Increasing train length is most cost effective capacity solution

The CBD & Southeast Sydney light rail line will have the world's longest vehicles at 67m.

For heavy rail, 10 car trains were revealed in internal Transport NSW documents as one of the most cost effective measures for increasing capacity - a 25% capacity increment for only $149m for Western line station lengthening, and $149m for Richmond line station lengthening:

Land price data inconsistency: is RBA using wrong data?

Is the RBA using wrong data for it's macro-economic policy setting?

This graph shows the RP Data median land prices, ie: north of $150K and even higher in capital cities:

These numbers match my general impression of land prices, with land lots at Edmondson Park in Sydney's South West Growth centre for sale at approx ~$320K.

Yet last year (2013 speech) the data the RBA cited had unusually low land price contributions to overall development costs:

RBA puts non-Sydney land prices at under $50K?

CBD & SE Sydney Light Rail to increase capacity by 50%

Even before any construction has started, the NSW Government is already aiming to increase the CBD & SE Sydney light rail capacity by 50%, presumably to 13500 passengers per hour.  This illustrates that the original design was underwhelming in it's vision or ambition.  I'm also not sure if George St is really the best alignment for the CBD light rail, as it necessitates using up not one but two precious Central station street frontages (Eddy Ave and Chalmers St).  Despite using up so much valuable Central station real estate, it's interchange with trains terminating at Sydney terminal is quite suboptimal, requiring passengers to cross all the way over to Rawson Place (what's wrong with having stop in Eddy Ave?).

The Connecting Sydney consortium, consisting of Transdev Sydney, Alstom Transport Australia, Acciona Infrastructure Australia and Capella Capital, was named the preferred bidder for the project.

Details of how the 50% capacity increase is achieved are unclear.  Presumably because final contract has not closed, it remains confidential information.  If anyone can provide a tip on this matter, please post a comment below.

Wozniak migrating to Sydney, hired by UTS

Apple co-founder Steve "Woz" Wozniak is set to join the University of Technology, Sydney, in December as an adjunct professor.He will become a key part of the UTS "Magic Lab", the university's centre for innovation and enterprise research, which conducts research into robotics and artificial intelligence.  ....Mr Wozniak has harboured intentions of moving to Australia since 2012, when he said he was going through the process of becoming an Australian citizen. (SMH)

For more details read the announcement by UTS.

This will cement Pyrmont/Ultimo as an emerging technology hub.  This district was the fastest growing employment centre in the City of Sydney Local Government Area, with a 46% increase in employment (from 19,869 jobs in 2007 to 29,010 jobs in 2012).  One example of this growth is Google, which currently occupies 20,000sqm of office floorspace in Pyrmont, but is reported to be looking to grow to as much as 100,000 sqm beyond 2018.

Along with the construction of Sydney's own "Highline", an elevated walkway along the disused Ultimo goods rail line, this area is really starting to add to the growing momentum for the expansion of Sydney's CBD westwards.

Bays Precinct an opportunity to right the wrongs of Barangaroo

Mike Harris in his comparison of the planning of Barangaroo to other global megaprojects reports the following:

"In the case of Barangaroo transparency, participation and accountability have all been heavily criticised from academia, government, professional and popular media quarters... 

Technical vagueness has been exhibited in the transport planning for Barangaroo. 23,000 people are expected to live and work at Barangaroo and another 33,000 are expected to visit daily. In 2011, four years after the approval of the Barangaroo Concept Plan - acting as the statutory master planning instrument - the transport planning was described as little more than vague ideas (Withnell, 2011). This is despite the publicised goal that 96% of employees during peak will travel by public transport, bicycle or foot (Barangaroo Delivery Authority, 2013). The number of employees anticipated to travel during peak is not provided but in a worst case scenario (they all do) 96% is 22,000 people. To consider this by transport mode capacity that would mean 368 busses, 73 trams or 18.5 double decker heavy rail trains. The question that this raises is how was such major development (“Sydney’s largest redevelopment project this century”, by BDA’s own admission) approved and progressed without a well defined transport strategy, including commitment for investment in new or upgraded public transport infrastructure. In September 2012 the Barangaroo Integrated Transport Plan was released. The plan primarily proposes “viability investigations” and “feasibility studies” for increasing capacity on existing infrastructure. 

By global megaproject standards transport infrastructure provision at Barangaroo could be considered very poor. The Ørestad and Nordhavn megaprojects in Copenhagen, Hudson Yards in New York, HafenCity in Hamburg, Zuidas in Amsterdam and Kop van Zuid in Rotterdam included commitments for new rail lines and stations as part of the early planning phase. In the case of Ørestad the metro line was constructed first, funded by the future sale of the public land (Book, Eskilsson, & Khan, 2010). This strategy of funding a new metro line with the revenue raised from selling public land is now being implemented at Copenhagen’s next megaproject Nordhavn."

Bays Precinct is an opportunity to right these wrongs.  I have proposed using the Rozelle Railyards as a heavy rail corridor to connect Barangaroo into the Western Sydney commuter rail network.  However, even if there is no agreement on the exact rail transport plans, it is important that a corridor for heavy rail as well as light rail be preserved in the Rozelle Railyards - not just light rail.

Station for Sydney University: Reading Between the Lines

The following was speculated by blogger OzRails:

"I really hope that this means that they are reconsidering their removal of the Inner West line from their plans.  It was originally discarded because of the complexities where the tunnel was to surface at Redfern, well that's not happening and they are considering a path that runs in the exact direction to allow a branch to join the inner west line between Newtown and Stanmore where there is space for the tunnel to meet the existing line to Homebush. So that would see 15 tph for the Bankstown line (confirmed by TNSW) and 15 tph for the inner west line. This would not only provide a much improved service to the inner west but would free up space on the Main South line and a faster journey to the CBD for those trains as they run express from Homebush to just before the CBD other than Strathfield and Burwood. The tunnel for the Inner West SRT line would have the SYD uni station.
...
One may then ask, what happens with the Hurstville branch? It would have to stay as it is right now but if youre looking to convert the ESR to Metro then you use the Hurstville and Revesby branches to feed that line along with the stations from Sydenham to Erskineville. So 15 tph for each branch plus 30 tph for the ESR (extended to supplement the Light Rail). "

This could explain a lot of the discrepancy between the Rail Futures 2012 document and the 2014 SRT documents.  If the above speculation by OzRails is correct, then TfNSW have basically discarded their Rail Futures 2012 plan (to link Hurstville local tracks to the SRT), and have gone back to an earlier plan to connect the Inner West locals to the SRT....  Yet another TfNSW reversal!  (Not that I think plans should be fixed forever and never be reviewed).

Stations for Sydney University vs Waterloo

This is reported by SMH:

"Jockeying over train stations to be built south of a second harbour rail crossing has already begun, with the University of Sydney lobbying for a campus station and the government's property development arm pushing for one at a redeveloped Waterloo."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/jockeying-begins-over-new-train-stations-for-sydney-university-or-waterloo-20141009-10roaj.html#ixzz3FwGJWEiq

One assertion I found interesting was this:

"But Mr Turnbull questioned why a new line was needed through the Waterloo area, when the existing Airport Line travels under that area. It is understood, however, that installing a new station on the Airport Line could require closing that line for months during construction."

Other West Sydney rail plans part 2: travel time comparisons

To get an idea what combination of North CBD (Barangaroo) vs South CBD (Central) entry point and Fast Rail (220km/h) vs Conventional Rail (130km/h) provides the best travel times, I am going to do some travel time analyses for each combination.  Below are some basic assumptions of the Fast Rail vs Conventional Rail parameters.

1. Optimised conventional rail service assumptions:
a.  Top speed: 130km/h
b.  Acceleration: 1.2m/s
c.  Time to reach top speed: 30secs
d.  Distance to reach top speed: 450m
e.  Station load/unload dwell time: 60s

2. Fast rail service assumptions:
a.  Top speed: 220km/h
b.  Acceleration: 1.2m/s  (can anyone confirm this?)

c.  Time to reach top speed: 51secs

d.  Distance to reach top speed: 1300m
e.  Station load/unload dwell time: 60s

Other West Sydney rail plans part 1: FROGS Fast Rail

Below is a transport network devised by 10000 Friends of Greater Sydney (FROGS) in 2009:

They proposed metro conversion of parts of the current rail network, and construction of an additional pair of high speed tracks from CBD to the Parramatta (then joining up with the existing West Main tracks to Emu Plains).  Interestingly they envisaged the Parramatta express tracks as the first stage of a wider HSR network to Melbourne and Brisbane, via an interchange at Parramatta.  The approach to the CBD they use is via Central Station, before proceeding to what appears to be Kings Cross.

Western, Northern & Airport/Revesby Lines should be focus of capacity addition

The above image was taken from the NSW 2012 Transport Masterplan.  It shows that the worst congestion will be on the Airport line, with "passenger displacement on much of the line between Revesby and Green Square", and also on the Northern Line.  Also having "Very High" crowding are the Western lines, especially between Strathfield and the CBD.  In comparison, the North Shore line is only predicted to have "High" levels of crowding.

With my Blue Sky Western Express proposal, capacity addition of ~50 trains per hour will be distributed across the different lines as follows:

* Western line into CBD: additional ~36-40tph, of which 26tph are express trains to Barangaroo

* Revesby/Aiport/City Circle (anticlockwise): additional ~10tph

* Northern line: from ~10tph to up to 20tph

In comparison, the SRT proposed by TfNSW will initially add 30tph, distributed as follows:

* Bankstown line: 15tph from the current ~8 tph

* ECRL/North Shore: additional 15 tph via second harbour crossing

* Western line into CBD: additional ~4tph, due to freeing up slots used by Bankstown trains

* East hills line into CBD: additional ~4tph, due to freeing up slots used by Bankstown trains

The need for additional Bankstown capacity provided by SRT is questionable, given it is predicted to have "Low"/"Very Low" levels of crowding even out to 2031.  This suggests SRT is poorly targeting capacity addition.  Overall, on the most crowded lines (Western, Revesby and Northern), the capacity addition with Blue Sky Western Express is superior to that provided by the SRT, reflecting it's more effective targeting of lines needing more capacity.

TfNSW & UrbanGrowth: change Bays Precinct vision from "light" to "heavy" rail

This is the concept map released by Urban Growth for the Bays Precinct:

For the Rozelle Railyards, I can see they have listed "Mixed used village ... Green links ... Connectivity to adjoining precincts ... WestConnex/light rail".

This all sounds like quite a utopia for the 0.0001% of Sydney who live in an apartment in the "mixed use village".  But what's benefit is there for the 99.9999% of wider Sydney residents who won't be living in one of UrbanGrowth's mixed use villages?

If UrbanGrowth changed a single word in their document in this list, from "light" rail to "heavy" rail, then yes, I think UrbanGrowth would have created a master-stroke vision.  Unfortunately, though it is only a single word difference, it can mean a huge difference in outcomes for wider Sydney.

Attn: Parramatta, North Sydney, Lane Cove - Google is looking for 100,000sqm HQ - are you ready?

According to AFR, Google is looking for "Sites in Sydney between 45,000 and 60,000 square metres – and scaleable up to 100,0000 square metres. That is nearly equivalent to the largest of the three skyscrapers being built by Lend Lease at Barangaroo.  Google’s desired size however means its options are limited in Sydney. It wants to be very close to public transport and within 10 kilometres of the central business district. The wildcard is the Bays Precinct."

Does this mean other regional centres (Parramatta, North Sydney, St Leonards) are already out of the race to get Google's massive HQ?  Google locating itself in one of these centres would add 10~20% floorspace (and hence jobs) to all their existing commercial floorspace in a single stroke, and be a coup for their respective council...

Paramatta council... Lane Cove council... North Sydney council ... are you doing anything to get yourself onto Google's shortlist?

Mike Baird and Gladys: Comparison against Labor NSW's 2015 Transport Plan (hypothetical)

Dear Mike and Gladys,

I've already stated in a prior post I'm a supporter of your second harbour crossing and metro conversion, as I want to have my cake and eat it - ie: the best of a new metro network and enhancements to existing double deck network

However, I've created the following hypothetical Labor NSW 2015 transport plan... Your challenge coming up to the NSW 2015 election will be how do you justify the expense and service disruption of your plan versus a plan that Penny Sharpe could take to voters involving a cheap, low risk, yet effective enhancement of the existing double deck rail network?

I should admit that I have no special insight into NSW Labor or Penny Sharpe's thinking ... but the following would be consistent with their need to offer something to their voters in Western Sydney and the inner west, and to increase rail capacity on a tight budget (not having the privatisation proceeds you will have):

Western Express "Blue Sky" proposal: an extra 50 trains per hour

(This post follows on from my first post on Bays Precinct and creating a heavy rail corridor in the Rozelle Railyards.  For more detail on the Rozelle Railyard rail corridor that I propose, read my earlier post: goo.gl/hM8R5h)

I promised in my previous post to explain how my "Blue Sky" Western Express proposal will add 50 trains per hour capacity.  I've drawn a Sydney Trains network diagram to show how by joining the Rozelle Railyards to the West Main line at Ashfield, there are now **four** track pairs entering the CBD from the Main West rail lines:

These four track pairs are used as follows:

a.  City circle to Ashfield (Sector "T2A"): these pair of tracks can be used for all stops services in the inner west to the CBD.  At present, all stops services share tracks with the South line services, which ends up limiting capacity to 12 trains per hour because local and express services are mixed onto the same track pairs.  In my proposal, the all stops trains from Ashfield have their own dedicated tracks and so can run at a full 20 trains per hour per direction.  This all stops service through the city circle to the Airport line and then onto the Revesby line all stops track pair is also very suitable for metro single deck conversion, resulting in 30 trains per hour in each direction - ie: 60 trains per hour, versus the current 32-40 trains per hour.  Also, the latent capacity of Museum (as a substitute station for Town Hall) is better utilised, as 30 trains per hour will stop at Museum as the first CBD after Central. (Additionally, the East hills express track pair can continue to run alongside the Revesby metro tracks and then use the Illawarra local tracks to terminate at Central - which is potentially another 20 trains per hour into the CBD.  However, I leave this off my base case for now, as it's unclear if Central can turnback all 20 trains per hour from East Hills plus 20 trains per hour on West main line.)

b.  Harbour bridge to Strathfield platforms 7/8 (Sector "T2B") and then through to Granville before branching to South line and to Blacktown before further branching into Richmond and St Marys.  As a double deck service, I would split the 20 trains per hour capacity as follows:

- South line to Liverpool and then potentially to Leppington: 10 trains per hour

- Richmond line: 5 trains per hour

- St Marys line: 5 trains per hour

c.  Central to Strathfield (platforms 4/5/6) (Sector "T1A") and then branching at Strathfield's grade separated junction into Western intercity services (ie: Blue mountains) and into Northern intercity (ie: Hornsby/Central coast).  Given that much of most of this line's Western Sydney catchment already will have access to Central station via sector T1B trains, whereas much of the Northern line's catchment would have access to the North Shore line and hence Wynard rather than Central directly, I would split the 20 trains per hour into:

- Hornsby/Central coast to Central: 15 trains per hour

- Blue Mountains/Penrith: 5 trains per hour

d. Barangaroo to Strathfield (platforms 1/2/3) (Sector "T1B"): as a newly constructed track pair, there is potential with an advanced signalling system to target 20-26 trains per hour.  At Strathfield, these tracks would then branch to go into the Northern line suburban and Western line suburban services, with the split being 15-20 trains per hour from Penrith, and 5-6 trains per hour from Epping.

Altogether this achieves ~90 trains per hour on the 4 tracks into the CBD from the west, with a good balance between northern CBD (ie: Wynyard/Barangaroo 60~70 trains per hour, of which 20+ trains per hour is on a dedicated, direct northern route) vs southern CBD (ie: Central 60~70 trains per hour).  In contrast, the existing rail network only has 3 track pairs along the Western line into the CBD, and is limited to ~50 trains per hour into the CBD, with northern CBD (Wynyard) access limited to well under 40 trains per hour (none of which is dedicated solely to direct northern CBD access).  So from the west, my proposal adds 40 trains per hour.  Then from the south, if single deck metro conversion of the Revesby/Airport/City Circle/Ashfield (Sector T2A) takes place, then the trains in the reverse (anticlockwise) city circle direction increases from 20 to 30 trains per hour, or an extra 10 trains per hour.  Altogether, there will be an additional 40 + 10 = 50 trains per hour!

So in summary, my 4 track pairs proposal is better than previous proposals for a CBD Relief Line (with only 3 track pairs into CBD), yet avoids expensive CBD tunnelling and largely avoids needing underground stations except at Barangaroo.  It adds 50 trains per hour capacity, with only a very small amount of tunnelling, where a second harbour single deck metro crossing would require 12km of tunnelling, pass through the CBD, require a number of new underground CBD stations, yet would only add 60 trains per hour of capacity.

Critical importance of Wynyard and a Transport Plan for NSW Labour to take to 2015 election

This is continuation of my "Blue Sky" Western Express proposal for 80-90 trains per hour into the CBD from Western Sydney.  My first post on this proposal is at goo.gl/hM8R5h

In my previous post, I mentioned how Wynyard station is the most important yet also most capacity constrained station in the whole Sydney rail network. The importance of improving capacity in the northern CBD is recognised by a variety of proposals, such as the prior plans for a CBD relief line and before that, the CBD Metro.  However, the flaw of both these plans is the great expense of tunnelling through the dense Sydney CBD, navigating around complex underground basements and utility infrastucture, and building expensive underground stations.  These plans were costly but in the end did not yield much benefit, as they focused on trying to approach Wynyard from the south, via Town Hall - when the southern CBD approach is arguably already well served by the multitude of existing train lines.  A cheaper option, yielding just as much if not more benefit than the southern approach, is to approach the northern CBD via Barangaroo directly from White Bay and the Rozelle Railyards, as I proposed in my previous post.  This has the obvious cost saving of not needing expensive CBD tunnelling, but does not pass through Town Hall.  Is this a big drawback or a time saving, reliability improving/simplifying idea?  I'd argue it is the latter...

Town Hall is also a busy station, but it does benefit from already having three track pairs running through it (and 6 platforms, versus Wynyard's 4 platforms in-use).   Furthermore, some detailed analysis by Kym Norley at UNSW Built Environment shows that Town Hall only adds access to an additional 12% job catchment beyond that already provided by Wynyard.

Kym Norley's catchment analysis: Town Hall has only a minor incremental
employment catchment that is not serviceable from Central or Wynyard

Bays Precinct Summit is an opportunity for Western Sydney Blue Sky

Given the plans for an imminent international summit to explore the future of Sydney's Bays Precinct, I thought it would be a good time to look at the potential of the Rozelle Railyards.  Perhaps illustrating some amazing unification of Sydney, I then ended up concluding it will be Western Sydney who could end up being the biggest winners of the Bays Precinct renewal!

For many years, the Rozelle Railyards have been woefully underutilised, despite being a vast (12 hectare) infrastructure asset strategically located in close proximity to the Sydney CBD.  Formerly used as a freight corridor, it became disused and then partially converted into a light rail corridor for the Inner West light rail.  There have been proposals to use it a a depot for the aborted CBD Metro project and other organisations such as Ecotransit have proposed extending light rail through it under Victoria road into White Bay and then through to Barangaroo.  Whilst there certainly is ample room to extend it's light rail function, my fascination with the Rozelle Railyard is the potential it has for connection into Sydney's heavy rail system.