SkyscraperCity banner

18741 - 18760 of 18850 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
They won't be needed anywhere on the metro system apart from the Bankstown line because it is being designed with modern straight platforms.
I'm talking about converting existing lines to metro (e.g. T4). If you take a whole line like that with an abundance of curved platforms, do you:

a) run automated trains and have PSDs with platform-gap fillers as will happen on the Bankstown line,
b) run automated trains but without PSDs like in Vancouver (which may require station staff at curved platforms for disabled access), or
c) run GoA2 driver-only operation, with drivers assisting disabled passengers (as they do in Melbourne)

I don't have a firm answer one way or the other.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,494 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,901 Posts
Demolishing nine houses for just 200 car spaces. What a waste of time, land and money. Won't even provide two rail cars of passengers per day

Andrew Constance was interviewed on drive on Thursday or Friday by Richard Glover and he actually made some pretty good points. It seems that this is their least preferred option, but the local government is being quite recalcitrant/unresponsive. There's a carpark at Woolworths that could be built upon which is council land, but it seems they're (the local government) not interested in that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Agree, that’s awful. Alas, this wasteful, inefficient park and ride thing is very popular.
Yep. It's one of thoise things that seems on the surface like a good idea to someone who doesn't think about the systemic effects.

"More people on public transport" and all that. But even the barest scratch on the surface and the whole thing falls apart. Even more depressing is that we've known this problem for a long time, yet it keeps happening. It has all the attractions of a ribbon bing cut when it opens, and almost nothing else. Nobody ever cut a ribbon on an improved feeder bus system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,075 Posts
^^ The better option is to not build commuter car parks at all.
Agreed - Particularly 'free' commuter carparks.

And the latest Opal fare changes have made things worse.

That 2km bus trip to the station now costs $1.20 extra each way (new peak $3.20 fare less $2).
That's $12/wk, $600/yr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,917 Posts
Really? I have no inside information, but it's the Hurstville-Mortdale section that looks the hardest to my eye, and I figured the only viable solution was to tunnel it, with the express trains using the tunnel and the stoppers taking the existing tracks. Beyond Mortdale there seems to ample space to quadruplicate within the existing reservation (especially if the return to the original alignment through Oatley).

As for the tricky platforms: Mortdale, Allawah, Tempe look the hardest, but it depends which platforms you use (I would assume the easternmost track pair due to Wolli Creek).
I have no inside information either, it was based on what I have read in Government docs as well as some posting on here a while back because I thought that Hurstville to Mortdale looked difficult too based on maps but posters on here were pretty sure it was fine. Also, it's only 2 stops of course.

Based on Maps, I think Allawah would be the hardest, the rest look ok to me. I think Allawah would need to have the platforms extended to the south where the tracks are straighter and then chop off the existing platforms north of the pedestrian bridge. Shouldn't be too hard. I think Mortdale is ok, there appears to be room to straighten the Northern end of the platform where it looks the worst. I think the Illawarra line to Mortdale is actually much easier to Metro convert than Bankstown!
 

·
Here we go again
Joined
·
1,404 Posts
^^ The better option is to not build commuter car parks at all.
Exactly. Surely the purpose of public transport is to encourage people to DITCH their cars altogether, and not encourage them to be used as part of their commute? It's such a flawed, short sighted solution and it's the same sort of flawed logic being used to justify the construction of new motorways. Don't get me wrong, the current liberal government has been a godsend in finally bringing Sydney's public infrastructure into the 21st century but it's also a double edged sword in that they're also shamelessly pro-car. Constructing more highways does not reduce congestion, it encourages more people to get in their cars and jam up the roads even more, whilst giving off the illusion of improved traffic flow for the first few weeks of its opening (not forgetting the destruction they have wreaked on heritage and suburban atmosphere in the process). Spend a few bucks to tidy up the existing road network and then spend the proper bucks on more of the actual public transport.
 

·
Perpetual Bohemian
Joined
·
3,812 Posts
^^ The better option is to not build commuter car parks at all.
I'd say up front that I entirely agree with this principle, but we also have to face reality in a typical large, sprawling Australian city. For example, I know from user feedback over the last couple of years, the catchment of the NW metro extends to the lower Blue Mountains. You need a pretty good (and costly) bus feeder system to cover such a wide area to the extent that nobody needs to use a car, At present it's very hard yards to reach Rouse Hill or Tallawong station by bus. In the morning peak, for example, it takes over an hour to get to Tallawong from Kurrajong, via bus to Richmond, train to Schofields and bus to Tallawong. From Glossodia it takes 1:15 hr by two buses (changing at Windsor) to get to Rouse Hill. And all that is before you even start the train journey.

In Perth they have an excellent feeder bus network linking with the stations (which we use ourselves to visit people, even on the outskirts, even in the evening, it's that good), yet still they have large car parks at the stations as well. It really isn't possible not to have them in Australian cities. On the other hand, in inner cities (and compact European cities), it's another matter. We shouldn't let dogmatism take precedence over reality. The result will be a return to the time when people simply drive themselves the whole way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,543 Posts
I'd say up front that I entirely agree with this principle, but we also have to face reality in a typical large, sprawling Australian city. For example, I know from user feedback over the last couple of years, the catchment of the NW metro extends to the lower Blue Mountains. You need a pretty good (and costly) bus feeder system to cover such a wide area to the extent that nobody needs to use a car, At present it's very hard yards to reach Rouse Hill or Tallawong station by bus. In the morning peak, for example, it takes over an hour to get to Tallawong from Kurrajong, via bus to Richmond, train to Schofields and bus to Tallawong. From Glossodia it takes 1:15 hr by two buses (changing at Windsor) to get to Rouse Hill. And all that is before you even start the train journey.

In Perth they have an excellent feeder bus network linking with the stations (which we use ourselves to visit people, even on the outskirts, even in the evening, it's that good), yet still they have large car parks at the stations as well. It really isn't possible not to have them in Australian cities. On the other hand, in inner cities (and compact European cities), it's another matter. We shouldn't let dogmatism take precedence over reality. The result will be a return to the time when people simply drive themselves the whole way.
Right on cue

References to Perth seem to have replaced endless Parrahub hard selling, which is a great improvement.

No, commuter car parks are not necessary in Australian cities. The Metro has 4,000 car spaces. That’s a drop in the water compared to the 80,000 boardings the system had on some weekdays pre-COVID. In a nutshell, car parks add very little patronage at the cost of taking extremely valuable land next to the stations.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,494 Posts
^^ D
I'd say up front that I entirely agree with this principle, but we also have to face reality in a typical large, sprawling Australian city. For example, I know from user feedback over the last couple of years, the catchment of the NW metro extends to the lower Blue Mountains. You need a pretty good (and costly) bus feeder system to cover such a wide area to the extent that nobody needs to use a car, At present it's very hard yards to reach Rouse Hill or Tallawong station by bus. In the morning peak, for example, it takes over an hour to get to Tallawong from Kurrajong, via bus to Richmond, train to Schofields and bus to Tallawong. From Glossodia it takes 1:15 hr by two buses (changing at Windsor) to get to Rouse Hill. And all that is before you even start the train journey.

In Perth they have an excellent feeder bus network linking with the stations (which we use ourselves to visit people, even on the outskirts, even in the evening, it's that good), yet still they have large car parks at the stations as well. It really isn't possible not to have them in Australian cities. On the other hand, in inner cities (and compact European cities), it's another matter. We shouldn't let dogmatism take precedence over reality. The result will be a return to the time when people simply drive themselves the whole way.
Disagree - first of with Janalli we're talking 200 spaces. A trivial amount of capacity for great expense and for prime land. Maybe 2 rail cars of patronage per weekday, if you're lucky. A structure of similar bulk as the car park could probably house ~40 residential units, or maybe ~20 units and a handful of commercial/retail spaces. A much better use of land next to a station - actual trip generators. Far better than a structure to store private property for nearly-free for 10 hours per day on weekdays only.

This is the stuff that's going up in Janalli - commuter parking does not belong here.

1122007


Second - that person driving from the Blue Mountains is exactly the type of behaviour we don't want to encourage. It's the worst of both worlds: All the social ills of cars: car dependency, long distance commuting, land dedicated to cars when it should be used for other things, AND the worst parts of public transit: focus on peak trips only and a subsidised journey.

Induced demand works on all things - the Metro in your example has induced demand for people to commute from woop-woop in the mountains. This should be discouraged, not subsidised.

If your commute can't be supported by feeder buses because you live in low-density semi-rural sprawl, then I have no sympathy. Enjoy your traffic and tolls, don't expect the taxpayer to bend over subsidising your roads, your parking AND your rail trip. It's the price you'll pay for living in mountain countryside.

And definitely don't come expecting planners to ruin the town centres around stations with parking.


Like you said, we can't be expected to cater for everyone, so lets cater for the best bang-for-buck - transit focused density. Chuck in some bike paths too please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,888 Posts
And someone living in an apartment next to a train station is more likely to not own a car at all especially compared to someone in suburbia who needs to drive to a station.
 

·
Perpetual Bohemian
Joined
·
3,812 Posts
Man, I hope some of you aren't in the planning profession! That's a big gulf between theory and the everyday life of ordinary people. Many planners I've met over the years do have quite privileged backgrounds and don't have a clue how most people live and make quite arrogant decisions because of that.

All those more geographically marginalised people are just going to drive all the way and add to the congestion both along roads and around major centres if they don't have some option that intervenes to truncate the car journey. You have to cater for the whole population, not just those fortunate (and wealthy) enough to live on a short bus journey to a close-by station. There are so many people living beyond that situation because they just can't afford to do otherwise. At the same time, it's not economically practicable to provide a dense, frequent bus system to cover such a vast area in the average Australian city. The reason Perth is cited is because it comes closest to that (in many ways the prototype for NW Sydney), but, pragmatically, still find it necessary to have car parks.

In NW Sydney, they've covered all avenues reasonably well with regular bus plus on demand plus car parks. This combination scoops as many people out of cars as possible and that's the most important thing. Don't count the patronage of each individual method, it's the sum total of what they all achieve that's important. Having said all that, certainly NW bus services could be improved, like running buses through to Tallawong or Rouse Hill and with a regular headway, not a few buses a day. But this costs a lot more money. It's all a balance in the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
810 Posts
My feeling is that people just don't like the bus-train combo unless you absolutely have to do it. It feels like it takes forever and the two modes of transport day after day slowly drains you. It's like when you take the train back home from work and it is 7pm and pitch dark in the middle of winter. The last thing you want to have to do is wait for a bus to take to you close to your house so you can then get off and walk, when you can have your car parked at the station and comfortably drive back to your house in 10 minutes.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,494 Posts
It's privilege to demand that your car is entitled to prime land all day, every day. Parking is expensive to build and, as has been pointed out to you many times, offers trivial transport capacity. It's way less economically practical to provide parking than it is to provide a bus. This is evidenced by the huge new NW parking structures, several stories tall and covering several hectares each. They instantly full from the early hours of the morning yet barely count for a fraction of rail patronage. It simply doesn't work, doesn't matter if your rich or poor.

For Janalli we're talking a 200 space structure for a station that gets about 3,000 boarding per day. Trivially trivial.

Perth is no example to follow. It's much lower density and has a much lower public transport ridership. Even if you compare Hills Shire vs Mandura Council. 2016 census (before Metro) had 16% of Hills residents using transit for journey to work, Mandura 7%. Not an example to follow, even if their trains look nice.

It's better to build a city where people don't need to shell out $thousands per year owning a car (or second car) just to get to work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
A bus every 10-15 mins (especially in peak) would be more attractive, but sadly most outer suburban bus commutes are not like this which leads to people driving to the train station (myself included when I used to do this - though not anymore).

Example of timetable below. If the train is late then you could be waiting a while for the next bus and this isn't attractive.
1122195
 

·
Perpetual Bohemian
Joined
·
3,812 Posts
It's privilege to demand that your car is entitled to prime land all day, every day. Parking is expensive to build and, as has been pointed out to you many times, offers trivial transport capacity. It's way less economically practical to provide parking than it is to provide a bus. This is evidenced by the huge new NW parking structures, several stories tall and covering several hectares each. They instantly full from the early hours of the morning yet barely count for a fraction of rail patronage. It simply doesn't work, doesn't matter if your rich or poor.

For Janalli we're talking a 200 space structure for a station that gets about 3,000 boarding per day. Trivially trivial.

Perth is no example to follow. It's much lower density and has a much lower public transport ridership. Even if you compare Hills Shire vs Mandura Council. 2016 census (before Metro) had 16% of Hills residents using transit for journey to work, Mandura 7%. Not an example to follow, even if their trains look nice.

It's better to build a city where people don't need to shell out $thousands per year owning a car (or second car) just to get to work.
I agree with the fundamental principle of what you're saying and I agree about Jannali, but that principle isn't going to work out in the NW, for a very long time. If one day it does work, they can always release the car parks for more appropriate development, but in the meantime they've been built on greenfields sites and are not a serious impact on landuse. They're necessary to help kick-start a transition to public transport use in the NW.
 
18741 - 18760 of 18850 Posts
Top