Sign In
or Create a new account
What impact would removing rail services from the CBD have? (continued)
With climate change and high petrol prices there seem to be many imperatives for retaining and improving public transport services rather than removing them. What would the impact of removing rail from the CBD actually be?
Comment 1 30 Oct 2008, 10:09 PM
PLEASE RETAIN OUR RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE
There are many imperative reasons for retaining and improving public transport services in Newcastle.
Environmental
Cutting the rail line anywhere is going to discourage use and increase car use, thus increasing pollution from car emissions and pollution from building sites while we build more car parks to house them all. (There isn't much parking in Newcastle) And rail is one of the more environmentally friendly ways to get around, much better than buses from some kind of hub proposed for Wickham.
Petrol
Peak oil is a reality as the price at the bowser has been telling us for some more…
Comment 1.1 1 Nov 2008, 2:18 PM
Some people have said they have not been consulted on the future of public transport in the Hunter. Save Our Rail holds a meeting open to the public every first Wednesday of the month as it has done for the last five years, commencing at 5.30 pm at the Hamilton Station Hotel. The meeting takes motions from financial members who can vote on what actions Save Our Rail takes next. Members of the public are welcome. Does Honeysuckle Corporation, HBC, GPT or the Herald hold a similar democratic community forum? 81101
Comment 1.1.1 1 Nov 2008, 6:42 PM
Removed by moderator. Comment was deemed offensive, inappropriate or spam.
Comment 1.1.1.1 2 Nov 2008, 3:12 PM
Where is the forum you attend Richard?? More derision without doing anything yourself!!
Comment 1.1.1.1.1 2 Nov 2008, 6:11 PM
What do you think this site is about ?
As you stated you don't attend that meeting yourself ... Are you changing your statement in the topic before this one ??? What forum do you attend ?
As Pauline Hanson once said... Please explain ??
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1 3 Nov 2008, 6:33 PM
Once again Richard, you make no sense. I asked you which forum you attend. Is that too difficult a question to answer? I do not attend the meetings of Save our Rail. Maybe one day I will. At least the Save our Rail group are concerned enough to actually do something which is not what you do. And what if they hold it in a pub? Where would you hold yours? In a phone booth??
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1.1 9 Nov 2008, 11:40 AM
Judo, Does this group recognise, or ignore the environmental "Brownness" of running a 400 tonne electrically driven heavy vehicle into town with a handful of people? If not, why would any rational clear-thinking evidence-based person waste time on attending a Save Our Rail meeting, even if there was free beer available?
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 9 Nov 2008, 2:40 PM
A 400 tonne electric train is far more environmentally friendly than any other form of transport. There are not that many 8 car trains running into Newcastle. About 3 in the morning peak to Sydney and roughly the same in the afternoon x Sydney. The majority are either of 2 cars or 4. You seem to assume that those who attend the Save our Rail meetings are not clear thinking, evidence based people. What on earth makes you make an egotistical statement like that?? At least the Save our Rail people actually hold meetings and are doing something constructive. What is Richard and the others who are anti rail doing in the way of meetings??
Comment 1.1.2 9 Nov 2008, 11:43 AM
Democratic????? Why attend a biased talk-fest when we can discuss on-line?
Comment 1.1.2.1 9 Nov 2008, 12:37 PM
And ditto for any HBC, HDC, etc meetings INCLUDING the CBD "Taskforce" meetings - just how biased are they?
Comment 1.1.2.1.1 9 Nov 2008, 2:44 PM
Well said. It seems the only people who display and intelligence, are clear thinking and are evidence based are anti rail.
I think not. What a ridiculous statement!!!
We are seeing exactly the folly of past regimes where perfectly good public transport was removed for all the wrong reasons. Why is there such a clamour for trams/light rail if we had it before. Are we saying those decisions were incorrect. Of course we are. And the same will apply with the removal of the heavy rail. There is NO evidence to prove that reverting to trams/light rail will increase patronage on public transport or will in any way bring more people into the CBD.
Comment 1.2 5 Nov 2008, 11:53 AM
Hi there,
I feel strongly that Newcastle Train Station should stay open. I live in Newcastle East and when I was commuting between Sydney and Newcastle every day the last thing I felt like doing at 10.30pm at night after a long day at work is to have to wait around for a bus that may or may not turn up to take me the remainder of the journey home.
I don't feel tourists would fancy lugging their heavy luggage off the train and then having to drag it up and over the rail line to wait on a dark corner more…
Comment 1.2.1 9 Nov 2008, 12:44 PM
QUOTE: I feel that if the rail line was removed our so called access to the waterfront would be blocked anyway as I don't feel developers could keep their hands of it and leave it as open space. END QUOTE
Jinzi19762002, I don't like repeating myself, but take a CAREFUL look GPT's video here: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=59mQxOPNR2A . Now take a look at their first video, compare them, especially the rail line area. And that includes Newcastle Station & bus terminus itself, and then Jinzi19762002, what do you find different?
By the way, 3801 won't be ready for a while yet
Comment 1.3 13 Nov 2008, 8:29 AM
The rail line goes and the rich have the only direct access to the waterfront. The Crown is a prime example of this. They not only cut the access but have a private jetty when others are losing their jetty's
Build over it if you must, but retain the rail.
How are the elderly and blind and disabled and mums with prams expected to alight from one service and find their way on to another just to go a few stops.
The Blind Society has moved its offices so that they are more easily assessable by their clients...they are now near the rail head.
This is another case of money shouting down the ordinary person. If we reject this the developers WILL find a more community minded and acceptable alternative
Christine
Comment 2 30 Oct 2008, 10:45 PM
It would mean the loss of a valuable public transport infrastructure asset and corridor that would never be replaced once removed.
The argument about removing the rail because no-one uses it is a lie and unhelpful rubbish. In same breath commentators say that there's no-one on the train and that there's nothing in CBD worth coming to. Hello? The development in the CBD (all of it from Wickham to Newcastle -- not just GPT) will give more reason for people to come, thus attracting more commuters.
Once the city grows as per the gazetted Newcastle City Centre plan, the parking and traffic more…
admin Comment 3 Moderator 31 Oct 2008, 10:36 PM
SENT TO ADMIN BY EMAIL
I would like to register my objection to closing the rail line before it reaches NEWCASTLE STATION. This is a great sevice. It brings workers into the city. Some from as far afield as Maitland or Wyong. It allows people like me to visit the city for medical appointments and for fun. It allows young people to access the beach with their surfboards etc ( have you ever been ona bus with someone carrying a surf board?)
Others keep saying that it divides the city RUBBISH There are plenty of foot crossings Its only cars that are inconvenienced. If you dont like the railway why not build over the top of it!!!
Anyway leave it alone!!
Leonie
Comment 3.1 31 Oct 2008, 11:04 PM
What impact would removing rail services from the CBD have? It would discourage us from coming into Newcastle.
CROSSINGS: In total, not including Watt St, their are eight between Newcastle & Wickham including Stewart Ave, which averages out to around a place to cross every 270 - 300 metres.
Comment 3.1.1 1 Nov 2008, 5:55 PM
Nflyer, they are closer than that. Measure it and it seems they are too lazy to use the current points of access. The steps must be too many and too steep. There is only the distance between Civic and Wickham that is longer but there appears to be little or no demand for crossings from Civic to Wickham across the line to Honeysuckle. There is no logical reason they cannot be installed at relatively little cost. Read todays paper The Herald Saturday 1st November, page 3. An article stating the North West and South West heavy rail projects in Sydney have been abandoned. The state has no money. Power stations are to be privatised to generate income. How are all of the fanciful ideas to be financed? These were new projects to areas without rail services. If they have been abandoned, look out Newcastle.
Comment 3.1.1.1 1 Nov 2008, 6:49 PM
Laziness is when you don't want it moved... It's called inconvenieced !!
And better access for people with disabilities from the CBD to the Harbour !!
Comment 3.1.1.1.1 3 Nov 2008, 6:36 PM
Richard. You seem to not have a good understanding of the english language. Not wanting something moved has no bearing on laziness. It is the anti rail lobby that want direct, at ground level access, not the pro rail lobby. We are prepared to walk, use steps or ramps. We are not the lazy ones!!
Comment 3.1.1.1.2 3 Nov 2008, 6:50 PM
Richard.
You have still not responded to my questions.
1: Who will pay for your trams? In your early post you stated it should be the developer. You then changed your mind to seemingly state the coal industry. Which is it?
2: You have still not said whether a pedestrian crossing at Worth Place would adequaltey cater to your needs for access from Union Street to Hunter Street. We can throw in one at Steel Street and maybe Perkins Street for you also.
3: What have you done personally to improve the Newcastle CBD in the way of improved crossing points, cleanliness, reducing the number of vacant shops?
Comment 3.1.1.1.2.1 8 Nov 2008, 1:41 PM
Richard. Please answer my questions!! Why are you avoiding it??
Comment 3.1.1.2 1 Nov 2008, 6:59 PM
I meant around 270 - 300 on average, some more, some bit less.
See my post dated Sat 01 Nov at 4:35pm for approximate distances in: http://www.bangthetable.com/topic/do-you-feel-that-the-rail-line-inhibits-development-of-the-city2
People claim the state is broke, but I would like to know where all the GST has gone that the federal government gives the states.
Comment 3.1.1.3 2 Nov 2008, 2:21 PM
Judo... tell me where a person with a wheelchair can get to the harbour from Crown street in Newcastle City ? I know where so should you !!! So tell me who is lazy & who is inconvenienced in that situation ?? Hmmm, Makes one think doesn't it !!
Comment 3.1.1.3.1 2 Nov 2008, 3:17 PM
Removed by moderator. Comment was deemed offensive, inappropriate or spam.
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1 2 Nov 2008, 4:05 PM
It seems quite strange that so many save the RAILERS talk about people with prams or mobility issues as a reason not to have a rail bus interchange at whickam yet show little concern for them at other times. show little concern for others who have to travel with a very inconvenient system at present.
it seems that the talk of inconvenience is used at the save the railers convenience and ignored conveiniently.
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.1 2 Nov 2008, 7:15 PM
That is one of the weakest comments judogazza has ever made on this whole connectivity discussion!
And you are 100% right in what you are saying tonyw.. He is a lazy person !!!
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.2 3 Nov 2008, 6:44 PM
How is the rail system inconvenient?? It caters for people with prams, wheelchairs (check out blue boxes at each end of most platforms as they contain wheelchair ramps). The bus system does not cater adequately for prams and wheelchairs even though buses have space. There are lifts being installed at major rail stations to accommodate wheelchairs also. My my Tony, if it the save the railers who talk of inconvenience then what is it that adequately explains the inability of the pro railers to walk a short distance along the road to gain access. I think it is you who are ignoring your own argument!! When talking about incovenience just ask any mother with a pram or a wheelchair bound person which mode of transport they prefer and whether they want the inconvenience of changing modes. Maybe you may be afraid of the answer.
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.2.1 5 Nov 2008, 4:25 PM
When I read what tony has said, he is a rail user and has said some valid concerns, some valid statements.
You are wrong about buses not catering these people, they have air pressured hydraulics that raise & lower the buses for these situations,they also have ramps on all buses, They have places on buses where a person in a wheelchair/prams can stay in their wheelchair/prams and put a seatbelt on for their own safety, which trains don't have, you musn't have been on a bus for a very long time as these have been in place for many years .
You say that they are putting lifts in for wheelchairs ??? what type of lifts and what for ??? I don't understand what you are saying here, ramp are in the blue boxes, what are the lifts for, could you explain what they are for
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.2.1.1 5 Nov 2008, 5:33 PM
And buses deliver wheelchairs, prams and disabled passengers closer to their destinations because they go to more places.
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.2.1.2 5 Nov 2008, 5:50 PM
Go to Beresfield, Thornton and Maitland Station. You will aslo find them at Fassifern, Morisset, Wyong, Gosford and Woy Woy Stations. There you will see lifts that have been installed. Imagine for yourself who they may be for.
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.2.1.2.1 5 Nov 2008, 6:58 PM
judogazza... you are getting off the beaten track again !!Like most of your comments...
What does that have to do with the Connection between Wickham & Newcastle ??? Nothing !!
We are talking about access between Newcastle & the harbour
Cardiff have been trying for many years to get a lift installed... Still no Lift !! Where's the pro lobby there, they have meeting once a month remember !!
But again, I say your off the topic
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.2.1.2.1.1 5 Nov 2008, 9:15 PM
Removed by moderator. Comment was deemed offensive, inappropriate or spam.
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.2.1.2.1.2 8 Nov 2008, 1:44 PM
I am simply answering the question as to where lifts are located. What have you done over the years to improve the CBD?? There have been many, many representations from many community groups for a lifts at Cardiff. That one has not been supplied is not the fault of the Save our Rail group.
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.2.2 7 Nov 2008, 10:45 AM
I prefer a car. In the Paris metro, these people have to walk down and up stairs. They have to at most stations around here, except for places like Thornton (lift), which was of course in a marginal seat a few years ago.
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.2.2.1 7 Nov 2008, 1:02 PM
The infrastructure provided for those with a disability is minimal, simply because it has to be. It is simply not possible to provide facilities everywhere as the cost would be astronomical. They are compelled to use locations where these facilities exist. That is a fact of life. To concoct a scenarios where access is at its least does not provide a true picture of the situation. I am sure I too could think of many locations where the disbled/mothers with prams would have difficulty. However, should we cater to a demand that is miniscule. Of course not.
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.2.2.1.1 8 Nov 2008, 11:13 AM
Yes we should, isn't that what we want for the City .. Access ??
We want everybody to come and if you think that demand is minscule you are very wrong in your judgement of Newcastle itself.
Everybody should be catered for not just some !!
You have to remember that the children in those prams are the future.
He has showed you there is a major problems that needs to be looked at, and his senarios are infact a true picture of the situation is in Newcastle
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 8 Nov 2008, 1:48 PM
Fluffy, if we follow your simplistic approach of supplying everything that is asked for them I would not like to pay that amount of tax. Those with disabilities could be very easily catered for with pedestrian crossings, am I right?? To suggest we should cater for everyone is an unbelievable statement. It is impossible to do that in life. maybe you need a few more years on you and see your hard earned tax dollars squandered to realise that.
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 8 Nov 2008, 6:35 PM
Removed by moderator. Comment was deemed offensive, inappropriate or spam.
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.1.2.2.1.2 8 Nov 2008, 11:13 AM
sorry doubled up..
Comment 3.1.1.3.1.2 2 Nov 2008, 7:01 PM
Removed by moderator. Comment was deemed offensive, inappropriate or spam.
Comment 3.1.1.3.2 3 Nov 2008, 6:55 PM
Richard. A person in a wheelchair would be bound to go to either Merewether Street or Watt Street. Do you honestly think they would complain considering the lot in life they are already fitted with? In general these people are far more tolerant than many in our society and simply put up with many of the things some may find a hinderance. They just get on with life. Considering most of The Foreshore is east of Watt Street, they would be heading in that direction anyway. As for The Brewery or that area, it is only a short walk around. You really do put up some silly scenarios. There is no relevance to the matter in your comment "who is lazy & who is inconvenieced in that situation" Wheelchair bound people do not walk or are you oblivious to that fact?
Comment 3.1.1.3.2.1 4 Nov 2008, 7:16 PM
Quote - Do you honestly think they would complain - Quote
What do you think is being said now ?
You have stated There is access every 200-300 meters, not for people with physical disabilities there isn't, so basically you have mislead people into believing there is access for all every 200-300 meters with overhead bridges, which there is not for people with physical disabilities, there is only entery points every 1km
These senarios are real places & people or are you oblivious to that fact yourself ??
These problems are there or is that not your problem ??
Bit weak on your behalf if you if it isn't !!
Quote -"Wheelchair bound people do not walk or are you oblivious to that fact" - Quote
To me you are, they can't get across unless you go to the boomgates, there is only 3 points in Newcastle from Stewart Avenue .... the next one is Merewether street & then Watt street...That is one enterance every 1km... You are misleading people with your facts about access for all
"who is lazy & who is inconvenieced in that situation"
Comment 3.1.1.3.2.1.1 4 Nov 2008, 7:29 PM
Judogazza
Quote - If it's the save the railers who talk of inconvenience then what is it that adequately explains the inability of the pro railers to walk a short distance along the road to gain access - Quote
Please explain why people with physical disabilities have too wheelchair 1km too get across.. As you stated 4 opinions up...
Comment 3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1 4 Nov 2008, 8:47 PM
It is a fact of life that people with disabilities are in a very small minority. I am sure they do not demand changes such as people like yourself. They are intelligent enough to know that they will receive limited consideration with many things in life. No reasonable thinking person with a disability would make the deamnds you are. They accept the fact they have to make more sacrifices than the rest of us. I have asked you before, what statistics do you have in regard to the number of people with disabilities deamnding the access as you have. Answer: NIL. And yes, the pro railers are prepared to walk. It is people like you who are too lazy to walk short distances. Also, have a look at todays Daily Telegraph. You may be interested in the article on page 14. It shows GPT's latest mock up of the land occupied by Newcastle Station. It clearly shows development on all of the site from Bolton Street to Watt Street. It goes on to state that Wharf Road would be closed to traffic also with a multi story building replacing the Brewery.
Comment 3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1 4 Nov 2008, 9:58 PM
Judogazza
The daily Telegraph has nothing to do with this, again that is getting off the beating track !!!
Quote - If it's the save the railers who talk of inconvenience then what is it that adequately explains the inability of the pro railers to walk a short distance along the road to gain access - Quote
Those are your words, not mine !!!
So you are saying it is alright for people with physical disabilities to travel 1km to gain access at boomgates, but it's an inconvenience for the save the railers not too... You are having yourself on, that totally contradicts what you have been saying.
You expect people with physical disabilities to do something you are not willing to do yourself, that my friend is very selfish if you ask me... That is called thinking of ones self & no-one else but ones self....
Tell me why alot of places have disability ramps in place ??? To cater for this problem !
That my friend is called discrimination at its best !!
Comment 3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.1 4 Nov 2008, 10:19 PM
Richard. What on earth are you talking about???
If you read my posts, and I really am thinking you do not, I have always said the pro railers are quite prepared to walk to and utilise the crossing points. You are simply telling lies there to say we are unwilling to walk to them. You really do need to clean your eyes, or at least open them!! Once again you choose to ignore some important information. READ THE DAILY TELEGRAPH!! I am beginning to wonder about your "higher intelligence" now. Fair dinkum!!
Comment 3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.2 5 Nov 2008, 9:10 AM
What a load of rubbish Richard. It is you who is complaining of a lack of access points for the wheelchair bound people. Not them!! What have you done to improve acess for them??? Nothing!!! Just like you have been doing all along!!! NOTHING!!!!!! Well done Richard.
I am quite willing to walk to access points. It is after all the anti raillers who demand the at ground level access to The Foreshore. Is that correct Richard??
Comment 3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.3 5 Nov 2008, 5:36 PM
Don't forget about people with prams, limited mobility, etc who currently can't get over the railway line between west of Wickham to east of Civic Stations.
Comment 3.1.1.3.2.1.1.2 4 Nov 2008, 10:25 PM
That should have been anti raillers!!!
We are quite happy to walk. Said that many times.
Comment 3.1.1.3.2.1.2 4 Nov 2008, 10:15 PM
Richard. I have never said there was access for the disabled every 200-300 metres. You are imagining things again!! It appears you are unable to read what is actually written. And please answer my questions.
Will a pedestrian crossing at Worth Place catewr adequately to your needs.
Who is going to pay for your trams?? The developer? The coal industry??
Comment 3.1.1.3.2.1.2.1 5 Nov 2008, 5:06 PM
You have said to Richard that there was access for all every 200-300 mtrs in overhead bridges, that is an incorrect statement. There is not access for people in wheelchairs or people that have problems walking up stairs. they have access every 1km at the boom gates.
Richard is correct again.
You are saying that they are going to put all these overhead bridges in.
One question, who is going to pay for them if I can ask?
You keep asking the same question over and over, he has given some good ideas about lobbying the coal industry, they do use Newcastle as their port of call. You have never told us where the money for these overhead bridges are going to come from.
Where are you going to get your handout from?
He is given you answers and you have given him none.
Comment 3.1.1.3.2.1.2.1.1 5 Nov 2008, 5:55 PM
C'mon now. I have never suggested building overhead bridges. Where did you get that from?? I have asked Richard whether pedestrian crossings will cater to his needs. He refuses to answer. Also, Richard has not said who will pay for his trams. He cannot make up his mind. First it was the developer. No chance there. Then it is the coal industry. Have we had any input or agreements from them to pay? NO!!! And as I have never advocated overhead bridges I cannot be asked therefore who will pay. I am not in favour of more!!
Comment 3.1.1.3.2.1.2.1.1.1 5 Nov 2008, 7:15 PM
You have not suggested anything!
So what do we do to get more access to our harbour
I said lobby the coal industry in the earlier forums...
That's your answer !!!
What have you suggested that will fix the access problem for us to stop the problem... Nothing !!
We want access to our harbour more than there is
Comment 3.1.1.3.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 5 Nov 2008, 9:19 PM
Then YOU do something constructive rather than letting someonelse do it for you. You demand the pro rail lobby do your bidding for you. If you dared to look at GPT's latest video, as for access points, well you will have to walk around some pretty tall buildings to get where you want to go.
Comment 4 2 Nov 2008, 11:11 AM
Removing the rail line would make parking problems in the CBD worse.
Instead, moving the stabling line to west of Hamilton Station (the triangle), so pedestrian crossings can be put in between the Mall and the Foreshore and at Argyle Street, and a new street crossing at Worth Place.
And put parking for hundreds of cars in the idle rail land east of Hamilton station ... paid parking on the station side of the overpass, with free use of the train to town for anyone holding that parking ticket, and free parking on the eastern side of the overpass, where people can get to the free bus zone.
Move beyond the old "keep things unchanged" / "rip out the rail line" argument and start looking at all the different systems of transport for how they can help with the parking problem.
Comment 4.1 6 Nov 2008, 9:06 AM
Terminating the rail line east of Hamilton station makes more sense. As for people with lots of luggage, they are picked up or dropped off at Newcastle station by car anyway.Teenagers carry their Surfboards on buses from all parts of Newcastle at the present time. As the West end and CBD are refurbished, the traveller on a Bus will have a much better outlook of the City than the present rundown 'rear aspects of buildings' that they now get on a train.
A City the size of Newcastle should not have to contend with Rail crossings in the main parts of the City.
Comment 4.1.1 9 Nov 2008, 7:35 AM
You are writing as if tourists and travelers are the main users of the CBD line. The main users of the CBD line are rail commuters ... it is, indeed, the only genuine alternative to driving for commuters living in Maitland, or Western Lake Macquarie, or the northern Central Coast.
Those are the people who will be driving in and parking instead, if a time-consuming transfer is added. When Newcastle should be finding ways for more people to park outside of Newcastle East and take trains or buses in, to free up car spaces, closing the rail line goes in exactly the opposite direction, making the trouble worse.
Removing the rail line will open up more paths and immediately fill those extra paths with more cars. Putting new level crossings and pedestrian crossings, improving the accessibility of train platforms, and providing gateway parking east of Hamilton Station, will open up more paths and at the same time reduce the number of cars competing for paths.
Comment 5 2 Nov 2008, 3:35 PM
I do use trains from Newcastle whenever I can. However I use buses more often as they tend to be more convenient and more frequent. There are very few local stations that are close to town centres. Stations such as Adamstown, Cardiff, Kotara, Waratah, Warabrook are too far from the commercial areas and are therefore far easier to access by bus. Even Maitland Station is hardly central to the town centre so it usually is better to drive, particularly if it is at night.
Trains only make sense for longer trips to Wyong, Gosford or Sydney. For this reason, it is more…
Comment 5.1 2 Nov 2008, 8:30 PM
I agree 'Save Our City'. The current heavy rail line serves a limited number of patrons lucky to live close to a station.
I would like to know how many of these people who catch a train in to the Newcastle CBD from Maitland and the Valley and from the Central Coast actually drive their car to the station to connect with the train. If so, and they are so totally against changing connections at Wickham for the trip into the CBD, well, they are just hypocrites!!!
Comment 5.1.1 3 Nov 2008, 6:58 PM
They catch the train because it is more convenient, faster and brings them to their destination. I am sure many of them drive their car to the station. Do you expect them to walk considering the distance some of them travel? It is much cheaper to travel from the Hunter Valley/Sydney etc than travelling by car. It seems we are forgetting the parking fees of $2.00 per hour in the CBD.
Comment 5.1.1.1 7 Nov 2008, 10:54 AM
Heavy rail in this area is greenhouse inefficient, especially the electric powered ones. Do you agree? If not post the proof! The Trainspotters have none including Joan, the Narrubundah Kid, George and Dazza.
The real cost of train travel is about 5 times the fare, and should be more after Carbon Taxes are imposed on Electricity.
Time to get some credibility in this forum, judogazza!! Stump up the numbers. I'm just a casual observer, not full time BTT Junkie!
Comment 5.1.1.1.1 7 Nov 2008, 1:06 PM
Where do you get your information from about it being 5 times more inefficient? If that were the case we would have some other means of generating electricity, that's for sure. Electricity is clearly acknowledged as being a more environmentally friendly for of energy than fossil fuels. That is a fact. As for credibility, it is you who have made a statement on cost per passenger. Also, as for any credibility it is the anti rail group who have little. They see 30,000 tonne trains in Newcastle when a train of this weight would be 4.5 kilometres long, 150 cars at Stewart Avenue, a line that would stretch out of sight, those who live in the Newcastle CBD have a higher intelligence than those who live in the suburbs. And there are more examples of the outlandish claims made by them.
Comment 5.1.2 3 Nov 2008, 8:18 PM
This is precisely the point ... they park and ride. Interfere with the train service, and they will just drive to the CBD and park there.
And that is the problem.
Sure, its only 1500 passengers a day, but easily 300 to 600 will just drive instead if they are forced to get out of the train and then wait around for an uncertain connection.
Comment 6 2 Nov 2008, 3:56 PM
Removing the rail services from the city would increase the numberof cars being used for travel in the city, the parking problems and the air pollution fropm vehicles.
If roads such as Newcomen Street are extended through across the present rail corridor to harf Road, the intersections with Scott Street and Wharf Road would add to the traffic congestion on both Scott Street and Wharf Road and require traffic lights.
Comment 7 2 Nov 2008, 9:26 PM
Removing the rail line as long as its done with a clear plan would have the potential to completely change this dying city. Newcastle has SOOOOOOOOO much potential and its being strangled by a rail line to nowhere that no-one uses.
Its time to stop putting our heads in the sand and start working on ways we can improve the transport situation in Newcastle. Heavy rail is NOT the answer for Newcastle. Its certainly not carbon neutral when there are 2 passengers on a train into the city? What are awe thinking people? Lets think outside the square and see what potential this city has to offer.
Comment 7.1 3 Nov 2008, 8:31 PM
The start of that turn-around is hundreds of new parking spaces to the east of Hamilton station, with people catching the free buses to town or the train, depending on which is more convenient.
Then move the stabling line from town so that a pedestrian crossing can be put in place between the Mall and the Foreshore, and upgrade the "exposed" last 500m rail corridor with tile and green landscaping. The unsightly overhead suspension cables for the overhead wires can be replaced with a plaza/promenade above the rail corridor, providing a solid framework that the electric wires can be suspended from.
Then more…
Comment 7.1.1 9 Nov 2008, 11:59 AM
There are no FREE buses ..... they are taxpayer-funded or heavily subsidised. BruceF, here's your chance to improve your credibility here ...
1. Please agree to the above proposition that there are no FREE buses.
2. Publish here your understanding of the percentage Public Subsidy of train travel from Broadmeadow / Waratah and Newcastle stations (ie the Peninsula, dead-end Rail). I say that it as least $15 per passenger, per trip for this section (ie Hamilton to Newcastle Stations)
3. Tell us what benefits you thinks could flow, in terms of train frequency, from guiding trains destined for the dead-end around the rest of the network? Has this been discussed by the Save Our Rail group? I expect George P at fishing Point would favour more services to the city centre stations (ie Broadmeadow Central)?
Comment 7.1.1.1 9 Nov 2008, 12:08 PM
Reformer, YOU know what is meant by free buses.
Comment 7.2 10 Nov 2008, 7:20 PM
How can over 4000 entries and exits per day be described as a service 'no-one uses.'
admin Comment 8 Moderator 4 Nov 2008, 4:28 PM
EMAILED TO ADMIN
This development could commence the revitalization of the Newcastle CBD and the follow on through Civic and Newcastle West - so I am very much in favour.
I am also in favour of the rail line being terminating at Wickham as long as there is alternative satisfactory transport services. However, I am really concerned that the State Government leaves the "green corridor". This especially when you see the over crowding that has taken place along the Honeysuckle section of the harbour.
Many thanks Sue
Comment 8.1 9 Nov 2008, 7:39 AM
What is the definition of satisfactory alternative? For current rail passengers, presently able to arrive at Civic Station or Newcastle Beach Station without a transfer, being forced to transfer is itself a reduction in quality of service, even if it is to a waiting light rail ... being forced to wait on a bus to transfer to would be even worse.
Instead of spending money to lose service and then spending more money to replace that service, why not start by keeping the existing service, so that each dollar spent is a step in the right direction?
Comment 8.2 10 Nov 2008, 7:23 PM
GPT is planning to build all over the line and Wharf Rd east of Wolfe St. GPT is now calling the green corridor the green belt.The fact is this belt ends at Perkins St.
Comment 9 5 Nov 2008, 9:17 AM
We must keep the heavy rail into the heart of Newcastle at all costs. The heavy rail system is too important to rip out of our city just because GPT proposes a new shopping mall.
The heavy rail is a vital link to the world beyond Hunter St, bringing people from all over the valley and from further afield to ‘our town’. Making travellers change onto another train at Wickham or elsewhere would destroy the Hunter St Mall. Why would anyone in their right mind want to visit the CBD if they are forced to suffer delays to their journey more…
Comment 9.1 6 Nov 2008, 12:03 AM
I would like to know if anyone has thought about the implications for the alcohol related violence that affects our great city if the line is removed?
We all know that is is a great problem in Newcastle. I know of quite a few people who use the service to get to and from their night out. And I see many more when Im coming home from work on Friday nights. Cutting the rail line only provides for more opportunites for this violence to occur as patrons will now have to trek back to Wickham in order to catch the train. Anyone who has ever caught a bus in Newcastle nowadays on a Friday or Saturday night knows how intimidating it can be sometimes. Id hate to think how much worse it would be if we dump a whole heap more people onto these already packed buses.
Comment 9.1.1 6 Nov 2008, 7:23 AM
Tinch, their will be NO light rail. GPT just want the rail land for themselves to put large scale buildings on - take a look at their latest video - it even shows they want to get rid of the bus area at Newcastle Station & the historic Newcastle Station building replaced with large buildings.
See http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=59mQxOPNR2A to see what they really want to do.
Comment 10 6 Nov 2008, 6:54 PM
Removed by moderator. Comment was deemed offensive, inappropriate or spam.
Comment 11 7 Nov 2008, 4:35 PM
Why there is only one reason to leave the railway line in place.
Having followed the debate over the shortening of the Newcastle Railway Line in the Newcastle Herald and the Bang The Table online forum, it appears that the arguments to retain the line fall into the following broad areas:-
1. Environment
2. Transport Efficiency
3. Increase in travel time due to mode change at Wickham Interchange
There are considerable emotive arguments, but little in the way of arguments which look at the actual situation in Newcastle. Many of the arguments rely on the emotional and romantic concept that heavy rail is the best transport option under more…
Comment 11.1 7 Nov 2008, 9:20 PM
We make assumptions based on the current situation.
How much extra traffic would be generated into Newcastle with the new development?
Why does there have to be traffic at all to the CBD?
Perhaps we should look to make the rail link the mode of travel to the CBD with buses terminating at Broadmeadow at a transport interchange there. Similarly with park and ride facilities at a similar location for those that must use a car with integrated ticketing for parking and train fares.
Traffic to the CBD itself should be minimised rather than increased. If Charlestown and Kotara are anything to more…
Comment 11.2 9 Nov 2008, 8:03 AM
You are quoting from the discredited reports from the Working Group designed to pave the way for the Broadmeadow Bus interchange.
Of course, the analysis here is just as shaky as the Broadmeadow Bus Interchange Working Group report.
"1. The average loading of 25 past Wickham is only a staggering 3% of the 808 passenger capacity of an 8 car double deck electric train."
What is important for transport in town is not the average numbers during the day, but the numbers of commuters in the commuter peak and the shoulders of the commuter peak. The 2,000 rail passengers per day do not more…
Comment 11.2.2 9 Nov 2008, 11:42 AM
Bruce - I have quoted two figures ONLY from the Lower Hunter Working Group which were the passenger numbers which in turn were supplied by Cityrail. These are raw data and regardless of your view on the report, are real numbers. These are actually higher numbers than those supplied by Cityrail to The Herald for the last 12 months. If you have any better data, please let me know about it. At least I have quoted Data and the source of it. It beats emotive arguments based on personal bias. It doesn't change any of the facts I have stated more…
Comment 12 8 Nov 2008, 12:38 PM
The trainspotters have lost a lot of credability with a lot of misquoting and attacking other peoples opinions that differ from theirs.
Majority of the time, they totally get of the topics.
The topic on this page is:
What impact would removing rail services from the CBD have? (continued)
Some of the things they are saying are totally irrelevant to the topic, you will see on alot of the other topics
In the computer world it is call "trolling".
If they think that this site is the end of the debate they are short sighted. Read the papers, ask the people on the street what they more…
Comment 12.1 8 Nov 2008, 1:57 PM
Fluffy, have a look at GPT's latest "artists impression" for The Foreshore that is available at the Save our Rail website. It disappears in a jungle of devlopment.
As for the creation of jobs in removing the tracks. That is false as no new employment would be had as it would be carried out by currnetly employed people.
There would be no new jobs at the Wickham terminal. It would simply involve the transfer of current staff.
As for GPT's proposal. Have we seen anything other than a watercolour artists impression of Hunter Street at Civic. The answer is NO.
Comment 12.1.1 8 Nov 2008, 6:56 PM
Removed by moderator. Comment was deemed offensive, inappropriate or spam.
Comment 12.2 9 Nov 2008, 8:09 AM
The only reason large numbers will agree with the rip the rail position is that nobody every makes a fair presentation of the alternatives and how much they will cost.
Take ANY proposal to close the rail line. Cost it. Add enough new transport services to offset the negative impact on the parking crisis. Cost that.
The cost will always come up greater than $50 MILLION.
How ugly would the rail corridor be if ONE TENTH of that was spent on beautifying it? How ugly would it be if ONE FIFTIETH of that was spent on beautifying it?
The opponents of beautifying the rail line are those people arguing to rip out the rail line and, of course, make the parking crisis worse ... though they either completely ignore or pass very quickly over the number one economic cost of pulling out the railway line. Because if $1 million was spent beautifying and improving the benefit of the line ... the support for ripping out the line (and making the parking crisis worse) would mostly vanish.
Comment 12.2.1 10 Nov 2008, 1:21 PM
"How ugly would the rail corridor be if ONE TENTH of that was spent on beautifying it? How ugly would it be if ONE FIFTIETH of that was spent on beautifying it?"
still bloody ugly.
Comment 12.3 10 Nov 2008, 7:56 PM
Professor Currie clearly said that the cutting of the line would have a dramatic effect on patronage of the line. As a result there would be a large increase in the number of cars travelling into Newcastle on the New England Highway.The increased vehicular traffic into Newcastle would cause congestion and increased parking problems.
As for it only being an artist's impression that the line is to be built upon, a Director of GPT was on NBN stating that some of the rail corridor could be sold to pay for the Interchange. The fact is that once the line was removed the State goventment would continue to be lobbied strongly to sell the rail corridor.
Comment 12.3.1 11 Nov 2008, 5:46 PM
We have many anti raillers talking of the small amount of inconvenience that an interchange would give to commuters and how they should accept it. Well, how about closing the entire CBD off to cars and making EVERYONE use public transport. That way everyone is inconvenienced equally. What a furore that would cause among our car driving fanatics. No one is going to inconvenience ME!!! they would say. You make reference to a GPT director saying the government could recoup money from the sale for an interchange. What about GPT paying after all they want the land and the profit it will bring!!! Talk about selfish and profit motivated.
Comment 13 9 Nov 2008, 11:10 AM
ANSWER TO TOPIC QUESTION is Yes it would affect us. For example you note that a trackwork bus from Newcastle <-> Broadmeadow takes a considerable longer time than a train, and then you have to add at LEAST 10 minutes to allow time to change for a connecting train to Sydney taking ANOTHER 2-half to 3 hours. Add those times together & to/from Sydney you get around (probably over) 2hr 55m to 3hr 25mins.
TO ANSWER ONE OF FLUFFY's POST
1. And again, we have a person that thinks just because many people want the heavy rail line seems to think they are all train spotters (more correct term enthusiasts). Just because people want the heavy rail line into Newcastle Station DOES NOT mean they are all rail enthusiasts.
2. Fluffy, I seem to reading in part of your posts that you think rail enthusiasts are loonies. Is that what you believe?
3. As I've stated elsewhere on here, most train enthusiasts are also interested in trams AS WELL, so therefore they are going against one of their interests.