You need to be signed in to add your comment.

Do you support bringing light rail to Randwick and how would you benefit?

over 8 years ago

This consultation has concluded. This website was operational from 2011 to 2014 as a means to consult the community and show the benefits of light rail in Randwick City. The NSW Government will start construction on the CBD and South East Light Rail project after April 2015. For updates on construction refer to the Sydney Light Rail website:  

Randwick City Council continues to consult the local community about ways to reduce the impact of the construction of light rail in Randwick City. Future consultations will be conducted through our special consultation

    • what over 8 years ago
      Public transport is a good thing, but before I could offer support, I would need to know what the options for connection into the CBD were and how the interchanges with other forms of transport (to Kingsford, Coogee etc) would work. Tram just to Central wouldn't be good as it would mean bus to tram, tram to train, train to final destination - 2 changes, no thanks, for such a short distance (Coogee is just 8km from Circular Quay).We've waited this long - let's not limit ourselves to tram or light rail, lets consider all options (train, extension of dedicated bus roadway etc).
      • alcogoodwin over 8 years ago
        I agree with the city part of the posting.I have always been of the belief that there was to be a loop around the city for light rail.There has been some outlandish comments about light rail in the local media - I fear that we are going to miss out on a wonderful transport mode being developed the world over if we don't all join together and support it.Sadly I doubt we will ever see a heavy rail out here, while dedicated busways will not help the huge bus congestion problems around the city itself. A single light rail has the capacity to carry far more than one single bus.Cheers
      • Million over 8 years ago
        Need to dream big... underground MRT, see Singapore, Japan, HK.
      • saari over 8 years ago
        Agree wholeheartedly.A Randwick-Central link would be a good start, but would only do half of the job. A link all the way to CBD would be ideal.However, as you say, it's all about the ease-of-commute factor, and that includes not only the interchanges, but also the frequency of service. A service that makes you wait half hour during peak times is pretty useless.Having said that, the picture should also include reliable bus services. It is not uncommon for early morning commuters (6:30-7:00) to miss their bus just because... well... it doesn't bloody show up!
      • gormster over 8 years ago
        The proposal sees trams go all the way to Circular Quay. I live in the Rocks and commute to UNSW - the proposal that's been outlined to us would be either one or two tram journeys.
      • freemason about 8 years ago
        Extension of bus roadway???? Are you kidding???? I think the transport policies of the previous NSW state government demonstrated that throwing more buses on busy routes definitely does not solve the problem.We need to get buses and cars off roads. The solution is bicycle lanes and trams. Simple.
        • what over 7 years ago
          Trams would take more space than any bus roadway extension. And buses are more flexible in getting around incidents (eg burst water mains) than a tram would be.It's often claimed that 'buses are congesting the city' but that's not supportable, trams are not 'magic', they too would travel along city streets, have places to set down & take on passengers and need somewhere to 'layover' before completing a return journey out from the city. Cars are the cause of congestion and an entry toll to the city is the answer, meanwhile remove the toll from the cross city tunnel, Eastern Distributor etc.But the judges, bankers and doctors who work in the city are too attached to their carspaces and they are the powerbrokers.
      • d.stirlo about 8 years ago
        I can't believe this government is seriously considering light rail along Anzac Parade and up High Street.These roads are not like St Kilda Road in Melbourne, the lanes taken up by light rail would increase traffic congestion 10 fold, because I'm sure light rail could not take a large percentage of these existing drivers to there destinations.With current parking problems around the university, high street would completely lose it's parking on either side of the road to accomodate the light rail.New public transport systems through these areas should be underground or not at all.
    • soulbirds of a feather over 8 years ago
      Firstly, I have to say that I love trams and have numerous books and maps of our old tramlines. I enjoy riding on trams too, both our historic trams and the newer light rail, along with light rail in other cities, however extending light rail into the eastern suburbs is not a good idea.The eastern suburbs missed out on an extensive railway line at the time that the railway was being extended to other areas, as we already had a good tram network. The same would happen if light rail was extended to Randwick. We will never get a heavy rail system if trams are already operating. Trains are the only viable alternative to buses. They can be integrated with the existing network and on special occasions (race days and sporting events), existing trains from other lines can be diverted to the east to operate extra services, just like on the City to Surf day when buses from many depots are used to carry the runners back from Bondi Beach. If buses had been replaced by trams, where would these extra vehicles come from? There won't be any spares in storage and there is no extensive network to "borrow" vehicles from.Also currently from Randwick to Bondi Junction or the city, we have all stops and express buses. If these are replaced by a light rail, how are the express trams going to leapfrog the all stops trams? There will be no provision for fast trams overtaking slower ones. I'd imagine we'd only have an all stops service, just like Central to Lilyfield.Buses from Randwick to Central, the city or Bondi Junction follow a variety of routes in order to pick up passenger who live all over the suburbs. When the light rail is constructed, passengers will have to make their way to the tramline which may not be a problem for many people, but will be an issue for those with mobility issues.Modern trams require dedicated "stations" built to the height of the vehicle entry for easy access. Once these are in place it would be costly to dig them up and move them to other locations if the present stop is found to be in an unsuitable location. Bus stops can be moved more easily, especially those without shelters (this was done recently in Oxford Street Bondi Junction due to building construction).Modern articulated buses can carry over 100 passengers with more than 50 seated. A modern tram can carry over 200 passengers, but only 74 seated. It would be better to run a fleet of articulated buses. These could be run more frequently than trams and if needed can be run in pairs as currently happens with some services including peak hour 333 services.Passengers may stay on a bus all the way from outlying areas to the City. It will be necessary to change from a tram to another form of transport at the ends of the line. If connections are not always reliable, patronage will fall as passengers will find alternative modes of transport.Due to the cost and enormity of the construction of the light railway and vehicles, we would be committed to them for the long term even if once constructed, we find they are not suitable for the area served. A recent example of this occurring with buses was the initial articulated buses used on the eastern suburbs runs. They started operating a few years ago. These buses were two door vehicles with a narrow exit door towards the back. They were not suitable for our services that have a lot of passengers using them on shorter runs. These buses were replaced with new three door buses. The original buses being transferred to norther beaches services where passengers usually remain on the bus for long distances. If we find there is a problem with the new trams, we are stuck with them.There is no maneuverability of trams in case of breakdown, fire, accidents or loss of electricity, whereas buses can move around another vehicle or go down a different street if there has been an accident. I have been on buses that have had to do that in Randwick when police had closed roads due to accidents.Trams are more expensive to purchase than buses and unlike buses cannot be on sold to other transport operators in 20 to 25 years time, resulting in older less comfortable trams being operated in 30 to 50 years time.There will be a need for storage and maintenance facilities for the new trams somewhere in the eastern suburbs.If a heavy rail line can't be constructed to Randwick, it would be cheaper to increase the number of new articulated buses. These could be run on a dedicated busway for part of their journey, but unlike trams would be able to continue in any direction to any location as needed.
    • newbie over 8 years ago
      I do like the idea of having light rail in Randwick. I'd like to see a "loop" going from Anzac Parade, through High St, Belmore Road, Alison Road and back to Anzac Parade. Right now, one needs to change buses to get from Alison Road to UNSW, despite the distance being quite short "as the crow flies".
    • brainwavze over 8 years ago
      Light rail from Randwick to the city would be brilliant. To be really useful, it would need a stop within walking distance of the Belmore road shops, would need to pass the Uni, speed along Anaz Parqade and then into the city CBD. NOT CENTRAL STATION - the most incorrectly named station I have come across. It would better to terminate at Hyde Park (easy walk to Town Hall station.If it is for seriously moving people, it needs to be an express along Anzac Parade and more than one service per morning.
    • jshervington1 over 8 years ago
      I support light rail to and from the Randwick local governemnt area. There are too many buses trying to cope with our population's public transport needs and light rail is much more predictable, less noisier, and capable of dispersing big numbers of commuters faster.
      • InfrastructureBeforeTowers over 8 years ago
        Unfortunately it seems as is a "stalking horse" is being used by RCC here. The pictures they have put out, similar to their 8 storey tower blocks of units on the racecourse put out in Nov 2010, show more of a nightmare than a dream. If as their pictures show Anzac Parade becomes limited to one traffic lane each way then it will become worse with trams (not true light rail - see RCC pictures). Whn a bus is waiting to get into an Anzac Parade bus stop due to buses in front of them, like they do now, then NO traffic will move on Anzac Parade. Similarly if there is a break-down Anzac Parade will stop. OR all parking will go from Anzac Parade 24 hours a day. That certainly will not help Kingsford or Kensington shops but it would be great for the big shopping centres whose owners often make donations to the political parties (see the Australian Electoral Commission website). Given the density of the Eastern suburbs the only option is underground rail - light ot heavy, not trams.
        • Dresdner over 8 years ago
          InfrastructureBeforeTowers, do you really believe that Kensington shops get their customers from the few parking lots in front of the shops??? I got angry when I read this argument -- maybe, it is just because I am from Germany, where there are seldomly free (!) parking lots on the large roads. In any case, I think, it is horribly wrong -- let us do the math: How many cars fit along a shop front? -- Maybe 2? -- How long are they allowed to park? -- An hour? -- At least for the restaurants, I frequent regularly on Anzac Parade, I know that they need and have much more customers than could ever park in the few parking lots in front of the restaurants. If cars would not park on Anzac Parade, however, traffic would be much smoother. Certainly, parking lots somewhere "in the backyards" would be nice. Or a lightrail that does not need to park...BTW: In Germany, busses just stop at the light rail stops. That does not only prevent traffic congestion, it is also convenient for the passengers.
          • InfrastructureBeforeTowers over 8 years ago
            Dear Dresdener, in Dresden buses may well stop at the same stops as Light Rail but in some other German cities, such as Munich, they have separate stops and dedicated light rail corridors that are underground in the City and a light rail only line once out of the built up area. You are partially correct in that there are not many parking spaces available in Kensington - that is often quoted as a reason why so many shops have failed over the past decade and it has changed into a predominantly "Cafe/Restaurant" precinct. With all the multi-unit development in Kensington that provides only 0.5 car spaces fro a 1 brm unit etc - parking is a challenge. I do not know of many 0.5 cars in existence, and in RCC's surveys of resident parking the avg cars per dwelling ranges from 1.4 to 2.2 cars usually (depending on where the survey was done). So obviously approving fewer car spaces than are being used is only going to worsen the situation. Potentially taking away what limited parking exists could preclude access for disabled as well as able bodied residents to the retail area. A well thought through proposal for mass transit would be great but this "thought bubble" proposal by RCC does not measure up. A coordinated approach to transport solutions and over-development by RCC would be a great step forward.
            • Dresdner about 8 years ago
              Dear InfrastructureBeforeTowers,your statement about Munich seems at least imprecise to me. The city of Munich has three rail-bound means of local public transport: U-Bahn, S-Bahn and Tram. U-Bahn means the tube and runs mostly under ground (though some stops in the suburbs are above ground). S-Bahn means city rail and runs mostly above ground (though a few stops in the inner city circle are under ground). Note that S-Bahn should not be confused with the conventional railway ("Deutsche Bahn"), which is separate. Finally, the tram or light rail travels on or next to the street -- even in the inner city circle. BTW: the same holds for Berlin and Hamburg.I have not paid attention to how often the Munich tram actually shares its stops with busses but I do know that it happens in Dresden a lot and I also remember it from Potsdam. In any case it is perfectly possible to build new tracks such that busses and trams can share stops and if light rail comes to Randwick, I suppose that this is what should happen here.
    • Brendan over 8 years ago
      I agree with what "Soulbirds of a feather" stated. Having a light rail line will only result in no train line ever getting to service Randwick.The congestion that occurs on the buses is due to the amount of people getting off trains and having to swap public transport options. So why not just leave them on the train?The buses would then become a lot more useful!
      • soulbirds of a feather over 8 years ago
        Hi brendan,You are right. The trains should be extended from Bondi Junction to Randwick (and where ever the population calls for it). Buses could then be used successfully on the quieter routes.Have you ever experienced Bondi Junction station in the evening peak when a full train arrives? It can take a long time for all the passengers to make it on to the escalators, especially at the City end where only one operates in an upwards direction.It is obvious Bondi Junction was never intended to be a terminal station, so extending the line would even help the remaining passengers who live in Bondi Junction (by removing the crowds). Trams won't help there.
        • alcogoodwin over 8 years ago
          But how many people are geting off the train there to travel south towards the uni, Randwick, Kingsford or Maroubra? There would be far better transport ptions to get to these spots than via Bondi. Most would be getting off to go to points north, or down to the beach, neither of which would be served by the extension south - so it wouldn't make a huge difference to the magority of people disembarking at Bondi station.
      • Dresdner over 8 years ago
        I do not get the argument of light rail vs. train. I do not see how trains can come to Randwick -- people argue about missing space for the light rail, which is a solvable issue. But trains? Maybe underground, but hey, that is a huge cost factor! BTW: It is, in general, possible to connect a light rail with the railroad network. The light rail in Saarbrücken, Germany travels on train tracks all the way to Sarreguemines, France.
    • Johnson over 8 years ago
      Great idea, but it needs to go to maroubra junction. I've seen the lines ups for buses, you can get 200 people on one tram and they can be extended easily, also my guess is that at the city end it will go down Flinders St and Oxford St connecting up with the Circular Quay lightrail loop.
    • Tuddy over 8 years ago
      Ok let's be realistic here. Randwick isn't going to get heavy rail during my lifetime, let alone that of my great-grandchildren. So what's the solution that can move a high number of people quickly on dedicated tracks that are somewhat immune from tthe traffic snarls Sydney is known for, and can be well integrated into existing public transport and then have more connected with it? Ah that's's light rail. The light rail would need to go to Circular Quay - not just Central...although it would need to go here too in order to service the many, many people who go to UNSW. It's said that buses will be go the wayside if trams happen and people with mobility issues won't be well-serviced. Buses can connect with trams in an integrated system as happens in many world cities (and even Melbourne). The proposed route seems a logical one as it follows the high concentration of bus routes in the area being the 89x and 37x services. If effectively planned light rail is constructed, than pressure can be taken off Bondi Junction as a terminus station and people can get to where they need to go faster. Trams can run every two minutes. They can each take 200 or so people. They are on their own track. They will run in the middle of where the population demands services. Please someone tell me how such a proposal as this is not logical? The services could run just like buses, with the trams only stopping as required to let people on and if there is no-one at the stop, the tram needn't stop - the magic of it all. If they aren't found to be suitable, although the existing vehicles do work well in Sydney and other large cities, they can be sold to other cities where light rail does operate. Soulbirds of a feather, you seem to be ignorant as to the way the world works, let alone the way public transport does, which is a great shame. Light rail would not only boost land value in the Randwick/Kensington areas, it would provide you with quick and comfortable services on a highly frequent basis. You might never see CityRail stop at Randwick, but view the light rail as a smaller project. In most European cities they prefer using light rail to metro or heavy rail, as it means people can get around on a faster basis, and constructing heavy rail is oh so costly. And another thing...extending heavy rail from Bondi Junction will mean even more people will want to be on those trains. It has been stated that these trains are packed with so many people getting off at Bondi Junction. Wouldn't the trains attract more people if they go into other areas? Has it not been seen the issues that CityRail has already? Give me a shovel and I'll even help you build the light rail!
      • alcogoodwin over 8 years ago
        Tuddy, 500% spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself. I can't begin to fathom all the negaitivity towards the light rail. Years ago we had a petition for people to sign and found nearly all local people were right behind the idea of light rail. The few that were negative to the idea were visualising the trams of old, or just suffering some ignorance as to what modern light rail can bring to an area. Some of the comments in the Southern Courier have amazed me. You begin to think that it was some sort of new idea and we were the test guinea pigs, not a fast growing and popular transport system, utilized around the world. And to all those people seemingly very concerned about endless traffic chaos as they try to negotiate roads in the cars when the light rail arrives. Heres a tip - catch the light rail. Preparing my shovel as well.
      • Carlo over 8 years ago
        lets stop being shortsighted and thing big for a change. After all, isn't Sydney on the global stage now.
        • alcogoodwin over 8 years ago
          I agree, why do all the other big cities have wonderful new light rail systems while we have to contend with endless amounts of buses.
          • Barny over 8 years ago
            All what new modern tram systems? Name one modern tram system that runs on a trunk route in a shared zone through/ from a CBD the size of Sydney more than 10km’s to an area that is served by little or no other form of public transport which has medium density and significant sporting/ educational/ entertainment and recreational facilities along its route? Melbourne? Hardly a public transport revolution! Melbourne is on a par with Sydney for public transport usage at approximately 23%. Compare this to cities which have effective subways/ underground metros like New York on 55% and London at 36%. The only other examples I can think of are much smaller cities in North America. Trams in these cities have had little or no effect on congestion or at getting people out of their cars. Modern metros that come to mind include Shanghai which opened in 1995 which now has 237 stations and 425km’s of track. As someone that travels on a regular basis I can tell you that the people of Sydney are be deceived by this tram proposal. We need to have vision and start building REAL public transport infrastructure. To highlight my point read the following article which was published in The Age on the 2nd of July by Christopher Kremmer at:
            • bonniejock over 8 years ago
              So then, how do we afford to build an equivalent to Shanghai's metro system? Btw, have metros solved Kolkata's traffic snarls? (little real reduction in traffic congestion when you put trains underground, as that basically keeps roads open for further congestion).
              • Barny over 8 years ago
                The funding “myth” is what the politicians from both sides of the political fence want you to believe. Australian cities have suffered since post WWII as a result of well below par spending on public transport infrastructure with the previous state government an absolute disgrace. If cities in South-East Asia and the developing world can build extensive underground metro's, why can’t we? Using the current federal government as an example, they are spending in excess of $35 billion dollars on the National Broadband Network (NBN) without even blinking an eye lid, but the minute the budget needs to be trimmed the money is taken from places like Infrastructure Australia which to-date has only received about 2-4% of what is required for an already severely back-logged infrastructure building program. Calcutta currently only has one metro line with less than twenty stations with a second line under construction. They currently have plans to build a total of six lines. Maybe ask me the same question in ten years! By the way did you also know that they have over 60km’s of tram line so if it is heavily congested trams obviously haven’t done anything to help.
                • Tuddy over 8 years ago
                  and Carlo and Barny let's be realistic here...the government isn't going to fork out money for much. regardless of what the situation is, they won't. shall we look at the North West Rail Link? We had trains, then metro, then a CBD metro and now back to North West Rail Link. Goodness only knows if it will finally open! I'm in agreeance with the fact that we need to think big in terms of our city's public transport needs, but don't believe that we should poo-poo a perfectly logical idea and ask for something so much bigger, which won't happen for years and years and years (for a Metro, we would be waiting for AT LEAST 20 years after the to-ing and fro-ing, the community consultation on THAT, the proposals being put forward, the tendering, the construction, the construction errors, testing and opening). Heck, the Epping-Chatswood line concept was first proposed in 1929!! New York and London are vastly different situations. They are contsantly dense with populations more than double the size (New York has a population similar to all of Australia) and so are constantly full. We here in Sydney do not live and operate in the same type of density as either city (or any other quoted on here for that matter...), so a metro would be, in itself, a shortsighted project. Oh, and let's be realistic. Trams/Light Rail take more people than buses. They would run frequently. They would run on their own lines, and potentially (suggestion here Government!) bypass traffic lights by going under major intersections a la North-west T-way and most other major systems. And in terms of parking? Buses would run on the same track as trams just like in Melbourne. So no issues there. No love lost. People, we need to be realistic about what the government is likely to cough up. We need to be realistic about the place of Randwick in the big scheme of things. Yes, I agree that it's important in so many ways, but a short metro line is not going to be built City to Randwick/Maroubra, as that would b a horrendous waste of money (new stabling, new vehicles, completely new system). We need to be realistic about the needs of the community combined with available funds, the government's propensity to spend on transport, the geography of the region and this in relation to all of Sydney. I encourage people to please not be so shortsighted.
                • bonniejock over 8 years ago
                  I'm not sure that there is a "myth" regarding public transport funding at the moment given that there are a number of heavy rail projects on the drawing board for Sydney, all of which will cost a considerable amount. The State's capacity to borrow might be there but there are a number of public transport projects to cover at present.The Kolkata metro is being extended to attempt to improve transport in that city, no doubt, but the rise in personal vehicle use is a major problem there & it will be a race to build transport in reponse to vehicle congestion, it can be hoped that the expanded metro there can relieve the congestion (but is that just leaving the problems above ground?). From what I can gather, some tram routes are being phased out in Kolkata (so cars can have right of way), though a few routes will remain (including a tourist route - Sydney can't even achieve that!).In ten years?...perhaps a Sydney metro route might be costed, funded & adequately planned, but I'm not holding my breath. Nothing against metros, but we need improved public transport sooner than later. If light rail is implemented thoughtfully, hopefully, we'll see less car use in our city & improved public transport.
      • morricio over 8 years ago
        The Tram is NOT "somewhat immune from the traffic snarls Sydney is known for". Don't fool yourself. The trams will be sitting at traffic lights just like the current buses are. And there is NO EXCUSE FOR THAT in 21st Century public transport! "In most European cities they prefer using light rail to metro or heavy rail, as it means people can get around on a faster basis, and constructing heavy rail is oh so costly." Have you ever been to New York or London or Paris or Berlin or Munich or one of many other places in Europe that have amazing high speed frequent metro services? There is no comparison, a metro beats the speed of light rail any day. Light rail is pretty much the same speed as a bus (because it has to deal with traffic and traffic lights) we already have those, so i ask you how will light rail get us to the city faster? It won't!
        • Tuddy over 8 years ago
          Let's be constructive in our comments here. GOVERNMENT, if you are reading this, please consider the possibility of trams bypassing intersections, whether by going under them or trams receiving priority at all intersections (in many cities they have ways and means of doing things like this relatively cheaply).Indeed I have been to all those cities. However Sydney, unlike those cities, does not have the consistent high density making a project like a metro feasible. Please refer to my response above for more information. Have you been to Toulouse? They have a 7km metro there connecting major areas of the city (Toulouse is quite big and draws in quite a large catchment - so whilst smaller than Sydney, lack of options for cars makes it more necessary.) The City there is STILL losing money on their metro system due to lack of ridership because whilst the project connects major areas of the city, a short track like that is simply not feasible. Economics 101 - Economies of Scale. A project that small is simply not feasible for something like a metro. For a light rail? It's more reasonable. More money could be made. Clermont-Ferrand for example has a highly popular light rail system that is an amazing money spinner for the city. It is of similar length to what Sydney's would be, faces similar issues to Sydney in terms of topography, connects all the major areas of the city and is amazingly popular as it gets cars of the road in a clean and comfortable manner.I know they are but two examples, but for the distance we're talking, light rail is a much more logical and more economical (both short and long term) solution.
          • bonniejock over 8 years ago
          • morricio over 8 years ago
            I'm sorry you are wrong, the area we are talking about most certainly has the density to support a metro. 4000+ people per square km. Central London has 8000 per square km and the underground cannot cope anymore, Trains come every minute there, and they cannot cope, so even if our metro ran every 5 minutes, it would have plenty of patronage from the university alone. Long term Sydney's density will increase even more, so when there is a conga line of trams stuck at a traffic light on Anzac Parade in peak hour in about 20 years, I hope we can hold you to account for that and appropriately proverbially burn you at the stake like we should Carl Scully for the M5 tunnel debacle, for short sighted thinking for short term gain.
      • InfrastructureBeforeTowers over 8 years ago
        Being realistic is important, and so is being accurate. Light rail is being used in many cities around the world but there are some important facts that have not been mentioned. In many of the cities that did not keep their old light rail virtually all of the new light rail is put under ground for the congested areas and only goes above ground once their is the room to take it. Look at some of the closest comparisons to Sydney such as San Francisco with legacy narrow streets or Munich. Over 87% of all new light rail is under ground. Virtually all instances where it is not have it one its own dedicated & separate light rail corridors not on existing roadways. Also the argument that if heavy rail was used it would just encourage more people to use it (as in your example for Bondi) well is that not the point? We want people to use mass transit not one or two people in cars - that's the whole point!
      • Scoby about 8 years ago
        I'm disgusted with the negativity some people have with the light-rail idea. These people seem happy to plod along in huge traffic jams everyday or line up for hours waiting for an overcrowded bus that may or may not have enough room onboard to let them on.Heavy rail is slow and unrealistic. Light rail and, maybe one day, a metro system is the best idea to move a large amount of people quickly and efficiently.
    • Barny over 8 years ago
      Firstly, the system being proposed is not light rail but a tram system. There is a big difference when defining the two. Light rail runs on a separated track where it does not need to give way to pedestrians, traffic and has its own right of way (Example: London Dockland’s). Trams are in a shared zone and have to compete with pedestrians, traffic and do not necessarily have right of way (Example: Melbourne) So with this definition it is fair to say that a tram system with a possible limited section of light rail through Moore Park is what is being proposed. Modern tram vehicles although able to carry more people than buses will still have the same travel times to/ from the Sydney CBD and be infrequent. As a result of inferior travel times and infrequent services, studies in North America have concluded higher densities and amenities developed along tram corridors make traffic congestion worse, not better as the overwhelming majority of trips to/ from these areas continue to be made by motor vehicles. There is also the visual impact trams will have on the streetscape with ugly power stanchions and overhead wiring running along a significant stretch of Oxford Street, Anzac Parade and in and around the parks and open spaces at Moore Park. I believe the study is being hurried and its scope will be limited and better, faster, more frequent options such as extending the Eastern Suburbs Rail Line or an underground South-East Metro will not be looked at and compared including a cost benefit analysis. With the government already acknowledging that it will be difficult to run a tram line through the Sydney CBD why are trams even being considered? If the government can spend many billions of dollars for an underground heavy rail line to North-West Sydney why can’t they do the same for South-East Sydney?
    • InfrastructureBeforeTowers over 8 years ago
      Removed by moderator.
    • steve.s over 8 years ago
      I do support the introduction of Light Rail to the Eastern Suburbs, as long as the route is to go through populated areas and where the trams would have their own right of way (i.e through the middle of Anzac Pde). I hardly ever go to these areas because of the lack of public transport in the area. Light Rail is preferable to buses as they can transport larger volumes of people, they don't release pollution into the air in the areas they run in and they are much more quiet. Also the tracks can be laid over grass, rather than having to rip up the ground and lay bitumen, as would be needed with busways. The wide median strips down Oxford Street and Anzac Pde have gone to waste over the last 50 years, it's about time it was put to use properly.
    • Johnson over 8 years ago
      Unless sydney buses are going electric somethings gotta change and this is a good step and idea forward
    • morricio over 8 years ago
      I support bringing rail to Randwick, and to the Eastern Suburbs, but not light rail. Light Rail is too slow and along the proposed route it will simply get stuck in traffic and have to wait at traffic lights just like the current buses do. It will not be a faster way to the city and it will not reduce congestion. The area is not suited to a tram anymore like it was in the 1960's; there are far too many people living here now in need of a high speed option that can replace their car. Light rail is not a high speed alternative to the car, and therefore taking up traffic lanes on Anzac Parade to build this thing is going to make the problem worse, as people won't want to use it as it doesn't bypass traffic like an underground train would. If this actually goes in, it will be a sad day for all of us as it will mean we will never get the heavy rail line that was promised to us over 30 years ago. Further still, putting in a light rail system up near the flinders street/oxford street/moore park road area towards the city has already been identified by Barry O'Farrell and Clover Moore as problematic. So why do it?! Why cause all that disruption for something that will travel at the same speed as a bus? This Light Rail line shows bad planning; the roads are far too narrow to accommodate both a tram line and existing cars which is partly why the original tram was taken away in the first place. We have long needed and deserve Underground Heavy Rail just like the North-West is getting. This project ideally needs to be converted to a High speed underground Metro Rail line, similar the ANZAC railway line proposal in 2007 (It went from St James Station down to Malabar underneath Anzac Parade), or even just a standard heavy rail line like the North-West is getting. It will cost more to put the line underground, but journey times will be slashed and it will be much better utilised and will take cars off the road as a result. We've waited this long for the heavy rail line, please don't rush ahead with this ill-conceived project.
      • morricio over 8 years ago
        Why would anyone disagree with a faster journey into the city?! Why would you all jeopardise getting a better outcome for us all? I'm sick of waiting at traffic lights, and i'm sick of getting stuck in congestion, and even if the tram has a dedicated lane, it will still be affected by both. SO HOW IS THAT BETTER THAN THE BUSES WE ALREADY HAVE?! It's going to be the same slow speed as a bus unless you put it underground.
        • bonniejock over 8 years ago
          Light rail might not = rapid transport in every instance, but it is a mass transit option, buses aren't up to that task (too crowded, poor passenger access/exitpoints). There is a lot of talk about underground rail options but where is the money to implement them (or the political will)? I'd rather a decent mass transit option than nothing much at all. Cars need to be relegated further down the 'food chain' on our roads & measures should be put in place to reduce unnecessary car travel in the CBD/near CBD and this would help clear those 'choke-points' (as the soon to be deceased RTA liked to call them).
          • Carlo over 8 years ago
          • morricio over 8 years ago
            This tram is going to cost 1 billion dollars. The Underground Option using cut and cover on Anzac Parade would probably cost double (probably about the same as the epping to chatswood link or propsed epping to paramatta), 2 billion dollars. They can borrow the extra billion.
            • Barny over 8 years ago
              Wow! $1 billion dollars for a tram! That really is a waste of money considering very little gain. Yes, you are correct depending on where an underground metro would start and end for South-East Sydney. One example for comparison could be the Copenhagen Metro Circle Line currently under construction. It will be 16km’s in length, have 17 underground stations, cost $1.7 billion Euro’s and is scheduled to be completed in 2018.
            • bonniejock over 8 years ago
              Interesting that you have pegged a 1 billion dollar price tag to a potential metro, but wouldn't a metro route need a CBD starting point? I recall a cost figure approaching 6 billion for the CBD metro. Given that there would need to be property acquisitions in the city to facilitate a Randwick/Anzac Pde underground route, irrespective of cut & cover, the price would most likely considerably more than 2 billion dollars to implement it. Seeing as no party is likely to actually put a metro plan in place anytime soon, we'll probably never know. The "tram" [I'd imagine that there would more than one vehicle] is, from what I can gather a 1 billion dollar plan that takes in both the CBD (a large project actually) & the Eastern Suburbs/Randwick routes.
        • freemason about 8 years ago
          Wow, do you have any experience of light rail in cities where it has been implemented properly? I have, and believe me it is the solution. And by the way, trams do not wait for traffic (they have their own lane), and do not wait at traffic lights (lights turn green as tram approaches).The trams were taken away in the 1960s not because they weren't working, but for a whole lot of stupid reasons.
      • talt almost 7 years ago
        I would expect the light rail would activate traffic lights as it approached an intersection it is to pass through, or similar to the situation we have now it would have its own light at the traffic light and be the first to leave an intesection oince the lights change.
    • Rob over 8 years ago
      Trams (all right, Light Rail if you want to sound 2011,) is the future of public transport in the inner suburbs of Sydney. Yes, I definitely support it your proposed route. I travel to Randwick regularly & would appreciate all the benefits trams bring with them.
    • kater over 8 years ago
      Please reintroduce trams to the eastern suburbs! Car ownership is way to high for the amount of space we have for parking on the street and traffic congestion is ridiculous. In the long term trams should operate along Anzac Parade down to Little Bay or further, to the airport, along Alison Road, connect to Green Square, Coogee Beach and perhaps go between Randwick Junction and Bondi Junction to connect to heavy rail.
    • intwerrkenhe over 8 years ago
      I fully support it. I believe it would be easier, faster and more efficient than using buses.
    • Carlo over 8 years ago
      I support additional transport, but no this half hearted, political stunt. Light rail just to randwick = waste of time and tax payers$$. We need a full system, subway all along Anzac Pde and nearby centres, with plans for surrounding future development.
    • lightrail over 8 years ago
      This is such a great initiative. I would be thrilled to see a viable and sustainable alternative to buses. A frequent light rail service that services the major catchment areas of SCG, SFS, EQ, Centennial Park, the Racecourse, Randwick shopping, the Hospitals AND the University would be well utilized.Anzac Parade is a natural corridor for this. I would use this service daily. We can't keep adding more buses to the roads.
    • alcogoodwin over 8 years ago
      Hello, A huge thank you to Barry O'Farrell and Murray Matson for having the vision to deliver a modern and efficient light rail system to our area. Light rail is a transport mode rapidly growing in cities around the world, far surpassing endless queues of buses trying to cope with growing popularions. Years ago, as part of the 'Eastern Suburbs Light Rail Association', we pushed and promoted the concept of light rail for our area. Sadly it was mostly met with deaf ears in government back then, but now we finally have people in government who know how important it will be. It is sad to see all the negative comments in the local media, some of it has been quite ridiculous and I fear that eventually we will loose the chance forever in a dream of things that will never happen. This is all a great development and I know that, eventually, even all the NIMBYs will come to appreciate the changes it will bring to our area.Thanks
      • Carlo over 8 years ago
        light rail - modern? have to disagree there. subway is the way to go. think London, HK, NYC.
        • alcogoodwin over 8 years ago
          Interesting comment.So your saying that all these new light rail systems are not modern, but the subways of London and NYC are?
        • Dresdner about 8 years ago
          So, the subway in New York City is modern in your eyes? I am not against subways in general but I would much prefer to travel in any light rail than in NYC's subway. BTW: light rail and subway can and do coexist in Berlin, Hamburg, Munich. The subway is a huge cost factor and does, in my opinion, only make sense with a high population density. NYC has 10k/km², Hongkong 6k/km², London 5k/km² -- compared to 2k/km² in Sydney.
          • Carlo about 8 years ago
            But light rail and road won't coexist...certainly not in this case...why can't we increase densities along anzac pde. I can't think of a better place. Apparently we have a housing supply/affordability issue!!
            • Dresdner about 8 years ago
              Why should light rail and road not coexist? You find light rail (or tram) in many German cities traveling on or next to the road. Certainly, light rail and cars should not share the same lane for a long distance -- but for only two blocks or just to cross, I do not see the issue, here. Especially because next to Anzac Parade, there are bus lanes. I suppose, this is where the light rail should go. Either, share the lane with the busses or move the (supposedly fewer) busses to the parade.Increase the population density along Anzac Parade, between Central Station and Kensington? Easy: Just replace Moore Park and Centennial Park by sky scrapers...? ;-) No, "green lungs" are vital to the well-being of Sydney-siders. I would prefer a Centennial Park without cars, but that is just me. When I first saw Kensington, I was surprised to find so many single-family houses "right in the city center". But I suppose, it is just that urban management does not change in a year. The owners of family homes would certainly not abandon their property just to make room for multi-story appartment houses.
              • Carlo about 8 years ago
                to be a truly global city, as we are constantly reminded, we need a high speed, convenient transport system. I cant see it happening if light rail has to cross over roads. Currently buses experience a stop start affair and light rail will be the same if it attempts to coexist. Imagine the intersection of Anzac pde if buses, cars and light rail have to intersect. a nightmare. we need fast subway to achieve true convenience and attraction to commuters.When i was talking about increased densities, i was talking about existing developed areas. It would be impossible, and i wouldnt encourage by no means, developing existing open space areas.
                • alcogoodwin over 7 years ago
                  Easy. Have the technology installed to ensure green lights all the way for light rail vehicles. May inconvenience car user - good perhaps they will then resort to the light rail and its co-ordinated bus service. Good if a few months of road traffic chaos leads more people onto the more convenient light rail - it has thus done it job.
    • Barny over 8 years ago
      Why would a TRUE local prefer a slow, infrequent tram service to a fast, frequent underground metro option??? South-East Sydney deserves the “quantum leap” from buses to an underground metro or at the very least an extension of the Eastern Suburbs Heavy Rail Line from Bondi Junction to Kingsford. It would seem that once again local planners and local politicians lack the SKILLS required to fight for a REAL public transport solution for South-East Sydney. Maybe they need to visit their counterparts in North-West Sydney to see how it’s done.
    • Storboo over 8 years ago
      I wholeheartedly support this initiative but it is only a part solution. It needs to go Further. There is the corridor along Avoca St from High St to where it joins Anzac Pde that has no public transport. Bus stops are still there along the defence base and no buses!
    • Barny over 8 years ago
      So how many buses will this tram proposal eliminate from the Sydney CBD? Because travel times are not going to be any quicker than the current bus system the answer is “not many” unless they intend to force commuters to change from a bus to a tram? This will add up to 10-15 minutes on the current bus journey. A South-East Metro travelling underground from White Bay to the University of NSW (As a first stage of the proposed Anzac Line) on the other hand with new bus/ metro interchanges at Moore Park and the University of NSW could eliminate up to twenty three bus routes from travelling all the way into the Sydney CBD each day. This includes the 443, 448, Metrobus 10, 890, 891, 892, 895, 373, 377, 391, 392, 394, 396, 397, 399, L94, X39, X73, X74, X77, X92, X94 and X96. If each of these bus routes makes sixty trips per day into/ out of the Sydney CBD between 6am and 9pm that is nearly 1400 bus movements removed from the Sydney CBD each day. Although commuters will still have to change from bus to underground metro it will have a superior frequency and travel time to/ from the Sydney CBD so commuters will save up to 10-15 minutes compared to their current bus journey. The removal of a significant amount of buses from the Sydney CBD makes new pedestrian only zones and trams along George Street from Central to Circular Quay within the CBD much more viable.
    • bonniejock over 8 years ago
      I totally support the proposal to implement a light rail route to Randwick. Sydney has seen way too many underground rail proposals that remain little more than being junked proposals. Does anyone remember how long it took to 'complete' the Eastern Suburbs Railway? Sadly, most people remember the fiasco that was the CBD Metro and whether we like it or not, metro plans for Sydney are basically dead in the water for perhaps decades. A metro would be political poison and I doubt any party would want to be associated with 'brand loser' (for better or for worse). Buses simply don't cut it as a mass transit option & are really a supporting mode of transport (or should be), look as the embarrassing spectacle of giant queues of people in Eddy Avenue waiting for their euphemistically labelled 'UNSW Express'. Compare the corridor space in any standard light rail vehicle with that of a bus & see how much better light rail is suited to carrying passengers in peak periods. Peak period bus travel for people with children, the elderly, or for people with disabilities is a nightmare.Additionally, the number of seats in modern LR vehicles can easily match those in articulated buses. Trams/light rail are mass transit vehicles, buses are a poor substitute.If ever there was a tram route that should never have been removed, it was the Anzac Pde route.
    • darvin over 8 years ago
      I believe we should bring a public transport which can solve a traffic Congestion without pollution and I don't think light rail can solve Traffic congestion. what I am suggesting is to develop a METRO Rail which is pass under ground. and one of the necessary and possible route is from Redfern-Surry Hill-Morepark, SCG&SFG- Kinsington- UNSW- Kingsford- Maroubra.
    • GraceKarskens over 8 years ago
      I am a big fan of light rail, but this proposal is just too limited - it needs to link at least Central Station with UNSW on a loop. That's why Anzac Parade is so wide - it was designed for trams
    • petermcguinn over 8 years ago
      I take public transport to UNSW every day, where I work.It is humiliating being mustered like cattle onto the Express Buses - with literally thousands queuing during peak hour. It's like leaving a major sporting event or stadium concert every day - just to get to work. Better solution needed!
    • Christina over 8 years ago
    • UNSWcommuter over 8 years ago
      Public transport to University of NSW is presently inadequate and clunky. 50,000 students and staff need a streamlined and efficient alternative to private car travel. Necessary features of the system include:- Fast, regular (every 5 minutes between 7am and 10pm at the very minimum) connections to major railway and bus hubs.- Multiple stops on both sides of the UNSW campus: Why does Barker Street always miss out?- Ticketing system fully integrated with bus and rail, even for casual, one-off commuters. Currently commuters needing single tickets for bus and train must buy separate tickets for each - that is madness!
    • jjansson over 8 years ago
      Connections with the rest of the city is key. Light rail needs to go deep into the city (as the buses currently do) to ensure that people find the service convenient. Pick up and drop off stops for connections must be conveniently positioned. A tram stop for the Randwick tram in the city should be close to, or even the same stop as the Lilyfield tram stop. Extension down Parramatta rd should also be considered.
    • krypt over 8 years ago
      Although I generally support light rail (or indeed any improvement in public transport) for the Randwick area, as others have said, there really needs to be more information about what the starting areas are from the city. While Central Station may not be considered "central" for people commuting to and from CBD from the eastern suburbs, if you are travelling to Randwick for work, uni, sporting events etc, Central really does give the best access to the most number of train routes. The light rail would also really need to go up High St (as proposed by the Council), as simply stopping at Anzac Parade does not provide sufficient answers to the numbers of people travelling to UNSW and the hospital every day. As a daily commuter to UNSW, while there are plenty of problems with the numbers of people taking the UNSW express bus, I don't want my public transport to be "improved" in a way that ultimately ends up taking me longer.
    • Lightcommuter over 8 years ago
      Getting more cars off the road would be great and sharing the load of many crowded buses will make commuters lives better. Also some of the rides in old buses is pretty hard going at times- bumpy noisy and crowded. I use the Light Rail and the journey is smoother, comfortable and access is easy.
    • atsc over 8 years ago
      I'm sorry I can only support an underground link from central if the Light rail or trams have to mingle with traffic. It's pointless spending millions on a system that is no more efficient than the buses. The underground could stop at several stops along the way (Entertainment quarter, race course, bottom and top of UNSW and Randwick. Oh and it could go further and *faster*. Yes I know a pipe dream due to cost but this type of system would help solve the congestion, not a light rail. Sydney needs to dream big if it is to overcome its many urban issues...
    • jtansari over 8 years ago
      i agree with one of the comments below that what is shown on the pictures is not light rail but tram which is different. light rail have proven to be quite a success in several cities and it can be run without a driver. they usually run on loop circles. however light rail need to run on above ground level platforms which can spoil the view and landscape if not designed well. they can alternatively run on underground tunnels which can be costly. however there is a need for such light rail to run between1) central to randwick2) central to maroubra3) airports to kingsford, kensington, randwick (these suburbs can become service hubs for flight passengers)if you are talking about trams, then there is currently the middle section of the roads to maroubra that can accomodate trams. from alison road starting at the junction of anzac parade, you do not have such space. without such space, you cannot have dedicated lanes for trams. the roads from randwick up to junction of alison and anzac are super congested at peak hours. trams will not reduce this congestion and infact will add to it.therefore congestion in randwick area can be reduced only if tram lines either underground or above ground level can be constructed from alison road junction anzac parade onwards to randwick. similarly to reduce congestion from central station to alison road, the tram will need to be underground or above ground. another option that should also be studied alongside trams is street cars that you can find in toronto city(canada). during off peak hours and to turn sharp 90 degree corners and to go into smaller roads, street cars are the best option. in fact what should be studied is how to use a combination of tram and street cars on the same track infrastructure.
      • Tuddy over 8 years ago
        streetcars and trams are one in the same. they should be offroad to an extent. it owuld essentially replace bus services, yet be able to hold more people. it may increase traffic, yet wouldn't this encourage yet again more people to jump onto the service so people for whom it would be inefficient to utilise the service woudl have the road freed up?
        • jtansari over 8 years ago
          "yet wouldn't this encourage yet again more people to jump onto the service"it really depends on whether driving is faster and more convenient than the streetcar/tram. though what you suggest may seem true, in the case of several cities, the authorities were not able to run the trams/streetcars frequent enough or the total time required to travel using tram/streetcar was the same as a car etc. this resulted in fewer drivers giving up their cars. thats is why driverless systems on elavated platforms or underground tunnels will be a better alternative as they could be run more frequently, stops/stations can be set up at more places if they have fewer put it in short, what determines rate at which vehicle drivers give up their vehicles for public transport are1) frequency of public transport2) convenience of public transport i.e. how near to their homes is the starting point and how near is the destination point to their office/workplace/school3) total time taken to travel4) partly the cost (not just per person but the family in some cases as they might travel together)
          • Tuddy over 8 years ago
            of course. i completely understand where you are coming from. i don't think the capacity issues in sydney are such that such issues would arise however. and given the cost etc. as i have previously outlined, driverless systems would not work for the proposed route. given the light rail would AT LEAST operate on its grade-separated track through Moore Park and along Alison Road, it would automatically provide benefits. Thinking about it however, should it be found that there are too many people for the tram systems, then driverless systems could be installed on the then preexisting tracks (should the line be completely grade-separated > but this is a completely separate issue!)1) it would need to operate quite frequently2) i think that over time it's been worked out that bus services which presently operate go near the majority of major destinations and this has been considered in the initial proposal3) if it was given priority, it would be almost certainly be quicker than the car4) i think we'd all hope that it would be cheap! but this wouldn't be found out for a long time i'm afraid.Cheers for reading
      • FierceDinosaur over 7 years ago
        More and more and more studies.... = no action, as usual.We have to be clear about what is being proposed here:Is it commuter transport?Or general public transport?I think it is the first - just a way to shift the bulk of people from the city to the Uni/POW area at peak times.The rest of us that want an overall efficient 24 hour pleasant efficient and fast general public transport system for the whole of the Eastern Suburbs are Dreamers.
    • Extend heavy rail over 8 years ago
      Bringing a light rail / tram system as proposed back to Randwick will not be an improvement. This is because the proposed system shares the road with existing cars, trucks and busses. My experience on travelling on trams/ light rail that share the road is they are as slow as or slower than the existing busses. The best solution is unfortunately the most expensive to build, but ounce built, is the cheapest to run. The solution is a fully integrated modern heavy rail double deck suburban railway. Travel times will be quicker than any of the alternatives suggested. Thus for Randwick the existing eastern suburbs railway could be extended from Bondi junction. For Kingsford and UNSW a new part underground railway along Anzac parade could be built. Like the eastern distributer, it could run in a cutting a large part of the way, avoiding any level crossings. I am sure there is enough demand already to fill the heavy rail double deck trains of both these suggested future lines.
    • noway over 8 years ago
      Dead against it for several reasonsThe brochure indicates it "frees up on street parking". Oh really? So what are we to have? One bus lane, one tram lane and one vehicle lane. What, one vehicle lane through Kensington. What brains trust thought this one up. We have streets destroyed throughout Sydney as a result of tunnels ( eg, Epping Road) and the Council wants to pull this stunt. Is anyone at the Council old enough to remember why trams were taken off Sydney roads all those years? Try a reality check."No net parking loss". Nice one. Can the public expect free high rise parking stations covering numerous blocks at the terminus point to accommodate all those who wish to use the tram service or are they expected to park in the kilometers of streets around the said terminus points and walk to catch a tram?"Council has signed a Memorandum of Understanding". Isn't this (as with previous Councils- irrespective as to where they are) code for "we will go ahead, irrespective as to what the public thinks because we know what is good for you. This site smacks of a place for people to vent their thoughts and nothing else. If Council has already made the decision, come out and say so. To add further congestion to our traffic woes, is not the way to go.
      • Tuddy over 8 years ago
        A tram lane and a bus lane? It would be trams and buses sharing the track as in Melbourne. It's such a shame there are so many NIMBYs in the world. People want public transport, the ideas that are best suited to the needs are put forward and then they ward it away with garlic before then crying out again that they want better public transport.
      • freemason about 8 years ago
        Ahem, you catch a tram INSTEAD of driving a car. You don't need to drive to the tram stop.Some people really don't get public transport...
      • FierceDinosaur over 7 years ago
        I love your writing style.A couple of thoughts:Re: high rise parking stations at terminus points: good idea, like the one at Sutherland, but there is NO ROOM to put these anywhere. It would encourage people to walk to the terminus, which is good for you. What about bikes? I have an example: in Tokyo, no-one is allowed to buy a car unless they can prove they have a garage to put it in. Result: most people go by bicycle to the terminus, and leave their bike in a free bike-park. And it is cold and rains a lot in Tokyo.I have seen it in Amsterdam as well, where it also rains a lot, so weather is not a problem unless you think it is.
    • Tuddy over 8 years ago
      I fear that most of you may have missed what I wrote in a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply. It's lovely that we have so many creative minds here and that epeople are thinking a metro would be more effective. Constructing a metro to JUST go to the city would not be an effective allocation of resources. Where would it go after that? The North Shore? ...well we all know how read the government isn't to build THAT project. Which brigns me on to my next point...Toulouse? They have a 7km metro there connecting major areas of the city (Toulouse is quite big and draws in quite a large catchment - so whilst smaller than Sydney, lack of options for cars makes it more necessary.) The City there is STILL losing money on their metro system due to lack of ridership because whilst the project connects major areas of the city, a short track like that is simply not feasible. Economics 101 - Economies of Scale. A project that small is simply not feasible for something like a metro.For a light rail? It's more reasonable. More money could be made. Clermont-Ferrand for example has a highly popular light rail system that is an amazing money spinner for the city. It is of similar length to what Sydney's would be, faces similar issues to Sydney in terms of topography, connects all the major areas of the city and is amazingly popular as it gets cars of the road in a clean and comfortable manner.People - you need to think not just "as a Randwick local" or "as someone who knows best" yet about the big picture and about what is likely to be constructed. It needs to be considered the government's propensity to spend. It's all well and good saying that the government SHOULD spend more money on transport etc. etc. but realistically that's just not going to happen. It was realised that metro isn't Sydney's future by a few successive Premiers (murky water I know, so let's not go too much further down THAT path). The examples given above show it would be a ridiculous spending of already paltry fund sin the NSW State coffers. The images provided are "initial concepts" - not final designs. There will be changes to the proposal between now and the cutting of the ribbon. Light rail may go underground for some sections. It may have priority at traffic lights. It may have more carriages. It may even carry cargo as the trams do in Dresden. So just take a deep breath, go away and have a little think about these initial proposals in a non-inebriated state before coming back to suggest things so ridiculous as a metro being necessary. Thank you for your time.
      • morricio over 8 years ago
        If people like you had any say in the construction of Sydney's Infrastructure, there would be no harbour bridge, no underground city rail loop, and the Epping to Paramatta line would be a tram line instead of an underground rail link. Your key argument is that it would cost too much and wouldnt make money. Like all public transport in this state, We are not constructing this link to make money, we are constructing this link to better our society. If John Bradfield (the original designer of Sydney's rail network who ALMOST 100 YEARS AGO DESIGNED THIS LINE TO BE UNDERGROUND) heard you spewing this narrow minded nonsense about economics on a public rail line, he would be spinning in his grave. It was not economical to construct the harbour bridge, and it will not be economical to construct this line to be underground. However, like the bridge, it will be much better for us in the long run. Look at the original ANZAC LINE blueprints from 2007. The metro was suppose to go to the inner west.
        • Tuddy over 8 years ago
          The key difference between the Harbour Bridge, the Epping-Chatswood line and what is being proposed here is that at either end there were already constructed connections. The Harbour Bridge connected rail services from the southern and western parts of Sydney to those on the North Shore meaning seamless rail services and no need to change trains. The Epping-Chatswood line (and indeed the Epping-Parra line would do the same) connected two pre-existing lines. What is being proposed by "geniuses" such as your good self is a Metro service that is in it's own entity. Bradfield wanted connectivity in his network proposals and wanted everything joined up. The Harbour Bridge was not merely its own entity in getting people from Wynyard to Milsons Point and if they were coming from anywhere else necessitate the need to change. What was it you said about Bradfield "turning in his grave"? We need to be realistic about what the government will do. At present, they are focussed on getting rail links out to the long-neglected north-west and south-west corridors to even think about the south-eastern suburbs. There is no feasible option to get trains going out to Randwick. What would it connect to? It's all well and good say that a proposed line from 5 years ago was supposed to go to the inner west, yet these proposals were mothballed for reasons other than political ones - they weren't deemed feasible. Whilst any transport project isn't constructed for the sole purpose of making money, it is not designed with the possibility of making a loss, as a short metro line as exhibited in your proposal would be. The CBD Metro was deemed a money-waster as it wouldn't necessarily go any where and was "too short to sufficiently make money". the proposal you are putting forth for the rail link to randwick would be of a similar length. I trust you have enough brain matter to see what i am saying here. I actually believe in (as a "never-going-to-happen" proposal) a Circle Metro which would take in the city, before going through Broadway, Redfern, Surry Hills, Moore Park, UNSW, Randwick, Waverley, Bondi Junction, Paddington, Darlinghurst and back in through the city. Again, like the "Anzac Metro" I believe that such a project would never happen. However, such a project would take in the city's highest density areas and connect all major transport links. This would be the ideal foundation for a larger network, yet as I said, it's never going to happen. I'm being realistic about what's going to happen in Sydney's public transport future. Light rail is the ideal mode for the southeastern suburbs. Potentially, a portion of it may be underground (I'm primarily thinking of through Kensington and around UNSW), but then again, we have bus lanes in this area (thus vehicles would be separated from traffic) and the technology which would allow trams to get priority at traffic lights.I think a light rail to Randwick, in all it's logic, will be much better for us in the long run, as it provides the spine for the future of Sydney's larger tram network.
          • morricio over 8 years ago
            It seems like you are having amnesia about the former NSW labor government. The ANZAC metro line was cancelled because of political reasons, and because there was no political will to find funding to build it. And because there were 3 different premiers in 4 years. Same reason the M4 East was cancelled and the Northwest rail link was postponed. Former labor said this: "CAN'T POSSIBLY CONSTRUCT THE NORTHWEST RAIL LINK, WE HAVEN'T GOT THE FUNDS RIGHT NOW". Barry O'Farrell still doesn't have the funds, and look what's happening - He's still pushing right forward with it - There's tendering, there's drilling - you name it! It's all about political will - and you are being utterly defeatist by saying "oh it's not feasible to construct the ANZAC metro line". The reason it's not feasible is because YOU have decided that, and your opinion, just like NSW labor's, is just an opinion. Sydney's transport congestion costs the economy $6 billion per year in lost productivity, And it's just getting worse. A slow tram stuck at a traffic light will not reduce that economic impact, but a fast underground metro, that can have integration with the existing cityrail network will. And like the person below says, this is part of a wider metro project to connect all of the inner areas of Sydney. Who knows, they could even work out ways to start running metro trains along existing cityrail tracks. By your own admission, be realistic about this project you are so adamant about.NONE OF THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE BUILT UNDERGROUND, AND THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH IT! It doesn't matter if the tram gets priority at traffic lights, It is not going to get into the city faster than a bus. Look how many sets of traffic lights it would have to have priority at - we are talking at least 15. The government CANNOT DO THAT. Doesn't matter how much you beg, how much you say "oh Govvy, won't that be lovely, lets do that" there are too many cars at all of those intersections, and traffic needs to flow. The tram will not have priority at all of them or even some of them! you wait and see. It will be 1 or 2 sets. Not enough to affect journey times. And then there's the matter of how fast the tram travels to begin with. Trams are slow. I read a statistic that in peak hour, Melbourne Trams crawl at an average of 16km/hr. And then there's Sydney's existing joke of a light rail. This doesn't bode well for what is about to be implemented. It will NOT be fast.The CBD metro was not serving anywhere new. This metro/extension of heavy rail that plenty of people on this forum clearly support (along with most urban planners and the head of UNSW's Built Environment Faculty, who apparently you know better than) will service an area not currently served by rail. Its feasibility has nothing to do with lengths of the track - "Oh the proposed CBD Metro and the UNSW metro you are proposing are similar length - therefore it's an uneconomical idea". That is the most nonsensical argument i have heard, these are TOTALLY different projects. The CBD metro, namely, HAD THE EXISTING RAIL NETWORK TO COMPETE WITH! I'm not claiming to be a genius, but i have travelled extensively across the world and have realised, what makes a good city is a metro system that comes frequently and travels at high speed, and is not affected by traffic snarls. It doesn't take a genius to work out the economic implications of having an amazing public transport network. There are plenty of parts of inner Sydney with density high enough to support metro's.And lastly, there's the matter of connectivity. You yourself said Bradfield wanted connectivity. Tell me, IF A LARGE PORTION OF SYDNEY IS SERVED BY A RAIL NETWORK, AND THEN YOU START BUILDING A SEPARATE TRAM NETWORK - IN WHAT WAY IS THAT "CONNECTED"? For Crying out loud, can't you see we have to develop a system for the future here? If they extend existing rail or build the track of the metro the same width as the standard trains, we can slowly start phasing in metro frequencies with single decker train sets on the whole cityrail network. Then we would build the northern beaches line as a metro, then the hurstville to strathfield metro could commence construction - then we can integrate the east hills line via the airport to UNSW, forks from the existing UNSW metro line under alison road to coogee beach via randwick, and then further down another fork to maroubra beach. It would be amazing. An amazing interconnection of lines, instead of them all meeting up in the city, we can actually go directly to places we want on the train instead of using cars. Wouldn't you like to live in a city like that? No, apparently you want to be stuck at a traffic light on a tram, on Anzac Parade in 20 years time. Modernity, God help us all.
            • Tuddy over 8 years ago
              Some of the arguments you use , I can use with reference to your good self Morricio. In what way is building a new metro system separate from the existing rail network "connected"? It isn't. And there would be issues in terms of infrastructre with converting existing rail services to metro services - brand new fleet of trains to replace existing double-deck services that are currently over capacity? Good thinking..or not. Barry is plunging the state into further debt by ploughing ahead with the project. You are deciding the project such as the Anzac Metro line IS feasible - your opinion. As I've previously said, if planned correctly, I am all for having a metro system put in place in Sydney. Really I am. However, given there has been a constant media-covered stink about the horrendous public transport in the North-West, pressure has been applied for years for a North-West Rail Link and it's finally happening. People can, in theory, walk or ride their bikes from Randwick to the city - try that from Castle Hill (being facetious, I know) .If priority was to be given at ALL traffic lights, would that not provide an incentive to get cars off the road? Then you could always tunnel under major ones like Alison Road/Anzac Parade (necessary really to get trams from the middle of the Anzac Parade in Kensington to the existing busway). Have you SEEN some of Melbourne's roads and the congestion in peak hour? Anzac Parade and indeed the proposed routes through Randwick are wider than the roads travel along in Melbourne's northern suburbs (and a fair few in the eastern too...Camberwell comes to mind). So having said that, along the dedicated busway (as a mere example) light rail could go at full pelt..and I'll assume the luxury of an underpass at Cleveland Street. Metro services in Copenhagen go at an average of 35 km/h. I believe "fast" was the word you use to describe such a system?I similarly have travelled extensively across the world. I have investigated and array of networks worldwide and have previously put forward transport project proposals around the world. Similarly, it was stated that an Airport Link in Sydney would have marvellous economic implications...look at what a drain that is on the economy (the government hasn't got the money to fund a project on it's own, so even if a metro was to be built, a PPP would be in order). I must say Morricio, you do have good written expression, and your use of capital letters beautifully highlights the key points of your argument. I wish you well in your future unfounded arguments and attempts to convince people that your way is the only way one can possibly take, when this clearly is not true. You have a bright future.
              • morricio over 8 years ago
                Silly Barry, ploughing ahead with the North West rail link, and plunging the state into further debt. What a terrible idea, building a rail link. If you asked Sydneysiders whether they would plunge the state further into debt so they could have an amazing transport network - i'm sure majority would say yes. It has become clear now that services are so badly needed that putting the state, even the country into say 20 billion of debt to build various lines across Sydney would not be such a bad idea. The economic, social and environmental implications of those new lines will outweigh the economic implications of the debt.The stations proposed for the Anzac metro are further apart than those on the Copenhagen metro, therefore the Anzac metro should be able to travel faster than 35km/hr. A metro is much much faster than a Tram, surely you must agree with me on that point? If you don't at least on that point, then i don't know what sort of transport project proposer you are. Not a very good one clearly.The Airport link should have been entirely constructed by the government, the PPP was a terrible idea.Traffic crossing Anzac Parade is not serviced by rail - they have no reason to get out of their car. Therefore there will still be heavy cross traffic. And i'm betting you - no matter how much priority should be given at the lights, it simply won't be. The government won't implement it. You watch. They haven't implemented it anywhere else. Similarly with tunnelling. Would be lovely? Yes but will they do it? No. Light rail cannot go at full pelt along the dedicated busway, because it has to stop for passengers.Tuddy - my arguments are not unfounded. Ask any urban planner, ask the head of the built environment faculty at UNSW. (Who you still think you know better than!) Underground Metro is the way to go. My way is not the only option - i mean you could put in a man with a horse and cart in along Anzac Parade. That is an option. Is it a desirable option? NO! Just like the tram, is it the most desirable option? NO! It will be a SLOW option comparatively to what's available to us. This decision will affect us for the next 30 years. I don't think people want to be on a Tram in 30 years, when they could be on a Metro.Building a new metro system separate from the existing rail network may not be connected right now, but in the future it can be. Unlike a tram, which can never be connected or extensively used, considering most of Sydney uses and needs heavy rail.My argument is that anything is feasible if you set your mind to it. Excuse me for wanting something better for us all. If you really wanted a metro, you would argue passionately for it like i am. You would not settle for something second rate.
                • Tuddy over 8 years ago
                  Let's look at the motivation of Barry O'Farrell in the construction of the NW Rail Link. Since 1998, residents in his party's blue-ribbon seats have been promised a rail link. They've cried foul after each cancellation of the project and finally he gets into power and it's Barry ot the rescue, there to save those peope he holds so nearly and dearly in his blue-ribbon seats. Let's be realistic they needed public transport more than anyone in Sydney did or does out that way.A metro can be connected to the existing system in the future, but a tram can never be connected to the wider network? If you're still having hallucinations that the CityRail network can be converted into a metro system, I urge you to try something else. Among other things, one of the reasons the North West Metro was cancelled was because people believed it was too long a distance for a metro train. Imagine people standing on a metro train all the way out to Penrith or Campbelltown! Sure the trains would come frequently, but people wouldn't get seats on these services...good thinking there Morricio. You're ignoring that the government is already going ahead with an array of tram/light rail projects to Dulwich Hill and in the short-term is looking to commence construction of a Central-Circular Quay service.Yes a metro can be faster than a tram (although get the tram out to the airport in Lyon and I think you'd disagree), and having caught the bus along the busway for many years, I know that not many people get on or off at these stops because it's all parkland (excluding of course some school kids for Sydney Boys and Sydney Girls).The argument you use about government implementing priority at lights could similarly be used for their building of a Metro. Would be lovely? Yes. But will they do it? No. I agree that it would be marvellous to have a metro system in Sydney. Really I do. Having a Metro system from the north-west of the CBD through and out to the south-east would be magnificent. Is it going to happen? No. The government does not view such a project as high priority given what they view as an already well-serviced corridor. I know the buses are over-capacity etc. I'm just regurgitating what they would view it as. So, they will give the south-east a tram/light rail. If there's too much whinging and complaining from fine members of society such as yourself about not wanting an improvement on the existing situation, then they'll go back to the drawing board, and based on how long it took to get trains out to Castle Hill, who knows how long it would take to work out something else!?I'm not claiming to know more than your bloved Professor Tzannes. I would question why a tram and a metro cannot co-exist, but I guess that's another can of worms. Is a tram a more desirable option that the existing buses? Yes. Is it more likely to be built than a metro? Yes. Of course a faster underground network is more desirable than a tram system. So is a high speed train between Sydney and Melbourne in comparison to the existing CountryLink services, but I can't see that happening in the my lifetime, let alone that of my grandchildren. Some people in this world are like the little kids in the toy shop who want the biggest and best toy when their parents can only afford and will adamantly only purchase, after much to-ing and fro-ing, the generic-brand truck with a wheel missing (there is meaning hidden deep in there somewhere in that analogy).Oh Morricio, I feel terrible for all the stress I have caused you. Can you ever forgive me for being realistic in what the government will spend money on based on it's own political agenda? Will you be able to take a calm breath again i nthe full knowledge that the likelihood of the government actually BUILDING (I'm sure there will be many front-page plans..but building? Well that's another story) a Metro system in Sydney is about as likely as them building one in Broken Hill? (perhaps a bit extreme, but not far from reality...). I sincerely hope so my dearest Morricio, because I would hate to think otherwise.
      • Barny over 8 years ago
        Tuddy, we’ll have to agree to disagree but, You have to start somewhere. Rome was not built in a day. Why can’t we have an underground metro line that runs from South-East Sydney into the Sydney CBD as a first stage of an extensive metro system for Sydney? Why can’t this line be under construction within the next ten years? Personally I favor a first stage of the previously proposed Anzac Line route that would use part of the previous Rozelle Metro alignment starting with the stabling, maintenance and control centre at the old Rozelle goods yard and then stations at: White Bay (Good site for a major national event like a World Expo, then a URP with medium to high density housing for at least another 30,000 people), Pyrmont (Almost completed URP with high density housing and a considerable workforce), Wynyard/ Barangaroo (Gives this new development a superior public transport option and Cityrail interchange), Martin Place (Under Phillip St and Cityrail interchange), Hyde Park (Cityrail interchange with St James station), Oxford St (At Crown St), Paddington, Moore Park (At the southern end with superior public transport for the Sydney Cricket Ground, Football Stadium, Fox Studio’s entertainment precinct, Centennial Park and a new bus/ metro interchange), Kensington (Superior public transport for Randwick Racecourse), UNSW (At the western end of High St with superior public transport for UNSW and a new bus/ metro interchange) and Randwick (At the eastern end of High St with superior public transport for the Prince of Wales Hospital and Randwick town centre). Then at some time in the future this line could be extended to Maroubra Junction/ Malabar in the east and along the Victoria Rd corridor in the west. I think this highlights how a metro system would address the bigger picture. After leaving work at Barangaroo while someone on a tram would still be stuck in a traffic jam somewhere on George St in the Sydney CBD by metro they’d already be at Moore Park or Kensington. It could not be any more blatantly obvious what system Sydney needs. Clermont-Ferrand is a small medieval regional city with a total population under 200,000 people so a tram system is probably the most appropriate mode of public transport for them but comparing it to Sydney (A global city with a population over 4.5 million and huge downtown area) is like comparing chalk and cheese. There’s more to public transport infrastructure planning than basic microeconomic theory especially the need to look at longer term social and environmental benefits and factors. Wasn’t this the same trap the previous state government fell into? Using the ill conceived Rozelle Metro as a basis that Sydney has realised that metro is not part of its future is opportunistic at best. That proposal was ill conceived and awful. A carefully planned and envisaged metro plan for Sydney would be SUPERIOR to any street level tram system in a shared zone and get MORE people out of their cars. The time of governments providing the crumb’s that is public transport spending is well and truly over. We need vision, foresight and REAL public transport solutions or Sydney’s predicament is grim.
        • Tuddy over 8 years ago
          Barny I see what you're getting at, and you do present a very tantalising proposal. I wholeheartedly agree that funding for public transport is ridiculously minute that it barely deserves a mention. I agree that there needs to be better transport funding. I do not agree with the idea of having a metro system terminate at Rozelle for that would be ill-conceived at best (and don't get me started on that whole White Bay debarcle!) If it was part of a larger system, as opposed to a smaller one, then indeed I believe Metro would be the best way to go. In an ideal world, we would have a metro system go from Epping to Malabar through Top Ryde (horrendously underserved especially considering the new development there), Gladesville and Drummoyne (to try and reduce traffic on Victoria Road - let's face it..Iron Cove Bridge = White Elephant), Rozelle and then through the stations you have proposed (although I believe perhaps integrating some of my proposed circle metro line would be a good idea?) It seems that the key issue in all this debate is that people want to be on public transport that is not affected by Sydney's notorious traffic snarls. In theory, if proper infrastructure is put in place, both modes can achieve this. However given it's poor planning history, I doubt the government would be capable of doing that.What I've been trying to do here is be realistic about the level of government spending in relation to the proposals put forward. Unless they make a snap change to improve their levels of spending, then I think the best one can hope for is light rail. It may sound pessimistic, yet it's also realistic. If the government put forward a Metro to the south-eastern suburbs with connections to somewhere in the city's north or west (dead end of a line in the city = bad idea on so, so many levels), I would embrace it with both arms. Would they be likely to do so? Well I think that the council's proposal of light rail as opposed to a metro line may be an indicator, as may their current levels of spending and where it is directed.
        • InfrastructureBeforeTowers over 8 years ago
          Tuddy, you are missing out a number of facts on this issue. FACT there is an existing heavy rail line to La Perouse (from Botany etc) that could form the Southern end of a Metro. It is above ground and exists and is under utilised with 96% spare capacity. FACT Randwick is one of the densest cities in Australia and RCC is approving multi-unit developments at a rate 4-5x faster than required by the State Govt plan they like to refer to so frequently. Randwick is already over 50% of the way to the target of new dwellings approved from 1.1.05 to 31.12.31 as of now vs State Govt requirement of 12-13% by June 2013. FACT Above ground (or cut & cover) could be used for the bulk of the distance from Kingsford to La Perouse before joining into the existing heavy rail from La Perouse back to the Rail system. It makes you wonder whether this is just being used as a stalking horse for the RCC proposals put out (Randwick Education & Health Specialised Centre Discussion paper - rezoning large areas from Res 2A mostly to Res 2D to allow 8 storey tower blocks of units ) or the Retail proposal out currently where they are proposing to DOUBLE the density of most retail areas (as little as where there are a couple of shops). It is worth finding out the FACTS before commenting.
          • Tuddy about 8 years ago
            I'm glad you like your facts InfrastructureBeforeTowers. This is important in life and will see you going in a positive direction in your chosen career path. I acknowledge that Randwick is growing like crazy. I acknowledge there is high density. I acknowledge that something needs to be done. In terms of this rail line that goes to La Perouse, are you referring to the goods line that goes from Sydenham to Port Botany? I don't see that line going through Randwick...but maybe my geographical knowledge is skewed. I agree that an above ground or cut and cover method could be used from La Perouse to Kingsford (I'm guessing you are meaning through Maroubra Junction as opposed to Eastgardens). I don't see the need to go thr whole way to La Perouse personally..but why not? Light rail could initially service this route. Light rail can operate fast and frequent. As I have previously said, a metro would be ideal. Would a government build it? I don't think so. As I've also previously said, I envision a Circle Metro if one was to be built. It would stop at Town Hall, Chinatown, Broadway, Newtown, Sydenham, International and Domestic (then operate on the goods line if you wish), Eastgardens, Maroubra Junction, Kingsford, UNSW, Randwick, Queens Park/Charing Cross, Bondi Junction, Centennial Park/Woollahra, Paddington, Taylor Square, Museum and then back to Town Hall. This would service all inner-city high growth areas effectively and would serve presently underserved areas of the city (in terms of public transport), would service two major universities (Usyd and UNSW, although UTS and Notre Dame wouldn't be far), the city, the airport and other major centres, whilst also connecting east with west. Now I know this would never happen. I'm realistic. It would serve the needs and be able to move a lot of people, and do so quickly, without there being a terminus, so services would never need to stop anywhere for more than 30 seconds. It would be a metro. It will forever be a dream. I support a metro system InfrastrucutreBeforeTowers, but I know it will never, ever happen. Light rail, however, is better than buses. Light rail is far more likely to happen. If they announce a metro system for the SouthEast, I will be there with a shovel.
    • mrwhippy over 8 years ago
      42,000 uni students, 13,200 workers at hospitals & uni, 400,000 using the racecourse annually, 1.1 million utilisizing SCG & SFS, 1 million going to concerts, events, exhibitions @ fox studios, hordern pavilion centennial park & royal randwick, 7000 Randwick Tafe students, 10million visitors to centennial park & moore park each year, schools & commuters from the suburb to the city each day - Just from those figures alone it doesn't take a genius to realise that there is DIRE NEED for a mass transport system in the randwick Area however the disruption both temporary (building it) and long term (once its implemented) would be massive in terms of where to park, driving around the light rail line, etc, which is why the eastern suburbs train line should've been extended from Bondi Junction through Waverley and onto Randwick then onto Marourba and then La Perouse. It only makes sense to open up Moore Park area, Hospital/Uni, The spot and Maroubra junction & La Perouse area to people commuting from the city. This would mean people who live in outer suburbs could change trains once at central or town hall and get straight on a train which is a better form of transport than Light rail in my opinion, and access the football stadium, fox studios, centennial park and on weekends catch the train out to La Perouse (a recreational area & tourist desination). Keep in mind in little bay and maroubra more residential areas are being built and the population is rapidly increasing with no infrastructure to go with it. Buses aren't sufficient AT ALL. The transport system out at Little Bay is a JOKE. Ever tried using it late at night? A JOKE.
      • InfrastructureBeforeTowers over 8 years ago
        Don't you think it a bit strange the way some figures were annualised by RCC? Why not annualise the student visits to UNSW etc. The annualised figures seem at odds with reality as well, or perhaps just the decimal place in the wrong position when talking about 400,000 using the Racecourse. It is rare (non-existent) for 20,000+ to attend a race day and there are certainly not over twenty race days a year. Accuracy is always good, inaccuracy starts to make you wonder what is really going on with RCC and their "tram" not "Light rail" proposal.
      • FierceDinosaur over 7 years ago
        Yes, the light rail proposal is mostly a COMMUTER need; not a general need for a decent public transport system in the Eastern Suburbs, which is a seperate issue in my mind.It was the same need that prompted the building of the airport underground heavy rail & the heavy rail to the Olympic site, both of which were mainly for this one-off purpose, and are seriously under used now.So, economics is not the problem with transport, it is a political will issue. The government can always get the money if it wants to: it can do the Public Private Partnership thing, or it can borrow money over a long term, which is what it has always done for big projects like the Harbour Bridge.Or, maybe we could do it with a lottery? Wasn't the funding for the Opera House done like that????
    • lamphil over 8 years ago
      I actually think buses can absolutely cover the people's needs around Rankdwick. I didn't see any inconvenience of getting to city from here. I would support the construction of the light rail only if it will be cheaper than buses--which seems to be not that possible. Or it won't bring any advantage to the international students like me.
    • bfish88 over 8 years ago
      Do it now! The route looks fine. Just don't make it privatised and a rip-off like the current one. Don't overly congest the route so it maintains some speed. Connection to Circular Quay may be necessary, but that shouldn't infringe construction of the bulk of the line.
    • Suzan over 8 years ago
      I totally support light rail, particularly for this area. I have worked at UNSW for more than 20 years, and there has been talk about this for the whole time I have been here. Light rail is clean, convenient and comfortable.
    • zanra over 8 years ago
      I don't see how a light rail from the city to randwick helps anybody. There are already buses that go from the city to randwick. Instead of putting infrastructure where there already is infrastructure... How about you put a light rail where it might be useful, say from the north shore to randwick. Spit junction - randwick. Or maybe put a bus from the north shore to randwick.
    • Quidgy over 8 years ago
      To be honest, if the current bus services were cleaner and more reliable I would be happy with those. But the fact is, they're not clean or reliable, especially at peak times.Going off the way light rail performs through Glebe and Pyrmont to Central Station at the moment, light rail for me would make travelling to and from work a more comfortable experience.
    • GMichael over 8 years ago
      The Eastern Suburbs definitely needs better public transport, and may I say that it should be given priority over the Circular Quay and USyd links. The trip duration to UNSW is a lot longer from Central than USyd or Circular Quay, with what is surely a comparable volume of passengers.
    • mitchsw over 8 years ago
      I fully support this idea. There are far too many buses along Anzac Pde and Light Rail would significantly reduce the road's congestion. I highly doubt Randwick will ever see a Metro rail or Heavy Rail system, so this is a great idea to realistically get some real progress soon! Eventually, I would like to see Light Rail extended to all of the Eastern Suburbs, but Randwick is a *wonderful* start!
    • over 8 years ago
      Public transport is a good thing to Randwick, but Light Rail . . . on the ground level? I think Sydney deserves certain underground/aboveground transport which releases ground level space for cars and pedestrians and truly solves the traffic issue in the long run.Simply installing tracks on the existent limited road lanes would not help the traffic flow too much.
      • Brew over 8 years ago
        Its about removing traffic flow, people! With a super efficient, cheap light rail system, people will drive less. Ergo; less cars on road!
      • Brew about 8 years ago
        MYTH: Trams in the City will cause more traffic congestion.This is a scare story. The Truth is Light Rail will operate in one lane only, and that lane will be the current bus lane, while moving four times the number of people as a bus. In comparison, buses will be constrained to operate in all the road lanes.Trams will always stay in their lane unlike buses which are constantly frog-hopping around each other and taking up 2, 3 or even 4 traffic lanes in the City.
    • angelhmo over 8 years ago
      It's necessary! And let's do it right.After looking at the proposed route map. The "extented" route (the one with red and yellow band) seems to be more useful than the primary proposed one. 1. The extended one will support transport of 4 Landmarks rather than 1. As in: UNSW, POW hospital (this hospital support some resident in redfern and surry hills, elderly and patients can never get there without much walking), randwick junction and Royal Race course (race day and exam days)2. Students, as I was one of them, would prefer to get off along high stree, where is more close to the class rooms, rather than Anzac Pde, from where it still take 10 - 25 mins to walk to the class rooms. 3. It can facility connection between the UNSW and the near by facilities, this will bring more convenience to the students and promote business; it's a win win situation. At the moment, shopping and cafe facilities at Randwick junction is not really helping the student, no one will walk 20-30 mins uphill for the shops (especially when the City is only 20 mins bus away). And on exam days there is no other transport to the race course but walking 20mins; although they seems very close in the map. Light rail is NECESSARY to support the huge amount of people travelling to/ from UNSW and the hospital each day. And let's do it right. Don't spend a lot of money and build something which don't make much different.
    • fugle over 8 years ago
      Please bring in trams - the sooner the better. The buses are a disaster at the moment. However, a number of factors must be considered first. Trams should travel along the main thoroughfares to the city (CBD and Central) such as Anzac Pde, Alison Rd, Oxford St etc. They should run at frequent intervals - every 5 minutes or less in peak times. As they would essentially replace all buses on these routes they could use the centre of roads like Anzac Pde as well as the bus lanes in the old tramways.A network of smaller shuttle buses would feed passengers to the trams from outlying areas such as Coogee and Clovelly. These buses would run frequently as they would not have to cover a great distance and would avoid the worst of the traffic.Loops to Driver Ave and into Randwick Racecourse (the old tram platforms are still there) would cope with sporting crowds far more efficiently than buses (in the 1930s trams could move over 30,000 people an hour- far beyond the capacity of today's buses).The trams must be an integral part of Sydney's overall public transport network (trains, trams, buses and ferries) and be part of a common ticketing system (something like Melbourne has). The bus station at Randwick could revert to its old purpose as a tram station.I just hope this state government doesn't simply commission expensive reports only to shelve them saying it is all too hard or expensive. We have had enough of that.
    • Kpkazzie over 8 years ago
      If you have been to Melbourne their roads are double the size. If Melbourne had a Anzac Parade equilavent it would be 4-5 lanes each way with a tram STATION in the middle every 200 to 300 metres or so. Lets face it our roads are just to narrow to support a light rail network. We need a metro system or at least heavy rail for the Eastern Suburbs.
      • Kpkazzie over 8 years ago
        I good idea will be for the metrobus network to turn into an underground metro rail system but I don't think our NSW Government currently doesn't have the funds.
        • FierceDinosaur over 7 years ago
          They can borrow!That's what we do to buy a house or a car after all.That's what they have ALWAYS done - how do you think heavy rail got built in the first place, when Australia was a lot poorer than it is now: the government of the day were civic minded. Both sides of politics borrowed money when in government to fund public infrastucture projects. It is a major function of government. Any government of any political persuasion who bleats that they have no money is a liar: they handle rivers of gold in the form of taxes, and can borrow money at very low rates over very long periods because of this income.LACK OF MONEY IS NOT A FACTOR.We deserve decent infrastructure, we all pay taxes and rates, and we want delivery from government. What else are they there for??????????
      • Brew about 8 years ago
        MYTH: The streets are too narrow.No they’re not. The space require to operate a tram is less than a bus, not more.Witness other cities in Europe that have really narrow streets, and still manage to operate trams eg Lisbon or Amsterdam.
    • Majj over 8 years ago
      Agree with others who have commented that the service needs to run to the CBD rather than Central Station. The major limitation of the inner west light rail is that it goes to Central, which makes taking a bus to the CBD far more convenient. The cost of the existing light rail fares is also too high.
    • pinhead22886 over 8 years ago
      Maroubra Junction is not the end of the earth! The areas south of the junction are growing very quickly, and the buses to those areas at the moment is a joke! I'm sick to death of being kicked off a 394 at Maroubra Junction late at night, only to watch the bus sail off down Anzac Parade in the direction of my home!
    • curleyross over 8 years ago
      Light rail would relieve traffic conjestion along Anzac Parade, allow the Morton Bay Figs to breathe easier, and provides a means of rapid transportation to UNSW, shopping areas, and the sporting/entertainment precinct of Moore Park. I fully support this proposal and would like to see the project plan by the NSW Government and its delivery milestones.
    • kugan over 8 years ago
      I think light rail using existing road corridors will be a retrograde step in this 21st century. Underground rail or metro system whatever the cost will be the best for the Eastern suburbs.
      • Brew about 8 years ago
        Huh? have you been to European cities. Munich's main drag looks a hell of alot like Anzac Parade, and has trams rushing along it every few minutes...old 60s looking trams. And, they are AWESOME, cheap and FULL OF PEOPLE! No Government is ever going to be able to pay for an underground metro in Sydney.
    • davism over 8 years ago
      Please do not forget Malabar and out to La Perouse. There is already a corridoor most of the way along Anzac Parade that could support light rail. With the increase population at Little Bay and the wonderful oppportunities to develop La Perouse for tourism it would make sense to extend to these areas. Bus services from Maroubra Junction are EXTREMELY limited. Many, many people communte from these areas to Randwick (Hospital, schools, university etc)
      • FierceDinosaur over 7 years ago
        Hate to say this, but Malabar and La Perouse were forgotten long ago, probably when they ripped up the tram lines and didn't give us decent infrastructure to replace those growing regions. Now we have densely populated areas south of Kingsford, which was an area sparsely populated for decades due to industry moving there, and many other reasons including not wanting to live on the coast for fear of being shot at from enemy ships during and after WWII (fact); the rifle range, the sewage works smell, proximity to the gaol; why do you think they put so much social housing out this way? No-one else wanted it.So now we have the situation where there is urban consolidation happening - high rises in Maroubra Junction, soon in Matraville etc, which is demanded by the State Government, but the infrastructure to support dense populations is grossly inadequate, and the ordinary people have to put up with it: inadequate, crowded and infrequent buses only, to shift all these people about every day - its a joke that Asians and Europeans would not put up with, and don't.In most European and Asian cities they have efficient networks of underground trains, with bike parking at all the stations, able to shift millions of people a day.And here we are wondering what happened in the Eastern Suburbs and arguing about a tiny little light rail extension from the city to Uni/POW.We should have, and we deserve, a decent metro system in the whole of the Eastern Suburbs, and the government should provide it NOW. What are they there for if not to provide services for the population?????????
    • nikostrikes over 8 years ago
      Public transport needs to be clean, affordable and efficient, just like it is is some European countries. If costs are restrictive, people won't use it (e.g. Airport train to Green Square), if it's dirty or unsafe, likewise. Buses to the city from Randwick are always full, and there are consistent passenger numbers throughout the day to warrant a regular service. It needs to be a government initiative. Put in the hands of private operators will mean ever-increasing fares. Services are what our tax dollars are designed to achieve. A faster, more efficient and environmentally friendly transport service is the way forward.
    • Cath Chan over 8 years ago
      We desperately need direct transport from La Perouse to Central Station. It would be good if #393 bus could be extended to La Perouse, because currently we need to take a #394 bus before we can link up #393 bus to Central Station.
    • Anthony over 8 years ago
      Many are saying a full train line to Randwick is the solution, has anyone considered the crime associated with trains and having a train station.
    • Bee over 8 years ago
      The often neglected area - suprising given the density of the population with endless walls of unit blocks - is Maroubra. Whilst I wholeheartely support the system through the very high traffic areas of Randwick (hospital/unsw) etc., this does not solve the major issue of transport to/from Maroubra. Reading all the posts, I agree that a full train system would be the ideal (Bondi seems to get everything: Train system, extremely regular bus service/express buses) but Randwick/Maroubra have been laregly ignored - and there is simply no way to get around the traffic - even dedicated bus lanes haven't fixed that. However, the government clearly doesn't have the money (for a full rail system) so we need to focus on what is achieveable in this lifetime - light rail. So saying, I think the Airport line is totally useless as it is simply not cost effective/there is no incentive for anyone to use it. So cost of using is a factor.Having just returned from overseas, I find it incredible that countries far less developed than ours manage to run highly efficient and cost-effective transport systems. It's time we joined the 21st century....
    • GRF over 8 years ago
      I do not agree with this project. Removing an entire lane in each way of Anzac Parade will be disastrous for traffic. These projects have been intended before and failed miserably because the government is not capable of implementing feasible plans; there is even an example of that lack of proper planning already in this project: the part of the project presented as "Various options for connections to CBD". Have a close look at the nature of those streets, none will be capable of hosting the installation of infrastructure for a tram line. Another factor to consider: the distance. A proper study would reveal that the combination of distance to be covered, saving in travel time and number of users does not justify the astronomic cost the project would have. Look at Anzac Parade - the width of the avenue is not uniform, this will present a massive challenge to overcome for installing the railway and the stations. And just one more: Sydney drivers are not used to the conditions of driving around trams; translation? Accidents waiting to happen, JUST what we need! Replacing buses completely with a light rail will not benefit every commuter (since the rail lines cannot go to as many areas as buses) and actually for the largest number of commuters that will mean an additional transfer in their daily journey (why the largest? Look at a map and see the number of suburbs that will be directly reached by this tram and those that will not, then do the maths). Now then, if buses still run on Anzac Parade, on top of the lanes disappeared thanks to the trams, that spells absolute chaos and traffic that comes to a complete stand still in peak hours. This project is only being pushed for the bullying attitude of UNSW - it is not meant to benefit the overall population.
      • davidt over 8 years ago
        I don't feel that the argument 'Sydney drivers are not used to the conditions of driving around trams; translation? Accidents waiting to happen, JUST what we need!' is useful.Are you saying that Sydney residents aren't very adaptable?We got used to roundabout eventually.I see a lot of accidents happen when it rains. Mainly because Sydneysiders refuse to drive responsibly when the weather changes. Are you also suggesting that we roof all road ways to reduce accidents during storms?I've seen a number of cars also have accidents with buses as due to drivers not 'giving way' to a bus pulling out from the curb. Maybe we should get rid of the buses too?
      • SoniaK almost 8 years ago
        I totally agree with you in terms of absolute chaos. Don't forget the bicycles that drive in the bus lane. There will be one lane left for cars/bicycles and buses.
    • Black Yoshi over 8 years ago
      As per the NSW Govt's Long Term Strategic Plan 2001, heavy rail is feasible and better. The 2001 proposal was for an underground line going St James - Taylor Sq - Moore Park - Racecourse - Randwick - UNSW - Kingsford - Maroubra Jct - Mascot - Sydneham. That's easily the best idea. It might be expensive, but public transport is the responsibility of the state govt in part specifically because it can provide otherwise non-profitable infrastructure.
    • Roberto over 8 years ago
      Ligth rail? Are you guys for real? I cannot recall any major developed city in the worl d planning to expand or establish a ligth rail network. Have you considered subways? Look at the major developed cities like NY, London... Please don't waste public money!
    • sgbilal over 8 years ago
      tram extension is a good idea in theory, but the costs associated with it far out way the benefits. I reckon train extension into the Eastern Suburbs is a far wiser choice as it is convenient for passengers and cuts travel time significantly. Also you have the leisure of running express trains and all stops trains , something which isnt really possible with the light rail.
      • Brew over 8 years ago
        Do you know how much money it costs to extend heavy rail, or to construct a subway tunnel. About 15x that of installing light rail. And, light rail aint cheap either. So...its either light rail, or nothing. Light rail is flexible and once basis surface infrastructure has been installed, line extentions and route changes are relatively inexpensive.
    • davidt over 8 years ago
      I live in Randwick, Teach at Randwick TAFE, and visit the city via public transport a lot.I support the Lightrail proposal, but it's got to get up into Randwick proper (via the extension).I think the concept of linking all of Randwicks educational facilities, and the hospital to a rail service is a winner.I feel that the Light Rail would add value to all properties in Randwick.Light rail is a better proposal then trains as it allows many more opportunities for 'stops'.Could we someday replace the 400 to the airport with a Bondi to Mascot link? (oh wait, I just saw that an airport link is proposed.)Could we restrict that section of Belmore rd to trams and buses only. Let's face it, it's hard enough to drive through the shopping precinct during the day as it is.
    • davidt over 8 years ago
      There is never going to be a Heavy Rail or Metro built or extended in the Eastern suburbs in our lifetimes.Randwick sits between a safe Liberal, and a safe Labour seat.Neather party feels the need to do any of us a favour.Both parties are much more interested in driving rail out West.The reduced cost of Light Rail is our only option.or...Residents could be a little more flexible when elections are run.
    • Anthony over 8 years ago
      • davidt over 8 years ago
        I've driven a car from when I've first scored a licence at nineteen.I've travelled on public transport for even longer.I've lived up on the North Shore, out West, Inner City, Potts Point, travelled for a couple of years, New Zealand, and now in Sydney's East (haven't lived in the Shire but I hear they have their moments).Violence has the potential to happen anywhere, and a lot less often then news sources like the Tele like to make out.I've seen violence on buses. I've seen violence perpetrated by pedestrians. Can't say I've ever seen it on trains but my brother had a small problem with someone out at a station out in Seven Hills area.I've mostly seen it in the form of Road Rage, from irate cyclists, and when the footy finishes down at the stadiums.I hear that a lot of violence happens in the home?I don't think the argument that Light Rail will cause an increase in anti-social behaviour is applicable here.Ok, I apologise for being a snob, but seriously...You're using the Telegraph as a reference!It's too bad the News of the World has been shut down. I'm sure they would have had something useful to say.
        • Anthony over 8 years ago
          Well if you read my post I was saying a full rail system attracts crime.My reference is not only personal experience but my profession as a Police Officer, I can guarantee you that if the crime is not occurring at a train station the crook has used a train to get from A to B. This is much more common then many people know.
          • davidt over 8 years ago
            Look first of all, I'd like to say thanks.Cause it's institutions like the Police, Ambos, Fireman (Fire-persons?), Nurses, and the Army that keep our society ticking over.But, as a law enforcement professional, you must have access to better references then a newspaper?Are you saying that crooks are more likely to use trains, then buses, or taxis, or personal vehicles (ones they nicked I guess) to move about?I don't have stats on my side. I have anecdotal evidence of a fair number of years lived on the planet.But I'll stack that up against a gossip mag like the Tele any day.The Tele is all about emotion. It's about firing people up about things they should be afraid of, or sport, or who is shagging who.I think Australians have a habit of overestimating peril. Remember when the NSW police force bought that totally useless water cannon (it seems that you need at least two vehicles to be effective) for the APEC summit?I was there, and the most commotion I saw was the queue running up to a coffee van that had parked it's self up inside the perimeter.In my opinion, violence happens to people who don't respect others, or themselves. Sometimes both.I don't think public transport has much to do with it.
            • Anthony over 8 years ago
              I have access to many statistics that I obviously could not post on any public forum. based on your comment that violence happens to people who dont respect others or themselves I would say you have much to learn about life.Trains stations and the rail network attract crime, I would say more so than buses. This is not to say that there is no crime on other forms of public transport.In my experience and based on crime statistics transport related crime (Not just violent crime) is out of control. The train network is easily accessed for free, trains are obviously large and when there is few people on a carriage it means less witnesses and easy targets. Graffiti will increase, robberies will increase, stealings will increase in fact i cant think of many crime categories that wont increase as result of a FULL RAIL network. I think a light rail network is a good idea.
          • Brew over 8 years ago
            Sooo...what your saying, as a police officer, Anthony, is that we shouldnt provide the public with efficient transport, because criminals will be able to move around better? Well, that just sounds like an excuse for police not getting out on the beat and cracking heads. Dont blame public transport - blame inefficient policing and a breakdown of the social fabric of society.
    • tullipan over 8 years ago
      I expect that I am 1 of those 13,200 hospital & uni workers - but, would have no use whatsoever for the lightrail because I live in an area where public transport is very limited. To get to randwick from ROSE BAY I am required to get a bus to Bondi Junction (they run every 25min if lucky in peak hour only) then a bus to Randwick, or take a bus to Edgecliff, train to Bondi Junction, bus to Randwick. To park in Randwick is impossible, hence it costs me ~$30 per fortnight to park in the hospital car park, to park in my street in Rose Bay it is $97 for a parking sticker, but only one per unit, there are 2 of us and both need cars. Therefore I have to rent a car space in Rose Bay for $30 per week - cost of parking alone per week $45 - disgusting.I certainly hope I am not one of those recorded numbers as reported in the Southern Courier. The only way I could be recorded accurately would be if I were to take a bus from Rose Bary to Edgecliff, train from Edgecliff to Bondi Junction, bus from Bondi Junction to Randwick then change over to the light rail - what would be the sense in that.In the 60's there was a wonderful bus service to Randwick from Bondi and up to 2007 (I think) a great servce from Rose Bay to Bondi. The bus took us past the old Eastern Suburbs Hospital, Randwick Tafe, Racecourse, The Uni NSW and Prince of Wales Hospital. It is sad that the links via public transport throughout the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney have totally deteriorated and were 100% better in the 50s, 60s up to mid 70s - but I guess that was due to the fact that the service I speak of (to Randwick)was owned and run, very efficiently, by a private bus company.
    • trixyANN over 8 years ago
      I am excited by the prospect that light rail may eventuate in the area. Any local would know that its difficult to get out of our little corner of the world as soon as there is an event at the racecourse, stadiums or on Oxford street. Furthermore, its hard for us to park our carks on the street when all the blow ins turn up for the major events. While I am enthusiatic about seeing LR in Randwick and the vicinity, I am however concerned that it will open the area up to increased anti social behaviour. It was quite obvious that once train lines into Bondi and Cronulla were established, anti social behaviour increased in this areas. Unfortunately, it's the local community who will suffer from any anti social behaviour even though the perpetrators are blow ins from the other side of town. My fear is that coupled with the big two drinking havens down at Coogee beach and a university filled with students, LR will further exacerbate the problem of anti social behaviour or reduce the safety of the area. Randwick Police Station is only a shop-front office and may not be able to handle increases in anti social behaviour. Nobody wants to see Coogee Beach covered with drunk tourists and teenagers from the other side of town. The implementation of LR in the area should be considered very closely with regards to the detrimental social effects it will have on the community and whether Maroubra LAC should become Randwick LAC to counter this. On the flip side, given that Randwick and Coogee is perfectly central to bondi and maroubra and that traffic between to the four areas is difficult, especially is summer, perhaps a LR link from Bondi to Maroubra via bronte, clovelly coogee along arden street should also be considered with an interchange at south coogee or st pauls for the Randwick/Kensington/Moore Park link.
    • xyz over 8 years ago
      I think that this is completely unnecessary as we already have plenty of bus services (like the metrobus services, which is a pretty recent addition) connecting our suburbs to the City.In addition to this, I think that Anzac Parade would be a disaster with the inclusion of light rail.
    • lp222 over 8 years ago
      I support light rail. as a former unsw student and randwick resident randwick while it may have buses, the buses are often late, unreliable, and the public transport system as a whole would benefit from light rail. Im sure once introduced to randwick it would probably be introduced to more suburbs. UNSW and the hospital are medical and educational hubs that warrant a highly reliable method of public transport, such as light rail. it would improve the amenity of the area and make the area more 'livable'. I strongly support this as with the introduction of light rail I would not have to rely as heavily as I currently do on car transport, and I wouldn't have to relocate to a suburb with better access to to better public transport facilties such as Bondi Junction in order to be in proximity to Bondi Junction Train Station. I have used light rail in Melbourne and found it highly effective and strongly support its introduction to Randwick as an educational and medical hub.
    • Sebastien over 8 years ago
      This project simply has to happen. In addition, I would like to see our future transport links less focused on the CBD and more focused on "connections between our local centres" such as Randwick/Green Square, Randwick/Surry Hills, Randwick/Kensington, Randwick/Maroubra junction and Randwick/Bondi Junction. High Street is a disgrace when you think about the pedestrian traffic generated by the Hospital and the University on this important throuroughfare between Randwick junction and Kensington/Kingsford. We should also encourage more mixed developments along High Street, not just housing, and provide nice environment for pedestrians (such as trees and proper pavements). I believe the Light rail could help rethink and transform the area.
      • InfrastructureBeforeTowers over 8 years ago
        Sebastien, sounds like RCC read your mind. They put out a discussion paper last year about rezoning large areas from High St to Rainbow St, Doncaster Ave to Brigidine from Res 2a (single double storey housing) mostly with some @b & 2c and change it to Res 2D for 8 storey tower blocks of units. They even provided pictures of this dream 8 storey ghetto complete with a 6/8 storey Bondi Junction like monolith in the block of High St, Belmore Rd, Clara & Arthur Sts. Trouble is they don't require many car spaces (because of that super efficient public transport we already have...). Only problem Developers take months but Infrastructure takes decades. We've had 8+ storey tower blocks built in the area since the early to mid 90s and the infrastructure has not changed. Prince of Wales has ACTUALLY BEEN DOWNGRADED from a topline Category 6 hospital to a Category 4 hospital (in 2007) with 10% or so of medial staff transferred south to the Illawarra. So before any of these mixed developments (developer speak for 8+ storey unit blocks) lets get the infrastructure up to support the current densities at least.
    • Kurtwang over 8 years ago
    • LINC over 8 years ago
      Not support the light rail, but prefer the trains connecting the central station with UNSW. A train line is much more efficient than light rail and easier to transfer to another lines or buses, and doesn't influence the traffic. A new train line can be from GREEN SQ via KENSINGTON, UNSW, RANDWICK, KINGSFORD, then back to MASCOT to make an alternative of the airport line.
    • SoniaK over 8 years ago
      I do not support light rail until someone can assure me that my travel time to and from the city will not be impacted. I catch a bus to the CBD daily and have done for more than 20 years. Increasingly it is difficult to get a bus home after 530pm from the outbound bus stop on Liverpool Street near Elizabeth Street. Nearly every bus that goes further than Maroubra Junction i.e. to the beach, to La Perouse, to Matraville is at maximum capacity and refuses passengers meanwhile every minute there is a half empty bus to Randwick, Coogee or Bondi. There already seems to be more than enough transport to Randwick. The proposed light rail will take up space on an already crowded Anzac Pde. It will force buses and bicycles to ride another lane over to avoid the light rail and leave less room for cars. Buses and cars will then be competing for one lane to avoid the bicycles. People travelling further south than the uni will more than likely have their travelling time home increased. People getting to uni or Randwick will still have to train or bus it to the city and then get on the light rail. Will the current car drivers really change their habits when it is much easier for someone coming from the West or North to drive. The light rail might make an impact on race days or major footy days but really how often are those days compared to the daily commute the residents of Randwick council must make. Randwick council is not all about the uni or Randwick shopping area. The increased higher density of Maroubra and Prince Henry requires an improved transport service to those areas too. The proposed light rail solution requires a thorough investigation of the impacts of that route on other commuters not using the light rail.
    • richierich over 8 years ago
      Any proposal that leads to more efficient transport is a benefit to everyone, even those who don't want or use it's services. Better public transport leads to less individual car journeys; that is less cars on the road, using less fossil fuels, creating less pollution, meaning less congestion and time delays on our already choked roads, meaning less frustration for already irate drivers and less need for ugly car parking facilities, that use too much of our valuable land area.
    • Robert over 8 years ago
      Light rail would be good for Randwick if and only if the fare on the light rail is commensurate with current public transport or cheaper. If its more, as I'm assuming this will be built with private funds, then its a bad idea. Someone (ie government) will need to subsidise the fares until passenger numbers can generate enough income to make the light rail financially sustainable. Or you can make the stupid assumption that people will pay more to travel on the light rail than current public transport to the city.
    • Afor over 8 years ago
      I support the introduction of light rail to Randwick. I hope and expect that the planning would address the concerns about street parking, aesthetics, timetables, fares etc. The popularity and therefore effectiveness is clearly related to the convenience it must offer relative to alternatives. Whether we call them trams or light rail, if they get delayed in traffic and at intersections their effectiveness will be seriously compromised. Solutions to this may involve part or full routing above or below ground. I don't llike the old city monorail because it doesn't offer benefits over walking and imposed itself on the dense streetscape, however such a system would be much better suited as a solution for the proposed light rail route. Travel times would be reduced significantly and would presumably be very predictable. Yes there would be structure above ground but it could perhaps partly replace the power pole system which is so unsightly already and it would almost be like creating 2 new traffic lanes. For a host of reasons I think a MONORAIL should be one of the options explored.
    • Clare over 8 years ago
      I am only concerned about the number of changes needed to get from Maroubra to the city. If the light rail takes over the bus lane around Moore Park, and the light rail doesn't go all the way into the city, having to change twice would mean no benefit for people coming from here to the CBD. Also, at present for people who don't use public transport five days a week we have to pay for every leg, and it gets expensive if we can't just take one bus.Buses might not be efficient on high use routes (like UNSW at peak times) but they are great for flexibility in getting to every area, and also at night when having an accessible driver provides some feeling of security.We need to consider what we'll be giving up, as well as the benefits.
    • PDCL over 8 years ago
      So I've just spent the best part of an hour trawling through everyone's comments here and what becomes really obvious really quick is there are two groups; a "yes just give us anything anywhere right now, ps I love Light Rail" camp and a "light rail is crap, will worsen congestion issues and wont effectively achieve anything". There is a lot of silo thinking going here, it's rather reminicient of the previous labor government and the NW rail link, no one is talking or willing to compromise or even considering how each others view might be complimentary.The one thing that's been entirely absent (sorry if I've missed a mention buried within the reply to a reply to a reply...etc) is any discussion whatsoever of an integrated transport plan. What we are looking at here is another ad hoc we need something so lets just chuck "Idea A" in here type plan, there is little to no reference to how it will integrate with the existing public transport network or indeed what other measures and projects are likely to follow. Before we make any decision about light rail or metro or busways or helecopter shuttle service, we need to consider the ultimate network we intend to build to service the projected growth of the area. Ok so with this in mind, onto the options before us...Generally speaking we seem to agree that we need something that increases the capacity of the current bus system, which I personnally feel is relatively well designed and has fairly high degree amenity and coverage (if you disagree, try catching a bus in Canberra), but which is admittedly reaching capacity. There are economic issues with running two buses to serve one spot on the timetable and typically light rail will beat buses hands down on driver wages and maintenance cost of one vehicle versus two. The problem is that as has been pointed out by some, a light rail system is likely to face a number of similar capacity constrants as the bus network, namely issues with providing a dedicated right of way without substantial loss of either traffic or parking lanes, or demolishing half a suburb to make room for everything. So ultimately a light rail service could moderately increase capacity over areas of the existing bus network and nominally allow for say more express buses while the trams take the all stop traffic. Essentially this type of solution is like a supersized metro-bus network, the problem is that this is really only going to function as a short to medium term solution before capacity is again reached and a new solution is required. Again if you dont believe me, look at the St Kilda light rail line (route 96 from memory) it traverses a similar innercity area including substantial parkland (I'm equating Albert Park to Moore Park here) as well as relatively high density residential development (probably more akin to Paddington rather than the numerous mid rise appartments of the Randwick area) and is woefully over crowded during peak.So that brings in the "some sort of heavy rail solution" into the equation. I find the arguement that the government isn't going to fund it so why bother trying just a little silly, more than a defeatest and frankly pretty insulting to ability to achieve change. If the government is giving you what you want, vote for the other party, forget some dogmatic I'm a labor/liberal/green person mantra you probably learnt from your parents, make it an election issue. In terms of actually placement of any future rail line, well look at the major transit routes now: the main arterial is obviously along Anzac Pde into the City with major population draws at Moore Park (Stadiums and Sydney High School), UNSW and Maroubra Junction. You then have major nodes at Bondi and Randwick Junction, Eastgardens and generally a need for better airport access. So the rail routes would be something like from: the city to the stadiums, racecourse/kensington, unsw, kingsford, (then my suggestion) eastgardens (so bunnerong rd), maroubra junction then down along the rest of Anzac pde in the future, the other would be from Bondi Junction, caring cross, randwick, randwick junction, top side of unsw, kensington, eastgardens, botany and the airport.Ok so to recap we now have two train lines covering direct traffic to the city and feeding orbital traffic through the eastern suburbs and out to the airport, which gives a nice skeleton on which to start laying the rest of the network. The obvious holes are coogee and maroubra beaches. So coogee beach to randwick junction then down alison rd and the busway towards the city. Then I'd suggest Maroubra beach to Maroubra junction to Kingford, UNSW then linking crossways to Green Square. The coogee line could also be built to tranverse along cleveland st to the University of Sydney. The key to this sort of plan is, as has been said by I think everyone on this forum, integrated ticketing and high service frequency. Well designed interchanges are also essential, as ease of interchange can make or break a system.Anyway appologies for the uber long post, but like I said trying to add to a few months of debate there, that my 2cents (or 20 bucks) worth. Thinking about the ultimate network, even if thats a 20-50year timeframe can help you make much better decisions for what to build now or in 5 years time.Cheers,PDCL
    • freemason over 8 years ago
      Absolutely. This a total no-brainer. Sydney needs this now to stop traffic congestion, not only to Randwick but all over the city!I don't use public transport because I hate buses. But I would use light rail.
    • mike1 over 8 years ago
      I fail to see the value that this idea will add to Randwick. We already have a huge number of bus services operating throughout the area to the places people actually want and need to get to, I too am frustrated by the overcrowding and delays with buses during peak times. However like others have said wouldn't it be far more beneficial to the community to eventually extend underground metro throughout the eastern suburbs rather then having to cut-off lanes of traffic and expose both motorists and pedestrians to added frustrations, risk and not to mention the massive cost of a project like this. As far as I'm concerned there is too much downside with this whole idea and little in the way of practical benefit other then being a short-term novelty.
    • Glenn over 8 years ago
      I would like to know how the light rail is going to move up and down High St, between Anzac Parade & Botany St. If there are going to be lanes devoted to the rail line, where would it go? Is land going to be resumed? Are the current parking places going to be removed? If so, why can't this be done now for the buses? It seems that we are going to a lot of trouble to make light rail work when we could be providing the same advantages to buses. It would allow a fairer assessment of the movement times of passengers between buses and light rail.
    • PeterN over 8 years ago
      Great.. I used to love using the Lillyfield light rail. The only real problems I had with it were1) It didn't run to Leichhardt where I lived at the time.2) It stopped at Central and not Circular Quay..Sydney/Randwick really does need a solution to reduce the traffic. This does seem like a very good option...Please try and run it into Circular Quay..
    • TechnoViking over 8 years ago
      Excellent idea at general! My only concern is that Belmore Rd is narrow already, and with added light rail line(s) there will be no space for buses/cars.
    • swimming54 over 8 years ago
      randwick and environs have a great public transport system. why do we need a more expensive system to clog up our roads. there is often talk of suburbs desperate for some sort of public transport so let them have a lightrail system. could it be that light rail is only interested in financial gain rather than providing a real public transport need.
      • Peace over 8 years ago
        Great public transport system?? You mean one that turns a 20-25min trip to the city in "Off Peak" into a 45-50min trip in "Peak" hours?It's a joke at the moment and it really slaps you in that face how bad it is when you visit any major city in Europe... we need to play catch up badly as our population is only going to increase and the buses can't even cope now...
    • Peace over 8 years ago
      Whoever decided to get rid of the old trams in the first place set back our public transport capabilities at least 20years.The eastern suburbs need them back as soon as possible, no rational person could argue otherwise.
    • GooseyLucyLoo over 8 years ago
      It's a nobrainer!!!Currently we have no trams or light rail so anything is better than nothing!!Presently, I find riding and sometimes even running! gets me to work quicker than catching the bus to Martin Place and walking across the city to my (remote) destination of Hickson Rd.Totally keen for it to go to Hyde Park or Circular Quay over Central, or hey, lets get a radical loop going so we can really solve the congestion, and service as much of the eastern surburbs as possible.
    • Art Ells over 8 years ago
      Let's be honest why this conversation is happening. Overcrowding on the Coogee/ UNSW/ Maroubra buses? or travel times? If its about over crowding: The light rail is really a double-long bus. If you've been on a crowded bus with 60 people, a crowded light rail with 120 people isn't going to be much better. If it's about travel time or reliability:Things that cuold make light rail attractive in Randwick would be fixing up the signals at Allison/ Anzac, Lang Road/ Anzac and Moore Park Road/ Anzac. If buses on the existing busway has meaningful bus priority (the bus signal went green before the south bound left turn vehicles) they could get to the CBD / Eastern Distributor that much faster and get another run back to the uni or out to the beaches. Light rail will only take a travel lane away from buses or general traffic -- but not move any more people. I can't see our weightless transit agencies getting power to fix traffic signals from the powerful roads lobby. So we should be realistic about how many people we want to move on any proposed new transport system and find the right mass transit option. This is not the solution for game day crowds or morning commutes.
    • Pam over 8 years ago
      My initial response was that this is a great idea and long overdue. Not being an expert I'll leave the discussion as to whether subways, metros or light rail (or is it trams) to experts. However there is certainly a real need for a huge improvement in public transport all over Sydney. I live near a 339 stop and this service is so unreliable and in the evenings so infrequent that I and many others drive closer to access to Coogee or Maroubra routes which mean not having to wait 40 minutes if you are lucky for a 339 bus. Having just returned from overseas where I used public transport extensively in many countries I despair at the transport system here. It's a disgrace. Many much smaller cities have very frequent services which are clean ( often with rubbish containers by bus and train seats and at bus stops), graffiti free and with verbal and electronic signs announcing next stops in English as well as the language of the country. Here lots of money is spent on screens telling you to look after your belongs, condescending posters about safe travel for seniors, "real time" apps for your phones and the like instead of reliable, clean buses and trains. And when are we going to get tickets which are integrated across all transport types. And how about some cross city transport instead of the focus on Central and Circular Quay. Sydney really needs to make it more difficult and expensive to travel by car particularly to the city. One answer is through a frequent, reliable, fast, clean affordable public transport system which people will use instead of their cars
      • lester over 8 years ago
        I am a bus driver of 16 months.I disagree with your comment on the 339. There are heaps of our buses on this route,especially peak times.Its people like you that slow us down...have a 5 minute winge to the driver....not having your ticket ready...or not having a ticket at all...then presenting the driver with a $50 note...You should try driving through Castlereagh Street or Elizabeth Street in peak hour and stick to schedule safely...COME ON.Us bus drivers do a hell of a good job.Lester
        • Pam over 8 years ago
          I'm sorry Lester that you seem so angry. I agree that drivers are generally very good and helpful, some even announce stops. And you do have a difficult job. I can't see on my post that I criticised drivers. And no, I always use a pensioner concession card - not money and don't hold up the bus although I occasionally notice people who do. Which is one reason I have been for years advocating cashless buses. I also mentioned evenings, not peak times and here is the evidence from 131500 website ....times from Argyle St 8:54pm 9:32pm 10:22pm 11:02pm 11:47pm - not terribly frequent you might agree.So keep up the good work Lester and keep smilingPam
    • BigDog over 8 years ago
      I'd like to see the planned route extended to Maroubra Beach via Anzac Pde and Fitzgerald Ave. The current proposal is quite small, and doesn't appear to cover a great deal of residential area. Most of it is recreational areas, great for weekends or days when these facilities are used, but what about the regular weekday workers. Also, there seems to be adequate space at Maroubra Beach for a terminus, and this as an ultimate destination would attract visitors, and thus, business to the area, as well as those en-route.
    • Felix over 8 years ago
      We are very much in favour. It would give us alternative transport to the city. Our bus service is often overcrowded, especially in the rush hours, and infrequent at other times.
    • lester over 8 years ago
      I think a better solution would be a monorail. Imagine it running down the middle of Anzac Parade.The stations that could be built.It would be much greener than rail.Much cheaper.Could be built and run by a private consortium.There would be little or no effect on the roads.Light rail needs poles placed along the route to carry power lines. Why not put poles in for the monorail instead.Imagine the tourist effect.Come on lets look at this optopn seriously.
    • Gaby the driver over 8 years ago
      Anything that can reduce the traffic on Alison Road gets my enthusiastic vote of approval. Some mornings it takes ten minutes to drive from King Street in Randwick to Anzac Parade; that's one kilometre. This amazing part of the world is being choked by cars and I'm repeat offender. Go the light rail!
    • cleglov over 8 years ago
      Fantastic idea! We need to reduce the amount of cars in/out of Randwick - it's far too congested. Bring back a little bit of Sydney's past - trams should never have been removed in the first place.
      • Hagit over 8 years ago
        I don't think light rail will solve the problem. the bus transport is currently very good. I often use the buses and they are always on time and provide good service. Light rail will only make the roads more crowded and will make lots of noise.
        • Brew over 8 years ago
          Hagit...have you ever stopped to think about local air pollution? Light rail generates ZERO local air pollution. Light rail is also far less noisy than a bus. Clearly you think the roads are crowded at present...well, because light rail has a greater capacity than a bus, then it is clear that light rail is an effective solution to congestion!
    • MaHonLi over 8 years ago
      A light rail would greatly enhance an already remarkable suburb and we look forward to seeing soon.
    • lolingtsai over 8 years ago
      Please bring the tram back ASAP. Residents, students, hospital workers and everyone else will benefit greatly from less congestion and polution.
    • Stirlo over 8 years ago
      Sounds fantastic – if they provide the transport capacity, efficiency in terms of travel and actual real relief to our roads that the council is flogging. If they were as fast as a bus (at an absolute minimum), ran to the CBD via Central and didn’t have a noticeable negative effect on car traffic into/across the city then the public would no doubt support the project.In my opinion it is very important to acknowledge that lots of people live near the eastern beaches for the lifestyle and not the convenience of getting to work. Due to this there is a highly significant portion of the eastern suburbs population that drive their car every day to places of work who will never use the tram because it is not feasible but will be negatively affected if the trams slow car traffic by impeding the route to the eastern distributor, harbour bridge, cleveland street and other such traffic arteries to the north and west. If the council promises less traffic, but there is no actual change then members of Randwick Council area have the right to be annoyed.The leaflet states that trams are “fast” – what does that mean exactly? If they travel with the road traffic then they are definitely not “fast”. If they are separate from road traffic and don’t have to queue then they would be “fast” and this would no doubt make them attractive to commuters. Anzac parade might not be a problem for this, but what about High street, Belmore road, and Alison road, which are quite restricted in terms of space for new civil works? If the trams impede car traffic in these locations people will get irritated, not excited about the new transport option and patronage will suffer.An efficient and virtually seamless journey from places like Maroubra and Coogee to the city would be required to get their patronage. An example of a poor outcome for a Coogee local would be a bus from Coogee to Randwick, a change to light rail for the Randwick to Central leg, then a change at Central to get from Central to the CBD/Quay. Although this might be a greener option for the environment, human nature tells us that the vast majority of people would prefer a single bus journey (say 373) where they can sit on the bus listening to their headphones, zoned out in the traffic without having to change at all.I'm encouraged by the use of this type of forum for getting community involvement and I sincerely hope that it can help the council, and ultimately the eastern suburbs inhabitants to achieve something we all can appreciate and use while helping the environment!
    • Katie over 8 years ago
      Lightrail from Randwick to the city would be fabulous. Currently, the bus network is getting too crowded and often times the busses will go past my stop because they're full. Lightrail would not only alleviate the crowded bus network, but is environmentally friendly. Great initiative that's fully supported by this local resident!
    • Brew over 8 years ago
      ABSOLUTELY IN SUPPORT! After travelling through Europe for the past few weeks, it is clear that Sydney did a terrible thing by removing our light rail. It was done at a time when people were starting to afford private motor vehicles, and Governments believed that the motor car was the way of the future. Time has shown us not to be the case. Light rail is far more flexible and extendable than light rail, at a fraction of the cost. We need to ensure that the light rail we install is cheaper and more convenient than the private motor vehicle. Ensure this, and the people will use it en masse. Integrate cycling options such as separated cycleways which travel through urban areas and converge at tram stops, and then we rid the smaller side roads of cars as well. Please Sydneysiders, heavy rail is not the option...the heavy trains on the current Sydney lines are already too bulky and too far apart. Bring in single-level lightweight carriages and operate them twice as often. Give Sydney the transport service we need!
    • no more cheating over 8 years ago
      do you really think it gona work or just another turn around to make some money into your pocket? have you consider what will cause to a traffic, apart from bus? have you compare what is the benefit between bus and light rail? door to door or door to main road. have you ever consider it might delay for other road user? if they just wanna go for a short journey? have you ever know the majority people why they use public transport? where they go? how far they go? as you say, you r local gov, you r looking after for them. are you just pouring some hot water into a teapot without changing a teabag?/ creating more more job?by creating a lightrail, have you ever think about car park? where they gona park their car? how would bus line diverse to other? how would people go home after shopping? how many street would affect? how would other small business around randwick/(not close to lightrail) would affect?/how people shopping behaviours would change? what would affect existing bus drivers?have you ever consider elderly people?(prefer have a seat rather than standing, get to the door rather work another 5 mins)what would happen to existing buses? where they go? what would cause to oil producers/ worker? what would be danger when light rail extering to belmore road? what is danger when light rial colide with cars? what if the light rail broke down in the mid of no where? what is probles for road users to read so many traffic light signal? how long would be people favor with light rails/? what is aim to have a light rail? what is majority user?- unsw students. what happen when the gov / immi change rules and regulations--no more PR issue to students? will it blow out like roof insulation or solar power?
    • DaveH over 8 years ago
      I can't think of anything worse. I use the bus system to get to work everyday and it works well. The last thing I or any other resident of randwick would want is to have thousands more visitors cramming into Coogee Beach every weekend when it has already reached it's capacity. Dont make Coogee into another Bondi!Just this weekend I saw a gang of youths who had come from the outer suburbs casing cars in off streets of Coogee for any valuablesleft showing.I dont believe the light rail is faster than a bus, if anything it is slower. Also if we must have a light rail I do not think light rail should connect with Central is should connect with CBD.
      • Brew over 8 years ago
        Ah the classic, I dont want change!, I dont want others coming to my area. Sorry, Im afraid this is about moving people around more efficiently. Bring light rail to the eastern suburbs NOW!
        • DaveH over 8 years ago
          Brew that is a pretty simplistic response. The reality is that light rail is slower than buses, will take up what little road space is currently available for traffic (buses and cars) and the likelihood is that it will go to central not to the CBd/Circular Quay so will not provide any tangible benefits.If you look at the number of projects wasting the taxpayers money when simplier and more effective solutions are available, it is obvious that state and local governments take a short term view of plannig and look to their term in office rather than planning a viable future for the state that is based on the long term needs of the residents of the state.Improve the bus system in the eastern suburbs and transport issues will be solved. The old buses that we are using to go to the city everyday were supposed to be decommissioned about 5-10 years ago. you travel to places like europe and the UK and you see what they have done with buses and you realise how far behind we are in our amenity here.
          • Brew over 8 years ago
            A mere myth!, my good man! Light rail is faster than busses. Plenty of stats to back that up...and plenty of stories from the millions of people of the planet who use light rail every day. AND ZERO LOCAL AIR POLLUTION! See:
            • DaveH over 8 years ago
              If you look at the stats that it is based on it is based on a 12-13mph bus travel speed which is not the case for eastern suburbs buses using the bus express lanes along anzac parade, so your arguement does nto stack up. I would like to see data that compared the current light rai in sydney to travel times against buses.. even though that is different to the randwick buses as they have express lanes.agree on the pollution which is great, but if we use gas powered bsuses this reduces their pollution significantly.I think without detail on where the light rail will go, what the impactsa re on the roads and the travel times suing them we cannot make an informed decision.
      • Scoby over 8 years ago
        Removed by moderator.
      • freemason about 8 years ago
    • brookeb22 over 8 years ago
      From my experience, the light rail in Sydney is dreadful: slow, expensive, confusing pay terminals, poor schedule posting, under-utilised. But they could do it better. Melbourne's is great! A tram connecting to Central would be great where it could connect to the George St Light Rail that would go all the way to Circular Quay. Ideally, it could eventually connect through high street to the hospital and then down Avoca to Maroubra. There are so many buses that this could replace. I would also be equally happy with the train be extended from Bondi Junction to Randwick, then Maroubra. Extend it underground a way, then bring it above ground and it could act much like a tram. (but that wouldn't help Moore Park or the Uni much). Buses are just so loud and dirty. I'd be happy with a frequent light rail - this is a great idea! Bring it on!
    • Tramcar over 8 years ago
      The pictures of the proposed light rail show it running along the roadway. Trams were phased out in Sydney when they became unworkable as the levels of traffic increased.Any new light rail would need to be running in its own corridor or on elevated tracks. For example, the current Sydney light rail from Central to the inner west travels most of its route in its own corridor. The monorail is elevated and is not obstructed by traffic conditions.A more workable proposal for light rail to Randwick would be to have it on an elevated track over the roadway or to have a monorail instead. A monorail would probably be cheaper to construct and would have less visual impact on the environment.
    • Brew over 8 years ago
    • ggj over 8 years ago
      I support the introduction of light rail to the east, but the current proposals seem a bit limited. For light rail to be successful, it needs to meet a few criteria:1) IT MUST TAKE BUSES OFF THE ROAD. The current plan for light rail will NOT take buses off the road. For example, just about all buses that pass through Randwick, originate in Coogee. If light rail terminates in Randwick, all the current buses will still be required (the same goes for services along Anzac parade). All I see happening is the frequency of buses being reduced and thus providing an inferior public transport option for the residents of places like Coogee. The routes proposed by the Government and Randwick council only seem to cater for people visiting the major institutions, not the people who actually live here. Buses will still be required on certain routes, as they have more frequent stops and can travel via residential areas.2) IT MUST BE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. If we are installing a light rail system, it needs to be FAST (and not simply a replacement for buses). The trams need to have limited stops, and be separated from traffic as much as possible. This means dedicated lanes in the middle of the road or separate reserves (such as the current busway along Anzac parade). In order to avoid delays at major intersections, it would be desirable to have bridges or tunnels created. The separate lanes, tunnels and bridges could even be created before laying any tracks and trialled by buses. Pedestrian overpasses should also be created over the current Anzac parade busway, so that there is no need for trams to stop.3) RUN RELIABLY AND REGULARLY (at least every 10-15 mins). If the light rail is separated from traffic as much as possible, it will be both faster and more reliable than buses. People should be able to use it without a timetable, and not have to worry about traffic or events. 4) INTEGRATE WITH OTHER FORMS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT. The light rail needs to go close to Central, Townhall and Circular quay, but also needs to have integrated ticketing with other forms of transport.MY PROPOSED ROUTES:*COOGEE-CIRCULAR QUAY (via Coogee Bay Road, Belmore Road, Alison Road, Anzac Parade, Flinders Steet, Oxford Street and either Elizabeth street or Castlereagh street). The light rail should run straight up Coogee bay road, then onto Belmore road (no dog leg via Avoca street). There should be priority lights at the intersection with High street and Avoca Street (or a tunnel). The track would continue along Belmore road, and then onto separated lanes on Alison road. There should be a tunnel/ bridge at Darley Road, and the light rail will then join an extension of the current busway running parallel to Alison road. It will continue along Anzac Parade using the current busway, with a tunnel under Lang road. At the intersection with Flinders street there should be a bridge (as the ED already has tunnels in that location) or priority traffic lights, and the light rail will then continue on separated lanes down Oxford street, and then follow either Elizabeth street or Castlereagh street.*MAROUBRA – CIRCULAR QUAY (via Anzac parade, Flinders Street, Oxford Street and either Elizabeth street or Castlereagh street). At the intersection of Anzac parade and Alison Road, there should be either a bridge or tunnel created so that this line can join the current busway running along Anzac Parade, and not create a bottle neck. The current busway should also be widened in sections to allow for overtaking by Express Trams (from both Coogee and Maroubra)*COOGEE-CENTRAL (via Coogee bay road, High Street, Anzac parade and Foveaux street or Albion Street). After travelling straight up Coogee Bay Road, it will continue down High street, and join the line at Anzac parade. *MAROUBRA - CENTRAL *CENTRAL-RANDWICK RACECOURSE. The light rail will travel up Foveaux or Albion street, along Anzac parade and terminate at the racecourse using Abbotford Street. FUTURE OPTIONS:*Extend one of the lines to Balmain (via Barrangaroo and a tunnel)*COOGEE – GREENSQUARE OR AIRPORT (via Coogee bay road, High street, Anzac parade, Todman ave, O’Dea ave, Green Square, Bourke road to Airport)*MAROUBRA- GREEN SQUARE *MAROUBRA - AIRPORT (using botany goods line)*MAROUBRA - BONDI
      • Tuddy about 8 years ago
        i wholeheartedly agree with everything you have written here...although we could even have the services running more frequently, say every 5-10 minutes on one core route from the city (circular quay trams could realistically travel via central to connect with innerwest trams) to alison road and then splitting to go out to maroubra and coogee. i wholly embrace your vision Ggj, and wish others would see similarly the merit of such a system. Government... Yoo Hoo! please take note of what this fine citizen has said. And in relatio nto integrated ticketing, I think the new Opal system announced last week will sort that out.
    • what over 8 years ago
      I'm worried about 2 things:1. In the Southern Courier on 19 July 2011, Darren Pearce, ATC Chief executive (Randwick Racecourse) said "the line would help win major sporting and entertainment events for Sydney and grow our existing sporting music and cultural facilities by providing clean. modern and convennient transport right to our doorstep". This is a worry - it means further commercialisation of the Racecourse, to the detriment of the community which will have to battle thousands of attendees at these events who will still drive. The Racecourse is not good at managing these events - the woeful management of the Future Music event in March 2011 is testament to this - Council blames the Racecourse, the Racecourse blamed the promoter, the promoter blamed the contractors...Ultimately, the light rail idea is all about building more flats in an already very populated area of Sydney.2. The picture shows light rail in the middle of the road, but that's not really practical from a pedestrian safety and amenity perspective. Imagine getting off or waiting for a tram in the middle of a street in Randwick or Kensington. Instead, trams will run along the lane used for kerbside parking, loss of which, especially in the commercial centres will see these wither in favour of larger enclosed centres - more cars on roads.
      • Scoby over 8 years ago
        When the light rail is in function you may have to use your common sense and, heaven forbit, be slightly aware of your surrounds when alighting from the tram. This is not too much of an ask because I have lived in European cities that have trams and the people all manage to survive quite well. People like you who want to make us a nanny state where everyone is wrapped in cotton wool, slow down the progress of our already slow moving city. And the point of the tram is to build more flats?? Are you on drugs?? The point of the tram is to help move people more efficiently. The the best idea this area has had in decades!!!
    • Scoby over 8 years ago
      This is a brilliant idea. I can't believe it's taken this long for us to get off our backsides and actually do it. I would love to see the route extended to Coogee beach and I would love it to link up with central station and the CBD. One day, I would love to see an extended light rail network throughout Sydney.
    • Brian over 8 years ago
      I definitely support the concept of light rail along the Anzac Pde corridor, ideally to Maroubra Junction; but I do not believe it would be feasible for it to get up the hills on Alison Rd or High St to Randwick, they are just too steep to be practical. The best possible alternative might be for the line to use Alison Rd, Wansey St, High St, Avoca St, Anzac Pde to join up with a direct line along Anzac Pde.Most of the current bus traffic to SFS, SCG, the Racecourse and UNSW seems to come from interchange at Central, so the line would need to service this area as well as the CBD.
    • SeanP over 8 years ago
      It would be good if the current proposed route down Anzac Pde could be extended slightly to the large roundabout where Anzac Pde, Gardeners Road, Bunnerong Road and Rainbow Street intersect. I know this is a self-serving request as it would enable me to take the light rail, but the roundabout may be big enough for a light rail depot to be built. Also, it's at the Kingsford bus stop which is quite a major bus stop. Commuters would be able to change from buses to light rail at this location.Also, the options for connecting to the CBD need to be disclosed. Preferably light rail will be able to go all the way to the CBD (perhaps up Oxford street, through to Hyde Park and beyond?) but if the connections would involve buses and trains, it may not be viable for people commuting to the city.
    • steveo over 8 years ago
      Pre-feasibility study?? Sounds like a waste of money to me. Will the feasibility study study the feasibility of the feasibility study!?!?!?What a beauracratic load of cr*p! All this is so the Randwick's PR spin doctors can big note themselves as online marketing geniuses and promote their agenda at the same time - this is nothing more then an expensive advertising campaign!
    • Brian over 8 years ago
      Now that the State Government is backstepping on its promise to extend the existing LR to Dulwich Hill (it is 80% complete already) what hope do we have of seeing anything happening to a Randwick line??
    • ben1680 about 8 years ago
      Basically I support goverment attempt to improve Sydney public tansport system, but only if it has no drawback, fit and follows current trend and projected capacity growth, and cater for longer term city planning in term of fitness and impact to overall beauty to the whole area.I will never support Light Rail system expansion in its current form. My reason is as follow:- The proposal are shortsighted and not geared for longer term effectiveness. The proposal are being drawn to minimise budget instead of laying out the base for better and more integrated future transport system. The old proposal to extend Eastern Suburb line are much better compared to this proposal (as long as they are running underground). You can see in most case, the current rail line extension is always cancelled because of the cost to implement such system. They should wonder instead, on how much money they spend just to do study after study about our public transport system. Not to mention the failure of RFID (touch and go) ticket system simply due to the fact that our public transport ticket system is way too complicated.- Change of transport modal is also not time effective and not preferable by many people.- Sharing the road with car is not an ideal solution. Currently, our road is already jam-packed with car, and adding this system running along main road such as Anzac Parade will make this situation worse. Not to mention the poor choice of current Metrobus system that use very long articulated type vehicle (increasing vehicle footprint and occupy more part of the road) instead of double decker bus.Regardless of some people are led to believe (by politician or mass media) about this system will reduce the amount of car, in practice we all know this is not the case. Public transport system are complementary and supplementary to car and other type of personal transport, and cannot serve as complete replacement even in the city with a very extensive public transport system.- It is an absolute eyesore and completely eliminate the beauty of an area, with a spider web of their electrical cable hanging everywhere. Look at Melbourne, with their tangling cable destroying the sky view and the beauty of of their CBD. If their goal is to implement Light Rail, at the very least they can use Light Rail System with underside electrical system (Ground Level Power Supply - APS) and not using this currently outdated Light Rail system. Such example are Light rail or tram in Bordeaux, France. Look at this article for more info:
    • Greg about 8 years ago
      Light Rail is a good idea to move people from randwick to the city. It should be integrated into a whole public transport mangement plan for city rail, light rail and bus services. Light rail is clean, green and more comfortable and safe particulary for the elderly and one day may run on solar rather than electricity. Randwick has one of the best bus services in Sydney. So my concern in the immediate term is that if a light rail was introduced that there would still be a need for a good bus service to areas not covered by the light rail and to cover peak period and off peak times. The light rail would also need to link to the Sydney city light rail system and hard rail system. The Sydney city light rail system would also need to be extended to circular quay.There is also the question of cost and where the money is going to come from as the state government is almost broke and how much federal funding or local govt funding would available. Certainly it would be great if money was seeded to the randwick to link up with the Sydney city light rail system as part of a 1st stage plan off extending light rail out from sydney city to the suburbs as we have some major infarstuture in our immediate area that requires massive people movement, (Sydney stadium , cricket ground, moore park, centennial park, randwick racecourse , POW Hospital, NSW Uni, and Beach side suburbs,. There is a massive movement of local residents each day commuting for work and educatioanl needs togther with tourists sports, recreational and medical visits on a weelky basis to justify a prioty for light rail inclusion to be integrated with the existing bus system. A hard rail system long term would be ideal with light rail and bus integrated system
    • big picture about 8 years ago
      Light rail to Randwick is almost certainly a good idea.Any plan should consider a bigger picture, namely that all major public transport routes should have their own right of wayand mimimal intersections. Depending on topography and density, this can be an expensive exercise. However if you don't doit this way, forevermore the system is more expensive to operate - if the system is twice as fast, you only need half the vehicles and drivers to provide the same number of services. And everyone can go twice as far in the same time ie more employment and housing options.Public transport like this could cost $100 billion across Sydney. This is not a ridiculous amount of money - it's less than one years' welfare budget, and 1/12th one years' GDP. We can so afford it over say twenty years without the government borrowing money. Possibly it's bye bye baby bonus and hello better city for our children.So don't be afraid of more ambitious plans.
    • Tarandoc about 8 years ago
      Simple answer: YES!!!The current Treasury/Transport Dept cheap and nasty solution of just more buses simply does not work anymore.Even the flash new red bendybuses are just as slow and wearysome to travel on as the regular ones.Each year the travel times from Coogee/Randwick to the CBD get longer, and it is a joke that in such a highly populated area in a supposed world class city, that the best we can do is simply cram more buses onto our roads. Which, by the way, do nothing for the ambience of the overall environment.I will gladly use light rail, and welcome its return. I will happily get out of my car to catch a tram/train, but will not do so to simply sit/stand and longer on a slow bus lumbering up the very same road that I could be driving on.By the way, don't underestimate the power of the road/car lobby. They will fight back hard once it sinks in that light rail is on the way back.
      • what almost 8 years ago
        You are right, when you see those long articulated buses lumbering around, you realise that the demand on the bus system to Randwick City has exceeded capacity. The key point is what route is most effective, remembering that like buses, trams, trains whatever need a terminus or 'lay-over' point at each end.
    • surburban about 8 years ago
      I fully support the light rail to Randwick as it provides a much more flexible infrastructure for daily commuters within this area. Having studied and lived here throughout my life, this area truly needs the light rail to cope with the growing population who has come here for education, medical, financial and recreational purpose. This is an important area with educational needs (UNSW),world class hospital facilities, racing facilities and other recreational purpose so like any world class cities, the transport infrastructure needs to be more advanced to serve needs of future generations. I went the discussion meeting held in Randwick council a couple of months ago, and is shocked and disappointed on people that opposed to this idea. It seemed like a denial on their part to ignore the importance of this area, and resist changes to Randwick. I too feel very strongly about the retainment of a village culture in this area, but seriously with world class institutions in this area, one cannot deny the need to cater to the growing population and mobility of people in the next generation. Therefore, you have my support on the light rail, and I hope the council is doing the best to lobby for the light rail to this area.
    • Jax about 8 years ago
      I haven't looked at the proposal but from the pictures it looks like the light rail will take up two lanes of the road, how can this be a good thing for traffic congestion? Also, will the light rail drop off at various points in the city or will it just stop at central? If the later, I would likely continue to take the bus or move out of the area.
    • RdeS about 8 years ago
      Some people have already mentioned this - the existing lanes on our road networks are already congested. What would be the impact of assigning a few of these lanes to light rail? Even worse, and then the spillage diverting to surrounding streets? We should look at underground options, preferbaly trains, and also include Kingsford.
    • zammit about 8 years ago
      I think the light rail would be a great idea the roads are getting more and more congested in the eastern suburbs.We have the hospital and the university here which brings a lot of people to Randwick.I live at Kingsford and it would be good for me.
    • Havenough about 8 years ago
      I think light rail / tram will be much better than just relying on buses. I would like to see the route actually goes pass the spot to further enhance the economic activities over there. But of course it will depends on how much it costs. If the fares are a lot higher than buses, that will not encourage people to use it.
    • kelrob about 8 years ago
      If people think light rail is the answer to Randwick’s traffic problems they are having themselves on, the artist’s impression of two trams traveling along Anzac parade is absolutely farcical, where are the tram stops, in the middle of the road on the footpaths? What about people with disabilities wheel chairs etc. The diagram shows the tram route traveling along Anzac parade as far as Flinders Street Taylor Square what happens after that is anyone's guess dream on it's just not going to happen. And as if we did not have enough overhead cabling the last thing we need is more unsightly cables overhead, Underground rail is the only answer and the sooner Council and the State government come to their senses the better.
    • Beau76 about 8 years ago
      I support bringing light rail to Randwick and in particularly to UNSW. The line however should go further to service Kingsford, Maroubra Junction and out to La Persouse. Stop dithering and get on with it. Extensions to the current light rail system in Sydney are long overdue.
    • Admin Commented admin about 8 years ago
    • Aristotle about 8 years ago
    • freemason about 8 years ago
    • na3f about 8 years ago
      I definitely support it if it runs through randwick to UNSW, it makes for a speedier and more efficient commute for students, also it allows us to access the shopping centres/restaurants quicker. I'm sure the people of Randwick would appreciate easier access to the CBD too.
    • Clairex about 8 years ago
      Yes I would support it as I feel like the lack of a train line really isolates the Eastern suburbs. while I would prefer heavy rail, light rail is a much more realistic option. As others have said I would like to see further extension of the light rail within the city too. For example rather than just going to central I would like to see it pass town hall an wynyard to reduce changes needed. I also feel that a good route would be down to UNSW via anzac parade, up high street and onto belmore or avoca, turning onto Alison and back into the city. this would complete the hole that currently exists between the 37x and 39x bus lines.
    • Binda about 8 years ago
      Light rail to the uni and hospital is great for people coming from the city but for the rest of us in the Randwick City south of Randwick, we have to connection at all, so its not designed for the people who live here. I want a rail line to connect the old freight rail station at Matraville to Matraville Shopping area / Malabar / Sth Maroubra / Maroubra / and loop through Green Square. Then we can connect with all the rail services to the west and beyond. That would be real progress !!!
    • Alexandre about 8 years ago
    • mgr about 8 years ago
      I do absolutely support the proposed light rail route to Randwick. I think the expansion of heavy rail / subway should be the most important part of the public transport strategy considering the size of Sydney and the estimates for population growth. However, light rail would be a great start and hopefully a more realistic option. Light rail, heavy rail and bus need to be integrated regarding routes, stops and ticket system. Light rail also would need to get priority on the streets. I have used light rail extensively while living in Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, and loved it, it is a so much more comfortable way of travelling compared to catching buses (especially compared to the 30year old buses on the 374 route). Expanding the network later to Coogee would be even better of course, but one step at a time. Please do something, I think the route from CBD (not Central) to Randwick would be a great start.
    • Pel almost 8 years ago
      No, I don't support light rail. Firstly I need to know why it was removed all those years ago and secondly how it will impact traffic congestion. I would however support an underground rail system and more widespread cycleways/footpath cycleways.
      • coogee local about 6 years ago
        Hi Pel, the tram system was removed in the 60s because back then the government thought cars were the way of the future - a bit like Tony Abbot thinks now! Melbourne kept them because of strong lobbying from the tram commisioner. Sydney wanted to be more modern and ended up a step behind. It is well proven (see the work by gary glazebrook) that the more roads you provide the more people drive - gratuitous private car travel is not a viable option in a civilised modern metropolis.
    • tony almost 8 years ago
      Light rail would not benefit me but I can see the benefits for the Uni., hospital and racecourse on the proposed routes.
    • BenDB almost 8 years ago
      I absolutely support the light rail! Trains and buses are the only way to move bulk people; every big city in Europe is testament to that. It's great to see a glimmer of forward thinking beyond the next election for once. Tunnels and motorways simply aren't working.
    • sonja over 7 years ago
      I think HEAVY rail lie is the only solution to the mounting traffic problems. However, if light rail is the only option that the state government will consider then we need to make sure that the following are addressed:1. Travel times to the city need to be LOWER than current bus travel times2. Travel times need to be consistent and predictable, as they are with heavy rail. At the moment, my bus trip from Kingsford to central can take anywhere between 17 and 35 mins in peak times3. A direct route exists to the northern end of the CBD (so that people don't have to change trams to get to routes which are now serviced by a single bus)Concerns:1. Ability to have 'express' services. The express buses are very popular in peak periods. Would a similar service be available with trams? My guess is no.2. No link to Bondi Junction3. Additional cost this will put on current fares which are very high to begin withThe positives I see are reductions in pollution and noise from current bus services, which are very welcome.
    • John over 7 years ago
      What is happening with this idea, it's taking so long I want light rail / trams NOW...
    • Chilly_15 over 7 years ago
      I live in Maroubra, getting to and from the city can be annoying and slow. So I support anything that might mean a faster, more reliable and more frequent service towards Randwick. I think the route should go further South, all the way to Maroubra Junction. There's heaps of space in between the road from Kingsford to La Perouse, I think it should be utilised for public transport.
    • jacko777 over 7 years ago
      Should extend any tram line to Maroubra Junction at least
    • David-S over 7 years ago
      Sorry, I don't support the Light Rail, trams were great back when Sydney was a lot less busy but this is only going to make our roads more congested.Here's my reasons:1. It will restrict the use of the road for cars - there is already congestion on Alison Rd and Anzac Pade this will make things worse.2. It will restrict parking on the route - getting a parking spot in Randwick after 5pm is already a nightmare this will make it worse.3. The buses in Randwick are generally fanatastic - the buses already work well, there routes are more flexible than Light Rail will ever be, they are fitted with low emission natural gas. If we get Light Rail there's a good chance we will have less buses servicing the Randwick area as a result.
      • Siegetower almost 7 years ago
        Oh yes my God I hadn't considered how bad this would be for parking. Whole streets worth of spots would have to disappear so people from elsewhere can get to the university. What do the residents do? I work where there is no public transport option and need a car.Agree on the buses. Replacing them with trams is a backwards step. Trams are by design and definition inflexible.
    • Jchan over 7 years ago
      I don't know if this issue has been raised before, but as a student at the University, a potential problem I can see with the light rail proposal is that with significant loadings of University students there will be no more space on the light rail for other members of the public and thus, the service would only really be able to operate as link for the University only from there limiting the benefits to the surrounding communities.From my experience of catching the 895 and 891 expresses as well as the M50, unless the light rail is so long such that it mimics the capacity of heavy rail or it has 2-3 minute frequencies, I find it difficult to envisage how non-University students will be able to catch the light rail, given that most of the buses I've mentioned are filled completely to capacity a lot of the time, yet there is still a really long line of people waiting to be transported back to their connections which all happen to be in or near the CBD.
    • Walli over 7 years ago
      Sydney desperately need a more efficient public transport system. Light rail sounds very attractive and I do like the thought of it in a romantic kind of way, but I am concerned about how much space it will take up and how buses, light rail, cars, pushbikes etc will co-exist. A simple train may do better as in London and Paris. These systems work so efficiently through the suburbs to city routes and we need to consider a larger population and busier cities in years to come. A normal rail system might be more practical.
    • what over 7 years ago
      Went to the NSW Government's 'Community Cabinet' on Monday 27 August 2012 at East Leagues club.Someone asked on progress for the Light Rail to Randwick City. Transport minister Gladys B, said lots of nice things, but the bottom line is it ain't happening anytime soon.Still we get large re-developments on the 'promise', most recently the 7 level hotel for Randwick Racecourse
    • what over 7 years ago
      And here is the latest (4 Sept 2012) "The plan also discusses light rail through Sydney's CBD and into the eastern Suburbs, but does not commit to it.Read more:
    • jeb almost 7 years ago
      light rail is a waste of money.If you have ever driven through kensington in peak hour it is often at a standstill due to trafic and Moore park is a parking lot at certain times of day due to traffic and pedestrians.These cars and pedestrians will still want to cross anzac pde as usual so light rail will just lead to further conjestion. I cant believe they won't extend the underground railway which will cost less now than in ten years time. Don't we have any politicians who are willing to invest in the futue not just themselves.
    • noway almost 7 years ago
      You people really don't get it. Firstly you must understand that the decision was made long before you were given the opportunity to have your say. This is just an area for you to air your opinions, you know, get it off your chest, but this was always going to happen. Put in simple terms, "you have been taken for a ride"!Why do you think trams were taken off the road in Sydney? (read light rail). Answer: Because they interfered with the traffic flow. What do you think will happen with traffic along Anzac and Allison? Like, doh, obvious.South Dowling is a nightmare for different reasons, but now you will be stuffed in more ways than one. Quite clearly, you have been conned by a small group who have received endorsement by a minority of interested people who use but do not live directly in the area.Sad that life in a big city is run by small minds who feel in necessary to appear to do something without really thinking of the consequences and people who jump on the bandwagon not realsing they have jumped into a pile of you know what.May we all, some day, travel in peace.
      • Techie almost 7 years ago
        I think it will give Randwick commuters a quieter, non stinky, more efficient way to the city. I also think it should be Going to the beaches near by would also be of great benefit. Also Installing light rail in Parramatta to greater west would improve the air quality for western Sydney. Improve quality of life by lowering noise polution and air polution. It is beyond time the Gov re introduced Sydneys tram network. After all It established Sydney as a great place to live.
      • Siegetower almost 7 years ago
        I agree with you. No one has thought of the real world consequences of reintroducing trams to our narrow Sydney streets.
    • under the ground almost 7 years ago
      I think that people are so desperate for improvements to our poor Sydney transport system that they are grabbing at anything that sounds like an improvement without thinking it through. Comparing Sydney to other major world cities, an extensive underground rail network, or Metro, is essential. The roads are already congested and the light rail would add to this. It still has to stop at lights and with traffic all pushed into one lane at various locations, it is likely that other congestion might arise to thwart the light rail. If it could run over the ground in wider locations (parts of Anzac Parade for example) and go underground at intersections, or for a selection of bus stops to avoid further congestion, eg UNSW, it would perhaps alleviate the problem. Overall I think we are being tempted, out of desperation, to choose the bandaid solution of light rail when we need a complete METRO, no matter the cost. State government can surely find the money, as our rail system needs a severe upgrade to bring it into line with other countries. We need to demand a better solution!
    • Siegetower almost 7 years ago
      The idea of trams is a terrible idea. Has anyone driven in Melbourne in smaller streets like in Brunswick and gotten stuck behind them? The delays to everyone else are ridiculous. At least in Melbourne as its' a grid you can get around them if you know which street is going in the same direction has no tramlines. Sydney has no grid to avoid obstacles.What do trams do that buses do not do? When a bus stops behind another bus, it can then drive around it and you continue your journey. A tram can't go around a more full tram. The line of trams go as slow as the first one, which often holds up and delays dozens of people.ANZAC Parade is the only freely flowing road in peak periods in the Eastern Suburbs, compared to the M1, Oxford St, New South Head Road. Locking up 1 lane each way for slow and inflexible trams would ruin the only quick road into the East, in my opinion.Plus has anyone at all considered how many trees will have to be butchered to install the cables for the trams? The majestic fig trees which line ANZAC Parade and some of High Street will all be severely lopped to put the cables and extra poles in. PLEASE DON'T BUTCHER THESE TREES AND STREETS FOR AN OPTION NO BETTER THAN EXISTING BUSES.What do trams do that buses do not do?
    • star1 over 6 years ago
      Definitely do not support. Roads are too narrow, too congested, and the dual bus system unexplained how the 2 will work together. Don't feel I would benefit at all. I do not drive and rely on public transport. I frequently use public transport bus 303 down Day Ave Kensington (or if that taken away then a 12-15min walk), then bus from UNSW Anzac Pde to Kensington, Moore Park, St Vincents, City, Central, POW, Randwick, Charing Cross, or Bondi Junction then connect bus 389 to Bondi. In the other direction bus down Day Ave Kensington to UNSW then bus to Kingsford, Maroubra, Eastgardens, or Matraville. I can see multiple cost, longer wait times changing services, getting sick from inclement weather being out in the open, stops unsafe for pedestrians.
    • Smiley over 6 years ago
      I have had a look at the Master Plan for the Light Rail. Transport infrastructure planning should really be looking at a long term approach (next 50 years at least). I think the light rail will end up like the defunct city monorail - not pretty, expensive, useless to locals but attractive for tourists who want to see Sydney cheaply by rail. Sydney has been ranked one of the best cities to live in the world. Shouldn't we start looking at a transport system that services some of the best cities in the world? (e.g; London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong etc). This blog article from the Melbourne Age probably sets it out (but I thought this long before this article - I lived in London and after coming back to Sydney was appalled at the state of our transport system and nothing has changed in the 12 years since I've been home and I think biting the bullet and starting work on an underground system would be money well spent - lightrail is not the answer with the population growth in Sydney over the long term). also lived at Dee Why Beach and I can say that every 1 hour trip I took home and to work I dreamt of a Sydney Transport Underground System.I now live at Randwick and doubt I would use the light rail, it takes me 10 minutes via express bus into the city and I could walk faster than catching the lightrail. I know it is not popular for the Government to plan for a massive budget spend on an underground during elections but seriously where do you think transport in Sydney will eventually end up? Underground? e
      • coogee local about 6 years ago
        Hi Smiley,the 5 cities you have suggested all have great metro systems but are very dense when compared to Sydney. Light rail is being used around the world in Europe, Asia and the US in both dense cities such as Paris, London, Bordeaux, Amsterdam and Berlin as well as more dispersed places such as Portland - travel around the States and Europe you will see just how popular and efficient it has become in the last ten years. Light rail is a good start for the Eastern Suburbs and will have massive patronage from UNSW, POW hospital, the Sydney Cricket Ground and Moore Park; all places for locals. It will never be underutilised like the monorail as it is aligned with the everyday experience of locals. What's more we will have to vote in a new federal government if we want to build a metro. Another two three years before we get another chance at that!
    • coogee local about 6 years ago
      The light rail is a brilliant idea and would civilise Anzac Parade and Alison Road and make travel to the city from the east much more pleasurable for locals like me as well as tourists. It needs to be introduced with a total rethink of the road section introducing safe bike lanes so cyclists and light rail passengers can make the east greener and more sustainable withouth risking their lives to agressive car drivers. Travel to the city by car is only going to get more difficult if we keep operating with a business as usual approach so this change in thinking is the way to go for a more efficient and sustainable Sydney.
    • PatrickJL about 6 years ago
      Why is there no stop outide the Hospital in High Street. Must all people walk from the ruins of High Cross Park some 2-300m to get to their destination when they have just been driven past it in the tram? Thoughtless!Support the council's initiative to move the terminus to High Street. This benefits those visiting the hospital and saves High Cross Park.
    • PatrickJL about 6 years ago
      What arrangements are being made for parking at and near the terminus?Are the street going to become parking lots for more cars?What other options are there?Why not free small (light) buses providing a fully integrated public tranasport system? These would run constantly in and around the Randwick/Coogee/Maroubra area. Even a small charge would not be unacceptable. We must get cars off the road.With the increasing population this is going to become an ever increasing necessity.