Gradients are not a particular problem on the suburban system, and will not impact on services here.
This itself is not very convincing. My concern is adding gradients or increasing existing ones, and a solution that flattens existing gradients may still seem very welcome.
I think the academic research is correct, metro lines segregated from the network will mean delays will not spread across the whole system. I think anyone with a bright mind would agree. The opposition to it which is Nimbys or those who disagree with the double deck vs single deck scenario. But the outcome of having a metro system in Sydney is mostly positive. Anyways it's much better than our so called "metro (high capacity) line".
First of all, metro style rail was originally designed to solve a problem that Sydney, like Melbourne, was able to avoid.
Secondly, railways have these things called loading gauges, and it is standard practice to build to these loading gauges or larger, not compromise the whole system by building smaller, and for good reasons.
Thirdly, Sydney pioneered double-decker trains and they are spreading around the world to the busiest heavy rail networks where they will fit. They have about 40% more floor space and about twice as many seats.
Fourthly, the opposition is coming from rail experts such as Colin Schroeder and Sandy Thomas, and a very knowledgeable enthusiast, Matthew Geier, among others.
Nothing wrong having an unpopular opinion, but if you believe the people that have a different opinion is completely bias and don't have an argument to stand on, then I don't think anyone would take ur opinion seriously. Elevated rail has been shown a number of times being favorable on that section of the Upfield line. This is fact, cause the gradient maps allows this, the economics stack up and the area is perfect for elevated rail, especially connecting up the community. Honestly had enough disputing this in the forums.
What do you mean by the gradient maps allowing this? True or false? An elevated solution would increase existing gradients or add new ones. I don't like the idea of increasing existing gradients, the way I describe that is disorderly, is that understandable?
The bias I mean is the idea that an elevated solution should be considered wherever possible, as opposed to not thinking that any solution is the best default, in other words, thinking there is no best default.