what do you think guys? is light rail the way to go. sydney is at gridlock. i think more pub transport then better.

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/7794/lightrail5nr.jpg

Bring it on, I say. A decent system will cost more than what's been quoted but it has to be done. The Southern Corridor Route looks interesting, should help increase population density down south. Bring on PT!

Looks good to me! I'm actually preparing a map of a similar system, with almost identical routes. I'll show it here when I finish it.

Bring it on Clover, if she doesnt pull her finger out soon and do something concrete for this city then she is up sh*t creek and all we will remember her for is wearing black chokers and looking like a butch lesbian.

About time! The only thing that I object too is the current trams. I think that they are far too wide for our streets and its something they will need to evaluate. We should use trams similar in spec to those used in Melbourne. And also run them on frequent intervals. :yes:

Hmm.. not a bad idea. Shouldn't it be overhead though instead of on-grade?

This is good, but are they for real?

It looks like all the lines starting from the central station. Just like CityRail, the central station will be the bottle neck of the entire light-rail system. You watch.

From Central, they'll probably run up to Circular Quay.

Anyway, having them all meet at Central is a good thing. Have a nice transport interchange going. Just the thing to boost PT use.

Sydney is not a city designed for trams. Leave that up to Melbourne. To get people moving fast in Sydney, we need increased bus services in dedicated bus lanes and the completion of the Chatswood to Parramatta via Carlingford rail line.

^ exactly. Don't know how many times Clover needs her light rail plans rejected to realise that. We need heavy rail not light- What's the point of having the CBD catered by half a sub way- half a light rail?? Lets at least have something all encompassing for once!
I only hope light rail doesn't see the light of day for the CBD. Now Oxford St and the East could be a totally different story..

Anyway, having them all meet at Central is a good thing. Have a nice transport interchange going. Just the thing to boost PT use.


Imagine all lines sharing the same track and platform at Central, the frequency of each line will be severely limited by the bottleneck at Central. Are we gonna make the same mistake we made in CityRail? :(

I want to see completely segregated lines even though they are more expensive, but Sydney has always chosen the cheaper option and I know it will always choose the cheaper option in the future, just like choosing Lightrail instead of proper underground Metro.

Sydney is not a city designed for trams. Leave that up to Melbourne. To get people moving fast in Sydney, we need increased bus services in dedicated bus lanes and the completion of the Chatswood to Parramatta via Carlingford rail line.

1 rail line is not going to fix it all.
Metros need to be built.

Light rail is ideal for the parts of the city it will service just needs more flexible trams instead of the big wide ones they use now.

It looks like all the lines starting from the central station. Just like CityRail, the central station will be the bottle neck of the entire light-rail system. You watch.

Ok then, where else would you build the hub, dare I ask?

All networks need some sort of a hub, where you can transfer from one line to pretty much any other line.

Obviously, an orbital rail line would be the best idea for line transfer movement (much like an orbital road, it'd allow people to avoid the busy parts of town.

In addition, we need some cross-regional routes. It would be a good idea, for example, to build a line from Hurstville to Strathfield.

The best transport solution for any city is a mix of transport types. All-metro is pointless if there's not the feeder routes to support it - and this is what trans do best. That and inner city transport.

Maybe the solution Sydney is looking for is in its sister city San Francisco, the light rail MUNI network.

The MUNI light rail network runs above ground in the suburbs and even in parts of the inner city, but runs in its own underground tunnels under the downtown area until it reaches a station called Embarcadero.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_sf001.htm

she's sooo been bought off by Connex :tongue2:

but seriously, this is exactly what Connex have been proposing be built [for them]

Well, assuming all the tram routes meet at Central, then duplicate each other as they head north thru the CBD, I dare say the bottleneck will be the entire stretch of track between Circular Quay and Central. But there are numerous way's of alleviating this. Remember though, trams can have much shorter head ways (30s?) than trains, and assuming you make stops or superstops long enough, you can have one than one tram at the stop at any one time, just like what buses do currently in the cbd. And if there's still not enough capacity, then you could duplicate the track, and even quad-track at Central if need be. Segregation would be wise, but not entirely necessary. The other option would be to have a big tram stop at Central with 4 or 6 tracks then spread the rest of the routes down different streets in the CBD - ala Melbourne.

One shouldn't under estimate that power of interchanges, because the feeder services increase the coverage of the PT system immensely by allowing ppl to switch to mode that will reach their destination, rather than only being able to use one mode which won't get them where they want to go, therefore they'll just give up drive. It's known as the 'network effect'. A prime New World example is Toronto, where 76% of the Toronto Transit Commission’s heavy rail passengers access the station via feeder buses and trams (Mees 2000, 232). In Sydney, less than 12% of train users get to the station by bus (TPDC 2003). Keep in mind that the TTC has 230 million subway users annually, compared to CityRail’s total patronage of approximately 270 million despite the extent of the TTC subway only includes TO's inner and middle suburbs whereas CityRail covers Newy-Syd-Gong-Lithgow. Imagine the boost in patronage on CityRail if Sydney managed to improved feeder services. The trains coversely would also feed into the tram network.

The MUNI in SF is a unique example of dealing with trams in the CBD. But SF doesn't have a Metro so it's had to make do with trams, although I have the suspicion the undergrounding may have more to do with clearing the road for cars than actually providing a better PT service (but hey, prove me wrong). Might be similar to Melbourne's old plans to underground its trams. Furthermore, its only been the last 20 years or so when the got their hybrid metro/commuter rail in the form of BART. So now they don't really need a metro anymore either.

Sydney is not a city designed for trams. Leave that up to Melbourne. To get people moving fast in Sydney, we need increased bus services in dedicated bus lanes and the completion of the Chatswood to Parramatta via Carlingford rail line.

Fuck the bitch I hope she gets hit by a tram.

Stupid bitch I hate her - everything she proposes grates on me. Can't we have some planning that's homeogenous and all encompassing. I hate trams for sydney esp when the time is here to plan way ahead and build our f***ing subways. I know I am on my soapbox again but whay cant we doing something different - something a little more progressive in appeal.

Everyone cringes at monorail but I still think duplicated monorail line is far more preferable in Sydney to on grade tram networks. Sydney got rid of the trams and that is where they sould stay - in history.

BTW I am not against them - I think they work well in Melbourne.

I don't exactly like them either. I was just suggesting solutions to tram problems and their benefits. They're a cheap-skate's solution. A nice metro system using feeder buses would be a much better system in my opinion. There are very few corridors where light rail would be ideal and that'd only be because:
A: population is so too low
B: population is too high and/or demand is too high for a more higher average speed alternative
And Problem A is a bit iffy because Light Rail would likely increase population and demand to the point where Metro would be ideal. Trams are shite for long haul trips that trains could serve much better. As for short trips, buses can work these. Light rail can work, but only to some extent in Sydney. Eg. a tram down Anzac Parade or in the SE Suburbs is not ideal. You need a metro down that way. Population and demand is too high. Trams don't cut it.

I like to see some double decker buses like HK and London. :P

I know I am strange!

Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, biiiiiiiiitch...that's you Avy!!

Meh, PT schemes always coming and going. I won't take real notice until the track hoes are actually ripping up the ground

Is there any news on the $8bn state heavy rail upgrade? Thats been pretty quiet yeah?

Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, biiiiiiiiitch...that's you Avy!!

Meh, PT schemes always coming and going. I won't take real notice until the track hoes are actually ripping up the ground

Occasionally I have been known to say something nice.

Occasionally I have been known to say something nice.It was in regard to that and using the word a few times on the previous page.

A bitch is what you call a female dog. Maybe they should ban pets from council. :colgate:

Yeah, Metro would be more desirable, but realistically it's not happening for a while, if ever, the practical thing to hope for would be light rail which is a much better alternative to Bus's and Driving.

Sustainable this sustainable that... its time our councillors went and looked at what they are doing overseas. Who cares if heavy rail is going to cost a bit more and be under utilised for a while. It is time we started planning further ahead anyway. The cost of building infrastructure rarely decreases with time - the time to fund it is now.

Double-decker buses hmm... not a bad idea. Perhaps coloring it green and gold can separate it from its Hong Kong and London counterparts:D

Or just make everyone bloody walk. Reduce obesity levels while we're at it

Looks like a decent proposal, and makes sense!

LOL no not green and gold ... anyway they have plenty of metallic gold buses in Hong Kong. I love the way alot of the buses in HK aare now painted in what looks like dupont harlequin pearl... I mean not even that many hoted up ricer cars are painted with with this very expensive paint over here. I guess someone over there is making it very cheaply to do a whole bus fleet. Damn hot looking too might I add!

We do have double deckers. Those red tourist buses with kangaroo painting splatters buzzing up and down George St.

Those old reject buses fron HK, they could give us new ones... those ones are shitty and old.

hmm double-decker buses - well if you can sort out the problems with the loading times, height and axle load (since the Atlanteans left in 1986 you would now have to add low floor and air conditioning to any double deck vehicle spec) then go for it.

In lieu thereof you have 80 articulated vehicles commencing delivery "now", although they will pretty quickly displace the existing 30 in service, so in reality you have 50 new bendy buses to play with.

What are your talking about... are your telling me the DD buses in London and HK are substandard?

The buses in HK make our buses look crappy and poverty striken by comparison most of the buses are more akin to high level coach design. If low floor is a problem the disabled people can walk, we can't cater to everyone ;)

What are your talking about... are your telling me the DD buses in London and HK are substandard?

The buses in HK make our buses look crappy and poverty striken by comparison most of the buses are more akin to high level coach design. If low floor is a problem the disabled people can walk, we can't cater to everyone ;)

No, what he's saying is that DD buses run into the same problems that our DD trains do - except it's worse on a bus, because there's only one door that can legally be used.

LRTs or Metros are the best solutions. Don't write off LRT, either. One LRT train can carry 200 people - much more than any bus does.

Obviously, it would be best to go with a full-blown metro, but there are places that would be suited to LRT.

I agree with that but I'd still like to see some double deckers - they add so much sexiness to London and HK.

I agree with that but I'd still like to see some double deckers - they add so much sexiness to London and HK.

Yeah, DD buses do have a certain appeal... But you'd have all sorts of problems with low bridges...

Speaking oh which we had a few DD used for school sport afternoons - I recall one arvo sitting on the top deck and the driver fair ran the bus right into the upper branches of a tree - all the leaves and branches started poking in the open windows. The front windows almost shattered and everyone was screaming. Haha a very interesting arfernoon.

What are your talking about... are your telling me the DD buses in London and HK are substandard?

The buses in HK make our buses look crappy and poverty striken by comparison most of the buses are more akin to high level coach design. If low floor is a problem the disabled people can walk, we can't cater to everyone ;)

There are a few problems, none are necessarily insurmountable though:
* Height: your new DD will be airconditioned. This will add to height. You need to ensure that your DD is no more than 4.4m high, though it may need to be lower for the Harbour Bridge Cahill Expressway lanes (can't remember)
* Low floor: ok, you need low floor to meet legislated accessibility requirements. Low floor buses alway use extended chases, because they bus needs to rise up at the back to have a rear-mounted underfloor engine. Long buses are heavy. This may affect axle loads. You could end up with a bus that can only run on a few roads. You could probably have an all low floor bus with a rear mounted engine however. There may be impacts with respect to the rear/centre door.
* Engine size: London and HK DDs seem to mostly be based on the Volvo B7, which is, unsurprisingly a 7 litre engine. Sydney is too hilly, apparently, for this sort of engine. Hence the new articulated buses coming are B12 (12 litre) versions; unique in the world. Can you fit this 12 litre engine in your rather cramped for space DD?
* Loading/unloading times - Cammo went through this. Though the artics coming are only having a single leaf rear door in the trailer section, so obviously the STA aren't too worried about dwell times...

But Avatar, while your DDs would be funky, why do you want them over bendy buses?

The buses in HK make our buses look crappy and poverty striken by comparison most of the buses are more akin to high level coach design. If low floor is a problem the disabled people can walk, we can't cater to everyone ;)

I thought the whole 'thing' with disabled people is that they can't walk... at least not very far!

we can't cater to everyone
agree with this one too

I want both :) what about double decker with articulation and larger doors ;)

LOL the 1974 movie "the Big Bus" a nuclear powered double decker with a single articulation and a rocket engine. Such a realistic possibility. :) haha
http://www.x-brick.de/vehicles/cars/bigbus.jpg

HEY! TRAMS ARE BACK IN GEORGE STREET!! Councils latest $180mil proposal for george st! top idea/
it would take 18 months to build with no footpath interuption. george st buses currently transport 3,600 people an hour, the light rail will transport 12,000!
cost $2.

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/2172/lightrail1rb.jpg

I hope this goes ahead! But I think they should really use thinner cars

^^ so thats what, 1 or 2 lanes for cars? Big risk really on such a busy street like George...

I hope this goes ahead! But I think they should really use thinner cars

That's just an impression drawn up for the council representing current stock. It'd be hard to imagine that they'd go with that for this plan. I see no reason why all cars have to operate on that same gauge given they'd be independent lines. Maintenance sheds now at Pyrmont couldn't be used for new cars though unless that line was re-fitted with both gauges.

couldn't the cars be a bit thinner on the current gauges though?

^^ so thats what, 1 or 2 lanes for cars? Big risk really on such a busy street like George...

Hopefully the cross city tunnell should take alot of traffic of george st.

couldn't the cars be a bit thinner on the current gauges though?

Don't really know. I'd think a lack of overhang would be a safety issue for street vehicles. I'm sure Hornetfig will know the answer to that.

Melbourne manages it. I can't really see a problem with vehicles whose width is close to the rail guage. Though if you can't have skirts, it will look ugly...

You might have problems if you want to mix stock on the existing line - gap between step platform and door

HEY! TRAMS ARE BACK IN GEORGE STREET!! Councils latest $180mil proposal for george st! top idea/
it would take 18 months to build with no footpath interuption. george st buses currently transport 3,600 people an hour, the light rail will transport 12,000!
cost $2.

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/2172/lightrail1rb.jpg

GREAT NEWS! :dance: :nocrook: :banana: :cucumber: :cheer: :carrot:

KICK THE BUSES OUT OF GEORGE ST! THIS MUST GO AHEAD!!

would you believe George street isnt that busy. i sometimes look down it and no car to be seen. while other times its bumper to bumper.

If this went ahead would we need to learn what the hell a HOOK TURN is?

perhaps, if they're placed in the middle of the road, in a shared alignment and right turns are permitted. I suspect at least one of those won't happen...

and what place people on an island in the center of the road
not sure aboutthis
why not just close the lenght of Pitt or some thing ?

and what place people on an island in the center of the road
not sure aboutthis
why not just close the lenght of Pitt or some thing ?

Looking at a map, Pitt is probably the best option geographically. However, one has to consider other factors. For example, there are no carparks coming directly off George St from Railway Square all the way to the Rocks. There are, however, a few on Pitt. That's not to say it couldn't be overcome, quite easily, though.

Also, what if they wanted to extend it up into the Rocks (given, it's not likely, but t'would be good from a tourism perspective)? That's a lot easier from George St.

That's not to say I disagree, I'm totally in agreement that it should go down Pitt.

i just though it was the better option rather than trying to tackle and change the most major city street we have

perhaps, if they're placed in the middle of the road, in a shared alignment and right turns are permitted. I suspect at least one of those won't happen...

Knowing the way things work in Sydney, it'll be the right turns... :runaway:

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4752/cbdmap8yy.jpg

If this does go ahead, the above image should give an idea where the stops are likely to end up. Left would be where the northbound platforms are, and right would be the southbound platforms.

Melbourne manages it. I can't really see a problem with vehicles whose width is close to the rail guage. Though if you can't have skirts, it will look ugly...

The bombardier city runner has the wheels on the outside, but they look fine, as they are incorporated into the design. They are only 2.3m wide as opposed to Melbourne's siemens light rails which are 2.65m wide. Not sure what the current sydney ones are though.

Here's a link.

http://www.tpg.ch/Internet+TPG/Francais/ToutSurNous/Materiel/Vehicules/ParcVehicules.htm

If Sydney really wants trams, then why don' they run it in a circle, northbound along George St and southbound along Castlereagh St?

Because running it in a circular route makes the tram have more coverage but makes it of use to less people. Because while in 1 direction it'll be close to your work/destination, in the other direction its further away and therefore you're less inclined to use it for a return (two way trip).
Personally I think a tram line in the city alone is wasteful duplication of existing PT services UNLESS the tram line actually goes out into the inner suburbs, or has branches.

What news paper was that from? I missed it and want to read it online.

Because running it in a circular route makes the tram have more coverage but makes it of use to less people. Because while in 1 direction it'll be close to your work/destination, in the other direction its further away and therefore you're less inclined to use it for a return (two way trip).
Personally I think a tram line in the city alone is wasteful duplication of existing PT services UNLESS the tram line actually goes out into the inner suburbs, or has branches.

It won't be totally useless. For example, I'd say intercity commuters will most definitely find a use for the tram (it's quicker for them to go across the concourse to the tram stop than it is to push through heaps of people to get to the suburban platforms.

And at any rate, seeing as the CBD is a relatively short section (about 2 or so km) it's best to get it out of the way.

You bet - it has to integrate directly into the inner suburbs. People will be less inclined to use it if you have to (for example), get off a bus, wait for the lr, buy another ticket etc.

If I got on a lr at lillyfield (wish it came to Leichhardt), and with one fare it took me into the CBD - I'll be using it all the time.

Because running it in a circular route makes the tram have more coverage but makes it of use to less people. Because while in 1 direction it'll be close to your work/destination, in the other direction its further away and therefore you're less inclined to use it for a return (two way trip).
Personally I think a tram line in the city alone is wasteful duplication of existing PT services UNLESS the tram line actually goes out into the inner suburbs, or has branches.

You bet - it has to integrate directly into the inner suburbs. People will be less inclined to use it if you have to (for example), get off a bus, wait for the lr, buy another ticket etc.


You wouldn't have to buy another ticket but you may have to change from the bus to LR at railway square (in general terms).

What news paper was that from? I missed it and want to read it online.

It was in mX

Thanks. No chance of reading it online then.

It was in mX

Thanks. No chance of reading it online then.

No

Whoever is stupid enough to construct such regional light rail lines(UNSW/Randwick being the exception), especially over arguably the country's most congested road (Parramatta Rd after M4), is going to 'crash and burn'.

I think the best solution presently is a fleet of really light buses feeding into the existing heavy rail network. Sydney is simply not dense enough for widespread regional metro/heavy rail coverage.

you wouldn't put anything on Parramatta Rd without building the M4 East at the same time...

Whoever is stupid enough to construct such regional light rail lines(UNSW/Randwick being the exception), especially over arguably the country's most congested road (Parramatta Rd after M4), is going to 'crash and burn'.

I think the best solution presently is a fleet of really light buses feeding into the existing heavy rail network. Sydney is simply not dense enough for widespread regional metro/heavy rail coverage.

Maybe so, but a collector-distributor system would most certainly work.

In addition, there's also a few corridors where a metro would most certainly work, ie the Eastern Suburbs, Parramatta road, due to their density.

You could probably build one down to Miranda also (much of the corridor is dense enough, and there'd only be one or two stations outside that preferred density, which would probably be negligible.

The line to miranda will certainly work with apartments and flats being built everywhere in that area and people might use this new line rather than using the already conjested illrawara line.

Looks good. Any maps of the proposed system? Any thought of upgrading any of it to heavy rail/subway instead?

This is a proposal from the operator of the current line(black):
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9940/lightrail1nk.jpg

^^ that would be really awesome imo.

my main worry is the tram line is going to kill off any real chance for another much need heavy rail

parramatta rd LOL thats gotta be a joke
and also the line for Balmain is just going to take to long via star city
only one is live its the east darling harhour line

This is a proposal from the operator of the current line(black):


That would be good. They certainly know what they're doing... What I like about it is that it fills the gaps that the rail network doesn't.

One addition I'd make to that system though - I'd extend the line to UNSW into Randwick. It'd save me some time, that's for sure (every few years I have to head out there for an appointment with the eye clinic at POWH.

Wow that's some massive expansion - is there room on those roads for trams?

not on some of the roads
not sure how it would work as system as well

OxFord St line to Bondi Beach would be really good one to have.
I want it even before George St line.

what's the point in the King's Cross line? provide some really high frequency bus routes going straight past the station and the ride will be quicker on the train line that already exists...

nice eye candy though.

what's the point in the King's Cross line? provide some really high frequency bus routes going straight past the station and the ride will be quicker on the train line that already exists...

nice eye candy though.

There already is the highest frequency, most crowded bus route in Sydney (Australia?) running that route. Plenty of demand for Light Rail, I think.

EDIT: Whoops, I be thinking of Oxford St. Never mind.

might be nice, add to william St, If lanes were not being closed
Still feel William St has a great chance but it wont happen for long long time

I'm more interested in how they think they're going to run a tram down Foveaux St. It would have to be cable-hauled, it's too steep.

EDIT AGAIN (TODAY IS NOT MY DAY): That's Albion St. Still steep though.

Foveaux St has a steep incline (or decline which ever way you look at it) just west of of Riley St or Forresters. Whereas the slope on Albion St is stretched over a longer distance so it's not as bad - thats probably why Albion St is eastbound/uphill.

I would've thought they'd prefer to send the tram via Elizabeth/Chalmers Sts and Cleveland St. ie. replace the 393 and 395 buses.

Cammo, the Randwick extn is a tough one. If you extend it up High St: #1 the gradient, #2 you've missed the front entrance to UNSW. Plus Randwick-City is shorter via Alison Rd. Would Randwickers mind the delay? Or would they rather bus it along Alison Rd as they do today.

Re: Balmain: The tram line would also take people to the ferry wharf, so they can get into the CBD that way which may be quicker or comparable to tramming it via Pyrmont.

I'd like that...get a tram directly from my place to Abdul's on the corner. I'd never cook again.

I think Albion is also too steep. When there's any water on the road almost everyone spins their wheels pulling away from the lights at Riley Street - it would be pretty scary in a tram.

yeah I don't think any of the thoroughfares except Cleveland St are suitable for LRVs.

yeah I don't think any of the thoroughfares except Cleveland St are suitable for LRVs.

You sure? Not even Oxford St?

Oxford St is fine, better grades than Cleveland St, but not a good way to Central Station from the South-East....

Will these proposals ever materialise

I doubt it.I dont trust any NSW governemt to deliver

Wow that's some massive expansion - is there room on those roads for trams?

If there's room for trams on Glenhuntly Road, Elsternwick; Smith Street, Collingwood; Brunswick Street, Fitzroy; Sydney Road (Hume Highway); Brunswick/Coburg; Victoria Street, Abbotsford; and Chapel Street, Prahran/Windsor, then there's room for trams just about anywhere in Sydney.

Not that I support the sort of plans that are bandied around in Sydney from time to time, nor do I even support maintaining that pithy little line through Pyrmont that you can't even use TravelPass on. Modern light rail is the worst of all worlds, offering all of the disadvantages of trains (few stops, inconvenient stopping locations, massive cost to implement new systems, political opposition) and few of the advantages (can't move significantly more people than buses).

Will these proposals ever materialise?

I doubt it. I dont trust any NSW government to deliver.First sensible and real comment in the whole thread.

It keeps them in their jobs ie to come up with proposals that will never eventuate. It's an $$$ munching "industry" in itself. No wonder there is still a transport budget - a fraction is put aside for giving us new bus stops every couple of years, to make it look like something is happening. lol :dizzy:

First sensible and real comment in the whole thread.

It keeps them in their jobs ie to come up with proposals that will never eventuate. It's an $$$ munching "industry" in itself. No wonder there is still a transport budget - a fraction is put aside for giving us new bus stops every couple of years, to make it look like something is happening. lol :dizzy:

Yep.

The history of proposals speaks for itself.

The Eastern Suburbs railway.Only completed to Bondi Junction.

The Parramatta-Chatswood line???? Only to Epping?

Yep.

The history of proposals speaks for itself.

The Eastern Suburbs railway.Only completed to Bondi Junction.

The Parramatta-Chatswood line???? Only to Epping?

The main reason the ESR only got to BJ was that scourge commonly known as the NIMBY. Basically they protested about the noise created by the construction, got an injunction, and the company that was building the line could only get as far as BJ in the time allowed.

The State Government then took the opportunity to try and not pay for it.

How do I know this? The State Govt case was mentioned in my Comm Law textbook. :) Saw that, and thought 'typical'.

Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority of NSW? That is one of the leading cases on contract law in Australia, but it came to the High Court in 1983(?) which is years after railway opened and even more years after the residents' injunction (which prevented tunnelling at night and on Sundays) affected Codelfa's tunnelling works in the first place.

The railway was truncated due to costs. Other cost cutting measures included the abandonment of Woollahra Station (which did suit residents), the elimination of shopping facilities at Bondi Junction and the reduction of their size at Martin Place. The bus interchanges and station appointments were also scaled back. Some things were rejected though, like only tiling four carriage lengths of the platforms (the ESR operating with 4 car shuttles 12 times an hour from 1979 to 1981 until the second track from Central to Erskineville and Redfern station were completed)

http://photos.misc.enfiladestudios.com/ESR-report-oct1976.pdf

(sourced by Hubert Lam from SLNSW IIRC)

Build more underground tunnels? Sydney? Yeah, right. Maybe in a hundred years or so, once the place is completely at a standstill. Nothing like Sydney's short-sightedness, is there?!

Seriously, what about an overground rail system like Bangkok's Skytrain?

It'd make the place look unique for Australia at least, like something from scene of the Jetson's.

And at least this way it wouldn't kop any aggro from the Victorians, saying Sydney are 'copying' Melbourne's trams.

above ground they would never do it

Build more underground tunnels? Sydney? Yeah, right. Maybe in a hundred years or so, once the place is completely at a standstill. Nothing like Sydney's short-sightedness, is there?!

Seriously, what about an overground rail system like Bangkok's Skytrain?

It'd make the place look unique for Australia at least, like something from scene of the Jetson's.

And at least this way it wouldn't kop any aggro from the Victorians, saying Sydney are 'copying' Melbourne's trams.

It's all very well to suggest we build elevated, but you're forgetting one tiny factor.

GIVE ME AN N
GIVE ME AN I
GIVE ME AN M
GIVE ME A B
GIVE ME A Y!

Seriously, those fuckers find ways to block stuff that's UNDERGROUND. You really think that after the monorail that anything bigger than that piece of crap will be approved if it blocks our precious sky-views or whatever the issue actually is?

Those Nimbys should be bypassed by some kind of 'for the the common good' law.

Fancy having people complaining about construction and tunneling underground during the construction of the Eastern suburbs railway.Honestly.Who do they think they are???

Its only for a time being.Then the railway is finished and the whole community could of enjoyed better access to trains.

These NIMBYS dont care.They are selfish and will destroy the quality of our life if they are not put into line.If it gets to the point where we cant build anything,the city will choke to death and become unfuntional

my main worry is the tram line is going to kill off any real chance for another much need heavy rail

Not necessarily.THe light rail lines will,for the time being,will be enough to handle travel between Bondi,the south and innner west.When the time comes,the government could then build metros under the lines to take a higher density

Sense of irony here.
All these cities want light rail and here in Melbourne we have one of the world's best light rail system that nobody here seems to want ...
All of these cities got rid of their tram systems because selfish cars forced them off the road. While other cities get nostalgic about their trams and pedestrianisation, Melbourne politicians, heavily influenced by the road lobby are advocating buses, tunnels and freeways.

Melbourne was spared more by chance (and it's grand boulevards) more than anything else. But many are still anti-trams here .... they'll do anything to remove stops and get trams out of the way of private vehicles. We have had all but 2 extensions to the network in nearly 10 years, and I am sick of hearing the word "Smart Bus" - there is no such thing IMHO. The narrow shared mode streets like Chapel Street Prahran and Acland Street St Kilda, are the very streets choked with cars that are killing the system.

I absolutely love trams, but they are hanging on a thread here in Melbourne and I think that once Sydney gets a similar system, you'll have the same problems
- too many hot headed car drivers wanting trams permanently off the road, especially in narrow shared mode streets
- private transport operators trying to turn trams into commuter machines rather than vehicles of convenience - cutting corners by reducing service frequency and speed them up by reducing number of stops - effectively rendering the system useless and cramming people into them like sardines (which they simply couldn't get away with on buses) making them sometimes an unpleasant form of travel.
- politicians falling back to buses because they are cheaper to run and can be used as a sweetener when advocate more roads/highways.

So what's keeping the system in Melbourne running (if anything) ? The benefit of 100 years of operation. There is a culture of tram use, just like there is a culture of cycling. People are used to hook-turns and using trams. The roads are wider, and the existing networks are partially linked with heavy rail. These things take time, the system was built over 100 years they don't just magically appear or get planned on paper. They need to continually evolve with use. Light rail may be generally accepted, but that doesn't mean that the system works perfectly or everyone likes it. In fact most people I speak to hate both trams and cylists on our roads, and tram users are just as frustrated about walking for miles to get from a tram terminus to a train station.

I think a radial network would not work (as too many congest the city - slowing the services). If the plan is for light rail (off-road) then it makes sense just to extend the heavy rail network (which is a better radial system). The best method is the criss-cross on-road system that Melbourne has partially in place (but in dire need of filling the gaps and a congestion tax to limit the number of cars on shared mode streets). This way you can get anywhere in the entire city by hopping on a maximum of 2 trams or a tram and train interchange.

Those Nimbys should be bypassed by some kind of 'for the the common good' law.

The residents' injunction that started the Codelfa issue and Cammo attributes to the truncation of the ESR was probably issued in the name of 'public policy' or the 'common good'. I mean, reasonably, can't you expect to be free from tunnelling vibrations at least at night? For the Epping-Chatswood railway you get moved out of your house for the 48 hours that the TBM is closest to your house.

At the risk of looking like a real dumbfuck, what are NIMBYs?

Not In My Backyard. - anti development generally.

Worse - they buy into recognised inner city and cbd locations - where there are established and planned developments, and then complain and attempt to say "it will block my view", "the development is too large", "it will cause too much traffic" etc.

Worse - they buy into recognised inner city and cbd locations - where there are established and planned developments, and then complain and attempt to say "it will block my view", "the development is too large", "it will cause too much traffic" etc.

They are such wankers.Look at the Luna Park debacle!

Anyway im very exited about this light rail proposal.Imgaine! 5 lines reaching out giving the inner city its very own metro.In a way I kind of prefer it to an underground metro.Its cheaper to build and will make the streets look more european or classic Australian(whatever way you want to look at it).

One possible drawback,I read the PDF on the Sydney city council website,would be an overload in capicitiy in the far future.Lightrail according to the report can handle 12,000 an hour.A metro can take up to 30,000.Buses are piss weak at only 4000 an hour on the same routes

I think Sydney's NIMBYs have devolved into NIABYs - Not In Anybody's Back Yard.

Just a small rant.

in the eastern suburbs there are roughly 150,000 people who's only real public transport is bus (or bus-rail depending on the journey) which is the highest populated area in Sydney that does nto have a rail line in the works.

There is no way that any Light Rail system would be able to cope with the volume of people using it if it was ever built. It was one of the primary reasons for why the original tramway system was removed (its that overcrowded, lets just remove it so it isnt so overcrowded).

The Maximum practical capacities of the various options are:
Buses at 60 x 76= 4560people/hr/direction.

Tramway System.
2 car style (think older melbourne trams)
60 x 150pax = 9000people/hr/direction

5 car style (current trams)
60 x 223 (max capacity) = 13,380people/hr/direction.

Medium Rail (blue Line LA)
40 x 400 = 16,000people/hr/direction

Current Sydney Train system
20 x 1500 = 30,000 people/hr/direction

Metro train operation
40 x 1500 = 60,000 people/hr/direction.

And this is looking at absolutely maximum capacities. There is no way in hell that anyone would allow for 60 trams or buses an hour to run for a single route - as this would lead to the killer conditions that existed when the tramway system was removed - which had a tram every 23 seconds down Elizabeth st.

The only practical notion is a heavy rail system of some sort. The majority of people who use public transportation in the Eastern Suburbs are travelling in Peak hour, which means that if we say that 26% of the people who live there (average for the illa iirc as they have similar densities) use the new transportation network in peak hours. (this is assuming bus-rail integration like at Bondi for all rail options) we would be looking at 40,000 people travelling, of which probably 80% would be travelling in peak times. this is 32,000 people to be moved in the 1 1/2 hours of peak time

And the real. time for peak travel is 7:30am - 9:00am and 4:45pm - 6:15pm.
so 32,000 divided by 1.5 = 21,333 people/hr in peak.

And this is only looking at residents who live in the Eastern suburbs, not the people who would be commuting to the sizable employment centres out that way such as UNSW, Botany etc.

The best system looking purely at capacity would be the current sydney railway system. but the metro would be attractive if it was fast, and there is more urban consolidation out that way. which is unlikely without better transport links - the chicken and the egg syndrome.

Just a small rant.

in the eastern suburbs there are roughly 150,000 people who's only real public transport is bus (or bus-rail depending on the journey) which is the highest populated area in Sydney that does nto have a rail line in the works.

There is no way that any Light Rail system would be able to cope with the volume of people using it if it was ever built. It was one of the primary reasons for why the original tramway system was removed (its that overcrowded, lets just remove it so it isnt so overcrowded).

The Maximum practical capacities of the various options are:
Buses at 60 x 76= 4560people/hr/direction.

Tramway System.
2 car style (think older melbourne trams)
60 x 150pax = 9000people/hr/direction

5 car style (current trams)
60 x 223 (max capacity) = 13,380people/hr/direction.

Medium Rail (blue Line LA)
40 x 400 = 16,000people/hr/direction

Current Sydney Train system
20 x 1500 = 30,000 people/hr/direction

Metro train operation
40 x 1500 = 60,000 people/hr/direction.

And this is looking at absolutely maximum capacities. There is no way in hell that anyone would allow for 60 trams or buses an hour to run for a single route - as this would lead to the killer conditions that existed when the tramway system was removed - which had a tram every 23 seconds down Elizabeth st.

The only practical notion is a heavy rail system of some sort. The majority of people who use public transportation in the Eastern Suburbs are travelling in Peak hour, which means that if we say that 26% of the people who live there (average for the illa iirc as they have similar densities) use the new transportation network in peak hours. (this is assuming bus-rail integration like at Bondi for all rail options) we would be looking at 40,000 people travelling, of which probably 80% would be travelling in peak times. this is 32,000 people to be moved in the 1 1/2 hours of peak time

And the real. time for peak travel is 7:30am - 9:00am and 4:45pm - 6:15pm.
so 32,000 divided by 1.5 = 21,333 people/hr in peak.

And this is only looking at residents who live in the Eastern suburbs, not the people who would be commuting to the sizable employment centres out that way such as UNSW, Botany etc.

The best system looking purely at capacity would be the current sydney railway system. but the metro would be attractive if it was fast, and there is more urban consolidation out that way. which is unlikely without better transport links - the chicken and the egg syndrome.

The density out that way is almost perfect. The Problem is, once again, the dreaded NIMBY/NIABY. People who want their own concerns voiced over those with more genuine concerns. Do you wonder why we can't get anything done? NIMBYs managed to get the section of the ESR beyond BJ canned.

You could try to get something out there, but you're probably going to get an anti-rail protest movement going against you, and with the current government, the NIMBYs are the winners (as it means they can just make a token dedication in a Somebody Else's Problem Plan).

Something needs to be done here in the east, not only in BJ station over crowded but also the poor roads, Old South Head and Victoria Rd namely in my area are a nightmare and of course things are only to become worse. Trams are a good idea but I think that only help the Bondi area, what about further east, Rosebay, Vaucluse etc?
Unless we can start to build tunnels here, I dont see another option as we have limited land here and cant just throw up a bypass without demolishing have a suburb and an expensive suburn at that! Any ideas guys?

Old South Head Rd and Victoria Rd are only really bad for the period about 7:40am to 8:20am. Otherwise it's not that bad. The capacity limit in that area is the Old South Head Rd/Bondi Rd/Oxford St/Syd Einfeld Dr intersection. The Eastern Suburbs Railway in its current form was not proposed to run in any way so as to service people in that area, nor would any extension to Bondi Beach.

New South Head Rd through Double Bay and Edgecliff is much worse. Simply more traffic, also the demographic of those who live along New South Head Rd is that which is less likely to consider public transport no matter what.

This is an excerpt from a recent assignment I did regarding the revival of light rail in NSW. If you aren't that keen on reading the longish post, just skim it. Or read the italics.

There remains serious doubt as to whether light rail has the potential to alleviate Sydney’s transport woes and this is reflected in indifference from the State Government. In December 2004, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that “Mr Scully accused light-rail enthusiasts of indulging in a "pipedream"”.

2005: Evaluation

This evaluation is applicable to Glazebrook and Associates’ report for the Sydney City Council: Integrated Transport Strategy – Mass Transit for CBD and Inner Sydney that recommended light rail lines to Burwood, Maroubra, Bondi Beach and Mascot; and the case for light rail in general.

Competition

Private Motor Vehicle: Litman (2005, 7) cites Pratt (1999) to show the mode shift as a result of increased bus frequency compared to increased commuter rail frequency. There is a greater tendency for former car users to move to improved rail-based transport, rather than bus transport. While Commuter Rail is not directly equivalent to Light Rail, the data is nevertheless indicative.

Train: The revival of a light rail network as proposed by the SCC, covers mainly inner Sydney suburbs which at the moment are not served by the existing CityRail Network. The light rail network is expected to connect with the existing CityRail network at Central, Bondi Junction, Mascot and Burwood to exploit the ‘Network Effect’ (Mees 2000, 138-143).

Bus: The SCC’s light rail proposal covers an area of Sydney that is currently exclusively operated by the State Transit Authority. The light rail routes will definitely have a detrimental effect on STA’s cost recovery. However, assuming a co-ordinated approach, STA’s radial routes in its most profitable catchments will have to be curtailed to become shuttle and feeder routes to the light rail network and due to the network effect, overall public transport use may increase. If routes are un-coordinated (such as the case in Melbourne or Adelaide), both buses and light rail will not benefit from any network effect and competition may be detrimental to patronage on either mode, which may lead to service cuts, which in turn may lead to decreased patronage, perpetuating the problem (see Mees 2000, 143).

Congestion and Capacity: Capacity by mode

Bus (Sydney Buses)
Passengers/Vehicle ~75
Vehicles/Hour / Headway 120 / 30 sec
Passengers/Hour 9000

Light Rail (Yarra Trams)
Passengers/Vehicle 190
Vehicles/Hour / Headway 120 / 30 sec
Passengers/Hour 22800

Heavy Rail (CityRail operation)
1500
20 / 3 min
30000

Sources: Based on figures from Sydney Buses, Yarra Trams, CityRail and personal observations. Assumption: Minimum practical headway for bus and light rail is 30 seconds.

Although the above figures are estimates, they do serve as a rough guide and satisfy the consensus that rail-based transit has a higher capacity than bus-based transit (Litman 2005, 35). Headways for bus and light rail can theoretically be smaller, however even 60 second headways are undesirable for on-street operation and will lend itself to the argument that was used to support the closure of the tram network - that it will cause congestion. In 1937, the headway in the evening peak on Elizabeth Street was just 19 seconds (Gibbons 1983, 169).

In Glazebrook and Associates’ report (2005, 21), they cited statistics reflecting the number of buses entering the CBD, categorised by route.
For example, currently on Broadway there are 209 buses during AM peak, which equates to 105 buses per hour or 34 second headways. Buses are close to maximum capacity and both light and heavy rail will be able to add to capacity. However, heavy rail will be more able to cater for more significant changes in mode share or catchment densities than light rail.

Furthermore, the issue of speed should be considered. While average speeds for Sydney’s Light Rail are high, this is due to ¾ of the track length being off-street. A more accurate source for average speeds is Yarra Trams (the Melbourne tram operator), who claim that average speeds are 16 km/h and 11 km/h in the CBD (2005). This is similar to Newman and Kenworthy’s (1999, 82) claim that average bus speeds in Sydney were 19 km/h in 1990. Light rail is a poor competitor to heavy rail in terms of speed, with Newman and Kenworthy quoting 42 km/h as Sydney’s average rail speed.

Costs

Litman (2005) has a particular penchant for user costs of transport and appears particularly in favour mass transit. While capital and maintenance costs are important in comparing modes, Litman prefers to compare costs based on the cost to the individual user. While it can be generally assumed short-term costs for rail transit are higher than road-based transit, Litman (2005, 19) argues that, “Rail transit projects include tracks, trains, stations, and sometimes parking facilities. It is inappropriate to compare rail system costs with just the cost of adding roadway capacity; comparisons should also include vehicle and parking costs needed for automobile travel.” Consequently, Litman argues that residents of cities with large rail transit systems benefit from lower transport expenditure per capita, compared to small rail and bus-only cities as mass transit is more cost-effective.

Other benefits

Benefits of transit (rail or bus) investment, while important will only be outlined and are based on Litman’s (2005) work:
* Fewer traffic accidents
* Increases in Economic Activity
* Reductions in Energy Consumption and Emissions

2006+ A New Day

While there is merit in the Sydney City Council’s billion-dollar plan for increased investment in rail-based transport, I agree with the State government’s cautionary stance. Many corridors where a light rail route has been suggested could be more suitable to a heavy rail metro operation to coincide with large urban consolidation and renewal projects (for example along Parramatta Road) and to serve higher-speed medium-distance trips. Increasing petrol prices could also leave Sydney in an interesting predicament – this phenomenon alone could be responsible for a very significant shift in mode share towards energy-efficient (and therefore cost-effective) mass transit modes.

In the meantime, other software solutions can increase mass transit patronage; for example – integrated ticketing. Such fare systems also increase patronage, as it does not penalise travellers for changing modes. It would also be applicable for part time workers or students and irregular travellers who do not benefit from periodical tickets. Integrated fares are a success in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. When South-East Queensland implemented Translink in 2003, patronage in July-August 2004 increased by 10.7% over the same period in 2003 (TA 2004, 374-5).
Other software solutions include bus schedule and routing overhauls to provide frequent feeder buses to the existing higher capacity CityRail heavy rail network.

There are multitudes of solutions to Sydney’s transport woes; light rail is not the Holy Grail.

Some examples of what I see as being unneccessary negativity toward light rail in Victoria that have to be dealt with for any other city to get a comprehensive system up and running.

Department of Infrastructure director of public transport Jim Betts
said change was needed to prevent the "tram network from dying on its
feet".

A letter from a resident in Melbourne's outer east:

Waste of money

IN RESPONSE to the article in the Knox Leader, September 13, about a
Knox tram link, I have to say it is a waste of money.

As areas like Wantirna are isolated from the train line, the money
should be spent on adding more bus routes and "greening" existing buses.

Trams are too slow for long trips and other large cities do fine
without them.

I also think the driving public would find a tram line annoying in
peak times. At least by adding bus routes they could be tested and
abandoned if they failed. A tram line would be an embarrassing sight
if it proved a useless waste of our money.

^^^^^^^^^^

You're right about tram routes being unfesible for long distances.A good system should only service a 10km radius and should,in most parts,be non-aligned off the road.

A metro fits the same philosophy.10 to 15km max.Due to the high frequency of stations.

Heavy rail is the best for long distances.

A city with an ideal transport system should have a central metro or light rail system in its densely populated core suburbs with a heavy rail system taking you out to the less desnely populated suburbs.

Thats how it works in all Eruopean and Japanese cities

How does the clause within the cross city tunnel contract relating to public transport influence the ability to develop light rail in inner-sydney?

How does the clause within the cross city tunnel contract relating to public transport influence the ability to develop light rail in inner-sydney?

Good question.I would like to know as well.

I not totally sure if it only relates to state government investment - but i doubt the council could do it on their own

If this clause puts this initiative in doubt - the labor government has once again shown their true effectiveness in politics

Perhaps the council could build the light rail line near the tunnel and the State Government do the rest.

Either way its a FUCKING DEBACLE.

I not totally sure if it only relates to state government investment - but i doubt the council could do it on their own

If this clause puts this initiative in doubt - the labor government has once again shown their true effectiveness in politics

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the motoring lobbies have had a hand in some of these clauses...

^^^^^^^

For sure.I could bank on that.the NRMA is a very selfish and narrow minded organisation who only care for the motorist,which is fine.However they see no benifit in public transport.Only in more roads

For sure.I could bank on that.the NRMA is a very selfish and narrow minded organisation who only care for the motorist,which is fine.However they see no benifit in public transport.Only in more roads

Well, I don't really see the problem with NRMA Motoring & Services having a one-sided view of things. It's no different really to a public transport lobby having a PT only approach. The only problem is that there is no PT lobby anywhere near as powerful as the NRMA. I don't think this is necessarily a reflection of consumer sentiment, rather the fact that the NRMA has a source of funding with which no PT lobby could ever hope to mirror.
This obviously makes it very difficult for a government to ignore the more powerful lobby group. It takes a government with some serious balls. A government which we do not currently have.

It takes a government with some serious balls. A government which we do not currently have.

Oh yes it does.You are 100 percent correct.No governemt has had any balls in NSW in regards to Public Transport since the 1930s when Bradfield proposed and got approved the some the city's underground,although even back then not all of it got approved.

Clover is the only politition with any sense or balls on PT

How does the clause within the cross city tunnel contract relating to public transport influence the ability to develop light rail in inner-sydney?

it doesn't. Try to tell News Ltd that...

is that because it is a local government initiative? would the clause allow state government involvement/funding?

Anyway, I doubt the state government would even consider it! What exactly have they done to support an innovative public transport solution?

is that because it is a local government initiative? would the clause allow state government involvement/funding?


It's not about funding, it's about direct competition with the cross city tunnel. You can't use the CCT to make intra-'inner city' journeys therefore such PT initiatives would not be in direct competition.

There's an interesting by-play going on in the Letter section of 'The Glebe' about how EcoTransit (a PT lobby group), is a stack from the Greens party.

I have to admit to being at public meetings about the M4 East chaired by EcoTransit and it was a who's who of Green Councillors.

Make your own judgement by going to their web site:

http://www.ecotransit.org.au/index.php3

Well, I don't really see the problem with NRMA Motoring & Services having a one-sided view of things. It's no different really to a public transport lobby having a PT only approach. The only problem is that there is no PT lobby anywhere near as powerful as the NRMA. I don't think this is necessarily a reflection of consumer sentiment, rather the fact that the NRMA has a source of funding with which no PT lobby could ever hope to mirror.
This obviously makes it very difficult for a government to ignore the more powerful lobby group. It takes a government with some serious balls. A government which we do not currently have.

great idea LR, I always thought Sydney had metro system?

Sydney has suburban rail, like south London.

Kind of yes.Kind of no.

Unlike Connex rail in South London,Sydney's rail acts as a metro with lines going right into the city and some other inner areas.

Sydney's rail is more like the RER in Paris,a heavy rail metro

after traveling the world for the last five years living mostly in europe, coming back to sydneys transport system is somewhat of a downer, then going to melbourne it is easy to see where the problem lies, the way i see it is sydney needs a metro, the city needs to bee divided up into zones and begun from scratch, that stupid cross tunnel needs to carry light rail, then it may have some value,
my mention of melbourne is because the tram system there really is comparable to the London underground or the paris metro, they all travel at about the same speed and stop just as frequently, any one who has traveled around london between any number of staions in central london will know what I mean, it is sometimes quicker to walk between some stations than to catch a train e.g. leicester square to charing cross, this is only a demonstration of the way the tube is really a light rail although it isnt defined the way the docklands light rail to south london is
any how after traveling you can see how important transportation is to a cities reputation and userfreindliness to visitors
I find it difficult to understand why the NSW has wasted so much resorses getting as many roads as it can into the city when it should be encouraging other forms of transport preferably bikes

I completely agree Bishop, the PT system is going to be the make or break of this city, and now things really have to change, all modes of PT in the city are feeling it and so are the commuters. I think there will be serious repercussions if things are not resolved ASAP.

People forget that it is not just commuters who use the road, it is freight too. Freight can't make any use of light, bus rail or the domestic rail investments but it can make use of the road network. The problem was Sydney never had a complete road network in the first place which is a nightmare for delivering goods and services. That was a contributing factor during the 1990's for both the state and federal allocation of funding. Roads like the ED the M5 east and the new M7 are god sends for freight.

I think there will be serious repercussions if things are not resolved ASAP.

This is a very interesting point. In the past I have lived in Japan and the UK. Both areas have far far far better PT than anywhere in Australia. When I moved back to Sydney last year I had forgotten just how poor Sydney is for PT. Both Japan and the UK are planning better PT. They are building better PT. They have a vision and can see the need.

I spent a lot of time thinking about how to improve things in Sydney but I am now thinking it will be at least 10-20 years before we see any improvments, if ever.

Large scale improvments take time, vision and money. They dont happen overnight. The NSW government does not seem to care about PT at all. Even if they announced a Light Rail expansion and a new metro line today, I doubt they would start building it for 2-3 years and it would not be finished for 5-8 years.

If the Government actually wanted people to use PT, they could double the number of trains on the weekend, improve the innercity bus services on the weekend and see that a more frequent service encourages people to use it.

It will take a major shift in government thinking to improve PT in Sydney. I cannot see labour doing it nor the Libs. It sad, but it seems to be the truth.

Guys, have you read the thread "Melbourne Tube"? If this actually went ahead, Melbourne is going to leave Sydney behind, Melbourne is already growing at an amazing rate, with the games next year there will be more exposure for this city, cheaper rates, excellent commercial facilities, a population almost as high as Sydney, great PT (already) .... etc etc. What does Sydney have? We still going to hang onto our bridge, opera house and beaches and hope that is enough to survive, Sydney is living in the past and is in trouble of becoming Australia's second city.

^^^^^^^

You obviously do not get to read the Melbourne daily rags.

The newspapers are sticking the boot into the Vic State Govt. about having no plans about fixing up our metropolitan transit systems.

Melbourne is fortunate to have inherited a great system due to the gold era up to the 1950's. But since the motor car has taken over railways have been left to rot.

We are in a whole lot of trouble in Melbourne. But at least now they are at least talking about it which is a start.

In the meantime I'm shopping around for a new car.

At least you guys are doing something! We have a some great tunnels but alas they are empty. Sydney has a great road network, I think it is tough to fault it and I am sure overtime the tunnles will become more popular (famous last words!), but our trains, well lets not go there, our roads although good, are busy and something needs to be done, I know people who live within walking distance to the city and still drive! There are also those who live nearby but still drive because the trains are unrealiable and packed of a morning. If we had a great PT system hopefully it would eradicate the need to drive. Can I have a metro? *pouts*

Cariad Sydney has already planned a metro system (city to lower north shore)- before carr quit!

Sydney Australia's second city? When melbourne moves from its manufacturing base and even comes close to Sydney's finance and investment sector then i will take your statement seriously! Melbourne's population has only just started to increase -and just remember every city suffers from slower growth after large sporting events such as olympics and other things~

NSW's population is declining - however Sydney's is not!

And since when was melbourne growing at an amazing rate- it is growing at national average - stupid comment cariad

and isnt this dicussion about potential investment in light rail???? - yes NSW lacked vision however every state government is guilty of that - however with massive investments in city rail, the proposed metro system and the proposed light rail - i think it is melbourne that will be left behind.

Sydney is growing slowly because it was the first to have the housing boom and the first to suffer the consequences of the bust!

and one last thing sorry
melbourne and sydney are pretty much in the same boat - they have zero or negative levels of net state migration - and rely on international migrants and natural increase for population growth!
so its not as if people from other states are flocking to victoria

Gee zach24, who got out on the wrong side of bed this morning!? Need a hug? :o)

Sorry I should have been specific, I meant growing structurally, isnt Melbourne still Australia's fastest growing city? (that is a question not statement!)

Anyway, In my opinion I think Melbourne is going to give Sydney a run for it's money and I think that is what they are planning.
And what does it matter what a city is based on, every city around the world is known for something, maybe Melbourne is manufacturing based, but if they are still succeeding without huge Finance and Invesment sector, isnt that more worrying? Once they have more A-Grade office space and I assume cheaper rates wouldn't a company be considering Melbourne as their Australian base?

Cariad Sydney has already planned a metro system (city to lower north shore)- before carr quit!

This? -

http://www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/dev/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=59&languageId=1&contentId=397

along with its fancy video:

http://www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/data/metrostrategy/jakarta-tomcat-5.0.28/infoglue/dev/uploads/Rail_Video.wmv

pipe dream

Melbournes population and economic growth is below that of qld and wa and depending on the particular quarter also below NSW's economic growth

and what about the duplication of some lines - and the chatswood link (although smaller than expected)

when was the last time melbourne made this type of investment?

also melbourne's tube plan - is a plan by a university lecturer not a politician

As for Carr's Metro strategy.It sounds and looks good on paper.However no government in NSW Histroy has ever completed a rail proposal properly.

Bradfied,1920s.Many lines were invisaged.One to Manly and another around the eastern Suburbs.Only the Parts of the city loop and the Harbour bridge were completed.

Eastern Suburbs line.Not finished.A half job.Just the Bondi Junction.

The Parramatta Chatswood line.Haahahahahahahahah.Only to Epping????? (Thankyou Carr and Costa)

One exception.The Airport Line.This was undertaken and fucked up by the private sector.The ticket prices have driven(literally)the passengers away.10 dollars to go to the City from the Airport by train??? What were they thinking?

Any other city that has a metro or rail system doesnt charge a massive premium worth more than half the ticket to get to the airport

You know what amazed me about Sydney when i first moved here. That the public transportation network doesnt use a universal pricing system. I was stunned by the fact that I could only use my train ticket on trains, and bus tickets with buses, etc. And then my bus ticket price was dependant on weather it was a public or private operator. Not to mention that the newly opened (in 2000) airport line had a station levy ontop of the the cityrail fee. Sydney is the only(?) city in Australia that operates with such a fragmented network? In Melbourne and Perth (and im sure other cities) you have zones. Buy a ticket for how many zones you want and its valid on any PT system. You can pre-buy your tickets from news agents, convenience stores etc so no monday queues for the weekly tickets, it just makes life more easier.

And the tolls were the same! You had different automatic payment systems for each operator. And again when the electronic tags were final introduced they were not compatible with each other and it took 2(?) years before that was ironed out. It used to do my head in when my RTA etag would apparently work in Brisbane but wouldnt work on the local M4.

you can get zonal weekly/quarterly/yearly travelpasses for train/ferry/government bus. The government seems to be copping out on extending it, but rather thinks the problem will magically disappear with a unified stored value card...

but rather thinks the problem will magically disappear with a unified stored value card...

Any idea what's going on with that? I thought there was a trial of some sort, but th only readers I've seen anywhere were some taped up ones at Newtown Station (one of which had already been vandalised and was dangling from the pole). I can't believe it's taking so long.

I wonder how long it will actually take them to roll it out to all stations and buses once they decide to go ahead with it.

Here's the timetable:

Contract Award: February 2003
Phase 1 Revenue Service: November 2005
Full Revenue Service: March 2007

there are problems (and that timetable will blow out), not the least of which is the financial instability of the contractor

Yes ERG from Australia has a lot of problems! I wouldnt be surprised to see the company bought out - it has superior technology compared to cubic from the USA - however very poor financial stability

ERG built the HK, Singapore, Rome and San Fran system - lets hope Sydney's system will be as good

never i say if you want to live by public tranport then move to anther city

An article to stir up you tram-lovers out there

Trams more damaging to the environment than cars

Thursday, 23 January 2003

tram
Despite their appeal, trams are bigger polluters than cars in the long term
Trams are the least 'green' form of transport, and even trains produce only slightly less greenhouse gases than cars, an Australian study has found.

The study by researchers at Melbourne's RMIT University, shows that - over the long term - trams produce the highest amount of greenhouse gases, followed by trains, cars and buses. Trams are also very expensive to make and cause major traffic problems.

"The problem is low occupancy," Dr Ed Boyapati, a senior lecturer in engineering who led the study, told ABC Science Online.

The research compared greenhouse gas emissions from the public transport systems and private cars in the Melbourne metropolitan area. The team counted the number of passengers and the length of their trips, and averaged the result against the amount of greenhouse gas each vehicle produced.

They found that trams emit approximately 0.74 kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) per passenger kilometre. Buses showed the least impact, generating just 0.04 kg of CO2 per passenger kilometre, with cars and trains fairly equal at 0.25 kg of CO2 per passenger kilometre and 0.23 kg CO2 per passenger kilometre respectively.

But the findings do not mean we should abandon public transport in favour of cars, according to Boyapati. The solution is to increase the 'loading factor', or number of passengers, using public transport.

The reason for the surprising disparity is that cars always have a passenger in them (the driver), whereas public transport runs at an average of only 25 to 30 per cent capacity. "If we can increase them to between 80 and 90 per cent it will help, but even then trams will be inefficient," Boyapati said.

But increasing the number of passengers on public transport will not be an easy task, he added. "Public transport can't provide the level of service. If we increase the frequency, then we reduce the loading."

Reducing the number of carriages on trains and offering dramatically cheaper tickets at off peak periods might also help.

While trams on their own are inefficient in greenhouse gas terms, they also have a multiplier effect on emissions by other vehicles. When they stop to pick up and drop off passengers, "up to 40 cars [can] backed up behind a stopped tram," Boyapati said.

After conducting a life cycle analysis of each form of transport, trams were found to add about 80 per cent more greenhouse gas as a result of these flow-on effects. In addition to the high capital cost - about six times that of buses - trams carry about the same number of passengers.

"Trams are definitely a lost cause," Boyapati said. "Around the world, they are being replaced by buses."

The study was inspired by a discussion between tram enthusiasts at RMIT in late 2001, where a state government transport expert noted trams appeared to create a lot of flow-on effects, Boyapati recalled. "Then the question was asked how we know that even buses are efficient, and we decided to pursue that aspect," he added.

Boyapati presented his group's findings at the 8th International Conference on Energy and Environment in Cairo, Egypt, earlier this month. He commented that in Cairo, public transport is run at 120 to 130 per cent capacity, which is better for greenhouse gas efficiency - if not so good for passenger comfort.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s768017.htm

********************************************

I find the stats myself rather dubious, but its food for thought.

I doubt the argument for light rail was ever environmental based
its about creating a functioning city capable of moving people from A - B
Traffic is worsening hence we need more effective ways to move people!
Since when did anyone (apart from the Greens) suggest we need public transport with the primary purpose to reduce pollution

looks like Castlereagh st is to host the tram line to quay and will be done in two year!! f=great news.this along with the reopening of 13 road closures due to Xcitytunnel, things shoudl start to improve in the CBD.

http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/9360/trams0ia.jpg

looks like Castlereagh st is to host the tram line to quay and will be done in two year!! f=great news.this along with the reopening of 13 road closures due to Xcitytunnel, things shoudl start to improve in the CBD.



Won't happen. The State Govvie is anti-Light Rail, so it won't go ahead.

It's a shame though. I'd think a tram to EDH would be ideal.

And a tram through the city WOULD get used - especially by people commuting from the interurban areas (it can be quite a hike to transfer).

Coalition is keen on this thing. Stupidly. So I guess it's time to be realistic about it happening. That being the case two things need to happen

(1) Get rid of Connex and nationalise the existing line
(2) Work out some connection to Railway Square because the Green Lines and Parramatta Road services are the only routes that will use it. Probably easiest is to make there be bus access from Railway Square to Railway Collonade via the existing Sydney Terminal carpark. Needs a bus hook turn across the Railway Square intersection for starters...

Maybe it's just because it's been awhile since I was last in Sydney but I always thought there was more traffic than what that artists impression suggests.

Unless that street becomes kinda like a mall or something I can't see 2.5min frequency in peak time being particularly attainable. Same issues occur in Melbourne and they have had years of practice at trying to fix it so I doubt Sydney has some magic formula to make it work so well.

Anyways, I still think PT is the way to go in some fashion whether it be underground or whatever. More cars will keep coming otherwise and you can only make roads a finite width.



.....By the way its been years since I was there, I hope that street isn't actually a mall already and i just made a dick of myself...

Maybe it's just because it's been awhile since I was last in Sydney but I always thought there was more traffic than what that artists impression suggests.

Unless that street becomes kinda like a mall or something I can't see 2.5min frequency in peak time being particularly attainable. Same issues occur in Melbourne and they have had years of practice at trying to fix it so I doubt Sydney has some magic formula to make it work so well.

Anyways, I still think PT is the way to go in some fashion whether it be underground or whatever. More cars will keep coming otherwise and you can only make roads a finite width.



.....By the way its been years since I was there, I hope that street isn't actually a mall already and i just made a dick of myself...

Nope, you haven't, but it's a narrow bugger of a street anyway (as can be seen by the shot shown), so it wouldn't be surprising to see the whole street closed off. The single lane shown with a car would likely be emergency vehicle access.

I agree with the engineering lecturer, light rail is a lost cause and a waste of money and the light rail network needs to be very extensive or it would merely shift the bottleneck to the fringes of the CBD.

That comparison between current bus network and the tram network is misleading. The fair comparison would be to compare light rail to a cbd bus network using quarantined streets. The capacity would be similar(if not higher for buses as they can afford higher speeds and frequencies) and it is much cheaper.

See Hong Kong for a very high capacity bus network serving a very dense metro area thats done properly.

New study supports CBD light rail loop

2 March 2007

A light rail loop to service the Barangaroo development at East Darling Harbour and ease CBD bus and train congestion could be built according to a new City of Sydney study.

The Hyder Consulting preliminary feasibility study commissioned by City of Sydney examined the potential for light rail on Hickson Road. The study recommends exploring options to link the CBD, central and East Darling Harbour:

Option 1: Central Station to Circular Quay via The Rocks along Hay Street, Sussex Street, Hickson Road, George Street and Alfred Street.

Option 2: Central Station to Circular Quay Station via The Rocks along Hay, George, Liverpool, Kent, Argyle, George and Alfred Streets.

Both options use the Castlereagh Street light rail proposal, which the City has shown to be both feasible and financially viable.

The study explored the main engineering and planning aspects of the Hickson Road options for technical feasibility.

It found that more powerful light rail vehicles will be able to negotiate slopes on Hickson Rd at the Rocks. Further investigation is recommended to overcome issues such as height clearance, utility locations and traffic impacts.

Lord Mayor Clover Moore MP called on the State Government to invest in Sydney's future now by providing long-term integrated transport solutions.

"Walsh Bay and Millers Point are poorly serviced by public transport. A Hickson Rd light rail link is an opportunity to reconnect this isolated edge of the City, particularly the proposed East Darling Harbour development."

"With more than 15,000 additional CBD workers and thousands of new residents expected at the Barangaroo site - light rail is a logical solution.

"The Government continues to stick its head in the sand over the future of Sydney's overwhelmed transport system," Ms Moore said.

"By failing to address public transport and congestion in Sydney we are risking employment, we are failing NSW and then our national economy will falter."

"Even in the face of more than 50 reports advocating light rail and expert advice from the City of Sydney, the Government continues to do nothing.

"Ignoring light rail is inexplicable. The CBD is already overwhelmed by buses and providing more buses or making people stand on buses to increase capacity is not an acceptable answer," Ms Moore said.

A recent report prepared for the Government's Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA) recommended investigating light rail on Hickson Road and reserving road space for future use.

Ms Moore said she would support further investigations by SHFA and work with the authority wherever possible.

"We know from comprehensive research that light rail is environmentally sustainable, financially viable and workable," Ms Moore said.

"Now we have a proposal for a surface loop that will provide relief to the heavily used underground rail, reduce buses in the CBD and supports the East Darling Harbour development."

A financial analysis of the Castlereagh Street light rail option undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers last year found the extension of the light rail network along Castlereagh Street from Central to Circular Quay would provide a return on investment for the operator, based on standard levels of State Government subsidies for public transport.

"If we go on failing to address Sydney's transport problems, congestion and travel times will increase, and Sydney will lose investment, jobs and economic growth," the Lord Mayor said.


proposed map
http://www.sydneymedia.com.au/asset/2/upload/Hickson_Rd_Short_List_Options.pdf

http://www.sydneymedia.com.au/asset/2/images/Light_rail_concept_-_Hickson_Road.jpg

Once again promoting band aid solutions for problems that require more vision. they should just move bypass the idea of light rail and go str8 to heavy underground rail. It's pointless beating around the bush. Someone needs to bite the bullet and soon.

It's a great proposal though of course nothing will happen.

Noone will EVER bite the bullet and definitely not soon.

Anyway, Walsh Bay and the city west aren't dense and busy enough to support a heavy rail line. Light rail here is the best and most efficient option. What happened to the plan on the first page of this thread???

Don't much like the artist's impression of the tram though. Looks like a bus with steel wheels.

LOL that 'bus with steel wheels' is the same as our current trams, just in green livery.

thats hot

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/4283/lightrailconcepthicksonld8.jpg

thats hot

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/4283/lightrailconcepthicksonld8.jpg

Agreed, I'd ride that;)

People love trams for some reason.

People don't care if buses are more economically viable, more people would be encouraged onto public transport if there were more trams.

I would much rather catch a tram than a bus.

People don't care if buses are more economically viable, more people would be encouraged onto public transport if there were more trams.

Because Trams have a more "European" feel to it?

^^^^

That's probably one of the factors.

I think it's more emotional than anything.

Buses do not have the carrying capacity or ride quality of modern light rail, full stop - even if they did, it would be more labour intensive and require fuel of some sort, as opposed to electrical current which can be generated other than at the location where motive power is needed and can be recovered partially with regenerative braking. I have never seen figures which support an opposite conclusion that were not seriously flawed. Light rail also has an important street-calming and visual effect as well, which buses cannot replicate.

It been shown in many studies that trams prove more popular than buses, even if they are no faster or more frequent.

People just like trams.

It been shown in many studies that trams prove more popular than buses, even if they are no faster or more frequent.

People just like trams.

Well I don't, I hate them! I dont want them in sydney, they are fecking ugly and annoying. I'd still rather a new duplicated heaviey monorail system. I'd rather see the transport off away from the street level.

Those white 'astist impression' trams are the ugliest thing i have ever seen, I'd not be caught dead riding one. Who was the gronk that produced that artwork?

I much prefer trams to buses. I don't think trams would really be appropriate for Sydney though. I'm not sure what the city envisages but a couple of isolated lines probably wouldn't do much. Do many commuters use the one that goes from Central past the casino?

Avatar, are you sure you design for a living?

I found travelling around the Sydney CBD by "heavy rail" a bit awkward at times ... maybe the ticketing's better these days, but try taking a foreign visitor from circular quay to King's Cross by rail ... and, no, she's too tired to walk to Martin Place. changing trains at Town Hall station is confusing, at least to visitors.

Although the streets are narrow, a north-south tram route- or loop- through sydney would be a good idea. At least poor visitors like me would know where they were going, which is more than I could work out on the buses.

The other side of this is intermodal tickets ... a Godsend. Not sure if things have changed since my last visit, but I was stunned to learn just how much it was going to cost me to go out to the airport to pick up my friend: if I'd waited behind the barrier I could have done it for a fraction of the cost, but that wasn't an option.

^^^^

The City to Airport line is a private line.

It's a fucking rip-off.

No trams please. Keep the buses and increase the trains. Ill personally advocate for people to smash trams if they were ever injected in our city. I cant drive properly through the city now as it is, i will not have an inconvenience added just so a few people dont have to move their fat ass and walk to Barangaroo like the rest of us walk to Darling Harbour! Get over it.

^^^^

The City to Airport line is a private line.

It's a fucking rip-off.

I still don't know why they didn't buy it up. I think you could get away with the extra fee on the Airport stations, but it should be removed from the other stations on the line.

...not have an inconvenience added just so a few people dont have to move their fat ass and walk
Why are you expecting a fast trip driving through the centre of the city?

That post seemed to break the needle on the irony-meter.

You sound like the type of people in Melbourne who pull right-hand turns in front of trams.

No trams please. Keep the buses and increase the trains. Ill personally advocate for people to smash trams if they were ever injected in our city. I cant drive properly through the city now as it is, i will not have an inconvenience added just so a few people dont have to move their fat ass and walk to Barangaroo like the rest of us walk to Darling Harbour! Get over it.

You drive a 4wd, don't ya?

No trams please. Keep the buses and increase the trains. Ill personally advocate for people to smash trams if they were ever injected in our city. I cant drive properly through the city now as it is, i will not have an inconvenience added just so a few people dont have to move their fat ass and walk to Barangaroo like the rest of us walk to Darling Harbour! Get over it.

Fair enough, you can keep your 9,000 (and rising) daily bus movements on congested city streets. Go for it.

trains at Town Hall station is confusing, at least to visitors.

What would they do in a city with a real train network?

I cant drive properly through the city now as it is, i will not have an inconvenience added just so a few people dont have to move their fat ass and walk to Barangaroo like the rest of us walk to Darling Harbour!

Y'know some of us bus commuters feel the same way about your car.

Austraarabian do you even read what you write?

You say it's hard enough for people like you to drive through the city, then you accuse people of not walking enough! In any case trams would actually remove cars and buses and encourage walking. How do you think people get to the tram stop?

Avatar, are you sure you design for a living?

What's that got to do with me hating trams and that poorly conceived rendering? Aesthetically what they depict sucks shit. I just cant see why we cant have monorail over trams. the light rail should never have been put back, monorail should have been expanded instead and taken over by shityrail.

What would they do in a city with a real train network?

I gues you're talking about Europe. The trouble with Town Hall is that you can't move directly from one level to the other.

I gues you're talking about Europe. The trouble with Town Hall is that you can't move directly from one level to the other.

Well you can, if you're lucky enough to find the stairs and don't want to change sides of the station. The renovation plans appear to show the station being opened out significantly. You'll never remove the need to go to the concourse to change completely because of the three platform per level layout.

Yardmaster - this shows the upgrade to Town Hall station - Hopefully this will help understand how Town Hall works a little better.

I agree it isnt the worlds best designed station. ideally it shoudl have been built like Wynyard, Platform - Concourse - Platform (vertically). That way you dont have the problem of the upper level of platforms dealling with the entry points to the lower platforms.

Parliament or Melbourne Central ( i cant remember which) gets around this by forcing all those people who are commuting to the lower platforms to use the escalators to the upper level, then get onto the lower level escalators on the upper level platforms as you probably know.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3650/sideview8hu.th.png (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sideview8hu.png)

As for light rail, as i have probably iterated somewhere in this discussion, i would much prefer to see a light rail system out in the suburbs first, - most likely the inner suburbs, then start expanding it into the CBD. The first proposal i had, which i still like, has a radial tramway network from Ashfield and Burwood servicing most the inner west. There was a minor connection to the CBD through the existing line and a new one to Central via Parra Rd.