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
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)