Sydney: Metro West rail line

[Jonno]

Utter hogwash!!

[ozbob]

Utter hogwash!!

Please explain 

[Jonno]

New stations add new passengers (access) but they also subtract them (extra stops increases the car-PT journey time gap).

Some of the most successful active/public transport mode share cities have stops that you could easily walk.  Aka the London Tube. 

What they have done is reduce road space for cars, charge congestion and made active/transport safe, fast,  frequent and connected.

This maths approach to stations spacing flies in the face of evidence from the successful cities. 

Express patterns and station spacing are not intrinsically connected.

[#Metro]

This maths approach to stations spacing flies in the face of evidence from the successful cities.

Like Perth?

Even London and Paris have RER and Elizabeth Line.

Passengers care about relative journey times versus alternatives.

If this wasn't the case, coverage bus routes with lots of stops would be highly patronised. They aren't.

Passengers also have reasonable limits on how long they want to spend in a vehicle - The Marchetti constant. This limits line length.

Operators care about rolling stock requirements, which are higher for lines with closer spacing.

Even on the traditional Sydney rail network there are all day express trains from Parramatta into the CBD which make one stop at Strathfield then into Redfern then Central and into the city circle.

Would it boost patronage to make those trains all stops? Would the service still be attractive to upstream passengers if that happened?

[#Metro]

What they have done is reduce road space for cars, charge congestion and made active/transport safe, fast,  frequent and connected.

Well, even you wrote 'fast' in your reply.

The way I see it, fast and frequent is preferable to slow and frequent, at least in the Sydney context.

Surface bus routes along main roads already provide slow and frequent service with lots of stops.

(Sydney has a network of fast toll roads, that's what the PT system is competing against)

[ozbob]

Parramatta metro won't be cancelled says NSW Premier Chris Minns | 7NEWS

[Gazza]

Like Perth?

Perth has a low of low density nothingness.
If you have caught the train to Mandurah, you'll note a few sections where you are travelling through scrub, or through low density, or the low density is only on one side of the line and the other side is completely undeveloped.. Large numbers of stations are not needed in this environment.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Perth+WA/@-32.1972907,115.8545313,3864m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x2a32966cdb47733d:0x304f0b535df55d0!8m2!3d-31.9523123!4d115.861309!16zL20vMDYycWc?entry=ttu

Sydney does not have development that thin. People need to be serviced.

Even London and Paris have RER and Elizabeth Line.

But this is supplementary to the Metro/Underground.
The RER has metro lines in parallel providing the all stops service and walkable access. I've been there.

Passengers care about relative journey times versus alternatives.

Correct.
The issue Jonno correctly idenfities is that:

-Australian cities have spent a lot of time prioritizing point to point car travel, making things faster for them.
-It's still happening (Westconnex)
-Now public transport is set the impossible task of trying to keep up with this the speed of cars.
-So you get absurd situations where metros are being built right under existing high density suburbs that were developed before the car was king, the perfect place where a metro would work, but there are no stops.

If this wasn't the case, coverage bus routes with lots of stops would be highly patronised. They aren't.

As a general rule, yes an indirect route with a lot of stops would do poorly.

But at the same time, the #1 bus in Qld is the 199, which is direct, but also all stops.
Probably because the corridor is dense, so having extra stops is better than having the stops 2km apart.

Operators care about rolling stock requirements, which are higher for lines with closer spacing.

Even on the traditional Sydney rail network there are all day express trains from Parramatta into the CBD which make one stop at Strathfield then into Redfern then Central and into the city circle.

Those trains are longer distance services to the Blue Mountains / Penrith / Richmond

Would it boost patronage to make those trains all stops? Would the service still be attractive to upstream passengers if that happened?

The inner west line provides the all stops service beween the CBD and Parramatta.

Like, its important to provide a fast regional service, but you cant forget about passengers in dense areas on the way. They need their own line or service.

[Jonno]

-Australian cities have spent a lot of time prioritizing point to point car travel, making things faster for them.
-It's still happening (Westconnex)
-Now public transport is set the impossible task of trying to keep up with this the speed of cars.
-So you get absurd situations where metros are being built right under existing high density suburbs that were developed before the car was king, the perfect place where a metro would work, but there are no stops.

This is spot on.  If we think we need to "just compete" with urban freeways then we are being fools. Yes Urban Freeways exist but in the long term given what we no know about their cost, impacts, etc. ....the question to be answered is should they?  I think long term the answer is No.

[RowBro]

This is spot on.  If we think we need to "just compete" with urban freeways then we are being fools. Yes Urban Freeways exist but in the long term given what we no know about their cost, impacts, etc. ....the question to be answered is should they?  I think long term the answer is No.

ICB cough* cough*

[#Metro]

Hmm... Service needs to be fast because unlike cars, PT needs to make stops, then you have access, waiting time and interchanging as well.

The problem with slow transit is that it is poorly suited to cities which sprawl over long distances. Parramatta is 20 km from the Sydney CBD, Penrith is 50 km.

We already have plenty of closely spaced stations in Brisbane. How's that going? LRT and BRT would be a better option in my view for denser inner city areas, similar to how Melbourne has a tram core in the inner city. Melbourne trams are doing 200 million plus trips per year, multiple times what QR is moving.

Moreover, you can get lots of tram lines and stops in the denser inner city for the cost of one metro line. If you want coverage, that's how we could get it.

Toll Roads
Toll roads are interesting because although they offer a higher speed, they also charge the user. This reduces their use and keeps them relatively un-congested.

They are not really a means of mass transport because their capacity is inherently low and the toll.

Provided that the government doesn't subsidise them, i'm wondering if they are even relevant to PT patronage. Was there a fall in Ipswich line patronage when Legacy Way opened, for example?

[Jonno]

This is spot on.  If we think we need to "just compete" with urban freeways then we are being fools. Yes Urban Freeways exist but in the long term given what we no know about their cost, impacts, etc. ....the question to be answered is should they?  I think long term the answer is No.

ICB cough* cough*

I may never see they day but I think one day the freeways will be removed and turned into Boulevard or Urban Development/SkyRail interactions with a Metro retained on part of the current Freeway.

GT-Fyans-St-feature

No in my time but hopefully we have set the change in motion.

[#Metro]

Jonno, what's your view on major LRT expansion? The GC and Sydney ones have seemed to do really well patronage wise.

I also like the fact that it's mostly surface. You don't need huge sunken station boxes for most LRT.

What has to be true to build a Paris metro style system in Sydney?

Sydney Metro west is coming in at 1.04 billion/km or 2.5 billion on a per-station basis.

To build something like Paris Metro with 308 stations would be in the ball park of $770 billion required and 3.3 stations opening every year for the next 100 years.

This value exceeds the size of the entire economy of NSW, which is about $700 billion.

[Gazza]

What about medium capacity metros with smaller station boxes?

Copenhagen looked at building LRT but opted to build a small metro.
38km long,  39 stations, 107 million passengers 

Rennes, similar situation. One party wanted to build trams, another wanted the metro.
22km long, 28 stations, 37m passengers.

Of course, LRT and BRT can do well with patronage, but metros are even more popular.

[Jonno]

In my thinking it is horse for courses. 

The planning both city and transport needs to look at the preferred trips and mode share of trips for a corridor/area and this determines the end state of public transport to be provisioned and thus the capacity on corridors to be provisioned.

If the analysis says that you need Metro/Heavy Rail then your planning should always have that in mind even if the route is services by BRT until the rail line can be built.  What needs to be avoided is building LRT because it is easier and cheaper (comparatively) when a Metro/Heavy Rail is the end-state. Build BRT to get people used to the service, frequency and connectivity as the sunk cost is worth it.  LRT the sunk-cost is too high. This is why for me the Not-a-True Metro is the wrong investment.  BRT made sense at the beginning although I would have run it as a trunk network from the start - hindsight always 20:20).  What SEQ has lacked is any planning to achieve an end-state. They had glossy strategies (e.g. 66% by 2011) and then continued to plan/invest to make sure the exact opposite occurred (i.e. today's mess).  It is why I quit planning as I could see there was no indent to change.

If the end state says LRT is better for a range of reasons (not just capacity) then start with that in mind even if it is BRT as above. The step change form BRT to Light Rail is not so bad.

If the end-state is BRT again for a range of reason then build it from the start of course but probably after you have done the two above. 

[JimmyP]

The Sydney Metro West (and to an extent, the Metro down from Chatswood) is something I think they've gotten a little wrong while getting it right too.
Personally, I think the tunnels etc should still be built as is, but used for the double deck Sydney trains and convert the current all stations line (on the west) to a Metro. Suburban/interurban trains are much more suited to longer station spacings, which the new tunnel seems to have, while Metros typically are very good with sort station spacings (with quite high acceleration/braking performance).
Doing that would have cost more and been more disruptive during construction etc., but personally I think it would have achieved a better long term overall outcome.

[#Metro]

Agree JimmyP, I doubt we will see genuinely new 'greenfield' metro lines after the current batch is complete in Sydney.

They will likely be line section conversions of existing CityRail lines.

Space will probably shift to BRT/LRT in Priority B because the overall value proposition is better. You can get a lot more for a lot less.

Lower tech / planning solutions are not as sexy but they can be really effective.

See https://humantransit.org/2010/04/australia-the-pitfalls-of-metroenvy.html

[Gazza]

Will a class B BRT beat the speed of a car?

[Jonno]

Agree JimmyP, I doubt we will see genuinely new 'greenfield' metro lines after the current batch is complete in Sydney.

They will likely be line section conversions of existing CityRail lines.

Space will probably shift to BRT/LRT in Priority B because the overall value proposition is better. You can get a lot more for a lot less.

Lower tech / planning solutions are not as sexy but they can be really effective.

See https://humantransit.org/2010/04/australia-the-pitfalls-of-metroenvy.html

This is putting horse before the cart.  Saying LRT is better value assume it meets the mode share outcomes desired!! What if it doesn't?  You then end up having to subsidised driving at 6x that of Public Transport!  No value in that!!!

Agree that any True-Metro in Brisbane should not duplicate existing/future rail lines!

The existing and future rail lines need to be doing heavy lifting as well with min 15min frequency, interconnected with Metro and BRT!!

At some point they all become automated but found he king way away.  Frequency is king not automation.

 

[#Metro]

This is putting horse before the cart.  Saying LRT is better value assume it meets the mode share outcomes desired!! What if it doesn't?

I'm going to partly agree with that statement Jonno. Northern Beaches never got its CityRail line, currently it is served by BRT. I do think metro would be the better mode, but you would easily be looking at an ~ $18 billion project to do that.

At $1 billion/km further metro projects will just be priced out of existence really. As I wrote, metro doesn't scale for this reason.

If coverage is what we want, BRT and LRT will deliver more stops and stations in Priority B ROW for the same or less budget. Possibly 5x to 10x times more coverage depending whether LRT or BRT can be built for $100-200 million/km.

In 1945, Sydney tram network carried 400+ million trips. Mass transit using trams in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane has historically been done before, and can be done again.

[Jonno]

Which takes us back to 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

If the analysis says that you need Metro/Heavy Rail then your planning should always have that in mind even if the route is services by BRT until the rail line can be built.  What needs to be avoided is building LRT because it is easier and cheaper (comparatively) when a Metro/Heavy Rail is the end-state. Build BRT to get people used to the service, frequency and connectivity as the sunk cost is worth it.  LRT the sunk-cost is too high. This is why for me the Not-a-True Metro is the wrong investment.  BRT made sense at the beginning although I would have run it as a trunk network from the start - hindsight always 20:20).  What SEQ has lacked is any planning to achieve an end-state. They had glossy strategies (e.g. 66% by 2011) and then continued to plan/invest to make sure the exact opposite occurred (i.e. today's mess).  It is why I quit planning as I could see there was no indent to change.

If the end state says LRT is better for a range of reasons (not just capacity) then start with that in mind even if it is BRT as above. The step change form BRT to Light Rail is not so bad.

If the end-state is BRT again for a range of reason then build it from the start of course but probably after you have done the two above.

Plus short changing capacity in the long run because it's cheaper cost you more in car trip subsidies!!

Yes the numbers look big but the alternative is even bigger!!

[achiruel]

Hmm... Service needs to be fast because unlike cars, PT needs to make stops, then you have access, waiting time and interchanging as well.

The problem with slow transit is that it is poorly suited to cities which sprawl over long distances. Parramatta is 20 km from the Sydney CBD, Penrith is 50 km.

We already have plenty of closely spaced stations in Brisbane. How's that going? LRT and BRT would be a better option in my view for denser inner city areas, similar to how Melbourne has a tram core in the inner city. Melbourne trams are doing 200 million plus trips per year, multiple times what QR is moving.

Moreover, you can get lots of tram lines and stops in the denser inner city for the cost of one metro line. If you want coverage, that's how we could get it.

Toll Roads
Toll roads are interesting because although they offer a higher speed, they also charge the user. This reduces their use and keeps them relatively un-congested.

They are not really a means of mass transport because their capacity is inherently low and the toll.

Provided that the government doesn't subsidise them, i'm wondering if they are even relevant to PT patronage. Was there a fall in Ipswich line patronage when Legacy Way opened, for example?

Have you ever seen the Logan Mwy or Gateway Bridge during peak hour? Sure, tolls prevent congestion.     

[ozbob]

https://x.com/ChrisMinnsMP/status/1732546629490856202?s=20

[#Metro]

Zoning change will allow override of local plans to permit high density at scale around metro stations.

Rosehill will aim to have 25,000 homes. If built, this would be a good example of TOD done at scale.

(And likely satisfies the condition TOD > P&R PT patronage in this case as well)

[ozbob]

Sydney Metro West project

https://www.sydneymetro.info/west/project-overview

[timh]

What they're doing with Metro West is excellent. Its an extraordinatily expensive project given the massive tunnel required but maybe they hope to value capture to recuperate some of the costs. The zoning uplift could definitely help with that.

I was in Sydney recently and had the opportunity to use the rail network fairly substantially. I was particularly impressed with how well Sydney already does TOD. Heaps of high rise development around many many stations on the Inner West line. Olympic Park is already also seeing significant densification, so the proposed high rise development to go along with the new Metro station there is welcome. That will be a very well connected precinct (T7 rail loop, Metro West station, 2+ Parramatta light rail stations (stage 2))

The Rosehill development is awesome. I just hope they can deliver some affordable housing as part of it (Sydney needs it desperately). It will be an excellent example of TOD, as they've announced a new Metro station there and it is also close to the Camelia station on Parramatta light rail stage 2.

It sets a good example for Brisbane. One I'd love to see followed with Ascot racecourse... Of course the Doomben line would require SIGNIFICANT works to make that worthwhile as a TOD

[ozbob]

Email 7th December 2023 from Sydney Metro

'This morning the NSW Government released the Sydney Metro Independent Review final report summary and committed to delivering the Sydney Metro West project.

Based on the review's recommendations the NSW Government will: 
Commit to the current nine station alignment of Sydney Metro West at a minimum, targeting an opening date of 2032. Prepare scoping studies for up to two new stations west of Sydney Olympic Park, along the existing planned route that can support a significant increase in housing.  Ensure the current design and construction plans do not preclude additional stations from being considered as station locations in the future. Prepare a business case to improve bus and active transport connections to broaden the catchment of the existing alignment.  Direct Sydney Metro to provide a consolidated property and placemaking strategy across all existing lines to support the government's priorities regarding housing supply. 

The Sydney Metro Independent Review final report summary can be found here.

In response to the Independent Review, the NSW Government also announced the commencement of discussions with the Australian Turf Club (ATC) on a proposal for new homes that would allow the government to explore the feasibility of a new Metro Station at Rosehill. Any future plans would be subject to the NSW Government's Unsolicited Proposal process.

With Western Sydney's population forecast to reach 3.2 million by 2036, this is a hugely important project for the region and Sydney. Sydney Metro West will ease crowding on the T1 Western Line, T9 Northern Line and the T2 Inner West and Leppington Line, because passengers will change to metro rail for direct and faster journeys that are more convenient based on their destination. 

Sydney Metro will continue working closely with stakeholders, industry, local government and local communities."

[ozbob]

Exciting news announced today for Australia's biggest public transport project – Sydney Metro West, with the project now...

Posted by Sydney Metro on Wednesday, 6 December 2023

[verbatim9]