Re: [Sydney] Light Rail into the CBD?

["Garry Hoddinett" <hoddos@netspace.net.au>]

The Sydney Light Rail network could be extended into the city CBD area
without causing construction chaos, largely on it's own right of way
separate from road user and pedestrian traffic and I believe comparatively
inexpensively .

The existing line in Hay Street could be extended under the City Railway,
across Elizabeth Street and into Blackburn Street.  The line could then dive
into a new tunnel before swinging north to meet up with the abandoned
eastern railway tunnels at the south eastern end of Hyde Park.  A new
station could be constructed at the SE corner of the park (Whitlam Square?).
The light rail line would then travel along the old eastern railway tunnels
under Park Street where their could be another new station (Park Street?)
and upto St James Station where the disused middle platform area could be
again used as a station.  St James would serve as convient interchange with
the Sydney Rail System and the Eastern Suburbs bus network.  The light rail
lines would then continue to use the disused railway tunnels going north
with perhaps another station at the eastern end of Hunter Street (State
Library?).  I beleive the disused tunnels run down to near Macquarie Place
where the light rail line could terminate.  If funds permit the line could
continue further north in a new tunnel rising to the surface in Reiby Place
before turning briefly into Pitt Street and crossing Alfred Street to
terminate in First Fleet Park right next to Circular Quay.

The use of disused railway tunnels for most of its length should save a lot
of money, construction chaos, expensive services relocation, pedestrian
conflicts and car conflicts.  It may even be possible to build the small
light rail platforms in the large bore of the rail tunnels without an
expensive widening exercise.  Any new tunnels only have to be of a bore
sufficient to take the comparatively low profile of a light rail vehicle.
It most be remebered that light rail "Stations" are nowhere near as
expensive as "railway" stations.

I daresay some of the "experts" in this newsgroups could see problems with
the above proposal but I think the proposal could warrant a more detailed
investigation.