SYDNEY: Light Rail

[Fabian]

Originally Posted by iron_monkey

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

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

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

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

[sirhc8]

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

[papervagina]

Originally Posted by sirhc8

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

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

Oh, we need to tell Clover too.

[cammo2004]

Originally Posted by papervagina

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

Oh, we need to tell Clover too.

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

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

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

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

This said, Sydney should go metro.

[sirhc8]

Originally Posted by cammo2004

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

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

[Fabian]

Originally Posted by sirhc8

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

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

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

[papervagina]

Originally Posted by cammo2004

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

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

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

[James Saito]

Originally Posted by cammo2004

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

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

[iron_monkey]

Originally Posted by Fabian

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

As I already said light rail will not transport more people than a monorail can because it has to contend with traffic lights, pedestrians, and cars.
It occupies two whole lanes of otherwise vehicle traffic as opposed to the minute footprint of monorail.
All this makes light rail grossly inefficient compared to monorail.

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

Originally Posted by Fabian

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

Each to their own. But I said 'regardless' for a reason, as to me there is no other choice if you want to make substantial improvements over the existing bus system and CBD streets. Reasons are above. In terms of transport functionality light rail is a give and take situation.

[zulu69]

Originally Posted by sirhc8

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

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

[OSJ]

Originally Posted by zulu69

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

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

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

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

[zulu69]

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

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

[iron_monkey]

Originally Posted by OSJ

Why do so many people think that Trams/light rail are not suited to Sydney. I know the streets are narrow and not straight, but this doesn't stop most of Europe with their light rail/tram systems.

Comparison with Europe is flawed also because their ultilization of public transport by the population is very high, and that their dependency on cars very low. The price of petrol in some European countries I heard is incredibly high as well. Compare this to sydney, which by comparison is a very automobile dependent city.

And compared to many European cities, Sydney's streets are not that narrow - they just need to Pedestrianise about half of them, kick the cars out, and put in a decent tram system and the city would be fantastic. There are plenty of routes that could be used that wouldn't upset major through traffic. In any case most of the through traffic is taken care of by the tunnels and freeways.

If you want to just public transportize the CBD, you found that you also need to public transportize the metropolitan area as well (unless you have alots of surplus parking space around the CBD, which is not the case). You need turn most of the metro area into a public transport orientated one before light rail can work for Sydney CBD. Monorail does not need this ridiculous requirement. The fact is Sydney isnt like Hong Kong or a public transport orientated/pedestrian friendly European city. Reform needs to be gradual, not drastic. Monorail allows this smoother transition.

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

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

[OSJ]

Originally Posted by zulu69

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

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

Originally Posted by zulu69

Trams are good, but metro's are much greater. Again why are ppl so afraid to admit that, it seems so simple it's funny.

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

Originally Posted by zulu69

And kick cars out? Sheesh you might as well level the CBD and build a megamall or something. The CBD needs cars and pedestrians have no troubles (i never have).

Didn't quite mean kick them ALL out. I meant, turn one or two north south and one or two east west streets pedestrian, or street parking free, to allow for tram lines. The thing with Sydney is it's difficult to get small distances between important places - say darling harbour to circular quay. A couple of tram lines to start with would go a long way for a lot less investment than metros - they are much more comfortable for people on and off them too.

[OSJ]

Originally Posted by iron_monkey

Comparison with Europe is flawed also because their ultilization of public transport by the population is very high, and that their dependency on cars very low. The price of petrol in some European countries I heard is incredibly high as well. Compare this to sydney, which by comparison is a very automobile dependent city.

Ok compare it to Melbourne then - about half the PT patronage of Sydney, but a very extensive, and reasonably well patronised tram network (highly patronised in the inner city) Inner cities ALL function differently to suburban areas. The coverage of PT in London declines drastically the further into the suburbs you go.

Originally Posted by iron_monkey

You need turn most of the metro area into a public transport orientated one before light rail can work for Sydney CBD. Monorail does not need this ridiculous requirement.

What ridiculous requirement exactly are you referring to. Traffic calming measures, two rails some concrete, and a few tram stops (AKA bus shelters) as opposed to elevated stations, points of access which are generally from private property, and a cumbersome inflexible structure with a one way system that means if I want to get from Town Hall to Haymarket I have to go via Darling Harbour???

Originally Posted by iron_monkey

Reform needs to be gradual, not drastic. Monorail allows this smoother transition.

Again no reason trams/light rail can't be gradual - and they're cheaper and simpler to install than a monorail, and more usefull if run properly

Originally Posted by iron_monkey

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

What high inefficiency or impracticality?? Huge setbacks??

[James Saito]

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

[iron_monkey]

Originally Posted by OSJ

Ok compare it to Melbourne then - about half the PT patronage of Sydney, but a very extensive, and reasonably well patronised tram network (highly patronised in the inner city)

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

What ridiculous requirement exactly are you referring to. Traffic calming measures, two rails some concrete, and a few tram stops (AKA bus shelters) as opposed to elevated stations, points of access which are generally from private property, and a cumbersome inflexible structure with a one way system that means if I want to get from Town Hall to Haymarket I have to go via Darling Harbour???

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

Again no reason trams/light rail can't be gradual - and they're cheaper and simpler to install than a monorail, and more usefull if run properly

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

[no name]

Originally Posted by iron_monkey

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

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

[OSJ]

Originally Posted by iron_monkey

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

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

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

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

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

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

[iron_monkey]

Originally Posted by no name

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

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