Sydney's population hits 5 million

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by tonyp »

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydneys-popul ... v9pnq.html

Today the news has appeared that ABS has said that Sydney's population has now passed 5 million, the first Australian city to do so and the rate of growth is increasing exponentially, but not as much as Melbourne's which is set to eventually overtake Sydney.

When I was young in the 1950s the population passed 2 million. At that time, Sydney's PT patronage was on the universal post-war slide but it was still around 700 million ppa. It bottomed in the high 400s in the 1980s and has since climbed again to about 650 million ppa. In net terms that's far from a good figure. Melbourne's population was a few hundred thou below Sydney's over this period, with the same PT patronage pattern: about 500 million ppa then, sliding well below 300 in the 1980s and 90s, then back up to about 550 million ppa now iirc, again still a net loss.

One reason I find Perth interesting is that it has now passed the population of the Sydney I lived in during the 1950s, 2 million. Back in the 50s Perth was a babe of about 400,000 people with PT patronage around 75 million ppa, which when you think of PT patronage of Australian cities that size nowadays is pretty awesome. But that was back in the tram days. Perth's PT patronage today is about 150 million ppa which is a very impressive contrast to the much slower rate of PT patronage growth in Sydney and Melbourne, but still a negative net result relative to population growth. It shows how car-dependent Australian cities have become. The contrast with overseas is nowhere more demonstrated than by Prague which has the population of Adelaide (1.25 million) but PT patronage of 1.3 **billion** ppa (more than that of Sydney and Melbourne combined) compared with Adelaide's 65 million. We have some clawback work against the automobile age to do!

I think one signifcant observation to draw from all of this is that it's going to be heavy rail (both suburban and metro) that's going to have the leading place in PT growth, simply in order to provide the capacity to transport such numbers of people. Trams are going to be a filler-in in areas where there is a smaller rate of growth, otherwise their capacity will simply be overwhelmed. Personally I think they will eventually play a greater role in regional cities (like Newcastle, Gold Coast) than in the mega-capitals where they'll probably have more of a role in suburban areas (as in Paris and London and, locally in Parramatta). Buses will continue their feeder and cross-regional role at which they're best, but will lose their primacy in the line-haul CBD-feed business where rail will be needed simply for the capacity that buses can't provide.

All leading to the observation that we're going to have to get used to more and more metro systems, like it or not.
Transtopic
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:10 pm

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by Transtopic »

tonyp wrote:I think one signifcant observation to draw from all of this is that it's going to be heavy rail (both suburban and metro) that's going to have the leading place in PT growth, simply in order to provide the capacity to transport such numbers of people. Trams are going to be a filler-in in areas where there is a smaller rate of growth, otherwise their capacity will simply be overwhelmed. Personally I think they will eventually play a greater role in regional cities (like Newcastle, Gold Coast) than in the mega-capitals where they'll probably have more of a role in suburban areas (as in Paris and London and, locally in Parramatta). Buses will continue their feeder and cross-regional role at which they're best, but will lose their primacy in the line-haul CBD-feed business where rail will be needed simply for the capacity that buses can't provide.

All leading to the observation that we're going to have to get used to more and more metro systems, like it or not.
Well I don't have a problem with more and more metro systems, as long as they service new rail corridors on short and medium haul inner city routes, without unnecessarily converting existing lines, nor have inappropriate long haul routes like the North West Rail Link.
Tonymercury
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Botany NSW

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by Tonymercury »

tonyp wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydneys-popul ... v9pnq.html


All leading to the observation that we're going to have to get used to more and more metro systems, like it or not.
I don't believe that there are many here that are against metros per se, its just the way that the NSW Government have proceeded with this one.

A properly thought out new route would have been accepted almost universally.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by tonyp »

Tonymercury wrote:
I don't believe that there are many here that are against metros per se, its just the way that the NSW Government have proceeded with this one.

A properly thought out new route would have been accepted almost universally.
I don't have a problem with the current metro route as you probably know. All in favour of it. It should be extended to Schofields and Liverpool at the earliest opportunity.
User avatar
Newcastle Flyer
Posts: 4506
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: Somewhere between here, there & anywhere!

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by Newcastle Flyer »

It also says that figure includes Blue Mountains & Central Coast in the "greater" Sydney area. The true figures for Sydney would be bounded by roughly Cowan, Emu Plains, near Warragamba, Macarthur & Waterfall.
White lives matter too.
Australia Day 26th Jan, the most important day in Australia as is 19 April, Cook's discovery of eastern Australia
Tonymercury
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Botany NSW

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by Tonymercury »

tonyp wrote:
Tonymercury wrote:
I don't believe that there are many here that are against metros per se, its just the way that the NSW Government have proceeded with this one.

A properly thought out new route would have been accepted almost universally.
I don't have a problem with the current metro route as you probably know. All in favour of it. It should be extended to Schofields and Liverpool at the earliest opportunity.
You've managed to ignore most of what I said, so why did you quote it? You're only hitting the same old record rather then responding.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by tonyp »

Tonymercury wrote:
You've managed to ignore most of what I said, so why did you quote it? You're only hitting the same old record rather then responding.
What haven't I responded to? :?
User avatar
rogf24
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 pm

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by rogf24 »

I think that light metros also need to investigated to cope with the growth, otherwise it'll be too expensive to just build metros everywhere and not enough capacity with light rail especially with RMS limiting options.

Maybe even some light rail routes and sections can built to light metro standards, like the Carlingford to Epping light rail and I feel the same way about parts of the CSELR south of Central.
Transtopic
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:10 pm

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by Transtopic »

rogf24 wrote:I think that light metros also need to investigated to cope with the growth, otherwise it'll be too expensive to just build metros everywhere and not enough capacity with light rail especially with RMS limiting options.

Maybe even some light rail routes and sections can built to light metro standards, like the Carlingford to Epping light rail and I feel the same way about parts of the CSELR south of Central.
A 'light metro' is basically 'light rail' isn't it, with surface running and the usual mixed traffic constraints? Once you go underground, you might as well build it as a full-blown 'metro'. In hindsight, the CSELR should have been built as a metro, although obviously more expensive, as it appears it will be unable to cope with the demand in replacing existing bus services. The same logic could be applied to any Carlingford to Epping light rail link requiring underground operation. A surface link in the latter case is not feasible.

While I can understand the rationale for reducing bus congestion in the CBD, when something obviously had to be done, I fear the government chose the cheaper and second best option with light rail. But that may come back to haunt them, because it's unlikely that it will solve the problem and the prospect of duplicating the CSELR with a metro is now dead in the water. The only positive outcome from this exercise is that the metro option for alleviating congestion on other major bus trunk routes such as the Northern Beaches and Victoria Rd corridors, which also contribute to significant congestion in the CBD, will be given greater priority. The Oxford St corridor to Bondi is another example of a potential metro line. I would suggest that a metro line run from the CBD (possibly as an extension of the West Metro) along the Oxford St corridor to Dover Heights via Bondi Junction, Bondi Rd, Bondi Beach and North Bondi. Complimentary projects could be extending the existing ESR from Bondi Junction to at least Maroubra Junction, as recommended by Infrastructure NSW and extending the CSELR to Maroubra Junction along the old tramway reservation. Bondi Junction would become a major interchange between the ESR and metro line.
User avatar
rogf24
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 pm

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by rogf24 »

A light metro is almost like a standard metro in that it's fully grade separated. But it's typically shorter, this means that station platforms can be shorter and it's lighter so the tracks or viaduct pillars don't need to be as strong, both of which saves money on construction. In the case of viaducts, it also means slimmer pillars so there's less impact on the road below compared to full metro/heavy rail standards. Stations are one of the most expensive parts of new systems so shorter stations will definitely help, even underground. Some light metros have tight turning radii and steep grades making them like light rail in this regard. But the main differentiation between full metro and light metro is length.

I think light rail system is a tram system that incorporates some metro (including light metro) elements such as longer vehicles compared to regular trams, more substantial stations than something that looks like a bus stop and, most importantly, off-street or at least reserved track running, but light rail has the capability to run on-street like a tram (in lanes or mixed traffic). Light rail is more or less a "tram-train" although that term is sometimes applied to trams capable of sharing tracks with heavy rail trains, but usually, light rail is more like a (light) metro, at least when it's on dedicated tracks. A light metro is in between a full metro and light rail. A light rail system that is fully grade separated or runs entirely on its own right of way can be considered a light metro.

A good city to look at comparing metros is Singapore, it has 5 metro lines. The East West, North South and North East Lines are full metros. The Circle and Downtown Lines are light metros. Another city to look at is Honolulu where they're building a new light metro system, it is an appropriate mode for a city with less than 1 million people I guess.

The major train makers have different products for light and full metros. For example, for full metro, Alstom has Metropolis and Bombardier has the Movia, and for light metro, Alstom has Axonis and Bombardier has Innovia. Compared to light rail/tram where Alstom has Citadis and Bombardier has Flexity.

I wouldn't call Oxford st a good full metro corridor especially considering that it already parallels a heavy rail line so the capacity needed is already there. A tram or light rail might work.

Anyway, that's my take on Light Metros. Essentially, Trams --> Light Rail (or Tram-Train) --> Light Metro --> Full Metro (or Suburban Rail). Light metro is definitely something that could work on the Northern Beaches, Victoria Rd, Parramatta Rd or A3 corridors. It's something that Sydney needs to consider with 5 million people and rising as full metros are expensive limiting the number of potential investments.
simonl
Posts: 8003
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by simonl »

rogf24 wrote:I think that light metros
Confusing. Metros are being investigated, or at least metrification of current routes. What are you arguing here?
Transtopic wrote:A 'light metro' is basically 'light rail' isn't it, with surface running and the usual mixed traffic constraints?
Mixed traffic running -> not a metro.
tonyp wrote:I don't have a problem with the current metro route as you probably know. All in favour of it. It should be extended to Schofields and Liverpool at the earliest opportunity.
Strange comment.

Schofield extension has obvious logic but what are you on about with the Liverpool extension? I can't see that Schofields-Liverpool needs rail on any route, except perhaps once Badgery's Creek opens and even then it's pretty dubious.

Regarding the current "metro"; so $10bn+ for Epping-Bankstown to downgrade existing capacity network wide and not deliver a single positive other than a weaker RTBU and marginally faster services plus a small reduction in staff is a good deal to you? Can't see why you would say that and I'm surprised you did.
User avatar
rogf24
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 pm

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by rogf24 »

simonl wrote:
rogf24 wrote:I think that light metros
Confusing. Metros are being investigated, or at least metrification of current routes. What are you arguing here?
I'm not arguing anything here. I was responding to Transtopic's question about the difference between light rail and light metro and I'm just saying what a light metro is (it's different from a full metro and light rail), you would know if you read my full comment. It's cheaper than a full metro and should be considered in light of Sydney's population growth.
simonl wrote:
tonyp wrote:I don't have a problem with the current metro route as you probably know. All in favour of it. It should be extended to Schofields and Liverpool at the earliest opportunity.
Strange comment.

Schofield extension has obvious logic but what are you on about with the Liverpool extension? I can't see that Schofields-Liverpool needs rail on any route, except perhaps once Badgery's Creek opens and even then it's pretty dubious.

Regarding the current "metro"; so $10bn+ for Epping-Bankstown to downgrade existing capacity network wide and not deliver a single positive other than a weaker RTBU and marginally faster services plus a small reduction in staff is a good deal to you? Can't see why you would say that and I'm surprised you did.
He's talking about extending the converted Bankstown metro line to Liverpool, it's a very logical extension. I personally don't like the reduced number of seats out to far flung areas in the NW (and I still don't like the metro for that) but for the most other parts, the metro is a good deal, it's a rare chance to do things differently. The metro won't upgrade overall existing rail capacity but it will help by freeing up Bankstown Line paths for other suburban services (increasing T2 lines capacity) and work in hand to allow more trains to terminate at Sydney Terminal (increasing capacity on T1 lines again). It won't increase overall capacity on the existing network but will help increase capacity on some lines on the existing network that's currently being limited by track sharing and insufficient interchange capacity and that's a good thing. As with all new thing and changes, some people will benefit more than others. some people's journeys will only be marginally faster but some will be significantly faster.
Last edited by rogf24 on Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by tonyp »

I don't know why anybody thinks metro won't increase existing capacity, both intially and when implemented to its full potential. It's the highest capacity mode and is used exactly for that reason.
User avatar
rogf24
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 pm

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by rogf24 »

I took simonl's "existing" in the context of the existing suburban network. In which case, yeah, it won't increase capacity on the network but it will help out some lines. If you include both networks, then there will be a significant increase.
simonl
Posts: 8003
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by simonl »

rogf24 wrote:I'm not arguing anything here
That was really my point.

I don't really think that there is any such thing as a light metro. It's just a metro with less carriages/train from what you are saying.
rogf24 wrote:He's talking about extending the converted Bankstown metro line to Liverpool, it's a very logical extension.
Well, it might be if the details could be sorted out. Are you closing Birrong and Yagoona? If not, how are you manging the service of the 3 remaining network fragments which really only justify one service. Sefton-Carramar, Berala+Regents Park, Birrong+Yagoona are the three fragments I'm referring to.
rogf24 wrote:The metro won't upgrade overall existing rail capacity but it will help by freeing up Bankstown Line paths for other suburban services (increasing T2 lines capacity)
Whoever came up with T1/T2 should be sacked! It isn't clear from saying that which line you are referring to. I can imagine you are referring to the via Revesby services though. Yes, it does allow more services through Revesby which may even be usable one day. That day is a fair way off.
rogf24 wrote:allow more trains to terminate at Sydney Terminal (increasing capacity on T1 lines again).
This point is plain wrong, wrong, wrong. It annoys me that it is still being put by people who should know better.

It requires more trains to terminate at Central but does nothing to allow it. Sheesh!
tonyp wrote:I don't know why anybody thinks metro won't increase existing capacity, both intially and when implemented to its full potential. It's the highest capacity mode and is used exactly for that reason.
You should know better. The NWRL will be doing well to have 3 bus loads of passengers per train in peak hour when it opens. If there is mega development that could change of course but that is pretty lousy town planning to go for that.
User avatar
rogf24
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 pm

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by rogf24 »

simonl wrote:
rogf24 wrote:allow more trains to terminate at Sydney Terminal (increasing capacity on T1 lines again).
This point is plain wrong, wrong, wrong. It annoys me that it is still being put by people who should know better.

It requires more trains to terminate at Central but does nothing to allow it. Sheesh!
Western Sydney Rail Upgrade Program (and other upgrades here and there). Besides, Sydney Terminal is vastly underutilised anyway. There are 10tph that use it currently in the peak hour, well under the 20tph capacity for the existing arrangements alone, so nothing needs to be done to allow it anyway. Ending T1 trains at Sydney Terminal will work in hand with the metro to help T1 lines (and associated intercity lines) increase tph by opening up new interchange capacity (which the existing system can't handle).

I think it is you who is "plain wrong, wrong, wrong", your post did not offer any evidence as to why Sydney Terminal can't handle extra trains and did not attempt to counter my argument (which is also the government's plan) either apart from a little rant where you said you were "annoyed" and condescendingly saying "you should know better".
simonl
Posts: 8003
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by simonl »

You said that the metro increases capacity by allowing more trains to use Sydney Terminal. Which is wrong.
mandonov
Posts: 1712
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by mandonov »

simonl wrote: Whoever came up with T1/T2 should be sacked! It isn't clear from saying that which line you are referring to. I can imagine you are referring to the via Revesby services though. Yes, it does allow more services through Revesby which may even be usable one day. That day is a fair way off.
It's perfectly clear. T1 uses the bridge, T2 uses the city circle. Simple.
This point is plain wrong, wrong, wrong. It annoys me that it is still being put by people who should know better.

It requires more trains to terminate at Central but does nothing to allow it. Sheesh!
Oh so extending platforms at Central(i) and connecting them direct to the metro concourse is doing nothing? Sure sounds like something to me.
You should know better. The NWRL will be doing well to have 3 bus loads of passengers per train in peak hour when it opens. If there is mega development that could change of course but that is pretty lousy town planning to go for that.
Now you're just being ridiculous, and your own opposition to the project is blinding you.
simonl
Posts: 8003
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by simonl »

mandonov wrote:Oh so extending platforms at Central(i) and connecting them direct to the metro concourse is doing nothing? Sure sounds like something to me.
Point taken - although it is only a part of the project for longer trains unless a lot of other platforms are extended.
mandonov wrote:It's perfectly clear. T1 uses the bridge, T2 uses the city circle. Simple.
More than one line uses each.
mandonov wrote:Now you're just being ridiculous, and your own opposition to the project is blinding you.
I'm not. Where will these people come from? Even the government's own claims are 12k pax return. All of those over 2 hours each peak would be 400pax/train. Which are simultaneous to keeping the a sizable portion of the buses going.
simonl
Posts: 8003
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by simonl »

rogf24 wrote:Western Sydney Rail Upgrade Program (and other upgrades here and there).
The deliverables of which are??? Besides double facing Central platform 16 for a marginal, unspecified capacity increase. There is no way this program will increase capacity by enough to compensate for the additional passengers coming this way.

However, I do agree that there is some room for additional trains into Central 4-15. Probably enough to handle a decade or two's growth after the NWRL.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by tonyp »

simonl wrote: Where will these people come from?
Why are you thinking just for today? The purpose of such infrastructure is to provide capacity for whatever growth along the corridor they want to plan in the future. That may be 10 storey apartment blocks, 20 or 50 years ahead. Is it better to provide that planning flexibility or to lock down the transport capacity so there's nothing to support future urban growth? For too long Sydney has suffered transport capacity lagging behind growth.
User avatar
rogf24
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 pm

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by rogf24 »

simonl wrote:The deliverables of which are??? Besides double facing Central platform 16 for a marginal, unspecified capacity increase.
Up to 24 8-car trains per hour (20% increase in capacity) across the Harbour Bridge to North Sydney through things like ATO (dual facing Central platform 16 will help here too)

Longer suburban and intercity trains terminating at Sydney Terminal/Central up to 12-cars at up to 24 tph (potential for an almost 5x increase existing service-capacity) and continuing on to the city with the Metro
simonl wrote:There is no way this program will increase capacity by enough to compensate for the additional passengers coming this way.
Sydney Metro West

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/newsro ... ern-sydney
tonyp wrote: For too long Sydney has suffered transport capacity lagging behind growth.
That's why I like light metros. It's cheaper than full metros for many reasons and can be built in tight environments. The money saved can free up money for other investments so we can catch up. It can be used for corridors without the demand for a full metro, like the Northern Beaches, Victoria Rd, Parramatta Rd or A3 corridors.
Frosty
Posts: 1828
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:16 pm

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by Frosty »

I must wonder Central (i) isn't that efficient thinking off it 15 terminal platforms it doesn't even operate at 20tph in the peak surely if capacity is pushed and some track re alignments and better approaches it could be doubled to 40tph+.

Ideally I would want to see large parts of the Northern Beaches be high-density apartments, same for the north shore north of Chatswood and most of Sydney within a 20km radius of Sydney CBD and 5km of Parramatta CBD. I blame the issue of development on all the nimbyism and heritage listed housing and the red tape on housing. Thinking of areas of the inner west nearly every second house is heritage listed that housing could be turned high density apartments. It silly now Sydney is extending so far to Wilton and Picton next minute Bowral would be considered Sydney because of urban sprawl.
simonl
Posts: 8003
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by simonl »

rogf24 wrote:Up to 24 8-car trains per hour (20% increase in capacity) across the Harbour Bridge to North Sydney through things like ATO (dual facing Central platform 16 will help here too)
Where has this been suggested officially? I've never seen it.

rogf24 wrote:
simonl wrote:There is no way this program will increase capacity by enough to compensate for the additional passengers coming this way.
Sydney Metro West

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/newsro ... ern-sydney
This is a separate program advanced because the west is indeed a problem!
Frosty wrote:I must wonder Central (i) isn't that efficient thinking off it 15 terminal platforms it doesn't even operate at 20tph in the peak surely if capacity is pushed and some track re alignments and better approaches it could be doubled to 40tph+.
I totally agree that it isn't efficient but I'm wondering how 40tph is conceivable. What happens downstream? Are you sending half to Parramatta and half along the Illawarra line.
tonyp wrote:
simonl wrote: Where will these people come from?
Why are you thinking just for today? The purpose of such infrastructure is to provide capacity for whatever growth along the corridor they want to plan in the future. That may be 10 storey apartment blocks, 20 or 50 years ahead. Is it better to provide that planning flexibility or to lock down the transport capacity so there's nothing to support future urban growth? For too long Sydney has suffered transport capacity lagging behind growth.
Daniel has made the same comments. Density is rapidly increasing in the west and stuff all is being done to move jobs west. The ideal would be to do move the jobs to where the people are or the people to where the jobs are. Neither possibility is being pursued.

The NWRL's sea of car parks really makes it difficult to increase density around those stations or put jobs there. As a planning move, it is about the worst imaginable. As a political move, it's gold.
simonl
Posts: 8003
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Sydney's population hits 5 million

Post by simonl »

Transtopic wrote:In hindsight, the CSELR should have been built as a metro,
In foresight it should have been. No modal analysis would have suggested light rail here, that was why the ANZAC line proposed a metro along ANZAC Pde.

Anyway, like you I'm tired of discussing the NWRL. We will see in a few years how much trouble is caused.
Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Sydney / NSW”