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.

What a brilliant idea... I don't see how anyone could call it delusional given that the distance involved is nothing compared to some road tunnel projects. It just depends on whether the geology would permit it but this is a few days short of 2015 and the benefit of bypassing North Sydney and simply extending the existing Illawarra service to the northern beaches seems to make a lot of sense to me. I live in the south western suburbs but I've experienced the traffic over Spit Bridge- the need is there...

Cheers


Richard

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 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 tend to agree with you! But not a loop to Syndnam, just down the eastern coastal strip (branch to BB and Nth Bondi as well)

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.

It won't actually increase capacity by very much and it eliminates the coveted one-seat ride that, rightly or wrongly, the commuters from Clovelly all the way to Chifley all cling to. It also isn't very fast, given it will funnel all the commuters into the City via a slow route via Surry Hills, which incidentally will have just the one stop at, of all places, Riley St. (Really, Riley? What about, I dunno, Elizabeth or Crown?)

Currently, the inbound Eastern Distributor expresses operated by STA (X40 X73 X74 X77 X92 X94 X96 X97 X99) collectively operate 80 trips each weekday morning. These take passengers quickly — to City - Martin Place (Elizabeth St) is 17 minutes ex-Randwick Jct, 19 minutes ex-Kingsford (Nine Ways) — right to the heart of the CBD. Even if there is a delay — and there usually isn't — this is a quick, comfortable commute, just long enough to finish a small flat white while reading the Guardian and Sydney Morning Herald on your phone.

"But Watson," you cry out, "If people want their stupid express buses then let them keep them!"

Yeah, that defeats the entire purpose of the billion-dollar self-immolation.

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.

Check out places like Surry Hills and Chippendale sometime, lads. Call 'em shoeboxes all you want, inner-city living is about the freedom of having less but oh-so-much more. Feel the freedom of having a comfortable home just the right size and actually live and breathe the City you claim to "live" in. That's why they're building nice tower blocks in Green Square (but somewhat ironically, on the Bourke St side, leading to commuters preferring to take the 301).

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.

Oh, and there used to be the 359...

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!

Simply put, routing the railway through the Junction to create the ultimate L-shaped fantasy would make a commuting from places like Randwick so slow that you'd be better off on an X bus.

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.

Watson

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.

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.
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).

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.

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....

Watson

Redaxe.

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.

The cheaper, faster and more effective solution is to use a smaller number of higher-capacity buses. Double-decker buses were invented for a reason (as were articulated buses, but there's a whole internal scragfight about how much fuel the B12BLEA Volgren 3-door articulated buses chew through, which is apparently why R and P depots are loath to use them outside of peak hours).

There is low-hanging fruit.

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.....
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.

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 bombed

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.

The ESR, nowhere near capacity? That was the joke that had me laughing so hard I logged back in just to reply.

Welcome back.

I agree with Watson374's remarks regarding the ESR being at capacity.

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.....
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.

I'd like to see you try that in post-NIMBY Australia.

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 bombed

Excuse 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.

Bus systems are typically demonised as slow, uncomfortable, unreliable, lacking in capacity and lacking in clarity. Yet this entire proposition is a failure in network, in application; the idea that buses are fundamentally flawed is untrue, but has nevertheless been seized as a convenient whipping boy to justify the ludicrous idea of trains on streets, euphemistically referred to as 'light rail'.

Slow and unreliable? All-day bus lanes with priority signalling at all intersections. Uncomfortable? Write it to demand better-padded seats. Lacking in capacity? Articulated and double-deck. Lacking in clarity? Redraw the network from scratch. The way forward is to seize the low-hanging fruit; to create a straightforward, effective system of frequent bus lines offering swift interconnectivity between them.

This is obvious enough going into the City; but there are always those on these boards who bang on about wanting light rail between Grong Grong and Wagga Wagga Wagga Wagga via Whoop Whoop. There's always some kid on school holidays who comes up with this idea of a more direct link between Randwick and Maroubra bypassing the congestion at UNSW and Kingsford. Hello, the idea was so successful that it got whittled down to a service every 90 minutes before being axed for good. (For reference, it was the 359 from Bondi Jct to Eastgardens via Queens Pk, Randwick Jct, Pr Wales Hosp, Avoca St and Maroubra Jct.)

Frequent bus networks work excellently in places like Seattle and Portland, Singapore and Hong Kong. They complement strong rail systems already in place, just like how Bondi Jct is the strong hub fed by buses already; the word is 'synergy'.

This sort of network could easily be made to work beautifully in Sydney, taking people where they want to go with a minimum of faffing about. You don't need 'visionary ideas' (e.g. Armchair Operators, TranzitJim, ParraHub et al), you need a plan that can actually work.

you need a plan that can actually work.

There is one. It just got shelved by 2 wars, a depression, cars, lack of funding and willpower.

There is one. It just got shelved by 2 wars, a depression, cars, lack of funding and willpower.

What was visionary and workable a century ago is not necessarily applicable to today's Sydney.