In the particular case of Woollahra, the underlying problem you are ignoring is that there is very little demand for public transport to 'disturb the tranquility' of the area. In fact, there is no service at all on Edgecliff Rd at either end of the station cutting; the nearest services are the infrequent 200 and the circuitous 327.
They don't want it, so don't bother.
Again, I offer it to you that this too is absolute tripe.
Firstly, your basic premise is that costs are scalable in a linear fashion; this is hardly the case. Your fixed project costs will remain just as high; for instance, you still need to pay just as much for a tunnel boring machine. This skews the cost in the unfavourable direction. Perhaps if the original project had kept going, it might have worked; alas, it did not.
Secondly, your demand will not be even across the year. People do not go to the beach in winter as readily as they do in winter. I have previously been attacked for stating this obvious fact, but it stands that during approximately a third of the year, you will not have this sort of leisure demand lying around. You are thus dependent on your commuter demand, and this brings me to my third point.
I would argue that the enthusiast community greatly overstates the inbound commuter demand ex-Bondi Rd. Simply put, you cannot take the demand pooled at Bondi Junction and declare that there are a lot of passengers. This is because the passengers that fill the trains ex-Bondi Junction do not come exclusively up Bondi Rd; they also come from other places from other routes such as 360 Nth Clovelly, 378 Bronte, 386 387 Old South Head Rd, 389 Seven Ways, etc. The reason why Bondi Junction works so well is because it is a hub. Bondi Beach is not a hub, and your demand will peter out as you reach the beach.
I therefore put it to you both that there is little cause to want an extension past Bondi Junction. Don't even start on Charing Cross.
 200: Bondi Jn Int to Edgecliff Int via Edgecliff Rd, Queen St and Ocean St.
 327: Bondi Jn to Edgecliff Int via Bellevue Rd, Suttie Rd and Manning Rd. Continues to City - Gresham St via Darling Pt and Kings X.
I used a quote "suits don't catch PT or buses". Yes I know they catch buses, but they catch trains even more. More a figure of speech don't take it literally.
The thing with the Bondi Line it looks unfinished and considering the govt approach at the time to end the money drain this is not surprising. For example It stops short of a major destination and has a bus interchange for many of its users at BJ only 7km from the city. Woollahra, l
ike many stations in inner cities, my intent was mainly to focus on walk up traffic and limited bus services. I caught trains from numerous stations on the upper NSL and upper Main nth line in 80's and 90's and I doubt some of them even get a 30min bus running past. If I recall correctly, Waitara basically just got the hwy bus, basically a bus running along the same route as the railway, Warawee, Killara Cheltenham, Denistone.... the nearest bus stop to Woollhara is 150 to 200m away according to google. But yes these are legacy stations, today is a different world.
Business Case for Woollahra is fairly straight foward
- Does not require any additional trains
- Does not require any works on the track alignment.
- Does not require any additional track
- Does not require any significant impact to existing services (adds 1min to existing return run to BJ and and an extra stop for the trains wear and tear
- Unlikely to impact on the operating railway during construction
- Additional operating costs limited to ongoing station maintenance and localised track wear
- Foundations of the station is likely to be mostly done
- The site is roughly half way between the adjacent stations which are ~2km apart so spacing is typical for a short inner suburban railway.
For such a low cost addition to the network, then compared to other major extension projects, ie SWRL and NWRL, you have to wonder how many people new to rail this station needs to attract to be viable in comparison?Bondi Beach,
just because its more seasonal doesn't mean its not viable. Commuter traffic would be significant in its own right, tourist traffic is just a bonus and as an added bonus tends to be reverse peak and off-peak. But if the project has been costed and discredited fair enough, but considering the other decisions made at the time by the same govt about rail, I'd challenge it. As for my costings, yes you are right, but if you want me to give a detailed analysis give me $50m to do so. It was a scaled guesstimate and note it doesn't also require modifying existing works like the ECRL and I did say at least 2500 per day based on this very loose estimate.
I looked up the time bus time table for BB. For BJ to the beach off-peak during the day the bus frequency is 5min, peak its 2min. And this doesn't count the buses running along South Head Road or the roads in between the beacj and South Head Road. Seems pretty busy for a route thats
supposedly not viable?Business Case for BB extension is very different- Requires 2.5km of additional track, all underground- Extra station, underground. The distance from the city and between the stations would normally justify 2 stations- Would need two extra sets to service during peak on a 3min timetable.Again how many new to rail and reduced bus coverage is required to justify the costs.
The "intelligent" argument from the local council in 1999 opposing the lineWaverley Council has expressed doubts about the project; it could change the character of the beach area because of a new influx of people. Some locals expect an increase in pollution, crime and even traffic as a result of the new rail link. Other problems are:
- Commuter traffic along Bondi Road will not reduce much, if at all.
- Traffic will be a nightmare during construction, expected to last at least 2 1/2 years.
- Beach rubbish will rise substantially. Waverley Council confirms that either rates will go up to cover extra cleaning, or other services will be cut.
- Rent is likely to increase for residential and commercial tenants, as tourist numbers explode.
- With millions more visitors, the pressure for Gold Coast-type development of Bondi Beach will rapidly intensify.
- NSW police confirm that crime around the beach will definitely increase with this rail link but no extra policing funds are proposed.
How can they say the beach district would see both increased pollution (not from an electric train you would assume) and no impact on the commuter traffic? Perhaps the argument for a 2nd station is also here as well.
The project is underground, only issue is likely to be around the station site. Like other major infrastructure projects, they often only have heavy vehicle traffic to them at night.
Rent will go up? Hardly likely considering its already expensive.
The council opposes the influx of tourists, must be the first council in Australia to not want this extra income
"Millions more visitors", sounds like the line is indeed going to be very successful. But millions, unlikely?
The council controls the planning rules, so "GC type development" is at their call.
So based on the police assessment closing all railway stations will reduce crime across the board. The govt normally allocates police on a as needs basis. How can they say here are extra police for something they don't know will happen.
Today the same council is promoting a cycle way to the city and this on their website for visitors to the area, http://www.waverley.nsw.gov.au/recreation/visitors
a photo of the beach they don't want a railway to provide access to.