Other rail possibilties

[Swift]

Reinstate the eastern rail lines on the Sydney harbour bridge that were originally reserved for a Northern Beaches rail service before the DMR snatched it.
Then build the Eastwood to St Leonard's link that was proposed years ago to use it since the Northern Beaches wants to keep everyone out of their principality.

[Nugget]

The main issue is that they have essentially scuppered Metro performance by using it to do a heavy rail job.

That remark is so confusing that you'll have to explain it I'm afraid! Exactly how? I mean it is heavy rail and it's using metro performance to do a heavy rail job better. That's the whole point.

The Metro has been misused with long distanced between stops. The reason metros have increased acceleration is due to the short distances between stops. What they really needed was the heavily rail out in the burbs and then metros on the inner city lines.

[Nugget]

since the Northern Beaches wants to keep everyone out of their principality.

Isn't the feeling mutual.

[Swift]

since the Northern Beaches wants to keep everyone out of their principality.

Isn't the feeling mutual.

Particularly the upper end.

[tonyp]

The Metro has been misused with long distanced between stops. The reason metros have increased acceleration is due to the short distances between stops. What they really needed was the heavily rail out in the burbs and then metros on the inner city lines.

That's pigeonholing. Technology can and should be applied where it is needed. Metro technology, with its high performance capabilities, is also very good for achieving quicker journey times over longer distances while using its capability for stopping at all stops. The Perth system has run using similar technology since the 1990s and is very successful and has the fastest journey times (per distance per number of stops) in Australia - until Sydney metro came along and equalled its performance.

[Linto63]

Reinstate the eastern rail lines on the Sydney harbour bridge that were originally reserved for a Northern Beaches rail service before the DMR snatched it.

Meanwhile back in the real world...

[Transtopic]

Why should we need track amplifications, there are plenty already? The metro doesn't need them, Melbourne has been removing the opportunities for them in its skyrail program. Wouldn't more efficient operation (with better signalling etc) do the job in a more cost-effective way?

That's a ridiculous statement and you know it. When the existing system has multiple lines feeding into a single corridor it needs amplification to cater for increasing demand as the single corridor track capacity reaches its maximum level. Contrary to your opinion, there are not enough amplifications to supplement those which are already in place, which inhibits the ability to increase services, particularly from the developing outer suburbs. The whole principle is to separate as far as possible, the various levels of services between all stations inner city and fast express services from the outer suburbs on their own exclusive tracks, not to mention also catering for Intercity, Regional and Freight services.

It's a simplistic argument to suggest that metro doesn't need amplifications, as they are generally over shorter distances with an all stations stopping pattern and with minimal, if any, branches. You and I have debated this ad nauseum on other threads, so I don't propose to regurgitate that all now. Suffice to say, I don't agree with your "one size fits all" metro strategy for short and long distance suburban services. Please don't mention Perth again, as its rail network is a minnow compared to Sydney's. I don't know what Melbourne's Skyrail program has to do with it, because it's essentially focused on removing level crossings and has got nothing to do with increasing track capacity. There are still sections of Melbourne's suburban rail network which are single track and will require, wait for it, amplification to dual tracks as the level of demand increases. That's putting it at the most basic level, but it is equally relevant in the context of much larger networks.

Better signalling, which includes upgrading to ATO standard which is already underway, will certainly help in improving efficient operation, but it can only go so far in increasing track capacity and frequency to the point where further track amplification is needed, because of the level of demand for services. The Homebush to Granville corridor is a case in point, where the existing 4 tracks are already operating at their maximum capacity. ATO will marginally increase capacity, but it won't be enough to cater for increased services from the South and West outer regions, particularly now that the Liverpool via Regents Park services have come back onto the agenda. There's just not enough track capacity to cater for all of these services on that corridor.

Metro West is misguidingly floated as the answer to increasing track capacity between Parramatta and the CBD, and although I agree with it in terms of servicing a new rail corridor between Parramatta and the CBD, it will have limited benefit for increasing capacity on the existing network, particularly for the outer suburban regions. In that context, it would be more cost effective to amplify the tracks between Granville and Homebush, which would be mostly on the surface, and in addition extend it by way of an express tunnel to a new CBD destination, such as the previously proposed City Relief Line to Wynyard. With a limited number of new underground stations, mainly in the CBD, it would be a lot cheaper than building a whole new underground metro line with multiple stations along its route, and would have much greater benefits for the broader rail network and should be prioritised over a new rail corridor such as Metro West.

There are also other amplifications which are essential. The quadruplication of the Northern Line between Strathfield and Epping is already part completed, with the remaining section between Rhodes and West Ryde to be completed within the next decade as part of the Northern Line Freight Corridor strategy to be jointly funded by the Federal and State governments. Extension of the third (Down) track from Thornleigh to Hornsby is also part of this program. Full quadruplication between Epping and Hornsby, as a fourth (Up) track, is a longer term goal.

Other amplifications which are part of longer term planning are duplication of the Richmond Line, quadruplication of the Western Line from St Marys to Penrith and the Illawarra Line from Hurstville to Sutherland. Although not mentioned as part of long term planning, the quadruplication of the South Line from Cabramatta to Campbelltown may also be worth investigating.

It doesn't need whole new metro lines to add capacity to existing corridors by duplicating them, when that increased capacity can be achieved at a far more modest cost with track amplifications.

[Transtopic]

Reinstate the eastern rail lines on the Sydney harbour bridge that were originally reserved for a Northern Beaches rail service before the DMR snatched it.

Meanwhile back in the real world...

That's not as far fetched as it may seem. If the Western Harbour Tunnel is completed, then it significantly increases cross harbour road capacity which is bypassing the CBD and potentially reduces the traffic demand on the Harbour Bridge to the Western Distributor. That could allow the eastern lanes to revert to their original purpose as a rail link to the Northern Beaches. It would require a reinstatement of the former rail bridge across the Warringah Freeway to North Sydney Station, which is not beyond the realms of engineering capability, and would connect with the stub links to a proposed Northern Beaches Line which were constructed as part of Bradfield's original plan. The Cahill Expressway could still be accessed from the remaining Harbour Bridge lanes.

On the city side, the former unused tram platforms 1 & 2 at Wynyard connecting to the eastern lanes of the Harbour Bridge are still intact and could potentially be used as part of a City Relief Line extension from Eveleigh or a future express tunnel link from Parramatta. From my understanding, the previously proposed City Relief Line had the Wynyard platforms on a lower level below the concourse and platforms 3 & 4 on the upper level leading to the Harbour Bridge western lanes. They would be on the same level as platforms 5 & 6 on the City Circle. It all depends on whether it is feasible to divert a potential City Relief Line to the upper level platforms 1 & 2, having regard to building encroachments on the corridor.

If feasible, in this scenario a Northern Beaches Line would be part of the existing network. It's not the end of the world and may not satisfy the metro purists, but with ATO upgrading it could provide an equivalent level of service in terms of capacity and frequency to meet the demand.

[1whoknows]

There is a linkage between amplification and skyrail in Melbourne, mainly with the Caulfield-Dandenong section. This is very much at capacity having to cope with suburban services, V/Line pass every hour or more and several daily freight trains mainly interpeak. Even prior to Skyrail there were calls for either one or two additional tracks to be added to this corridor and there was savage criticism of the Andrews Labor government by some for it not being included in the LXR skyrail.

Should the proposed new port ever go ahead in Westernport Bay, there is potential for substantially increased freight movement along either the Dandenong or Frankston Lines. Both have now been substantially modified under the LXR program, severely limiting the possibilities for additional tracks. The only other, but prohibitively expensive, option would be a tunnel for the VLine and freight trains separate to the suburban skyrail.

[Swift]

And guess who the LXR programme is designed to benefit. Private cars. It's always for the private automobile.

[tonyp]

The principle need for track amplification is where lines come together and you want to prevent services merging and conflicting with each other. The greatest need for that on the suburban system is approaching Central. That's pretty-much physically impossible now unless you peel some lines off and put them underground. That's exactly what they're doing with the Bankstown line - so there will be one less line to merge into the entanglement approaching Central. Presently I think there are 11 lines merging into 8 iirc(?); taking out Bankstown will make it ten. Perhaps they ought to consider that for another couple of lines?

As far as overtaking is concerned (for interurban and country trains), pretty-much all of that amplification has been done years ago - but I agree that a little bit more could be filled out on the Main North. As far as freight is concerned, the method in Sydney is separating freight lines (should be completed in Melbourne too to address that point by Iwhoknows) and that's been largely done. Where it isn't, freighters benefit from the amplification that the interurbans etc use.

The "metros are for shorter distances" bogey won't die easiliy will it?! The whole point of it as applied in Australian cities is its ability for high average speed over long distances while stopping at all stops. The Butler-Mandurah line in Perth is 110 km long and the average speed including all stops is something above 65 km/h. Sydney metro averages about 60. Sydney suburban services semi-expressing (i.e. missing stops) over longer distances average about 40-50 km/h, never mind what they average when stopping all stops. Perth is the Australian prototype for Sydney metro. Some people really need to go over and look at it to improve their understanding of what rapid transit is about and why it is ideal for large, spread-out cities.

[Swift]

You're preaching to the converted with me tonyp. It's going to take more persistence with the rest. But you know how touchy some members here get about "learning by repetition" even though it is the most effective proven method .

[Linto63]

Perth is the Australian prototype for Sydney metro. Some people really need to go over and look at it to improve their understanding of what rapid transit is about and why it is ideal for large, spread-out cities.

As has been stated many times, Perth is a relatively simple system, having lines with relatively little interface with each other. When it was electrified in the 1990s, it comprised three lines, no interurban services and only a handful of regional services. Freight services had already been segregated in the 1970s with the construction of a dedicated line to the east of the city. By comparison, when electrified in the 1920s, Sydney and Melbourne were already complex systems, and since then many lessons have been learnt on the benefits of having lines operate independently. To suggest Perth's network could be easily implemented in Sydney and Melbourne is a bit simplistic.

[Transtopic]

The principle need for track amplification is where lines come together and you want to prevent services merging and conflicting with each other. The greatest need for that on the suburban system is approaching Central. That's pretty-much physically impossible now unless you peel some lines off and put them underground. That's exactly what they're doing with the Bankstown line - so there will be one less line to merge into the entanglement approaching Central. Presently I think there are 11 lines merging into 8 iirc(?); taking out Bankstown will make it ten. Perhaps they ought to consider that for another couple of lines?

As far as overtaking is concerned (for interurban and country trains), pretty-much all of that amplification has been done years ago - but I agree that a little bit more could be filled out on the Main North. As far as freight is concerned, the method in Sydney is separating freight lines (should be completed in Melbourne too to address that point by Iwhoknows) and that's been largely done. Where it isn't, freighters benefit from the amplification that the interurbans etc use.

The "metros are for shorter distances" bogey won't die easiliy will it?! The whole point of it as applied in Australian cities is its ability for high average speed over long distances while stopping at all stops. The Butler-Mandurah line in Perth is 110 km long and the average speed including all stops is something above 65 km/h. Sydney metro averages about 60. Sydney suburban services semi-expressing (i.e. missing stops) over longer distances average about 40-50 km/h, never mind what they average when stopping all stops. Perth is the Australian prototype for Sydney metro. Some people really need to go over and look at it to improve their understanding of what rapid transit is about and why it is ideal for large, spread-out cities.

We're talking about two different things here Tony. My comments were related to expanding capacity on the existing network through targeted amplifications which I've outlined, rather than building whole new metro lines at considerably greater expense to achieve the same outcome. You keep forgetting that the backbone of the rail network is already in place. Building new lines into areas not currently serviced by rail is an entirely different matter, not that I'm convinced that a metro style service with limited seating is warranted for longer distance journeys. Previous studies undertaken by Railcorp conclude that 20 minutes standing is the limit passengers will accept.

Excluding the Airport Line which merges into the City Circle, there are currently 7 lines into and through the CBD - the Western Main to Sydney Terminal; the Western Suburban; the Inner West Local (City Circle Outer); the Illawarra Local (City Circle Inner); the ESR from Erskineville; the ESR from Bondi Junction and the North Shore Line via the Harbour Bridge. Excluding the Intercity services on the Main to Sydney Terminal, there are 11 suburban lines feeding into 6 CBD lines. The Bankstown Line conversion to metro will make that 10 into 6. The obvious amplifications, apart from those already mentioned, are to divert the Airport Line from the City Circle to a new terminus such as Martin Place on the eastern fringe of the CBD and to construct the City Relief Line, diverging from the Main at Eveleigh to Wynyard on the western fringe. With an express tunnel link as part of an amplification of the Western Line from Granville to the City Relief Line, this will effectively bring that down to 10 lines into 8, which is probably as close as you will get to having complete separation of all branch lines into and through the CBD. It would still be more cost effective than building new metro lines, duplicating existing lines, which would be a complete waste.

With regard to the comparative journey times between an express suburban service on exclusive tracks and an all stations metro service over an equivalent longer distance, you still continue to misguidingly compare the metro performance with that of the current network, without acknowledging the improvements in performance in terms of speed and frequency which will be realised with the rollout of ATO across the existing network. Even blind Freddie can see that a Waratah DD set, which has an equivalent acceleration/deceleration specification to the Alstom Metropolis stock, and a higher maximum speed of 130km/h compared with the metro stock at 100km/h, will outperform the latter over longer distances in an express pattern.

[tonyp]

in an express pattern.

No, we need to see the Waratahs out-performing metro trains in an all-stops pattern to attain the objective that the planners have set. The two-tier system is not what Sydney needs because many centres have a reduced level of service as a result. In terms of the decentred way the city is developing it's an inappropriate method. So can the Waratahs perform this role with ATO? They won't be able to attain their 130 km/h potential because of station spacings, so they'll be relying entirely on acceleration/deceleration and dwell time.

I think it's necessary to restate, because some keep forgetting, that the Perth metric relates to performance of the train technology, not to the planning and development of Perth and trying to equate that with Sydney - it isn't equivalent. It doesn't matter what city the technology is in, the issue is to demonstrate the journey time performance. The Perth rapid transit system is basically an earlier prototype of Sydney metro and the performance (adjusted for number of stops and stop spacing) basically identical to that of Sydney metro. It's the best and highest-capacity technology for moving people around a large, spread-out metropolis relatively quickly, very frequently (which also reduces the discrepancy in seating capacity) and, most importantly, serving all stops. That's what it's about.

[Linto63]

In 2018/19, the Transperth rail network carried 16% the number of passengers of Sydney Trains (62 vs 377 million), comparing operational performance of the two is meaningless.

[tonyp]

In 2018/19, the Transperth rail network carried 16% the number of passengers of Sydney Trains (62 vs 377 million), comparing operational performance of the two is meaningless.

As I said, it's about the technology and how it works so the above comment is completely irrelevant, but, in any case, you're off the mark as usual:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_ ... _Australia

In average passengers per route km (per day in this case), which is the most common international measure of how densely-used systems are, Perth is not that far behind Sydney suburban system and ahead of any other system in Australia, bar Sydney metro which is way ahead of any other (all pre-virus figures of course).

Sydney suburban: 1,267
Perth: 974

By comparison, Melbourne, the next largest: 684
(Brisbane is estimated about 320/km if we take out the two interurban lines to make a matching comparison)
(Adelaide: 309)

Sydney metro: 1,842

[Linto63]

Transperth's 2018/19 patronage was 62 million and Sydney Trains' was 377 million per page 9 of its 2018/19 annual report, so no I am not off the mark.

The trap you fell into was assuming Wikipedia to be correct. As has been discussed before, it has no checks and balances meaning any amateur can write something and it is taken as fact. And as often the case, the quoted article has rubbish information. Your 1267 vs 974 calculation was based on comparing apples with oranges.

The Sydney Trains network is nowhere near the 815 km stated, that maybe the total length of the individual tracks. The network bounded by Berowra, Emu Plains, Macarthur and Waterfall is about 325 km (rough calculation, maybe out by a few km either way). The 173 km quoted for Perth is about right for that network. So that means Sydney's average passengers per route km is 3178 or 3.2 times that of Perth's 974.

Of course, numbers only tell part of the story, but with more than five times the patronage and three times the average passengers per route km, on both fronts Sydney is in a different league to Perth.

[Transtopic]

Then build the Eastwood to St Leonard's link that was proposed years ago to use it since the Northern Beaches wants to keep everyone out of their principality.

Just a little background history. This link was approved by the NSW Parliament in 1927 and is still on the Statute books. Owing to the depression and later the outbreak of WW2, construction was never started. During the 1940s, the local MP successfully lobbied for a road link over the rail line and hence Epping Rd was built instead from Lane Cove to Epping. The initial route of the rail line is attached.

https://imgur.com/zEvhx3R
https://imgur.com/9SIKRXV

However, the NSW Railways wanted the line to branch with the Northern Line just north of Eastwood Station towards Epping rather than Eastwood. There was such an outcry from Eastwood residents and the local business community that a compromise was reached with the new line to branch with the Northern Line south of Eastwood Station so that both Eastwood and Epping benefited from the new link. A sensible outcome IMO, but alas it never came to pass.

There wouldn't be any need for it now that the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link, since converted to metro, was constructed. Unfortunately, Eastwood has become a black hole as far as new transport infrastructure is concerned, even though it still remains a larger retail/commercial centre than Epping.

[tonyp]

Transperth's 2018/19 patronage was 62 million and Sydney Trains' was 377 million per page 9 of its 2018/19 annual report, so no I am not off the mark.

The trap you fell into was assuming Wikipedia to be correct. As has been discussed before, it has no checks and balances meaning any amateur can write something and it is taken as fact. And as often the case, the quoted article has rubbish information. Your 1267 vs 974 calculation was based on comparing apples with oranges.

The Sydney Trains network is nowhere near the 815 km stated, that maybe the total length of the individual tracks. The network bounded by Berowra, Emu Plains, Macarthur and Waterfall is about 325 km (rough calculation, maybe out by a few km either way). The 173 km quoted for Perth is about right for that network. So that means Sydney's average passengers per route km is 3178 or 3.2 times that of Perth's 974.

Of course, numbers only tell part of the story, but with more than five times the patronage and three times the average passengers per route km, on both fronts Sydney is in a different league to Perth.

Thanks for the tips here. I've gone through the article in detail and, to be fair, whoever wrote it actually did the right thing and used annual reports and official statistics. So there isn't a "Wikipedia issue", most of the stuff is properly researched and referenced. Furthermore, most of it is correct "at the time of the information", the problem there being that, instead of using all 2019 stats, they've drawn on stats ranging from 2017 to 2019. I've done a bit of a tidy up of all that on paper and maybe I'll upload it to the article, but the differences in those figures are minor - some patronage has gone up or down a little and some systems have grown a little.

The major problem, as you've identified, is that, while most of the entries do measure the systems in route kms (the international accepted practice), Sydney and Melbourne are shown in track kms. To be fair to the author/s, who may have been from overseas, there is a huge deception by TfNSW which blandly states 815 km without qualification for the Sydney system in all its public material, so it would be difficult to blame somebody from overseas, for example, who would assume they are using the standard language of route km. This is really down to TfNSW being TfNSW ("what the rest of the world does is no concern of ours"). In recalculating, I'm accepting your estimate of about 325 km as I haven't had time to sit down and calculate Sydney in detail.

Melbourne, on the other hand, may be down to a slip-up by the writer because all of PTV's public material that I've seen states 405 km (i.e. route km). The 965 km figure is most likely track kms that they've dug up from some other source. For Brisbane, it's diabolical trying to separate suburban from interurban on the available statistics (I have done my own rough estimates) and the author can be forgiven for leaving them rolled together. Of the total route km shown for Brisbane, about 261 are interurban.

So the draft outcome of correcting and updating figures to route km and 2019 is (route km /passengers per km per day):

Sydney suburban 325 3,177
Sydney metro 36 1,842
Sydney interurban 977 114

Metro Melbourne 405 1,645
Melbourne interurban 610 94

Perth 180 936

Brisbane suburban and interurban 689 206

Adelaide 126 340

Another interesting comparison of passenger density on systems along similar lines is this:

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2015 ... kilometer/

In terms of debating with Transtopic what the Sydney suburban system can achieve in terms of lifting power relative to metro this shows (annual this time, not daily) ridership of many metro systems on the same per route km basis - so systems big and small are represented and you will see up the top of the list, not only are the well-known giants represented, but also the small cities of Prague and Budapest with their very successful public transport systems which have massive passenger densities relative to their route lengths, indeed as a ratio to their populations too. So anybody could potentially make it to this list.

In the comments below this piece, there is some discussion of Paris RER and RER A, regarded as the alpha double deck suburban line with the shifting power of a metro. As the comment mentions, on the basis of patronage and line length of RER A, about 2.7, it would fit into this list just under Nanjing. Sydney suburban at nearly 1.2 would be on the bottom of the list just below Yerevan. (Sydney metro, still an isolated cross-suburban line nowhere near its potential yet, would be just off the bottom of the list.) I can't think of any double deck suburban systems in the world other than these two that would find a place even at the bottom of this list. It demonstrates the mighty lifting power of metro technology.

[Transtopic]

in an express pattern.

No, we need to see the Waratahs out-performing metro trains in an all-stops pattern to attain the objective that the planners have set. The two-tier system is not what Sydney needs because many centres have a reduced level of service as a result. In terms of the decentred way the city is developing it's an inappropriate method. So can the Waratahs perform this role with ATO? They won't be able to attain their 130 km/h potential because of station spacings, so they'll be relying entirely on acceleration/deceleration and dwell time.

You're missing the whole point of my argument. I wasn't comparing a Waratah in an all-stops pattern with an equivalent metro all-stops service. I was comparing a Waratah in an express pattern on an ATO upgraded outer suburban line with a metro all-stops service over an equivalent distance. All things being equal in terms of acceleration/deceleration performance, the Waratah with its higher maximum speed and far fewer stops would win hands down. I don't dispute the fact that the Waratahs would only be able to utilise their maximum speed of 130km/h on the express segments where the station spacings are much wider. It would still be in front even with the same maximum speed as the metro. With far fewer stops, dwell times don't come into it. I'm surprised you can't see the logic in that.

I don't agree with your thesis that the outer suburbs over longer distances should be serviced by all-stops metro style services with limited seating. In spite of the alleged time saving which you claim for the all-stops metro service, I can't seriously imagine commuters from Penrith, Richmond or Campbelltown warming to being subjected to an all-stations service through the inner city, when they could potentially have a faster journey with an express DD service and with more seats to boot. The express services already stop at the major centres and the few who would wish to access minor stations in between can interchange to an all-stations service at a major centre. Two-tier systems are fairly common in overseas cities with established rail networks as you well know. I don't know of too many which have long distance all-stops metro style services. To emphasize my point, here are a few examples of overseas metro and suburban systems overlaid on the Sydney rail network.

download/file.php?id=96457
download/file.php?id=96456
download/file.php?id=96458
download/file.php?id=96459
download/file.php?id=96461
download/file.php?id=96454
download/file.php?id=96455
download/file.php?id=96460
download/file.php?id=96462

The existing outer suburban lines will never realistically be converted to metro, so your spurious argument about the superiority of a metro service over the future upgraded existing network is irrelevant. DD trains are here to stay, so just get used to it. In the case of new lines into areas not currently serviced by rail, it's an entirely different matter, although I'm not convinced that a metro style service is warranted to the outer suburbs, not that there are too many needed, if any. Metro should stick with developing new rail links in the higher density inner and middle ring suburbs for which it is most suited.

[tonyp]

All of those overseas systems, with the possible exception of Zurich, are based on one city centre. In Sydney there are two, soon to be three:

[Transtopic]

All of those overseas systems, with the possible exception of Zurich, are based on one city centre. In Sydney there are two, soon to be three:

That's a poor argument. The Sydney CBD will remain the overwhelmingly dominant business centre compared with the other sub-regional centres and will continue to be the focus of the transport network from all parts of the Sydney region and beyond. New transport links will connect with Parramatta and the Badgerys Creek Aerotropolis, but they will only represent a minor part of the broader transport network which will be focused on the Sydney CBD.

[Linto63]

So there isn't a "Wikipedia issue", most of the stuff is properly researched and referenced.

It is a Wikipedia issue, in that it is portraying incorrect information as fact. The table was badly researched resulting in something totally misleading. Moral of the story is that Wikipedia is not reliable and its validity needs to be treated with extreme caution.

As to the 2056 map, most of it won't be built, is more a bit of blue sky thinking than a concrete roadmap.

[grog]

All of those overseas systems, with the possible exception of Zurich, are based on one city centre. In Sydney there are two, soon to be three:

That's a poor argument. The Sydney CBD will remain the overwhelmingly dominant business centre compared with the other sub-regional centres and will continue to be the focus of the transport network from all parts of the Sydney region and beyond. New transport links will connect with Parramatta and the Badgerys Creek Aerotropolis, but they will only represent a minor part of the broader transport network which will be focused on the Sydney CBD.

Something like 20% of jobs are in Sydney CBD. Many more are in other centres, and the remainder are dispersed. That second category (in centres that aren’t the CBD) is the big growth opportunity for PT patronage growth, and is the kind of patronage that a connected, simple, single stopping pattern metro style network that encourages interchange will support. The world should not revolve around long distance trips into Sydney CBD.