One of the biggest issues with the metro is that it's simply not right for the area it's going to serve - metro style trains are great for short trips, Sydney is a city with an significantly large urban sprawl, few are going to want to sit sideways or worse, stand, for a trip to the edge of the metropolitan area.
Why, what is so "not right"? I kept hearing this but what is so wrong?
Also, the article mentions that the Hills District has a strong car culture, and the seating configuration limits people to what people use the train for, not everyone uses the train solely for the purpose of commuting to work, some use the train to go and do the shopping, and a lack of seats will discourage the use of the train, I certainly wouldn't want to use public transport if it involved standing for an extended period of time with heavy groceries. Because of reasons like this, the metro will not fix the car culture, I don't know much about the Hills District but I come from Newcastle/Lake Macquarie so I know what car culture is like and it's not a good thing, it makes employers less likely to hire someone if they don't have a car (which prevents them from being able to afford to own and drive a car) and can lead to people being more judgmental towards people without cars
Strong car culture because its the car or the bus.
If you look Sydney Train's own survey's, once you live more than 2km from the train, you don't use it for commuting. The data for Sydney is very clear, provide a railway, people use it. Don't, they drive!
Sydney Trains are predominating used for work and study, not doing the groceries.
The lack of seats is partly compensated by more trains per hour. Its also not supported by the existing network data which shows crush capacity on most lines in peak, nor is this supported elsewhere in the world.
Many on the NW already stand all the way into the city on a bus.
The NWRL rail pax data clearly indicates that the turnover on line is huge due to the junctions with north main, NSL and Macquarie park employment zone. If you join the train near the end of the line, you will get a seat, if you join the train further down, you will eventually get a seat. If you join the train at Chatswood to the City and there is no seat, big deal, you spent more time standing brushing your teeth than the trip to the city.
Sydney employers are less focused on how you get to work as they are more than likely on a bus, train or ferry themselves.
Thirdly, once the metro reaches Chatswood, it follows a route that runs parallel to the existing North Shore Line for the second harbour crossing, they should have taken the opportunity to have the rail line service areas previously not serviced by rail, such as Lane Cove, before going under the harbour and into Barangaroo and the city.
Terrain! Lane cove is difficult to serve via rail, even one in tunnel, Lane Cove residents also protested previously for the ECRL forcing it underground at the river thus removing a station and increasing cost. Crows Nest is far more viable.
Another serious issue with the metro is the lack of compatibility with the existing heavy rail Sydney Trains network, because of this, existing lines need to be closed for 6 months to be converted to metro, which puts commuters onto buses, and potentially into their cars, making the much needed North West Rail Link an extension of the existing heavy rail network would have prevented this. Combined with the proposed extension of the South West Rail Link from Leppington to Badgerys Creek and St Marys, a compatible North West Rail Link would have allowed for trains to operate around a large loop from through the City, then Sydenham, Bankstown and Liverpool or Revesby, Glenfield, Leppington, Badgerys Creek, St Mary's, Scofields, Rouse Hill, Epping, Chatswood, and back to the city.
Agree, Shutting the existing lines is going to be a pain and data shows from Gold Coast Commonwealth games when rail went to bus, people drove to other rail options. Longterm, the benefit will be more clear.
The NWRL or Bankstown Metro will never get to BC airport, regardless of train technology used nor would you want it too. Sydney is trying to untangle the network, not tangle it. SWRL extension and potentially one from St Mary's area is more viable.
But the worst issue of all is the economic impact which I will talk about below in my response to RTT_Rules , sadly, Australia is a nation with about one third of it's youth unemployed and almost a further 1 in 200 homeless, so a metro system that could potentially put more people out of work is a truly awful thing.
How is building the Metro line going to put people out of work? What about all the people working on it now and those to operate it?
The official youth unemployment rate is ~12%, even allowing for govt cover-ups, its still not 1/3.
1:200 homeless, even during the mining boom this changed little. Again the Metro project if anything is creating jobs.
I'm not afraid that the metro will be success, but I am afraid that it will encourage the government to continue to build more metro lines, reclaiming other double deck lines (DD) in the process and but more people out of work, and onto Centrelink payments, as well as limiting what the train can be used for, providing long uncomfortable journeys and increasing car culture
Its sucess will drive more Metro projects, both Sydney and elsewhere. Thats what we want more cheaper and cheaper to operate to build PT that means the govt has more money to build other stuff including PT.
Considering most likewise trains in the world run very full much of the time. The data to suggest a rise in car culture is not there.
Additionally it will not drive up unemployment no more than using an ATM of a bank teller, email over mail, removal of the guard in other cities, removal of the bus conductor, removal of the flight engineer on planes etc etc etc. Retaining onto jobs that technology has superseded has never been proven to improve employment rather opposite as it makes your systems more expensive and employers go elsewhere. Remember railways made the Pony Express and the horse/mull carting industry in general redundant.