NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

 
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

An EccoTran petition re the NWRL tunnels if anyone is interested ... Please join this campaign: http://chn.ge/15ac9EJ

Sponsored advertisement

  aamslfc Deputy Commissioner

An EccoTran petition re the NWRL tunnels if anyone is interested ... Please join this campaign: http://chn.ge/15ac9EJ
djf01
Yes, because having awarded the tunneling contracts a month ago, the Government is really going to listen to a minority bunch of self-interested nobodies from an irrelevant local "action" group Rolling Eyes

This thread has been dead for a month for a reason. The whole NWRL "debate" on this forum getting ridiculous - especially with all the minority interests and associated championing of 1000 alternative schemes. I can't remember any thread in the last 6 years going on as pointlessly and with as much armchair postulating as this one.

Here are the bare facts:

  1. It will be single-deck to Chatswood.
  2. It will be driverless and separate to CityRail/Sydney Trains.
  3. It will eventually be privatised.
  4. You will have to change trains at Chatswood for the first years of operation.
  5. Lots of weak-kneed and frankly spoiled commuters will suddenly have to stand if they want their nice new trains (in a manner that's reminiscent of the civilised world).
  6. Richmond has a direct rail connection, and given the proximity of Rouse Hill to Schofields, that line does not need another (in other words, use the damn transport that's nearest to you, instead of being stupid/elaborate, clogging up everything and going 20 mins to another location).
  7. Parramatta-Epping failed every feasibility study going back a decade for a reason.


There will be other transport decisions that compliment the NWRL plan, and others which will be the result of the NWRL. Those decisions will be made in the future when the bloody thing opens in 2019.

Yes, I do think there are some questions to be answered re: the NWRL, but that's because the Government won't stray off-message and give us detailed information/answers. I'm also mindful that there is a reason the Government weighed up all the options and came up with this particular design. There are financial, urban planning and other issues at play; it's more than just Gladys going "ooh shiny metros, let's ignore double-deck", and armchair Railpagers responding with "Buses ftw" or "these tunnels aren't how I would do it, whinge whinge".

The NWRL will be built to the aforementioned specs whether you like it or not. Petitions won't change a thing. Neither will this thread (all 56 pages of circular rubbish). If you actually care this much about the NWRL (or other transport plans), go work in Finance, Planning, Transport, or for a consultancy firm.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Yes, because having awarded the tunneling contracts a month ago, the Government is really going to listen to a minority bunch of self-interested nobodies from an irrelevant local "action" group Rolling Eyes

This thread has been dead for a month for a reason. The whole NWRL "debate" on this forum getting ridiculous - especially with all the minority interests and associated championing of 1000 alternative schemes. I can't remember any thread in the last 6 years going on as pointlessly and with as much armchair postulating as this one.

Here are the bare facts:

  1. It will be single-deck to Chatswood.
  2. It will be driverless and separate to CityRail/Sydney Trains.
  3. It will eventually be privatised.
  4. You will have to change trains at Chatswood for the first years of operation.
  5. Lots of weak-kneed and frankly spoiled commuters will suddenly have to stand if they want their nice new trains (in a manner that's reminiscent of the civilised world).
  6. Richmond has a direct rail connection, and given the proximity of Rouse Hill to Schofields, that line does not need another (in other words, use the damn transport that's nearest to you, instead of being stupid/elaborate, clogging up everything and going 20 mins to another location).
  7. Parramatta-Epping failed every feasibility study going back a decade for a reason.


There will be other transport decisions that compliment the NWRL plan, and others which will be the result of the NWRL. Those decisions will be made in the future when the bloody thing opens in 2019.

Yes, I do think there are some questions to be answered re: the NWRL, but that's because the Government won't stray off-message and give us detailed information/answers. I'm also mindful that there is a reason the Government weighed up all the options and came up with this particular design. There are financial, urban planning and other issues at play; it's more than just Gladys going "ooh shiny metros, let's ignore double-deck", and armchair Railpagers responding with "Buses ftw" or "these tunnels aren't how I would do it, whinge whinge".

The NWRL will be built to the aforementioned specs whether you like it or not. Petitions won't change a thing. Neither will this thread (all 56 pages of circular rubbish). If you actually care this much about the NWRL (or other transport plans), go work in Finance, Planning, Transport, or for a consultancy firm.
aamslfc
I take it that's a "no" then Smile?
  T88 Junior Train Controller

Location: Banned
A change of government will result in the NWRL not being built at all. Much like Julia's promise to connect Parramatta to Epping. If only the search worked on this forum we could dig up that old thread.????
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
I am hoping that the feeder routes will be introduced afterwards, as it will be good to see the competition between the NWRL and Hillsbus.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
Does anyone see a chance of the rapid transit extending through Beecroft, or Gordon?
  KymN Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Does anyone see a chance of the rapid transit extending through Beecroft, or Gordon?
simonl
Gordon maybe.  Beecroft never.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
Gordon maybe.  Beecroft never.
KymN
Never is a very long time.  The planned triple could become a quad and give up two tracks to rapid transit.

I actually think that's more likely than Gordon.  The only way Gordon will become rapid transit is for the Harbour Bridge to be converted over.
  cammo2005 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia.
A change of government will result in the NWRL not being built at all. Much like Julia's promise to connect Parramatta to Epping. If only the search worked on this forum we could dig up that old thread.????
T88
To be fair... that's largely Barry's fault that one, because he refused to accept the funding. Julia just did the logical thing and said "Don't want it? Too bad so sad... We'll give it to another state then."

Not one of BOF's finest moments.I'm pro union (though not the current batch of unions which have devolved into self-serving membership organisations as opposed to organisations that genuinely work for their members), but a lot of the stuff that they're doing right now is logical, except refusing that funding that was on the table. If they'd done it cheap, it would have covered a decent proportion of the costs, and could probably have been operated as a yo-yo.
  Rails Chief Commissioner

To be fair... that's largely Barry's fault that one, because he refused to accept the funding. Julia just did the logical thing and said "Don't want it? Too bad so sad... We'll give it to another state then."

Not one of BOF's finest moments.I'm pro union (though not the current batch of unions which have devolved into self-serving membership organisations as opposed to organisations that genuinely work for their members), but a lot of the stuff that they're doing right now is logical, except refusing that funding that was on the table. If they'd done it cheap, it would have covered a decent proportion of the costs, and could probably have been operated as a yo-yo.
cammo2005


The money for the PERL is apparently still there based on recent media reports, its now just been pushed back a few years.

For the PERL to be built as intended by Gillard, the NSW Government would have to change their NWRL plans to run Double Deck Trains (a good thing to posters on here but obviously debatable...). The result of integrating a Double Deck PERL/ NWRL/ North Shore/ Northern line creates a few issues and certainly provides the PERL as a less than useful link in that form IMO. It needs to be more frequent and faster than that configuration allows. It makes more sense now as a Single Deck line!

You also have to consider that the money supplied by Gillard was apparently about 50% of what was needed to build the link, NSW had to come up with the rest so it was either NWRL or PERL and the Liberals are committed to the NWRL. Although in opposition they have stated that they would like the PERL built eventually but it didn't appear in the 20 year plan. Although even the planning documents produced by the former Labor Government prior to the 2010 federal election had the PERL as a long term proposition at best, the numbers just didn't add up for this line. Infrastructure NSW saw it as a bus corridor when they reviewed it recently.

The only reason the PERL was put on the table by the Federal Labor party was they saw it as a vote winner in a marginal area and it was one of the few projects that were close to being able to be built. Their choice certainly put the Federal Governments own advisory board, Infrastructure Australia nose out of joint since they were never consulted about it, that says something... Having reviewed it before, they again (like all the others that have reviewed this line) repeated publicly that it was a long term proposition at best.

For the PERL to make sense it needs to create large scale relief for the Western line (as was the original idea) as well as supporting development along the line. The way it was put forward for the 2010 election as a 4 tph Double Decker service between Parramatta and St Leonards with the Western line still running across the bridge, It unfortunately doesn't do that.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
If the ECRL Project cost was reduced, I'm sure the feds contribution would follow.

There was one time the PERL should been built and that was when the ECRL was built, now I'm not so sure as the standalone Overhead project costs seem to make an expensive project for the effort. I think it will happen, but not for some time and there are far more priorties and I think Bazza's move on the NWRL and the deicison to use different technology, ie automated Metro is the right one longterm as it will enable cheaper roll out and operationof HR, assuming the govts of the future build on it rather than leaving it fester as a standalone line to Chatswood. The intergration argument is a wannk, what have CR being doing over last few years, untangling the network so it operated more like seperate systems where delays on one don't affect the other. With NWRL, you still have same, except peope have to change trains, big deal. My thinking is there is more demand from the NWRL and the PCRL provides relief for a small number of users.

Once the tunnel under the harbour is done I'm thinking its capacity will be consumed by Taffic with terminators to Chatswood, NWRL and I see a Nth beaches route being floated as providing faster more reliable access to the city.

The PERL could be either DD or Metro, it probably won't matter much and as others suggest be a simple yo-yo. In the mean time the govt needs to take action and reduce the cost of the Carlingford line by looking at DOO.
  T88 Junior Train Controller

Location: Banned
Intelligent replies above. Thank you.
Was looking at the future planning website, and it seems to have missed the proposed new stabling yard at Emu Plains?
  Rails Chief Commissioner

If the ECRL Project cost was reduced, I'm sure the feds contribution would follow.

There was one time the PERL should been built and that was when the ECRL was built, now I'm not so sure as the standalone Overhead project costs seem to make an expensive project for the effort. I think it will happen, but not for some time and there are far more priorties and I think Bazza's move on the NWRL and the deicison to use different technology, ie automated Metro is the right one longterm as it will enable cheaper roll out and operationof HR, assuming the govts of the future build on it rather than leaving it fester as a standalone line to Chatswood. The intergration argument is a wannk, what have CR being doing over last few years, untangling the network so it operated more like seperate systems where delays on one don't affect the other. With NWRL, you still have same, except peope have to change trains, big deal. My thinking is there is more demand from the NWRL and the PCRL provides relief for a small number of users.

Once the tunnel under the harbour is done I'm thinking its capacity will be consumed by Taffic with terminators to Chatswood, NWRL and I see a Nth beaches route being floated as providing faster more reliable access to the city.

The PERL could be either DD or Metro, it probably won't matter much and as others suggest be a simple yo-yo. In the mean time the govt needs to take action and reduce the cost of the Carlingford line by looking at DOO.
RTT_Rules

Well based on the NWRL, the cost to the public could be reduced if it was built in the same way, my understanding (and someone will correct me if this is wrong) is the NWRL is 8.2 Billion, the Government is spending 4 Billion and the private sector the rest. So if the PERL was the $5.3 Billion or so as has been claimed then its around 2.5 Billion of public money, originally the Federal Government committed the 2 Billion and the NSW Government was meant to pay 500 million. As you allude too, hopefully the changes made for the NWRL make it cheaper and easier to expand rail in Sydney and we do see more lines, however from everything I've seen the PERL wont be first unless they make a change that sees the Main Western line no longer run to the North Shore.

Agreed, the PERL best chance was the original plan with the ECRL (PRL), on its own it really struggles when all the relevant criteria are applied as part of a proper non politicised process. I also agree that the fact that everything we have been hearing for many years is that the network needs to be separated out into sectors, which is exactly what the new plan is doing. It is unfortunate that we don't have the money to get the new line all the way to the CBD straight up but that is how it goes, even the City Circle wasn't built in one go, who thinks it should not have been built because of this?

I also share your thoughts that there is a possibility that the second harbour crossing would allow for not only the NWRL but a Northern Beaches line (if you can convince the locals). Before they announced that the NWRL would run driverless trains (justified partly on the ability to run more tph), they were talking 30 tph for the line with 20 tph reserved for the NWRL itself. I thought the 30 tph was very low for such a line, I would expect it to run 35-40 tph. Well lets say driverless delivers an extra 5 tph up to 35 tph, with 20 tph for the NWRL you could indeed have 15 tph for a Northern Beaches lines. Most likely connecting in at the North Sydney station. One day I would like to see the following:

NWRL: 20 tph (Rouse Hill to Liverpool via Homebush)
PERL:  10 tph (Westmead to St Leonards via Carlingford)
NB:     15 tph (Dee Why to Liverpool via Bankstown)

This scenario could see the DD Western line running on the suburbans into the City Circle to meet the Airport/ East Hills line and the DD Northern line running on the mains but not stopping at Central, it would run across the bridge to Hornsby via Gordon. It also means that the Interurban trains from the Blue Mountains, Coast and Newcastle can still run to ST on the mains. Cumberland line would be changed to SD trains and the ESR/ Illawarra remains its own separate DD sector.

You cant have Chatswood terminators, no room and I dont know why you would anyway. If you wanted to stop these trains short they would have to quad to Roseville or Lindfield (maybe Gordon?). I also cant see how with the SD NWRL the PERL could be DD though? Unless they terminate at new platforms at Epping or Macquarie Park? I dont understand the benefit of such a line at all, cant see it ever being built. The PERL benefits from being SD by being faster through the curvy Carlingford line and more frequent to encourage Western line folks to get off existing trains at Parramatta to change to these trains to travel to the North Shore.
  T88 Junior Train Controller

Location: Banned
Dang! Epic post of the year. Votes "Rails" for Transport Minister. Now who is going to give him the money?
  Rails Chief Commissioner

Cheers mate, also of interest is the former NSW Government commissioned a study during the CBD Metro days where they looked at all the main transport corridors and rated their suitability and viability as rail lines. This document was not officially released but when the CBD Metro was killed off the former Government were pressured to release this and heap of other documents and they did eventually (some bits seem to still be missing though!). While this particular document was skewed because it assumed that the CBD Metro to Rozelle and the Western Metro to Westmead existed (as they were Government policy but never had the correct viability criteria applied) it was interesting to see how the various corridors stacked up.

From memory the Northern Beaches line rated at the top except for difficulty to build (code for cost), less ability for urban gentrification and for local opposition, these issues dropped it down the list. They had the option of either building it via Chatswood or Mosman, both had the same issues (to me the via Chatswood option looked horribly indirect!). The NWRL was up the top but hard to judge in the current context because they were using the path via Rozelle since they had committed to it (and were keeping the ECRL as a Cityrail line which really doubles up). The PERL was shown as a long term prospect (again) however was a Cityrail line not a Single Deck line.

They did however have a line that is rarely discussed and that was a Single Deck line from Macquarie Park to Hurstville via either Olympic Park or Burwood, this line stacked up better than you would expect (mid term option), I think that TNSW are trying to create this connection in a round about way via the conversion of the Illawarra locals to the meet the NWRL but obviously it would miss out on a lot of the benefits of the original proposed alignment. I personally can see the benefits of the line currently proposed in "Sydney's rail future" but I think its not the best way forward. Thinking about the lines in this older document I can see why they proposed what they did at the time but also how it would have been less then when what it could be long term, most of what they are doing now is superior IMO. While it would work and kick some goals I cant help but think the same thoughts about the current Governments Hurstville proposal but the planners have wanted this line for a long time and they seem to be trialing the idea with Cityrail in the next time table.
  viaprojects Chief Train Controller

Intelligent replies above. Thank you.
Was looking at the future planning website, and it seems to have missed the proposed new stabling yard at Emu Plains?
T88
it got canned - money problem and the state is not going to fund the project.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

From SMH, the dwell time modeling study: http://images.smh.com.au/file/2013/09/23/4770519/trains.pdf
  Blackadder Chief Commissioner

Location: Not the ECRL
Local residents complaining about the proposed NWRL stabling facilities.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/the-hills/hour-rouse-hill-rail-facility-plan-proceeds-despite-misgivings/story-fngr8i1f-1226768754839
  darkmage35 Station Master

Location: Canberra
I'm pretty new to studying the rail network and public transport in general, but this obsession with tunnelling everywhere disturbs me. The numbers being thrown around for the cost of the second harbour crossing via tunnel alone are around $10 billion. Let's see what we could build for that sort of money if we kept the tunnelling to a minimum. Readers should be warned that the following ideas are a bit radical.

  • A complete Sydney Harbour Bridge replacement. Not with anything much different, just the same basic design with two decks and lower pylon arches. This would allow two rail lines, a dedicated bus/light rail lane in each direction, space reserved for a future high speed rail line, a monorail line above the outside lanes of the top deck, and still have space left over for 12 car lanes. Cost: Likely around $1 billion.
  • A monorail line running from Epping to Collaroy via Parramatta and Central. The route taken would cover the PERL, the proposed west metro route, and the Mosman option for a northern beaches line. The path through the CBD would be via Harbour street, Darling Park and Wynyard. The total length would be about 58km, so considering that at around $60 million/km, total cost would be likely around $3.48 billion.
  • A monorail line to replace the inner west trains, running from Strathfield to Central then around the city circle, stopping near Museum, at St James, at Circular Quay, and terminating at Wynyard. This would free up south line trains to always follow the same stopping pattern, and allow the repositioning of Summer Hill and Lewisham stations to better interchange with the inner west light rail. Total length about 15.8km, so again at around $60 million/km, total cost would be about $950 million.
  • The NWRL connection itself would be done by quadriplicating the track from Chatswood to North Sydney, going across the bridge, then tunnelling along the metro-pitt alignment. Admittedly this would have some grade issues getting down from the bridge. This is the only tunnelling that would still be necessary. Length of the tunnel is around 3.5km, and comparing to the cost of the NWRL and the projected cost of the proposed Melbourne metro tunnel, it would likely cost $800 million to $1 billion per km. Let's call it $3.5 billion to be on the safe side. There's also about 6.6km of quadriplicating to do, considered at perhaps $100 million/km. So the total cost would be $4.16 billion.
  • We have, what, approximately $400 million left? That more or less allows us to do one (but only one) out of the following: Connect the NWRL from Cudgegong road up to Schofields, which would make it more palatable to put Richmond onto the Cumberland line. Extend light rail from Kingsford to Little Bay. Or, run a light rail line from Surry Hills through Bondi Junction to Bondi Beach.


Note that this allows near complete sectorisation of the network, with the only exception being the overlap between the Cumberland line and the South/Airport/East Hills line. I'm pretty sure everything else gets its own dedicated track pair. It also would get us the world record for longest monorail line, but we'd still be edged out for largest monorail system by Chongqing in China. Probably won't hold it for long, if at all, given the rate they're building, but it's still mildly interesting.

The biggest problem with all this is that it would be (in the short term) political suicide. There's the NIMBYs in the northern beaches area, and more importantly, it messes with the bridge. Monorails are also politically unpopular, even if there is the space for them and they'd actually work quite well in this situation.

But as I said at the start, I'm a newbie in all this. So aside from the politics, could someone please tell me why this wouldn't work?
  allambee Chief Train Controller


But as I said at the start, I'm a newbie in all this. So aside from the politics, could someone please tell me why this wouldn't work?
darkmage35
You need money, the will, no NIMBY's.
The only way I can see major infrastructure being built on a epic scale is the installment of a Communist run government for a decade.
Maybe we could outsource the NSW government, its strategic planning etc to the Chinese government?
Don't laugh, maybe better than the current NSW system where
1.They shoot corrupt officials.
2. We would be still paying tax without proper representation.
  darkmage35 Station Master

Location: Canberra
You need money, the will, no NIMBY's.
The only way I can see major infrastructure being built on a epic scale is the installment of a Communist run government for a decade.
allambee
You might have a point there. But there will eventually be money for it, at least. Either this or some future NSW government is going to want to build a second harbour crossing. These ideas are just making use of the money more efficiently.

After mapping out the inner west monorail, I think it might not be such a good idea after all. The stations are too close together, the line itself is pretty close to the Epping-Collaroy alignment, and it would be using up valuable space that a future high speed rail link would want. So scratch that idea. The $950 million could be used to complete all three projects listed in the last point instead.
  darcyj Chief Train Controller

Monorail? 58km of monorail? No, my friend. It is slow. It has no capacity. It is a bastard to deal with in the event of a breakdown.

Knockdown rebuild of the Sydney Harbour Bridge? No, my friend. Your cost estimates are courageous, but what you have not considered is the timeframe of construction and the inconvenience. This is not a matter of NIMBYs. You are talking about messing with national heritage.

Relieved that in your later post you reconsidered one of your monorail follies. Note that stations must be closer together the smaller your transport vehicle. Bus stops in the eastern suburbs are found every 50-100 metres because of population density - if Maroubra Junction was the only place in the suburb from which a bus could be caught then it would be hopelessly overrun with commuters in that one spot, like the bus stop on Eddy Avenue for the UNSW express bus except without the polite queueing. So consider your monorail and how many people it could carry, and at what point on its journey it would be full up. How do you have express services or limited stopping patterns with a monorail when all the vehicles are following each other single file?

Tunnelling is preferred because it disturbs the least amount of existing infrastructure and environment, utilising "new" space rather than trying to reorganise space that is already in use. FWIW, I would tunnel a rail line starting at Homebush, with underground platforms at Strathfield, Five Dock, Balmsin, Barangaroo, Wynyard (new P7/8 same level as 5/6), World Square, Central (relocated P14/15 underground) and feeding back onto the Main above ground through Sydney Yard. A genuine express line, and using three tracks most of the length (except between Wynyard and Central) so that a relief line is available for peak loading and incident management. Interurbans could use it. You could have an extra 20tph to the city from the west and north without adding a single one to the bridge.
  darcyj Chief Train Controller

Make that an extra 30tph into the city - the existing Up Main takes more trains because they would have somewhere to go at Central.
  darkmage35 Station Master

Location: Canberra
Monorail? 58km of monorail? No, my friend. It is slow. It has no capacity. It is a bastard to deal with in the event of a breakdown.
darcyj
I'm not talking about the sort of monorail that Sydney used to have. That would indeed be folly. I'm talking about the sort of monorail they use in China and Japan for mass transport where there isn't any space on the ground for anything else. I'm thinking Bombardier Innovia 300, since that has the smallest turning radius. They're spec'd at 80km/h top speed and a capacity of about 90 passengers per car at 4 pax/m^2, with a maximum of 8 cars per train. But let's consider half that passenger capacity.

At 45 passengers per car, 8 cars, 12 tph, we get 4320 pphpd, or the equivalent of 4.8 heavy rail trains at 100% capacity.

But these monorails are also claimed at a maximum of 48 tph, so if that were managed at the same capacity, we get 17280 pphpd, or the equivalent of 19.2 heavy rail trains at 100% capacity.

I've done the physics calculations for the acceleration, deceleration and projected speed, too. There are very few sharp turns that aren't right next to a probable station location in the route, so for most of the time the thing could travel at near max service speed. It would likely be competitive in travel time with express trains between Parramatta and Central, even though it would always operate all stops. Really, the concept we are discussing here is more like that of a metro, except above ground. I wouldn't be mentioning it if I didn't think it could work.

There are several options for dealing with a breakdown. Evacuation onto a monorail on the adjacent track. Having another monorail tow the first. Evacuation via inflatable slide of the style they use on large airplanes, or via an emergency walkway beside the track on bridges. Again, this is nothing like that Von Roll monorail Sydney used to have.


Knockdown rebuild of the Sydney Harbour Bridge? No, my friend. Your cost estimates are courageous, but what you have not considered is the timeframe of construction and the inconvenience. This is not a matter of NIMBYs. You are talking about messing with national heritage.
darcyj
It is lunacy to put critical infrastructure on the national heritage list and no longer allow yourself to improve it or replace it when it gets old. I have no words for the level of silliness that Australia has accomplished with this. The amount of extra wasted money that would be thrown away if we are forced to add another harbour tunnel instead is ridiculous. And as I said, I'm not talking about changing the design beyond adding a second deck and a monorail line.

Knocking it down then rebuilding it would be completely unworkable, you are correct. The only way it could possibly be done would be to build the replacement first then remove the original. I am certainly not qualified to judge whether or not that is even possible, let alone practical, unfortunately. Ross Cameron thinks it can be done, but he might just be crazy. Being a religious Liberal party politician isn't helping his case there.


Tunnelling is preferred because it disturbs the least amount of existing infrastructure and environment, utilising "new" space rather than trying to reorganise space that is already in use. FWIW, I would tunnel a rail line starting at Homebush, with underground platforms at Strathfield, Five Dock, Balmsin, Barangaroo, Wynyard (new P7/8 same level as 5/6), World Square, Central (relocated P14/15 underground) and feeding back onto the Main above ground through Sydney Yard.
darcyj
That's at least $12 billion worth of cost right there, possibly much more. Now *that* is what I call unworkable.
  allambee Chief Train Controller

Knockdown rebuild of the Sydney Harbour Bridge? No, my friend. Your cost estimates are courageous, but what you have not considered is the timeframe of construction and the inconvenience. This is not a matter of NIMBYs. You are talking about messing with national heritage.
darcyj
If they continue cutting back on the on going maintenance budget, they may well have to knock it down thru neglect. Have you been over the bridge lately?  If you have a close looks at the Northern side there serious paint flaking off the main structural members with plenty of rust to show.
I suspect the permanent maintenance crew has been done away with and they tender the work out to private contractors when it gets bad enough to patch it up.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.