Action for Public Transport (N.S.W.) Inc. |
P O Box K606 |
Haymarket NSW 1240 |
27 June 2016 |
Action for Public Transport (NSW) is a transport advocacy group which has been active in Sydney since 1974. We promote the interests of beneficiaries of public transport; both passengers, and the wider community. We make the following submissions on the EIS. We oppose aspects of the proposal.
Metro systems are supposed to facilitate shorter trips around the CBD and inner suburbs. They use trains with limited seating, correspondingly generous standing room and multiple doors in every carriage. Metro trains travel quite short distances between stops. A typical average inter-stop spacing would be about 1 kilometre although many systems have closer stations (Paris Metro averages 700 metres). Metro systems have multiple lines, with interchange stations designed to make line changing an efficient process for large numbers of passengers.
Sydney badly needs a metro system; the new line should be designed to address that need. A good start would be a plan showing this first metro line among other lines, with interchanges, and adequate stations for the huge unserviced gaps in our inner railways. This need not degrade the service planned for Waterloo.
Inner areas of Sydney that need underground rail service:
Middle-ring areas of Sydney that need underground rail service:
The EIS hints at future metro expansion in just two ways. One is a possible later extension from Bankstown to Liverpool. The other, on page 122, is a mention of stub tunnels to be built south of Waterloo and north of Victoria Cross. We are not told whether these stubs are to point east or west so perhaps the EIS's authors don't think they matter. And the stubs are not shown on any maps in the EIS.
We understand that the worst capacity shortage on Sydney's suburban railway will be the western lines, and in particular the lines between Strathfield and Central. Easing that shortage is an obvious possible use for a branch of this railway or perhaps a second Metro line. The EIS however gives no consideration to the matter.
It is noteworthy that the EIS recognises, in the paragraph about stub tunnels on page 122, that construction disruption should be minimised.