U/C | SYDNEY | Light Rail (Circular Quay to Randwick and Kingsford) - Page 5 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > OZScrapers > Urban Spaces > Transportation

Transportation Trains, planes and automobiles.


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 12th, 2004, 08:49 AM   #81
Fabian
Sydney: World's best city
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 40,696

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Saito
It would be good to have the stations along Norton St. The current inner-west stations are pretty useless, nothing interesting to see around. But what happened to the plan about extending the light rail to Ashfield?
Light rail was never intended to cater solely for tourists. It provides a means of transport for residents of the Inner West and Pyrmont areas to use to travel into the city and at the same time providing a transport service that links key city attractions, shopping precients and places of interest.

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

Also don't write off an extension to Ashfield as yet. I think it's still on the cards but getting it into Norton St is just as important along with the CBD extension.
__________________
Find out why Sydney has become the city that it is today:

Fab Sydney Flashbacks
Fabian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old August 12th, 2004, 10:40 AM   #82
smeghead
PTnut
 
smeghead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 0

It's a tough argument, buses versus light rail. Capacitywise, both are debatable. The onyl arguments (for both sides) are imo:
Cost: Buses don't need tracks.
Convenience: There's nothing like standing at the bus stop having two or more buses pulling up athe the same time to your stop and the driver deciding to not stop for you because the bus stop is full. Or you have always stand up and check wether the bus coming is the bus you intend to catch.
Comfort: Light rail is far more comfortable than buses (no sudden braking or sharp turns)
Priority: This is my opinion only, that drivers tend to stay clear of trams where possible and cannot park on the tracks or block them. Trams also seem to get more priority at signals or with their own 24 hour bus lanes as opposed to bus lanes which also are affected by cars & delviery vehicles loading & unloading. Also bus lanes tend to only apply for several hours of the day and the rest of the day buses are stuck in traffic. Melbournites plz comment.
Land values: These increase when close to well used light rail routes. Youd need a major bus interchange or corridor to get that kind of increase in land value, with the bonus of bus noise.
__________________
"Widening roads to ease traffic congestion is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt." - Glen Hiemstra
smeghead no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2004, 12:43 PM   #83
Shado
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 348
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by smeghead
It's a tough argument, buses versus light rail. Capacitywise, both are debatable. The onyl arguments (for both sides) are imo:
Cost: Buses don't need tracks.
Convenience: There's nothing like standing at the bus stop having two or more buses pulling up athe the same time to your stop and the driver deciding to not stop for you because the bus stop is full. Or you have always stand up and check wether the bus coming is the bus you intend to catch.
Comfort: Light rail is far more comfortable than buses (no sudden braking or sharp turns)
Priority: This is my opinion only, that drivers tend to stay clear of trams where possible and cannot park on the tracks or block them. Trams also seem to get more priority at signals or with their own 24 hour bus lanes as opposed to bus lanes which also are affected by cars & delviery vehicles loading & unloading. Also bus lanes tend to only apply for several hours of the day and the rest of the day buses are stuck in traffic. Melbournites plz comment.
Land values: These increase when close to well used light rail routes. Youd need a major bus interchange or corridor to get that kind of increase in land value, with the bonus of bus noise.
Busses:
- May overtake stopped busses
- As such do not have to stop at every stop
- Speed, as you said busses brake suddenly (depending on the driver) overall this saves a few seconds here and there. Or it doesn't. I found while trying to buy a ticket on a tram that you get thrown about just as much anyway.
- Don't require tracks, so the system can have routes that vary from the strict routes of trams, with some services running express down buslanes / busways. So increasing the speed of service.
- Priority - most buslanes are clearways, there shouldn't be anyone parked on them, you will find the odd person rude enough to drive in them, but not enough people do to actually slow the buses down any.
- Times of the day without buslanes are usually only in areas where it doesn't matter anyway. Areas busy all day have 24x7 buslanes.
- Land Values: Busses don't require ugly overhead powercables, though they aren't as quiet something like a dedicated busway increases land values greatly, over a much larger distance than light rail, because even areas not on the route have feeder services that can run direct without people having to change modes.

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

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

I mean, if you could get rid of the drivers, it might be different, but since you're paying for someone to drive the vehicle anyway, it doesn't cost any extra to have them steer. The other thing I noticed is in trams the driver is often shut off from the passenger section ++ for safety of the driver -- for passenger convenience. (though this is debatable and not directly related to the mode itself).
Shado no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old February 21st, 2005, 09:08 AM   #84
Fabian
Sydney: World's best city
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 40,696

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

Go for it!!!!

From The Sydney Morning Herald
Light rail plan to ease Sydney's congestion
By Tim Dick, Urban Affairs Reporter
February 21, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More park and ride facilities would be built in the suburbs, while some bus routes would end at light rail stops instead of Circular Quay, with tickets valid for both forms of transport.That would help cut the number of buses in the CBD by a third, and by as much as half on some main routes.
__________________
Find out why Sydney has become the city that it is today:

Fab Sydney Flashbacks
Fabian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2005, 09:19 AM   #85
sirhc8
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 3

It's certainly a step in the right direction but the answer clearly lies underground.
sirhc8 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2005, 10:39 AM   #86
papervagina
spider inside my dreams
 
papervagina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,639

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhc8
It's certainly a step in the right direction but the answer clearly lies underground.
I couldn't agree more, and look, Clover agrees too:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabian
"Every commuter, every public transport user, every motorist, every cyclist and every pedestrian understands that the city is fast heading for gridlock if we don't confront the situation as a matter of urgency. More cars and more buses choking our narrow CBD streets is just unworkable."
So the narrow CBD streets are choking, but adding yet another form of transport to them is the solution? Running trams down the middle of the road won't do much to reduce the number of cars - why not just run buses down the middle of the road instead of having slow combined bus/parking/cycling lanes on the left?

Surely the population density of the eastern suburbs makes it one of the few places in Australia where underground rail could be profitable (or very close to being).
papervagina no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2005, 11:00 AM   #87
Shado
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 348
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhc8
It's certainly a step in the right direction but the answer clearly lies underground.
For sure, and rail works much better than busses etc underground because you don't need to have such elaborate ventilation systems. Clearly it's expensive to do, but the benefit pays off for hundreds of years.
Shado no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2005, 11:03 AM   #88
zulu69
selling my body since 88'
 
zulu69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,241
Likes (Received): 65

^ underground metro lines are the only REAL solution. Is it THAT expensive??? I am positive if the undergrounds were to be expanded the traffic problems could be as good as solved. I always say this but European cities, with very narrow roads, loads of cars and some even with the population of Australia have bypassed the very probs that Syd is experiencing. Time to wake up.
__________________
Sydney: Australia's NYC.
Form is Temporary. Class is permanent.
YNWA.
zulu69 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2005, 11:48 AM   #89
Randwicked
Яandwicked
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austfailia
Posts: 690
Likes (Received): 6

Sydney's prime candidate for Australia's first metro. It can't cost that much more than it does to burrow all our motorways through sandstone.
__________________
Now with extra misanthropy
Randwicked no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2005, 12:24 PM   #90
sirhc8
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 3

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

Much less in fact. We'd only be running single level carriages through the network and you don't require much clearance so the bore diameter isn't comparable to a 6 lane motorway. Still costs much, much more than lightrail but the benefits are so much greater.
sirhc8 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2005, 03:38 PM   #91
James Saito
Registered User
 
James Saito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,080
Likes (Received): 2

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


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

And what's with Mascot? Do we really need a tram line to Mascot?
James Saito no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2005, 10:00 PM   #92
Fabian
Sydney: World's best city
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 40,696

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

I'm really curious which streets they are going to use. According to the previous information one of the inner west lines will be using Parramatta Rd and a line to Bondi Beach using OxFord st? These two streets are already conjested like hell though...
I remember on ten news last night, they showed a map of proposed routes. There would be two routes running through the inner west - one via Parramatta Rd and the other would continue on from the current line at Lilyfield. The M4 East provides us with an opportunity to rid Parramatta road of dominance by cars and put light rail in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Saito
And what's with Mascot? Do we really need a tram line to Mascot?
To serve the Green Square area.
__________________
Find out why Sydney has become the city that it is today:

Fab Sydney Flashbacks
Fabian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2005, 01:18 AM   #93
zulu69
selling my body since 88'
 
zulu69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,241
Likes (Received): 65

^ oh great parra road needs a tram added just to spice it up...... should be even better to get stuck in taffic now with 2 lanes.
__________________
Sydney: Australia's NYC.
Form is Temporary. Class is permanent.
YNWA.
zulu69 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2005, 02:00 AM   #94
DrJoe
Registered Idiot
 
DrJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,671
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by zulu69
^ underground metro lines are the only REAL solution. Is it THAT expensive??? I am positive if the undergrounds were to be expanded the traffic problems could be as good as solved.
About the cost thing. For a little bit of perspective Toronto wants to add 6 km to the subway system and it is estimated it will cost 1.5 billion CAD to do that, and you're talking a basic straight line extension.
__________________
*
DrJoe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2005, 02:09 AM   #95
greynurse
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 63
Likes (Received): 0

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


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

http://smh.com.au/news/National/Carr...834733665.html

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

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

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

But now both plans are unlikely to go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

She received at least some support yesterday. The Tourism and Transport Forum said light rail would be a practical, environmentally friendly way to provide public transport.
greynurse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2005, 06:19 AM   #96
Syd-Hk
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 540
Likes (Received): 1

NOOOOO!! i want PT...
Syd-Hk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2005, 01:16 PM   #97
cammo2004
Unacquainted Acquaintance
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Plain old Sydney
Posts: 1,464
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJoe
About the cost thing. For a little bit of perspective Toronto wants to add 6 km to the subway system and it is estimated it will cost 1.5 billion CAD to do that, and you're talking a basic straight line extension.
Well, 6km would get you a second CBD loop, which would provide HUGE benefits for the current system.
__________________
known as cammo2003 @ www.simtropolis.com
cammo2004 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2005, 12:49 AM   #98
AltiusAltiusAltius
Member
 
AltiusAltiusAltius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,366
Likes (Received): 58

Quote:
Originally Posted by greynurse
Looks like this is dead in the water without the state govenments backing.


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

http://smh.com.au/news/National/Carr...834733665.html

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

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

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

But now both plans are unlikely to go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

She received at least some support yesterday. The Tourism and Transport Forum said light rail would be a practical, environmentally friendly way to provide public transport.
Bob Carr and his Government should not comment on transport affairs as their transport portfolio have shown complete incompetence so many times.

We want the light rail and we want it now!
__________________
"A City is the greatest work of art possible"
Lloyd Rees
AltiusAltiusAltius no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2005, 01:55 AM   #99
MrPC
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 541
Likes (Received): 0

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

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

Clover Moore needs a slap in the face too for talking about her hairbrained scheme for transport failure too much.
MrPC no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2005, 08:53 AM   #100
nikko
Registered Yooser
 
nikko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,456
Likes (Received): 10

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

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

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

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

Last edited by nikko; March 6th, 2005 at 09:10 AM.
nikko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Tags
mandurahboyz, sydney, tram

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Projects & Discussion | SYDNEY | News, Gossip & Ramblings Sky_Is_The_Limit Sydney CBD 3642 Today 01:52 AM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us