This is the thread where we can discuss proposals relating to the expansion of light rail. There has been alot of talk of extending the network into the city's eastern suburbs as well as the inner west and even in the CBD. If any light rail projects are approved, we can discuss their construction and other related stuff here.

I'll launch the thread with this article about the CBD light rail proposal. There should be an announcement about this in a couple of weeks.

From The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)

Trams back on track
By Joseph Kerr and Alexandra Smith
April 24, 2004

Government planners are considering using money freed up from Sydney's bus and train operators to help fund construction of a light rail line through the city centre.

Putting trams back in the city centre would allow the postponement of new bus purchases, as well as work on Town Hall station, freeing funds for investment in the new light rail line.

And taking buses out of the CBD - which be possible if trams were run from Central to Circular Quay - could mean extra savings to the main bus operator. Senior planning sources said some capital works spending previously expected to flow to State Transit or RailCorp could be used as part of a funding program.

Sydney's Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, favours using money from the parking space levy. The Transport Services Minister, Michael Costa, declined to comment.

The Planning and Infrastructure Minister, Craig Knowles, has said a private-sector proposal to build a light rail line through the city will go on public display from May 18.

Mr Knowles, who unveiled a strategy for Sydney's development on Thursday, is planning public forums to discuss environmentally sustainable growth in the city's north-west and south-west fringes.

The Herald understands two alternative routes are frontrunners. One runs up and down George Street and the other up and down Castlereagh Street. Cost estimates are near $200 million, including trams and tracks.

The CBD tram could be built as a public-private partnership but should carry "no additional burden to taxpayers", Mr Knowles has said.

Paul Espie, the chairman of Metro Transport Sydney, which has the light rail concession between Central and Lilyfield, was confident "that we can meet that requirement in collaboration with the state and city council".

A spokesman for the CBD Transport Advisory Council, Ian Nicholas, said of the light rail plans: "It keeps coming, but essentially we need to know the exact route, and still we don't."

He said the council had been assured the light rail would not run through the Pitt Street Mall.

The chief executive of the State Chamber of Commerce, Margy Osmond, said the development of the Government's new metropolitan strategy was an opportunity to look at the city's public transport needs.

"Light rail should be an integral part of that plan and not just in the CBD," she said. "Light rail is not the answer for every area but there are major arterial routes in the CBD and around the city's fringe where it could increase capacity, reduce travelling times and alleviate traffic congestion."

i want to highlight something!


Senior planning sources said some capital works previously expected to flow to State Transit or RailCorp spending could be used as part of a funding program.

I would prefer the money went directly to State Transit and RailCorp, rather than the expansion of the Light Rail. Obviously Joseph Kerr and Alexandra Smith havent travelled by trains or busses lately. there preformance is deplorable currently, and they need all the money they can get to improve the services.

I have my doubts about light rail personally. It costs a lot, and moves a fraction of the people compared to heavy rail. (Please note, im talking about the gold plated expansions of late - the MetroRail, and the Box Hill Extn). Unless it is going to be built like how they used to do it, it is expensive, and can be a white elephant. I can walk faster than the Light rail moves currently anyway!

How is a tram proposal going to run "up and down" Castlereagh street - when it's a one way street? GW SMH. :weird: :uh:

Stick with George Street, it's central, connects 4 train stations (although, do you really want to duplicate a service that already exists?) and it's probably the only city street that wouldn't be adversely affected by two tram tracks down the middle of it.

Is making it a public-private project going to be just like the overpriced tram to nowhere, I mean, Lilyfield?

:ohno:

How is a tram proposal going to run "up and down" Castlereagh street - when it's a one way street? GW SMH.
I was thinking exactly the same. They could always shut the street down to cars and keep only the bus lane open with two tram lines. But the street is quite narrow, all that would result in is more traffic on Elizabeth, Pitt and George Streets.

Putting the tram line on George Street wouldn't be as bad as on Castlereagh, well, until Park Street @ Town Hall at least before it narrows down further.

Unless any more tram lines are going to be built out into the inner suburbs of Sydney, I really do not see the point of extending the tram line through the middle of the city. The money would be better off spent on bus and rail (improving capacity on the city circle) if this is what they plan to do with the light rail.

I think Sydney should go for an inner city light rail system. It frees up the streets from people who live in say Redfern and currently drive to say work in Circular Quay. (Maybe not the best example, but I dont know Sydney terribly well).
Perhaps a route down to Kings Cross and the eastern 'burbs would also help. Would there be anypoint in putting a link across the harbour and service say North Sydney then head west to Manly? It would help on foggy days when ferries cant operate.

I think Sydney should go for an inner city light rail system. It frees up the streets from people who live in say Redfern and currently drive to say work in Circular Quay. (Maybe not the best example, but I dont know Sydney terribly well).
Perhaps a route down to Kings Cross and the eastern 'burbs would also help. Would there be anypoint in putting a link across the harbour and service say North Sydney then head west to Manly? It would help on foggy days when ferries cant operate.

Manly is east of North Sydney. :)

Trams would work around the inner west and east and a little bit of the south IMO, I'm not so sure about over to the North Shore though as that area is already covered by numerous bus and rail lines.

Oh yeh it is too. I did say I didnt know it very well

This is a positive move to bring back what worked well for the city before some stupid bureaucrat decided to get rid of Sydney trams,in the late 1950's.There are a number of options for a route.It could also go one way along Pitt St,and back along Castlereagh St.It could also go one way George St and back along Philip St and Elizabeth St.It is worth looking at what has been done in San Francisco,which has a very extensive tramway system,as well as cable cars.Have a look at San Francisco. http://world.nycsubway.org/us/sf/munimetro1.html

This is a positive move to bring back what worked well for the city before some stupid bureaucrat decided to get rid of Sydney trams,in the late 1950's.There are a number of options for a route.It could also go one way along Pitt St,and back along Castlereagh St.It could also go one way George St and back along Philip St and Elizabeth St.It is worth looking at what has been done in San Francisco,which has a very extensive tramway system,as well as cable cars.Have a look at San Francisco. http://world.nycsubway.org/us/sf/munimetro1.html

I also favour a CBD loop. I think it's the best option for the CBD. It should run up George Street to Circular Quay and then return via Macquarie Street to provide direct access for commuters and visitors to the attractions along Macquarie Street including the State Library and Parliament House, and then go back in either Castlereagh or Elizabeth Streets.

I think the whole thing is a silly idea. The CBD streets were never wide enough when the city had trams and now that there are more cars and buses using the roads, the trams will only cause further chaos in the streets. Leave it as it is! Leave the trams in Melbourne and the buses in Sydney.

I think the whole thing is a silly idea. The CBD streets were never wide enough when the city had trams and now that there are more cars and buses using the roads, the trams will only cause further chaos in the streets. Leave it as it is! Leave the trams in Melbourne and the buses in Sydney.
Aussie Steve,on this issue you are negative and dull.The people who spend money in shops are the ones using public transport.I have ridden on trams that go through Malls in German cities,and there was never a problem.It sticks out a mile that Sydney has been half asleep for quite a time with its inner city traffic.Fabian is right about having a loop tram in Macquarie St as another alternative option.You should talk to a few backpacker tourists,and ask them what they think. :)

I also favour a CBD loop. I think it's the best option for the CBD. It should run up George Street to Circular Quay and then return via Macquarie Street to provide direct access for commuters and visitors to the attractions along Macquarie Street including the State Library and Parliament House, and then go back in either Castlereagh or Elizabeth Streets.

Naah, very few successful tram services take one street in one direction and return via a totally different street. Such an approach will fail very easily.

It needs to go up and down the same street (either exempting trams from the one way flow, or by converting the rest of the street to two way driving). Or by banning cars, but that may be a bit drastic.

That said, I'm not in favour of this plan, as trams couldn't possibly replace buses effectively in the CBD. They just don't have the capacity that would be needed, short of something like 6 car LA Blue Line LRVs, which is essentially a 6 car high floor train that runs through a few downtown fringe and Long Beach streets.

You'd need a vehicle with a capacity of about 800 seated, 1200 total, running every 5 minutes or so, to replace just one set of those buses. Every two minutes (or two routes every four minutes) to eliminate buses from the CBD altogether. That means either the biggest trams in the world (with not much scope for patronage growth in the future), or a standard Metro line through the city centre and bus interchanges around Pitt & Broadway for the Broadway series buses, somewhere near Museum Station for the Oxford Street buses.

As for the harbour bridge buses, there are three easy options. Do Nothing is one. Another is to convert the Cahill to bus only operation (put in a loop or signpost the existing exit north of North Sydney to allow traffic in and out of the tunnel), make Lane 7 a northbound bus lane and Lane 8 the southbound bus/tram lane, and convert the top deck of the Cahill to a bus interchange, with the city circle just underneath it and a possible subway station underground near the toaster. Or run the buses past Wynyard and down Bridge Street to the new line.

Is this proposed tram for the tourists or for the public to use? If its for the general public, it has to be quick, efficient and it has to get me to where I want to go with limited time on my side.

The idea that's being bandied around is to use the Light Rail as a means to get around Sydney Buses' fleet age issues.

Instead of replacing the few hundred remaining Merc Mk2's all at once (which will only create the exact same problem in 20 years time than they have now, having bought too many buses at once), they'd cancel most or all bus services within the CBD in favour of a Light Rail line and have a bus-tram interchange somewhere near Museum Station, then scrap most of the Mk2's.

Light Rail Inner city Loop is one of the most exciting things that can happen to Sydney! :) This one is long overdue and all plans should be finalised asap so that construction can start when the Cross City tunnel is complete (or earlier!)....

George, Macquarie and Elizabeth Streets are destined to become the new tram routes (Pitt Street is out of the question)...

A loop would be the most colossal waste of valuable public transport dollars that Sydney's CBD would ever see.

Anyone care to put on their thinking caps and think of how many tram routes presently operate that use different streets for the up and down trips, and how many of those are successful? None remain in Australia, if there ever were any that is.

How about those who start proposing these kind of things get a clue?

The loop / circular "monothingie" route is quite successful - for tourists. The Melbourne city circle tram is extremely successful as it's free - for tourists.

As I said above, a "loop" service already exists in Sydney, it's just not as accessible as it could be. I frequently "did a Melbourne" and used the circle to get around the CBD (specifically, I stayed down southern end and was up the northern end a lot) - but I was buying those $15-made-for-tourist tickets where you can "jump on and off" [doing a Melbourne again].

Trains are frequent enough during the day (they'd just need beefing up later on), and if they made an attractive inner city fare (like $1 one trip in the circle) and made it obvious you can do it, you wouldn't need to spend craploads of money on putting trams in.

$0.02

A loop would be the most colossal waste of valuable public transport dollars that Sydney's CBD would ever see.

Anyone care to put on their thinking caps and think of how many tram routes presently operate that use different streets for the up and down trips, and how many of those are successful? None remain in Australia, if there ever were any that is.

How about those who start proposing these kind of things get a clue?
I recall the tram route that went around Lake Wendouree in Ballarat at one time was single track,and I think it went one way.

Using Pitt/Castlereagh is possible because they're next to each other and both between the two sides of the City Underground, but the whole thing is flawed as we've been through before and is just rebuilding the very Central-City tram circuit that operated prior to the opening of the City Underground.

If I recall the buses are funded for (given it is over the next few budgets). This was Greiner's big buy (coincinding with the renewal of Wran's big buy of trains, unfortunately) of 400 buses so these aren't MkIIs but MkIVs and MkVs. Added to this is the need to replace the failed 14.5m Scanias with articulated buses (watch Waverley's 14.5s' trip from the Depot to Bondi Junction Interchange to do 400 runs to see how simply inappropriate they are; Artics are also more versatile so they'd allow Waverley to run them on the L82 for example) and the replacement of the delayed replacement of the original MkIII artics and the problem is compounded. But, as I said, the funding commitment has been made

In terms of the future this could be a very good idea.
I've just read that Australia's oil reserves are going to dry up within the next 5 years, so providing an easy & accesible method of public transport through the CBD could be very wise. It will not be as reliant on oil (since they would be electrical yeah?), establishing their advantage over buses which would continue to chew up dwindling oil & gradually costing more & more.

just a thought

In terms of the future this could be a very good idea.
I've just read that Australia's oil reserves are going to dry up within the next 5 years, so providing an easy & accesible method of public transport through the CBD could be very wise.

The problem isn't that simple. Nothing ever is. We'll still be pumping out around 0.3mbd around 2050, though even now we pump out about 5mbd and we still import 25% of our oil consumption (set to pass 50% by 2015).

It will not be as reliant on oil (since they would be electrical yeah?), establishing their advantage over buses which would continue to chew up dwindling oil & gradually costing more & more.

The problem is cars. Even if supply drops to 0.3mbd, that plus a decent slice of whatever gas production will remain is probably about enough to move 90% mode share by local buses feeding into an expanded rail network. The rest would probably have to move close to where they work, get jobs very close to where they live, use pushbikes, walk etc. A tiny number could use the few hydrogen or maybe even ethanol cars that we have the electricity (for hydrogen) and ammonium nitrate (read natural gas, later electricity, for ethanol) available to cater for, and that's about all.

But replacing buses in the CBD won't actually make a dent in our national oil consumption. Doing that would require a project that would make the Snowy Mountains scheme look like building a cubby house.

In terms of the future this could be a very good idea.
I've just read that Australia's oil reserves are going to dry up within the next 5 years, so providing an easy & accesible method of public transport through the CBD could be very wise. It will not be as reliant on oil (since they would be electrical yeah?), establishing their advantage over buses which would continue to chew up dwindling oil & gradually costing more & more.

just a thought

Australian Oil isn't used in transport fuel. Because of the production costs here it's financially better for BHP etc to refine the oil further, sell it overseas and import oil produced overseas cheaper than we could produce it ourselves. Australian Oil is also such an incredibly small portion of of the market that if we were to give away our current production I doubt the market would notice. Brisbane busses (the newer ones, and all of them within a few years), run on Natural gas, not disel / petrol anyway.

A loop would be the most colossal waste of valuable public transport dollars that Sydney's CBD would ever see.

Anyone care to put on their thinking caps and think of how many tram routes presently operate that use different streets for the up and down trips, and how many of those are successful? None remain in Australia, if there ever were any that is.

How about those who start proposing these kind of things get a clue?

Thinking cap on and:
Loop runs in Melbourne (via tram), and Brisbane (via bus), are pretty spectacularly successful (something to do with the cost no doubt). I usually just walk (I can do with the exercise), and the Bus / Trams in both are pretty packed anyway. I believe the one in Melbourne has pretty much been there forever. The real problem, with a tram loop, would be if you went to all the trouble of laying track, and never expanded it to be 'more than' a loop. If you start laying track you had better have a commitment to keep doing it, everywhere, because rail loops are just a gimmick if that's the only place you're going. Brisbane's loop is as much for residents as tourists, Melbournes suffers from massive crowding, and the insistance of using historical trams for the city circle. Really those trams need to have every mechanical part in them replaced, at least the ones I took. Disel engines constantly kicking in as they 'missed' the bloody ugly power lines above when moving through intersections.

Light Rail in Brisbane was planned until just a few years ago, when it was realised that it would be useless without a large commitment to it. Given busses with bus lanes are faster and higher capacity. (Though we can all thank the incoming Lord Mayor for destroying that reality ALREADY).

I can't remember where exactly the monorail goes, but isn't one white elephant enough? I mean, the one at dreamworld gets more ridership, and you can go on other rides for the same price. :o

Even in Melbourne, Trams only work because their coverage is fairly comprehensive. Their biggest time advantage over busses was that unlike buses in Brisbane, you can't buy your ticket from a human on the bus, and you don't need to validate your ticket before boarding. Apply the same to busses, give them bus lanes (enforced). And you've pretty much done the same thing at a lower cost, with more flexibility comfort & speed.

Thinking cap on and:
Loop runs in Melbourne (via tram), and Brisbane (via bus), are pretty spectacularly successful (something to do with the cost no doubt).

Not knowing the specifics of the Brisbane route, the one in Melbourne is not comparable with the one planned for Sydney. Why? Because Tram 35 in Melbourne runs in both directions, with an inner loop and an outer loop. The one planned for Sydney would only run in one direction.

Melbournes suffers from massive crowding, and the insistance of using historical trams for the city circle. Really those trams need to have every mechanical part in them replaced, at least the ones I took. Disel engines constantly kicking in as they 'missed' the bloody ugly power lines above when moving through intersections.

There aren't any diesel engines in Melbourne's trams. You're probably thinking of the air compressor, which kicks in when the brakes need to be charged.

And those trams (the Ws) are the most reliable in the fleet. They have almost no high tech parts, so there's very little in them that can go wrong and fail the tram out of service. Meanwhile, I've been in a Citadis (the new French trams) 3 times on Route 96. Every single trip, it failed on the Light Rail, and had to run into Southbank Depot. The sooner those heaps get sent back to La Rochelle, the better.

Light Rail in Brisbane was planned until just a few years ago, when it was realised that it would be useless without a large commitment to it. Given busses with bus lanes are faster and higher capacity. (Though we can all thank the incoming Lord Mayor for destroying that reality ALREADY).

Tis why Trams are better if a lasting service is your goal. It's much harder to aboiish really expensive ~$10m/km infrastructure that you've just gone and built than it is to remove a few hundred bucks worth of paint on a road.

Even in Melbourne, Trams only work because their coverage is fairly comprehensive. Their biggest time advantage over busses was that unlike buses in Brisbane, you can't buy your ticket from a human on the bus, and you don't need to validate your ticket before boarding. Apply the same to busses, give them bus lanes (enforced). And you've pretty much done the same thing at a lower cost, with more flexibility comfort & speed.

It'd be abolished before too long. Oh, and buses are horrible to stand on for long periods, whereas trams have far less lateral movement (pulling into and out from the kerb at every stop) to strain strap hangers arms.

There's a very interesting and thought provoking article in today's herald:

Why we're reaching our limits as a one-hour city

Why we're reaching our limits as a one-hour city

April 26, 2004

You can relate Marchetti's Constant to your life. The average travel time budget, around the world, in every city, is about one hour, per person, per day. If you take half an hour for the journey to work and home again then that's it. If you take less, you'll probably go walking with the dog or something but you'll take about an hour on average.

This is found to apply everywhere. A recent study in Britain showed it had applied in English cities for the past 600 years. We need to have a restorative, reflective time.

What it means is that the city is always one-hour wide. The walking cities of the past - historic, medieval cities - were five to eight kilometres wide. You could walk across them in an hour. Victorian cities, the industrial revolution cities, spread out because the pipes and the rails meant that we could now travel 20 to 30 kilometres. And the city remained one hour wide.

But the new frontier entered essentially by US traffic engineers was to spread the city out further around highways. So the city spread out and in an hour you could go 50 kilometres.

The Marchetti principle does mean that if you have a good public transport system there will be a market for dense, walkable development.

Sydney's commitment to motorways in recent times has been very extensive. Ten billion dollars in a decade is a major determinant of the city's recent character. It has created a more car-dependent city. It is not possible to do other than that. You have had recent announcements about public transport spending, of about $2 billion. Is it enough? What about new lines, especially light rail, what about local priority for biking or walking? And is there a vision to fit all this into?

The one-hour-wide city, in Sydney, is reaching its limits. A city that has got 20 people a hectare and 40 kilometres an hour will become dysfunctional after about 2.5 million people. Market-based reurbanisation is flooding in now. There are 100 new rail developments opening in US cities. In Denver, a classic urban-sprawl, car-based city, the light rail is being extended in eight directions.

Sydney is now turning in as its sprawl limits are reached. Public transport options, which are then favoured by that, are at capacity and too slow.

The economics are very powerful. If you look at car use and city wealth, there is no correlation. European cities, which have less than half the car use, are the wealthiest. And even in the US there is very little correlation at all. Some cities put their wealth into public transport and use it - and it works.

One key factor is the speed of the public transport system compared with other traffic. In US and Australian cities, cars travel much quicker than public transport. In Sydney its 39kmh for the traffic and 34kmh for public transport, which is a lot closer but it still favours the traffic. So, given the Marchetti constant and that we will minimise our travel time, people will tend to choose a car if that is the quickest option.

Cities which are car dependent have seen 12 and 13 per cent of their wealth going on transport. The cities which have good public transport systems have about 8 per cent and wealthy Asian cities about 5 per cent.

The Australian Federal Government funds transport and housing without any consideration for sustainability and they put a lot of money into roads. In Western Australian we've gone from spending for every $5 on roads $1 on public transport to $1 on roads for every $5 on public transport. An enormous change and it happened because the public demanded it; 78 per cent of people said there was a large or very large need for public transport, cycling and walking funding over car use; 87 per cent said the Government should take it out of road funding. So the commitment has been made, the new rail system has been significantly adopted and the reason it is being used is because it is going faster than the traffic.

The new southern rail will travel 72 kilometres in 48 minutes, a $1.5 billion system. The land development opportunities are considerable. A Sydney developer is going to Perth to put $90 million into transit-oriented development around the stations. This is a real business opportunity.

Sydney can create an attractive urban environment. The character of a city is determined by the infrastructure priorities. Sustainability will mean dealing with car dependence. You need a growth boundary, a clear priority for public transit down each corridor, a local priority for walking and riding, a land use system that builds densely around centres and a funding system to facilitate it and a transparent and engaging public process.

This is an edited version of a speech given by Peter Newman, professor of city policy at Murdoch University, at a Year of the Built Environment City Talk. Professor Newman is a new sustainability commissioner for Sydney.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/25/1082831435063.html

Not knowing the specifics of the Brisbane route, the one in Melbourne is not comparable with the one planned for Sydney. Why? Because Tram 35 in Melbourne runs in both directions, with an inner loop and an outer loop. The one planned for Sydney would only run in one direction.

The Brisbane route runs both clockwise and anti-clockwise loops, but uses different roads for each loop, due to their one-way nature.

The article gave me the impression the Sydney one would do the same:
"One runs up and down George Street and the other up and down Castlereagh Street. Cost estimates are near $200 million, including trams and tracks."

I always figured up and down meant 2 directions.....

There aren't any diesel engines in Melbourne's trams. You're probably thinking of the air compressor, which kicks in when the brakes need to be charged.

Possibly so, whatever it was it was very noisy and caused the floor to shake like only the very oldest busses do. I assumed it had something to do with the engine when the driver got out to check the pantograph.

Tis why Trams are better if a lasting service is your goal. It's much harder to aboiish really expensive ~$10m/km infrastructure that you've just gone and built than it is to remove a few hundred bucks worth of paint on a road.

Hmm, but without commitment to expand, alot of money gets spent where it will never be recovered. A bad bad idea. If PT projects are seen as a total waste of money you can guess how well they will be supported in the future.

It'd be abolished before too long. Oh, and buses are horrible to stand on for long periods, whereas trams have far less lateral movement (pulling into and out from the kerb at every stop) to strain strap hangers arms.

I can tell you it isn't alot of fun buying a ticket from the machine on a tram while it's moving though. Only time I've been knocked off my feet in PT. In the inner city when light rail is replaced with dedicated bus lanes there's no lateral movement (pulling in and out from the kerb). Anything you can make a tram do you can make a bus do, buses IMO are more comfortable to stand on with their extra width. And I guess it's only the short people that use the hanger arms these days, I find the bars far better at stopping you from moving, because hanger arms are pretty much designed to let you swing around on them. Busses without right of way for most of their journey don't compete well with Trams that do. Put them on the same field and the only major effeciency difference is that trams must follow certain routes. And you need to spend alot of money before you can even see if there's any patronage on that route at all.

The article gave me the impression the Sydney one would do the same:
"One runs up and down George Street and the other up and down Castlereagh Street. Cost estimates are near $200 million, including trams and tracks."

I always figured up and down meant 2 directions.....

Yes, they've started talking that idea up, but in the past, the proposals all involved going up one street and down the other.

Also, how prey tell is it a loop if it goes up and down the same street?

Possibly so, whatever it was it was very noisy and caused the floor to shake

Yep, it's the air compressor. You'll find them most noticeable on W and B1 class trams, with a very distinctive Thump-a-Thump-a noise, particularly after a brake application.

If you're ever at the tram museum at Loftus or Ferny Grove, ask one of the volunteers to point out the noise.

I assumed it had something to do with the engine when the driver got out to check the pantograph.

If it had something to do with the pantograph, chances are the overhead would have been damaged and you'd not have been going anywhere any time soon.

I can tell you it isn't alot of fun buying a ticket from the machine on a tram while it's moving though.

I've only ever used a Tram TVM twice in my life. It's just less painful to avoid them, though yeah, most people wouldn't instinctively go to the lengths that those of us who are familiar with the system do to save a bit of effort or money.

From The Sun Herald (smh.com.au)

Push to extend light rail to Quay
By Jim O'Rourke
May 9, 2004
The Sun-Herald

An extension of Sydney's light rail network is almost certain to go ahead with a new $200 million link taking passengers up and down George Street from Central Station to Circular Quay, new Lord Mayor Clover Moore said.

Cr Moore is pushing for the expansion of the line, which she said had the support of NSW Infrastructure Minister Craig Knowles.

Mr Knowles is expected to announce this month two proposals for extending the light rail into the CBD, including a route up and down Castlereagh Street, before they go on exhibition for public comment.

But Cr Moore said the George Street route was the favourite.

The Lord Mayor said the CBD link would be an impetus to expand the light rail from Central to the University of Technology, to the University of Sydney and then on to Redfern and Green Square.

"There could be another link from the CBD to the sports stadia at Moore Park and then on to the University of NSW," she said.

"The new links could be financed by the $200 million collected by the State Government through its CBD parking levies.

"It's long overdue."

A light rail extension in the CBD would provide much needed public transport in the city, Cr Moore said.

"The first stage is going to be built and we hope that will lead to an extension to the inner west.

"Craig Knowles is acknowledging this is going to happen.

"We're certainly going to prepare a comprehensive transport plan in consultation with him. He says he wants to work with us and he wants to see it happen."

The Lord Mayor's push for light rail comes as she prepares to fend off worried developers as the City Council begins tightening its planning rules.

At her first council meeting Cr Moore tabled a mayoral minute to establish a stricter planning approach until a new planning instrument, a Local Environment Plan, is developed for the whole city. It will include tougher controls on height and building densities.

Tougher controls on height and building densities...

OUCH!!

CBD parking levies? Back in 1987 parking levies were going to build the City East-West Tunnel. Huh!

I can see that Clover Moore is not going to put up with any crap.This is great. Hey FABIAN, I saw the most wonderful advertisment for Sydney on SBS TV last night at 1830. At the end it says..................................................................................................THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE WORLD LIKE SYDNEY.

I hate that ad, for some reason its the capitals and the font they chose to use. Its also a bit like the Victoria ads, in that it has nothing much to do with anything, but less classy looking.

run rabbit run rabiit run run run
don't give the farmer his fun fun fun
he'll get by without his rabbit pie... hmm

Like Brear Rabbit and the Fox,born and bread in the Briar bushes.Oh well,I must have lived in Adelaide too long! :)

An announcement has not been made yet about the CBD line, but it will be soon. Seven News did a report last night, interviewing Clover Moore about the benefits of light rail. If it gets the go ahead, it will start when the Cross City Tunnel opens and be open within a year. Bus services along either one of the two routes would be eliminated and there could be an intergrated ticketing system for bus and trams as to attract commuters, with new bus interchanges built.

From The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)

Tram plan stalled as solution to congestion
By Alexandra Smith and Tim Dick
May 19, 2004

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
The State Government has refused to commit to a proposal to return trams to Sydney's CBD as it begins public consultation on a 30-year strategy for the city.

Opening the first day of the forum on Sydney's future, the Minister for Planning, Craig Knowles, promised much more than a "developers' digest". The plan would also deal with strategies for the city's social and economic future.

But nearly two years after a series of studies into a light rail extension were completed, the Government is still not committing to a proposal advanced by the current light rail operator, Metro Transport Sydney. It was submitted to Mr Knowles at the forum yesterday. He described it as "an option to be examined".

The company wants to operate trams along George Street, from Central to Circular Quay.

Mr Knowles stressed he was not "rubber stamping" the proposal but placing it on the drawing board for further exploration. He said a traffic working group, made up of government departments, agencies and the City of Sydney Council, would investigate the light rail proposal.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Under the $180 million plan, about 13 new trams, each carrying 200 passengers, would leave an expanded bus, tram and rail interchange at Eddy Avenue, near Central, every 2 minutes. Metro Transport had considered operating trams on Castlereagh Street but identified George Street, which is heavily congested with buses, as the preferred option.

Mr Knowles said several transport options for the inner city had been examined, including conventional bus, guided bus, monorail, light rail and heavy rail.

"It's doubtful that there is a 'magic bullet' solution to the inner-city traffic congestion, but perhaps there is a place for the modern tram," Mr Knowles said. "We need to examine further how [it] might operate in this city including, in the long term, the potential for a Central Station to Circular Quay link to fit in with a broader tram network in inner-urban areas."

Metro Transport - which also runs the monorail - hoped 40,000 people would use the trams each day. The company's chief executive, Kevin Warrell, said the system would be jointly financed by private and public investors.

Ed Blakely, who chairs the Metropolitan Strategy Reference Panel, told the forum three themes needed to underpin any strategy for Sydney: ensuring competitiveness, liveability and protection of the environment.

He said Sydney was "a very important place, not just for us, but for people all over the world".

"We have to make portions of our community so interesting, so vital, that many other people in the world want to come to live here," he said.

Part of achieving that would be to provide "more and different" housing, and to look at affordability and "obtainability" and alternative ownership models, such as non-profit housing co-operatives.

To protect the environment, Professor Blakely said, "we have to grow jobs where the people are, so they don't have so many trips across the region".

The goal of the process, which aims to have a draft master plan for the region stretching from Kiama to Port Stephens and west to the Blue Mountains by December, was to "find new ways to make an old city a new city", he said.

Well this just once again adds to the long list of State Government let-downs. Time and time again they are hell-bent on destroying the public transport system.

A 30 year strategy - pfffft! Sounds nice, means little. All they have to do is look at this forum and they have all the solutions they could ever ask for.

A 30 year strategy means more shmoozing for department heads and more pen-pushing for the workers in the departments.

A 30 year strategy would include heavy rail subway extensions as well as the light rail extensions. Will we ever see them come to fruition?

bring back the trams!!

cnr Park/Elizabeth streets!

http://image.sl.nsw.gov.au/hood/034/03487r.jpg

Castlereagh st
http://image.sl.nsw.gov.au/Ebind/pxe789_14/a215/a215008r.jpg

The track should start at Green Square which is where Elizabeth street starts and all the way to the city down to Quay!!!
PERFECT!!

A link to Green Square is on the cards. It would travel via Sydney University and go through either Newtown or Redfern.

And the only way the CBD line is going to be a success is to intergrate ticketing with buses and other modes. Including them on the travelpass would be a good idea.

Except that TravelPass is slated to be abolished when SmartCard arrives, which will be long before any new Tram routes hit the streets. Everything will be converted to trip based singlemode fares by that time.

The only benefit (amid the fantastically stupid and short sighted losses) will be that all those expensive trip fares can be paid for using a single piece of plastic.

I dont mean to sound stupid, but what do the current trams look like and how many do you have. Also does someone have a map of the current set-up. Last time I was @ Sydney I could only remember tram lines near the old Sega Work but never actually saw something running along them.

the current fleet is 6 or 7 trams
heres one at central>
http://www.sleeper.apana.org.au/railway/slr/images/Variotram%20in%20Sydney.JPG

http://www.accessibility.com.au/Ims/resultims/Literail.jpg

http://www.hi-ho.ne.jp/nomu/pictures/Buon/Australia/sydney/LightRail-2.JPG

Here is a map of the proposed route going up George Street. As shown by the M (logo for Metro light rail), stops are proposed on George Street at Hay Street, Cinema Precient, Town Hall, King Street, Wynyard Station, & Circular Quay where major bus stops are currently occupied. The Castlereagh St proposal is also included.

http://www.metrolightrail.com.au/PressReleases/CBDmap.jpg

Map of current network (The monorail map is included)

http://www.metrolightrail.com.au/Artwork/MetroNetworkMap.gif

And also Ten News has also indicated that the Monorail could be pulled down if light rail goes ahead. Lord Mayor Clover Moore thinks it's a "toy machine". I can see the point in having it removed as the light rail network would encompass just about all areas of the existing monorail.

fuck clover moore, that dogmatic beotch! Leave my monorail alone!

If Sydney still had its trams, it might still have had this:
http://image.sl.nsw.gov.au/gpo2/07/d2_07021.jpg

Here are a few more pics of trams in the CBD.
http://image.sl.nsw.gov.au/gpo1/20/d1_20195.jpg
Modern tram at Queens Square

http://www.statelibrary.vic.gov.au/pictoria/b/1/7/im/b17817.jpg
George Street, Sydney

This would have to be my favourite picture of Sydney of all time.
http://image.sl.nsw.gov.au/1/pxe711/a116377r.jpg
George Street, Sydney

But I still think extending the tram network willl only cause more traffic problems.

A lot of vehicular traffic problems will be alleviated when the Cross City Tunnel opens.

Go Clover! Give Sydney what it needs. She knows....

A lot of vehicular traffic problems will be alleviated when the Cross City Tunnel opens.

What on earth are you basing that on?

Go Clover! Give Sydney what it needs. She knows....

Clover ain't going to pay for it, she's just going to hope real hard that her pestering will make Costa pay for it.

What on earth are you basing that on?



At the moment all traffic from the travelling eastward along the western distributor is dumped into the city. When the Cross City tunnel opens all traffic going from the western distributor to the Eastern Suburbs or airport will use the tunnel, rather than using clogging up city streets! Underground connections will connect the Cross City Tunnel to the Eastern distributor (and vice verca) for those who want to go to the airport. It will take many many cars off the city streets.

Great thanks for the photos Cul, they look like buses but still cool. I think the key in Sydny for effective light rail is to ensure that it is kept seperate from cars, cars and trams dont mix even at the best of times.

for those who want to go to the airport. It will take many many cars off the city streets.

Point of order there: cars wont be taken off the streets they are just put underground. The problem still exists but is just moved out of eyesight.

At the moment all traffic from the travelling eastward along the western distributor is dumped into the city. When the Cross City tunnel opens all traffic going from the western distributor to the Eastern Suburbs or airport will use the tunnel, rather than using clogging up city streets!

What are you basing that assertion on? Really.

And even if you were right, more traffic will simply come along to fill the space now vacated by whatever percentage of the traffic on city streets instead goes underground. It's the way road projects work in reality.

Futhermore, CCT gets rid of some of the the East West traffic, but has little to do with North South Traffic, which is what the tram routes will be doing.

Clover ain't going to pay for it, she's just going to hope real hard that her pestering will make Costa pay for it.Good! Somebody's got to hound him.

Point of order there: cars wont be taken off the streets they are just put underground. The problem still exists but is just moved out of eyesight.

yes, but by putting those cars underground you are taking them off the city streets! And by building this Cross City tunnel, you are also solving many problems as it is an underground highway, meaning you can get to where you want to go faster due to no traffic lights or intersections :)

yes, but by putting those cars underground you are taking them off the city streets! And by building this Cross City tunnel, you are also solving many problems as it is an underground highway, meaning you can get to where you want to go faster due to no traffic lights or intersections :)

Irrelevant, it hasn't got the ability to solve the underlying problem, and both the tunnel and the surface streets, as well as the approach roads and freeways on either side, will soon clog up with even more traffic. In the end, nobody will get where they want to go faster.

MrPC,

A friendly request. What factual basis do you base your last post on? To be fair, hopefully some of us realise that alleiviating one or 2 traffic congestions due to the consturction of the Cross City Tunnel may (that is "may") just not create bottlenecks for other areas.

Looking into my crystal ball, these may (not) create the bottlenecks along Harbour Street, heading towards Chinatown, and the Western Distributor towards Victoria Street. Hopefully IMHO the construction of the Cross City tunnel may not create bottlenecks. Time will tell in due course.

www.crosscitytunnel.com.au

A friendly request. What factual basis do you base your last post on?

Historical fact. Name me an urban freeway in Australia that didn't inevitably lead to even more traffic, particularly on the roads that feed into it and the roads that it dumps traffic onto.

Hear hear

Bring back the trams

well with the cross city tunnel opening and the trams will affect the traffic around the city at different levels.

*less east-west bound traffic & airport traffic on city streets = good
*BUT! because of this less traffic there will be more time to cross an intersection if your traveeling on george st for exmaple. Becasue of less traffic going east- west bound , chances are the government will change the traffic light confrigerations so that cars on george st will flow better (becasue there is less traffic at each intersection after teh city tunnel is complete)=good
*The "LACK" of space in the cbd, we can see george st is only 2 lanes at the QVB. how are they going to fit the tram lines there?? make it an elevated tram line? chances are that it will not happen. = bad
*Less lanes on george st, therefore more conjestion. = bad
*There already is trains lines going north and south at george street. = bad
*Will the bus/HOV lanes be replaced by tram lines?
*Will the stations fit in if there is a "LACK" of space?
*Will people use it?
*Introducing "transit cards" will be good, but it will cost a fair amount AND most bus/tram/train companies must argee to this card. E.g. Hongkong has a transit card called an "octopus card" it's been out for abt 5 years and is a big success, people can use it on 1. ferries 2.train 3.buses 4.subways 5.vending machines (maybe off topic) 6.7-eleven & other convient stores. But it is very convient, saves time and you wont get change from the driver because it's like a bar-code system( and it's like a recahrgable prepaid moblie phone card).But it is VERY EXPENSIVE but does encourge lots to use public transport. = good/ bad (depends on ur feelings)
*For a system to be effective it must have some sort of transport interchanges, bus, train or more lines. = cost more

So is it good to build a new tram line after all?

Fair enough statement MrPC in regard to your last post. I/we are hoping (key word hoping) that once the Cross City Tunnel is completed in the latter part of 2005 will assist in alleviating a lot of traffic in Sydney's traditional CBD area. Particularly along Bathurst, Market and King Streets. Hopefully along Harris Street, Ultimo/Broadway too amongst others (once the toll dodgers get jack of doing so in taking other streets and/or backroads, which takes a few months as a general rule. Most finally realise that taking toll roads are just more convenient esp. in time saving in the "Big Smoke").

I think we are all on the same side of the fence here MrPC. Personally I am strongly a public transport proponent as I pray that most, if not all of us are.

I have voiced this more than enough times that it angers me that there is a strong discrepancy of the lack of $$$s spent not only in the state on N.S.W., of course in Sydney to boot on public transport systems as well as other states in OZ as opposed to the obscene amounts spent on the road infrastructure/s.

*The "LACK" of space in the cbd, we can see george st is only 2 lanes at the QVB. how are they going to fit the tram lines there?? make it an elevated tram line? chances are that it will not happen. = bad
*Less lanes on george st, therefore more conjestion. = bad
*There already is trains lines going north and south at george street. = bad
*Will the bus/HOV lanes be replaced by tram lines?
*Will the stations fit in if there is a "LACK" of space?
*Will people use it?


The trams will occupy the current bus lanes so it wouldn't affect existing traffic flows along George Street too much. A special termius for buses that run along George Street would be built at Eddy Avenue.

As I have stated the stops will be where major bus stops are eg QVB, Town Hall and these stops will only require a ticket machine with no other work needing to be done

A couple of years ago, I was going from out past the Anzac Bridge to Darlo. It actually seemed easier to go up to the North Sydney exit and back down via the Cahill than through the city (particularly as a motorcyclist with an RTA bridge toll sticker, meaning no incremental cost).

However, that said, anyone who presently lives on one side of the CBD and needs to commute through it East-West to get to or from anything probably should be reconsidering their employment or their choice of suburb. The same will be true, but less so, post CCT.

I also wonder whether there should be some kind of bonus or tax break or free removalists and misc fringe benefits for people who relocate from 5km outside their place of work to within 3km of their place of work. Maybe somthing similar for people who downshift to a local job. And a 2nd payment in 3 years if circumstances remain similar. That'd probably do more for congestion in peak hour than anything else, and it could be justified as a recognition that you are less of a burden on the taxpayers and you should get something back in return for that.

Support is building up for light rail in Sydney’s east

From The Wentworth Courier (wentworthcourier.com.au)

Light rail in East? Maybe
Residents and politicians gather in support of light rail.
Report MARK GERTSKIS

July 28 2004

A public meeting was held this week with the aim of asking local, State and Federal governments and public authorities to fund a feasibility study for light rail in the Eastern Suburbs within the next 18 months.

More than 30 people, including a number of local politicians, attended the forum at the Bondi Junction-Waverley RSL club on Monday night in support of light rail in the East. The Member for Wentworth, Peter King, who organised the forum, has lobbied the Federal Government for a feasibility study and the Federal Transport Minister, John Anderson, was considering submissions for a pilot light-rail project in the Eastern Suburbs.

"If light rail is going to work anywhere, then it's going to work here [in the Eastern Suburbs]," Mr King said. The chief executive of Metro Light Rail, Kevin Warrell, said buses were too inefficient and were running at full capacity in the Eastern Suburbs.

Metro Light Rail had previously canvassed a light-rail line running through the Sydney CBD and a line going down Oxford Street and Bondi Road to Bondi Beach. The State MP for Coogee, Paul Pearce, called for private investment in an Eastern Suburbs light-rail line.

"There's not enough dollars there, so it has to be a private investment," Mr Pearce said. Waverley mayor Peter Moscatt urged Woollahra and Randwick councils to work together with Waverley for light rail in the East. "We are keen as mustard," Cr Moscatt said.

ahah, now's my chance:

From May until last week there has been a running battle in the Letters column of the Wentworth Courier. It involves Aaron Govendir who a number of people loathe, though I doubt any of you will know him. Without further adieu I present Govendir v Sutherland:

Aaron Govendir v Greg Sutherland

In the Court of Public Opinion
The People of the electorate of Wentworth presiding.
Transcript:

Wentworth Courier
May 26 2004

http://users.bigpond.net.au/towersofhanoi/m4/image002.gif


Wentworth Courier
June 2 2004

Railing at trams
The poverty of intellect displayed by politicians at all levels of government is awesome to behold.
About 200 years ago the first steel train wheels were put onto steel train tracks. Now there's a call to put trams back onto streets in the city and even out to Bondi. Even 'modern' trams would still be using a basic 200 year old design. There are many modern methods available to solve the current public transport dilemma. We don't fly in wire and fabric biplanes anymore, so why do they want to inflict outmoded public transport technology on us?
Aaron Govendir
Dover Heights

Light on ideas
I remain sceptical of light rail being introduced into the narrow streets of Sydney (Courier, May 26).
It's easy to do an artist's impression showing streets twice as wide as they really are, but the reality is that there simply isn't the road width to make them feasible. Have we lost the chance of having railway lines to Bondi, Randwick, Coogee, Maroubra and all points south forever?
Thea Bell
Waverley


Wentworth Courier
June 9 2004

Light rail leading way in US
To suggest, as does Aaron Govendir (Courier, June 2), that the return of trams represents "poverty of intellect" and the use of "outmoded public transport technology" is a thesis which cannot be supported by any person even vaguely aware of modern public-transport systems and sustainable transport planning. While light rail (as modern tramway systems are designated) is currently the most favoured form of new and expanded quality public-transport systems worldwide, it is in the US that state-of-the-art light-rail systems are flourishing as never before. The 25 largest cities in the US are currently implementing or expanding light-rail systems.
In the last decade of the twentieth century, Los Angeles built more urban rail than any other city in the world. Now, this very week, MetroLA has signed contracts for the construction of an $898-million extension of the Metro Gold Line light rail. We have missed the tram for many years -- let's be sensible and get on the light rail now.
Greg Sutherland
Vaucluse


Wentworth Courier
June 16 2004

Light rail a step backwards
It seems that Greg Sutherland (Courier, June 9) is keen to put outdated technology back onto our streets because it's being done "worldwide" and especially "in the US". But he fails to refute my original assertion by neglecting to inform where and under what circumstances this "wonder of the ages" is reappearing. The facts remain that, no matter what they're called and how much 21st century gee whizzery is used above floor level, these new trams will still sit on 200-year-old design technology, that is, steel wheels on steel rails. There are much better means of moving people around en masse. He just has to put out his hand to signal one to stop.
Aaron Govendir
Dover Heights


Wentworth Courier
June 23 2004

Light rail the right idea
It would appear that Adam Govendir (Courier, June 16) is fixated on a mantra -- "200-year-old design technology, steel wheels on steel rails, is outdated" -- rather than practical realities. If we were to adopt his form of evaluation, we would reject any current advances in roads (based on a 1000-year- old technology) and modern hospitals (based on a 300-year-old technology), for example.
He also challenges me to state where light rail is reappearing. May I draw his attention to the third paragraph of my letter (Courier, June 9) where I note that the 25 largest cities in the US are currently implementing or expanding light rail. To provide a worldwide list would require a full page of this newspaper. Interested readers can see www.lrta.org for a full list. Circumstances leading to the worldwide light-rail renaissance include meeting the public need for non-polluting public transport vehicles which are quiet, quick and passenger friendly; reducing vehicle pollution in city and suburban areas; the provision of vehicles which can carry more passengers than current street-based public transport; the introduction of passenger transport which has a lower operating cost, etc.
Perhaps Mr Govendir could enlighten us on what he considers to be the "much better means of moving people around en masse".
Greg Sutherland
Vaucluse


Wentworth Courier
June 30 2004

Stop clinging to the past
How can Greg Sutherland argue rationally (Courier, June 23) when he is so embedded in the past, he even subconsciously changed my semi-ancient name to that of the biblical first man?
He distorted what I said, claiming that I reject improvements per se. My position is precisely the opposite. I demand real improvements in mass transport, not a Luddite-like clinging to the past, which is why I reject his old technology. Is his passion for this old technology coloured by being viewed through green-tinted glasses? Or is it a case of simple nostalgia? If it's the latter, he must be very young and unaware of the stop/start traffic snarls of the past caused by trams on narrow Sydney streets.
Cars following even "modern" trams at very low speed would have to stop and start frequently and would pollute the air. While his wonder of the ages might be directly non-polluting, the electricity to power them would be produced by coal-burning, greenhouse gas-belching power stations olluting the countryside with giant, non-biodegradable slag dumps.
We won't even discuss the environmental cost of installing the rail lines and aerial spaghetti necessary to power the machines. Simply denying my basic proposition advances neither his argument nor his ability to move people en masse. His challenge to enlighten him on better means
of moving people is disingenuous. So, until he can offer a modern method of moving people, let's use a genuinely ancient one paraphrased from a more enlightened man and say: "Pick up thy feet and walk."
Aaron Govendir
Dover Heights

Today's light rail's come a long way
Despite Aaron Govendir's conviction that modern light rail is largely unchanged from the trams of old (Courier, June 16), the reality is that today's light-rail vehicles are very smooth and comfortable, extremely quiet, and feature low floors making them ideal for the less mobile. When separated from traffic, they are surprisingly fast. Mr Govendir may be content with his bus at Dover Heights, but down on Bondi Road, there are times when you just can't get on the bus because of beach crowds. This denial of service can last well over an hour. If Bondi had light rail, ample standing room on the long segmented vehicles could cater for the swarms of surfers.
At other times, normal loads of local people would find ample seats. Buses are not successfully carrying the unpredictably variable loads of people to and from Bondi. They never will. The Web site www.lrta.org mentioned by the Courier's other letter writer on light rail, Greg Sutherland, lists 14 cities in Europe which are moving to light rail and the writer mentioned that there are 25 in the US, notably Los Angeles. As soon as light rail reaches the city, its next stop has to be Bondi!
Peter McCallum
Bronte

Wentworth Courier
July 7 2004

Light on detail
Over a number of weeks and several letters I have been attempting to elucidate from Aaron Govendir (Courier, June 30) the forms of public transport which are "much better means of moving people around en masse" than light rail, which he so vehemently criticises. In the month of June alone, the following North American light-rail/tramway systems all completed extensions and/or opened new lines: Charlotte, Baltimore, Minneapolis, Calgary, San Jose, Sacramento and Pittsburgh. Across the Atlantic new systems have recently opened in Athens, Barcelona and Dublin.
In Australia, Melbourne is proceeding with extensions and system improvements. All this significant expenditure would not be occurring unless decision makers worldwide were convinced that light rail is a modern way of moving people and improving the quality of life in major cities.
Greg Sutherland
Vaucluse


Wentworth Courier
July 14 2004

Don’t take him seriously
Message to Greg Sutherland: I have been following your correspondence with Aaron Govendir. Please don't take Aaron seriously, I never do. Light rail is a great solution and we at Waverley are right behind you.
George Newhouse
Deputy Mayor
Waverley Council

Ditto!
Aaron Govendir's ignorance on light rail matters (Courier, June 30) is only exceeded by the stupidity of his claims. The countless officials (including transport experts) from an ever-growing number of cities worldwide opting for light rail know more about the pros and cons of so-called old transport technology versus new technology than Mr Govendir will ever know.
The message is clear and simple. It's about what works best and is cost effective. New or old technology is not the issue. As a resident who lives near Bondi Road, I fully concur with the excellent comments of P. McCallum (Courier, June 30) and add to them.
Recently, there was a wildcat bus strike forcing many communities to find alternative transport without proper warning. More than 1000 extra commuters descended on the "token" Lilyfield light rail at the height of the morning peak hour. As well as the regular commuters, not one of these 1000-plus extra commuters was left stranded. Everybody arrived at their destination according to the scheduled timetable in reasonable comfort, despite the fact that all trams were crowded.
If this had been a bus service and 1000-plus extra passengers descended on it during peak hour, these would have been chaos, as is often the case on the 380 bus route to Bondi Beach. The real question now is not if, but how and when light rail will return to Bondi Beach.
Name and address supplied


Wentworth Courier
July 21 2004
Monorail the answer
Having survived the childhood thrill of sitting at the end of a seat in the open smokers' compartment of the old footboards while hanging on to the curved brass armrest like grim death to avoid being rattled off the tram, and having travelled almost exclusively on them until they were discarded, I reckon I know "light rail" pretty well. I've tried the Lilyfield line and of course Rose Bay had the posh trams. One thing can't be disputed. They take more than their fair share of space down the middle of the bullock tracks we like to call our main traffic roads, especially Oxford Street (except along the front of Centennial Park) and Bondi Road and Dudley and Fletcher streets, the cutting back to Bondi Road now being built out. Everyone is having a piece of Aaron Govendir but no-one has said a word in response to my letter observing the judging of artists' impressions by showing the streets wider than they really are. If we can't turn the clock back and get the full Eastern Suburbs railway we should have had, I'd go for monorails with the posts well out of the way, to leave the road clear. Posts could be on the shop side of the footpaths so cars don't run into them and some kind of structure to get the cars centred above the road. Without so many buses, traffic could flow smoothly.
Thea Bell
Waverley

Editor's note: The Courier has received many letters on the light-rail issue over the past few weeks, and our correspondents have raised important points. However, because of space limitations and the need for other issues to be covered, we have now closed the forum on light rail.



THE END

As for whether or not light rail is really a solution, I really don't think it will work in the way many people think. The greyed out letter from Peter McCallum is probably closest to the truth for the area.

IT's funny how even the deputy mayor chimed in and payed out Mr Govendir. He must be one of those annoying fuckers who writes letters complaining about everyone and everything to all the local rags.

http://www.sleeper.apana.org.au/railway/slr/images/slr-route-map.JPG

IT's funny how even the deputy mayor chimed in and payed out Mr Govendir. He must be one of those annoying fuckers who writes letters complaining about everyone and everything to all the local rags.

:) The SMH too.

I personally prefer an extention to the monorail instead... they use less space and dont have to take up road space. Of course the capacity of monorail is somewhat lower. Unless ridership is really high , i oppose to light rail. (note: see how monorail works in CBD?)

I personally prefer an extention to the monorail instead... they use less space and dont have to take up road space. Of course the capacity of monorail is somewhat lower. Unless ridership is really high , i oppose to light rail. (note: see how monorail works in CBD?)

The council will never approve an expansion of the monorail. The SCC have never supported the monorail since day one.

Monorails are incredibly noisy and would be a most people's 2nd floor windows. If you look at the City monorail, the support posts are on the road, it's just that before the Olympics with all the footpath reconstructions, the kerbing was altered to incorporate the supports. Prior to that, they were just big boxes that took up a car parking space (and hence useless on streets where that car parking lane is No Stopping or Clearway in peak times)

What about an elevated light rail like the ones in Vancouver (i.e skytrains)? Sure we can elevate the current light rails?

What about an elevated light rail like the ones in Vancouver (i.e skytrains)? Sure we can elevate the current light rails?

The coolest thing about the SkyTrains (which I went for a ride on last Thursday), is that they don't have, nor require drivers! This would the solve some of the issues currently plaguing the CityRail network, with Skytrains operating every few minutes efficently and rapidly, driver-free.

And here's the thing - they aren't even all elevated! Sections of the Skytrain run at ground level, while the downtown Vancouver section actually goes underground to become a subway! It is a very nifty transportation system IMHO. :)

I think we should use Vancouver's skytrain as a blueprint!

You really want to resurrect the company that made the ICRTs?

_______

It's alive.. ALIVE...!

Didn't the company that made Vancouver's Skytrain and Toronto's Scarborough RT line go bust or close to it?

That's about the only projects that the company in question ever sold. It was supposed to be a renaissance technology, and all they managed to flog off were two demo projects.

If you wanted to build something along those lines, you'd need to build it from the ground up. However, Sydney already has a perfectly good technology in place which does not need to be rebuilt from the ground up, and which is capable of moving the kind of patronage that Sydney is able to generate (which the ICRTs would absolutely suck at). It's called Heavy Rail.

Yesterday's Daily Telegraph had a map of a proposal by Metro l Rail to send lightrail through Parramatta road from Central before turning into Norton Street at Leichhardt, which would then connect with the existing line at Lilyfield. Under this proposal, Norton Street would become one way with traffic only able to turn off Parramatta Rd. Metro Light Rail believe this extension could be done by 2007, and have met with local MP, Sandra Nori to discuss the plans.

That sounds "conveniently" arranged to permit grade separation of the City-West Link with the M4 East project. If the light rail continued on the freight reservation all the way to the Hawthorne canal, grade separation would be exceedingly difficult...

Yesterday's Daily Telegraph had a map of a proposal by Metro l Rail to send lightrail through Parramatta road from Central before turning into Norton Street at Leichhardt, which would then connect with the existing line at Lilyfield. Under this proposal, Norton Street would become one way with traffic only able to turn off Parramatta Rd. Metro Light Rail believe this extension could be done by 2007, and have met with local MP, Sandra Nori to discuss the plans.

It would be good to have the stations along Norton St. The current inner-west stations are pretty useless, nothing interesting to see around. But what happened to the plan about extending the light rail to Ashfield?

the letter battle is great reading !

All I want to say is that Sydney is not built to have trams running down the city streets. Unlike Melbourne and Adelaide, Sydney streets are too narrow. The buses are the best thing for Sydney streets.

well an underground system would be best if we had the population and cash to support
The trams while good how are they better than buses if they share roads ? Unless there are places where they go off i fail to see the advantage

It would be good to have the stations along Norton St. The current inner-west stations are pretty useless, nothing interesting to see around. But what happened to the plan about extending the light rail to Ashfield?

Light rail was never intended to cater solely for tourists. It provides a means of transport for residents of the Inner West and Pyrmont areas to use to travel into the city and at the same time providing a transport service that links key city attractions, shopping precients and places of interest.

Any expansion of light rail is good. It becomes a more valuable means of getting around.

Also don't write off an extension to Ashfield as yet. I think it's still on the cards but getting it into Norton St is just as important along with the CBD extension.

It's a tough argument, buses versus light rail. Capacitywise, both are debatable. The onyl arguments (for both sides) are imo:
Cost: Buses don't need tracks.
Convenience: There's nothing like standing at the bus stop having two or more buses pulling up athe the same time to your stop and the driver deciding to not stop for you because the bus stop is full. Or you have always stand up and check wether the bus coming is the bus you intend to catch.
Comfort: Light rail is far more comfortable than buses (no sudden braking or sharp turns)
Priority: This is my opinion only, that drivers tend to stay clear of trams where possible and cannot park on the tracks or block them. Trams also seem to get more priority at signals or with their own 24 hour bus lanes as opposed to bus lanes which also are affected by cars & delviery vehicles loading & unloading. Also bus lanes tend to only apply for several hours of the day and the rest of the day buses are stuck in traffic. Melbournites plz comment.
Land values: These increase when close to well used light rail routes. Youd need a major bus interchange or corridor to get that kind of increase in land value, with the bonus of bus noise.

It's a tough argument, buses versus light rail. Capacitywise, both are debatable. The onyl arguments (for both sides) are imo:
Cost: Buses don't need tracks.
Convenience: There's nothing like standing at the bus stop having two or more buses pulling up athe the same time to your stop and the driver deciding to not stop for you because the bus stop is full. Or you have always stand up and check wether the bus coming is the bus you intend to catch.
Comfort: Light rail is far more comfortable than buses (no sudden braking or sharp turns)
Priority: This is my opinion only, that drivers tend to stay clear of trams where possible and cannot park on the tracks or block them. Trams also seem to get more priority at signals or with their own 24 hour bus lanes as opposed to bus lanes which also are affected by cars & delviery vehicles loading & unloading. Also bus lanes tend to only apply for several hours of the day and the rest of the day buses are stuck in traffic. Melbournites plz comment.
Land values: These increase when close to well used light rail routes. Youd need a major bus interchange or corridor to get that kind of increase in land value, with the bonus of bus noise.

Busses:
- May overtake stopped busses
- As such do not have to stop at every stop
- Speed, as you said busses brake suddenly (depending on the driver) overall this saves a few seconds here and there. Or it doesn't. I found while trying to buy a ticket on a tram that you get thrown about just as much anyway.
- Don't require tracks, so the system can have routes that vary from the strict routes of trams, with some services running express down buslanes / busways. So increasing the speed of service.
- Priority - most buslanes are clearways, there shouldn't be anyone parked on them, you will find the odd person rude enough to drive in them, but not enough people do to actually slow the buses down any.
- Times of the day without buslanes are usually only in areas where it doesn't matter anyway. Areas busy all day have 24x7 buslanes.
- Land Values: Busses don't require ugly overhead powercables, though they aren't as quiet something like a dedicated busway increases land values greatly, over a much larger distance than light rail, because even areas not on the route have feeder services that can run direct without people having to change modes.

Trams:
- Are electric
- As such are quieter - though in comparison to surrounding traffic does it really make a difference?

Other than taking up slightly less room I can't think of anything significant Light Rail has over busses with buslanes/busways (and their own ROW).

I mean, if you could get rid of the drivers, it might be different, but since you're paying for someone to drive the vehicle anyway, it doesn't cost any extra to have them steer. The other thing I noticed is in trams the driver is often shut off from the passenger section ++ for safety of the driver -- for passenger convenience. (though this is debatable and not directly related to the mode itself).

Clover and Maccas continue to put forward their case. Their latest proposal is the the broadest yet with lines extending to Bondi Beach, Mascot, Marboura and Burwood.

Go for it!!!!

From The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)
Light rail plan to ease Sydney's congestion
By Tim Dick, Urban Affairs Reporter
February 21, 2005

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
An extensive light rail system to relieve inner Sydney's traffic congestion is affordable, would reduce commuting times for city workers and would halve the number of buses on clogged streets, the State Government will be told.

A report commissioned by the City of Sydney recommends building five tram lines between the CBD and each of Bondi Beach, Maroubra and Mascot, with two lines through the inner west to Burwood. The cost is estimated at somewhere between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion over 15 years, making it possibly cheaper than the $1.6 billion Chatswood to Epping rail link.

Today the Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, will step up her campaign for a city light rail when she releases the report, which is a far more ambitious proposal than she has previously suggested.

State cabinet is split on the merits of light rail, with the former roads minister Carl Scully and his replacement, Michael Costa, both on record as being against it. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Craig Knowles, is thought to favour at least a limited expansion within the CBD, while the new Transport Minister, John Watkins, is yet to declare his hand.

Advertisement
AdvertisementThe light rail report was conducted by two firms of transport consultants, Glazebrook and Martin Walsh. The authors say if the cost is divided by the number of people projected to use it and the distance they travel it would be cheaper than even the $1billion Cross City Tunnel.

Any extension to light rail is expected to be mainly funded by private investors, with some public funds.

Cr Moore has a place on the State Government working group that is preparing a new transport plan for the inner city that will be submitted for cabinet approval this year.

Mr Watkins's spokeswoman was non-committal yesterday. "The minister will, of course, consider any proposal, but right now his No. 1 priority is fixing the existing public transport system before embarking on new projects."

A motion to be put to tonight's council meeting by Cr Moore is effusive about an expanded network. She says the "time is right" to build it, after the Government has spent "billions of dollars on road tunnels and toll roads - and further entrenching our dependence on road transport".

"Every commuter, every public transport user, every motorist, every cyclist and every pedestrian understands that the city is fast heading for gridlock if we don't confront the situation as a matter of urgency. More cars and more buses choking our narrow CBD streets is just unworkable."

She has previously ruled out putting council money into a smaller $170 million light rail plan for the CBD, saying it is a State Government responsibility.

Last month her deputy, John McInerney, said it would be difficult to win State Government support in the current "political context".

But the cabinet reshuffle has renewed hopes the light rail may be realised, with the Glazebrook report predicting reduced pollution from buses and shorter travel times for city workers.

More park and ride facilities would be built in the suburbs, while some bus routes would end at light rail stops instead of Circular Quay, with tickets valid for both forms of transport.That would help cut the number of buses in the CBD by a third, and by as much as half on some main routes.

It's certainly a step in the right direction but the answer clearly lies underground.

It's certainly a step in the right direction but the answer clearly lies underground.

I couldn't agree more, and look, Clover agrees too:

"Every commuter, every public transport user, every motorist, every cyclist and every pedestrian understands that the city is fast heading for gridlock if we don't confront the situation as a matter of urgency. More cars and more buses choking our narrow CBD streets is just unworkable."

So the narrow CBD streets are choking, but adding yet another form of transport to them is the solution? Running trams down the middle of the road won't do much to reduce the number of cars - why not just run buses down the middle of the road instead of having slow combined bus/parking/cycling lanes on the left?

Surely the population density of the eastern suburbs makes it one of the few places in Australia where underground rail could be profitable (or very close to being).

It's certainly a step in the right direction but the answer clearly lies underground.

For sure, and rail works much better than busses etc underground because you don't need to have such elaborate ventilation systems. Clearly it's expensive to do, but the benefit pays off for hundreds of years.

^ underground metro lines are the only REAL solution. Is it THAT expensive??? I am positive if the undergrounds were to be expanded the traffic problems could be as good as solved. I always say this but European cities, with very narrow roads, loads of cars and some even with the population of Australia have bypassed the very probs that Syd is experiencing. Time to wake up.

Sydney's prime candidate for Australia's first metro. It can't cost that much more than it does to burrow all our motorways through sandstone.

Sydney's prime candidate for Australia's first metro. It can't cost that much more than it does to burrow all our motorways through sandstone.


Much less in fact. We'd only be running single level carriages through the network and you don't require much clearance so the bore diameter isn't comparable to a 6 lane motorway. Still costs much, much more than lightrail but the benefits are so much greater.

"A report commissioned by the City of Sydney recommends building five tram lines between the CBD and each of Bondi Beach, Maroubra and Mascot, with two lines through the inner west to Burwood."


I'm really curious which streets they are going to use. According to the previous information one of the inner west lines will be using Parramatta Rd and a line to Bondi Beach using OxFord st? These two streets are already conjested like hell though...

And what's with Mascot? Do we really need a tram line to Mascot?

"A report commissioned by the City of Sydney recommends building five tram lines between the CBD and each of Bondi Beach, Maroubra and Mascot, with two lines through the inner west to Burwood."

I'm really curious which streets they are going to use. According to the previous information one of the inner west lines will be using Parramatta Rd and a line to Bondi Beach using OxFord st? These two streets are already conjested like hell though...

I remember on ten news last night, they showed a map of proposed routes. There would be two routes running through the inner west - one via Parramatta Rd and the other would continue on from the current line at Lilyfield. The M4 East provides us with an opportunity to rid Parramatta road of dominance by cars and put light rail in.

And what's with Mascot? Do we really need a tram line to Mascot?

To serve the Green Square area.

^ oh great parra road needs a tram added just to spice it up...... should be even better to get stuck in taffic now with 2 lanes.

^ underground metro lines are the only REAL solution. Is it THAT expensive??? I am positive if the undergrounds were to be expanded the traffic problems could be as good as solved.

About the cost thing. For a little bit of perspective Toronto wants to add 6 km to the subway system and it is estimated it will cost 1.5 billion CAD to do that, and you're talking a basic straight line extension.

Looks like this is dead in the water without the state govenments backing.


Carr's rejection may spell the end for light rail plan
By Tim Dick, Urban Affairs Reporter
February 22, 2005

http://smh.com.au/news/National/Carrs-rejection-may-spell-the-end-for-light-rail-plan/2005/02/21/1108834733665.html

The future of light rail in central Sydney appears doomed to just the existing single line after the Premier, Bob Carr, poured cold water on plans for its expansion.

The Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, released a report yesterday backing light rail as an affordable way to reduce the city centre's snarled traffic, cut commuting times for inner suburban workers and encourage people to use public transport.

Under the plan, five lines would be built between the city and Bondi Beach, Maroubra, Mascot and two to Burwood at a cost of between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion. It was a much bigger proposal than a limited run between Central Station and Circular Quay, costed at about $170 million.

But now both plans are unlikely to go ahead.

While Mr Carr said the State Government would look at the proposal, he did not think light rail was appropriate for the narrow streets of inner Sydney.

His spokesman said Mr Carr's comments meant he did not support light rail anywhere in central Sydney, including the city centre and the suburbs intended to be served by Cr Moore's plan.

AdvertisementAdvertisement
He said the Premier was more inclined to favour light rail in less developed parts of Sydney, such as Baulkham Hills.

The reaction comes despite a predicted rise in the demand for transport into the city centre and extensive reports backing light rail as part of a solution to congestion.

The Premier is the third minister to reject the return of more trams to Sydney, following the former roads minister Carl Scully and his replacement, Michael Costa, while the new Transport Minister, John Watkins, has said it is not one of his priorities.

Without State Government support, the plan is unlikely to be financially feasible. Cr Moore has ruled out putting up any council money, saying public transport is a State Government responsibility.

She received at least some support yesterday. The Tourism and Transport Forum said light rail would be a practical, environmentally friendly way to provide public transport.

NOOOOO!! i want PT...

About the cost thing. For a little bit of perspective Toronto wants to add 6 km to the subway system and it is estimated it will cost 1.5 billion CAD to do that, and you're talking a basic straight line extension.

Well, 6km would get you a second CBD loop, which would provide HUGE benefits for the current system.

Looks like this is dead in the water without the state govenments backing.


Carr's rejection may spell the end for light rail plan
By Tim Dick, Urban Affairs Reporter
February 22, 2005

http://smh.com.au/news/National/Carrs-rejection-may-spell-the-end-for-light-rail-plan/2005/02/21/1108834733665.html

The future of light rail in central Sydney appears doomed to just the existing single line after the Premier, Bob Carr, poured cold water on plans for its expansion.

The Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, released a report yesterday backing light rail as an affordable way to reduce the city centre's snarled traffic, cut commuting times for inner suburban workers and encourage people to use public transport.

Under the plan, five lines would be built between the city and Bondi Beach, Maroubra, Mascot and two to Burwood at a cost of between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion. It was a much bigger proposal than a limited run between Central Station and Circular Quay, costed at about $170 million.

But now both plans are unlikely to go ahead.

While Mr Carr said the State Government would look at the proposal, he did not think light rail was appropriate for the narrow streets of inner Sydney.

His spokesman said Mr Carr's comments meant he did not support light rail anywhere in central Sydney, including the city centre and the suburbs intended to be served by Cr Moore's plan.

AdvertisementAdvertisement
He said the Premier was more inclined to favour light rail in less developed parts of Sydney, such as Baulkham Hills.

The reaction comes despite a predicted rise in the demand for transport into the city centre and extensive reports backing light rail as part of a solution to congestion.

The Premier is the third minister to reject the return of more trams to Sydney, following the former roads minister Carl Scully and his replacement, Michael Costa, while the new Transport Minister, John Watkins, has said it is not one of his priorities.

Without State Government support, the plan is unlikely to be financially feasible. Cr Moore has ruled out putting up any council money, saying public transport is a State Government responsibility.

She received at least some support yesterday. The Tourism and Transport Forum said light rail would be a practical, environmentally friendly way to provide public transport.

Bob Carr and his Government should not comment on transport affairs as their transport portfolio have shown complete incompetence so many times.

We want the light rail and we want it now! :)

Light Rail is completely inappropriate for a city the size and disposition of Sydney. It is a recipie for complete failure as its capacity per corridor is barely larger than that of the buses that would be replaced. Tis part of the reason why buses were brought in there in the first place. Less efficient, lower cost, similar capacity.

Anyway, Sydney has grown a LOT since it last had a tram network. Fortunately the MLR goes nowhere and is lightly used (far more lightly used than any of the nearby bus routes) so its capacity constraints are not that apparent. IMHO anything that had a tram before and is choked by buses now needs underground metro rail with feeder buses, or possibly trams, but buses are far more likely. Nothing less.

Clover Moore needs a slap in the face too for talking about her hairbrained scheme for transport failure too much.

Light Rail is completely inappropriate for a city the size and disposition of Sydney. It is a recipie for complete failure as its capacity per corridor is barely larger than that of the buses that would be replaced. Tis part of the reason why buses were brought in there in the first place. Less efficient, lower cost, similar capacity.

Anyway, Sydney has grown a LOT since it last had a tram network. Fortunately the MLR goes nowhere and is lightly used (far more lightly used than any of the nearby bus routes) so its capacity constraints are not that apparent. IMHO anything that had a tram before and is choked by buses now needs underground metro rail with feeder buses, or possibly trams, but buses are far more likely. Nothing less.

Clover Moore needs a slap in the face too for talking about her hairbrained scheme for transport failure too much.


I agree...but buses aren't the solution either. They're just as useless in Sydney. A happy medium would be a light metro (similar to Newark) or an extension to the city loop.

This is what I've been saying all along. We have to look underground. I know of the expense but I'm extremely disappointed that it hasn't really even been put up as an option.

I agree...but buses aren't the solution either. They're just as useless in Sydney. A happy medium would be a light metro (similar to Newark) or an extension to the city loop.

An expansion of the City Circle would prove to be rather disruptive to the current City Circle. The effort of finding an underground route alongside the existing City Circle might be worth the expense. Extra tracks across to the North Shore could prove a difficulty though. Light rail may be an appropriate transport solution in Melbourne, Adelaide or Perth where the streets are wider and less congested, but in Sydney it is just not the right solution, just about as useless as more buses.

As has already been said many times, the solution for Sydney clearly lies underground, and the ground (sandstone, the hard stuff) is solid enough to support lots of tunnels without the risk of cave-ins.

As has already been said many times, the solution for Sydney clearly lies underground, and the ground (sandstone, the hard stuff) is solid enough to support lots of tunnels without the risk of cave-ins.

yep, which is what I just satated in my previous post.

Light Rail is completely inappropriate for a city the size and disposition of Sydney. It is a recipie for complete failure as its capacity per corridor is barely larger than that of the buses that would be replaced. Tis part of the reason why buses were brought in there in the first place. Less efficient, lower cost, similar capacity.

Anyway, Sydney has grown a LOT since it last had a tram network. Fortunately the MLR goes nowhere and is lightly used (far more lightly used than any of the nearby bus routes) so its capacity constraints are not that apparent. IMHO anything that had a tram before and is choked by buses now needs underground metro rail with feeder buses, or possibly trams, but buses are far more likely. Nothing less.

Clover Moore needs a slap in the face too for talking about her hairbrained scheme for transport failure too much.

Light Rail/Trams are the best solution for any City and Sydney's no exception. Environmentally friendly and beautiful too! Current light rail "network" is an absolute joke unless the line is extended to the Inner-West and especially the Quay (George St is ideal). Would be great to extend it to Kensington/Randwick too

In short, light rail is the solution for the City & Inner City suburbs. Heavy rail for the Outer City!

I hate buses! Buses only bring pollution to cities and suburbs alike :down:

^ nope as many have stated light rail is just inappropriate for Sydney. Even if it wasnt i'll doubt it would fix anything anyway. I dont see a light rail even feasible or fast enough for places like the hills (where currently there is only a bus option for public transport). I could imagine a tram to take about 1 1/2 hours. They are too slow.
Simply, a city the size of Sydney with its dense inner suburds can only be met with underground metro.
I think the problem is that ppl are just in denial with this.
As for the cost, i really dont see it as a problem at all. In fact a tunnel in Lane Cove is being done, not to mention the kings cross-city tunnel. No one made a big fuss over that. To think its so easy for developments to occur when its for cars, why cant they do the same for rail.

As for buses bringing pollution, its true. However when one considers the number of cars that otherwise would have been needed to transport the ppl on the bus, its actually less pollution. Anyway a metro has no pollution, so it really has few disadvantages.

I dont understand why we should comprimise. If a metro is built it would secure transport for hundred's of years. Europe's metros have proven that fact. So whats the point of building some other transport solution that would only be needed to be superseded in a short time frame?? Although metro would be expensive at first, when one looks at its long term benifits, its not that expensive. Billions have already been spent on the orbital, so billions can be spent on expanding the metro.

Put it this way - if we put light rail on our roads, surface roads will become congested and we'll have to build more road tunnels under the city. Why not just build those tunnels to start with and run trains through them.

Put it this way - if we put light rail on our roads, surface roads will become congested and we'll have to build more road tunnels under the city. Why not just build those tunnels to start with and run trains through them.

ding ding ding we have a winner! :)

Museum & St. James are already set up for a 2nd Eastern burbs line - the tunneling and subsequent stations just need to be built under Oxford Street / Anzac Pde / looping back up to Bondi Junction via Coogee / Bondi Beach.

Given a new loop like that, & improvements on Cronulla and Waterfall lines (quad / dup track additions), run:

Cronulla (stop all St. James - Sydenham via Eastern burbs loop, express Sydenham - Rockdale [Kogarah?] - Hurstville - Sutherland on Illawara Fast tracks, then all stations to Cronulla) - 10" off peak throughout the day higher in peaks.
Waterfall (stop all St. James - Waterfall via Eastern burbs loop & Illawara Slow tracks (Redfern - Sutherland)) - 10" off peak throughout the day, higher in peaks.

What's the Terminal to Illawara junction like? flyovers or just at grade?

I can't find a track diagram on RP :(

maybe hong kong's mtr would like to build a metro line stretching from the northern beaches to the eastern suburbs via the city

Put it this way - if we put light rail on our roads, surface roads will become congested and we'll have to build more road tunnels under the city. Why not just build those tunnels to start with and run trains through them.

not to mention, they're alot cheaper than road tunnels.

I feel Sydney needs other transport modes. Light Rail is good in feeding a radius of 10km and no greater. I think the government should invest in a subway system running from point A and B, THRU the city and not terminating the line in the city..>> this Causes a bottleneck in the network....look at NYC, TUbe systems.... :)

The only street wide enough to cause the least disruption to the CBD road network, is the Elizabeth/Phillip/Bent street route corridor.

There needs to be more of a metro or light metro option for Sydney that criss cosses the existing heavy rail option. More buses is a stupid option. They have no right of way and too slow with excessive stops. I would like for an expanded tram network but they also need right of way in our severly narrow streets. They may find the competion with space to be far too severe.

Lastly, they picked the wrong stupid tram for our network. Its far too wide. They needed a more narrow tram running at more frequent intervals. The current light rail vehicles are far too wide.

wider than a bus i think

Lastly, they picked the wrong stupid tram for our network. Its far too wide. They needed a more narrow tram running at more frequent intervals. The current light rail vehicles are far too wide.

Well remember that except from Central-Darling Dr, the existing light rail runs on the old goods line, so it has the whole NSW narrow standard loading guage to use. If you pick your vehicle for the situation you have, it makes perfect sense that they used that size LRV.

Lightrail would only work if there is a high volume of pedestrian. eg. Oxford st or the city area. That way, people can leave and pick up easily.

agree with that seems like a good area to run it
as no other transport options in that area right now

I personally prefer an extention to the monorail instead... they use less space and dont have to take up road space. Of course the capacity of monorail is somewhat lower. Unless ridership is really high , i oppose to light rail. (note: see how monorail works in CBD?)

Yeah I agree, remove the trams, get rid of the von roll monorail and build us a new KL type or bombardier styled dual track monorail system. It would suit sydney so much more than trams. It doesn't have to be disney inspired and it can do it job, which is, moving people very effectively with not impedence to the traffic flow.

Expanded heavy rail would also be most welcome.

I also wonder why sydney has not yet opted for Hong Kong styled buses yet, they increase capacity and take up less room, esp for longer journeys eg. northern beaches runs, surely they would fit under most of the areas the current buses travel. Those bendy buses are getting old.

^ DOUBLE-decked buses, Sydney is not that dense.

Anyone know where one can find Sydney's (preferrably Melb too) Railway station yearly usage in numbers?

^ DOUBLE-decked buses, Sydney is not that dense.

Anyone know where one can find Sydney's (preferrably Melb too) Railway station yearly usage in numbers?

They'd be cute though!

mmm, the double decked bus would look to London-style. Not original like Melb trying to rip off London's Docklands precinct!

what do you mean? it's only 20 years since the last double-deck buses went. More articulated buses are coming (80). The problem with double-deck buses is the same problem as double-deck trains - increased stop dwell times for passengers to disembark. Other problems with DD buses today are axle load, having low-floor entry and overall height. In the past 20 years, the Sydney bus has gone from 10.4m long to 12.5m long and gained a 20cm high air conditioning unit, but has the same passenger capacity. You have to bear that in mind when translating it to DD buses that really do test the loading guage for vehicles...

Can someone estimate the capacity of monorail compared to trams? I have never ridden on a Sydney tram in my life, but I see them every day i goto uni. The last time I been on the monorail was probably a decade ago. :eek2:

Im wondering why monorail isnt such an attractive alternative to light rail as they dont take up lanes in streets, and are faster. IMO putting light rail in Bondi and Parramatta road is suicide.

Sydney's existing monorail has less capacity by about 25% than the light rail. Not sure on exact figures, but light rail & monorail have similar costs. Monorail is less accessible to the elderly and disabled, due to its elevated configurement. Light rail is very popular all over the world, it fathoms me that Oz has not introduced more of these lines by now.

Sydney's existing monorail has less capacity by about 25% than the light rail. Not sure on exact figures, but light rail & monorail have similar costs. Monorail is less accessible to the elderly and disabled, due to its elevated configurement. Light rail is very popular all over the world, it fathoms me that Oz has not introduced more of these lines by now. If the physical capacity is only 25% less, then the capacity in real terms is probably much higher than light rail due to increased speed(no danger of hitting pedestrians) and most importantly no traffic lights to contend with. In my opinion the chaos to car traffic(unless there is a dedicated corridor, like the proposed Maroubra line) would make light rail impractical at solving transport problems here in Sydney.

Im still baffled why monorail isnt a serious consideration.

The monorail used in Sydney is for the theme parks. We need a real bulky monorail like Seattle one.

http://www.terrydivyak.com/gallery/export/html/photos/DSC_2101.jpg

Sydney's existing monorail has less capacity by about 25% than the light rail. Not sure on exact figures, but light rail & monorail have similar costs. Monorail is less accessible to the elderly and disabled, due to its elevated configurement. Light rail is very popular all over the world, it fathoms me that Oz has not introduced more of these lines by now.

Light rail doesn't suit Sydney - look at our streets and the wide body vehicles chosen - a decent monorail is logical choice - bugger the elderly and disabled they should stick to the suburbs.

Light rail doesn't suit Sydney - look at our streets and the wide body vehicles chosen - a decent monorail is logical choice - bugger the elderly and disabled they should stick to the suburbs. Well there would be lifts in major monorail stations anyway.

Are there such things as ground-level lightrails?

Are there such things as ground-level lightrails?

When they aren't running on bridges or underground?

Has the monorail, developed in anyway since its conception, and are there any plants for expansion?

no point expanding if it is more of a toursit attraction

no point expanding if it is more of a toursit attraction The point of expanding it is to take it above just a tourist attraction.

The point of expanding it is to take it above just a tourist attraction.

A decent marketing campaign might have helped. I would have liked to have seen no light rail and the monroail taking on the role... pity the monorail wasn't part of cityrail, it migt help to change attitudes... not that cityrail is well liked.

The monorail used in Sydney is for the theme parks. We need a real bulky monorail like Seattle one.

http://www.terrydivyak.com/gallery/export/html/photos/DSC_2101.jpg

Sorry, but i can't imagine that running within the city boundry. George St or any other congested CBD streets don't have wide foodpaths to cater for that monstrosity.

Sorry, but i can't imagine that running within the city boundry. George St or any other congested CBD streets don't have wide foodpaths to cater for that monstrosity.


Who says that it has to be over the footpath?????

It could run down the median strip and when the median strip isn't wide enough, you have a upside down Y sort of shape support holding it up. That splits the weight onto two supports, making the wide footpath less necessary.

I don't think Clover Moore and the SCC would approve of it given their opposition to the existing monorail (which has gone on ever since it was built) because it wreck the streetscape, which the existing monorail has done.

because it wreck the streetscape, which the existing monorail has done.

It added a character to the streetscape IMO. It became a part of Sydney.

Sorry, but i can't imagine that running within the city boundry. George St or any other congested CBD streets don't have wide foodpaths to cater for that monstrosity. Its relatively minute footprint is many times better than light rail, which takes two whole lanes. I have trouble seeing how light rail can make significant improvements to congested streets. Its a give with one hand and take with the other. Especially with the stigma on Sydney public transport, and the fact that many sydney residential areas and growth/sprawl areas arent serviced by public transport, many people going to CBD may be sticking to their cars for some time to come. If that were the case light rail would be a disaster waiting to happen.

I don't think Clover Moore and the SCC would approve of it given their opposition to the existing monorail (which has gone on ever since it was built) because it wreck the streetscape, which the existing monorail has done. It is a vital character to Sydney's streetscape. Regardless how can they even think of imposing their own sense of appearance at the expense of the city, and other people who think otherwise.

I think the Las Vegas monorail is rather hot, The KL monorail is rather nice also and when walking around KL its not really that imposing or in the way, I'd say it adds character. Our lighter weight Von Roll system is rather innocuous, it's not even really noticable IMO, just part of the city scene. I don't find it unsightly or find it obstructs pedestrian traffic.

Las Vegas
http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/otm/April/Images/monorail.jpg
http://wwp.las-vegas-us.com/transportation/monorail/las-vegas-monorail.jpg

A monorail system requires the least infrastructure:

1. requires less than 30% of the material of an elevated light-rail system
2. requires much less on-site construction
3. minimal infrastructure makes
4. requires the least right-of-way
5. requires the least land acquisition
6. the smallest footprint: The only ground space required by a monorail system is the space for its columns
7. minimal guideways and support structures


credit to freewaymonorail.org/ infrastructure.htm

Monorail along OxFord St to FoxStudio would be perfect. FoxStudio is a kinda theme park after all.

It is a vital character to Sydney's streetscape. Regardless how can they even think of imposing their own sense of appearance at the expense of the city, and other people who think otherwise.

How is the monorail vital to the city's streetscape??? I think it makes little difference.

I don't mind the current monorail network at present as it is tucked away on the side of streets, and the smaller trains hence reducing their visual impact, but to have the bulky ones running down our city streets isn't appropriate. Our streets are too narrow to support them as well. I'd wreck the vistas of many streets as well, hence wrecking the streetscape.

The type of monorail system we have is appropriate for our city except that it should of been extended to Circular Quay to link Darling Harbour & the southern CBD with the financial district and Circular Quay!!!!

We shoudln't be talking about light rail. We shouldn't be talking about monorails. We should be talking about proper metro lines.

We shoudln't be talking about light rail. We shouldn't be talking about monorails. We should be talking about proper metro lines.

Damn straight! I just wish someone would at the SMH would realise that, too - they seem to have the totally wrong idea about light rail and metros. They're all for light rail for the east and inner west, but think metro systems criss-crossing the suburbs would be useful.

Oh, we need to tell Clover too.

Damn straight! I just wish someone would at the SMH would realise that, too - they seem to have the totally wrong idea about light rail and metros. They're all for light rail for the east and inner west, but think metro systems criss-crossing the suburbs would be useful.

Oh, we need to tell Clover too.

Errm, did you look at the proposals they made the other week?

- Metro line for the Eastern Suburbs (needed).
- Complete the original plan for the ESR.
- Lines to the Shire (needed because there's only two road crossings and one rail crossing to the city), Northern Beaches, and along the P'matta River, and effectively an express to P'matta.

They also suggested building the Hills line, which is looking like it'll happen given the $8bn new sector. And converting the Carlingford line to a tram (you'd probably get better frequencies that way).

Light Rail should not be ruled out in the suburbs. The busways out there could easily be converted (and I think have been designed to be). If the Peak Oil predictions prove true, which is likely, they'll be able to fill the role of buses.

This said, Sydney should go metro.

Light Rail should not be ruled out in the suburbs. The busways out there could easily be converted (and I think have been designed to be).

That's right. The principle of the transitway is to run buses until growth warrants light rail and then eventually move to heavy rail.

We shoudln't be talking about light rail. We shouldn't be talking about monorails. We should be talking about proper metro lines.

I don't think Monorails are the answer to transporting people around the CBD. Light Rail can transport more than a monorail can & is a more efficent means of transporting commuters around the CBD & Inner City.

& plus we should be talking on improving the entire public transport network. Not everyone takes trains, & not everyone takes buses. There are many inefficiences and problems plus the state should be providing as many transport options to Sydneysiders as possible. There should be options to cater for both short and long distance travel eg lightrail to serve local communities & inner city residents and rail to cater for those in the burbs needing to travel across the city.

Errm, did you look at the proposals they made the other week?

Yes I did, and I've seen one article dedicated to the discussion of metros (not normal heavy rail, not light rail - metros) which stayed on the front page of the site for about two hours, but many many articles telling us how fantastic light rail is and how we need it right now.

I am well aware of the benefits of light rail in some situations, but the inner suburbs and the CBD are not those situations. Firstly, why try to fix a traffic problem by adding more things to the road? And secondly, the population density of these areas is only set to increase, so soon enough light rail will be overcrowded and they'll have to ditch that (again) and put in... trains!

Errm, did you look at the proposals they made the other week?

It's gonna take another 30 years at least...

I don't think Monorails are the answer to transporting people around the CBD. Light Rail can transport more than a monorail can & is a more efficent means of transporting commuters around the CBD & Inner City. As I already said light rail will not transport more people than a monorail can because it has to contend with traffic lights, pedestrians, and cars.
It occupies two whole lanes of otherwise vehicle traffic as opposed to the minute footprint of monorail.
All this makes light rail grossly inefficient compared to monorail.

But like you just said, to ultimately to get many cars off the streets, all aspects of sydney public transport must to fixed to get the stigma off, let alone persuade ppl back to public transport.

I don't mind the current monorail network at present as it is tucked away on the side of streets, and the smaller trains hence reducing their visual impact, but to have the bulky ones running down our city streets isn't appropriate. Our streets are too narrow to support them as well. I'd wreck the vistas of many streets as well, hence wrecking the streetscape. Each to their own. :) But I said 'regardless' for a reason, as to me there is no other choice if you want to make substantial improvements over the existing bus system and CBD streets. Reasons are above. In terms of transport functionality light rail is a give and take situation.

We shoudln't be talking about light rail. We shouldn't be talking about monorails. We should be talking about proper metro lines.

AMEN. Is it really that hard to see??? Sydney is not suited for light rail. Even in parts where it is possible (oxford st) it could oly operate in patches, which defeats the whole purpose of transport.
Lets not beat around the bush, we should slove the prob properly, not half-assly that would be needed to be scrapped for a second time!

AMEN. Is it really that hard to see??? Sydney is not suited for light rail. Even in parts where it is possible (oxford st) it could oly operate in patches, which defeats the whole purpose of transport.
Lets not beat around the bush, we should slove the prob properly, not half-assly that would be needed to be scrapped for a second time!

Why do so many people think that Trams/light rail are not suited to Sydney. I know the streets are narrow and not straight, but this doesn't stop most of Europe with their light rail/tram systems. And compared to many European cities, Sydney's streets are not that narrow - they just need to Pedestrianise about half of them, kick the cars out, and put in a decent tram system and the city would be fantastic. There are plenty of routes that could be used that wouldn't upset major through traffic. In any case most of the through traffic is taken care of by the tunnels and freeways.

I personally think the monorail is awful, with it's giant concrete columns on the footpath. To me it looks like a bad 80's theme park. But that's a matter of opinion.

More importantly though it also has the disincentive of having to climb stairs to get on and off it. Trams are so much more convenient to board and disembark, and are therefore MORE suited to dense shopping/business centres with multiple stops than monorails.

^ what are you talking about. The majority of cities in Europe that have trams were once communist. Every major city i have been to (Paris, Madrid, Baracelona and Rome) had great (well Rome's is less great- trains with so much graffiti you literally can't see out the windows!) metro (underground systems). I never saw a single tram at these cities. Trams are good, but metro's are much greater. Again why are ppl so afraid to admit that, it seems so simple it's funny.

And kick cars out? Sheesh you might as well level the CBD and build a megamall or something. The CBD needs cars and pedestrians have no troubles (i never have). People just blow the whole thing out of proportion. Ok its not exactly ideal, but its by no means as bad as ppl make it.

Why do so many people think that Trams/light rail are not suited to Sydney. I know the streets are narrow and not straight, but this doesn't stop most of Europe with their light rail/tram systems.
Comparison with Europe is flawed also because their ultilization of public transport by the population is very high, and that their dependency on cars very low. The price of petrol in some European countries I heard is incredibly high as well. Compare this to sydney, which by comparison is a very automobile dependent city.

And compared to many European cities, Sydney's streets are not that narrow - they just need to Pedestrianise about half of them, kick the cars out, and put in a decent tram system and the city would be fantastic. There are plenty of routes that could be used that wouldn't upset major through traffic. In any case most of the through traffic is taken care of by the tunnels and freeways. If you want to just public transportize the CBD, you found that you also need to public transportize the metropolitan area as well (unless you have alots of surplus parking space around the CBD, which is not the case). You need turn most of the metro area into a public transport orientated one before light rail can work for Sydney CBD. Monorail does not need this ridiculous requirement. The fact is Sydney isnt like Hong Kong or a public transport orientated/pedestrian friendly European city. Reform needs to be gradual, not drastic. Monorail allows this smoother transition.

More importantly though it also has the disincentive of having to climb stairs to get on and off it. Trams are so much more convenient to board and disembark, and are therefore MORE suited to dense shopping/business centres with multiple stops than monorails. The high inefficiency and impractical nature of light rail pretty much rules it out. The fact is the appearance and convenience factors are small in comparison to the huge setbacks and measures needed for light rail to work.

^ what are you talking about. The majority of cities in Europe that have trams were once communist.
Very true most of Eastern Europe does, but you can't discount Western European cities such as Barcelona, Seville, Stockholm, Zurich, Manchester, Lyon, Vienna, Geneva, Lisbon, Oslo, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, London.... and the list goes on. That's what I'm talking about..

Every major city i have been to (Paris, Madrid, Baracelona and Rome) had great (well Rome's is less great- trains with so much graffiti you literally can't see out the windows!) metro (underground systems). I never saw a single tram at these cities. .[/QUOTE]
You're right, the cities you mentioned don't have trams


Trams are good, but metro's are much greater. Again why are ppl so afraid to admit that, it seems so simple it's funny.
Metros are good over larger distances, and compliment tram systems. With metros you only have stops every kilometre or so, which means there is not much need (apart from station capacity issues) to largely extend the metro system in the CBD. What I am talking about is the inner city area from say Pyrmont to Kings Cross, where there is a hell of a lot in between. Trams also work in continuously built up environments, because you can stop when you see the building or shop you are after, or can go just a block or two. In city centres they work perfectly, and it's because of the ease of getting on and off them

And kick cars out? Sheesh you might as well level the CBD and build a megamall or something. The CBD needs cars and pedestrians have no troubles (i never have).
Didn't quite mean kick them ALL out. I meant, turn one or two north south and one or two east west streets pedestrian, or street parking free, to allow for tram lines. The thing with Sydney is it's difficult to get small distances between important places - say darling harbour to circular quay. A couple of tram lines to start with would go a long way for a lot less investment than metros - they are much more comfortable for people on and off them too.

Comparison with Europe is flawed also because their ultilization of public transport by the population is very high, and that their dependency on cars very low. The price of petrol in some European countries I heard is incredibly high as well. Compare this to sydney, which by comparison is a very automobile dependent city.
Ok compare it to Melbourne then - about half the PT patronage of Sydney, but a very extensive, and reasonably well patronised tram network (highly patronised in the inner city) Inner cities ALL function differently to suburban areas. The coverage of PT in London declines drastically the further into the suburbs you go.

You need turn most of the metro area into a public transport orientated one before light rail can work for Sydney CBD. Monorail does not need this ridiculous requirement.
What ridiculous requirement exactly are you referring to. Traffic calming measures, two rails some concrete, and a few tram stops (AKA bus shelters) as opposed to elevated stations, points of access which are generally from private property, and a cumbersome inflexible structure with a one way system that means if I want to get from Town Hall to Haymarket I have to go via Darling Harbour???

Reform needs to be gradual, not drastic. Monorail allows this smoother transition.
Again no reason trams/light rail can't be gradual - and they're cheaper and simpler to install than a monorail, and more usefull if run properly

The high inefficiency and impractical nature of light rail pretty much rules it out. The fact is the appearance and convenience factors are small in comparison to the huge setbacks and measures needed for light rail to work.
What high inefficiency or impracticality?? Huge setbacks??

Okay, let's make underground light rail. Then everybody is happy.

Ok compare it to Melbourne then - about half the PT patronage of Sydney, but a very extensive, and reasonably well patronised tram network (highly patronised in the inner city) But as people said before Melbournes road system is very unlike Sydney's.

What ridiculous requirement exactly are you referring to. Traffic calming measures, two rails some concrete, and a few tram stops (AKA bus shelters) as opposed to elevated stations, points of access which are generally from private property, and a cumbersome inflexible structure with a one way system that means if I want to get from Town Hall to Haymarket I have to go via Darling Harbour??? Logically, if you are talking about traffic calming measures you're defeating the purpose of light rail. If you managed to calm the traffic so that disaster doesnt ensue when light rail is installed(and especially in the process of installing light rail), you pretty much already overcome the main obstacle light rail was supposed to address in the first place.
Pitt St is already pedestrianised. You wanting to take one or two more streets was the ridiculous requirement i wastalking about.
The last two criticisms you made about monorail is from the fact that Sydneys monorail at present is a mere tourist attraction, not an inherent fault within monorail.
But having thought about what you said about a service serving passengers every 100metres or so(which means the efficency gains of monorail by speed are insignificant), and thinking about the bus lanes which managed to stay put(but then they are regularly disobeyed anyway), perhaps light rail is possible for the CBD.
But for congested metropolitan roads such as parramatta, bondi,etc roads monorail is the only choice. Deleting two lanes from such roads, will cause unthinkable mayhem.

Again no reason trams/light rail can't be gradual - and they're cheaper and simpler to install than a monorail, and more usefull if run properly You are right if you are just talking about the installation of additional infrastructure. But no, realistically they are not cheaper to install, taking two traffic lanes each way is not cheap. I step down and concede to light rail, I think it probably would be possible, but only because dedicated bus lanes are going fine now.

But for congested metropolitan roads such as parramatta, bondi,etc roads monorail is the only choice. Deleting two lanes from such roads, will cause unthinkable mayhem..

But if it does reduce the number of car trips along these corridors does it really matter if 1 lane each way is gone?

But as people said before Melbournes road system is very unlike Sydney's.

Logically, if you are talking about traffic calming measures you're defeating the purpose of light rail. If you managed to calm the traffic so that disaster doesnt ensue when light rail is installed(and especially in the process of installing light rail), you pretty much already overcome the main obstacle light rail was supposed to address in the first place.
Pitt St is already pedestrianised. You wanting to take one or two more streets was the ridiculous requirement i wastalking about.
The last two criticisms you made about monorail is from the fact that Sydneys monorail at present is a mere tourist attraction, not an inherent fault within monorail.
But having thought about what you said about a service serving passengers every 100metres or so(which means the efficency gains of monorail by speed are insignificant), and thinking about the bus lanes which managed to stay put(but then they are regularly disobeyed anyway), perhaps light rail is possible for the CBD.
But for congested metropolitan roads such as parramatta, bondi,etc roads monorail is the only choice. Deleting two lanes from such roads, will cause unthinkable mayhem.

You are right if you are just talking about the installation of additional infrastructure. But no, realistically they are not cheaper to install, taking two traffic lanes each way is not cheap. I step down and concede to light rail, I think it probably would be possible, but only because dedicated bus lanes are going fine now.

Yeah I can see it definately would be difficult to cut lanes in central Sydney roads, but I think if it could be achieved gradually. In London, the £5 (soon to be £8) a day congestion charge fixed the traffic instantly, but the impact on business is still quite heavily debated. I think that a softly softly approach would work.

One thing to consider with light rail is single track for two directions. I have lived in Austria and they have that on many narrow roads. It allows for traffic and parking, and when there is a tram stop, it doubles up and the parking is removed. Works perfectly well with almost no delays with services running at around 7-10 minutes. Because the stops are close together, when one tram needs to overtake, the other waits a few seconds in the stop.

Could work on narrow roads, and avoid two lanes being closed.

But if it does reduce the number of car trips along these corridors does it really matter if 1 lane each way is gone? But it doesnt reduce the number of car trips by its maximum potential overnight. In the meantime what is already a gridlocked road would probably be unbearable at peak hours. And whether the tram will more than make up for 2 lanes of extremely heavy traffic so that even the cut-down version of the road is substantially less congested, is debatable. If done on 4 lane major roads, you are cutting the road's capacity down to the equivalent of a neighbourhood street. Thats impractical.

Yeah I can see it definately would be difficult to cut lanes in central Sydney roads, but I think if it could be achieved gradually. In London, the £5 (soon to be £8) a day congestion charge fixed the traffic instantly, but the impact on business is still quite heavily debated. I think that a softly softly approach would work.

One thing to consider with light rail is single track for two directions. I have lived in Austria and they have that on many narrow roads. It allows for traffic and parking, and when there is a tram stop, it doubles up and the parking is removed. Works perfectly well with almost no delays with services running at around 7-10 minutes. Because the stops are close together, when one tram needs to overtake, the other waits a few seconds in the stop.

Could work on narrow roads, and avoid two lanes being closed. I dont know how it was politically feasible for the bearucrats who imposed that fine in London. Regarding the two way one tram line, yeh that will work I think. In fact its a good idea i think, for the neighbourhoods around Sydney CBD and other regional centres.
Monorails should be used to connect people over much larger distances. Perhaps a monorail solution replacing the bus service for northern beaches would be nice.

I dont know how it was politically feasible for the bearucrats who imposed that fine in London. Regarding the two way one tram line, yeh that will work I think. In fact its a good idea i think, for the neighbourhoods around Sydney CBD and other regional centres.
Monorails should be used to connect people over much larger distances. Perhaps a monorail solution replacing the bus service for northern beaches would be nice.

There's alot of protest, but because so many people in central London don't drive, it's not such a problem politically. I have only been here since the charge has been in place, and the streets can still be unbelievably slow in the middle of the day - I can't imagine how bad it would have been before, considering traffic has been reduced by around 60% since its introduction.

With the monorail, you could be right - it may be a good solution to deal with the hilly terrain. That is also an issue with trams - there are some streets in Sydney that may be a bit too steep - especially with the heavy downpours that occur in summer. I know in Melbourne there have been problems with stopping when too many leaves get onto the tracks during autumn.

Here's something worth considering.

To cater for East Darling Harbour precinct, maybe a lightrail running along Hicksons Rd all the way to Southern Darling Harbour where it meets near Chinatown. The other end of line links Circular Quey then George St. I believe Hicksons Rd is thick enough to have a lightrail?

Yeah, it is. Now that it's clear we won't be getting any underground rail servicing that area, light rail seems the best option.

To cater for East Darling Harbour precinct, maybe a lightrail running along Hicksons Rd all the way to Southern Darling Harbour where it meets near Chinatown. The other end of line links Circular Quey then George St. I believe Hicksons Rd is thick enough to have a lightrail?

Check out http://www.metromonorail.com.au/extensionupdate.asp

It is a little old but the PDF file has light rail options, which i think should be seriously considered

None of those are on the cards at the moment, that's just a private company saying we want more business. The government has rejected such options, the Hickson road suggestion is more viable.

Part of the problem I feel with the current trams used on the Sydney Light Rail is that they are too fat. They should have used a more narrow tram like in Melbourne and other countries. It would take up less surface area and maybe more practical in some of the more narrower roads. What do you guys think? They also like rather boring considering some of the new low floor trams coming out onto the market .....

Check out this plan for the expansion of light rail

http://images.smh.com.au/2010/01/26/1068575/Untitled-1-420x0.jpg

From The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)

Transport group reveals rail plans for 'Bay Light Express'
ANDREW WEST
January 27, 2010 .

Light rail lines would reach deep into Sydney's suburbs and regional NSW - not just the inner city - under blueprints drawn up by urban planners, transport experts and business groups who are seeking fast and relatively cheap ways of improving public transport.

The State Government has made public its 'study brief'' into proposed extensions of the light rail to Dulwich Hill and through the central business district.

The 5.6-kilometre extension from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill is estimated to cost $71 million, compared with $5.3 billion for seven kilometres of underground Metro through the CBD.

Transport advocates are pushing for light rail lines to the southern and eastern suburbs, around Parramatta and in Newcastle.

At least one of the proposals - for a light rail line between Granville and Bankstown, via Regents Park - was originally championed by the Assistant Minister for Transport, David Borger, when he was mayor of Parramatta.

The advocacy group Eco Transit has published plans for a ''Bay Light Express'', which would have two extensions. The eastern extension would run for 27 kilometres from the CBD through the high-density neighbourhoods of Darlinghurst, Kensington and Randwick and on to La Perouse.

The line would cross the heads of Botany Bay to Kurnell in a tunnel before continuing along Captain Cook Drive and Elouera Road to Cronulla.

While a tunnel would be expensive to build, EcoTransit argues: ''This last section would provide unprecedented access between the north-east and south-east districts of the region at travel times vastly superior to those possible by car.''

The western extension of the Bay Light Express would run for 25 kilometres between Central Station and Carringbah, via Newtown, St Peters, a nearby disused industrial estate that could be rehabilitated for high-density housing, the international airport terminal, Rockdale, Brighton-le-Sands and Taren Point.

Eco Transit says the Bay Light Express would ''extend the coverage of the rail network by creating rail interchanges with the East Hills, Bankstown and Western Suburbs rail lines. This will increase the potential for cross-city trips to be undertaken quickly by rail, generating yet more opportunities to remove traffic from some of Sydney's most congested roads.'' The estimated cost for 52 kilometres of line would be just over $1 billion.

An urban planner, Garry Glazebrook, of the University of Technology, Sydney, has proposed light rail lines through Drummoyne to Abbotsford, to North Bondi, Randwick and Coogee, Botany and White Bay near Balmain.

His plan would also transform the poorly patronised Carlingford line by replacing it with light rail and incorporates the Borger plan for a Parramatta-Bankstown line along the Duck Creek corridor, helping to revive a declining area. The Government's 2031 Transport Blueprint, now under review, includes proposals for a Bankstown-Liverpool light rail.

Dr Glazebrook also supports a long-term plan to run light rail down the middle of Parramatta Road between the CBD and Strathfield, which would transform the amenity of the corridor, which developers say is too noisy and polluted by traffic to attract high-quality housing.

^^
Fantastic idea.
Since Metro would never happen in our lifetime, build Lightrail instead.

Duck Creek corridor - shove light rail down a polluted wasteland that completely bypasses any destination of note? Why?!?

It would be far better (i.e. actually useful) running along Park/Auburn roads

I'm wondering if their idea is to use part of the F6 corridor for that western extension of the Bay Light Express. Hmmm. Of course none of this will happen because it's a private proposal and therefore no credit for the gobernment.

Duck Creek corridor - shove light rail down a polluted wasteland that completely bypasses any destination of note? Why?!?

It would be far better (i.e. actually useful) running along Park/Auburn roads
It does.

The proposal is good but nothing new. This site has been talking up those plans for years http://ecotransit.org.au/ets/proposals_index

It does.

:banana:

thanks mate - it doesn't look like it from the map

Been waiting for this for ages. Sydney needs an extensive light rail network again, especially the line down Parramatta road.

I'm wondering if their idea is to use part of the F6 corridor for that western extension of the Bay Light Express. Hmmm. Of course none of this will happen because it's a private proposal and therefore no credit for the gobernment.

From what I know, they do suggest the F6 corridor for the line from Sans Souci to Kyeemagh.

I believe it when it happens. Canning of the metro will easily fund this project.

I think most of it kinda sucks tbh

The Eco Transit map of the Bay Light Express Line

http://ecotransit.org.au/ets/files/images/land_uses.jpg

^^
I want OxFord St-Anzac Pde line NOW!!!

Duck Creek corridor - shove light rail down a polluted wasteland that completely bypasses any destination of note? Why?!?

It would be far better (i.e. actually useful) running along Park/Auburn roads

Yuck, agreed. Isn't there some refinery around those places?

mx

The Eco Transit map of the Bay Light Express Line

http://ecotransit.org.au/ets/files/images/land_uses.jpg

Am I an idiot or does the whole bay light line look a bit phoney or wishful thinking?

How on earth are they going to cross Botany Bay without a very, very deep and expensive tunnel?

It's a major shipping terminal and they would have to go deep. A bridge would be useless as it's far to close to the airport runways.

And all around that area are squillions of petrochemical infrastructure, most of it underground that it will have to get around.

More Pie in the sky rubbish.

We see these ideas pumped out every year, but they are never going to happen.

mx

They feel it's viable as it takes longer to drive by road from Cronulla and parts of the Sutherland Shire to La Perouse. There is no other form of public transport.

Also the light rail route uses Captain Cook Drive through Kurnell and follows ANZAC Parade avoiding any factories.

The 22 million people who commute from the shire to La Perouse every day welcome this link

At least the LaPa Boys can hang at Cronulla beach. "Wanna flagon, 'eh?"

I think the Bra Boys would love it more - they do surf around Cape Solander and a quick link would make it easier.

The Eco Transit map of the Bay Light Express Line
Cronulla doesn't look that far at all from Sydney on that map.

Yet it takes 1 hour to get there if you take the train.

Calm down everybody. This is the SMH digging up something from 10 years ago that is superseded (but not removed from a web site). Old news and no longer news.

Whilst the tunnel under Botany Bay to Kurnell is really pie-in the-sky stuff the light rail link along the F6 corridor is a great idea-maybe not as far as "the Shire" but certainly down to Dolls Point-maybe not through King St Newtown (too congested) but through Alexandria. This would compliment the heavy rail line to "the Shire."

they are getting higher density in places like sans souci and caringbah so this just might work. I like the proposal, means i can get to the city quicker, hurry up and do it.

Govt releases Sydney light rail proposal (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/govt-releases-sydney-light-rail-proposal-20100517-v81q.html)

The NSW Government has released a draft study into a planned multi-million dollar light rail extension through Sydney's inner-west.

Construction is likely to begin by the end of the year.

The 10km light rail extension to Dulwich Hill was announced in February's Transport Blueprint and would take existing city services from Lilyfield along a disused rail line.

Ten possible stations have been named as part of the pre-construction study, including stops on Norton and Marion streets in Leichhardt, and a Lewisham interchange.

The government is now calling for public comment on the study.

"We invite the community to have a look at the proposed stations, have a look at the proposed interchanges, have a look at the route ... and give us their feedback," Premier Kristina Keneally told reporters at Lilyfield station on Monday.

Public submissions close on June 7, with the government expected to lodge its environmental assessment later that month.

The government hopes rail services will begin 18 months from the start of construction, tentatively slated for later this year.

The extended inner-west line is part of the government's $500 million light rail expansion plans for Sydney, which also include a new link between Central Station and Circular Quay.

Report (http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/file/rail/Sydney-Light-Rail-Inner-West-Extension-Draft-Report.pdf)

http://i43.tinypic.com/hrbv9i.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/314sbr7.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/oibyth.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/5zqupt.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/1onafk.jpg

Great news for inner west commuters but they still need to look at:

1. Integration with existing public transport including ticketing.
2. Extend the line to Circular Quay.

Living close to the existing line I am pleased with this. One bonus for people in my area is the fact it will be easy to link up with both the Inner-West and Bankstown lines when intending to take trips west by train.

Annoying how the quickest option at the moment is to travel by bus eastward into Central - walk about a mile just to get to station platforms. Then after several minutes of train ride (heading back west) you realise your just passing through where the Lewisham or Dulwhich Hill Inter-changes will be.

Great news for inner west commuters but they still need to look at:

1. Integration with existing public transport including ticketing.
2. Extend the line to Circular Quay.

Fabian. I couldn't say it better. I would also add the ANZAC Rd alighnment to that and possibly some kind of Victoria and Military Rd (expensive but needed) line as well.

Living close to the existing line I am pleased with this. One bonus for people in my area is the fact it will be easy to link up with both the Inner-West and Bankstown lines when intending to take trips west by train.

Annoying how the quickest option at the moment is to travel by bus eastward into Central - walk about a mile just to get to station platforms. Then after several minutes of train ride (heading back west) you realise your just passing through where the Lewisham or Dulwhich Hill Inter-changes will be.

The problem Westender is the ticketing. No one is going to pay an extra 6 dollars to use when a bus will get you into the city on the same myzone multi. Its all about the ticketing.

^^
I want OxFord St-Anzac Pde line NOW!!!

Hear hear! If any area of Sydney needs light rail, it's ANZAC Parade. They have the off street alignment ready to go. The only puzzle would be Oxford Street. I guess in the this section, you would have to just run it down the middle of the street and have raise platforms, sacrificing one lane of traffic.

Hear hear! If any area of Sydney needs light rail, it's ANZAC Parade. They have the off street alignment ready to go. The only puzzle would be Oxford Street. I guess in the this section, you would have to just run it down the middle of the street and have raise platforms, sacrificing one lane of traffic.
There's more than one way to skin a cat Nick :)

I think SE/Anzac corridor will eventually justify metro but also a (non-duplicating) light rail system because of spread and density of settlement in E subs. Best to think it all through carefully before going down one path. Convertable pre-metro?

Not one for planning on the back of an envelope. :ohno:

Hear hear! If any area of Sydney needs light rail, it's ANZAC Parade. They have the off street alignment ready to go. The only puzzle would be Oxford Street. I guess in the this section, you would have to just run it down the middle of the street and have raise platforms, sacrificing one lane of traffic.

I think a SE metro is just stupid - and wasteful considering the swathes of reserved tram corridor.

It is time for the Gov to say we no longer care about private vehicle traffic congestion, as long as there is a public transport alternative that is fast. If this means commandeering the middle of Oxford St for trams, then so be it.

This thinking does impart a responsibility on the Gov to maintain high service frequencies all day long - you can't compromise the function of a major arterial road and then cut back tram services to every 10mins after 8pm...

With some basic traffic light priority, trams would be much faster than driving (i.e. fast enough to be classed as a successful public transport outcome). Light rail could be feasbily extended to at least Bondi, Coogee, Maroubra and La Perouse, in all costing less than a single metro line + being much more useful to the kind of strip development visible along Bondi Rd, Anzac Pde etc

Part of the problem I feel with the current trams used on the Sydney Light Rail is that they are too fat. They should have used a more narrow tram like in Melbourne and other countries. It would take up less surface area and maybe more practical in some of the more narrower roads. What do you guys think? They also like rather boring considering some of the new low floor trams coming out onto the market .....

I think our existing ones look better than most if not all trams available bar maybe the citadis trams. They are simple with a less fussy appearance than much of the shite industrial design popping out of europe. The width might take up more space but they have a more pleasing expression of width over height. When i look at them i don't automatically equate them with the idea of a tram but rather something more appealing. I'd rather they keep the design identical to the existing.

I still vomit in my mouth everytime i see a Combino vehicle.

Some interesting ID...
http://psipunk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/transpiral-is-a-tramway-with-spiral-structure-01.jpg

http://www.designlaunches.com/entry_images/0809/27/double-decker-trams.jpg

Are there any plans to use the old railways lines along the Balmain side of White Bay as possible light rail lines?

Are there any plans to use the old railways lines along the Balmain side of White Bay as possible light rail lines? Are you suggesting off-loading people from the Cruise ships onto light rail? :)

No plans of which I'm aware - whilst there are big problems getting people off the peninsula with buses, the White Bay line doesn't appear too integrate easily with the current light rail (easiest option would be to run west a couple of km past Catherine St, then back east on the current light rail alignment)

Part of the problem I feel with the current trams used on the Sydney Light Rail is that they are too fat. They should have used a more narrow tram like in Melbourne and other countries. It would take up less surface area and maybe more practical in some of the more narrower roads. What do you guys think? They also like rather boring considering some of the new low floor trams coming out onto the market .....
The Sydney Variotrams are exactly the same width as the Melbourne trams and they require only a narrower (that's narrower, not wider) road lane than a bus. What more do you want?

http://www.designlaunches.com/entry_images/0809/27/double-decker-trams.jpg

I do like that one. I could see these running around in Sydney.

The Sydney Variotrams are exactly the same width as the Melbourne trams and they require only a narrower (that's narrower, not wider) road lane than a bus. What more do you want?

There's something about the Variotrams. I really like them, i've not seen that particular variant of them anywhere else.

When the varios are on street, they do look like buses, but on the reserved track they look fine.

remember they are gen 1 of the low floor trams in Australia, I'm sure we can do better now, 10 years down the track.

Something like a C2 would be fine. There's an idea, take the Mulhouse sets to Sydney for the extension.

^^ No thanks they are f**king ugly as shit. I hate trams, but I have to say the varios are easy on the eye. How anyone could find that hideous yellow thing attractive is beyond me. It looks like a malformed bee mated with a slug. Don't get me started on the Combinos - it's a something that should be in the freakshow with a two headed baby.

Cute
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/3341330898_5082137a88.jpg
Flickr - photographer unknown

Also nice to look at... perhaps the best looking tram of all time.
http://www.myweb.net.au/mottram/trams/cand/cand52.jpg
image from http://www.myweb.net.au/mottram/trams/cand/cand.htm


Fugly
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Melbourne-C2-class-tram-Mulhouse.jpg
Wiki - Marcus Wong Wongm

FTIHES (Foulest thing i have ever seen)
http://www.myweb.net.au/mottram/trams/cand/cand77.jpg
The industrial design firm behind this should be put up against a wall and shot. Hai i'm ugly and belong in the freakshow.
image from http://www.myweb.net.au/mottram/trams/cand/cand.htm

Avatar I usually see your point and often agree with you completely, but you must be on something today mate. The C2's are brilliant, and one of the few things I love about getting public transport down here. Sydney would do well to get them (minus the "step into the future" writing on the side, natch).

I lold at the "FTIHES".

Avatar I usually see your point and often agree with you completely, but you must be on something today mate. The C2's are brilliant, and one of the few things I love about getting public transport down here. Sydney would do well to get them (minus the "step into the future" writing on the side, natch).

It might be a good machine in terms of ability to perform the job and its function, but when speaking of aesthetics, it's the ugliest thing i have ever seen. Stylistically the front section is a failure in every respect, it can't reconcile the round and square edges and comes up with something that fails at both. It's also fussy and borrows too much from asianised design (with eyes, nose and mouth) very visible in the treatment. It still reminds me of a snub-nosed porpoise.

I take the industrial design of transport very seriously as do all industrial designers, working at the level of styling public transport is an honour and for companies to be producing shite like this is abysmal. I like public transport to also look awesome and this simply doesn't. They need to redesign that front end pronto. It's more like 'step into the deformed porpoise tram'.

Alternatively, the citadis tram is very well executed from a styling point of view and reconciles the hard lines of the cabin perfectly with the shape and raking of the front .. it's a joy to look at. It would also be infinitely easier to mass produce with more straight lines. It's also easier to brand with full wrap graphics too.

BTW, yes I am at home and I am doped up on codeine.

^^i think buses are far more ugly. I hate waiting at traffic lights and getting a big desiel engine cumming in my face. Its disgusting...so pedestrian unfriendly. The noise they make is also very off putting. Trams are so much better

I do like that one. I could see these running around in Sydney.

I quite like those! They also appear to be articulated (two cars).
Would the existing loading gauge permit double decker trams?

Even as a single deck unit, those would look quite stylish.

^^i think buses are far more ugly. I hate waiting at traffic lights and getting a big desiel engine cumming in my face. Its disgusting...so pedestrian unfriendly. The noise they make is also very off putting. Trams are so much better

How could you call this ugly?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/2978209020_7fec6ceb51_o.jpg

BTW many of Sydney's buses now run on gas.

how is it not ugly. Buses are ugly just as ugly as trams. I actually think more so but thats just opinion

I think the ugliest tram there is the one that looks most like a bus
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/3341330898_5082137a88.jpg

How about some Sydney colours for a change:

http://forum.myriga.info/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=22011

http://forum.myriga.info/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=22009
from forum.myriga.info

Not a fan of the treatment of the bogies but it's not the worst looking thing i have seen. It needs to loose the emblem on the front it looks like a nose.

this will be axed - besides state govt only have few months left before they r given boot. i doubt this will go ahead just passing time.

Nice to see the Skodas - although how likely are Aussie companies to go with a Czech product.

No problems from my perspective - I love my Skoda car (and yes, I know that the car (VW owned) and rail divisions are separate).

What rolling stock do they use in Praha these days? I haven't been there since '98...

Nice to see the Skodas - although how likely are Aussie companies to go with a Czech product.

No problems from my perspective - I love my Skoda car (and yes, I know that the car (VW owned) and rail divisions are separate).

What rolling stock do they use in Praha these days? I haven't been there since '98...
New Skoda trams now, first 14T and now this one ^^ 15T (but that photo above is from Riga, Latvia).

Not a fan of the treatment of the bogies but it's not the worst looking thing i have seen.
Those bogies and their placement are actually a major technological revolution, enabling trams to go around corners quickly and with little track and wheel wear, and a restricted kinematic envelope, unlike fixed bogie low floor trams like Variotram.

Are you suggesting off-loading people from the Cruise ships onto light rail? :)

No plans of which I'm aware - whilst there are big problems getting people off the peninsula with buses, the White Bay line doesn't appear too integrate easily with the current light rail (easiest option would be to run west a couple of km past Catherine St, then back east on the current light rail alignment)

I would think that putting a bit of track in to create a junction around the current Rozelle Bay stop would be possible - meaning trains from the city would go to either Dulwich Hill or Balmain

I would think that putting a bit of track in to create a junction around the current Rozelle Bay stop would be possible - meaning trains from the city would go to either Dulwich Hill or Balmain
The problem with this would be the Western Distributor - the light rail alignment at Rozelle Bay is approx. 5m above the road, necessitating a long bridge across the road and a raised junction for your suggested option.

Not impossible technically, of course, just far more expensive than utilising existing alignments.

The problem with this would be the Western Distributor - the light rail alignment at Rozelle Bay is approx. 5m above the road, necessitating a long bridge across the road and a raised junction for your suggested option.

Not impossible technically, of course, just far more expensive than utilising existing alignments.

I would suggest if it were built to LR-only standards (like STAR in KL) it would be plenty.

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?rlz=1T4GGLL_en-GBAU303AU304&q=maps+sydney&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Sydney+NSW&gl=au&ei=yoP0S9yvCcqLkAWO7p3QDQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CA4Q8gEwAA (ignore the lines, just the points). I would suggest A and B as the alignment for the bridge, not knowing the exact vertical alignment at this point.

I believe there has been rail in the past all the way to Grafton St in White Bay. Would be a good place for a ferry terminal as well, and besides the cruise ships if an Inner Harbour ferry took pax from the LR to McMahons Point etc, would be a quicker run than going via Sydney CBD.

And just thinking. Only one street section, Ewenton St, to get trams back to the old haunt in Darling St.

Given the "minimum cost" approach being taken to the light rail extension, any bridges etc are highly unlikely. Rozelle Bay stop is about 5m above the road alignment, but the road goes uphill to the west, with the LR then going underneath. Hence my comment about the most likely (although still unlikely IMHO) junction being past Catherine St.

A ferry stop in White Bay is more likely.....

Given the "minimum cost" approach being taken to the light rail extension, any bridges etc are highly unlikely. Rozelle Bay stop is about 5m above the road alignment, but the road goes uphill to the west, with the LR then going underneath. Hence my comment about the most likely (although still unlikely IMHO) junction being past Catherine St.

A ferry stop in White Bay is more likely.....

Thanks Inego, but I think its understood that ANY of what we are talking about is unlikely. But if someone actually cared...they could do it for a reasonable price.

I don't see any reason why the line couldn't go over the top the whole way. By the time the line physically crosses the road it could be six metres up, plenty of clearance.

This would cost a pretty penny - but would not seem such a hurdle to a government that actually wanted to maximise the value of investment in White Bay, not just some highrise, but poorly connected, area like so many now appearing in Sydney.

And I regret Sydferries wasn't sold (or just disbanded) and left much more to the market, with some specific outcomes specified by government if felt fit.

I'm not a particular supporter of the proposed light rail extension as the area is already well served by public transport compared to many parts of Sydney. It will improve things for the Abergeldie Estate (in which densities are unlikely to increase) and the proposed Lewisham development, but doesn't seem worthwhile for just that.

The White Bay spur could be worthwhile if the Metro was integrated with the Gov't buses - feed at least some of the buses down there and push people onto the light rail to reduce the traffic problems (and bus capacity issues) from the Balmain Peninsula.

But a junction at Rozelle Bay - there will be genetically modified pigs with wings before this happens (although giving the pigs wings is the easy part - modifying their skeletons to reduce weight and get them into the air is a whole other story!)

I really hope they can get a good solution for light rail to heavy rail transfers at Lewisham. If this works properly and Cityrail has western line trains stopping at this station as well as inner west/ main south trains you could see passengers from Bankstown and the inner west using the light rail to transfer to trains that go not only to the CBD but straight to Parramatta or the North Shore employment centres. This will work better post Western express line though but can still be done before.

The extension to Dulwich Hill is all nice but the real requirement is for a CBD loop.

Its hardly beneficial for people using light rail to end up at Haymarket or Central but need to travel those few extra kms into the core of the CBD such as Town Hall, Wynyard, Circular Quay, etc.

This is where the real challenge will be!

Running a line up Sussex St and Hickson Rd is fine but it also needs to go down the spine of George street with preferably a similar loop covering the eastern side of the CBD via Elizabeth Street.

The real problem here is the contention with buses and private cars.

A proper CBD loop is the only way you will get a massive transition of passengers to a light rail network.

Beyond that you can run future lines down to Victoria Park/Zetland, along Anzac Pde to La Perouse, etc.

this will be axed - besides state govt only have few months left before they r given boot. i doubt this will go ahead just passing time.

It's cheap and tokenistic. It's precisely what the NSW government is good at.

I really hope they can get a good solution for light rail to heavy rail transfers at Lewisham. If this works properly and Cityrail has western line trains stopping at this station as well as inner west/ main south trains you could see passengers from Bankstown and the inner west using the light rail to transfer to trains that go not only to the CBD but straight to Parramatta or the North Shore employment centres. This will work better post Western express line though but can still be done before.

Hopefully before the extension is operating, the Homebush turn-back will be integrated into the CityRail network and a new timetable is operating. This should mean more chances of catching an Inner-West line train at Lewisham without waiting a long time- unlike now where it can be hit and miss.

Lewisham is only a handful of stations from Strathfield where numerous connections can be made, such as; the Blue Mountains line and Newcastle and Central Coast line.

I don't think extra CityRail lines need to be added to Lewisham.

At Lewisham passengers only need to travel a handful of stations east to change at Redfern for obvious connections.

It's a brisk 20 minute walk from Dulwich Hill station to Lewisham station (I live 2 blocks west of D Hill). Without integrated ticketed I can't see that there'll be a lot of extra transfers due to the light rail extension.

It's cheap and tokenistic. It's precisely what the NSW government is good at.
More like a drowning man clutching at the last straw in this case.

Hopefully before the extension is operating, the Homebush turn-back will be integrated into the CityRail network and a new timetable is operating. This should mean more chances of catching an Inner-West line train at Lewisham without waiting a long time- unlike now where it can be hit and miss.

Lewisham is only a handful of stations from Strathfield where numerous connections can be made, such as; the Blue Mountains line and Newcastle and Central Coast line.

I don't think extra CityRail lines need to be added to Lewisham.

At Lewisham passengers only need to travel a handful of stations east to change at Redfern for obvious connections.

Bugger, I just looked using google maps and it would be very hard to add another platform. Pity as the Inner West line is fine for the CBD. However it would be great if for the other lines you didnt have to make people change three times at already crowded stations. What would have been nice is when the Western Express/ relief line is completed the Western/ North Shore trains remaining on the Suburban line could stop at Lewisham allowing direct connection to Parramatta CBD or any of the North Shore employment centres for light rail users.

Screw it, rebuild the station closer to the light rail line with a proper interchange :)

^^^
the inner west line should be made into a metro, running homebush>>city circle>>regents park - with 3mins frequencies all day and lower trip times from better acceleration, interchange at lewisham would be much more attractive

some kind of moving walkway or chairlift or funicular would be needed though

I'm sure Sydneysiders can explain but I still don't get the logic in extending the light rail to Lewisham and Dulwich Hill. These areas are already pretty well served by public transport, with two rail lines in the area. And it's a pretty meandering and slow route for these people to get to the city.....even for Darling Harbour it would be quicker to catch a train to Central and jump on the existing light rail.

I'd have thought the Anzac/S.E. route would be much higher priority, given that area is poorly served by transport and has traffic nightmares. Plus you've got some potentially big trip generators down there in UNSW, racecourse, sports stadiums, etc, and increasingly high density living along Anzac through Kensington to Kingsford. In contrast the Dulwich Hill line seem to run around the back end of suburbs.

I'm sure Sydneysiders can explain but I still don't get the logic in extending the light rail to Lewisham and Dulwich Hill. These areas are already pretty well served by public transport, with two rail lines in the area. And it's a pretty meandering and slow route for these people to get to the city.....even for Darling Harbour it would be quicker to catch a train to Central and jump on the existing light rail.

I'd have thought the Anzac/S.E. route would be much higher priority, given that area is poorly served by transport and has traffic nightmares. Plus you've got some potentially big trip generators down there in UNSW, racecourse, sports stadiums, etc, and increasingly high density living along Anzac through Kensington to Kingsford. In contrast the Dulwich Hill line seem to run around the back end of suburbs.

The logic, if you can call it that, is that there is an abandoned freight line sitting there. ie no logic actually. You don't see light rail out of Welshpool in Perth, Newstead in Brisbane or Mont Park in Melbourne simply because someone abandoned a freight line.

It was a bone to throw the dogs who might vote Green in those seats if no fixed rail improvements were made.

But remember too, if you are not from Sydney, there is a planning instrument that says that as soon as a railway station is built (or high capacity PT facility or whatever it is), magically the land around it is rezoned to high density. So all these 'back ends' you've mentioned become eligible for apartment buildings.

^^^
the inner west line should be made into a metro, running homebush>>city circle>>regents park - with 3mins frequencies all day and lower trip times from better acceleration, interchange at lewisham would be much more attractive

some kind of moving walkway or chairlift or funicular would be needed though

I don't disagree with the metro idea, except the Light Rail system as built is pretty close to what is required now, besides the street running section, which really should be separate. The proposed frequency is 12 minutely which is probably not enough to be really attractive.

I wouldn't worry about Lewisham. If they can sort out ped access by neat, covered and lit footpaths, and a lift for the disabled, 300 metres is not too much. Should take a fit person a few minutes to walk the distance. If you can walk at 5km/h then you should cover 300 metres in 5 minutes.

The major threats to that are at the ped level (poorly maintained and laid out footpaths, ped crossings in the wrong place, long light cycles, indirect routes, platform barriers and so on).

Of course if they could have NOT rebuilt Lewisham under Greiner in the wrong place, we wouldn't have this problem.

The extension to Dulwich Hill is all nice but the real requirement is for a CBD loop.

Its hardly beneficial for people using light rail to end up at Haymarket or Central but need to travel those few extra kms into the core of the CBD such as Town Hall, Wynyard, Circular Quay, etc.

This is where the real challenge will be!

Running a line up Sussex St and Hickson Rd is fine but it also needs to go down the spine of George street with preferably a similar loop covering the eastern side of the CBD via Elizabeth Street.

The real problem here is the contention with buses and private cars.

A proper CBD loop is the only way you will get a massive transition of passengers to a light rail network.

Beyond that you can run future lines down to Victoria Park/Zetland, along Anzac Pde to La Perouse, etc.

I think that Castlereagh Street is the best option for a route down the eastern side of the city.

Elizabeth Street should continue to carry buses and traffic because it is wider and two way, making it more able to cope with potential changes to CBD traffic flow.

THE light rail extension is on the way and now there’s talk of bringing trams back to Glebe Point Rd.

Sydney Council is investigating turning Harold Park’s old trams into travelling restaurants which would carry diners along some the original tram routes.

Councillors agreed to look into the cost of restoring and relocating the six trams rusting away in Harold Park’s sheds.

Cr John McInerney said once restored, the trams would be a valuable tourist attraction if they were used for restaurants or historic tours.

‘’They still work, these things, and they are fabulous trams,’’ he said.

The trams could run on the existing light rail tracks, as well as the proposed extensions along George St in the city and to Dulwich Hill, he said.

But Cr McInerney said dreams of seeing the trams, which include the last tram to run on the Sydney tramway system, back on their old routes along Glebe Point Rd were still a long way off.

Four other trams housed at Harold Park had previously been used to service the line next to Harold Park. The council is also investigating the option of keeping some trams at Harold Park, as well as the possibility of housing others in the Sydney Tram Museum or the City Tram Association.

Glebe Society president Lesley Lynch welcomed enthusiastically the idea of restaurant trams, saying she believed they would be ‘’immensely popular’’.

‘’People love that sort of stuff,” Ms Lynch said. ‘’And to have the restored trams running would be fantastic.’’

The council estimated relocating the trams could cost about $30,000.

http://sydney-central.whereilive.com.au/news/story/sydney-councils-new-lease-of-life-for-old-harold-park-trams/

http://images.whereilive.com.au/images/uploads/2010/04/16/8e3488919a7b8d8854cc52ded7851926_resized.jpeg

Sydney skaters are so desperate for places to skate they have taken to hitching a ride on the back of trams and underground car parks to get a dangerous thrill.

Central’s pictures of young skaters latching on to the back of light rail trams in Chinatown show the lengths to which bored skaters will go in the absence of legal spaces to skate.

Sydney skaters have been crying out for more spaces to skate in the central Sydney area for years and were bitterly disappointed last month when Sydney Council ditched yet another proposal for a skate park at the last minute.

Skateboarding advocate John Fox has collected more than 1000 signatures on a petition calling on the council to build a skate park in the city.

He said skaters were painted with a negative brush for their behaviour but said blame lay with local authorities who neglected skaters.

“Grabbing on to a tram or a bus is not on, but the average skater is a teenage boy: They’re young and thrill seeking and they don’t have a sense of danger, just one of adventure,” said Mr Fox.

“A skate park is obviously a much safer option for these kids, but in the absence of facilities we will see this sort of activity unfortunately,’’ he said.

Mr Fox said the nearest skate parks were in Waterloo and Bondi Beach.

“You don’t leave basketball players and football players to play in back alleys, so why deny skaters somewhere to skate?” he asked.

A 2006 study by Sydney Council found at least 2000 potential skateboarders living within the City of Sydney, and around 56,000 skateboarders living within 20 kilometres of the CBD.

Skaters believe a few noisy residents opposed to the idea had scuttled plans for a skate park at Prince Alfred Park, Surry Hills, in 2007 and last month at another suggested location under the Western Distributor at Millers Point.

The Millers Point proposal initially seemed to have the majority of councillors on side but following a protracted campaign by residents of the Observatory Tower apartment complex only the two Greens and one Labour councillor supported the idea.

Lord Mayor Clover Moore’s last minute back down on the Millers Point proposal was the final nail in the coffin.

“These views of the residents regarding antisocial behaviour are also the views of the public housing tenants,’’ Lord Mayor Clover Moore said.

“When staff showed me the location under the Western Distributor last year, it appeared to provide a workable solution. I understand that skaters will be disappointed but the space under the Western Distributor could not have provided the world-class facility that many skaters hope will be created.”

Mr Fox said the residents’ fears about noise were exaggerated.

http://sydney-central.whereilive.com.au/news/story/sydney-skaters-hitch-dangerous-ride/

“Roads are noisier than skate parks,” he said.

Screw it, rebuild the station closer to the light rail line with a proper interchange :)

At Wimbledon station in London, one platform serves the Croydon Tramlink. At East Croydon station - where trains operate between places like; London Victoria, Gatwick Airport and Brighton - the tram stops right out the front of the station. Pitty Lewisham wasn't close enough to the proposed tram line.

But it does not look too far to walk any way, if proper predestian connections are put in place.

Hopefully if the extended line does create more demand for the lightrail service that more people would start demanding it to be part of the MyZone. It could be a case of satisfying share-holders of Sydney Metro Lightrail that a changed fare system would still benifit them financially.

http://images.whereilive.com.au/images/uploads/2010/04/16/8e3488919a7b8d8854cc52ded7851926_resized.jpeg

Sydney skaters are so desperate for places to skate they have taken to hitching a ride on the back of trams and underground car parks to get a dangerous thrill.


"Dangerous" :lol::lol::lol:

The MLR trams are slower than a snail on valium. You'd pass that skateboarder walking, what a wimp!

20kph speed limit in that section too. I'm sure a good skatey can rev up more than that. :ohno:

I think there should be a Metro line directly below Parramatta Road (similar to the southern alignment of the defunct West Metro) with frequent stops, running every two to five minutes. The M4 East should be built, to free up Parramatta Rd as metro-light rail corridor. The Metro line should form the basis for an extensive light rail system in the Inner West. Of course the northwest metro and anzac metro would provide stations in the Drummoyne/Balmain region.

is this metro thread? if so, state gov have come up with $93mil compo for 5 tenderers that wasted there time.

lol. Typical. The Metro thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=557073&page=143) is on Page 2.

Temp. fencing has gone up at Dulwich Hill end of the goods line over the weekend - site works about to commence?

The NSW State Government have decided to fast track the Lilyfield to Dulwhich Hill extension in the 2010-2011 budget, construction is expected to commence this year.

$55 million is being spent to fast rack the Lilyfield to Dulwhich Hill extension.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/trams-planned-for-inner-west-20100608-xs7p.html

Just getting the old grey matter machine onto the task of pondering Sydney CBD light rail routes.

The proposed Barangaroo via Sussex/Hickson st arrangement is not fundamentally a different beast from what's there already (except that it's street running).

There would therefore be two lines, both running out of the Colonnade, one to Dulwich Hill and the other the Barangaroo, parting company at Paddys.

The via George St arrangement though seems to me fundamentally a different animal all together.

It would need to be a much higher frequency service to work, would need to have most or all of the buses cleared out of George St, and no real shared trackage with the other route except the first little bit.

How would it get direct to Barangaroo. For tourists, a run around Millers Point and the foot of the bridge might look good, but it won't be the direct way to Barangaroo. Maybe building BOTH routes would work, so that trams continue from CQ and the Rocks, around the point and then back through Hickson and Sussex to Hay St, running in both directions. Clearly this is extra expense.

Also where will the interchange be between the hundreds or buses, and the tram? People aren't gonna wanna climb from Eddy Av to the Colonnade, nor is there anywhere at George/Hay/Dixon to really swap vehicles.

George St is superficially very attractive from demand pov, but not actually sure they've thought all this through.

Also where will the interchange be between the hundreds or buses, and the tram? People aren't gonna wanna climb from Eddy Av to the Colonnade, nor is there anywhere at George/Hay/Dixon to really swap vehicles.

George St is superficially very attractive from demand pov, but not actually sure they've thought all this through.

Agreed.

Personally I think the interchange at Wynyard is the best place for it. It currently acts like a central station for northern Sydney buses and trains and I think could terminate a lot of buses currently heading along George street.

Of course it would need to be rebuild, some skilled engineering would be required (and very expensive) - I think a tunnel could be built to get the buses closer to the train platforms. Then a moving walk way could be built from the train/buses concourse through the mall to George street. Or possible divert the tram along Carrington street.

If trams are going to save Sydney from congestion, the interchanges will need to be spot on.

You wouldn't touch the Colonnade on a George Street route, surely, it would be a Railway Square interchange.

"Dangerous" :lol::lol::lol:

The MLR trams are slower than a snail on valium. You'd pass that skateboarder walking, what a wimp!

20kph speed limit in that section too. I'm sure a good skatey can rev up more than that. :ohno:
Yes even the courier cyclists who hold onto the back of trams in Melbourne because they're too lazy to ride up-hill are taking more of a risk, their bikes only have 2 wheels so they're more likely to fall over! Looks stupid but not especially dangerous what they're doing.