- Accessing the National Capital
- The following Chapter explores the accessibility of the National Institutions and more broadly the Capital itself. The three key issues examined are modes of transport used to visit the National Institutions, the capacity for a dedicated shuttle bus service, and the Canberra to Sydney train line.
Visiting National Institutions
2.2The Committee received evidence about the role of transport to ensure Australia’s National Institutions are accessible to all visitors. The reliance on private vehicles to access institutions, a lack of public transport, and pedestrian access within the National Triangle were all highlighted as issues.
2.3Many inquiry participants argued that the National Capital is a car centric city, which relies on private vehicles as the primary mode of transport. This car centric focus has affected the perceived accessibility of the National Capital and the National Institutions.
2.4Several institutions identified the cost of onsite paid parking as a potential factor that may deter visitors due to cost restrictions. For example, Ms Jo White, Director of Questacon, informed the Committee that there appears to be a focus on the car being the primary mode of transport when visiting Questacon and that the additional cost of car parking may deter visitors.
2.5Similarly, Mr Simon Froude, Director-General of National Archives of Australia (NAA), advised the Committee that the NAA does have pay parking at the Parkes facility and that paid parking ‘might put some people off’.
2.6Dr Marie-Louise Ayres, Director-General of the National Library of Australia (NLA), reiterated similar cost prohibitive concerns. DrAyres argued that the barrier to accessing national institutions wasn’t the bus network but rather the paid parking in the Parliamentary Triangle. Dr Ayres stated that paid parking can be considered a barrier especially for families during school holidays.
2.7Mr Matthew Anderson, Director of the Australian War Memorial (AWM), noted that the largest portion of visitors to the AWM are from New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria and suggested that these visitors would be accessing the National Capital bycar. As the AWM is located separately from other National Institutions, providing car spaces for these visitors was essential. However, Mr Anderson stated that access to the AWM and other National Institutions, via public transport, is also an important consideration.
Public transport
2.8The Chair of the PTCBR, Mr Ryan Hemsley, reflected on the importance of public transport in ensuring everyone can access Australia’s national story. Mr Hemsley stated that:
It is time to look at how the Parliamentary Zone, and Canberra's central national area more broadly, can become more vibrant and attractive places, with people actively exploring and engaging with the institutions and daily life of our nation's capital. It cannot be an experience limited to those in possession of private motor vehicles. Fast, frequent, reliable, safe, and active public transport links are essential to ensuring that Australia's national story is open and accessible to all.
2.9Mr Aymon Wuolanne, Committee Member of Greater Canberra, provided the Committee with examples of simple changes that would increase accessibility. Theseincluded a unified transport system that serves both tourist and residents of the National Capital and having priority buses with high enough frequency for people travelling to these areas.
2.10The PTCBR identified several issues with the current public transport network that services National Institutions, including:
- infrequent services, particularly on weekends;
- poor pedestrian connections between bus stops and buildings; and
- a general lack of information about getting around the National Capital.
- The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government stated that there is quite an ‘extensive public transport network’, with buses that service the National Triangle and the Parliamentary Zone on range of different routes along Commonwealth and Constitution Avenues. The ACT Government explained its role in promoting this information:
…part of our role, particularly our visitors centre at Regatta Point, is to ensure that visitors understand which routes are accessible and how to access that on the normal public transport network.
2.12The ACT Government noted that in some cases, public transport routes to tourist destinations within the ACT have been stopped due to low patronage. MrJonathan Kobus, Executive Branch Manager of Visit Canberra, advised that in the case of the National Zoo and Aquarium there is no bus stop as it is not located in a suburban area. As such, a bus stop at the National Zoo and Aquarium would just be for patrons visiting the destination, and not considered viable from a cost perspective.
Pedestrian access
2.13When considering pedestrian connections between bus stops and buildings, Director of the National Portrait Gallery of Australia (NPGA), Ms Bree Pickering informed the Committee that public transport stops are not particularly accessible, with visitors having to cross several roads to get to the NPGA from the closest bus stop.
2.14Several institutions identified issues with pedestrian access between National Institutions in the National Triangle, and the city. Greater Canberra provided an example of pedestrian restrictions within the National Triangle noting that it is a 400‑metre direct route between Questacon and Old Parliament House. However, when using the available crossings, it is 1.1 kilometres.
2.15Mr Froude advised that as the NAA is slightly removed from other National Institutions, they find that they lose some foot traffic of people who walk from one institution to another. Mr Froude suggested that improved connectivity between the national institutions would be well received.
2.16Dr Matthew Trinca, Director of the National Museum of Australia (NMA), also highlighted connectivity issues between the NMA and the city. Dr Trinca noted that visitors walking from the city to the NMA currently face challenges in getting to the NMA. However, Dr Trinca acknowledged the new boardwalk around part of the West Basin and advocated for the boardwalk to continue around to the NMA. Thisextended boardwalk would encourage visitors walking from the city.
2.17The NCA advised the Committee that it has a recurrent program of upgrades to footpaths and networks connecting the National Institutions, as well as pathways around the National Triangle. The Acting Chief Executive of the NCA, Mr Hamid Heydarian, informed the Committee that the NCA is commencing work connecting the NMA to the Acton Waterfront, which will form part of the broader lake walk.
2.18In 2000, the NCA published its Parliamentary Zone Review. This review noted public concerns with the Parliamentary Zone including:
the lack of people spaces, problems relating to through-traffic and car parking, the physical isolation of major buildings from each other, the incomplete pedestrian network, and the ageing of significant landscape items.
2.19The review added that public transport is available to and from the Parliamentary Zone for individuals working in the Parliamentary Zone but is not convenient for visitors wanting to move about the Parliamentary Zone. Subsequently, the lack of visitor public transportation, the separation of National Institutions and the incomplete path system forces visitors to use their cars to move from one national attraction to another.
Shuttle bus services
2.20In the NCA’s Parliamentary Zone Review a shuttle bus service was proposed which would connect national institutions, offices, and public car parks within the Parliamentary Zone. It was suggested that a study be conducted to determine the best option for a shuttle bus service.
2.21In 2018, a free shuttle bus service—The Culture Loop—was announced as a six‑month long pilot venture among ten organisations. The Culture Loop ran seven days a week between 9am and 5pm and had nine stops, which included the National Institutions, Regatta Point, the Canberra Museum and Gallery, and the Canberra Centre. The Culture Loop service was provided by Capital Touring Services Pty Ltd.
2.22The Culture Loop Shuttle Bus has been inactive since 2020.
2.23When considering a shuttle bus service to the National Institutions, the PTCBR noted the previous attempt and identified issues with having a discrete bus service that is primarily intended to service the National Institutions. In Mr Hemsley’s opinion, this would result in a disconnect to the broader metropolitan fabric of the city.
2.24Mr Damien Haas, Deputy Chair of the PTCBR, added that the previous shuttle bus service was funded by National Institutions and not all contributed. This resulted in an infrequent service that was limited to only stopping at those National Institutions which had contributed to services funding. Mr Haas also highlighted the potential confusion this would have on tourists, suggesting that tourists may not understand that the National Institutions not serviced by the shuttle bus could be visited via ACT public transport.
2.25Many of the National Institutions were in favour of the introduction of a shuttle bus service. Dr Mathew Trinca, Director of the NMA, highlighted that the inclusion of a shuttle bus would have a variety of benefits for the National Institutions, visitors, and Canberra residents:
We certainly have an ACT Government bus route that comes through the Museum, but of course a dedicated free bus service, a clipper service, that went to all the National Institutions would encourage that kind of mutual support between the organisations. So you would have a more natural passage between the institutions, visitors, Canberra residents and people from the region, but you would also be able to use that to co-promote and cross-market each other's experiences. It creates a fabric that is really about a web or system of experiences rather than just looking at places individually.
2.26The Canberra Region Tourism Leaders Forum (Leaders Forum) also supported the introduction of National Institution shuttle bus services. The Leaders Forum recommended that the NCA fund the program, which would cost approximately $250,000 per year. This estimate is based on the Cultural Loop shuttle bus service.
Canberra to Sydney rail
2.27Since the opening of a rail line between Canberra and Sydney in 1914, several projects have been initiated to improve the travel time for passenger train services, particularly in the last 40 years.
2.28In October 1981, the Institution of Engineers Australia proposed a Bicentennial High Speed Railway Project, which would link five capitals of southern-eastern Australia. In 1986, this proposal shifted to the new proposal for a Very Fast Train between Melbourne, Canberra, and Sydney. Several studies and evaluations were conducted between 1987 and 1991. However, in 1991, Federal Cabinet rejected the Very Fast Train proposal.
2.29In 1993, plans for a new Canberra to Sydney line re-emerged. A feasibility study began in June 1994 and a proposal was made to stakeholder governments in 1995. In 1997, proposals for a new high-speed train were invited by the Commonwealth, NSW, and ACT Governments. In August 1998, then Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard OM AC, announced that work would begin on a high-speed train in 2000 and be completed in 2003. However, in December 2000, the Commonwealth Government announced that the bid to build the high‑speed train failed.
2.30Between 2010 and 2022, the Commonwealth Government committed to a detailed study of High-Speed Rail. Infrastructure Australia listed improved Sydney–Canberra rail connectivity and capacity as a priority initiative, and the Commonwealth Government established the High-Speed Rail Authority.
2.31When considering the existing train line between Canberra and Sydney, Mr Robert Bennett, Co-Chair of the Canberra–Sydney Rail Action Group (C-SRAG) advised the Committee that there is a series of options to improve the travel time. Mr Bennett suggested that if tilt trains were not used, travel time could be reduced to approximately three hours or less by spending a couple of billion dollars on the existing line. Alternatively, a new train line could be built through Canberra’s north rather than the south, which is used for the current service. This approach would better service the Sydney to Melbourne route. In 2014, this option was costed between $3 billion and $4 billion.
2.32Mr Bennett added that there were areas around Goulburn where the train slows down. If these areas were smoothed out, time could be saved. Additionally, the electrification of the line could also save time as it is easier for electrified trains to build up speed.
2.33However, Mr Bennett noted other areas that need to be considered when reviewing the rail system. He suggested that:
Part of the problem in all of this is not just the upfront cost but also how long it takes to get the work done and how much disruption occurs in the process of getting it done. It is also finding the money and finding someone who wants to spend the money.
2.34Dr Philip Laird provided the Committee with some ideas, proposed by train driver MrJohn Kennedy, that could be implemented to improve travel time between Canberra and Sydney. These options included an Express Passenger Train (XPT) on an Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) track, and a trainline from Mittagong to Macarthur to benefit Canberra to Sydney passenger trains, Sydney to Melbourne freight trains, and Sydney to Melbourne passenger trains.
2.35When reflecting on the lack of progress on the Canberra to Sydney train line over the last four decades, the jurisdictional responsibility of the rail line was raised as an issue. The difficulty with cross-jurisdictional responsibility can been seen in the 1995 Canberra to Sydney Speedrail proposal, which was announced in 1998 but subsequently not progressed. Dr Laird noted that this proposal may not have progressed due to the NSW Government supporting the proposal in principle but not contributing financially to the works.
2.36Mr Barry Peffer explained that the responsibility for the rail line between Sydney and Canberra rested with three governments: the Commonwealth Government, the NSW Government, and the ACT Government. Mr Peffer suggested that shared responsibility across three governments was an impediment to rail growth. Mr Peffer highlighted that the ACT Government is only responsible for approximately 8 kilometres of the track but would be a major user of the track. This has resulted in little incentive to reduce travel time or increase service frequency.
2.37The ACT Government reiterated that it is responsible for a small portion of the rail line between Canberra and Sydney. It expressed its support for a faster train and the benefits it would bring to the National Capital.
2.38MrBennett advised the Committee that services between Canberra and Sydney have returned and are exceeding pre-COVID levels of 77 per cent capacity. Noting the increased demand on train services, C-SRAG recommended additional carriages or services be introduced. A service that shuttles between Canberra, Queanbeyan and Moss Vale was also flagged as an option to provide more choice to people who would like to catch the train.
2.39Dr Laird echoed similar concerns regarding the current number of trains servicing Canberra to Sydney. Dr Laird advised the Committee that the Ottawa to Toronto trainline has six trains a day for a 440-kilometre trip. In comparison, the Canberra to Sydney train has three trains a day, which Dr Laird considered insufficient.
2.40Mr David Glynne Jones also proposed additional train services on an express timetable with limited stops and priority pathing.
2.41The ACT Government noted that the ACT Chief Minister felt that more train services a week would be beneficial. The inclusion of additional passenger train services will be considered as part of the upcoming National Capital Investment Framework.
Committee comment
2.42To experience everything on offer in the National Capital, visitors and residents need ready access to it. Canberra is described as a car-centric city and visitors may not find it particularly easy to navigate in the absence of a private vehicle. While mindful of the convenience of cars, particularly for families on holidays and short visits, there is a need to improve accessibility within Canberra and between neighbouring cities.
2.43Stakeholders identified a lack of information about public transport, a bus network that does not frequently service all areas of interest, and limited pedestrian access between National Institutions and bus stops. The Committee notes that similar issues highlighted in the 2000 NCA Parliamentary Zone Review, related to transport, pedestrian access and National Institutions, are still prevalent today. The Committee encourages more work in this area.
2.44The Committee supports the introduction of a hop-on hop-off shuttle bus service for visitors and residents and acknowledges the limitations of the previous service that restricted the shuttle bus to those National Institutions which paid for the service. It is important to connect all National Institutions within in the National Triangle with those institutions and points of interest in the broader city area. An inclusive shuttle bus service would provide opportunities for all National Institutions and Canberra attractions to present visitors with a shared experience across the Capital.
2.45There have been several proposals and studies conducted over the past 40 years to improve the passenger train travel time between Canberra and Sydney. Infrastructure Australia has listed the Sydney–Canberra rail connectivity and capacity project as a priority project in its 2021 Infrastructure Priority List, and the High-Speed Rail Authority formally commenced operations in June 2023.
2.46The Committee acknowledges the importance of an efficient passenger train service between Canberra and Sydney to link visitors to the National Capital. It agrees there is a need for improved services and reduced travel time, and supports the inclusion of additional services, and extra carriages where feasible.
2.47The Committee recommends that all National Institutions publish public transport and pedestrian access information on their websites to ensure that visitors and residents are aware of transport options beyond the use of private vehicles.
2.48The Committee recommends that the National Capital Authority continue its works to improve pedestrian accessibility and footpaths between bus stops and all National Institution buildings, and within the National Triangle.
2.49The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government work with the ACT Government to establish a hop-on hop-off shuttle bus service which stops at each National Institution, and other ACT points of interest.
2.50The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government prioritise the Sydney to Canberra rail connectivity and capacity project to improve passenger services and travel time.
2.51The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government work with the ACT and New South Wales Governments to provide additional train services and carriages on the Sydney to Canberra rail line.