Sign In
or Create a new account
What role can Bays Precinct play to improve public transport in Sydney?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
You will need to login sign up to do that
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Comment 1 17 Aug 2009, 2:53 PM
1. Metro
2. Extended light rail
3. Expanded ferry services
Comment 1.1 18 Aug 2009, 11:31 AM
Agree regarding the expanded use of ferry services. Ferries are being reconsidered now - why not consider a ferry wharf in or adj to Rozelle Bay as part of that bigger picture. Could interchange with existing light rail infrastructure. Could take passengers directly to north side as well as circ quay and upriver. Marine infrastucture already exists in that precinct. NSWM is immediately adjacent to ensure wake / wash limits are adhered to. If Fishmarkets move then infrastruture is immediately avail to interlink to that precinct also. Many commercial passenger vesels are already utilizing Blackwattle Bay to berth at present. Surely the more traffic from single occupant vehicles taken off local overloaded roads the better. Consider also moving heavy marine industrial facilities to Cockatoo Is where facilities exist, or White Bay and use all accesible / available foreshore for general public for say 10m above high water and complete foreshore public access for all to enjoy. If we give it all away now it will never be available again.
In summary - utilise ferries, reduce traffic, provide more (retain) open space, reduce requirements for local congestion.
Comment 1.1.1 19 Aug 2009, 4:32 PM
Regrettably, there is an issue with ferry services for rowers. We row in Blackwattle, Rozelle, White and Johnstons Bays and also out in Darling Harbour - always looking for calm water as our boats are so shallow and close to the water. For rowing balance is everything and rowing in a wash is really really hard.
The arrival of the first ferries and rivercats at Balmain Wharf and in Darling Harbour in the mornings causes a wash that just doesn't go away because of the hard sides all around the harbour. On weekdays we finish at about 7.15am most days and so the ferries out in the harbour don't bother us too much. On the weekends we steer clear of the first ferry going into Balmain a bit after 6.30am. We'd be really nervous about the impact of ferries, especially in Blackwattle and Rozelle Bays - and especially before 7.15am as the calm water is really precious to us.
Have a look at the new photos in the Gallery - you will see the sort of water we look for.
Comment 1.1.2 17 Sep 2009, 12:55 PM
its just the use of ferries that needs to considered but the actual ferries themselves. The current ferries do not offer enough flexibility in operations and crewing, all of which impact on the bottom line, which will have an impact on what can be offered. Stockholm, Sweden, has a very efficient service that could be investigated for Sydney
Comment 1.1.2.1 30 Sep 2009, 8:51 AM
Great suggestion Sydney is not unique in having a Harbour, its only unique in having the B E S T Harbour, let's use it
Comment 1.2 24 Aug 2009, 8:54 AM
Expanded Ferry Services are a must, and this intergrates well with General Boating share the waterway and the access to the shore, from the waterways.
Let boaters use this area and tie up
Comment 2 17 Aug 2009, 5:01 PM
Any changes to the Bay Precinct must not make the transport situation worse. Hopefully, this is a given, but worth spelling out. That means that any new uses must be accompanied by new/additional public transport capability.
Hard to say what the right form/s should be until the plans are a bit firmer, but as per adros47, the metro, extended light rail and expanded ferry services can all play their parts.
The Bays Precinct could also be used to facilitate transfers - metro, light rail, buses and ferries all pass through the area, and the area near the base of the Anzac bridge could be used as a interchange.
Another role is as a example of best practice for the rest of Sydney - how to get it right!
The most important thing is a comprehensive, long term plan. Deciding to plonk the passenger ship terminal into the area before coming up with a holistic plan is just dumb, as it backs yourself into a corner before you start. Similarly, deciding on a metro without working out the long term route map is also dumb.
Comment 3 19 Aug 2009, 12:16 AM
Agree with all that adros47 suggested plus a bus interchange.
So essentially it would be the Inner West transport interchange where you can can make connections between bus/ferry/metro/light rail, which might slightly ease up the peak hour traffic on the west end of the Anzac bridge (if planned properly!)...In order to make it work I think there would need to be multiple bus stops (like at Edgecliff station).
Throw in a couple of cafes and pubs to boot and you have happy commuters!
Comment 4 21 Aug 2009, 5:32 AM
Great a place for recreational Boater and Public Transport Ferries to operate from, The Govt new policy to utilities, Ferry Wharfs and space around them for Recreational Boats to access shore, can be tested and showcased in this Precinct.
Rereational Boating and Ferries can use multi funtional facilities, and this is a great place to have it.
Comment 5 21 Aug 2009, 11:46 AM
TRANSPORT
Traffic and transport are major considerations in any future development of Bays Precinct, and any future planning must ensure that the necessary infrastructure is provided.
Public transport, environmentally the best option, is currently confined to bus routes along Victoria Road and the light rail, which stops at the western end of Rozelle Rail Yards and Rozelle Bay. Victoria Road carries more than 1,000 buses a day.
Expansion of public transport options should be an important element of planning for the Bays Precinct development. However, Victoria Road bus routes are already affected by heavy traffic congestion, despite dedicated bus lanes.
The State Government is more…
Comment 6 22 Aug 2009, 5:04 PM
The Metro of course – the old power station is ideal location for a Metro based transport interchange, incorporating retail, commercial, cultural and other uses.
But we also need to "grasp the nettle" and think about a completely different configuration for that whole congested T intersection at the end of Victoria Rd – for buses and cars.
Presently, in the evening peak, there's a lot of congestion heading INTO the city. The deeply flawed Victoria Rd "busway" project will do nothing to improve that, and will probably make it worse by encouraging more cars to try the "improved" bridge. But Iron more…
Comment 6.1 25 Aug 2009, 9:41 AM
RJE has hit upon a key point. The most important road bottleneck is the T-intersection at the bottom of Victoria where it meets the West Link.
A key improvement would be to buy that pile of rubble that used to be the White Bay hotel and put in a double bus bay. You could even call it the... Victoria Road Busway project Phase II!
Comment 7 24 Aug 2009, 11:17 PM
As I wrote in a previous post:
1) Extend Sydney's ferry network to this area of the harbour? If we're all for integrated transport then the Blackwattle Bay/Rozelle Bay/White Bay/Glebe Island area is one of two areas of the harbour completely lacking in passenger water transport (the other is Middle Harbour, but that's for another forum).
The Pyrmont Bay ferry is very popular with tourists but doesn't get much use apart from that - why not either extend it into these areas, or create a new route from scratch?
Wharves could be located (initially) at:
• off Refinery Drive, Pyrmont
• Sydney Fish Market site
• more…
Comment 7.1 8 Sep 2009, 3:56 PM
There would be significant navigation issues with a ferry terminal in Rozelle Bay. Other than a channel along the northern side, the Bay is too shallow to permit ferries. There would be significant disruption to dragon boating and kayaking along the southern side of the waterway, and if it was a commuter service, a risk of collisions in the dawn and pre-dawn period.
There are also navigation risks for ferries attempting to pass through the Old Glebe Island Bridge channel, which is far too narrow to permit the regular passage of large craft. The MV Claudia successfully uses this channel only because its master is extremely experienced at it and has performed this voyage for years. Even then the Claudia only narrowly fits through and has had a couple of scrapes in years past.
Ferry masters are good navigators but they don't have the personal experience with this waterway that the Claudia master does. Even if the water was deep enough, even if there was a way of avoiding accident risks with rowers and dragonboaters, it is unlikely ferries could safely enter the Bay under the old Bridge, or that Sydney Ferries would permit this route to be used.
Comment 7.1.1 17 Sep 2009, 3:04 PM
An interesting point you raise there P Low. Is it possible therefore that there is a public transport argument to be made for demolishing the now-defunct Glebe Island Bridge?
My goodness, what a tantalising conundrum that would present to the local cognoscenti. Public transport vs heritage – 2 of local lobbyist’s favourite motherhood issues - going head to head. Kill the bridge or kill the ferry service.
I can’t wait!
Comment 7.1.1.1 18 Sep 2009, 7:17 PM
Ironic how that area is against knocking down past development (even if it is ugly and environmentally unfriendly) yet is also against building new development (irrespective of asthetic, social or environmental value).
The working class locals have for the most part been displaced by white collar executives who are fed up with long commutes to the CBD. My fear is that the addition of these people to this area will further congest the roads (which obviously won't be expanded as the forum questions are solely focused on PT) taking kids to school, driving to work, doing shopping during peak hour, etc.
Encouraging more…
Comment 7.1.1.2 8 Nov 2009, 9:10 AM
On the contrary, I would say that Glebe Island Swing bridge could enable superior walking, cycling, bus and light rail access to the precinct if developers were made to pay for it. No conflict between heritage and public transport at all.
Not sure why I would catch a ferry to the City - or even Hungry Mile - from Blackwattle Bay? Wouldn't I walk, cycle or bus it in less time/money?
Comment 7.1.2 30 Sep 2009, 8:47 AM
AS a Boat and A Commercial Master we can all co use the Bays Precinct, so dont think its not a outcome, its a must, we need access to anywhere left on SYdney Harbour
Comment 7.2 4 Nov 2009, 5:47 PM
i strongly believe that the metro is unneccessary and an abuse of taxpayers money at the moment. Over $1000 per person throughout NSW will be charged for a line that would run almost empty.
The NW and SW lines can be built immediately for the same price, having a far greater impact on congestion. The current gov's plan will exceed $12 billion if they ever wish to build a metro line out to the northwest.
A more direct light rail line could serve the area by running along old pyrmont bridge and then old glebe bridge, serving the same route as the proposed metro.
Comment 8 2 Sep 2009, 9:57 PM
Strongly support any extension of ferry to Pyrmont west and to White Bay - especially given the potential customer base building with new Jackson's landing tower blocks. I'm also a huge fan of the tram (light rail if you must) and hope it can be directed north into the Barrangaroo and quay areas. Any further residential in the old rail yards of Lillyfield/Rozelle will add customers to this.
Comment 9 4 Sep 2009, 3:53 PM
Calling for comments this way appears democratic but is biased because it excludes a large proportion of the population (eg those with no internet access) and limits the questions that are asked.
Whilst I agree with suggestions for additional ferry services and extensions of metro light rail, what about foreshore parkland with walking and cycling paths ???
It would be a tragedy if this opportunity was lost to create some healthy natural amenities like this on the harbour foreshores ... we are told all the time that Sydney is the most beautiful city in the world, yet for those who live here it has been, and continues to be, "uglified" beyond belief in the name of profit by the alliance of developers and politicians (of ALL persuasions)!
Comment 9.1 5 Sep 2009, 7:45 PM
Kate, surely its not necessary to point out the bleeding obvious? What politician, or developer for that matter, would do anything without a reason to do so?
Please consider what is fueling our need for housing. Housing that is close to the CBD, close to transport links, in fashionable, highly desirable areas.
The politicians and builders are responding to the expectations of the voters and the demands of consumers. It's hardly "beyond belief". It's the economic system you and I live in Kate and its called capitalism.
We could always change that system, but that's another Forum topic, I think. I'll join you on the barricades though...
Comment 9.1.1 18 Sep 2009, 7:23 PM
Yes, housing that is going to boost the number of cars on the roads because it's so close to the CBD. Fashionable because infrastructure like freeways and train lines were never built as originally planned to further flung areas, making those areas less desirable than these. Of course, sole focus on peak hour infrastructure (8 hours/weekday) but little or no consideration for the other 16 hours plus weekends.
Comment 9.2 14 Oct 2009, 5:03 PM
I wonder how many people don't have internet access at home or work? It seems to be compulsory now before you can be a functional citizen!
I have not found "community action" meetings very democratic Kate. They usually demand what you want, (parks etc) mostly by yelling a lot, talking over anyone who disagrees, and by being quite arrogant in their dismissal of any working harbour compromises. Its open space! open space! open space! repeated loudly and often. They mean "nice" water views for themselves, as far as I can tell.
Comment 9.2.1 14 Oct 2009, 6:24 PM
well Said; working harbour compromises are important and I hope port and maritime commercial operations can be encouraged too.
Comment 9.3 18 Oct 2009, 1:34 PM
I don't think its "an alliance of developers and politicians" which cause this problem Kate, its more our need for housing. I don't have a problem with the aesthetics of it all (eg Pyrmont), but I do hope there is no more of that at White Bay. I'd prefer the waterfront was kept as a port. Maybe the housing required could go up in the goods yard section between Rozelle and Lilyfield, and it be more low rise (eg three or four stories). If it was well designed, I'd buy there myself!
As for parklands, bike tracks and paths, I don't think what's happened at Glebe is very encouraging. The bike people and the walkers are squabbling, and trees are being poisoned. Fabulous outcome..
Comment 10 2 Oct 2009, 1:04 PM
This area is ripe for a transport interchange, open space, keeping the harbour a working harbour, helping people live within walking distance or at least short distance of their work. My suggestions are:
1. Introduce commercial office/low impact light industrial space, probably within the Power Station, (and partially convert it to a museum).
2. Keep Blackwattle Bay as a low impact area for rowers, and it seems to me, the big boat marina works pretty well ie. not many boat movements. Keep ferries out, as well as small boats (you can't eat the fish in there anyway).
3. The boat terminal is more…
Comment 10.1 14 Oct 2009, 4:51 PM
All good points Jwells, although I am a Metro supporter. At the moment there isn't a station planned for White Bay, which is really weird. Just a "possible future one".
A station would seem to me to absolutely vital to the success or failure of any large scale redevelopment and transport plan for the area.
And being a working harbour supporter, I hope port and maritime commercial operations can be encouraged too.
Comment 10.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 6:25 PM
and I say : I hope port and maritime commercial operations can be encouraged too.
Comment 11 18 Oct 2009, 1:47 PM
Obviously, first we need a Metro stop at White Bay.
Then provided the west Metro goes ahead, the goods line could be converted to a metro link line too, joining it at Marketplace, and the main rail line at Lewisham.
And there is plenty of room for more housing developments along the line, in the old goods yard, and further along the track too (outside the Bays area). I'd buy there!
I know the light rail people want it, but so do the cyclists and the greenies now. You can't please everyone. The government should make some brave decisions, and get them in place before the election. Then at least they can go out with an achievement or two. Just caving in to all the pressure groups in an attempt to "save" seats means that nothing will happen at all. And in the end all anyone will say is "what a failure, what a tragedy"
Comment 12 21 Oct 2009, 1:08 PM
The question is back to front. It should be what role can public transport play to improve the Bays Precinct?
We need walking and bicycle access right around the precinct. There are some excellent posts on this site about integration of ferries, light rail and buses. I think there needs to be consideration of passive users of the harbour (e.g. canoeists, rowers and sailors. We should avoid growth of private motor boat use in the precinct. It is a similar blight to private car use and contrary to carbon reduction policy.
Comment 12.1 22 Oct 2009, 10:28 AM
WSA, I agree about canoeists, rowers etc. Especially for Blackwattle Bay, which they use now. My point was to keep the big boat marina there, it provides local employment, and a visual interest. They don't have much movement in and out of the bay, whereas small dinghys and runabouts do create wash, and mostly don't comply with the speed limits. So keep that bay for the big boats and rowers.
As for the Metro, what are the buses which currently travel along Victoria Road to the city, going to do? There doesn't seem to be a terminus in the plan at Rozelle, so maybe a terminus would be sensible near where the proposed station is going to be, linking the light rail and ferries.
Comment 12.2 8 Nov 2009, 10:19 AM
Well spotted. These are actually two different questions, and the Masterplanning needs to consider BOTH.
Comment 13 27 Oct 2009, 9:31 AM
What role can Bays Precinct play to improve public transport in Sydney?
Here are two transport issues for the area:
1. traffic from Glebe Island accesses the city via James Craig Road. Traffic from White Bay uses Roberts St and Victoria Rd, which are significantly more congested. This issue should be considered for traffic modelling for any developments in these two areas.
2. Morning rush hour traffic flow on Victoria Rd would be significantly improved by purchasing the rubble pile that used to be the White Bay Hotel and turning it into a bus bay (large enough for two buses). The redevelopment of the Power Station/Precinct area would be a good opportunity to do this.
Comment 14 8 Nov 2009, 11:13 AM
The Bays Precinct can be developed in a sustainable way. This means on the facilitation (carrot) side:
Enabling cycling, walking, buses, ferries and possibly tram and metro - all developed before traffic generating development is opened. Permeability for these modes across the site and through it to the existing suburbs should be a key focus of the master plan, ie
1. Paths through and across the site are safe and attractive - public areas includes the "roads" (that are not built for private vehicles). In particular, seamless and attractive paths to Anzac Bridge or Glebe Island Swing bridge.
2. New public transport more…
