Popular Opinion: Getting rid of the trams in Sydney was the worst decision we ever made. If we kept our trams, the Inner West, Eastern Suburbs, and the Lower Northern Beaches/North Shore would have way better services, and less congestion, especially coming from outer parts of Sydney, and would’ve been an amazing attraction in some of the more beautiful lines! Also another great video to do as well!
Thanks for watching! I think the trams should definitely have been kept, it's a real shame they were taken down. At least city planning is moving away from the car-centric ideas it fell into during the mid 20th century.
The original tram system was designed for 19th century Sydney conditions: medium density housing around the corridors, no alternative means of transport. It is unrealistic to think it would cope with the current status quo.
@@brianb8516 Melbourne and many other European cities would disagree with this. Unlike buses, the lengthening and modernisation of trams can easily cope with sudden growth as a opposed of with roads and in a much more cost effective fashion.
The Premier that signed off on the removal of Sydney's trams later said it was the worst decision he ever made. The value of those lines on aggregate add up to several hundred billion $ in today's money.
Sydney shouldn't give up on this light rail project! If the cbd becomes even more pedestrian friendly and with no lockout laws, we could see the renaissance of the CBD nightlife
This is done far more efficiently by bus only streets. Converting George Street to bus and pedestrians only would have taken six months not six years and saved $billions. Buses offer flexible routeing which serves a far larger customer base.
@@charlielloyd1080 Disagree. Light rails makes much more sense in corridors that sees heavy traffic like George Street. There's just no need for "flexible routing" in this corridor, what you want is a reliable operation and high capacity, which buses lack. Additionally, since light rails run on electricity, it can become more environmentally friendly as we improve the electric grid, while buses cannot easily be converted to electric, and even electric buses are hampered by the design constraint of the additional weights when you carry large batteries. In any case, if you have a light rail infrastructure in place, you still have the option to add capacity by running buses along a similar route as light rail during peak hours in the future for surge capacities. Though George Street is a nice walk, many people seems to just happily walk along the street during high traffic events.
The Kingsford line (L3) needs to be extended to the old tram terminus at La Perouse. Also a light rail line needs to be built along Parramatta road, to at least as far as Homebush. For the Northern beaches, the tracks over the Harbour Bridge need to be re-installed and a light rail service built to Dee Why, in a way that allows for later upgrading to heavy rail if needed.
If you're going to put tracks back on the Bridge (I support this) you are better off building it as a Metro line, the Metro tunnel under the harbour can move more people faster from one side to the other than the heavy rail and all the cars and buses on the deck put together (up to 40 trains per hour with ten carriages). A light rail can't go as fast nor move as many people nor travel with the same frequency. Light rail belongs in areas to connect heavy rail & metro through destinations to improve the city streetscape and lifestyle, not as a mass transport mode.
I see your point around a missed opportunity in south east Sydney - however it wouldn't arrive until 2040s. The Metro Phase 2 and 3 were a higher priority - so Light Rail is welcome. The L2/L3 was definitely criticized at first - but it's now packed even with city offices at 50% occupancy and moves quite quickly now that the traffic lights are connected and it's got permanent right of way. Not to mention, George Street pedestrianization was a major win. Think its time to forget the launch press and re-evaluate.
Yeah, almost all disruptive infrastructure projects get negative press up until the point that construction phases end and actually working properly begins. At which point people instantly begin to like them. Any light rail Sydney builds will be a bit like the Elizabeth Line in London. Not in terms of how physically big it is (the Elizabeth Line is a huge heavy rail metro, light rail is light rail). But in terms of public opinion. Delayed for ages, cost overruns galore. A millstone around the neck of planners and politicians during the building and construction phase. Then within months it became the most popular line on the whole network, and with the highest efficiency and punctuality.
There is a misconception with the use of the term "light rail". Light rail, like metro rail and heavy rail do not refer to the vehicles, which are still called trams. Light rail is the name of the system. Trams are the big red things that run on the tracks. Even TFNSW has partly aknowledged this by remarking intersections as "Tram Only" instead of the previous "Light Rail Only" markings.
See my reply on the burning of the original Trams in 1963 in a wanton destruction of them. State Government at the time said no Trams would run in Sydney again.
The L2 and L3 light rail service in the city and eastern suburbs would be far more efficient and faster had the original plans been carried through to give the service priority at traffic light intersections. The state government foolishly rejected this idea under the false perception that it would slow traffic 😒 The movement of public transport is far more spacially efficient than automotive transport and should hence have priority at traffic lights. This would encourage patronage and reduce traffic flow
Traffic light priority for the trams is improving, but still not consistent. The same trip can vary by 3 or 4 minutes; seems more on "good luck" than optimised timing.
@@Jenskieez Jumping on conclusion when you live near that area for 20 years and commute every day via that area? Maroubra is spared from that fate. I assume you are also local.
This is a good article. Congratulations! One thing which you mentioned but didn't elaborate on, is why light rail promotes so much development. From what I have read, developers are more likely to commit large sums of money where there is light rail since they know that the Government Transport heavies can not suddenly change the route of the light rail and leave them without adequate transport, thus making their project less desirable. This is one of the disadvantages of a bus route from the perspective of a developer. BTW I also agree with your comments on the Randwick light rail but given the proposed extension of the Sydney Metro West light to La Perouse by 2041, this should solve that problem. Removal of buses and cars from George Street has made a huge difference to the CBD.
Due to the T2 & T3 Light Rail increasing the level of development in the Randwick corridor, the extension of the Metro West to La Perouse could be fast-track. One of the critical goals of the Sydney Light Rail was to reduce the number of buses coming in and out of Sydney’s CBD. Before the Light Rail went in, I could remember in the evening peak hour that it was quicker to walk than to take the bus on George Street due to traffic congestion. George Street now has way better transport capabilities than before, combined with a significant improvement in the whole street landscape. With so much high-density development occurring in Green Square, Kensington, and Randwick, the Metro will be extended early than initially planned. Come 2028 or 2029; the NSW Government will start planning the extension of the Sydney Metro once Stage 1 gets delivered in 2030. The Metro extension will be driven by the population growth in the South Eastern Sydney region.
@@michaelcobbin I hope you are right regarding an earlier start of Sydney Metro West extension to the Eastern Suburbs but given the recent gloomy response of Infrastructure NSW I doubt it. This gloomy announcement seems typical of Government bureaucrats who lack vision or any sense of positive thinking. As someone who has lived overseas for about 11 years on and off and has ridden many of the worlds great Metros, I have been very impressed with the quality of Sydney Metro North West. It is so good, it is almost unAustralian, if you know what I mean. I hope Infrastructure NSW doesn't drag us done to compromise and mediocrity; which has characterized us in the past..
@@johngore8096 I to am totally shocked by Australian governments investing in public transport infrastructure. But I think the secret is, they tried everything else first and it didn’t work. We know what state governments are for and its to keep traffic flowing, they get judged on that. Doing nothing ended up with gridlock, building more roads ended up with more gridlock, so in the end the state government gave up an did the sensible thing and encouraged public transport. Reluctantly of course, what they want to do is nothing but that might loose them an election.
I don't think any government would suddenly remove bus services from productive corridors; there may be adjustments to services to suit travel patterns, but highly unlikely to get mass withdrawals. Light rail has much better capacity, to suit increased population growth, this attracts developers. The L2 and L3 have good connectivity with other bus services along the route.
@@johngore8096 "Harry Meriton" will get his way and promise to start building his new "suburbs" out towards Long Bay in the not too distance future; such development could provide a "business case" for fast tracking a metro to the area.
I have lived in both Sydney and Melbourne. Trams are great where they have dedicated corridors, which are mostly in CBD areas. In suburban areas where they share the road network they are terrible as vehicular traffic has to stop to allow tram passenger to walk into the middle of the road to get on/off. Buses can pull in to the kerb allowing other traffic to continue. With the advances in electric vehicles, buses could operate by using the existing overhead wiring. With batteries they could travel 'off wire' for any routes through suburban areas and operate 'on wire' along major routes or major route sections. They could also go 'off wire' to pull in to the kerb. Recharging technology could be installed at depots. Sydney's re-introduction of trams has caused major disruption where roads had to be dug up to install rails. If electric buses were used then only the overhead wires would need to be installed, saving a lot of time and money. Buses don't carry as many passengers but larger buses and more frequent bus services would easily fix this problem. Investment, public open-mindedness and political commitment is all that is needed here. Melbourne would be a good place to trial electric/battery operated buses, but I don't think this will ever happen. Interestingly there is a motorway, in Germany I think, where overhead wires power electric trucks.
Correction: the pie chart you showed at 10:02 actually doesn't include the Carlingford line, which was the T6 line. The line you pointed out as having the lowest patronage is actually the Olympic Park line which is understandable as it is only used by those actually going to and from Olympic Park. However, the Carlingford line had only 569,000 patrons in 2019, about 100,000 less than the Olympic Park line and millions less that every other line. So your point still largely stands.
I hope that one the parramatta metro is completed, they turn the tunnel boring machines around and drill the metro from Sydney city to the pacific beaches. While I have not yet used the light rail in the eastern suburbs, both its buses and its road system is a total mess, having a rail system joining the major parts of the eastern suburbs together would make the entire place more inviting.
I agree with Elon Musk on this. Tunnels should not be expensive. Even today's TBMs are not that expensive to run. So building out these lines should not be so expensive. It's not like we have a car industry to protect anymore.
Two advantages of light rail: 1. Schedules are more reliable. Lot less anxiety for waiting passengers. 2. They accelerate and decelerate much more smoothly than buses. So much more comfortable.
Enjoyed the video, subscribed and looking forward to more :) Just one point. You mentioned that Sydney's historic tram network was one of the world's largest. This is far from the case. At 291 route km, it was far shorter than say Glasgow's 329km or London's 528km. Manchester's combined network (it was run by different organisations because it was so big) was 689km and it directly connected to Liverpool and Blackburn's networks for a combined 976km of trams. Then Paris had over a thousand km as did a few other American cities where you would fine the largest networks in the world, with Los Angeles topping it at 1500km or so. So while Sydney had the largest network in the Southern Hemisphere, that is a bit of a difference to the world.
Yep largest in the southern hemisphere, and as you rightly note, LA's was the largest in northern hemisphere. How ironic is that. All thanks to Government Motors.
The Light Rail was in essence a corrupt scam with AU$3B laundered through a plethora of OS entities before being returned to the scams architect's in Australia. So what did the Taxpayer get for AU$3B...? A 14km piece of ground level track, and a train that runs at a speed less than a 1820s Sydney bullock cart, oh and despite the blistering 14km speed of these trains, the fleet shook itself cracked up and was grounded about a year after launch.
The one problem I have with the trams is that they culled a bunch of bus routes that went to places the tram lines don't even go and claimed that the tram could replace these buses. I have a friend who lives in Maroubra - before, she was able to take a quick walk up to her closest bus stop and get on one of the 10 or so bus routes that stopped at her stop and led into the city. Now she has to get on the one (1) bus route that goes up to Kingsford and transfer to a tram, possibly having to wait 10 mins in between. I have had similar experiences where I had about 11 buses that would take me where I need to go now there's only 1 bus and the tram. I take this trip every Saturday and since being forced onto the trams it has added about 15mins to my trip. So now a trip that takes 15mins in the car (30 mins on public transport before trams) now takes 45mins by public transport. Inconvenient to say the least!
Agreed, this is the real scandal of the whole 'light rail' project. $billions was spent making the public transport provision far worse for people living/working more than 800 metres from the route. A BRT system with dedicated lanes and priority at traffic lights to and through the CBD would have given faster travel for almost everyone and allowed resources to build the rail network for the wider area.
I don't see how this can be true. There are atleast 4 bus routes leading from Maroubra to city. 396, 396x, 394, 394x and 397. All these terminate at museum near hyde park.
L2/L3 had 2.15M boardings in November 2022, that's 180k boarding per km of line. Sydney Metro had 1.396M or about 39k per km of line. The CSELR was way over budget. The Metro line in service was under budget, but the final cost per km of the metro line was still much larger than that for the CSELR. Which investment was more value for money? There is no public transport system in Australia, on rails or rubber, that moves more passengers per km than L2/L3. We need more light rail in inner city corridors.
The L2 tram line only needed a 1km extension east to Coogee and the L3 one needed to be extended to Maroubra Beach, Eastgardens and La Perouse to make them both better alternatives.
@@robertryan7204 They serve the Uni and hospital campuses quite well, along with new developments planned along the corridor. Almost 2 million trips in June.
@@robertryan7204 they are quicker than the normal bus services along the same corridor. Unit students aren't likely to be getting too disturbed about the tram taking a few minutes more than the old express buses. The services are "no more deserted at other times" than the myriad of bus services they replaced.
love your channel. you might find the lack of heavy rail in Sydney eastern suburbs and northern beaches is due to the fact it was all trams in the day. may be a subject for a video..?
Hello, a good analysis of light rail comparing it to heavy rail and motor vehicle road use, summing it up well. Planning unfortunately is driven by politics and politicians, a failure in itself. An example of this was the overnight closure of the Sydney tram system in 1961, a terrible political decision. Thank you for covering this subject, enjoying your video.
Good video on this topic. I use the L1 a lot and can attest that it really does serve its purpose as a connecting service from Central. I remembering attending a community forum where someone said the lack of parking in the city was what was driving people away (they were discussing how to improve a certain inner-city region that was losing out to a newer nearby development), and Clover Moore just said yeah we don't want you to drive. That's why we built the light rail. My only complaint would be having both Pyrmont Bay and the Star stops - I see why it happened, but it's honestly not necessary. They're way too close.
The L1 is a very poor service due to its tortuous route. For example from Rozelle to Central off-peak the L1 takes almost 50% more time than the bus. If they spent a fraction of the cost building quality bus only routes, some on the L1 alignment, the service would be much better. Ideally there should be BRT routes along the Western Distributor, taking space from private road transport would greatly increase the passenger capacity of that route while reducing travel time.
I don't think it is correct to say (11.35) that light rail "used properly it can transport passengers along dedicated uncongested and pedestrian renewed corridors in ways buses simply can't". It is perfectly possible to build bus/pedestrian only areas with good paving and well designed vehicles. In the CBD high frequency buses can provide the same level of service as trams while at the other end of their routes they can properly serve a much wider medium/low density residential area.
Light rail is just one small part of Sydney's PT solution. Trains and buses make up most of that pie with Light rail and ferries taking a small part. Buses are being electrified. The rail system was supposed to expand to replace the need of the trams but never did. Some may regret that we did this especially to the south east but for ease of access the bus is much better then the old tram system and we would end up with a system like Melbournes which is horrendous for people with disabilities. Actually buses do have there own dedicated paths in Sydney and share paths with the light rail on the new L2 and L3 lines. There are also 2 T-ways in western Sydney where they buses have dedicated lanes.
One would think the few light rail routes would appear on the suburban train route maps to emphasise their complementary role. Forget it. The powers don't see the need, despite Sydney being a popular city for tourists. L2 and 3 as trams to connect places along the route to each other and to the destinations at both ends vz Central and UNSW.
The other, often overlooked, advantage of trams vs buses is their permanency. Bus stops can be anywhere, but they can also be moved away easily. Rails (and BRT) cannot. Therefore tram lines can attract higher density development compared to a bus stop. Think medium density, 4-10 storeys, thus inducing more patronage (and more fare income) and less car dependency.
That is their disadvantage. How the heck something inflexible becomes advantage? Let see we have special events can other tramlines be rerouted to that area? Do we even have spare one? How about if that rail damage by storm or something. We have bus replacement when there is maintenance on rail lane. Do you ever heard tram replacement when bus routes need to be shoot down? Tram is a horrible idea.
I use the L3 instead of a bus to go into the city. They are so much better that buses. They are smooth and quiet. They always turn up quickly but it's a pity they don't go further than Juniors at Kingsford
Former Sydney resident now in Melbourne here. What are your thoughts on trams like the 86 which compete with cars the same way that buses do? I much prefer a 96 or 109-style route that does have a dedicated section of road for its entire route. There are times sitting on the 86, stuck in traffic, when I feel like I'm just in a glorified bus on tracks. Also I appreciate how you've got the guts to say the truth. "Light rail, also known as trams." I feel like Sydney has always marketed "light rail" because they don't want to admit Melbourne was right to keep them
A light rail should also run down Oxford st and through to Paddington and Bondi Junction and right up to North Bondi. We do need to bring Pedestrian back to Oxford and and Paddington rather than Cars and buses. Definitely agree. Pedestrian are the ones that spends if you like shoppers rather than bypass cars that don’t stop or hardly shop and stay. 🚶♂️ walking and site seeing and spends time sitting around, dinning around and spending more of there time. Ultimately it’s the pedestrians are the winners for sure. Not cars. The streets needs new areas to bring in people, trees and plants to attract tourists and shoppers. 😉
These roads were used by the old tram network 70 years ago. Today the same flexibility could be delivered by bus priority networks, faster and much cheaper than 'light rail'.
I live in Toronto which has an extensive tram (LRT) system and I can tell you where they are separated from traffic they work great. However when they are just mixed in with regular traffic they are so slow you might as well just walk.
the busiest passenger corridor in Adelaide is not tram (Glenelg line) or heavy rail, but O-bahn. It allows to travel 15km in 10 min and then spread bus routes thru usual local roads without change, which not any rail transport can.
The o-bahn is amazing. Also Adelaides team network was extensive and a huge loss. But of course with the amount of car manufacturing it had... hardly surprising
You missed the primary reason that trams are used rather than buses - capacity. Trams can move more people per hour along a corridor than buses, just as trains can move more than trams. Also, metro lines are being built or planned to the SE and to the west. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this as the metro project is now several years old and all the planning documents have been long available.
You're right, I did miss that; my bad. I am aware of the SE metro project, but my point in the video was that it wasn't prioritised over light rail. The main reason that I didn't mention it was that the government doesn't plan to build it for decades (I believe the 2040s-2050s, if I recall correctly).
Problem with the Bankstown Metro is it is replacing a heavy rail with a fairly inadequate Metro. Very little seating, no driver. Means you would be standing up all the way from Bankstown to for example the new station in Crows Nest. No thanks. Also it does not join the other heavy lines at Sydneham
@@robertryan7204 and how many people would be travelling all the way from Bankstown to Chatswood? A lot of people would get off at interchange points like Sydenham, and the CBD: and seats would become available.
@@robertryan7204 people would get off at Sydenham for many reasons, not just for the sake of changing trains. They already do this on existing trains. When people get off a train anywhere, seats may become available on that train. Don't you understand how transport works?
They would only consider extending these lines if there was some guarantee of incremental increases in population on the corridor; i.e. more high rise development. Buses are supplying adequate services at present; why would they invest more billions for no benefit?
@@anubizz3 I've lived in Kensington for 30 years. Businesses always seem to have struggled here, despite the increasing population through high rise development. There was not much change from LR "disruptions". Kingsford has very much depended on the university population, which has been affected more by Covid restrictions than LR construction. Like Kensington, it has had a constant turnover of mediocre offerings as fads change.
@@brianb8516 You are right that Kensington always struggle, but trams just accelerate it demise, Kingsford in other hand is different, it's always a go to Asian food destination. The damage if already done once the building start, covid just a final nail in the coffin for alot of business. You can clearly see the difference in maroubra which used to be less popular area now still thriving, unlike Kensington and Kingsford. Unlike metro and train, this new tram line is afterthought public transport system, to make matters worse it impacted alot of bus services that not related to this tramlines. I love well designed public transport, but this not one of them.
So now that the light rail has been built, how do we add a Heavy Rail to that area in the east without it being wasteful? Perhaps the Bondi line can be extended south to Randwick?
The Sydney Eastern Suburbs are completely unsuitable for the heavy rail. Eventually several new Metro train routes will be tunnelled in the eastern suburbs. Much better than the heavy rail in terms of construction and patronage. And it will indeed be complemented by the light rail very nicely. What the light rail (L2 and L3) has done already is replace the many different busses that run on the same routes.
Technically, metro is a form of heavy rail. The term is more a description of the type of vehicle that is used. The main differences between Sydney’s metro and its broader rail system is mostly that it’s single deck and uses automated trains. But not all metros around the world do. Basically, metros are generally just very frequent heavy rail…. Not that this is a bad thing.
They should have run the light rail down Pitt St and not George St and then turned the whole of Pitt St into a pedestrian mall. George St had 2 lanes running each way North and South, whilst Pitt St was slightly narrower and had one way traffic. Plus it would have made sense for a stop right outside centrepoint and Westfield.
looking at sydneys success with new tram lines makes it so much more confusing why brisbanes new metro system is going to just be another brt, probably the best of its kind but a brt regardless. The idea is to future proof brisbanes economic future but surely getting started on building tramlines for a fast growing city should be the main focus (although I can also see the choice to make it a brt as i believe the plan for it is to travel far further out of the city than a regular tram would afford, but still would love to see brisbane start building tram systems)
although i also understand the city council is also trying to revitalise the cities train systems as honestly when travelling to the gold coast from central takes half an hour longer by train then by car you've got a HUGE problem since trains should be beating cars in speed in every single category like they more often do in the uk (mind you the trains they use here in the uk like thameslink are basically the exact same model used throughout brisbane so it's not a question of having more advanced trains, more so the poor quality of brisbanes rails and I believe having less or maybe even none passenger only rail and always sharing with freight who get priority currently)
still there is a point to be made, when looking at the pre-rendered videos for brisbanes metro you can see how wide the concrete roads need to be for the buses to ride on, unlike a rail for trams that are far thinner
I will say, saying trams are slow might discourage people from investing in them, but light rail can get up to 70/80 km/h much faster then trains as well. Look at Canberra with their long stretches of 70km/h track and traffic lights that favor light rail.
I reckon in addition to the Metro to St Marys, I think they should also extend the Parramatta Light Rail to the new Aerotropolis via the right of way of the Parramatta - Liverpool Transitway. Reply with your thoughts to my idea
A useful video. Trams & in fact tram/trains, do in fact run up to 60 mph or close enough to it. & how hard would it be to fit a mini buffet & armchairs to a tram for a long distance run? Of course that usually doesn't happen, the way most light rail is set up is for short trips & frequent stops. As for performance, no way could a full size metro or rapid transit keep up with a modern LR due to the lightie's much higher acceleration, if there are frequent stops. In fact the world over, there are few station stops (that a train will use) under 400m apart & most are over 600m or more. So that was a good point re stopping. LR's can stop quicker as well & cope with steeper grades, Some downhills in Melbourne make the tram take off like an automobile.
I’m sorry this is so late! The reason they built a Light Rail is because they couldn’t dig and build stations due to the water tables below Kingsford/Randwick!
Incorrect. The Govt built a light rail due to trying to save money. There is no issue with building metro under the Eastern Suburbs, hence why the Govt is currently planning an extension of Metro West from Wynyard to La Perouse through Zetland and Randwick
Caen in France had one of these (a Translohr), and I rode on it a few times when I visited the city. It was so good they ripped up the whole thing and replaced it with a brand new regular tram system, which really says it all. The ride quality was absolutely awful, and the vehicles absolutely trashed the road as they are both *very* heavy, and as they have a guide rail (or optical guide), run over exactly the same part of the road surface every time, wearing grooves into it. BUt yep, the main thing was the ride. It was no better than a bus.
There is no way, that the NSW Govt will introduce an expansion of heavy rail from Bondi Juntion, south, considering the cost of the light rail, to Kingsford, and the fallout. In the future, yes, but that would obviously undergrond. Better yet Central to Straithfield, go underground, hell, the land balues would pay for it
I am a CBD resident, and I loathe the way light rail has drained the life out of George Street. This idea that pedestrian convenience and planter boxes is the only desirable thing in a street is nonsense. Streets are also for coming and going. They are for shopping, for getting home after work, for going places later on. Pitt Street Mall works great as a pedestrian space, but is George Street it just doesn't work so well.
did it replace the bus? no. Did it replaced delivery ? no. Did it transport more passengers? no. is it reliable? no. did it helpe with better traffic? no. what's it for? no idea, but help this guy cross the street easier, and more parking fine, yeah.
A couple of comments that very much disagree with your overall very good presentation. (1) Trams were taken off t by the tracks in 1963 and actually burnt. Sydney was never going to have Trams. So now the term Light Rail is used instead. ( 2) Contrary to promoting pedestrian access in the CBD of Sydney, various factors and the incredible slowness of the Light Rail has decimated pedestrian numbers in the CBD. Looking at shots of Sydney in the 1960's to 1970's, current Sydney resembles East Berlin, compared to the bustling City of those years. (3) Dulwich Hill line has been a disaster. Slow with stations at Glebe and Leichardt Nth being probably the worst station stops in Australia. Yes it was a goods line, should have been kept that way. (4) Proposed Parramatta Light Rail is going to be considerably less effective than a dedicated heavy Rail extension from Carlingford to Epping as far as moving from to the CBD.
The L1 recorded almost 900,000 trips in March 2019, before Covid kicked in; hardly a disaster. It managed 460,000 in June this year. With more residential under construction, the potential could have been greater. The problem with the trams is another issue.
Sydney’s Light Rail should be called the Light Snail. It is so slow one wishes they bought back horses and carts. In addition the Light Snail is over crowded and uncomfortable and liable to unexpected shut downs due to faults with the system. If you have spinal problems take a pillow or you will have problems walking after your trip as seating is like sitting on a concrete bench. I prefer the buses. Sydney’s public transport is pretty poor for a major State and City. It only takes people where they decide you should go not where you want to or need to go..
9:16 I think the L2 and L3 are a lot better than the L1, because they help give people in this area (for example UNSW) a way to quickly travel to the city. For example, a student living in Erskineville for example would've had to go to university by car, but now they can happily take the light rail. Also, according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail_in_Sydney, patronage of both the L2 and L3 lines are actually far higher than the L1!
You have forgotten the biggest issue with trams and that's they cannot drive around an obstacle (like a broken-down tram). This was a major reason the labor government in the 60's killed the tram network and flooded the places with buses. It was also what the unions wanted. Labor did the unthinkable and saw votes are a better solution then logic (much like they still do) and it caused us to lose a great network. L2/L3 lines also aren't that far from stations. Randwick to Bondi is
No, Sydney light rail does not move significant numbers of people. What it does is create huge contracts for big construction companies, which then keep blowing out the budget and which government is forced into paying because they are over committed. It would have been far more cost effective to install electric powered bus, powered through overhead power lines just like suburban trains. The amount of space used by light rail does not justify the small number of passengers it does transport. By closing those corridors it forces all other traffic onto other roads. Significantly it forces trucks and delivery vehicles to make use of less road space in the areas surrounding light rail, a cascade of heavier traffic. Further it never justifies the huge construction costs and will need subsidies at a far higher rate than other forms of public transport. Sydney should be placing their suburban train network entirely underground. While expanding it. A source of funding for this would be the sale or lease of the land on which above ground tracks currently operate. Much of that land is in highly sought after commercial areas. Doing so would also remove a number of bottle necks which exist where traffic has to cross current train tracks. Of course our short sighted politicians will instead opt for whatever the current fad is that will gain them enough votes. Or fat political party 'donations' from big companies that want those contracts.
@@David.Horne72 Bus services are slower in peak hours when the clearways and bus lanes are in force. The trams can operate up to 60 km/hr, 50 in most straight sections, same speed as adjacent road traffic.
Waste of money the new tram line. Cost over $2b which was way over budget. That money could have easily made autonomous busses. They could have pedestrianised the same area but had autonomous buses run on it which have the ability to be diverted unliked fixed rail. Oh and if they’d done that they wouldn’t have spend millions digging thru the old tram lines. The only thing we got with old school tram line is the retro effect it has.
Well, the tram system seems to be well patronised... Whenever I try using them in the city, they are completely jammed with people, to the point where passengers are being refused. In these conditions, I would prefer to walk - and it doesn't take too much longer, given the slow boarding times which accompany this sort of congestion.
You should look at the new technology trackless light rail systems being built in china which would have saved the government billions and enabled them to build other corridors for the same cost as one currently.
Trackless trams are a gimmick and should be relegated to the long list of gadgetbahn failures. They take all the worst things about a bus and all the worst things about a tram and combine them to create an awesome CGI video that generates hype rather than an actual, working system that moves people.
Trams / Light rail, improve land values next to them. They are good access for shops and apartments. Buses simply don't do this. Buses turned into a welfare form of transport for the lowest common denominator.
Didn't see the point of the light rail in the city. We already have a existing rail service that stops at most of its stops. Although I do agree that it was good that we made the city more pedestrian friendly.
The alternative was clogged streets full of buses causing congestion. Some parts of the city had basically reached a capacity for how many buses you could shove down the street. George Street pre-2015 was atrocious in the PM peak.
Trams suck. Trams are much slower than buses. Trams are MUCH more expensive than buses. The eastern suburbs have dedicated bus lanes which provide almost all of the benefits of a tram.
@@seanomatopoeia Wrong. Buses are easy, have WAY more seats relative to standing area, and in a dedicated lane they beat light rail in speed by 50% in the eastern suburbs. I live near the Eastern suburbs light rail in Sydney. It's so slow NO ONE uses it.
@@brianb8516 The eastern suburbs line is really high right now, 863,000 trips per month. Or about 15,000 two way trips per day. Note that the eastern suburbs line also captures trips within the CBD. No one goes to the racecourse line because it is SLOW. VERY slow. Like add 20 mins to your journey slow. Extrapolating out for 10 years, there'll be around 50,000,000 two-way journeys. The cost of building the system Was $3.1B. That's $62 per day per user, and that's not counting maintenance.
Honestly hate Sydney’s trams, they are so slow and unreliable. Our govt is so useless. Melbournes are much faster and smoother. Light rail is a Waste of money and space.
![Stroads are Ugly, Expensive, and Dangerous (and they're everywhere) [ST05]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ORzNZUeUHAM/mqdefault.jpg)
Popular Opinion: Getting rid of the trams in Sydney was the worst decision we ever made.
If we kept our trams, the Inner West, Eastern Suburbs, and the Lower Northern Beaches/North Shore would have way better services, and less congestion, especially coming from outer parts of Sydney, and would’ve been an amazing attraction in some of the more beautiful lines! Also another great video to do as well!
Thanks for watching! I think the trams should definitely have been kept, it's a real shame they were taken down. At least city planning is moving away from the car-centric ideas it fell into during the mid 20th century.
The original tram system was designed for 19th century Sydney conditions: medium density housing around the corridors, no alternative means of transport. It is unrealistic to think it would cope with the current status quo.
@@brianb8516 Melbourne and many other European cities would disagree with this. Unlike buses, the lengthening and modernisation of trams can easily cope with sudden growth as a opposed of with roads and in a much more cost effective fashion.
The NRMA was a major force in lobbying for their removal.
The Premier that signed off on the removal of Sydney's trams later said it was the worst decision he ever made. The value of those lines on aggregate add up to several hundred billion $ in today's money.
Sydney shouldn't give up on this light rail project! If the cbd becomes even more pedestrian friendly and with no lockout laws, we could see the renaissance of the CBD nightlife
This is done far more efficiently by bus only streets. Converting George Street to bus and pedestrians only would have taken six months not six years and saved $billions. Buses offer flexible routeing which serves a far larger customer base.
@@charlielloyd1080 Disagree. Light rails makes much more sense in corridors that sees heavy traffic like George Street. There's just no need for "flexible routing" in this corridor, what you want is a reliable operation and high capacity, which buses lack.
Additionally, since light rails run on electricity, it can become more environmentally friendly as we improve the electric grid, while buses cannot easily be converted to electric, and even electric buses are hampered by the design constraint of the additional weights when you carry large batteries.
In any case, if you have a light rail infrastructure in place, you still have the option to add capacity by running buses along a similar route as light rail during peak hours in the future for surge capacities. Though George Street is a nice walk, many people seems to just happily walk along the street during high traffic events.
The Kingsford line (L3) needs to be extended to the old tram terminus at La Perouse. Also a light rail line needs to be built along Parramatta road, to at least as far as Homebush. For the Northern beaches, the tracks over the Harbour Bridge need to be re-installed and a light rail service built to Dee Why, in a way that allows for later upgrading to heavy rail if needed.
You want the business in maroubra to die like Kensington and Kingsford?
@@anubizz3 light rail has been a boost to businesses. More passing pedestrians, more people about = more customers.
If you're going to put tracks back on the Bridge (I support this) you are better off building it as a Metro line, the Metro tunnel under the harbour can move more people faster from one side to the other than the heavy rail and all the cars and buses on the deck put together (up to 40 trains per hour with ten carriages). A light rail can't go as fast nor move as many people nor travel with the same frequency. Light rail belongs in areas to connect heavy rail & metro through destinations to improve the city streetscape and lifestyle, not as a mass transport mode.
it actually needs to extend all the way to marouba in my option
i think they are more likely to just build either another tollroad or fancy Metro there. One of the 2 bullshit projects.
I see your point around a missed opportunity in south east Sydney - however it wouldn't arrive until 2040s. The Metro Phase 2 and 3 were a higher priority - so Light Rail is welcome.
The L2/L3 was definitely criticized at first - but it's now packed even with city offices at 50% occupancy and moves quite quickly now that the traffic lights are connected and it's got permanent right of way. Not to mention, George Street pedestrianization was a major win. Think its time to forget the launch press and re-evaluate.
Yeah, almost all disruptive infrastructure projects get negative press up until the point that construction phases end and actually working properly begins. At which point people instantly begin to like them. Any light rail Sydney builds will be a bit like the Elizabeth Line in London. Not in terms of how physically big it is (the Elizabeth Line is a huge heavy rail metro, light rail is light rail). But in terms of public opinion. Delayed for ages, cost overruns galore. A millstone around the neck of planners and politicians during the building and construction phase. Then within months it became the most popular line on the whole network, and with the highest efficiency and punctuality.
There is a misconception with the use of the term "light rail". Light rail, like metro rail and heavy rail do not refer to the vehicles, which are still called trams. Light rail is the name of the system. Trams are the big red things that run on the tracks. Even TFNSW has partly aknowledged this by remarking intersections as "Tram Only" instead of the previous "Light Rail Only" markings.
See my reply on the burning of the original Trams in 1963 in a wanton destruction of them. State Government at the time said no Trams would run in Sydney again.
There is mixed use of the two terms all over the place. Additionally, there are signs on the L1 warning to "Watch out for trains".
@@brianb8516 Exactly seeing we got rid of all the that is the reason why use the term light rail
@@brianb8516 I know someone who is calling the Metro a Light Rail, confusion all round
Tribute Kyra
The L2 and L3 light rail service in the city and eastern suburbs would be far more efficient and faster had the original plans been carried through to give the service priority at traffic light intersections.
The state government foolishly rejected this idea under the false perception that it would slow traffic 😒
The movement of public transport is far more spacially efficient than automotive transport and should hence have priority at traffic lights.
This would encourage patronage and reduce traffic flow
Traffic light priority for the trams is improving, but still not consistent. The same trip can vary by 3 or 4 minutes; seems more on "good luck" than optimised timing.
Love the current L2 and L3. Using it more and more these days.
You love the destruction to local businesses in Kensington and Kingsford?
@@anubizz3 that's a bit of a stretch. I think businesses are thriving. The amount of people walking on those streets.
@@anubizz3 nice jumping to conclusions
@@Jenskieez Jumping on conclusion when you live near that area for 20 years and commute every day via that area? Maroubra is spared from that fate. I assume you are also local.
I remember no one asking for those trams and the budget blowing out by billions. Buses were fine for the city commute had the bus lanes and everything
All fairly interesting. I love the Gold Coast light rail.
This is a good article. Congratulations! One thing which you mentioned but didn't elaborate on, is why light rail promotes so much development. From what I have read, developers are more likely to commit large sums of money where there is light rail since they know that the Government Transport heavies can not suddenly change the route of the light rail and leave them without adequate transport, thus making their project less desirable. This is one of the disadvantages of a bus route from the perspective of a developer. BTW I also agree with your comments on the Randwick light rail but given the proposed extension of the Sydney Metro West light to La Perouse by 2041, this should solve that problem. Removal of buses and cars from George Street has made a huge difference to the CBD.
Due to the T2 & T3 Light Rail increasing the level of development in the Randwick corridor, the extension of the Metro West to La Perouse could be fast-track. One of the critical goals of the Sydney Light Rail was to reduce the number of buses coming in and out of Sydney’s CBD. Before the Light Rail went in, I could remember in the evening peak hour that it was quicker to walk than to take the bus on George Street due to traffic congestion. George Street now has way better transport capabilities than before, combined with a significant improvement in the whole street landscape.
With so much high-density development occurring in Green Square, Kensington, and Randwick, the Metro will be extended early than initially planned. Come 2028 or 2029; the NSW Government will start planning the extension of the Sydney Metro once Stage 1 gets delivered in 2030. The Metro extension will be driven by the population growth in the South Eastern Sydney region.
@@michaelcobbin I hope you are right regarding an earlier start of Sydney Metro West extension to the Eastern Suburbs but given the recent gloomy response of Infrastructure NSW I doubt it. This gloomy announcement seems typical of Government bureaucrats who lack vision or any sense of positive thinking. As someone who has lived overseas for about 11 years on and off and has ridden many of the worlds great Metros, I have been very impressed with the quality of Sydney Metro North West. It is so good, it is almost unAustralian, if you know what I mean. I hope Infrastructure NSW doesn't drag us done to compromise and mediocrity; which has characterized us in the past..
@@johngore8096 I to am totally shocked by Australian governments investing in public transport infrastructure. But I think the secret is, they tried everything else first and it didn’t work. We know what state governments are for and its to keep traffic flowing, they get judged on that. Doing nothing ended up with gridlock, building more roads ended up with more gridlock, so in the end the state government gave up an did the sensible thing and encouraged public transport. Reluctantly of course, what they want to do is nothing but that might loose them an election.
I don't think any government would suddenly remove bus services from productive corridors; there may be adjustments to services to suit travel patterns, but highly unlikely to get mass withdrawals. Light rail has much better capacity, to suit increased population growth, this attracts developers. The L2 and L3 have good connectivity with other bus services along the route.
@@johngore8096 "Harry Meriton" will get his way and promise to start building his new "suburbs" out towards Long Bay in the not too distance future; such development could provide a "business case" for fast tracking a metro to the area.
I have lived in both Sydney and Melbourne.
Trams are great where they have dedicated corridors, which are mostly in CBD areas. In suburban areas where they share the road network they are terrible as vehicular traffic has to stop to allow tram passenger to walk into the middle of the road to get on/off. Buses can pull in to the kerb allowing other traffic to continue.
With the advances in electric vehicles, buses could operate by using the existing overhead wiring. With batteries they could travel 'off wire' for any routes through suburban areas and operate 'on wire' along major routes or major route sections. They could also go 'off wire' to pull in to the kerb. Recharging technology could be installed at depots.
Sydney's re-introduction of trams has caused major disruption where roads had to be dug up to install rails. If electric buses were used then only the overhead wires would need to be installed, saving a lot of time and money.
Buses don't carry as many passengers but larger buses and more frequent bus services would easily fix this problem. Investment, public open-mindedness and political commitment is all that is needed here. Melbourne would be a good place to trial electric/battery operated buses, but I don't think this will ever happen.
Interestingly there is a motorway, in Germany I think, where overhead wires power electric trucks.
I think Melbourne already has some plug in electric buses
Amsterdam is introducing electric buses that plug into overhead chargers at each end of the route.
Correction: the pie chart you showed at 10:02 actually doesn't include the Carlingford line, which was the T6 line. The line you pointed out as having the lowest patronage is actually the Olympic Park line which is understandable as it is only used by those actually going to and from Olympic Park. However, the Carlingford line had only 569,000 patrons in 2019, about 100,000 less than the Olympic Park line and millions less that every other line. So your point still largely stands.
You are the first viewer to notice that 😆...I noticed that error a bit after filming but hoped no one would notice!
I came down to the comments to find if someone else found this
@@jackieh4863 Same!!
I hope that one the parramatta metro is completed, they turn the tunnel boring machines around and drill the metro from Sydney city to the pacific beaches. While I have not yet used the light rail in the eastern suburbs, both its buses and its road system is a total mess, having a rail system joining the major parts of the eastern suburbs together would make the entire place more inviting.
I doubt plans for an Eastern Suburbs metro will come about before a decade or two has passed...but one can hope.
I agree with Elon Musk on this. Tunnels should not be expensive. Even today's TBMs are not that expensive to run. So building out these lines should not be so expensive. It's not like we have a car industry to protect anymore.
Two advantages of light rail:
1. Schedules are more reliable. Lot less anxiety for waiting passengers.
2. They accelerate and decelerate much more smoothly than buses. So much more comfortable.
Dedicated bus lanes and priority at lights offer the same advantages at far less cost and allow a wide network serving all the minor destinations.
Enjoyed the video, subscribed and looking forward to more :) Just one point. You mentioned that Sydney's historic tram network was one of the world's largest. This is far from the case. At 291 route km, it was far shorter than say Glasgow's 329km or London's 528km. Manchester's combined network (it was run by different organisations because it was so big) was 689km and it directly connected to Liverpool and Blackburn's networks for a combined 976km of trams.
Then Paris had over a thousand km as did a few other American cities where you would fine the largest networks in the world, with Los Angeles topping it at 1500km or so. So while Sydney had the largest network in the Southern Hemisphere, that is a bit of a difference to the world.
Yep largest in the southern hemisphere, and as you rightly note, LA's was the largest in northern hemisphere. How ironic is that. All thanks to Government Motors.
The Light Rail was in essence a corrupt scam with AU$3B laundered through a plethora of OS entities before being returned to the scams architect's in Australia.
So what did the Taxpayer get for AU$3B...?
A 14km piece of ground level track, and a train that runs at a speed less than a 1820s Sydney bullock cart, oh and despite the blistering 14km speed of these trains, the fleet shook itself cracked up and was grounded about a year after launch.
The one problem I have with the trams is that they culled a bunch of bus routes that went to places the tram lines don't even go and claimed that the tram could replace these buses. I have a friend who lives in Maroubra - before, she was able to take a quick walk up to her closest bus stop and get on one of the 10 or so bus routes that stopped at her stop and led into the city. Now she has to get on the one (1) bus route that goes up to Kingsford and transfer to a tram, possibly having to wait 10 mins in between. I have had similar experiences where I had about 11 buses that would take me where I need to go now there's only 1 bus and the tram. I take this trip every Saturday and since being forced onto the trams it has added about 15mins to my trip. So now a trip that takes 15mins in the car (30 mins on public transport before trams) now takes 45mins by public transport. Inconvenient to say the least!
Agreed, this is the real scandal of the whole 'light rail' project. $billions was spent making the public transport provision far worse for people living/working more than 800 metres from the route. A BRT system with dedicated lanes and priority at traffic lights to and through the CBD would have given faster travel for almost everyone and allowed resources to build the rail network for the wider area.
I don't see how this can be true. There are atleast 4 bus routes leading from Maroubra to city. 396, 396x, 394, 394x and 397. All these terminate at museum near hyde park.
@@soham6649 probably should have specified central station
My country might be like: "Just leave your house earlier!"
L2/L3 had 2.15M boardings in November 2022, that's 180k boarding per km of line. Sydney Metro had 1.396M or about 39k per km of line. The CSELR was way over budget. The Metro line in service was under budget, but the final cost per km of the metro line was still much larger than that for the CSELR. Which investment was more value for money? There is no public transport system in Australia, on rails or rubber, that moves more passengers per km than L2/L3. We need more light rail in inner city corridors.
The L2 tram line only needed a 1km extension east to Coogee and the L3 one needed to be extended to Maroubra Beach, Eastgardens and La Perouse to make them both better alternatives.
As it stands they are Trams to nowhere as one English told me
@@robertryan7204 They serve the Uni and hospital campuses quite well, along with new developments planned along the corridor. Almost 2 million trips in June.
@@brianb8516 yet those in Coogee, Maroubra, Eastgsrdens (which has a massive development going on now) etc are forgotten.
@@brianb8516 But almost deserted any other time. They are a slow way to get to UNSW
@@robertryan7204 they are quicker than the normal bus services along the same corridor. Unit students aren't likely to be getting too disturbed about the tram taking a few minutes more than the old express buses. The services are "no more deserted at other times" than the myriad of bus services they replaced.
love your channel. you might find the lack of heavy rail in Sydney eastern suburbs and northern beaches is due to the fact it was all trams in the day. may be a subject for a video..?
Binging your vids man, love this stuff. Thank you
Hello, a good analysis of light rail comparing it to heavy rail and motor vehicle road use, summing it up well. Planning unfortunately is driven by politics and politicians, a failure in itself. An example of this was the overnight closure of the Sydney tram system in 1961, a terrible political decision. Thank you for covering this subject, enjoying your video.
Good video on this topic. I use the L1 a lot and can attest that it really does serve its purpose as a connecting service from Central. I remembering attending a community forum where someone said the lack of parking in the city was what was driving people away (they were discussing how to improve a certain inner-city region that was losing out to a newer nearby development), and Clover Moore just said yeah we don't want you to drive. That's why we built the light rail.
My only complaint would be having both Pyrmont Bay and the Star stops - I see why it happened, but it's honestly not necessary. They're way too close.
The L1 is a very poor service due to its tortuous route. For example from Rozelle to Central off-peak the L1 takes almost 50% more time than the bus. If they spent a fraction of the cost building quality bus only routes, some on the L1 alignment, the service would be much better. Ideally there should be BRT routes along the Western Distributor, taking space from private road transport would greatly increase the passenger capacity of that route while reducing travel time.
I don't think it is correct to say (11.35) that light rail
"used properly it can transport passengers along dedicated uncongested and pedestrian renewed corridors in ways buses simply can't". It is perfectly possible to build bus/pedestrian only areas with good paving and well designed vehicles. In the CBD high frequency buses can provide the same level of service as trams while at the other end of their routes they can properly serve a much wider medium/low density residential area.
Light rail is just one small part of Sydney's PT solution. Trains and buses make up most of that pie with Light rail and ferries taking a small part. Buses are being electrified. The rail system was supposed to expand to replace the need of the trams but never did. Some may regret that we did this especially to the south east but for ease of access the bus is much better then the old tram system and we would end up with a system like Melbournes which is horrendous for people with disabilities. Actually buses do have there own dedicated paths in Sydney and share paths with the light rail on the new L2 and L3 lines. There are also 2 T-ways in western Sydney where they buses have dedicated lanes.
One would think the few light rail routes would appear on the suburban train route maps to emphasise their complementary role. Forget it. The powers don't see the need, despite Sydney being a popular city for tourists.
L2 and 3 as trams to connect places along the route to each other and to the destinations at both ends vz Central and UNSW.
Light rail is slow because they have have to, absurdly, give way to cars at intersections.
D we have give away signs on the tram that priorities car? . As far as I know it called traffic light.
The other, often overlooked, advantage of trams vs buses is their permanency. Bus stops can be anywhere, but they can also be moved away easily. Rails (and BRT) cannot. Therefore tram lines can attract higher density development compared to a bus stop. Think medium density, 4-10 storeys, thus inducing more patronage (and more fare income) and less car dependency.
That is their disadvantage. How the heck something inflexible becomes advantage?
Let see we have special events can other tramlines be rerouted to that area? Do we even have spare one? How about if that rail damage by storm or something. We have bus replacement when there is maintenance on rail lane. Do you ever heard tram replacement when bus routes need to be shoot down?
Tram is a horrible idea.
I use the L3 instead of a bus to go into the city. They are so much better that buses. They are smooth and quiet. They always turn up quickly but it's a pity they don't go further than Juniors at Kingsford
You happy with the destruction of business in Kingsford?
@@anubizz3 give me 1000 alternative modes of transit
Former Sydney resident now in Melbourne here. What are your thoughts on trams like the 86 which compete with cars the same way that buses do? I much prefer a 96 or 109-style route that does have a dedicated section of road for its entire route. There are times sitting on the 86, stuck in traffic, when I feel like I'm just in a glorified bus on tracks.
Also I appreciate how you've got the guts to say the truth. "Light rail, also known as trams." I feel like Sydney has always marketed "light rail" because they don't want to admit Melbourne was right to keep them
For buses, we can make a bus prioritization and bus recontracting to improve them like Singapore
Why build trams on the ground in everyone's way just build monorail out of everyone's way, and why did Sydney get rid of the monorail anyway?
Well done. Good insight and information.
A light rail should also run down Oxford st and through to Paddington and Bondi Junction and right up to North Bondi. We do need to bring Pedestrian back to Oxford and and Paddington rather than Cars and buses. Definitely agree. Pedestrian are the ones that spends if you like shoppers rather than bypass cars that don’t stop or hardly shop and stay. 🚶♂️ walking and site seeing and spends time sitting around, dinning around and spending more of there time. Ultimately it’s the pedestrians are the winners for sure. Not cars. The streets needs new areas to bring in people, trees and plants to attract tourists and shoppers. 😉
These roads were used by the old tram network 70 years ago. Today the same flexibility could be delivered by bus priority networks, faster and much cheaper than 'light rail'.
I live in Toronto which has an extensive tram (LRT) system and I can tell you where they are separated from traffic they work great. However when they are just mixed in with regular traffic they are so slow you might as well just walk.
the busiest passenger corridor in Adelaide is not tram (Glenelg line) or heavy rail, but O-bahn. It allows to travel 15km in 10 min and then spread bus routes thru usual local roads without change, which not any rail transport can.
The o-bahn is amazing. Also Adelaides team network was extensive and a huge loss. But of course with the amount of car manufacturing it had... hardly surprising
You missed the primary reason that trams are used rather than buses - capacity. Trams can move more people per hour along a corridor than buses, just as trains can move more than trams. Also, metro lines are being built or planned to the SE and to the west. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this as the metro project is now several years old and all the planning documents have been long available.
You're right, I did miss that; my bad. I am aware of the SE metro project, but my point in the video was that it wasn't prioritised over light rail. The main reason that I didn't mention it was that the government doesn't plan to build it for decades (I believe the 2040s-2050s, if I recall correctly).
Problem with the Bankstown Metro is it is replacing a heavy rail with a fairly inadequate Metro. Very little seating, no driver. Means you would be standing up all the way from Bankstown to for example the new station in Crows Nest. No thanks. Also it does not join the other heavy lines at Sydneham
@@robertryan7204 and how many people would be travelling all the way from Bankstown to Chatswood? A lot of people would get off at interchange points like Sydenham, and the CBD: and seats would become available.
@@brianb8516 Well you said it " seats would become available" highly unlikely the l Sydenham train would almost full coming into the City
@@robertryan7204 people would get off at Sydenham for many reasons, not just for the sake of changing trains. They already do this on existing trains. When people get off a train anywhere, seats may become available on that train. Don't you understand how transport works?
need to continue the Tram route all the way down the corridor to La Perouse from Kingsford Junior. And from Randwick high St down to Coogee Beach.
They would only consider extending these lines if there was some guarantee of incremental increases in population on the corridor; i.e. more high rise development. Buses are supplying adequate services at present; why would they invest more billions for no benefit?
@@brianb8516 Plus the destruction of business along that rail lane. Just look at Kensington and Kingsford now.
@@anubizz3 I've lived in Kensington for 30 years. Businesses always seem to have struggled here, despite the increasing population through high rise development. There was not much change from LR "disruptions".
Kingsford has very much depended on the university population, which has been affected more by Covid restrictions than LR construction. Like Kensington, it has had a constant turnover of mediocre offerings as fads change.
@@brianb8516 You are right that Kensington always struggle, but trams just accelerate it demise, Kingsford in other hand is different, it's always a go to Asian food destination. The damage if already done once the building start, covid just a final nail in the coffin for alot of business.
You can clearly see the difference in maroubra which used to be less popular area now still thriving, unlike Kensington and Kingsford.
Unlike metro and train, this new tram line is afterthought public transport system, to make matters worse it impacted alot of bus services that not related to this tramlines.
I love well designed public transport, but this not one of them.
the tram might struggle with the hill down to Coogee? it is steeper than high street
Please do Brisbane next!
Getting rid of the trams in Sydney was the worst decision we ever made. but Melbourne is the best and the oldest tram is the world.
Yo, we really need a Light Rail Service linking Manly & the Northern Beaches to the Rail Network at North Sydney.
What’s the mapping page you’re using from about 3:30?
These giant trams dont fit in with the streetscape at all
So now that the light rail has been built, how do we add a Heavy Rail to that area in the east without it being wasteful? Perhaps the Bondi line can be extended south to Randwick?
The Sydney Eastern Suburbs are completely unsuitable for the heavy rail. Eventually several new Metro train routes will be tunnelled in the eastern suburbs. Much better than the heavy rail in terms of construction and patronage. And it will indeed be complemented by the light rail very nicely. What the light rail (L2 and L3) has done already is replace the many different busses that run on the same routes.
Tunnel routes first designed by Bradfield over 100 years ago. Still waiting for them to be built...
Technically, metro is a form of heavy rail. The term is more a description of the type of vehicle that is used. The main differences between Sydney’s metro and its broader rail system is mostly that it’s single deck and uses automated trains. But not all metros around the world do. Basically, metros are generally just very frequent heavy rail…. Not that this is a bad thing.
The other is to also build high capacity density double decker trams because of the high cost & time it takes to build
They should have run the light rail down Pitt St and not George St and then turned the whole of Pitt St into a pedestrian mall. George St had 2 lanes running each way North and South, whilst Pitt St was slightly narrower and had one way traffic. Plus it would have made sense for a stop right outside centrepoint and Westfield.
looking at sydneys success with new tram lines makes it so much more confusing why brisbanes new metro system is going to just be another brt, probably the best of its kind but a brt regardless. The idea is to future proof brisbanes economic future but surely getting started on building tramlines for a fast growing city should be the main focus (although I can also see the choice to make it a brt as i believe the plan for it is to travel far further out of the city than a regular tram would afford, but still would love to see brisbane start building tram systems)
although i also understand the city council is also trying to revitalise the cities train systems as honestly when travelling to the gold coast from central takes half an hour longer by train then by car you've got a HUGE problem since trains should be beating cars in speed in every single category like they more often do in the uk (mind you the trains they use here in the uk like thameslink are basically the exact same model used throughout brisbane so it's not a question of having more advanced trains, more so the poor quality of brisbanes rails and I believe having less or maybe even none passenger only rail and always sharing with freight who get priority currently)
still there is a point to be made, when looking at the pre-rendered videos for brisbanes metro you can see how wide the concrete roads need to be for the buses to ride on, unlike a rail for trams that are far thinner
Tram is the best way to go
You didn’t mention metro as an option for the south East, instead of heavy rail or light rail. It might be worth exploring
Translation for those that use Freedom Units: CBD = Central Business District, what you know as "Downtown".
great video !
please talk about newcastle light rail!
I will say, saying trams are slow might discourage people from investing in them, but light rail can get up to 70/80 km/h much faster then trains as well. Look at Canberra with their long stretches of 70km/h track and traffic lights that favor light rail.
I reckon in addition to the Metro to St Marys, I think they should also extend the Parramatta Light Rail to the new Aerotropolis via the right of way of the Parramatta - Liverpool Transitway. Reply with your thoughts to my idea
The light rail is pretty useless when dealing with large event crowds, such as Moore Park stadium and Randwick racecourse.
All inner city lines I notice. Only for those well off enough to love close to the city centre. Modern and efficient, but only for the elite.
No mention of bus lanes? this would seem to negate many issues with buses
That tram map makes me so sad
A useful video.
Trams & in fact tram/trains, do in fact run up to 60 mph or close enough to it. & how hard would it be to fit a mini buffet & armchairs to a tram for a long distance run?
Of course that usually doesn't happen, the way most light rail is set up is for short trips & frequent stops.
As for performance, no way could a full size metro or rapid transit keep up with a modern LR due to the lightie's much higher acceleration, if there are frequent stops. In fact the world over, there are few station stops (that a train will use) under 400m apart & most are over 600m or more. So that was a good point re stopping. LR's can stop quicker as well & cope with steeper grades, Some downhills in Melbourne make the tram take off like an automobile.
@@dynevor6327 please
BRT and Lightrail are vvery good for connecting the areas which are not covered by trains
Bring back monorail!
I’m sorry this is so late! The reason they built a Light Rail is because they couldn’t dig and build stations due to the water tables below Kingsford/Randwick!
Incorrect. The Govt built a light rail due to trying to save money. There is no issue with building metro under the Eastern Suburbs, hence why the Govt is currently planning an extension of Metro West from Wynyard to La Perouse through Zetland and Randwick
What about so called "trackless trams"? These are basically, in my eyes, tram length buses.
Yes
yes they are, and only used in BRT systems. No problem.
Caen in France had one of these (a Translohr), and I rode on it a few times when I visited the city. It was so good they ripped up the whole thing and replaced it with a brand new regular tram system, which really says it all. The ride quality was absolutely awful, and the vehicles absolutely trashed the road as they are both *very* heavy, and as they have a guide rail (or optical guide), run over exactly the same part of the road surface every time, wearing grooves into it. BUt yep, the main thing was the ride. It was no better than a bus.
Is it that difficult to make a light tram that can safely do 100km/h?
Could they have just put heavy rail on the SE Sydney LR corridor?
There is no way, that the NSW Govt will introduce an expansion of heavy rail from Bondi Juntion, south, considering the cost of the light rail, to Kingsford, and the fallout. In the future, yes, but that would obviously undergrond. Better yet Central to Straithfield, go underground, hell, the land balues would pay for it
I am a CBD resident, and I loathe the way light rail has drained the life out of George Street. This idea that pedestrian convenience and planter boxes is the only desirable thing in a street is nonsense. Streets are also for coming and going. They are for shopping, for getting home after work, for going places later on. Pitt Street Mall works great as a pedestrian space, but is George Street it just doesn't work so well.
I want most cities in Malaysia to have lightrail like these.. Not some light metros to cover the cities themselves
Not in KL. Nice to have trams in Penang, Ipoh, Melaka & Putrajaya.
Common denominator with most government decisions is that they are short sighted and financially driven rather longer term good.
did it replace the bus? no. Did it replaced delivery ? no. Did it transport more passengers? no. is it reliable? no. did it helpe with better traffic? no. what's it for? no idea, but help this guy cross the street easier, and more parking fine, yeah.
A couple of comments that very much disagree with your overall very good presentation.
(1) Trams were taken off t by the tracks in 1963 and actually burnt. Sydney was never going to have Trams. So now the term Light Rail is used instead.
( 2) Contrary to promoting pedestrian access in the CBD of Sydney, various factors and the incredible slowness of the Light Rail has decimated pedestrian numbers in the CBD. Looking at shots of Sydney in the 1960's to 1970's, current Sydney resembles East Berlin, compared to the bustling City of those years.
(3) Dulwich Hill line has been a disaster. Slow with stations at Glebe and Leichardt Nth being probably the worst station stops in Australia. Yes it was a goods line, should have been kept that way.
(4) Proposed Parramatta Light Rail is going to be considerably less effective than a dedicated heavy Rail extension from Carlingford to Epping as far as moving from to the CBD.
The L1 recorded almost 900,000 trips in March 2019, before Covid kicked in; hardly a disaster. It managed 460,000 in June this year. With more residential under construction, the potential could have been greater. The problem with the trams is another issue.
@@brianb8516 L1 is a Tram
Should the Hobart suburban railway be converted to Light Rail.
How could you talk about the worst of both worlds without mentioning Newcastle Light Rail. 😂
Do not mention the abomination by name!!!
@@lmlmd2714 Light rail when a bus would have done the job
@@gregessex1851 Or when a train already was...
@@lmlmd2714 Getting rid of the last 2km was the best thing that could have been done to the city
Tribute for Kyra
Is anyone else noticing a slight lisp
Good for big city 👏 maybe light rail 🚈 should be going all the way to Gosford and Wyong, along the m,1 Express way 😀
You Like Geoff… Well Same! LIGHT RAIL
Sydney’s Light Rail should be called the Light Snail. It is so slow one wishes they bought back horses and carts. In addition the Light Snail is over crowded and uncomfortable and liable to unexpected shut downs due to faults with the system. If you have spinal problems take a pillow or you will have problems walking after your trip as seating is like sitting on a concrete bench. I prefer the buses. Sydney’s public transport is pretty poor for a major State and City. It only takes people where they decide you should go not where you want to or need to go..
9:16 I think the L2 and L3 are a lot better than the L1, because they help give people in this area (for example UNSW) a way to quickly travel to the city. For example, a student living in Erskineville for example would've had to go to university by car, but now they can happily take the light rail. Also, according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail_in_Sydney, patronage of both the L2 and L3 lines are actually far higher than the L1!
You have forgotten the biggest issue with trams and that's they cannot drive around an obstacle (like a broken-down tram). This was a major reason the labor government in the 60's killed the tram network and flooded the places with buses. It was also what the unions wanted. Labor did the unthinkable and saw votes are a better solution then logic (much like they still do) and it caused us to lose a great network. L2/L3 lines also aren't that far from stations. Randwick to Bondi is
The light rail is great considering Labor built nothing in 20 years
No, Sydney light rail does not move significant numbers of people. What it does is create huge contracts for big construction companies, which then keep blowing out the budget and which government is forced into paying because they are over committed. It would have been far more cost effective to install electric powered bus, powered through overhead power lines just like suburban trains.
The amount of space used by light rail does not justify the small number of passengers it does transport. By closing those corridors it forces all other traffic onto other roads. Significantly it forces trucks and delivery vehicles to make use of less road space in the areas surrounding light rail, a cascade of heavier traffic. Further it never justifies the huge construction costs and will need subsidies at a far higher rate than other forms of public transport.
Sydney should be placing their suburban train network entirely underground. While expanding it. A source of funding for this would be the sale or lease of the land on which above ground tracks currently operate. Much of that land is in highly sought after commercial areas. Doing so would also remove a number of bottle necks which exist where traffic has to cross current train tracks.
Of course our short sighted politicians will instead opt for whatever the current fad is that will gain them enough votes. Or fat political party 'donations' from big companies that want those contracts.
Totally agree on this comment
L1 was moving 800K+ people per month pre covid. L2/L3 are moving 2 million people per month currently. What do you consider "significant".
@@brianb8516 it is not significant as well as being horribly slow
buses are faster than light rail, but theu have cut services to force people to use the slower alternative
Buses can get caught up in traffic congestion, the trams do not. Over all, trams are faster .
@@brianb8516 busses have clearway and dedicated bus lanes, the trams are stuck at 40kmh
@@David.Horne72 Bus services are slower in peak hours when the clearways and bus lanes are in force. The trams can operate up to 60 km/hr, 50 in most straight sections, same speed as adjacent road traffic.
Haven’t heard of Brisbane metro have you
yeh, long buses.
L2 and L3 cost over a Billion dollars! with a capital B
The trams should be free within the CBD up to central. Every other city has free trams in the city... why isn't Sydney's?
If you give transport officers fake info, transport is actually free
People who travel to dulwich hill train station from central via tram 😂
Waste of money the new tram line. Cost over $2b which was way over budget. That money could have easily made autonomous busses. They could have pedestrianised the same area but had autonomous buses run on it which have the ability to be diverted unliked fixed rail. Oh and if they’d done that they wouldn’t have spend millions digging thru the old tram lines. The only thing we got with old school tram line is the retro effect it has.
except for when they hit pedressians
Well, the tram system seems to be well patronised...
Whenever I try using them in the city, they are completely jammed with people, to the point where passengers are being refused.
In these conditions, I would prefer to walk - and it doesn't take too much longer, given the slow boarding times which accompany this sort of congestion.
You should look at the new technology trackless light rail systems being built in china which would have saved the government billions and enabled them to build other corridors for the same cost as one currently.
Trackless trams are a gimmick and should be relegated to the long list of gadgetbahn failures. They take all the worst things about a bus and all the worst things about a tram and combine them to create an awesome CGI video that generates hype rather than an actual, working system that moves people.
Trams / Light rail, improve land values next to them. They are good access for shops and apartments. Buses simply don't do this. Buses turned into a welfare form of transport for the lowest common denominator.
Didn't see the point of the light rail in the city. We already have a existing rail service that stops at most of its stops. Although I do agree that it was good that we made the city more pedestrian friendly.
The alternative was clogged streets full of buses causing congestion. Some parts of the city had basically reached a capacity for how many buses you could shove down the street. George Street pre-2015 was atrocious in the PM peak.
trams need to replace buses i hate buses so much
Hahaha, work from home.
Ong
hey anmie boy
@@jackmiller7324 don’t call me that 💀
Trams suck. Trams are much slower than buses. Trams are MUCH more expensive than buses. The eastern suburbs have dedicated bus lanes which provide almost all of the benefits of a tram.
Busses are terrible 100% of the time. They're uncomfortable, slow, and miserable, whether BRT or otherwise.
@@seanomatopoeia Wrong. Buses are easy, have WAY more seats relative to standing area, and in a dedicated lane they beat light rail in speed by 50% in the eastern suburbs. I live near the Eastern suburbs light rail in Sydney. It's so slow NO ONE uses it.
"Trams are MUCH more expensive than trams", guess they are?
@@JamesJansson 2,000,000 trips per month is NO ONE?
@@brianb8516 The eastern suburbs line is really high right now, 863,000 trips per month. Or about 15,000 two way trips per day. Note that the eastern suburbs line also captures trips within the CBD. No one goes to the racecourse line because it is SLOW. VERY slow. Like add 20 mins to your journey slow.
Extrapolating out for 10 years, there'll be around 50,000,000 two-way journeys. The cost of building the system Was $3.1B. That's $62 per day per user, and that's not counting maintenance.
Honestly hate Sydney’s trams, they are so slow and unreliable. Our govt is so useless. Melbournes are much faster and smoother. Light rail is a Waste of money and space.