I'd suggest that the reason why the Telegraph gets stuck into the NSW Government and particularly Gladys on occasions, is because they consider it to be controlled by the moderate faction. In their eyes, they're Lefties, unlike their Federal counterparts. How you can suggest that the Telegraph has become more serious and professional in the last few years beggars belief. The only thing it's good for is wiping your arse. Claims that the SMH is left wing are overblown. They have also been accused of becoming more right wing, so make of that what you will. Good journalism demands critical comment of both sides of government where it's due and I certainly don't see that in the Murdoch press. You only have to look at the way they've rubbished the Labor States, while praising the Liberals, over the management of the Covid emergency.tonyp wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:54 pm The Telegraph certainly gets stuck into the NSW government if something is not right, but the difference from the SMH is that the Telegraph, in terms of the present government, commends things that are good and condemns things that are not, while the Herald continually emphasises only the bad with the Liberal government. The roles of the two newspapers have reversed over the last few decades. The Herald went down after the Fairfaxes lost control and the Telegraph has become more serious and professional in the last few years to take up the slack left by the Herald.
IA's acknowledgement of the project as part of a larger one was so brief you'd miss it if you blinked, yet it's a critical point. The other issue is that there needs to be a rail connection to the airport and western city right from the beginning to help it get going. We all know what historically happens when you kick off with a "temporary" bus connection, promising a rail link later. You and I have both lived through it. The temporary becomes permanent and the project languishes and withers and development is constrained for want of a good, fast, high-capacity transit connection. It's very much worth wearing what might be an initial poor cost-benefit in order to kick-start the project and enable it to grow and prosper. The line will come into its own after a few years at most. The KSA airport line would no doubt have also had a poor cost-benefit at the outset, but then came all the lineside development and economic activity that it generated. Green Square grew out of nothing because of the airport line. Before that, there was nothing there but dying factories. The same will happen out west.
IA's reference to "incompatible" line and rolling stock standards is also quite ignorant. It's very important to keep metro lines isolated from each other, otherwise we have the problems of the suburban system when something goes wrong. The initial Tallawong-Bankstown line and rolling stock was compromised to adapt to the constraints of the two major sections of legacy line it incorporated. With further new lines that don't incorporate legacy infrastructure, it's important to allow metro to adopt its own best standards without constraint. The line to the existing standards will be extended to Schofields and a new line with some different specifications according to its specific needs will pick up from there to Macarthur.
Now let's cut to the chase. The only reason why the State government proposed the North-South link from the airport to St Marys, despite the lack of any evidence to justify it as the first priority, was to advance their metro agenda. They couldn't stomach the thought that the bleedingly obvious first priority to provide an early rail connection to the airport would be to extend the SWRL from Leppington as part of the existing network. The Western Sydney Rail Needs Scoping Study confirmed that the east-west options could potentially perform better than the North-South option as a first stage.
As the Metro West extension couldn't be completed for at least another decade or more until the link into the CBD is completed, that leaves the SWRL extension as the logical first stage. It also has other advantages in connecting with the broader rail network and existing established growth regions in the south-west, as well as a more direct and faster link with the CBD via the East Hills Line much sooner than would otherwise be the case.
It doesn't preclude the North-South link being constructed as later stages, whether as metro or as an extension of the existing network, which could include compatible automatic SD trains. As I keep saying, it's a matter of priorities. It may not please the development lobby, but who cares? They shouldn't be the sole determinates of transport policy. Established communities, particularly those without an existing rail service, also deserve improved transport infrastructure.
I don't think IA's reference to 'incompatible' lines and rolling stock standards is ignorant. They are merely stating the bleeding obvious. I would have thought that it would be an advantage in having through running from Metro Northwest to the new airport and beyond to Macarthur. It smacks of creating isolated sectors for future privatised operation, just as they're doing with the bus regions. The convenience for travellers of having cross regional transport connections without the need to change seems to have a low priority, instead favouring the interests and profitability of potential private operators.
I can't see how the initial Metro Northwest and rolling stock was compromised to adapt to the constraints of the converted Epping to Chatswood Rail Link. There were no constraints as the line which was only 10 years old and had straight platforms which required minor modifications including the installation of platform screen doors. The conversion of the Bankstown Line is a different matter, but it will still be adapted to allow through running by the existing Metro Northwest rolling stock.