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?

You seem to be arguing we shouldn't have fast public transport links because there isn't enough parking.

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?

Living in a home bigger than a shoe box is something people should be able to chose to do if they wish.  The better the transport links, the more people who can afford that option.

It's not the best model, it's not the only model, but without suitable transport links it becomes no option at all.

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.

No Transtopic, I again haven't missed your point, I just don't agree with what you are saying.

- I spent alot of time in the Eastwood-West Ryde-Top Ryde area in my 20's and I've been through there once or twice since in the last 20 odd years. Its a classic established (read built out low density suburbs of the mid 20th century), it hasn't changed alot and if I'd paid my +$1m for a house there, I wouldn't want it to either. I also don't think the area is ripe for densification, you would destroy it and I hope its preserved from it for many years to come.

Additionally as I said before, the railway corridor through to the city isn't up to speed and would need many billions of dollars spent on it as I think you and/or others have stated in another thread.

- The NWRL was going to be built anyway DD or metro even though it was never actually planned as DD just implied, it has long had areas set aside for densification in the original planning. This makes a better location.

- If you think I have a love affair with the soleless, boring Metro then you would mistaken. However what I note through my travels is that dozens of cities are lining up to build the same. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE is lining up to replicate the Sydney DD's or layout. Why?

Both sides of govt acknowledge for long distance underground trains, the Metro technology employed in the NWRL is the future, not the DD approach for CAPEX and OPEX reasons alone but there are others, no conspiracy theories required.

Both sides of govt acknowledge the endless list of issues with the Sydney DD network which has expanded in an adhoc fashion and that the cost of fixing is astronomical. Look at what the ALP rightly spent just in the "untangle project" and this added how many new stations?. You don't have to agree with me on this, but you tell me how much it will cost to get the Nth Main up to a minimum of 12 suburban trains per hour to the city, then compare that to building the Inner NW Metro?

As always this is my opinion, nothing more, nothing less and yes I respect yours even if I don't agree with it.

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.

Option 1 or a slight variation on it is the more likely solution as far as I am concerned with the only real work required being getting the sefton triangle sorted out and finding room for Metro tracks between there and Cabramatta. My solution is to make it skyrail or utilise the vast reserves of land along the corridor to separate the new metro from the freight line and the via regents park service. There is also then scope to get rid of that single line y loop at lidcombe. But leaving it as it is could help keep more people happy.

Option 2 is not going to happen. Putting the freight line in the centre at Liverpool is ridiculous for a start and Metro will be crossing the existing line at 90 degrees just in case an extension west is wanted. A tunnel is also not going to happen because it is too expensive and the Libs are not going to spend that much money in a Labor area and neither will Labor. Metro is likely to stay where it is at Bankstown.

My thoughts on your DD upgrades RTT and ranking them Yay, Nay and Huh.

Yay
- 6 to Lidcombe
- ESR extension
- Extend SWRL to new airport
- Terminate South Coast services off the ESR and away from Central terminal, likely the unused platforms at Central and extend through to St James
- Inner west Metro and the existing surface stations removed to allow for a faster corridor for outer south west trains.


Nay
- Waverton/Wollestoncraft by-pass
- Quad to East Hills
- Quad Cabrammatta to Liverpool
- 6 tracks for DD from Wollie Creek to Eskinville


Huh
- By-pass for Southern trains from Sutherland to East Hills Line (Need more info)
- Inner city relief line (If this is the CBD Relief line then add to Yay)

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.

Option 1 or a slight variation on it is the more likely solution as far as I am concerned with the only real work required being getting the sefton triangle sorted out and finding room for Metro tracks between there and Cabramatta. My solution is to make it skyrail or utilise the vast reserves of land along the corridor to separate the new metro from the freight line and the via regents park service. There is also then scope to get rid of that single line y loop at lidcombe. But leaving it as it is could help keep more people happy.

Option 2 is not going to happen. Putting the freight line in the centre at Liverpool is ridiculous for a start and Metro will be crossing the existing line at 90 degrees just in case an extension west is wanted. A tunnel is also not going to happen because it is too expensive and the Libs are not going to spend that much money in a Labor area and neither will Labor. Metro is likely to stay where it is at Bankstown.

Option 1
- DD's would no longer continue to use the corridor west of Sefton, there would be an extra track to Sefton for terminators. Why would both services be required to use what is a lightly patronized corridor? We are connecting at Cabra' purely to grab the city bound traffic off the main south.
OR
Metro would split and continue to Lidcombe, messy.

- The Y-link at  Lidcombe would need to stay as I believe freights use this, correct or wrong?

- Cabramatta station is difficult to push in an extra pair of plats. So its skyrail to terminate above, messy.

Option 2
- While I think more expensive, is a cleaner project with less interfacing (read cheaper).
- If the line arrives at Liverpool undergound then comments above are mute. However its cheaper to return to the surface ASAP. I was thinking would approach the station from the north following the river on a via duct or skyrail. Like Brisbane Airport train does.
- Moving the freight line to the centre of 5 tracks through the state, big deal? Its segregated from both DD and Metro lines so its mute.
- As for the politics, I don't think it carries as much weight as that.
If the Bankstown/Liverpool Metro can be boosted to carry more people off both the SW and Western corridors, then it solves problems elsewhere and this includes LNP voters.

My thoughts on your DD upgrades RTT and ranking them Yay, Nay and Huh.

Yay
- 6 to Lidcombe
- ESR extension
- Extend SWRL to new airport
- Terminate South Coast services off the ESR and away from Central terminal, likely the unused platforms at Central and extend through to St James
- Inner west Metro and the existing surface stations removed to allow for a faster corridor for outer south west trains.


Nay
- Waverton/Wollestoncraft by-pass
- Quad to East Hills
- Quad Cabrammatta to Liverpool
- 6 tracks for DD from Wollie Creek to Eskinville


Huh
- By-pass for Southern trains from Sutherland to East Hills Line (Need more info)
- Inner city relief line (If this is the CBD Relief line then add to Yay)

Nay's
Waverton/Wollestoncraft by-pass
- This curvy route adds if I re-call 9min to the trip. Chews up train set usage, peoples time, nosiey and burns money
- Direct tunnel saves times, staff, trains,
- Existing route retained, Nth Syd terminators moved to St Lenoards and operated as such on 15min timetable.
- All other trains continue north terminating further up the Nth Shore Line, Hornsby, Berowa etc.

East Hills Quad
- With more traffic eventually on SW line, it will need less stops on EH line and more passing for longer run trains, Quad to EH is I thought a just do it. East Hills to city via Airport line, all stopper. SW to East Hills express to Wolli Creek and all to city.
- I'm sure there was a time someone said Revesby Quad was not required.
- Quad to EH is probably one of the cheapest amplifications projects in Sydney, there is almost nothing in the way.

Quad Cab- Liverpool
- Long term if the Metro isn't run out that way yes.
- Y-link traffic will only increase
- Line separation is the pathway of the future.

6 track Wolli  to Eskinville
- Most of the work has already been done
- Need passing lanes for Sth Coast mains etc
- 1 pair for SW services
- 1 pair for ESR
- 1 pair for express
- Again not mixing of services is the way of the future

Oatley to Kingsgrove tunnel
- We all know the corridore is congested and issue for freights, South Coast trains etc.
- Tunnel nth 5.5km from just off the bridge to Kingsgrove allows faster route into city and uses existing express lines and avoids the need for Quading further south of Mortdale
The southern side of the bridge to Sutherland is easier to Quad, bridge can remain 2 tracks.
- Also add another station to the network in the middle of the tunnel.

Inner city relief line
(If this is the CBD Relief line then add to Yay)- Yes

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.

No Transtopic, I again haven't missed your point, I just don't agree with what you are saying.

- I spent alot of time in the Eastwood-West Ryde-Top Ryde area in my 20's and I've been through there once or twice since in the last 20 odd years. Its a classic established (read built out low density suburbs of the mid 20th century), it hasn't changed alot and if I'd paid my +$1m for a house there, I wouldn't want it to either. I also don't think the area is ripe for densification, you would destroy it and I hope its preserved from it for many years to come.

Additionally as I said before, the railway corridor through to the city isn't up to speed and would need many billions of dollars spent on it as I think you and/or others have stated in another thread.

- The NWRL was going to be built anyway DD or metro even though it was never actually planned as DD just implied, it has long had areas set aside for densification in the original planning. This makes a better location.

- If you think I have a love affair with the soleless, boring Metro then you would mistaken. However what I note through my travels is that dozens of cities are lining up to build the same. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE is lining up to replicate the Sydney DD's or layout. Why?

Both sides of govt acknowledge for long distance underground trains, the Metro technology employed in the NWRL is the future, not the DD approach for CAPEX and OPEX reasons alone but there are others, no conspiracy theories required.

Both sides of govt acknowledge the endless list of issues with the Sydney DD network which has expanded in an adhoc fashion and that the cost of fixing is astronomical. Look at what the ALP rightly spent just in the "untangle project" and this added how many new stations?. You don't have to agree with me on this, but you tell me how much it will cost to get the Nth Main up to a minimum of 12 suburban trains per hour to the city, then compare that to building the Inner NW Metro?

As always this is my opinion, nothing more, nothing less and yes I respect yours even if I don't agree with it.

You may disagree with what I am saying, which is your right, but by inference you're suggesting that there are no major suburban centres and transport hubs on the existing network where urban densification would be warranted and that it should only be on new metro lines.  That's total rubbish.  I wasn't even discussing new lines, whether they be metro or otherwise.  That's an entirely different argument.  My comments were strictly focussed on the existing network.

I've lived in the Eastwood-West Ryde-Top Ryde area for 70 years, and still do, so I think I might know a little bit more about it than you.  I still have all my marbles and haven't succumbed to dementia yet.  Perhaps you should take another visit when you're next in Sydney and see for yourself what's happening on the ground here.

Regardless of the demand created by future urban densification on the existing rail network, it's already stretched to the limit and further major investment will be needed in the short term to upgrade it to cope with that demand.  Future metro lines, even if warranted, couldn't be built fast enough to take up the slack.  It could take decades to build whole new metro lines to the extent you're suggesting, whereas targeted upgrades to the existing network could be achieved in a much shorter time-frame and at a fraction of the cost.  I only support new metro lines into inner and middle ring suburban areas which aren't adequately serviced by rail, such as the Northern Beaches, South-Eastern suburbs and inner-city cross regional links.

Just BTW, the original plan for the NWRL under the previous Labor government was as an extension of the existing DD network, with quadruplication of the Northern Line between Epping and a tunnel dive to the North West between Cheltenham and Beecroft.  It would have allowed for train services from the NWRL to continue into the CBD via either Strathfield via the Northern Line or Chatswood via the ECRL.  However, inexplicably for the Labor government, they succumbed to the frantic cries of the local NIMBYs and cancelled that plan.  It later morphed into the North West Metro under the Iemma government, which was also subsequently abandoned.  Even the LNP at the 2011 State Election had proposed the NWRL as an extension of the existing DD network, connecting directly with the ECRL, but that also morphed into the metro which we now have. The densification along the North West corridor would have occurred, regardless of whether it was DD or metro.  It was proposed and eventually built, not because it was a better location for urban densification, but because it was a huge area between the Northern Line and Richmond Line which didn't have a rail service.

Of course you wouldn't replicate Sydney's DD network for inner suburban regions if you were starting with a clean sheet.  The reality is that the legacy system already exists and for better or worse we have to make the most of it through appropriate upgrades.  You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and impose a completely new regime.  I don't see that happening with the likes of London's Overground and Paris's RER, which operate independently of their extensive metro systems.  Sydney has never had a segregated metro system.  The major problem is that over decades, amplification of the inner city corridors or lack of it, hasn't kept pace with the demand created through the urban sprawl to the outer suburban fringe.  The inner suburbs aren't the problem, it's the limited track capacity for outer suburban services to continue into the CBD, without being forced to interchange to existing inner city lines or future metros.  I don't think that's a viable option.  Your suggested cost of bringing the existing network up to an acceptable standard is over the top and I doubt if it would cost anything like that.  However, building multiple new metro lines would cost considerably more IMO, not that some wouldn't be warranted.

I don't accept your hypothesis that the only way to encourage greater densification is to build more metro lines.  On that score, we shall have to agree to disagree.

@RTT_Rules

Sorry it's taken a while to get back, I've been busy with work.

First point, you can't cite current patronage on 'regional' public transport to justify the lack of improvement, provide a decent service and maybe more people would use it. No one is going to use a 2 hourly, circuitous service that bypasses where they actually want to go, unless they absolutely have to.
Using the same logic, the Carlingford Line had low patraonge, so there would be no point providing an increased level of service via the Parramatta Light Rail, should have saved the money and converted it into a cycleway.
Obviously provide the bulk of the funding to Sydney, but ONLY giving Sydney infrastructure leaves us with the problem we have now, NSW has 800,642 km² of land, and ONE livible city, and no one can afford to live there!
And regarding the word 'regional', you most likely remember my previous topics, I was advocating for improved public transport in Wollongong and Newcastle, these cities are not even 'regional', they are cities, with that being said, if what @SinickleBird said about investing in the areas that are actually regional, it would be better as it would spread the population even more, Wollongong and Newcatle are still close to Sydney, Wollongong in particular.

Things were different back when you commuted from Gosford, nowadays not only are there not enough jobs to sustain the population, but everything is casualised, and employers want someone they can call up at any time.
Unfortunately this is incompatible if we are using a transportation/housing model that focuses on having people commute from outer areas quicker, serious regulations would need to be placed on employers to make it work.
I remember going to one job interview and almost got the job after explaining to one manager that I had family I could stay with in Sydney to avoid the commute issue, but when the other manager found out I was from Newcastle, that was the end of that, I made sure with my current job just to use the family members address and not take any chances, got the job alright but I hope I can get my tax return.
I have seen job applications that literally ask 'do you live within a 30 minute commute' and even NSW Government jobs say in the description that they will prioritise applicants that live within a 30/60 (can't remember which number exactly) commute, making this apparent plan for fast rail completely redundant.
The comment I made about wealth relates to employers prioritising local applicants, if you only want to hire someone who lives within the 30 minute commute, then you only want to hire someone who can AFFORD to live within a 30 minute commute.

Regarding park & ride, the problem is simply that the car parks are never big enough, and if attempting to make them bigger, it would end up being more economic building more stations to fill in the large gaps,
not only that, areas around train stations are in high demand and can naturally be vary expensive, even though it's the elderly, disabled, and familes who depend on such areas the most, and making them walkable and pedestrian friendly is good for small business growth.
Having these areas far apart and surrounding predominantly by not enough parking is a waste of a line's potential, and it doesn't help that the new housing developments are not designed in a way to support a practical bus network, as @djf01 pointed out.
I certainly do not believe Sydney's southwest should have multiple railway lines branching out in each direction, I just believe the existing lines should have more stations that are easier to walk to.
Charging for station parking is an interesting idea, but would you plan on lowering fares, if train fare + station parking = more expensive than petrol, people will just drive, I support the cheaper fares but others don't.
I would like the idea of paying and having money refunded if you actually catch the train (to stop people using the car park for other reasons) kind of like the coin-deposit shopping trollies.
I know Ashfield station has a commuter car park that you need your Opal card to access, but as far as I know, it still fills up.
Lastly, regarding stations at Wattle Grove and Voyage Point, both areas are difficult to serve by buses, both are right next to the railway line, the railway line already has frequent trains running through, and the only nearby station is impossible to park at despite the mammoth parking structure, it should be a no-brainer.

Getting back to the subject of this thread, you can also equate housing "affordability" with "availability".  The lack of the latter is what is driving the former, particularly in the inner suburbs, where increasingly most would prefer to live because of the greater availability of jobs, without having to endure long commutes.  It's a simple case of demand without adequate supply intensifying the lack of affordability.

I don't agree with the concept of urban sprawl, although I acknowledge that it will continue until such time as the availability and affordability of inner city housing improves.  There are limits to how far Sydney's sprawl can continue.  This can only be achieved with inner-urban densification, which I support.

There's a misconception amongst the greater populace that urban consolidation/densification would allow a block of flats to be constructed on every street corner in existing low density areas, which is clearly nonsense.  The only intensification which is likely to occur will be within a limited distance of major transport hubs such as rail stations, typically 800m or a 10 minute walk.  The vast majority of existing low density residential areas will remain untouched.

@RTT_Rules

Sorry it's taken a while to get back, I've been busy with work.

First point, you can't cite current patronage on 'regional' public transport to justify the lack of improvement, provide a decent service and maybe more people would use it. No one is going to use a 2 hourly, circuitous service that bypasses where they actually want to go, unless they absolutely have to.
Using the same logic, the Carlingford Line had low patraonge, so there would be no point providing an increased level of service via the Parramatta Light Rail, should have saved the money and converted it into a cycleway.
Obviously provide the bulk of the funding to Sydney, but ONLY giving Sydney infrastructure leaves us with the problem we have now, NSW has 800,642 km² of land, and ONE livible city, and no one can afford to live there!
And regarding the word 'regional', you most likely remember my previous topics, I was advocating for improved public transport in Wollongong and Newcastle, these cities are not even 'regional', they are cities, with that being said, if what @SinickleBird said about investing in the areas that are actually regional, it would be better as it would spread the population even more, Wollongong and Newcatle are still close to Sydney, Wollongong in particular.

Things were different back when you commuted from Gosford, nowadays not only are there not enough jobs to sustain the population, but everything is casualised, and employers want someone they can call up at any time.
Unfortunately this is incompatible if we are using a transportation/housing model that focuses on having people commute from outer areas quicker, serious regulations would need to be placed on employers to make it work.
I remember going to one job interview and almost got the job after explaining to one manager that I had family I could stay with in Sydney to avoid the commute issue, but when the other manager found out I was from Newcastle, that was the end of that, I made sure with my current job just to use the family members address and not take any chances, got the job alright but I hope I can get my tax return.
I have seen job applications that literally ask 'do you live within a 30 minute commute' and even NSW Government jobs say in the description that they will prioritise applicants that live within a 30/60 (can't remember which number exactly) commute, making this apparent plan for fast rail completely redundant.
The comment I made about wealth relates to employers prioritising local applicants, if you only want to hire someone who lives within the 30 minute commute, then you only want to hire someone who can AFFORD to live within a 30 minute commute.

Regarding park & ride, the problem is simply that the car parks are never big enough, and if attempting to make them bigger, it would end up being more economic building more stations to fill in the large gaps,
not only that, areas around train stations are in high demand and can naturally be vary expensive, even though it's the elderly, disabled, and familes who depend on such areas the most, and making them walkable and pedestrian friendly is good for small business growth.
Having these areas far apart and surrounding predominantly by not enough parking is a waste of a line's potential, and it doesn't help that the new housing developments are not designed in a way to support a practical bus network, as @djf01 pointed out.
I certainly do not believe Sydney's southwest should have multiple railway lines branching out in each direction, I just believe the existing lines should have more stations that are easier to walk to.
Charging for station parking is an interesting idea, but would you plan on lowering fares, if train fare + station parking = more expensive than petrol, people will just drive, I support the cheaper fares but others don't.
I would like the idea of paying and having money refunded if you actually catch the train (to stop people using the car park for other reasons) kind of like the coin-deposit shopping trollies.
I know Ashfield station has a commuter car park that you need your Opal card to access, but as far as I know, it still fills up.
Lastly, regarding stations at Wattle Grove and Voyage Point, both areas are difficult to serve by buses, both are right next to the railway line, the railway line already has frequent trains running through, and the only nearby station is impossible to park at despite the mammoth parking structure, it should be a no-brainer.

Ethan, work is what pays the bills

- Regional NSW is basically outside the wired and South Main commuter network. Yes I would love to see more decentralisation, but its like your comment on employers advertising proximity limits.  Who do you want to do business with, the guy next door or the guy 500km away?

- I don't blame employers for advertising proximty and in reality its far better to have people living within 30min on average of their work that have everyone in Sydney travelling 60min to work on average. Think how much less congestion there would be? Then think on how many billions would be saved in infrastructure costs, road and rail. Despite how bad you think Sydney is, Dubai is far worse.

- The Casualisation of the workforce stats are skewed and over stated by most people focusing on males, not females which has actually reduced. On average its risen 3.5 % in 25 years. Also a bit of a jump in Vic, however some states such as Tas actually dropped slightly.
But yes, the dynamic of the work place has also changed, more flexible hours and more on call.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1718/CasualEmployeesAustralia

- Leppington area dos not deserve walk up stations, thats not how railways are built anymore for numerous reasons. If you look at the stats for some of the older stations in the surburban areas, some wouldn't generate enough ticket sales to pay the stations light bill. Build them big, spaced 3-4km apart, you have critical mass in numbers to justify all the supporting services including high cost security, parking, bus, kiss'n'ride, shops etc.

Same design concept applies to new lines in Qld, Vic, WA, OS etc. Also stopping every 2-3min just burns travel time, another way to discourage ridership. Perhaps in 50 years with greater density things will change?

If the car parks are not big enough, build them bigger, improve bus connections etc. Its sign of success. However back to paying, yes I think it doesn't hurt to contribute to $10-20m multi-story carpark. People are not using trains because its cheaper, its usually not, they are using trains to avoid traffic congestion and high parking costs at their destination, especially CBD. Building extra stations is also not free either, likely cheaper to build a car park. Its a tough one on best way to approach this.

Yes, last August I tried to find a park at Kellyville Station at 11am on a Friday and end up parking in a non-designated spot along with a few others, so someones forecasts and/or budget was less than needed and thats only a few months after opening. More stations would not have solved my issues as the place we were going to after the train return was perpendicular to the railway.

Getting back to the subject of this thread, you can also equate housing "affordability" with "availability".  The lack of the latter is what is driving the former, particularly in the inner suburbs, where increasingly most would prefer to live because of the greater availability of jobs, without having to endure long commutes.  It's a simple case of demand without adequate supply intensifying the lack of affordability.

I don't agree with the concept of urban sprawl, although I acknowledge that it will continue until such time as the availability and affordability of inner city housing improves.  There are limits to how far Sydney's sprawl can continue.  This can only be achieved with inner-urban densification, which I support.

There's a misconception amongst the greater populace that urban consolidation/densification would allow a block of flats to be constructed on every street corner in existing low density areas, which is clearly nonsense.  The only intensification which is likely to occur will be within a limited distance of major transport hubs such as rail stations, typically 800m or a 10 minute walk.  The vast majority of existing low density residential areas will remain untouched.

In the past higher density living was your typical mid rise orange brick apartment building offering nothing much more than a common area BBQ. Not the most attractive of living options.

With rising land prices, the move towards higher rise (requiring lifts) offering more attractive lifestyle options such as gardens, pools, gym etc sprung up. Multi tower complexes like my wifes Cousin living in near Chatswood station offering more luxury options have also followed. All drive by growing land prices on the back of urban sprawl exceeding practical commute times for outer suburbs to CBD.

Sydney is a bit different to Mel and Brisbane with a natural barrier to the sprawl in most directions bar the SW with others fenced by large National Parks.

I agree densification naturally follows railway corridors, as did low density housing before it. But low density also moved away from walk up transport options as land became exhausted and higher density will follow although I agree not as fast as higher density encourages car less living. There are some examples around premium locations in Sydney well away from rail such as the Nth beaches.

The low density areas will I suspect get picked off by coordination between govt and developers and we have seen this already. The Western Metro design is/was mixing HR projects with high density developments west of Concorde west to Paramatta. And yes I believe the govt will steer developers away from areas they don't want developed for various reasons.

The metro with its higher average speed, hence its ability to achieve quicker journey times than the suburban trains, while stopping at every station, opens up excellent opportunities for infill densification and greater spread of activity centres compared to the two-tier suburban system (all-stops vs semi-express) which makes some localities more attractive than others.

The metro with its higher average speed, hence its ability to achieve quicker journey times than the suburban trains, while stopping at every station, opens up excellent opportunities for infill densification and greater spread of activity centres compared to the two-tier suburban system (all-stops vs semi-express) which makes some localities more attractive than others.

Yes.  The all stations metro from Bomaderry, with a "simple" single stopping pattern at Bomaderry, Nth Bomaderry, Bolong valley, Jaspers Brush, South Berry, Berry, North Berry, Seven Mile Beach, Toolijooa, Geringong, Werri Beach, Omega, East Beach, Kiama Heights, Kiama, Bombo, Bombo Point, Kiama Downs, Minamurra, Dunmore, Shelharbour Jtn, Flinders, Oak Flats, Albion Park, Albion Park Nth, Haywards Bay, Yallah, Calderwood Valley Rail, South Dapto, Dapto, Kanahooka, Kembla grange, Farmborough Heights, Unanderra, Figtree, Mt St Thomas, Coniston, Coniston North, Wollongong.  But at least you're esra won't get sore as you'll be standing all the way.

The metro with its higher average speed, hence its ability to achieve quicker journey times than the suburban trains, while stopping at every station, opens up excellent opportunities for infill densification and greater spread of activity centres compared to the two-tier suburban system (all-stops vs semi-express) which makes some localities more attractive than others.

Yes.  The all stations metro from Bomaderry, with a "simple" single stopping pattern at Bomaderry, Nth Bomaderry, Bolong valley, Jaspers Brush, South Berry, Berry, North Berry, Seven Mile Beach, Toolijooa, Geringong, Werri Beach, Omega, East Beach, Kiama Heights, Kiama, Bombo, Bombo Point, Kiama Downs, Minamurra, Dunmore, Shelharbour Jtn, Flinders, Oak Flats, Albion Park, Albion Park Nth, Haywards Bay, Yallah, Calderwood Valley Rail, South Dapto, Dapto, Kanahooka, Kembla grange, Farmborough Heights, Unanderra, Figtree, Mt St Thomas, Coniston, Coniston North, Wollongong.  But at least you're esra won't get sore as you'll be standing all the way.

huh?

The metro with its higher average speed, hence its ability to achieve quicker journey times than the suburban trains, while stopping at every station, opens up excellent opportunities for infill densification and greater spread of activity centres compared to the two-tier suburban system (all-stops vs semi-express) which makes some localities more attractive than others.

Yes.  The all stations metro from Bomaderry, with a "simple" single stopping pattern at Bomaderry, Nth Bomaderry, Bolong valley, Jaspers Brush, South Berry, Berry, North Berry, Seven Mile Beach, Toolijooa, Geringong, Werri Beach, Omega, East Beach, Kiama Heights, Kiama, Bombo, Bombo Point, Kiama Downs, Minamurra, Dunmore, Shelharbour Jtn, Flinders, Oak Flats, Albion Park, Albion Park Nth, Haywards Bay, Yallah, Calderwood Valley Rail, South Dapto, Dapto, Kanahooka, Kembla grange, Farmborough Heights, Unanderra, Figtree, Mt St Thomas, Coniston, Coniston North, Wollongong.  But at least you're esra won't get sore as you'll be standing all the way.

huh?

I was in last month's Kiama Bugle

The metro with its higher average speed, hence its ability to achieve quicker journey times than the suburban trains, while stopping at every station, opens up excellent opportunities for infill densification and greater spread of activity centres compared to the two-tier suburban system (all-stops vs semi-express) which makes some localities more attractive than others.

Yep, agree.

Hence I think the former Inner NW Metro is the next big project with the exception of heading west from Top Ryde to West Ryde and on to former Rydelmere Station / Future LR station / Uni of Western Syd and with it denisifcation will follow.

Having read none of the above contributions (sorry guys) here are my 2c.

1. Housing affordability shouldn't be managed by provision of cheaper transport.  this is just a subsidy and whilst probably minuscule will only increase prices and unnafordability.

2. Housing affordability should be managed through tax reform.  Land tax should replace stamp duty to allow the housing inventory to better match the people who need it.  Negative gearing should be quarantined to the house that it relates to (so that houses have to pay for themselves instead of being subsidised through tax).  And road user charging should be implemented which will strip out the impact of the  subsidy of roads on house prices.

3. Financial reward of mass transit systems for congestion reduction should be examined and introduced.  Eg the benefit of a VLine train bringing in hundreds of passengers to SCS instead of driving should be monetised and the operator rewarded.  Or of an express peak bus in the morning picking up people from the lower north shore instead of 50 odd cars going across the bridge.  Lots of complexity here for which thousands of pages could be written but the headline concept should make sense

Just some ideas.

Having read none of the above contributions (sorry guys) here are my 2c.

1. Housing affordability shouldn't be managed by provision of cheaper transport.  this is just a subsidy and whilst probably minuscule will only increase prices and unnafordability.

2. Housing affordability should be managed through tax reform.  Land tax should replace stamp duty to allow the housing inventory to better match the people who need it.  Negative gearing should be quarantined to the house that it relates to (so that houses have to pay for themselves instead of being subsidised through tax).  And road user charging should be implemented which will strip out the impact of the  subsidy of roads on house prices.

3. Financial reward of mass transit systems for congestion reduction should be examined and introduced.  Eg the benefit of a VLine train bringing in hundreds of passengers to SCS instead of driving should be monetised and the operator rewarded.  Or of an express peak bus in the morning picking up people from the lower north shore instead of 50 odd cars going across the bridge.  Lots of complexity here for which thousands of pages could be written but the headline concept should make sense

Just some ideas.

I don't disagree with above with following comments

- Land tax will drive people towards moving to cheaper land, but I doubt it will lower housing prices

- Congestion tax will help force people to stop commuting >50km and encourage more living closer to work, however I doubt it will be a major driving force. Suggest to also move away from fuel tax to distance based taxes.

- Removal of -'ve gearing on anything but new properties with an expiry date will likely have the biggest driver in reducing 2nd hand property prices by directing investors from this market into the new market thus increasing stock coming onto the market, especially redevelopment projects.

- -'ve gearing being shared to other investments will help encourage investment in new properties

- #3, PT is heavily subsidised and govt owned/funded I doubt this will make any difference, money just changing hands in the same team.

The metro with its higher average speed, hence its ability to achieve quicker journey times than the suburban trains, while stopping at every station, opens up excellent opportunities for infill densification and greater spread of activity centres compared to the two-tier suburban system (all-stops vs semi-express) which makes some localities more attractive than others.

No!

Hence I think the former Inner NW Metro is the next big project with the exception of heading west from Top Ryde to West Ryde and on to former Rydelmere Station / Future LR station / Uni of Western Syd and with it denisifcation will follow.

As I mentioned in a previous post and as much as I would like to see it, it isn't mentioned in any of the government's current plans for the next 30 years.  Unless there's a change in priorities, it's unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, although I agree that it should have greater priority, as it's one of the major transport corridors, like the Northern Beaches, which doesn't have a rail service.

@RTT_Rules

Firstly, “work is what pays the bills”, I know that, what is the point of that comment? I have a job that pays my expenses and had to lie about my address just to get it.

Anyway, with that aside, I agree that regional NSW is generally anything outside the wired lines, but some people (including our government) think ‘regional’ is anything outside of Sydney.

Regarding employers wanting to hire those within the 30 minute commute, the problem is that is makes the ‘commute to Sydney’ model for transport and housing completely redundant,
what use would it be to straighten out the bends and speed up interurban services and give more people convenient access to the Sydney Labour Market if no employer will hire them because of said commute?

The secondary issue regarding this is indirect wealth discrimination, think about it, what is within 30 minutes of the Sydney CBD? North Shore, Eastern Suburbs, Inner West, who lives there? wealthy people, certainly not those who need the jobs the most!
In my opinion, one’s address should be considered sensitive information, and not be of an employers business, that way the ‘commute to Sydney’ model could work, but that alone wouldn’t solve the issues of parking, there is simply NO way you could provide enough parking to support 50% of the population of Newcastle and Wollongong using park & rides at a few stations, Gosford can’t even cope!

Regarding your “If the car parks are not big enough, build them bigger”, the problem comes from where bigger is never big enough, have you actually seen the massive parking structures at Holsworthy? How much bigger could you get?

Building them any bigger means it’s more economic to build more stations, in regards to the cost of stations, I wish every station did not need to include a lift, toilet, and lcd indicator screens, that would make the cost of stations significantly cheaper, as you mentioned, there should be a ‘big’ station every 3-4km, these stations should have lifts, toilets, etc, but there should be smaller stations without such features (but allowances made for them in the future) to fill in the gaps.
And before anyone brings up accessibility, what is better, a station with no lift or no station at all?

Regarding having more stations slowing down services, that is what multiple stopping patterns before, the T8 Airport & South line is almost a perfect model for this, if only East Hills was the transfer point and the connection times were not terrible, and of course more stations between Holsworthy and Glenfield (without lifts, toilets, and lcd screens).
There should also be a focus on reducing dwell times.

The solution to Sydney's affordability crisis, is to stop the sprawl and revitalise regional centres with jobs and infrastructure.

The infrastructure should mainly be focusing on region to region.

Time to take the blinkers off, stop complaining, and move. Housing is affordable in Australia.

https://evocities.com.au/

- #3, PT is heavily subsidised and govt owned/funded I doubt this will make any difference, money just changing hands in the same team.

If the subsidy is marketised though it will encourage direction of the subsidy to the areas where it is needed most, not on bus routes doing S shaped routes through cities carrying air-conditioned air and the driver.

Hence I think the former Inner NW Metro is the next big project with the exception of heading west from Top Ryde to West Ryde and on to former Rydelmere Station / Future LR station / Uni of Western Syd and with it denisifcation will follow.

As I mentioned in a previous post and as much as I would like to see it, it isn't mentioned in any of the government's current plans for the next 30 years.  Unless there's a change in priorities, it's unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, although I agree that it should have greater priority, as it's one of the major transport corridors, like the Northern Beaches, which doesn't have a rail service.

It was on the books, then the former govt lost the election, so I have to wonder if their is a political bias behind this for now. Its also not the biggest issue in Sydney rail right now, as we have discussed there are bigger issues on west and other lines.

I'm still thinking 2030 because as for 30 year plans by Australian govts, yes I know in some areas they follow bi-partisan longterm plans, ie Inland, in other areas not so. Qld govt drew up a nice 25 year plan SEQQIP I think it was called. It was valid for about 5 years, or maybe even less before they started to abandon it.

The solution to Sydney's affordability crisis, is to stop the sprawl and revitalise regional centres with jobs and infrastructure.

The infrastructure should mainly be focusing on region to region.

Time to take the blinkers off, stop complaining, and move. Housing is affordable in Australia.

https://evocities.com.au/

Its nice in theory and I'd like to see it done. The issue is what to move and where.