Ecotransit response to metro comments

Two options: The proposed Metro F6 route is coloured yellow. A possible alternative route, along the edge of Botany Bay, is in brown. Picture: supplied

Two options: The proposed Metro F6 route is coloured yellow. A possible alternative route, along the edge of Botany Bay, is in brown. Picture: supplied

Re the article ‘‘Call to divert Metro route: Using F6 corridor makes more sense’’ (Leader, February 28).

Ecotransit would like to respond to Transport for NSW comments regarding diverting the metro route.

1. It is untrue that converting the Bankstown rail line to ‘‘Metro’’ would ‘‘take pressure off Sydney’s suburban rail system’’ – the Bankstown line trains service St Peters and Erskineville stations, the proposed metro will not!

There will still need to be trains servicing those stations, providing at least the same service they currently receive. Whether these trains commence from Hurstville or Revesby they will still have to use the City Circle!

2. Trains on the Bankstown line currently start from either Liverpool or Lidcombe. If the line was converted to ‘‘Metro’’ passengers travelling from beyond Bankstown would be forced to change trains at Bankstown.

This would inconvenience passengers in having to change platforms but also increase their journey times and probably many would decide to drive in lieu of public transport. 

There are no plans on how an interchange could be provided at Bankstown as there is only an island platform at Bankstown and no room to provide additional platforms. Talk about bottlenecks - this would create one which does not currently exist!

3. An eight car double deck train seats 896 passengers; their proposed seven car single deck ‘‘metro’’ train seats 360.

During peak periods especially the current trains are often full and crowded, but at least the people travelling the longer distances usually get a seat.

The existing double deck service on this line provides far more seats than their proposed single deck driverless ‘‘metro’’ trains. More trains could be operated on the existing line with a signalling upgrade that would cost a lot less than the proposed ‘‘metro’’ conversion.

4. Transport for NSW’s last comment regarding ‘‘future planning’’ (2056?) does not seem to take into account that they are currently building light rail to Randwick and Kingsford.

The most cost effective way of providing rail transport to ‘‘Malabar via Eastlakes and Maroubra Junction’’ would be extension of the light rail.

Likewise their ‘‘idea’’ of a ‘‘separate link connecting Eastlakes with Sydney Airport, Kogarah and Miranda’’ could more easily and cheaply be provided by extending light rail from Eastlakes to link up with the existing light rail line which terminates at Dulwich Hill; this would have an interchange with EcoTransit’s proposed diverted Metro to Miranda.

Robert Schroeder, co-convenor of EcoTransit Sydney