Future Transport Strategy

[mandonov]

Consultation on the Future Transport Strategy, the successor to the Long Term Transport Masterplan, is about to begin:

Interactive transport planning for the future

Transport for NSW has launched a new interactive approach to transport planning that will focus on new technologies to capture what public transport customers, motorists and the community want included in a new 40-year transport roadmap.

The new Future Transport Strategy will guide our state’s approach to public transport and roads infrastructure through flexible planning that is adaptable to rapid social, economic and technological changes.

It will also support the recently launched district plans from the Greater Sydney Commission that envisage Greater Sydney as a more productive, liveable and sustainable city, as well as being coordinated with Infrastructure NSW’s State Infrastructure strategy and the Sydney Regional Plan being developed during 2017.

The Future Transport Strategy will place a greater focus on supporting new and emerging technologies to create better outcomes for transport customers, as well as supporting passenger and freight services.

The first stage of the Future Transport Strategy website is now live, providing insights into the transport planning process and a snapshot of what has been achieved since the 2012 Long Term Transport Master Plan.

“We’re full steam ahead on a $41.5 billion transport infrastructure program that’s transforming the state” said Clare Gardiner-Barnes, Deputy Secretary Freight, Strategy & Planning.

“With the Sydney Metro network in the Northwest, City, West and South West, the Northern Beaches B-Line, as well as light rail projects in the Sydney CBD and South East, Newcastle and Parramatta.

This investment also includes improvements to country roads and country rail. Our 2012 Master Plan has guided this unprecedented investment.”

Ms Gardiner-Barnes explained that the new strategy aims to take a fresh approach to planning and build on the NSW Government’s commitment to be more technology focused and to lead customer based reforms such as those in point to point transport.

The launch of the website marks the first stage in a range of initiatives to shape the future of transport in NSW. Early next year consultation on the state’s transport future will begin, using a digital experience to find out what services customers want over the next 40 years.

“The approach will be designed to get more people involved in transport planning and generate more meaningful input that we can really use to shape the future of transport in NSW.”

“Future Transport Strategy is about bringing our customers, industry and the community along the planning journey with us, using digital technology to take consultation to a new level in 2017.”

More information about how you can help shape the future of transport planning in NSW through the Future Transport Strategy will be available early next year.

To find out more about the Future Transport Strategy now, visit www.future.transport.nsw.gov.au

http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/newsroo ... ing-future

[simonl]

Connection is not secure! Didn't anyone in T4NSW click the link?

[Tonymercury]

Connection is not secure! Didn't anyone in T4NSW click the link?

Gee, next thing you'll want is for someone there to know something about transport!

[tonyp]

Consultation on the Future Transport Strategy, the successor to the Long Term Transport Masterplan,

Will the next one be called the "Future Long Term Transport Strategic Masterplan"? They must be running out of names by now. I have a collection of these "visions for the future" on my bookshelf dating back to the 1970s. Well, if I include the Cumberland County Plan that's the 1940s. We must keep planners usefully employed.

[Tonymercury]

Will the next one be called the "Future Long Term Transport Strategic Masterplan"? They must be running out of names by now. I have a collection of these "visions for the future" on my bookshelf dating back to the 1970s. Well, if I include the Cumberland County Plan that's the 1940s.

And the completed non-road projects are -----

[simonl]

In the last quarter of a century:

Duplication to Schofields.
ECRL.
Electification Dapto-Kiama.
Airport line.

Am I missing any?

[burrumbus]

And which one of those projects,simon,has been the most successful ?? Airport line I reckon.
Sydney certaintly need more projects though.

[Frosty]

SWRL
Quadruplication to Revesby
Well Airport Line was considered a huge white elephant initially the operator went bankrupt. Particularly the local stations had low patronage until 2011.

[simonl]

Airport line was only a white elephant because of the absurd pricing structure. Brisbane and Toronto have followed our brain damaged path!

EDIT: What they could have done is levy a congestion charge on driving to the airport and use the money to pay for the train. It was ok for the Harbour Bridge traffic to pay for the harbour tunnel after all.

[gld59]

It was ok for the Harbour Bridge traffic to pay for the harbour tunnel after all.

That was a much easier sell, though, as the tunnel simply acted as "relief lanes" for the bridge. Even though the tunnel travel paths are only a subset of those on the bridge, it was initially very effective in reducing am peak travel times for the other travel paths on the bridge, until the inevitable traffic growth wiped that out. (No personal experience of whether it did the same for pm peak.)

gld

[simonl]

Definitely. It was really the bus lane which parted rampant traffic congestion like Moses (at least relative to what it would have been) but that was done against the wishes of probably 4 in 5 Sydneysiders at the time.

[boronia]

SWRL
Quadruplication to Revesby
Well Airport Line was considered a huge white elephant initially the operator went bankrupt. Particularly the local stations had low patronage until 2011.

It was not designed primarily as an "airport line", it provides relief for services on the East Hills line. It probably would have been necessary anyway, going past the Airport was just a "bonus", and an incentive to get on with it.

[simonl]

Well, a $150m project to actually build the Erskenville-Sydenham sextup would have been necessary to avoid the $1bn project of the Airport line. So "necessary" is a bit of a stretch.

[Frosty]

If I remember correctly under the Clearways plan there was still a plan to add another pair of tracks even with the Airport Line. Since I hear the Airport Link currently can't handle more than 10 or 12tph bit poor just like how Bondi Jn only had capacity of 14tph until 2006. Bit pointless add another pair of tracks between Erko-Sydenham when the Airport Link still has possible capacity.

As for the PM peak northbound on the Tunnel not too sure usually traffic is free flowing. It's usually the southbound tunnel that has traffic issues stemming from Eastern Dist, Southern Cross Drive and onto the M5 it's worse in the afternoon peak.

Would we install giant gantries similar road congestion gantries to Singapore around the Airport. I say it's the fault that the main way to the M5 & A1 is via the Airport causing traffic issues and the fact the way our terminals are laid out.

[simonl]

Pointless? Not at all!

Done properly, it would:
- remove the 25km/h speed restriction north of Erskenville for accessing the ESR
- Remove conflicts between Sydney Terminal trains and ESR trains
- Remove a conflicting move between AM via Sydenham trains and outbound Bankstown line trains
- Liberate significant capacity into Sydney Terminal via Sydenham

All but the first point will also increase reliability which apparently is the most important thing on the Sydney Trains network.

[GazzaOak]

As for the PM peak northbound on the Tunnel not too sure usually traffic is free flowing. It's usually the southbound tunnel that has traffic issues stemming from Eastern Dist, Southern Cross Drive and onto the M5 it's worse in the afternoon peak.

Would we install giant gantries similar road congestion gantries to Singapore around the Airport. I say it's the fault that the main way to the M5 & A1 is via the Airport causing traffic issues and the fact the way our terminals are laid out.

The eastern dist (southbound) is always an disaster, even during the off peak..... Its just how the cross city tunnel connects that could be a problem (maybe). Even an accident on the M5 can cause backclogs all the back to Gore Hill.

Hopefully the westconnex will reduce the the traffic.

[simonl]

Only if there is an accident. Otherwise it will make things worse.

[user13548]

Only if there is an accident. Otherwise it will make things worse.

How will it make southbound on the ED worse?

[Frosty]

The only problem could be with Westconnex it would send maybe more traffic through Botany Rd & O'Riordan St and probably Elizabeth St. Currently the only ways from the City or the North Side to either the M5 or A1 @ Brighton or Airport is via the ED or Western Dist or through the CBD then via Botany Rd/O'Riordan St.

Though something to consider LR to Green Square.

But the real question over the long term is how to run transport particularly PT more effictevely and run it at lower cost and improve cost recovery. If TfNSW was a public company that had shareholders they would be wondering why does PT loose so much money. Is this possible though to have PT in Sydney that is effective but profitable even if it isn't a large profit.

[Transtopic]

But the real question over the long term is how to run transport particularly PT more effictevely and run it at lower cost and improve cost recovery. If TfNSW was a public company that had shareholders they would be wondering why does PT loose so much money. Is this possible though to have PT in Sydney that is effective but profitable even if it isn't a large profit.

TfNSW's solution, no doubt dictated by government policy, is just to ignore it and sideline the existing public operators by privatising everything, including building a separate metro network. Then it's not their problem. They obviously haven't got the stomach for a fight with the unions.

[simonl]

Only if there is an accident. Otherwise it will make things worse.

How will it make southbound on the ED worse?

Because more traffic with be able to get through the M5, stimulating more traffic with no increase to the ED's capacity or relief except for the truly trivial conversion of ED traffic to traffic on the M4-M5 link.

[user13548]

How will it make southbound on the ED worse?

Because more traffic with be able to get through the M5, stimulating more traffic with no increase to the ED's capacity or relief except for the truly trivial conversion of ED traffic to traffic on the M4-M5 link.

No more traffic will be able to get thru the old M5 onto the ED as there is no change to capacity. The new M5 tunnels discharge at St. Peter's. This is what the people of Newtown are concerned about. Until the M4 M5 link is opened there will be a problem at Newtown.

[eddy]

I know I keep banging on about this but Parramatta station will never take the eventual north and south fast rail plus Parramatta/CBD metro and Parramatta/Badgerys creek metro and really we should be talking about this rather than what has or has not happened in the past.

[simonl]

No more traffic will be able to get thru the old M5 onto the ED as there is no change to capacity. The new M5 tunnels discharge at St. Peter's. This is what the people of Newtown are concerned about. Until the M4 M5 link is opened there will be a problem at Newtown.

You sure about that? The bottleneck part of the M5 is west of the Marsh St (international airport) exit. Won't some people using that exit/entrance be able to use the M4-M5 link? Haven't looked at it in detail but I can't imagine that wouldn't happen in practice. Don't the WestConnex enabling works also increase capacity between the Airport and the M5/M5 duplication part of WestConnex.

[user13548]

No more traffic will be able to get thru the old M5 onto the ED as there is no change to capacity. The new M5 tunnels discharge at St. Peter's. This is what the people of Newtown are concerned about. Until the M4 M5 link is opened there will be a problem at Newtown.

You sure about that? The bottleneck part of the M5 is west of the Marsh St (international airport) exit. Won't some people using that exit/entrance be able to use the M4-M5 link? Haven't looked at it in detail but I can't imagine that wouldn't happen in practice. Don't the WestConnex enabling works also increase capacity between the Airport and the M5/M5 duplication part of WestConnex.

Yep. Have a look at the detailed maps on their website. A lot of the people who cause the bottle neck at marsh st wil move to the St. Peter's entrance. All the increase in capacity around the airport is to enable access to the St. Peter's entrance (the old tip, brick pit).
So to/from the old M5 to the ED there is no increase in capacity. The Old M5 will be improved as the marsh st problem will move away.