Guest Post: Is the bus faster than the tram from Randwick to the City in the morning?

Posted: December 17, 2019 in Transport
Tags: ,

Lachlan Drummond is a past guest contributor to this blog (you can read some of his other posts here and here). He has investigated the current bus network and timetables, comparing them to the new L2 light rail line that opened this past weekend. Below is part one of his findings.

So now that the L2 is open and the fireworks are flying in the media, it is a good time to sit down and actually analyse whether the whole thing was worth it.

Here’s a simple question: Is the tram better than the bus? The government and light rail advocates will say yes. If you believe the Daily Telegraph and the Labor opposition – the answer is no.

The best way to make a judgement is to ignore the hype and just look at the timetables. Lets’ break it down, bit by bit, starting with journeys at the AM peak. Some of these answers might surprise you.

The comparison

For these comparisons, I have decided to compare the light rail at the Randwick High St terminus with an equivalent bus service from the nearest bus stop on Belmore Rd Randwick (which for those wondering, is called “Belmore Rd opp Randwick Shopping Centre” on the timetable – it’s near the corner or Arthur St).

We are going to compare the L2’s current speeds as recorded by Bambul (this blog’s regular author) and myself this past weekend with times from equivalent bus timetables that will go into force from the 19th of December this year.

To factor in possible variations for peak hour, and the fact the tram timetable won’t be finalised for six months, I am going to give a “range” of possible tram speeds.

We will then compare the tram to the bus on three journeys – from Randwick to Central, Randwick to Town Hall, and Randwick to Circular Quay.

L2 vs 373/377 to Circular Quay

First, let’s start with the one that the opposition has been screaming about – the trip to Circular Quay.

Mode Randwick to Circular Quay – AM Peak
373/377 30mins (to Philip St, Museum of Sydney)
L2 45-51mins

The opposition has been saying that a trip from Penrith to Central on heavy rail takes as long as the current trip from Randwick to Circular Quay. They aren’t wrong. At the moment, the tram takes 51 minutes to travel its full length – although this is expected to fall closer to 45 minutes as service reliability is improved.

Let’s get one thing out of the way – if you need to go to Circular Quay from Randwick – the L2 is not faster. Not even close. By why is this?

Well – it’s simple. The L2 was never intended to replace the 373. The 373 does a very different job – it bypasses Central and goes to Circular Quay via Anzac Parade, Oxford St and Elizabeth St. This makes it 8-15 minutes faster than any bus that goes to Circular Quay via Central.

Some opposition politicians and light rail skeptics point to the 373 timetable and use it as proof that the L2 line was a waste of money, or that light rail is naturally slower than buses.

That isn’t the full story.

L2 vs 374 vs T2/T3 Between Central and Circular Quay

Here’s a question. Are buses quicker than trams on CBD streets?

To judge this, we have to compare apples with apples. And the 373 isn’t an apple, it’s an orange.

Currently, only two buses from Randwick stop at Central before continuing further into the city. One of those is the 374, and the other is the M50.

The 374 doesn’t go down Belmore Rd at Randwick, so to be clear – we aren’t comparing the 374 from Randwick, because it services a different part of Randwick.

But by looking at the 374 timetable, we can compare whether or not buses are faster than trams on a similar CBD corridor – a Northbound journey on surface roads deeper into the city.

The 374 stops on Foveaux St near the corner of Elizabeth St in the morning. It then turns right and goes up Elizabeth St, re-joining the 373 route at Hyde Park, and terminating at Philip St, just one block from Circular Quay. This is somewhat similar to what the L2 does. It arrives at Central, goes down Eddy Avenue, turns right on George St and then heads up to Circular Quay.

So what’s faster?

Mode Central to Circular Quay – AM Peak Central to Circular Quay – AM Off Peak
374 23mins (to Philip St, Museum of Sydney) 15mins (to Philip St, Museum of Sydney)
L2 20-25mins 20-25mins
City Circle Line Train 8mins 8mins

 This table illustrates the problem facing buses in the CBD very well.

During the off-peak, when the CBD roads are clearer, the 374 northbound does beat the L2 to Circular Quay (or rather Philip St, which is one block away).

But… during the AM peak, congestion through the CBD (caused partly by too many buses going down Elizabeth St) slows the bus journey between Central and Philip St to 23 minutes – an 8 minute delay.

When you take into account that it’s a few minutes walk from Philip St to Circular Quay, but the L2 goes all the way – the L2 is likely faster from Central than the 374 in peak hour, despite having to cross the city to go up George St.

This is a perfect illustration of what transport planners already know. You can add more bus services in the suburbs, but as soon as they hit the city at once, the city streets can’t handle them all, they get stuck, and the journey times blow out.

L2 vs M50 to Central and Town Hall

Here’s another example. The M50 bus goes first to Central via Cleveland St, then up Elizabeth St to Hyde Park, before it turns left to go across to Town Hall, and finally exiting the city out the other end to Drummoyne. Unlike other bus routes, at Randwick it avoids Cook and Cowper St and turns left from Belmore Rd, going straight down Alison Rd. This does shave a minute or two off the journey to Central.

So does it beat the tram in the morning peak?

AM Peak Randwick to Central Central to Town Hall Randwick to Town Hall
M50 21mins 15mins 36mins
L2 22-24mins 10mins 32-34mins

 To Central? Yes… just.

To Town Hall? The L2 wins.

And that’s right now – before we even see any service speed improvements.

One caveat needs to be made here – in the AM peak the 373 gets to the stop at Elizabeth St Hyde Park from Randwick in roughly 23 minutes, and then a walk across to Town Hall takes about 6 minutes – so the 373 might actually be faster than both of them in the AM peak.

However, lets think about this. Would you be prepared to have a 2 minute slower journey to be dropped right at the doorstep, instead of having to get off a bus and walk for 6 minutes? My guess – a lot of people, especially those with mobility issues – would happily take that deal.

L2 vs 372/376 to Central

And now, for the all important Randwick-Central route.

The 372 goes from Randwick Belmore Rd, via Cowper St, and then up Cleveland St to the City.

The 376 does the same to Moore Park, but then follows the 374 and enters Central via Foveaux St.

How does the tram compare?

Inbound AM Peak
372 – Central via Cleveland St 22mins
376 – Central via Foveaux St 17mins
L2 – Central via Devonshire St 22-24mins

Poorly.

The 376 beats the 372, the L2, and the aforementioned M50 from Belmore Rd to Central by at least 5 minutes.

The 372 runs five minutes slower than the 376 – which is an indication that Cleveland St is a substantially more congested option to get to Central.

Sadly, the tram, despite going down a dedicated corridor, runs no more quickly than the 372 bus at the moment. If the government wants to truncate the 372 bus at Randwick, and force a mode change, they must demonstrate that this will save commuters time. At the moment, it doesn’t.

In fact, if 372 commuters could pull off an interchange to the 376 bus in under 5 minutes, they’d still beat the tram.

So if the tram is slower on some journeys in the morning, why didn’t they just put on more buses?

Simple – more buses equals CBD traffic jams, and slower journey times.

The tram is not faster on a lot of the journeys on paper. But remember – the L2 tram carries way more people – 450 people on dedicated lanes. A typical Sydney bus can only carry 70 down the street.

To put this in perspective, one L2 tram coming every 8 minutes does the same job as a bus coming every minute. A tram every 4 minutes, which is what will happen when the L3 line opens, does the same job as a bus coming every 30 seconds.

A bus every 30-60 seconds, weaving in and out of lanes, will completely stuff up CBD traffic.

Go back and look at the 374 comparison above for proof. During non-peak times, it takes 15 minutes from Central to Circular Quay. During the 8am peak, when hundreds of buses (from both Randwick and Bondi) and other vehicles are trying to use Elizabeth St at the same time, it blows out to 23 minutes… and that’s assuming it runs on time.

The 376, 374, and 373 buses are clearly fantastic, and in my view we should resist any attempts to privatise or remove them. But they don’t come every minute from Randwick to the city…. and they never could. If you double the amount of half-empty buses using Elizabeth St, you would double the gridlock, and blow out the journey times.

So the idea that you can build a “30 minute city” with buses alone is complete nonsense.

Cities don’t just put in Light Rail because they think the journey times will be faster. Very often they aren’t. But if that’s the only way we measure success, then we are missing half the story.

Trams are not about speed, they’re about higher capacity and reducing congestion.

Cities will put light rail in when they conclude that the city streets are incapable of taking any more buses without causing a great big traffic jam… which is exactly what George St used to be like before 2015.

Summary

So, with that little rant aside, is the L2 worth taking instead of your regular bus service from Randwick?

In some cases, yes.

Here is where we see the tram being superior in the AM Peak:
  1. Journeys from Randwick Terminus to Chinatown and Haymarket

No Randwick buses currently go directly to Chinatown, and the Tram will drop you closer than any bus stop, which will be at least a 5-10 minute walk away. The Tram only takes a few minutes to get there from Chalmers St – it’ll be faster and save you the walk.

  1. Journeys from Randwick terminus to Town Hall

The L2 beats the M50 to Town Hall by about 5 minutes. A 373 journey to Elizabeth St, plus a walk to Town Hall, will technically beat the Tram by a couple of minutes, but the fact the tram drops you directly at the door is certainly a mode advantage.

  1. A journey from Randwick, to somewhere west of George St

The tram is mostly better because it drops you closer. You’ll have a shorter walk from the L2 station to your workplace than getting a 373 to Elizabeth St. One caveat might be the M50, to destinations near Druitt St west of town hall, so check the timetables.

  1. A journey from UNSW or Wansey St to Central

I will cover the reasons why in a future post, but in short – if you live closer to the UNSW light rail stop or Wansey St stop than you do to a bus stop on Belmore Rd or Cook St – the L2 will take 18-20 minutes to central and might be slightly quicker than your current bus to Central. Maybe.

And here is where the tram is a disappointment in the AM Peak:
  • Journeys from Belmore Rd to Central station are currently no quicker than the bus in the AM peak – in fact some of the buses, especially the 376 – are faster.
  • To Circular Quay, the 373 bus reigns supreme.

For the L2 to be fully utilised as an AM peak time service, I believe the L2 line must run quicker to Central in the morning – ideally 20 minutes. It has already been stated in a previous post on this site that traffic light priority needs to improve for this to occur.

Conclusion

So that’s the AM inbound peak… and that’s only half the story.

Are outbound journeys better? Is the PM peak different? And does the L2 do better than the 891 University bus to UNSW?

I’ll give you a hint – the L2 is substantially more useful as an outbound service than an inbound one – including in the PM Peak.

I’ll explain why in a future post.

Comments
  1. Andrew Roydhouse - TfNSW CSELR CRG Community Representative - Kensington, Kingsford & Randwick says:

    Hi Lachlan,

    there are a number of major errors in what you say above, the greatest error is right at the beginning:

    “Let’s get one thing out of the way – if you need to go to Circular Quay from Randwick – the L2 is not faster. Not even close. By why is this?

    Well – it’s simple. The L2 was never intended to replace the 373. The 373 does a very different job – it bypasses Central and goes to Circular Quay via Anzac Parade, Oxford St and Elizabeth St. This makes it 8-15 minutes faster than any bus that goes to Circular Quay via Central.”

    W R O N G – 373 is to be eliminated

    The 373 is to be totally eliminated (2013 EIS) along with 19 other bus routes in the area.

    The CSELR is SPECIFICALLY to eliminate EVERY Circular Quay bound all-stop bus as well as a number of express services.

    Gladys B & TfNSW claimed (79 times on last search including the initial document trumpeting the CSELR) that ‘220 buses will be eliminated from entering the city in the amp peak hour’.

    180 of these are from the twenty routes alluded to above and 40 are from other areas (such as the 32- series from Waverley/Woolahra which now termnate at Edgecliff Station.

    W R O N G – 372 bus is NOT eliminated

    The 372 all-stop service is the only all-stop service that will go into/out of the city – EIS 2013

    W R O N G – Bus travel times were MUCH quicker prior to construction of CSELR

    The current timetable journey times are LONGER than they were pre-CSELR due to the addition of 11 more traffic light controlled intersections specifically added to cope with the CSELR crossing roads/intersections (such as coming out of stabling yard, coming out of busway onto Anzac Parade).

    Similarly the bus only-lanes have disappeared along Anzac Parade from the bottom of Alison to Souths Juniors – so previously in peak hours the buses could sail along and NOT be caught in traffic.

    Now with four road lanes lost to the CSELR – 2 for rail line each way and 2 for each stop – what previously were 4 traffic lanes each way along this long section of Anzac Parade has been HALVED and bus stops are in one of the only two remaining traffic lanes.

    Similarly, right hand turns have been nearly eliminated (over 77% eliminated along the CSELR route) to SPEED the CSELR’s journey – believe it or not. This causes detours for other vehicles of up to 2 km.

    W R O N G – Public Transport Capacity cut

    As the State Auditor General’s Transportation team confirmed my analysis – the CSELR reduces public transport passenger capacity in the am peak hour by over 1 0, 0 0 0 passengers/hour in each direction.

    So a loss of 20,000 in total capacity.

    X CSELR 13,500 counting both directions
    X Audited bus capacity August 14, 2014 – 34,116 (for the twenty routes listed for elimination).

    Disabled seating – cut from 440 places (in each direction, so 880/hour) on buses to 120 places on CSELR.

    Buses to be eliminated range between 67 passenger capacity (at 3 people standing per sq m) to 115 passenger capacity (bendy buses). Typical seating across audited fleet in use 14 August 2014 had 73% seated.

    CSELR (with disabled seats in use) capacity <420 passengers.

    W R O N G – Gladys advertised/promised journey times (intially) of under 30 minutes from Kingsford/Randwick to Circular Quay, then it became 32 minutes.

    As the emails revealed when we got the Upper House to 'Call for papers' the CSELR was supposed to be part of creating the '30 minute city' – so its journey time from end to end had to be under 30 minutes or else the rezoning planned for 20+ storeys (approved last week by RCC) could not happen.

    I have copies of an email trail from the Project Director telling a subordinate that a journey time of 34 minutes is too large and to 'reduce' it. Email found in 'Call for Papers' boxes.

    BTW – remember how part of the story was getting rid of the George St buses?

    Well NOT ONE bus from the South East went down George St NOT one. Even the express buses from the South East used to avoid the city congestion by using the tunnel from Moore Park to get into the city. Due to the loss of Anzac Parade bus lanes – they now add to congestion and no longer use the tunnel.

  2. O Gunoz says:

    The post is interesting and makes many valid points.

    However, the comparison to 373 is a bit misleading. In am peak, even the timetabled trip duration for 373 is 34 mins., from Belmore Rd. to Museum of Sydney, for all 373 buses leaving Randwick between 7.48am-8.28am.

    And that is only if the bus is on time. As someone who takes the bus every single day, I can say a 3-5 min. delay is completely expected at a typicaly peak day, and a longer 5-10 min. delay happens sometimes as well.

    And let’s remember that this trip is only to Museum of Sydney, from where it is likely another 3 min. walk to Circular Quay.

    Hence, the comparable “actual” trip time for 373 is 40-45mins. This is a much more favourable comparison for the Light Rail, and suggests that even modest improvements to its current peak hour running times would make it superior to 373.

    The same applies to 376 as well, where even a typical 2-3min. delay from the timetable would make its running time comparable to that of LR – and modest improvement to LR run times would make it superior as well.

    The government stated an aim to improve total LR run times by 10+ mins. as the service beds down. Bambul’s earlier blog post noted that it is eminently possible with a few tweaks. The above runtime comparisons suggest that even more modest improvements could make LR superior to the local buses (like 373/374/376/377) that it is expected to replace – not only from a reliability, accessibility and comfort perspective, but from a trip duration perspective as well.

  3. Lachlan says:

    O Gunoz – I agree with you on delays. I used to get the 374 and 393 buses to work in the morning, and they regularly did not run to timetable. I’ll be covering why in my post about the PM peak.

    However I’m not sure that applies to the 373. Will someone who works in Macquarie Street want to walk ten minutes to and from George Street to get their trip home? Maybe if it was for heavy rail they would, but not for light rail that goes slower on paper.

  4. O Gunoz says:

    Lachlan – thanks for your comment. Looking forward to the next post.

    On 373, You’re right on Macquarie Street but I’d argue that George Street and western CBD is home to many more offices. Apart from George St. as a cachet address, it also hosts Darling Harbour and Barangaroo, two major office hubs. Almost all of the largest Australian companies that have their HQ in Sydney CBD are based in those areas: CBA, Westpac, NAB (Sydney HQ), IAG, QBE, PWC, EY, Deloitte, KPMG, LendLease, Macquarie Bank, Suncorp, Atlassian, Telstra (Sydney HQ) etc.

    LR adds a 5+ min. trip advantage for commuters to these locations, saving the trek from Elizabeth Street.

  5. Michael Hatton says:

    So what are you saying Andrew that the CSELR should never have been built? OH PLEASE! Take your skewed statistics and anti-tram propaganda elsewhere. People have in previous posts have rebutted your comments and I’m inclined to believe them. The trams WILL work! They did so for over 80 years and they’ll do so again!

  6. Andrew Roydhouse - TfNSW CSELR CRG Community Representative - Kensington, Kingsford & Randwick says:

    Sorry Michael to upset you by detailing verified facts (verified by the State Auditor General).

    If there is any particular figure you want more detail on – I am happy to provide it for you. Did you look through the documents released due to the NSW Upper House ‘call for papers’ which provide much information?

    The 2013 EIS is still available online and contains all information I have attributed to it – very easy to check if you doubt it.

    Gladys B got found by the State Auditor General to have misled both Parliament & the community about the CSELR, its capacity and the cost blow-out.

    It is all there on public record for you to read.

    At over $200,000 per metre – the CSELR does not improve the public transport capacity nor experience compared with the twenty bus routes Gladys said would be eliminated.

    Here’s the link to the original fluff piece put out by Gladys – “Sydney’s Light Rail Future” which specifies a number of the facts I mentioned ablove.

    https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/newsroom-and-events/reports-and-publications/sydneys-light-rail-future

    Saying my figures are wrong – does not make them wrong no matter how much some may want it to.

    BTW – 180 buses x capacity of 71 (median standard bus passenger capacity used on the 20 routes in August 2014) = 12,780 passenger capacity

    However many articulated buses are used on those routes, with some routes like the M10 & M50 being totally 115 passenger capacity buses.

    Just 4 out of the 20 routes to be eliminated provided capacity of over 9,000 passengers in one direction in the am peak hour in August 2014 vs the CSELR 6,750 if not disabled places are used.

    If the CSELR could replace the 180 buses (not counting the additional 40 services/hour coming from other areas that are to be cancelled or already have been) then the bus capacity would have to be just 38 passengers. 6,750/180 = 37.5

    Look at pg 7 of “Sydney’s Light Rail Future” and it states that the articulated or bendy buses can ONLY CARRY 100 passengers.

    Now who is NOT telling the truth?

    Pg 7 also states that a standard bus can only carry 60 passengers = also not true.

    What about the TfNSW claim that a 450 passenger LRV carries the same as 9 standard buses?

    Using their own document DISPROVES even with the fake figure of 60 does it not?

    Check the TfNSW document and then show me which figure of mine is wrong – The NSW Government cannot find a single wrong number.

  7. The real problem with L2 is that it came with the price tag of a metro. In order to oil-proof Sydney, hundreds of kms of new urban rail lines would have to be built (not conversions or duplication of heavy rail). They will never make it with the current approach

  8. O Gunoz says:

    Andrew.
    Happy to show where you’re wrong. The document you linked clearly states

    “180 fewer buses in the CBD in the morning peak hour between 8:00am-9:00am”

    Firstly, for a bus to be “in CBD” during a 60 min. time window, they would have an 80min. departure window to leave their origin. This is because their trip time within CBD from/up to CQ would take ~20min. at peak.

    Secondly, the capacity comparison you’re making is only with citybound am peak services. However buses like 373, 377, 392, 394 etc. are “in CBD” when they travel southbound in am peak as well. The same applies to UNSW express buses 891, that start their southbound journey in CBD in am peak.
    There are ~70 of those southbound buses “in CBD” between 8-9am. Light rail am peak southbound services would replace these buses as well – which leaves only ~110 buses for citybound services to replace.

    During that 80min. window, L2 and L3 will have 10 citybound am peak services each. Their combined total capacity will be 9,000. That compares quite well with the capacity of ~110 buses.

  9. Andrew Roydhouse - TfNSW CSELR CRG Community Representative - Kensington, Kingsford & Randwick says:

    Thanks O but I think you have fallen for the smoke & mirrors that is TfNSW (as the State Auditor General identified).

    For the 70 UNSW 891 buses to leave the city in the am peak hour – they also have to have entered the city? So that is 70 journeys into the city and 70 journies out. On the day the buses were audited it was found that the same bus could make 4 trips within an hour – 2 in & 2 out.

    If you look at the map in the SLRF document it does not detail the 891 nor other UNSW express routes AND neglects the 610 school express to/from Central & Sydney Boys/Girls High, The then deputy project director admitted they had not known about those buses…Every one of which came into the city before going out – they were not included in the figures.

    Have a look at the bus route maps shown in the SLRF document for example on page 18 – the reductions in bus leaving the city is shown as -24, +14, -49 & +8 on the 4 routes to/from the South East. Making a net decrease of 51 buses.

    Now in that hour as of when the map was supposed to represent there were 71 891s leaving Central, 21 610 school expresses 7 M10s and 7 M50s making 107 buses coming out of the city between 8am & 9am. All four of these routes are part of the twenty nominated to be replaced by the CSELR.

    Then add in all the other buses covering the remaining 16 bus routes and it is a net decrease over 3 times what TfNSW had calculated = O O P S

    The Deputy Director was overheard by one of their spin doctors admitting the mistake when I confronted him with my figures – and coincidentally was gone the next week after signing a very interesting non-disclosure document – apparently a first of its kind for the State Government.
    ———————————————————————————————————————

    TfNSW is talking about single direction trips not equating inward and outward as one. The 9,000 capacity figure was 30 inward x 300 passengers (ultimate capacity not day one operational capacity btw). As Pg 18 shows.
    ____________________________________________________________________________

    In one analysis I prepared it showed that 30 inward & 30 outward is an impossibility due to the 73 traffic light controlled intersections they have to traverse.

    Think about one of the major intersections such as Anzac, Cleveland & Lang. The traffic light phase time is 140 seconds with 9 (or 11? – bad memory) different phases involved. Pointedly however the E/W pedestrian crossing phase is 45 seconds long.

    Now imagine you’re standing at that intersection when the CSELR was to be 30 LRVs/hour. 30 would go past you heading north and 30 would pass you heading south. A total of 60/hour.

    On average the time between seeing a LRV go by would be 60 seconds.

    So to handle 60/hour would require the traffic light phase cycle to be reduced from 140 seconds to 60 AND include a new phase to handle the LRV crossing time required (longer than the then phase time allowed for buses crossing in the bus way).

    That is if the LRVs were not to bank up & wait (as was the intial CSELR plan).

    I pointed out to Gladys et al, and Jake Saulwick etc etc that since the pedestrian crossing phase could not be shortened – you cannot change the lights with people still crossing – then even with traffic light priority the intersection CANNOT handle 60/hour. How can you fit 7 phases (ones that interfer with the E/W pedestrian crossing phase requiring 45 seconds) into just 15 seconds which had to include 22 seconds for the LRV to cross the two foootpaths and the 8 lanes of traffic?

    CANNOT BE DONE.

    Guess why all of a sudden it was announced we were getting double-linked LRVs?

    So number of crossings per hour halved from 30 each way to 15, or 60 in total halved to 30.

    Which does reduce the phase duration from 140 seconds to 120 seconds (even more due to extension of current bus crossing phase) = reduction in other vehicle flow as it goes from 25.7 traffic phase cycles per hour to 30.

    Which increases E/W pedestrian crossing BLOCKING main vehicle & LRV flow from approx 19 min 30 seconds/hour to 22 minutes 30 seconds/hour.

    Which according to RMS modelling would lead to a 14-20% reduction in N/S vehicle movements through just that intersection due to the truncation of individual phase times to adjust for the combined loss of 20 seconds (phase shifting from 140 to 120 seconds) and the loss due to the extension of the ‘bus lane’ crossing phase.

    This impact is similar for at least two other major intersections such as Grosvenor & George
    ———————————————————————————————————————

    You mention 10 LRVs/hour to Kingsford & 10 to Randwick. Not correct. It is a total of 15/hour alternating with 7 to Kingsford and 8 to Randwick one hour and then 8 to Kingsford & 7 to Randwick the next.

    The contract specifically states that “…there will be no increase in operational capacity until AT LEAST (my emphasis) ten years after operations commence.”

    UNSW planned (at the date of the CSELR design) to increase students to 90,000 (from below 50,000) by 2030.

    Contractually there will be no increased public transport passenger capacity from the CSELR (nor in reality EVER) until December 2029 for the Randwick spur and at least March 2030 for the Kingsford spur yet the passenger load from UNSW will have increased by over 80% by then.

    Then add in the, now before State Govt, plan to add 10-12,000 proposed for the Fox Studios/EQ site AND the Greater Sydney Commission pushed & RCC approved rezoning for up to 20 storey tower blocks of units in Kensington & Kingsford.

    Meanwhile the available road lanes along Anzac Parade between Alison Rd and Souths Juniors have been cut from 8 to 4.

    If people think the 61 minute journey time for the CSELR from Randwick was slow just wait until 2030!

  10. Hisashi says:

    Lachlan, I think the other story that is missing would be the legibility of the transport network. Nowadays, catching the right bus to your destination isn’t as bad thanks to Google Maps, but if I wasn’t as familiar with the bus network, then I certainly wouldn’t be encouraged to catch the bus from Randwick to Central. I’d be surprised if it doesn’t make a difference in

    Andrew, as for the bus capacity, just how much of the route changes/cuts have they actually took action on? If there are any cuts/changes that are not yet finalised, when does the government intend to make their answer final – especially comparing to their next state election date? Keeping in mind that the EIS you mentioned is back in 2013…unless if there is a final answer, then we wouldn’t know how much capacity would actually be reduced or retained, would we? And if they don’t have a final timeline yet, then what is stopping us from petitioning aginst the cuts?

    Finally, as for the bus only lanes at Anzac Pde, what would be the problem in reinstating them? Can we reinstate them part-time (say peak hours) like Parramatta Road, Oxford Street etc?

    From what I see, the problems highlighted (apart from delays and cost overblows, which I think is now common knowledge) seems to be more with what they intend to do with the buses instead of the light rail itself. I think we’re better off pressing the NSW Govt to retain/reinstate certain bus routes while improving other bus routes not directly serviced by the light rail with whatever surplus buses.

  11. Hisashi says:

    Sorry Lachlan, I meant “I’d be surprised if it doesn’t make a difference in more people being enticed to leave their cars at home.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s