Sydney's LIGHT RAIL VISION

[CULWULLA]

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

[andypandy]

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!

[Randwicked]

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.

[nOchAos]

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.

[SinCity]

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.

[renell]

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

[Cee_em_bee]

This is good, but are they for real?

[James Saito]

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.

[smeghead]

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.

[Aussie Steve]

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.

[zulu69]

^ 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..

[James Saito]

Originally Posted by smeghead

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.

[no name]

Originally Posted by Aussie Steve

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.

[Cee_em_bee]

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.

[cammo2004]

Originally Posted by James Saito

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.

[AG]

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

[hornetfig]

she's sooo been bought off by Connex

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

[smeghead]

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.

[Avatar]

Originally Posted by Aussie Steve

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.

[Avatar]

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.