Creating a new topic for something that is being discussed on the South Coast Railway Improvements topic,

Look at the older suburban lines in Sydney, and then look at the modern ones (East Hills-Glenfield and later), and compare the station spacing, older lines have closely spaced stations that are much easier to walk to, and newer lines have stations spaced much further apart and are primarily designed to be driven to.

Obviously the main reason for this is that older stations and lines were built in a time when cars were not popular, newer stations were built in a time where it's not uncommon for a family of four to own four separate cars,
HOWEVER, if we are trying to fight congestion and all of the other issues that come with car culture, WHY would be build infrastructure that promotes car use? Park & Ride is a highly flawed public transport model since it makes car ownership a pre-requisite for convenient public transport access (half defeating it's purpose) and commuter car parks can NEVER be built large enough to accommodate all the cars that need to use it, just look at the size of the one at Holsworthy and it's STILL not enough.

I suspect it comes down to two main factors: cost, and journey time (obviously it is going to take longer to serve more stations with rolling stock that suffers from long dwell times).

On the topic of cost, I have started a discussion considering if modern DAA laws to have every station include a lift is a barrier to closely-spaced stations on modern lines, even the North-West Metro with it's low dwell times has large extravagant stations spaced far apart with large (but never large enough) commuter car parks, is it possible that the cost to make more stations like this is simply too much? does DAA law requires toilets also? and 24/7 staffing? or just the lifts?

while I have a wheelchair-bound grandmother, have carried all sorts of crazy things on trains before getting my license, and have been too tired to bother with stairs myself when starting an early morning shift, I do believe that a station with no lifts is better than no station at all, and while it can be argued that a station without lifts discriminates against the disabled, it can also be argued that modern stations discriminate against those without cars,

and to clear things up, I still want all stations to have lifts, I would only say skip the lifts (but leave space for them in future) if it's going to mean no station at all, there should still be an accessible station every 5km or so with feeder buses, but if a smaller station that only serves like 150 daily passengers could be constructed between two larger stations, but government can't justify the cost to passenger ratio because of the lift requireemtns, then they should still be allowed to build the bare-bones station without lifts to serve a seemingly small number of passengers which would take a large amount of strain off commuter car parks.

Thoughts? Take a look some examples:

EAST HILLS-GLENFIELD (1987)
- East Hills (existing)
- Voyage Point: small suburb with many properties rented out by the military, would not get significant patronage to justify lift cost, but would be important to take strain of the Holsworthy car park regardless
- Holsworthy (existing): has one of the largest commuter car parks in Sydney but it's still not enough
- Wattle Grove: large suburbs but only occupies one side of track which would limit patronage, but once again, it would take strain off Holsworthy by accommodating walk-up passengers who would no longer need to park at Holsworthy
-Glenfield (existing)

SOUTH WEST RAIL LINK (2015)
- Glenfield (existing)
- Bardia: small suburb, station would not get much patroange to justify lists costwise, but it would take demand of commuter car parks, station would probably encourage more development (and create demand for lifts) nearby as opposed to silly new suburbs in the middle of nowhere
- Edmondson Park (existing): designed as park & ride, highly flawed
- Edmondson Park West: same principle as Wattle Grove
- Leppington West: on Cowpasture Road, same principle as Bardia
- Leppington (existing): designed as park & ride, highly flawed
NORTH WEST METRO (2019)
- Epping (existing)
- West Pennant Hills
- Cherrybrook (existing)
- Castle Hill East: to serve residential area, take demand off commuter car parks
- Showground (existing)
- Norwest (existng)
- Bella Vista (existing)
- Parklea: same as Castle Hill East
- Kellyville (existing)
- Beaumont Hills: same as Castle Hill East
- Rouse Hill (existing)
- Tallawong (existing)

1.
I think you are still missing the entire point of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). The DDA covers a huge swathe of topics, including equal access to public spaces (i.e. railway stations). To build a new dual-track railway station without lifts and other accessible facilities is actually illegal. To do so would be discriminating against people with mobility impairments, as it’s not giving them a fair go at accessing a public service.

2.
The key to understanding station spacing is population density. New stations are very expensive, even without the cost of the lifts. 100 people per day is nowhere near enough catchment to justify a new station on its own. The usual trade-off for a new station is aggressive re-zoning of the area around the station for high density mixed commercial / residential properties up to 10 stories within 400m.

3.
I don’t think that adding more stations onto the NW metro is a good idea. Too expensive and not enough benefit. Keep in mind that one of the key objectives of metro is to provide fast travel times between major centres (in order to compete with private car usage). Metro currently averages 60km/h end to end including the stops, which absolutely smokes the majority of Sydney Trains.

4.
I disagree with the notion that “park and ride” is flawed. In most low density areas, feeder buses just can’t cover enough of the population without taking indirect routes, making them uncompetitive with cars. Park and ride is an appropriate solution for a city like Sydney where car is king for everything except peak hour travel to and from the city.

I would enjoy further discussion about these issues, thanks for posting.

5.
I think out of all the “extra” stations you proposed, Wattle Grove is the only one that is plausible for me. It’s suitably located for a feeder bus route through the suburb, or they could just add a short detour on route 901. Perhaps something similar to the new 980 “turn up and go” bus in Caringbah could operate during peak hours.

Wattle Grove also has a pretty well-situated off-road path which is extends about 2km from the station. Some targeted upgrades to make it more friendly for bicycles and small ride-ons like electric scooters could provide a competitive alternative to driving or catching the bus for local residents.

Obviously the main reason for this is that older stations and lines were built in a time when cars were not popular, newer stations were built in a time where it's not uncommon for a family of four to own four separate cars,

short sighted when it comes to history .. most stations have been upgraded over time that there past has been removed - signal boxes , freight yards and local industry's outside the rail network..

would not compare the new metro to older sections of sydneys rail network.. most stations exist due to a major shopping / business area ..

When the older suburban stations were built in the 19th century, Sydney was basically a walking city and the stations were spaced accordingly. Today, its mobility is completely different, people having the ability to get to stations by bus or car.

Just to add my bits from that south coast thread.

Voyager point - This suburb literally came in to existence the year the east hills line was extended to Holsworthy and it wasn't planned. Do you really think they didn't build a station here because they had to include lifts.

Wattle Grove - I agree this station should exist but if you think it doesn't exist because of lifts increasing the cost of the station you are mistaken. This has more to do with the position of the station and the proximity to houses. I also think this has more to do with no room for a car park then anything to do with lifts. I have no issues with a station that has no significant car park.

Bardia. - This just shows you how prejudiced you are against the disabled. This station would still require a concourse over the rail line somewhere and it is a ridiculously short distance to Edmondson Park station. You could do more for the people of Bardia by putting in a foot / bike path so they could walk or ride to Edmondson park.

Cowpasture Road - This would be the place to put a station between Edmondson Park and Leppington. There is no way Jose that you could build a station here without having a lift as it would act as a bus interchange and to not include a lift would be borderline criminal.

West Pennant Hills - This station would require Lifts for it to even be possible to exist because the train line is so deep at this point.

All the other proposed NW stations - Your argument is mute on this because any station is going to be either underground or above ground making these stations expensive regardless of if you include a lift or not. Parklea already has the Tway doing what you propose and Beaumont hills isn't even on the rail line and it is also on the tway.


In the end the reason there isn't more stations has nothing to do with lifts being compulsory. It has everything to do with needing bus services, car parking and other modern ammenities at stations to go with. The ease of access doesn't just help the disabled but also everybody who uses the service. The metro with it's level boarding makes it so much easier for prams and elderly and there is no trip hazzard to deal with. If you have a broken leg and have to use crutches the lift is a huge help so it isn't just about disabled people.

The problem with lifts is that they break down and have outages, ideally each station would have a ramp and lift but that cannot occur due to space restrictions

Major stations should be fitted with ramps in addition to lifts and stairs to have an alternative method of travel for people who cannot use stairs

Take Epping Station for example, it has lifts and stairs on the Beecroft road side but does not have ramps so if the lifts break down (which is quite frequent) there is no easy way out for people who cannot use stairs, the only way to get out involves moving through several very crowded streets

Regarding the NWRL, I tend to think that several parts of the current route should not have been used
The route going underneath Cherrybrook should not have been used, a route going through Baulkham Hills and North Rocks should have been used instead
Cherrybrook has quite a low population and has not experienced much growth recently, Baulkham Hills has a much higher population and is growing extensively in a way very similar to Epping

The route could have gone up to Castle Hill and the back down to Bella Vista where it could follow the current route for the rest of the way to Cudgegong Road

Regards, Daniel

What about pedestrian underpasses?  They just have to go down the height of the tallest people plus the depth of the embankment, which would be less than the elevation required to go over overhead stanchions so the gradient should be DDA compliant?

DCook, regarding the route:
Obviously it can’t be changed now, but perhaps the lack of development at Cherrybrook was seen as a positive from government’s perspective - there is a lot of $$$ in stamp duty from constructing hundreds of new properties near the station. If this kind of development is or was already occurring at Baulkham Hills then maybe the government wanted to “double dip” by inducing development at a second location. But this is just a personal theory in response to your opinion. Baulkham Hills will get it’s metro station one day, but it’ll be on a new line from Norwest towards Parramatta.

route14, regarding underpasses:
I think there is a perception that underpasses are less visible than overbridges, and therefore less safe. But it probably more comes down to whether the topography is suitable or not. Digging underground can get very expensive and cause other problems with flooding and general drainage. So on flat ground, there tends to be a bridge instead of an underpass. Not saying it can’t or shouldn’t be done, but the underpasses these days tend to be reserved for the bigger stations (e.g. Chatswood, formerly overbridge, rebuilt with huge sub-level concourse and shopping arcade). Just my thoughts.

DCook, regarding the route:
Obviously it can’t be changed now, but perhaps the lack of development at Cherrybrook was seen as a positive from government’s perspective - there is a lot of $$$ in stamp duty from constructing hundreds of new properties near the station. If this kind of development is or was already occurring at Baulkham Hills then maybe the government wanted to “double dip” by inducing development at a second location. But this is just a personal theory in response to your opinion. Baulkham Hills will get it’s metro station one day, but it’ll be on a new line from Norwest towards Parramatta.

route14, regarding underpasses:
I think there is a perception that underpasses are less visible than overbridges, and therefore less safe. But it probably more comes down to whether the topography is suitable or not. Digging underground can get very expensive and cause other problems with flooding and general drainage. So on flat ground, there tends to be a bridge instead of an underpass. Not saying it can’t or shouldn’t be done, but the underpasses these days tend to be reserved for the bigger stations (e.g. Chatswood, formerly overbridge, rebuilt with huge sub-level concourse and shopping arcade). Just my thoughts.

Regarding the wording "equal access", it would be more accurate to call it "hazard free access".  "Equal access" can be interpreted as a higher standard than "hazard free access".  If someone is too poor to even pay for a concession ticket, h/she has to either abandon PT travel or risk a fine, so it's not equal.  My grandmother, at the age of 106, is totally immobile, so none of the low floor buses, trams and DDA compliant stations benefit her.  It would be stupid to sue PTV for not running a train into our room to beside her bed.  In another way, it can be interpreted as a lower standard than "hazard free access".  If you have to negotiate 118 steps to access a station, a wheel-chair user also has to negotiate 118 steps by whatever means, no more, no less.  It doesn't magically become a fire fighter's training ground if a disabled passenger wants to use it.  It's equal, but not hazard free.

The further you go out, the further apart the station needs to be to prevent the train service being painfully slow and thus avoided. Also in low density suburbs that are beyond reasonable walking distance but not further than say 5km from the station, connecting bus services are difficult to provide economically and attractive and locals will just drive if they won't ride or be dropped off.

The NWRL is an excellent piece of modern railway and the last thing you want to do it is drag it down to the standard of the old lines with stations every 1-2km. It won't have a huge impact on those needing to drive to the station.


Cost of modern stations is more than just the lifts, its everything else, security, road access, parking, facilities. Large modern stations have staff on site all day, the ancient little ones don't, so less community friendly.

1.
I think you are still missing the entire point of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). The DDA covers a huge swathe of topics, including equal access to public spaces (i.e. railway stations). To build a new dual-track railway station without lifts and other accessible facilities is actually illegal. To do so would be discriminating against people with mobility impairments, as it’s not giving them a fair go at accessing a public service.

2.
The key to understanding station spacing is population density. New stations are very expensive, even without the cost of the lifts. 100 people per day is nowhere near enough catchment to justify a new station on its own. The usual trade-off for a new station is aggressive re-zoning of the area around the station for high density mixed commercial / residential properties up to 10 stories within 400m.

3.
I don’t think that adding more stations onto the NW metro is a good idea. Too expensive and not enough benefit. Keep in mind that one of the key objectives of metro is to provide fast travel times between major centres (in order to compete with private car usage). Metro currently averages 60km/h end to end including the stops, which absolutely smokes the majority of Sydney Trains.

4.
I disagree with the notion that “park and ride” is flawed. In most low density areas, feeder buses just can’t cover enough of the population without taking indirect routes, making them uncompetitive with cars. Park and ride is an appropriate solution for a city like Sydney where car is king for everything except peak hour travel to and from the city.

I would enjoy further discussion about these issues, thanks for posting.

5.
I think out of all the “extra” stations you proposed, Wattle Grove is the only one that is plausible for me. It’s suitably located for a feeder bus route through the suburb, or they could just add a short detour on route 901. Perhaps something similar to the new 980 “turn up and go” bus in Caringbah could operate during peak hours.

Wattle Grove also has a pretty well-situated off-road path which is extends about 2km from the station. Some targeted upgrades to make it more friendly for bicycles and small ride-ons like electric scooters could provide a competitive alternative to driving or catching the bus for local residents.

Firstly, Please forgive me for the incredibly late reply as I have been very busy.

1. IF lifts are creating the cost the issue, then I think the disability act should be changed to make lifts mandatory at each station ever 5km or so, when the stations are expected to serve a lot of people, and when the station serves an aged population. I feel that a cheap station should be allowed to be constructed between larger spaced apart stations if said station is not expected to serve too many people (e.g. Voyager Point) but with room for lifts to be added in future when there is demand, with that being said, if it's not the cost of lifts causing current issues than every station should have a lift. See my response to RTT_Rules.

2. 100 per day is a worst case scenario, as for density, I think that councils should be setting city limits and encouraging higher density to support closer spaced stations, and high density doesn't even need to mean high rise buildings or even much mixed use, East Hills station which predominantly serves detached homes with little catchment compared to Panania and Revesby served 960 daily passengers in 2018.
Unfortunately in the South West, it appears that councils are actively encouraging the ridiculous urban sprawl with the spaced out stations, spaced out residential areas, and large road network. I was driving out that way last night and it looks worse than maps and satellite pictures make it look.

3. Adding more stations to the metro should allow more walk up patronage and take strain off commuter car parks, hopefully freeing them up for those who actually need them. If journey times becomes an issue, then there needs to be multiple stopping patterns.

4. Park & Ride is flawed because it simply doesn't work, it doesn't matter how big you build the car park, it's always full by 8am, shiftworkers with no on-site parking are screwed - can't drive, can't park at station, no feeder bus when shfit finishes. Holsworthy station has one of the biggest commuter car parks on the network and it's still not enough, the one at Leppington is being extended again and soon there will be demand for a station called 'Leppington Parking' at the back end of the car park because it's too far to walk. Once again, city planing needs to encourage higher densities (while still allowing for detached homes, think about the East Hills Line) to allow more people to walk to stations and allow feeder buses to be more practical.

5. I've heard that Wattle Grove may get low patronage as the sprawl is only on one side of the railway line, but even little Casula station managed to serve 370 daily passengers in 2018, Wattle Grove would most likely serve more and take significant strain off the car park at Holsworthy.

Your welcome for posting and I also enjoy further discussion.

The further you go out, the further apart the station needs to be to prevent the train service being painfully slow and thus avoided. Also in low density suburbs that are beyond reasonable walking distance but not further than say 5km from the station, connecting bus services are difficult to provide economically and attractive and locals will just drive if they won't ride or be dropped off.

The NWRL is an excellent piece of modern railway and the last thing you want to do it is drag it down to the standard of the old lines with stations every 1-2km. It won't have a huge impact on those needing to drive to the station.


Cost of modern stations is more than just the lifts, its everything else, security, road access, parking, facilities. Large modern stations have staff on site all day, the ancient little ones don't, so less community friendly.

Instead of spacing the stations apart the further out you go, have two separate stopping patterns (East Hills Line would be the perfect example if the interchange was at East Hills and the connection times were not awful).


See my above comments regarding density, by building stations far apart we are encouraging more and more low density development with ridiculous urban sprawl.

Out of those things making up the cost of modern stations, how many are required by law like the lifts are?
Large modern stations may have staff on all day while the 'ancient little ones don't' but said stations are more difficult to access, and promote car decadency which negatively effects small business (no foot traffic passing trade), so I would argue that they are less community friendly.

See my above comments regarding density, by building stations far apart we are encouraging more and more low density development with ridiculous urban sprawl.

Out of those things making up the cost of modern stations, how many are required by law like the lifts are?
Large modern stations may have staff on all day while the 'ancient little ones don't' but said stations are more difficult to access, and promote car decadency which negatively effects small business (no foot traffic passing trade), so I would argue that they are less community friendly.

Not true,
In the outer 'burbs you are not going to encourage high density living, that's why people live there. For some smaller stations there are no local shops as the walk in traffic is too low or in other locations he shops maybe co-located with the station, but more reliant on other customers than 2h of commuters twice a day.

ESR has distance spaced stations because its underground (read each station is $$$) and the line was built half arsed, it was suppose to branch off in two locations and the locals protested an addition station location from being completed. Meanwhile it still moves something like 60% of the NSL into the city each morning.

The DAA rules apply to all greenfield projects.

Many new lines have stations that are actually difficult to attract too many walk up users as the line is typically placed away from housing by design for noise control and also ROW corridors that were previously reserved.

They do not impact on business because if I need a loaf of bread, I will buy it somewhere. Most of the shops around legacy stations are serving essential commuter items like coffee, sandwich, milk, bread, newspaper etc or essential service, not discretionary spending like furniture/TV etc.   For the likes of the NWRL, while in some cases there are near by shops, the one station I used I didn't recall any Not sure if any within the station itself. If there are none, the commuters will just spend their money on these items elsewhere, such as destination or on the way to the station.

I commuted from Gosford station for 8 years using both car and bus and I can tell you I almost never used the shops near the station until the walk way bridge across Mann Street was built and even then it was very rare. If I used the bus, definitely nothing spent in the AM/PM apart from sometimes the machine on the station and very very rarely in PM if I was connecting with the bus. If I drove, then I might stop at the petrol station in either direction. The most common place for me to spend money was at the school/work end, although I didn't work in the city.

Moral of the story, the cost and running small low volume stations including the pain of trying to provide a reasonable rail service away from the inner city is simply not worth it. Larger stations have better rail service, security, off-rail facilities such as bus hubs, taxi's, parking, bike, local shops, etc etc. On the newer lines there is always the opportunity for extra in fill stations to be built with population growth, but some of your reference locations wouldn't fill a bus a day. If the traffic isn't in the 1000's/day its not going to happen.

The NWRL is an excellent piece of modern railway and the last thing you want to do it is drag it down to the standard of the old lines with stations every 1-2km. It won't have a huge impact on those needing to drive to the station.

The thing is though that the stations are only about 2 kilometres away from each other on the nw metro aside from cherrybrook to epping. The reason why no station was put at west pennant hills is because of the depth of the tunnel at this point. It is so deep that lifts would probably have been the only viable option for such a station.

The stations on the inner west line are less then 1km from each other at points. Erskineville to St Peters is only 950 metres apart.

The NWRL is an excellent piece of modern railway and the last thing you want to do it is drag it down to the standard of the old lines with stations every 1-2km. It won't have a huge impact on those needing to drive to the station.

The thing is though that the stations are only about 2 kilometres away from each other on the nw metro aside from cherrybrook to epping. The reason why no station was put at west pennant hills is because of the depth of the tunnel at this point. It is so deep that lifts would probably have been the only viable option for such a station.

The stations on the inner west line are less then 1km from each other at points. Erskineville to St Peters is only 950 metres apart.

Never said it wasn't, the Metro line generally runs within 800m of Beecroft station. Would have been nice for the people west of the line North Carlingford / North Rocks etc, but they are not much further from Epping and walk up options would have been fairly limited.

The NWRL is an excellent piece of modern railway and the last thing you want to do it is drag it down to the standard of the old lines with stations every 1-2km. It won't have a huge impact on those needing to drive to the station.

The thing is though that the stations are only about 2 kilometres away from each other on the nw metro aside from cherrybrook to epping. The reason why no station was put at west pennant hills is because of the depth of the tunnel at this point. It is so deep that lifts would probably have been the only viable option for such a station.

The stations on the inner west line are less then 1km from each other at points. Erskineville to St Peters is only 950 metres apart.

Never said it wasn't, the Metro line generally runs within 800m of Beecroft station. Would have been nice for the people west of the line North Carlingford / North Rocks etc, but they are not much further from Epping and walk up options would have been fairly limited.

Have you been to North Rocks in the past few years by any chance?

To suggest that a station there was not needed as it was too close to Epping is immensely ignorant and the last section of your post clearly shows your lack of knowledge of that area of Sydney

Walking from Epping to North Rocks is an absolute nightmare at any time of day due to the organisation of roads, the length and a lack of footpaths.
North Carlingford does not need a station by any chance, it is not even a suburb

As I stated earlier, a line going via North Rocks and Baulkham Hills would have been far superior to the current route
In case you were wondering, I am a resident of the Epping/Carlingford area and have been for 14 years

The NWRL is an excellent piece of modern railway and the last thing you want to do it is drag it down to the standard of the old lines with stations every 1-2km. It won't have a huge impact on those needing to drive to the station.

The thing is though that the stations are only about 2 kilometres away from each other on the nw metro aside from cherrybrook to epping. The reason why no station was put at west pennant hills is because of the depth of the tunnel at this point. It is so deep that lifts would probably have been the only viable option for such a station.

The stations on the inner west line are less then 1km from each other at points. Erskineville to St Peters is only 950 metres apart.

Never said it wasn't, the Metro line generally runs within 800m of Beecroft station. Would have been nice for the people west of the line North Carlingford / North Rocks etc, but they are not much further from Epping and walk up options would have been fairly limited.

Have you been to North Rocks in the past few years by any chance?

To suggest that a station there was not needed as it was too close to Epping is immensely ignorant and the last section of your post clearly shows your lack of knowledge of that area of Sydney

Walking from Epping to North Rocks is an absolute nightmare at any time of day due to the organisation of roads, the length and a lack of footpaths.
North Carlingford does not need a station by any chance, it is not even a suburb

As I stated earlier, a line going via North Rocks and Baulkham Hills would have been far superior to the current route
In case you were wondering, I am a resident of the Epping/Carlingford area and have been for 14 years

Yes, early August last year and August year before....did used to work in that area many years back.

I said it would be nice, I didn't say not needed, but as others have posted the terrain was a limiting factor.

North of Carlingford to be more precise  / North Rocks area would be nice for those there, but I don't believe it has ever been any iteration since the first sketch of the NWRL was drafted back in the Carr days. Why, I have no idea, but the northern route may have greater penetration or simply terrain. Maybe the motor way was deemed sufficient???

Look at how the alignment doesn't work for North Rocks and Baulkham hills Dcook to have been included. I will agree that Carlingford and North Rocks could both be better covered by bus services.

Look at how the alignment doesn't work for North Rocks and Baulkham hills Dcook to have been included. I will agree that Carlingford and North Rocks could both be better covered by bus services.

Or simply part of a future Epping to Paramatta Metro line, maybe!

Look at how the alignment doesn't work for North Rocks and Baulkham hills Dcook to have been included. I will agree that Carlingford and North Rocks could both be better covered by bus services.

Or simply part of a future Epping to Paramatta Metro line, maybe!

That isn't happening. If anything it would have to be a new line from eastwood or west ryde or maybe a victoria road metro.

I thought I should add in!

Not all car's at any railway station carparks are commuter or worker vehicles, many car's you'll find are people who use to abuse the carparks spaces simply because it's free parking

If you have a look in Wagga Wagga, the average parked car's are normally around 5 to 7 car's for the workers, very few commuter car's would be parked there and the rest are illegally parked

In my opinion, the station staff should be allowed to:-

1) Fine illegally parked car's, unless given permission by the station master to park into any of the zoned space
and a fee must be paid upfront to use the zoned space

2) Have all commuter car's booked in, with a small parking fee under $5 will be great nobody can complain about it anything under $5! You all like coffee so "WHY NOT!"

3) If any vehicle is parked in the carpark for no more than 3 day's, the railway station staff has the right to have the vehicle towed away at NO cost to the railway's itself!

Any illegally parked car owners must, pay for the tow truck and the fine they received within a certain time frame or face court action

This will certainly teach them never to abuse the railway station carparks!

I thought I should add in!

Not all car's at any railway station carparks are commuter or worker vehicles, many car's you'll find are people who use to abuse the carparks spaces simply because it's free parking

If you have a look in Wagga Wagga, the average parked car's are normally around 5 to 7 car's for the workers, very few commuter car's would be parked there and the rest are illegally parked

In my opinion, the station staff should be allowed to:-

1) Fine illegally parked car's, unless given permission by the station master to park into any of the zoned space
and a fee must be paid upfront to use the zoned space

2) Have all commuter car's booked in, with a small parking fee under $5 will be great nobody can complain about it anything under $5! You all like coffee so "WHY NOT!"

3) If any vehicle is parked in the carpark for no more than 3 day's, the railway station staff has the right to have the vehicle towed away at NO cost to the railway's itself!

Any illegally parked car owners must, pay for the tow truck and the fine they received within a certain time frame or face court action

This will certainly teach them never to abuse the railway station carparks!

Cars deemed parked illegally can be towed to the car owners cost now, all these systems are there,, but yes in a commuter car park its hard to know. One of the advantages of stations like Kellyville etc is that the station car park has almost no value for other purposes. Where as a commuter carpark that part of a major complex, is more difficult.

I agree with the small fee or at least swipe your Opal card and if not used then a commercial rate carpark fee is charged.

Look at how the alignment doesn't work for North Rocks and Baulkham hills Dcook to have been included. I will agree that Carlingford and North Rocks could both be better covered by bus services.

Or simply part of a future Epping to Paramatta Metro line, maybe!

That isn't happening. If anything it would have to be a new line from eastwood or west ryde or maybe a victoria road metro.

Yup, didn't say where it come from, but like Victoria Road is my guess.

I thought I should add in!

Not all car's at any railway station carparks are commuter or worker vehicles, many car's you'll find are people who use to abuse the carparks spaces simply because it's free parking

If you have a look in Wagga Wagga, the average parked car's are normally around 5 to 7 car's for the workers, very few commuter car's would be parked there and the rest are illegally parked

In my opinion, the station staff should be allowed to:-

1) Fine illegally parked car's, unless given permission by the station master to park into any of the zoned space
and a fee must be paid upfront to use the zoned space

2) Have all commuter car's booked in, with a small parking fee under $5 will be great nobody can complain about it anything under $5! You all like coffee so "WHY NOT!"

3) If any vehicle is parked in the carpark for no more than 3 day's, the railway station staff has the right to have the vehicle towed away at NO cost to the railway's itself!

Any illegally parked car owners must, pay for the tow truck and the fine they received within a certain time frame or face court action

This will certainly teach them never to abuse the railway station carparks!

Cars deemed parked illegally can be towed to the car owners cost now, all these systems are there,, but yes in a commuter car park its hard to know. One of the advantages of stations like Kellyville etc is that the station car park has almost no value for other purposes. Where as a commuter carpark that part of a major complex, is more difficult.

I agree with the small fee or at least swipe your Opal card and if not used then a commercial rate carpark fee is charged.

That's correct, I know the system already is available

I almost forgot about the use of the Opal card, I haven't been on a train in a few year's now since 2014!