JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

How to retrofit Sydney to make a metro public transport system viable

Date

Four inner-city sites are ideal for the development needed to support the expansion of a metro system in Sydney, writes Chris Johnson.

Global cities like London and Paris have population density that can support metro public transport.

Global cities like London and Paris have population density that can support metro public transport. Photo: iStock

As Sydney's population heads towards that of other global cities such as London and Paris, we need to accelerate the move to a metro public transport system that matches the networks these global cities have.

The success of the Paris, London, New York and Tokyo metro systems comes from the urban densities that provide the patronage that makes rapid transit feasible and justifiable. How can Sydney retrofit Paris or New York-like densities in locations where a metro makes sense?

The answer is to find large inner city sites where new urban development can create sufficient density to justify a new metro station.

A detailed examination of recent government plans and announcements provides evidence of redevelopment sites that could each sustain a new centre of more than 20,000 people. Remarkably, four of these sites are located on an east-west line from Sydney's CBD to Parramatta's CBD, and each site could be defined by towers up to 60 storeys in height.

The four new urban towns would become new stations along a central metro line matching that of other world cities.

The current metro proposals by the NSW government are skirting around the edges of the Sydney basin as the line sweeps from the north west through Epping to Chatswood, under the harbour and on to Bankstown.

This is the equivalent of London's Circle Line or Line 2 and 6 in Paris. But the major metro cities of the world all have a central line. London's is called Central, New York has the 4th Avenue Line, Tokyo has the Ginza Line and Paris has Line 4, linking the north to the south.

Sydney should also have a Central metro line that connects the proposed new station at Barangaroo with the Bays Precinct to its west. There has been much discussion about the Bays Precinct but today no viable public transport connection to the city has been confirmed.

Glebe Island is the obvious location for a new station and this should generate significant development on the island with towers matching the height of the existing silos.

Heading west, the next big development site is on Parramatta Road at Kings Bay.

The government's own plans provide for more than 7000 new homes around Concord Oval at Kings Bay, but this should be doubled as the result of a new metro station with towers that get views across to the harbour.

Chris Johnson's sketch of the four sites which would be ideal for the development needed to support an expanded metro system.

Chris Johnson's sketch of the four sites that would be ideal for the development needed to support an expanded metro system.

Heading further west, the struggling Sydney Olympic Park site would really take off with a fast metro connecting it to the Sydney and Parramatta CBDs, which would help draw office development back to this centre. The massive crowds that attend sporting events cannot be transported on light rail. Metro trains can move far more people.

The final metro stop before Parramatta would be at the Clyde redevelopment site, where redundant industrial uses can lead to a new development for 20,000 people in tall towers. The proposal for a light rail connection should be redirected to the north along the Carlingford Line.

Some form of special area levy, captured through rates and spread across the new centres, as proposed by the Committee for Sydney, could contribute funds towards the new metro infrastructure.

The great world cities have extensive metro rail systems that serve much larger populations than Sydney's, but because of their higher densities they are much shorter.

Sydney has over 800 kilometres of rail network for 4.8 million people, while London's system serves 9.7 million people with 400 kilometres. New York also has around 400 kilometres of rail network to serve 20 million people. Paris, with just over 200 kilometres, serves 12.2 million people.

The metro rail systems work well in these world cities because they have urban densities to support this form of transport.

The four sites I have outlined are ideal for developing precincts with the density needed to support a series of metro stations that would create an east-west metro line for Sydney.

That would be an important advance in the development of a metro system worthy of a global city.

Chris Johnson is the chief executive of the Urban Taskforce

103 comments so far

  • Interesting comparison to Sydneys 800 km of rail to London's and New York's 400 km and Paris's 200 km. And Paris has about 3 times the people of Sydney!

    So, metro rail is a good idea because it is driverless. This results in more frequent services being able to be run. However, Sydney has the major difference that trips are much longer, so a seat is essential. Nobody wants to stand from Parramatta to the City, or even half that distance.

    So, Sydney metro should consider Sydney's difference. I for one, if I can not get a seat will rather drive to work. At least then I get a seat!

    Commenter
    Casa
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    February 08, 2016, 9:35PM
    • The trips aren't that much longer - London's outer suburbs to the city is not a short trip on the tube and in rush hour you'll be lucky to get a seat. I've had to stand, with my luggage, from Heathrow all the way to the city on several occasions. That's life. If you want trains with lots of seats then be prepared to wait longer for one, as they can't carry as many people, and be prepared for your trip to take longer as the board and exit times take much longer - like they do now. I'd rather take the quicker option with fewer seats and get to my destination faster.

      Commenter
      PP
      Date and time
      February 09, 2016, 6:21AM
    • Have you ever caught the metro from Paris or Londons main airports to the city?

      Commenter
      Doobs.
      Date and time
      February 09, 2016, 7:01AM
    • Typical government bureaucracy isn't it??. These public servants or consultants, go on junkets to Europe, then come back and justify their junkets by telling us we have been doing it wrong, and need to spend billions of dollars to fix the "problem" with Euro style metros.

      Never mind the fact that Sydney is a large urban area, with mainly quarter acres blocks, not crowded townhouses in a high density city, like London or Paris.

      Commenter
      peter
      Date and time
      February 09, 2016, 7:19AM
    • 1) 800km vs 400km, 400km, and 200km of suburban rail systems for 4.8m, 9.7m, 20m and 12.2m Sydney, London, New York and Parsi respectively. And yet we want to have METRO rail carriages that force passengers to stand more than twice as long as other cities on average. Then again, politicians and train chiefs do not catch train, they have people drive them around.

      2) Heaps of young Aussie go to work in Europe and US. And yet most, especially those that have lived in London and New York, come back to Australia. Why? Because they miss the WIDE OPEN space of living in houses with BACKYARD. They realise dingy little terraces and tight flats awful and UNSUITABLE to raise a family. And yet, our politicians and planners keep on forcing us to live the way not just ex-pat Aussies dislike but most Aussie's ancestors have fled from Britain and other parts of the world with similar cramp living conditions.

      3) Chinese (Hong Kong, China, Singapore and Taiwan) may SEEM love living in apartments. But has anyone wondered why their wealthy cousins all buy into large mansions. It means that even Chinese would prefer living in houses if it is affordable and in convenient locations.

      3) The uniqueness of Australia is that it is still offering plenty of lands for low density living for most people if they choose. And yet, politicians have made the property values astronomically unaffordable for most first time home buyers. In the mean time, we as a nation have incurred HOUSE indebtedness that some NOBEL PRIZE laureates in economics are sounding alarm. We will be having our own GFC sooner or later.

      4) But I nearly forgot. All politicians, federal, state and local governments, have INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, don't they?

      Commenter
      JJ
      Location
      Hornsby
      Date and time
      February 09, 2016, 8:04AM
    • PP, if you catch a train occasionally, like from the airport, you won't mind standing. If you need to commute every day, you will not want to stand and will find an alternative.

      If public transport is to thrive, and get people out of cars on roads, it needs to be made more attractive than driving.

      Commenter
      Casa
      Location
      Sydney
      Date and time
      February 09, 2016, 8:19AM
    • Casa, if you travel anywhere in London in rush hour you will likely have to stand, including for your daily commute. I did it for 20+ years there. This is life in a big city. Lots of people trying to get to work and they want to get their quickly. Sydneysiderd need to get their heads out of their backsides and thinking they have special transport needs compared to other large cities around the world. Standing and crowding are realities of city life. Sydney is not a special case. If people want a guaranteed seat and a leisurely commute then they should move to the country. Lots of seats = longer travel time, as evidenced by our current double deckers. You can't have both. If people would rather sit in traffic in their cars then fine. Another thing they can complain about.

      Commenter
      PP
      Date and time
      February 09, 2016, 9:00AM
    • JJ a lopsided and antiquated perspective. It is exactly the urban sprawl that you say we crave that has fed this lack of a viable train/metro service in Sydney. It is a 1950's mind set. Modern society is going the other way towards higher density living with fast inter-connected public transport - it is a more viable and sophisticated mode of living.
      Begone the dependence on petrol driven lawnmowers, cars and clogged toll roads. People are looking at last in Australia for a better and cheaper style of life.

      Commenter
      Dr Reg
      Date and time
      February 09, 2016, 9:03AM
    • JJ, you don't speak for all Australians. Here's one who thinks that Sydney's low density suburban living is awful. A concrete jungle of soulless suburbs with very little to do and a requirement to have a car to drive EVERYWHERE. The negative impact on the environment of 1/4 acre blocks and three car households is massive. There is more to life than suburban sprawl and the obligatory Westfield mall. The city's mentioned above all have open spaces and a vibrant pulse that makes them fantastic places to live (I'll admit in the case of NY and London, except for the weather).

      Commenter
      Pomoz
      Location
      Singapore
      Date and time
      February 09, 2016, 11:16AM
    • Casa,

      "Long" is a relative term. What makes Sydney's physical size a problem is the acceptance of slow trains. We've also made the mistake of continually tacking on new bits of rail to an already slow and complex and unreliable system, rather than building new, independent lines. And what we need now is not more slow rail lines. We need some short cuts between key interchanges. Such as a high speed train from the CBD to Parramatta. Or to the airport. Because BC airport will then become a point of interchange for the southwest line. We also need faster conventional trains to speed up the journey from Campbelltown by running express via the East Hills express track which has a mostly good alignment, rather than taking the long way around via Liverpool. And there's a host of other sensible things we could do. But above all, if we don't create at least one high speed link, we will always have a balkanised city.

      Commenter
      Russel
      Date and time
      February 09, 2016, 11:37AM

More comments

Make a comment

You are logged in as [Logout]

All information entered below may be published.

Error: Please enter your screen name.

Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Please enter your comment.

Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

Post to

You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

Thank you

Your comment has been submitted for approval.

Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

HuffPost Australia

Follow Us on Facebook

Featured advertisers

Special offers

Credit card, savings and loan rates by Mozo