Parramatta light rail

[Transtopic]

I know you're dead against this because you want Eastwood serviced but I can see other options to get this line where it needs to go into Epping and either way I dont think demolition of a few units is an issue anyway let alone apparent concerns of outcry for what will most likely not be new units by the time they look at this extension. Did Olivia Gardens stop the C&SE LR? Maybe they will hack into Boronia Gardens instead and then redevelop that?

Who says they need to widen the road anyway? Is that the only possibility? How do we know that they wont build a road bypass of the whole Epping Centre to deal with traffic through here? Could even be a tunnelled extension of Epping Road from the East of Pembroke St, if they were considering a rail tunnel from Carlingford to Epping then I am sure a road tunnel is not out of the question. We don't know what the future holds.

Also while I think just making it to Epping to transfer to the Metro would work well (I doubt they want people Interchanging to the Northern line which may be unavoidable but would be a sure thing on the Eastwood route) there is also a lot of potential between Epping and Macquarie Uni that is not served by the rail line, the LR can facilitate that. If as you claim Eastwood development would eventually outstrip Epping and Carlingford combined I doubt they would want to bring more people from the surrounds to Eastwood station and the Northern line.

It's not just a simple matter of wanting Eastwood serviced, it's to provide the most direct and economically feasible link between Parramatta and Macquarie Park. In my view, that just happens to be a route via Eastwood.

I am continually perplexed by some that persist in making unrealistic suggestions to justify extending the light rail link to or through Epping when the obvious solution is staring them in the face. Why would you go to all the trouble of resuming vast swathes of previously unaffected properties, construct expensive tunnelling or build bypasses when there is a ready made reserved transport corridor, and one that is superior, already in place? I'll say it again. It doesn't have to go to Epping when there is a better alternative.

There have been previous proposals to construct a road tunnel from Carlingford Rd to Epping Rd, but they have been rejected by the RTA as it's not feasible. There is also the small matter of an underground rail line in the way. Instead they are upgrading the Beecroft Rd/Carlingford Rd intersection and adding an additional west bound lane to Epping Rd approaching Blaxland Rd and the rail bridge. There is still no room for light rail tracks.

People could still transfer from the light rail route via Eastwood to the metro at Macquarie University Station and avoid interchanging to get there if that is their destination. As it is, there will be considerable interchange congestion between the Northern Line and the metro at Epping and with the light rail interchanging with the Northern Line at Eastwood it would ease further pressure which would eventuate if the light rail line went to Epping.

[grog]

Don't assume that people disagree with you just because they make suggestions or speculation based on the government's stated position.

Making a suggestion of how to get from Carlingford to Epping based on the government's stated desire to do so is not the same thing as saying that it is a better option than going direct to Macquarie Park via Eastwood.

[Transtopic]

Don't assume that people disagree with you just because they make suggestions or speculation based on the government's stated position.

Making a suggestion of how to get from Carlingford to Epping based on the government's stated desire to do so is not the same thing as saying that it is a better option than going direct to Macquarie Park via Eastwood.

The government's original stated position for this option was to build a light rail link from Parramatta to Macquarie Park via Carlingford. No mention was made of Epping (strangely). That came later. By their own admission, there are some engineering challenges in constructing this link to Epping and that has yet to be resolved, if it can be at all. At this stage, nothing's definite. Everyone's entitled to voice an opinion on how this could be achieved, but I haven't seen anything yet that's convincing or practicable. In view of these challenges, it's perfectly legitimate to suggest the Eastwood route as an alternative option. It should have been on the shortlist of options to start with. They may well decide not to extend the line beyond Carlingford.

[simonl]

It'll never happen to extend the LR to Epping from Carlingford. It doesn't make any sense unless there is some radical discovery. Going into MQP is even more daft an idea.

I don't know why we're talking about it to be honest.

[Rails]

It's not just a simple matter of wanting Eastwood serviced, it's to provide the most direct and economically feasible link between Parramatta and Macquarie Park. In my view, that just happens to be a route via Eastwood.

I am continually perplexed by some that persist in making unrealistic suggestions to justify extending the light rail link to or through Epping when the obvious solution is staring them in the face. Why would you go to all the trouble of resuming vast swathes of previously unaffected properties, construct expensive tunnelling or build bypasses when there is a ready made reserved transport corridor, and one that is superior, already in place? I'll say it again. It doesn't have to go to Epping when there is a better alternative.

There have been previous proposals to construct a road tunnel from Carlingford Rd to Epping Rd, but they have been rejected by the RTA as it's not feasible. There is also the small matter of an underground rail line in the way. Instead they are upgrading the Beecroft Rd/Carlingford Rd intersection and adding an additional west bound lane to Epping Rd approaching Blaxland Rd and the rail bridge. There is still no room for light rail tracks.

People could still transfer from the light rail route via Eastwood to the metro at Macquarie University Station and avoid interchanging to get there if that is their destination. As it is, there will be considerable interchange congestion between the Northern Line and the metro at Epping and with the light rail interchanging with the Northern Line at Eastwood it would ease further pressure which would eventuate if the light rail line went to Epping.

I don't have any skin in this, but it seems based on your responses you may be a bit biased and you can't see anything other than your own view, "vast swathes of previously unaffected property", its all rather emotive. I think its doable if they want to do it. You may have access to information I dont that says you cant or that you definitely cant fit a road tunnel past the ECRL etc but the problem is with locals you cant always tell if they are just pushing their own agenda or if there is really no other option.

At worst as discussed they revert back to the original plan for bus/rail tunnel and just do it for LR. If it was an option for the PERL I cant see a compelling reason why its out of the question for the future when the passenger numbers and development potential has risen so much. It remained a 10 year option until recently anyway but with heavy rail terminated at Epping for transfer to the Metro (not that I agree with that). Tunnels are not the all cost consuming choice some make them out to be, we will see more of them in the future but for LR they are best kept to a minimum.

I understand that passengers can travel past Eastwood on the Light Rail under your plan but I am sure you can see what I am saying, if they travel through Eastwood and their destination is accessible from there they will use Eastwood, that is currently something to avoid is all I was saying.

I don't know the exact reasons they ruled out the path via Eastwood and I suspect you don't know the exact reasons either but they have so I am looking at other ways you could theoretically reach Epping or beyond, no more than that. Who knows, if they don't end up extending the LR to Olympic Park maybe you could see the two branches from Parramatta (at the Northern end) being Carlingford AND Macquarie Park via Eastwood.

[Transtopic]

Who knows, if they don't end up extending the LR to Olympic Park maybe you could see the two branches from Parramatta (at the Northern end) being Carlingford AND Macquarie Park via Eastwood.

That's what I've been suggesting all along. It would be the best outcome.

[simonl]

Seems pretty unlikely that the Olympic Park will be stopped now if the developers are paying for it.

[Daniel]

Seems pretty unlikely that the Olympic Park will be stopped now if the developers are paying for it.

Not if they instead decide to tip their money into a Metro project for a greater uplift in development density.

[simonl]

Seems pretty unlikely that the Olympic Park will be stopped now if the developers are paying for it.

Not if they instead decide to tip their money into a Metro project for a greater uplift in development density.

Are you referring to the suggestion of a Metro to Parramatta? A possibility, Daniel.

[mandonov]

It's a suggestion that is currently in the planning stages, hence the deferral of the light rail.

[Transtopic]

While I don't have a problem with the Sydney Olympic Park light rail route on its own, I don't think it warranted precedence over a route to Macquarie Park (by whichever route). Let's face it, the only reason why SOP was given greater priority is because of lobbying from vested interests who allegedly offered to pay for it through value capture. From what I've read, value capture isn't all it's cracked up to be and at best would only raise about 25% of the cost. At the end of the day, the developers of the new apartments along the route wouldn't be paying for it. They'd merely pass on the cost to the end purchasers. Would they be prepared to put their money where their mouth is and pay upfront to kick-start the construction of the light rail link? I doubt it. It is cause for concern that through their naivety, the Transport for NSW planners can be so easily influenced by these carpetbaggers.

It will be some years before development reaches a critical mass through Camellia and SOP to generate even a modicum of value capture and passenger revenue. In the interim they are still expecting the government to fund the light rail construction. Contrast this with a light rail link to Macquarie Park which would begin generating passenger revenue immediately through established communities and business centres which would also create the incentive for further urban consolidation. Macquarie Park dwarfs SOP.

The prospect of a Sydney Metro West link through SOP raises concerns about the need for a parallel light rail link. I can't see how it would be justifiable when there are competing demands for other transport projects throughout the Sydney region. It would be gross overkill on a single transport corridor. It's been suggested that a light rail link would complement a metro link by providing access between the metro stations, but I don't buy it. This could easily be provided by bus services along the route with upgrading of road connections.

The original West Metro proposed by Labor had stations at Strathfield, SOP, Silverwater (Silverwater Rd), Camellia, Parramatta (Civic Place) and Westmead (Darcy Rd). Whether the current government's proposal will follow the same route and station locations remains to be seen. It all depends on whether they decide, in conjunction with the Federal Government, to make the metro proposal an express link with limited stops between Parramatta and the Sydney CBD (possibly linking with Badgerys Creek Airport) or a new all stations metro link servicing the inner western suburbs in the corridor north of Parramatta Rd. I would hope it would be the latter. But that's another story.

[Geo101]

Having travelled on the Carlingford rail link quite a lot in recent months, it's hard to understand how the new light rail will generate enough traffic, especially if it terminates where it does now, or even before.

Currently, in peak hour, the four carriage train is barely full, I've yet to see a standing customer. I'd say it's only half seats used at best at the busiest of times. Most of the day it's pretty much empty. And that's only 1-2 trains per hour outside of peak.

If the route (as the current design shows) chops off the Clyde connection, I can see the numbers drop significantly, not that there is a lot already.

The only major existing customer base is the Western Sydney University Parramatta Campus and the Rydalmere industrial area, and the uni is pretty much a non-traffic generator due to the canal between it and Rydalmere station.

Most students seem to take the buses from Victoria Road. Currently, it's an 8 minute trip to Parramatta via the M52 and a few others. Will the light rail even match this time/frequency?

Part of the light rail conversion should surely involve a pedestrian bridge over the canal from the campus to the existing Rydalmere station, or else I can't see many students changing from the current bus services via Victoria Road.

[boronia]

The LR will not be about UWS patronage. It will be about opening up the corridor for development of more high density residential.

Let's face it, the only reason why SOP was given greater priority is because of lobbying from vested interests who allegedly offered to pay for it through value capture.

It was more likely a just a carrot dangled in front of investors to see if they would bite and come to the party with development funding. Perhaps they didn't, so it is off the agenda.

Any contributions from developers will simply be added to the final cost of a property, and the government claims it wants to help reduce these costs.

[matthewg]

The LR will not be about UWS patronage. It will be about opening up the corridor for development of more high density residential.

It was more likely a just a carrot dangled in front of investors to see if they would bite and come to the party with development funding. Perhaps they didn't, so it is off the agenda.

Any contributions from developers will simply be added to the final cost of a property, and the government claims it wants to help reduce these costs.

It's purely about 'urban consolidation' and 'redevelopment potential'. Nothing more, nothing less. I went to a talk by a TfNSW planner about the Parramatta LR and other issues.

They up front said it's about redevelopment potential. Parramatta council wanted the LR to connect the other 'nodes' (Castle Hill, Macquarie Park) with Paramatta and that's what they studied.

When the state government took the ball, the focus changed from connecting nodes to 'enabling redevelopment'. The only carrots being dangled are those in front of the developers - we will let you build higher if you contribute to the project. But of course, the developers would have to borrow even more money to construct their projects so are understandably cautious.

At Q&A after the talk someone asked about why the connections to Epping/Macquarie Park and to Castle Hill appeared to be off the plan. The answer was outright 'lack of development potential along the corridors'. Up to The Hills they didn't think any developers would 'go for it' and there would be strong local resistance, and on the other side the corridor to Epping was 'already developed and little potential for further consolidation'. It seemed 'engineering constraints', while a factor were way down the priority list.

The project as it stands is 100% about enabling high-density development - development that currently can't proceed as the road network in the area (particularly Silverwater road) is already congested and increasing the population density would just lead to gridlock. Throw some light rail in and they can increase the population density with impunity.

The Olympic Park was originally championed by development interests who want to redevelop all that former industrial land in the Clyde area. They will be now trying to see how much bigger they can do with a Metro vs a LR line into the area.

Nothing about these new lines is to do with improving Sydney's transport. It's about enabling higher density development. Not LR line or Metro will go into an exisiting area to 'improve' it's transport. It will always be tied to high density development.

This the major issue with the CESLR. It, as currently designed, will be running at 100% capacity from day one replacing the existing buses. Yet the construction of this line is being used as an enabler for even larger apartment blocks in the areas served by the new LR. 3-4 story blocks of units being replaced with 6-10 story units. The existing buses will have to continue to run in parallel to the LR otherwise the required capacity doesn't exist. The published objective of removing buses from the CBD won't be able to happen.

[tonyp]

The critical problem in Sydney is housing supply for a rapidly growing population (thanks largely to Federal immigration policy). Of course trams (and heavy rail) enable development. Where else are you going to house people within the metropolitan area other than by increasing density? I don't know why some see it as some sort of scandal. It's what developers have been doing for a couple of centuries.

I'd be pushing for fast interurban rail to open up satellite settlements in areas like the southern highlands and further up the central coast, together with further urban consolidation in the existing interurban areas. Not much point doing that yet with such slow train services.

[grog]

tonyp - That's fine, but then these satellite settlement areas end up with house prices as high as Sydney, which prices out the locals who are not getting Sydney wages. It's already happening with Wollongong. I guess you could get around this by pricing the transport links at a level that keeps the satellite areas cheaper compared to Sydney. For instance, if you charged $20 each way ($200 per week) then that is $10,000 a year of income that the banks wouldn't allow to be used to service home loans in the area for a worker commuting to Sydney, stopping the prices from being bid up by so much. Obviously $20 is a straw man number, it may need to be higher.

As for the previous 4 posts prior to tonyp - there is a lot of misunderstanding of the way value capture, urban planning and development work.

Value capture will not increase the end price of units but rather decrease the original value of the land that the developer purchases. For instance, if the market price for a 1 bedroom apartment is $400k, the fact that the developer needs to pay a $25k developer contribution to the government for the LR won't increase that to $400k, because the apartment just wouldn't sell. Instead, they will not be willing to bid the price of the development site as high as they otherwise would because they know they need to cover the $25k within the existing market price. The caveat is that if they get permission to build more apartments on the same land in exchange for the levy then the land owner could still earn the same amount as without the levy since the developer has more units to make their profit on. In this instance it still doesn't increase the apartment price over $400k though, as that is the price that the market is willing to pay.

Let's take the example of the 8 residents who recently sold their quarter acre blocks near Castle Hill for $40 million in an area zoned high density. That is $5 million each for houses that would have been worth $1.5 million maximum. All they did to get that extra is happen to own in the right place at the right time while the government pays $8 billion for transport infrastructure. Now suppose the plot of land can take 150 apartments and they charged $50k per apartment value capture. The value capture would be $7.5 million, and the developer would have only been willing to pay $32.5 million for the lot to make the same profit and sell the apartments at the same price. The owners would have sold for this and rather than making $5 million each would have made $4 million each, but hardly would have missed the difference as they did nothing for this gain over the $1.5 million that the house would have been otherwise worth.

Even if the levy only covers 25% of the cost of the project, that still allows 33% more projects to be completed for a set amount of government funding - certainly a worthwhile aim.

As for the complaint that the transport projects are about enabling high density development - what is the alternative? If you don't enable this development then you end up building more sprawl on the edges of the city and make transport worse for everyone. Sure it isn't focused on making transport better for large numbers of existing residents, but allowing development to handle increasing population without making transport WORSE for existing residents is itself a worthwhile aim.

The reality is that the projects being planned do both - enable development and improve transport for existing residents. Development will be within 800m of the infrastructure, and those who live further out from the station still benefit. It just happens that the projects that allow development are going to have a higher strategic importance and so will be funded first given the population pressures of a growing city.

[rogf24]

I haven't logged on in a while because I was having trouble doing so in Delhi where I was for the past few months but I have to say, after reading this and looking at the elevated sections of the Delhi metro, I think it might be a good idea to build an elevated light rail section along Carlingford Rd, if you can't have a tunnel or use or take up road lanes (for various reasons), then have the light rail in an elevated viaduct and for terminating services at Epping, it can connect with elevated platforms at the footbridge above the road or on the side where all the vending machines, ATM's and info screen are above the Sydney Trains platforms.

They managed to build some impressively tight elevated sections on the median of tight roads surrounded by some fairly tall buildings (for Sydney anyway) in Delhi, if they can do it in a developing country, we can surely do it along Carlingford Rd surrounded by single family homes, it's not an ideal solution but it's not a technically inferior one either. Aesthetically, it was not very prominent either, it didn't over shadow the place despite the tightness.

Jaipur did one better and built a freeway and metro above one if their roads that was also quite tight but that (the freeway mostly) overshadowed the road below. That's three levels of transport above one tight road. I'm not too familiar with Jaipur though, I'm guessing based on the photo.

Regardless, I reckon the Jaipur scenario would give NIMBYs in Australia one hell of a time.

Photo from wiki of Jaipur

[matthewg]

Regardless, I reckon the Jaipur scenario would give NIMBYs in Australia one hell of a time.

The punch up over the Melbourne Skyrail will give you some idea how 'popular' that option would be.

And I tend to agree with them. Unless we take a far harsher line with grafitee vandals, the detractors of Skyrail have a point.

[tonyp]

The underlying point is that if you're going to build infrastructure like that, you should put the highest capacity mode (trains) on it, don't waste it on something with lower capacity. (Brisbane note.) Trams are buses on rails - they should have the minimum infrastructure possible.

[Transtopic]

If the government's transport strategy has been based on 'urban consolidation' and 'redevelopment potential' as confirmed by matthewg, then they obviously haven't considered the redevelopment potential of Eastwood. It's crying out for upgrading of the Town Centre Master Plan, which is almost two decades old, to enable redevelopment to be viable. It currently has a height limit of 10 storeys and there is no floor space ratio code. Redevelopment to date, unlike Epping, has been limited because it's not viable under the current planning controls, thanks to an intransigent Ryde Council (bring on amalgamation). It's not that there isn't the demand for increased retail/commercial and residential redevelopment. Far from it. It's still a much larger business centre than Epping and has even greater potential for redevelopment.

A light rail route from Parramatta to Macquarie Park via Eastwood would create impetus for upgrading the Town Centre Master Plan, in conjunction with the urban consolidation strategy on the Northern Line, to enable viable redevelopment. While I am accused of being biased, I concede that I am in respect of advocating an objective analysis of the best option for this transport link.

With the news that Urban Growth is to be split in two, it will have far less influence on transport strategy, which will enhance the authority of Transport for NSW, which had been advocating taking over Urban Growth's responsibilities. Perhaps there might be light at the end of the tunnel.

[boronia]

Let's take the example of the 8 residents who recently sold their quarter acre blocks near Castle Hill for $40 million in an area zoned high density. That is $5 million each for houses that would have been worth $1.5 million maximum.

That deal would add $187K cost to each of those 150 units.

No wonder housing is becoming unaffordable.

[Transtopic]

Let's take the example of the 8 residents who recently sold their quarter acre blocks near Castle Hill for $40 million in an area zoned high density. That is $5 million each for houses that would have been worth $1.5 million maximum.

That deal would add $187K cost to each of those 150 units.

No wonder housing is becoming unaffordable.

It's not quite that simple. Once the land has been rezoned, it would be worth the collective $40 million as a redevelopment site, regardless of what improvements are on the land. Any property owner in that situation would be a mug if they sold their property for its single dwelling residential value. They would be fully entitled to benefit from the enhanced value arising from the rezoning. In this case the property owners, no doubt with the assistance of a real estate agent who coordinated the sale, were savvy enough to realise that they could maximize their windfall gain by selling together as one block, instead of being picked off individually by a developer for probably a lot less.

You may question the morality of property owners gaining windfall profits because of government planning decisions, but that's the way the law stands at the moment. They can also be equally duded. A friend of mine recently received a windfall gain through an inheritance from the sale of the family home which had been rezoned for apartments. It was a similar situation to the one in Castle Hill where the adjoining owners combined to offer a single redevelopment site. The zoning allowed for a height limit of 5 storeys. However, the developer who purchased the site then applied to the local council to increase the height limit to 22 storeys, which would obviously have made the individual lots far more valuable. If the increased height limit is approved (probably unlikely, but still possible), then the original property owners will miss out on any further increase in value.

Nonetheless, I concede the point made by grog that 'value capture' would result in the original property owners receiving a lesser amount in their windfall gain, but still well in excess of the value as a single dwelling. This should equally apply to developers who seek to increase their profit through changes to the existing planning controls. However, I can't see how it would be practicable to receive any additional revenue from the increase in value of existing properties, without changes in planning controls, along a new transport infrastructure corridor merely because it's there.

[simonl]

Bring on increased nil exemption land tax to reduce all land values and therefore these windfall gains.

[Daniel]

Light rail could create Epping link
Parramatta Sun, Sydney by Warren Thomson
16 Mar 2017

THE 20-year wait for a rail line between Parramatta and Epping could soon be over.

The state government has confirmed it is looking at extending the first Parramatta Light Rail route to Epping, which would link the two major transport hubs.

A Chatswood to Parramatta via Epping rail line was announced by the state government in 1998, but the Epping to Parramatta section was shelved in 2003.

An information pamphlet released by the state government has indicated that Epping could become part of the $1 billion project.

"An Epping extension study is being carried out in line with feedback from the community to explore options for this transport corridor," the information sheet stated.

Currently, the first stage of the Parramatta Light Rail project starts at Carlingford and will go to Westmead via Parramatta.

According to Parramatta Light Rail staff, extending the light rail route to Epping has been a big talking point among Carlingford residents at community stalls.

"Those who spoke to the project team were very positive about the project, and asked questions about light rail replacing the existing T6 Carlingford line, details about bus replacement services during construction, and if an extension to Epping was being considered," a Transport for NSW spokesman said.

Extending the light rail to Epping would give Carlingford residents more connectivity to the rest of Sydney.

[Swift]

Nuttin will ' appen'.