• Welcome to RAIL - Back On Track Forum.
 

Sydney: Metro West rail line

Started by ozbob, May 30, 2017, 05:52:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jonno


ozbob

Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X  Threads  Mastodon  BlueSky

Jonno

QuoteNew 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

#43
QuoteThis 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?
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

#Metro

#44
QuoteWhat 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)
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

ozbob

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o1yRIcFbEk
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X  Threads  Mastodon  BlueSky

Gazza

QuoteLike 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.

QuoteEven 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.

QuotePassengers 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.

QuoteIf 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.


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


QuoteEven 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

QuoteWould 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

Quote-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

Quote from: Jonno on August 14, 2023, 10:06:39 AMThis 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

#49
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?
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

Jonno

#50
Quote from: RowBro on August 14, 2023, 10:30:50 AM
Quote from: Jonno on August 14, 2023, 10:06:39 AMThis 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

#51
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.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

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  :-w

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

#53
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

Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

Gazza

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

Jonno

Quote from: #Metro on August 14, 2023, 16:42:22 PMAgree 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

#58
QuoteThis 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.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

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

Quote from: #Metro on August 14, 2023, 11:01:36 AMHmm... 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.  :fp:  :pfy:  ::)

­čí▒ ­čí│