Very worthy paper about Sydney rail planning: 1855 revisited

This paper (7mb, 13 pages) gives what I consider to be an almost completely fair review of the current policies of the current Transport Minister, Gladys Berejiklian.

A couple of points of difference:

1. The paper appears to be under the impression that freight trains will be able to run via Tempe still.  I'm pretty sure this is incorrect and the only option available now would be a massively longer trip via Moss Vale.
2. The paper argues that sectorisation i.e. Clearways are to be undone by the plan.  It's not clear that this is correct.
3. Bus services aren't getting enough attention.

Otherwise, it's a very good paper and probably errs on the side of being generous.

Manly Ferry reviewed

The Bureau of Transport Statistics have released ferry patronage data.  It seems that the iconic Manly ferries actually experience their peak patronage outside of what is normally considered peak hour.  In fact the Manly ferries peak at 83% of seated loaded in the morning peak.  Given that the ferries only come approximately every half an hour, it seems clear that these add only modest value as a commuter service.  There is a sizable number of people making a commute from the area near the wharf, most notably on the E65 bus.  There is no reasonable feeder bus service to the ferry wharf and using the reasonable speed catamaran ferries (around 18 minutes to Circular Quay) would mean that you can't use a MyMulti for the combined journey.

Conclusion:
Time the Freshwater class vessels were retired and the fast ferries included in MyZone fares, running more frequently.

Diversion of some AM peak Harbour Bridge buses via the Cahill Expressway

As of Monday 18th February, 2013, selected M2 routes (620, 642, 650, 652) will enter the CBD in the morning via the Cahill Expressway, Transport for NSW has announced.

This is a several years overdue move.  Anecdotal evidence is that this has made an impact on the queues leading in to the York St bottleneck.

The inference I read from this is that these routes will not be removed after the NWRL is implemented.  Given that they would not feed an NWRL station anyway, more like Pennant Hills and Beecroft they are planned to stay and hence a solution needs to be found for them.

So what of the other routes in the North West?  Why would they become feeder routes?

Clover Moore now wants the Light Rail to be in a tunnel through Surry Hills

According to an article from The Telegraph, it seems that Clover Moore is now calling for a tunnel under Devonshire St to prevent the Light Rail from having to go past a few people's houses.

Honestly, if the Light Rail was ever to be built it had to go past someone's house and not all of those people are going to be happy about it.  Surely she should have thought about this before spending more than a decade calling for it.  Putting it in a tunnel also appears to make it not provide any service for the people it is bypassing which is an interesting outcome.

All this really shows is that Clover Moore is only interested in scoring political points.  Time she wasn't listened to at all any more.

Airport Line buyout?

According to the SMH today, the Tourism and Transport Forum has again called for a more reasonable charge for services to or from the Airport.  They quote a paper from the NSW government in 2011 which put the value of Airport Link Company at $276 million.  Unfortunately, this price would be increased due to the 70% patronage increase at Green Square and Mascot after the surcharge was removed as one of the last acts of the last state government.  That should add around $56 million to the price, for $332 million plus inflation, less a couple of years life left in the asset.

If it can actually be bought at this price, they should absolutely go for it.  Even Infrastructure NSW can see the need for lower fares to the Airport, in their "First things first" report.  Why they aren't doing so requires a detailed explanation.

MyZone tickets valid on Moore Park-Central event shuttles

In what is a positive move announced a few months ago, people heading to Moore Park can use their MyZone tickets.  Unfortunately, the overpriced tickets for the shuttles are still to be sold.

Ideally they would just make these shuttles free, which is what would happen in Qld or WA.  In the Qld case they would send the bill for the services to the promoter.  Making the shuttles free for everyone would be an equitable outcome and nearly everyone is paying a fare to reach Central anyway.  It is dubious why people who happen to hold a MyMulti ticket should receive free travel on these services - it is very unlikely these services would cause a tipping point to make it worthwhile to purchase a MyMulti.  Fare integration would make such trips of negligible cost anyway.

Making them free would save hassle with selling the tickets as well as hassle for the intending commuters.

In short, while it is a positive move that an anomaly is being reduced, this change isn't going far enough.

Light Rail green lighted to return to George St

Rail returning to George St is a very strange idea if you ask me.  Even the Sydney's Light Rail Future document states that the capacity of Light Rail is 9000 people per hour.  The current bus services along George St already carry more than this.  The document does go on to suggest that buses may be re-directed to Sussex St and Elizabeth St.  It is not clear how they will reach Sussex St along the amber dotted line without interacting with the Light Rail but it is clear that to reach Elizabeth St they will interact with the Light Rail on Eddy Ave, potentially reducing the capacity.

What is worse, is that it seems that some of the passengers who currently access Elizabeth St on bus services are going to be expected to take this sluggish and indirect light rail service, using up some of its capacity.

This is going to be very inconvenient for most.  Sussex St is not near to many places of employment.  Elizabeth St is better, but not nearly as central as George St had been in the past.  Others will have to interchange, probably requiring a separate fare.

So far, they have failed to remove taxis from the bus lane (by making it a "Bus Only Lane") between Market St and Hunter St, but it is OK to remove the buses from this area.

Basically this whole plan is to solve bus congestion by reducing the roads they can access.  Even Labor didn't do anything this stupid.

Parking space levy only allowed to be used for parking?

According to the Auditor-General, the parking space levy is the major funding source for "the Commuter Car Park and Interchange Program (now the Transport Access Program)".

This seems to mean that all this money ($104 million in 2011/12) is only allowed to be used for car park programs, among the worst bang for buck in the industry.

If true, time this policy was reversed and the money put into services which people can actually use.

Cabinet decision on Light Rail to UNSW due soon

According to a recent Telegraph article a cabinet decision is due this coming week.  In my opinion, this idea is purely ideologically based.  Currently, the bus services in the region have flows in both directions in both peaks.  This system will take out the counter peak flows on the 891 and 895 bus services while leaving the peak direction flows largely on buses.  This may be different with fare integration as you could carve out the via Central bits of bus routes 339, 374, 376, 391 and remove the 372, 393 and 395 services.  However, most of the advantages could be had with just fare integration.  Why is it being seriously considered?  Mostly because the 891 doesn't really achieve.  I proposed a number of solutions to that here.  Indeed, it's not necessarily clear that the trams will solve the problem.

According to this SMH article, this is yet to be approved by cabinet.  From the article:

"A spokesman for Action for Public Transport, Jim Donovan, said he had been told by a senior public transport bureaucrat that a proposal to integrate fares in Sydney had been put to the cabinet but not yet signed"

This is absurd and unacceptable, and should be a major focus for fixing transport in Sydney but it isn't.

Opal Card Roll out starting 7 Dec 2012

In what is hardly news, it has been announced that Sydney's Opal Roll out is to start shortly, on the Neutral Bay ferry from 7 December 2012.  What is news about this, is that there is to be free journeys after 8 journeys in a week - a foolish policy in my opinion, borrowed from SE Qld who also use the Cubic system.  Similarly, there is to be a fixed dollar daily cap, which means that again long distance commuters are to get an advantage over people living more sustainable lifestyles - this seems to be borrowed from WA who have a cap but their system sensibly doesn't include AM peak journeys in the cap.  Finally, there is a $2.50 daily cap for Sundays - probably borrowed from Vic.  Arguably, the latter isn't too bad as it may promote public transport use on Sundays, but it does represent farebox leakage potentially.

What hasn't been announced is that there will be an integrated fare system with Opal.  This should have been announced long ago.

Regrettably, it will take until 2015 until the system is fully rolled out.  After all this time, if the system is on time at least it will be done.

Update 28/11/2012:
It seems that an equivalent system is being rolled at on Auckland's derided public transport system.  It will be done in 2013, and is already on trains.  So it looks like Sydney will be among the last significant cities in the world to have a reasonable fare policy.

Cityrail Marshalls

Cityrail have introduced Marshalls on Town Hall platform 3, as detailed in
this SMH report.  This is an attempted solution to the capacity limitations on the Western and lower Northern Lines which run through this platform with limited space for intending passengers.  A lot of the problem has been and remains people trying to board impeding people trying to get off.  The reality is that Cityrail encourage this behaviour by blowing the whistle or playing the "Stand clear, doors closing" message while people are still trying to get off.  This is an unprofessional and unacceptable practice which remains to this day.  It no doubt contributes significantly to the low level of regard Cityrail is held by Sydneysiders.

This practice must end, forthwith!

Infrastructure NSW's criticism of the under utilisation of the City Circle

Infrastructure NSW has bagged the City Circle for being under utilised, which it is.  Why is this so?  Put simply there is not enough rolling stock to fill in all the paths.  There is currently in the busiest hour at Central approaching the Town Hall leg of the City Circle 7:57am to 8:53am 15 trains made up of:
2 Bankstown via Lidcombe
7 South line via Fairfield
2 Bankstown via Sydenham
2 Ashfield all stops
2 Liverpool via Regents Park

The Infrastructure NSW plan would remove the ability to fill in the gaps with Bankstown via Sydenham trains.  The only option would be to reverse the parts of Clearways which have been achieved and go back to using the "Illawarra Junction" near Macdonaldtown to achieve this - a move sure to reduce reliability.  Ron Christie has slammed this aspect of the Infrastructure NSW plan particularly.

Currently, there are only a few impediments to putting more trains on the Bankstown and East Hills lines, which would fill up the City Circle.  Better that this option is left in reserve for future growth.

The Infrastructure NSW report should be binned.

My submission to the Transport Master Plan

Transport Sydney as well as the Sydney Morning Herald have already made some good comments on this Master Plan, as well as the Infrastructure NSW counter plan.  I'm not going to repeat those comments.

Here is what my submission to Transport for NSW regarding their "Master Plan" was:
The lack of a commitment to integrated fares is a major no no for me.  This is an enabler for a sizeable portion of the development of the network which should occur.  The proposals for near side bus termination depend on this to succeed, for example.

There are no targets for increased mode share outside peak hour.  This is clearly a reason for situation where after 9pm the M52 drops back to an hourly 520.  Given that the M52 gets just over 60 boardings per trip there is clearly demand for increased service here.  Another example is the 392 which only runs half hourly but gets over 50 boardings per trip.  Clearly there isn't much focus on increasing patronage outside of peak hour.

The Infrastructure NSW report gets bus and light rail far more right in my opinion. 
(a) There is a need for either far more express bus routes and/or far wider stop spacing.  Current limited stop services such as the L94 are not sufficient to encourage people to walk further to an express stop.  Adding an L92 running every 15 minutes would change this for many people.
(b) I don't see the merit in the proposed light rail between Central and UNSW.  That would be running with light loads Central bound in the AM peak while buses run dead in the opposite direction, whereas the current situation means that the buses can be loaded in both directions.  Possible solutions for managing the 891 queue on Eddy Ave better are one or more of:
    (i) remove the shelter at stand D and move forward the stopping point of the first bus, allowing 3 or more buses to board simultaneously
    (ii) move the head of the queue for intending passengers closer to where the bus stops - every second counts
    (iii) when a second or third bus is approaching move passengers forward so they are ready to board when it arrives
    (iv) a pedestrian overpass of Eddy Ave which would reduce traffic congestion and allow departing buses to clear the stop more quickly.  This would also be far more convenient for passengers, best with an escalator and a lift on the north side of Eddy Ave.
    (v) schedule more buses
    An alternative is to move the pick up to Chalmers St but I do not like this solution
(c) Unless the light rail is faster through the CBD than the 20km/h permitted for the current operator, it is a pointless exercise.  It remains unclear why a new light rail system would not face the same constraints as the present one.

Northern Beaches BRT as proposed is apparently unjustified, however I cannot see what prevents a bus lane northbound along Spit Rd in the AM peak to allow returning buses to queue jump the traffic crossing the Spit Bridge, other than the truck and bus speed limit.  If that is really a problem, the trucks could be pushed in to the right lane.  This would allow the same number of buses and drivers to carry more passengers.  Similarly, upgrading the transit lanes to bus lanes and/or making them longer ought to be justified.  Increased public transport use will improve the business case of the proposed BRT here.

Where is the plan for faster or more frequent services anywhere?  Half hourly midday frequency on the South Line, terminating half the ECRL trains at Chatswood, only half hourly services for stations Doonside to Penrith outside of peak is poor.  There used to be 4 trains per hour for stations from Doonside to Penrith.  Currently outside of peak travelling by Cityrail between Paramatta and Town Hall takes 33 to 35 minutes.  This should be much faster.  In peak the trip between Redfern and Paramatta can be done non stop for an average speed of 57km/h.  For comparison, in 1995 a non stop trip between Petrie and Northgate in Qld ran at an average speed of 75km/h.  Trips between Caboolture and Petrie can still be done at an average speed of 95km/h if the train is on time.

Connecting the new Harbour crossing to Hurstville instead of Homebush seems brain damaged.  After spending all that money no increase in capacity for the Western Line, which is critically overloaded?  I expect you ought to be able to connect to the Inner West line between the Illawarra Junction and Macdonaldtown station, then allow the suburbans to connect with the city circle and the mains with the Harbour Bridge.  Connecting to the Illawarra line means that the capacity is sent where it isn't needed and passengers bound for stations like Rockdale will not know what station to go to for their next service.  The Erskenville-Sydenham sextup, done properly, would allow Illawarra line trains to run in to Sydney Terminal without masking capacity in the Eastern Suburbs Railway.

Some of the Metrobus routes are mis-designed, particularly the M50 but nothing seems to be in train to review these.  Stopping at 9pm on a branded service is poor in my opinion.  Smartbus is until midnight 6 days per week, BUZ is until after 11pm 7 days.

The most significant short coming of the master plan is the lack of integrated fares.

Draft Transport Masterplan fails

Sandy Thomas was being far too kind when called this plan a lightweight piece of fluff.  So much is missing from this plan it isn't funny. 

While the plan has numerous mentions of interchanges, integrated fares is never mentioned, and a fare structure review is mentioned only once.  The low level of importance attached to this issue is likely to soon see Sydney with a fare structure found in few places outside the third world.  The rest of Australia already has integrated fares and Auckland and Wellington are likely to get it soon.

A number of interchanges in Sydney have failed.  Edgecliff, Newtown and Pennant Hills are three which spring to mind.  At Pennant Hills, the M2 bus services are actually cheaper to use than the train, which is underutilised.  This is a perverse outcome as the bus services are more expensive to provide than feeder buses and it no doubt contributes to the negative growth which has occurred in peak rail patronage at this station.  Newtown isn't strictly an interchange but it is far faster on a train than a bus particularly in peak yet few people get off the bus to use a train there.  The lack of integrated fares are part of the problem.

While the plan has quite a number of mentions of increased frequency, it is not mentioned what services particularly are to have their frequency increased, nor the operating hours of such frequency, nor what the appropriate frequency would be.

Chapter 4 shows that the proposed southern destinations of the single deck trains are actually expected to be the least congested in 2031, which is presumably before the second harbour crossing would be built.  It also shows that the Northern Line is likely to continue to be under served.  No capacity increase is planned for Strathfield-Town Hall, unfortunately.

Chapter 4 also shows that the East Hills line to Macarthur is expected to be under served.  Didn't anyone tell them that the Erskenville-Sydenham sextuplication would allow trains from Macarthur to access Sydney Terminal?  Not without significant spend if the absurd Hurstville metro proceeds, but that is very unlikely anyway.

The Northern Beaches Bus Rapid Transit proposal is reprised unchanged, even though the study (strangely) found no options with benefits greater than costs.

The Light Rail proposal is just inconvenient for most people as it requires detouring via Central.  Perhaps the idea is that the via Taylor Square buses would remain but this is not explained.

While the plan suggests that rail has a low mode share to the Airport, no suggestions for action are made.  Surely the problem is that the fares are far too high and buying out the private partner is something which could be looked at.

Even if the plan's unfunded proposals are implemented, it still forecasts increased congestion, in some cases by a quite significant margin, particularly Rouse Hill-Macquarie Park.

Service slow downs from 2005

I have come across some timetables from 1996.  Graphs of the service speed are shown below.

Here's the North Shore Line:

And the Northern Line:

Very annoying to have to put up with these ultra slow services which apply now.  The services were slow enough before they were slowed further.

Enrique Peńalosa, former Bogota Mayor speaks

I found this very worthwhile viewing.  He mostly talks about pedestrianisation.

Lifted from the Auckland Transport blog

Where would we be if we had the Western Express instead of the Epping Chatswood Rail Link?

Much better off.

I would presume that on opening of a Western Express (WEX a.k.a. CBD enhancement project), the Blue Mountains trains would use it along with the Western Line trains.

Harbour Bridge trains (sector 3):

• 4/hour Epping
• 4/hour Hornsby all to Eastwood, West Ryde, Strathfield, Redfern
• 4/hour Cabramatta via Granville
• 4/hour Glenfield via Regents Park

Moving the South Line to the Harbour Bridge has to be considered a given as it is a faster path on the middle pair of tracks (suburbans) from Strathfield to Macdonaldtown and no conflicting move penalty for doing so as applied in the past with that option.

The above assumes that turnbacks would be constructed at Regents Park (to turn around Bankstown trains) and at Cabramatta, with the Lidcombe turnback becoming unneeded.

A Glenfield via Regents Park to the Harbour Bridge should be somewhat faster than the existing service to Liverpool and help get people out of their cars.  The major limitation with the proposed patterns is that there is little room to allow for growth in patronage on the Western Line, other than with the larger trains proposed, without kicking the Blue Mountains trains out onto the Harbour Bridge, which in turn blocks increases in the Harbour Bridge services.  One solution might be a Homebush-Lidcombe sextuplication, but I have no idea what that would cost.

Outer City Circle, AM peak, would handle all trains from Bankstown, Ashfield, Homebush and Campbelltown via Sydenham.  This would enable simplicity in timetabling and therefore reliability as every train past Erskenville platform 1 would head the same way, however it might be a little controversial as the via Museum path is left with significant unused capacity.  The Erskenville-Sydenham sextuplication would be the next enhancement to increase capacity in this part of the network.

In the PM peak, I would expect that the Campbelltown via Sydenham trains would leave the CBD via Museum, however, the Bankstown trains would be more balanced running via Town Hall at all times.

You can see that the WEX would indeed be well used and the only thing preventing CBD capacity from the west from being fully populated is the lack of rolling stock.  While the via Museum leg of the City Circle remains under utilised, that is left in reserve to allow for increased running via Revesby and Bankstown.  This leg cannot be used for Western Line trains in any event and only 4 trains per hour in the AM peak from the Bankstown line are able to be moved to it and filled in by other trains from the West.

NWRL justification

The justification for the North West Rail Link, contains a couple of interesting points in objective 4 in section 22.3.1:
(a) 29 million trips within 5 years of its opening, which is about half the number of trips currently using the bus system in the relevant region, region 4.  Obviously, people will still continue to use buses into Parramatta and other locations but I expect more than half of bus users are going to or from the CBD-Macquarie Park area.
(b) almost 160 buses are to be removed from the CBD in the morning peak.  This is approximately the amount of buses which enter the CBD in the morning peak from the North West.

I have little doubt that point (b) would not actually happen within the next decade, particularly while the rail-rail interchange at Chatswood remains.

Basically, the justification does not suggest an increase in the public transport usage in the North West.

Northern Beaches BRT study released

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has recently been studied for the Northern Beaches.  Long story short, it finds that none of the studied concepts is cost effective.  Why might this be? 

1. 24 hour bus lanes are a bit wasted if off peak services are to be kept mediocre.  I mean, for crying out loud, 20 minute weekend frequency on the L90 (to Palm Beach) dropping back to half hourly evenings and early mornings, with the L88 (to Avalon) not operating is mediocre at best.  In general, 15 minute frequency is what is needed to boost patronage as a 14 minute wait is far more acceptable than a 19 minute one.  Similarly, the L80 (to Collaroy Plateau) reverts to a half hourly 180 on Saturday and the L85 (to Mona Vale via North Narrabeen) is also half hourly.  Those heading beyond Burnt Creek Deviation are best off to avoid the all stopping services as they are about 8 minutes slower from Wynyard to Condamine and King Sts, so effectively there are only 5 buses an hour on this corridor Saturday daytimes with 20 minute service gaps, speaking generally.
2. A 6 lane Spit Bridge is hard to justify as there are already 3 lanes for the peak direction.  This does prevent the limitation of needing to reduce to a single lane counter peak, but it is easy to see that not being justified.  The Roseville Bridge is a reasonable alternative for counter peak travel for half of the Northern Beaches.
3. Option One seems to include the removal of the tidal flow arrangements on the Spit Bridge, with a single lane for cars in both directions.  This is not made clear however.
4. The suggestion of removing the L60 (Chatswood-Mona Vale via Dee Why) is bizarre.

What are alternative proposals? 

1. Have a counter peak bus lane along Spit Rd, preferably extending all the way back to the Warringah Freeway.  This likely would need to be combined with pushing trucks into lane 3 from the start of the Truck and Bus Speed Limit shortly before Medusa St.  There are no right turns until the end of the current speed limit, even if there is one immediately after its end.  This bus lane is important as it allows buses to queue jump the counter peak traffic letting them both serve the counter peak demand better and return for another peak run without requiring more buses to provide the same service.
2. Upgrading the peak direction Transit Lane to a Bus Lane between the Spit Bridge and the Warringah Freeway.
3. Actually establishing some sort of PM peak priority north of Ourimbah Rd.
4. Increase off peak services.  BUZ in Brisbane and Smartbus in Melbourne have both seen high take up of their services.  Metrobus in Sydney has been less successful, even if there are good services in there.  Services stopping at 9pm is no doubt a factor in the lack of success of Metrobus.  This would do much to reduce traffic congestion on the beaches and also help justify 24hr bus lane proposals.
5. More limited stop services outside of peak hour.  It is unclear why the L80 should downgrade to a 180 on weekends, for example.
6. Free transfers.  This will improve the service for all in that people can use a feeder and trunk model to get faster journeys.  Some will prefer a slower single seat, of course.

More generally, it is not entirely clear why median stations would be preferred over kerbside stations, nor is it clear why North Sydney termination with interchange to what are already reasonably full trains would even be proposed.

None of the options in the report break down the costs into their components, largely leaving the reader guessing.

Is Western Fast Rail back on the agenda?

As I previously blogged, the current government has made a number of apparently ill thought through and half baked announcements, firstly Richmond to Campbelltown then single deck metro from the North West to Chatswood.  The questions seems to be why?  I suggest that they have been softening up the voters for something they may not like.  What that might be is a revitalisation of the Western Fast Rail privatised project.  Reports from when the Liberals were still in opposition quoted the current transport minister as saying that the project should be looked at more seriously.

This is complete supposition; but you heard it here first!