Nine news report (video) that it will be in the state budget that there is to be 269 buses bought in the upcoming budget. 69 are to be "growth buses". It leaves questions about what type of buses are to be bought unanswered. Is it to be like for like replacement or bigger/smaller buses, and what of the replacement buses - what type?
There is a need for a number of double decker buses, not just for the M2 services to the north west, but for the Northern Beaches services such as the L90. I do not know why they wouldn't buy double deckers, perhaps it is an unknown quantity?
Update 13/6/2012: Budget papers seem to contradict each other. One says that all 69 growth buses are for private operators, another says that it is to be split. 140 replacement buses are for STA, that is known. $521 million for private metro + outer metro subsidies, and $337 million for STA subsidies. Doesn't sound like there will be much improvements to services, particularly in the STA areas on these figures.
Showing posts with label public trainsport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public trainsport. Show all posts
Saturday, June 9, 2012
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.
Friday, June 1, 2012
New Cityrail timetable for 2013
Last month a new Cityrail timetable was promised for introduction in late 2013. What should it contain?
- 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
- Extension of the current Chatswood terminators from Hornsby via Macquarie Park somewhere. Not reaching the city results in these trains being under utilised.
- 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.
- Remove Campbelltown via Granville and have a minimum 15 minute frequency for Campbelltown via East Hills and Airport.
- 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.
- 15 minute all day frequency to Penrith.
- Removing city to Liverpool via Regents Park trains thanks to utilising the Lidcombe turnback.
- Further rationalisation of stopping patterns.
- Faster trains.
- 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.
- 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.
- Increased trains to Berowra - these have conflicts with freight and interurbans which do not apply for Hornsby terminators.
- 10 minute frequency (or better) on the Inner West and Bankstown lines.
- 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.
- 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.
- Faster trains. Witness the slow downs which have recently been announced for a couple of trains on the Newcastle line from 18 June 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)