Sydney Metro - Tallawong to Bankstown

[tonyp]

" The vast majority of the metro's users would be people who formerly drove their cars and wouldn't have caught a bus anyway."

Yeah? Really ? where are all these suddenly empty car spaces in the CBD ?

The idea that metros will stop people who can afford parking or are given parking in the CBD is laughable.

Also, the majority of traffic headed in the general direction of the CBD is not actually going to the CBD.

First, there is the fall in the vehicle count on the M2 since the metro opened (over 50,000 per month). Second, the direct buses that the metro replaced carried only a tiny percentage of the commuters that the metro carries. Third, there's not much walk-up catchment. On the other hand there's a small drift of patronage across from the Richmond line, but nowhere near enough to be an explanation. There would be a lot of former ECRL users transferred of course. So where do you think the balance of metro commuters come from?

[lunchbox]

PITT STREET METRO STATION
The NSW government will get $369M from the air-rights development consortium to develop the air rights above the station. One of the two towers will be built-to-rent residential, having 230 apartments. (SMH 18.9.19)

[tonyp]

A new Facebook page "Save the T3 Bankstown Line" has appeared recently. It appears to be another RTBU beat up, with lots of misleading "facts".

EG, "passengers wishing to go to Town Hall will have to change at Sydenham or Central". Pointing out that the Pitt St station is only 100 metres from Town Hall results in deletion and blocking "it is not Town Hall, completely different!".

Well worth a read for a good laugh, make some comments but don't expect them to stay up too long.

Somebody has kicked a link across to the Hills group. Turns out Ecotransit are behind it with all the usual conspiracy theories, alleged government bastardry and general Chicken Little stuff - but a lot of people are attacking them back, supporting metro.

[Campbelltown busboy]

Why didn't they think of a doing a branch of the metro out to the zoo from both ends of the harbour crossing

[Fleet Lists]

The complexities of that would have been horrendous trying to integrate the services from both directions to the zoo and in both directions from the zoo. I dont think that would ever have been on.
And would have reduced capacity between Chatswood and the CBD.

[boronia]

The Zoo wouldn't have the patronage to warrant a metro; passengers would probably prefer the ferry ride.

[moa999]

The complexities of that would have been horrendous trying to integrate the services from both directions to the zoo and in both directions from the zoo..

A number of other automated systems do have branches, though not common.
Offhand I can think of L10 Shanghai, L3/4 Ampang/SriPetaling Kuala Lumpur L1/2/3 Singapore plus the much older Montreal SkyTrain

Note the 1/2/3 East West Airport branch line in Singapore typically operates the Airport branch separately with cross platform interchange). Think the other two are proper branches.

[tonyp]

It does raise the question of whether a future Manly Warringah metro would branch off the existing or be an entirely separate line.

[boronia]

You should know that when you have two lines sharing, you are reducing the future capacity of both

Perhaps a MW line could come under the harbour and service parts of the Eastern Suburbs. It could even service the Zoo, but would no doubt be quite deep at the entrance.

[tonyp]

You should know that when you have two lines sharing, you are reducing the future capacity of both

Of course, but it's a challenge. Building another underwater connection is now more difficult because two of the best crossing points have now been used. Using the eastern side of the bridge for tram or metro is a possibility but that has the limitation of ending at Wynyard where it would be very difficult to go further (except for tram which is more flexible).

[tonyp]

Metro patronage has passed the 2 million per month mark in the month of August, representing a 22% increase since June, according to August Opal data.

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/data-a ... comparison

There are no discernable drop-offs in T1 patronage (but the Richmond line and Western line figures are combined so it's hard to tell) and Region 1 and 4 bus patronage seems steady, with Hillsbus picking up again after an initial drop-off when the metro opened. This could be the feeder service patronage kicking in.

[Transtopic]

You should know that when you have two lines sharing, you are reducing the future capacity of both

Of course, but it's a challenge. Building another underwater connection is now more difficult because two of the best crossing points have now been used. Using the eastern side of the bridge for tram or metro is a possibility but that has the limitation of ending at Wynyard where it would be very difficult to go further (except for tram which is more flexible).

The government makes great play about the metro having a potential frequency of 30tph or more, but I don't think this could ever be justified without branches feeding through the CBD core. The outer limits of the current line to Rouse Hill and Bankstown could never warrant a frequency of 30tph alone and I think that it was always intended that further branches outside the CBD core would be added later.

However, this brings into question whether it is practicable to cut into the existing metro tunnels for a branch line, without causing major disruption to existing metro services at some future date. There are currently no stub tunnels for future branches proposed on the metro lines now under construction. That includes provision for a future Parramatta to Epping metro line, where stub tunnels on Metro Northwest at Epping, although initially proposed, were eliminated in the final design. I have discussed this issue at length on another forum and no one has yet been able to confirm whether it is feasible.

In discussion about a future rail link to the Northern Beaches, where it was assumed that it would branch from the metro line now under construction at Victoria Cross (North Sydney), I suggested an alternative solution if branching at that point is not feasible. But be warned, it won't satisfy the metro purists.

My solution is predicated on the basis that the proposed Western Harbour Tunnel will substantially increase cross harbour road capacity and in the process potentially reduce traffic on the Harbour Bridge and Tunnel, which would allow for the two eastern lanes of the Harbour Bridge to be reinstated for rail services. A rail link to the Northern Beaches will also significantly reduce direct bus services to the CBD as well as general traffic, which would make the dedicated bus lane redundant. The Cahill Expressway could still be accessed from the remaining traffic lanes.

The previously proposed City Relief Line as part of the existing network, branching off the Main Line tracks at Eveleigh to Wynyard, with new underground stations at Redfern, Central and Town Hall West along the western fringe of the CBD, could be continued from the unused platforms 1 & 2 at Wynyard across the Harbour Bridge to North Sydney Station. It would require the construction of a new rail bridge across the Warringah Freeway, which shouldn't be an engineering obstacle, and also allow for reinstatement of the Milsons Point/Kirribilli platforms, formerly used by trams. Bradfield had allowed for stub tunnels to be constructed from North Sydney Station for a future line to the Northern Beaches. It's time his vision was realised.

It would obviously necessitate operation as part of the Sydney Trains DD network, but that's the compromise and it would have far greater benefit for the broader rail network as a whole, which should ultimately include connection with an express DD tunnel from Parramatta to the City Relief line. This would allow for a single sector from the Western/Richmond Lines to the Northern Beaches, freeing up capacity on the Suburban tracks from Strathfield to the North Shore Line for Northern and South Line services.

In a perfect world, perhaps it could have been better if Metro West followed the alignment via Sydney University/Camperdown and Central via the City Relief Line corridor to Wynyard and across the Harbour Bridge to the Northern Beaches, instead of via the Bays Precinct. The Bays Precinct could potentially be serviced by an East/West corridor across the CBD connecting a South/East metro line with a Victoria Rd corridor metro line. Basically, it's a regurgitation of Labor's previously proposed Anzac Line. As it stands, this is unlikely to happen. In the scheme of things, I think far greater benefit for the broader network would be derived from a City Relief Line as part of the existing network continuing across the Harbour Bridge to the Northern Beaches.

Life is full of compromises and we can't always get what some would consider to be ideal.

[Swift]

They might want to consider a new more direct rail corridor with higher speeds, from the central coast to Wynyard via the Northern Beaches and leave the existing main northern line for goods traffic and extend some T1s to Hawkesbury River station.

[Transtopic]

They might want to consider a new more direct rail corridor with higher speeds, from the central coast to Wynyard via the Northern Beaches and leave the existing main northern line for goods traffic and extend some T1s to Hawkesbury River station.

We're getting a bit off topic, but you can't be serious. Aside from the cost of extending a Northern Beaches line to the Central Coast, which could never be justified, it's not ideal in mixing express and all stations services on a single track pair. The Northern Line already has significant lengths of quadruplicated and triplicated track between Strathfield and Hornsby allowing express CCN and freight services to be separated from the all stations suburban services. Over the next decade, it will be fully quadruplicated between Strathfield and Epping and triplicated from Epping to Hornsby on the steeper Down alignment. A future Northern Beaches Line, whether part of the existing network or metro, should be a single all stops operating pattern. I think residents on the Northern Line between Strathfield and Hornsby would have something to say if it became freight only, if that's what you're inferring.

[Swift]

No,I meant freight only after Hawkesbury River. Suburban services unaffected.
Intercity trains in this new Northern Beaches corridor that would allow higher speed and a more direct route from the Central Coast to the city via a straight line under Kuringai Chase National Park and also servicing selected stations in the Northern Beaches. It'll cost a bomb and a half but would open up the Central Coast for expansion.

[tonyp]

An interesting journey comparison video, along the lines of Channel 7 Perth's "Great Races", although I find the parameters a little flaky. For example he was lucky to find a parking spot at the entrance to Central Station (and for what time limit?!) and the bus option seemed to involve walking from Tallawong Station to somewhere along Schofields Rd (yet there's a bus stop at the station), not to mention changing to train at Wynyard!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxk4gPq2f90

In reality the present train journey is an hour and when the metro is completed through to Central, it will be about 50 minutes, the same time as his obviously off-peak car journey. A better future comparison might be between Rouse Hill and Town Hall/Pitt St, including finding a proper long term car park.

[Swift]

50 minutes from Tallawong matching a non peak hour car journey is really not bad at all.
From Ettalong to the city, even if the bus and train have a dream interchange with each other (I have a bus to the door-lucky me), the car has about a 50 minute advantage to Sydney CBD non peak.

[moa999]

Not to mention going via Chatswood.
To Central, changing at Epping is typically quicker, particularly if you can snag an express CCN service.
Eg. Today. Depart Tallawong 2.05pm Arrive Central 3.00pm

[tonyp]

50 minutes from Tallawong matching a non peak hour car journey is really not bad at all.

It's the high average speed of the metro that does it - same effect as in Perth. I would have thrown in a fourth comparison for those who argue the metro shouldn't be doing long distances. Riverstone to Central is the same distance. Pick an off-peak trip on that line with the same number of stops - 17, all to Strathfield then express to Redfern - it takes 64 minutes compared with the metro's future 50 (if the present two-minute stop at Epping is changed to normal dwell), nearly a whopping 15 minute difference, or an average speed of 44 km/h for the suburban train vs 56 km/h for the metro.

And the car journey doesn't stop 17 times to drop and pick up passengers, while that 607X only had about 12 stops I think (how did he get it from Rouse Hill, I thought that was only at night?). Nor do either of these options have the potential to serve any significant centres along the route other than Bella Vista and the city, while the metro serves Norwest, Castle Hill, North Ryde, Chatswood, Crows Nest, North Sydney and the city. The Riverstone train serves Blacktown, Parramatta and the city (misses Burwood).

[BroadGauge]

It's the high average speed of the metro that does it - same effect as in Perth. I would have thrown in a fourth comparison for those who argue the metro shouldn't be doing long distances. Riverstone to Central is the same distance. Pick an off-peak trip on that line with the same number of stops - 17, all to Strathfield then express to Redfern - it takes 64 minutes compared with the metro's future 50 (if the present two-minute stop at Epping is changed to normal dwell), nearly a whopping 15 minute difference, or an average speed of 44 km/h for the suburban train vs 56 km/h for the metro.

I don't normally like being pedantic, but there is only one service per day which actually runs to that stopping pattern, being the first train of the day which leaves at 4:31am (the 4:09am train from Richmond).

Standard off-peak services make 12 stops (all to Parramatta, Strathfield, Redfern, Central) and take 59 minutes. So not quite as bad

50 minutes from Tallawong matching a non peak hour car journey is really not bad at all.
From Ettalong to the city, even if the bus and train have a dream interchange with each other (I have a bus to the door-lucky me), the car has about a 50 minute advantage to Sydney CBD non peak.

I just had a look now and at the times when buses and trains align well, the best journey times from Ettalong to Central are about 95-100 minutes. I would love to see how you could drive that distance in 45 minutes!

But the evident thing with too many trips is that the bus drops you off at Woy with 20 minutes until the train leaves, and some connections are similarly poor returning. Between that and the slow rail journey time between Woy and Hornsby it's no wonder that public transport is generally slower overall.

[Swift]

But the evident thing with too many trips is that the bus drops you off at Woy with 20 minutes until the train leaves, and some connections are similarly poor returning. Between that and the slow rail journey time between Woy and Hornsby it's no wonder that public transport is generally slower overall.

I extrapolated off the top of my head as my actual comparison was with a trip one afternoon where I got the 64 bus Ettalong Beach to WW stn which is slightly longer than the more direct 53, I believe, got a train as soon as I reached the platform, then got a 395 as soon as I arrived Eddy Ave to just a few streets short of Maroubra Beach. Total time was 2 & 1/2 hours door to door (including one minute walk to bus stop Ettanong Beach and four minute walk from bus stop in Maroubra).
Car trip takes about 1 hr 25m with no traffic.

[tonyp]

I don't normally like being pedantic, but there is only one service per day which actually runs to that stopping pattern, being the first train of the day which leaves at 4:31am (the 4:09am train from Richmond).

Standard off-peak services make 12 stops (all to Parramatta, Strathfield, Redfern, Central) and take 59 minutes. So not quite as bad

It was a competition. Who would be first to find the example I used - and you found it first.

The first point was comparing like with like which is why I chose that example. The second point is that, like the 607X, a service that stops at only 12 stops is not really a comparison because the more stops you skip, the less utility it has for its users and thus the less it is a comparable service. It's "not quite as bad" timewise for people using the stops it stops at, but it's infinitely worse for those who want to use the stops that it skips. That's a major part of the whole point of the metro: to maximise the utility, in the fastest possible time, for all users. It not only thrashes all-stops suburban trains, it thrashes semi-expresses too and everybody gets to board and alight at any station they want. That needs to be taken into account in any comparison, otherwise you're just comparing apples and oranges.

It was the same when replacing trams with buses in Sydney. After the conversion, the buses were taking about the same time for journeys as the trams did, but that was part of the big lie that the buses were faster. The trams stopped at every stop, but the buses didn't have to stop unless requested and - additionally to that in the propaganda war - they brought in semi-express bus services to make the trips faster. But of course they had far less utility for many users. A journey isn't faster for you when the vehicle roars past your stop. The two-tier type of service is a crude solution used by operators who can't get better average speeds out of their system, typically due to acceleration/deceleration and particularly dwells.

A car journey is comparable competition because it can also stop at any of the same points along the journey.

[Fleet Lists]

A car journey is comparable competition because it can also stop at any of the same points along the journey.

But because it carries virtually no passengers it would stop at less stops than a bus so still not comparable.

[Linto63]

After the conversion, the buses were taking about the same time for journeys as the trams did, but that was part of the big lie that the buses were faster.

Problem is that it wasn't a lie. As far back as 1942 buses were both cheaper to operate (15p a mile vs 17p) and faster, 13mph vs 12mph.

The trams stopped at every stop, but the buses didn't have to stop unless requested and - additionally to that in the propaganda war - they brought in semi-express bus services to make the trips faster.

Are you still peddling that myth? Semi-express buses were brought in because buses had the ability to overtake one another, something that trams couldn't do on a double track line.

[tonyp]

The trams moved far more people, so their cost effectiveness was greater. Timetables show that buses were taking about the same time as the trams they replaced in spite of optional stopping. Those average speeds before the tram replacements reflect the fact that the trams were operating in the most congested areas of the city while the buses were more out in the suburbs. I would have thought that the difference should be greater in the circumstances but the buses were pretty slow back then. The trams didn't need to overtake each other. Like the metro, they did an excellent and fast job stopping at all stops. They didn't need to express.