It’s pretty much common sense that Sydney is suffering a housing affordability crisis, but what is the solution? Or at least for this topic, what is the solution regarding public transport?

->FASTER RAIL LINKS FROM OUTLYING AREAS?
Should we be looking at faster medium speed rail (forget HSR) to allow people living further away to commute to Sydney?

Could be a possible solution but wouldn’t solve the issue of car dependency in the outer areas, potentially leading to the inability to provide enough parking at stations for the commuted, as is already seen on the intercity network at stations like Gosford and Thirroul.

There is also the issue of unregulated employers knowing the addresses of applicants, even though someone can theoretically commute to Sydney in a reasonable amount of time, their job applications may be rejected in favour of locals who are wealth enough to live in Sydney.



->INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SECONDARY NON-CAPITAL CITIES?
Should we be building new infrastructure in secondary non-capital cities, such as public transport, to generate an expanded labour market, as well as making these places a more attractive place to live? Taking away the problem of Sydney altogether?

It’s absolutely ridiculous to think that NSW is a state with 800,642 km² with only ONE liveable city, it’s no wonder we have an affordability crisis!

The only problem is that currently the only other cities large enough for such infrastructure are Wollongong and Newcastle, and they are close to Sydney (especially Wollongong) so it doesn’t spread the population much, but it would be a start.

Albury, Wagga Wagga, Port Macquarie, and Coffs Harbour would be better location Le for this infrastructure geographically speaking, but they don’t have the populations to support it.


->BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SYDNEY?
Should we be reviewing the way Sydney’s public transportation infrastructure is built so it encourages densification and infill?

Current Sydney infrastructure for the outer ‘cheaper’ suburbs is based on and constructed to support urban sprawl and park & ride (meaning car dependency), projects like the South West Rail Link and the Northwest Metro are built with lengthy station spacing and large car parks (which are never big enough, has anyone here tried parking a car at Holsworthy?).

Sydney needs public transport projects that encourage densification and infill, not urban sprawl and car dependency.
Residents need to be able to easily walk to a statin since no matter how big you make the commuter car park, it won’t be enough until the point where the resources used to construct the car park would be better used building more public transport.

But would this be enough to solve the housing affordability crisis? even with Sydney being more dense and walkable, there would still be the issue of 800,642 km² of land and ONE liveable city.


What are your thoughts, and what is the solution?

Issue 1 - almost all migration is into the big city. Partly because of existing migrant communities; partly because of job opportunities; partly because Sydney has the best facilities and infrastructure.

To me, the beginning point needs to be finding a way to encourage (direct) migration into smaller cities - you mention Wagga and a few coastal cities. Let’s add in Orange Dubbo Tamworth Armidale.

Issue 2 - Apart from insisting that migrants settle in certain cities (which is unfashionable against certain views of civil liberties, although was practised in years gone by), government needs to create job opportunities and facilities in the regional cities. Decentralisation has been attempted in the past, albeit in a half-hearted way (example being “let’s put Depart of Agriculture in Orange”. Half hearted because the key decisions were still being made in offices in Sydney.

Investing in facilities (health, education, utilities) would also assist. However, the big city interests resist on the basis that it cannot be afforded against the needs of the city.

Issue 3 - The other point to hear in mind is that major political decisions are made by Sydney residents (by sheer weight of voter numbers), whose interests are actually served by residential unaffordability. Who doesn’t like the value of their house rising every year?

Ask Harry Triguboff about developing in the regions. You need to be an (unelected) visionary to push through policies of this type. We have none in politics.

There is no solution.

So long as State and Federal governments undermine the future of regional areas by diverting regional budget allocations to their wealthy city electorates, by continuing on with the unbelievablly pathetic and backward MDB Plan (?), by cutting hospital services, health and public transport, why would anyone be someplace else? Especially, when there is a new stadium under construction.

Why would migrants want to go to and settle in outback and regional Australia? They would need a lot of support to find their feet. This would be best served by the cities.

I think things are generally moving in the right direction, albeit far too slowly. Generally we need all three of these things: more Metro lines in Sydney, better provision for Fast(er) intercity rail and better commitment to decentralisation from government and business.

Building high-rise around rapid transit stations (I.e. Metro) is THE single best way to simultaneously fulfil the need for more housing and greater capacity/frequency of rail services in Sydney. This should be the absolute priority for the greater Sydney region. Despite being very expensive at $10-20B a pop, Metro lines have a realistic funding model (I.e. value capture and developer in kind infrastructure provisions), which is another element in their favour.

Introducing a handful of faster rail lines to key housing hubs like Gosford and Wollongong would also be a good way for Australia to dip its toes in to HSR (somewhat) enabling us to build our capabilities in this area. From an anecdotal perspective, something like 50% of my workmates commute from either Gosford/Wollongong every day. You can imagine that there would be massive buy-in from developers (as with Metro) so perhaps a similar funding model can be looked at.

As more and more people ditch their cars both for moral and practical reasons, the justification for more rail ventures becomes increasingly obvious. These are exciting times..

As more and more people ditch their cars both for moral and practical reasons, the justification for more rail ventures becomes increasingly obvious. These are exciting times..

People will only ditch their cars, if there are alternative transport solutions like reliable high speed rail. But this will take great investment, and although every election time, Pollies get warm and fuzzy feelings about HSR, they then (predictably) cower away from their promises. We will be a car loving nation for the same reasons that continental USA has not wholly embraced rail travel. People in the sticks will use their cars to get the big smoke because the infrastructure has been allowed to wither away, and play second fiddle to projects like SFS.

Build it, and people will use it for a number of reasons - it will be cheaper, greener, and in many cases, quicker.

If the Feds are looking to go on an infrastructure spending binge (as it is looking like at the moment), they should look at these regional rail projects, to get people off the roads and to maybe entice people who might be looking for a seachange or tree change to leave the big smoke.

Hmmm- an infrastructure policy - that would be a novelty.

We might also benefit from a climate policy, an energy policy, an economic development policy, and a policy to spread our economic risks associated with reliance on one key customer and supplier.

All we get is an interest rate cut, pretending to be a health policy. Because everyone knows that ever-increasing house prices and a strong stock market are good for your health,

As more and more people ditch their cars both for moral and practical reasons, the justification for more rail ventures becomes increasingly obvious. These are exciting times.. People will only ditch their cars, if there are alternative transport solutions like reliable high speed rail. But this will take great investment, and although every election time, Pollies get warm and fuzzy feelings about HSR, they then (predictably) cower away from their promises. We will be a car loving nation for the same reasons that continental USA has not wholly embraced rail travel. People in the sticks will use their cars to get the big smoke because the infrastructure has been allowed to wither away, and play second fiddle to projects like SFS.

Build it, and people will use it for a number of reasons - it will be cheaper, greener, and in many cases, quicker.

If the Feds are looking to go on an infrastructure spending binge (as it is looking like at the moment), they should look at these regional rail projects, to get people off the roads and to maybe entice people who might be looking for a seachange or tree change to leave the big smoke.

Lets not drift off into HSR fantasy land.

Agree we need more and improved and faster rail transport for the major cities and major regional trunks lines.

HSR is marginal at the very best on one corridor only and thats not even now.

Should we be looking at faster medium speed rail (forget HSR) to allow people living further away to commute to Sydney?

we have medium speed rail .. the whole network is full of delays and full trains ..

It’s pretty much common sense that Sydney is suffering a housing affordability crisis, but what is the solution? Or at least for this topic, what is the solution regarding public transport?

->FASTER RAIL LINKS FROM OUTLYING AREAS?
Should we be looking at faster medium speed rail (forget HSR) to allow people living further away to commute to Sydney?

Yes.

Could be a possible solution but wouldn’t solve the issue of car dependency in the outer areas, potentially leading to the inability to provide enough parking at stations for the commuted, as is already seen on the intercity network at stations like Gosford and Thirroul.

No.

->INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SECONDARY NON-CAPITAL CITIES?
Should we be building new infrastructure in secondary non-capital cities, such as public transport, to generate an expanded labour market, as well as making these places a more attractive place to live? Taking away the problem of Sydney altogether?

No.  Don't let government pick winners, they only ever pick losers.

It’s absolutely ridiculous to think that NSW is a state with 800,642 km² with only ONE liveable city, it’s no wonder we have an affordability crisis!

No, it's not.  Cities exist because they allow greater personal productivity of their inhabitants through greater specialisation.  IMHO you need to accept this fact.  The ability of a city to achieve the economies of scale is it's transport infrastructure.  "Decentralisation" is simply redefining the transport problem to one that's easier to solve, rather to one that delivers any benefits.

The only problem is that currently the only other cities large enough for such infrastructure are Wollongong and Newcastle, and they are close to Sydney (especially Wollongong) so it doesn’t spread the population much, but it would be a start.

IMHO better transport links mean Newcastle and Wollongong can act as part of (greater) Sydney, not an (unattractive) alternative to it.

Albury, Wagga Wagga, Port Macquarie, and Coffs Harbour would be better location Le for this infrastructure geographically speaking, but they don’t have the populations to support it.

Because it is more lucrative for people to live in Sydney.  And it's more lucrative to live in Sydney because more people live in Sydney.  These are inescapable facts.

->BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SYDNEY?
Should we be reviewing the way Sydney’s public transportation infrastructure is built so it encourages densification and infill?

"Densification" (WTF - is that a word?) is an (unappealing) alternative to better transport.

Sydney needs public transport projects that encourage densification and infill, not urban sprawl and car dependency.

I completely disagree.

Public Transport inherently discourages car dependency.  

Quality transport links (both private and public) allow people more choice in where they live and work, and increases the area over which that can occur.  It *should* mean more space and a better quality of life for everyone.

Residents need to be able to easily walk to a statin since no matter how big you make the commuter car park, it won’t be enough until the point where the resources used to construct the car park would be better used building more public transport.

No, they don't *need* to walk to a station.  They need to be able to get easily from their home to wherever they want to get to.  IMHO that should not *require* a car.  But that does not mean everyone needs a railway station within easy walking distance.

What are your thoughts, and what is the solution?

My thoughts are too many housing developments are built without adequate land reservations for transport links.  The developers do the minimum they can get away with - which is provide road access for private cars - and retrofitting alternatives (such as a practical bus network) becomes impossible.

Rail has a role, and in mega cities it's essential, as no other transport mode offers the density of speed.  Few mega-cities in the world survive without rail taking a substantial portion of the transport burden, and extensive rail networks have been the hallmark (and indeed precipitated the development of) of the world's largest cities.

It’s absolutely ridiculous to think that NSW is a state with 800,642 km² with only ONE liveable city, it’s no wonder we have an affordability crisis!
No, it's not.  Cities exist because they allow greater personal productivity of their inhabitants through greater specialisation.  IMHO you need to accept this fact.  The ability of a city to achieve the economies of scale is it's transport infrastructure.  "Decentralisation" is simply redefining the transport problem to one that's easier to solve, rather to one that delivers any benefits.


The only problem is that currently the only other cities large enough for such infrastructure are Wollongong and Newcastle, and they are close to Sydney (especially Wollongong) so it doesn’t spread the population much, but it would be a start.
IMHO better transport links mean Newcastle and Wollongong can act as part of (greater) Sydney, not an (unattractive) alternative to it.


Albury, Wagga Wagga, Port Macquarie, and Coffs Harbour would be better location Le for this infrastructure geographically speaking, but they don’t have the populations to support it.
Because it is more lucrative for people to live in Sydney.  And it's more lucrative to live in Sydney because more people live in Sydney.  These are inescapable facts.


->BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SYDNEY?
Should we be reviewing the way Sydney’s public transportation infrastructure is built so it encourages densification and infill?
"Densification" (WTF - is that a word?) is an (unappealing) alternative to better transport.


Sydney needs public transport projects that encourage densification and infill, not urban sprawl and car dependency.
I completely disagree.

Public Transport inherently discourages car dependency.  

Quality transport links (both private and public) allow people more choice in where they live and work, and increases the area over which that can occur.  It *should* mean more space and a better quality of life for everyone.


Residents need to be able to easily walk to a statin since no matter how big you make the commuter car park, it won’t be enough until the point where the resources used to construct the car park would be better used building more public transport.
No, they don't *need* to walk to a station.  They need to be able to get easily from their home to wherever they want to get to.  IMHO that should not *require* a car.  But that does not mean everyone needs a railway station within easy walking distance.

What are your thoughts, and what is the solution?

My thoughts are too many housing developments are built without adequate land reservations for transport links.  The developers do the minimum they can get away with - which is provide road access for private cars - and retrofitting alternatives (such as a practical bus network) becomes impossible.

Rail has a role, and in mega cities it's essential, as no other transport mode offers the density of speed.  Few mega-cities in the world survive without rail taking a substantial portion of the transport burden, and extensive rail networks have been the hallmark (and indeed precipitated the development of) of the world's largest cities.

You don't build spend $100's million of dollars in regional cities to solve problems that barely exist.

IF the govt has $1B to spend on a HR project in NSW, the business case will always show it will be built in Greater Sydney it has the people, the traffic density and the connectivity to justify. Both Newcastle and Wollongong HR can be improved, but don't expect it to rain money.

PT does not generate employment in significant numbers, rather it helps people get to the jobs that exist.

Sydney is the largest and main city of NSW for a number of reason's and building PT elsewhere will not change this fact or encourage business to relocate.

NSW own stats state for rail to succeed you have to be between 500m and 1000m from their home tops, beyond that it depends greatly on the overall travel distance if they will use rail.  However bus is also viable PT mode.

We went for nearly 50 years without any allowances made in new housing estate projects for rail. The tide has now turned and you can see reserved corridors and in some cases actual lines built, ie Sydney SWRL and Brisbane Springfield line.

djf01

You believe the best solution is faster rail links to Sydney, but how would you solve the issues of commuter parking without also providing local transport in other cities?
And more importantly, if the best model is to have people from outlying areas commute to Sydney, what do you do about unregulated employers who are obviously going to favour wealthier applicants who already live in Sydney?

I remember seeing @simstrain on another topic talking about how an employer in North Sydney would not hire someone from Liverpool due to their commute time, imagine what the poor person in Wollongong or Newcastle is meant to do then without a proper labour market in their own city, even if their commute is shortened by fixing the bends in the interurban lines and they are willing to make the trip, who is going to hire them? and how can they move without getting the job first? you can see how this creates a paradox, and this is a biggie issue considering the scarcity of jobs nowadays.

Good public transport reduces car dependency, poor public transport such as park & ride just redirects it, you might take traffic off the M5, but you will never provide enough parking at Holsworthy Station.
Right now, not only is Sydney so expensive, but real estate near stations is top dollar, even though it's really the disabled, the elderly, and familes who need it the most, and newer transport links such as the South West Rail Link are not constructed with this issue in mind.
Agreed about the design of housing developments 100%, you can never run a decent bus service through all of those cul-de-sacs and circuitous streets.

RTT_Rules

The problem in question is that NSW has 800,642 km² of land, yet only ONE truly livable city with proper public transport and employment opportunities, as a result of this, it's property prices are among the most expensive in the world, and this is in a country that already has a high cost of living.

No one would be crazy enough to suggest to not build public transport projects in Sydney (I hope), but if the state government is struggling to come up with extra money after the Sydney projects, cancel the bloody rebuilding and refurbishment of perfectly good stadiums, people elsewhere still pay tax and can't afford to move to Sydney, so why should they not get infrastructure while sport is funded.
Slightly off topic, but if you ask someone why we can't provide jobs in Australia through things like manufacturing, the answer will be money, why we can't we provide more public transport in other cities, same answer will be money, so call me old fashioned but I believe sports should get zero funding (it should all be via the private sector) while we are saying we can't afford to create jobs and provide public transport, and if they are still struggling to come up with the funds after cancelling the stadiums, request funding from the federal government and make them cancel the $18.9 million plan for cashless welfare.

Good public transport generates some employment by providing foot traffic as a passing trade which generates small business growth, which in a car dependent environment, is reserved for shopping centres where high rents keep small businesses away,
but generally I agree that this alone could not justify public transport construction, more jobs would need to be created to give people something to commute to.
Public transport does however make an impact on who gets the limited jobs available, in Newcastle for example, even the Centrelink office will tell people employers are not likely to hire someone without a car, so in a car dependent environment, who gets the job? the person struggling on Newstart who really needs the job first so they can afford car insurance? or the spoiled brat with rich parents who got them a BMW on their red P plates?

Regarding housing estates and rail, projects like the South West Rail Link do not actually reduce car dependency, the project was never designed so the stations conveniently served residential areas, it was designed as a park & ride, hence the large gaps between stations and large car parks.
The problem however arises when you actually try to park a car there, you can never provide enough parking at a Sydney suburban station, anyone here actually tried parking a car at Holsworthy? the commuter car park there has to be largest on the suburban network and it's still not enough, and the resources used to build it could have provided additional local stations at nearby Voyage Point and Wattle Grove.

djf01

You believe the best solution is faster rail links to Sydney, but how would you solve the issues of commuter parking without also providing local transport in other cities?
And more importantly, if the best model is to have people from outlying areas commute to Sydney, what do you do about unregulated employers who are obviously going to favour wealthier applicants who already live in Sydney?

I remember seeing @simstrain on another topic talking about how an employer in North Sydney would not hire someone from Liverpool due to their commute time, imagine what the poor person in Wollongong or Newcastle is meant to do then without a proper labour market in their own city, even if their commute is shortened by fixing the bends in the interurban lines and they are willing to make the trip, who is going to hire them? and how can they move without getting the job first? you can see how this creates a paradox, and this is a biggie issue considering the scarcity of jobs nowadays.

Good public transport reduces car dependency, poor public transport such as park & ride just redirects it, you might take traffic off the M5, but you will never provide enough parking at Holsworthy Station.
Right now, not only is Sydney so expensive, but real estate near stations is top dollar, even though it's really the disabled, the elderly, and familes who need it the most, and newer transport links such as the South West Rail Link are not constructed with this issue in mind.
Agreed about the design of housing developments 100%, you can never run a decent bus service through all of those cul-de-sacs and circuitous streets.

RTT_Rules

The problem in question is that NSW has 800,642 km² of land, yet only ONE truly livable city with proper public transport and employment opportunities, as a result of this, it's property prices are among the most expensive in the world, and this is in a country that already has a high cost of living.

No one would be crazy enough to suggest to not build public transport projects in Sydney (I hope), but if the state government is struggling to come up with extra money after the Sydney projects, cancel the bloody rebuilding and refurbishment of perfectly good stadiums, people elsewhere still pay tax and can't afford to move to Sydney, so why should they not get infrastructure while sport is funded.
Slightly off topic, but if you ask someone why we can't provide jobs in Australia through things like manufacturing, the answer will be money, why we can't we provide more public transport in other cities, same answer will be money, so call me old fashioned but I believe sports should get zero funding (it should all be via the private sector) while we are saying we can't afford to create jobs and provide public transport, and if they are still struggling to come up with the funds after cancelling the stadiums, request funding from the federal government and make them cancel the $18.9 million plan for cashless welfare.

Good public transport generates some employment by providing foot traffic as a passing trade which generates small business growth, which in a car dependent environment, is reserved for shopping centres where high rents keep small businesses away,
but generally I agree that this alone could not justify public transport construction, more jobs would need to be created to give people something to commute to.
Public transport does however make an impact on who gets the limited jobs available, in Newcastle for example, even the Centrelink office will tell people employers are not likely to hire someone without a car, so in a car dependent environment, who gets the job? the person struggling on Newstart who really needs the job first so they can afford car insurance? or the spoiled brat with rich parents who got them a BMW on their red P plates?

Regarding housing estates and rail, projects like the South West Rail Link do not actually reduce car dependency, the project was never designed so the stations conveniently served residential areas, it was designed as a park & ride, hence the large gaps between stations and large car parks.
The problem however arises when you actually try to park a car there, you can never provide enough parking at a Sydney suburban station, anyone here actually tried parking a car at Holsworthy? the commuter car park there has to be largest on the suburban network and it's still not enough, and the resources used to build it could have provided additional local stations at nearby Voyage Point and Wattle Grove.

1/3 of the NSW GDP is generated within the foot print of greater Sydney. This is the area where commuters face significant traffic congestion and the cost of providing PT is the lowest per passenger km due to the population density and willingness to use PT, something regional areas struggle with with still barely full buses in peak and more often than not off-peak carrying more fuel than people.

If 2/3 of the states GDP is generated outside the Greater Sydney area but only has 1.5 of the states 7.5m population, then I suspect regional areas are well catered for for jobs. But just not out the front of some people's houses. It is not the govts responsibility to where people choose to live.

As someone who grew up on the Central Coast and traveled to Sydney for school and later work I too faced that discrimination of travel and that was 30 years ago. I can tell you it was resolved by walking out the door and walking in another door until you found someone willing to employ you and yes  I found a job as did many other I commuted with from school. So sorry, this excuse is over used.

I also do not consider my upbringing either poor or rich. But there were certainly kids travelling with me from lower economic backgrounds than me as were wealthier backgrounds. I did not feel commuting to Sydney was limited to any specific economic background if anything it was work ethic and willing to do what it took to get a better job than offered locally. Something I think some employers actually valued. I also think having commuted for school helped in getting over the commute issue for some employers.

There is nothing wrong with park'n'ride railway stations in the outer suburbs and is a very economic solution to provide mass transport to lower density suburbs. Buses can only do so much and Park'n'ride can save the taxpayer alot of money over running dozens of buses to locations not worthy of a bus service certainly not a train service. If you think the SW suburbs should be pierced from multiple directions with railway lines so no one has to drive, then you are not being realistic.

Your focus seems to be very much to reduce car dependency, this will never be achieved for those living in the outer suburbs. Everything requires a car, not just getting to the station. I caught the bus to Gosford station until I could afford a car, then I drove. The time it took me to walk to the bus stop 1.2km away I was able to drive to the station, 10km away and in the evning there was no waiting, hope in the car and go home, 30-45min a day saved. Station to station my day was 12.5h for a 8h job! I also often came home after the buses. Today the traffic is probably such that its not worth while and I'd probably bus it as I know they are now more frequent.

Personally I think parking stations at stations should be paid, $1-2/day, yes it adds to the cost but the parking station needs to be paid for as well and prevent use by others not using the train.

I agree extra stations may prove beneficial on the network, but they also add to slowing down trains discouraging people from using the network. Its a catch 22 situation. Voyager Point is unlikely to support a station of its own, hell it doesn't even have a road to East Hills, just a foot bridge. I suspect most are army base employees? Wattle Grove, maybe, but again anyone more than 750m walking time is unlikely to walk anyway and as the development is only on one side of the line, thats not alot of people in the walk up catchment.

The simple answer is that we should stop importing more people in to Sydney.

The simple answer is that we should stop importing more people in to Sydney.

Well we sort of do, but they go/get there anyway. Internal migration is the other issue. Same issue applies to almost every other country in the world. Population growth is always fastest in the bigger cities, the bigger they get, the more they grow.

This however will not solve the issue that Ethan is on about and that is to spend more on PT in regional areas.

Building high-rise around rapid transit stations (I.e. Metro) is THE single best way to simultaneously fulfil the need for more housing and greater capacity/frequency of rail services in Sydney. This should be the absolute priority for the greater Sydney region. Despite being very expensive at $10-20B a pop, Metro lines have a realistic funding model (I.e. value capture and developer in kind infrastructure provisions), which is another element in their favour.

You don't need new metros to achieve that outcome, although it would undoubtedly help.  In case you haven't noticed, we already have an extensive suburban rail network where similar outcomes could be achieved on a far greater scale, without the considerable cost in building new metro lines.  The limited funds would be better spent on upgrading the existing network with new signalling and track amplifications to meet the demand.  Metros will still have a role in providing links to inner and middle ring suburbs which aren't currently serviced by rail, but they're not the panacea as some like to make out.

There are a multitude of major suburban centres on the existing network where sensible rezoning in the immediate vicinity of the rail stations (within an 800m or 10 min walk) can facilitate denser redevelopment.  It doesn't have to be a metro.  However, from my observation, most of the suburbs targeted by the government for densification under their so-called Priority Precinct strategy seem to be focussed on the new metro lines, no doubt to make them viable, while ignoring other centres serviced by the existing network, which are just as deserving for creating incentives for development intensification.

A case in point in my own area is on the Northern Line, where Epping is a Priority Precinct for redevelopment (being on the metro) while neighbouring centres like Eastwood, which is a larger retail/commercial centre, and West Ryde are ignored.

I don't agree with the thesis that metro lines have a realistic funding model such as value capture.  It might work in the case of Hong Kong's MTR, which essentially is a property developer in a high density city, given exclusive rights to redevelopment around new metro stations.  It's a different scenario in Sydney and the government has not yet shown its willingness to extend that concept here.

It's a flawed strategy to base new transport links on redevelopment opportunities to supposedly pay for them, rather than focusing on an objective analysis of a transport need, which includes in existing developed areas.

I agree with Transtopic in one sense as we have a system that already achieves the goal of a metro. The only issue with our current system is accessibility and lack of paths.

The never ending need to put a label on a piece of railway infrastructure.

The NWRL has been in plan for decades, it was needed and it was built. Another similar case in Brisbane is the Kippa-ring railway, 100 years in planning.

The NWRL was needed and the numbers demonstrate this.

As for densifcation locations, there maybe more reasons that just a railway for the choice. Railway is not the only piece of infrastructure required and some older areas may also be preserved under planning. Much easier to go into newer areas or places like Green Square which was basically leveled to Greenfield and build higher density projects. I also think the govt does direct densification to areas of the rail network that are better suited to growth and Eastwood/West Ryde is certainly not one of them and would cost billions to do so. Perhaps one day when the Inner North West Railway is built things will change. The NWRL feeds directly into the Maquarie Park area and on to Chatswood and upper shore where many of these people work, so it mostly makes sense.

We all know if Sydney's railway network was built today from new, it would be 100% similar technology and design as used on the NWRL including mostly built in a tunnel which would still drive the design requirement of single decker, the whole DD vs Metro is mute and the Metro has already proved itself.

The current DD network is going to take $10B's to bring it up to scratch although issues such as poor alignments will not as easily fixed. The Metro projects if done properly would help mitigate much of this capital or at least slow it down by providing up to 5 radial fast higher density and very frequent corridors into the city that intersect the existing DD network at frequent locations.

The main issues with the Metro that keep coming up is the transition during construction leaves a number of holes, like the gap to the Richmond line, the connection to Liverpool etc.  I'm sure it will come.

The never ending need to put a label on a piece of railway infrastructure.

The NWRL has been in plan for decades, it was needed and it was built. Another similar case in Brisbane is the Kippa-ring railway, 100 years in planning.

The NWRL was needed and the numbers demonstrate this.

As for densifcation locations, there maybe more reasons that just a railway for the choice. Railway is not the only piece of infrastructure required and some older areas may also be preserved under planning. Much easier to go into newer areas or places like Green Square which was basically leveled to Greenfield and build higher density projects. I also think the govt does direct densification to areas of the rail network that are better suited to growth and Eastwood/West Ryde is certainly not one of them and would cost billions to do so. Perhaps one day when the Inner North West Railway is built things will change. The NWRL feeds directly into the Maquarie Park area and on to Chatswood and upper shore where many of these people work, so it mostly makes sense.

We all know if Sydney's railway network was built today from new, it would be 100% similar technology and design as used on the NWRL including mostly built in a tunnel which would still drive the design requirement of single decker, the whole DD vs Metro is mute and the Metro has already proved itself.

The current DD network is going to take $10B's to bring it up to scratch although issues such as poor alignments will not as easily fixed. The Metro projects if done properly would help mitigate much of this capital or at least slow it down by providing up to 5 radial fast higher density and very frequent corridors into the city that intersect the existing DD network at frequent locations.

The main issues with the Metro that keep coming up is the transition during construction leaves a number of holes, like the gap to the Richmond line, the connection to Liverpool etc.  I'm sure it will come.

You've ignored the context of my argument, which is, that there are many major suburban centres on the existing rail network where intensified redevelopment could be encouraged with upgraded planning controls.  Intensified redevelopment isn't exclusive to new metro lines to achieve that outcome.

Your comments with regard to the NWRL are irrelevant.  It's servicing a new rail corridor and whether it was built as an extension of the existing network, which was the original intention, or a metro as it now is, it would be just as successful.

There are now limited Brownfield sites in the inner city, such as former industrial areas, suitable for redevelopment for high density housing.  It is just as important to retain these existing industrial areas for employment and servicing the inner city region, instead of being relocated to the outer suburban fringe.

It's absurd to suggest that centres like Eastwood and West Ryde aren't suited for growth, when they are the busiest stations on the Northern Line after Epping and Rhodes, which in the latter case is in the contra-peak direction.  It wouldn't cost billions as you suggest, as it could be done at the stroke of a pen in upgrading the planning controls to allow intensified redevelopment without costing the government a cent.  There is already an existing rail line.  Whether its DD or metro is irrelevant. The redevelopment cost would be bourn by private developers.  

This has already been demonstrated in Epping, where it was classified as a Priority Precinct, with upgraded planning controls to allow for intensified redevelopment.  The new NW metro would only have been a minor consideration, as Epping already has an extensive network of local and regional transport links.  It's the planning controls that matter, and wherever it happens, developers would be attracted to it like a honey pot.

Spending $10B or more to bring the whole Sydney Trains network up to scratch seems like a pretty good investment to me, compared with multiples of that being spent on new metro lines.  The Metro West project alone is going to cost around $10B and it's only one metro line, which is unlikely to achieve its primary justification for reducing congestion on the Western Line, which I have already discussed at length on other threads.  TfNSW has acknowledged that the existing Sydney Trains network will continue to provide 80% of rail services for well into the future, despite new metro links.  That's a statistic that can hardly be ignored and continuing investment is paramount.

You've ignored the context of my argument, which is, that there are many major suburban centres on the existing rail network where intensified redevelopment could be encouraged with upgraded planning controls.  Intensified redevelopment isn't exclusive to new metro lines to achieve that outcome.

Your comments with regard to the NWRL are irrelevant.  It's servicing a new rail corridor and whether it was built as an extension of the existing network, which was the original intention, or a metro as it now is, it would be just as successful.

There are now limited Brownfield sites in the inner city, such as former industrial areas, suitable for redevelopment for high density housing.  It is just as important to retain these existing industrial areas for employment and servicing the inner city region, instead of being relocated to the outer suburban fringe.

It's absurd to suggest that centres like Eastwood and West Ryde aren't suited for growth, when they are the busiest stations on the Northern Line after Epping and Rhodes, which in the latter case is in the contra-peak direction.  It wouldn't cost billions as you suggest, as it could be done at the stroke of a pen in upgrading the planning controls to allow intensified redevelopment without costing the government a cent.  There is already an existing rail line.  Whether its DD or metro is irrelevant. The redevelopment cost would be bourn by private developers.  

This has already been demonstrated in Epping, where it was classified as a Priority Precinct, with upgraded planning controls to allow for intensified redevelopment.  The new NW metro would only have been a minor consideration, as Epping already has an extensive network of local and regional transport links.  It's the planning controls that matter, and wherever it happens, developers would be attracted to it like a honey pot.

Spending $10B or more to bring the whole Sydney Trains network up to scratch seems like a pretty good investment to me, compared with multiples of that being spent on new metro lines.  The Metro West project alone is going to cost around $10B and it's only one metro line, which is unlikely to achieve its primary justification for reducing congestion on the Western Line, which I have already discussed at length on other threads.  TfNSW has acknowledged that the existing Sydney Trains network will continue to provide 80% of rail services for well into the future, despite new metro links.  That's a statistic that can hardly be ignored and continuing investment is paramount.

My point was if you are building something new, which is being built regardless that will have spare capacity from Day 1 for many years to come, then isn't that a logical location to also aim for denisification.

Or your point is spend $6B to build that, then while you are there add another $6B or more to ensure you have capacity on an existing piece of infrastructure just to prove a point it can be done. Meanwhile those few stations do not have direct access to the Maquarie hub and will not even after an upgrade, and the extra capacity includes not only Quading the line to Straithfield which has basically happened anyway and probably needs 5 tracks but also spending billions on Straithfield to CBD for which we all know has significant issues. $6B probably doesn't come close to it.

It actual fact the densiification of the Inner NW is more likely to follow the construction of the Inner NW line in the future, ie Gladsville up to Top Ryde and on to say Eastwood, West Ryde or one of the ECRL stations. Because as soon as you drop that line in, bang you have huge capacity for growth for next 50 years and likely cost same or less than spending 10 years fixing the existing corridor and doesn't add one new station to the network.

So yes, why not focus densification on new to rail corridors which don't have any of the constraints the existing network des, kill two birds etc etc.

Have you also considered that the West Ryde - Eastwood - Top Ryde area is preserved from densification for other reasons?

And again rail is not the only infrastructure required, water, sewer, power, roads, schools.......

I said spend $10B's, not $10B. Its likely north of $100B to address all the issues at play and none of that will add one new station. So the focus is clearly very much build new corridors in a few locations relcaim existing corridors, combination of both to add extra station locations currently by-passed, ie CRows Nest, 5 Bays district etc and at the same time increase cross connectivity to enable moving around the network to be faster. The existing network will in many areas be a feeder service into the new faster more frequent corridors.

Does this mean no money should be invested in the DD network, no! There are a number of expansion or optimisation projects I have previously highlited.
- 6 to Lidcombe
- ESR extension
- By-pass for Southern trains from Sutherland to East Hills Line
- Waverton/Wollestoncraft by-pass
- Inner city relief line
- Quad to East Hills
- Terminate South Coast services off the ESR and away from Central terminal, likely the unused platforms at Central and extend through to St James
- Extend SWRL to new airport
- Quad Cabrammatta to Liverpool
- 6 tracks for DD from Wollie Creek to Eskinville

- and I think the inner west route should be partly taken over by inner west Metro and the existing surface stations removed to allow for a faster corridor for outer west and south west trains.

EDIT
As iconic and quaint as the Sydney DD network is, the technology is yesterdays approach and you don't expand DD networks underground on anything but a few short corridors. No one else has done it so there must be a reason and it gets down to cost. Sydney's future is in underground railways and for that the most suitable technology available should be used based on cost. ie SD.

Likewise we have the opportunity to move forward with lower operating cost automated technology, no driver or guard so again likewise this is the direction forward. There must come a point in time we say no more and the past ALP and current LNP govt's have made this statement.

Additionally, the integrated nature of the Sydney network is the noose around its neck and has been for decades. This has to stop and the introduction of the Metro is obviously an easy way to change. Classic example you guys have spent weeks debating on how to reshuffle services around to cater for the Bankstown conversion in another thread. In a modern railway this discussion shouldn't need to happen and different corridors shouldn't be sharing tracks apart from  no more than 2 x "Y" branch lines, one at the end of each track pair. Sydney needs either more track amplification AND route removal from most existing corridors. ECRL is almost done, Bankstown to follow and the Western Metro will remove another. Others will surely follow including Bankstown to Liverpoool and perhaps in the future Hurtsville and Inner West.

I’m certain the Hurstville Metro got scrapped due to conflict with freight runs that may have to divert via the T4/SCO lines. Bankstown to Liverpool is looking more unlikely since Bankstown was probably intended to be the terminus, and would cause issues with the existing line west of Bankstown.

My point was if you are building something new, which is being built regardless that will have spare capacity from Day 1 for many years to come, then isn't that a logical location to also aim for denisification.

Or your point is spend $6B to build that, then while you are there add another $6B or more to ensure you have capacity on an existing piece of infrastructure just to prove a point it can be done. Meanwhile those few stations do not have direct access to the Maquarie hub and will not even after an upgrade, and the extra capacity includes not only Quading the line to Straithfield which has basically happened anyway and probably needs 5 tracks but also spending billions on Straithfield to CBD for which we all know has significant issues. $6B probably doesn't come close to it.

It actual fact the densiification of the Inner NW is more likely to follow the construction of the Inner NW line in the future, ie Gladsville up to Top Ryde and on to say Eastwood, West Ryde or one of the ECRL stations. Because as soon as you drop that line in, bang you have huge capacity for growth for next 50 years and likely cost same or less than spending 10 years fixing the existing corridor and doesn't add one new station to the network.

So yes, why not focus densification on new to rail corridors which don't have any of the constraints the existing network des, kill two birds etc etc.

Have you also considered that the West Ryde - Eastwood - Top Ryde area is preserved from densification for other reasons?

And again rail is not the only infrastructure required, water, sewer, power, roads, schools.......

I said spend $10B's, not $10B. Its likely north of $100B to address all the issues at play and none of that will add one new station. So the focus is clearly very much build new corridors in a few locations relcaim existing corridors, combination of both to add extra station locations currently by-passed, ie CRows Nest, 5 Bays district etc and at the same time increase cross connectivity to enable moving around the network to be faster. The existing network will in many areas be a feeder service into the new faster more frequent corridors.

Does this mean no money should be invested in the DD network, no! There are a number of expansion or optimisation projects I have previously highlited.
- 6 to Lidcombe
- ESR extension
- By-pass for Southern trains from Sutherland to East Hills Line
- Waverton/Wollestoncraft by-pass
- Inner city relief line
- Quad to East Hills
- Terminate South Coast services off the ESR and away from Central terminal, likely the unused platforms at Central and extend through to St James
- Extend SWRL to new airport
- Quad Cabrammatta to Liverpool
- 6 tracks for DD from Wollie Creek to Eskinville

- and I think the inner west route should be partly taken over by inner west Metro and the existing surface stations removed to allow for a faster corridor for outer west and south west trains.

EDIT
As iconic and quaint as the Sydney DD network is, the technology is yesterdays approach and you don't expand DD networks underground on anything but a few short corridors. No one else has done it so there must be a reason and it gets down to cost. Sydney's future is in underground railways and for that the most suitable technology available should be used based on cost. ie SD.

Likewise we have the opportunity to move forward with lower operating cost automated technology, no driver or guard so again likewise this is the direction forward. There must come a point in time we say no more and the past ALP and current LNP govt's have made this statement.

Additionally, the integrated nature of the Sydney network is the noose around its neck and has been for decades. This has to stop and the introduction of the Metro is obviously an easy way to change. Classic example you guys have spent weeks debating on how to reshuffle services around to cater for the Bankstown conversion in another thread. In a modern railway this discussion shouldn't need to happen and different corridors shouldn't be sharing tracks apart from  no more than 2 x "Y" branch lines, one at the end of each track pair. Sydney needs either more track amplification AND route removal from most existing corridors. ECRL is almost done, Bankstown to follow and the Western Metro will remove another. Others will surely follow including Bankstown to Liverpoool and perhaps in the future Hurtsville and Inner West.

You're still missing the point, or deliberately ignoring the premise of my argument, that increased density is possible around existing railway stations in some suburbs which have a significant retail/commercial area and are the focus of local and regional bus services as major transport hubs.  The transport infrastructure, although in some cases may need further upgrading, is already there.  All it needs is upgrading the planning controls to allow it to happen.  This is exactly what happened in Epping and the fact that a new metro line was introduced was only a secondary consideration, when it already had the ECRL, now converted to metro.  Higher density redevelopment is not the exclusive preserve of new metro lines.  In fact, I wasn't even talking about new rail lines, whether they be metro or HR.

I don't know where you got this figure of $6B from as I never mentioned it.  If you're referring specifically to the Northern Line upgrade, the full quad between Strathfield and Epping is already planned for completion over the next decade as part of the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor program and it won't cost anything like that.  The program also includes extension of the Third Track from Thornleigh to Hornsby.  It only basically refers to quadruplicating the relatively short distance of track between Rhodes and West Ryde across the Parramatta River, for which the bridge piers were constructed decades ago.  All of it will be on the surface within the existing rail corridor.  The cost will be shared equally between the State and Federal governments.  

I don't see the relevance of "those few stations not having direct access with the Macquarie Hub" as you put it.  The overwhelming majority of commuters travel to the CBD and those who want to travel to Macquarie Park still have the option of travelling to Epping and interchanging to the metro or catching a direct bus service.  Future rail capacity from Strathfield to the CBD is another matter and should be looked at in the broader context of providing additional capacity for the whole Sydney Trains network, particularly on the busiest Western Line corridor, which has already been discussed at length on other threads.

As much as I would like to see an Inner NW metro along the Victoria Rd corridor, it's not currently on the agenda and even if it was, it would be decades away.  In the meantime, that doesn't preclude higher density redevelopment along the existing Northern Line corridor.  It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that upgrading the existing line would be more expensive than building a whole new metro line.  You ignore the fact that upgrading the existing line provides greater capacity and frequency on that corridor, so it's not a wasted investment.

Neither West Ryde, Eastwood or Top Ryde is "preserved from densification".  I've lived in the area all my life, so I know what I'm talking about.  Top Ryde has already had major redevelopment when its planning controls were updated, notwithstanding the fact that it has no rail service, with a major new regional shopping centre and high density residential development.  West Ryde is about to have a major review of its Town Centre Master Plan by Ryde Council, which will undoubtedly also lead to higher density redevelopment to rejuvenate the suburb.

However, in the case of Eastwood, its Town Centre Master Plan is now 2 decades old and attempts by Ryde Council to review it over the last decade have come to nothing, because of Council in-fighting and vested interests who didn't want to see any change in its quaint "village" atmosphere.  What a joke!  

The current planning controls are out of date with a 10 storey height limit and no Floor Space Ratio code.  With the high value of existing retail/commercial premises, it's just not economically feasible to redevelop under those conditions.  In spite of that, a major $300m mixed use redevelopment of the Eastwood Centre with 7 residential buildings up to 13 storeys was recently approved by the Sydney North Planning Panel, but it was a one-off being the largest site in the Town Centre at 1.2 hectares.  If the State government had stepped in and upgraded its planning controls similar to Epping, which is a smaller centre, then it would be a whole new ball game.  Up until recently, Eastwood was the largest retail/commercial centre after Macquarie Park in the Ryde LGA, but has since been overtaken by Top Ryde with the redevelopment which has taken place there.

I’m certain the Hurstville Metro got scrapped due to conflict with freight runs that may have to divert via the T4/SCO lines. Bankstown to Liverpool is looking more unlikely since Bankstown was probably intended to be the terminus, and would cause issues with the existing line west of Bankstown.

Hurtsville, Very much so. I'd dare say it was quickly looked at from a pure passenger rail perspective which almost makes sense, but then someone later added, what about freight?

Bankstown, no. There is no reason why the Metro cannot be extended to Liverpool, its the how that is the issue.

Option 1
- Use the existing line to Cabramatta
- Quad on Main south to Liverpool
- Terminate DD's at Sefton.

I don't like this one, cheap and nasty.

Option 2
- direct corridor, most likely a tunnel and viaduct combo due west and terminate at Liverpool.
Move the freight line to the middle track, outer two tracks in the station are Metro terminators.
- Tunnel west of Bankstown, New UG station at Condell Park and Moore Bank then rise up and via duct up to Liverpool
- Close the branch from Regents Park to Bankstown, convert to other form of corridor, bus, bike what ever
- Trains from Cabramatta via Regents Park, Lidcombe and city
- No need to continue above to Liverpool

More costly, but net result is a fast frequent corridor into the city. The Y-link trains would also act feeders into Liverpool Metro.

You're still missing the point, or deliberately ignoring the premise of my argument, that increased density is possible around existing railway stations in some suburbs which have a significant retail/commercial area and are the focus of local and regional bus services as major transport hubs.  The transport infrastructure, although in some cases may need further upgrading, is already there.  All it needs is upgrading the planning controls to allow it to happen.  This is exactly what happened in Epping and the fact that a new metro line was introduced was only a secondary consideration, when it already had the ECRL, now converted to metro.  Higher density redevelopment is not the exclusive preserve of new metro lines.  In fact, I wasn't even talking about new rail lines, whether they be metro or HR.

I don't know where you got this figure of $6B from as I never mentioned it.  If you're referring specifically to the Northern Line upgrade, the full quad between Strathfield and Epping is already planned for completion over the next decade as part of the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor program and it won't cost anything like that.  The program also includes extension of the Third Track from Thornleigh to Hornsby.  All of it will be on the surface within the existing rail corridor.  The cost will be shared equally between the State and Federal governments.  I don't see the relevance of "those few stations not having direct access with the Macquarie Hub" as you put it.  The overwhelming majority of commuters travel to the CBD and those who want to travel to Macquarie Park still have the option of travelling to Epping and interchanging to the metro or catching a direct bus service.  Future rail capacity from Strathfield to the CBD is another matter and should be looked at in the broader context of providing additional capacity for the whole Sydney Trains network, particularly on the busiest Western Line corridor, which has already been discussed at length on other threads.

No, I'm not deliberately avoiding anything.

Epping was a growing hub long before.

My point was very clear.

The NWRL was being built into a semi greenfield region for which is more easily densified and boost a high cost piece of infrastructure which has plenty of capacity. YOU DO NOT have anywhere near that capacity on the Nth main and trying to do so will cost many billions and you still need to build the NWRL.

The Quad and triple track reduce the curfew of the freight services and improve running of the interurbans, there is nothing left for urban train growth as the constraints down the line still exist, 1-2 trains per hour is chicken feed and only acounts for nominal population growth over 20 years.

The NWRL metro to the city will likely grap traffic off the Nth main - city corridor, thus providing some relief as has the NWRL by encouraging people to travel via this corridor rather than main west. My main argument for the PERL project is to do the same as will connecting of the NWRL to the Richmond line.

75,000 commuters per day access the ECRL as a result of the NWRL project, is not chicken feed and growing and do a walk through of the NW commuters where many work, classic middle to upper class white collar workers going to Macquarie corridor. The CBD is much larger sure, more than 10 x, but how many lines feed it?

To put it another way, you are building the NWRL, why the hell would you also stuff around with targeting densification in the Eastwood-West Ryde region knowing full well there is a 10 figure price tag required to do so?

As for industrial complexes, yes they will continue to close and relocate out of the inner suburbs. Many a business has paid for a complete moderisation CAPEX project simply by selling their very highly priced inner city realestate.

The Inner NWRL will eventually be built, likely 2030 - 35 (my guesstimate as its one of the most obvious projects after what is being built now) and this will drive the growth you are promotiing in the Eastwood / West Ryde catchment (with potential to extend further west). Following Victoria Road its ~13km which at $300m / km =  $4-5B to Central Station. Likely a fraction of the price it will take to fix the Inner West Corridor to take the extra traffic off the Nth Main.

Again I stand by my previous comment that the Sydney Rail network (all HR) will evolve into a hand full of Metro lines radiating out from the CBD core being interconnected by the existing DD network acting a mixed feeder service to a faster, more frequent and less complex network of routes into the CBD as well as existing routes by the DD's.

You're still missing the point, or deliberately ignoring the premise of my argument, that increased density is possible around existing railway stations in some suburbs which have a significant retail/commercial area and are the focus of local and regional bus services as major transport hubs.  The transport infrastructure, although in some cases may need further upgrading, is already there.  All it needs is upgrading the planning controls to allow it to happen.  This is exactly what happened in Epping and the fact that a new metro line was introduced was only a secondary consideration, when it already had the ECRL, now converted to metro.  Higher density redevelopment is not the exclusive preserve of new metro lines.  In fact, I wasn't even talking about new rail lines, whether they be metro or HR.

I don't know where you got this figure of $6B from as I never mentioned it.  If you're referring specifically to the Northern Line upgrade, the full quad between Strathfield and Epping is already planned for completion over the next decade as part of the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor program and it won't cost anything like that.  The program also includes extension of the Third Track from Thornleigh to Hornsby.  All of it will be on the surface within the existing rail corridor.  The cost will be shared equally between the State and Federal governments.  I don't see the relevance of "those few stations not having direct access with the Macquarie Hub" as you put it.  The overwhelming majority of commuters travel to the CBD and those who want to travel to Macquarie Park still have the option of travelling to Epping and interchanging to the metro or catching a direct bus service.  Future rail capacity from Strathfield to the CBD is another matter and should be looked at in the broader context of providing additional capacity for the whole Sydney Trains network, particularly on the busiest Western Line corridor, which has already been discussed at length on other threads.

No, I'm not deliberately avoiding anything.

Epping was a growing hub long before.

My point was very clear.

The NWRL was being built into a semi greenfield region for which is more easily densified and boost a high cost piece of infrastructure which has plenty of capacity. YOU DO NOT have anywhere near that capacity on the Nth main and trying to do so will cost many billions and you still need to build the NWRL.

The Quad and triple track reduce the curfew of the freight services and improve running of the interurbans, there is nothing left for urban train growth as the constraints down the line still exist, 1-2 trains per hour is chicken feed and only acounts for nominal population growth over 20 years.

The NWRL metro to the city will likely grap traffic off the Nth main - city corridor, thus providing some relief as has the NWRL by encouraging people to travel via this corridor rather than main west. My main argument for the PERL project is to do the same as will connecting of the NWRL to the Richmond line.

75,000 commuters per day access the ECRL as a result of the NWRL project, is not chicken feed and growing and do a walk through of the NW commuters where many work, classic middle to upper class white collar workers going to Macquarie corridor. The CBD is much larger sure, more than 10 x, but how many lines feed it?

To put it another way, you are building the NWRL, why the hell would you also stuff around with targeting densification in the Eastwood-West Ryde region knowing full well there is a 10 figure price tag required to do so?

As for industrial complexes, yes they will continue to close and relocate out of the inner suburbs. Many a business has paid for a complete moderisation CAPEX project simply by selling their very highly priced inner city realestate.

The Inner NWRL will eventually be built, likely 2030 - 35 (my guesstimate as its one of the most obvious projects after what is being built now) and this will drive the growth you are promotiing in the Eastwood / West Ryde catchment (with potential to extend further west). Following Victoria Road its ~13km which at $300m / km =  $4-5B to Central Station. Likely a fraction of the price it will take to fix the Inner West Corridor to take the extra traffic off the Nth Main.

Again I stand by my previous comment that the Sydney Rail network (all HR) will evolve into a hand full of Metro lines radiating out from the CBD core being interconnected by the existing DD network acting a mixed feeder service to a faster, more frequent and less complex network of routes into the CBD as well as existing routes by the DD's.

Sorry mate, you've lost me.  I don't know why I bother wasting my time in responding to you any more, because you still haven't listened to anything I've said, particularly with regard to the topic of this thread. You're so obsessed with your metro fetish, that you can't see, let alone acknowledge, that someone else might have a sensible alternative solution worth considering.  I think you need help.

Quite frankly, some of your assertions, particularly with regard to the expansion of metro, are questionable and would be more appropriate on a fantasy thread.

While property and housing is considered an investment and not a 'service' it doesn't matter.

The moment any suggestion of a 'correction' in housing prices, everyone runs around like headless chickens saying sky is falling. Only when the 'asset' is nicely appreciating again and everyone is comfortable with their capital gains and stops flooding the media about their 'losses', does 'affordable' get some air again.

The Metro and 'densification' is being NOT led by any real desire to make affordable housing, it's being lead by property speculation and profit chasing.
The 'affordable housing' card is only pulled when people start complaining about their once leafy suburb being turned into a soulless collection of tower blocks. The developers are not interested in 'affordable housing', they are naturally only interested in maximizing profit. There is no profit in 'affordable' housing.

Personally I think Sydney's transport planning has been hijacked by the developer lobby.

And as profit is sacred and must be chased at the expense of all other attributes of society and the environment, I can't see it changing any time soon.

This is not a public transport problem. It's more fundamental.