Transport for NSW are once again looking for submissions on the future of Sydney. There is a discussion paper located here:


This discussion paper is less about infrastructure and more about an overall strategy for Sydney, however there is still a section on providing an efficient transport network.


Don't forget that it is planned for Transport for NSW to provide direction to the RMS so although it can be a slow process it is worth putting in a submission. 


Post any thoughts or ideas here. 

Views: 1027

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The one being pushed in order to enable the fuel companies to increase the price of fuel.

1. Create a crisis

2. Increase prices due to crisis

3. Profit

No ???

You're right about this John.  However, I'm becoming even more disillusioned with the current crops of politicians who will do nothing for the long term benefit of the State/country if it reduces their chances of being re-elected.  Their solution to the ever increasing cost of fuel will be to kowtow to the masses and reduce the taxes so that the "battler can afford" their perceived god-given right to drive a car.  All too late they will realise that this is the time when we should be starting the transition to another society where, if we do need to travel, we use mass transport, or we work closer to home or at home (one of the longer term, and as yet not spoken about, benefits of the national broadband network).

The need to utilise oil to preserve our food sources is another elephant in the room.  Oil --> fertiliser + powering farm machinery = crops = us being able to survive!  Sure, farm machinery can be powered by alternative fuels and fertilisers can be obtained in other ways, but will they?  And while we have the Coles/Woolworths duopoly screwing the farmers/manufacturers, more farmers are going to go off the land because they can't compete with the crazy food-miles that are being done to bring us food from all around the world at ridiculously low prices.

One of the other elephants in the room is oil --> medicines + plastics = keeping us well and enabling us to use technology to do things that may not be able to be done with other materials.

Our grandchildren aren't going to thank us for this.

There's an old Arab saying "My grandfather rode a camel, I drive a car, my son flies a plane, my grandson will ride a camel".  Says it all!

I'm in the same corner. It's quite depressing. It could be worse though; we could be in the USA.

This corner is getting pretty crowded. 

pie chart of a 1000 politicians

I'm not so harsh on politicians. They just don't have any incentive to do long-term good. Take cycling infrastructure - it costs money today, but the benefits won't be fully apparent for many years, long after the politician who spent the money is out of office. Nobody will remember their decision to fund the cycling infrastructure, let along connect that decision to the lower health care costs, gather business efficiency, and better quality of life all round that they're enjoying.

The politicians are responding to voters, the majority of whom lack the necessary long-term vision. When the masses develop that, the politicians will respond in kind.

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
Ronald Reagan

Depressing to think that we're at the mercy of the masses before we can expect any quality from our politicians. Education being what it is today, thats not likely to change. All the more reason to support those who do have some vision like Clover.

Chris, your link don`t work. Include the www.

Fixed it.

In the discussion paper  there is nothing about cycling.

They mention the word 'cycle' only once (page 21).

On page 12 they talk about walking catchments around train stations, which would be about a 2km radius, but nothing about 'bike catchments' would be far greater.

Thanks,PaulJ for your info.

I had a look at first page and it said nothing about the word "cycle" and I lost interested in it and don`t bother to read the rest of it.

I only fixed it for Chris as his link don`t work.

Walking catchments are based on 800 m for trains,400 m for buses, I think. Bikes could be a very big saver for govt if they were used by many to ride say even only 2 to 4 km to a station. No need to build as many new rail lines if cycling is part of the access, and get lots of cars off the road, plus save heaps on car parks at stations. E bikes could be a big thing in hillier areas and to overcome the sweaty cyclist problem.
Pollies should have to nominate a few transport reforms they want to bring about and if they don't achieve results they should get voted out. We haven't got 20 years, so they need to get some cheap and easy solutions on the go now. Car share, cycleways, bus lanes, ticket reform, parking restrictions, SOV charges, the list is huge that they could start with.

I remember back in the days of building the ark, that Alan Parker from Victoria published a paper on this catchment zones using bikes to modal train stations.  The results of some of the paper are published in one of the editions of Austroads 14 Bike standards.  Below is some of his work.


© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service