structuring in Sydney aims to target appropriate levels of organisation to the new developing
urban areas. The strategy emphasises multiple focal points for the transport network with the aim that Sydney
residents would spend less than one hour a day travelling to and from centres of employment, services or
education (Parramatta City Council, 2011). It is assumed that many support functions can be located within
regional centres, therefore the need for policy and supportive guidelines.
The evolution of Sydney has seen increased heights and floor space in centres to cater for greater volumes of
workers and to support new growth outside of the traditional CBD. The NSW Government is ensuring policies
are in place to support outer-suburban centre development, including planned government employment
decentralisation. The aim is that a polycentric city will co-evolve with the polycentric business that takes
advantage of the new networks. However, it is important that all government departments play a vital role in

Page | 8
informing the development of this plan. What will be later reviewed is whether Parramatta interchange can meet its
current and future strategic objectives outlined within the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy.
The population of Sydney is projected to increase from 4.3 million in 2006 to 6.0 million by 2036. A majority of
this increase will be sustained in western Sydney with population changes over 20% between 2001-2011. The
NSW Department of Planning (2010) established a target of 95,500 additional homes within the West Central
Subregion to 2031 to accommodate the needs of the existing and future population. From 2001-2011 the
Parramatta - Rose Hill statistical area had one of the highest rates of urban infill with an increase of 7200 people
in dwellings in the Statistical area.
2.3.1 NSW State Metropolitan Plan
The structure of public transport systems can shape the spatial organisation of cities. The provision of public
transport has been key towards the regeneration and restructuring of cities. Rail has been recognised for
supporting both good interconnections within central areas, as well as links between central and outlying
areas (Blow, 2005).
The planning strategy builds on preceding strategies to integrate planning for land use and transport, which is
said to have led to the approach of a compact city. The strategy places great emphasis of compactness relying
heavily on concentrations of employment in centres (University of Sydney. Planning Research, 2003). The
primary element within this strategy is its ‘city of cities’ approach, which is focused on transforming Sydney from a
single centred city to a multi-centred city.
The NSW Government released its Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036, embarking on higher density
development within the already established rail network, identifying several strategic areas along rail and bus
corridors as ‘activity centres’. These activity centres represent a series of future sites earmarked for major
development and transformation (NSW Department of Planning, 2010).
The plan sets out to fulfil this objective through a hierarchy of centres in which ‘Regional Cities’ of Parramatta,
Liverpool and Penrith supply a greater proportion of jobs and services within large parts of the metropolitan area,
therefore alleviating pressure off the CBD. These locations have long supported functions of commerce and
retailing with intentions of providing people with access to service by public transport (University of Sydney.
Planning Research, 2003).
This Plan sets out a long-term framework to develop Sydney with radial public transport links feeding into each city
and cross regional transport connections linking more sub-regions to the Global Economic Corridor. This reflects a
developing network of transport connections, which aim to serve a range of different trips through strategic centres
that support economic activity across more locations.

Page | 9
Figure 2.2 Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 (NSW Department of Planning, 2010)
The key map from the Metropolitan Strategy (Figure 2.2) identifies the strategic centres within the typology of
centres. The plan also diagrammatically highlights the major economic corridors across specialised business
centres (Parramatta and the City). The ‘Global Economic Corridor’ spans from Port Botany in the South through
the city centre and North Sydney to Macquarie Park in the North. The most important point about the map is that
it makes a statement about Parramatta’s role as Sydney’s second CBD.
The intention is to improve Parramatta’s position within the transport network and to provide expanded access to
the Global Economic Corridor. This assumes greater importance on the ability for the rail network and strategic
bus corridors to provide faster and direct public transport linking suburban centres and nodes. Therefore the need
for efficient interchange becomes critical as Parramatta provides transportation services to the west central and
northwest sub regional areas, accommodating the transport needs of the majority of this projected population.
2.3.2 Centres and Corridors
Based on the plan’s hierarchy of centres, Parramatta is emerging as the gateway to western Sydney supporting
several multi-modal transport corridors. These corridors factor in expected growth patterns including Sydney’s
transport movements to the CBD, the Global Economic Corridor being the ‘global arc’ extended to Parramatta
and urban renewal and greenfield development through emerging activity centres (NSW Department of Planning,
2010). The Metropolitan Strategy identifies Sydney's 46 Key Transport Corridors (Figure 2.3) with particular
emphasis on Parramatta as an important transit intermodal hub with a focus on connecting all major centres
within Sydney’s transport network (NSW Department of Planning, 2010)

Page | 10
Figure 2.3 Sydney's 46 Key Transport Corridors (NSW Department of Planning, 2010)
The strategy guides the future location of centres and corridors to assess capacity and provide the
enhancements necessary to provide a compact and accessible city as intended. In conclusion, the plan focuses
significantly on modal interchanges connecting key corridors, integrating land use and transport to provide a
framework for sustainable growth and development. The Plan’s vision is that “By 2036, Sydney will be a more
compact, networked city with improved accessibility, capable of supporting more jobs, homes and lifestyle
opportunities within the existing urban footprint” (NSW Department of Planning, 2010).
2.3.3 City of Cities
The ‘City of Cities’ concept describes a compact, multi–centred and connected city structure in which
Sydney is supported by Major and Specialised Centres. The concept is based on the Marchetti principle of a
‘one hour city’ in which travel journeys between cities can be achieved comfortably within in an hour (NSW
Department of Planning, 2010).
Parramatta, Liverpool and Penrith supply the region’s high order services and support the business growth
sectors providing jobs in Western Sydney. All centres are well supported by civic uses providing employment in
order to decentralise employment from the primary Sydney CBD (NSW Department of Planning, 2010).

Page | 11
All are located on a major rail line and play a significant role in bus-rail interchange. State planning authorities
designated these locations as sub-regional centres benefiting from planned decentralisation of public sector
employment by the NSW Government (Freestone and Murphy, 1998).
Figure 2.4 City of Cities (NSW Department of Planning, 2010)
The Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 identifies Parramatta’s role as part of a City network in its focus towards a
‘City of Cities’ (Figure 2.4). As transport continues to shape cities, the importance of transport and connectivity
become crucial in the success and efficiency of these major urban growth centres (NSW Department of Planning,
2010). The clustered group of activities in Parramatta has had an effect on work related travel during the day. The
recent relocation of the NSW Attorney General’s Office from the Sydney CBD has established a larger cluster of
judicial functions (Ward, 2007).
Interchanges seek to provide access to more residents than do existing systems, to ensure people use more
sustainable modes of transport (Curtis et al., 2009). However the most imperative social issue facing the western
region is the lack of appropriate transport and accessibility. Widespread car dependency continues to be an issue
through a limited choice and lack of key public transport linkages to places of employment (Hurni, 2006).
The plan does not detail plans to retain any future investment in public transport infrastructure; considering the
‘high-profile’ urban attributes, which are intended for Parramatta as a major link in the future network scenario.

Page | 12
With targets to almost double the workforce capacity of Parramatta from 42,000 to 70,000 by 2036 assumes a far
greater responsibility for Parramatta as a network hub for Western Sydney (NSW Department of Planning, 2010).
Parramatta continues to become a larger focal point of transfer within the wider transport network, with two
Transit-ways running to it covering an approximate 40km radius. Higher patronage is certainly not always
associated with improved benefits if crowding occurs, but generally, higher patronage is a preferred option over
lower patronage (Glover, 2008).
Figure 2.5 Towards a Network City (NSW Department of Planning, 2010)
Figure 2.5 details a future network scenario in which Parramatta takes a strong cross regional link assuming a
much more significant role within the intended network. If proposed policies work, future demand would be
centred on people coming to Parramatta and distributing around it, rather than just through and from Parramatta
to the CBD (as currently happens for the majority of current movements). However (Newman and Kenworthy,
1999) identify that the load set by both employment and housing become more diffused as the location of
employment centres as cities have become increasingly decentralised.
2.4 INTERCHANGE THEORY
The review of literature aided in the identification of advantages and challenges associated with different
interchange types. The review of literature also provides insights that assist in the research aim, in which the
assessment of quality focused multimodal interchanges will provide more quality-focused ‘seamless travel’.

Page | 13
This report provides a comprehensive review of international literature, which will assist in reviewing Parramatta
Interchange, guiding recommendations based on world ‘best practice’. The Transport for London ‘Interchange
Best Practice Guidelines’ provide the foundation for assessing Parramatta transport interchange with the view
that they will assist in meeting the State Government’s transport objectives.
The review of literature also discusses a number of facts about attempts to dispel some of the misconceptions
associated with interchanges. The provision of interchanges have come into question regarding knowledge and
world’s best practice, also taking into account some of the institutional barriers, which will also be synthesised in
the results.
2.4.1 Functions of Interchanges
Most cities have evolved with separate forms of transport. More recent planning practice has seen this separation
replaced by ‘joined up thinking’ with clearly structured overarching metropolitan authorities exploiting interchange
opportunities (Blow, 2005). (Mees and Dodson, 2011) posit that long-term neglect and functional separation
having compromised these facilities, with extensively weak integration and limited capacity. Therefore, integration
is often only achieved by rebuilding and replacing dis-integrated facilities (Blow, 2005).
However (Edwards, 2011) recognises that perceptions are just as important. It is the image of public transport
and its connections (stations, bus stops etc.), which are a major obstacle to social change. Edwards (2011)
describes the transition in culture as a cultural challenge within itself, with common prejudices against public
transport represented by negative perceptions in which ‘services are late’, ‘the stations are filthy’ or ‘the rail
stations are dangerous at night’.
(Bertolini and Spit, 1998) identified the mono-functional character of interchanges having a range of functions
(including housing, shopping, culture and recreation) either absent or under-represented within or near
interchange facilities. Therefore there is a need to develop and promote areas that accommodate cafes, retail
entrances, retail display, seating or landscaping. The role of the interchange facility is to provide good design and
to improve mobility to combat negative perceptions, projecting more optimistic visions for public transportation.
Providing a sense of place, re-integrating poorly connected facilities will interact in a very real way on how
commuters experience their environment (Edwards, 2011).
In order to become more competitive, the quality and design of transport facilities assumes greater importance in
encouraging acceptance towards newer forms of urban movement. (Edwards, 2011) identifies opportunities
of the interchange, emerging as a new and rejuvenated transport facility by providing richer and more
aesthetically pleasing transport facilities that contribute to the social, economic and environmental
sustainability of cities.

Page | 14
Figure 2.6 Three Sustainable Dimensions to the Transport Interchange (Edwards, 2011)
The analytical framework (Figure 2.6) in which (Edwards, 2011) derives the transport interchange, assumes
greater responsibility in achieving urban sustainability and social cohesion. In considering these challenges for
the long term, it is essential to support interchanges with a broad vision supported by appropriate analysis and
longer-term planning. Therefore the needs for interchange facilities to be ‘people-centred’ assume greater
importance rather than solely a means of processing passengers between modes. The need to create facilities
that are more integrated can respond by creating more uplifting spaces, which reduce the stresses and anxieties
associated with interchange.
2.4.2 Interchange Zones
Urban land in developed areas is in short supply with several activities competing for the same public space.
Good street planning and design need to mediate between competing activities in order to embrace all users
within the space (Jones et al., 2007).
Transport for London (2009) identifies the need to create places, streets and spaces that meet the requirements
of the public while providing visually attractive, safe, accessible, functional and inclusive places, which have their
own distinctive identity with the aim to improve local character. Jones et al. (2007) describe the balance in which
‘Place making’ ensures that urban places accommodate an appropriate range of social and economic activities,
while contributing to wider policy objectives.
Bertolini and Spit (1998) identify the railway station as a significant geographical entity, providing two basic, but
very important functions within the urban environment. The railways station performs as both;
(node: a point of access of trains and other transportation networks (Figure 2.7) and
place: a specific section of the city with a concentration of infrastructure with diversified collection of
buildings and open spaces (Figure 2.8).

Page | 15
Figure 2.7 Station as node (Bertolini
and Spit, 1998)
Figure 2.8 Station as place
(Bertolini and Spit, 1998)
Figure 2.9 Station as node and place
(Bertolini and Spit, 1998)
As shown in (Figure 2.9), the interchange assumes characteristics as a station for both node and place. However,
(Bertolini and Spit, 1998) suggest that boundaries of interchanges are still uncertain. (Bertolini and Spit, 1998)
emphasise that the distinction goes beyond overlapping systems; however more recent influences behind the
design of railway stations may go on far beyond its immediate boundaries. (Bertolini and Spit, 1998) identify four
approaches through which this problem can be identified and characterised:
The walkable radius; generally applied at a 500m radius
Functional historical elements; commercial axis connecting station and city centre
Topographic; section in which interchange applies, yet arbitrary
A development perimeter; a perimeter which specifies a specific redevelopment initiative
The station is formed of built and open spaces, together with activities they host, within the ‘walkable radius’. The
walkable radius is centred on the ‘interchange facility’. Therefore the ‘interchange zone’ assumes great
importance. In considering interchanges, the focus is on a considerable part of a city incorporating a station as a
district, however the delimitation of the station as a place is still in most cases somewhat arbitrary (Bertolini and
Spit, 1998).
2.4.3 Commuter Choice
Many reasons why commuters drive relate to the limitations of public transport. These limitations include indirect
services, having to interchange, travel time, the timetable or services not being available at either the origin or the
destination. It is difficult to measure the extent to which this is simply a negative perception, lack of knowledge of
public transport or whether it reflects the reality of their mode choices (Hay and Shaz, 2012).
Strathman et al. (1994) highlight an emerging trend in which the increasing prevalence of non-work trips is being
linked to the work commute. This trend has also proved to be emerging within Sydney as other activities are
becoming increasingly combined with travel to work (Battellino and New South Wales. Dept. of Transport.

Page | 16
Transport Data, 1996). The working commute has evolved as the most dominant travel purpose identifying a
hierarchical order in travel purpose. Therefore the interchange has the opportunity to fulfil single and multiple
purpose trips. (Hensher and Reyes, 2000) suggest that the flexibility that cars provide make them the preferred
option when considering the multiple purpose journeys.
As a consequence the ability to interchange then becomes more complex and possibly a more expensive option,
both direct and indirect. (Hine and Scott, 2000) provide important insights into perceptions associated with travel
time and the need to interchange. These also generate perceived costs, which include:
Physical costs (including walking, waiting and carrying efforts),
Cognitive costs (collecting and processing information efforts), and
Affective costs (emotional burden such as delays, lack of information, route unfamiliarity,
uncertainty, personal security and time pressures).
These costs are generally associated with travel time where service quality is achieved through specific network
planning and coordination supported by comprehensible fare and timetable structures delivered through robust
and capable institutional formations (Mees and Dodson, 2011). However, (Hine and Scott, 2000 p.217) identify
that the notion of a seamless public transport journey is one in which “the underlying requirement is to make
public transport more attractive and user friendly in terms of improved services, reliability, travel information,
safety as well as improvements to associated infrastructure such as waiting rooms and public areas.” In a public
transport facility, pedestrians do not only walk, but may also perform other activities. The interchange can
accommodate many activities in which everyday activities can be achieved within the transfer. These activities
can include:
Visiting a shop
Buying a ticket
Going to a bar/cafe
Visiting the doctor/specialist
Going to the gym
Organising Childcare
These aspects are combined with the interactions associated with arriving and departing public transport services
(Winnie, 2004). Providing these services improve the ‘liveability’ of interchanges through providing local amenity
improvements and improved pedestrian activity. Therefore the interchange environment can create a culture in
which people accept interchange as part of the journey influencing commuter mode choice by providing
convenient, attractive and safe environments.

Page | 17
2.5 INTERCHANGE DESIGN
Limited published information was available specifically relating to interchange design; however some sources
were useful in determining characteristics of each interchange type. The emphasis on interchange design has
been upon infrastructure and the role of engineering in creating a network of new facilities. Passenger
interchange is the linchpin element in the success of a public transport network, connecting different modes of
transportation, while integrating flows of transport infrastructure and people in an attractive and coherent fashion
(Edwards, 2011).
The fundamentals of an interchange involve processing passengers between modes of mobility; therefore the
process should be ‘people-centred’ and should be more aware of the way in which users are moving from one
form of transport to another. The interchange is a place of connection, as well as a place for transfer and social
interaction (Edwards, 2011).
Much importance is attached to the architectural aspect rather than to the functioning design. The quality of life
and quality of space go ‘hand in hand’ in all buildings, more importantly with architecture and transport. What is
considered in an interchange are spaces, which provide; Interaction, Transfer, Integration and Interconnection.
Existing and potential consumers are influenced by the quality and design of facilities and transport related
spaces, not least for those people with the ability to choose. There is a need to counter the sense of ‘non space’
prevalent in the experience of transport interchange buildings. Many examples are characterised by ambivalent
spaces where navigation is often confused by competing messages of commerce and transport provision.
2.5.1 Value within the Civic Precinct
Interchanges are architecturally distinctive and are symbolic of physical gateways to cities (Jones, 2006). “Like all
transport buildings, they are transitory in nature both in themselves and in their impact upon the wider landscape”
(Edwards, 2011 p.3).
The transport interchange signifies a gateway for mobility linking urban areas, providing a gateway to sustainable
development. With the creation of new interchanges, there is the opportunity to signal renewal, restructuring city
centres around such rejuvenated transport hubs. The interchange has become a major catalyst for broader urban
renewal, with a focus generating new commerce and ideas for people. Buildings that serve travel are also useful
indicators of investment in the public realm (Edwards et al., 2008).
Throughout the world, cities have embarked upon urban regeneration as a means to market themselves on an
international scale. These efforts not only include the railway station, they also apply to areas of great
significance including commercial and residential redevelopment and waterfront development (Bertolini and Spit,
1998). However interchanges face challenges, as they are often built within cramped, inner-city locations.

Page | 18
This challenge is often that of overcoming inherited patterns of disconnection and poor design. Many transport
interchanges face challenges associated with poor pedestrian links, often marred by busy adjacent roads, have
fences that act as barriers to movement, lack landscaping and are often surrounded by dilapidated warehouses
(Edwards, 2011).
Poor connection, disrupted sight lines, poor lighting are often characteristics of poor interchange facilities and
zones. Busy roads often form movement barriers while shops and cafes impede routes inside and outside
stations, with little awareness for other modes of transportation. New interchanges are busy restructuring the
growing urban centres of Asia and remodelling the established cities of Europe. Unless interchanges meet these
challenges, they will not be able to achieve the switch from car use to public transport (Edwards, 2011).
Parramatta interchange has been a primary feature within the Civic Place redevelopment strategy. Parramatta
City Council and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure have proposed a mixed use commercial, retail
and residential development on a three hectare site adjacent to the north side of the Interchange. However this
development has faced its challenges with Parramatta Council signing a deed of release ending the Civic Place
agreement with Grocon (the developer). This presents challenges for the area leaving an interchange facility that
is inactive to surrounding interchange zone.
Figure 2.10 Artist Impression of Civic Place Redevelopment (Parramatta City Council, 2012)

Page | 19
3 REVIEW OF GUIDELINES
3.1 NSW GUIDELINES FOR INTERCHANGES
As previously mentioned within the problem statement, the Auditor General’s Department commissioned a report
in 2007, in which the view was expressed that insufficient information was available to assess the accessibility,
capacity or utilisation of Sydney’s interchanges. The (NSW Ministry of Transport, 2008) developed the Guidelines
for the Development of Public Transport Interchange Facilities in response to the Auditor General’s report with
the intention of providing a foundation for the development of transport interchange facilities that will meet the
Government’s transport objectives. Various issues, which were raised by the Auditor Generals Department,
include:
The development and issue of best practice guidelines for different categories of interchanges;
A review against the best practice guidelines to assess the quality of the present interchange
arrangements; and
Partnership with local stakeholders to identify ways of ensuring good quality multi-modal interchanges,
particularly those where quality falls short of the guidelines.
The (NSW Ministry of Transport, 2008) however, suggest that it is the role of planners and designers to
undertake the necessary investigations to assess the requirement for each individual interchange without any
specific requirements. Furthermore the Ministry states that the document is for guideline purposes only and that
the guidelines should be read in conjunction with relevant guidelines developed by other agencies, however no
reference is made to any particular set of guidelines. The document refers to several studies in the appendices
and guidelines, which are cited through the document.
The Ministry of Transport’s guidelines lack a framework in which transport interchange facilities are measured.
The document provides general insights to requirements of an interchange, including;; ‘principles for interchange
design’, ‘planning for transport modes’ and ‘passenger and staff facilities’, however these are explained quite
broadly with no specific requirement as to how they are reviewed and measured. The report concludes with asset
management detailing minimum required levels of facilities for the provision of interchanges; however these
requirements do not address specific design requirements necessary for providing seamless and efficient
transfer.
The guidelines make statements about critical issues for users of a public transport interchange; however there is
no information on what is needed to achieve the specific requirements. Many factors have influenced the success

Page | 20
or failure of past practice, however the long absence of a mechanism for effective interchange design, leaves the
design and operational requirements quite arbitrary.
With no specific design framework in place, the design of interchange facilities and zones remain at the hand of
the winning project manager. In short, the prospects for assessment and delivery of well designed, efficient
interchanges will involve a review of interchange guidelines against international best practice, ensuring all
agencies involved work towards interchanges that generate patronage growth as well as being the focus of public
transport planning.
3.2 WORLD BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES
Achieving best practice is fundamentally about how an interchange facility zone is planned, designed and
managed. Although it is likely that each delivery partner and stakeholder will have different objectives and
priorities and, as a result, will have different approaches to evaluating interchange schemes. Furthermore the fact
that measures for good design may be harder to quantify should not deter aspiration to features that deliver them.
Examples of successful transit access programs in Europe have had a history of supporting good interchange
facilities. Successful interchange facilities deliver places that increase the value of businesses within or close to
the interchange zone, enhance perceptions of safety, and enhance the urban realm. This report will cite various
case studies from Europe where an informed and structured approach has yielded positive results. Taylor (2012)
identifies that much of the academic and commercial interest has surrounded high-speed rail investment in
Europe involving ambitious regeneration initiatives covering much wider areas around stations. However the
same process to some extent is being replicated at a smaller scale in and around other major national rail
stations such as Manchester, Piccadilly, UK and Leiden NL.
The evaluation of Parramatta Interchange will draw upon Transport for London’s (TFL) Interchange Best
Practice Guidelines (Transport for London, 2009). The TFL guidelines provide a comparable framework in which
the primary function relates to connecting modes in a seamless manner. The Design and Evaluation Framework
relates to issues that specifically relate to best practice design of interchanges, understanding existing
performance, whether investigating improvements or designing a completely new facility. The guidelines
supplement interchange operators with design and service delivery standards that apply to the design and
operation of bus stops, bus stations, tram stops, piers, cycling facilities, pedestrian environments, railway and
underground stations.

Page | 21
3.3 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON DESIGN AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
The Design and Evaluation Framework was established for the guidance in optimising interchange facility design
and operation, measuring performance of existing or proposed interchange zones. The guidelines are based on
four themes, which are each expanded into four principles, giving a total of 16.
The framework provides guidance in the development and management of an interchange through a regime of
questions which address the principles listed below. All questions are addressed during the planning or design
stage of an interchange facility and zone. The importance and relevance of these principles will vary depending
on the interchange zone and each must be considered on a location-specific basis (Transport for London, 2009).
Theme 1 - Efficiency
Providing interchange facilities and zones ensuring seamless transfer through efficient movement of
people and the public transport services that they use, as well as being simple to manage and maintain.
Operations
Movement (within an interchange facility)
Movement (through the wider interchange zone)
Sustainability
Theme 2 - Usability
Providing an environment that promotes usability through seamless and efficient movement as well as
offering accessibility for all potential users and an environment which is safe, secure and comfortable.
Accessibility
Safety and Accident Prevention
Personal Security
Protected Environment
Theme 3 - Understanding
Providing legibility and understanding of places that are easy to use, require minimal signage and are well
integrated with their surroundings.
Legibility
Permeability
Way-finding
Service Information

Page | 22
Theme 4 - Quality
Providing a high quality interchange facility and zone design will influence how it is perceived by its users,
operators and providers.
Perception
Quality of Built Design
Urban Realm
Sense of Place
Transport for London (2009) use a simple classification of the spaces, considering the differing needs of those
using the space. The underlying design concept reflects the complexity of interchange zones is that of defining
decision spaces; where passenger decisions take priority, movement spaces; connecting decision
spaces and opportunity spaces; the remaining areas that can be used for retail and other passenger facilities.
The attributes of these spaces are defined as follows:
Decision Spaces
“Decision spaces are areas where passenger decisions take priority. Examples include decision points such
as entrances, ticket offices or corridor junctions. At these locations there should be good sight lines / clear
signage or transport information. There should be no non-essential physical infrastructure or visual
distractions such as advertising, retail or other land uses that would serve to distract or confuse passengers”
(Transport for London, 2009).
Movement Spaces
“Movement spaces connect decision spaces. Typically these include corridors and paths specially reserved
for passenger movement and connections to/from/between transport modes or the surrounding area. These
spaces should provide clear, unobstructed routes, matched to desire lines. Street furniture, plantings,
advertising, information displays, retail boards or any other fixed items should not protrude into these zones
but may be located adjacent to them” (Transport for London, 2009).
Opportunity Spaces
“Opportunity spaces include those areas of the interchange zone outside the core corridors of movement or
decisions. They can accommodate cafés, retail entrances, retail display, seating or landscaping. Street
furniture, advertising or other fixed or temporary infrastructure located in these zones must be managed so as
not to protrude or interfere with the requirements of decision or movement spaces in adjacent areas”
(Transport for London, 2009).

Page | 23
Transport for London (2009) identify that opportunity spaces (Figure 2.11) may be located next to movement
spaces such as this example in London's St Pancras Station where the movement space is 'The Street'
connecting underground with national rail. The retail facilities in the opportunity spaces are managed behind the
column line so as not to conflict with movement in the movement space.
What will be examined later is the design of Parramatta Interchange and wider public spaces against Best
Practice in London. This will be in consideration of space defined by their function, ownership and by local
aspirations. The results will aim to contribute towards the provision of interchanges by reviewing current practice
and sharing good practice in the design and operation of transport interchanges across partner region.
Figure 3.1 Transport for London (2009) Defining Spaces

Page | 25
4 EVALUATION OF PARRAMATTA INTERCHANGE
The evaluation of Parramatta Transport interchange is based on a combination of applicable criteria from the
Transport for London (TFL) Interchange Best Practice Guidelines. The guidelines consist of themes and
principles to help optimise interchange facility design and operation and measure performance of existing or
proposed interchange zones. The review of Parramatta Interchange will involve a site evaluation against the TFL
‘Interchange Best Practice Guidelines’. The process will involve;
Evaluating the interchange under all 16 criteria and sub-criteria
Using photographs as method of evaluation against criteria
Providing insight to problems and making recommendations
The evaluation considers all themes and criteria from the TFL Design and Evaluation Framework. Each criterion
refers to a set of questions that identify areas of evaluation. For the purpose of this report, a select set of
questions were appropriate in evaluating the interchange at a less detailed level. Please refer to the appendix for
the complete version as per TFL.
Figure 4.1 Parramatta Interchange (Hassell, 2012)

Page | 26
4.1 THEME 1: EFFICIENCY
4.1.1 Operations
Need for real-time information across all modes
For seamless travel to occur, real time information
ensures integration of rail and bus services, by
providing easy to access information across all
modes of transport.
However in Parramatta this occurs quite separately.
Real-time information can add value to passenger
waiting times, providing up to date information that
assist in more seamless transfers as well as making
interchange experience more efficient and interactive
(Taylor, 2012).
The interchange is therefore more likely to attract
passengers, by providing decision spaces with up to
date real time information. Observations
demonstrate that railway locations provide poorly
visible bus information and bus locations fail to
provide any rail information.
1. How well are the different functions balanced and integrated? Need for real time information across
all modes
2. Does the interchange / design offer sufficient capacity to meet demand? Need to address capacity
3. Are public transport services and arrangements coordinated? Need for an integrated ticketing system
Figure 4.3 No real-time rail information on Argyle Street
Figure 4.2 Limited bus information in concourse

Page | 27
Need to address capacity
Decision and movement spaces are quite complex.
Passenger flow conflicts are a potential issue when
operating at full capacity. The interchange facility
fails in providing sufficient passenger flow, despite
lengthened platforms. The limit in capacity presents
serious safety issues forcing commuters to the edge
of the platforms.
Linear spaces (such as platforms) are usually
linked to staircases, tunnels, bridges, ramps, lifts and
escalators. These connections are often at the
expense of platform space proving limited access
through edges of the platforms. Spatial design is a
matter of ensuring that there are internal landmarks
and guides which allow for the reading of the spaces,
routes and volumes (Edwards, 2011).
Figure 4.4 Limited capacity on platforms
Figure 4.5 Commuters forced over the yellow line

Page | 28
Need for integrated ticketing
Ticketing arrangements is a network-wide issue,
however separate authorities sell tickets. Tickets for
rail travel are purchased at the station, while bus
tickets must be purchased at designated
convenience store outlets prior to boarding a bus
during peak periods.
This puts a requirement on the interchange to ensure
convenience stores are located within the
interchange facility. However buying a ticket for the
bus is not always possible. The need for integrated
ticketing is currently being addressed continuing a
series of failures in providing an integrated ticketing
system.
Trials for the NSW Opal card are beginning with a
Customer Trial on 7 December 2012 for the Neutral
Bay ferry service. The Opal card is to be available for
all Sydney ferry customers, from Parramatta to
Manly, by the end of next year, with the roll-out to
trains starting on the City Circle in the second half of
2013. The Opal card will then be introduced on
Sydney buses (Transport for NSW, 2012).
Figure 4.6 CityRail ticket machines with no option for bus ticket
Figure 4.7 Bus tickets limited to convenience stores

Page | 29
4.1.2 Movement within an interchange facility
Overcoming grade separation
The bus only, grade-separated (or at-grade
exclusive) right-of-way runs directly parallel to the rail
line, which gives buses full right of way without
interference from other modes of traffic. This limits
pedestrian movement within the interchange facility
with one level crossing located close to the eastern
end of Argyle Street.
The right of way limits movement for passengers
throughout the interchange facility and zone.
Edwards (2011) emphasises the obscurity in which
the bus element is the dominant mode within the
interchange and as a consequence gives less priority
to pedestrian movements.
1. Is movement between locations and services easily accessible and have passenger flow conflicts
been minimised? Overcoming grade separation
Figure 4.8 Bus right of way on Argyle Street
Figure 4.9 Bus layover from Darcy Street

Page | 30
4.1.3 Movement within the wider interchange zone
The need for dedicated pedestrian networks
A key issue for the interchange is the pedestrian and
vehicle conflict that occurs at a number of key
access points to interchange facility.
The pedestrian crossing at the Darcy Street end of
the interchange is situated at the northern exit and
experiences high volumes of pedestrian movements.
The marked pedestrian crossing holds up vehicles
during peak periods.
Buses layover on Darcy Street causing further
pedestrian conflicts. This also occurs at the
intersection of the intersection of Argyle and Church
Street where buses from either direction feed
through the pedestrian crossing.
1. Have routes to and from the surrounding area been optimised? The need for dedicated pedestrian
network
2. Are feeder mode facilities appropriate? Provide more space and access for feeder modes
Figure 4.10 Pedestrian conflict on Darcy Street access
Figure 4.11 Pedestrian conflict at Church Street mall entry

Page | 31
Provide more safe access for feeder modes
Provision for private transport feeder modes include
cars, motorcycles and bicycles. A broad range of
actions needs to take place in the provision of safe
and adequate facilities that include spaces for
walking and cycling (Taylor, 2012).
Therefore the level of access for private feeder
modes helps encouraging public transport usage as
part of the journey. However access to feeder modes
had little signage and poor lighting, providing unsafe
connections when dark which is as early as 6pm in
winter. High quality lighting is required throughout
and around the interchange to provide a high quality
and safe evening environment.
Figure 4.12 Bike lock facility on Darcy Street
Figure 4.13 Access to carparks

Page | 32
4.1.4 Sustainability
Provide for future expansion
Taylor (2012) identifies the need for alterations to the
design in the ability to cater for new and expanded
services. The northern end of the concourse has
been designed to accommodate possible future
expansion that will connect the interchange with the
proposed Civic Centre redevelopment.
Therefore the success of the interchange facility and
zone relies intensely on the development of the
adjoining site. As previously mentioned Parramatta
Council has recently signed a deed of release ending
the Civic Place agreement with Grocon. This puts
the development of the wider interchange zone and
connections on hold.
Figure 4.15 Grocon Civic Place Redevelopment Plan
1. Is the interchange zone future proof? Designing for future expansion
Figure 4.14 Future portal access to Civic Place

Page | 33
4.2 THEME 2: USABILITY
4.2.1 Accessibility
Lifts should be in prominent and convenient locations
Pedestrian access is provided between the western
concourse and Darcy Street via a set of stairs. It was
evident through site observations that this access
experiences large pedestrian flows during peak
periods, particularly in the morning peak.
The access connects the interchange with the
commercial land uses to the north of the
interchange, including Church Street Mall, Civic
Place and Council buildings, as well as students
from Arthur Phillip High School.
Lift access is provided on all platforms as well as the
station concourse directly to Argyle Street and Darcy
Street. However lifts are difficult to locate in areas,
that are poorly lit and lack adequate signage.
Providing better signage and lighting can assist
people who require lift access.
1. Are lift and escalator locations and designs optimised? Lifts should be in prominent and convenient
locations
Figure 4.16 Interchange access via Darcy Street
Figure 4.17 Lift and escalator access to Argyle Street

Page | 34
4.2.2 Safety and accident prevention
Provide right of way for pedestrians
As previously mentioned the bus right of way
competes with pedestrians and provides limited
connectivity in the interchange facility and wider
zone.
A central fence barrier prevents crossing throughout
Argyle Street. This limits pedestrian movement to the
concourse tunnel and at the signalised crossing at
Church Street. The barrier continues to be a conflict
for pedestrians as well police and emergency
services. Providing more underground access may
overcome this issue.
1. Are locations where passengers and vehicles meet safe? Provide right of way for pedestrians
Figure 4.18 Pedestrian conflict with bus right of way
Figure 4.19 Police obstructed by barrier on Argyle Street

Page | 35
4.2.3 Personal security
Provide adequate lighting and natural surveillance
The interchange is surrounded by blank walls and
inactive frontages along most streets. Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
relies on active building frontages, mix of uses,
natural and passive surveillance, pedestrian scaled
lighting and other techniques to deter crime (Crowe
and National Crime Prevention, 2000).
The interchange is poorly integrated with the
surrounding City Centre and is bound by inactive
frontages with insufficient lighting. All these aspects
could improve at the interchange, with an increased
level of activity to provide natural surveillance in
public spaces and walkways. Increased activity can
start with the provision of retail with later trading
hours providing natural surveillance in and around
the interchange facility.
1. Has Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design advice been sought? Provide adequate
lighting and natural surveillance.
Figure 4.20 Inactive frontages along Darcy Street
Figure 4.21 Overall lack of natural surveillance

Page | 36
4.2.4 Protected environment
Provide a comfortable environment to attract users
The interchange does provide effective climate
protection on all platforms; however the majority of
pedestrian areas on the bus layover lack awnings
and shelter from the elements. Where awnings are
provided they are discontinuous, compromising
meaningful weather protection along a pedestrian’s
journey.
The bus layover dominates frontages on Argyle
Street and Station Street, while restaurant dining in
the sheltered areas are prioritised over pedestrian
space along the bus layover. A lack of seating, public
space and shelter at bus stops detracts from the
user’s experience of buses.
1. Does the interchange zone provide effective climate protection and control? Provide a comfortable
environment to attract users
Figure 4.22 Lack of appropriate shelter in bus waiting area
Figure 4.23 Pedestrian conflict with outdoor dining

Page | 37
4.3 THEME 3: UNDERSTANDING
4.3.1 Legibility
Provide clear sightlines and visual connections
The use of a single concourse between services
provides an intuitive layout, connecting rail, bus and
retail at Westfield’s.
The interchange does operate efficiently, however
inconsistency in signage and lighting provided issues
with legibility and sight lines that connect bus
services at later hours. Improved lighting and
signage can assist in defining paths between spaces
and highlight important features and destinations.
A simple, direct and well-lit interchange can assist
with the line of sight to the major destinations and
provides pedestrians with a natural sense of where
to go.
1. Does the layout of the interchange zone make it easy for all users to find their way around? Provide
clear sightlines and visual connections
Figure 4.24 Signage in concourse area
Figure 4.25 Connection to bus area

Page | 38
4.3.2 Permeability
Making connections with desire lines
Transport for London (2009) defines a successful
interchange zone, by providing an environment in
which passengers can easily orientate themselves,
moving through the space and getting to their
destination.
The permeability of an interchange zone involves
seamless connections with the surrounding area
facilitated by desire lines. Figure 3.26 highlights
desire lines in red where pedestrians naturally
choose to walk. Removal of physical and perceptual
barriers to movement in, out and through the
interchange can improve circulation both within and
immediately outside the interchange zone (Transport
for London, 2009).
Grade separation and severance from the rail line
limit the ability for the interchange to integrate with
the wider interchange zone. Interchange zones can
be major points of arrival as well as gateways to the
public transport network; however the interchange
interfaces poorly with the surrounding connections
and spaces.
1. Does the interchange zone connect easily with internal and external destinations? Making
connections with desire lines
2. Is it easy to move to and from the surrounding area? Remove obstruction and improve circulation
Figure 4.26 Pedestrian counts (Parramatta City Council, 2012a)
Figure 4.27 Desire lines as per Parramatta Council pedestrian
counts (by author)

Page | 39
Remove obstructions and improve circulation
The interchange facility structure provides a legible
landmark that is visible, however, as previously
mentioned, movement within the interchange facility
is obstructed by bus priority and the bus waiting area
is obstructed by building columns, information
boards and outdoor dining.
Creating a permeable space requires the removal of
physical and perceptual barriers to movement in, out
and through, improving circulation and providing
clear sight lines to destinations both within and
immediately outside the interchange zone (Transport
for London, 2009).
Figure 4.28 Insufficient bus waiting area
Figure 4.29 Information board obstructing pedestrian movement

Page | 40
4.3.3 Wayfinding
Provide consistent wayfinding maps
Taylor (2012) cites the need for consistent
wayfinding information to assist visitors in
finding their way around the interchange facility
and wider interchange zone
Wayfinding maps assist in providing a simple,
direct and legible interchange layout with visual
line of sights to the major destinations so that
customers have a natural sense of where to go.
However wayfinding maps were supplied by
various authorities and were inconsistent
throughout the interchange facility and zone.
(Transport for London, 2009) addresses the
need for a single authority to provide
information and branding that is more
consistent.
1. Does wayfinding design and signing facilitate intuitive interchange movement and function?
Provide consistent wayfinding maps
Figure 4.30 Wayfinding map provided by Parramatta Council
Figure 4.31 Wayfinding map provided by CityRail

Page | 41
4.3.4 Service information
Position real-time information at entrances
Transport for London (2009) identifies that real-time
information needs to be located where it will be seen
by passengers while entering the interchange facility.
Within an interchange zone, the following information
should be positioned at entrances to provide useful
information that can assist decision making before
entering the interchange facility. This will enable
commuters to make better-informed decisions about
their journey, and assist with what they can do with
the time that they spend waiting (Transport for
London, 2009).
Further, this will assist customers making decisions
before they arrive at the interchange, ensuring
seamless travel while reducing the number of
customers congesting the interchange. Information
was located within Parramatta Westfield shopping
centre, however this can be provided at multiple
entries of the interchange.
Real-time information at entry points will require the
provision of decision spaces that do not interfere with
pedestrian access and movements in and out of the
interchange.
1. Does information meet with the needs of all passengers? Position real-time information at entrances
2. Is real time information visible, legible and located where passengers need it? Provide clear and up
to date information
Figure 4.32 Real-time rail information in Parramatta Westfields
Figure 4.33 No real-time information at entry points

Page | 42
Provide clear and up to date information
Transport for London (2009) identifies that service
information needs to be located where it will be seen
by passengers.
Informing regular commuters may value timely
warning of disruptions or delays. Clear information
with real-time service is required at both bus stands
and underground rail concourses to ensure
seamless transfer.
Supplying this information in these locations will
assist the majority of customers making decisions
before they arrive at the interchange, enabling them
to understand the journey options available to them
therefore reducing the number of customers
congesting the interchange while making alternative
travel decisions.
Figure 4.34 Service information limited to signboards
Figure 4.35 Location of information easily missed by commuters

Page | 43
Figure 4.37 Inactive redevelopment site on Argyle Street
4.4 THEME 4: QUALITY
4.4.1 Perception
Need to redevelop the interchange zone
A high quality interchange facility and zone design
will influence how it is perceived by its users.
Transport for London (2009) describe the perception
of an interchange facility or zone to be based on a
combination of performance, accessibility and
function, all of which form an essential part of a
‘users' experience.
Transport for London (2009) identifies larger case
studies (e.g. St Pancras Station) in which the
interchange may develop into a 'destination' in itself.
This opportunity presents itself to enhance the
interchange experience, lifting the spirits for users
and encouraging investment and physical
regeneration in surrounding areas.
The interchange experience can also be enhanced
by providing more late night retail and service
facilities that are attractive to users and provide the
level of natural surveillance necessary to provide
safe and attractive interchange zones. E.g include
Apple Store, Fitness First, University/Colleges.
1. Do interchange zone facilities add value to the user experience? Need to redevelop the interchange
zone
Figure 4.36 Potential redevelopment site on Darcy Street

Page | 44
4.4.2 Built design
Provide better connections
As previously mentioned in this report, the layout of
the Interchange zone is surrounded by paths, which
are not integrated well with pedestrian desire lines.
Linking desire lines will make it easy for pedestrians
to find their way between transport modes and from
the interchange to external destinations.
The design of an interchange zone should not rely
on signage for customers to find their way. The
primary aim should be to give simple, direct and
legible interchange layout with visual line of sights to
the major destinations so users can develop a
natural sense of where to go.
However with at-grade bus priority, overcoming
connections will require extensive tunnelling as
shown in figure 3.39 on the previous page. Unless
buses are grade separated the interchange will
continue to face challenges in providing better
connections for pedestrians.
1. Does the layout of the interchange zone make it easy to find your way around? Provide better
connections
Figure 4.38 Pedestrian movement on Darcy Street
Figure 4.39 Barriers to pedestrian movement

Planning for Better Transport

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Planning for Better Transport

Similar to Planning for Better Transport (20)

Planning for Better Transport