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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

CBD Enhancement dropped!

Unfortunately, it seems from recent documentation that the previously planned CBD enhancement from Eveleigh to Wynyard and beyond is to not proceed.  This is a decision which means that there will not be much improvement in Cityrail for decades, particularly for the Western and Northern Lines.

Giving the Western Line its own path through the CBD would be best practice.  It's the busiest line on the network, and busier than the North Shore line (counting the upper Northern Line), Illawarra Line and Eastern Suburbs Line all of which have their own path through the CBD.  So why not separate the network out further which will help with allowing more and stricter sectorisation?  That would get these passengers out of the current Town Hall and Wynyard significantly easing platform congestion and the new platforms should be able to be built wider than the existing platforms. Alternatively with what is known as bifurcation which means that there would be 4 additional platforms per station to reduce/remove dwell time in the CBD from being the capacity restriction.  This would leave Parramatta dwell times as the limitation.

The above linked documentation mentions some restrictions which are either soon to be removed or can be.  Numbers 3, 4 and 9 can be easily removed, they just choose not to.  In the case of number 9 which the document details removing this does mean trains need to take a slower path, however, this limitation is solved by the CBD enhancement (formerly called the Western Express) as described above, as is number 7.

Such an unceremonious dumping deserves an explanation, however the linked document above seems to be an attempt to deflect the criticism rather than explain it.  It does not refer at all to the plan to increase CBD capacity along the "Metro West" alignment as originally planned, but an alternative plan which had never been publicly proposed involving a Cityrail expansion along the "Metro Pitt" alignment, which would not help the Western Line.

I just wonder if they are pushing some agenda, and if so then what?  Perhaps it is just to be different from the Keneally government's sensible Western Express plan.

Cityrail timetable proposals in recent news - Part 3

An official video shows that the second phase of this plan involves:

1. A new harbour crossing, connecting to the Metro Pitt alignment.
2. Metro connecting to the Bankstown line and part of the Illawarra line.
3. Removal of Campbelltown via Sydenham. 
4. No increased capacity for the Western, South or North lines beyond what is possible now.
5. Some Western line trains to take the slower path around the city circle.

Almost every aspect of this plan is daft.

1. Sending metro trains down the Illawarra line to Hurstville means that some Railcorp passengers will be taken away from the Eastern Suburbs Railway, to be replaced by no one.
2. Overtaking manoeuvres will no longer be possible.  All trains will likely need to run with the same stopping pattern, presumably Redfern, Sydenham, Wolli Creek, Rockdale, Kogarah, Hurstville and then all stations to Waterfall or Cronulla.  A capacity reducing skip stop is also possible.  It will be exceedingly difficult to operate the South Coast trains with only one pair of tracks the whole distance.
3. Removing the Bankstown line from the city circle removes what is the only swing player between the Town Hall and Museum legs.  This will not be helpful.
4. Removing Campbelltown via Sydenham will result in slower journeys and be less competitive with road transport, particularly with the planned M5 widening.  I do not think that additional frequency through the Airport line adds nearly as much value.
5. Additional Western line paths into the city circle requires them to either add a conflicting move at Macdonaldtown or traverse Strathfield platforms 7 and 8.  The latter will increase journey times, the former would reduce reliability.  There is a good reason why every inquiry has recommended a new CBD path, to prevent such trades from being made.  This new path is being done in such a way as most of the benefit which should be realised is completely wasted.  You might as well run in to the Wynyard platform 1 and 2 dead end as the trams used to.

If a crossing under the harbour is to be done, it really should increase capacity for the other side of Central.  This plan does not achieve that at all.  It wastes some of the presently available capacity.

I hope that we hear nothing further about this plan.

Cityrail timetable proposals in recent news - Part 2

It has recently been announced that the promised plans of double deck services from the North West all the way to the CBD are to be revised.  They are going back to a North West metro, single deck, and only running as far as Chatswood as a first phase.

Firstly, this means that the upper Northern Line will need to revert to running via Strathfield.  Unless it is going to take paths through Town Hall platform 3 from the Western Line it will also mean that the upper Northern Line will terminate at Sydney Terminal.  The only question raised with this is if there is enough capacity between Redfern, Central and Town Hall.  Well in the AM peak 4/6 Bankstown line trains add to this capacity.  This should be relatively simple to expand to the other two with a timetable review.  This capacity should be relatively easy to provide in the AM peak, and the PM peak is far less congested.  Reversing the direction of the Bankstown line around the city circle full time may well be a reasonable option, as might Melbourne weekend style Bankstown-Town Hall-Museum-Bankstown full time.

Secondly, it means no expansion to Railcorp and in fact a slight contraction as they will be removed from the Epping-Chatswood Rail Link.  In my opinion, this is real positive to the proposal.  I'm really not sure how long we can go having Railcorp consume $3 billion per year and rapidly rising.

Thirdly it means an interchange at Chatswood for trains which are allegedly already full.  However, they aren't as full as trains on other lines and the upper Northern Line passengers are to be removed from this patronage.  It will also be possible to increase the numbers of trains on the North Shore by up to 6 per hour.  There will be plenty of capacity for passengers from the North West who will have a cross platform interchange at Chatswood, much like Glen Waverley line peak hour passengers in Melbourne who need to interchange at Richmond to reach city loop stations.  Hardly the end of the world.

All in all the first phase of these changes is quite good, which is something I will not say about the second phase in my next blog post.

STA's recent performance

STA's March 2012 Quarterly Performance information has recently been released.  In short, it shows that overall patronage has reduced as compared to the previous corresponding quarter, but Metrobus has increased.  Newcastle buses has increased slightly.  The question not addressed in this is why its patronage would decline?

One possibility is Harbour Bridge bus congestion is pushing people back to their cars.  I blogged on what I think of the plan to fix this before.

Hopefully the 8th of March, 2012 eastern region rebalancing will help send more buses where they are needed, but there needs to be much more done.

The question is, have STA actually been asked to increase public transport use?  The only performance objectives I am aware of in Sydney are about increasing public transport's market share of the journey to work or study.  So therefore it is hard to criticise the STA if they have done what they have been asked to do, even if that falls short of the mark.

Even more recently, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Transport Minister, Gladys Berejiklian is asking STA to become more "efficient", or face the possibility of privatisation.  It seems that increasing patronage would be lucky to become an afterthought.

Second rail harbour crossing back on the agenda

The Sydney Morning Herald has again reported that a new harbour crossing is back on the agenda.  The SMH reports that the advice to Gladys Berejiklian is this is needed for natural growth and the NWRL.  Well, sort of.  It is only needed in this or the next decade because of the NWRL.

It was always disingenuous and/or dishonest to suggest that the NWRL without a second harbour crossing was a reasonable policy, but it was a winning strategy at the 2011 NSW election.  In my opinion Infrastructure Australia was absolutely correct to rebuff the current NWRL plan.

Some people have suggested that signalling improvements could delay the need for this.  Well that may be, but it would not come cheap and nor would it remove some remaining conflicting moves particularly at Macdonaldtown.  Signalling improvements also would not help to remove the south line from the need to pass the platform faces between Summer Hill and Macdonaldtown - these lines are slower than the centre pair of tracks, which are slower than the northern pair of tracks.  There needs to be a study on the bang for buck of this particular option.  Personally, I believe it will defer the need for track amplifications only slightly so should not proceed.

What about single deck?  Well while you might have more trains, the number of seats on the line would be reduced for sure.  It is unclear whether or not the number of standing spaces would be increased by enough to compensate, but I think it is fair to say that reduced seating is against what Sydneysiders want.  There are similar issues with increasing the number of doors per carriage.

The SMH also reports that the "City Relief Line" is dead.  Well, that's creative politicking right there.  Transport for NSW report that all options feature a "CBD enhancement" which is basically the city relief line by another name.  As for the suggestion the under the harbour line might connect to the Illawarra, that is insane, and a waste of web bandwidth to debunk.

New Cityrail timetable for 2013

Last month a new Cityrail timetable was promised for introduction in late 2013.  What should it contain?

1. Increased Cumberland line services.  Only 5 per day apparently well utilised services is a bit of a waste of the infrastructure built.  It also reduces the incentive to put jobs into Parramatta.  The Epping-Chatswood link is given credit for Optus moving into the Macquarie Park area, but the lack of service on the Cumberland is somehow not thought responsible for the low growth in jobs in Parramatta
2. Extension of the current Chatswood terminators from Hornsby via Macquarie Park somewhere.  Not reaching the city results in these trains being under utilised.
3. Increase in Parramatta's off peak service.  4 low speed trains per hour off peak is a poor service for such a major centre, not counting Blue Mountains trains.
4. Remove Campbelltown via Granville and have a minimum 15 minute frequency for Campbelltown via East Hills and Airport.
5. 15 minute all day frequency for the South Line - currently this drops back to half hourly in the middle of the day weekdays and evenings.
6. 15 minute all day frequency to Penrith.
7. Removing city to Liverpool via Regents Park trains thanks to utilising the Lidcombe turnback.
8. Further rationalisation of stopping patterns.
9. Faster trains.

What is it unlikely to contain?

1. Increased Illawarra line trains - some say that it isn't possible to increase this while freight is still operating on the 2 track between Hurstville and Sutherland.
2. Increased Epping via North Strathfield trains, both at peak and off peak.  Increasing the peak trains would require either trimming Western Line trains or increased running into Sydney Terminal.  Increasing off peak trains seems relatively unlikely, perhaps because it would make it harder for freight to connect with Flemington.
3. Increased trains to Berowra - these have conflicts with freight and interurbans which do not apply for Hornsby terminators.
4. 10 minute frequency (or better) on the Inner West and Bankstown lines.
5. Bringing back Parramatta via Bankstown trains.  These trains are a conflicting move nightmare, and it isn't entirely clear that it is so necessary to encourage those living from Berala to Erskenville to work in Parramatta as opposed to the CBD.
6. Something to connect the Carramar to Sefton stretch to Parramatta, at least in peak.  The M91 does connect Chester Hill.  Otherwise it will be in necessary to double interchange at Birrong and Lidcombe or Cabramatta and Granville or single change at Cabramatta.
7. Faster trains.  Witness the slow downs which have recently been announced for a couple of trains on the Newcastle line from 18 June 2012.