Opinions expressed here are those of contributors. The moderator cannot accept responsibility for statements made here.
Blackjack said on Thu 25 February 2010 at 20:50
I think the usefulness of light rail in Sydney is limited, because the city is already too congested. I also question the true efficiency of light rail. People like the novelty of riding in a carriage which runs along a dedicated railway line, but a buses are much more manoeuvrable even if they have a poor reputation and are less fun to ride in. Trams cannot overtake each other, so when more than a few of them pull up at a stop, they have to leave in the same order. If a bus doesn't need to pick up or set down passengers at a stop, it can simply overtake other buses in front. Similarly, when a tram breaks down, others cannot overtake it. I think making bus travel significantly more attractive is one way of improving our crippled public transport system in Sydney. Dedicated bus lanes and corridors, giving buses priority at traffic lights, construction of good bus shelters with signage, good lighting and useful information could go a long way towards improving our bus network. Transit busways have proven to be very popular and successful in other cities like Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth so there is no reason why they wouldn't work in Sydney.
retiredtramdriver said on Wed 17 February 2010 at 19:21
Too much light rail? You don't give an alternative. Not more buses? No no you could be fair-dinkum. Yeah OK I'm biased have driven the Pyrmont Light Rail for seven years. A modern tram can move three times the passengers than a bus.
Chesswood said on Tue 16 February 2010 at 08:07
I think there's too much light rail. It's unrealistic to want the disruption that interchanges at Haymarket and in suburbs like Drummoyne would cause.
Spearmint said on Mon 15 February 2010 at 12:38
When the Clarendon crossing loop was built (or rebuilt) a letterwriter to the local paper had a fit expressing the total and utter waste of such a construction, designed by idiots with nothing better to do with the public's money, etc. etc. Actually, if you understand the timetable, the need for a crossing loop at Clarendon makes a lot of sense. Without the loop, late running trains bound for Richmond, had to be terminated short at Mulgrave, another whistlestop station in the middle of nowhere, much to the chagrin of passengers bound to the important and busy terminus at Richmond. You see, the running time from Mulgrave to Richmond and return was too great for the late running train to slip through without causing more cascading delays. With the extra loop at Clarendon, the late running train could follow an alternative path all the way to Richmond, and back, and not get terminated short. So the loop at Clarendon does make sense, even if some members of the public cannot see the point.
Spearmint said on Fri 12 February 2010 at 15:40
When the quad goes through Padstow, there will be no platforms on the express tracks (like the other intermediate stations between Turella and Padstow). Since Padstow has express trains now, (like Riverwood), this is (according to the local paper) discriminatory, racist, sexist, etc., etc. A fundamental principle of train operations is that when a station has an express service, it must never be removed. Actually the situation is not as bad as it seems. The Airport Line contract specifies 8 trains per in peak hours. But only four of these need stop at minor stations such as Turrella, Bexley North and Narwee. The four per hour that would not stop at these stations would still stop at Riverwood and Padstow, which are semi-fasts. Furthermore, as the 4 all stations trains and four semi-fasts would start at Revesby, they would have more empty seats than would be the case if they started from East Hills, Campbelltown or Macarthur.
Spearmint said on Thu 11 February 2010 at 13:31
As the network changes, passengers cannot expect old ways to be set in stone, otherwise there will be paralysis. Having Hornsby-Epping stoppers going via North Ryde may take more time depending on one's destination. It also probably makes it easier to find a seat on the Epping Strathfield section. With the new arrangement, the combined number of trains at Chatswood coming from North Ryde and Gordon makes the line full south of Chatswood. But with only 4 tph between Epping and Chatswood, you could probably run additional shuttle trains to divide the 15 minute interval. Similarly, while the Suburban line east of Strathfield is full, you could probably run additional shuttle services to Epping to divide the 15 minute service. There is no law that says all trains have to run to the CBD. This is the principle behind the Y-link where the suburban lines are full east of Granville, while the lines south and west are not full.
Not PC said on Tue 02 February 2010 at 19:15
PC - how about you act on what you think would be good for public transport in Sydney. It would be a much better use of your energy.
SCHILTEC said on Thu 21 January 2010 at 23:08
It happened to me some years ago and now to my friend: The company is urging you to drive more! For way of info, as per my understanding Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) is calculated dividing a fixed km value (maybe 15,000 km) by the actually driven mileage. The logic behind is that the ATO assumes that all miles below 15,000 km are private use and above 15,000 km are business use. Thus the more you drive the smaller the %age FBT. Amounts to government sponsored public transport sabotage, enhanced by environment pollution. SCHILTEC http://waverail.com.au
PC said on Thu 31 December 2009 at 20:17
You are pathetic; a shadow of a public transport lobby group. You produce virtually nothing in the way of publications; no-one knows who you are; your website is lousy and out of date. I can't believe NSW has such a crappy advocate for public transport. Where's your fire? I can only assume you are operating with a NSW government subsidy.
SCHILTEC said on Thu 03 December 2009 at 09:30
The following is an section from a draft Sydney Transport White Paper prepared by the author:-------------------
Searching for the strength of each system, then designing and utilising the system in its proper place and mode will yield the associated benefits. Existing transport assets should be used. This ensures continuity and raises the level of required economics for new projects. Successive effort should be pursued in the following areas:
1. Make the rail system competitive by keeping stations only at major centres. Say Penrith, Parramatta, Strathfield, Central.
2. Build a modern fast light rail system with narrow station spacing on Parramatta road and further to Penrith. Allow some motor traffic on the track corridor but reserve exclusive right of way to the tram. Interlock traffic lights. Fund only the basic rail infrastructure with small business private investment doing the rest. This can be completed in 3 years or possibly less.
3. Reduce motor traffic area on Parramatta road to two lanes and integrate a bicycle facility. This can be done with minimal interruption to the current traffic. It should come into effect only when the tram is operation i.e. track must be laid in sections overnight and motor traffic can use the space during construction.
4. Build a modern inner city light rail circle following the same principles. Link it to the Parramatta line such that inner city places can be reached without changing trams. Apply the same funding principles.
5. Redirect federal funding to the study of a fast rail link Northern Beaches to Central.
6. Abolish main road bus services to and from the city. Maintain bus services to unserviced suburban centres.
7. Establish a mini bus service connecting residential housing with rail and tram stations.
8. Plan further tram routes along the major corridors. Bondi, Liverpool, Sutherland, Hills District.
9. Implement these plans once the first operation has proven successful-----------------
Eugen Schilter
www.waverail.com.au
SCHILTEC said on Thu 03 December 2009 at 09:18
Transport systems in general are real beneficial when used at their best. Busses are the best and only economic transport system in, to and fro low density areas such as smaller suburbs. Double deckes may aliviate the problem in, to and fro the high density CBD, but I think do not solve it. Waverail does.But there is an intersting Aussi contribution to double deckers! Hornsby's Roy Leembruggen is developing/promoting a record setting 400 passenger electro double decker and has received some publicity courtesy of John Booth, TWT Ryde local newspaper. Give Roy some encouragement!
www.waverail.com.au
brumby said on Sat 14 November 2009 at 06:57
We have plenty of track that could be used for city rail or light rail. We have a light rail committee. The Mayor or Chief Minister commissioned a report on light rail which gave the green light to light rail economically. Eighty six per cent of Canberra people say they would like to have light rail.
Northern Light said on Mon 09 November 2009 at 15:07
The reason why Northern Line services to and from Hornsby have been switched to the Epping to Chatswood Line is to make the train paths previously used by the limited stop express services during peak hours on the Northern Line from Strathfield to the city available for additional services on the Western Line to and from the city. The main suburban lines between Strathfield and the city proceeding on to the North Shore, which are shared by the Northern and Western Line services, are now running at their maximum capacity of about 20 trains an hour. The only way additional train paths could be provided for Western Line services is to divert some of the Northern Line services to the new link.
However, in the process, the majority of Northern Line commuters now have an inferior service with generally longer travel times. Eastwood and West Ryde in particular have had their peak services slashed from 8 trains an hour to 4 an hour. CityRail is in effect robbing Peter to pay Paul.Whilst I don't for a moment begrudge extra services for Western Line commuters, it shouldn't be at the expense of downgrading services to other lines. It is now unlikely that the situation will change until a new rail link is built to provide extra capacity through the CBD (assuming that the proposed Sydney Metro, which confiscated the route, doesn't proceed in its current form).
St George said on Sun 08 November 2009 at 16:11
Re the changing of the routeing of Hornsby - Epping - Chats - Strath - Epping (left facing "hook") to a right facing "hook" - I'm sure CityRail looked hard at this and I can only assume that they had good reasons, even perhaps incontrovertible reasons, for deploying the current arrangement. You could ask in a short letter to the minister, Parliament House, Sydney.
Northern Light said on Sat 07 November 2009 at 00:05
With the implementation of the new CityRail timetable, commuters on the Northern Line have been well and truly dudded. An examination of the timetable shows that journey times for services from stations between Hornsby and Epping via the Epping to Chatswood Link to the city compared with the all stations service from Epping via Strathfield is 6 minutes faster to Wynyard, 1 minute slower to Town Hall and 8 minutes slower to Central. The comparison with the now cancelled limited stop express services via Strathfield (stopping at only Eastwood and West Ryde on the Northern Line south of Epping) is even more stark, with journey times to the city via the new link being 1 minute slower to Wynyard, 8 minutes slower to Town Hall and a whopping 15 minutes slower to Central.
Northern Line commuters, both north and south of Epping, are clearly being disadvantaged by the new operating pattern to accommodate additional train paths to the city for the Western Line. Eastwood and West Ryde have also effectively had their peak hour services cut by 50%. It is reasonable to assume that the bulk of commuters north of Epping are travelling to the city or to destinations west of the city while a minority would be travelling to the Macquarie Park area or the North Shore. Ideally, it would seem more logical for the operating pattern for the Northern Line to be reversed by retaining the service from Hornsby to the city via Strathfield and looping around via the North Shore Line and the new link to terminate at the underground platforms at Epping. This would also permit a seamless extension of this service from Epping to a future North West Rail Link and also to Parramatta if the Parramatta to Chatswood Rail link is completed.
Just a quick word on completion of the Parramatta Rail Link. In my opinion, should completion of this link be revived, the previously approved route via Epping and Carlingford to Parramatta should be reviewed. The alternative route from Macquarie University via Eastwood to Dundas on the Carlingford Line is far superior in that it is approximately 3km shorter than the route via Epping and Carlingford and with its straighter and more direct alignment compared with the steep winding alignment of the approved route, travel time is considerably faster, not only because of the shorter distance, but also because of the higher average speeds achievable. The route via Eastwood also has the added advantage of the option of constructing a "Y" link from Epping to Eastwood which would allow for direct train services from the Northern Line to Parramatta which is not possible with the approved route.
Rhiannon said on Sat 24 October 2009 at 14:35
To Frustrated Traveller, I'm a journalist from UTS and I completely agree with your concerns. I am writing an article on the problem, and would love to interview you if possible? Please send me (rhiannon.zanetic@gmail.com) an email if you think you could spare 5 minutes.
St George said on Thu 15 October 2009 at 10:32
Thank you Frustrated. I think you can blame Mr Costa, who, as Transport Minister, cancelled the Epping to Parramatta section of the Parramatta - Chatswood Railway. That decision required the re-configuration you, and thousands of others, are now suffering. The glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel (sorry about the pun) is that if the Coalition wins the 2011 election, they will build the Epping to Rouse Hill railway, and I would expect the Hornsby to Strathfield line would revert to something like what you had before.
Frustrated traveller said on Wed 14 October 2009 at 20:36
The new timetable no longer provides direct access to commuters from Beecroft to Strathfield and on to Redfern and Central. We have to change trains at Epping and go via Inter-Urban trains or wait for at least 10-11 minutes for an all stations train to Central. A journey which on the former timetable took 35 minutes now takes 49 minutes and includes an 11 minute wait at Epping. If you go on an Inter-urban train and wish to alight at Redfern in peak hour you have to change again at Strathfield as not all trains stop at Redfern. The situation is a nightmare.
Media Power Play said on Tue 13 October 2009 at 07:14
Run that down sidewalks on George Street with a Monorail overhead in Sussex to outlying Inner City areas and elevate the problem from Street level to an overhead convenience. Link it as you like to rail and bus. My main suggestion of course. Is that George Street be turned into a Public Mall with trees and rest areas much like what we see now in Pitt Street around Centre Point. You can still run a tram or two as an alternative. As long as it doesn't interfere with public thoroughfare and enjoyment. An advanced version of my idea would see all motor vehicles out of the CBD altogether. Excepting Service deliveries to businesses between the hours of 12am midnight and 6am in the morning. Therefore everything stops at parking at Gladesville, Pyrmont, Broadway and Nth Sydney. This is no longer the "Eighties". With additional Parking facilities in Chippendale combining redevelopment of that outer city locality. Think it over!
Martin James said on Thu 08 October 2009 at 20:44
Has anybody noticed if their train service takes longer to arrive at your destination on the new Cityrail timetable? I catch the Cumberland line train (one of only two meagre services each day) from Guildford to Westmead, a trip which currently takes 13 minutes. Frankly, I already think this is too long, and considering the distance it should only take between 10 and 12 minutes. But on the new timetable, the trip will take a whopping 16 minutes! Granted, it's only a difference of three minutes, but if I were a cynic, I would say that Cityrail has purposely increased the journey time so that when the train runs late, it has time to catch up. Hence, more Cityrail services would appear to run on time. It's not a bad way to improve your own performance, eh?
Bill of Petersham said on Sun 29 March 2009 at 17:30
Why can't sydney buses have a function on their website whereby the running progress of individual bus routes can be tracked up to the minute or by exact location? The bus could be scanned as it goes past each bus stop and the location, or approx minutes til a given stop further along the route, would be automatically available either on line or even better through a mobile phone. Would save walking to bus stop only to wait there another twenty minutes til it comes along
Sydneysiders said on Wed 25 March 2009 at 23:50
Does anyone know Hillbus is causing traffic problem along George St (Both Directions) because they have more than 15 buses waiting to pick up from QVB and cross the harbour bridge?
Is time to use double decker, which has a same foot print as a normal bus but carrying 120 passenger instead of 60??
Ratepayer said on Wed 11 March 2009 at 11:59
I know Waverley have provided a ridiculous amount of staff parking under their library within walking distance of buses to allover and the train. Unsure if staff get free parking unless they have council car.
Excess utes, vans etc are a problem with councils too, just as in the construction industry. If a council is working in the street, too many vehicles are parked on nature strips, footpaths etc.
carlo said on Tue 03 March 2009 at 11:46
Most local council's actually provide cars as part of the remuneration package for a great deal of staff members. And only recently have they started THINKING about making them environmentally friendly cars.
carlo said on Tue 03 March 2009 at 11:42
Generally speaking, i think provision of public tranport by governments in NSW is way below par but - We also need to be accountable for our own actions. If we choose to live in particular area, especially an area some distance away from the key employment, retail or tranport hubs, then we should be accountable also.
anuagg said on Tue 24 February 2009 at 08:59
The Hills district has been deprived of the desperately needed extension of the Epping- Chatswood line. To agonise the pain there is no visible plan to provide a bus link from Epping onwards so as to extend some service to these areas.
Most of the city services are run by the private Hillsbus, are only on weekdays and overloaded. People from Castle hill and Kellyville travel further west to Seven Hill and Blacktown to link to city rail. Most areas have no buses on weekends.
Under these circumstances, how does the government want people to use more public transport ?
Chesswood said on Sun 22 February 2009 at 15:14
A friend reminds me that just after the Eastern Suburbs line opened, there was a maintenance strike which closed all other lines; the new line needed no maintenance so stayed open.
As for "running in" a new car, that hasn't been necessary since about 1960.
Brennie said on Sun 22 February 2009 at 01:43
Get real. The people complaining about trackwork on the new line - it's normal. Any new piece of infrastructure will be checked and serviced in its opening days and months. The Airport line, Olympic Park line and the Eastern Suburbs Railway all underwent the same.
Any of you own cars? Read the manual. Cars have to be "run in" for the first 1500km or so, typical instructions include not cruising at a steady speed for too long, not aggressively accelerating etc. And then at the end of the 1500km or so - you have to get it serviced. Failing to do so can result in unreliability and damage. Same principle applies here.
Now rather than moaning about trivialities like that, why not go and concentrate on the real issues at hand, like the Rouse Hill line?
Chesswood said on Sat 21 February 2009 at 19:31
Re trackwork planned for 14-15 March, see http://www.cityrail.info/trackwork/trackwork_calendar.pdf
Chesswood said on Fri 20 February 2009 at 20:38
According to mX the opening was deferred from Sunday to Monday because of bushfire memorial day on Sunday. Meanwhile, testing and/or training was happening this week - I saw one up and one down train in the Chatswood dive today.
Chesswood said on Wed 18 February 2009 at 18:54
A story in North Shore Times of 18 Feb 2009 says this bridge is unsafe and that a man who fell 5 metres though it is still in hospital six months later. It also says 200 people per day walk across the tracks because they think it safer than using the footbridge. Does anyone have any details supporting the above claims, please?
Chesswood said on Tue 17 February 2009 at 18:56
The ECRL is supposed to open on Sunday morning 22nd February. Yet no-one seems to have VIP tickets or any other sort of ticket for the opening. Because there have been so many delays, does anyone know whether its opening really will happen then?
Ex bus-rider said on Tue 17 February 2009 at 05:26
As far as I know only a very few senior staff get parking spaces (the ones who work the most family unfriendly hours because they are at the beck and call of Ministers). To suggest that most public servants drive is ridiculous.
davidsheehan hotmail.com said on Tue 10 February 2009 at 18:59
As an outsider who wants to make a comment which might be good for this organization where's the feedback or message board that might be used. I wish to comment on a quote by kevin Eadie (SMH 10 Feb 09) who said that commuters from Hunters Hill drive rather than catch public transport because they can afford to. My comment is that they drive because most work in businesses that provide car spaces in the city. These spaces are either very cheap or tax breaks provided by us. I know that Government Depts provide car spaces at a very cheap rate.
Kevin Eade knows nothing said on Tue 10 February 2009 at 08:49
I know nothing about this organisation except that from what I have read it has no idea about public transport. I read that covenor Kevin Eadie said that people in areas such as Randwick believe public transport is below them. Having lived in Randwick and caught the bus I can tell he knows nothing about the issue. First point is that on weekdays it takes 40 minutes to travel 7kms from Randwick to Circular Quay. No proper bus lane on Elizabeth St. In summer, when you are on a crowded non airconditioned bus this can be very unpleasant. Driving takes 15-20 minutes. Second is if you are in one of the last stops the bus is often full and drives straight past. Add another 5-10mins to your travel time for the next bus and hope it is not full.
Ex Bus Rider said on Tue 10 February 2009 at 08:42
Among the other inner and middle-ring regions, people drove to work in large numbers from the City of Canada Bay (54 per cent), Ku-ring-gai (51), Rockdale (50) Randwick (44), Lane Cove (44), and Mosman (43). The average for all of Sydney was 53 per cent. I think they drive to work because they can afford to, the convener of Action for Public Transport, Kevin Eadie, said. They've got high disposable incomes and there is a perception that public transport is below them, even if catching a train or a bus is the quicker, cheaper option. Your speculations reek of unresearched assumptions. I hope, for your sake, you were misquoted. Actually, only one of those suburbs listed is served by a trainline (Rockdale) - and parts of Ku-ring-gai are accessible to the northern train line. The key reason inner ring commuters give up and drive is because you can't get on a bus that doesn't stop because it is full. Just because the suburb is well-served by bus ROUTES does NOT mean it is well-served by BUSES. Also, high incomes do not automatically mean high disposable incomes - mortgages are also high in such areas - and many people try to balance the high cost of a mortgage with the benefit of being closer to work for many family reasons that may well lead them to take on a higher mortgage than they would otherwise be comfortable with. So buses are often neither the quicker option nor, depending on how you value your time, the cheaper option.
eddyb said on Tue 27 January 2009 at 06:49
There is now a basic drawing of the 2,000 units that could be built on top of the Parrahub carpark http://www.parrahub.org.au/index_files/Page337.html
matt burga said on Tue 20 January 2009 at 17:06
http//www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49954676478 I started the group, if you would like to get involved contact me matt_burga at gmail . com
eddyb said on Wed 17 December 2008 at 09:16
The Parrahub subway would be better for outer Sydney suburbs than a London tube because everybody would have a seat, tunnels cost half a much and it would not be locked into 20-year old technology http://www.parrahub.org.au/
Webmaestro said on Sat 09 August 2008 at 16:58
G day from Adelaide, South Australia I just wish say hello. Very nice and useful website. Have a nice day and stay online ) http www.Metropolis5000.net
eddyb said on Sun 03 August 2008 at 17:32
For some reason the Parrahub overview does not appear on ninemsn search engine so to view it use Yahoo or Google please
Al said on Fri 11 July 2008 at 16:08
Why doesn t A.P.T. organise a march to the Parliament house to demand major improvements to Public transport. Possibly a coordinated effort in all states, so the event would have maximum exposure. The timing is perfect for it, fuel prices are extortionate, and rising. The traffic congestions are beyond the joke. The air quality is absolute shite. And yet the people we elect choose to spend tax payers money on projects that exacerbate the problem rather than remedy it. Isn t it time they hear about our dissatisfaction in no uncertain terms Isn t it time that we get on their case, and persist until we start seeing some real results
eddy said on Sun 22 June 2008 at 19:04
Because of lack of interest in the Rouse Hill option i took it off the site but now the price of petrol is rising rapidly i am checking once again if Parrahub can be economically viable
Eddy said on Sun 25 May 2008 at 17:33
Because the N.S.W. Government has told me they already have a plan and do not need Parrahub at this time i have taken Rouse Hill off the site and am now looking for a gridlocked city overseas
Eddy said on Sun 27 April 2008 at 08:22
There is now a Rouse Hill option on page two of the Parrahub site http://www.parrahub.org.au/
Marcel said on Mon 31 March 2008 at 10:08
<a href=http://sydney3000.wordpress.com/>http://sydney3000.wordpress.com/</a>.
Eddy said on Sat 29 March 2008 at 19:00
Like the old saying horses for courses there seems to be six types of public transport needed in Sydney. The existing heavy rail for freight and the double decker trains. A Trans Sydney Express subway with a central hub for those who need to cross the city. (200 person lifts) Large subway loops that stop at every suburb and have single driverless carriages. (50 person lifts) Busses to service all the rail stations. Taxis to complement the busses. Cars as a last resort when there is no other option in the public transport menu that fits the requirements of the person.
Eddy said on Sat 15 March 2008 at 18:23
Huge export potential to produce the rolling stock for other cities in the world installing Parrahub.
St. George said on Wed 27 February 2008 at 08:13
A number of such message boards already exist. One is the Australian Transport Discussion Board, accessible through Google. Yahoo also supports many such sites.
Eddy said on Tue 19 February 2008 at 17:34
The Eiffel Tower gets 5 million tourists a year and paid for itself in one year. Perhaps many tourists would come to experience Parrahub and do day trips to Wollongong, Gosford,Manly etc. from Parramatta.
Gumby said on Mon 18 February 2008 at 16:22
Just thinking that it would be good if this website had a Message board where we could post our own ideas for Sydney's public transport
Eddy said on Tue 25 December 2007 at 09:03
Google have fixed it up now so you can just click on parrahub overview
Moderator said on Tue 20 November 2007 at 03:53
Bazza, we re not doing anything to advertise it. We read it but don t necessarily action what we see here.
Bazza said on Sun 18 November 2007 at 19:32
What are you doing to advertise this blog.. What do you guys do with posts that appear here. Is this blog just for comments or do you plan to action some of the suggestions posted. Is there another medium to post suggestions to if not through here..
eddy said on Sat 17 November 2007 at 18:48
With the horizontally curved 20m x2m precast floor slabs being constrained by the surrounding rock they will not need to be prestressed thus making the project viable.
Eddy said on Sun 21 October 2007 at 19:30
Parrahub will now have a 15,000 space carpark either below a high rise or a golf course. To view click on T.B.M. in Google or Parrahub overview on other search engines.
Eddy said on Sat 01 September 2007 at 20:05
Perhaps it would be best to construct Parrahub on a stand alone basis with private capital as it has been two years now and the N.S.W.Government is still thinking about it
Eddy said on Sun 15 July 2007 at 19:04
The N.S.W. Government is currently considering Parrahub (enter parrahub into your search engine) and it it decides to construct this extra option in the public transport menu then I believe many people will benefit.
St george said on Thu 07 June 2007 at 10:53
I think the number of entries on this page might make an interesting comparison with the number of gets , as a measure of interest in public transport, or APT
Moderator said on Sun 27 May 2007 at 08:21
You are invited to make any comment on our activities.
. . . back to A. P. T. home page