New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

[Linto63]

Labor can ask the hard questions, and as usually happens with these things the government will say 'noted' and get on with it. Might get a bit of ongoing coverage in the local rag, but it will be a one day wonder for the mainstream press, a bit like the region 6 privatisation was.

[tonyp]

At 1600 this Thursday, parliamentary debate on the petition opposing SE suburbs bus cuts.

[Tess1988]

At 1600 this Thursday, parliamentary debate on the petition opposing SE suburbs bus cuts.

Will there be video

[boronia]

I noticed hidden away in the Inner West changes announcements, that some bus stops along Anzac Pde in Kensington and Kingsord that were closed for LR construction will be reopened on 25/10.

[tonyp]

Will there be video

Here apparently:
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Pages ... SP0C_rJjKM

[tonyp]

Well, that was a very lively and at times funny debate. The outcome was:

1. The petition was noted (that's about all Parliament could do).
2 The government advised that review of the SE bus services has been pushed back to 2021.
3. Labor members resolutely confirmed their party's anti tram attitude and I don't think we'll see a future Labor government introducing trams anywhere any time soon.

[Linto63]

A predictable non-event, didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, and the government will proceed as planned.

[STMPainter2018]

Labor members resolutely confirmed their party's anti tram attitude and I don't think we'll see a future Labor government introducing trams anywhere any time soon.

Honestly I don't even see THIS government or any future Liberal governments introducing more trams either. Not since they've been suckered into the world of driverless metro, which is now apparently the only legitimate form of public transport to proceed with and every other mode can go wither into oblivion. Seriously, how RIDICULOUS is it that they've proposed these multiple extensions of the metro into the south east, all the way to La Perouse, and yet the only future the Light Rail's got apparently is a measly little extension to Maroubra Junction?! I still stand by my opinion that that is some real bullshit! It should be the other way around; the Light Rail be extended to La Perouse along the old tramway corridor, which would be much more appropriate for the area, and a metro extension that terminates at Maroubra (or maybe future south to cater for all the redevelopment going on down there in the future) and interchanges with the tram stop. And then on top of that, they propose all these corridors for future metro lines and yet they can't find the curtesy to do the same for light rail even though there are corridors that could use it; more so than metro in fact. It is just completely excessive what they are planning judging by the recent SE transport report. They should not be giving up on trams this early, especially since services have much improved since opening. Once COVID ends and the buses are altered, people are gonna be using to the trams a lot and there's no way in hell the system should be left as is. A bigger network will be needed and I will not have the trams be abandoned by both sides of politics because of idiotic ideologies!

[tonyp]

Rapid transit rail isn't an ideology, it's a technological solution for supporting urban development that leads to higher populations at greater distances and provides both capacity and speed to this end. SE Sydney is identified as a region that is underpopulated considering its closeness to the Sydney CBD and inner city. It's considered important to develop it in preference to the alternative which is pushing people further and further out to the urban fringes. For this type of development, the capacity of a tram system is not enough and heavy rail is needed.

CSELR does a decent job as it stands. It's very popular and useful as a CBD circulator, it's higher-capacity than the buses as a UNSW shuttle and it provides a useful events shuttle, albeit a little down on capacity, but every additional bit helps. There's little wrong with it in this context, but quite obviously people commuting to and from suburbs beyond its catchment are not taking kindly to the much slower journey that's in store for them if they're forced to transfer during their journeys. This is only a natural reaction. Would anybody accept a slower commute anywhere? This issue probably wouldn't have arisen if the tram could do the journey in the 25-30 minutes that it's capable of (as evidenced by equivalent examples around the world, including Australia), but now it's contractually locked out of that potential thanks to bungling of the process by TfNSW, so the government will have to find some compromise that balances the need to reduce the numbers of buses in the CBD against the needs of the commuters of SE Sydney.

Politically, a reminder that Berejiklian in particular is the driver of the expansion of trams/light rail in NSW and there is no ideological lack of will about trams on the government side. It's just that they've been burnt somewhat by TfNSW's handling of the SE project, but they're pushing ahead with Parramatta with lessons learned and no doubt there may be more in the future - as needed, which is the critical point. Horses for courses - you only do it where it's the the best solution for a particular case, but the pressing priority for Sydney for quite a while will be expansion of the reach of rapid transit.

As for Labor, they do at least broadly support the metro but you only had to watch the debate yesterday to see their real attitude to trams come to the surface. A government member pointed out to the Labor members during the debate that it was Labor who closed the previous tram system and if they hadn't, this situation wouldn't have arisen. Shouts of "good riddance" then followed from the Labor benches. That should tell you everything you need to know! As one of the Labor members said, "we love our buses". All well and good, but they never seem to have an answer for the congestion caused when all those little underproductive buses come together in a congealed mass in the CBD. The only good thing in Labor transport policy imho is that they see the value of articulated buses.

[Linto63]

The legacy tram network would probably have gone regardless of who was in power, not as if NSW bucked the trend, many cities around the world did away with their trams at the same time. And we are talking about a decision made 70 years ago, long before any of today's decision makers were even born. While Berejiklian may be the champion of light rail, even if she survives the current embroglio, long term she won't be there, and there are plenty in the government who have their doubts, notably including the transport minister.

[tonyp]

Constance actually said that it was a mistake that the previous system was closed and it was said again by Liberals in parliament yesterday. Constance isn't against light rail, just displeased with the way this job has gone. The Liberals and some members of the Labor government in the 1950s were actually pushing for retention of the eastern and SE suburbs tram system because they understood the capacity issue and saw what went wrong in the North Sydney conversion. It was by no means clear cut and the Liberals campaigned for retention of this part of the system in the elections they lost in the late 1950s, so there can't be a presumption at all that the system would have gone regardless. By the time it was gone though, it was an impossible task to bring it back because the bus-dominated transport bureaucracy made sure they destroyed everything and placed every obstacle in the way of it being resurrected, right up to 2011.

However, the issue today is that the most-needed bits of light rail are now built or in progress and it's basically on hold while metro (supported by bus reforms) is prioritised and I think this will be the case for some years ahead because there's so much to be done and only so much money to do it with. The Liberals haven't turned against light rail, just paused it for now, but if Labor returns to office, for sure they won't be building any new light rail and would probably also have a pretty apathetic attitude towards retaining service standards on the completed lines. This time around though I would be hoping they wouldn't be silly enough to demolish anything.

[Linto63]

The landscape in the 1950s was that with the advent of the car, public transport had gone from being a break-even or even profitable business to one that was requiring ever increasing subsidies so righty government was looking at how it could cut costs.

We can all look at the world through parochial rose tinted colours, but an objective assessment shows that both parties have done both good and bad things over the decades. The demise of many tram and trolleybus systems was brought about by parties of the right as the left. You can't blame Labor for not being pro-tram, the CBD&SELR has turned out to be an ill-conceived, badly planned, badly implemented dog and rightly so the government should get a kicking for it.

[tonyp]

We're talking here about the history in NSW. What parties of the right and left did in other jurisdictions is irrelevant to this topic.

Many of the tram routes were actually profitable right to the end (ref. Keenan, who also worked in the DGT and had access to the information). Unlike the situation in suburbs further out, the trams weren't much influenced by the car in their inner urban area of operation, tram patronage held up well. Even in those days, you couldn't easily drive to and park in the city to go to work. It was the changeover to buses (hence reduced capacity) in the late 1950s to 1960s that brought car ownership out in the inner city and people started driving to city-side suburbs and railway stations to park. An objective assessment based on the evidence is that Labor was very much opposed to the trams, the prejudices of many of them (including Cahill) being influenced by the 1917 strike which left a legacy of resentment of the railways and tramways. The Liberals and the UAP before them had a long history of support for trams and introduced trolleybuses. Liberal election poster from the 1959 election below.

CSELR is certainly not ill-conceived nor badly planned but it is badly implemented. Labor is right to question the outcome, but they also have a policy responsibility to present a workable alternative and the constraints of the CBD dictate that that can't be buses alone.

[moa999]

The landscape in the 1950s was that with the advent of the car, public transport had gone from being a break-even or even profitable business to one that was requiring ever increasing subsidies so righty government was looking at how it could cut costs.

And had been underinvested for many years needing substantial $s for modernisation in a post-war environment.

And diesel buses (despite their lower capacity) were much more reliable than in prior years, and obviously a lot cheaper.

So like many political decisions comes down to $s.

Cities change, technologies change and the best solution changes.

Likewise I suspect modern light rail has seen it's time in the sun as cities sought high capacity, more environmentally friendly and quiet solutions.
Cheaper electric buses will fulfil many of the objectives without the infrastructure cost.

[Linto63]

The Inner West Light Rail extensions from Wentworth Park to Lilyfield and Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill both commenced under Labor administrations, although the government had changed by the time the latter opened.

[tonyp]

Likewise I suspect modern light rail has seen it's time in the sun as cities sought high capacity, more environmentally friendly and quiet solutions.
Cheaper electric buses will fulfil many of the objectives without the infrastructure cost.

I certainly don't think light rail has seen its time in smaller to medium cities where it is an excellent solution to the need for extra capacity without having to go to building a train system. New systems will continue to boom in such cities. In very large (e.g. Sydney) and mega cities I think it has a niche role where a medium capacity place-specific solution is needed. Otherwise rapid transit rail is the overall solution for such cities and Sydney is on the right path there.

The problem with buses then and now is capacity, doesn't matter whether they're powered by oil, electricity or garden waste, they're still buses with limits. The silly thing in Sydney is that, by denying articulated buses, they're limiting the capacity to even worse than it already is. The bus thinking in Sydney is crazy out-of-date. It's like it's still the 1950s.

The Inner West Light Rail extensions from Wentworth Park to Lilyfield and Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill both commenced under Labor administrations, although the government had changed by the time the latter opened.

Having been in the action on all that at the time, I can say that the Labor government did those as tokenism and it was easy to do because it was on abandoned railway line. In the meantime, they tenanciously fought off a CBD extension, which was the really important work that was needed. They said one thing and believed another.

[Linto63]

We're talking here about the history in NSW. What parties of the right and left did in other jurisdictions is irrelevant to this topic.

The point is that by abolishing its trams, NSW did the same thing as all other Australian cities bar Melbourne in that era.

In the meantime, they tenanciously fought off a CBD extension, which was the really important work that was needed.

Given the chaos that ensued, it could be argued they were right. All that was really needed was to move away from the age old policy that all buses had to proceed to Circular Quay hence the conga line of near empty buses that formed.

[STMPainter2018]

Likewise I suspect modern light rail has seen it's time in the sun as cities sought high capacity, more environmentally friendly and quiet solutions.
Cheaper electric buses will fulfil many of the objectives without the infrastructure cost.

So why are many cities worldwide still continuing to build new modern light rail systems? Seems like rail-based street transport ain’t going anywhere.

[STMPainter2018]

CBD&SELR has turned out to be an ill-conceived, badly planned, badly implemented dog and rightly so the government should get a kicking for it.

I’ll agree that it’s been badly planned and implemented but I will call bull that it was ill-conceived dog. The intentions of building the line and bringing back trams to compensate for the constraints of road traffic are still viable despite what TonyP will tell everyone over and over again. Yes because of stuff ups it has been slow going but I honestly have seen improvements in the past year and whether the SE likes it or not, a good number of bus routes will be modified to prioritise this system. Do I think the trams can be sped up and padding cut? Yes. But with time (and an understanding that the people in charge of transport don’t know what they’re doing so expectations must be set low) it will get better. No 16-year contract is gonna prevent things like that.

[STMPainter2018]

And while I’ve got the opportunity to look back on past messages and also see what has been said in other groups by Tony. Again. I wanna say this: 80,000 people signing a petition against the proposed bus changes, out of approximately 900,000 people and growing who are living in the south east of Sydney, does NOT mean they are “anti-tram”. It may not be so black and white as that. And it’s the same with what Labor backbenchers would’ve said when brought up that they got rid of the trams. Do you seriously think they meant it? Cmon! Here’s the fact: the trams are back, people will use them and the system will expand accordingly in spite of whatever flaws. And like Linto63 says; parties of both sides have done good and bad things in this specific situation and they’re full of diverse opinions on transport. Just lose the black and white bias that you’re trying to peddle on us in order to advance whatever agendas you may have ok?

[tonyp]

despite what TonyP will tell everyone over and over again.

What I'll tell you if you've been listening carefully is that it's an excellent higher-capacity solution that works very well for three of its four objectives:

. a CBD circulator
. an events shuttle between Central and the two sports venue precincts
. a shuttle between Central and UNSW

The slowness isn't an issue for these tasks - it only adds a few inconsequential minutes.

Where it falls down is in its fourth objective, as a core route between Randwick/Kingsford and the city, collecting to and from feeder buses. It's too slow for that, thus doesn't offer bus commuters a value-added benefit. The commuters of the SE are quite entitled to complain about the prospect of a slower daily commute. One day, hopefully, the SE metro line will solve this one.

So three out of four isn't too bad, if one ignores the financial imprudence which will eventually fade into history as an issue. The festering sore is that there are now too many little buses continuing to run around costing heaps of money and unavailable for cascading to other needy services. Not sure how to address that one before the metro comes. It might be a cost that has to be borne.

[moa999]

Likewise I suspect modern light rail has seen it's time in the sun as cities sought high capacity, more environmentally friendly and quiet solutions.
Cheaper electric buses will fulfil many of the objectives without the infrastructure cost.

So why are many cities worldwide still continuing to build new modern light rail systems? Seems like rail-based street transport ain’t going anywhere.

Didn't say light rail would go away completely. Just that it's time in the sun was over.

Rather than light rail being talked about for literally every project and city, we'd have a wider range of solutions including electric buses.

[tonyp]

Didn't say light rail would go away completely. Just that it's time in the sun was over.

Rather than light rail being talked about for literally every project and city, we'd have a wider range of solutions including electric buses.

An electric bus is just another bus. It doesn't add another dimension to the range of capacity solutions. Trams are still in the intermediate capacity range between buses and trains and are certainly very much in the sun as otherwise there is a big capacity gap with one end of the spectrum offering not enough capacity and the other end being expensive overkill.

Basically, one can't generalise. There is a range of possible solutions in each and every city. If there is any broadbrush rule of thumb that I could nominate, it would be that, for internal transit, buses are adequate as the core system for a city up to maybe 250,000 population; trams are adequate as the core system (supported by buses) in cities of maybe 250,000 to say 1 to 1.5 million; then trains/metro are needed as the core system for cities over this size, supported by trams and/or buses. The place of trams in those very large to mega-size cities is that they will tend to be applied as spot solutions as needed, rather than being a network. (Such is the case in Sydney today.) The exception to this is large legacy systems that have survived (like Melbourne, Prague, Budapest) where the mode can be adapted to continue to provide a valuable role in spite of the presence of a train system.

That's a general picture. Every individual city is different and requires specific solutions as needed.

[buzzkill]

despite what TonyP will tell everyone over and over again.

The commuters of the SE are quite entitled to complain about the prospect of a slower daily commute. One day, hopefully, the SE metro line will solve this one.

I would argue a decent majority of City commuters from beyond Randwick/Kingsford (e.g. Coogee/Maroubra Beach) were taking the express buses to/from CBD, as they are far faster and frequent during peak. Those won't be affected. In fact, for them, the all-stops buses were a nuisance as they blocked traffic for frequent stops and also blocked the whole Moore Park Bway at times stopping - with them gone, journey times may even improve slightly.

A lot of the perceived panic is due to the messaging from Labor-aligned MPs making it sound like express buses will be cancelled, and local buses won't operate to/from Randwick/Kingsford.

[tonyp]

One thing I wish they would get going is to run the Anzac Pde buses through the Kingsford tram interchange. That would give an indication of commuters' appetite for interchanging and, at the very least, would introduce some convenience into the bus stop arrangements around Juniors. I can't understand why they haven't done it. It shouldn't need a service review to do this.