Cox says

Reserve Bank of Australia research indicates that the price of raw land - Sydney urban fringe land for building a house that has not yet been fitted with infrastructure (sewers, water, streets, etc.) has now risen to a price of about $190,000 for a one-eighth acre lot. In the days before smart growth, the land would cost about $1,000. Needless to say, adding an unnecessary nearly $190,000 plus margins to the price of a house makes housing less affordable.

This may be so, but what is the cost including appropriate infrastructure?

There may be a valid criticism of the way in which "smart growth" is mandated. Perhaps sprawl should be allowed, but those building there should be charged the cost of the appropriate infrastructure. This includes efficient transport links, which most of Western Sydney simply does without.

As for travel times - well of course. Longer trips (in distance) take longer (in time), as do shorter trips, by car, where there is congestion. If every one travels everywhere by car, then there will be long trips (in time) in a big (by population) city, whatever the desnsity. If the public transport is adequate then this allows reasonable travel times.

If decent public transport means say 1km of tram line (which does not get obstructed by traffic) per 2 sq km of city (or whatever the appropriate figure would be - one thing is for sure, Wendell Cox either knows nothing or pretends to know nothing of this), then it takes a reasonable density of housing to finance this. (As I suggested earlier, maybe sprawl should be allowed, but those participating should be required to pay the costs.)

Just which part of this does Wendell Cox not understand?

As for the comment about electricity supply - this only confirms for me that the author is willing to make very argument for his case, however stupid. Obviously, electricity cables adequate to the demand will be required whatever the city density. If they're not, then there will be problems. How does a denser city require more electricity cables per house/office/etc?

As folk in the rural areas of the country are too often told - if you don't like it move!

Sorry to inform people, but Sydney and Melbourne are not the be all and end all. If prices are too expensive then perhaps its time to look at other places to live work and play.

My house cost a fraction of what the first poster siad land cost in Sydeny, I live 5 minutes drive from my work one set of lights. Best thing I ever did was move away from Sydeny. Who the hell would want to live there.

The town, & other "planners", should elect John Howard as their patron saint.

He got our guns off us, just in time, to prevent us going out & shooting every damn useless planner, & the entire staff of the uni departments, that train them to be so stupid.

Fact.37% of a house /land package is made up of Govt taxes/charges.
State Govts restrict the supply of land to keep prices elevated.
Developers donate vast sums to both major parties.You don't donate unless you get results.Enough said.

In relation to traffic congestion, Cox says "Sydney is no exception. The average one-way work trip now takes 34 minutes, which equals that of America’s largest urban area, New York, which has more than five times the population and the land area as well as the longest travel time of any major urban area in the nation."

This is not a fair comparison to make. New York City has the largest subway system in the world, with almost 55% of commuters using mass transit rather than driving.
By comparison Sydney has far less investment in mass transportation infrastructure and the percentage of Sydneysiders who use mass transport to commute each day would reflect this.

Obviously greater population density impacts on commute times if there is no adequate transport alternative. But it is also greater population density that makes various forms of mass transit economically feasible due to higher rider ship numbers.