Public Transport Funding: Is it going to the right places?

 

Sponsored advertisement

  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
$15 million /day Sydney binge.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/expensive-feast-at-15-million-a-day-sydney-s-mega-rail-projects-hit-costly-speed-bumps-20220804-p5b770.html
ANR
I note that former transport bureaucracy chief, Les Wielinga still persists with the lie that the metro can carry 40,000 passengers per hour, compared with 24,000 passengers per hour for DD, without acknowledging the improved performance for DD on a new line with upgraded digital signalling and modern station design, which would reduce dwell times at the busier stations, even though the frequency may not be as great (24tph v 30tph).

An independent consultant's report commissioned by Transport for NSW found that the comparison between the two modes was skewed to favour the SD metro by comparing a crush loaded metro train with a moderately loaded DD train.  It estimated that for practical purposes, the peak load capacity, as distinct from maximum capacity, would be 33,600 passengers per hour for both modes if the DD network was upgraded, which it would be on a new line, and with almost double the number of seats.  The lesser frequency for DD takes account of longer dwell times.  Who but the most pedantic, are going to be worried about a longer waiting time for DD of 30 seconds?
  freightgate Minister for Railways

Location: Albury, New South Wales
There is or was a major conference of transport ministers in Melbourne this week. Let’s hope they were discussing the right issues.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
@Transtopic

Figured as much about the airport line, but hope springs eternal. It was very dumb the way they went about it
The same could be said for the privately proposed extension of of the ESR from Bondi Junction to Bondi Beach, which was for a single line with no intermediate station at Bondi Rd, which you would think would be essential.  Thankfully, the government wasn't conned this time.
I don't know,

A privately funded (its their money they can decide to if they want a 2nd station) single track 2.6 km extension to BB for a 10min timetable.
- Want a 2nd station, then add it later
- Want a 2nd track, then add it later

Had this been accepted it would be running today and for last 20 years, yet now we have nothing, we will have nothing likely for another 20 years, if ever.
Yeah and when they go broke, as the Airport Line did, they'll be pressuring the government to bail them out.

It's not supposed to be a profit making enterprise, but a tax payer funded government service.  Do it properly in the first place.
Transtopic
1) You don't know if it would have gone broke, as it was built with a minimalist design with 90:10 rule then maybe/maybe not.

2) The state govt was and still is struggling to fund heavy rail at the rate needing as the govt needs both CAPEX and then ongoing OPEX to fund the heavily subsidised network which is always going to be a limiting factor to whats being built, how fast and frequency of services. This is also why the Metro concept was introduced.

3) Again, had the govt accepted it, gone broke or not, it would be there TODAY! Yet what we have today is the same bus connection introduced when the ESR was open.

4) While we are on when the ESR opened and since I know you love your politically related comments Smile. The private project option would not have been needed had your former ALP govt not truncated the project in the first place.

5) In 2006, the former ALP govt spent $80m (about $100m) to increase the turnback capacity at BJ because the previous ALP under designed it in the late 1970's. This was roughly half the cost of the privately proposed Bondi Beach extension.

6) How much money has the NSW state govt made from the Airport line station premiums?

7) The former ALP govt was elected to power 6 weeks after the Airport line project was approved, was in power for 16 years and then only in the last few weeks in office as an election stunt abolished the station airport levy at Mascot and Green square stations.
  alleve Train Controller

Location: T4 Illawarra Line
4) While we are on when the ESR opened and since I know you love your politically related comments Smile. The private project option would not have been needed had your former ALP govt not truncated the project in the first place.
RTT_Rules
ALP Govt didn't truncate the ESR to Bondi Junction, that decision was made in the second half of the 1960s. ALP Govt merely decided not to extend the line any further than what had already been decided by the previous Govt and not to finish Woollahra station.

Not that the political comments are relevant in any way since both parties are completely different now than they were then
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
4) While we are on when the ESR opened and since I know you love your politically related comments Smile. The private project option would not have been needed had your former ALP govt not truncated the project in the first place.
ALP Govt didn't truncate the ESR to Bondi Junction, that decision was made in the second half of the 1960s. ALP Govt merely decided not to extend the line any further than what had already been decided by the previous Govt and not to finish Woollahra station.

Not that the political comments are relevant in any way since both parties are completely different now than they were then
alleve
Yes, agree. I should have been more clear. I suppose those had the line proceeded to the SE, then we wouldn't have spent $3B on a LR project over the last 6 years.

I usually prefer not to bring politics into rail discussions as there rarely is direct collelations, just outliers and its usually done by those who lean hard to one side (usually left) swinging their anti other side axe. However as TT brought it in as part of his argument for why things were done the way they were I was merely highlighting its not as black and white as it seems. Yes, you cannot steretype parties of today even by those who left office last year as this usually involves significant change within the party as certain people leave, slate is swept clean and the ability to change direction is much easier. Same in private sector BTW with outgoing Leaders.

As for the station upgrade of Mascot, yes compared to most other UG similar stations of similar arrangement, the platforms of Mascot and GS appear to be on the narrower side (but is the sole reason for the upgrades?). This project was done in the mid 90's when there was a push for private operation and privatisation of many former govt operations, ie CBA, ANL, ANR, Telstra etc etc. Overall most of this privatisations were sucessful in transforming those organisations, many of which were typical govt run basket cases or simply govt owned competing in a highly competitive private sector for which the need for govt owned no longer made sense.

However a number of the rail sell offs simply fell flat because the issues were not well understood and hence incorrectly implemented because they didn't undertand why they needed a subsidy in the first place, most of which started in the previous 20-30 years. The airport line, like the Brisbane Airport line, Melbourne rail and tram privatisation all were launched during the hype of the mid 90's where private sector investment was seen as the pathway foreward and reducing the demands on the taxpayer while improving PT through what was believed to be self funded projects. Hell they even thought Melbourne rail and tram services would achieve cost neutral status. Unfortunately they nearly all feel flat and with it private sector interest in self funded Rail projects completely evaporated unless it involves moving large quantities of freight.

Yes I agree the 1999 BB rail project is unlikely to have ever made money and more than likely gone broke or potentially like the Brisbane airtrain undertaken a major write down to remain profitable. However its worth nothing the two airport lines acheived closer to their original targets within about 10 - 15 years of operation. Would be interesting to see what Brisbane airtrain was moving in 2019.  It worth noting that while the private sector built the likes of Brisbane Aitrain, it is to be transfered to the state in 2036, Sydney I believe in or around 2030 so is this really a bad thing for the respective states? Its worth noting that Australia's only two operating airport railways are privately funded and the two govt funded airport rail projects currently under construction are 30 years behind.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
[b]@Transtopic[/b]

Figured as much about the airport line, but hope springs eternal. It was very dumb the way they went about it
The same could be said for the privately proposed extension of of the ESR from Bondi Junction to Bondi Beach, which was for a single line with no intermediate station at Bondi Rd, which you would think would be essential.  Thankfully, the government wasn't conned this time.
I don't know,

A privately funded (its their money they can decide to if they want a 2nd station) single track 2.6 km extension to BB for a 10min timetable.
- Want a 2nd station, then add it later
- Want a 2nd track, then add it later

Had this been accepted it would be running today and for last 20 years, yet now we have nothing, we will have nothing likely for another 20 years, if ever.
Yeah and when they go broke, as the Airport Line did, they'll be pressuring the government to bail them out.

It's not supposed to be a profit making enterprise, but a tax payer funded government service.  Do it properly in the first place.
You don't know if it would have gone broke, as it was built with a minimalist design with 90:10 rule then maybe/maybe not.
RTT_Rules
It may or may not have gone broke, but it was designed to the most minimalist standard to suit the proponent and not what should be realistically needed to suit the public.  Anyone with half a brain could see that it wasn't fit for purpose, even as an initial stage. At the very least, it should have been dual track with an intermediate station at Bondi Rd, Bondi and with provision for a future extension from Bond Beach to North Bondi or even Rose Bay.  How easy do you think it would have been to upgrade it later with a new underground track and additional station without causing a major shutdown?  It would likely never happen.  As I said, do it properly in the first place.  

This is the problem with unsolicited private sector infrastructure development proposals, which aren't necessarily in the best interest of the public.  NorthConnex is another case in point, which omitted an eastbound grade separated motorway connection with the M2 Motorway, instead substituting it with a traffic controlled intersection on Pennant Hills Rd, no doubt to keep down the cost.  

While we are on when the ESR opened and since I know you love your politically related comments Smile. The private project option would not have been needed had your former ALP govt not truncated the project in the first place.
RTT_Rules

Just to put you in the picture with regard to my political leanings, up until recent years, I've always been a Liberal supporter, but not anymore.  I've now seen the light comrade Laughing.

How much money has the NSW state govt made from the Airport line station premiums?

The former ALP govt was elected to power 6 weeks after the Airport line project was approved, was in power for 16 years and then only in the last few weeks in office as an election stunt abolished the station airport levy at Mascot and Green square stations.
RTT_Rules
They've benefited by subsidising the premium access station fees at Green Square and Mascot, which still have to be reimbursed to the private consortium bankers, and the patronage at those stations has increased exponentially, with the government benefiting from the excess revenue.  The airport stations still charge the full access fee.  I don't know why they haven't done the same thing at these stations, which would also undoubtedly significantly increase patronage.

The private Airport Line is another example of where it was designed to suit the profitability of the proponent, when it should also have had stations at Redfern and Waterloo.  Had this occurred, then the current SW metro line between Central and Sydenham could have run via Sydney University and Newtown instead, and possibly Enmore, which would have had far higher patronage.  But there weren't the same development opportunities there, even though it would likely have had higher patronage without it, so their pro-development agenda skewed any objective assessment.
  alleve Train Controller

Location: T4 Illawarra Line
A single track extension of the ESR would have been a fatal error for the project. If you're going to extend the ESR, it needs to be double track, and that requirement has existed since the line first opened. Anything short of the capacity that Bondi Junction has would not be enough.

I say this because Transtopic is right, if you build it single track it'd be extremely expensive to retrofit a second track and would likely be put off for decades, either compromising capacity, creating multiple stopping patterns on the ESR, or both. Same applies to the Bondi Rd station, would never be built as an infill in a million years. Building the line without a Bondi Rd station wouldn't necessarily send it broke but building it single track would.

Govt talked about a Bondi light rail a while ago, wonder if that'll ever happen in some form or another. The concept sounded at the time like a 333 replacement.

Station access fees on Mascot and Green Square was  a stupid idea, and regardless of why the Govt got rid of the fees it was a good outcome that they did.
  Totoro Junior Train Controller

A point was made a few posts ago that some don’t want to see Sydney turn into Singapore when it comes to densificatiom.

Just personally, I strongly support the move to build more high density housing around our train stations, both existing and new stations, within the Metropolitan area. Some people may prefer big blocks of land, but ultimately we need higher density apartment blocks to justify the kind of PT networks we really want.

For me it’s a 5 minute walk to the station and then less than 30 mins to Town Hall. If you want that kind of commute from an established suburb, apartments are your best option.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
A point was made a few posts ago that some don’t want to see Sydney turn into Singapore when it comes to densificatiom.

Just personally, I strongly support the move to build more high density housing around our train stations, both existing and new stations, within the Metropolitan area. Some people may prefer big blocks of land, but ultimately we need higher density apartment blocks to justify the kind of PT networks we really want.

For me it’s a 5 minute walk to the station and then less than 30 mins to Town Hall. If you want that kind of commute from an established suburb, apartments are your best option.
Totoro
This is something on which I agree with you Totoro. So far, the higher densification has been concentrated mainly around the new metro lines, while there are plenty of major centres on the existing rail network where higher densification would be warranted and feasible.  Under previous Metropolitan Strategies, there had been provision for densification along the existing major rail corridors within the inner and middle ring regions, but this is no longer identified in the current strategy and you have to ask why?  

Higher densification doesn't necessarily mean having 20 to 30 storey H/R apartment blocks on every street corner.  It could be as simple as having duplexes, terrace homes and low rise apartment blocks up to 5 storeys, which seems to be the norm now in place of the traditional 3 storey walk-ups  With strata laws now allowing 75% agreement of owners to selling whole blocks of the old walk-ups for redevelopment, and with new planning controls to allow increased height and density, that creates the potential for H/R redevelopment of these now obsolete buildings closer to the major transport hubs.  Densification should be limited though to the larger centres and within an 800m radius of a rail station and bus interchange, which is the accepted distance for a 10 minute walk.

A case in point is the different planning controls applying to Epping and Eastwood, which are adjoining suburbs on the Northern Line.  Epping also has the metro line, but Eastwood doesn't, and Epping was nominated as a Priority Precinct and now a Strategic Centre, when it doesn't come anywhere near meeting the previously accepted criteria.  It doesn't even have a shopping mall of any description, other than a lone supermarket and strip shops.  A significant proportion of its previous commercial office space has now been redeveloped for H/R residential apartments, with minimal retail/commercial space.  Local retail businesses have suffered as a consequence because of the downturn in daytime trade.  It appears its only justification for that designation is because it's on the metro line which interchanges with the Northern Line.  You could say the same thing about Strathfield, but that's not a Strategic Centre, and is a Local Centre.  Burwood is the Strategic Centre, which is warranted because it's much larger, even though it's not on a rail junction.  

Although Eastwood was and still is a much larger retail/commercial centre than Epping, it has not received the recognition it deserves, because of outdated planning controls, which haven't been updated for over a couple of decades, in spite of thwarted attempts to do so.  The last attempted review was rejected by Ryde Council in 2014, when the government should have stepped in to take control, which they did for Epping.  Up until Macquarie Park and Rhodes were redeveloped, it was the dominant retail/commercial centre on the Northern Line between Burwood and Hornsby, even bigger than Hornsby in earlier days.  

The current planning controls in Eastwood only allow for up to 10 storeys in a limited area, and with no floor space ratios, relying on solar aspects, although a DA was approved a few years ago for a major $300m mixed use redevelopment in the Eastwood Town Centre with retail/commercial and 7 apartment buildings up to 13 storeys.  That now appears to be in limbo because of Covid and other economic factors.  For most sites in the Eastwood Town Centre, because of the high value of the current low rise commercial/retail properties, it's not an economic proposition to redevelop under the currently limited planning controls, unless height limits are increased significantly similar to Epping, which are up to 22 storeys, although the most recent completed development was up to 29 storeys.  

Interestingly, all of the recent H/R developments in Epping are on the eastern side of the rail line and medium rise up to 5 storeys on the northern side of Carlingford Rd on the western side.  These areas were formerly administered by Hornsby Council, which have now been absorbed by Parramatta Council in the recent council amalgamation process.  Parramatta Council continues to administer the western side of the rail line south of Carlingford Rd and even though it has similar planning controls to the eastern side under the Priority Precinct strategy, there has only been one development approval for a H/R apartment block, which so far hasn't seen the light of day.
  alleve Train Controller

Location: T4 Illawarra Line
A point was made a few posts ago that some don’t want to see Sydney turn into Singapore when it comes to densificatiom.

Just personally, I strongly support the move to build more high density housing around our train stations, both existing and new stations, within the Metropolitan area. Some people may prefer big blocks of land, but ultimately we need higher density apartment blocks to justify the kind of PT networks we really want.

For me it’s a 5 minute walk to the station and then less than 30 mins to Town Hall. If you want that kind of commute from an established suburb, apartments are your best option.
Totoro
Credit where credit is due, this is one of the few things you've said that makes sense to me.

The dream of detached houses and bungalows is unattainable, and if we want to have any chance at the "30 minute city" the Govt keeps talking about we need to build upwards rather than out
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
A point was made a few posts ago that some don’t want to see Sydney turn into Singapore when it comes to densificatiom.

Just personally, I strongly support the move to build more high density housing around our train stations, both existing and new stations, within the Metropolitan area. Some people may prefer big blocks of land, but ultimately we need higher density apartment blocks to justify the kind of PT networks we really want.

For me it’s a 5 minute walk to the station and then less than 30 mins to Town Hall. If you want that kind of commute from an established suburb, apartments are your best option.
Totoro
Times are changing, more people choosing apartment and townhouse style in inner city areas living over free standing house in the 'burbs. Not my choice but it is others and yes some cannot afford freestanding.


From my own travels in April  and in past years there has been massive development following the NSL and up the main to Berowra and I'm seeing similar in and around Gosford station. Other lines which have yet to experience this densification include the Bankstown line and I'm sure this was all managed by the govt targetting lines with capacity vs ones that didn't. The Upper NSL was certainly open to oppurtunity.

I know a few people are struggling with "why the Bankstown line?" for Metro conversion, but seriously this is a topic for 2030 if you don't accept the justification of today. And TBH, the NWRL adjacient housing to the stations will not get off either. If they can densify suburbs on the NSL, they will do the NWRL. I've previously stated the North main could be MEtrofied from Epping to Hornsby to reduce the congestion on the main western corridor, however the feedback I have from my frend is that there will be no capacity in the Metro to do so in 20 years.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
This is something on which I agree with you Totoro. So far, the higher densification has been concentrated mainly around the new metro lines, while there are plenty of major centres on the existing rail network where higher densification would be warranted and feasible.  Under previous Metropolitan Strategies, there had been provision for densification along the existing major rail corridors within the inner and middle ring regions, but this is no longer identified in the current strategy and you have to ask why?  

Higher densification doesn't necessarily mean having 20 to 30 storey H/R apartment blocks on every street corner.  It could be as simple as having duplexes, terrace homes and low rise apartment blocks up to 5 storeys, which seems to be the norm now in place of the traditional 3 storey walk-ups  With strata laws now allowing 75% agreement of owners to selling whole blocks of the old walk-ups for redevelopment, and with new planning controls to allow increased height and density, that creates the potential for H/R redevelopment of these now obsolete buildings closer to the major transport hubs.  Densification should be limited though to the larger centres and within an 800m radius of a rail station and bus interchange, which is the accepted distance for a 10 minute walk.

A case in point is the different planning controls applying to Epping and Eastwood, which are adjoining suburbs on the Northern Line.  Epping also has the metro line, but Eastwood doesn't, and Epping was nominated as a Priority Precinct and now a Strategic Centre, when it doesn't come anywhere near meeting the previously accepted criteria.  It doesn't even have a shopping mall of any description, other than a lone supermarket and strip shops.  A significant proportion of its previous commercial office space has now been redeveloped for H/R residential apartments, with minimal retail/commercial space.  Local retail businesses have suffered as a consequence because of the downturn in daytime trade.  It appears its only justification for that designation is because it's on the metro line which interchanges with the Northern Line.  You could say the same thing about Strathfield, but that's not a Strategic Centre, and is a Local Centre.  Burwood is the Strategic Centre, which is warranted because it's much larger, even though it's not on a rail junction.  

Although Eastwood was and still is a much larger retail/commercial centre than Epping, it has not received the recognition it deserves, because of outdated planning controls, which haven't been updated for over a couple of decades, in spite of thwarted attempts to do so.  The last attempted review was rejected by Ryde Council in 2014, when the government should have stepped in to take control, which they did for Epping.  Up until Macquarie Park and Rhodes were redeveloped, it was the dominant retail/commercial centre on the Northern Line between Burwood and Hornsby, even bigger than Hornsby in earlier days.  

The current planning controls in Eastwood only allow for up to 10 storeys in a limited area, and with no floor space ratios, relying on solar aspects, although a DA was approved a few years ago for a major $300m mixed use redevelopment in the Eastwood Town Centre with retail/commercial and 7 apartment buildings up to 13 storeys.  That now appears to be in limbo because of Covid and other economic factors.  For most sites in the Eastwood Town Centre, because of the high value of the current low rise commercial/retail properties, it's not an economic proposition to redevelop under the currently limited planning controls, unless height limits are increased significantly similar to Epping, which are up to 22 storeys, although the most recent completed development was up to 29 storeys.  

Interestingly, all of the recent H/R developments in Epping are on the eastern side of the rail line and medium rise up to 5 storeys on the northern side of Carlingford Rd on the western side.  These areas were formerly administered by Hornsby Council, which have now been absorbed by Parramatta Council in the recent council amalgamation process.  Parramatta Council continues to administer the western side of the rail line south of Carlingford Rd and even though it has similar planning controls to the eastern side under the Priority Precinct strategy, there has only been one development approval for a H/R apartment block, which so far hasn't seen the light of day.
Transtopic
Agree

Prior to COVID there was a slow shift towards WFH or similar as a growing number of my friends were increasingly getting jobs at home over the last 10 years, post COVID its now entrenched and much more significant. Look at Sydney PT numbers, still floundering around 60% of pre CV-19 and if it hasn't returned to pre CV-19 by now it probably never will apart from through growth.

The changes you mentioned at Epping is likely because it simply didn't get the commerical leasing. Commerical leases are more attractive than residential, however for passing trade residential is better as its more than lunch breaks and a few office attire shops.

Here in Dubai we are seeing massive shift towards online shopping and MALLS for which Dubai have been major cash earners taregtting tourism on have been hit hard. The bigger ones are ok, but smaller have large numbers of empty shops. BAsically today it looks like when I came here at the end of GFC, but the economy is booming now. I have a friend who is a Aussie MAll Operations Manager with experience in suburbian Sydney as well as Dubal and he said alot of the small shops selling stuff that is now bread and butter of Amazon are gone. The malls are now having to rebrand themseves as entertainment venues 1st, shopping 2nd, or risk closure. The days of removing seats so you are forced to sit in a cafe etc while paying for food are gone as they know people if they cannot sit will just go home and buy it online.

For the Australia strip shops, times have changed dramatically. For example, the local Newsagent is dying, newspapers and magazine sales are headed south, less need for stationary and even the Lotto income is going on line, the post office barely handles post and its use as a payment centre for other services is drying up. Many of the small specialty shops have lost their trade to Amazon and local banks are gone.

In the 18,000 people community I live in here our local community centre over the last 6 years
- Bank branch closed
- Half of the 6 ATM's are gone (less need for cash)
- Music shop closed
- Amussment centre for kids closed
- Gaming shop closed
- Novelty shops closed
- Makeup shop closed
- Clothes shops closed
- etc

What we have now is supermarket, pet shop, resteraunts, hair dressers, fast food, small garden nursery and medical practice with usually 1 pr 2 shops always vacant. They get filled by yet another resteraunt and close within 6 - 12mths. You can no longer buy a newspaper or magazine as Supermarket just had a refit and removed that section.

Overall the office space required per head of population is in decline.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
A point was made a few posts ago that some don’t want to see Sydney turn into Singapore when it comes to densificatiom.

Just personally, I strongly support the move to build more high density housing around our train stations, both existing and new stations, within the Metropolitan area. Some people may prefer big blocks of land, but ultimately we need higher density apartment blocks to justify the kind of PT networks we really want.

For me it’s a 5 minute walk to the station and then less than 30 mins to Town Hall. If you want that kind of commute from an established suburb, apartments are your best option.
Times are changing, more people choosing apartment and townhouse style in inner city areas living over free standing house in the 'burbs. Not my choice but it is others and yes some cannot afford freestanding.


From my own travels in April  and in past years there has been massive development following the NSL and up the main to Berowra and I'm seeing similar in and around Gosford station. Other lines which have yet to experience this densification include the Bankstown line and I'm sure this was all managed by the govt targetting lines with capacity vs ones that didn't. The Upper NSL was certainly open to oppurtunity.

I know a few people are struggling with "why the Bankstown line?" for Metro conversion, but seriously this is a topic for 2030 if you don't accept the justification of today. And TBH, the NWRL adjacient housing to the stations will not get off either. If they can densify suburbs on the NSL, they will do the NWRL. I've previously stated the North main could be MEtrofied from Epping to Hornsby to reduce the congestion on the main western corridor, however the feedback I have from my frend is that there will be no capacity in the Metro to do so in 20 years.
RTT_Rules
It doesn't need metrofication to increase densification.  It can be done with either mode.  There is absolutely no chance of the Northern Line from Epping to Hornsby being "metrofied", regardless of whether there is the capacity on Metro Northwest or not.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
A single track extension of the ESR would have been a fatal error for the project. If you're going to extend the ESR, it needs to be double track, and that requirement has existed since the line first opened. Anything short of the capacity that Bondi Junction has would not be enough.

I say this because Transtopic is right, if you build it single track it'd be extremely expensive to retrofit a second track and would likely be put off for decades, either compromising capacity, creating multiple stopping patterns on the ESR, or both. Same applies to the Bondi Rd station, would never be built as an infill in a million years. Building the line without a Bondi Rd station wouldn't necessarily send it broke but building it single track would.

Govt talked about a Bondi light rail a while ago, wonder if that'll ever happen in some form or another. The concept sounded at the time like a 333 replacement.

Station access fees on Mascot and Green Square was  a stupid idea, and regardless of why the Govt got rid of the fees it was a good outcome that they did.
alleve
Single Track Extension
- So the Alt is to have nothing, like we have had for the last 23 years and will continue for anotehr 23 years, maybe longer?
- Double track can always be added as needed, I am not sure when Bondi Beach will need 20t/h service capacity but it wasn't in 1999 and isn't today.
- While I don't agree with alot of what Extreme Communty says about over Engineering because as you pointed out he's mostly picking on chicken feed stuff, it could be said that 2 tracks to the terminus when not needed is a signifcant contribution to over engineering. Its usually done for simplicity of operations and building in reliabiltiy.
- If they spent $70m upgrading the shunt neck, they would spend the money upgrading to dual track.

BB LR will not happen. LR on congested roads is hard to justify as the days of street running in traffic (sharing lanes) like the bad old days are over.

Station access fees (EDITED)
As I said before, station access fees was the attempt to move to fully self funded railways. Yes it failed, then as the alt is too easy. In cities which have much higher farebox recovery ratios the alternatives to rail travel are more viable and therefore they can charge higher rail fares.

Its only a matter of time because at the moment the govt basically has to bribe commuters to use its railways. If we go back to the 60's and before when there was little or no subsidies commuters paid the fares for the railways and tramways to be self funded. The subsidies only came in through political pressure, but we also saw large scale truncations and closures or lessor corridors, networks and lines.

As the airport stations in both Sydney and Brisbane have I believe now achieved their project target numbers, perhaps they could get away with it on Mascot and GS? Yes a loss of numbers but more revenue.
  Totoro Junior Train Controller

@alleve and @Transtopic

It just goes to show, no matter the differences on certain other points, we were always bound to agree on something Smile

Re: densification along non-Metro stations, my home suburb of Rhodes is an interesting counterpoint here. No Metro line in the foreseeable future, but nevertheless we are the subject of a huge development push (Rhodes East) over the next 10 years. Despite lots of local opposition, I’m in favour of the changes because more people means better business case for future T9 quadruplication.

We can dream of more peak hour train services one day, maybe even a few more townhouse style dwellings which are definitely lacking in our part of the inner west.

https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans-for-your-area/Priority-Growth-Areas-and-Precincts/Rhodes
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
@alleve and @Transtopic

It just goes to show, no matter the differences on certain other points, we were always bound to agree on something Smile

Re: densification along non-Metro stations, my home suburb of Rhodes is an interesting counterpoint here. No Metro line in the foreseeable future, but nevertheless we are the subject of a huge development push (Rhodes East) over the next 10 years. Despite lots of local opposition, I’m in favour of the changes because more people means better business case for future T9 quadruplication.

We can dream of more peak hour train services one day, maybe even a few more townhouse style dwellings which are definitely lacking in our part of the inner west.

https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans-for-your-area/Priority-Growth-Areas-and-Precincts/Rhodes
Totoro
Yup

Look at Asquith, Hornsby, Waitara, Mty Colah, Mt K and I think even Berowra to name a few.
  alleve Train Controller

Location: T4 Illawarra Line
A single track extension of the ESR would have been a fatal error for the project. If you're going to extend the ESR, it needs to be double track, and that requirement has existed since the line first opened. Anything short of the capacity that Bondi Junction has would not be enough.

I say this because Transtopic is right, if you build it single track it'd be extremely expensive to retrofit a second track and would likely be put off for decades, either compromising capacity, creating multiple stopping patterns on the ESR, or both. Same applies to the Bondi Rd station, would never be built as an infill in a million years. Building the line without a Bondi Rd station wouldn't necessarily send it broke but building it single track would.

Govt talked about a Bondi light rail a while ago, wonder if that'll ever happen in some form or another. The concept sounded at the time like a 333 replacement.

Station access fees on Mascot and Green Square was  a stupid idea, and regardless of why the Govt got rid of the fees it was a good outcome that they did.
Single Track Extension
- So the Alt is to have nothing, like we have had for the last 23 years and will continue for anotehr 23 years, maybe longer?
- Double track can always be added as needed, I am not sure when Bondi Beach will need 20t/h service capacity but it wasn't in 1999 and isn't today.
- While I don't agree with alot of what Extreme Communty says about over Engineering because as you pointed out he's mostly picking on chicken feed stuff, it could be said that 2 tracks to the terminus when not needed is a signifcant contribution to over engineering. Its usually done for simplicity of operations and building in reliabiltiy.
- If they spent $70m upgrading the shunt neck, they would spend the money upgrading to dual track.

BB LR will not happen. LR on congested roads is hard to justify as the days of street running in traffic (sharing lanes) like the bad old days are over.

Station access fees (EDITED)
As I said before, station access fees was the attempt to move to fully self funded railways. Yes it failed, then as the alt is too easy. In cities which have much higher farebox recovery ratios the alternatives to rail travel are more viable and therefore they can charge higher rail fares.

Its only a matter of time because at the moment the govt basically has to bribe commuters to use its railways. If we go back to the 60's and before when there was little or no subsidies commuters paid the fares for the railways and tramways to be self funded. The subsidies only came in through political pressure, but we also saw large scale truncations and closures or lessor corridors, networks and lines.

As the airport stations in both Sydney and Brisbane have I believe now achieved their project target numbers, perhaps they could get away with it on Mascot and GS? Yes a loss of numbers but more revenue.
RTT_Rules
The Alt is to do it properly, and it's a failure that this hasn't happened yet.

BB LR shouldn't necessarily happen, I just thought it was an interesting idea. I believe Govt's response at the time was to vaguely propose LR to Green Square instead, not that this would likely happen either.

Question isn't can they get away with access fees, the question is should they and the answer is no.
  ExtremeCommuter Locomotive Driver

A point was made a few posts ago that some don’t want to see Sydney turn into Singapore when it comes to densificatiom.

Just personally, I strongly support the move to build more high density housing around our train stations, both existing and new stations, within the Metropolitan area. Some people may prefer big blocks of land, but ultimately we need higher density apartment blocks to justify the kind of PT networks we really want.

For me it’s a 5 minute walk to the station and then less than 30 mins to Town Hall. If you want that kind of commute from an established suburb, apartments are your best option.
Totoro
My point regarding turning Sydney into Singapore wasn't about densification (almost the opposite actually, as I said it against sprawl and Bradfield), but rather how our government treats Sydney like a city-state (like Singapore) thinking it's the only place we have, instead of treating NSW like a state with of land 801,150 km2.

See what I said to @RTT_Rules in regards to Bradfield:

"While Bradfield is not a direct cause of the food crisis, it's still nothing short of d*ck move to do during one, and it's not just the food crisis exacerbated by Bradfield, it's also the housing crisis as more people will need to compete for housing in Sydney Hunger-Games style, and it's even the petrol crisis because Bradfield means more sprawl and more commuter car park based public transport services, and since these only work for a relative minority, it means a lot of people will be forced to drive to Bradfield.

Bradfield quite literally simultaneously makes every current crisis worse, and the worst part is that it does not need to exist. Sydney does not need a third CBD, Newcastle and Wollongong already have underutilised CBDs complete with already existing underutilised rail corridors that could be densified with new more affordable housing that could be constructed on underutilised space, not to mention that the increase of work-from-home shows that may have the desire to move out of Sydney but live there out of necessity.
NSW has 801,150 km2 of land, USE IT, Sydney is not a city-state, it's not Sydneypore, we are one of the last places in the world that should be having a housing crisis, but it's thanks to things like Bradfield that we are.

And no, shifting focus from Bradfield to Newcastle and Wollongong does not mean that Newcastle or Wollongong would suddenly become Sydney, development in the existing Paramatta and Sydney CBDs would and should continue as normal, but Newcastle and Wollongong should become secondary locations.

So criticising linking the airport via SWRL extension because it apparently faces the wrong way for people to commute to a business park that should not exist does not really work, but with that being said, even if we were to spent millions of taxpayer dollars of something that will ultimately make a taxpayer's life worse and build Bradfield, the SWRL would still provide roughly equivalent travel time to Parramatta as the WSA Metro would, albeit with a single seat, and while Blacktown and Penrith would miss out, Campbelltown and Liverpool would gain access, the latter of which is the same Local Government Area (LGA) that the airport precinct is located in."


In regards to density, I believe the use of apartments should me moderated, and we should look to other alternatives for density such as non-complexed townhouses with direct street access, terraced houses, duplexes, smaller detached homes with only 3 bedrooms, 1.5 bathrooms, and 1 living room, etc
this is because apartments are not suitable for homebuyers, the strata fees cost more than top level private health insurance, so while the mortgage repayments might be less, the strata fees continue indefinitely long after the mortgage is paid off.

Unfortunately Australia now only builds 1 million dollar 4 bedroom 2 living room detached homes, or apartments (and complexed townhouses in Brisbane) with strata - there is no middle ground.

Higher densification doesn't necessarily mean having 20 to 30 storey H/R apartment blocks on every street corner.  It could be as simple as having duplexes, terrace homes and low rise apartment blocks up to 5 storeys, which seems to be the norm now in place of the traditional 3 storey walk-ups  With strata laws now allowing 75% agreement of owners to selling whole blocks of the old walk-ups for redevelopment, and with new planning controls to allow increased height and density, that creates the potential for H/R redevelopment of these now obsolete buildings closer to the major transport hubs. Densification should be limited though to the larger centres and within an 800m radius of a rail station and bus interchange, which is the accepted distance for a 10 minute walk.
Transtopic
This I agree with - what I can't understand is that we used to build lots of terraced homes with direct street access, why did we stop? and why do we only have two extreme options of:

-million dollar+ detached homes that by default are massive with 4 bedrooms minimum and 2 living rooms minimum, and located n the middle of nowhere
-apartments with indefinite strata fees costing more than top level private health insurance,

Who not the duplexes of terraced homes that would (or at least should) provide cheaper mortgage payments without the strata fees?
And if we really REALLY need apartments, and the local council decides an apartment needs to go there, why can't lift and parking maintenance be controlled by the council eliminating the need for strata?

Newer railway stations such as Edmonston Park and Leppington are crammed with apartments on one side, and useless commuter parking on the other.
If we eliminated the commuter parking, and let's be realistic, it only accounts for a very small amount of overall station patronage, we could have a density surrounding the entire station, containing, yes apartments, but also other housing options, and small businesses for that matter.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: RTT_Rules, Transtopic

Display from: