Opinions expressed here are those of contributors. The moderator cannot accept responsibility for statements made here.
Moderator said on Wed 19 June 2013 at 16:29
Action for Public Transport was told last week that years ago UNSW identified their preferred route for light rail as to Redfern station, not Central.
This is not only because in most cases Redfern makes for shorter train trips but also because it's quicker to get to than Central. Going to Redfern doesn't waste time passing through the Moore Park and Sydney Cricket Ground area. Sportsgrounds do not often generate many trips. While occasional large crowds occur, they do so on only a very few days per year and hence do not justify large expenditure.
PUSH said on Tue 18 June 2013 at 20:51
The $100m assumption for property acquisition is based on the 69 apartments in the Olivia Gardens complex that would be demolished for a Devonshire Street surface route. There may be further costs for acquisition as there are homes on Devonshire Street with only street front access.
Moderator said on Sun 16 June 2013 at 07:22
The VIVID festival was on each night 8th-10th June. So far we have had reports of
SE Light Rail = HEAVY FAIL said on Wed 12 June 2013 at 15:23
I was told that the cost of $100mn+ was made up of announced plan to acquire apartment block at end of Devonshire St plus a figure for several other properties likely to be compulsorily acquired.
Northern Light said on Sun 02 June 2013 at 19:35
I predict that the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link is never going to happen, not only because of the difficulty of integrating it with the new "Rapid Transit" concept for the North West Rail Link, but also because the more cost effective Western Sydney Light Rail Network proposed by Parramatta City Council is more likely to gain support.
The initial stage of the Light Rail is for a line from Castle Hill to Parramatta and then continuing from Parramatta to Macquarie Park via Eastwood, with the latter section effectively replacing the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link.
IMO this should have been the route for the western portion of the Parramatta to Chatswood Rail Link in the first place as it is the most direct and fastest between Parramatta and Macquarie Park.
Although it was the most expensive option (and we still don't know by how much), the cheapest option via Carlingford and Epping was chosen because it utilised most of the existing Carlingford Line infrastructure, even though it is steeper, with tight curvature restricting average speeds and 3 km longer.
St George said on Wed 29 May 2013 at 20:57
APT has advised that the short answer to both of Brendan's questions is "No".
Brendan said on Wed 29 May 2013 at 16:16
I heard that T4NSW has replied to your submission regarding the south-east light rail and has advised that a cut and cover tunnel is being considered to go under Moore Park and cross Anzac Parade. Do you have any further details on this? Did they respond with any information about the traffic light priority situation further south on Anzac Parade?
vacuous reply from Minister said on Sun 19 May 2013 at 12:02
Regarding the Minister's comment "increasing the capacity through Sydney's most heavily used transit corridor". This is actually incorrect. The most heavily used transit corridor is in fact the Western Line, particularly if you add the Blue Mountains and/or the Northern Line into it.
Peter in Sydney said on Tue 23 April 2013 at 18:49
Are you aware that HOP is the name of the Auckland Transport smart card?
Moderator said on Tue 23 April 2013 at 09:40
If Simon is referring to the Action for Public Transport submission, http:///www.aptnsw.org.au/documents/selr_pre-eis.html, then:
We don't draw any firm conclusions from the comparison. We are simply making the point that the SE light rail project needs to give serious attention to travel times. Underlying our submission is an awareness that Sydney has a long history of refining the roads system to reduce travel times for private motorists. Roads minister Gay distills that in his own way, in his opposition to cycleways, rainbow pedestrian crossings, or anything else which might upset the "roads lobby". Despite recent concessions to bus priority, there is continuing evidence that "keeping motor vehicles moving" is still the mantra at TfNSW. Hence our concerns about light rail at light-controlled intersections.
Simon said on Sat 20 April 2013 at 13:09
You note that the travel time proposed is approximately double the 891 travel time? What conclusions do you draw from that?
I think it draws into question the whole project.
Chesswood said on Tue 09 April 2013 at 17:16
PUSH, would you please clarify how the Devonshire St route will entail $100M in resumptions? Where will they be? Thanks
PUSH said on Tue 09 April 2013 at 14:15
PUSH (People Unite Surry Hills) would like to understand how other people and communities feel about the government's chosen route through Surry Hills for the light rail project.
PUSH - People Unite Surry Hills Action group was established in response to the local community's grave concern over the proposed SE Light Rail, and its route from Central Station to Randwick straight through the heart of Surry Hills, along Devonshire Street.
Surry Hills is a thriving community with distinct commercial districts and streets sitting alongside restored residential blocks. Surry Hills has been gentrified into one of the most sought after residential and business areas in Sydney, and is the only awarded neighborhood internationally, listed alongside Arrondissement in Paris, New York's SoHo and Tokyo's Harajuku; drawing local, regional and international tourism revenue to the City of Sydney and the state of NSW.
The proposed South East Light Rail route along Devonshire Street bisects Surry Hills, requiring the compulsory acquisition of over $100+million in homes and destruction of historic parklands, in order to become a major transport corridor, with no net benefit to Surry Hills, which is already well serviced with transport.
Devonshire Street is narrow and adjacent residents will suffer noise impacts over many hours each day, along with loss of access and parking. It will cause amenity impacts to adjacent residents and create safety risks for the large numbers of pedestrians and cyclists in this village. The two trains are equivalent to 6+m wide and 45m long (5 standard bus lengths) and Devonshire Street is between 7.5-8.8m wide.
The local businesses are at great risk of not surviving the long construction period. The Gold Coast construction gives a lot of evidence that they won't.
There are alternatives sustainable routes that respect existing traffic corridors and where trams went before. With urban infrastructure failing to keep pace with the growing population, we would like to understand why other, existing routes, which seem to provide greater flexibility for extensions to rapidly growing suburbs, have either been discounted or not considered.
PUSH would like to see equal weight given to the detailed analysis across the potential routes such as Oxford, Campbell, Albion and Foveaux Streets. Until this information is known, with the same criteria, we question how we can have a meaningful discussion about who has to wear the impact - Surry Hills with local residents and businesses suffering, along with Sydney commuters. Or the State Government/Treasury through costing a fraction more for travel time to Central (but not the CBD) but with a larger benefit for a wider community, and less cost to construct?
At $1.6 billion for 12km, or $133 million per km, this may be the most expensive light rail line in human history; and every tax- and rate-paying citizen of NSW should be asking questions.
St George said on Sat 02 February 2013 at 08:55
APT is certainly interested in the subject. We will make a submission if we consider it worthwhile.
Simon said on Fri 01 February 2013 at 12:05
Will APT be making a submission on the northern beaches BRT proposal? - http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/northern-beaches-bus-rapid-transit-feedback
Seems that all options considered have costs higher than benefits, so as usual nothing will be done.
Listohan said on Fri 14 December 2012 at 19:25
The Opal Card is supposed to be simple, but you would never know it from ploughing through the Conditions of Use http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/opal/terms-of-use. And that is before you have even worked out what a journey is going to cost.
A search on 131500.com.au trip planner might suggest several modes of transport to complete one's journey, e.g., http://www.131500.com.au/plan-your-trip?session=invalidate&itd_cmd=invalid&itd_includedMeans=checkbox&itd_inclMOT_5=1&itd_inclMOT_7=1&itd_inclMOT_1=1&itd_inclMOT_9=1&itd_anyObjFilter_origin=0&itd_name_origin=eastern+valley+way+castle+cove&itd_anyObjFilter_destination=2&itd_name_destination=town+hall+sydney&itd_itdDate=20121213&itd_itdTripDateTimeDepArr=dep&itd_itdTimeHour=6&itd_itdTimeMinute=30&itd_itdTimeAMPM=pm&x=63&y=9.
If Opal is to be an IMPROVEMENT, wouldn't one expect this journey would cost the same no matter which suggested trip was chosen? Will it be? It seems not.
But there is worse. If one can struggle through the conditions mentioned above, it seems one must tap on and tap off except on Manly ferries. In London's Oyster card, on which we are told the Opal card is based, one only has to tap off on the Underground journeys. Tapping off is not needed on buses.The obsession with tapping off probably means we are going to be stuck with buses slowly loading from the front door only - a major cause of congestion in Sydneys narrow streets. Articulated buses take a long time to load this way. Additional advantages of multi-door loading are discussed at http://www.humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles-contd.html.
This new ticket revolution is a chance to simplify, expedite and reduce the hardware costs of ticketing, yet the government is missing opportunities to introduce simple time based fares as in Berlin left right and centre.
Northern Light said on Thu 06 December 2012 at 02:01
I agree with the thrust of Peter Mills' submission on the NWRL EIS 2, but suggest there are some alternative strategies that are also worth considering. If, as he suggests, that the NWRL should be configured to ultimately allow for double deck operation by constructing the originally proposed 6.6 metre diameter tunnels, then there is no reason why double deck operation could not be implemented from the start. If it were not for the government's obsession with privatising the NWRL by way of a PPP, the NWRL could be integrated with the existing CityRail network, without the need for a second harbour crossing in the short term or the need to interchange at Chatswood. This will involve some compromises for some services on the Northern and North Shore Lines, but which I believe would be acceptable.
So far, the government has not disclosed how the proposed operation of the NWRL as a stand alone rapid transit shuttle service from Rouse Hill to Chatswood will affect existing operations on the Northern Line. Presumably, current services from Hornsby via the Epping to Chatswood Line will no longer be possible and they will either have to terminate at Epping, requiring a change of trains, or continue to the CBD via Strathfield, the latter being the most likely. With no additional train paths available on the Suburban tracks between Strathfield and the CBD, either the Epping to CBD via Strathfield or the diverted services from Hornsby will have to travel to the Central terminal platforms via the Main Line tracks where there is spare capacity. I suggest that the Epping to CBD services be diverted to Central Terminal and the services from Hornsby take over their paths on the Suburban tracks through the CBD to the North Shore. All Northern Line Stations would still have a direct minimum service of 4 trains an hour in the peak to CBD and North Shore destinations beyond Central and in addition stations from Epping to North Strathfield, on one of the most overcrowded sectors on the CityRail network, would have a doubling of services from 4 to 8 trains an hour to Central.
For the NWRL, there are currently 2 train paths available from Chatswood to the CBD via the North Shore Line. With the diversion of the services from the Northern Line, that makes 6 train paths available. This could be increased to 8 train paths per hour, which was the originally proposed level of service with double deck trains, direct to the CBD without the need to interchange at Chatswood. However, either 2 trains per hour from Gordon would have to be reallocated to NWRL services or 2 of the Central Coast services would have to be diverted to the CBD via the Northern Line, probably the latter. A full double deck service could then operate from the NWRL directly to the CBD in the short term, without any interchange, before a second harbour crossing is required.
I am not totally convinced that there is a need to reintroduce single deck trains to Sydney, despite their allegedly superior performance characteristics. Even with an average 1km spacing between inner city stations, which is still considerably more than most overseas metros, I can't see that there is any meaningful time advantage in acceleration and deceleration rates for single deck over double deck operation. In any event, since the timetable slowdown in 2005 I don't believe that the current double deck rolling stock, let alone the new Waratah trains, are operating to their full capabilities.
Having recently travelled on the Paris RER, which is the equivalent of our suburban system with double deck trains, as distinct from the separate metro service, and which traverses the centre of Paris, there doesn't seem to be a problem with dwell times at the busiest central city stations.
Our problem with dwell times is restricted to only 3 stations on the whole CityRail network, viz Central, Town Hall and Wynyard. It is not a problem anywhere else, despite the professed advantages of single deck rolling stock. But why do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater with a costly and disruptive upheaval of the whole network to resolve what is essentially a localised problem for which there is an alternative solution. That solution is to build the new CBD rail link and cross harbour tunnel which will ease the interchange congestion problems at the existing CBD stations. A lot of the blame for the congestion has been unfairly targeted at the double deck rolling stock, but inadequate platform width and station design has been largely ignored and these inadequacies could be addressed in the design of stations on a new CBD link. The government has already committed to a new CBD rail link and second harbour crossing, so what is the point of spending millions of dollars in restructuring the network for single deck operation when the inevitable construction of a new CBD rail link and harbour crossing will resolve the congestion problems anyway.
If the government persists with its three-tier concept for the CityRail network, then the Tier 1 or single deck rapid transit services should be focused, as Peter Mills suggests, on the inner city lines, but not as currently proposed. It is also essential that single deck operations be compatible with double deck rolling stock by sharing tracks to gain the maximum efficiency from the network, otherwise trying to isolate rapid transit services from the rest of the network will compromise other CityRail services.
I'm a great believer in the KISS principle and a far simpler operating pattern would be for a single deck service to operate all stations from Lidcombe via Bankstown to the City Circle and then continue through to the Inner West Line to Homebush. An essential prerequisite for this service would be the completion of sextuplication between Sydenham and Erskineville so that the Bankstown Line, feeding into the City Circle, would be completely separate from the Illawarra Lines. The all stations service from Revesby via the Airport Line to Central should also form part of this sector. However, it would also be necessary for express double deck services from Liverpool via both Bankstown and Granville to share these tracks.
When a new CBD and cross harbour rail link is built, the logical connection with the existing network south of the CBD would be via the Pitt Street corridor and the unused underground platforms 26 and 27 at Central, with the current Illawarra Local tracks which would be slewed to what is now the Illawarra Main between Erskineville Junction and the Illawarra Dive to Sydney Terminal. The Bankstown Line via the additional tracks from Sydenham would be slewed to the current Illawarra Local tracks beyond the Illawarra Dive feeding into the City Circle. As envisaged in the original Christie Report, the Illawarra Local tracks from Hurstville would then be used exclusively for South Coast and Illawarra express services as well as Campbelltown express services beyond Wolli Creek Junction. The current Illawarra Main tracks could then be used as a single deck all stations service from Hurstville to Bondi Junction, although it would be necessary to share tracks with Cronulla and Waterfall double deck services from Tempe onwards. Infrastructure NSW's proposal to extend the Eastern Suburbs Line from Bondi Junction to Maroubra Junction via Randwick is worthy of further consideration as it would add significant patronage to a line that is currently underutilised. With the NWRL and even a future Northern Beaches Line to Dee Why, with a possible long term extension to Mona Vale, more suited to a Tier 2 Suburban operation, I can't see the need for a rapid transit single deck service north of the harbour.
However, the main priority now is to ensure that future options are not cut off by short sighted government decision making, based on spurious arguements being pushed by self serving transport bureaucrats and consultants.
St George said on Tue 30 October 2012 at 14:57
It may not comfort you to know that the most likely "solution" may be what is known as all-over-advertising - AOA.
It has infested Sydney's buses for a decade, and is already present on Melbourne and Sydney trams, and Brisbane trains. It covers the windows, of course, obscuring vision from inside the vehicle.
The NSW Minister for Transport has advised, after extended communication, that there is to be no change in policy. She refuses to commit to "no ads" on train windows.
chesswood said on Tue 30 October 2012 at 04:57
The best solution is to remove the graffiti BEFORE the train leaves the depot so that graffitists never see their own handiwork nor that of anyone else.
However, this is obviously not happening. I don't have statistics but I reckon graffiti removal must have been cut back since the present NSW government took office last year.
Not all exterior graffiti is applied while trains are in depots. Someone has been squirting trains with white paint using what must be a light but powerful pump. Perhaps it's a soda-acid fire extinguisher. Spillage from this pump can be seen beside the track at Roseville platform 2 and Artarmon platform 1.
And of course there's internal graffiti. Newer trains have cameras fitted which in theory might catch pix of the vandals at work.
ifarmer said on Mon 29 October 2012 at 11:34
What's the best solution for Graffiti on our NSW cityrail trains?
Richard of Epping said on Fri 28 September 2012 at 12:52
If the puppet string pullers are concerned about dwell times, has a return to toast rack trams been considered?
The constant repetition of the words rapid and modern ring the spin alarm bills. I would love to see the prolix 24meg Transport Plan critiqued for length and relevance by high school journalism or even just plain English students.
If public transport use it to be encouraged and as Sydney grows, more journeys will involve changes of transport modes, more thought should be given to the benefits of unified ticketing. A day ticket to anywhere in the Berlin public transport network is the equivalent of $8.65 which promotes much more use than our $21 MyMulti. Berlin's population is comparable to Sydney's and the system is a joy to use. There are no ticket barriers, tickets can be bought from vending machine on platforms and buses and validated the same way. No driver on any bus will accept money, another win for simplicity. Passengers can enter and leave by any door. The system is very easy to use for everyone including tourists. Are Berliners more honest than Sydneysiders? Or are the fares considered reasonable? Is whatever revenue escapes compensated for by the extra patronage and the more targeted revenue protection practices.
At least the authorities should be looking beyond our shores for inspiration, not to mention spending time in a very pleasant city.
There is no mention of the NBN in the 24 meg tome despite the opportunities for attracting more white collar work out of the already overcrowded and space constrained CBD. This would be done by zoning for commercial space at key junctions such as Epping and Hornsby and encouraging a contra flow of workers towards areas still considered as dormitory suburbs. This would also make areas on the Central Coast more viable as sources of beds for workers appreciating a shorter commute.
St George said on Fri 24 August 2012 at 11:25
In terms of priority, this scheme would be well down the list. Sydney's dilemma is how to fix the immediate problems (eg, congestion at CBD stations) whilst simultaneously contributing to a better long-term transport network (eg - access to the Macquarie-to-Airport Global Arc). Vested interests, politics, and even Treasury, will be significant hurdles along the way.
Balmain Enthusiast said on Tue 21 August 2012 at 12:27
Have any of your members noticed the EcoTransit Sydney website of late? It would be great to know your thoughts on their White Bay Green-Link (WBGL) concept, designed to speed up light rail and cycle commuting into the north of the CBD by half an hour. It also lends itself more broadly to the creation of an InnerSydney Orbital light rail network. This Orbital would be like the Yamonote line in Tokyo, aiming to maximise the connectivity and utility of all existing transport "spokes which currently have no wheel" in the InnerSydney area.
The WBGL using plenty of existing infrastructure, predictions are the WBGL could cost less than half a billion dollars, which is not bad for helping to for maximising public transport connectivity in the face of the $12billion plans for M4 East underground tollway...
EcoTransit have a Facebook page - as does the WBGL, you can also read the relevant link here: http://inner-west-courier.whereilive.com.au/news/story/save-white-bay-rail-tracks-for-the-future/
Simon said on Sun 19 August 2012 at 20:19
Northern Light said "If this is the best they can offer, then they are no better, if not worse than the previous government."
As if that wasn't apparent even before they were elected!
Not sure what you mean about many independent experts bagging the current government's plans. Other than Infrastructure Australia, I'm not sure who has actually bagged it. It deserves to be bagged far more loudly!
St George said on Sat 18 August 2012 at 14:15
The "Sydney's Rail Future" document is NOT the Master Plan. As the minister says in her introduction to the document it is "an integral part of the NSW Long Term Master Plan".
Northern Light said on Fri 17 August 2012 at 22:28
It is really scary if the government's report "Sydney's Rail Future -Modernising Sydney's Trains" is in fact the Draft Transport Master Plan. It was never publicised as such. It is certainly not a comprehensive transport master plan encompassing all modes. If this is the best they can offer, then they are no better, if not worse than the previous government.
As you correctly point out, the Draft Transport Master Plan was supposed to be released at the end of June, but here we are in the middle of August and there is no sign of a comprehensive plan being released anytime soon. Meanwhile, Infrastructure NSW is due to release its masterplan for infrastructure development in September and going by reports in the media, its plan is likely to conflict with what Transport for NSW is proposing (assuming there is a further plan to be released). All of this leads me to conclude that they just don't know what they are doing, which what is so scary.
It was inevitable that this scenario would eventuate, when Infrastructure NSW was given the role of preparing its own infrastructure plan alongside a plan being prepared by Transport for NSW. There is a clear conflict here and Infrastructure NSW should have been restricted to an independent advisory role on potential infrastructure projects submitted to it by state bodies, including Transport for NSW, in the same way in which Infrastructure Australia operates. Its role should not be to dictate or even suggest what infrastrucure projects are appropriate for the state. The government has got itself into this mess by its poor planning in setting up this organisation.
As for the government's "Sydney's Rail Future" report, it is clearly a response to its failed attempt to seek funding for the North West Rail Link from Infrastructure Australia and its unwillingness to address the legitimate questioning of the shortcomings in their submission. Anyone with half a brain can see that this proposal is not going to work and it is almost universally condemned by independent transport experts and commentators as a flawed plan which leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
St George said on Tue 07 August 2012 at 20:42
To Northern Light and "Peter in Sydney" - You may be interested in a post which was added to the "Recent Topics" thread on this website on 7 August, headed "Sydney's Rail Future - a possible variation".
Chesswood said on Sat 04 August 2012 at 17:46
According to http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-03/government-ridicules-roads-funding-pledge/4175314?section=nsw, Mr Albanese (Federal transport minister) says the present Opposition will never be able to pay for the roads it has promised, given that it has also promised to drop the carbon tax and the Mineral Resource Rent Tax.
Peter in Sydney said on Tue 31 July 2012 at 20:44
The talk of converting parts of the system to be compatible with single deckers is a red herring. Our network ran single deck trains since its inception. At most all that would be required is a pantograph with more travel for the single deckers. This is not a particularly difficult challenge. As for dwell times my observation is that the station with the greatest problem is Town Hall and this is because of the narrow and severely obstructed platforms. If only Town Hall could have platforms added on the outsides so that those getting off did not have to fight those getting on then the dwell times would be reduced just as they are at Olympic Park. Failing that what about front door for getting off and rear door for boarding at Wynyard, Town Hall and Central.
Northern Light said on Mon 30 July 2012 at 00:32
Thank you St George for your support for my suggestion on how the North West Rail link could be integrated into the CityRail system without the need to interchange services at Chatswood to complete journeys to the Sydney CBD.
However, I can't agree with your analysis that the Transport for NSW rail planners have got it right. Let's not forget that these are the very same planners and consultants under the previous Labor government who have been pushing the line for a metro system in Sydney, with possibly ulterior motives, since Morris Iemma's North West Metro proposal in 2008, culminating in the CBD-Rozelle Metro debacle before the government was thrown out of office. Unbelievably, their influence in the transport bureaucracy is still rampant.
I cannot believe that they have provided a truly objective assessment of how the Sydney rail network can be improved and have tried to transpose London's complex rail system of a mixture of multiple tiered operations to Sydney which have no relevance to the structure of our city. London is a densely populated city. Sydney is not. The Paris RER suburban system, as distinct from the Paris Metro, has far more relevance to Sydney.
I have yet to see any compelling evidence that single deck so called metro style operations with an acceptable level of seating, can provide greater passenger capacity than double deck operations. The travelling public has not been given the opportunity to have their say.
Sydney's rail system, because of the longer distances involved, is best suited to a suburban style operation and the sooner transport planners accept that fact the better. Trying to convert parts of the existing system to metro style operation is just not an option. If they want a metro system, it has to be completly separate to the CityRail network and limited to the inner city. To put this all into perspective, I suggest that a reading of a discussion paper prepared by The Tipping Point Institute for the NSW Business Chamber will give a reality check to the current debate on introducing a metro system to Sydney. The discussion paper is available at http://www.nswbusinesschamber.com.au/NSWBC/media/Misc/Policy%20Documents/111004_improving_cityrail_report.pdf.
St George said on Sat 28 July 2012 at 10:50
Northern Lights, your analysis of plans for the NWRL and metro services generally is well-considered and clearly expressed. Personally, I agree with you, especially on the benefits we might have enjoyed by having a new Metro completely separate from the CityRail network. However, I accept the government's argument that the "Differentiated Service" pattern which they have chosen is the best. Its advantages are summarised on p26 of the "Sydney's Rail Future" document of June 2012. The option they have chosen is superior on customer focus, network capacity, and network resilience grounds.
There are of course many views on what mix of service patterns might have been best for the future Sydney train network. I am satisfied that the TfNSW planners were aware of all the sensible options and that they have chosen the best compromise.
You will have noticed the lack of responses to your posts on this website. I assume you have also posted on more active sites, such as the Australian Transport Discussion Board. You will have received more responses there, although not necessarily well-informed ones.
Northern Light said on Fri 27 July 2012 at 19:39
Further to my previous post, there is a way the North West Rail Link could work as an integrated part of the CityRail network in a constrained capacity situation, rather than a separate metro system, if the operating pattern on the Northern Line is changed.
Currently, 4 trains an hour in the morning peak from Hornsby to the CBD on the Northern Line operate to the CBD via the Epping to Chatswood Link and the North Shore Line. 4 trains an hour also operate on the Northern Line from Epping to the CBD via Strathfield. If the operating pattern on the Northern Line from Hornsby to the CBD reverted to the previous longstanding pattern via Strathfield, this would free up capacity on the Epping to Chatswood Link to operate trains exclusively from the North West Rail Link to the CBD via the North Shore. The North Shore Line currently has 14 train paths to the CBD plus the 4 train paths from Hornsby via the Epping to Chatswood Link. With a maximum capacity of 20 train paths, there are 2 spare paths available for the North West Rail Link plus the 4 paths reallocated from Northern Line trains. This could be increased to 8 trains per hour during the peak (1 train every 7 1/2 minutes)if 2 of the 4 train paths from Gordon were reallocated to the North West Rail Link. All North West Line services would be able to operate directly to the CBD without the need to interchange at Chatswood, unlike the latest metro proposal.
Because of capacity constraints on the suburban lines between Strathfield and the CBD, the current Epping to CBD via Strathfield services would need to be diverted to the main line tracks to terminate at Central, while the trains from Hornsby on the Northern Line would occupy the vacated paths on the suburban tracks. Although not ideal, commuters north of Epping would still have direct services to CBD stations beyond Central and commuters south of Epping would have the option of choosing between the alternative services until such time as a second CBD and cross harbour rail link is built.
This plan is likely to receive a more sympathetic response from Infrastructure Australia for funding by addressing one of its major concerns, ie, the feasibility of operating North West Rail Link services to the CBD without requiring an interchange at Chatswood and the resultant congestion problems which would occur.
Northern Light said on Tue 17 July 2012 at 21:41
I am bitterly disappointed, but not surprised, that the O'Farrell Government, and in particular Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian, have succumbed to the spin doctors and bureaucrats in Transport for NSW in adopting the latest plan for the North West Rail Link and the future direction of Sydney's rail network.
Rather than attempting to address the legitimate questioning by Infrastructure Australia of the Government's submission for funding for the project, and in their haste to be seen to be proactive by calling tenders for the first stage of construction, they have trotted out Plan "B" for a stand alone privately operated shuttle service from Rouse Hill to Chatswood with a vague promise of a future connection to the Sydney CBD via a metro only second harbour rail link. Or was this their plan all along? The writing was on the wall when the Government refused to countenance a direct connection to the Northern Line which would have allowed for the flexibility of operating trains from the North West Rail Link to the CBD via both Chatswood and Strathfield. But that wouldn't suit the model for a stand alone privately operated system. This is not the plan that was exhibited for community consultation and if the Government truly believes in transparency, the consultation process should be started all over again.
It is debatable whether a metro system with single deck trains, or rapid transit as they now like to call it, can be retrofitted to the CityRail network without seriously compromising other CityRail services. For a start, the metro only second CBD and cross harbour rail link (with smaller tunnels) will only benefit commuters on the North West Rail Link, the Bankstown Line and the Illawarra Line to Hurstville. There is no explanation of how a metro line and CityRail services to the City Circle can be successfully integrated at the Illawarra and Erskineville Junctions or whether the additional tracks between Erskineville and Sydenham would be part of the solution (which doesn't appear to be the case from the schematic diagrams accompanying the plan). The busiest part of the CityRail network from Strathfield to the CBD, which includes the Western and Northern Lines, will gain no benefit from the new metro CBD rail link. Their answer is to divert trains from the Richmond Line to Liverpool/Campbelltown, requiring a change of trains at Seven Hills to complete journeys to the CBD, and for Northern Line trains via Strathfield to terminate at Central. This is entirely unacceptable.
It is a spurious arguement by the Government that a single deck metro system will carry more passengers per hour than the existing double deck trains, particularly on a new rail link through the CBD. It all depends on what the ratio of seated to standing passengers is and what would be acceptable to the travelling public. They have a right to have a say and not to be dictated to from upon high by self serving bureaucrats. The Government is pushing the line that double deck trains are "old technology", but nothing could be further from the truth, evidenced by experience overseas. They constantly trot out the old chestnut that station dwell times restrict the frequency of services with double deck trains, but that is only problematic at three stations on the whole CityRail network, viz, Central, Town Hall and Wynyard. It would be less of a problem on a new CBD rail link with better designed stations and technological advancements. They also conveniently fail to acknowledge that advanced technologies implemented for a metro style system would equally benefit double deck operations. The Sydney Morning Herald Independent Public Inquiry into a Long Term Public Transport Plan for Sydney showed conclusively that the double deck rail system had served Sydney well. If the Government is really determined to introduce a metro system to Sydney, then it should be completely separate from the existing CityRail network and restricted to a 20 to 25 km radius of the CBD.
I fear that this latest plan for the North West Rail Link and conversion of parts of the CityRail network to incompatible metro style operation is heading down the same path as the disastrous CBD-Rozelle Metro debacle and millions of dollars will again be wasted on an ill-conceived scheme that will ultimately prove to be unworkable and unsupported by the public at large.
John M said on Sat 23 June 2012 at 21:19
Watch the Road is an eBook I have penned based on my experiences in urban transport planning and operations. It emerges that roads can be the solution rather than the problem; and they are pivotal not peripheral to successful public transport. Once that position is realised, the solutions become surprisingly straightforward.
For more, see http://www.transportstrategies.info/.
Moderator said on Tue 17 April 2012 at 17:32
We may be making a submission. If we do, it will indeed be available on this website and we will probably post a news item that day drawing attention to it.
Jeffrey G said on Tue 17 April 2012 at 12:41
Hello, Will APTNSW be making a submission into the above inquiry and will you publish it on the website?
Simon said on Mon 27 February 2012 at 16:02
Where are the overall targets? Every target I have seen for Sydney refers only to peak (i.e. inbound arriving before 9am, outbound leaving 4-5pm to 6-7pm on a weekday). Off peak is everything else, with the possible exception of after midnight services.
Monitor said on Tue 21 February 2012 at 13:49
It is difficult to discuss off peak services and patronage in a few lines, especially concerning "Sydney". The suburbs stretch 60 km east-west from Bondi to Penrith and 60 km north-south from Windsor to Campbelltown, covering areas of vastly different demographics. Towns a hundred or more kilometres further north, west and south are also served by public transport from Sydney and by local services. The term "off peak" needs to be defined. Is it just the daytime between peaks? Early morning and late nights? Saturdays? Sunday? Public holidays? What modes? - trains, light rail, buses, ferries, taxis? What routes - trunk routes, branch or feeder routes, cross-town routes?
Some pockets of the inner suburbs have a poor "off peak" service, however one defines that. And Blacktown, in the outer western suburbs, has an excellent off-peak train service.
One must also consider whether the provision of additional off-peak services on a particular route or region would, of itself, cause a rise in patronage.
Price differential is another way of increasing patronage on under-utilised off peak services. CityRail offers discounted off-peak fares, but only for return trips. Some ferries offer discounted fares for anti-peak trips. There are no off-peak discounts on STA buses, but there are well-patronised free off-peak shuttle buses in the CBD and other regional centres.
We cannot confirm whether or not there is a target to improve off-peak patronage, but this should be implicit in the overall targets, if not explicitly stated. Even transfer of some patronage from peak to off-peak services, without any change to overall patronage, woud be desirable.
Simon said on Tue 24 January 2012 at 20:50
One of the biggest problems with Sydney's PT is the poor off peak services. I can't find anywhere where there is a target to improve off peak patronage. Surely establishing such targets would be a priority for Sydney?
St George said on Mon 26 December 2011 at 09:58
Sounds like Slab might be a motorist, frustrated by slower-moving trucks. Trouble is, Slab, banning trucks as you suggest would cause serious inefficiencies in their important distribution function. Further, the improved run for you would attract more motorists just like you, so we'd be back to where we started.The O'Farrell government has approved the widening of the M5 motorway. It will cost ~$450 million. Unbelievable as it might seem, the widening will actually increase congestion. It will only decrease the RATE of increasing congestion. (Ref - Sydney Morning Herald 22.12.11)
Slab said on Sun 25 December 2011 at 21:13
Two Simple Options:
1) Ban trucks during the peak hour crawls, 7-9am and 4-6pm
2) Trucks must stay in the left lanes and not even overtake each other.
Adding more buses would just put more heavy slow vehicles on the road and it won't fix the traffic problems. Cities overseas went so far to ban trucks during the day altogether and thus they have fixed their problems. We don't have to go that extreme; just banning them during peak hours and limiting them to left lanes during offpeak hours would be sufficient.
Moderator said on Thu 10 November 2011 at 05:32
APT agrees that bus services that run early or late can be very frustrating. In Sydney, it can be assumed that traffic congestion is one of the major causes. We recently met with Sydney Buses to talk about this. We are confident that Sydney Buses does indeed know where its buses are, and whether they are running early or late. It has procedures in place to mitigate the inconvenience to passengers, but there are limits to what can be done.
You should always lodge a complaint about unsatisfactory service, by phoning 131500, or at http://www.131500.info/ If nothing else, your complaint gets recorded in the performance statistics.
Matt said on Sun 06 November 2011 at 21:16
Catching public transport in Sydney is NOT cool. It's designed for people who have plenty of time and patients. I grant that these are noble qualities for individuals to possesses but should people really be expected to use them everytime they go to catch public transport ?
A case in point is after writing this paragraph above, I went to watch a Sydney FC match. On a Sunday afternoon the 377 bus i was scheduled to catch did not turn up! After a 20 minute chat to a fellow commutor until I caught the 376, the response from the driver was that it was "behind him". What can I do, Nothing! That's because there is zero accountability for the bus not turning up. None. Sydney Buses probably don't even know that the bus did not turn. They certainly don't want me ringing up. Why would I bother, have I moved on ? Are there State Government employees being paid good money to provide this serviced ? What kind of service are they providing ? They are certainly not going to get fined but I'm late and annoyed at my public transport experience before I even get to the pub.
Ask yourself why is it quicker to travel from Hornsby, Parramatta, Sutherland to the CBD than it is to come from Coogee! Buses are a rubbish transport mode.
Moderator said on Sat 29 October 2011 at 07:21
We don't have a policy on the delays to this extension. However, see http://www.aptnsw.org.au/documents/lrtpolicy.html
Green Line said on Wed 26 October 2011 at 13:01
What is APT's position on the delay to this project?
St George said on Sun 23 October 2011 at 20:57
Firstly, it is not a "Metro" line, it is a light rail line. Some funding for it was included in the NSW Government Budget for 2011 / 2012, but the opening has been deferred from "late 2012" to "early 2014".
peter said on Thu 20 October 2011 at 15:54
Could some one please when a restart on that line - thanks.
David said on Mon 10 October 2011 at 14:56
That's a great idea. Really requires a wide subscription, of course. Thought of writing one for Android, etc.? APT: Maybe public transport authorities should be encouraged to provide this information (GPS of buses) as a standard. It'd certainly be more effective than phoning 131500.
Moderator said on Sun 09 October 2011 at 07:45
Yes, we are. Meetings are indeed on Friday evenings. We gather at University of Technology, Sydney, from 5:30 and generally end up in one of the Railway Square cafes.
Charles said on Fri 07 October 2011 at 14:28
Is this group still active? Are there meetings being held at University of Sydney on Friday nights? I am interested in Sydney transport issues and would like to get more involved.
. . . back to A. P. T. home page