The current New South Wales government has a disastrous track record on transport. The truncation of the Newcastle railway far from where the passengers want to go, and the decision to use single deck trains on Sydney's North West Rail Link should result in Labor winning this election by a landslide... except their policy is arguably worse! On the North West Rail Link in particular, the plan to do the same as the Coalition but more slowly will result in years of transport chaos and dangerously overcrowded platforms at Chatswood, before spending the same ten billion dollars on a railway that provides very few new journey opportunities.

But there are cheaper ways to fix the problem. The biggest limitation on how many trains cross the Harbour Bridge isn't the number of tracks on the bridge itself, but the time the trains spend in the stations. So rather than building a whole new line under the Harbour to add capacity, the capacity of the existing line can be almost doubled by having four tracks and platforms in each station.

So if North West Rail Link trains could share the existing tracks, capacity could be added at a much lower cost. The best way to do this would be to build double deckers that can fit through the North West Rail Link tunnels. This would be much better for the passengers who wouldn't have to stand for a long journey, but would be quite expensive – especially as to make space, some safety features would have to be omitted from the tunnels, so more safety features would be required on the trains.

A second option is to have single deck trains with the same width and entrance floor height as the existing double deckers.

Or if they're unwilling to alter the NWRL train specifications, a third option is continuing to terminate NWRL trains at Epping until a direct route to the CBD via Rozelle is constructed. This would also allow Epping-Parramatta to be constructed.

Most elections are decided on ideas; this one seems set to be decided by a lack of them.

A cheaper option than having a rail tunnel under the water would be to remove the car roads from the existing rail corridors on the bridge and use the existing tunnels and platforms at Wynyard; just as the designer intended way back in the 1920s.

It's time to get rid of cars from the city.

The problem with road infrastructure is that it has something like
30 year period before breakeven on expenditure.
In thirty years time I doubt anyone will be driving to work in the
large numbers that we now have.

This web site has a number of studies on why there have been so many
financial failures of motorways.

http://crudeoilpeak.info/

Look under Motorways in the right hand side index.
They are doomed even before construction starts.
The only benefit they will have is that they are perfect for light
rail installation.

With Ponzi Scheme immigration policies, where federal Labor leader Shorten and the ethnic lobby are talking up a 25% increase in migrant numbers, that big hole in the middle of Sydney where the water is will have to be filled in for cheap housing estates.

Labor and the Greens will then have solved Sydney's transport problems. Because there could be a giant Centrelink office in the middle, with the neon, 'Welcome to Wonderful Centrelink' on the now unnecessary bridge. All roads would aim that way, like spokes on a gigantic wheel.

If you are in Melbourne or Brisbane, don't laugh, because as taxpayers you too are going to be up for even more unaffordable taxes and council rates for infrastructure. Migrants love the cities and nothing will ever change in that respect. So maybe YOU move to the country, or at least that is how the pollies will see it.

Is Mise, my point is that if tracks are shared there's no need to modify the bridge any time soon. But I agree with you about Wynyard.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz, there have also been many successes of motorways, and as population increases it's likely that many currently regarded as failures will eventually turn out to be successes. In most cases they're not well suited to light rail, though as Perth demonstrates, they can be very well suited to heavy rail.

Westconnex is a separate issue: they're building entirely the wrong infrastructure! What's really needed is a tunnel direct to the airport and port.

______________________________________________________________________________________

onthebeach, why this obsession with Centrelink? The main reason migrants love cities is that's where the work is!

Serious question: what do you have against sprawl in Western Sydney and densification in Eastern Sydney?

And why do you ignore the obvious solution of building fast trains to encourage more people to move to country areas and reverse the rural decline?

Aidan,

You must have come here very recently if you are not aware of State Premiers' criticisms over the years (examples being Labor Premiers Anna Bligh and Bob Carr) of the effect on the major capitals of the feds' over-enthusiastic migrant policies. Just Google and you will see.

As for 'that is where the work is', the answer is no, that is not the case as unemployment figures show.

Regarding fast trains to country areas, you are unaware that government cannot afford to replace single lane road bridges on the nation's Highway One.

Maybe you might put a case for growthism, a 'Big Australia', to show how it will be sustainable, and secondly where the ordinary citizen would benefit from it. State Premiers have had severe reservations about excessive migration for many years and their warnings have been spot on.

Aidan,

"Is Mise, my point is that if tracks are shared there's no need to modify the bridge any time soon. But I agree with you about Wynyard."

but the only useful way into Platforms 1 and 2 at Wynyard is via the northern tunnels which are closed off by the roadways that were built on the rail right-of-wayway, this was used for many years by the Northside tramway system and were converted to roadways after the utterly stupid decision to close Sydney's tram system.

OTB, Aiden is out of touch with reality. All the motorways have
either failed or are failing. Aiden needs to go and read Matt's research.
Both failed in Brisbane and two so far have failed in Sydney.
The new ones are funded in much the same way as the ones that failed.
Strangely, just last Wednesday week I met a man who did a study of
the motorways for the state government and on ASICs responsibility
in the matter and they were setup for failure right from the beginning.
He said the current projects will go the same way because the public
servants did not learn the lessons. There was, he said when I asked,
no consideration of petrol prices and their effect on traffic.
Nor was there any in the current projects.

The VFT is too late here but we can reconstruct and upgrade the track
and have the Fast Enough System.

Anyone see the program earlier this week about Sao Paulo ?
It is MASSIVE !

20 million people ! They are just now starting to leave because of
water restrictions.
Anyway, that population surge here I think will stop when it hits the
fan. No one knows just when it will happen but migration will just stop.
There will not be the money or the ability to absorb immigrants and
if they try the economy will totally collapse.
You all should read Tainters "Collapse of Complex Societies".

Bazz, not everyone who disagrees with you is out of touch with reality. It's true that oil price rises have reduced traffic, but there's still plenty of traffic out there. And it's also true that short term demand for tollways has been greatly overestimated in many cases. But though some motorways in Sydney have been commercial failures, they're not technical failures, and demand for them is sure to rise in the future as the population does likewise. Remember it's not just about cars; there will always be a need for trucks and buses – indeed I noticed Sydney's M2 has a couple of bus stations in the middle.

Do you really think a direct M4 extension to the airport and port would be a failure? If so, why?

It is not too late to have a VFT at all. But it makes sense to build it in stages, so initially it would use existing track (and eventually some of the trains may branch off onto existing track).

____________________________________________________________________________________

Is Mise, is there any technical reason why new entrances to those platforms could not be constructed?

____________________________________________________________________________________

onthebeach, I don't recall hearing Anna Bligh saying it, but I certainly heard Bob Carr. But I don't think the problem's really the number of people; it's the states making the (valid) point that the federal funding is inadequate.

Except for skilled tradies, most of the jobs are in the cities despite the unemployment. And unemployment is a solvable problem.

I understand the remote parts of Highway 1 in northern Australia are no longer regarded as more important than any other road. But I don't think it relates to NSW, so I suggest we discuss it, and the population issue, in the "Joe Hockey, the Intergenerational Report and population" thread:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6791&page=0

There is a technical reason that VFTs cannot use existing track.
It was explained by someone on The Conversation on the same subject.
It had to do with the wheel cross section, I didn't fully understand
the reason at the time so cannot explain it myself.

The way I understand it, as explained by Matt on his website, and also
confirmed by the forensic accountant I met recently, the financial plan
was arranged so that the government picks up the bill when the motorways fail.

I am told the finance is arranged for a 30 year period, but is
expected to fail much sooner than that.
If the CSIRO's prediction of $8 a litre by 2020 comes good they will
fail a lot earlier.
BTW, I do not think the CSIRO is right, my guess is $4 a litre by then.
But then who am I to out guess the CSIRO.

Aidan, "But I don't think the problem's really the number of people; it's the states making the (valid) point that the federal funding is inadequate"

You disagree with the people who reside in those cities and the politicians who represent them.

There are many problems outside of funding, for instance social problems, but even so, who pays

Bazz,

Wheel profile issues are a technical challenge, not an insurmountable obstacle. Although the VFTs of Japan don't share track with other trains (indeed the track isn't even the same gauge) those of Europe do.

Any competent government would avoid the sort of contract where they pick up the risks but the rewards flow to the private sector. But government incompetence abounds.

I think even $4/litre by 2020 is very unlikely. Synthetic fuel would become viable at a lower cost than that.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

onthebeach,

Factors related to the high population are what brought most people to the major cities in the first place. Politicians (and many others) disagree on a lot of things, but increasing population isn't just the cause of infrastructure inadequacy, but also an opportunity to improve the infrastructure for everyone else.

The funding mechanism I favour is the Federal government (or possibly even the RBA) making concessional loans to state governments.