As for pulling out the old “horrid working class types like me” cliche, that is so century before last. Time to upgrade your mindset, mate!

Part of the problem with the Christie Report is that the Herald is clearly playing politics. It wants to be able to claim the scalp of another Premier (before the Tele does), and believes that it is arresting its terminal decline in readership out west by championing that part of Sydney’s public transport needs.

But very few people out there get the Herald anyway, and they’re unlikely to start now.

Then there’s The Urban Taskforce, the developer’s lobby group who have also supported the Christie Report. They’re the ones who fell out with Frank Sartor because he wouldn’t give them want they wanted. So he was ousted. They thought they had someone more amenable in Kristina Keneally, but they were wrong, and now they’ve thrown their weight (and donations) behind the Libs and Barry O’Farrell. For years they’ve been arguing that more greenfield land be released out west to “help housing affordability.” It would help their members’ profitability too, but that’s just an agreeable coincidence. What would be even more lovely is that the state’s taxpayers could contribute by forking out for a railway line (or two).

With forces like that aligned against the Metro and its inherent urban infill strategy, it’s a wonder that it was ever proposed. And as we now know, it has been killed anyway by the bean counters in treasury.

The real wonder in all this has been The Greens. I’ve read most of what they’ve said (must admit I’m getting bored with it. Especially as Michele McKenzie indicates that she can’t even be bothered arguing her case.) And I’ve got to say, I agree with some of the posts above. The Leichhardt Greens in particular have been duped by the Liberals and a bunch of property developers. Either that or they are total hypocrites, because they’ve now opposed several major public transport projects.

Now the Metro is gone, they don’t even have a grievance issue at Rozelle to campaign on. How will they cope without something to whinge about?!

On I forgot. There Tigers to get rid off now, and all those horrid working class types like me!

Planning our state’s public transport system should mean more that jotting down a few ideas on the back of an envelope. I agree that both the ‘Christie’ & Glazebrook plans (like any major plans) will need some further refining, however, there has been no credible alternative to either of these plans presented thus far. Let’s hope that the State Government take heed of some of the ideas presented within these reports & learn from the many mistakes made in the roll-out for the Metro project (& there have been many).

Whilst I agree that there are worthy sites to place metro lines in Sydney, it seems that the chance to implement a well planned series of metro routes has been impeded by the tepid reception that the CBD metro has received due to concerns over cost, implementation, the project’s route & the impact on the delivery of other public transport infrastructure given the project’s cost. When the CBD metro was proposed, no thought was given to the SW or NW of Sydney as far as spending was concerned, the public saw the bulk of our public transport spending being concentrated in an area that for all intents & purposes had existing pubic transport services.

Neither of the aforementioned plans attempt to eliminate metro systems from a future public transport network in Sydney, & if anyone chooses to use large European cities as an example to justify a large amount of our state transport’s budget upon just one option, perhaps take a look at the wide ranging & varied public transport systems that exist in many of them. Berlin has the U-Bahn (underground rapid transport network), as well as, the S-Bahn, a hybrid commuter system that works in a way similar to our own City Rail heavy gauge system (wider commuter train network also using the city’s underground network), these railway options work in conjunction with a well used tram network & buses. Istanbul which is more than double the population figure of six million has a metro system plus an expansive light rail system to serve its population.

The point is that a considered transport mix is required to work in with a city that evolves in a measured & appropriate way, that benefits all of its citizens.

It would be nice to halt further sprawl into greenfield/arable areas, but the fact is, it already exists. Choosing to turn a blind eye to the fact that a large segment of Sydney’s population already lives further out than the metro’s potential reach is no way to plan for this city. All we can do is attempt to stop further urban sprawl but this can only be done by providing adequate housing/transport options city-wide.

The (so-called) ‘East Asian’ model will not, in truth, solve this problem [of urban sprawl]. The sheer cost for housing in the wealthier eastern side of the city next to metro lines will not stop the drift to the outer suburbs by those who cannot afford housing nearer the CBD. Providing transport for a wealthier strata of our society whilst ignoring the needs of the wider city population is one way further degrade the Sydney Public transport network even further than it has been already.

If there is one suggestion that we can take from the ‘Christie’ report, it is that there needs to be a central authority/coordinating body for this city’s transport needs. The reference to Railcorp’s “old school planners” only highlights the pointless inter-departmental/authority jousting (interesting because a number of the planners involved in the ‘Christie’ report have worked in other fields too, so is that correct?). The multi-authority management model is tosh, all we end up with is departments/authorities competing for their own interests ahead of the interests of the commuter.

This report has been produced mainly by old school planners/ people that have had a long history entrenched/ working at Cityrail & Railcorp so they are unable to look outside of the heavy rail only square. The so called modelling using “European” & “East Asian” is a misrepresentation. Sydney is neither. Why does the preferred option, the “European” model only include one metro line for a future population of more than 6 million people? Name one city in Europe with a population of more than 6 million people that doesn’t have an extensive metro system? This anti-metro sediment is further highlighted by the “European” models proposal for a heavy rail link from the city to Maroubra Junction. If ever there was an ideal corridor for a metro in Sydney this is it. This corridor as the crow flies is just over 10km’s from the middle of the city, already has medium density housing & significant sporting/ entertainment facilities along its route. If you are going to build a heavy rail link to Maroubra Junction surely wouldn’t it be more practical to extend the Eastern Suburbs line from Bondi Junction?

The “European” model also does nothing to address urban sprawl (One of the main concerns of modern day planners) with very long extensions of the south west rail link way beyond Leppington & north west rail link way beyond Rouse Hill to the Richmond line within 20 years. Urban consolidation is the way of the future for Sydney but it doesn’t need to be on the so called “East Asian” scale. This is merely a scare campaign for the “European” model to gain overwhelming support. Cities in Europe have successfully addressed this problem without creating so called “East Asian” scale densities/ scenario’s & have still managed to built extensive metro systems.

The “European” model also robs a vast area of central Sydney of direct rail access to the city by closing 9 stations between Cabramatta, Lidcombe & Bankstown by converting this to a light rail shuttle service. The only reason for this conversion is so that the existing Cityrail system can be squeezed even further. Surely there is no need for this if an effective metro system is built.

I’m not against expansion of the Cityrail system & think that the north west rail link, south west rail link & the Epping to Parramatta rail link are urgently needed but with individual projects given different priorities the “East Asian” model with an extensive metro system does seem to be the better long term solution for Sydney.

How can this project truly serve Sydney as a whole?

Using the city of Denver as a comparison model for public transport implementation to Sydney is as ludicrous as insisting on a metro system for Sydney because Jakarta or some other such city has one. All cities have their own demographic, historical & geographical planning issues.

If I were to highlight the public transport strategies as seen in other cities, I’d recommend that some of you take a look at Paris, Hong Kong or London. All have Metro systems, all have trams/light rail. This is because these cities have the densities to support comprehensive below ground rail systems & also have the flexibility in their transport strategies to apply light rail where practicable.

I’m already seeing a pattern here, take a pot-shot at the local Greens, then proceed to criticise any attempt at expanding the light rail system in Sydney as somehow a misguided attempt to implement an outdated, outmoded future public transport problem. Of course, this avoids looking at holistic attempts to remedy the public transport issues that blot Sydney, city-wide.

Why?…well I’m sure a few of you would cite preference for a Metro system as simply showing a preference for an ‘ideal’ mode of transport, but I’d suggest that this fits into a strategy of lambasting light rail or tram options in every instance because some are short-sighted enough to view light rail as the ‘opposition’ to the CBD Metro project. There is growing support for light rail, & really the CBD Metro (in this form) was largely a ‘show project’ that was expected to pick up marginal votes on the transport issue. It failed in that respect.

Towing a party-line to discredit light rail at every turn is foolish given the current public transport issue ‘climate’. If I am not mistaken, proposed journey times for the Metro have been called into question as far as safety is concerned (travel speeds have been queried), and as of yesterday it appears that there are concerns about reports issued about Metro statistics and the like.

Whilst I understand the disappointment of some with the possible abandoning of the Rozelle leg of the CBD Metro, others will be happy to see the Metro re-routed to area where it is actually needed, to leave a metro station option at White Bay/sections of the goods yards is really using (massive) public funding to enable private development on what is largely public land. This will be housing for the wealthy & not enough housing to make a significant dent in the housing crisis for wider community. Those who oppose the Metro Light Rail on the basis that it is a private company should also be critical that public land would be given up to the private sector.

Where is the Government’s commitment to an extensive Metro system?, no funding even for the West Metro at present (perhaps that will change with the release of the NSW Government’s transport strategy) but let’s drop the catchphrases “it’ll be the first stage of a new network” or the “step-change” that will ‘free’ us from heavy rail. There is not the funding or commitment to build a comprehensive metro network at present, or in the foreseeable future. If so, please prove me wrong. Let me know when the metro crosses the Parramatta River from Rozelle.

You can criticise (so-called) NIMBYS, but what is worse is the lack of concern some have in seeing the bulk of the state’s public transport kitty lavished upon one small section of the city leaving millions of people in other areas of Sydney desperate for adequate public transport relief.

Ron Christie’s plan is the best plan we have seen in Sydney since 1909. The ‘East Asian’ scenario as outlined in that plan is perhaps a model to largely avoid. Creating a divide that ignores a vast swathe of Sydney to cater for luxury high density corridors is as absurd as expanding cities further into the greenbelts. Moderation is required. Sydney is doomed to fail if bureaucrats control this issue any further and the tail continues to ‘wag the dog’.

I mean, what would experts like Christie, Blakely, Zeibots, Gehl know about getting votes?… they’re ‘only’ experts in planning & transport issues.

Michele is already on record as opposing the West Metro at Leichhardt. Of course Jamie will oppose it, he opposes everything and stands for nothing except his own election to the seat of Balmain.

But notice their enthusiasm for the Ron Christie transport report, presently getting lots of promotion in the Herald. Notice also the unpleasant undertones of that report’s “east Asian” horrors if we get a Metro. European model “good”, Asian “bad.” Just pathetic…

This is not new territory for Michele and Jamie. They were the ones who campaigned hard against “international” students polluting the pure grounds of Callan Park.

I don’t need a crystal ball, the stats speak for themselves. How is getting on a tram at Leichhardt (If the extension is built) or Rozelle Bay after waiting 10-15 minutes, then a slow trip of another 15-20 minutes to the southern end of the Sydney CBD where no one wants to go, ok let add an extension up George St which will add another 5-10 minutes to Martin Place, a total of 30-45 minutes travel time to go as the crow flies only 3-5km’s a world class public transport system? Sounds very similar to what they have in Denver. Compare this to a metro which will have a frequency of 2-5 minutes & the following travel times:

Rozelle to Martin Place (The middle of the city) in 6 minutes.
Rozelle to Sydney University in 12 minutes.
Leichhardt to Martin Place (The middle of the city) in 9 minutes.
Leichhardt to Sydney University in 3 minutes.
Leichardt to Olympic Park in 11 minutes.
Leichhardt to Parramatta in 18 minutes.

So which system represents the long term future of public transport in Sydney?

Urban consolidation of old industrial areas like White Bay/ The Bay Precinct will happen regardless of which side of government is in power. Medium to high density housing will be built in this area & will need adequate public transport. Surely you don’t expect all these new residents to use the slow, infrequent light rail system to get to/ from the city?

If you don’t know/ understand now what’s green about starting an extensive new public transport system then I rest my case.

“An extensive inner city light rail system will be slow, infrequent & out of scope within 20 years.”

Are you sure your crystal ball is working properly?

“..they do not understand the principles of transport planning for the densities being created in and around the inner city & CBD areas of Sydney.”

Me neither – what densities and what plans are they? So far pretty secretive.

“…so it is imperative that we start building/ planning a superior transport system”

Which is what every struggling incumbent government says before an election.

“rob the Rozelle part of their electorate of this modern, green, efficient public transport system. ”

Please explain what is ‘green’ about digging a huge expensive tunnel under the Balmain Peninsula to provide a new service to a tiny number of commuters?

“rob the people on the other side of their electorate in Leichhardt from getting this modern, green, efficient public transport system???”

Repetition like that makes you sound like a PR contractor reading from a script. Think carefully before committing to anything, especially when contemplating hire purchase.

Hope this helps!

I’d also like to congratulate the “Leichhardt Greens” for supporting everyone in Sydney but the people that voted for them/ the people they represent. They have now almost surely campaigned successfully enough to rob the Rozelle part of their electorate of this modern, green, efficient public transport system. So in 2 weeks when the West Metro is announced from Westmead to White Bay via the city are they going to campaign against it & try to rob the people on the other side of their electorate in Leichhardt from getting this modern, green, efficient public transport system???