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):



1.  Adopt Kym Norley's (UNSW Faculty of Built Environment) proposal to enhance the harbour bridge capacity to 26tph, using only existing double deck tracks, and not requiring extra tunnelling or adding extra tracks to Harbour bridge.  His proposal was presented to the ATRF in 2011, with the key innovation being the use of bifurcated platforms at Wynyard to cope with longer double deck dwell times and allow train turnbacks.

2.  Adopt the "Blue Sky" WEX concept for a 3.5km tunnel from Ashfield to Lilyfield (at a fraction of the cost of your 12km cross harbour tunnel), so as to link up to the West Main line at Ashfield to the Rozelle Railyards, then White Bay and Barangaroo.  Details of how this would work were in in an earlier post: goo.gl/EOvwkH.

Together, these two key elements will stack up against your plans as follows:

A. Extra Capacity

LNP PLAN: Extra 60 trains per hour (30 tph in each direction via Second Harbour crossing), but initially only 30 tph (15 tph in each direction via NWRL/Bankstown lines).  (Western upgrade package not included here due to lack of details ... but conceivably you guys could adopt item #2 above, to give you a humungous extra 110 trains per hour!)

LABOR PLAN: Potentially extra 56+ trains per hour via enhanced harbour bridge (extra 6tph), plus "Blue Sky" Western Express and metro conversion of inner west/Revesby lines (extra 50 tph).  Capacity increments can be staged as a series of separate mini-projects that will bring benefits earlier - rather than one high risk "big bang" project involved in the LNP approach (I'll cover this in a future post).

Verdict: EVEN DRAW (but I am hoping LNP will adopt "Blue Sky" Western Express concept as it's upgrade package for the Western lines, and blow Labor's capacity increase out of the water!)

B. Service Quality

LNP PLAN: Improved reliability and frequency on NWRL/SRT, but at cost of less seating.  Train automation a big plus in allowing high train frequencies throughout whole day, including off peak periods, and allowing rapid turnbacks of trains at Chatswood.

LABOR PLAN: Improved reliability and frequency by having 4 (instead of existing 3) track pairs from Western Sydney into the CBD, which provides ability to substantially untangle branch lines and give each line it's own pair of tracks into the CBD.  Maintains extensive use of high seating capacity double deck trains for Western Sydney long distance commuters, and provides possibility of more direct and faster express services straight into Northern CBD and bypassing slow, long dwell time stops in Southern CBD (Central/Town Hall).  Uses SD metro conversion on local all stops lines (Inner West, Airport & Revesby) where the faster acceleration and shorter dwell time of SD metros can speed up journey time.  Enhances interconnections with Inner West Light Rail eg. Western Sydney commuters can hop off an express service to Lilyfield and board onto light rail to Pyrmont with platforms directly adjacent to each other.

Verdict: LABOR WINS

C.  Cost

LNP PLAN: Expensive, requires 12km+ of tunnelling, and a multitude of new underground stations, through dense CBD environments in Sydney and North Sydney, with complex planning around building basements and underground utilities required.  Metro conversion & resignalling required upfront, with extensive disruption to services, before any benefits are realised.

LABOR PLAN: Much cheaper.  Requires 3.5km of tunnelling from Ashfield to Lilyfield through a less dense suburban environment with much less complexity from building basements and utilities.  All stations except for Barangaroo station are constructed at surface grade, on land already owned by the NSW Government within the Rozelle Railyards.  Selective metro SD conversion can be undertaken at a later stage when the extra capacity is neeed, and in mean time 70-80% of the potential capacity benefits can be realised with existing double deck system.

Verdict: LABOR WINS

Conclusion

So you can see that Labor can come up with a very competitive alternative transport plan to take to the NSW 2015 election.  Yet what I really want is the best of both worlds.  You can do this by adopting the "Blue Sky" Western Express proposal as the upgrade package for Western Sydney that you plan to roll out in conjunction to the SRT.  This will give you the best of the key elements of Labor's plan, at relatively little incremental cost.