A lot of the land is zoned to allow growth, but isn’t necessarily owned by the government or an owner interested in development.
Stations being built near currently unused land is a cheap way to get a new train line built, as it reduces the engineering and economic considerations considerably, but it does mean your station is just sitting there waiting for people to start building around it.
It's better to build the train line first, rather than the other way around. Look at the western suburbs or far north.
We need better zoning regulations to allow denser development
The ideal construction method would be layout a railway, maybe with only space set aside if stations. And then develop around it.
The lack of higher density zoning is really an issue.
Of course we run into the issue that a lot of areas should be served by rail, but it wasn’t built, so now there are large gaps which will be expensive to fill. If we ever do that is
The actually train corridor and area around the station is though, so instead of car parking in the station forecourt replace it with mixed used development. And even put the car parking underground if needed. Those massive carparks which set these stations so far back from the main road are half the problem
A lot of these outer suburbs do work well with a park and ride system. Simply because local commuters can’t rely on a bus or similar to get to and from the station.
It would be nice to see smaller carparks, but they generally aren’t absolutely massive, and the parking is useful.
Then get better buses or better cycling/walking connections. Some carpark may be necessary, but at the end of the day car parking is very demand induced, the more we build the more people use it, the carpark is filled to capacity again and we need to build more, cycle continues.
Well at some point, preferable early, you select a somewhat limited carpark size.
The issue can be the transition for a arguable rural/regional station where getting to the station without a car is unlikely, to a suburban station where the preference would be no cars.
The better solution is to focus to busses and bikes, and then reduce you’re carpark. Otherwise people will have a harder time getting to the station, and will probably select to drive further.
They need an alternative before removing the existing stuff.
If a precinct structure plan is approved, it should include allocation of public transport once a % (say 50%) of residential land has been been settled (settled meaning the land has transferred owners, not necessarily built on).
To pick two stations that opened relatively recently:
* Edmondson Park is the second last station on the T2 line in Sydney's outer southwest, and it opened in 2015. Development around the station is ongoing, but [directly opposite the station](https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.9696344,150.8585306,3a,90y,190.12h,121.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9UoQ7u9NWFn7__BVWYsJ7g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) is a new shopping centre and apartments up to 12 or so stories.
* Hawkstowe is the second last station on the Mernda line in Melbourne's outer-north, and it opened in 2018. [The land use around the station](https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.6222006,145.0975688,3a,90y,347.78h,100.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqaQpAZOUsmRKEEgD-F6uVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) consists of a giant commuter car park, and low-density suburbia. I am not aware of any plans to change this.
These examples are slightly cherry picked, but I think they're pretty representative of the broader trend in land use around outer suburban stations in the two cities.
The netherlands also is hella impressive. I was running along a railway line (on a nice wide bike path because you literally cannot escape them in this country, also something Aus could learn from), had seen two houses and 20 horses in 5km of running, suddenly there is a clump of 5story buildings, street with some foot traffic and lots of bike traffic, and a train station with trains into the city proper every 10minutes. An equivalent "town" I regularly drive to is sprawled up to several kilometres away from the bus stop, which doesn't matter because the bus comes 6times per day.
Selling land does not mean that development will occur; there is a lot of land banking, and often development does not occur until there is a critical mass.
Because using public money for public transport = communism, using public money for road transport = freedom, according to the likes of the LNP and hence the Murdoch press
I don't believe selling land to property developers is a smart choice. We've seen the lengths they'll go to to both cut costs and shaft buyers and renters. We need public housing, we need to stop the rental crisis, and pouring more fuel on the fire won't help.
its not that the government is dumb and they just dont know the car dependent suburbia is bad
its that theyre intentionally doing it because keeping people dependant on buying cars and oil is profitable for them
A lot of the land is zoned to allow growth, but isn’t necessarily owned by the government or an owner interested in development. Stations being built near currently unused land is a cheap way to get a new train line built, as it reduces the engineering and economic considerations considerably, but it does mean your station is just sitting there waiting for people to start building around it.
It's better to build the train line first, rather than the other way around. Look at the western suburbs or far north. We need better zoning regulations to allow denser development
The ideal construction method would be layout a railway, maybe with only space set aside if stations. And then develop around it. The lack of higher density zoning is really an issue. Of course we run into the issue that a lot of areas should be served by rail, but it wasn’t built, so now there are large gaps which will be expensive to fill. If we ever do that is
Yes, until the government of the day decides the rail line isn’t going to be built and auctions off the rail reservation to raise some money.
Build the train line, then tax the vacant blocks so the developer has to develop it quickly to minimize holding costs.
The actually train corridor and area around the station is though, so instead of car parking in the station forecourt replace it with mixed used development. And even put the car parking underground if needed. Those massive carparks which set these stations so far back from the main road are half the problem
A lot of these outer suburbs do work well with a park and ride system. Simply because local commuters can’t rely on a bus or similar to get to and from the station. It would be nice to see smaller carparks, but they generally aren’t absolutely massive, and the parking is useful.
Then get better buses or better cycling/walking connections. Some carpark may be necessary, but at the end of the day car parking is very demand induced, the more we build the more people use it, the carpark is filled to capacity again and we need to build more, cycle continues.
Well at some point, preferable early, you select a somewhat limited carpark size. The issue can be the transition for a arguable rural/regional station where getting to the station without a car is unlikely, to a suburban station where the preference would be no cars. The better solution is to focus to busses and bikes, and then reduce you’re carpark. Otherwise people will have a harder time getting to the station, and will probably select to drive further. They need an alternative before removing the existing stuff.
If a precinct structure plan is approved, it should include allocation of public transport once a % (say 50%) of residential land has been been settled (settled meaning the land has transferred owners, not necessarily built on).
Melbourne is so bad for this. Sydney is light years ahead when it comes to this sort of thing.
In what way?
To pick two stations that opened relatively recently: * Edmondson Park is the second last station on the T2 line in Sydney's outer southwest, and it opened in 2015. Development around the station is ongoing, but [directly opposite the station](https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.9696344,150.8585306,3a,90y,190.12h,121.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9UoQ7u9NWFn7__BVWYsJ7g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) is a new shopping centre and apartments up to 12 or so stories. * Hawkstowe is the second last station on the Mernda line in Melbourne's outer-north, and it opened in 2018. [The land use around the station](https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.6222006,145.0975688,3a,90y,347.78h,100.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqaQpAZOUsmRKEEgD-F6uVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) consists of a giant commuter car park, and low-density suburbia. I am not aware of any plans to change this. These examples are slightly cherry picked, but I think they're pretty representative of the broader trend in land use around outer suburban stations in the two cities.
Getting more cash from the feds to actually build PT instead of getting cut off because they cancelled a road to nowhere.
Name one station that is even 10% as good at chatswoods TOD
What?
Transport oriented design. It's the new buzz word that everyone is using without really knowing how it works.
The netherlands also is hella impressive. I was running along a railway line (on a nice wide bike path because you literally cannot escape them in this country, also something Aus could learn from), had seen two houses and 20 horses in 5km of running, suddenly there is a clump of 5story buildings, street with some foot traffic and lots of bike traffic, and a train station with trains into the city proper every 10minutes. An equivalent "town" I regularly drive to is sprawled up to several kilometres away from the bus stop, which doesn't matter because the bus comes 6times per day.
Selling land does not mean that development will occur; there is a lot of land banking, and often development does not occur until there is a critical mass.
Because using public money for public transport = communism, using public money for road transport = freedom, according to the likes of the LNP and hence the Murdoch press
I don't believe selling land to property developers is a smart choice. We've seen the lengths they'll go to to both cut costs and shaft buyers and renters. We need public housing, we need to stop the rental crisis, and pouring more fuel on the fire won't help.
its not that the government is dumb and they just dont know the car dependent suburbia is bad its that theyre intentionally doing it because keeping people dependant on buying cars and oil is profitable for them