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.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
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.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Service slow downs from 2005
Monday, August 20, 2012
Enrique Peńalosa, former Bogota Mayor speaks
I found this very worthwhile viewing. He mostly talks about pedestrianisation.
Lifted from the Auckland Transport blog
Saturday, August 4, 2012
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):
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.
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
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.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
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.
(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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)