THREAD #1 (http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=18996)
[ threadid = 18996 ]

Fabian, dont create a new thread for each road article you post - use one, same goes for Public Transport.

...not that we are sure why. If there were multiple threads, there would never have been an issue with the old one going past 400 replies or whatever the evil number is.

The F6 is on the Liberals agenda led by Sutherland Shire member - Bruce Baird as part of the federal election. As part of the Federal Election campgain, they want the corridor for the F6 preserved and will use it to gain road funding for NSW as part of the Auslink plan.

Baird insists that the freeway be built to reduce congestion on Sutherland Shire roads and would improve road links between Sydney and the South Coast and would complete the Sydney freeway network. Also the Port Botany Expansion would increase truck movements across the Sutherland Shire.

The NSW State Government intends on converting the corridor into a public transport corridor. South of Gymea Station station, the corridor will be converted into public space.

Slight correction

The F6 is on the Liberals agenda led by Sutherland Shire member - Bruce Baird as part of the federal election. As part of the Federal Election campgain, they want the corridor for the F6 preserved and will use it to gain road funding for NSW as part of the Auslink plan.

Baird insists that the freeway be built to reduce congestion on Sutherland Shire roads and would improve road links between Sydney and the South Coast and would complete the Sydney freeway network. Also the Port Botany Expansion would increase truck movements across the Sutherland Shire.

The NSW State Government pretends on converting the corridor into a public transport corridor. South of Gymea Station station, the corridor will be converted into public space.

the background to this is that work is about to begin on the old Tom Ugly's bridge. In order to do this, the lane configuration has had to be changed (sounds really unsafe - the new bridge is to get four lanes of traffic, 3 one way, 1 the other - will be extremely narrow) to facilitate the works. But Bruce's issue is that the arrangements are taking away lots of street parking in the surrounding strip commercial areas.

Now the obvious corollary is that if the F6 was built from Waterfall to Kyeemagh, the problem would be far less an issue. Indeed, even if the F6 was built from Waterfall to Tarren Point it would adequately remove traffic from the Tom Ugly's bridge that it could simply be narrowed.

Carl Scully is going to officially announce today that William Street will be turned into a tree lined boulevard once the Cross City Tunnel is complete. It's great news.

In order to do this, the lane configuration has had to be changed (sounds really unsafe - the new bridge is to get four lanes of traffic, 3 one way, 1 the other - will be extremely narrow) to facilitate the works.

Nothing new about this. Various configurations of lane closures on the old bridge and 1 or 2 northbound lanes on the new bridge have been done over the last 20 years during works projects.

Now the obvious corollary is that if the F6 was built from Waterfall to Kyeemagh, the problem would be far less an issue. Indeed, even if the F6 was built from Waterfall to Tarren Point it would adequately remove traffic from the Tom Ugly's bridge that it could simply be narrowed.

That's happened too before with no real ill effect (2+2 on the new bridge).

Besides, there is plenty of spare capacity on the Kingsway and the (questionably named) Boulevarde, and displaced shire traffic can spread south a bit and use President Avenue.

Also, if the F6 finished at Kyeemagh, would it not be a car park back to Taren Point, given the capacity issues on the Southern Cross Drive flyovers? The only thing that keeps SC running smoothly are the traffic lights on the Grand Parade and General Holmes/Bestic, which hold back traffic and meter it onto the free flowing section.

So wouldn't it essentially be replacing one car park with another, at the cost of the better part of a billion dollars. Also, even if the EIS started tomorrow, wouldn't it open right as Peak Oil starts to bite, making car travel unaffordable and giving commercial and other remaining traffic a much freer reign on the existing road network?

The gridlock would only be worse as the freeway would attract motorists that would normally also use the Princes Highway to drive into the inner city each day.

If they choose to go ahead, I would like to see it end in St Peters with an interchange for traffic wishing to use Southern Cross Drive/ Eastern Distributor. It would be more effective, removing traffic from both the Princes Highway and General Holmes Drive.. I would like to see improvements made to public transport as a condition of the freeway ie transit lanes and more bus services.

The M4 and M5, according to latest figures are carrying more than 100 000 cars a day.

From The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)
Traffic on motorways accelerates
By Joseph Kerr, Transport Reporter
September 16, 2004

Sydney's addiction to motorways has increased, with two tollways now carrying more than 100,000 cars each a day.

Traffic levels are growing so quickly that this month may be the first time one of Sydney's toll roads hits 110,000 vehicles on average for a working week.

In August, the M5 to the south-west recorded an average of 109,435 vehicles each week day, up about 6000 vehicles on last August and 656 on July this year.

The main highway to the Blue Mountains, the M4, last month also topped 100,000 vehicles a day, even with lower traffic levels recorded on weekends.

According to the latest data from Macquarie Infrastructure Group - which owns stakes in the Eastern Distributor, M4, M5 and numerous overseas toll roads - the average daily traffic on the M4 in August was 100,452, about 5000 more than in the same month in 2003.

The average week-day traffic on the M4 is 108,578.

The peaks for daily traffic are well above those averages.
Advertisement Advertisement

The M5 peaked at 119,710 vehicles on December 20 last year, but the M4 beat that with 121,212 vehicles on April 2 this year.

The traffic on the Hills motorway across Sydney's north is also increasing. The road carried an average of 73,182 vehicles a day in August, up 5.9 per cent on the previous August.

With tollways now proliferating around Sydney - the Cross City Tunnel is expected to open next year and the M7 (formerly known as the Western Sydney Orbital) continues to take shape - electronic tolling is taking over from cash tolls.

The M7 will be the first distance pricing road in NSW, with motorists charged a toll - up to a cap of $5 - depending on how far along the 40 kilometre carriageway they travel.

Construction started last year on the M7, labelled Australia's largest infrastructure project, which will link the M5 at Prestons, the M4 at Eastern Creek and the M2 at West Baulkham Hills.

Alongside it will be a cycleway and pedestrian path, connecting with the slowly emerging Sydney bike path network.

The M7 will bypass 56 sets of traffic lights, and reduce car travel time by more than hour along the entire corridor.

In the past year, the proportion of tolls paid electronically has risen from 48 per cent to 59 per cent on the Eastern Distributor, from 56 per cent to 61 per cent on the M4 and from 70 per cent to 72 per cent on the M5.

Its use should continue to grow strongly, with the Harbour Tunnel to become cash-free from the end of the year and future tollways to be cash-free from their opening.

Ken Dobinson, the director of the sustainable transport project at the University of Sydney's engineering institute the Warren Centre, said traffic levels were growing 25 to 50 per cent faster than population.

That is reflected in higher revenue for the toll roads. Interlink Roads took $330,057 a day from M5 tolls in August, nearly 7 per cent more than the same month last year.

The F6 is on the Liberals agenda led by Sutherland Shire member - Bruce Baird as part of the federal election. As part of the Federal Election campgain, they want the corridor for the F6 preserved and will use it to gain road funding for NSW as part of the Auslink plan.

Baird insists that the freeway be built to reduce congestion on Sutherland Shire roads and would improve road links between Sydney and the South Coast and would complete the Sydney freeway network. Also the Port Botany Expansion would increase truck movements across the Sutherland Shire.

The NSW State Government intends on converting the corridor into a public transport corridor. South of Gymea Station station, the corridor will be converted into public space.

Thats good news.I would like the see the Sydney Freeway network finished so the government can focus on improving the "Costa train network".

Thats good news.I would like the see the Sydney Freeway network finished so the government can focus on improving the "Costa train network".

The Freeway network will never be finished, since every new freeway actually makes the problem worse and brings forward the need for the next freeway. It will never end until a courageous politician puts his foot down and starts to close some freeways.

You are just making up excuses that politicians can pepetually use to keep themselves from ever actually improving public transport.

well rich people use the motorway netowrk a lot because they just are "too rich" or "too lazy" for PT, so might as well build some motorways for them. if you wanna close motorways, u'll might as well ban cars.
also motorways carry frieght to areas where railways cant serve.

well rich people use the motorway netowrk a lot because they just are "too rich" or "too lazy" for PT

If you look at the rich people in places like inner Sydney, or any big European city, you will find they are generally quite happy to use PT. If services were ever brought up to scratch (and that's still a long way off), there would be no excuse other than you're anti-social, and you don't reward that behaviour with more roads.

if you wanna close motorways, u'll might as well ban cars.

It's a tempting thought :-)

also motorways carry frieght to areas where railways cant serve.

Don't serve, not can't serve.

Besides, there is very little stopping freight from using the existing road network as it does now, and/or relocating freight generators and distribution centres from undesirable locations to country towns or other locations alongside the rail network.

And who's going to pay for all those businesses to relocate. My guess would be that it would cost $10billion

And who's going to pay for all those businesses to relocate. My guess would be that it would cost $10billion

They will. Economics will force 'em in the end.

Economics will force 'em???????

Please translate into proper english

think of the oil crisis

Business A makes humdingers in a factory in Outer Bumfuck. Business B makes humdingers in downtown Metropolis. Most of the demand for humdingers is in downtown Metropolis. Outer Bumfuck is a shithole 50 miles from the nearest railway line. Business A could only operate there because low petrol prices make road transport of humdingers a viable option. With rising petrol prices, extra costs are added to the price of Business A brand humdingers, making them uncompetitive with Business B humdingers. Business A, if it is to survive, has to move closer to the market or to economical transport. So long, Outer Bumfuck, pity about the workforce.

Simple enough for ya?

And who's going to pay for all those businesses to relocate. My guess would be that it would cost $10billion

Economics will force them to move, or go under and be replaced by others who move into appropriate locations, when fuel prices hit the roof following on from peak oil in the next few years,

Anyway, even if your $10bn figure is accurate, that's 4½ scoresby freeways, or about 20 years worth of freeway building at about the present rate.

EXACTLY!!! 20 YEARS!!!

Most of Australia's freeways were built in the last 20 years.

And did you consider that maybe, moving Business A from Outer Bumfuck would be a bad idea? Because if you moved Business A into Inner Bumfuck, close to Downtown Metropolis and the freight lines, the workers would have to get from Outer Bumfuck to Inner Bumfuck. Now, lets say there are 1000 businesses who each employ 100 people that have to move. That puts 100,000 extra cars on the road into Inner Bumfuck, because they all live in Outer Bumfuck. Therefore, you need to build a freeway so that you (the government) get re-elected!

Ah but inner Bumfuck would have better public transport and would need to rely on it more to get commuters into it, negating the need of a fwy. Also, housing demand in outer Bumfuck will fall as people move closer to major transit routes/lines or closer to their workplaces in inner Bumfuck.

The rumours of the implemention of Alpha-numeric route numbering (ala Vic, Tas, SA, Qld) in NSW are true.
http://home.exetel.com.au/smeghead/a1-4.jpg

Ah but inner Bumfuck would have better public transport and would need to rely on it more to get commuters into it, negating the need of a fwy. Also, housing demand in outer Bumfuck will fall as people move closer to major transit routes/lines or closer to their workplaces in inner Bumfuck.

Ah, but the public transport is good going from Downtown Metropolis to Inner Bumfuck, but going out to Outer Bumfuck, the PT is few and far between. The trains are unreliable and there aren't any buses on weekends or before 7am or after 5pm.

Implementing a better, reliable, frequent public transport system is cheaper than expanding the freeway network. Also, usually outer Bumfuck to inner Bumfuck or Downtown is easier to do using public transport currently than travelling from outer Bumfuck to other parts of outer Bumfuck. Also, note the 2nd line of my previous response.

BTW, in Australia we have a DEFENCE force. Not 'Defense'.
http://www.defence.gov.au/newdefence/includes/coa.gif

Then they would NEED better Public Transport, but whether it's going to happen or not is a completely different story because the government is full of Dumbasses

The Federal govt isnt a fan of helping to fund urban transport issues either, unlike the USA.

We may not agree on some urban transport issues, but atleast you changed the spelling in your sig. :)

Why don't you set up a thread for political numbskulling in the field of transport rather than cluttering up every other thread in this sub forum?

Looks like the alpha-numeric system is invading us from the north. I'm not too sure what to think of it, at first I didn't like the idea due to it being relatively unnecessary, but am growing to like it as I assume it will accurately reflect the importance of a particular route.

the problem is that the RTA is being much more strict in applying the road classifications than Victoria has, so the idea of a "Nationally Consistent" road numbering scheme remains as illusive as ever.

See Austroads (http://www.austroads.com.au) Publication AP-R224/03 Towards a Nationally Consistent Approach to Route Identity (PDF) (http://203.42.45.20/mall/austroads_v2/pdfs/474_AP-R224.pdf)

Thanks for those links hornetfig, I can't remember too well what the Victorian route map looks like but I do remember a few roads there which, when I think back, don't match up to the standards there (especially re sealed shoulders).

What (if you know) is the timeframe for the implementation of this system? The report mentions route upgrading a few times, but to begin with?

Cheers

I was hoping the papers were going to report on it, but they didn't. Last Wednesday, the government announced that William Street will be converted into a boulevard once the cross city tunnel is complete. More than 90 trees will be planted along the strip along with the widening of the footpaths.

The Lighthorse interchange at Eastern Creek has been nick named- SPAGHETTI WESTERN! LOL
big storey & pix from Sat tele>
-----------
Shooting the spaghetti western


By Line : Matt Sun Published : 18/09/2004 Clip Ref : 13299220
Publication : Daily Telegraph Section : General News Page : 10
A feature on the Light Horse interchange, which is described as a vital section of Sydney's motorway network. The three-story interchange will include electronic toll sensors that bill motorists as they drive underneath.
The M7 to M4 bridge will reach 22m above ground!!!

The M7-M4 junction is a simply a slightly-skewed four level stack. The M7-M5 junction is much more like "Spaghetti Western", and can we call the Western Distributor "Spaghetti Central"?



What (if you know) is the timeframe for the implementation of this system? The report mentions route upgrading a few times, but to begin with?

when funding is given. At this stage only new signage on major highways is seeing the new route numbering due to it being funded in the course of adding/replacing the sign.

I was hoping the papers were going to report on it, but they didn't. Last Wednesday, the government announced that William Street will be converted into a boulevard once the cross city tunnel is complete. More than 90 trees will be planted along the strip along with the widening of the footpaths.

I hope all the trees get hit by hail and so too does Bob Carr when it opens. Why do we need boulevards? Sydney is not a boulevard type of city. talk about incongruous.

I hope all the trees get hit by hail and so too does Bob Carr when it opens. Why do we need boulevards? Sydney is not a boulevard type of city. talk about incongrous.

I thought you wanted wide roads in this city. I think it will create that feeling if your driving up the street. It's a good move. The street is crying for a new lease of life.

I hope all the trees get hit by hail and so too does Bob Carr when it opens.What a strange thing to say ie about the trees, not Bob Carr ;)

Well trees make less room for concrete. :)

Fabian... I love wide roads but unfortunately Sydney was not blessed with them. If you take william street, add buffer-zone car parking, a wider median strip with trees, I'm guessing the road would have to be reduced in traffic capacity. Sorry I like the urban look of the landscape in a big city, I don't see the need for the gentrification. I'd rather see the prostitutes hobbling up and down the street at 8:00pm than some husband and wife pushing their stroller looking lovingly into each other's eyes - enough already the city needs some grit.

The only type of trees I want to see near the CBD are palms and the only type of boulevard - the hotel of the same name. Sydney is flashy - not stylish and sophisticated like Melbourne, an elevated monorail would be more appropriate for this strip of road than some bushy tree planting homage to the environment. What is with this environmental whiplash taking hold across Australia?

It's almost like Sydney is having an identity crisis and the cultural cringe is showing. We are not Paris - in fact we are nothing like paris - when will those in power start to realise this, why should we model ourselves on some inappropriate vision of Europe?

I think the boulevard idea is a good one and will work well once the tunnel opens and gets rid of the traffic. It doesnt have to be another Chaps Elysees but something simpler and narrower like some of the main streets in North America, good lighting, wide footpaths and two lanes each way would be good (e.g. Nth Michigan Ave in Chicago). Hookers still welcome.

I'm sure the Ferrari dealership wouldnt complain either...

Yeah I can deal with North Michigan Avenue but the only Paris I wanna see in Sydney is Ms Hilton.

I hope all the trees get hit by hail and so too does Bob Carr when it opens. Why do we need boulevards? Sydney is not a boulevard type of city. talk about incongruous.

Well the question is what to do with all that roadspace? William Street is up to 10 lanes wide, the "renovated" William Street is still six lanes wide. What do you do with the reclaimed space? you widen the median and footpaths. What do you put in the widened median and footpaths? trees. Follows logically. If that's a boulevarde then so be it.

The alternative is to simply resurface 10 lanes of asphalt and leave it as is. Had that been decided, perhaps the Cross City Tunnel toll (for they're paying for it) would be fractionally lower/shorter

The boulevard plan is not new. When I lived in Sydney in 1990-91 the plans were already public back then. The plan was to reduce William St to 3-3 lanes and widen the pavements, trees, cafes etc. Indeed the Champs Elysees was used as the example of what the advocates wanted to achieve.

Btw Hornetfig. I know of no section of William St which is 10 lanes wide. Max 8. Infact William St is already basically 3 lanes per direction when looking at the number of through lanes (excl turning lanes). A conversion with wider footpaths shouldnt really effect the capacity much.

I agree with Avatar that palms or the likes would be best. Certainly no european/ Nth American imports.

The boulevard plan is not new. When I lived in Sydney in 1990-91 the plans were already public back then. The plan was to reduce William St to 3-3 lanes and widen the pavements, trees, cafes etc. Indeed the Champs Elysees was used as the example of what the advocates wanted to achieve.

There was also a thing called the City East-West tunnel.

Btw Hornetfig. I know of no section of William St which is 10 lanes wide. Max 8. Infact William St is already basically 3 lanes per direction when looking at the number of through lanes (excl turning lanes). [/quote]

You are correct.

A conversion with wider footpaths shouldnt really effect the capacity much.

Capacity of what?

I agree with Avatar that palms or the likes would be best. Certainly no european/ Nth American imports.

Capacity of what?

The roadway. And of course with the cross-city tunnel the volumes should (atleast in theory) be somewhat less.

well I wasn't sure if you meant road carriageway or footpath given that through traffic will be eliminated, virtually, from William Street because there will be no access to the Western Distributor and only convoluted access to the harbour crossings once the Cross City Tunnel opens

Not exactly Sydney but:
The Karuah Bypass was today opened

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/newsevents/2004_09_karuahopening.html?hhid=1
Premier Carr inspects new $123 million Karuah Bypass
17-09-2004

The Premier of NSW, Mr Bob Carr today officially opened the new $123 million Karuah Bypass – slashing travel times by up to 30 minutes and eliminating a notorious Pacific Highway bottleneck on the State’s north coast.

Mr Carr and Roads Minister, Carl Scully toured the new 10 kilometres of dual carriageway - which will open on Wednesday next week - three months ahead of schedule and in time for the school holidays.

“The completion of this state-of-the-art roadway marks the end of eight years of major construction on the Pacific Highway,” Mr Carr said.

“It is part of a $2.2 billion 10 year plan to upgrade NSW’s major road artery to Queensland.

“This is a win for the local community – a win for holiday-makers, families and workers who spend many hours commuting up and down the north coast.

“The 10 kilometre dual carriageway will remove dangerous bottlenecks along the carriageway and provide critical access to Karuah.

“Major interchanges at both ends of the bypass will offer good access to and from Karuah for passing motorists, local residents and tourists,” he said.

The Karuah Bypass is a joint State and Commonwealth funded project. It provides:

Almost 10km of dual carriageway some 3km upstream of the Karuah township.
* Interchanges at the western and eastern ends will provide access to and from the Karuah township.
* The bypass will have two northbound and two southbound lanes.
* It is designed to allow vehicles to travel at 110km/h.
* Development and planning took four years to complete.
* To reduce the impact on local fauna, 32 fauna underpasses and overpasses were built.
* Runs 5km south-west of Karuah from Swan Bay Road to 5km north-east of Karuah at The Branch Lane.
* The construction workforce peaked at around 200 employees.
At peak travel periods, such as school holidays, the township of Karuah often became a bottleneck, as many motorists made their way to the north coast.

Mr Scully said the new bypass would slash travel times by up to 30 minutes during busy holiday periods.

“The NSW government has been spending $160 million per annum to upgrade the Pacific Highway each year since 1996, while the Federal Government has contributed $60 million a year,” he said.

“Under this agreement, the NSW Government has contributed almost three quarters of the total funds spent to upgrade the Pacific Highway between Hexham and the Queensland border.”

“Karuah will continue its role as a highway service town, offering a range of essential services and overnight facilities in a scenic and tranquil setting.”

---

http://tuncurry.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&category=general%20news&story_id=337877&y=2004&m=9

Karuah Bypass will cut highway travel time
Wednesday, 22 September 2004

THE new $123 million Karuah Bypass opened to the public on Friday, three months ahead of schedule and in time for the start of the coming school holidays.

NSW Premier, Bob Carr, officially opened the bypass on Friday and, along with NSW Roads Minister, Carl Scully, and Federal Member for Paterson, Bob Baldwin, toured the new 10 kilometres of dual carriageway.

"The completion of this state-of-the-art roadway marks the end of eight years of major construction on the Pacific Highway," Mr Carr said.

"The 10 kilometre dual carriageway will remove dangerous bottlenecks along the carriageway and provide critical access to Karuah."

"Karuah will continue its role as a highway service town, offering a range of essential services and overnight facilities in a scenic and tranquil setting."

The bypass will cut travel times for Pacific Highway drivers by up to 30 minutes and eliminate a notorious Pacific Highway bottleneck area.

The Karuah Bypass is a joint State and Commonwealth funded project that provides:

* Almost 10km of dual carriageway some three kilometres upstream of the Karuah township.

* Interchanges at the western and eastern ends will provide access to and from the Karuah township.

* The bypass will have two northbound and two southbound lanes.

* It is designed to allow vehicles to travel at 110kms.

* Development and planning took four years to complete.

* To reduce the impact on local fauna, 32 fauna underpasses and overpasses have been built.

* The bypass runs five kilometres south west of Karuah from Swan Bay to five kilometres north east of Karuah at The Branch Lane.

* The construction workforce peaked at around 200 employees.

Thiess Pty Ltd was contracted to design, construct and maintain the bypass project in February, 2002.

nice name for your towns.

^^What the???

ahh the sort of project MrPC loves to hate :tongue2: :

The RTA plans to "widen" the Anzac Bridge to 8 lanes by reconfiguring the existing 7 (i.e. narrowing them) and "adjusting" the pedestrian footpaths (how they intend to do this, I don't know - have the footways go around the outside of the pylons?!

In any case it kind of makes a mockery of the RTA's claim that an M4 East long tunnel would require tidal control on the bridge.

And finally, why wasn't this tacked onto the Cross City Tunnel project so that the BOOT concession holder (Baulderstone/Hornibrook) could have paid for it? . . .

http://www.sundaytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,9353,10949796-28778,00.html

Eighth lane for Anzac Bridge
By TONY VERMEER
October 3, 2004
ANZAC Bridge is in line for a $20-million makeover to prevent it becoming gridlocked when Sydney's cross-city tunnel opens next year.


Big squeeze: Traffic on the Anzac Bridge
The State Government has drawn up plans to create an eighth lane on the bridge to cope with the increased traffic.

NSW Roads Minister Carl Scully said preliminary assessments indicated it could be possible to create an extra westbound lane without adding to the existing structure.

The plan involves moving the median strip, the cycleway and bus lanes to squeeze in more car and truck traffic.

"Since opening in December, 1995, the Anzac Bridge had become a vital arterial route into and out of Sydney," Mr Scully said.

"The bridge currently carries about 130,000 vehicles per week day . . . an increase of more than 50 per cent since it opened and is expected to increase further.

"The route needs to be improved to accommodate that extra traffic when the cross-city tunnel opens next year."


A spokeswoman for Mr Scully said the new configuration did not mean footpath and bus and cycle lanes would be eliminated.

The $680-million, 2.1km cross-city tunnel will link the eastern edge of Darling Harbour and Kings Cross, joining the western distributor with New South Head Rd and the eastern distributor and the Domain tunnel.

The tunnel is expected to cut the cross-town car trip from 20 to just two minutes, and bypass 18 sets of traffic lights.

But making the trip easier is expected to encourage more motorists on the road, leading to congestion elsewhere.

The remaining link in the chain is the M4 East motorway extension, which will connect the M4 motorway at North Strathfield and the City West Link at Haberfield.

Three main options are being considered: a 3.6km tunnel that emerges in Haberfield, which is Mr Scully's preferred option; a longer 6.6km tunnel that surfaces near the Anzac Bridge; and a trench road near Parramatta Rd.

Residents are opposed to a shorter tunnel.

Just the thing with Sydney road planning, or lack of it. All roads are approaching their capacity as PT in everyone's eyes is not faster than the car... :sleepy:

That said, I thought Anzac Bridge had 8 lanes. It would make sense to build a bridge expecting the same inward and outward traffic! Typical. But yes it seems walkers now are being pushed off to make way for more cars!

^ very true shayplan, but areas of high congestion on major roads tend to have lots of train users (if there was train only!). because i find it much faster to take a train in many cases, especailly rush hour times. if the train is an express that is. if the train is a all stop train... car is faster, express train/limited stop - faster.

^^ the lane reconfig on anzac bridge - it isnt alone , at blakehurst tom's ugly bridge (3 lanes one way) had one of it's lanes closed, and the other bridge running almost parraell to it (3 lanes one way) had it's lane reconfigerated to 3 lanes one way and 1 lane one way because one lane is closed on tom's ugly bridge *[almost like the airport tunnel going the other way during rush hour]

Only 10 months after the RTA mentioned it in passing, here it is - Stage I of the Port Botany Motorway - a surprising amount of political impetus from the normally passive and submissive (to the Minister for Roads) RTA::

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/11/1097406503294.html
The next idea for the M4 - dig
By Alexandra Smith
October 12, 2004

A tunnel under Marrickville is the next possible link in Sydney's road-building program, joining the M4 to Port Botany and eventually creating a tollway from the airport to Strathfield and west to Penrith.

The Marrickville truck tunnel, which would run under Sydenham Road and join Parramatta Road in Lewisham with the Princes Highway at St Peters, may be considered as part of the planning process for the M4 East.

A Roads and Traffic Authority options study review into the M4 East says another link is necessary to relieve environmental pressures on Marrickville and provide better connections to Sydney Airport and Port Botany.

With passenger numbers at the airport and container movements at Port Botany expected to double in the next 20 years, the city's road network east of Strathfield needs to be upgraded and expanded to cope.

"An eventual high-quality link between the M4 and Mascot/Botany would relieve some pressure on the M5 East, where traffic has diverted to avoid congestion through Marrickville," the RTA options paper says.

"There are 64 sets of traffic lights between the end of the M4 and Port Botany [and] relatively narrow roads through Marrickville are functioning as heavy-freight roads."

Marrickville Council will tonight consider a report recommending the State Government assess the four-kilometre truck tunnel during the preparation of the environmental impact statement for the M4 East.

The $485 million tunnel was first proposed three years ago when the council commissioned a feasibility study into diverting heavy-freight trucks from the suburb's congested streets.

But the public-transport advocacy group, EcoTransit Sydney, has accused the Government of locking Sydney into a 30-year road building program without adequate consultation with residents.

"They are getting residents to focus on separate parts of the network without ever giving them the whole picture," EcoTransit spokeswoman Mary-Jane Gleeson said.

Ms Gleeson said the "misnamed truck tunnel" would only serve to "carry tens of thousands of additional cars to and from Parramatta Road".

This tunnel runs from the M4 East fork at Haberfield to Canal Road (Gardeners Road) at Sydenham

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxmedia/2004/10/11/goingunderground.jpg

definately reduce freight trucks on many major roads i think, but it doesnt really link to another freeway. so all the traffic is dumped onto princes hwy then?!

very anti-mrpc haha

The inner ring road emerges. What a nice tidy road from Sydenham almost all the way to the City West Link. It'll make the folks of Lilyfield beg for a link road above or alongside the freight line. Then there's just that last chunk from Canal Street to Southern Cross Drive, and it's all over.

What a great idea.

Then maybe we could use some of the freight rail lines for heavy or light rail

By definition they are already used as heavy rail.

They only finished the Karuah Bypass recently and already the next stage in the link is on the cards.... This I stumbled across on the RTA website just now.

And while it isn't quite in Sydney...

Pacific Highway upgrade extended to F3

22-10-2004

The State Government has announced a $5 million planning project to upgrade the Pacific Highway to a dual carriageway between the F3 Freeway and Raymond Terrace.

The Minister for Roads, Carl Scully, said an upgrade of the 12-kilometre stretch would provide the ‘missing link’ between the F3 south of John Renshaw Drive to the Raymond Terrace Bypass and include an additional crossing of the Hunter River.

Planning for the upgrade will be included in the State Government’s 10-year, $2.2 billion program to upgrade the Pacific Highway to a dual carriageway.

“Estimates show between 29,000 and 46,000 vehicles a day travel on the existing connection from the F3 along John Renshaw Drive to the Raymond Terrace Bypass via Hexham,” Mr Scully said.

“This is a significant project that will cut travel times, improve safety and relieve traffic congestion on the existing route.

“I am also releasing details of the study area to be investigated as part of planning for this vital upgrade.”

Mr Scully said the proposal will accommodate two lanes in each direction, with provision for future widening.

“Interchange, intersection and local road options will also be investigated, taking into account the travel needs of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

“Local communities and stakeholders will be invited to comment on route options identified in the planning phase and will be encouraged to put forward their views about the proposed upgrade,” Mr Scully said.

“A Community Liaison Group will be established by the RTA to provide a link between the community and the project team throughout the planning stage of the project.”

Mr Scully said Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd had been awarded a contract to start planning the F3 to Raymond Terrace upgrade.

“Today’s decision is an extension of Wednesday’s announcement to fast track the selection of routes along the sections of the Pacific Highway where planning has not yet commenced.

“This means the Roads and Traffic Authority project will now identify preferred routes for 247 kilometres of the Pacific Highway, making it Australia’s biggest modern-day road planning project.

“Eight years into the Pacific Highway Upgrading Program, fatality and crash rates have fallen despite rapid growth in traffic volumes and coastal populations.

“Between 1995 and 2003, traffic on the Pacific Highway have increased by 42 per cent – from 55,737 vehicles per day to 78,976.

“Despite this huge growth in traffic, injury and fatality crashes over the same period have actually fallen by 10 per cent - from 436 in 1995 to 392 in 2003.

”The time taken to drive from Hexham to the Queensland border has been slashed from eight and a half hours in November 1995 to seven hours and 25 minutes today.

“By the time we upgrade the entire Highway, we will have cut travel times by a further 90 minutes,” Mr Scully said.

Link to the article: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/newsevents/2004_10_pachwyf3.html?hhid=1

I find it interesting that the other day, I was thinking as I was looking at the touring map in the back of my Sydway that they should hook the Sydney-Newcastle into the new bypass soonish...[I]

this would actually be the busiest section of the road (John Renshaw Drive from the F3 to New England Highway; New England Highway from Weakley's Drive to Pacific Highway; Pacific Highway from New England Highway to Raymond Terrace Bypass), but the arrangements have been bandaid at best.

I don't think it should be surprising, therefore, that planning for the project will be tacked on to the already announced "$50 million planning project". The major question is what sort of route can be taken - the Hunter River floodplain and the Hexham Swamp will significantly impact the route determination process.

[Somewhere in the old thread is my diagram of a couple of potential routes - it's this:]
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/towersofhanoi/m4/f3end4.jpg


The "planning project" announced two days earlier::

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/newsevents/2004_10_pachwyreview.html

Fast tracking the future of the Pacific Highway
20-10-2004

The State Government will begin Australia’s biggest modern-day road planning project to accelerate the remaining 235 kilometres of the Pacific Highway still to be upgraded.

“Today’s announcement is about ensuring local families and holidaymakers benefit from a safer and fully upgraded Pacific Highway as quickly as possible,” the Premier of NSW, Mr Bob Carr said.

“By the time the entire highway is completed travelling times from Hexham - near Newcastle - to the Queensland border would have been reduced by more than two and a half hours.”

Mr Carr said the $50 million planning project would finalise routes for parts of the Pacific Highway where construction or planning has not yet begun:

Woolgoolga to Ballina –173 km.
Oxley Hwy to Kempsey – 39 km.
Tintenbar to Ewingsdale (north of Ballina) – 17 km.
Failford Rd to Tritons Road (north of Nabiac) – 3.3 km.
Herons Ck to Stills Road (north of Kew) – 3.3 km.
These sections alone will reduce travelling time from Hexham to the Queensland border by 90 minutes.

“Today’s announcement means when the current Federal/State funding agreement expires in June 2006, the routes for these sections will be identified and land would be set aside and locked away,” Mr Carr said.

“It means future construction will not be delayed by red-tape.

“Instead of planning one project after another as we have done in the past, we’ll be identifying routes for all the remaining sections at one time.

“This will mean we can start construction of the remaining sections several years earlier.”

Since 1996, the State Government has spearheaded a 10-year, $2.2 billion plan to re-build this once notorious highway as a dual carriageway. Since then:

32 Pacific Highway upgrading projects totalling 263km have been completed, are under construction or have been approved and are awaiting start of construction;
10 upgrading projects totalling 164 km are currently in the planning phase.
“Our upgrade has already led to a 10 per cent reduction in the amount of injuries and fatalities crashes between 1995-2003 (from 436 to 392) – despite the fact that traffic volumes have increased by 42 per cent over the same period (55,737 to 78,976 vehicles a day).

“Today’s announcement is about getting the remaining 235 kilometres right and ready to go,” Mr Carr said.

Under the current 10-year Pacific Highway agreement, NSW provides $160 million a year and the Federal Government provides $60 million a year.

“Despite reduction in fatality rates and travelling times - plus huge Federal budget surpluses - the Federal Government are dragging their feet on a new long-term commitment,” the Minister for Roads, Mr Carl Scully said.

Mr Scully said he hoped the planning initiative would pave the way for a new funding agreement between the NSW and Federal Governments.

“The Federal Government has finally promised to match NSW’s $160 million a year investment – but only for three years from mid-2006,” Mr Scully said.

“We need the Federal Government - which is boasting of $25 billion in surpluses over the next four years - to match our spending for much longer than this or the Pacific Highway will not be a dual carriageway for decades.”

Mr Scully said 360 engineering experts would be employed to finalise the routes.

Three contracts for the planning and concept design of the remaining parts of the highway have been awarded. The remaining contracts are expected to be awarded over the next two months.

Details of each study area will be released by the Roads and Traffic Authority and community consultation would begin following the awarding of each contract.

The F6 is back!!!

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxmedia/2005/03/15/f6.jpg

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

Scully buried it, now Costa resurrects F6
By Alexandra Smith, Transport Reporter
March 16, 2005

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format Related
Graphic: The proposed route
The F6 motorway from the Sutherland Shire to the city could be revived after the Roads Minister, Michael Costa, overturned his predecessor's decision to dump the $700 million road.

Mr Costa's significant policy shift comes almost three years after Carl Scully argued that the 20-kilometre motorway would produce "an urban blight".

It would require the demolition of 200 homes and Kogarah Golf Course, and Mr Scully said he would prefer public transport, such as light rail, on the corridor.

But Mr Costa wants it back on the table, and has ordered the Roads and Traffic Authority to quarantine land along the corridor to make way for a possible motorway. The corridor had been reserved since 1951 until Mr Scully ordered the land be handed back to the public.

"I have asked the RTA to maintain the F6 transport corridor to sufficient capacity for possible future transport development, which could include a dual-carriageway road," Mr Costa told the Herald.

Advertisement
AdvertisementThe road would run from Sydney Park, close to the Eastern Distributor at St Peters, to the Princes Highway at the Royal National Park, near Gymea. It would link with some existing roads, but would also carve through vacant land between Grand Parade and Rocky Point Road from Kyeemagh to Ramsgate.

Mr Costa, also the Ports Minister, said: "The RTA has no plans to sell off any land on this corridor for high-rise development."

Mary-Jane Gleeson, a spokesman for the transport lobby group Eco Transit, said the Government must end its "piecemeal" roads planning. "Every change they make to one link means that link feeds more traffic into another link," she said. "The Government seems absolutely committed to keeping freight on the roads."

She said the road would "almost certainly" join an extensive network of Sydney tollways.

None of the local councils want that freeway. I only just realised how close that freeway would come to my place... damn, I'd have an interchange down the road! that'd be nuts... At any rate, the Shire section's pretty much a pointless link. Everyone uses (and probably will continue to use if it's a tollway) the Princes Highway (note spelling folks! it's not the Princess Highway!).

Scully had it right anyway - it would be better used as a PT corridor (ie light rail) as Sans Souci and Brighton-le-Sands folks either have to bus it or drive it. Not much of an option if you ask me... (and don't even get me started on the Eastern Suburbs...)

It probably won't get built. I'm pretty sure there's enough NIMBYs down here to stop it. lol.

Build a road with a light rail. Build anything. Don't let another corridor disappear.

She said the road would "almost certainly" join an extensive network of Sydney tollways.
That's the whole point. This is bound to have fwy haters up in arms! But its better than the current route anyway and will at least take through traffic off local streets.

NIMBY's, although very vocal, usually account for only a small proportion of those concerned. Most people in the shire would welcome the oportunity to have their travel time to the city halved - unless of course their time is not very valuable.

Be awesome if there's a four stack fwy interchange with the M5 East.

What would the point of light rail be exactly? (And the question remains appropriate anywhere, not just along this particular stretch of much needed urban greenery)

Full blown light rail is a worst of both worlds transport solution that doesn't hold a candle to metro style heavy rail and doesn't provide any real benefits above and beyond those that could be provided by buses. Building a full blown light rail system (anywhere) would be a total waste of money.

Most people in the shire would welcome the oportunity to have their travel time to the city halved - unless of course their time is not very valuable.

How many people in the shire drive to the city anyway? Particularly outside peak hours (at the times you might notice an actual improvement, instead of simply creating another parallel traffic jam all the way from Sydney Park back to the Airport and beyond).

Not many, that's for sure. And there's no spare parking capacity for the extra cars once they arrive in the city anyway. Seems kinda pointless, doesn't it?

Be awesome if there's a four stack fwy interchange with the M5 East.

Umm, wouldn't a four stack interchange be a somewhat odd thing to build next to a major airport?

That's the whole point. This is bound to have fwy haters up in arms! But its better than the current route anyway and will at least take through traffic off local streets.

NIMBY's, although very vocal, usually account for only a small proportion of those concerned. Most people in the shire would welcome the oportunity to have their travel time to the city halved - unless of course their time is not very valuable.

Be awesome if there's a four stack fwy interchange with the M5 East.

You underestimate NIMBY power down here. Everybody's paranoid about overdevelopment. And this would DEFINITELY class as overdevelopment. You'd never hear the end of it.

Most people around here support the duplification of the Cronulla branch line (gawd knows we need it), despite the fact that inevitably it may require a few houses to be knocked down. A rail line won't divide the community in the same way that a freeway would (seeing as there's already one there anyway).

You've gotta keep in mind what's along that corridor. There's some bird that nests ONLY somewhere within that corridor, there's two golf courses, oh, and don't forget there's a HIGH SCHOOL RIGHT NEXT TO THE CORRIDOR IN MIRANDA!!! (I should know, I went there).

Oh, and never mind the fact that everybody'll keep going the old way (except possibly the people driving up from Wollongong, who have a very long commute as it is).

As for a four stack interchange? Won't happen. Not enough land for it. It'd all be underground there.

And a light rail line down this corridor would work. Why? it connects major locations. Heck, you could even 'el' it. And there's very few roads along the route, so you wouldn't really be interfering with traffic.

How many people in the shire drive to the city anyway?
Shitloads, both regional and local traffic - thats why the roads are jammed up so much and why a fwy is much needed.
instead of simply creating another parallel traffic jam all the way from Sydney Park back to the Airport and beyond.
Why would there be a parallel jam? Its a fwy with no traffic lights. For both roads to be equally jammed would require 300% increase in traffic. Not likely.
And there's no spare parking capacity for the extra cars once they arrive in the city anyway. Seems kinda pointless, doesn't it?
Who said they're stopping?
Umm, wouldn't a four stack interchange be a somewhat odd thing to build next to a major airport?
Oh you must be talking about one of those 1,000 foot high interchanges. I was actually talking about one of those normal height ones like on the M4/M7.

Re the interchange thing -

You have no height to play with. The East-West Runway ends right in your way. You can run a road over the M5 (preferably over a section of the Cooks River tunnel - speaking of the Cooks River tunnel, the reason it is a tunnel and not a bridge is because of the runway) but nothing higher.


cammo - forget a High School next to it at Miranda, there's Brighton Public school in the middle of its path. But schools survive next to freeways, heaven knows I went to one whilst a freeway was under construction.


Basically, Light Rail is a cop out, heavy rail is err dubious on that corridor; potential Auslink funding, you can see why they decided not to let the land be released. But it's important to note that this doesn't mean anything is going to be built there any time soon.

As for pulling passengers off the Illawarra line - well in the first instance anything could do that at the moment because of the overcrowding and general rail problems. Fix the overcrowding by providing more services and fix the reliability issues then pulling commuters from rail to road would depend on the provisioning of interchanges (which to my mind should be few - perhaps two one at President Ave at Brighton and one at Tarren Point road at the south of the Capt. Cook Bridge)

And the project would be contentious because of the number of resumations being around 200 - a number not seen since the Warringah Freeway - and the corridor being empty for so long.

It will, I'd forsee, be extremely unpopular with councils in Sydney but extremely popular with councils on the Illawarra. But things are years away from happening yet. I mean, it's already been dormant for 50 years...

Re the interchange thing -

You have no height to play with. The East-West Runway ends right in your way. You can run a road over the M5 (preferably over a section of the Cooks River tunnel - speaking of the Cooks River tunnel, the reason it is a tunnel and not a bridge is because of the runway) but nothing higher.
Interesting - I hadn't realised the interchange was so close to the runway & that height was that much of an issue - particularly given those new highrises they are building so close. On the map its looks quite a bit nth west but its obviously not that accurate.

If the M6 is built they should do it properly and extend it all the way to the M5 East exit at Parra Rd.

Shitloads, both regional and local traffic - thats why the roads are jammed up so much and why a fwy is much needed.

Roads get jammed because, like internet bandwidth, it is impossible to provide enough to satisfy everybody. The only logical step is to ration road space, and congestion is the fairest way to do it.

Why would there be a parallel jam? Its a fwy with no traffic lights.

And what exactly is at the northern end of that freeway alignment? Oh, yeah, the inner ring road, which was never actually built. That traffic will be dumped somewhere around Alexandria and will then have to make its way from there through already congested streets.

Therefore only a few dozen cars a minute will be able to exit the freeway at its northern end during peak times. Far more will pour onto the freeway en route.

Square peg, round hole.

For both roads to be equally jammed would require 300% increase in traffic. Not likely.

Firstly, traffic always expands to fill the available road space, so it's very likely that if it were even possible for the northern end to accomodate that traffic, it would eventuate within a few years of the road opening.

Who said they're stopping?

Considering it will take them a good 30 minutes to reach the bridge or the CCT, I doubt there will be much through traffic during peak hours, and outside of peak hours the existing roads cope just fine.

Oh you must be talking about one of those 1,000 foot high interchanges. I was actually talking about one of those normal height ones like on the M4/M7.

I guess this has already been answered. Let's just say that there won't be much of an interchange, and possibly no interchange at all, short of closing the E-W runway.

If you feel interchange with other freeways is important, then widen Heathcote Road, particularly over Woronora River. If that turns out to not be enough, look at building a road between the F6 and M5 around either Padstow or Holsworthy. There's lots of undeveloped land over that way.

Not that it will matter by the time Peak Oil renders large scale road transport irrelevant.

It's not impossible to put an interchange in, just has to be low. Like this example I put together, where it only sits at ground level/roof of M5 East tunnel -

http://users.bigpond.net.au/towersofhanoi/m4/F6atAirportSmallest.jpg

But no four-stacks

Although not ideal, they could put a clover leaf in there.

Hornet - that map is sweet. Have you designed any options for the Northern end? This would logically have some sort of linkage with the M4 and/or Western Dist.

That East-West runway extension is da bomb Homie. Presumably the M5 tunnels under the Cooks River to provide future option for such a runway extension, rather than safety concerns.

Firstly, traffic always expands to fill the available road space, so it's very likely that if it were even possible for the northern end to accomodate that traffic, it would eventuate within a few years of the road opening.
Not if they build it with enough capacity e.g. a six laner. Traffic supply is not infinite, and the Shire doesnt exactly have the same popn growth potential as Western Syd had historically.

Outside of peak hours the existing roads cope just fine.I know about 10,000 truck drivers that disagree with you. And before you go off on your "rail rules - roads are evil" tangent, remember that road trasport will ALWAYS be the best logistical solution in urban areas and even shorter distance regional runs - thereby necessitating the need for quick efficient movement via fwys. Peak oil schmoil.

hey, i knew it would be back! this is been on board for 20 years. i lived next to miranda park on the Boulevarde for 10 years and this will be just 150m from my house. there goes the park + access to Miranda shops. i would hate it.
what a cluster fuck the whole of Sydney's road network is!
its going nowhere fast. it really is at crisis point.
the F6 has to help.

Hornet - that map is sweet. Have you designed any options for the Northern end? This would logically have some sort of linkage with the M4 and/or Western Dist.


I don't think there are plans to extend it that far north. Isn't the M5 east interchange as far north as it will travel?

I live around 400-500 metres to the east of the proposed M6 freeway at Monterey so I'd be affected by the noise coming from the freeway. I'm pretty used to the sound of traffic as I can hear from my backyard the background noise of traffic running along the Grand Parade during the day. Any noise stemming from traffic would be the same as now.

The problem I have with the freeway being built is the large amount of parkland that would be lost across the route. Scarborough Park along with the wetlands just to the north would be split in two and would consume a large chunk fo the park resulting in a significant loss of public land for residents within the city of Rockdale. Kogarah Golf Course and parts of Barton Park would have to go.

I would support the F6 because it will remove traffic from the Grand Parade and General Holmes Drive (It is one of Sydney's worst bottle necks during peak hour with queues of up to 6-7km during the morning peak from Kyeemagh to Sans Souci). However I would support it on the following conditions which would include improvements to PT

*that it would be tunnelled through Monterey and Brighton Le Sands to protect the wetlands and fully retain scarborough park. I would also recommend it would be tunnelled through Miranda and Sylvania Waters to retain existing parks (Gwawley Park and Miranda Park) but also mangroves at Sylvania Waters
*Transit lanes for buses
*Examine the possiblity of lightrail or heavy rail
*Additional bus services including Miranda - City services as recommended under the Unsworth report.

I would recommend a toll be charged to fund the improvements to PT that stem from the construction of the freeway.



Scully had it right anyway - it would be better used as a PT corridor (ie light rail) as Sans Souci and Brighton-le-Sands folks either have to bus it or drive it. Not much of an option if you ask me... (and don't even get me started on the Eastern Suburbs...)



There is the option of trains from Kogarah or Rockdale Station. I have found that Local buses do have good connections with trains at both stations.

What if they could build heavy rail and the F6 concurrently? They could build the rail line in a cut and cover tunnel along the corridor and then build the freeway. That way, they won't have to bore a tunnel for trains later which would be far more expensive and you avoid a surface link which would contribute to the problem of dissolving parklands.
Then you don't need bus lanes on the freeway either.

I live around 400-500 metres to the east of the proposed M6 freeway at Monterey so I'd be affected by the noise coming from the freeway. I'm pretty used to the sound of traffic as I can hear from my backyard the background noise of traffic running along the Grand Parade during the day. Any noise stemming from traffic would be the same as now.

The problem I have with the freeway being built is the large amount of parkland that would be lost across the route. Scarborough Park along with the wetlands just to the north would be split in two and would consume a large chunk fo the park resulting in a significant loss of public land for residents within the city of Rockdale. Kogarah Golf Course and parts of Barton Park would have to go.

I would support the F6 because it will remove traffic from the Grand Parade and General Holmes Drive (It is one of Sydney's worst bottle necks during peak hour with queues of up to 6-7km during the morning peak from Kyeemagh to Sans Souci). However I would support it on the following conditions which would include improvements to PT

*that it would be tunnelled through Monterey and Brighton Le Sands to protect the wetlands and fully retain scarborough park. I would also recommend it would be tunnelled through Miranda and Sylvania Waters to retain existing parks (Gwawley Park and Miranda Park) but also mangroves at Sylvania Waters
*Transit lanes for buses
*Examine the possiblity of lightrail or heavy rail
*Additional bus services including Miranda - City services as recommended under the Unsworth report.

I would recommend a toll be charged to fund the improvements to PT that stem from the construction of the freeway. Oh, and how come


There is the option of trains from Kogarah or Rockdale Station. I have found that Local buses do have good connections with trains at both stations.

Yeah, the local buses aren't too bad for connections, but still it's not the most desirable situation. Trams would actually suit that area anyway (they had them before the buses).

Any interchange would be configured with the road from the south continuing to the north, to try and encourage southern commuters to STAY AWAY from the Airport and ED which would absolutely choke under the pressure anyway. You could do a full access interchange easily though: shove it underground.

Above all, Peak Oil will eventually render it useless anyway.

Hornetfig: why have you labelled the freeways with the alpha-numeric motorway tags? I don't think the Metroad system's going anywhere soon...

Any MT solutions should also be investigated to be constructed with the freeway. Let's face it: it's an ideal corridor for limited stops MT.

Sutherland Shire - population 215 000 area of 335 sq.km (half of which is national park).
St.George (kOGARAH-HURSTVILLE-ROCKDALE LGAs) - population 220 000 area of 67 sq.km.

Both regions are earmarked for Sydney's (long-awited 30 year plan) major growth regions. While the F6 freeway/tollway plan has resurfaced, one should consider the plans government has for the region> skyscraper wise!

IMO, F6 should be extended from Waterfall all the way to Sydney Park Road, Alexandria. 4 lane Freeway from Waterfall to Taren Point Road and 4-6 lane tollway from the bridge to the Sydney Park road.

2.6 KM Tunnel from Hunter St, Kirrawee to The Bouevarde, MiRANDA - TO avoid any house demolished and Port Hacking HS interference.

1 km short tunnel under the Georges River joining Clareville Park, Sandringham. > This section tollway, giving motorists option to take the existing 6 lane bridge or the tollway to City. Similar to interchange at North Sydney.

Another short tunnel from pARK rOAD, Sans Souci to Scarborogh Park> to avoid any homes demolished.

Another 1.5 km tunnel from Eve sT, Riverine Park to Hart St, Tempe> under Kogarah GC & Cooks River.> And someones suggestion to have west bound entry/exit to M5 under Princes Hwy is a great idea.

Tollway should then paralell the Creek in Scarborough Park > NO EXIT/ENTRY POINTS FROM GEORGES RIVER TO ROCKDALE. This will make sure motorists who pay the toll get a hassle free run to exit Bryant sTREET, Rockdale. Half interchange at M5 and continue to Sydney Park Road.>

Cycle/walk way along the entire corridor, with new links to TEMPE Park.
Reinstate bus/parking lanes along Grand Parade/Princes hwy.

$ 700 million is likely to be exceeded, like all budgets on freeways.

Though, im a hater of freeways, i think this is the last link to Sydney's network, allowing north-south bypass of the city from Newcastle to Wollongong/Canberra. After, this project no more $ invested into freeways, but spend it on developing a underground subway system.

Though, im a hater of freeways, i think this is the last link to Sydney's network, allowing north-south bypass of the city from Newcastle to Wollongong/Canberra.

You're joking, right? It doesn't bypass the city, it would lead traffic directly through it. And you'd still have no freeway-grade link between the Gore Hill/M2 and the F3.

It would not be the last link by any stretch of the imagination, and as soon as it's completed, another billion will have to be found to build the inner ring road and probably a Gladesville bypass so the traffic can actually get somewhere at the city end.

Moral of the story: don't build it at all. It was never there, it won't be missed, it's not expected, and it's certainly not needed.

After, this project no more $ invested into freeways, but spend it on developing a underground subway system.

There won't be any money left to do anything of the sort once this road is completed, because whatever money remains will all have to go into the inner ring road.

If they can find the better part of a billion to build this little freeway in a part of town that has never had a freeway, they could spend that better part of a billion building and running *gasp* useful MT services in the south and still have change left over to build a new hospital somewhere around Lucas Heights.

Hornetfig: why have you labelled the freeways with the alpha-numeric motorway tags? I don't think the Metroad system's going anywhere soon...

The Metroad system will be replaced within four years. There is already a heap of signage with Alphanumeric routes with Metroad shields over them. All new signage in the CCT is like this. There was a shot on the news of an M1 shield.

The plan, it is supposed, is to convert Sydney with the opening of the M7. As you may know, the M7 kind of puts a spanner in the Metroad system. The Cumberland Highway will be relgated to A6 between the current MR6 terminus and the M2 and A28 for the region south of there. All other Metroads retain their present numbers except MR10 which becomes A8.

You may have noticed the decomissioning of the most of the Sydney state route system, particularly since May last year. This is a part of this process.

You're joking, right? It doesn't bypass the city, it would lead traffic directly through it. And you'd still have no freeway-grade link between the Gore Hill/M2 and the F3.

If they can find the better part of a billion to build this little freeway in a part of town that has never had a freeway, they could spend that better part of a billion building and running *gasp* useful MT services in the south and still have change left over to build a new hospital somewhere around Lucas Heights.

The planned F3 to M2 link?!!?!?!

The freeway/tollway is not built to allow people to drive to the city, but to alleviate traffic along Princes Hwy/ Grand Parade. To restore its local road name tag.

Most of the tollway north of the cooks river, is to cater the proposed st. peters industrial route.> And the new Green Sq centre. Hopefully the city would continue southwards, as the new aglamerated council took South Sydney Council, so why not add Green Square to the CBD?!

The growth for Green Square is outlined in the south sydney strategic plan, i'll try to dig something up on it.

The freeway/tollway is not built to allow people to drive to the city, but to alleviate traffic along Princes Hwy/ Grand Parade. To restore its local road name tag.

Why bother? It'll just fill up again, but with local traffic.

As for those driving to the city, you can sit in a traffic jam in Monterey or Alexandria, since freeways just shift traffic congestion around, they never actually solve it. Monterey has a better view, and maintaining the status quo won't involve the folly of spending such a huge amount of public money on what will in 10 years be seen as a pointless waste.

Most of the tollway north of the cooks river, is to cater the proposed st. peters industrial route.>

Aren't they spending a fortune on double tracking the freight railway around there? And isn't there a freight depot right there too (Cooks River Yard)? Isn't that enough? And wouldn't such a freeway end up nullifying the value of said recent large public investment?

And the new Green Sq centre. Hopefully the city would continue southwards, as the new aglamerated council took South Sydney Council, so why not add Green Square to the CBD?!

Since when have CBDs been effectively served by expansion of freeways? You simply can't fit enough parked cars in to any such development to allow it to hold a candle to (what's now) Sydney.

^ Or build something along corridor. Tollway/light rail; light rail/busway/cycle; anything

Change of topic from M6 for a minute.

Does anyone know exactly where the M27 transport corridor runs?

anything

Residential development would suit that corridor quite nicely.

Leave just enough space for a Metro style double track railway and nothing else. Ensure that the deeds of all land sold includes notice that a double track railway may be built along this corridor at any time and no NIMBY-ism will be entered into.

Residential development would suit that corridor quite nicely.

Leave just enough space for a Metro style double track railway and nothing else. Ensure that the deeds of all land sold includes notice that a double track railway may be built along this corridor at any time and no NIMBY-ism will be entered into.

Double track railway...mmmm...am I hearing subway/tubes for Sydney? I think the city would need it not only to meet capacity in a years but for (another) tourism perk!

Subway rail lines tend to have minimal tourist appeal, given the absence of a view out the side. But a metro style (subway, surface, both, elevated, whatever) would be useful. Make the stations 4 tracks but the line 2 tracks, put in decent speed turnouts, and you may even get a remote chance of a fast-ish service from Cronulla or Grays Point or wherever it ends up to the City in half an hour or so. And to the airport in 20'.

^ Not true mRPC. London's Tube , NY subway and HK MTR, are all tourist attractions in the city. HK actually has advertisements to 'Live the moment. live Hong Kong' and pictures of the MTR. Sydney could join in, but as im aware has a terribly run system that is old, above ground and needing replacement. Underground is only way to go, dont know why Australia is so far behind the ball, maybe its the location...

Anyway back onto Road Discussions...

Change of topic from M6 for a minute.

Does anyone know exactly where the M27 transport corridor runs?

? Is that the Route 27 Rhodes to Wiley Park? Concord Road/The Bouevarde/Punchbowl Road. No?

Change of topic from M6 for a minute.

Does anyone know exactly where the M27 transport corridor runs?

Is that the M7-Blue Mountains link maybe? or on of the Northern Beaches proposals? Or the Inner Ring Road?

This corridor was saved for the purpose of a freeway, so its kinda too bad anyway, the plan was there 50 years ago...sorry but its true. If there was a plan for a feeway near where i wanted to buy a house then i wouldnt move there if i didnt want a freeway near by. People who live there have always known its a corridor saved for development...the time has come.

http://www.railpage.com.au/modules.php?full=1&set_albumName=album53&id=network&name=gallery&include=view_photo.php

Heck, even the Ron Christie report suggested MT along this corridor if you look close enough.

At any rate, Southern Cross Drive barely survives peak hour now. Building this would be like committing murder on that road. The only reason it doesn't completely die now is that traffic light just before the M5 East merges with Gen. Holmes Dr.

MrPC's right. The route would unceremoniously dump southern commuters in St. Peters, and right near a Waste Transfer Station, too. Wonderful, isn't it?.

While I'm at it, here's a clearer (and somewhat more accurate) overview of the route).

http://i132.exs.cx/img132/1900/m1motorway1it.jpg

The Metroad system will be replaced within four years. There is already a heap of signage with Alphanumeric routes with Metroad shields over them. All new signage in the CCT is like this. There was a shot on the news of an M1 shield.

The plan, it is supposed, is to convert Sydney with the opening of the M7. As you may know, the M7 kind of puts a spanner in the Metroad system. The Cumberland Highway will be relgated to A6 between the current MR6 terminus and the M2 and A28 for the region south of there. All other Metroads retain their present numbers except MR10 which becomes A8.

You may have noticed the decomissioning of the most of the Sydney state route system, particularly since May last year. This is a part of this process.

I'm glad to hear that. I've been mulling it over in my mind, and I've come to the conclusion that Alphanumeric's, in my opinion, would be far more relevant to Sydney than the State/National routes ever were.

And to all the people speaking of the Shire's growth potential: Agreed that there's not much, however don't forget Wollongong further south. An awful lot of people commute up already, and what with houses being slightly cheaper down there, it'll probably put on a growth spurt eventually.

Luke~Elijah: There was a plan for a longer version of the Warringah Freeway that never got built.

Yes, but there's now other plans. It was because the government could have gotten away with building it back then, but didn't because it didn't have the money, and now it's too late as the greenies have blocked it.

I highly doubt the reworked F6 proposal will have traffic dumping into St Peters. The logical extension would be through to the M4 East which would help alleviate pressure on the SC Drive and the ED.

The proposed F3-M2 link could then be extended through to the M4 to provide a true CBD bypass option for Nth-South traffic.

I highly doubt the reworked F6 proposal will have traffic dumping into St Peters. The logical extension would be through to the M4 East which would help alleviate pressure on the SC Drive and the ED.

The proposed F3-M2 link could then be extended through to the M4 to provide a true CBD bypass option for Nth-South traffic.

Well that's how it seems to be marked. And even if you do push it on to the M4 East, it would require an additional 10km tunnel which would probably about double the cost. By the time you're spending that much (almost $1.5bn if not more) you could probably build an el-line down via Miranda for that, which would be far more worthwhile. My mate lives in Sans Souci, and while the bus connections are good according to him, he'd prefer a train link.

The M1 (as I will now call it) would be built the cheapest way possible.

However if they insist on the motorway, why not build a line at the same time. It would make both projects' costs more economical. (your digging costs could be shared.

And what are these 'other plans'? Nobody's heard of them.

Luke~Elijah: There was a plan for a longer version of the Warringah Freeway that never got built.

But the Libs do intend to build a tunnel which does something similar - runs from Cammeray Golf Course and terminates on the Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation.

I highly doubt the reworked F6 proposal will have traffic dumping into St Peters.

That is true

The logical extension would be through to the M4 East which would help alleviate pressure on the SC Drive and the ED.

That doesn't deal with city-centric traffic. Now while it is arguable that it would be a better project if it doesn't service, primarily, city-centric traffic, you can't ignore it if you terminate on the M4 East-Port Botany link in the vicinity of the M5-M401 interchange on my map, you will have to provide some sort of connection to General Holmes Drive

The proposed F3-M2 link could then be extended through to the M4 to provide a true CBD bypass option for Nth-South traffic.

Dear God, it is as MrPC forsaw. The Inner Ring Road. Where does it end?!

I dont understand this whole road vs rail thing that people have? Is there a rule saying that we cant have both? Sydney needs to spend up big building both major rds and new rail lines! I dont think its wise to always be against a freeway proposal just because its a freeway, we shouldn't knock back chances like these which rarely come by and then complain about how Sydney is falling behind in infrastructure!

Yes, there is a rule, it's called Money.

Build one chunk of freeway and as soon as it's open you have found enough new traffic to require another one or two freeways. What money would be left? Even the first stage would cost far more than a moderately visionary rail project.

Plus the existence of the freeway would suck any potential patronage off the rail line before services even started.

Yes, there is a rule, it's called Money.

Build one chunk of freeway and as soon as it's open you have found enough new traffic to require another one or two freeways. What money would be left? Even the first stage would cost far more than a moderately visionary rail project.

Plus the existence of the freeway would suck any potential patronage off the rail line before services even started.

Toolway on the M5 AND M4 have not dwindled rail patronage. Why cant it work here. Something has to be done about the corridor. It also adds safety to roads like Chuter Avenue (used by rat-runners), Princes Hwy near the Moorefield/TAFE/James Cook/Bethany college schools and the Brighton Strip.

Actually the M4 and M5 have caused a decrease in rail patronage on adjacent lines. Despite being tollways. And although patronage reaches the same level as before the mwy over the long term, the rail line has still suffered a significant loss that isn't recovered, and the additional growth has been made by new patrons and not old patrons switching from the mwy to railway.

See:
http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/M4Report.pdf

and the following article is re: the M5

Motorway takes toll on rail trips

By Joseph Kerr, Transport Reporter
April 2 2003

Patronage on one CityRail line has fallen almost twice as fast as the rest of the network, shedding 384,450 commuters over 12 months as numbers surge on an improved motorway through Sydney's south-west.

Despite reliability improvements associated with the $89million spent doubling the rail track between Turrella and Kingsgrove, the numbers travelling on the East Hills line between Holsworthy and Turrella have fallen by 4.9 per cent from 2001 to 2002.

This is almost double the rate of the general decline in CityRail patronage - of 2.7 per cent from 281.5 million in 2001 to 274 million in 2002 - thought to be associated with a drop in jobs in the CBD and the increased attractiveness of cars after the introduction of the GST.

The drop is noticeable from January last year - just after the opening of the M5 East tunnel, which provided a free extension to the existing M5 motorway - when 53,329 fewer people took the train than in January 2001.

No figure is yet available for last month, but the 732,533 East Hills line commuters in March 2001 heavily outstripped the 637,373 in March 2002.

The figures come as traffic on the M5 continues to soar, with the average daily number of motorists in February up 45 per cent on the same month in 2001, prior to the December 2001 opening of the $800million M5 East.

In January, an average of 82,989 motorists used the M5 daily, compared with 74,151 in January 2002 and only 54,236 in January 2001, when the motorway operated without the M5 East as a feeder.

In what will loom as a major challenge for incoming Transport Services Minister, Michael Costa, the news re-affirms perceptions in the private bus industry that commuters are turning away from public transport.

A study conducted by Sinclair Knight Merz on behalf of the Roads and Traffic Authority in May 2002 - six months after the M5 East opened - found surrounding roads had lost up to 51 per cent of their traffic.

Stoney Creek Road west of Forest Road in Bexley had only half as many vehicles, while Forest Road west of the Illawarra rail line dropped 39 per cent of its traffic volume and Canterbury Road west of Bexley Road shed 28 per cent.

A spokesman for Action for Public Transport, Jim Donovan, said he was "certain they are abandoning the rail in favour of the better and faster road".

"And once they are using it you will find they can do more with it than they can with the train and once that's happening it's utterly impossible to unscramble the omelette," he said.

But a spokesman for the outgoing Transport Minister, Carl Scully, who retains the Roads portfolio in today's new cabinet, defended a long-term rise in train use in Sydney.

In the 1994-95 year, only 249.6 million people had used CityRail, compared with a peak of 285 million - excluding Olympic travellers - in 2000-01.

While last year this dropped to 276.4 million, this was still a substantial increase in patronage, he said.

The Herald reported in November that improved Sydney roads had meant faster average travel times on seven major roads into the city despite an extra 1.3 million NSW cars since 1990.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/01/1048962755880.html

The M5 East is NOT a tollway. And yes, I agree that freeway forecasts are never correct, as the amount of traffic they encourage to previous non-users increase.

However, Sydney needs a bypass from north to south, the M7 does that for Western Sydney, but what amazes me is that M4 East, Cross city, & Lane Cove tunnels ALL were planned after the F6 corridor. And are currently UC or planning! While F6 is needed to alleviate through traffic on Sutherland Shire & St. George roads > not to forget that Wollongong/South Coast tourism would also use F6.

^ Cross city tunnel could have been without. A new Underground railway line could have been spent instead of the tunnel!

The M5 East isn't a tollway, but the opening of the M5 East coincided with traffic growth on the tolled part of the M5. SO lots of people even after the toll-free M5 East was opened, were willing to open their wallets and pay for the tolled section of the M5 also.

"In January, an average of 82,989 motorists used the M5 daily, compared with 74,151 in January 2002 and only 54,236 in January 2001, when the motorway operated without the M5 East as a feeder."

Also, most of the freeway network was set out in the 1950's. And although the Lane Cove and M4 East Tunnels in their current form have been conceived in recent times, they are essentially revisions of old routes planned in the 50s by the DMR.

^ Yes. :yes:

I think much of the time anti-fwy arguments of induced growth is nothing more than sensationalism. Take this eg from the article:
Patronage on one CityRail line has fallen almost twice as fast as the rest of the network, shedding 384,450 commuters over 12 months as numbers surge on an improved motorway through Sydney's south-west.
Sounds like a lot, but its really only just over a thousand people a day - which is not much in the grand scheme of things. Given the M5 carries close to 100,000 cars a day (so probably many more people), the modal shift accounts for about 1% of the traffic based on those numbers. Thats immaterial.

If it takes traffic off local streets then I think its a good thing - whether its new PT initiatives or a new fwy.

I think much of the time anti-fwy arguments of induced growth is nothing more than sensationalism. Take this eg from the article:

Sounds like a lot, but its really only just over a thousand people a day - which is not much in the grand scheme of things. Given the M5 carries close to 100,000 cars a day (so probably many more people), the modal shift accounts for about 1% of the traffic based on those numbers. Thats immaterial.

If it takes traffic off local streets then I think its a good thing - whether its new PT initiatives or a new fwy.

Keep in mind that a thousand is the number of people moving into Sydney in a WEEK. When traffic is growing on a road faster than the population itself is growing, you know you have a problem.

On the other hand, growth would be exactly what you'd want for an MT route. The supposed intention of a freeway is to redirect traffic, not increase it (although ironically the reason behind it is usually a congestion blackspot so this has to be done). Unfortunately, by creating a net increase in potential paths to a location, it does exactly this.

The government hasn't realised the same concept of congestion applies to railways, at least definitely not until recently (that's why the rail system is the way it is now), hence why you need something to seperate the lines from each other (clearways). If it's done properly, it will create a large net increase in the number of potential paths on the network. The advantage though, is that you can do this with very little additional rollingstock.

The concept is basically that if you build it, they will come. The problem is that with MT you need to have a standard of quality there also. Which is why the government often pushes MT solutions into the too-hard basket.

Which is really a shame, because ultimately MT is the more sustainable option.

The government needs to abandon the F3-M2 tunnel and look at extending the M7 north across the Hawkesbury. This will help solve the first problem - through traffic. It would also benefit the F3 which struggles during peak.
Once they've dealt with through traffic, they can look within the city.

Sounds like a lot, but its really only just over a thousand people a day - which is not much in the grand scheme of things.

But don't understate it, it is the equivalent of half a train load (500) in and out per day.

The government needs to abandon the F3-M2 tunnel and look at extending the M7 north across the Hawkesbury. This will help solve the first problem - through traffic. It would also benefit the F3 which struggles during peak.
Once they've dealt with through traffic, they can look within the city.


A route departing the M7 at Dean Park and joining the F3 either North or South of the Hawkesbury River was examined in the option study that came up with the present "Purple" option. It was decides that traffic levels could not justify the route until the 2020 time period, upon which time it should be re-examined.

Sydney and Wollongong wont seem so far apart anymore if this new Motorway is built. Which is important for both cities.

Regards to rail, i think there are much more important rail projects that need to be be built like the Northwest Hills District line though Castle Hill etc and a Northern Beaches line!!! These two areas are in extreme need for heavy rail and this should be the priority!

But the Libs do intend to build a tunnel which does something similar - runs from Cammeray Golf Course and terminates on the Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation.


Haven't heard of that one. But where exactly is the Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation? I gather it's somewhere near a creek called Burnt Bridge Creek, but I'm kinda having trouble finding that in my UBD... I'm trying to map out all these proposed/uc motorways.

Luke~Elijah: You hit the nail on the head with regards to the rail projects needed in this city. Jeez, if only the State Government realised that...

Haven't heard of that one. But where exactly is the Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation? I gather it's somewhere near a creek called Burnt Bridge Creek, but I'm kinda having trouble finding that in my UBD... I'm trying to map out all these proposed/uc motorways.

Luke~Elijah: You hit the nail on the head with regards to the rail projects needed in this city. Jeez, if only the State Government realised that...

Just north of the Balgowlah Golf Course, in Manly City Council. To tunnel under Seaforth, Middle Harbour and end up joining the Warringah Freeway at Falcon/Ernest Streets.

^ I believe a higher Spit Bridge (say 30 metres) would be an option to vi into.
Allowing a loop road on the northern shore and Spit Reserve & Parriwi Park to be assessed from Marina to marina. Just raising the road to 30 metres above, allowing for vessel clearance to be 30m.> Similiar height to Anzac Bridge.

Any amount of money of infrastructure that could invested into a road tunnel, should be spent on a rail link to Chatswood/North Sydney to Manly/Dee Why.

A new bridge would never get past the EIS stage before peak oil makes its construction irrelevant.

Whats going on with the M4 East tunnel?

^
EIS in progress.

Whens it due? Any idea?

AFAIK EIS is pending not EIS in progress.

^I believe a higher Spit Bridge (say 30 metres) would be an option to vi into.
Allowing a loop road on the northern shore and Spit Reserve & Parriwi Park to be assessed from Marina to marina. Just raising the road to 30 metres above, allowing for vessel clearance to be 30m.> Similiar height to Anzac Bridge.

Unfortunately it would have the potential to impact significantly on the visual environment in that area if built; I doubt local residents would let it go ahead without a lot of resistance. A no-frills non-statement bridge with a lower clearance might have a better chance of success.

> Any amount of money of infrastructure that could invested into a road tunnel, should be spent on a rail link to Chatswood/North Sydney to Manly/Dee Why.

The Middle Harbour tunnel option has the flaw of not providing relief to any of the Military Road corridor through Mosman, Cremorne and Neutral Bay where peak hour assistance is really needed. A rail link through this area would be ideal; a line even if only as far as Spit Junction as a first stage would provide a lot of extra capacity in this area. This could precede the construction of a Chatswood - East Roseville - Frenchs Forest - Dee Why - Mona Vale line, which would serve the new technology park areas that need good public transport. The major cost hurdle on both lines would be engineering the steep grades.

The only way any of the current road tunnel projects around the inner city area will be of any use is if they skew their use towards buses using a weighted tolling system, preferably in conjunction with a considerable expansion of routes from currently PT-unserviced outlying areas direct to the city. Tolling private vehicles exorbitantly provides a powerful incentive to catch a bus down the same freeway route if it's available. What we all have to accept is that regular, reliable, full-coverage public transport is possible; we're just going to have to pay through the nose for it.

a tunnel from the Warringah Freeway to the Burnt Bridge Creek deviation would immediately eliminate most traffic from north of the Spit. That would cut significantly and dramatically the number of vehicles on Military Road. It would provide the most relief to Mosman, Cremorne and Neutral Bay; it would provide the least relief (ie negative relief --> increased congestion) to everything north thereof.

a tunnel from the Warringah Freeway to the Burnt Bridge Creek deviation would immediately eliminate most traffic from north of the Spit. That would cut significantly and dramatically the number of vehicles on Military Road. It would provide the most relief to Mosman, Cremorne and Neutral Bay; it would provide the least relief (ie negative relief --> increased congestion) to everything north thereof.
Agreed - and stick a train tunnel alongside the road tunnel while they're at it. Nthern Beaches need a train line much more than Mosman does.

Screw those Seaforth NIMBYs - anything would look better than the spit bridge eyesore. The large majority of residents would be more than happy to get traffic of Military Road anyway. Remember most of the protesting generally comes from a small proportion of vocal busy bodies.

there is no need for a railway line for the north beaches! but yes they need one for the hill district

Peter there is a massive need for a rail line through the northern beaches but I agree we need one through the hills district also. It is easy for someone around the northern beaches to see it would provide a massive improvement to the problems the area has with conjestion as well as providing a base for another main northern coastal line.

A rail line through the northern beaches, if connected across pittwater to woy woy could provide a much needed additional northern line and provide greater access to other areas such as the Central Coast and Newcastle. These areas combined with the Northern Beaches would provide patronage that IMO would be acceptable to make it feasible. This is THREE major areas that could benefit.

Peter there is a massive need for a rail line through the northern beaches but I agree we need one through the hills district also. It is easy for someone around the northern beaches to see it would provide a massive improvement to the problems the area has with conjestion as well as providing a base for another main northern coastal line.

A rail line through the northern beaches could if connected across pittwater to woy woy provide another northern line and provide greater access to other areas such as the Central Coast and Newcastle. These areas combined with the Northern Beaches would provide patronage that IMO would be acceptable to make it feasible. This is three major area that could benefit.

One of my pipe dreams. Interesting someone else could see it too. Although, cost would be massive (to cross Broken Bay), i agree the route would be used, and it is a more direct route to Gosford.

One of my pipe dreams. Interesting someone else could see it too. Although, cost would be massive (to cross Broken Bay), i agree the route would be used, and it is a more direct route to Gosford.

Agreed. It would benefit both the Northern Beaches and the Central Coast.

Not only is the the above mentioned "beach" route necessary but it would provide amazing additional growth. I'd love to see a coastal heavy-rail route. Right through the Northern beaches with an underground Warringah Mall Station, and right up through the suburbs and over Broken Bay with a spur back into gosford joining the traditional Main Northern Line and another continuing along a fairly coastal route to join back in further up the coast.

Not what I had in mind but something like this would be a very interesting network...
http://www.bensmatrix.com/maps/Sydney2040Rail.jpeg

Had a look at Cross City Tunnel works today, looks like it will be ready to open to traffic as early as the end of the month. Landscaping works are already under way around the western portals, not sure about east.

BOOT projects always open ahead of schedule, 6 months of extra operating profit ain't bad. The same will happen with LCT and M7.

hmm there's still quite substantial work to do. The Western Distributor Market Street viaduct pylon has only just been cleared from the middle of the EB entrance portal. Work continues on the Druitt Street viaduct pylon which obstructs the WB exit portal partially.

Sir John Young Crescent is still lagging the most, though there is quite a lot to do at the Eastern entrance portals. The western portals are more advanced - in fact the Harbour Street portal is ready for asphalting. Bathurst Street has been put on its final alignment and there is quite a lot of site 'beautification' going on at the intersection of Bathurst St, Day St and Harbour St.

Also, they've started using LED traffic lights at Druitt-Sussex St, Bathurst-Day St and Bathurst-Harbour St for the permanent installations.

Now the Project Manager has said an August opening. I'd say there's potential for July, maybe June opening, but I would extremely seriously doubt it would open this month.

It will now be an early June opening for CCT. Clearly, I was far too optimistic but still, far ahead of schedule.

Agreed. It would benefit both the Northern Beaches and the Central Coast.

Yes, and in the process cost billions of dollars trying to find a bridge/tunnel route across Broken Bay in addition to more tunnels and hair-raising grades on both sides, the money for which desperately needs to be spent in other areas on other projects that will easily take up the next 20 years.

The northern beaches line should terminate at Mona Vale, beyond which buses can easily handle the lighter traffic loads on the peninsula. I'm unsure as to whether the line should run along the Warringah Road alignment through Frenchs Forest across Middle Harbour at East Roseville to Chatswood, serving a rapidly growing industrial area without much current public transport, or at considerably greater expense down the Spit/Military Road corridor, providing a lot of traffic relief but with a lot of money spent getting up and down to the Spit Bridge.

I don't mean to leave the Central Coast out of the picture; a loop line running Gosford - Erina - Kincumber - Terrigal - The Entrance - Toukley and then along the Sparks Road corridor to Warnervale and Wyong, or even back from The Entrance past Mingara along Wyong Road to Tuggerah would do a lot to ease the pressure from rapid housing estate growth on the inadequate Central Coast bus system.

Sorry I really don't mean to rain on people's ideas; if we could afford it, great! But public transport isn't being taken seriously by our politicians, so as I see it it's up to us to keep our heads in the picture to get some actual change going.

Dion

Yes, and in the process cost billions of dollars trying to find a bridge/tunnel route across Broken Bay in addition to more tunnels and hair-raising grades on both sides, the money for which desperately needs to be spent in other areas on other projects that will easily take up the next 20 years.

The northern beaches line should terminate at Mona Vale, beyond which buses can easily handle the lighter traffic loads on the peninsula. I'm unsure as to whether the line should run along the Warringah Road alignment through Frenchs Forest across Middle Harbour at East Roseville to Chatswood, serving a rapidly growing industrial area without much current public transport, or at considerably greater expense down the Spit/Military Road corridor, providing a lot of traffic relief but with a lot of money spent getting up and down to the Spit Bridge.

I don't mean to leave the Central Coast out of the picture; a loop line running Gosford - Erina - Kincumber - Terrigal - The Entrance - Toukley and then along the Sparks Road corridor to Warnervale and Wyong, or even back from The Entrance past Mingara along Wyong Road to Tuggerah would do a lot to ease the pressure from rapid housing estate growth on the inadequate Central Coast bus system.

Sorry I really don't mean to rain on people's ideas; if we could afford it, great! But public transport isn't being taken seriously by our politicians, so as I see it it's up to us to keep our heads in the picture to get some actual change going.

Dion

I think you're spot on with this Dion, as far as I can see, the main northern line/northern suburbs line has the capacity to handle more traffic, and a northern beaches line would be able to produce enough demand on its own to make it financially worthwhile. I would say due to the higher density development that has/is occurring along the Military Rd corridor through Mosman, that such a corridor through Spit would be preferable, and simply go from say Mosman Jctn to (somewhere????) on the lower northern beaches with no stations. Yes it would still be expensive, but I think that crossing at Roseville would be similarly expensive, but with lesser financial (passenger) reward?

As you said, we do have to be pragmatic, and with a State and Federal Govt which seem not to care too much about public transport, we need to keep things smaller scale than a line all the way through to the Central Coast. Though I am nonetheless certain that any line along the northern beaches will either never happen or at least not in any of our lifetimes.

Cheers, and welcome!

I think you're spot on with this Dion, as far as I can see, the main northern line/northern suburbs line has the capacity to handle more traffic, and a northern beaches line would be able to produce enough demand on its own to make it financially worthwhile. I would say due to the higher density development that has/is occurring along the Military Rd corridor through Mosman, that such a corridor through Spit would be preferable, and simply go from say Mosman Jctn to (somewhere????) on the lower northern beaches with no stations. Yes it would still be expensive, but I think that crossing at Roseville would be similarly expensive, but with lesser financial (passenger) reward?

As you said, we do have to be pragmatic, and with a State and Federal Govt which seem not to care too much about public transport, we need to keep things smaller scale than a line all the way through to the Central Coast. Though I am nonetheless certain that any line along the northern beaches will either never happen or at least not in any of our lifetimes.

Cheers, and welcome!

Thank you indeed :)

The main problem on Military Road in peak is not local traffic from Cremorne and Mosman et al, it's the traffic from north of the Spit Bridge being funnelled in on top of it. I think both options have merit - perhaps the advantage of the rail link via Mosman option is that a stage-one opening to Spit Junction would start providing relief well before the full project is completed.

That of course brings up the next question; the North Shore line from North Sydney across the Harbour Bridge is currently at almost full capacity in peak and is about to get more traffic when Epping to Chatswood opens. A northern beaches line added in on top is going to require a second harbour rail crossing if it's to be effective. Closing the Cahill Expressway and replacing with double track would be the easiest way to do this but the work required to connect this to Wynyard from the south end will costa mucha. Going through Chatswood at the other end would require quadruplication from North Sydney to Chatswood, either at surface or with a two track tunnel under the existing right of way, and some type of very expensive link from the North Sydney/Waverton station area across to the Cahill. A better idea would be a link from the newly-railed Cahill over the Harbour Bridge extending north along the eastern side of the Warringah & Gore Hill freeways to join the current NSL north of St Leonards, providing relief to the lower NSL and an express route for upper Shore and Central Coast services, and allowing the spur from the Mosman/Cremorne northern beaches line option to join near Military Road.

Like any practical proposal, you have to identify the risks and maximise the benefits in your sales pitch. There's no reason this couldn't be a BOOT project; the airport line would be the obvious bogey brought back to haunt us if the proposal made in into serious consideration, but it could be seen as a chance to correct that project's mistakes. Staged construction with revenue starting to flow back well before full completion is a good political selling point.

Dion

Yes, and in the process cost billions of dollars trying to find a bridge/tunnel route across Broken Bay in addition to more tunnels and hair-raising grades on both sides, the money for which desperately needs to be spent in other areas on other projects that will easily take up the next 20 years.

The northern beaches line should terminate at Mona Vale, beyond which buses can easily handle the lighter traffic loads on the peninsula. I'm unsure as to whether the line should run along the Warringah Road alignment through Frenchs Forest across Middle Harbour at East Roseville to Chatswood, serving a rapidly growing industrial area without much current public transport, or at considerably greater expense down the Spit/Military Road corridor, providing a lot of traffic relief but with a lot of money spent getting up and down to the Spit Bridge.

I don't mean to leave the Central Coast out of the picture; a loop line running Gosford - Erina - Kincumber - Terrigal - The Entrance - Toukley and then along the Sparks Road corridor to Warnervale and Wyong, or even back from The Entrance past Mingara along Wyong Road to Tuggerah would do a lot to ease the pressure from rapid housing estate growth on the inadequate Central Coast bus system.

Sorry I really don't mean to rain on people's ideas; if we could afford it, great! But public transport isn't being taken seriously by our politicians, so as I see it it's up to us to keep our heads in the picture to get some actual change going.

Dion

Of course this doesn't negate the fact that we need a high speed link to the Central Coast and Newcastle.

The projects needed in the near future (in no particular order, though the first three deserve priority) are:

1. The North West Rail Link - pretty much as originally proposed by the NSW State Government.

2. The Northern Beaches Line - It's an interesting question as to whether

3. An Express Line to CC/Newcastle (whether that be via chatswood/Hornsby or whatever, but it's needed).

4. a few extra lines to fill the gaps.

Yes, and in the process cost billions of dollars trying to find a bridge/tunnel route across Broken Bay in addition to more tunnels and hair-raising grades on both sides, the money for which desperately needs to be spent in other areas on other projects that will easily take up the next 20 years.

The northern beaches line should terminate at Mona Vale, beyond which buses can easily handle the lighter traffic loads on the peninsula. I'm unsure as to whether the line should run along the Warringah Road alignment through Frenchs Forest across Middle Harbour at East Roseville to Chatswood, serving a rapidly growing industrial area without much current public transport, or at considerably greater expense down the Spit/Military Road corridor, providing a lot of traffic relief but with a lot of money spent getting up and down to the Spit Bridge.

I don't mean to leave the Central Coast out of the picture; a loop line running Gosford - Erina - Kincumber - Terrigal - The Entrance - Toukley and then along the Sparks Road corridor to Warnervale and Wyong, or even back from The Entrance past Mingara along Wyong Road to Tuggerah would do a lot to ease the pressure from rapid housing estate growth on the inadequate Central Coast bus system.

Sorry I really don't mean to rain on people's ideas; if we could afford it, great! But public transport isn't being taken seriously by our politicians, so as I see it it's up to us to keep our heads in the picture to get some actual change going.

Dion

I agree, northern beaches line across to Central Coast will never happen. The area is national park and tunneling underneath broken bay would be the biggest infrastructure project ever undertaken in Australia. Not worth if for the 300,00 or so northern beaches residents + 200,000 or so in central coast, especially when they already have a train line do the city, albeit on a circuitous route. I quite frankly will be surprised if any rail line is built to the northern beaches in the next 20-30 years.

I agree, northern beaches line across to Central Coast will never happen. The area is national park and tunneling underneath broken bay would be the biggest infrastructure project ever undertaken in Australia. Not worth if for the 300,00 or so northern beaches residents + 200,000 or so in central coast, especially when they already have a train line do the city, albeit on a circuitous route. I quite frankly will be surprised if any rail line is built to the northern beaches in the next 20-30 years.

The western suburbs definitely needs the majority of the funds available for new public transport infrastructure (infrastructure of all kinds, really) at present, so I don't see it happening for quite some time either. Better ferry services from Gosford combined with express bus services to the city from Palm Beach (if not direct ferry services to Circular Quay) are the best option for a better connection, ideally with stops at Woy Woy, Umina and Patonga. This could later extend north to Avoca, Terrigal, The Entrance & Toukley if demand was sufficient.

Dion

Sydney Circular Quay Ferry terminal is uniquely positioned for Central Coast services. I agree that a Gosford-Woy woy- Umina-Palm Beach-Circular Quay express ferry service should be proposed. It will service 200 000+ residents in the immediate vicinity of the listed stops above. However, extensive dredging of the Brisbane Waters must be EISed for a new express service up to speeds of 40-55 knots. WRT the ferry draft depths...

Extending the Brooklyn-Patonga ferry service to Palm Beach, so the new ferry service does not have to go upstream (to Patonga) to fetch passengers. Patonga residents of about 200?? can be taken to Palm Beach for pick up.

^I believe a higher Spit Bridge (say 30 metres) would be an option to vi into.
Allowing a loop road on the northern shore and Spit Reserve & Parriwi Park to be assessed from Marina to marina. Just raising the road to 30 metres above, allowing for vessel clearance to be 30m.> Similiar height to Anzac Bridge.

Unfortunately it would have the potential to impact significantly on the visual environment in that area if built; I doubt local residents would let it go ahead without a lot of resistance. A no-frills non-statement bridge with a lower clearance might have a better chance of success.

> Any amount of money of infrastructure that could invested into a road tunnel, should be spent on a rail link to Chatswood/North Sydney to Manly/Dee Why.

The Middle Harbour tunnel option has the flaw of not providing relief to any of the Military Road corridor through Mosman, Cremorne and Neutral Bay where peak hour assistance is really needed. A rail link through this area would be ideal; a line even if only as far as Spit Junction as a first stage would provide a lot of extra capacity in this area. This could precede the construction of a Chatswood - East Roseville - Frenchs Forest - Dee Why - Mona Vale line, which would serve the new technology park areas that need good public transport. The major cost hurdle on both lines would be engineering the steep grades.

The only way any of the current road tunnel projects around the inner city area will be of any use is if they skew their use towards buses using a weighted tolling system, preferably in conjunction with a considerable expansion of routes from currently PT-unserviced outlying areas direct to the city. Tolling private vehicles exorbitantly provides a powerful incentive to catch a bus down the same freeway route if it's available. What we all have to accept is that regular, reliable, full-coverage public transport is possible; we're just going to have to pay through the nose for it.

I dont see how (without politics) a higher Spit bridge, like Gladesville's should bother residents. In the end, it is they who benefit from it. 24 hour yacht crossings...northern loop road under road for Seaforth residents and a safer more accessible Parriwi Park and to restaurant/marina areas.

Why not just realign the existing northern line where required for a HST connection to the central coast. If people keep proposing grandios schemes for a northern line via Palm Beach and Broken Bay which would be entirely unaffordable then it is logical that the emphasis will stay with roads. Modification and realignment of the existing corridor would 1.be completed faster 2. Might have a more than a snowballs chance of actually coming to fruition.

Why not just realign the existing northern line where required for a HST connection to the central coast. If people keep proposing grandios schemes for a northern line via Palm Beach and Broken Bay which would be entirely unaffordable then it is logical that the emphasis will stay with roads. Modification and realignment of the existing corridor would 1.be completed faster 2. Might have a more than a snowballs chance of actually coming to fruition.

Again, a lot more expensive than you might think. Between Cowan and Hawkesbury River realignment would require a range of precipitous fills and possibly viaducts and new tunnels. The Mullet Creek section north of the river might be a little easier but really superelevation of the curves along a largely unchanged alignment to allow for constant 80-100km/h speeds is probably the best that could be hoped for, and even this would require a significant amount of work ensuring clearance in the Boronia tunnels.

The western side of the Central Coast's collection of towns and housing estates through Gosford to Wyong is already well-served by rail and the F3 - it's the coastal side and the Warnervale/Lake Haven/Doyalson area further north where large housing tracts are appearing that really needs the help in terms of better public transport connections to Gosford and Sydney.

Dion

Again, a lot more expensive than you might think. Between Cowan and Hawkesbury River realignment would require a range of precipitous fills and possibly viaducts and new tunnels. The Mullet Creek section north of the river might be a little easier but really superelevation of the curves along a largely unchanged alignment to allow for constant 80-100km/h speeds is probably the best that could be hoped for, and even this would require a significant amount of work ensuring clearance in the Boronia tunnels.

The western side of the Central Coast's collection of towns and housing estates through Gosford to Wyong is already well-served by rail and the F3 - it's the coastal side and the Warnervale/Lake Haven/Doyalson area further north where large housing tracts are appearing that really needs the help in terms of better public transport connections to Gosford and Sydney.

Dion

Yes, but to serve those areas well, you still need a fast rail service, otherwise they're all going to go on the F3, which is not good. This is why some sort of High speed link is needed to Newcastle and the Central Coast - remember - any improvements for the Central Coast are liable to benefit Newy as well.

What about developing a line for a HST but with gradients similar to that of a freeway to limit costly tunneling etc. Develop a HST with short modules to make able to ride up and down the gradients. A type of rollercoaster version of a TGV. Considering the number of stops required along the central coast to Newcastle (2 or 3?), a 300kph train wouldnt even get to full speed. A TGV/Metro/Tilt hybrid train for instance. A powerplant would need to be developed that could take huge contrasts of power input (due to the changes in gradient) and a variable power feed along the route. It would make the line develpment cheaper and although there would be substantial development costs for the train and powerplant the technology could be applied elsewhere.
For instance a train with one bogie at connecting carriages and a flex connection between making the train capable of flexing beter at gradient changes.

???

If possible, would be a world first.... i think

What about developing a line for a HST but with gradients similar to that of a freeway to limit costly tunneling etc. Develop a HST with short modules to make able to ride up and down the gradients. A type of rollercoaster version of a TGV. Considering the number of stops required along the central coast to Newcastle (2 or 3?), a 300kph train wouldnt even get to full speed. A TGV/Metro/Tilt hybrid train for instance. A powerplant would need to be developed that could take huge contrasts of power input (due to the changes in gradient) and a variable power feed along the route. It would make the line develpment cheaper and although there would be substantial development costs for the train and powerplant the technology could be applied elsewhere.
For instance a train with one bogie at connecting carriages and a flex connection between making the train capable of flexing beter at gradient changes.

???

Unfortunately I can't see any political will to make it a reality. What improvements we get will almost certainly remain conventional rail. A realignment project between Gosford and Hornsby is certainly reasonable in terms of cost compared to building more freeways but it's a matter of selling even relatively modest proposals like these to a public that's being trained like seals to hate public transport. A link roughly following the F3 from Brooklyn to Calga then via Somersby plateau (possibly through a second Sydney airport) to Tuggerah to allow for faster times to the upper Coast and Newcastle, combined with curve superelevation and a new fleet of tilt carriages could be staged out. The best chance of getting these things moving is selling them with multiple benefits; in this case, access to the airport *and* higher speed access to areas further north, as well as the economic benefit to the Coast itself.

Dion

Unfortunately I can't see any political will to make it a reality. What improvements we get will almost certainly remain conventional rail. A realignment project between Gosford and Hornsby is certainly reasonable in terms of cost compared to building more freeways but it's a matter of selling even relatively modest proposals like these to a public that's being trained like seals to hate public transport. A link roughly following the F3 from Brooklyn to Calga then via Somersby plateau (possibly through a second Sydney airport) to Tuggerah to allow for faster times to the upper Coast and Newcastle, combined with curve superelevation and a new fleet of tilt carriages could be staged out. The best chance of getting these things moving is selling them with multiple benefits; in this case, access to the airport *and* higher speed access to areas further north, as well as the economic benefit to the Coast itself.

Dion

I think the best approach would be to simply elevate it, and dive before Hornsby. By elevating it (with enough clearance for trucks underneath) you can more easily smooth out the bumps, and you could even build it over the freeway. I think the idea of sending it to the airport would be a good one, though you'd probably need new platforms (and longer ones!) and such a concept could also have its city stop as the MetroWest one, providing even better inter-regional connectivity.

Remember, that combined, the Lower Hunter (basically, Newcastle, though it's split up a little due to terrain constraints) and the Central Coast make up about 800,000 people - that's more than the Gold Coast, and an area that warrants a decent transport solution. The lower Hunter alone has half a million .

Article from todays SMH. Looks like the M4 East has been shelved for now pending further studies into how to create a better integrated transport solution for the West.

Looks like a full length M4 East tunnel will eventually go ahead though, together with the Marickville tunnel servicing the Botany ports and other transport initiatives to service Parra Rd.

The wait is regrettable but the end product will definitely be better than the status quo.

From SMH 27 April 2005:
The M4 East motorway extension has been put on hold indefinitely as the State Government concedes it needs to replace an era of outdated thinking on road and rail development with a wholesale review of transport.

The Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, Craig Knowles, confirmed last night that an environmental impact statement for the M4 East tunnel or sunken roadway, due out within months, had been delayed for at least another 18 months.

The decision to suspend the missing link in Sydney's motorway network has been sparked by a resident backlash, which had threatened three crucial Labor seats.

Instead, the review will assess a huge increase in heavy-vehicle traffic that will flow from the expansion of the Port Botany container terminal, the growing rail capacity crisis, and attempts to improve transport, housing and commercial opportunities along Parramatta Road.

It will also look afresh at a proposed 10-kilometre tunnel from the end of the Anzac Bridge near Victoria Road to the start of the M4 motorway at North Strathfield. This option has been pushed by inner-west residents opposed to the Roads and Traffic Authority's preference for a shorter connection that would have caused serious disruption to the heritage suburb of Haberfield.

And because of a predicted doubling of freight from Port Botany into surrounding suburbs within 15 years, a proposed 13-kilometre link - the so-called Marrickville Tunnel - could be revived.

It is understood the Roads Minister, Michael Costa, told Mr Knowles shortly after taking over the portfolio in January that he believed planning for the M4 East was occurring largely in isolation from other agencies and should cease immediately.

This belief, combined with an assessment that the Government was failing to provide any integrated transport options, convinced Mr Knowles to ditch the M4 East program and go back to the drawing board.

Some transport analysts say the M4 East's construction costs - rising above $2 billion and requiring a $5 each-way toll in the "best case" - mean it might never be built.

The review will be led by the former head of the Ministry of Transport, Mark Duffy, who will also look for solutions for light rail, train and bus transport throughout the city.

Planners have targeted the region from Burwood to Granville along Parramatta Road as one of the prime spots to accommodate many of the 640,000 new homes that need to be built in the next 25 years. To support this, bolder transport solutions need to be identified, such as high-frequency bus links to the rail network, Mr Knowles believes.

Mr Knowles told the Herald the M4 East, in its current form, had been suspended. He wanted a better process that would oversee "the long-term integration of all transport modes and land use" to be included in the metropolitan strategy - the much-derided attempt to chart the city's growth for the next 30 years.

Mr Duffy is chairing a senior committee of transport agencies, but now reports to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, a major policy shift.

The former roads minister, Carl Scully, announced the M4 East investigation in July 2002 as a way to solve growing congestion on Parramatta Road and the M4 itself, where average travel speeds have slowed to less than 25km/h.

In 2003, the Roads and Traffic Authority backed a 3.8-kilometre tunnel. This would have bypassed 15 sets of traffic lights but would have delivered motorists leaving the city to more traffic lights before they reached other motorways. A fierce campaign by residents forced Mr Scully to extend this by one kilometre. He wanted it completed by 2010, when the M4 reverts to public ownership.

Government sources said the decision to suspend the M4 East had been prompted mainly by criticism over the absence of a transport package in the metropolitan strategy.

But senior Labor Party figures have also expressed concern over the fate of three seats within the road project's "footprint". Stalling the project has been sold inside the party as a way to help Virginia Judge in Strathfield, Angela D'Amore in Drummoyne and Sandra Nori in Sydney. All hold their seats by loseable margins.

Mr Costa said he hoped the new approach would look at "how major infrastructure meets Sydney's growing freight task. This includes the development of a strategic road network, including the M4 East, linked to the ports plan as critical components of the future metropolitan transport network."

THE ROCKY ROAD
No transport initiatives have yet been included in the metropolitan strategy, the Government's evolving attempt to devise an integrated plan for Sydney's growth over the next 30 years.

The imminent expansion of the Port Botany container terminal seems certain to deliver a doubling in heavy vehicle freight movements near Sydney Airport and in the surrounding suburbs - causing gridlock even if substantial container loads are carried by train.

Port Botany terminals now handle 1.2 million container loads a year. This is expected to rise to 3 million by 2021.

NSW to review M4 East plans

27apr05
The NSW Government will review plans for a new tollway in Sydney's inner-west to take into account increased freight volumes at the city's biggest port.

The review of the M4 East will assess the road and rail capacity needed to carry increased freight movements at Port Botany.

Planning Minister Craig Knowles and Roads Minister Michael Costa today said the government was still committed to building the M4 East - which would link the City West Link at Haberfield to the start of the M4 at Strathfield - but not in the form proposed.

Acknowledging aspects of planning in Sydney had been piecemeal, Mr Knowles said he wanted to better integrate road and rail transport for the city's future.

The Government wanted to take traffic off Parramatta Road to revitalise the route with housing, and would assess the M4 East proposal in conjunction with other transport options like moving more freight by rail, he said.

But the growth in freight movements at Port Botany - already the subject of an inquiry - was a major factor in the decision to review the M4 East.

"Port Botany, even if not one extra square foot of land is added to the port, just in its present configuration it will continue to grow and grow dramatically," Mr Knowles said.

"That's important, of course, for the underpinning of the state and national economy.

"The integration of transport needs, both rail and road, from Port Botany, will have a profound effect on the overall transport needs of Sydney."

The decision to put the M4 East on hold came after an intense campaign against the road by residents of Haberfield, and amid government fears the motorway could prompt an electoral backlash against three Labor MPs.

But Roads Minister Michael Costa said the decision to delay building the motorway was made in the context of planning.

"This makes sense to have a fresh look at the M4 East," Mr Costa said.

"There will be a solution to the missing (motorway) link.

"I'm not sure whether the current proposal is the right solution; that's why I'm working ... to look at a solution that integrates all of our roads and proposed roads with the critical ports strategy.

"You will see an M4 East - the real issue is what form it takes and how does it integrate with the other roads."

I find it interesting that TV news this morning was reporting the "M4 East is shelved indefinitely" which is the gist of the title of the SMH article, but it is also entirely sensationalist, because the story actually shows that a bigger road project (along with other associated projects) - including potentially the original Long Tunnel option and the entire Port Botany Link - is a quite probable outcome from the expanded study.

Better ferry services from Gosford combined with express bus services to the city from Palm Beach (if not direct ferry services to Circular Quay) are the best option for a better connection, ideally with stops at Woy Woy, Umina and Patonga. This could later extend north to Avoca, Terrigal, The Entrance & Toukley if demand was sufficient. Dion

This was the SuperShuttle Ferry to be running between Gosford, woy Woy and Circular Quay. The company ran into some problems and GCC were obstructionist and caused the operators a few problems. Gosford still has no marina and no ferry terminal and I guess no Shuttle either.

It was an awesome looking craft too - it would have been an impressive site on either Brisbane Water or Sydney Harbour and imagine the site of them passing one another off the Northern Beaches.

A separate plan exists for a Fast Ferry from Ettalong - I believe this uses similar craft and might be more viable presently.

I believe there were two shuttles designed to run every 40 mins or so. Ticket price was not expected to be greatly cheap but the run was expected to be quite fast.

http://www.mimy.com.au/Supershuttle_1.jpg
http://www.mimy.com.au/62m_supershuttle_plan.gif
62 metre "Supershuttle"

DIMENSIONS
length overall 62.00m
length waterline 49.00m
beam 8.50m
draught 1.31m
capacity 450 passengers (2 disabled)
9 crew
speed 50 knots maximum
40 knots cruise
propulsion Twin gas turbine engines,
6MW per side, driving waterjets
auxiliaries 2 x diesel generators, 145kWe each
Single bow thruster
fuel 5,340m3 compressed natural gas
600 litres diesel
fresh water 2,000 litres
range 70nm at 40 knots, with 20% remaining
refuelling time less than 10 minutes
survey Lloyds Register of Shipping +100A1 SSC Pax (A)
Mono HSC G3

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Speedy-M7-to-do-Carr-a-good-turn/2005/04/27/1114462103551.html


Speedy M7 to do Carr a good turn
By Darren Goodsir Urban Affairs Editor
April 28, 2005

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
The 40-kilometre road project to link Liverpool with Castle Hill, the Westlink M7 could be finished by Christmas, almost a year ahead of schedule.

A day after the State Government confirmed the M4 East extension had been shelved because of urban planning concerns, a spokesman for the federal Transport Minister, John Anderson, said the M7 was well ahead of schedule. A lack of rain had ensured speedy construction and few delays.

Mr Anderson's spokesman, Paul Chamberlain, said the federally funded extension, being managed by the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, would alleviate congestion on suburban roads and deliver a huge boost to interstate freight transport.

The Premier, Bob Carr, is expected to announce the M7's early completion date today in an attempt to convince voters, after the M4 East deferral, that his Government has a comprehensive transport, planning and infrastructure strategy.

It emerged yesterday that the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, Craig Knowles, and the Roads Minister, Michael Costa, had not consulted cabinet about the M4 East's shelving, which was generally supported yesterday by transport and community groups.

Advertisement
AdvertisementMr Costa, also the Minister for Ports, advocated the M4 East being put on hold to enable a reassessment of transport planning policies; not least because of the massive traffic increase to flow from the expansion of the Port Botany container terminal.

Freight volumes, which have already risen by 40 per cent in the past three years, are set to double within 15 years.

A major trucking group said public transport and freight should be placed at the top of the Government's review of future travel patterns, with motorists being the least urgent priority in the city's confused urban planning jigsaw.

The Road Transport Users Association, representing heavy vehicle owners, said the Government should be applauded for halting the M4 East.

The association's government and commercial services manager, Hugh McMaster, said there now had to be a rethink on the importance of freight, and more investment in trains, buses and light rail transport.

"We really believed from the start that the M4 East was a half-baked proposal," said Mr McMaster, stressing a seamless link from Anzac Bridge to the M4 at North Strathfield was the only viable option.

The RTA has pushed for a 4.8-kilometre tunnel, which would have meant motorists still faced six sets of traffic lights before hitting the city.

Ashfield Council, which mounted a series of court challenges to thwart the project, welcomed the Government's decision, but its mayor, Rae Jones, said the community was still wary of the proposal being taken up in the future.

The lobby group EcoTransit also welcomed the decision, and that an integrated transport study was now being backed by senior ministers.

The Opposition Leader, John Brodgen, said the M4 East's shelving was another example of a disjointed approach to infrastructure projects. He said the project should always have been about connecting Anzac Bridge to the M4.

A Greens MLC, Sylvia Hale, said she believed the decision had more to do with the extension being bitterly opposed by voters in the three Labor seats along the road corridor.

This was the SuperShuttle Ferry to be running between Gosford, woy Woy and Circular Quay. The company ran into some problems and GCC were obstructionist and caused the operators a few problems. Gosford still has no marina and no ferry terminal and I guess no Shuttle either.

It was an awesome looking craft too - it would have been an impressive site on either Brisbane Water or Sydney Harbour and imagine the site of them passing one another off the Northern Beaches.

A separate plan exists for a Fast Ferry from Ettalong - I believe this uses similar craft and might be more viable presently.

I believe there were two shuttles designed to run every 40 mins or so. Ticket price was not expected to be greatly cheap but the run was expected to be quite fast.



DIMENSIONS
length overall 62.00m
length waterline 49.00m
beam 8.50m
draught 1.31m
capacity 450 passengers (2 disabled)
9 crew
speed 50 knots maximum
40 knots cruise
propulsion Twin gas turbine engines,
6MW per side, driving waterjets
auxiliaries 2 x diesel generators, 145kWe each
Single bow thruster
fuel 5,340m3 compressed natural gas
600 litres diesel
fresh water 2,000 litres
range 70nm at 40 knots, with 20% remaining
refuelling time less than 10 minutes
survey Lloyds Register of Shipping +100A1 SSC Pax (A)
Mono HSC G3

This is good news. Most likely get most drivers off the F3> depending on ticket prices, however probably in the wrong thread "Sydney's Ferry Network" looks a better option.

wow, looks great avatar. the 9 storey outrigger is just about to open in Ettalong and the road in front is about to be cut off to traffic for ever. it will be a sort of pedetrian plaza area and also the wharf is to start construction soon for the future fast ferry. The DA was about to lapse but developer thought it best to build it or it will make things harder to get ferry service. There is a 8storey uc next door to outrigger and a 9 storey DA has been proposed across from outrigger, so there area is b00ming.

Heres the latsest for the interchage at the M4 and the M7 (near former Wonderland)
http://img275.echo.cx/img275/4585/img25903oo.jpg

its four lanes tall!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1372756.htm

Workers concerned over M7 bridge cracks
Construction workers on the M7 project in Sydney's west say 10-centimetre cracks have appeared in the ends of bridge that is under construction at Rooty Hill.

The Construction Union says workers believe subsidence under the Eastern Road Bridge structure has caused the problem.

The union's Tim Vollmer says it raises serious safety concerns.

"The company has not been communicating at all on this issue, the union is seeking to get a copy of all the documentation and the information their engineers have about what has caused this major cracking," he said.

"The company is refusing to disclose any of that information and has been very counterproductive in the whole process."

The Westlink M7 construction firm says engineers engaged to design the road have determined it is safe.

Some survey engineer gonna get sacked over this...

"10-centimetre cracks have appeared in the ends of bridge"

It depends exactly what that means. There isn't a concrete bridge in the world that doesn't have some form of cracking.

http://img275.echo.cx/img275/4585/img25903oo.jpg

God i love spaghetti. :)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1372756.htm

Some survey engineer gonna get sacked over this...


Apparently it's being held up by hydraulic jacks at the moment but again, that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot.

Just found out that the M5 is currently being widened between the M7 and Brooks Rd, to creat 4 southbound lanes....Came as a bit of a surprise to me.

full project is the widening of the road to 4 lanes in both directions between Brooks Road and M7 junction and 3 lanes in both directions between MR9 Narellan Road and Brooks Road. But this is stage 1. It has to be completed now or there'd be a right royal mess there when the M7 opens in April.

Heres the latsest for the interchage at the M4 and the M7 (near former Wonderland)
http://img275.echo.cx/img275/4585/img25903oo.jpg

Is this the project said to be completed by April next year?

That's the m4/m7 interchange - part of the project.
And yes, despite what your question implies, it will be finished on or ahead of schedule.

^ That is only if Sydney's west does not receive a wet winter and spring...

Is this the project said to be completed by April next year?

segmented viaduct construction. You can plop in a 20m span in on day...

Can anyone tell me if there are any plans to put a tunnel or better link of some sought between the Gore Hill Fwy and the Sydney-Newcastle Freeway? The Pacific Hwy in this strectch is a shocker, as you all probably know, surely this sought of connectivity is planned at some stage.

And I hope for Sutherland Shire's sake that the F6 goes ahead!!

No. There are plans to put a tunnel under Pennant Hills Road which would connect the F3 (Syd-New) to the M2 at PH Road. The new national highway route would then take this tunnel and the M7 to get around Sydney rather than going through the city.

A question fellas, that I can't find an answer to. Why does the NSW insist on 'motorways', whilst everywhere else in Australia (as well as most Sydneysiders) called them freeways?
Is it because that many of them are tollways, and the Govt does not want to draw attention to this...seems a shame to destroy a part of out national language for this

thanks

Can anyone tell me if there are any plans to put a tunnel or better link of some sought between the Gore Hill Fwy and the Sydney-Newcastle Freeway? The Pacific Hwy in this strectch is a shocker, as you all probably know, surely this sought of connectivity is planned at some stage.

And I hope for Sutherland Shire's sake that the F6 goes ahead!!

I live in the shire. Right near the highway, and there are plenty of worse spots in Sydney for traffic, ie the carpark that is the M2. :cheers: Sutherland itself though is a shocker. But that has more to do with the fact that all the roads in the suburb are one lane each way, but that has more to do with the narrow roads through the suburb.

More urgently needed is the improvement of rail infrastructure - the trains get packed well before Sutherland on the Cronulla branch. Fortunately the Cronulla duplification is included in the Clearways scheme.

A question fellas, that I can't find an answer to. Why does the NSW insist on 'motorways', whilst everywhere else in Australia (as well as most Sydneysiders) called them freeways?
Is it because that many of them are tollways, and the Govt does not want to draw attention to this...seems a shame to destroy a part of out national language for this

thanks

Perhaps, they switched to 'motorways' to give the impression they are tolled and not 'free'. Although this goes against the true meaning of the word freeway, which in layman's terms means a freeway free from conflicting traffic flows causing you to stop or slow down.
Note that in Britain, all freeways are known as motorways. And in Brisbane, motorways are also in the majority, and only 2 out of 4 are tolled.

Perhaps, they switched to 'motorways' to give the impression they are tolled and not 'free'. Although this goes against the true meaning of the word freeway, which in layman's terms means a freeway free from conflicting traffic flows causing you to stop or slow down.
Note that in Britain, all freeways are known as motorways. And in Brisbane, motorways are also in the majority, and only 2 out of 4 are tolled.

interesting though that the M4 and M5 were both open by 1993 and their entire routes went from F4 (Freeway 4) and F5 (Freeway 5) to Motorways, but the F6 between Waterfall and Bulli which had had a toll since 1974 when it was opened retained its name F6. The toll on the F6 was removed in 1995.

So, to summarise
M2 - Motorway
M4 - Motorway
M5 - Motorway
F3 - Freeway
F6 - Freeway
Warringah Expressway became Warringah Freeway
Gore Hill Freeway still Gore Hill Freeway
Cahill Expressway still Cahill Expressway
Western and Eastern Distributors one is tolled, one is not, neither are really distributors but a part of the radial freeway network
Southern Cross Drive that's a freeway too...

Confused yet? Well it'll only get worse with alphanumeric signage comes in:+

M2 - M2
M4 - M4
M5 - M5

good so far

F6 - M1
Southern Cross Dr, Eastern Distributor, Warringah Freeway, Gore Hill Freeway - M1
F3 - M1

there's two gap between these M1s that will be filled with A1

Western Distributor - A4

even though it's a motorway, signage in the CCT has indicated that this road will be signed as A4 rather than have it change M4-A4-M4

wierd? very

^They're doing the same thing in Brisbane.
We have Arterial Roads, Highways, Freeways, Motorways, Expressways, By-pass and even Street!

Pacific Motorway--M1(Free)
Riverside Expressway now Pacific Motorway--MR3(Free)
South-East Freeway now Pacific Motorway--MR3(Free)
Gateway Arterial Road now Gateway Motorway--M1(Toll Bridge/Gateway Extenstion--MR4--Tolled)
Gympie Arterial Road--MR3--To become A3--motorway grade(Free)
Western Freeway--MR5--the only freeway left, although I read somewhere they're renaming it the Centenary Highway to fit in with the rest of the parking lot it is.(Free)
Ipswich Motorway--M2(free)
Logan Motorway--MR 4 & 6(Tolled) I think this was originally called the Logan Arterial Road--Not sure.
Inner-City By-pass--MR3(Free)
Hale Street--MR3--Motorway grade road(Free)

^ That is only if Sydney's west does not receive a wet winter and spring...


Unfortunately, That isn't going to happen, I think we're about to have a very dry winter.

i think it would be much better if they just overpass some intersections along princes highway like, port hacking road, king george's road, rock point road etc... and make the f6 corrdior into a railway line? overpassing is a cheaper alternative but it won't be able to cope as much traffic as if the f6 was built. i'll prefer going for the overpass. like the double decking of habour bridge, it will benefit both cars and public transport.

interesting though that the M4 and M5 were both open by 1993 and their entire routes went from F4 (Freeway 4) and F5 (Freeway 5) to Motorways, but the F6 between Waterfall and Bulli which had had a toll since 1974 when it was opened retained its name F6. The toll on the F6 was removed in 1995.

So, to summarise
M2 - Motorway
M4 - Motorway
M5 - Motorway
F3 - Freeway
F6 - Freeway
Warringah Expressway became Warringah Freeway
Gore Hill Freeway still Gore Hill Freeway
Cahill Expressway still Cahill Expressway
Western and Eastern Distributors one is tolled, one is not, neither are really distributors but a part of the radial freeway network
Southern Cross Drive that's a freeway too...

Confused yet? Well it'll only get worse with alphanumeric signage comes in:+

M2 - M2
M4 - M4
M5 - M5

good so far

F6 - M1
Southern Cross Dr, Eastern Distributor, Warringah Freeway, Gore Hill Freeway - M1
F3 - M1

there's two gap between these M1s that will be filled with A1

Western Distributor - A4

even though it's a motorway, signage in the CCT has indicated that this road will be signed as A4 rather than have it change M4-A4-M4

wierd? very

Well, first of all, I suspect that it'll be A4-A4-M4 for what's currently Metroad 4. The A4 signage would likely only remain until the M4 East is built - it has only been temporarily set aside for a "better" plan (which will probably involve a connection to the proposed Port Botany Motorway, which will probably also link in to the Southern Motorway if it's built (which is what the new section of the "F6" would likely be called). It'll be a right royal mess near the airport...

The interesting thing will be on the changeover where exactly the M5 will become A31. Personally I'd switch over at the M7 interchange. I get the feeling they'll just go with the new signage on the M7 as the road is seperate enough. There'll be a small A7 section, too.

Well, first of all, I suspect that it'll be A4-A4-M4 for what's currently Metroad 4.

That's what I said? Well actually I said that it would not be signed M4-A4-M4

The A4 signage would likely only remain until the M4 East is built - it has only been temporarily set aside for a "better" plan

while the M4 East is planned, suggesting that A4 signage is temporary is like saying thart SR76 signage was temporary pending the construction of the Eastern Suburbs Freeway (F7). Signage on the CCT and Western Distributor will be A4 with MR4 coverplates not M4 with MR4 coverplates to be changed to A4 coverplates when the route is initially converted.

(which will probably involve a connection to the proposed Port Botany Motorway, which will probably also link in to the Southern Motorway if it's built (which is what the new section of the "F6" would likely be called). It'll be a right royal mess near the airport...

I did these maps a couple of months back:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/towersofhanoi/m4/F6atAirportSmallest.jpg
http://users.bigpond.net.au/towersofhanoi/m4/F6atAirport3Smallest.jpg

The interesting thing will be on the changeover where exactly the M5 will become A31. Personally I'd switch over at the M7 interchange. I get the feeling they'll just go with the new signage on the M7 as the road is seperate enough. There'll be a small A7 section, too.

Yeah M5-M7-M31 will be a junction.
As for your "small" A7 section, I'm not sure if I'd call the stretch of Pennant Hills Road from the M2 to F3 as "small"...

i think it would be much better if they just overpass some intersections along princes highway like, port hacking road, king george's road, rock point road etc... and make the f6 corrdior into a railway line? overpassing is a cheaper alternative but it won't be able to cope as much traffic as if the f6 was built. i'll prefer going for the overpass. like the double decking of habour bridge, it will benefit both cars and public transport.

grade separation? I think that'd be more destructive than, well, anything. Penant Hills Road between the M2 and F3 was considered in the M2-F3 options study for grade separation and it was resoundingly rejected.

Even "Metroad-isation" like happened to in parts on the ring Metroads (3, 6, 7) was mostly taken out in industrial areas. The Princes Highway strikes me as one of the worst candidates for any improvement (certainly worse than even the Pacific Highway between Artarmon and Wahroonga). As a part of such an upgrade something would need to be done with Tom Ugly's Bridge. I'm not sure you can do anything with those approaches.

Frankly there's very few roads in Sydney suitable for grade separation. Old Windsor Road and Windsor Road, most of the Wakehurst Parkway, the semi-expressway Princes Highway south of Sutherland and the semi-rural roads are. But that's not many

I'd agree with both ideas- Syd-HK's idea of grade-separating major intersections on major existing roads sounds great on paper due to the factor of financial cost and leaving existing corridors for pt development. However from an urban planning perspective it is indeed the worst alternative when considering major roads in residential areas. Where major interstections are grade separated, they become a far greater impediment to pedestrian and cycle movement than leaving the road as it is. Developing a freeway corridor is in most cases, simply putting cars and traffic into a place that generally already is an impediment to pedestrian movement, or a place where there is no pedestrian movement.

Hope that all makes sense. I would not have as many reservations if grade-separation was included in new road upgrades in developing areas if alternative pedestrian routes are provided, and shops and community facilities are located away from those major arterials. Eg- Windsor/Old Windsor Rds, Camden Valley Way, The Northern Rd- when those areas get developed (although hopefully not).

Cheers

i think it would be much better if they just overpass some intersections along princes highway like, port hacking road, king george's road, rock point road etc... and make the f6 corrdior into a railway line? overpassing is a cheaper alternative but it won't be able to cope as much traffic as if the f6 was built. i'll prefer going for the overpass. like the double decking of habour bridge, it will benefit both cars and public transport.

For what I can tell, there's nowhere near enough space for that anyways.

a mate of mine was out this way on Sat. took this pic of Lighthorse Junction

http://img297.echo.cx/img297/5262/lighthorsejunction4ze.jpg