IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

What do you think of the different routes to bring light rail to Randwick?

over 5 years ago

The State Government has just released the options for the routes to bring light rail to Randwick. We are keen to hear what people think of these possible routes.

comment
Submitting your comment
Cancel
philmac1957 over 5 years ago
I am a huge fan of light rail for Randwick. The population density appears to make Randwick an ideal candidate for light rail, and should make it possible to move more people, more quickly. I think it is important that the routes should include access to each of UNSW, POW and Belmore Road to maximise the traffic. To me, it is also logical to continue the line to Coogee Beach. Surely that would help ease road congestion around the Coogee Bay Rd/Perouse Rd/Avoca St/High St intersections during peak traffic periods.
dempsta over 5 years ago
I agree. Apparently the UNSW-central bus route is the busiest in Australia so anything that reduces that load must help. Of course, trams used to run all the way to Coogee, and the old route is still there. The Brook St bridge over Havelock Avenue used to cross the tram line. You can even see a rail poking out of the sand on Dudley St. The route would go through the school yard of Coogee Public School and use a bit of Carr St...
alcogoodwin over 4 years ago
I believe one part of the Coogee line was built over.Ee fought to have the development light rail friendly, but given the strange speciaes we are, I doubt it ever happened.IIRC it can still happen, just with a kink in the track that was never there before.http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/224219864271258/
4025808 over 5 years ago
>>To me, it is also logical to continue the line to Coogee Beach. Surely that would help ease road congestion around the Coogee Bay Rd/Perouse Rd/Avoca St/High St intersections during peak traffic periods.
InfrastructureBeforeTowers over 5 years ago
Your argument is sound but misses one point - the reason that light rail was taken out in the 1960s. Also, Randwick is the DENSEST city in Australia without heavy rail. Traffic congestions, traffic accidents with the trams and accidents with cars blocking the tracks shut down the tram system. So the solution became buses as they could pull out and drive around the trams. The people say but they work in Melbourne or Munich or... Trouble is Sydney is neither and that trams working is not strictly true. The large planned street grid network of melb allows for trams accidents to provide bypasses in manu places but when something goes wrong (like St Kilda) then there is chaos. Munich has the "old" trams above ground and virtually all the new lines are under ground within the 3 to 4 km radius with then separate tram corridors that can be upgraded to heavy rail (same rails different trains with more carriages). In Randwick we already have heavy rail lines to within a few hundred metres of La Perouse that is used less than 10% of its capacity on its busiest days. it would cost next to nothing to continue it to Kingsford roundabout using the advanced construction techniques of the 1920/1930 period when Museum and St James extension was built. One block was closed off at a time and they used cut and cover. Dig out the over-burden, put in the tunnel floor, walls and finally roof (in a staged process so all work crews are operating at once part A is doing the roof while part B is the left wall, part C the right wall and Part D the floor. Then they move 50 yards forward so Part A starts over where the excavation team had just finished. Part B takes over from the completed floor etc. That could easily be done for heavy rail capacity that would then join in at Rockdale or closer in depending which link they take as the current freight trains go every which way.
alcogoodwin about 5 years ago
The Botany goods line may be a reasonable idea should it ever get dplicated and perhaps the grade seperation at Mascot be completed, though it will result in the need to demolish numerous buildings if it is to give any decent service to the city without changing. I always thought the reason they were removed in the 1960s was shortsighted stupidity, I am not sure how this is relevant to bringing them back.
Roberto over 5 years ago
SoniaK over 5 years ago
Bring the light rail to La Perouse.I believe the congestion on the roads will be much worse. There is not enough room for buses, cars, bicycles and light rail. Where exactly is the light rail going to be on Anzac Pde?? There are only 3 lanes on Anzac Pde. The light rail may remove one car lane, the bicycles will then move to the next car lane and then cars and buses will only have one lane to drive in. The bus lane is useless inbound to the city as it is now a bicycle lane and buses don't even drive in the bus lane. The ED exit onto Anzac Pde near the football stadium is already causing major traffic congestion and the light rail will only make it worse. The light rail will be fine for anyone travelling to Kingsford or Randwick but then anyone going further south than Kingsford will suffer. Commuters will be forced to drive to Kingsford and is that really the best solution for the environment? More cars on the road?
freemason over 5 years ago
Light rail will not add to congestion, it will take cars off roads. It is a more efficient mode of transport than everybody hopping in their cars and contributing to gridlock.And surely if there is light rail on Anzac Pde there will be no need for buses?
SoniaK over 5 years ago
If light rail only goes to Kingsford then how will someone at Malabar or La Perouse get home without buses? Walk?
freemason over 5 years ago
The long-term plan needs to be to eventually extend it all the way to wherever people need it.
what over 5 years ago
The key word being "long term", maybe for your grandchildren perhaps?
freemason over 5 years ago
The way the NSW gov. is going, yeah, it's looking that way. What year is this proposed route supposed to be finished by? Why can't they start work NOW?
4025808 over 5 years ago
Perhaps two separate lanes for the light rail? Perhaps for the Kingsford - Little Bay sector, there could possibly be light rail in between the lanes.If light rail isn't a good solution, then there should just be underground railway instead.
gormster about 5 years ago
Seriously? Where will it go? How about where it used to go, up the middle of the dual carriageway? Anzac Pde was a major tram thoroughfare for an incredibly long time. If any road has no problem with trams it's Anzac Pde.
Brendan Johnson over 4 years ago
You're right Sonia, adding light rail to Anzac Parade will be disastrous, especially in peak hour. I hear people saying that the tram network up Anzac Pde worked well in the 1930's but we've got much higher traffic volumes these days and I know from commuting up that corridor that taking away two traffic lanes would cause chaos. The idea that people will suddenly stop using cars and hop on the tram is ridiculous too - people that live in areas south of the proposed tram terminus in Kengsington will continue to use their cars and continue to use the bus services that head up Anzac Pde from Maroubra Beach and La Perouse (and these buses will run considerably slower with increased traffic on the northern segment of Anzac).
Gmc almost 3 years ago
You do understand many people in eastern Sydney would not take up light rail as the Sydney public transport network does not provide an efficient access to where people work, study and play. Light rail (trams) were removed in Sydney to the great relief of commuters in the 50s and 60s. The public forgets the chaos it caused. Light rail can work if it has its own corridors, however this will not be the case for Anzac Parade and Alison Road. Reducing Anzac Pde to 1 lane each way for traffic is madness.
Lindsay over 5 years ago
I think it is very important for Light Rail to service both the University of New South Wales AND the Prince of Wales hospital - both with huge volumes of visitors. Just going along Anzac Parade is not enough.
jayen over 5 years ago
All the light rail routes go to the city. Except for the first reason listed[1], people shouldn't need to go through the city to go to/fro Randwick. Why not decrease the traffic in the city as well by having routes elsewhere?[1] http://yoursayrandwick.com.au/faq/index/5#8
jayen over 5 years ago
By that logic, you could decrease the traffic from central along anzac parade by having bus routes from erskineville or redfern, or having more buses from newtown and green square.
gormster about 5 years ago
Uh, because I live in the city, and I work at UNSW. The city is the most densely populated part of Sydney...
jayen about 5 years ago
While the city is probably the most dense, there are more people outside the city than inside and I'll bet there are more UNSW workers who live outside the city than inside, currently requiring them to go through the city on their way to work. Wouldn't you like it if there were fewer people to line up with when getting on the bus?
Wolfe over 5 years ago
My remaining concern is about the part of the route marked K and L where it would go North from Central Station, into the heavy traffic. Routes I and J to Central would seem to be faster.
gormster about 5 years ago
I and J have serious problems in their own right – J obviously involves building a tunnel, which is slow and expensive, and I involves going up an incredibly steep hill, a hill that even some buses struggle with. Remember that trams are railway vehicles – they don't do well with steep grades. Better than heavy rail, because of their lower weight and increased number of drive wheels, but still, not great. There would have to be some additional traction mechanism, like the cable cars of San Francisco or the rack railway on the Skitube.
mjog over 5 years ago
It seems like the largest source of passengers for light rail to Randwick is going to be UNSW - an 891 bus departs Central every few minutes in session. On that basis, the Surry Hills (I/J) and Kensington/Prince of Wales (M/N) corridors seem like the best way to reduce road congestion, along Anazc Pde, anyway.However, it would also be nice if non-students were also accommodated, which makes the Town Hall/Darlinghurst/Moore Park (L) corridor important as well. This would be especially useful for providing transport to major events at the SGC/SFG, which always seem to turn the entire city into a traffic jam whenever one is on from all the car traffic trying to get there.Perhaps I/J/K could form a loop, just like the heavy rail does under the CBD, to allow the trams to just keep going when they get to Central.
gormster about 5 years ago
Moore Park is a pretty big deal for this route as well. The SCG, SFS, Fox Studios, Hordern Pavillion, Royal Hall of Industries, Centennial Park... there's practically a major event every day in Moore Park.
SoniaK about 5 years ago
I catch the bus every day to the city along Anzac Parade and I can assure you there is not a major event nearly every day. There is however major congestion every day where the traffic exits the ED onto Anzac Pde and the drivers want to turn left at Allison Road. Anzac Pde from the football stadium to Allison Road is the most congested part of Anzac Pde all the way to La Perouse.
mjog over 5 years ago
PS: A tunnel? Seriously? That idea just sounds like an excuse for a budget blow out and subsequent shelving of the project.Save that for heavy rail.
Brew over 5 years ago
A tunnel is never going to happen. Heavy rail to Bondi - costly and it would modify the character of the area in a detrimental way. Surface light rail is our only option.
mjog over 5 years ago
How would extending the heavy rail line to Bondi underground modify the character of the area? Aside from reducing the otherwise inevitable weekend-long summer traffic jams up Bondi Road, of course.
Brew over 5 years ago
I think a heavy rail station invariably alters the character of a location. Although I'm finding it tough to explain why! Perhaps part of the appeal of arriving at Bondi, is being able to view the surrounding scenery...rather than just emerging from a subterranean elevator onto the beach-side! The psychology of humans most definitely needs to be taken into account when designing public transport systems. Built it and they wont necessarily come! I also cant see why you would spend billions digging a tunnel to Bondi, when roadway modification of Bondi road would provide sufficient surface tram capacity.
gormster about 5 years ago
It's possible to have a nice railway station. There just aren't any on the Bondi line.
C_L over 4 years ago
A metro is a better alternative to heavy rail. Think London or Berlin style
stevafran about 5 years ago
I understand your concern regarding a tunnel and the cost on the I/J route and agree there needs to be solution found soon to the traffic congestion in the Eastern Suburbs. Given that the line would need to cross the Eastern Distributor/South Dowling Street and travel through what is now buildings and lane ways/car parks to get to Devonshire Street, there will need to be at least a bridge to take the line over the roadways and demolition of buildings to get to Devonshire Street.Once on Devonshire Street, the road way becomes much narrower between Crown Street and Chalmers Street and the line would have to negotiate through two major roads ie Elizabeth and Chalmers Streets which are packed with traffic at peak periods. Much work would have to be done here to give the light rail a chance of competing with the current 891 bus service in time taken to get to Central which can do it in less than 15 minutes from High Street Gate 9. I cant see how the light rail could achieve this using this surface route unless it has full priority over vehicles and few stops.The idea of a metro although costly is a longer term solution with light rail providing some relief now provided it is planned to integrate properly with all modes of future public transport.
Brendan Johnson about 4 years ago
It looks like we aren't going to get a grade separated system and the presence of intermediary stops (unlike the current 891 express bus) is almost certainly going to the lead to a slower trip even if the trams have traffic light priority. I'm sick of people saying "tunnels have no place in a light rail system" - the fact is that light rail systems vary enormously from old school Melbourne-style trams that do not have their own right of way to the light rail in Boston which runs primarily in underground tunnels. I'm not suggesting that we should turn this light rail system into another North West rail link with kilometres of bored tunnels but we need something better than a purely at-grade system here.
ModishThing about 4 years ago
I've used subways and light rail all over the world. As soon as light rail comes out of a tunnel and onto the streets (i.e. San Francisco, Porto, or Istanbul it slows to a snail's pace. And a tunnel is the only realistic option for getting through Surry Hills. Light rail going up and down Devonshire Street is just nonsensical—it's a very narrow 2 lane hill that has to cross Crown Streets and Burke Streets then presumably demolish its way through historic terraces on very quiet leafy lanes to get over to S Dowling St. The city seems to have no qualms about spending billions of dollars for road tunnels, how about this being the first of an efficient new rail line?
Brew over 5 years ago
I would follow L-route > O-route, then continue on N-route back onto Anzac Pde. The tramline should at least go to Pacific Square Shopping Centre. I think about 15,000 people visit the centre on a daily basis (this centre is one of the only centres that actually quantifies visitor numbers - perhaps Council / Govt should ask them for these figures). Preferably, the route should then continue to La Perouse. While I am having a rant: A tramline should also be built from Edgecliff Station through to Watsons Bay via NSHRoad. This line would be a rapid tram, running every 7-minutes. This would provide the capacity to reduce vehicles on the road in peak hour (heading to and from Vaucluse) by about 85% (yes, I've done the maths on this). The point at where people would choose to take the tram over driving, would therefore solely be a cost factor. i.e. the tram must be cheaper than driving.A second line should run from Edgecliff to Bondi Junction - VIA Woollahra Station (which is not used currently), then down Bondi Road. Bondi road should be widened slightly, by modifying the pedestrian footpath, and a cycleway should also be constructed. Parking bays along Bondi road would ensure capacity for vehicles to park were still available, to keep those pesky shopkeepers happy. Tram should terminate near North Bondi, as per pre-1960. Its time to revolutionise the way Sydneysiders move around. I have a feeling Gladys knows what she is talking about, and while I think she would have a few restless nights lying awake thinking about the challenge, at least she 'gets it' unlike former Transport Minister John Watkins (amongst others), who quite clearly...didnt.
stevafran about 5 years ago
I agree with a line travelling to Pacific Square Shopping but an extension to Eastgardens and Pagewood would attract a large amount of patronage as well.
Cactus over 5 years ago
Drop the line into a cut and cover tunnel under Taylor Square and down Oxford Street to the spare rail tunnels just under Hyde Park at Whitlam Square. Use the middle platforms at St James then raise the light rail up to street level at Macquarie st (avoiding the flooded tunnels further on). Then possibly down Bent st, split at Loftus and Young streets to meet up with the George st line at the Quay. No returning to a line of trams struggling up Oxford streetI think the southern route should follow Anzac Pde. Any future extension can again make use of the wide median after Kingsford.Would High street be to steep a grade for light rail?
stevafran about 5 years ago
There are steeper grades than High Street that were used in the Mosman area in the old system. High Street is a high public transport generator with the top campus of UNSW and POW Hospital and associated medical and services business. It would be a long walk uphill to Belmore Road or downhill to Anzac Pde should the line not use High Street.
Pxoxo over 4 years ago
I agree with most of what you say, and that there should be an extension to Maroubra Junction. However, using the wide green space along Anzac Parade south of Kingsford will take away a lot of habitat and green. It would be best if another way could be worked out so that habitat remains.
Brendan Johnson over 4 years ago
Brendan Johnson over 4 years ago
I like your plan except for rather than heading straight down Anzac Pde all the way to UNSW it should turn onto Alison where the existing bus road is and then go through the racecourse and cross High St to reach UNSW. This way the tram will be separated from road traffic for most of the trip and it avoids the need for taking away two traffic lanes from northern Anzac Pde.
noway over 5 years ago
Ignorance never ceases to amaze.Let's start with something simple. Once upon a time Sydney had a tram service which lasted for quite a few years. Then someone said, hey, the traffic congestion would be reduced if we took the trams off the road. So now we have clever people who suggest light rail is the way to go on the basis it will get cars off the road. No it won't. It will in fact create more congestion as bikes, buses, and cars compete. Wherever there is a terminal, people will have to get there, most likely by car, especially in the Randwick, Kingsford area. They have to park somewhere, don't they.Add to this the fact that we are going to lose a lane on Anzac Parade? Everyone was encouraged to take buses where possible as we have dedicated bus lanes. Then a certain Sydney Mayor said wouldn't it be great if people rode to work on their bikes. The problem being that bikes take up bus lanes. Another brains trust idea by someone who is driven to work.You see children, just like the fools who went overboard with putting in speed humps, they learnt that in reality it was a dumb idea and in many cases councils removed most of the unnecessary ones.Now, how about you rethink the idea. Two lane road tunnels were introduced by our leaders and how fast is the traffic moving?Just because someone comes up with an idea which many sheep will follow, does not necessarily make it a good idea.Please think before you get that which you really don't want - undoing this mess is going to be costly in more ways than one.
Jax about 5 years ago
I too am concerned that running the light rail along ANZAC parade will increase traffic congestion. Are there not other routes being considered? Can we run the tram through some parkland :-).
SoniaK about 5 years ago
I am also concerned about the light rail running along Anzac Pde. It sounds like most people who are in favour of the light rail live at Randwick Junction or Coogee. Currently their buses travel along a dedicated bus lane and suffer no traffic congestion issues. They have a bus available every minute from the city. Commuters who travel further south along Anzac Pde to Maroubra, Malabar and Matraville find it difficult to get on a bus leaving the city as they are all full (there is not the same frequency of buses as there is for Coogee and Randwick). Then they have to sit in heavy traffic along the section of Anzac Pde from the footy stadium to Allison Road. Add a light rail on Anzac Pde and just imagine the congestion then?? If the light rail is being built to only benefit people going to Randwick Junction then it can be built on the dedicated bus lane next to the footy Stadium and Moore Park. Keep it off Anzac Pde.
Dresdner almost 5 years ago
NO! Please do not take your car to get to Randwick / the future tram terminal. Buses should take you from your house to the tram terminal. In any case, I think that the tram is designed to ease the commuter traffic from Central to UNSW / POW. There are loads of commuters coming by train to Central, currently entering buses to get to UNSW or POW. Have you ever seen the students from UNSW lining up for the buses? If you do not believe that the tram will take cars off the road, it should at least ease the current situation with the buses.Are cyclists really such a problem for the buses? Sydney is a very hostile city for cyclists. If there is something wrong with the bus lanes, it is that they are used as parking lots.BTW: Which solution do you suggest to the traffic problems? Car sharing?
Brendan Johnson over 4 years ago
It will ease the situation for those lucky enough to have trips originating/ending at UNSW. For those that catch buses from further south there will be more congestion on the road due to the loss of two traffic lanes on northern Anzac Pde.
R-L over 3 years ago
More students should live nearer to UNSW, reducing their need to travel through the city.
sztong over 3 years ago
YES CYCLIST are creating a problem for bus, every morning. There are no more parked cars since they have all been towed away or fined and learnt their lesson.that's what is going to happen if light rail comes to kingsford, I live in maroubra and if this congestion caused by the light rail cause me to ditch the bus, YES i will be driving the kingsford to jump on the light rail which defies the purpose of environmentally friendly, so will alot of angry people living beyond Kingsford who can't possibly walk to the tram station. Metro or heavy rail is the way to go, the light rail will be costly in the future (think all the other projects the government has screwed up due to lack of planning e.g. M5 - why would you not plan future capacity - thus costing millions for expansion)
tullipan over 5 years ago
Can I suggest that the planning committee go back to 1960 and take a look at the routes covered by light rail. The service was efficient, reliable and provided transportation from and to the beache suburbs, harbour suburbs, city, Central, Town Hall, (then) Sydney Hospital, etc. There were major junctions and terminals where people could easily change from one line to another.From Rose Bay to Randwick bus + bus (buses to and from RB to BJ irregular and scarce - barely there) or bus + train + busFrom Bondi Beach bus + busFrom Maroubra bus + busFrom La Perouse bus + busThey are just a few examples. It is much easier to access Randwick if you don't live in the eastern suburbs, e.g. Homebush.Transporting eastern suburbs people to the POW, SCH, RHW, POWP, Technical College, University does not seem to be considered in this planning.I guess the problem with not enough parking available on the campuses of Randwick and the amount of restricted parking bringing about lots of parking fines per day may be a deterant for transportation progress. Great for the local council.
Barny over 5 years ago
Totally agree with comments made by “Noway” above but you only have to look at the other comments posted to realise that most of them are just “tram enthusiast’s pushing their own personal agendas. They don’t care about more congestion, noise pollution and ugly overhead wiring and stanchions trams will bring to local streets, they don’t care about inferior travel times compared to the current buses or how infrequent tram services will be, they don’t care about how this will add an extra 10-15 minutes for current bus users when they are forced to get off their bus and change to a tram somewhere on Anzac Parade to get to/ from the city and they definitely don’t care about how much more it will cost because make no mistake this tram system, just like the current one will be privately owned and operated, but they will enjoy their occasional weekend trip on a tram, not that their really going anywhere but the ride will be fun.
Dresdner almost 5 years ago
Surely, you have never stood in the long queues at UNSW to enter a bus. No, this tram is not for occasional weekend trips, it is for commuters from Central to UNSW and POW.
wk92 over 5 years ago
Have a light rail line running to Bondi, Coogee and Malabar and a heavy rail or metro line from central station to Maroubra underneath Anzac Parade, as outlined in Dr Glazebrook's plan. This integrated system would provide fast, reliable and accessible public transport throughout the eastern suburbs!
jray310 over 5 years ago
First of all, I would like to say that light rail should be the major mode of transport for metropolitan areas. It makes sense that routes that have a high demand be constructed first, hence this community consultation is taking place.I expect that Route M would have the highest demand, but Route N is important for access to UNSW upper campus and Route O is needed for access to POW. Routes should also be considered to Maroubra Junction, Maroubra beach, Coogee beach and La Perouse, although only if demand would make them economically feasible.
conno over 5 years ago
yes please ,but take it all the way to the uni new south wales ,so it can ease the parking in the area
Harley over 5 years ago
The previous tram system was very effective and Melbourne has a great tram system. It also has a lot of traffic and there are some road rules that may have to be introduced here to make it successful and safe so trams and cars can co-exist. remember that the number of buses will decrease markedly.The plan may be a little shortsighted if it isn't extended all the way to Maroubra Junction as it is now a major residential centre and will continue to grow. If it is intended that the trams take city bound vehicles off the road, an interchange will need to have a substantial car park, and it will be cheaper to facilitate that at a place like Maroubra than at say Kingsford or Kenso or Randwick.Buses could operate from an interchange at Maroubra Junction to service all other destinations. It shouldn't be too difficult to co-ordinate that!I am concerned that the gradient of High Street is too steep for trams. I don't think that trams ever climbed High Street in the past. This should be examined as the planners may have just looked at a map! Most of the original tram routes have been paved over as roads, (particularly up from Alison Rd to Belmore Rd.) and some are bus-ways now (Moore Park and along Centennial Park). Also Anzac Pde still has the centre nature strip that was the tramway from Kingsford to Maroubra Jn, and beyond all the way to La Perouse.
Brian over 5 years ago
Maroubra Junction is already well served by bus services, so there should be no need to drive there and park to catch a tram. I don't understand why people are so "scared" of the concept of changing vehicles, especially if there are good connections. Perhaps some will remember when the ESR was a 5 minute service all day, and "through" bus/train tickets were available. When the frequency was dropped to 10 minutes, passengers stayed on the buses and through tickets were discontinued.
Havenough over 5 years ago
I think it will be better if the UNSW route extends all the way to The Spot. It will bring good business to the area. Also make travelling to and from the city a lot faster
biker over 5 years ago
Yes. It will be good for business and make it faster to get to and from the Spot to the city and vice versa. But then again you could say the same thing about any location couldn't you.
Brian over 5 years ago
I am really surprised at some of the routes suggested as I don't think even modern light rail could cope with gradients such as Alison Rd, High St or Foveaux St. Perhaps a compromise would be a loop using Alison Rd, Wansey Rd, High St, Avoca St, Anzac Pde to somewhere near Maroubra Junction, then returning direct via Anzac Pde. There used to be a tram line that ran from Flinders St down Campbell St near Taylor Sqaure, this (or a similar) alignment could be reused to connect up with the existing tracks in Hay St. As most of the bus patronage to UNSW originates from Central, the line would definitely need to service this end of town or we will continue to have students overcrowding buses.
theydon over 5 years ago
light rail will contribute to gridlock in the area bounded by the city, bondi junction, randwick, kingsford, kensington & moore park. not many people will give up driving their cars to travel on routes that virtually replicate existing bus routes. any new transit system in such a densly populated area must be underground to have any benefit
what over 5 years ago
I think you'll find the light rail is "instead of" buses, rather than "as well as". One (maybe if we're "lucky", 2 lines) line will mean lots of interchanges, all at a cost (time and money) of course.
R-L over 3 years ago
I would like to advocate for the entire proposed system to be put underground. This makes the most sense in an area that is set to become even more populated and so will require additional transport, not only a light rail network essentially replacing some bus services, because people seem to think light rail will be somehow 'more reliable'. The environmental impacts of constructing the light rail system overground are unacceptable, including loss of many large trees that provide unquantifiable benefits. If you agree, please contact me at dwk_789@hotmail.com, and we will make a submission.
Rob over 5 years ago
I basically agree with the suggested routes on the map except I would combine the two inward trips from Randwick/Kingsford & take the trams down Fitzroy & Forveaux Streets to Central Station, then along Eddy Avenue to turn right into George Streets to Barangaroo.The reverse route would also use Eddy Avenue but then proceed left into Elizabeth & up Albion Streets turning right into Flinders Street.The tunnel idea is far too costly & unnecessary - seems to be a good excuse to say the project is too expensive if this option is chosen.Storage of the trams? An underground bus/tram interchange on one level, & a tram depot below it, under the new 6,500 square meters park, which is being constructed as part of the huge Central Park redevelopment at Broadway.
stevafran about 5 years ago
I agree with extending the line through to George Street and construction of the storage facility - even under the parks used a car parking at Moore Park may be an option.As I a user of the 891 service each weekday I don't agree with the Fitzroy/Forveaux/Albion option as it already has issues competing with road traffic and poor traffic signal co-ordination, particularly the Albion Street direction. It can take as much as 8 minutes by bus to get to the Moore Park Road intersection from Eddy Ave due to this. Devonshire Street is much quieter and direct to Central although there would need to be at least a bridge over South Dowling/ Eastern Distributor and some demolitions to get on Devonshire Street. There would also be traffic priority issues at Elizabeth and Chalmmers Streets.
jrw over 5 years ago
I think it’d be a genuine mistake and a real shame for Randwick if this came into fruition. I too have spent a good deal of my time waiting for or waiting in overcrowded buses to get to the city. I’ve also spent a similar length of time in my car trying to get to other parts of Sydney for which public transport is simply impractical. I cannot see how any of the proposed routes will fix this. We already have dedicated bus lanes during peak hours on Anzac Pde, which are used as parking at other times. We have a 24 hour bus transitway along a substantial portion of Alison Rd. A tramway will either take away from us street parking, bus lanes, or lanes for general traffic (and buses) that are all already heavily congested. This would, paradoxically, worsen the transport situation for those suburbs not served by light rail, such as Maroubra and Kingsford (ie the majority of the city of Randwick!), and make it a substantially slower commute for those of us who have to travel to workplaces not located in the CBD. I dream of a time when we can board a train and be connected with the CBD and much of Sydney via our expanding CityRail network, as one can in other eastern suburbs such as Edgecliff and Bondi Junction. When proposed, the Eastern Suburbs Railway Line was planned to terminate at Kingsford travelling through Randwick and UNSW, thus serving the dual function of the 400 AND citybound buses! Underground and not disturbing any of the existing infrastructure. For the life of me I cannot understand why this extension is not being reconsidered today, or even a direct underground rail link between the CBD and the Randwick area.The NSW government is being generous in finally considering the transport needs of Randwick after so much neglect. Can we please not waste this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity on something so utterly inconsequential? If light rail is built, Randwick will never have access to train services, with their much greater efficiency and capacity than light rail, for decades to come.
stevafran about 5 years ago
The extension of heavy rail from Bondi Junction would need to pick up a station at the northern end of Randwick, POW and UNSW near High Anzac Pde which could also be used for the racecourse on race days, exams, events etc (there is plenty of space here to do so). A station at Kingsford near the round about, then Maroubra Junction, across to East Gardens/Pagewood, Botany/Domestic Terminal and then to Sydenham would provide a more holistic approach to the issues.
Brendan Johnson over 4 years ago
Heavy rail is a better solution and Randwick has the density to warrant such a system. However if the light rail is mostly grade separated and doesn't reduce the capability of the current infrastructure to carry traffic (i.e: not the current proposed plan) then it will be a substantial improvement over the status quo. Let's be honest, heavy rail expansion is but a pipe dream.
R-L over 3 years ago
I would like to advocate for the entire proposed system to be put underground, and changed from light to heavy rail, so that it becomes integrated with the already extensive and effective heavy rail network. This makes the most sense in an area that is set to become even more populated and so will require additional transport, not only a light rail network essentially replacing some bus services, because people seem to think light rail will be somehow 'more reliable'. The environmental impacts of constructing the light rail system overground are unacceptable, including loss of many large trees that provide unquantifiable benefits. If you agree, please contact me at dwk_789@hotmail.com, and we will make a submission.
Carlo over 5 years ago
light rail..trams??..are we stuck in the early 1900s!! please lets have some vision and built a metro system like most other contemporary, global cities throughout the world. Light rail or trams will conflict with cars, create more congestion and represent urban blight.
what over 5 years ago
There's just something "so romantic" about light rail, all those bells ringing. I am being cynical, I expect the proponents of light rail mostly drive everywhere, including their work commute, but those damn buses must be getting in their way.
Carlo over 5 years ago
Sure romantic. i can see that. i see it as progressive, futuristic, a sign sydney truly is a global city, a sign we are taking care of future generations
InfrastructureBeforeTowers over 5 years ago
The only problem is why trams were removed in the first place - that information is never discussed is it? Talking to people who used the trams in the 50s and 60s in this area and you get a different story.One about congestion, traffic accidents, the trams stopped due to serious accidents etc. That was with much lower density (people per squ km) than now. Equally the traffic traversing RCC from N to S or vice-verse did not exist at but a fraction of today's levels.Randwick is the densest city in Australia without heavy rail - fact. Just look through the census or ask/read Cr Bruce Notley-Smith from his website comment.So while they idea may seem appealing the reality would be a nightmare but then again this is NSW.
biker over 5 years ago
I agree a metro, and if by this you mean an underground railway system, would be the ideal option but this tram option is pretty damn good too. I'm not an engineer but I expect the cost of building a subway metro given Sydney's urban and natural geography might prove too difficult an obstacle to overcome for any govt. Except for a benevolent dictatorship, which I'm ready to support if you have one.
Carlo over 5 years ago
its a minimum 50 year investment. any organisation, public or private will be glad to have this on their books, irrespective of whether its debt free or still in debt. This aside, its an investment for our future with broader benefits, not just for transport.
George the Swimmer about 5 years ago
Metro/Tube/Subway is all the same however it is NOT an underground train!Subway is underground, its carriages are light weighted, single deckers only with limited seats to accommodate more passengers and ease boarding! They should serve the inner city probably
stevafran about 5 years ago
Metro is the long term vision that needs to be adopted for Sydney as a whole. All this talk about lack of density is ridiculous and density will also come with the metro lines. A line which covers the CBD to Central, Surry Hills, Moore Park Precinct, Waverley, North Randwick, POW Hospital, UNSW/ Racecourse, Kingsford, Maroubra Junction, Eastgardens/Pagewood, Botany/Mascot and connecting to Sydney, Rockdale and Hurstville.It is the time for 21st not 19th century solutions that bring social benefit rather than basic economic/cost benefits. Properly funded and operated is needed not 'cant afford'.
R-L over 3 years ago
I completely agree. I would like to advocate for the entire proposed system to be put underground, and changed from light to heavy rail, so that it becomes integrated with the already extensive and effective heavy rail network. This makes the most sense in an area that is set to become even more populated and so will require additional transport, not only a light rail network essentially replacing some bus services, because people seem to think light rail will be somehow 'more reliable'. The environmental impacts of constructing the light rail system overground are unacceptable, including loss of many large trees that provide unquantifiable benefits. If you agree, please contact me at dwk_789@hotmail.com, and we will make a submission.
what over 5 years ago
Any light rail or similar (from southern routes M, N or O) must extend down to Circular Quay. That's the current bus route, anything else is just going backwards. Sure cross Sydney commutes by public transport are painful, but we can't fix everyting with one rail line.Whatever or should that be whenever, no large development in Randwick City UNTIL the system is running. NSW's "on again, off again" method for public transport is too risky for any other approach.
gormster over 5 years ago
I have a bit of an ulterior motive for saying this - it would take me literally from my doorstep to my office - but I'm in favour of B-A-K-L-M-N as a continous route. I like the idea of connecting the three big universities - this would be a real boon to students. (And staff, like myself!)I'm thinking M-N would be best for UNSW staff and students, who amount to some 60,000 commuters. O is... a peculiar option. It serves the racecourse better, perhaps, but that's a periodic service and probably not a great money spinner. I & J seem thoroughly ridiculous. They don't connect to the existing line and they involve a much steeper drop than the other routes (or a tunnel, which is in itself, silly).
BelindaB over 5 years ago
I much prefer the High Street Route. I often drive from Kensington to Randwick and would much prefer to travel on the light rail. I would jump on at Anzac and Todman. Hope this is of interest!
tony over 5 years ago
The proposed routes of light rail make sense as they link the Unis. and hospitals and the football stadium, cricket ground etc..
biker over 5 years ago
I think this is brilliant! Everyone will want to extend it their preferred location eg Maroubra Junction, Coogee Beach and that is fair enough, but the important thing, the REALLY important thing is that the government start the process, not be bogged down in too much consultation, understand that everyone wont be happy but the vast majority will approve and just get on with it. The secondary consideration I think, is for there to be capacity built into the original development to allow for future extensions. This could revolutionise the way people interact in Sydney, almost certainly for the better I think. Not a Coalition supporter normally but, if Mrs Berejiklan gets this done, they should be congratulated. Are councils on board? I haven't heard anything from them, but I'm sure Our Lady of Moore will be. So cool.
stevafran about 5 years ago
Randwick Council has contributed $100k to the feasibility study.
kingle over 5 years ago
I believe a light rail to the stadiums, the Prince of Wales hospital complex and UNSW makes complete sense and I'm amazed that the gov't is still talking and not taking any action. I would also like to see the light rail extended at least to Maroubra Junction because it is a major business complex for the area.My other major request would be a line along the beaches, all the way from La Perouse winding up to North Bondi with connections at Bondi Junction for the train. This would eliminate a huge amount of weekend traffic for all the people flowing in from inland because they would have the option of easy to use public transportation.The challenge is that we do not have the road space availability today. We could consider tunnels or the above road "sky" rail, however we would need to pay a higher price to get them implemented with any kind of speed or we're talking years of commuter disruption.
brucesydney over 5 years ago
It's really important for Light Rail to service both UNSW and the Prince of Wales hospital, both destinations have huge volumes of commuters.
InfrastructureBeforeTowers over 5 years ago
Well yes they do but UNSW only has huge numbers for two sessions a year of 13 weeks and 2to 3 of those 13 weeks are exam periods when the volumes are down to 1/4 the normal daily session totals.The true peak hour volume is not mainly from UNSW and certainly not Randwick Racecourse. Randwick racecourse rarely gets the 20,000 people trumpeted in some RCC documents (see the ATC reports online about declining patronage). Mind you the 5,000 seat concert and entertainment arena they are about to build will make not peak hour traffic a problem as well.Most UNSW classes don't start at 7.30 or 8am nor finish at 5.30, 6.00, 6.30 or 7.00pm except for the part timers. Equally many big faculties (Commerce for example) are 3 or 4 day a week timetables with Fridays often free. Some faculties are longer like Science with 20+ hour weeks.The majority of peak hours' congestion comes from people leaving RCC for work elsewhere, for University/Schools elsewhere (in the mornings 3 to 4 days a week) or people coming into RCC for work or the hospital.Another big source of congestion is the transit traffic either coming from the South via the M5 or Princes Highway heading to Waverley/Woolahra or vice versa.
jayen about 5 years ago
The exam period is after each 13-week session, not during.
Bookie over 5 years ago
This is a fantastic.Ideally, the route from the city would go from Central, past Redfern station. This would help reduce the huge volume of people at central station and give greater access to the east from the inner west (without relying solely on the 370 bus).Furthermore, It would be great to go through Surry hills, on to UNSW and then down to Coogee.
jjansson over 5 years ago
Does a choice have to be made between the suggested routes? If there is only 1 option, route M (to Kingsford via Anzac parade) should definitely go ahead. UNSW needs service to the city to deal with the masses of students and employees. This route also leaves open the option of extending down Anzac parade at a future time.If there are 2 options, M and O (to Belmore rd vis Alison rd) should go ahead. Choosing O over N (to Prince of Wales hospital via high street) would be prefereable. N, while servicing upper campus of UNSW, has very few residential areas that are in walking distance, whereas O has many more residential areas available to service. O also services the entrance to randwick race course (N doesn't) and O also services Belmore Rd shops.In short, the preference order is:M, then O, the N.
Extend heavy rail over 5 years ago
Removed by moderator - no comment. Please refer to the moderation rules(http://yoursayrandwick.com.au/moderation)
stevafran about 5 years ago
There is no reason why we cant have the M,N,O as the Randwick Council and UNSW have been backing. This would allow for vehicles to turn around back into the city and cope better with peaks by running the vehicles O,N,M or M,N,O depending upon passenger demand. There could also be regular services running directly along Anzac Pde on M to Kingford, Maroubra Junction and Eastgarden/Pagewood
Extend heavy rail over 5 years ago
Light rail sharing existing roads will lead to further congestion and slower travel times. The solution is a heavy rail underground railway with new underground stations in the Sydney CBD. The line would run under ANZAC parade to Kensington, then in a cutting to Maroubra. The existing Eastern suburbs railway should be extended to Randwick Junction and Coogee beach with a branch to Bondi beach from Bondi junction.
InfrastructureBeforeTowers over 5 years ago
Yes, why haven't the reasons for the trams being taken out in the 60s been mentioned. There are enough locals around who used them and they certainly remember the problems with the trams then.
Brendan Johnson over 4 years ago
Trams that share the road with other traffic aren't much better than a bus. I understand the proposed Sydney trams will probably have precedence over cars on the road but it's not going to help commuters in the same way as a proper grade separated system would.
R-L over 3 years ago
I agree. I would like to advocate for the entire proposed system to be put underground, and changed from light to heavy rail, so that it becomes integrated with the already extensive and effective heavy rail network. This makes the most sense in an area that is set to become even more populated and so will require additional transport, not only a light rail network essentially replacing some bus services, because people seem to think light rail will be somehow 'more reliable'. The environmental impacts of constructing the light rail system overground are unacceptable, including loss of many large trees that provide unquantifiable benefits. If you agree, please contact me at dwk_789@hotmail.com, and we will make a submission.
Rusty Shovel over 5 years ago
I believe the light rail will bring even more congestion to the Randwick/Kingsford/Kensington area that we can do without. The route itself is nothing really new. I live in Barker St and travel to the city for work. I ALREADY have many options. I can catch a bus from the Spot (within walking distance) to the city/central. I can catch a bus from Anzac Pde/Barker St which takes me to Town Hall/city/Central which is the new red bus and most of the new red metro buses take people from Randwick areas to Leichhardt/Parramatta/Central and various other places. There are already quite a number of buses that travel to various areas including the airport and Burwood. If I had no choice about the light rail being constructed, I would at least say choose another route that would benefit the residents that is not already in place. The route has not really been thought out in comparing to what is already there. Even the Uni students have buses that go direct to the Uni from main stations - Town Hall, Central and City.
Jax about 5 years ago
I agree with Rusty Shovel, Randwick already has a good bus system so don't worry about Randwick fix Kingsford where we are greatful when a bus even stops for us :-)!
stevafran about 5 years ago
Do you actually catch the bus to go to work each? You'll have over ten minutes walk to The Spot and even longer to Anzac Parade. The walk up Barker Street from Anzac Parade would give many a coronary!I'm a supporter of the best solution (rail) but to have light rail without traffic priority over cars would add to congestion and time spent commuting for all.
Rusty Shovel about 5 years ago
Yes I do actually catch the bus to work. It is a ten minute walk to The Spot and a ten minute walk to Anzac Pde. Coming up Barker St I agree is a haul but the Spot or High St is a lot easier to walk to and from being flat. If the light rail were there just to take me up a few blocks it would cost a lot more with money and congestion for the locals.A light rail standard fare from one stop to another is $3.50 one way let alone if it went into two zones which would add up. Just the basic lowest fare for an adult would add another $35 to my travel fares. How is that helping the locals?
BenDB over 5 years ago
The more routes the better! Bring trams back to Coogee!
Barny over 5 years ago
Even Melbournians are questioning the need for trams in the 21st century. See link to an article in today’s “Age”.http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-get-mad-but-maybe-its-time-to-rail-against-a-melbourne-icon-20111222-1p744.html Anything less than an underground South-East Metro or an extension of the Eastern Suburbs Railway for South-East Sydney is short sighted and bad planning.
alcogoodwin about 5 years ago
I love the comment "Sydney has buses and Sydney is crap." :-)
Tim over 5 years ago
I believe the congestion on the roads will be much worse.
chubba25 over 5 years ago
I think it's a fantastic idea! Why is it taking so long? we need a proper light rail system in place - not just 1 pathetic line going no-where. The lines should go down george street and to barangaroo. They should go down oxford street (where people would actually USE THEM) to UNSW. They should also go to watsons bay, bondi, coogee. Building an expensive tunnel?? Sounds stupid and inconvenient. The light rail should be in places where people would actually be able to easily use them i.e.: oxford street! How come they managed to build hundreds of kilometres of tracks back in the 20's and now it takes 10 years and study after study after study to build 10 metres of track. We've become a total nanny state - no doubt the news light rail will be ridiculously over-engineered (that's if it actually ever gets built) with ramps for disabled, lifts, seat belts and crossing guards.JUST BUILT IT! How much longer do Sydneysiders have to WAIT FOR GOOD TRANSPORT??????
stevafran about 5 years ago
Most public transport users to UNSW access the service from Central. A service that sends us via Oxford Street or Town Hall will just add to the journey time and add to the number who will chose to drive.
InfrastructureBeforeTowers over 5 years ago
Why all this smoke screen about light rail when: * Randwick City is the densest city in Australia WITHOUT heavy rail - that is what should be discussed. * A heavy rail line used less than 10% capacity at its busiest is just a few hundred metres from La Perouse already. * Extending the existing heavy rail line to Kingsford along Anzac Parade using cut & cover tunnel building is quick, cheap and low-impact. * RCC started the rezoning process on Dec 6 to turn the last land held by RCC set aside for mass transit (Rail) in the 1960/70s from open space to Residential high rise 24m (the triangle at Kingsford Roundabout with the fruit shop, open car park where the Sunday markets are) on approx 5,500 sqm. * RCC has already met the target for new dwelling approvals from 2004-2031 as of Nov 2011 - twenty years ahead of target. * RCC has commenced rezoning process to double the density of over a dozen "business centres". A business centre can be just two shops by the way. They are also rezoning residential land to commercial as well - such as doubling the "commercial" area of Kensington. * RCC has commenced changing the heights that houses can be built in the current Residential 2A zones from 2 storey to 3 storey - so more 3 storey units coming to a site near you. All this is not being publicised by RCC in the newspapers, on the internet as required information for residents to make an informed decision over whether light rail is a workable solution when RCC is going gang busters at creating a new Hong Kong in Randwick. They put out their dream result in Nov 2010 - pictures showing 8 storey tower blocks on Randwick Racecourse from Anzac parade to Doncaster to Wansey Road, with 8 storey blocks continuing all the way up High St to Belmore Rd. With the crowning glory of a Bondi Junction-like monster covering the block from High St, Belmore Rd, Clara St and Arthur St. See RCC website for Walking Tour Handouts Randwick Education & Health Specialised Centre Discussion paper. Now there is a proposal for a 12-18 storey tower block in the Spot. What next? Forget light rail, we need heavy rail and a freeze on any more density increases until the infrastructure is in place to cope with what has already been approved by RCC. The Department of Education put in a submission to RCC in October 2011 saying the ONLY capacity in Public schools in Randwick was in the south so only increase density there. RCC response - impractical suggestion as public transport is inadequate. RCC then decide to start rezoning to increase density everywhere in Randwick. Why the rush when infrastructure takes decades yet developers take months? Get the mass transit in place, working and then think about rezoning. But as RCC is already one of the densest cities in Australia (with or without heavy rail) then surely desnity in other areas should increase? Especially as RCC is already 20 years ahead of the State Govt schedule.
InfrastructureBeforeTowers over 5 years ago
One last piece of information not provided by RCC (yet?) is that the State Transit Authority put out a release in Dec 2010 (yes over a year ago) stating that Anzac Parade was operating above its bus carrying capacity in peak hours. So they announced that no additional bus services could be added in peak hours for any Eastern Suburbs' routes without taking the same number of buses off another Eastern Suburbs' route. Doesn't that mean there is no choice but rail? Consider how the non-Anzac Parade routes have been cut over the recent past such as the 358 and 359 routes to names just two that come to mind. Yet there bus stops are still there and there is one school service a day left a 659. So, if we cannot get any more buses then why is RCC increasing population density 20 years ahead of the State Govt schedule? Why is that not included in the information to help residents decide whether light rail is a solution?
Tuddy about 5 years ago
so are you therefore suggesting that perhaps lightrail is a good idea to meet the demand for infrastructure, given that there are no more buses available to operate services?
Brendan Johnson over 4 years ago
The bus carrying capacity of Anzac Pde will be decreased further if light rail is introduced and the number of traffic lanes is reduced. This wouldn't be an issue if everybody using the Anzac Pde corridor was only going to/from Kensington but this isn't the case. I can foresee only two options for commuters taking buses originating from areas south of Kensington once the tram is introduced: a) The buses are changed so that they terminate at Kensington and the rest of the journey to the City is by tram. In this case the capacity of the tram network WILL NOT be sufficient to carry all of the passengers from terminating buses as well as the passengers from UNSW/Kensington. The Kensington interchange point will become extremely clogged. b) The bus routes are not changed and continue up Anzac Pde to the City. The slight reduction in traffic volume using the northern section of Anzac Pde due to the introduction of tram services will be outweighed by the decrease in road lanes available thus increasing congestion. These bus routes will therefore take longer to reach the City.
jayen over 5 years ago
What's the point of I, L, and K, as J connects all the major trip generators?
Tuddy about 5 years ago
when i head out to randwick on the bus, (on a 37X service) , i notice a large number of people getting off at randwick tafe. sure it's probably not the case on every service, but with the large number of students there, it's a rather large trip generator (i know, not as large as unsw..but still)
jayen about 5 years ago
J connects Randwick TAFE. It just seems like the proposal attempts to use the city as a bottleneck, shuffling most people in and out of it, regardless of their origin or destination, so why not make central the choke point and drop I, L, and K?
Tuddy about 5 years ago
sorry..i had a brain fart. i see what you're saying about the creation of a bottleneck, although don't see J as the solution. a tunnel through surry hills is just plain unnecessary (although i guess that with effective underground stations, it could work a la Beacon Hill in Seattle). In my opinion, L would work best, but it would be imperative to see that the trams don't just go to Circular Quay and stop down there as the buses do at present, creating unecessary traffic. Straight up George St (A), through the Rocks (B) , back around Barangaroo (B) and to Central and then Sydney Uni (D/E) is the key for creating the light rail. Sure, you could put in option I (which would be effective), or J (as you suggested), but then, how could it be said that the light rail services everyone that wants to get from the Randwick area to the city.
Metro girl about 5 years ago
I would implore the powers that be to consider an underground metro. It may be more expensive but would be worth the investment in the long term to get the best system once and for all and not a system that would 'do for now'.
morricio about 5 years ago
The routes are fine. The way the trams will travel along those routes are NOT. This project needs to be mostly built underground, or elevated above ground - there simply isn't the road space for it! Anzac Parade south of the Dacey Ave/Alison road Intersection is only 3 lanes each direction. Doesn't anyone see the problem with taking away one of those lanes? Where will the buses go?! This tram project only removes the need for the UNSW express buses. So where will the other ones go? Can you imagine how long it will take us to get to the city if we have to switch from bus to tram? It already takes us all far too long to get to the city, 30 minutes or more, so why make that longer? Shouldn't commute times be getting shorter? People who live in Epping, (almost 3 times the distance from the city than us in the East), can get into the city in 25 minutes on the train. HOW IS THAT FAIR? We live in one of the densest areas in Australia and it takes us forever to get into the city. PLEASE grade separate the tram from traffic to make our journeys faster, DON'T take away one of the traffic lanes - we barely cope with 3 lanes each way as it is, reducing this to 2 lanes will be an utter nightmare. Also - unless they plan on removing all parking from high street, there is just no way they can run a tram up there. WHY CAN'T WE JUST DO THIS PROPERLY. Why can't we just spend the money that is required for a high speed underground metro, running every minute in peak hour. Buses to the beaches could connect up to this metro running underneath Anzac Parade, and Journey times would be slashed.
Tuddy about 5 years ago
the buses will be taken off the routes and interchanges built at the end (i.e. Randwick) such that people are quickly moved out of the city on the light rail and then change on to buses such that buses do not clog up the city streets. the trams would run frequently such that waiting times would be minimal - and given chunks will be offroad and there will be traffic light priority for these services, that would mean that it would be a quicker journey into the city. so, sure, you might have to get off a bus and on to a tram, but, much like kelmscott station in perth, there are easy ways of doing things (at kelmscott, the buses go into the middle of the station's island platform arrangement, dropping people off at the platform). given there would be a viable alternative to driving, traffic would be reduced (sure, a lane is taken up, but why don't people get out of their cars at the moment? because public transport is slow, somewhat infrequent and unreliable. a light rail on dedicated tracks would alleviate this present problem). i also agree that a metro would be marvellous (although i have a slightly different vision - that of a circle metro connecting all inner suburbs (roughly - city, broadway, newtown, airport, eastgardens, maroubra jct, unsw, randwick, bondi jct, paddington) ). light rail is a good solution to the present problems. not a magnificent one. but a good one.
Brendan Johnson over 4 years ago
This might just work if a proper interchange is built and there's a sufficient frequency of trams. It will not work if the frequency is as low as the current tram line - we need a service to be coming at least once every 3 minutes to cope with all the passengers changing off buses at Kensington. I know we all want to be optimistic but reading Wikipedia only some light rail systems can be run with a headway of 2 minutes...and these are usually systems that are classed as medium rail and run entirely on their own right-of-way rather than sharing the road. I really doubt that the proposed system will be able to have a high enough frequency to carry all of the interchange passengers.
alcogoodwin about 5 years ago
I am just wondering how light rail will remove a traffic lane?As for the buses, they will go to private companies on Sims Metal I would imagine.
Brendan Johnson over 4 years ago
Look at the picture in the header of this very web page: the two trams are running down the centre of Anzac Pde. where there were previously two traffic lanes.
alcogoodwin over 4 years ago
Brendan, I see you still dont quite grasp the concept of light rail. They have not taken away two lanes, they have utilized them and will quite likely share them with the same road traffic as before, except where Light Rail lanes (we currently have bus lanes anyway) exist, or at lights to allow them to have first chance to move on the green (as do some buses nowdays). If Mr O'Farrell does the right thing and continues it down beyond Kingsford, the right of way will be totally seperate from the road as it is now. Some car parking spots at the junction will be lost, but hey, thats the whole idea. Now, as some deficients have suggested, if a monorail was used, then how would cars coexist with the poles in the middle of the lanes shown above?
Brendan Johnson over 4 years ago
I do understand the concept of light rail, and that concept involves removing two lanes of traffic to put in tram lines. The trams may be better than the buses they are replacing but my main concern is the buses that currently run down the full length down Anzac Pde and go to areas such as Maroubra, Matraville and Malabar. If they're still running up Anzac Parade to the city then we can't really take away the bus lanes so it'll become 1 bus lane, 1 general traffic lane and 1 tram lane (in each direction). Not really a good outcome in terms of congestion. Or, we force the bus passengers to change onto the tram to go to the city which creates all sorts of capacity problems - do you think that the Sydney tram network will be able to handle 4,000 passengers per hour in peak? Sydney trams can fit 300 passengers which means that to achieve the required capacity we'll need 1 tram running every 3-4 minutes minimum. I am very sceptical that the network will be able to achieve this or more importantly that the government will enable this to happen.
alcogoodwin over 4 years ago
I can't quite understand why you are removing two lanes. Yes the light rail vehicles would use a lane in each direction, but the cars would also use it, except in locations like Anzac Parade where there is seperated reservation. Of course there would be some duplication of service, especially in the early days, but should it get all the way to Maroubra and, fingers crossed, beyond, I can't see why some local fedder system can't work. It works elsewhere, I truly hope Sydneysiders are not that lazy. As for capacity, I don't think I have ever seen someone arguing pax capacity on a road based system over a light rail one before. Quite amuzing when you see what light rail achieves paseenger wise in parts of asian that make us look like Molong. Anyway, a quote from the light rail boffins on Wikipedia."By contrast, light rail vehicles can travel in multi-car trains carrying a theoretical ridership up to 20,000 passengers per hour in much narrower rights-of-way, not much more than two car lanes wide for a double track system.[21] They can often be run through existing city streets and parks, or placed in the medians of roads. If run in streets, trains are usually limited by city block lengths to about four 180-passenger vehicles (720 passengers). Operating on 2-minute headways using traffic signal progression, a well-designed two-track system can handle up to 30 trains per hour per track, achieving peak rates of over 20,000 passengers per hour in each direction. More advanced systems with separate rights-of-way using moving block signalling can exceed 25,000 passengers per hour per track."
alcogoodwin over 4 years ago
One thing I certainly agree on is being sceptical of the government making this happen :-)
Benson about 5 years ago
My comment is less about Randwick and more about the USyd link. Rather than stopping the link at RPA it should continue to Stanmore railway station. This will allow people coming from the west to change at Stanmore rather than having to change at Central. It would save time and reduce the load on Central.
stevafran about 5 years ago
Idea seems fine but you would have to convince Cityrail to stop more trains here than the current average minutes in peak hours
Yuki about 5 years ago
I strongly support the idea of bringing light rail to Randwick.Continuing the route over to Maroubra Junction provides a fast and straightforward way to Prince of Wales Hospital, The Spot, Moore/Centennial Park, and Central.
Elaine Phillips about 5 years ago
Any route to bring superior people moving machines will help Randwick. I notice that most of the complaints seem to be about the price. We need an integrated public transport ticket system NOW. The easiest way without all the hassle of the oyster card system (though good - complicated) is to introduce a one ticket system similar to the pensioner excursion ticket. You could have weekly within 2 or 3 different zones, daily and two-hourly. But, that's an aside. Anyone who has tried to travel to Elizabeth Street and beyond in peak hour knows that you crawl along once you reach the city. And what is holding everything up? Lots of buses. Buses are good for outlying suburbs, but only to get to main transport routes. Where I live, there is no point in trying to catch a bus in peak hour as they all go past full. I walk to Anzac Parade and catch a bus there. I'd prefer to catch a tram.
alcogoodwin about 5 years ago
I honestly can't fathom why this is even a topic needing debate. The Randwick, Kingsford, La Perouse (even Botany/Mascot) areas desperately need light rail to replace the struggling bus system. But seeing some of the stupid comments in the Southern Courier readers write section, well you begin to understand why it does continue.
Frank49 about 5 years ago
I support the introduction of light rail to replace buses to service the commuters from Central Station to POW, UNSW, Tafe, etc. I just hope the light rail trams will be quieter than the ones on the current light rail route. The noise from their brakes when they pass the Powerhouse Museum is unbearable.
Wolfe about 5 years ago
The majority of users of light rail to Randwick would be people from North, South and Western Sydney using it to come to UNSW, sporting and other events. A tunnel (route J) would be the fastest route and of huge benefit to these people. Routes K and L would be much slower and add to congestion in that region. A station IN the tunnel would make it impossibly costly, so part J would be express, which would add to the speed.I declare an interest: I live in Randwick, work at UNSW and would benefit considerably from light rail to the city. However, I think we should consider the majority users as well as the needs of the people of Randwick.Joe
Dudley Horscroft almost 5 years ago
The proposed routes need considerable adjustment. Starting from the south, route M should operate from a loop at Maroubra Junction. It should replace all bus routes 393 - 399, and from Gardeners Road north should take over all 391/2 services. Possible future extensions will be to Maroubra and La Perouse?Route N should start from a loop at High Cross Park. This would enable quick turn rounds on the UNSW service, while still providing service to PoW Hospital. It would replace all service on bus routes 890/1/2, and that section of 370.Routes M and N combined could operate as suggested via Anzac Parade to Alison Road Junction, but consideration should be given to routing the line via Doncaster Avenue and Alison Road. This would simplify arrangements at Kensington Junction, as the line in Alison Road and northwards in Anzac Parade would be on the exclusive bus roadway, clear of all other traffic.Route O should run in the busway in Moore Park and the old tram reservation to Darley Road, then on Alison Road, Belmore Road, High Cross Park, and Coogee Bay Road to the old tram terminus at Arden Street. It would replace all service on routes 370 - 377 on relevant sections of route.Routes M, N and O combined should run on the busway east of Anzac Parade to Lang Road. Route O should use a single track flyover at Lang Road to gain access to Cleveland Street, as per Route I, then run via Chalmers St/Elizabeth St to Eddy Avenue, thence to a loop at Railway Square. Operating on-street can be viable provided that absolute tram priority is provided at all signalized intersections. Along this route, Easy Access stops would be provided as required in narrow sections of road. It would replace routes 372, 393, 395.Routes M and N north of Lang Road should use the busway adjacent to Driver Avenue. This will give far better access to the Cricket Ground and other venues than the Anzac Parade busway. At Moore Park Road it should run south of the road, then turn north into Greens Road. to Oxford Street. In Oxford Street, the trams should either use the centre lanes, with the bus lanes being removed, or should use the kerbside bus lanes. This latter would mean a permanent parking prohibition in this section of Oxford Street, so the centre road option should be preferred. Just before the College Street intersection, the trams should enter a subway, as "Cactus" has suggested, and use the disused rail tunnels via St James to exit at Bent Street and terminate at Circular Quay via Young and Phillip Streets. It may be possible to add a tram stop underground at Martin Plaza, but the location of the railway tunnels may prevent this. Alternatively it may be desirable/preferable to bring the tracks up here for a surface stop before going underground again.Route K - a branch could be provided from the new subway at College St/Oxford Street to exit in Wentworth Avenue and run via that road to Elizabeth St and Eddy Avenue, Railway Square. This may be a viable route prior to construction of the Cleveland Street line, and as a diversion route in emergency.Any proposal to operate via George Street cannot be supported. Trams from the University of Sydney area - routes D and E - will take up most of the available paths. Cramming the trams from UNSW and Randwick areas will make a good service unreliable, and the Macquarie Street subway offers a far better route to the CBD and the Quay. As the trams on routes I or K run to Railway Square, there will be easy interchange there with George Street trams bound for Argyle Square and/or Barangaroo. It should be noted that it is plausible that a separate tram line may be provided on a new road through the Barangaroo development.While not strictly the concern of Randwick City Council, it should be noted that route D should extend west in Parramatta Road to Norton Street, while route E should loop via Carillon Avenue, Missenden Road and King Street. These would replace virtually all bus services entering George Street from areas west of Railway Square. Depot Location. This has only been mentioned by one correspondent. I would suggest that the same area is used as is proposed for the Parramatta Road services, the area previously occupied by the rail yards at Rozelle. This would be accessed by a link between the south-eastern and western lines at Railway Square, and trams from the south-eastern lines would have to travel via Eddy Avenue, Railway Square, Broadway, Glebe Point Road, the existing SLR (connexion to the tunnel where it crosses under Glebe Point Road) and a new connexion across the City West Link Road in the vicinity of Railway Parade at Annandale.Concerns about traffic congestion with light rail services added to the existing traffic are not real. The tram services would replace the overwhelming majority of bus services on the roads affected, leaving the bus lanes available for general use. Thus while other traffic would lose two lanes to the trams, it would gain two lanes now devoted to buses. In general, all bus services on the roads affected would be replaced by trams, except those using the route for only a short distance, and the Limited Stop and the metrobuses. However, it is likely that the trams would prove faster than these, and enable them to be removed as well. The only major section where a large number of buses would remain is the 1.1 km section in Oxford Street from Green Street to College Street.Light Rail Vehicles - aka trams - are far quieter than buses, accelerate and brake better, have many more doors so that loading and alighting can take place quickly, and are therefore faster than the bus services they replace. In addition, level boarding and alighting can be easily attained as the trams are rail-guided. The same LRVs as are proposed for the western routes (60 metre long trams, single ended, with maximum seating space) should be used.A suggestion for Phase 1 is High Cross Park, via High Street (route N) thence via the route suggested above for M and N to Oxford Street, then the subway to Circular Quay and the branch via Wentworth Avenue (route K) to Central and Railway Square. The overwhelming majority of this is ex-tram route, and mostly is segregated from other traffic. Construction should therefore not be expensive - about one tenth of the cost of the 'metro' some correspondents prefer.
ThinCritter almost 5 years ago
Kingsford has the main bus interchange. So it would be the sensible choice to take it there as an absolute minimum.As a possible extension, take it to Maroubra Jnct, then down Maroubra Rd, Bunnerong Rd and into East Gardens, and then down Wentworth Ave to link with Mascot Shops, Mascot Rail Station and possibly to the Airport.So in summery option M for stage 1.While I'm on the subject, who remembers the original plan for the Eastern Suburbs Rail line?That would have been so much better than a Light Rail.
adrianellis1000 almost 5 years ago
Please note that I mkae reference to the State Government's choice of lettering because their map is easier to read and can be found here http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/lightrail-program/sydney-light-rail-strategic-plan. This is poor coordination between State and Council to have different lettering. Can someone please fix this!? The main issue is that people need to get to Randwick Junction AND UNSW, not one or the other. People also need to get to Central AND City, not one or the other. This need to access both locations is because the tens of thousands university students mostly travel to Central and the local residents mostly travel to a mix of Central and City (just look at the existing bus routes). Options F and E are certainly both required. However, option F could be removed if Option E was to connect to the existing light rail at Central so that passengers could easily jump out where it continued and crossed George Street and catch a connecting George Street tram (which is additionally proposed) down to Circular Quay. At Alison Road the light rail should once again take two options (K and I), not just one option. If the Government chooses just one option it will be clear they are willing to build anything so it looks like they are getting the job done rather than building something that actually works. Even if Option K terminates in Randwick Junction AND Option I terminates at UNSW it will at least ensure that future lines can be added to Coogee Beach (where a large volume of buses could be removed) and also further down Anzac Pde (which would also help ease the number of buses required). The High street option (Option J) would better service the hospital, however, Option K could also do this as it would run along the side of the Hospital AND option K also has the ability to continue further into the suburbs (Coogee Beach). I wish I could attach a map!Option I AND K
Dee over 4 years ago
I am very enthusiastic about the idea of Light rail (or any train for that matter) and would love to see it extended down ANZAC Parade (from Central Station) all the way through the Eastern suburbs to La perouse. Buses from the major Junctions could then link to transfer passengers to beach areas and from the Central Station into the city centre.This would cater for people wanting to go to UNSW and the hospitals as well as locals wishing to travel to and from the city.
C_L over 4 years ago
This looks like a short term solution to the traffic problems of the East. A light rail will cause even more congestion on the busy roads of Sydney and cause unsightly cables and tracks throughout the city and the east. It's time to start planning for the long term and not just in three year cycles around elections. A much better long term solution would be to build an underground metro system, yes this will be more costly, however it could be rolled out section by section and each new station opened as it becomes ready. This metro should not be build in the extravagant nature of the North Ryde line with grand entrances, but a much simpler design in line with European stations e.g. simple and functional would suffice. Upgrades to stations could be performed over time – it doesn’t have to be beautiful from the outset. The East is perfect for the first roll out of a city wide metro due to the density of population, access to tourist locations and sporting facilities. A suggested route would include the Cricket/Footy grounds, Race track, Randwick Junction, The Spot, UNSW (2 stops), and then on through Kensington, Kingsford, and through to Maroubra Junction and Maroubra beach.There hasn’t been much news about this project in recent months? Could a representative from council please provide an update on where this project is now up to?
Walli over 4 years ago
As for the routes, I like the route which goes to UNSW on to Kingsford because of the amount of people to travel to and from there, but the hospital is also an important link. I would prefer it went to Maroubra though. 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.
Sam C over 4 years ago
Yes - please make Maroubra Junction an interchange - linked to both Bondi Junction and Mascot (hence linking the "Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra" line to the "Airport and East Hills" line). I also agree with previous commentators - use a heavy rail underground to avoid congestion. And has anyone else noticed how the so-called "Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra" line only has one 'eastern suburb' on it - ie Bondi Junction? Please please make Sydney's east more public-transport friendly (the buses are killing me!!)
Brendan Johnson about 4 years ago
Let's look at the current public transport situation down Anzac Parade in the morning peak: the majority of commuters get on buses that originate from south of Kingsford (indeed the buses coming from La Perouse, Matraville or Maroubra Beach are usually packed by the time they get to the roundabout at Kingsford) and most commuters get off in the centre or the north part of the CBD (which is why the Sydney Buses has at least 9 bus routes that end up in Circular Quay but only a couple going to Central). In this situation the majority of Anzac Parade commuters will not be benefited by a tram that a) starts much further north than where they live and b) ends up in the wrong end of the city.Don't believe me? Consider a commuter coming from say, Maroubra Beach, and going to Pitt St Mall in the city. To use the tram he would have to take the 396 to Kingsford, switch to the tram and then get off at Central station where he can either hop on another proposed tram or take a CityRail to Town Hall or Wynyard station and then walk to Pitt St. Currently he can just hop on the 396 and it takes him all the way to near Hyde Park - a two minute walk from Pitt St Mall, or maybe even take the X96 which skips all the above ground traffic by using the ED tunnel. Given this I see it being probable that Sydney Buses will continue running these routes into the city and many commuters just won't use the tram. And what this means is that the tram isn't going to do much to take cars or buses off the road and two lanes of usable road space are going to be given to trams forcing all the cars and buses to be crammed into 4 lanes. I can't bear to imagine what a bus crawl up Anzac Parade will be like once we've got only 4 lanes to play with, are we seriously proposing 1 bus lane and 1 general traffic lane in each direction?
wanseyresident about 4 years ago
I am a resident of Wansey Road Randwick and must express concern about the route of the light rail. What are the plans and the tracking, how will this effect residences, home prices, our privacy, properties, ability to park on the street and other issues.
what almost 4 years ago
This will be adversely impacted obviously. That area will likely be re-zoned high density residential given proximity to Uni & Hospital and owners can sell out at high prices. The high rise units replacing the existing houses will enjoy fabulous views over the Racecourse, city etc. That's progress!
InfrastructureBeforeTowers almost 4 years ago
Forget compensation, there was no 'community consultation' we were just told this is the route. You will lose all on-street parking and likely all the trees on Wansey at the park at the corner of Wansey and Alison as well. Also High St from Wansey to Avoca St will lose all parking.
RobbieK about 4 years ago
I live in Devonshire Street and am not too fussed about it coming right in front of my house. Also, parking is hard enough around our area and for the residents of Devonshire Street!! What happens if this goes ahead?? We also just received notices from the council about street improvements in the next few weeks. This seems a waste of money if the light rail goes ahead.
what almost 4 years ago
You won't need to park, use light rail, car share etc.
InfrastructureBeforeTowers almost 4 years ago
wanseyhouse about 4 years ago
Could someone please let us know about how it will affect residential areas and how we may be compensated during building time? I live in Wansey Road Randwick near Alison Road. Thanks.
star1 almost 4 years ago
Seriously has noone looked at the congestion on local roads in peak time i.e Anzac Pde, High St and the one that feeds into Kingsford - Gardeners Rd? Light rail to me is not for the locals but to bring even more people to the area for UNSW and POW. Locals have been forgotten. How? Here are just a few ways:-stops are reduced so locals can't get around as easily, does not stop at the main hub of the city Elizabeth and Market St adding another 10min walk when city footpaths busy, does not stop at Taylor Square so can change to Bondi buses, change of service at Kingsford will add to congestion and inconvenience, Kingsford unlikely to cope with the huge volume of people changing from light rail to bus particularly in inclement weather, deletion of parking on Anzac Pde will affect local shops and residents being able to shop locally as difficult to find parking now let alone when parking reduced, reduction in car lanes on the arterial roads will make it even more difficult to get around, Urban Activation if goes ahead will see huge increase in people from the 15-16 storey high rises proposed on Anzac Pde and beyond. Not clear if buses to operate as well as light rail Kingsford to and from the city. Dual system of existing bus routes needed adding to the congestion. The time for light rail has passed.
George almost 4 years ago
A tram breaking down holds up all traffic on that line, a bus does not.
xueting over 3 years ago
huge supporter for the light rail. please bring it to maroubra junction (at least)!
bblooman over 3 years ago
I live on Alison road opposite the racecourse and I am concerned about parking between Cowper & Prince streets. Parking for residents without garages is already a major issue and I am concerned that there will be no 'on-street' parking once the 2 lanes are dedicated to the light rail. Please advise if this is the case as it will seriously affect us residents, not to mention plummet the value of our units.
sztong over 3 years ago
i think its a terrible idea to build the light rail. Why waste this money for and this will reduce the area's chance of ever getting heavy rail built. I cannot see this easing congestions especially since people living in Maroubra and south of Maroubra still need to catch the bus (Given alot of the apartments are UNSW students, I am sure there will be more commuters from Maroubra and beyond rather than Kensington/Kingsford) , and with one Plus lanes out, wouldn't there be more congestion? A quick win is to get rid of cyclist on the bus lanes in the morning & stop cyclist from hogging the whole lane in the non-bus lanes (there is NO courtesy & etiquette from them at all and they don't even have to pay a fee to use it - they should learn to move aside when car comes by and not just continue pedaling at 25km/hour on anzac parade peak hour traffic causing congestion as buses and cars need to change lanes. Cars get booked for driving in the bus lane, why don't bikes?) and you probably shave at least 10 mins for peak hour trips, turning a 40min trip to 30 mins from Maroubra to CBD North via the ED, dropping me at the right end of town. Or from 30mins to 20mins on the normal bus to the city from Kingsford. This is a quick win which doesn't cost any money. You can argue that there are no cycleways for bikes but the same thing happeens in Moore Park where there are DEDICATED bus lanes on the footpath near the bus-only lane for Randwick buses, but bikes continue to cycle in the middle of the lane on Anzac Parade. There is no common courtesy, and slows down commuters for the benefit of one cyclist. Everyday this occursIf the argument is people after Kingsford can't get on express bus, then just have express bus originate from Kingsford as well. Isn't that simple? For trips from city to UNSW, there is NO traffic in the mornings and before 5pm so why are we even considering this as a need when students can easily catch the bus and students that drive will drive no matter what.
sztong over 3 years ago
Also, for one-timers attending an event, public transport people will continue to take public transport no matter what form, walkers will walk from central and drivers will driver their car. I don't see how the light rail will change this. How much hassle is it for them compared to actual residents who need to go to work 5 times a week and travel on the road? Why are we putting the needs of visitors before the needs of residents? Also, If a light rail is built and it does prove to cause congestion on the roads (i.e. bus journeys are delayed), i'll be taking my car and parking at kingsford as will a lot of angry commuters. Doesn't this cause even more disruption and less environmentally friendly? I don't see how car sharing will work? why would I want to share a car with strangers and lose flexibility when I can easily drive. Bring on the heavy rail/metro and this will solve the problem. Same route, but extended to Maroubra at least on the heavy rail /underground and I can see it working. Sydney people aren't hostile towards cyclist, but cyclists are slowing down everyones journey for one person's benefit. 10mins slow down per trip due to cyclist x 100 people on the bus is 1000 mins which people can be productive. The council fixed the problem with parked cars (rarely see these parked on the no parking these days), fix the cyclist problem - introduce fines for cycling on bus lanes and licensing to pay for the negative externalities suffered by the public for their individual benefit, perhaps you can have a cycle lane on doncaster ave and the maroubra/kingsford backstreets rather than anzac parade.
eleni over 3 years ago
I think these routes need the quieter light rail to replace the noisy buses thundering through residential streets with high density living close to these major link roads. They won't tear up the roadway like the buses do now.
Brian over 3 years ago
I notice there is a stop called PRINCE OF WALES HOSPITAL, but it will be located in Belmore Rd, quite some distance from the hospital entrances. This will not be satisfactory for mobility restricted visitors as they will have to cope with delays in crossing Avoca St, and will be most inconvenient in wet weather as there will be no shelter available between the two locations.
George the Swimmer over 3 years ago
Bring the light rail in!Bring it in and extend itto Eastgardens (another 2000 new apartments will be built in up to 14 storeys blocks on the former British Tobacco site next to the shopping centre) and to Little Bay which is already finishing massive redevelopment of the former hospital site.
Lyn about 3 years ago
Lyn Bringing Light Rail to the densely populated areas of Coogee and Randwick is most welcome.If the terminus is in High Street it will increase the volume of vehicular traffic, which would be hazardous to the young, pregnant and infirm attending Prince of Wales, Sydney Childrens Hospital and the Royal Hospital for Women facilities. It would be best if the Randwick Interchange is High Cross Park, Randwick.
Gmc almost 3 years ago
For light rail to be of use to the Randwick area it needs its own corridor separate to roads. Unfortunately, former governments sold off those corridors years ago and allowed unit development on that land. This means two of the three main road arteries for South East Sydney will be rendered useless for commuters who must drive. Once light rail construction commences on Anzac Parade and Alison Road, those roads will be rendered grid locked. This will force more traffic on the remaining artery, Southern Cross Drive. Any person who drives on Southern Cross drive will agree it is already at capacity.My reading of the NSW reports on the capacity of the South east light rail to transport commuters is that once operational, light rail will be at or near capacity, especially at peak hours. So the benefit to Randwick is what? Our Governments spend $1.6b to provide a light rail network that will grid lock south east Sydney that on opening will be at or near capacity. This project should be scrapped. The solution to transport for south east Sydney is the completion of the rail network from Bondi Junction to Botany. As I understand it, tunnelling for the eastern suburbs railway did not end at Bondi Junction, and was completed to Charing Cross. If so, to complete the loop to Botany is 8 km. A staged development to build under ground railway to firstly Randwick ( to service Prince of Wales Hospital and NSW Uni) (a further 2 to 3km of railway) and ultimately to Botany to allow trains to loop around in both directions, would provide the long term solution our area needs as it's population increases.Unfortunately, our Governments intend to waste our money on a ill conceived short term trendy project that due to prior land sales, can not be constructed without rendering key transport routes useless. This money would be better spent to complete the underground railway to Randwick (in the first stage). Light rail may have it use to Coogee and La Perouse from transport hubs at Randwick and Maroubra respectively, provided their corridors are not sold off for development.