I suggest something more visionary. North Bondi - Watsons Bay - Manly - Warringah Mall.
Yep, just another bridge or tunnel between North Head & South Head. How hard can it be?

I suggest something more visionary. North Bondi - Watsons Bay - Manly - Warringah Mall.
I always thought the original intention was for this line to terminate around Kingsford.
I see the gvt is now pushing the lightrail but i'm not convinced an at-grade light rail is going to help reduce congestion. The surface streets of Sydney CBD are notoriously narrow compared to Melbourne and the Government is estimating commute times of about 40 minutes from Randwick to Circular Quay - think about that for a moment. 40 minutes to travel 7 kilometers!!!! That should be reason enough to shelve it as it.
Commute times in Sydney is probably the most or second most significant factor making the city unlivable. I think a more appropriate solution would have been to swing the line South from Bondi Junction and have station at Waverley, Randwick with a terminating stop at the UNSW/Randwick RaceCourse. It could even continue to terminate at Sydnenham providing a new junction allowing for people to access the Eastern Suburbs without requiring to pass through the CBD.
Alternatively it could continue to run down to Maroubra. I believe this would do a lot to remove congestion from surface streets and allow for tired suburban centers like Randwick to be given a facelift and also take more high rise apartments (rather than trying to cram units in areas that are too far-flung from the cbd like Wentworth Point or Epping...)
The other point for expanding the ESRL is that it's not anywhere near capacity and it is the most isolated line on the current network so it enjoys higher reliability. It also has its own cbd station at Martin Place which allows ESRL commuters to avoid the congested Town Hall.
I see the gvt is now pushing the lightrail but i'm not convinced an at-grade light rail is going to help reduce congestion. The surface streets of Sydney CBD are notoriously narrow compared to Melbourne and the Government is estimating commute times of about 40 minutes from Randwick to Circular Quay - think about that for a moment. 40 minutes to travel 7 kilometers!!!! That should be reason enough to shelve it as it.Indeed, the surface light rail is a pet project mostly for PR.
Commute times in Sydney is probably the most or second most significant factor making the city unlivable.Only because — and I've said this for years — people insist on living in huge McMansions they can't afford with so many rooms they don't use and a lawn they can't be bothered to take care of so they can set up a pool they need to set up themselves to frolic and enjoy life but they can't actually do it because they're too busy slaving away at their smash repair business to afford that stupid mansion in the first place. So much for the "freedom" afforded by suburban living.
I think a more appropriate solution would have been to swing the line South from Bondi Junction and have station at Waverley, Randwick with a terminating stop at the UNSW/Randwick RaceCourse. It could even continue to terminate at Sydnenham providing a new junction allowing for people to access the Eastern Suburbs without requiring to pass through the CBD.You do realise there are two things in place that do this already right? They have numbers, 400 and 418.
Alternatively it could continue to run down to Maroubra. I believe this would do a lot to remove congestion from surface streets and allow for tired suburban centers like Randwick to be given a facelift and also take more high rise apartments (rather than trying to cram units in areas that are too far-flung from the cbd like Wentworth Point or Epping...)There is nothing tired about Randwick!
The other point for expanding the ESRL is that it's not anywhere near capacity and it is the most isolated line on the current network so it enjoys higher reliability. It also has its own cbd station at Martin Place which allows ESRL commuters to avoid the congested Town Hall.The ESR, nowhere near capacity? That was the joke that had me laughing so hard I logged back in just to reply.
WatsonRedaxe.
Hang on a second, I've used the ESRL heaps of times in peak hour they enjoy trains often on a 3 minute interval to Bondi Jctn (better than any other line does and the catchment area is much smaller - even with the higher population density) and I always see plenty of standing room and seats available. Very different from the Western line trains which are sardine tins at the best of times.Might I suggest that the conclusion to be drawn is that the problem is on the Western line and that there is no need to meddle in the affairs of the East.
Back to LightRail I think the problem that the Government has identified and really does need to change is the buses. The city streets are just too clogged with buses and the fumes and noise pollution really makes it unpleasant to walk the city streets in the peak periods.Yes and no. I put it to you that the buses are not the problem; but the buses have a problem. By viewing the problem from this angle, it becomes apparent that it is not the buses that are the problem in and of themselves; it is the sheer volume of them. It is a commonly-held misconception that everything would be better if we hadn't burned the R-class trams; if that alone was all that was done differently then George St would come to a standstill every weekday morning and evening as now but with lovely ding-dings instead of vroom-vrooms.
I think the Lightrail concept is great in theory and Melbourne really does show how a LightRail system should be run (you know it's now free to use the trams in the Melbourne CBD now).It's not about the technology; it's about how you apply it.
Maybe the government is also concerned about the economics of staffing. It takes 1 driver to move up to 40 passengers on a bus whereas a driver and a guard on a train can carry nearly 1000 people.There are other costs involved, but comparing buses to trams you have one driver carrying 70-115 passengers versus a driver and at least one transportation liaison for passenger assistance for a tram carrying 200 or so people. It's not as great as it's made out to be by the fanatically pro-rail.
To me the whole stinks of a colossal failure in planning. The inner streets should have been bulldozed 50 years ago and widened to cater for more underground railway/metro's or to run surface trams at a decent speed. But I guess this is what we all smeg about on here repeatedly; that there has been no real planning for the city since Bradfield....Oh, yes. Bulldoze everything. God Save The Queen. They did that in Amsterdam and as homes and businesses were razed to the ground, the people took to the streets that remained and rioted.
I don't know much about Amsterdam but city streets have been widened (which always involves the messy demolition of buildings) in many cities to facilitate progress in the Industrial revolution- New York, London, Paris.....I'd like to see you try that in post-NIMBY Australia.
Many of them actually were opportunities for urban renewal; replace crowded unhealthy slums with planned suburbs; parklands, wider boulevards allowing for trams & subways and you get less congestion, a more aesthetically appealing environment to live and work in.
The London Board of Works is a great example of this, unpopular & controversial at the time because it had so much power to exact change but sometimes that is what is required and London was transformed from a city of slums into a modern metropolis.The MBW existed in the 19th century.
Much of the rocks was demolished to build the Sydney Harbor Bridge but I'm sure no-one seriously regrets that decision. And the Southern end of the city extending up to ultimo is very ugly and grungy - I don't think anyone would seriously complain if it got carpet bombedExcuse you, I live in this part of the City.![]()
I think you're spot on in regard to buses and maybe double-deckers would be the solution although I tend to think that if the government is serious about commuting in the innercity then metro'sare the way to go as they would unclog the surface streets more as well as providing access to main hubs like UNSW, the SCG and Randwick Racecourse fromthe existing railway system. Maybe it's just me but I've always found Sydney's bus network to be user unfriendly, I just prefer the nice integrated system that rail provides.System integration is not inherent to rail. Dare I suggest that to a casual user, the Sydney rail system is just as much a wall of squiggly gobbledegook as the bus system is, just with single-digit T numbers not three-digit route numbers.
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.