search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > OZScrapers > Urban Spaces > Transportation

Transportation Trains, planes and automobiles.



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 22nd, 2017, 02:24 PM   #13841
prp002
Registered User
 
prp002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sydney 2000
Posts: 4,718
Likes (Received): 1967

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabbawookie View Post
A few comments on this plan from my first quick look:

• Still no rail link from Bondi Junction to Bondi Beach by 2056?

• Still no rail link to the northern beaches by 2056? Not even from Chatswood to Dee Why via French’s Forest?

• South- North Metro from Hurstville to Strathfield/ Burwood and onto Macquarie Park has been replaced by a metro from Kogarah to Bankstown and onto Parramatta.

• Metro extension from Bankstown to Liverpool has been pushed out to +20 years (I think that will be the last we hear of this!).

• Very light on future light rail routes apart from what we already know (I don’t think the link from Green Square gets a mention although this might now be better as metro!)

My take on the hole thing is it's a discussion paper, where input is encouraged from the community about suggested links and how these should be delivered, eg rail, light rail, bus as well as location of stops and potential corridor development
prp002 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 22nd, 2017, 02:49 PM   #13842
mandonov
Henny
 
mandonov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,611
Likes (Received): 1213

Yeah it's the draft after all.

Buses and light rail are being lumped together as 'Intermediate Transit', so it's very much still up in the air what they might prefer for specific corridors.

I'm certain that Bondi Jct-Bondi Beach will never see any rail heavier than a tram.
__________________
.
mandonov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2017, 02:50 PM   #13843
pintpot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,730
Likes (Received): 899

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowboard99 View Post
The Labor planning spokesperson said that there would still be development around the Bankstown line but that it would be council and community led process and it would included infrastructure like schools.

In other words, it's politics.
Utter meaningless horseshit

Anything "led" by community or most councils will be small, disjointed and ad-hoc

I get the issues with apparent lack of planning for social infrastructure but it's perverse to argue that the best way of resolving that is to take planning further away from the agency that also delivers that social infrastructure and give it to local committees of NIMBYs instead

Total dog whistle BS politics of the worst kind
__________________

OZ Rails, Brizer, ArtNouveau liked this post
pintpot está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2017, 03:54 PM   #13844
prp002
Registered User
 
prp002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sydney 2000
Posts: 4,718
Likes (Received): 1967

Quote:
Originally Posted by mandonov View Post
Yeah it's the draft after all.

Buses and light rail are being lumped together as 'Intermediate Transit', so it's very much still up in the air what they might prefer for specific corridors.

I'm certain that Bondi Jct-Bondi Beach will never see any rail heavier than a tram.
Only since Liberal got in in 2011 was Transport in NSW consolidated into one organisation (even though the separate parts still exist underneath).

This is the first time in NSW history that the transport bureaucracy has suggested an inter-related transport plan for the next 40 years, broken into 10 year blocks with basic suggestions, and ASKING the community exactly what does it want.

This is the type of planning that went into the Airport line (which was a response to calls for an airport rail link) and resulted in the stations being located where they are.
__________________

moz999 liked this post
prp002 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2017, 11:50 PM   #13845
shiggyshiggy
Culture is overrated
 
shiggyshiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 934
Likes (Received): 450

Quote:
Originally Posted by OZ Rails View Post
My comment was of course slightly tongue in cheek although I am frustrated by the game NSW Labor are playing (along with Federal Labor). It's quite hypocritical. Still, they couldnt just stop all infill like that. However I do feel that NSW Labor are a party that hasnt changed. They will make sure that areas that are politically sensitive to them are well protected and and as soon as there is any kind of opposition to their proposed changes elsewhere they will fold and make it a future Governments problem.
You mean like what the current government did with council amalgamations? Or how they ‘reformed’ development laws post 2011 to suit their constituents in places like Ku-ring-gai?

Seems to me that both sides like to feather the nests of their supporters, while putting all the crap in the nests of their opposers.
shiggyshiggy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 02:16 AM   #13846
OZ Rails
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,990
Likes (Received): 210

Quote:
Originally Posted by shiggyshiggy View Post
You mean like what the current government did with council amalgamations? Or how they ‘reformed’ development laws post 2011 to suit their constituents in places like Ku-ring-gai?

Seems to me that both sides like to feather the nests of their supporters, while putting all the crap in the nests of their opposers.
Ha, as I typed that I was actually expecting you to come defend NSW Labor and have a crack at the current Government.

The current Government did exactly what they should have done regarding the ridiculous situation the previous Labor Government created regarding Ku-Ring-Gai. It in no way "suited" Ku-Ring-Gai, they did not get their mid rise development halted or changed to low rise like the locals and council wanted, they just returned to being part of the normal planning system like every other council as they always should have been.

So that's not "looking after" anyone in my books, just being fair and not discriminating plus cleaning up the mess of the previous Government. There's been tonnes of development up that way in the years since 2011, I think I read neatly 10,000 apartments? The replacement planning system was much better in my view.

While I have no love for that style of council as I am pro development, I saw some truth in Ku-Ring-Gai councils argument against the previous Labor Government, including all that development when you're not getting a single piece of Infrastructure improvement and actually having your rail service cut.

Yet look at the Sydenham to Bankstown area, close to the CBD rather than out in the burbs its the first recipient of a rebuilt metro line with huge improvement, benefits from the completed 16b Westconnex and no reason why they also won't receive more schools etc as the population grows with development yet we see these farcical claims from state and Federal Labor when they should be all for the improvements and TOD. It's a good template.

Last edited by OZ Rails; October 23rd, 2017 at 02:22 AM.
OZ Rails no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 02:45 AM   #13847
snowboard99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney / New York
Posts: 984
Likes (Received): 351

Quote:
Originally Posted by OZ Rails View Post
The current Government did exactly what they should have done regarding the ridiculous situation the previous Labor Government created regarding Ku-Ring-Gai. It in no way "suited" Ku-Ring-Gai, they did not get their mid rise development halted or changed to low rise like the locals and council wanted, they just returned to being part of the normal planning system like every other council as they always should have been.
But isn't that exactly the same as what Labor are saying now about Sydenham to Bankstown? Not really defending any particular position - Sydenham to Bankstown needs good TOD along its entire length and Labor's tone is disappointing, but as you mention for Ku-Ring-Gai I doubt it will change the outcome substantially.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/labor-prom...20-gz53ns.html

Quote:
Instead of priority precincts, Mr Daley said a Labor government would return to a councils-first planning approach, which would have local governments take the lead on redevelopment within their districts in consultation with the community.

He rejected the suggestion that the opposition was pandering to a populist over-development sentiment, which characterised last month's Sydney councils elections.

"Suburbs are going to change," he said. "There will be high rise. It needs thought and study and evidence. That is the approach we will use."
snowboard99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 02:52 AM   #13848
CroNich
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 30
Likes (Received): 12

Still waiting to see more talks about a Northern Beaches metro/heavy rail project.
__________________

ArtNouveau liked this post
CroNich no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 02:59 AM   #13849
snowboard99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney / New York
Posts: 984
Likes (Received): 351

That seems to be off the agenda for the next 40 years.

It seems to be replaced by B-line north of The Spit, presumably running into the Beaches Link road tunnel express to either the CBD or interchange to Sydney Metro at Victoria Cross (hopefully the latter).
snowboard99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 03:41 AM   #13850
shiggyshiggy
Culture is overrated
 
shiggyshiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 934
Likes (Received): 450

Quote:
Originally Posted by OZ Rails View Post
Ha, as I typed that I was actually expecting you to come defend NSW Labor and have a crack at the current Government.

The current Government did exactly what they should have done regarding the ridiculous situation the previous Labor Government created regarding Ku-Ring-Gai. It in no way "suited" Ku-Ring-Gai, they did not get their mid rise development halted or changed to low rise like the locals and council wanted, they just returned to being part of the normal planning system like every other council as they always should have been.

So that's not "looking after" anyone in my books, just being fair and not discriminating plus cleaning up the mess of the previous Government. There's been tonnes of development up that way in the years since 2011, I think I read neatly 10,000 apartments? The replacement planning system was much better in my view.

While I have no love for that style of council as I am pro development, I saw some truth in Ku-Ring-Gai councils argument against the previous Labor Government, including all that development when you're not getting a single piece of Infrastructure improvement and actually having your rail service cut.

Yet look at the Sydenham to Bankstown area, close to the CBD rather than out in the burbs its the first recipient of a rebuilt metro line with huge improvement, benefits from the completed 16b Westconnex and no reason why they also won't receive more schools etc as the population grows with development yet we see these farcical claims from state and Federal Labor when they should be all for the improvements and TOD. It's a good template.

Oh please. You are completely predictable as well, sweetheart. Don’t pretend that you are some sort of inscrutable guru. You post on here enough for that to be a completely silly thing to pretend.

Labor is quite literally proposing to do what Fatty O’Barrel swore up and down to do pre the 2011 election. The first few years of this government were a planning right off when it comes to residential development and infrastructure because of the sweeping changes this government initiated.

I also think it is strange that you find it difficult to understand the national structural reasons WHY there is currently masses of development...up and down the Eastern sea board. 2012 was the trough/slump for the previous property growth period. In the years since then we have seen massive interest rate cuts, a deliberate ploy, to stimulate the economy post the mining construction boom. This has seen massive growth in each of the eastern capitals residential construction. It has almost nothing to do with this current NSW regime, and would have happened whomever was in charge.
shiggyshiggy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 04:02 AM   #13851
OZ Rails
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,990
Likes (Received): 210

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowboard99 View Post
But isn't that exactly the same as what Labor are saying now about Sydenham to Bankstown? Not really defending any particular position - Sydenham to Bankstown needs good TOD along its entire length and Labor's tone is disappointing, but as you mention for Ku-Ring-Gai I doubt it will change the outcome substantially.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/labor-prom...20-gz53ns.html
There is a big difference in the implementation and intent from what I can see. BOF never said that he would stop Ku-Ring-Gai development and he didn't, he said they would remove the specific planning restrictions placed on only that council and they did plus rebuild the development system in general, which they did. I actually thought that the old system really was broken and the new system is working. To even talk of "tearing it up" for political purposes is wrong.

Plus it's like I mentioned, the Government are actually putting in the dollars to support the development and its an area that is not middle to outer burbs which is such a positive in my eyes. It's the kind of development Sydney needs and for it to be shut down at the first hurdle for political purposes is detrimental in my eyes. As I said, there is history there, Labor fold under political pressure very easily so I can see them dropping development right back. I would hate to see this happen to a proper TOD development. It's what we need badly. Albanese and Wong jumping on this band wagon was even more disappointing as I would think they would understand the need and know better.

Last edited by OZ Rails; October 23rd, 2017 at 04:13 AM.
OZ Rails no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 04:23 AM   #13852
snowboard99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney / New York
Posts: 984
Likes (Received): 351

As I said, the rhetoric is disappointing.

I think the answer lies somewhere in between. I do despair at some of the developments happening in the areas currently, particularly along Canterbury Rd. There is nothing wrong with the density, but the quality is just poor.

There needs to be improvements in the process. I live in the area in a recently developed apartment complex and I want to see better master planning and quality improvements. Increased requirements for design quality from the developers needs to be baked in before the area is rezoned as it will impact the price the developer will be willing to pay for the land to make a profit.

By making the quality requirements clear up front, no developer can complain that the requirements make the development unviable as this would just mean that they overpaid for the land and they shouldn't have purchased it in the first place. Landowners should still see a substantial uplift and be willing to sell, but perhaps at a slightly lower price than they are getting currently.
__________________

ArtNouveau liked this post
snowboard99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 04:31 AM   #13853
OZ Rails
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,990
Likes (Received): 210

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowboard99 View Post
As I said, the rhetoric is disappointing.

I think the answer lies somewhere in between. I do despair at some of the developments happening in the areas currently, particularly along Canterbury Rd. There is nothing wrong with the density, but the quality is just poor.

There needs to be improvements in the process. I live in the area in a recently developed apartment complex and I want to see better master planning and quality improvements. Increased requirements for design quality from the developers needs to be baked in before the area is rezoned as it will impact the price the developer will be willing to pay for the land to make a profit.

By making the quality requirements clear up front, no developer can complain that the requirements make the development unviable as this would just mean that they overpaid for the land and they shouldn't have purchased it in the first place. Landowners should still see a substantial uplift and be willing to sell, but perhaps at a slightly lower price than they are getting currently.
Maybe but this is a corridor where in the middle would be a poor outcome and in general I believe Sydney should not pull back.

However I most certainly agree with the quality comment, in general I think there are many poor quality new developments all over Sydney. While the argument is that upfront quality requirements would be more red tape, I think they are needed.
OZ Rails no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 04:36 AM   #13854
snowboard99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney / New York
Posts: 984
Likes (Received): 351

Don't take my comment about 'the middle' to mean reduced density, more about the process. As in somewhere in the middle between Planning led vs Council led.
snowboard99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 04:37 AM   #13855
Eco-rat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,219
Likes (Received): 1053

Quote:
Originally Posted by shiggyshiggy View Post
Oh please. You are completely predictable as well, sweetheart. Don’t pretend that you are some sort of inscrutable guru. You post on here enough for that to be a completely silly thing to pretend.

Labor is quite literally proposing to do what Fatty O’Barrel swore up and down to do pre the 2011 election. The first few years of this government were a planning right off when it comes to residential development and infrastructure because of the sweeping changes this government initiated.

I also think it is strange that you find it difficult to understand the national structural reasons WHY there is currently masses of development...up and down the Eastern sea board. 2012 was the trough/slump for the previous property growth period. In the years since then we have seen massive interest rate cuts, a deliberate ploy, to stimulate the economy post the mining construction boom. This has seen massive growth in each of the eastern capitals residential construction. It has almost nothing to do with this current NSW regime, and would have happened whomever was in charge.
They all go NIMBY as a part of their campaign to win government from opposition, but the combination of these National factors, the developers and the bureaucracy push them into the same position regardless of party.

Where I see Labor as having been lazy is not developing a transport policy to atone for their behaviour under Carr/Iemma/Rees/Kenneally.
__________________

Khaul liked this post
Eco-rat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 04:39 AM   #13856
Eco-rat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,219
Likes (Received): 1053

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowboard99 View Post
Don't take my comment about 'the middle' to mean reduced density, more about the process. As in somewhere in the middle between Planning led vs Council led.
My model for council activity would be that councillors can campaign on vision, then when elected require the planning department to come up with a plan that meets the vision, but once the plan has been formally voted on, the councillors can have no more role, and definitely not project by project approval, until the following election. All decisions made by staff, and contested if thought fit by the parties in courts and tribunals.
Eco-rat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 04:43 AM   #13857
OZ Rails
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,990
Likes (Received): 210

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowboard99 View Post
Don't take my comment about 'the middle' to mean reduced density, more about the process. As in somewhere in the middle between Planning led vs Council led.
Understood but council involvement will probably mean reduced density and this argument by Labor is clearly about density. That's what's upsetting people and what they are trying to convince people they will change if elected.
OZ Rails no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 04:49 AM   #13858
snowboard99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney / New York
Posts: 984
Likes (Received): 351

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eco-rat View Post
They all go NIMBY as a part of their campaign to win government from opposition, but the combination of these National factors, the developers and the bureaucracy push them into the same position regardless of party.

Where I see Labor as having been lazy is not developing a transport policy to atone for their behaviour under Carr/Iemma/Rees/Kenneally.
My opinion is that the latest 40 year draft policy from the government is pretty good and that it would help with Labor's credibility to broadly support it but argue about priorities and timelines within it for differentiation.

I.e. Say that the Epping to Parramatta and Parramatta to Kogarah links should be prioritised, or acceleration of higher speed rail to Newcastle or Wollongong or something like that. Stick to the menu. Maybe pick something from the 20+ section like Sydney Metro to Liverpool if differentiation is really required.
__________________

Eco-rat liked this post
snowboard99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 04:57 AM   #13859
snowboard99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney / New York
Posts: 984
Likes (Received): 351

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eco-rat View Post
My model for council activity would be that councillors can campaign on vision, then when elected require the planning department to come up with a plan that meets the vision, but once the plan has been formally voted on, the councillors can have no more role, and definitely not project by project approval, until the following election. All decisions made by staff, and contested if thought fit by the parties in courts and tribunals.
Agreed, but maybe some way to control quality - either through staff or council, not sure. No ability to change size, but the ability to say get a new architect or choose better materials. And the ability to enforce that the building work when completed matches what was proposed for approval.
__________________

Eco-rat liked this post
snowboard99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2017, 05:02 AM   #13860
snowboard99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney / New York
Posts: 984
Likes (Received): 351

Quote:
Originally Posted by OZ Rails View Post
Understood but council involvement will probably mean reduced density and this argument by Labor is clearly about density. That's what's upsetting people and what they are trying to convince people they will change if elected.
They are certainly trying to give that impression, which as I mentioned is disappointing, but I don't think it will happen.

I'd like to see something like Greater Sydney Commission setting targets for density/number of dwellings and locations. This would be binding and then how it is achieved is set locally. This is kind of what Labor was saying if you read what was actually said.
snowboard99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
maglev bus to caboolture, mandurahboyz

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu