Sydney Metro could expand to 6 independent lines by the year 2056 and a rail link from Parramatta to Epping may have been quietly dropped, according to an August 2020 report released last week by Transport for NSW. These 6 lines would include a line from Parramatta to La Perouse; a line between Randwick and Miranda; two North/South lines connecting Norwest to Kogarah and Macquarie Park to Hurstville/Kogarah; Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport; plus a line from Rouse Hill to Bankstown.
The report, titled “South East Sydney Transport Strategy”, focuses on the South Eastern suburbs of Sydney and provides most detail on the preferred transport options for that region. The Sydney Metro West line, currently slated to open in 2030, would be extended Eastwards to La Perouse by 2041, with six metro station locations identified: Zetland, Randwick, Maroubra Junction, Maroubra, Malabar, and La Perouse. A new metro line from Randwick to Kogarah via Kingsford Smith Airport and onwards to Miranda would then be built by 2056, with six metro station locations identified: Randwick, Eastlands, two stations at Sydney Airport, and Kograh. This preferred option was most similar to what was dubbed the “Compact City” scenario (map below), with a few adjustments. The compact city scenario saw a station at Kensington rather than Randwick and no station at the International Airport Terminal, whereas the preferred option saw the UNSW station moved East to Randwick and two stations at the airport rather than one.
An alternate plan, dubbed the “Mass Transit Nodes” scenario (map below), suggests what an expansion of metro lines in Eastern Sydney could look like. It contained an extension of the line from Randwick out to Bondi Beach via Bondi Junction, a line that was last proposed by the NSW Government in 1999 as an extension of the T4 Eastern Suburbs Line from the current terminus at Bondi Junction. It also shows stations at Kensington and Zetland, plus a third metro line for the region connecting Coogee to the Bays Precinct.
Although this option was not selected, it does provide context to the planning behind Transport for NSW’s final choice. This would be in preparation for a future Sydney where rail would focus more on a grid like network that would allow passengers the ability to travel to a dispersed range of destinations with one or more transfers, rather than the current radial system based around getting as many passengers into a central business district as quickly as possible.
Two additional North/South metro lines are also mentioned in the report, in very fine print next to Kogarah Station (map below). The first is a line from Kogarah to Norwest via Parramatta, with a proposed completion date of 2041. The second is a line from Kogarah to Macquarie Park, with a proposed completion date of 2056. Though past reports have listed a line from Hurstville to Macquarie Park, page 204 of the 2018 Greater Sydney Services And Infrastructure Plan does list “a potential mass transit/train link from Hurstville (or Kogarah) to Burwood and Strathfield and then potentially on to Rhodes and Macquarie Park” as a 20+ year visionary transport link. Therefore, this suggests Kogarah could be firming up as a significant transport interchange, with 4 train lines passing through this station.
Absent is any mention of a rail link from Parramatta to Epping. The current plans appears to prefer to avoid branching, with two lines connecting at Randwick, so it would be a logical extension of this to assume that any line from Kogarah to Norwest would be a single line rather than one that branches at Parramatta to link both Norwest and Epping.
Commentary: This is the rail network Sydney needs, but can we afford it?
Sydney has had a very radial rail network. With the exception of a few lines with low frequency and low patronage, such as the T5 Cumberland Line or T7 Olympic Park Line, all of its rail lines are designed to funnel passengers into the Sydney CBD. Planned future lines continue this radial system, but still to just 3 main centres: the Sydney CBD, Parramatta, and the Western Sydney Aerotropolis.
The South East Sydney Transport Strategy is the first time that multiple lines are proposed which act in a circumferential, rather than radial, manner. That is, they help to connect the many radial lines that already do or will soon exist. They will allow passengers to reach a larger number of destinations more quickly than if they have to first travel somewhere like the Sydney CBD to make a transfer. Many successful European and Asian cities operate with this system of nodes and transfers, with rapid and high frequency transport links inbetween.
Indeed, back in 2017 when Rodd Staples, then head of Sydney Metro and now head of Transport for NSW, was asked what mass transit project Sydney needed the most he suggested rail lines that would create a grid like network. He specifically listed a line connecting Hurstville to Bankstown to Olympic Park to Macquarie Park. Though this exact line does not exist in last week’s report, a very similar one from Kogarah to Macquarie Park does. Other lines, such as one from Miranda to Bondi Beach or Coogee to the Bays Precinct, also do not pass through any of Greater Sydney’s major CBDs, yet show up as potential lines under consideration.
By mid century, Sydney is projected to have a population the size of London’s, a city with 10 metro lines. Sydney’s current commuter network has the equivalent of 4 lines (3 centred around Sydney and 1 around Parramatta). So the additional 6 lines mooted in this report, bringing Sydney up to 10, are just what is needed to keep up with population growth. Yet with single stages of new lines, let alone a whole line, costing $10bn to $20bn; this is set to be an expensive expansion of Sydney’s infrastructure, likely to cost hundred of billions of dollars. This is more than the total cost of the NBN or Job Keeper, both national programs.
But there is no alternative to building it, Sydney’s population will inevitably grow and it will need the infrastructure to support it. COVID may give a false sense of tranquility in terms of population growth, but it’s worth remembering that past population growth projections have always been exceeded in recent decades, so even a conservative outlook could mean current projections will merely be met. The question for Sydney residents therefore is not whether to build it, rather how the government of NSW can pay for it; how the people of Sydney will pay for it. This may mean further privatisations, higher taxes, or increased government debt. None are popular, but the alternative is worse; so now is the time to start deciding how, not if.
Transport Sydney 
I think the report is a very good start and if built will give Sydney a whole new dynamic way to travel without having to pay tolls are drive long distances. What is missing is how the new metro system will interconnect with the existing heavy rail. for example if a line is going to go from Kogarah to Parramatta then it should have inter-connecting stops with the East Hills line and Bankstown Metro. I also believe that a link from Parramatta to Epping is critical for easing congestion on the Western Heavy rail line for commuters travelling to St Leonards and Chatswood or North Sydney.
It suggests that they would build completely new railway lines without using the existing heavy rail system.
If the Richmond line, line between Leppington and Merrylands subject to duplicating line between Glenfield to Cabramatta and re-routing freight trains, the Olympic Sprint line subject to duplication, line between Yagoona to Lidcombe subject to additional lines at Yagoona , and line between Cronulla to Bondi Junction subject to unjumbling lines connecting Wolli Creek , were incorporated into rapid metro rail, would the cost be lowered, would the time to construct be shorter and would passengers mind going in a non-direct route?
Thanks
Here is my idea for expanding the metro lines in Sydney which would achieve a lot more than this proposal. It would result in a circular loop across much of Sydney, connecting all the existing railway lines & metro lines & allowing people to bypass the CBD.
Near Waterloo construct a short tunnel between the new Metro line & existing Airport line. Convert the existing Airport line to be a metro line to Wolli Creek (interchanging with T4 & Wollongong lines) & Turell (interchanging with T8 lines) – in with T8 trains will be able to run to the City via Sydenham with the removal of Bankstown line trains.
From Turella build a tunnel to Sydney Olympic Park with stations at Canterbury (for interchange with Bankstown Metro line), Strathfield (Interchange with numerous lines including T1 &T9) & Sydney Olympic Park (interchange with Metro West) with possibly a new station around Croydon Park.
From Olympic Park the tunnel could then run north up to Carlingford (interchanging with Parramatta light rail & buses along Pennant Hills Rd) with possibly a station at Rydalmere, Ermington or Melrose Park). At Carlingford the tunnel would turn right & join the existing Metro line before Epping (interchanging with T9 & Newcastle lines
It would then continue on the current Metro line to Chatswood & the City. As this line has capacity for a train every 2 minutes it could run up to every 4 minutes between the trains from Tallawang.
There would be numerous benefits to this proposal. It would not be cheap but as most of it would be using existing or proposed lines, it would be feasible. Each section of this loop has reasons to be built independently. It would effectively provide links that the long talked about Hurstville to Strathfield & Parramatta to Chatswood railway lines are all about. It would better connections to the Airport. It would provide considerable relief to existing train lines which are close to capacity, including T1 and relieve traffic across Sydney.
@Anthony – I agree that Sydney would benefit from a “Circle-Style” line, though my design would be further out than yours and simply run Hurstville to Epping.
Hurstville (T4) – Beverly Hills/Narwee (T8) – Bankstown (Metro) – {covert Yagoona – Birrong Stations to Metro} – Regents Park (T3) – Merrylands (T2/T5) – Parramatta (T1/T2/T5/Light Rail) – Carlingford (light Rail – Epping (T9/Metro). There are a few areas between existing stations that new stations could be constructed, servicing areas that struggle for good public transport.
Despite the current excess capacity, I wouldn’t run trains further along the existing Epping to City Metro line. One day that line may need it.
Some “associated” improvements from this:
The Metro NW should be extended from Tallawong to connect with the Richmond line and then down to St Marys to extend to Western Sydney Metro. Increasing PT service to growing areas, poorly served and improving connections.
The Bankstown Metro line should be extended via the direct route to Liverpool, requiring a solution for existing T3 stations between Lidcombe and Liverpool. Will this be a shuttle? Will these trains share T2 capacity between City and Lidcombe (not desirable I think)? Or do the current “all stops” T2 services, which currently go to Parramatta, divert at Lidcombe along the T3 corridor to Liverpool? After all, anyone heading to Parramatta, will have multiple transfer options.
The current airport line (T8) can be converted to Metro, but I’ve never understood the value equation in doing so. I think leaving the current trains is cheaper – improved signalling capacity combined with capacity improvements between Sydenham and the City, plus on the City Circle, should allow all Campbelltown/Macarthur services to run express to City via Sydenham.
The existing T8 line has 4 tracks to Revesby (extend them to Glenfield if money is unlimited), so would make sense to run a “Turn up and Go” Service from Revesby to City via the Airport (as is done now), but more frequent and at consistent intervals (ie during peak at the moment, there are gaps of between 3mins – 9mins). A more consistent 12 trains per hour at 5min intervals, combined with the the removal of far SW commuters, should free up capacity. Green Square is a busy station, but with new Metro at Waterloo and future station at Zetland (on extended Metro West line), that should spread the load.
I don’t think either of our proposals would take significant pressure off the T1. Only additional capacity can achieve that, which is hopefully resolved through West Metro. However, the proposals would make it easier to get to key Sydney places in a more direct route and missing the CBD.
Happy planning.
I certainly agree there would be advantages from going further west, particularly to have a station at Parramatta rather than Sydney Olympic Park.
But the advantages of my proposed line would be that the tunnel from Epping to Turella would be shorter than the proposed Metro West tunnel from Westmead to CBD with fewer stations, making it less costly and therefore more viable.
It is also an advantage connecting Strathfield & Olympic Park directly to the Airport & Wolli Creek.
As for using the capacity of the Epping to City metro line, this section of the Bankstown to Tallawang line will be the busiest as it interchanges at Epping & Chatswood and serves major employment centres in Macquarie Park, Chatswood, St Leonards & North Sydney.
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the government is now more inclined towards single stand alone metro lines without branching, which was flagged in the earlier metro proposals. Of course that policy could change under future governments. I am sceptical of whether a frequency of 30tph would be warranted on either Metro Northwest or the Bankstown Metro or any future stand alone metro lines. Branching can play a role in maximising the frequency through the CBD core, otherwise without it, it’s inherent capacity would be wastefully underutilised.
However, without provision for stub tunnels for future connections to branches or other metro lines, it would be extremely disruptive to existing metro services, requiring extended shutdowns, to directly connect with other metro lines. Metro Northwest utilised the existing stub tunnels at Epping, which were built as part of the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link for a future extension to Parramatta, to divert the metro line to the North West. During the initial design stage, new stub tunnels were provided for extension of the line to Parramatta, but they were subsequently eliminated, making it difficult to branch to another line. Similarly, stub tunnels were considered on the Chatswood to CBD extension, from Victoria Cross station to a future Northern Beaches link, but were also eliminated, which means it is never likely to happen without another cross harbour rail link.
I have my doubts about whether any further Sydney Trains’ lines will be converted to metro, nor should they be. Apart from the disruption caused during the conversion phase, little acknowledgement seems to be given to the compromises to services which have to be made on the existing network. New metro lines should be entirely segregated, servicing corridors without a rail link. There is no place for wasteful duplication.
Although this report may not have mentioned other potential metro links across Sydney, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are off the table. The report is after all specifically referring to the South-East Region.
The Parramatta to Epping link is a case in point. If it were to be considered, then it would most likely have to have a separate terminus in Epping, rather than branching with Metro Northwest. With the redevelopment now taking place in Epping, there are few, if any, options left for a site for new metro platforms, looking that far into the future.
Epping would not be a destination in itself for such a link, with Parramatta and Macquarie Park being the major trip generators. All that will do is create unnecessary overcrowding on Metro Northwest services, through interchange between Epping and the Macquarie Park stations. The more direct and faster link between Parramatta and Macquarie Park via Eastwood, without requiring interchange, would be preferable. Eastwood is also a much larger retail/commercial centre than Epping. It would still interchange with the Northern Line at Eastwood and Metro Northwest at Macquarie University where the bulk of patronage would alight/embark.
With regard to T3 post metro conversion, the government has already undertaken community consultation, with its preferred option being to reinstate the Liverpool via Regents Park service on the existing network. The outcome of that consultation process is still to be finalised.
Where and how many rail stabling yards are required per metro line?
Base on internet search.
If the Hurstville to Strathfield extend to meet up with line between St Marys and Western Sydney Aerotropolis, perhaps 1 rail stabling yard be shared for 2 metro lines. Whilst that would reutilise line between Lidcombe and Birrong, tunnelling under Yagoona and Cabramatta would be required.
Converting line between Merrylands to Macarthur via Western Sydney Aerotropolis means converting heavy rail stabling yard to metro, providing additional tracks and platforms between Casula and Cabramatta and even additional freight train line would be required.
Converting Richmond to Olympic Park using the Olympic Sprit line means providing road over or underpasses, converting a rail stabling yard from heavy rail to metro, decommissioning Rosehill station, replacing stadium and providing additional tracks and platforms would be required. Between Olympic Park and either Epping or Eastwood would mean bridge over river would be required. Does metro between Rhodes and Eastwood mean duplication of heavy rail? Without extending light rail from Carlingford to Epping what other public transport option is there?
Converting Sydenham to Bondi Junction, Wolli Creek to Hurstville and Kirrawee to Cronulla to metro requires tunnel connection between Bondi Junction and Wolli Creek, lift access for platform 11 and 12 at Redfern, additional track and platforms between Hurstville and Kirrawee and temporary freight track at Wolli Creek would be required. Waterfall trains would either have to go to Homebush, go round City Circle or terminate at Central. Unless underground connection at Sydenham to metro rail stabling yard, another would be required perhaps to share with the metro line between Pyrmont to La Perouse.
Happy Planning.
To what extent is it possible to provide additional tracks and platforms between Newcastle interchange and Hornsby, given that a number of stations as stated by internet search already have 3 tracks and platforms? To what extent is it possible to have another harbour crossing between Hornsby and a coastal CBD station? thanks