Action for Public Transport (N.S.W.) Inc.
Opinions expressed here are those of contributors. The moderator cannot accept responsibility for statements made here.
Northern Light said on Sun 6 November 2016 at 23:36
Extending the light rail line from Carlingford to Epping in tunnel would be prohibitively expensive and can't be justified. If a tunnel option were to be considered, they might as well build it as a metro to Parramatta, including the Carlingford Line, and that's no longer on the agenda. This would defeat the whole purpose of having a light rail network based on Parramatta.
Equally, a surface route from Carlingford to Epping is impracticable because of the existing 4-lane Carlingford Rd which would have to be widened for its whole length, again at considerable cost in property resumptions, to accommodate the light rail tracks. Then there is the question of where a light rail terminus would be located in the Epping Town Centre to interchange with the existing station. Beecroft Rd isn't an option as it's a heavily congested traffic thoroughfare. Neither is an underground terminus.
The government had previously proposed an option that the light rail link would run to Macquarie Park "via Carlingford", but curiously there was never any mention of Epping. That was assumed by others. Such a link from Epping to Macquarie Park would be a wasteful duplication of the existing rail line, let alone the challenge in actually crossing the Northern Line rail corridor.
What is most puzzling about this whole project is the omission of the preferred route in Parramatta Council's original feasibility study, from Parramatta to Macquarie Park via Eastwood. It didn't even make the shortlist of options in the government's appraisal.
This route is the most direct and fastest and provides an uninterrupted link between Parramatta and Macquarie Park without the need to change, as you would if the route went only to Epping. It also utilises part of the Carlingford Line from Camellia to Dundas and then follows the 6-lane Kissing Point Rd and Eastwood County Rd reservation all the way to Macquarie Park. The government already owns the overwhelming majority of this wide corridor and there would only be minimal resumptions required. The reserved corridor is already there. It beggars belief that it has been completely ignored. The route doesn't preclude the conversion of the remainder of the Carlingford Line to light rail from Dundas to Carlingford as a branch.
There is no compelling reason why a Parramatta to Macquarie Park light rail route has to go through Epping. Eastwood is actually a much larger retail/commercial centre than Epping, but has gone largely unnoticed because it isn't located on a major arterial road (notwithstanding the proposed Eastwood County Rd linking Epping Rd, North Ryde to Kissing Point Rd, Dundas). It can satisfy all of the transport connections the same as Epping and being on a more direct route offer a faster service. A light rail route via Eastwood interchanges with the Northern Line, including Intercity services, and the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link (future metro) at Macquarie University. It also opens up a major new transport corridor from the Northern suburbs to the Western and South Western suburbs.
Although Epping has been nominated as an Urban Activation Precinct (Priority Centre), Eastwood is likely to receive a similar status with the imminent release of the sub-regional district plans by the Greater Sydney Commission. A light rail route via Eastwood would enhance its importance. A DA for a major multi-storey mixed use redevelopment of the Eastwood Shopping Centre worth $276 million has recently been lodged with Ryde Council.
Active Transport said on Sat 30 April 2016 at 15:10
I agree Martin - more efficient and flexible. Unfortunately buses haven't been allowed to shine as they could. It has also been explained that people like Light Rail because it is predictable - they know where it is and they know it isn't going away. The selling of Light Rail in the South East has been a classic in con-consultation.
The additional travelling time through Central, the reduced number of seats, the loss of direct travel south of Kingsford and to Coogee have been brushed aside. The sun shines when the Light Rail runs there is no discussion about breakdowns and their impacts. There is a 'suck it up' attitude to the reduction in stops with the assumption that it will be good for everyone to walk further. That may be the case for some but for those who are already mobility challenged it will likely translate to fewer outings and these people already marginalized will become even more invisible. The current travel patterns are going to change markedly in the future as universities embrace on-line learning and maximize use of infrastructure and workplace uptake for telework increases.
Driverless cars and small buses are coming but here we are having conversations about the untimely demise of trams in 1961. Does anyone romanticize about typing pools in the same way. Do they remember how few people with mobility problems got around then. Active transport is losing out as well as surface space that was or could be available for cycling/ walking/mobility scooters (along with additional infrastructure like bubblers, seats along corridors).
Rob said on Tue 15 December 2015 at 09:38
There may be some fine tuning required to Transport for NSW's plan for bus stops on Norton Street, but it is hard to quibble with the general approach. A modern, effective bus network should not locate stops 150 metres apart. They should be 300 - 400 metres apart to make bus journeys faster and more competitive with private car travel.
World best practice is for public transport networks to be designed as high frequency grids, which means fewer lines and more transfers, but higher frequency services. In Sydney, we have too many bus lines operating circuitous routes at low frequency. We would be much better off having fewer, more direct lines operating at high frequency, even if this may mean longer waliks to stops and more transfers.
As an example, why does the Balmain peninsula have a confusing multitude of low frequency bus routes? Wouldn't it be better if there were only two - 444 and 441, but both opreating every 10 minutes in off peak and 5 minutes in the peak? Passengers from east of Montague Street who need to go to the city can transfer from the 444 to the 441 at Montague Street, or take the ferry at the end of Darling Street. By having higher frequencies, the service would be much more attractive, but cost no more to operate because there would be fewer routes.
I have the feeling (and hope) that Transport for NSW is starting to move in this direction. I hope also that Action for Public Transport takes a positive and supporting approach to the modernisation of our bus networks.
george the wog said on Tue 6 October 2015 at 12:46
if you want to spent so much $ to improve Sydney's transport you need to go; subway or skyrail for fast and independent public transport out of the way and not interfearing with other kind of traffic just more of the same .... high five
Matthew said on Wed 10 June 2015 at 14:32
If there are any plans to duplicate city circle train line funded by power sell-off, they should have East Hills trains go through Redfern on platform 9 and 10, into an underground tunnel to Surrey Hills, to Darlinghurst, to the Domain, to Circular Quay, to Barangaroo and then to Town Hall to link back to Central.
martin said on Tue 17 March 2015 at 08:34
I support any new public transport initiative, especially the popular light rail concept. But is there any else out there who sees the benefit of the transitway or bus freeway concept? Transitway buses have the ability to intricately serve a local area, then enter a purpose built bus freeway and whisk passengers to a major destination like Parramatta or Sydney city, nearly as quickly as a train. The concept costs less than building a light rail network, and buses have more maneuverability. Due to their smaller capacity, services run more often meaning a shorter waiting time.
martin said on Tue 17 March 2015 at 08:27
Our rail network is city centric: all lines lead to the city. Considering the city of Sydney was very poorly designed, it was never considered that people would travel in concentric circles around the city by train. Given our relatively low population density, it's certain we will never see such lines built.
Matthew said on Sat 6 December 2014 at 15:44
will more buildings being built around Canterbury station mean more screaming mothers seeking assistance with prams to an from platform? Occasionally, I heard female seeking assistance from staff to move their pram. Canterbury station have no elevators and the ramp on one platform does not go all the way up as in there are three steps at the top to access bridge over railway. thanks
Matthew said on Sat 6 December 2014 at 15:10
If travelling between Strathfield, Campsie, Bexley North and Rockdale by train, why do you have to go to the city first? Haven't anyone thought of a direct train line? thanks
St George said on Thu 13 November 2014 at 07:39
There are a number of alternative technologies which would enable Sydney's new trams to operate without the conventional overhead wire ("Wire-free light rail pricier way to go", Herald, 11 Nov. 2014). All of them would cost more, both to install and to operate. But to propose "wire-free" trams on the ground of visual aesthetics is laughable.
Far more visually intrusive will be the perforated advertising film which will be applied to the outside of the tram windows. You can't take photos from inside the vehicle, and when it rains, raindrops clinging to the film will render everything outside a blur. For proof of this, just take a ride on a Sydney bus
Moderator said on Thu 23 October 2014 at 04:12
We must be careful to not make the train destination information more confusing than it is at present. Ideally, the number of different stopping patterns would be reduced, but that's not going to happen. Moving the maximum number of people on Sydney's near-capacity rail system is more important. Also, there is limited space on the in-carriage displays to provide any further information. Passengers must learn to check the platform indicator to ensure that the next train stops at their station.
Xings said on Fri 17 October 2014 at 12:41
DESIRABLE ON-TRAIN FEATURES - "Next stop" announcements.
If train stops at the minor station of Roseville, it is almost 100% to stop at
* Chatswood (Southbound)
* Lindfield (Northbound)
* No need to study indicators, really.
Things are more complicated at a busy station like Chatswood.
* Going South bound, next stop can be
** St Leonards
* Important to study indicators if going to Artarmon.
* Going Northbound, next stop can be
** North Ryde (always)
** Gordon (always)
* Important to study indicators if you are going to any of these minor stations.
However when you jump on a train the Inside Indicator only says
that you are at "Chatswood", with no mention of the next station
North Ryde, Roseville, Lindfield, Killara.
If you are in a hurry, you may overlook the indicators, and catch the wrong train.
The train only says the next stop when you have already left Chatswood.
Can something(s) be done about this?
XINGS 17 Oct 2014
Xings said on Fri 17 October 2014 at 12:25
Maybe you could have Letters AS WELL AS the pictograms, space permitting ?
XINGS 17 Oct 2014
John Holt said on Mon 1 September 2014 at 17:20
TfNSW are introducing new public transport signs. These dispense with the familiar and universally used pictograms for train, bus, ferry and light rail and replace these with letters, T, B, F and L. Pictograms are not dependent on language to be understood. Letters are. Why is the state government spending $50 million on signs that no one will understand; visitors from interstate, from Europe and particularly those from Asian countries who will find it difficult to recognise "english" letters let alone understand what they mean.
Along with professional bodies working in this field I have been vocal in objecting to the new signs but TfNSW are blind to any of our arguments. They are ploughing on regardless.
Anyone who has concerns about this matter might like to convey these to their local member or the Minister. As the Design Institute of Australia says " if implemented it will be an unmitigated disaster".
I am happy to receive feedback and comments from Action for Public Transport. Thank you.
Moderator said on Fri 9 May 2014 at 07:36
One of our members had occasion to complain about the behaviour of the crew of a light rail vehicle. He filed appropriate details on the 131500.info website, specifying the date, time, location and vehicle number. After several days' delay, he was contacted by Transdev management and asked for further particulars: "a description of the staff member i.e. approx. age, hair colour, ethnic background etc." Doesn't Transdev keep records of which crews are on their vehicles?
Northern Spirit said on Wed 26 March 2014 at 17:58
The Planning Institute has obviously been conned as well. It doesn't do much for their credibility.
Moderator said on Sun 23 March 2014 at 13:44
The following list was compiled from numerous web discussion boards and other sources. We have no intention of discussing particular items here:
"At all of the 16 stations you can expect to find:
Ticketing will remain under TransLink's management similar to other public transport modes in south-east Queensland. For information on the go card ticketing system please refer to the TransLink website.
"Some of GoldLinQ's stations will also have:
Northern Light said on Tue 18 March 2014 at 19:03
Could you possibly supply a link to your submission?
Moderator said on Fri 8 November 2013 at 14:24
Presumably to protect submitters from defamation actions etc., all submissions are copyright and cannot be shown unless permission is obtained from the Committee.
Our submission might be published by the Committee on its website later.
Meanwhile, you are able to make a personal submission until Wednesday 13 November.
Simon said on Fri 8 November 2013 at 13:42
Might we know the thrust of APT's submission to the inquiry?
IMO - the state ought to buy out the remainder of the contract and reduce the fees. Only then does it become cost effective to do so.
Simon said on Tue 22 October 2013 at 13:01
Last I heard, academics are encouraged to work with industry as much as they can.
BRT Realist said on Sun 13 October 2013 at 15:26
Simon said on Tue 10 September 2013 at 20:15 How about backing that up, BRT_realist?
See the following.
An extract from http://sydney.edu.au/business/itls:
The Director of ITLS-Sydney is Professor David Hensher (Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia) http://sydney.edu.au/business/itls/staff/davidh, regarded as one of Australia's most eminent transport academics and someone in high demand as an adviser to industry and government.
A major strength of ITLS-Sydney is its success and reputation in developing and delivering industry-based award and non-award courses throughout Australia in all modes of delivery (i.e., face to face, distance and on-line internet). To illustrate this capability I refer to the very strong association and quality partnership forged between ITLS and the Bus and Coach Association of NSW (and subsequently with BCA of Western Australia) and recently with the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW. Fuller details are provided in Annex A.
The 1990 Passenger Transport Act in NSW was a major threshold of change for the bus and coach industry. It challenged the BCA to understand the implications of the forces of change that were heralding in alternative ways of delivering services such as competitive tendering, compliance with minimum service levels, performance benchmarking of operators who do not compete head on with each other (eg scheduled route services in urban areas), and economic deregulation. The BCA together with the government of the day and ITLS saw a need for ways of ensuring that self-regulation of the industry could be met through better managed bus and coach businesses.
This began one of the greatest success stories in management training the introduction of the Certificate of Transport Management (CTM) and the Certificate of Coach Management (CCM). Both programs continue to be important instruments in the self-regulation of the industry and have assisted operators address current issues. Over 3,500 people have now completed the programs. Annual participants average 200. A growing proportion of participants are manufacturers, regulators and new entrants all of whom find the program the best way of getting to know the bus and coach industry. The program has eroded many barriers of communication and added enormous pride to membership of the industry. In particular it has broken down barriers between industry and academia. Increasingly each year we have a few operators moving from the industry Certificate of Transport Management into ITLS's Graduate Certificate of Transport Management and articulating up to a Master of Transport Management (MTM).
The relationship between ITLS and the BCA is extremely strong to such an extent that it is frequently referred to as the family by both parties, and in partnership is recognised by government as an icon of what can be achieved through cooperative joint ventures.
The extent of involvement includes:
Northern Light said on Wed 2 October 2013 at 19:55
From my limited knowledge, it appears that one of the major obstacles in implementing a "Smart Card" system such as Opal has been the unwillingness of the government of the day, and this includes the previous Labor government, to restructure and simplify the fare system where for example outer suburban fares would have to be increased relative to commuters in the Sydney metro area and interchange between modes would necessitate a reduction. This has been unpalatable for both sides of politics.
But this is the only way it could work. Treasury may not like it because it could potentially reduce the income stream from public transport usage (if in fact that were to be the case), but you have to ask the question, who is actually running the government, Treasury or the elected politicians?
It's time the latter toughened up and showed some intestinal fortitude by asserting their authority.
ferryman said on Tue 1 October 2013 at 13:59
It is hard to fathom why the Opal Card has such a poorly conceived fare structure. Is it the unwelcome influence of Treasury officials, with reductionist fetishes and little understanding or affection for public transport? Or is it possible that the science of public transport is poorly understood even by policy advisors in Transport for NSW?
Here are three suggestions for the Minister for Transport before too much more destruction occurs:
Simon said on Tue 10 September 2013 at 20:15
How about backing that up, BRT_realist?
BRT realist said on Wed 4 September 2013 at 20:10
I find it less than honest that you continue to highlight the propaganda of Professor Hensher who is well recognised as a paid pusher of Bus Rapid Transport and whose credibility is recognised as lacking by most transport professionals.
Chesswood said on Sun 1 September 2013 at 13:18
In a new book Made in Australia - The Future of Australian Cities, authors Richard Weller and Julian Bolleter draw attention to Barry O'Farrell's statement that 50% of the additional population Sydney is expected to have by 2056 will be accommodated in current greenfield areas. According to Weller and Bolleter, there is not enough greenfield land to house more than about 10% of the addition.
They wonder whether O'Farrell will terrace the Blue Mountains or perhaps use national park land for new suburbs!
Northern Light said on Mon 26 August 2013 at 22:07
Sorry, I still don't accept your analysis of the relative merits of single-deck and double-deck rolling stock nor the practicality of connecting a new link from St Leonards to the existing North Sydney Station via Crows Nest or from Waverton to Victoria Cross (Mount St) to a new cross harbour tunnel and CBD rail link. Even if such links were feasible, there is no reason why new double-deck trains couldn't be upgraded with more powerful traction motors to match the performance of single deck trains. New rolling stock would be required whichever way you look at it.
The most logical link to a new cross harbour tunnel and CBD rail link is from St Leonards to Victoria Cross via Crows Nest. Crows Nest is likely to have a significantly greater passenger flow than Wollstonecraft and Waverton combined. A new cross harbour link could be connected at St Leonards to either the existing North Shore Line tracks or the extended quad tracks from Chatswood. This is the link that could maximize line capacity with double-deck operation because of improved signaling and better station design. The existing North Shore Line could also be upgraded to 24tph for double-deck operation. If a single-deck operation was to be implemented from Gordon, then I suggest it would be more appropriate to utilise the link from St Leonards to the CBD via Crows Nest and the new cross harbour tunnel.
On the issue of the relative line capacities of single-deck and double-deck operations, I fail to see why you should ignore crush capacity for double-deck trains and yet accept such figures for single-deck trains as being an acceptable benchmark. You have to compare apples with apples. I acknowledge that there is a limit to about 24tph with upgraded signaling to the existing Western Line/North Shore Line, but a new cross harbour/CBD rail link with improved signaling and station design should be able to accommodate 30tph for both single and double deck operation. As I understand it, the Paris RER double-deck operation is aspiring to 37.5tph (90 second headways). It shouldn't be forgotten that a new CBD rail link would also reduce the impact of interchanging at the most congested CBD stations at Central, Town Hall and Wynyard (3 stations on the whole network).
In my opinion, there is no justification to bastardize the existing Sydney Rail Network by converting parts of it to "metro" operation. It will only result in a disjointed network which will ultimately prove to be unviable.
Moderator said on Mon 26 August 2013 at 15:46
In answer to Northern Light's question re the North Shore, the idea is to run double deck via Crows Nest and into the existing North Sydney station and over the bridge, while the single deck cross harbour link connects to Waverton via a station under Mount Street. This is possible because metro trains are specified for 4.5% grades, rather than 3.3% for double deck.
See our letter to the Minister of 26 June.
Moderator said on Sun 25 August 2013 at 08:11
We understand that the weekday 13:31 ex Newcastle regularly experiences overcrowding from Gosford. The train is a four-car set.
Despite this, the leaked October timetable shows all Up trains from Newcastle between noon and at least 16:19 are to be four-car trains. Perhaps this should be reviewed in the light of the reported overcrowding.
Northern Light said on Sat 24 August 2013 at 22:10
Although I'm not totally convinced of the need to re-introduce single-deck trains to Sydney, I acknowledge that it is a debate we need to have.
You raise some interesting points in your comparative analysis of single-deck and double-deck train operations, but I think we should start from a level playing field. We should compare the relative theoretical crush load capacities of the two types of rolling stock, although in practice this may not always be realised. Based on your estimates, a single-deck train should have a crush load capacity of 1,300, with 500 seated and 800 standing at 4 passengers per sq m. In my opinion, the same basis should be applied for double-deck trains, which would give a crush load capacity of 1,700, with 900 seated and 800 standing at the same standing room density. Running 30 single-deck trains per hour gives a theoretical line capacity of 39,000 passengers per hour and with 24 double-deck trains per hour, a line capacity of 40,800 passengers per hour.
Looking at a more conservative and realistic assessment of standing passengers at 2 per sq m for each type of rolling stock, this would equate to 900 (500 seated plus 400 standing) for single-deck and 1,300 (900 seated plus 400 standing) for double-deck. This equates to line capacity of 27,000 per hour for single-deck (30tph) and 31,200 per hour for double-deck (24tph). A new cross harbour tunnel and CBD Rail Link should be able to run 30 double-deck trains per hour with improved signaling and wider station platforms, giving a crush load capacity of 51,000 per hour or 39,000 per hour using the more conservative loading figures. Whichever way you look at it, double-deckers are streets ahead of single-deckers.
With regard to your suggested network opportunities on the assumption that single-deck trains are introduced, I can't quite follow your reasoning for running an all stations service from Gordon, serving Waverton and Wollstonecraft, via the new cross harbour and CBD link. Surely Waverton and Wollstonecraft would continue to be served by trains on the existing route via the Harbour Bridge and City Railway to the Western Line. You possibly meant that such services would travel from St Leonards via Crows Nest, Victoria Cross (North Sydney) then via the cross harbour tunnel and CBD Link.
Putting aside the issue of driverless trains, it would be more advantageous if a whole of network approach was embraced, so that single-deck and double-deck trains could operate compatibly over the same tracks, providing greater operational flexibility.
I continue to be puzzled by the push by the Transport bureaucracy to convert parts of Sydney's suburban railway system to "metro" or "rapid transit" operation, because they are completely different modes of rail service. Sydney is not London, Paris, New York, Hong Kong or even Singapore, which are well served by "metro" systems in their densely populated inner urban areas. With the exception of Hong Kong and Singapore, these cities are also served by extensive suburban rail operations extending into the outer suburbs, which have more in common with Sydney's rail network.
This is the basis on which Sydney's network should be judged and aspire to world's best practice for this type of rail operation.
Northern Light said on Wed 17 July 2013 at 00:36
With regard to the rerouting of Sydney-Melbourne, Sydney-Canberra and also presumably through Southern Highlands services, via the East Hills Line when the new timetable is introduced in October, I don't quite understand your statement that their rerouting will take these services away from "suburban track earmarked for eventual conversion to metro-style single deck services".
The most likely tracks for conversation to metro operation will be the Illawarra Local tracks which connect directly with the Bankstown Line and which is also earmarked for conversion. Intercity/Regional services to the Southern Line from Sydney Terminal via the East Hills Line will connect via the Illawarra Dive at Redfern to the Illawarra Main tracks just before Erskineville and will have to cross over to the Illawarra Local tracks to gain access to the East Hills Line at Wolli Creek Junction. If the metro conversion is implemented, these services will be denied access to the East Hills Line, unless a flyover or underpass is constructed, otherwise they will have to revert to the previous route via Strathfield. The connection to the East Hills Line will effectively become redundant because of the incompatibility of the 2 systems. All Sydney Trains services to and from the south west via the East Hills Line, including the South West Rail Link, will be forced onto the Airport Line as they will also be denied access to and from the city via Sydenham.
As you correctly point out, coal and other freight movement on the Illawarra Line is also a critical factor. There is no guarantee that the Maldon-Dombarton railway will be completed to allow freight from the Western and Northern Lines to bypass the line from Sydenham to Port Kembla (although common sense says it should be). If it isn't, then the only alternative would be via Moss Vale and Robertson, which is much longer and considerably slower and more expensive for freight forwarders.
It just demonstrates how compromised the remaining network will become to accommodate an ideological obsession to privatise sections of the rail network by converting it to a separate incompatible metro operation.
What is the alternative? In an ideal world I would like to see the whole concept of conversion to metro operation scrapped completely. By all means construct a metro system, restricted to inner city suburbs, but separate from the existing rail network. The current plan for the NWRL and the future second cross harbour tunnel does nothing to address congestion and future expansion of the existing rail network, particularly on the Western, Southern and Northern Lines.
For a start, I would complete the sextup between Sydenham and Erskineville which would allow the Bankstown Line to be separated from the Illawarra Line tracks. It should be then connected to the existing Illawarra Local tracks (renamed the Bankstown Line) north of Erskineville Station to run directly into the City Circle (Platforms 20 & 22 at Central). In turn, the current Illawarra Local tracks through Erskineville should be slewed to the Illawarra Main tracks, which connect to the Illawarra Dive to Sydney Terminal and also platforms 9 & 10 at Redfern. The Illawarra Local, which also connects with the East Hills Line express tracks, would effectively become the Illawarra Main, catering for express services from the Illawarra and East Hills Lines (including Intercity/Regional services). The current Illawarra Main connecting to the Eastern Suburbs Railway would become the Illawarra Local catering mainly for all stations services.
The renamed Illawarra Main tracks from Erskineville through platforms 9 & 10 at Redfern would ultimately connect with a new CBD rail link and second harbour crossing via the unused underground platforms 26 & 27 at Central. An underground link would also be constructed from the Western Line Main tracks at Eveleigh to the unused underground platforms at Redfern, which would also connect with platforms 26 & 27 at Central. All 14 platforms at Redfern (10 a/g + 4 u/g) would then be fully utilised. The new CBD rail link would then cater for future growth from the Western, East Hills and Illawarra Lines.
Although the current proposal for the NWRL as a stand alone metro service now seems inevitable, the future extension via a second harbour crossing and conversion of the Bankstown and Hurstville Lines will be decades away and a future government could change the whole strategy. If the NWRL remains an isolated sector, then so be it. That's the price we have to pay to maintain the integrity of the overall rail network.
Moderator said on Sun 14 July 2013 at 13:29
The carriages concerned are 5131 (longitudinal seat on one side) and 5134 (triple seats replaced by double; one double replaced by a single). The former has floor-to-ceiling grab poles - see http//www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/b2b/resources/images/tangara-web.jpg - and no doubt a few protruding ankles.
Peter in Sydney said on Sun 14 July 2013 at 10:22
Dwell times cannot be enhanced by adding an extra 80 passengers per carriage but capacity can. There is a twofold reason that dwell times will reduce. Firstly the obvious that there will be some of those extra passengers wishing to alight at our two dwell time compromised stations of Town Hall and Wynyard. Secondly the extra passengers not wishing to alight will obstruct those that are alighting.
In the case of the upstairs section I can see that not providing grab straps would result in 2 standees per row instead of the current one and could provide zig zag path for movement as well. I have not seen a photo of the lower section but if the triple seat was changed to longitudinal then you are indeed correct intimating the need for handgrips. There would be effectively a 3 seat wide aisle the whole length of the lower section with the only handgrips being at the edge of the double seats.
Northern Light said on Sat 22 June 2013 at 19:23
Gladys can obfuscate all she likes to the NSW Parliament without answering a direct simple question, but Gladys, please don't treat the general public like mugs because there are enough of us out here who know what your game is. If anyone is disgraceful, it is you. You have lost all credibility and it will come home to haunt you (and I'm a Liberal voter).
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 2 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 9 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 9 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 2 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 1 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 6 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 7 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 4 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 6 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 9 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 7 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.
Moderator said on Fri 19 August 2011 at 20:32
Our host had drastic server problems on 13 August. The site had to be restored on a new host from backups. It is possible that some files were lost. If the failed discs can be recovered, any missing files will be restored.
Northern Light said on Fri 19 August 2011 at 18:42
Would like to know why some recent comments have been deleted
Griffo said on Sat 28 May 2011 at 21:52
My name is Sean Griffin, and I'm the creator of a mobile phone solution for commuter problems in catching public transport. My website is as follows:
My application is also gaining interest with another lobby group you may know, called "RAIL Back On Track" (http://www.backontrack.org/). Feel free to take a look. The solution works anywhere in the world, and can find your bus in real-time.
chesswood said on Tue 12 April 2011 at 07:56
I can get you the IPART determination on all fares from July 1996, containing previous and new fares, also on page 12 a schedule of fares for each year from 1990-1991 to 1995-1996. The 5 km bands are unchanged, of course. Also, the CityRail submission to IPART March 2000 which contains current and proposed fares. And the CityRail submission to IPART March 2002 which contains current and proposed fares.
Mark said on Thu 31 March 2011 at 09:29
Can anyone verify how much a train ticket from City to Parramatta and City to Hornsby was in 1989 and 1999. Thanks
t2010 said on Wed 1 December 2010 at 12:31
Agree totally. This "travel ten"/travelpass crap discourages use of sydney buses. Now people have to walk to get to a non-pre pay stop just to pay in change/notes. For example, instead of boarding bet. 7-7 weekdays only 2-3 mins walk from my residence, I have to walk 10 mins to get to the nearest stop that allows change.
Working at Bondi Junction it is even worse as Oxford St-College is all prepaid. So to get the 355 home, I have to walk 15-20 mins to Cook Road in Moore Park/Centennial park just to board it. Considering I only use buses maybe 2-3 times a week (like a good percentage of commuters would) it seems a bit pointless catching a bus during peak hour now.
I especially agree with the correct fare only system, as well as prepaying for tickets in $3, $5, $10 nominations etc. The metrotens should be opened up to this also. You rarely see more than several people travelling on these massive red buses every day. Defeats the purpose of having these long-distance buses either. The whole system needed to be better structured if they were going down this road. Now it's just a massive inconvenience.
St George said on Sat 20 November 2010 at 09:23
Thanks Matt.We will investigate!
Matt said on Fri 19 November 2010 at 12:20
"By including public transport in the ticket price, more people will use public transport and it becomes much easier for everyone - including people traveling by car - to get to and from the events," Ms Keneally said. Is the private motor vehicle or public transport the winner in this deal? The Moore Park traffic snarl is caused by thousands of cars arriving/leaving the Moore Park precinct before and after events.
This helping hand only induces more traffic and does not encourage public transport usage. Attendees who drive to the fixture will benefit from this deal initially because the road re-configuration and pedestrian overpass will help reduce the time it takes to clear Moore park and surrounding areas whether there is over or under 20k people. This will encourage more people to drive and it won't be too long before it's back to square one or it's just another traffic sewer. Attendees who use public transport will be pressed to find benefits. Most events are scheduled during the weekend or evenings that fall outside the NSW state government peak hour service timetables. They have not increased the frequency of any bus, train or ferry service. In addition it's not clear whether the chartered Sydney Buses Central Station/Moore Park Number One service that charges $5.80 return or $3.30 a single will be included in the event ticket. In any case the NSW state government MyZone or MyBuses public transport tickets are currently not accepted on these services. Finally, the pedestrian overpass is to be build near Sydney Boys High and Sydney Girls High schools not near the Captain Cook Hotel intersection where the majority of pedestrians walk to Central Station and beyond. This will add ~10-15 minutes to the journey of pedestrians. $5.3 million public tax dollars for the private car. $0 public tax dollars for public transport.
LesG said on Mon 20 September 2010 at 07:43
The roll out of the PrePay bus ticket system is an absolute joke. It should be done all at once, Sydney-wide. It should start with the cash ticket price increase to a round number amount. Forget the $3.30, $4.30 and the rest of the concession prices with cents in them. That makes NO sense...Have a $3.00, $4.00 and $5.00 tickets, which can be purchased from the driver using gold coins ($1.00 and $2.00) only. No paper notes, unless the price is for multiply tickets (like 2x$5.00). Have correct fare, no change given. This would be used all day, every day. None of this 7am to 7pm nonsense. That would be a true incentive for buying a ticket before the ride. Remember, the bus is not a bank. B-A-nk comes before B-U-s! Simple. That would not cost $8 million as did the useless new MyZone system. When the NSW government wasted enough money on the "smart card" system (as if $200 million is not enough), then roll out the complete prepay only system.
Rover said on Sun 19 September 2010 at 21:11
Thought you might like to have a look at some of the problems that have arisen in the Dutch public transport smartcard system. Maybe we should be careful what we wish for.
Northern Light said on Sun 15 August 2010 at 22:05
It's interesting to note that upon close examination of the schematic diagram accompanying the announcement by the Prime Minister and Premier of the resuscitation of the Epping to Parramatta Link that the route of the future North West Rail Link reverts to the original proposal to connect with the Main Northern Line between Cheltenham and Beecroft.
This is despite community opposition and a subsequent decision to connect directly with the Epping to Chatswood Line at the underground platforms at Epping Station. It also shows that an interchange station for Newcastle and Central Coast Intercity services has been shifted from Eastwood to West Ryde. It is obvious that most services on the Epping to Parramatta Link, the upper Northern Line and a future North West Rail Link, which all connect with the Epping to Chatswood Line, will terminate at St Leonards, requiring a change of trains, because there is insufficient capacity on the North Shore Line to continue through to the city. Pity that as far as the Epping to Parramatta Link is concerned, the steep and circuitous route via Epping and Carlingford as proposed, is 3 km longer and 10 minutes slower than the most direct route from Macquarie Park to Parramatta via Eastwood.
Ozandrew said on Mon 14 June 2010 at 22:06
From a Melburnian, there are many reasons why passengers prefer trams/light rail from buses. Regular commuters, the vast bulk of our tram passengers, have long passed by the novelty factor. A broken down tram is a problem, I grant. Trams too skip stops, leaving waiting passengers for the tram behind. There is no reason why Sydney cannot even have street running trams. An argument might be that trams will cause traffic congestion. They certainly can but if the running times are appropriate and the tram does not have to dawdle, then it is far more likely that motor car traffic congestion will delay trams, rather than the other way around and the more people on the tram will mean less cars to congest the roads. Replace a bus with a tram and watch the number of travellers on the route increase. Trams engender trust.
St George said on Fri 9 April 2010 at 07:31
Of course they could, and have - e.g. Waratah trains, MainTrain Auburn, & Airport line. The problem is matching private enterprise's sprightly and aggressive grab for profit, with the public service's relatively disinterested and inertia-laden slowness. Unless the contract is carefully written to protect the public interest, private enterprise will totally focus on maximising financial returns.
matthew said on Fri 2 April 2010 at 08:02
could public private partnerships assist in building public transport infrastructure?
blackjack said on Wed 31 March 2010 at 20:50
I don't think it really matter whether we have a monorail or a metro rail line linking Mascot with Bondi Junction. The reality is that neither of them are going to happen. The Labor government has a poor track record when it comes to delivering new large scale public transport infrastructure (cancellation of the Parramatta to Epping rail line, the on again-off again north western railway line, the cancelled CBD Metro). In spite of Sydney's burgeoning population density, the most we can expect our government to deliver are more buses on our already very congested roads. So for now, expect standing room only on the 400 bus service.
Matthew said on Wed 31 March 2010 at 12:10
Should there be an above ground monorail or below ground metro rail between Mascot and Bondi Junction with a stop at the University of New South Wales campus and a stop at East Gardens, to reduce the load on the 400 bus?
Matthew said on Mon 22 March 2010 at 11:38
Should there be more dedicated bus lanes?
Blackjack said on Thu 25 February 2010 at 20:50
I think the usefulness of light rail in Sydney is limited, because the city is already too congested. I also question the true efficiency of light rail. People like the novelty of riding in a carriage which runs along a dedicated railway line, but a buses are much more manoeuvrable even if they have a poor reputation and are less fun to ride in. Trams cannot overtake each other, so when more than a few of them pull up at a stop, they have to leave in the same order. If a bus doesn't need to pick up or set down passengers at a stop, it can simply overtake other buses in front. Similarly, when a tram breaks down, others cannot overtake it. I think making bus travel significantly more attractive is one way of improving our crippled public transport system in Sydney. Dedicated bus lanes and corridors, giving buses priority at traffic lights, construction of good bus shelters with signage, good lighting and useful information could go a long way towards improving our bus network. Transit busways have proven to be very popular and successful in other cities like Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth so there is no reason why they wouldn't work in Sydney.
retiredtramdriver said on Wed 17 February 2010 at 19:21
Too much light rail? You don't give an alternative. Not more buses? No no you could be fair-dinkum. Yeah OK I'm biased have driven the Pyrmont Light Rail for seven years. A modern tram can move three times the passengers than a bus.
Chesswood said on Tue 16 February 2010 at 08:07
I think there's too much light rail. It's unrealistic to want the disruption that interchanges at Haymarket and in suburbs like Drummoyne would cause.
Spearmint said on Mon 15 February 2010 at 12:38
When the Clarendon crossing loop was built (or rebuilt) a letterwriter to the local paper had a fit expressing the total and utter waste of such a construction, designed by idiots with nothing better to do with the public's money, etc. etc. Actually, if you understand the timetable, the need for a crossing loop at Clarendon makes a lot of sense. Without the loop, late running trains bound for Richmond, had to be terminated short at Mulgrave, another whistlestop station in the middle of nowhere, much to the chagrin of passengers bound to the important and busy terminus at Richmond. You see, the running time from Mulgrave to Richmond and return was too great for the late running train to slip through without causing more cascading delays. With the extra loop at Clarendon, the late running train could follow an alternative path all the way to Richmond, and back, and not get terminated short. So the loop at Clarendon does make sense, even if some members of the public cannot see the point.
Spearmint said on Fri 12 February 2010 at 15:40
When the quad goes through Padstow, there will be no platforms on the express tracks (like the other intermediate stations between Turella and Padstow). Since Padstow has express trains now, (like Riverwood), this is (according to the local paper) discriminatory, racist, sexist, etc., etc. A fundamental principle of train operations is that when a station has an express service, it must never be removed. Actually the situation is not as bad as it seems. The Airport Line contract specifies 8 trains per in peak hours. But only four of these need stop at minor stations such as Turrella, Bexley North and Narwee. The four per hour that would not stop at these stations would still stop at Riverwood and Padstow, which are semi-fasts. Furthermore, as the 4 all stations trains and four semi-fasts would start at Revesby, they would have more empty seats than would be the case if they started from East Hills, Campbelltown or Macarthur.
Spearmint said on Thu 11 February 2010 at 13:31
As the network changes, passengers cannot expect old ways to be set in stone, otherwise there will be paralysis. Having Hornsby-Epping stoppers going via North Ryde may take more time depending on one's destination. It also probably makes it easier to find a seat on the Epping Strathfield section. With the new arrangement, the combined number of trains at Chatswood coming from North Ryde and Gordon makes the line full south of Chatswood. But with only 4 tph between Epping and Chatswood, you could probably run additional shuttle trains to divide the 15 minute interval. Similarly, while the Suburban line east of Strathfield is full, you could probably run additional shuttle services to Epping to divide the 15 minute service. There is no law that says all trains have to run to the CBD. This is the principle behind the Y-link where the suburban lines are full east of Granville, while the lines south and west are not full.
Not PC said on Tue 2 February 2010 at 19:15
PC - how about you act on what you think would be good for public transport in Sydney. It would be a much better use of your energy.
SCHILTEC said on Thu 21 January 2010 at 23:08
It happened to me some years ago and now to my friend: The company is urging you to drive more! For way of info, as per my understanding Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) is calculated dividing a fixed km value (maybe 15,000 km) by the actually driven mileage. The logic behind is that the ATO assumes that all miles below 15,000 km are private use and above 15,000 km are business use. Thus the more you drive the smaller the %age FBT. Amounts to government sponsored public transport sabotage, enhanced by environment pollution. SCHILTEC http://waverail.com.au
PC said on Thu 31 December 2009 at 20:17
You are pathetic; a shadow of a public transport lobby group. You produce virtually nothing in the way of publications; no-one knows who you are; your website is lousy and out of date. I can't believe NSW has such a crappy advocate for public transport. Where's your fire? I can only assume you are operating with a NSW government subsidy.
SCHILTEC said on Thu 3 December 2009 at 09:30
The following is an section from a draft Sydney Transport White Paper prepared by the author:-------------------
Searching for the strength of each system, then designing and utilising the system in its proper place and mode will yield the associated benefits. Existing transport assets should be used. This ensures continuity and raises the level of required economics for new projects. Successive effort should be pursued in the following areas:
SCHILTEC said on Thu 3 December 2009 at 09:18
Transport systems in general are real beneficial when used at their best. Busses are the best and only economic transport system in, to and fro low density areas such as smaller suburbs. Double deckes may aliviate the problem in, to and fro the high density CBD, but I think do not solve it. Waverail does.But there is an intersting Aussi contribution to double deckers! Hornsby's Roy Leembruggen is developing/promoting a record setting 400 passenger electro double decker and has received some publicity courtesy of John Booth, TWT Ryde local newspaper. Give Roy some encouragement!
brumby said on Sat 14 November 2009 at 06:57
We have plenty of track that could be used for city rail or light rail. We have a light rail committee. The Mayor or Chief Minister commissioned a report on light rail which gave the green light to light rail economically. Eighty six per cent of Canberra people say they would like to have light rail.
Northern Light said on Mon 9 November 2009 at 15:07
The reason why Northern Line services to and from Hornsby have been switched to the Epping to Chatswood Line is to make the train paths previously used by the limited stop express services during peak hours on the Northern Line from Strathfield to the city available for additional services on the Western Line to and from the city. The main suburban lines between Strathfield and the city proceeding on to the North Shore, which are shared by the Northern and Western Line services, are now running at their maximum capacity of about 20 trains an hour. The only way additional train paths could be provided for Western Line services is to divert some of the Northern Line services to the new link.
However, in the process, the majority of Northern Line commuters now have an inferior service with generally longer travel times. Eastwood and West Ryde in particular have had their peak services slashed from 8 trains an hour to 4 an hour. CityRail is in effect robbing Peter to pay Paul.Whilst I don't for a moment begrudge extra services for Western Line commuters, it shouldn't be at the expense of downgrading services to other lines. It is now unlikely that the situation will change until a new rail link is built to provide extra capacity through the CBD (assuming that the proposed Sydney Metro, which confiscated the route, doesn't proceed in its current form).
St George said on Sun 8 November 2009 at 16:11
Re the changing of the routeing of Hornsby - Epping - Chats - Strath - Epping (left facing "hook") to a right facing "hook" - I'm sure CityRail looked hard at this and I can only assume that they had good reasons, even perhaps incontrovertible reasons, for deploying the current arrangement. You could ask in a short letter to the minister, Parliament House, Sydney.
Northern Light said on Sat 7 November 2009 at 00:05
With the implementation of the new CityRail timetable, commuters on the Northern Line have been well and truly dudded. An examination of the timetable shows that journey times for services from stations between Hornsby and Epping via the Epping to Chatswood Link to the city compared with the all stations service from Epping via Strathfield is 6 minutes faster to Wynyard, 1 minute slower to Town Hall and 8 minutes slower to Central. The comparison with the now cancelled limited stop express services via Strathfield (stopping at only Eastwood and West Ryde on the Northern Line south of Epping) is even more stark, with journey times to the city via the new link being 1 minute slower to Wynyard, 8 minutes slower to Town Hall and a whopping 15 minutes slower to Central.
Northern Line commuters, both north and south of Epping, are clearly being disadvantaged by the new operating pattern to accommodate additional train paths to the city for the Western Line. Eastwood and West Ryde have also effectively had their peak hour services cut by 50%. It is reasonable to assume that the bulk of commuters north of Epping are travelling to the city or to destinations west of the city while a minority would be travelling to the Macquarie Park area or the North Shore. Ideally, it would seem more logical for the operating pattern for the Northern Line to be reversed by retaining the service from Hornsby to the city via Strathfield and looping around via the North Shore Line and the new link to terminate at the underground platforms at Epping. This would also permit a seamless extension of this service from Epping to a future North West Rail Link and also to Parramatta if the Parramatta to Chatswood Rail link is completed.
Just a quick word on completion of the Parramatta Rail Link. In my opinion, should completion of this link be revived, the previously approved route via Epping and Carlingford to Parramatta should be reviewed. The alternative route from Macquarie University via Eastwood to Dundas on the Carlingford Line is far superior in that it is approximately 3km shorter than the route via Epping and Carlingford and with its straighter and more direct alignment compared with the steep winding alignment of the approved route, travel time is considerably faster, not only because of the shorter distance, but also because of the higher average speeds achievable. The route via Eastwood also has the added advantage of the option of constructing a "Y" link from Epping to Eastwood which would allow for direct train services from the Northern Line to Parramatta which is not possible with the approved route.
Rhiannon said on Sat 24 October 2009 at 14:35
To Frustrated Traveller, I'm a journalist from UTS and I completely agree with your concerns. I am writing an article on the problem, and would love to interview you if possible? Please send me (email@example.com) an email if you think you could spare 5 minutes.
St George said on Thu 15 October 2009 at 10:32
Thank you Frustrated. I think you can blame Mr Costa, who, as Transport Minister, cancelled the Epping to Parramatta section of the Parramatta - Chatswood Railway. That decision required the re-configuration you, and thousands of others, are now suffering. The glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel (sorry about the pun) is that if the Coalition wins the 2011 election, they will build the Epping to Rouse Hill railway, and I would expect the Hornsby to Strathfield line would revert to something like what you had before.
Frustrated traveller said on Wed 14 October 2009 at 20:36
The new timetable no longer provides direct access to commuters from Beecroft to Strathfield and on to Redfern and Central. We have to change trains at Epping and go via Inter-Urban trains or wait for at least 10-11 minutes for an all stations train to Central. A journey which on the former timetable took 35 minutes now takes 49 minutes and includes an 11 minute wait at Epping. If you go on an Inter-urban train and wish to alight at Redfern in peak hour you have to change again at Strathfield as not all trains stop at Redfern. The situation is a nightmare.
Media Power Play said on Tue 13 October 2009 at 07:14
Run that down sidewalks on George Street with a Monorail overhead in Sussex to outlying Inner City areas and elevate the problem from Street level to an overhead convenience. Link it as you like to rail and bus. My main suggestion of course. Is that George Street be turned into a Public Mall with trees and rest areas much like what we see now in Pitt Street around Centre Point. You can still run a tram or two as an alternative. As long as it doesn't interfere with public thoroughfare and enjoyment. An advanced version of my idea would see all motor vehicles out of the CBD altogether. Excepting Service deliveries to businesses between the hours of 12am midnight and 6am in the morning. Therefore everything stops at parking at Gladesville, Pyrmont, Broadway and Nth Sydney. This is no longer the "Eighties". With additional Parking facilities in Chippendale combining redevelopment of that outer city locality. Think it over!
Martin James said on Thu 8 October 2009 at 20:44
Has anybody noticed if their train service takes longer to arrive at your destination on the new Cityrail timetable? I catch the Cumberland line train (one of only two meagre services each day) from Guildford to Westmead, a trip which currently takes 13 minutes. Frankly, I already think this is too long, and considering the distance it should only take between 10 and 12 minutes. But on the new timetable, the trip will take a whopping 16 minutes! Granted, it's only a difference of three minutes, but if I were a cynic, I would say that Cityrail has purposely increased the journey time so that when the train runs late, it has time to catch up. Hence, more Cityrail services would appear to run on time. It's not a bad way to improve your own performance, eh?
Bill of Petersham said on Sun 29 March 2009 at 17:30
Why can't sydney buses have a function on their website whereby the running progress of individual bus routes can be tracked up to the minute or by exact location? The bus could be scanned as it goes past each bus stop and the location, or approx minutes til a given stop further along the route, would be automatically available either on line or even better through a mobile phone. Would save walking to bus stop only to wait there another twenty minutes til it comes along
Sydneysiders said on Wed 25 March 2009 at 23:50
Does anyone know Hillbus is causing traffic problem along George St (Both Directions) because they have more than 15 buses waiting to pick up from QVB and cross the harbour bridge?
Is time to use double decker, which has a same foot print as a normal bus but carrying 120 passenger instead of 60??
Ratepayer said on Wed 11 March 2009 at 11:59
I know Waverley have provided a ridiculous amount of staff parking under their library within walking distance of buses to allover and the train. Unsure if staff get free parking unless they have council car.
Excess utes, vans etc are a problem with councils too, just as in the construction industry. If a council is working in the street, too many vehicles are parked on nature strips, footpaths etc.
carlo said on Tue 3 March 2009 at 11:46
Most local council's actually provide cars as part of the remuneration package for a great deal of staff members. And only recently have they started THINKING about making them environmentally friendly cars.
carlo said on Tue 3 March 2009 at 11:42
Generally speaking, i think provision of public tranport by governments in NSW is way below par but - We also need to be accountable for our own actions. If we choose to live in particular area, especially an area some distance away from the key employment, retail or tranport hubs, then we should be accountable also.
anuagg said on Tue 24 February 2009 at 08:59
The Hills district has been deprived of the desperately needed extension of the Epping- Chatswood line. To agonise the pain there is no visible plan to provide a bus link from Epping onwards so as to extend some service to these areas.
Most of the city services are run by the private Hillsbus, are only on weekdays and overloaded. People from Castle hill and Kellyville travel further west to Seven Hill and Blacktown to link to city rail. Most areas have no buses on weekends.
Under these circumstances, how does the government want people to use more public transport ?
Chesswood said on Sun 22 February 2009 at 15:14
A friend reminds me that just after the Eastern Suburbs line opened, there was a maintenance strike which closed all other lines; the new line needed no maintenance so stayed open.
As for "running in" a new car, that hasn't been necessary since about 1960.
Brennie said on Sun 22 February 2009 at 01:43
Get real. The people complaining about trackwork on the new line - it's normal. Any new piece of infrastructure will be checked and serviced in its opening days and months. The Airport line, Olympic Park line and the Eastern Suburbs Railway all underwent the same.
Any of you own cars? Read the manual. Cars have to be "run in" for the first 1500km or so, typical instructions include not cruising at a steady speed for too long, not aggressively accelerating etc. And then at the end of the 1500km or so - you have to get it serviced. Failing to do so can result in unreliability and damage. Same principle applies here.
Now rather than moaning about trivialities like that, why not go and concentrate on the real issues at hand, like the Rouse Hill line?
Chesswood said on Sat 21 February 2009 at 19:31
Re trackwork planned for 14-15 March, see http://www.cityrail.info/trackwork/trackwork_calendar.pdf.
Chesswood said on Fri 20 February 2009 at 20:38
According to mX the opening was deferred from Sunday to Monday because of bushfire memorial day on Sunday. Meanwhile, testing and/or training was happening this week - I saw one up and one down train in the Chatswood dive today.
Chesswood said on Wed 18 February 2009 at 18:54
A story in North Shore Times of 18 Feb 2009 says this bridge is unsafe and that a man who fell 5 metres though it is still in hospital six months later. It also says 200 people per day walk across the tracks because they think it safer than using the footbridge. Does anyone have any details supporting the above claims, please?
Chesswood said on Tue 17 February 2009 at 18:56
The ECRL is supposed to open on Sunday morning 22nd February. Yet no-one seems to have VIP tickets or any other sort of ticket for the opening. Because there have been so many delays, does anyone know whether its opening really will happen then?
Ex bus-rider said on Tue 17 February 2009 at 05:26
As far as I know only a very few senior staff get parking spaces (the ones who work the most family unfriendly hours because they are at the beck and call of Ministers). To suggest that most public servants drive is ridiculous.
davidsheehan hotmail.com said on Tue 10 February 2009 at 18:59
As an outsider who wants to make a comment which might be good for this organization where's the feedback or message board that might be used. I wish to comment on a quote by kevin Eadie (SMH 10 Feb 09) who said that commuters from Hunters Hill drive rather than catch public transport because they can afford to. My comment is that they drive because most work in businesses that provide car spaces in the city. These spaces are either very cheap or tax breaks provided by us. I know that Government Depts provide car spaces at a very cheap rate.
Kevin Eade knows nothing said on Tue 10 February 2009 at 08:49
I know nothing about this organisation except that from what I have read it has no idea about public transport. I read that covenor Kevin Eadie said that people in areas such as Randwick believe public transport is below them. Having lived in Randwick and caught the bus I can tell he knows nothing about the issue. First point is that on weekdays it takes 40 minutes to travel 7kms from Randwick to Circular Quay. No proper bus lane on Elizabeth St. In summer, when you are on a crowded non airconditioned bus this can be very unpleasant. Driving takes 15-20 minutes. Second is if you are in one of the last stops the bus is often full and drives straight past. Add another 5-10mins to your travel time for the next bus and hope it is not full.
Ex Bus Rider said on Tue 10 February 2009 at 08:42
Among the other inner and middle-ring regions, people drove to work in large numbers from the City of Canada Bay (54 per cent), Ku-ring-gai (51), Rockdale (50) Randwick (44), Lane Cove (44), and Mosman (43). The average for all of Sydney was 53 per cent. I think they drive to work because they can afford to, the convener of Action for Public Transport, Kevin Eadie, said. They've got high disposable incomes and there is a perception that public transport is below them, even if catching a train or a bus is the quicker, cheaper option. Your speculations reek of unresearched assumptions. I hope, for your sake, you were misquoted. Actually, only one of those suburbs listed is served by a trainline (Rockdale) - and parts of Ku-ring-gai are accessible to the northern train line. The key reason inner ring commuters give up and drive is because you can't get on a bus that doesn't stop because it is full. Just because the suburb is well-served by bus ROUTES does NOT mean it is well-served by BUSES. Also, high incomes do not automatically mean high disposable incomes - mortgages are also high in such areas - and many people try to balance the high cost of a mortgage with the benefit of being closer to work for many family reasons that may well lead them to take on a higher mortgage than they would otherwise be comfortable with. So buses are often neither the quicker option nor, depending on how you value your time, the cheaper option.
eddyb said on Tue 27 January 2009 at 06:49
There is now a basic drawing of the 2,000 units that could be built on top of the Parrahub carpark
matt burga said on Tue 20 January 2009 at 17:06
I started the group, if you would like to get involved contact me - matt_burga at gmail dot com
eddyb said on Wed 17 December 2008 at 09:16
The Parrahub subway would be better for outer Sydney suburbs than a London tube because everybody would have a seat, tunnels cost half a much and it would not be locked into 20-year old technology.
Webmaestro said on Sat 9 August 2008 at 16:58
G day from Adelaide, South Australia I just wish say hello. Very nice and useful website. Have a nice day and stay online :)
eddyb said on Sun 3 August 2008 at 17:32
For some reason the Parrahub overview does not appear on ninemsn search engine so to view it use Yahoo or Google please
Al said on Fri 11 July 2008 at 16:08
Why doesn t A.P.T. organise a march to the Parliament house to demand major improvements to Public transport. Possibly a coordinated effort in all states, so the event would have maximum exposure. The timing is perfect for it, fuel prices are extortionate, and rising. The traffic congestions are beyond the joke. The air quality is absolute shite. And yet the people we elect choose to spend tax payers money on projects that exacerbate the problem rather than remedy it. Isn t it time they hear about our dissatisfaction in no uncertain terms Isn t it time that we get on their case, and persist until we start seeing some real results
eddy said on Sun 22 June 2008 at 19:04
Because of lack of interest in the Rouse Hill option i took it off the site but now the price of petrol is rising rapidly i am checking once again if Parrahub can be economically viable
Eddy said on Sun 25 May 2008 at 17:33
Because the N.S.W. Government has told me they already have a plan and do not need Parrahub at this time i have taken Rouse Hill off the site and am now looking for a gridlocked city overseas
Eddy said on Sun 27 April 2008 at 08:22
There is now a Rouse Hill option on page two of the Parrahub site
Marcel said on Mon 31 March 2008 at 10:08
Eddy said on Sat 29 March 2008 at 19:00
Like the old saying horses for courses there seems to be six types of public transport needed in Sydney. The existing heavy rail for freight and the double decker trains. A Trans Sydney Express subway with a central hub for those who need to cross the city. (200 person lifts) Large subway loops that stop at every suburb and have single driverless carriages. (50 person lifts) Busses to service all the rail stations. Taxis to complement the busses. Cars as a last resort when there is no other option in the public transport menu that fits the requirements of the person.
Eddy said on Sat 15 March 2008 at 18:23
Huge export potential to produce the rolling stock for other cities in the world installing Parrahub.
St. George said on Wed 27 February 2008 at 08:13
A number of such message boards already exist. One is the Australian Transport Discussion Board, accessible through Google. Yahoo also supports many such sites.
Eddy said on Tue 19 February 2008 at 17:34
The Eiffel Tower gets 5 million tourists a year and paid for itself in one year. Perhaps many tourists would come to experience Parrahub and do day trips to Wollongong, Gosford,Manly etc. from Parramatta.
Gumby said on Mon 18 February 2008 at 16:22
Just thinking that it would be good if this website had a Message board where we could post our own ideas for Sydney's public transport
Eddy said on Tue 25 December 2007 at 09:03
Google have fixed it up now so you can just click on parrahub overview
Moderator said on Tue 20 November 2007 at 03:53
Bazza, we're not doing anything to advertise it. We read it but don't necessarily action what we see here.
Bazza said on Sun 18 November 2007 at 19:32
What are you doing to advertise this blog.. What do you guys do with posts that appear here. Is this blog just for comments or do you plan to action some of the suggestions posted. Is there another medium to post suggestions to if not through here..
eddy said on Sat 17 November 2007 at 18:48
With the horizontally curved 20m x2m precast floor slabs being constrained by the surrounding rock they will not need to be prestressed thus making the project viable.
Eddy said on Sun 21 October 2007 at 19:30
Parrahub will now have a 15,000 space carpark either below a high rise or a golf course. To view click on T.B.M. in Google or Parrahub overview on other search engines.
Eddy said on Sat 1 September 2007 at 20:05
Perhaps it would be best to construct Parrahub on a stand alone basis with private capital as it has been two years now and the N.S.W.Government is still thinking about it
Eddy said on Sun 15 July 2007 at 19:04
The N.S.W. Government is currently considering Parrahub (enter parrahub into your search engine) and it it decides to construct this extra option in the public transport menu then I believe many people will benefit.
St george said on Thu 7 June 2007 at 10:53
I think the number of entries on this page might make an interesting comparison with the number of GETs, as a measure of interest in public transport, or in APT.
Moderator said on Sun 27 May 2007 at 08:21
You are invited to make any comment on our activities.
. . . back to A. P. T. home page