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.
Showing posts with label SMH. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SMH. Show all posts
Monday, January 28, 2013
Friday, December 7, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Cityrail timetable proposals in recent news - Part 1
A Sydney Morning Herald article has reported that it is being suggested for a number of stations to lose their access to Town Hall, but the Cumberland Line is to be given an upgraded service and run through to Richmond. These changes are sure to be unpopular and reduce the effectiveness of Cityrail, so the question is why would it even be considered? One word: sectorisation. This means that parts of Cityrail can function independently of the whole, as has been all but achieved with the Illawarra and Eastern Suburbs lines. Cityrail branded this concept clearways a number of years back.
Basically, to have a strict sectorisation the Cumberland line would need to either be completely removed, or pushed into what is known as sector 2, meaning lines accessing the City Circle. This means that lines through Parramatta platforms 3 and 4 need to go to sector 2, and given that it is not possible to come from the Richmond line without accessing these lines, the Richmond line needs to go along for that ride. Since trains serving Harris Park, Wentworthville, Toongabbie and Pendle Hill normally only use Parramatta platforms 3 and 4, these trains would no longer be able to reach Central. Similarly, Clyde, Auburn, Lidcombe and Burwood would no longer have a single seat service to Parramatta. Clyde stops would need to be added to selected south line trains. The most popular peak pattern - All to Redfern/Parramatta/Blacktown/Mt Druitt all to Penrith would need to be slowed down significantly with probably 6 more stops. It's not entirely clear why the lower Northern line cannot run through Town Hall with sectorisation however, even with the conflicting move* between outbound interurbans and inbound suburbans north of Strathfield. It is also unclear how Blue Mountains line trains would operate at all if this is done.
This is sectorisation becoming the enemy of Cityrail doing a good job, rather than its friend, which it usually is. I feel this is being leaked now to soften up users of Cityrail for a timetable which isn't going to be liked. It is certainly true that the Western Line needs its own path through the CBD though, which should have been built before the Epping Chatswood Rail Link was.
What alternatives are there for 2013?
Alternative One:
Increase running into Sydney Terminal for the Western Line. It is unclear why there are still 3 (both directions combined) Springwood trains per day crossing the Harbour Bridge. This was done before the ECRL freed up a few paths across the Harbour Bridge so there is precedent.
Altenative Two:
Run additional lower Northern Line trains into Sydney Terminal. This is a satisfactory option for increasing the Northern Line which is incredibly overcrowded but does nothing for the Western Line, which is nearly as bad.
Alternative Three:
Run all lower northern line trains into Sydney Terminal. The existing trains should not be damaged in this way, even if increased in frequency. Varied stopping patterns cannot reasonably apply for the Western Line between Redfern and Parramatta so all my comments above would apply in that zone and about the Blue Mountains Line trains being virtually unable to run.
Alternative Four:
Connect the lower Northern line the City Circle, moving some or all of the inbound AM Bankstown line trains to the Museum. This has a conflicting move* at Macdonaldtown and thus would surely reduce reliability to pre-2005 levels so has a snowballs' chance of proceeding.
* A conflicting move is where one train needs to get in the way of a train on another track, blocking its progress. While it can be timetabled, things don't always run to timetabling. It ultimately reduces reliability.
UPDATE 22/6/2012: Or here's a better idea: Terminate the Cumberland line at Parramatta from the south. This means that Parramatta platforms 3 and 4 can become part of sector 2 and Harris Park commuters need to backtrack to Parramatta to reach the CBD. This is not really a big problem as they are likely to have a faster trip to the city by doing this in any event. This means that all tracks and platforms at Westmead and west are available to sector 3 trains without violating sectorisation and it also means Cumberland trains don't run relatively uselessly all the way to Blacktown.
Basically, to have a strict sectorisation the Cumberland line would need to either be completely removed, or pushed into what is known as sector 2, meaning lines accessing the City Circle. This means that lines through Parramatta platforms 3 and 4 need to go to sector 2, and given that it is not possible to come from the Richmond line without accessing these lines, the Richmond line needs to go along for that ride. Since trains serving Harris Park, Wentworthville, Toongabbie and Pendle Hill normally only use Parramatta platforms 3 and 4, these trains would no longer be able to reach Central. Similarly, Clyde, Auburn, Lidcombe and Burwood would no longer have a single seat service to Parramatta. Clyde stops would need to be added to selected south line trains. The most popular peak pattern - All to Redfern/Parramatta/Blacktown/Mt Druitt all to Penrith would need to be slowed down significantly with probably 6 more stops. It's not entirely clear why the lower Northern line cannot run through Town Hall with sectorisation however, even with the conflicting move* between outbound interurbans and inbound suburbans north of Strathfield. It is also unclear how Blue Mountains line trains would operate at all if this is done.
This is sectorisation becoming the enemy of Cityrail doing a good job, rather than its friend, which it usually is. I feel this is being leaked now to soften up users of Cityrail for a timetable which isn't going to be liked. It is certainly true that the Western Line needs its own path through the CBD though, which should have been built before the Epping Chatswood Rail Link was.
What alternatives are there for 2013?
Alternative One:
Increase running into Sydney Terminal for the Western Line. It is unclear why there are still 3 (both directions combined) Springwood trains per day crossing the Harbour Bridge. This was done before the ECRL freed up a few paths across the Harbour Bridge so there is precedent.
Altenative Two:
Run additional lower Northern Line trains into Sydney Terminal. This is a satisfactory option for increasing the Northern Line which is incredibly overcrowded but does nothing for the Western Line, which is nearly as bad.
Alternative Three:
Run all lower northern line trains into Sydney Terminal. The existing trains should not be damaged in this way, even if increased in frequency. Varied stopping patterns cannot reasonably apply for the Western Line between Redfern and Parramatta so all my comments above would apply in that zone and about the Blue Mountains Line trains being virtually unable to run.
Alternative Four:
Connect the lower Northern line the City Circle, moving some or all of the inbound AM Bankstown line trains to the Museum. This has a conflicting move* at Macdonaldtown and thus would surely reduce reliability to pre-2005 levels so has a snowballs' chance of proceeding.
* A conflicting move is where one train needs to get in the way of a train on another track, blocking its progress. While it can be timetabled, things don't always run to timetabling. It ultimately reduces reliability.
UPDATE 22/6/2012: Or here's a better idea: Terminate the Cumberland line at Parramatta from the south. This means that Parramatta platforms 3 and 4 can become part of sector 2 and Harris Park commuters need to backtrack to Parramatta to reach the CBD. This is not really a big problem as they are likely to have a faster trip to the city by doing this in any event. This means that all tracks and platforms at Westmead and west are available to sector 3 trains without violating sectorisation and it also means Cumberland trains don't run relatively uselessly all the way to Blacktown.
Monday, June 4, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)