Today public opinion is much more positive towards urban railways as an efficient and attractive form of transport. Isn't it time the station at Woollahra was completed? Surely the higher population density in the area nowadays, crippling traffic congestion on Oxford St, and the ability to use clever modern architecture/engineering to make the station quiet and aesthetically pleasing mean this new station should now be built?

Also, the proposal for a station under the NSW Art Gallery (see http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/media-office/agnsw-unveils-strategic-vision/) is an interesting one? Surely the special events patronage from the Domain and the increasing high density residential in the area could provide adequate patronage to make it worthwhile?

I feel the eastern suburbs line is not used to its full potential, given its high frequency service and route through one of the most densely populated areas of Sydney. Obviously the longer term goal is extension to Randwick, however both the above new stations could be built without major new and costly infrastructure (tunnels). Any thoughts?

Woollahra won't happen for the same reason it didn't happen in the first place. Lots of people who live around there don't and will never catch a train and they don't want people who do catch trains to have access to their neighborhood. The Art Gallery idea doesn't seem very serious. Does anybody other than the art gallery themselves think this would be a good idea?

The intention seems to be these days that the light rail will fill any gaps - particularly Randwick and UNSW.

I expect that The Domain station will go ahead as there are no compelling reasons *against* it and it will have patronage.  But Woollahra, as said above in an earlier reply, is a dead letter.  Apart from the objections of the surrounding residents, there is no way to provide access to the station.

Unfortunately there is also zero possibility that the ESR will ever be extended to Charing Cross and Randwick, as the cost of construction would make a trip to Mars look like a good bargain, and the Light Rail is going to Randwick.

Game over.

I expect that The Domain station will go ahead as there are no compelling reasons *against* it and it will have patronage.  But Woollahra, as said above in an earlier reply, is a dead letter.  Apart from the objections of the surrounding residents, there is no way to provide access to the station.

Unfortunately there is also zero possibility that the ESR will ever be extended to Charing Cross and Randwick, as the cost of construction would make a trip to Mars look like a good bargain, and the Light Rail is going to Randwick.

Game over.

The ESR line has station spacing that is typical of a new suburban line and then actually stops short of a major destination. The project was completed half arsed just to get it off the books. The route to the SE suburbs is now pointless with the LR being built as an alternative.

Domain would be about 550 to 700m from the stations either side, but it is a popular area but with little local residential traffic.

Edgecliff to Bondi is 1.8km apart and there is strong scope for a station in the middle in such a high density area. Woollahra can be resolved by building the station, then placing a roof over the whole thing and turning the roof into green space. Its not the 1970's and I think people would find the locals are less objectionable and we and govt all know those immediately around the station will protest and complain but then probably be first to buy tickets when it opens.

Edit: I just looked at street view to the station site, access is simple. You would simply have stairs/lift from platform at either end of station to the flat tunnel roof which is next the road at each end. The whole thing, station and access could be covered over so as to not allow noise and visual into the yards of surrounding houses. As mentioned above, the top of the station roof could actually be turned into a park.

There is also one further station that should be added and this is Bondi Beach, probably around Blair Street/Glenayr St Round about, 600m or so from the beach so the "walk-up" zone is spread cross Nth Bondi/Bondi etc as well. No one can tell me this station would not be hugely popular. With a distance of 2.2km from Bondi Junction, you could probably drop another station mid way as well in Bellevue Hill? Bondi on Sth Head Road. You could probably PPP out the extension as I believe it would popular enough to cover its costs.

Regards
Shane

To extend the rail to Bondi Beach makes all sorts of sense. (No I'm not politically motivated. I've lived in Sydney for seven years and have been to Bondi Beach only a handful of times, excluding work trips)

In my mind, the rail to Bondi Junction is pretty much a success, but by extending it to the Beach, the line would have a high usage outside of peak business hours as well.

The idea of reducing the gridlock in traffic that occurs along the main drag to the beach during the busy summer period, and when major events are held, must surely make it viable.

Is there a lack of longer term planning, major costly construction obstacles, or simply better things to do with public transport funds?

Lots of people who live around there don't and will never catch a train.

I bet you they would.

A couple of minutes shaved off their travel time to Town Hall or Wynyard verses hailing a cab or getting the BMW out of the underground car park and paying for another? Even the high and mighty might change their ways.

They might have to put up with a bit of "I told you so".

At the end of the day, if they up the revenue of the line for the cost of a new station, who cares? If it takes another 40 years to break even, so be it.

Whatever the cost of the station, if the patronage rose and things like gridlock on Oxford street were reduced, who cares if they were wrong?

To extend the rail to Bondi Beach makes all sorts of sense. (No I'm not politically motivated. I've lived in Sydney for seven years and have been to Bondi Beach only a handful of times, excluding work trips)

In my mind, the rail to Bondi Junction is pretty much a success, but by extending it to the Beach, the line would have a high usage outside of peak business hours as well.

The idea of reducing the gridlock in traffic that occurs along the main drag to the beach during the busy summer period, and when major events are held, must surely make it viable.

Is there a lack of longer term planning, major costly construction obstacles, or simply better things to do with public transport funds?

If we assume a $1 billion cost and a $2 fare between the two stations the it would take roughly 250 million return trips to cover the capital costs. With over 80 million visitors a year for which if we assume 40 million use the train & bus the it would take 6.25 years to cover the capital costs.

The problem is the Tony Abbott and his love affair with cars. We will need the private sector to build and maintain the line and stations. I propose using OSCars to run 6tph from central to Bondi Beach all stations in the off peak while in the peak 6tph from Bond Junction to Bond Beach. Sydney Trains can run the service with revenue shared between the govt and private operator

it would take 6.25 years to cover the capital costs.

We will need the private sector to build and maintain the line and stations.

Sydney Trains can run the service with revenue shared between the govt and private operator

I'm sure the figures can't be that easy...

I'm led to believe the steep gradiants would be a challenge?

I bet you they would.

A couple of minutes shaved off their travel time to Town Hall or Wynyard verses hailing a cab or getting the BMW out of the underground car park and paying for another? Even the high and mighty might change their ways.

They might have to put up with a bit of "I told you so".

At the end of the day, if they up the revenue of the line for the cost of a new station, who cares? If it takes another 40 years to break even, so be it.

Whatever the cost of the station, if the patronage rose and things like gridlock on Oxford street were reduced, who cares if they were wrong?

There is a myth that suits don't catch PT, well the NSL proves otherwise. The NWRL is being built through the heart of Audi country. I believe the then opposition to the Southern line in WA objected to a certain station (?) because it wouldn't be viable because the locals were supposed to be too car orientated from their high end cash flows, however the data since has proven otherwise. Melbourne Tram network runs through some high end real estate, successfully.

The reality is suits are less likely to catch buses compared to trains. Yes those with a corporate parking space and car provided as a package are less likely to train it. But their kids, lessor workers in the area, retirees etc will use it like they do elsewhere.

Like most stations, it will probably never break even, but unlike many stations in other areas, it will probably have much lower maintenance cost due to lack of vandalism.

The thing is with this station the cost of construction is so cheap. The foundations to the platform is there now, just build up! They shouldn't even have to interrupt train services.  the NWRL is being built at a cost of $6B to capture 25,000 per day. Thats nearly $250k per person in capital and ongoing significant subsidy. If the Woollahra station costs $25m to build, they only need 100 people a day to justify based on NWRL costs and the ongoing subsidy is far less.

Likewise for Bondi Beach, the cost of the extension would start from $200m/km so about $600m + station costs and extra few sets. Running to the beach district you will get not just commuter, but also many day users 7 days a week, but for the price you still need at least 2500 people per day to keep the cost less than NWRL per pax. I think this maybe doable.

I'm sure the figures can't be that easy...

I'm led to believe the steep gradiants would be a challenge?

These number are based of what the previous proposal of a single track line costing approx 200 million (from Wikipedia) and the number of people visiting per year. I'm no economists and finance guy, but doing the numbers should suggest that its viable if a decent service of 6tph is run. giving people a viable alternative to the bus service.

It why the private sector proposed to build it before and its why they should be jumping at the idea if the govt decides to build one and there is no local opposition. A Macquaire Park like station (with a beach theme) should be small enough for the locals.

I see little has changed in my absence.

There is a myth that suits don't catch PT, well the NSL proves otherwise. The NWRL is being built through the heart of Audi country. I believe the then opposition to the Southern line in WA objected to a certain station (?) because it wouldn't be viable because the locals were supposed to be too car orientated from their high end cash flows, however the data since has proven otherwise. Melbourne Tram network runs through some high end real estate, successfully.

It depends on the area. Northern suits catch the train because it spares them the hassle of driving. But suits do take public transport, and on that point I agree.

The reality is suits are less likely to catch buses compared to trains. Yes those with a corporate parking space and car provided as a package are less likely to train it. But their kids, lessor workers in the area, retirees etc will use it like they do elsewhere.

Like most stations, it will probably never break even, but unlike many stations in other areas, it will probably have much lower maintenance cost due to lack of vandalism.

That is absolute tripe.

Please, take a ride on a bus from the CBD. I readily admit that Sydney is a rather singular case in that the areas currently without rail transport to the city are, ironically, some of the richest - Warringah, Randwick, The Hills - but the basic premise that suits don't take a bus is complete and absolute tripe. Go to Wynyard and Martin Place at 5:30pm on a working weekday, and you'll find the bus stands flooded with smartly-attired passengers engrossed in newspapers and smartphones (as opposed to, say, the non-paying 'customers' with marker pens and goon bags found on the Western Line).

The thing is with this station the cost of construction is so cheap. The foundations to the platform is there now, just build up! They shouldn't even have to interrupt train services.  the NWRL is being built at a cost of $6B to capture 25,000 per day. Thats nearly $250k per person in capital and ongoing significant subsidy. If the Woollahra station costs $25m to build, they only need 100 people a day to justify based on NWRL costs and the ongoing subsidy is far less.

In the particular case of Woollahra, the underlying problem you are ignoring is that there is very little demand for public transport to 'disturb the tranquility' of the area. In fact, there is no service at all on Edgecliff Rd at either end of the station cutting; the nearest services are the infrequent 200[1] and the circuitous 327[2].

They don't want it, so don't bother.

Likewise for Bondi Beach, the cost of the extension would start from $200m/km so about $600m + station costs and extra few sets. Running to the beach district you will get not just commuter, but also many day users 7 days a week, but for the price you still need at least 2500 people per day to keep the cost less than NWRL per pax. I think this maybe doable.

Again, I offer it to you that this too is absolute tripe.

Firstly, your basic premise is that costs are scalable in a linear fashion; this is hardly the case. Your fixed project costs will remain just as high; for instance, you still need to pay just as much for a tunnel boring machine. This skews the cost in the unfavourable direction. Perhaps if the original project had kept going, it might have worked; alas, it did not.

Secondly, your demand will not be even across the year. People do not go to the beach in winter as readily as they do in winter. I have previously been attacked for stating this obvious fact, but it stands that during approximately a third of the year, you will not have this sort of leisure demand lying around. You are thus dependent on your commuter demand, and this brings me to my third point.

I would argue that the enthusiast community greatly overstates the inbound commuter demand ex-Bondi Rd. Simply put, you cannot take the demand pooled at Bondi Junction and declare that there are a lot of passengers. This is because the passengers that fill the trains ex-Bondi Junction do not come exclusively up Bondi Rd; they also come from other places from other routes such as 360 Nth Clovelly, 378 Bronte, 386 387 Old South Head Rd, 389 Seven Ways, etc. The reason why Bondi Junction works so well is because it is a hub. Bondi Beach is not a hub, and your demand will peter out as you reach the beach.

I therefore put it to you both that there is little cause to want an extension past Bondi Junction. Don't even start on Charing Cross.

[1] 200: Bondi Jn Int to Edgecliff Int via Edgecliff Rd, Queen St and Ocean St.
[2] 327: Bondi Jn to Edgecliff Int via Bellevue Rd, Suttie Rd and Manning Rd. Continues to City - Gresham St via Darling Pt and Kings X.

I agree with Dr Watson. Although the seasonal demand does indeed count.

The Art Gallery is already served by 2 stations - St James and Martin Place. Any new station on the ESR would only just be beyond the MP Turnback siding in any case and for the few events each year that attract a crowd to the Domain, it would never justify the cost, as well as the extra 2-3 mins into the timetable.

As to Woollahra - the population density hasn't changed much at all since 1979, and is unlikely to. The streets that surround the site are narrow, unsuitable for buses, and would quickly get clogged. I cant imagine that there would be much patronage.


Bondi Beach has already been investigated - and shelved - would be far too costly for the short distance involved.

The Art Gallery is already served by 2 stations - St James and Martin Place. Any new station on the ESR would only just be beyond the MP Turnback siding in any case and for the few events each year that attract a crowd to the Domain, it would never justify the cost, as well as the extra 2-3 mins into the timetable.

As to Woollahra - the population density hasn't changed much at all since 1979, and is unlikely to. The streets that surround the site are narrow, unsuitable for buses, and would quickly get clogged. I cant imagine that there would be much patronage.


Bondi Beach has already been investigated - and shelved - would be far too costly for the short distance involved.

My understanding is that after a few years of operation, the residents around Woollahra were upset they did not agree to the building of the station and had the hide to demand it be built. I think it was Bob Carr who told them to get lost as they blew their chances to build a much cheaper station during construction of the ESR and now it was too expensive and inconvenient to build post opening of the ESR. I think the term schadenfreude came to the mind of a lot of the public at the blue tails' plight over the Woollahra station.

My understanding is that after a few years of operation, the residents around Woollahra were upset they did not agree to the building of the station and had the hide to demand it be built. I think it was Bob Carr who told them to get lost as they blew their chances to build a much cheaper station during construction of the ESR and now it was too expensive and inconvenient to build post opening of the ESR. I think the term schadenfreude came to the mind of a lot of the public at the blue tails' plight over the Woollahra station.

From Carr's point of view it is a very easy way out and I don't blame him with the F-you approach even then, but it is now 40 years later since the decision was made to kill the station.

In the particular case of Woollahra, the underlying problem you are ignoring is that there is very little demand for public transport to 'disturb the tranquility' of the area. In fact, there is no service at all on Edgecliff Rd at either end of the station cutting; the nearest services are the infrequent 200[1] and the circuitous 327[2].

They don't want it, so don't bother.

Again, I offer it to you that this too is absolute tripe.

Firstly, your basic premise is that costs are scalable in a linear fashion; this is hardly the case. Your fixed project costs will remain just as high; for instance, you still need to pay just as much for a tunnel boring machine. This skews the cost in the unfavourable direction. Perhaps if the original project had kept going, it might have worked; alas, it did not.

Secondly, your demand will not be even across the year. People do not go to the beach in winter as readily as they do in winter. I have previously been attacked for stating this obvious fact, but it stands that during approximately a third of the year, you will not have this sort of leisure demand lying around. You are thus dependent on your commuter demand, and this brings me to my third point.

I would argue that the enthusiast community greatly overstates the inbound commuter demand ex-Bondi Rd. Simply put, you cannot take the demand pooled at Bondi Junction and declare that there are a lot of passengers. This is because the passengers that fill the trains ex-Bondi Junction do not come exclusively up Bondi Rd; they also come from other places from other routes such as 360 Nth Clovelly, 378 Bronte, 386 387 Old South Head Rd, 389 Seven Ways, etc. The reason why Bondi Junction works so well is because it is a hub. Bondi Beach is not a hub, and your demand will peter out as you reach the beach.

I therefore put it to you both that there is little cause to want an extension past Bondi Junction. Don't even start on Charing Cross.

[1] 200: Bondi Jn Int to Edgecliff Int via Edgecliff Rd, Queen St and Ocean St.
[2] 327: Bondi Jn to Edgecliff Int via Bellevue Rd, Suttie Rd and Manning Rd. Continues to City - Gresham St via Darling Pt and Kings X.

I used a quote "suits don't catch PT or buses". Yes I know they catch buses, but they catch trains even more. More a figure of speech don't take it literally.

The thing with the Bondi Line it looks unfinished and considering the govt approach at the time to end the money drain this is not surprising. For example It stops short of a major destination and has a bus interchange for many of its users at BJ only 7km from the city.

Woollahra, like many stations in inner cities, my intent was mainly to focus on walk up traffic and limited bus services. I caught trains from numerous stations on the upper NSL and upper Main nth line in 80's and 90's and I doubt some of them even get a 30min bus running past. If I recall correctly, Waitara basically just got the hwy bus, basically a bus running along the same route as the railway, Warawee, Killara Cheltenham, Denistone.... the nearest bus stop to Woollhara is 150 to 200m away according to google. But yes these are legacy stations, today is a different world.

Business Case for Woollahra is fairly straight foward
- Does not require any additional trains
- Does not require any works on the track alignment.
- Does not require any additional track
- Does not require any significant impact to existing services (adds 1min to existing return run to BJ and and an extra stop for the trains wear and tear
- Unlikely to impact on the operating railway during construction
- Additional operating costs limited to ongoing station maintenance and localised track wear
- Foundations of the station is likely to be mostly done
- The site is roughly half way between the adjacent stations which are ~2km apart so spacing is typical for a short inner suburban railway.

For such a low cost addition to the network, then compared to other major extension projects, ie SWRL and NWRL, you have to wonder how many people new to rail this station needs to attract to be viable in comparison?

Bondi Beach, just because its more seasonal doesn't mean its not viable. Commuter traffic would be significant in its own right, tourist traffic is just a bonus and as an added bonus tends to be reverse peak and off-peak. But if the project has been costed and discredited fair enough, but considering the other decisions made at the time by the same govt about rail, I'd challenge it. As for my costings, yes you are right, but if you want me to give a detailed analysis give me $50m to do so. It was a scaled guesstimate and note it doesn't also require modifying existing works like the ECRL and I did say at least 2500 per day based on this very loose estimate.

I looked up the time bus time table for BB. For BJ to the beach off-peak during the day the bus frequency is 5min, peak its 2min. And this doesn't count the buses running along South Head Road or the roads in between the beacj and South Head Road. Seems pretty busy for a route thats supposedly not viable?


Business Case for BB extension is very different
- Requires 2.5km of additional track, all underground
- Extra station, underground. The distance from the city and between the stations would normally justify 2 stations
- Would need two extra sets to service during peak on a 3min timetable.

Again how many new to rail and reduced bus coverage is required to justify the costs.

The "intelligent" argument from the local council in 1999 opposing the line

Waverley Council has expressed doubts about the project; it could change the character of the beach area because of a new influx of people. Some locals expect an increase in pollution, crime and even traffic as a result of the new rail link. Other problems are:

• Commuter traffic along Bondi Road will not reduce much, if at all.
  
  



• Traffic will be a nightmare during construction, expected to last at least 2 1/2 years.
  
  



• Beach rubbish will rise substantially. Waverley Council confirms that either rates will go up to cover extra cleaning, or other services will be cut.
  
  



• Rent is likely to increase for residential and commercial tenants, as tourist numbers explode.
  
  



• With millions more visitors, the pressure for Gold Coast-type development of Bondi Beach will rapidly intensify.
  
  



• NSW police confirm that crime around the beach will definitely increase with this rail link but no extra policing funds are proposed.

How can they say the beach district would see both increased pollution (not from an electric train you would assume) and no impact on the commuter traffic? Perhaps the argument for a 2nd station is also here as well.

The project is underground, only issue is likely to be around the station site. Like other major infrastructure projects, they often only have heavy vehicle traffic to them at night.

Rent will go up? Hardly likely considering its already expensive.

The council opposes the influx of tourists, must be the first council in Australia to not want this extra income

"Millions more visitors", sounds like the line is indeed going to be very successful. But millions, unlikely?

The council controls the planning rules, so "GC type development" is at their call.

So based on the police assessment closing all railway stations will reduce crime across the board. The govt normally allocates police on a as needs basis. How can they say here are extra police for something they don't know will happen.

Today the same council is promoting a cycle way to the city and this on their website for visitors to the area, http://www.waverley.nsw.gov.au/recreation/visitors a photo of the beach they don't want a railway to provide access to.


regards
Shane

In my mind, the rail to Bondi Junction is pretty much a success, but by extending it to the Beach, the line would have a high usage outside of peak business hours as well.

You haven't travelled on it much outside the peaks have you?

I looked up the time bus time table for BB. For BJ to the beach off-peak during the day the bus frequency is 5min, peak its 2min. And this doesn't count the buses running along South Head Road or the roads in between the beacj and South Head Road. Seems pretty busy for a route thats supposedly not viable?

Shane,

All of your comments were good.


Note that many seem to have forgotten that along the whole of the ESR there are now far more buss services then when the line opened in 1979.

Even incomplete the line has been a wonderful example of how to transform suppressed demand into demand.

You haven't travelled on it much outside the peaks have you?

Well I did state that I'm not a regular to the area, but the traffic must be similar to say Olympic Park. Very up and down, but overall high.

Just looking at the road congestion around that area at times, surely the line would help that. The population in Bondi Beach area must be reasonably significant, and as someone stated above, there are plenty of buses to and from the area already.

I do agree however that the BJ has established itself as the transport hub, and that perhaps light rail might be a better solution, but I can't see how that would be achieved unless they provided some sort of clearway type route for it.

I really do think it's simply a case of the council not wanting a train line there.

I suggest something more visionary. North Bondi - Watsons Bay - Manly - Warringah Mall.

I suggest something more visionary. North Bondi - Watsons Bay - Manly - Warringah Mall.

You typed "visionary".  Should that have been "delusional"?

Often it seems to me that people are getting the meanings of those two words confused.

Harking back to the unbuilt Woollahra station matter - part of the reason that it was not built was the cost-cutting that took place in the mid 1970's in order to actually complete the line. Remember that the ESR was an on-off project from 1947 until its opening in 1979 - there was an ugly hoarding protecting the huge hole in the ground under what is now Chalmers Street (above the ESR Platforms at Central) for about 30 years.

The original plan had been to go as far as Kingsford - and that also got the chop in the 1970's review, along with everything beyond Bondi Junction. Some sites had already been resumed for stations, and buildings demolished, in Charing Cross and Randwick, which were later sold off by the Government.

As to Woollahra, the people there didn't like the noise from tunnelling work - for which they obtained a court injunction against the Contractor to get the hours of work reduced (it had been 'round the clock') - which eventually caused the Contractor and the then SRA to get into dispute over contract terms and which eventually got as far as the High Court. (I do wonder how the land for the 'cutting' was even acquired in the first place - I am guessing that the adjacent properties lost a slice of their backyards).

So when the axe came out in the mid 1970's to reduce costs and actually get the line completed, it was no surprise that the Government decided not to disrupt their lives any further by building a station for them (the then Premier, Neville Wran, only lived a few blocks away in Wallis Street).

If they so dearly want a station now, let them go down the Sydney Airport Line path - build it themselves to Sydney Trains standards at their own cost and charge a Gate Fee in return - I somehow don't think that many would be prepared to invest in the venture.

Sydney heads are 2 to 3km across and about 30m deep. Bedrock I believe is sandstone with a coal seem further down. The distance and depth is probarly within ECRL design, but yes unlikely to happen as the line would become excessively congested.

The extensive to BB and perhaps additional station still seems as good an option when viewed as capex per passenger as many other projects.