F6, STM and rail tunnel

[Roderick Smith]

The search box isn't finding any of these, so they can't have been posted previously.

Roderick.

June 17 2017 Sydney's F6 extension puts historic railway, parkland and homes in firing line .
It has carried more than 1 million people into Sydney's Royal National Park from one of the world's largest tram museums since 1993.
But directors of the Sydney Tram Museum fear a planned extension of the F6 motorway between Sydney and the Illawarra will threaten the railway that dates back to the 1880s.
The NSW government is considering whether to acquire 60 hectares of the Royal National Park to assist with the F6 Extension between Sydney and Illawarra.
"It's the old [Roads and Maritime Services] trying to bulldoze things again," museum director Greg Sutherland said. "As an operating museum we depend on our tracks, and riding the tram to the national park is one of the great attractions for visitors."
Trams more than a century old carry passengers from the museum at Loftus on the western edge of the national park for 3 kilometres to near Bungoona lookout, which offers spectacular views of the area.
While talked about for decades, the prospect of a 37-kilometre extension of the F6 cutting through the historic railway, homes, wetlands and parks between Waterfall in the Sutherland Shire and Arncliffe in Sydney's south is quickly becoming real for the likes of San Souci resident Cheryl Abigail.
Mrs Abigail, who was born in the house she now owns near the Georges River, said an extension would result in significant relocation of homeowners and likely lead to protests from people concerned about its impact on nearby wetlands.
"We have always known it was going to happen but this time it seems like it actually is," she said. "I am probably not accepting of it but I'm of the principle of 'what can I do about it'?"
Until now, many have seemed unperturbed about what lay ahead. A house across the road from Mrs Abigail's home recently sold for $1.5 million.
Sydney Tram Museum director Greg Sutherland is worried an extension of the F6 will threaten its historic railway. Photo: Nick Moir .
Neighbour Spiro Roumeliotis accepts that the new road will one day force his family to leave because they knew about the F6 when they bought their four-bedroom home 16 years ago.
"It seems a lot closer than it ever has before," he said.
San Souci resident Spiro Roumeliotis says the F6 extension feels closer than ever. Photo: Nick Moir .
Fairfax Media revealed this week that the government has been considering buying 60 hectares of the Royal National Park or acquiring about 460 houses and 40 commercial properties between Loftus and Waterfall for the extension.
While one minister has suggested the National Park's size could be maintained by acquiring bushland elsewhere if the F6 encroached on park land, Premier Gladys Berejiklian said on Friday that the government would "never ever, ever, damage that precious heritage national park".
Cheryl Abigail's property has been sitting on the edge of the proposed F6 extension for decades. Photo: Nick Moir .
While her comments suggest homes or businesses at the southern end of the corridor will need to be acquired instead, Ms Berejiklian said it was too early in the planning process to say how many property owners were likely to be affected by an extension.
However, internal government documents have indicated that construction of the motorway, which will inevitably be tolled, could start as early as 2019.
And Ms Berejiklian said a number of major infrastructure projects would be nearing the end of their construction by 2018 or 2019, allowing the government to "ramp up construction on new projects".
The government will allocate an extra $15 million in the state budget next Tuesday for planning work on the F6.
A spokesman for Roads Minister Melinda Pavy also said no decision about the final alignment or form of the proposed F6 extension had been made, and the tram museum and other stakeholders would be consulted.
F6 extension pros:
For proponents, an extension of the F6 has been seen as crucial to helping complete Sydney's motorway network.
At present, through-traffic between Sydney and the Illawarra is funnelled onto local roads, resulting in some of NSW's slowest peak hour speeds on the Princes Highway.
NRMA president Kyle Loades said congestion on the road corridor from southern Sydney to the Illawarra was worsening every year.
"There are more than 20,000 commuters and motorists daily who travel north for work and that will only increase over the coming decade or so as the population increases," he said.
Mr Loades said an extension would allow motorists to skip 60 sets of lights from Loftus to St Peters, and help remove trucks from suburban roads.
"The NRMA has been calling for this road for almost half a century. It would be good to see the government get on board with building it."
Government data shows average daily traffic volumes between Waterfall and Sydney's inner south have risen by 11 per cent to almost 57,000 over the past decade.
F6 extension cons:
The potential impact on the national park and wetlands loom among the chief concerns.
National Parks Association NSW president Kevin Evans said the government had shown it was willing to allow infrastructure to trump nature.
"We can't continue to compromise nature the way we are," he said. "We need to find alternative ways to ensure that major projects and infrastructure can occur without doing any harm to these wonderful natural heritage areas."
And he described as an absurdity suggestions that land could be acquired to ensure the national park's size was maintained if the F6 encroached on park land.
"It is not like there is constantly land being made available to add to the national park," he said. "Nature is under attack by this government all over the state."
The Total Environment Centre said an F6 extension also threatened sporting fields used by thousands of people and waterways.
"Proponents will argue the F6 corridor has been on the books for years, but that hasn't stopped them demolishing the green grid that was also on the books," the centre's executive director Jeff Angel said.
"Sydney has had enough and they can expect a massive campaign."
More Articles:
F6 extension could harm Royal National Park.
More than Westconnex: F6 Extension to cost $18 billion .
Minister's answer undercut by leak on $2.9b rail tunnel .
Six new exhaust stacks for Sydney's south for proposed F6 Extension .
Bulldoze 460 homes or cut through Royal National Park? Tough decision on F6 extension .
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydneys-f6-ex ... ws90e.html

June 27 2017 Minister's answer undercut by cabinet documents on Sydney-Wollongong rail tunnel .
The state government has denied misleading Parliament by saying it never assessed building a tunnel on part of the Sydney-to-Wollongong rail line, despite leaks revealing a detailed report on the matter went to cabinet just over two years ago.
Fairfax Media has seen a cabinet-in-confidence rail strategy showing travel times from Sydney to Wollongong would be cut by a quarter by the construction of a $2.9 billion tunnel from Thirroul to near Waterfall on Sydney's southern tip.
F6 extension could harm Royal National Park.
The NSW government is considering whether to acquire 60 hectares of the Royal National Park to assist with the F6 Extension between Sydney and Illawarra.
A fortnight ago, Don Harwin, the Berejiklian government's fourth most senior member, said he had been told the government had not assessed a tunnel option, in response to a question on notice from a Greens MP.
"The minister claimed that the strategic paper didn't exist," Mehreen Faruqi MLC, who had asked the question a month earlier, told Fairfax Media. "The minister has some explaining to do."
The Rail Corridor Strategy: Sydney to Wollongong document prepared by consultants went to cabinet in 2014, when current Premier Gladys Berejiklian was transport minister but Mr Harwin was not in cabinet.
Ms Faruqi's question on notice asked if the government had ever "completed a strategic assessment or strategic paper on a rail tunnel under Thirroul".
"I am advised no," Mr Harwin, who was representing Transport Minister Andrew Constance for questions in the upper house, said on June 13.
Mr Harwin's office referred questions to Transport for NSW, when asked if his answer had misled parliament.
Don Harwin is the fourth-most senior minister in the Berejiklian government. Photo: Ben Rushton
A spokeswoman for Mr Constance maintained the advice given to Mr Harwin was accurate, because the government distinguished between the Rail Corridor Strategy document sent to cabinet and a "strategic assessment".
"Consultants were engaged in 2014 to look at travel time reductions and operations issues, including stopping patterns and infrastructure upgrades [...] not conduct a detailed strategic assessment," she said.
The revelations come after Fairfax Media revealed that transport bureaucrats had been expressly told to ignore public transport alternatives when planning to improve transport connections between Sydney and Wollongong.
The cabinet document found an upgrade of the line would save commuters about 22 minutes' travel time on the current 90-minute journey, and the entire project would cost nearly $3.6 billion (in 2014 dollars).
"The government had a study detailing the incredible time savings that could be realised for the people of Illawarra at a fraction of the cost of the F6 toll road the government is pushing," Ms Faruqi said. "It is no wonder the public have lost trust."
Last week's budget committed about $15 million to planning for a 37-kilometre extension of the F6 motorway from Waterfall to Arncliffe in Sydney's south. About $20 million in geotechnical analysis had already been committed to the motorway alternative.
Previous documents released under freedom of information provisions suggested a rail option would be significantly cheaper than extending the F6 motorway.
Earlier on Tuesday, when asked if the government had considered a tunnel from Thirroul to Waterfall, Mr Constance said there was "planning going on all the time".
He dismissed suggestions the government was prioritising road projects over rail, citing a $20 billion project to build a metro train line in Sydney.
"I want to put to bed that myth that somehow this is a government that just is building roads," he said.
Related Articles
F6 planners told to ignore public transport, build roads
Bulldoze 460 homes or cut through Royal National Park? Tough decision on F6 extension .
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/ministers-ans ... wzmg0.html

July 4 2017 More than Westconnex: F6 Extension to cost $18 billion .
The planned toll road linking Sydney and Wollongong has been costed at an extraordinary $18 billion – almost $12 billion more than the rail alternative that would cut the journey to about one hour.
The cost of the F6 Extension, which is also greater than the $16.8 billion estimate for WestConnex, is revealed in government documents seen by Fairfax Media and the ABC that raise doubts about the government's ability to build both projects at the same time.
F6 extension could harm Royal National Park
The NSW government is considering whether to acquire 60 hectares of the Royal National Park to assist with the F6 Extension between Sydney and Illawarra.
Described as the "Gateway to the South" in the cabinet-in-confidence document seen by Fairfax, the 32-kilometre road would extend from a Westconnex junction at St Peters to President Avenue in Monterey via a nine-kilometre tunnel followed by a continuous tunnel along the Sandringham Peninsula to the Georges River at San Souci.
It would then travel above ground from Taren Point to Loftus and then through or adjacent to the Royal National Park to Waterfall, where it would connect with the Princes Highway.
F6 planners told to ignore public transport, build roads
Six new exhaust stacks for Sydney's south for proposed F6 Extension
A Roads and Maritime engagement and communication plan seen by Fairfax Media says messaging on the national park would need "careful management". Should the government be unable to run the expressway through the national park, it would need to acquire and bulldoze about 500 homes and commercial properties.
The document estimates the construction cost at $14.5 billion. A separate document puts operation and maintenance costs at $3.5 billion.
The $18 billion total raises questions about whether the road will ever be built. Fairfax Media understands that negotiations on a public-private partnership on cost sharing are advanced.
A spokesman for Roads Minister Melinda Pavey said the F6 Extension was in an early development stage.
The cost of the planned F6 extension will escalate. Photo: John Veage .
"No decision has yet been made regarding the final alignment or form of the proposed F6 Extension, therefore it is too early to speculate on the final cost," he said.
Greens NSW transport spokesperson Mehreen Faruqi called the $18 billion price tag "madness".The F6 extension will spell bad news for the national park, or hundreds of homes. Photo: SMH .
"Eighteen billion dollars of taxpayers' money for yet another toll road, potentially through a national park, is just obscene," she said.
The cabinet-in-confidence costing lends weight to a claim in a separate Transport for NSW report released under the Government Information (Public Access Act) that the difference in cost between the road and rail options would be "sufficient to construct the equivalent of almost three Snowy Mountains Hydro Schemes".
The Snowy Mountains scheme is thought to have cost around $5 billion in today's dollars.
The rail alternative would be made up of a separate Maldon to Dombarton freight line to enable coal trains to be taken off the Illawarra line, the construction of a tunnel at Thirroul and extra rolling stock.
The June budget allocated $15 million for planning work for the extension on top of $20 million for geotechnical testing in December.
Readers that can assist with information are invited to contact peter.martin@fairfaxmedia.com.au.
Related Articles:
Minister's answer undercut by leak on $2.9b rail tunnel .
Sydney's F6 extension puts historic railway in firing line.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/more-than-wes ... x49zp.html

[Stu]

What some people don't realise about the 'sporting fields' is that these fields are on the F6 corridor land reservation hence why no houses have been built on this elongated stretch of land for the past 50 years, the sporting fields weren't placed there as a permanent fixture. I'm referring to Scarborough Park and the surrounding areas of Dolls Pt, Monterey, Sandringham & Sans Souci. There are sporting fields in the firing line on West Botany St; Barton Park, Barton Park driving range, Memorial Fields, St. George soccer stadium, Rockdale Women's sporting fields and potentially St. George District Netbsll association.

[tonyp]

They have said that they would build the section first that most "addressed" their traffic issues and which they have land reserved for - from Westconnex and M5 to Loftus, hopefully finishing by joining the existing Princes bypass in the big dipper just north of the museum. At the worst, they might rejoin the highway just south of the museum and Audley turnoff. In that case then, the museum would be wanting to retain access to the National Park line. I think the section between Loftus and Waterfall will be just too contentious and in any case the highway there is pretty free-flowing.

[Glen]

What some people don't realise about the 'sporting fields' is that these fields are on the F6 corridor land reservation hence why no houses have been built on this elongated stretch of land for the past 50 years, the sporting fields weren't placed there as a permanent fixture.

Yes, but 50 years ago most people probably genuinely believed that urban motorways were a good thing.

Times and opinions change.

[tonyp]

Times and opinions change.

Including it seems:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-transport ... x7mec.html

[Transtopic]

I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the "either/or" syndrome when it comes to competing rail and road projects which has plagued Sydney's transport planning over the decades. The fact is, we need both. That is particularly relevant in respect of an M1 (F6) Motorway extension and upgrading of the South Coast rail corridor. Neither project on its own can satisfy the complex travel demands for commuter, private and commercial traffic. It's horses for courses.

I fully support the completion of the spine of Sydney's Motorway network, primarily as through routes bypassing major urban centres, including the CBD. This includes WestConnex, NorthConnex, and dare I say it, a future ShoreConnex, bypassing the Pacific Highway (and Chatswood) from Artarmon to Wahroonga (M1). The NorthConnex isn't an adequate bypass of the Pacific Highway as it's too indirect and it doesn't have a grade separated interchange with the M2 from east to north and north to east. All regional road links with Sydney from the North, North West, West, South West and South should be interconnected with motorway standard routes.

Equally, I also support upgrading of the regional rail links with the Northern Line from Cowan to Gosford, the South Line from Picton to Goulburn and the South Coast Line from Waterfall to Thirroul. Regrettably, upgrading of the Western Line through the Blue Mountains is just too big an ask, without a major tunnel, which is unlikely to be economically feasible having regard to current or even future demand for both passenger and freight traffic. As a long term goal, electrification should be extended to Bomaderry (with eventual extension of the South Coast rail link to Nowra and Vincentia), Goulburn and Maitland, for commuter traffic. It all boils down to a matter of priorities, but not "either/or".

It shouldn't be forgotten that the motorway expansion will be largely privately financed with minimal investment by the government. That won't be the case with the potential rail upgrading, which is unlikely to attract private finance, and will have to be funded by the government. After all, that's their responsibility, isn't it? The private sector can't provide all public infrastructure upgrading, despite the ideological bias of the current government.

Getting back to the M1 (F6) Motorway extension, there's too much over the top hysteria from the usual NIMBY, ideological and environmental lobbyists, including some on this blog. The original Southern Freeway reservation basically skirted the western edge of the Royal National Park alongside the rail corridor, except for a more direct route bypassing Engadine and East Heathcote. The reservation for the link from Loftus to Waterfall was subsequently abandoned by the previous Labor government, redirecting traffic to the existing Princes Highway through Engadine and Heathcote. A rash decision in my opinion.

A more environmentally acceptable route from Loftus to Waterfall could follow the alignment of the rail corridor with a short tunnel under East Heathcote, with minimal impact on the National Park. This would mirror the route of the M1 Pacific Motorway through the Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, which also adjoins the Northern Line rail corridor. I don't think the sky has fallen in or that the biodiversity of Ku-ring-gai Chase has been degraded. Opponents should get real and adopt a more reasoned approach.

With regard to the inner section of the proposed M1 (F6) extension (Alexandria to the Captain Cook Bridge), why for god's sake does it have to be in tunnel? This has been a reserved surface corridor for over 60 years, so I can see no justification for undergrounding this link, other than to give the government's favoured tunnelling contractors a leg-up.

The just released Infrastructure Australia report on Corridor Protection stressed the importance of reserving future transport corridors to reduce the cost of infrastructure upgrades. It stated that in the absence of a reserved surface corridor, that the cost of alternative tunnelling could multiply its cost per kilometre by 5-10 times as well as adding to the project's on-going operational and maintenance costs. This was just a conservative estimate, when a previous submission by the then Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator to the Productivity Commission's Infrastructure Inquiry indicated that tunnels could be up to 8-10 times the cost of equivalent infrastructure built on the surface. The cost of the M1 (F6) extension could be dramatically reduced if the government had the intestinal fortitude to ignore the unrepresentative swill from its opponents.

What is the point of reserving future transport corridors when self-righteous opponents believe that they should have the final say?

[Liamena]

That article is a bit of a shambles. Where to put the freeway at San Souci is a very different question from how to run the freeway past the east side of Engadine.

[tonyp]

They've preserved the Sydney part of the reservation pretty-well. It's not too hard to put in a surface motorway all the way from St Peters to the Loftus bypass. The only area where a significant number of houses would be a casualty is Sans Souci, presumably development from back in the era when the tram and trolleybus encouraged settlement predating the Cumberland County Plan. I think this is why we have Gareth Ward letting slip that the Sydney section would be built first. Between Loftus and Heathcote the existing highway would manage the load, as it does now. I think that putting a motorway through either the national park or housing in this section will arouse such a huge political sh..tfight that any government will shy away from it and leave it in the too hard basket for a future government.

[rogf24]

I generally support the construction of new road projects but I think the NSW government is really getting ahead of itself. It's great that the government is investing all these new roads and they all will be needed one day but at the same time, the government is also investing a lot of money in public transport and it's not clear where they're priorities in land use and transport lay. Given the government's housing policy of 70% growth in the existing urban areas, you would think that the government will prioritise public transport over roads. You would expect the government to have more of a 70/30 public transport/roads spending mix but instead it's more like 50/50, which means that the government is spending more on roads that it's housing policy is conducive to. Now, the government may well be using private financing for motorways unlike railways but I think the government seriously needs to present clear vision and the current spending mix sends mixed messages about what the government wants for Sydney. It doesn't mean that WestConnex or other motorways won't be needed but delaying certain stages or projects so less money is being spent on it at a time will be more beneficial to Sydney's development plans and make government's plans clearer. This will also help unlock engineering, construction and public financial resources for public transport, if they want to take advantage of it.

I definitely wouldn't advocate for a complete pause of new road projects though. (Although some, seem to be quite questionable looking at it from the outside, especially the M9 motorway considering we have the parallel M7 and A9 upgrade and a potential southern M1 route.) Look at Singapore and Hong Kong, both cities are very famous for their excellent public transport system and density but they both also have very extensive motorway networks. Hong Kong, in one study, was the world's best city for commuters, presumably because it's public transport system but it also has a very extensive motorway network that is still expanding. Singapore is also expanding their motorway network. This one is even a radial motorway. If these two cities can make motorways work in dense areas along with public transport, I don't see why Sydney can't, especially considering it'll be tolled like HK and SG.

As for the F6 (or M1 or SouthConnex), I generally support an A3 or A6 alignment which will make the road less CBD oriented but they will probably require lengthy underground tunnels and if it can be done on the cheap with an entirely above ground route via A1, which still seems to be kind of possible, then I will definitely support that since it will free up money for other projects.

[Stu]

The lads at the roadways boys club will ensure that multi lane roads are a continued piece of major transport infrastructure after Constance is long gone from politics.

[tonyp]

As for the F6 (or M1 or SouthConnex), I generally support an A3 or A6 alignment which will make the road less CBD oriented but they will probably require lengthy underground tunnels and if it can be done on the cheap with an entirely above ground route via A1, which still seems to be kind of possible, then I will definitely support that since it will free up money for other projects.

I have long been pushing for the link to be made from Heathcote via Alfords Point bridge (much of which is already expressway standard) to the nearest point of the M5 on the A6 corridor. This is a central point from which people can distribute themselves all over Sydney.

However, there's another nasty little political agenda you see - they need to provide as much justification as possible for Westconnex by feeding as much traffic into it at possible. The "F6" corridor just happens to do that. A motorway on the A6, or even A3, corridor won't feed Westconnex. If you want to go from the south coast to Parramatta for example, they want you to go all the way east to St Peters to jump on Westconnex. It's all about the business case for and profitability of Westconnex.

[Glen]

The petrolheads who run the RMS always have another "final missing link" up their sleeve to keep the motorists wanting more.

[tonyp]

The petrolheads who run the RMS always have another "final missing link" up their sleeve to keep the motorists wanting more.

It's a bit like Johnny Farnham's farewell concerts. Just when you think they've finished the motorway system another one pops up.

[Tonymercury]

It's a bit like Johnny Farnham's farewell concerts. Just when you think they've finished the motorway system another one pops up.

A tradition started by Dame Nellie!

[rogf24]

I have long been pushing for the link to be made from Heathcote via Alfords Point bridge (much of which is already expressway standard) to the nearest point of the M5 on the A6 corridor. This is a central point from which people can distribute themselves all over Sydney.

However, there's another nasty little political agenda you see - they need to provide as much justification as possible for Westconnex by feeding as much traffic into it at possible. The "F6" corridor just happens to do that. A motorway on the A6, or even A3, corridor won't feed Westconnex. If you want to go from the south coast to Parramatta for example, they want you to go all the way east to St Peters to jump on Westconnex. It's all about the business case for and profitability of Westconnex.

I think this speaks more to the CBD-oriented nature of the WestConnex project. Even though the project will not targeted at people travelling to the CBD (public transport does a great job at doing that), it's orientation means that once it's built, it will probably be faster for vehicles to distribute themselves across Sydney through the inner city first, because that's where the heart of the system is at.

The alternative will be to build the M4-M5 Link or Stage 3 via the A3 or A6 corridors instead through the outskirts of the CBD. Once that's built then the case for an F6 motorway along the A3 or A6 corridors or thereabouts will be a lot more compelling because there's a much faster connection to the rest of the city through that corridor instead of the currently proposed corridor. Once that's done you also now have the bones and a very strong case for a North-South motorway through the geographic heart of Sydney and this means a motorway through Parramatta River, again along the A3 or A6 corridors or thereabouts. The funding for that can come from redirecting funds intended for the third road harbour crossing. I imagine the North-South motorway will stretch from the M2 near Macquarie Park down to Sutherland Shire where it will join the existing motorway to the Illawarra. This leaves the Northern Beaches but that can be fulfilled using the current Warringah freeway and besides, the Northern Beaches Tunnel will also be connected westbound to the M2.

Clover Moore has proposed to upgrade the A3 but it doesn't do so to motorway standards nor does she present a view of how this upgrade will link to other roads in Sydney and the upgrades required beyond the A3 alone.

I'm still hoping that an F6 along A3 or A6 will be built but unless Stage 3 and Third Harbour Tunnel gets axed, I don't think hopes are too good. I've created a My Maps to visualise it but the North-South Motorway could take on a different alignment. However, I don't think it's as feasible now given how far advanced plans have gone but there is still a very small window. It does have it's downsides compared with the CBD-oriented plan though. I haven't included Stage 1 or 2 in the map but you can imagine where it goes.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sJv-0 ... Bc96m2y3Gg

[mandonov]

Clover Moore can propose whatever she likes, with all knowledge that there's nothing that she can do that will actually influence those decisions. Most things she announces are purely for political points, just like every other politician.

I wouldn't necessarily mind her stating her position if she wasn't using hundreds of thousands of ratepayer dollars publicising the scrapping of a tunnel that is already under construction.

[Stu]

Clover may wish to have 6 x bicycle lanes and a pedestrian footpath constructed along the F6 corridor reservation. No cars, no trucks, no motorbikes, no brt, no train line and no tram line - just bicycles. People will be able to gain exercise to and from work and feel really good about how they are looking after themselves and the environment. .

[tonyp]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/benefits-from ... xalvh.html

[grog]

I think that the article linked by tonyp above brings up a bigger issue about benefit cost analysis discount rates.

Infrastructure Australia insists on a 7% discount rate despite others around the world starting to move more towards 4%. Many projects that should be done probably don't get done because the long term benefits are underestimated.

The Melbourne Metro business case covers the issue on page 181 (link: http://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/as ... 16-WEB.pdf)

10.4.2 Discount Rate

The economic analysis adopts the standard discount rate of 7 per cent real and also presents a sensitivity impact using a lower discount rate of 4 per cent. The standard 7 per cent discount rate is consistent with current DTF and IA guidelines to assess infrastructure projects.

There are two main schools of thought on an appropriate basis for discounting the benefits of transport projects: the ‘social time preference’ (STP) approach and the ‘social opportunity cost of capital’ (SOC) approach. The STP approach is the rate at which consumers are willing to trade off present against future consumption, while the SOC approach uses a long term average of returns to the private sector. Different jurisdictions internationally adopt different rates based on one or either of these approaches.

While current Victorian and IA guidance for economic evaluation of transport projects recommends the use of a SOC approach, the appropriate discount rate for public projects is a matter of ongoing debate. To reflect the range of approaches currently used across Australia and elsewhere, both the 4 per cent and 7 per cent real discount rates have been presented together in this Business Case. The Victorian Government will continue to review and refine its approach to project discount rates over time to reflect emerging consensus in this complex area.

Local and international large projects have adopted lower discount rates to present economic analysis, including:

- Inland Rail – ARTC’s Business Case for Inland Rail used a 4 per cent real discount rate for its headline numbers (with 7 per cent provided for comparative purposes)
- Crossrail (UK) – adopted a 3.5 per cent real discount rate.

[tonyp]

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/stor ... er/?cs=300

Trains to Sydney are already limited stop and they're still slow. How do you figure that Gladys?

There's also the chunk of spin floating around that the new interurban trains are somehow miraculously going to make the service faster when it's infrastructure and operational management that's the cause of the problem. The Oscars already have the same maximum speed as the Perth trains yet their journey times are much much slower than those of the Perth trains. That alone should suggest that maximum speed has nothing to do with average speed.

[Tonymercury]

Constance has already made one statement that the new fleet will be faster because they will be able to do 180 km/h - without mentioning exactly where they would do that speed.

I don't know what they feed them down in the Members' Dining Room in Mac St, but obviously a lot of it is doped by TfNSW.

[mandonov]

Constance has already made one statement that the new fleet will be faster because they will be able to do 180 km/h - without mentioning exactly where they would do that speed.

Where has he said that? The contract for the new rolling stock only specifies 160km/h.

[Tonymercury]

You are right - he did say 160 -

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/stor ... expensive/

[Tonymercury]

Constance has already made one statement that the new fleet will be faster because they will be able to do 180 km/h - without mentioning exactly where they would do that speed.

Where has he said that? The contract for the new rolling stock only specifies 160km/h.

It seems that it was in an an early issue of the Illawarra Mercury which was changed, as it now reads 160! Perhaps the mercury got it wrong?

Here is the original text in full -

Giving Illawarra rail commuters a one-hour trip Sydney looks unlikely to happen.
The aim of reducing travel time from 90 minutes down to 60 was flagged by Infrastructure Australia in its 2012 State Infrastructure Strategy.
A revised version of the strategy omitted any mention of cutting 30 minutes off the travel time but did state substantial time savings would require spending a lot of money.
Transport Minister Andrew Constance reiterated this when asked if the government had a 60-minute commute as a target.
“I’d love to be able to do it but you’re looking at billions and not millions of dollars in terms of expenditure,” Mr Constance said.
“We know that there’s a real challenge in terms of the escarpment and that’s something which no government is ever going to be able to resolve.”
However, Mr Constance said the government was looking at other options to “speed up the service for people”, which included passing loops, signalling and alterations to the Sydney timetable to allow intercity trains quicker access to the suburban network.
Longer term, Mr Constance said Sydney’s new metro stations – which will run on a separate line – would take trains off the network and create a greater capacity.

More immediately, Mr Constance said the new intercity fleet with its faster top speed than the Oscars now on the South Coast line will make a difference to commuters.

The intercity fleet, due to roll out from 2019, has a top speed of around 180km/h compared to the Oscars’ 130km/h.

It is yet to be worked out how much faster the new trains will travel along the South Coast line, though given the terrain around the northern Illawarra, it is unlikely to be 180km/h.

“Over the next few years you will start to see a better run into town but we’re yet to determine the final timetable changes,” Mr Constance said.
“When we do we are going to try and speed up the trains from our intercity areas, be it the Illawarra through to Newcastle and the Blue Mountains.
“We want to try and get those trains into town quicker, given that I’d prefer to see people on trains rather than on our roads.”

[Stu]

This has 'Yes Minister' written all over it. Make the trains run faster either by physical speed or skipping stations - whichever option is cheaper.

Constance says the he prefers to see people in trains rather than on the roads - I think the cowboys in the roads department may not entirely agree with that statement.