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!

hate long quotes - link - Transport Park&Ride car parks - https://transportnsw.info/travel-info/ways-to-get-around/drive/parking/transport-parkride-car-parks

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.

Sorry for late response, been very busy lately,

When I say 'high density' in this context, I am not reffering to high rise apartments, I am still reffering to detached homes, but with no green space between suburbs, think of things like East Hills and Panania, and not things like Bardia and Glenfield.

I am aware that DAA is required for all greenfield projects, but I want to know does DAA just require lifts, or does it also require all of the other extravagant features that make new stations expensive; toilets, 24/7 staff, parking, etc?

Regarding noise control, I am sure there would be a plethora amount of people who would live next to a rail corridor if that meant being able to walk to the station.

Regarding small businesses, I am mainly referring to commuter items, but also discovery, walking from station to destination in the past has helped me discover businesses that I would have missed if I drove.

Even if a station only served 200 return passengers a day, it might seem insignificant, but that could be almost 200 less cars in a commuter car park, which equates to a lot of spaced saved.

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!

Unfortunately although there might be some truth to this, it is not the ultimate cause of full commuter parks, stations like Holsworthy and Leppington have huge car parks which serve literally nothing but the station yet are still full - and probably cost the same amount to build as it would to built several small basic stations.

As pointed out, there are opal-activated commuter parks that ensure the car park is only used by commuters and these are STILL full.

Maybe this is just another reason that the NSW Government needs to focus on other cities outside of Sydney (NSW has 800,642 km² of land, yet only ONE liveable city with employment and infrastructure, let that sink in),

Sydney is simply becoming too big and sprawling to sustainably provide enough infrastructure (you can get on the M4 and drive west and you will pass a service centre BEFORE even leaving the metropolitan area, let that sink in),

start my providing employment and infrastructure to Newcastle and Wollongong and then focus on growing regional cities to the size of said cities and provide employment and infrastructure there also,

you could probably lower the cost of living and housing in the process, the demand for housing would be spread across multiple cities instead of all focused on one city in a 800,642 km² state.

Sorry for late response, been very busy lately,

When I say 'high density' in this context, I am not reffering to high rise apartments, I am still reffering to detached homes, but with no green space between suburbs, think of things like East Hills and Panania, and not things like Bardia and Glenfield.

I am aware that DAA is required for all greenfield projects, but I want to know does DAA just require lifts, or does it also require all of the other extravagant features that make new stations expensive; toilets, 24/7 staff, parking, etc?

Regarding noise control, I am sure there would be a plethora amount of people who would live next to a rail corridor if that meant being able to walk to the station.

Regarding small businesses, I am mainly referring to commuter items, but also discovery, walking from station to destination in the past has helped me discover businesses that I would have missed if I drove.

Even if a station only served 200 return passengers a day, it might seem insignificant, but that could be almost 200 less cars in a commuter car park, which equates to a lot of spaced saved.

Unfortunately although there might be some truth to this, it is not the ultimate cause of full commuter parks, stations like Holsworthy and Leppington have huge car parks which serve literally nothing but the station yet are still full - and probably cost the same amount to build as it would to built several small basic stations.

As pointed out, there are opal-activated commuter parks that ensure the car park is only used by commuters and these are STILL full.

Maybe this is just another reason that the NSW Government needs to focus on other cities outside of Sydney (NSW has 800,642 km² of land, yet only ONE liveable city with employment and infrastructure, let that sink in),

Sydney is simply becoming too big and sprawling to sustainably provide enough infrastructure (you can get on the M4 and drive west and you will pass a service centre BEFORE even leaving the metropolitan area, let that sink in),

start my providing employment and infrastructure to Newcastle and Wollongong and then focus on growing regional cities to the size of said cities and provide employment and infrastructure there also,

you could probably lower the cost of living and housing in the process, the demand for housing would be spread across multiple cities instead of all focused on one city in a 800,642 km² state.

DAA rules are universal, applies to everything and for good reason.

Existing alignments and developments are grandfathered, new projects are not.

If you drive, that business just occurred elsewhere, such as the petrol station.

200 passengers a day at a small station to replace 200 car spaces, the math is simple, you build the car parks, a fraction of the cost, a fraction of the maintenance and saves time for most commuters.

Leppington is a semi-rural area where land is cheap and the carpark is simply built on the ground. An extra station between Leppington and Edmondson Park would benefit very few walk up's. The most logical place to build a extra station would be near the Camden Way over pass and the track is a curve there which prohibits a station. There is however a nice cycle way to Leppinton station and while that may not appeal to office workers in office garb, especially women, these days electric scooters or bikes could be used to save the sweat. The extra station would also add 45sec to the trip, which on its own doesn't sound much, but one here, another one there.....

Moral of the story, in detached housing estates, close spaced stations add significant cost to the project and time to the travel, both of which already face enough hurdles so lets not add more.

As for Wattle Park, I'm not completely against the idea and there is even a space for it, but while there is no development on the other side of the tracks the numbers will not stack up. There is an easy bike option to ride to Holsworthy from Wattle Grove as well as bus and I could walk it in 25 - 30 min.

The reasons the carparks are all full or close to full is due to the success of public transport over the last 10 years as the roads have suffered from population growth.  There is however alot of other opportunities to boost PT ridership than building lots of little infill stations that add to the already high cost of providing rail to Sydney, current Sydney trains needs twice as much money from the govt to operate than it collects in fares.

DAA rules are universal, applies to everything and for good reason.

Existing alignments and developments are grandfathered, new projects are not.

If you drive, that business just occurred elsewhere, such as the petrol station.

200 passengers a day at a small station to replace 200 car spaces, the math is simple, you build the car parks, a fraction of the cost, a fraction of the maintenance and saves time for most commuters.

Leppington is a semi-rural area where land is cheap and the carpark is simply built on the ground. An extra station between Leppington and Edmondson Park would benefit very few walk up's. The most logical place to build a extra station would be near the Camden Way over pass and the track is a curve there which prohibits a station. There is however a nice cycle way to Leppinton station and while that may not appeal to office workers in office garb, especially women, these days electric scooters or bikes could be used to save the sweat. The extra station would also add 45sec to the trip, which on its own doesn't sound much, but one here, another one there.....

Moral of the story, in detached housing estates, close spaced stations add significant cost to the project and time to the travel, both of which already face enough hurdles so lets not add more.

As for Wattle Park, I'm not completely against the idea and there is even a space for it, but while there is no development on the other side of the tracks the numbers will not stack up. There is an easy bike option to ride to Holsworthy from Wattle Grove as well as bus and I could walk it in 25 - 30 min.

The reasons the carparks are all full or close to full is due to the success of public transport over the last 10 years as the roads have suffered from population growth.  There is however alot of other opportunities to boost PT ridership than building lots of little infill stations that add to the already high cost of providing rail to Sydney, current Sydney trains needs twice as much money from the govt to operate than it collects in fares.

I know what DAA rules apply to, the question I am asking is what do they entail? I know that lifts are required at new stations by law, but does the same law requires stations to have toilets, parking, 24/7 staff, and a massive extravagant overhead concourse? or does it just require the lifts? if so then there is a way to significantly lower the cost of stations without even bringing lifts into debate (which means the title of my thread should be changed).

Existing alignments and developments come from a time before cars were popular, and I thought we were trying to encouraging people to get out of their cars?
It's not just a transaction occurring elsewhere, if I drive, the transaction occurs at a large business (whether that be the servo, maccas, or suburban shopping centre), walking combined with a train journey means the transaction occurs at a small business.

Regarding extra station vs car park, is something like this really cheaper than something basic like this? and which creates greater community benefit?

The issue of extra stations adding travel time can be solved with multiple stopping patterns and express services, the fact that it is so much of an issue is also a result of Sydney's sprawl simply becoming unsustainable to the point where two 'suburban' stations were built so far apart.
The area is semi-rural now but has been built for future growth which can clearly be seen by the size of the roads out there.

I know what DAA rules apply to, the question I am asking is what do they entail? I know that lifts are required at new stations by law, but does the same law requires stations to have toilets, parking, 24/7 staff, and a massive extravagant overhead concourse? or does it just require the lifts? if so then there is a way to significantly lower the cost of stations without even bringing lifts into debate (which means the title of my thread should be changed).

It requires only access to the platforms that allows a disabled person to access the station. That can mean lifts, properly graded ramps or both. Disabled Toilets are a yes. Disabled parking is required if there is parking.

The expensive overhead concourses are not requirements for DDA compliance. Those are expensive political statements.

For instance the ARTC when building the freight line did the basic when providing disabled access along the length of the line from Sefton to Macarthur. Nothing at all like what is on the metro.

The issue of extra stations adding travel time can be solved with multiple stopping patterns and express services, the fact that it is so much of an issue is also a result of Sydney's sprawl simply becoming unsustainable to the point where two 'suburban' stations were built so far apart.
The area is semi-rural now but has been built for future growth which can clearly be seen by the size of the roads out there.

This does not solve the issue at all. As soon as you add multiple stopping patterns you reduce the capacity of the network. To do this requires increasing gaps between certain trains so that one doesn't run in to the train in front so to speak. This phenomena can be seen on the T3 at the moment where you have limited stops that reach up to the all stops service quickly and end up not much faster then an all stops service.

DDA is a piece of legislation that requires public spaces to be accessible by people with disability. There would certainly be a set of guidelines developed from this legislation for new infrastructure such as railway stations. In addition to lifts and accessible toilets, there also must be a hearing loop for areas with a PA system (for people with hearing aids) and tactiles on the floor for people with a vision impairment. This is why there are dots and bars on the floor everywhere these days. The bars indicate a direction to go, and the dots mean either to change direction, or there is danger (edge of platform) or an item of interest (e.g. button to call the lift).

I know what DAA rules apply to, the question I am asking is what do they entail? I know that lifts are required at new stations by law, but does the same law requires stations to have toilets, parking, 24/7 staff, and a massive extravagant overhead concourse? or does it just require the lifts? if so then there is a way to significantly lower the cost of stations without even bringing lifts into debate (which means the title of my thread should be changed).

It requires only access to the platforms that allows a disabled person to access the station. That can mean lifts, properly graded ramps or both. Disabled Toilets are a yes. Disabled parking is required if there is parking.

The expensive overhead concourses are not requirements for DDA compliance. Those are expensive political statements.

Disabled toilets is a given if there are toilets, but are toilets in general required by law for greenfield projects? I ask this because Narara, Niagara Park, and Lisarow stations are receiving station upgrades which will include lifts but not toilets, likewise the same went for Adamstown and Casula. Also, what is more expensive for stations - toilets or lifts?
I know that Shellharbour Junction station initially opened without a toilet, although one was added after and it was always part of the plan.

Would it be legal to to build a greenfield railway line with a bunch of basic 'casula' type stations every 1.5km - platforms, shelter, lifts, stairs, footbridge, and not much more? bascially a railway built for functionality more than aesthetics.

The expensive political statements annoy me, during Covid-19 I heard the phrase 'public transport is an essential service' thrown around, but if that were true, why do only capital cities get public transport? and even then in the newer suburbs it's a fight to the death for a parking spot.

Quickly on the lifts, I would say a station at Voyager Point is essential because parking at Holsworthy (with one of the largest commuter car parks on the network) is impossible, and the road layout in Voyager Point prevents a decent bus service, BUT with Voyager Point having a population of 1,668 and many homes rented by the military, the station would not have high patronage, but is essential nevertheless.
Is it possible that the requirement to install a lift at a station that might only serve 300 return passengers be a disincentive for the government?

This does not solve the issue at all. As soon as you add multiple stopping patterns you reduce the capacity of the network. To do this requires increasing gaps between certain trains so that one doesn't run in to the train in front so to speak. This phenomena can be seen on the T3 at the moment where you have limited stops that reach up to the all stops service quickly and end up not much faster then an all stops service.

It solves the issue with the right track amplification, it works on the T8 where it's Macarthur all to Revesby on double track then express, while a local starts from Revesby on the quad track, it's just a shame the timetable is awful for interchanging at Revesby. T3 is all dual track meaning there are the issues you mentioned.

It solves the issue with the right track amplification, it works on the T8 where it's Macarthur all to Revesby on double track then express, while a local starts from Revesby on the quad track, it's just a shame the timetable is awful for interchanging at Revesby. T3 is all dual track meaning there are the issues you mentioned.

Yeah well not everywhere is lucky to have such amplification. If you don't have the amplification then you lose capacity running multiple stopping patterns.

I know what DAA rules apply to, the question I am asking is what do they entail? I know that lifts are required at new stations by law, but does the same law requires stations to have toilets, parking, 24/7 staff, and a massive extravagant overhead concourse? or does it just require the lifts? if so then there is a way to significantly lower the cost of stations without even bringing lifts into debate (which means the title of my thread should be changed).

Existing alignments and developments come from a time before cars were popular, and I thought we were trying to encouraging people to get out of their cars?
It's not just a transaction occurring elsewhere, if I drive, the transaction occurs at a large business (whether that be the servo, maccas, or suburban shopping centre), walking combined with a train journey means the transaction occurs at a small business.

Regarding extra station vs car park, is something like this really cheaper than something basic like this? and which creates greater community benefit?

The issue of extra stations adding travel time can be solved with multiple stopping patterns and express services, the fact that it is so much of an issue is also a result of Sydney's sprawl simply becoming unsustainable to the point where two 'suburban' stations were built so far apart.
The area is semi-rural now but has been built for future growth which can clearly be seen by the size of the roads out there.

The station must have DDA access built to certain statards. It applies from the carpark to accessing the trains and everything in between and toilets and includes the staff.

Staff are not required, but on large stations its far more common for a number of reasons and its not linked to clearing trains to proceed.

Lines were built and cars came along, most car journey's are not commuting, but doing shopping etc, something PT is not always well suited to.

Where you choose to spend your money is your choice and if you choose to support large chains over smaller shops then you are the problem you are trying to solve. We do not need social engineering to control where I buy a can of coke from.

Many of these little stations you propose will not support shops. Newspapers and magazines which used to be almost compulsory item for commuters are things of the past and as such these outlets are in decline.

Not all stations have such car-parks and no guarantee you will get rid of it and I very much doubt you will.

Multi stopping patterns are a capacity reducing bloody night mare and being phased out, just look at T3 as Sim's pointed out and why the Metro's have a single stoping pattern, all stops, stations spaced a few km apart. The old lines with stations spaced on average 1km to 1mile apart the trains frequently never reach top speed or do not sustain it for long before breaking, making the trip uncomfortable.

Yeah well not everywhere is lucky to have such amplification. If you don't have the amplification then you lose capacity running multiple stopping patterns.

Hence the need for such amplification in order to run multiple stopping patterns, it's unfortunate that we need such complex stopping patterns, but the Sydney metropolitan area is some 12,368 km² across - it never should have been allowed to get that big but we are stuck with it now.

The station must have DDA access built to certain statards. It applies from the carpark to accessing the trains and everything in between and toilets and includes the staff.

Staff are not required, but on large stations its far more common for a number of reasons and its not linked to clearing trains to proceed.

Lines were built and cars came along, most car journey's are not commuting, but doing shopping etc, something PT is not always well suited to.

Where you choose to spend your money is your choice and if you choose to support large chains over smaller shops then you are the problem you are trying to solve. We do not need social engineering to control where I buy a can of coke from.

Many of these little stations you propose will not support shops. Newspapers and magazines which used to be almost compulsory item for commuters are things of the past and as such these outlets are in decline.

Not all stations have such car-parks and no guarantee you will get rid of it and I very much doubt you will.

Multi stopping patterns are a capacity reducing bloody night mare and being phased out, just look at T3 as Sim's pointed out and why the Metro's have a single stoping pattern, all stops, stations spaced a few km apart. The old lines with stations spaced on average 1km to 1mile apart the trains frequently never reach top speed or do not sustain it for long before breaking, making the trip uncomfortable.

Are you legally allowed to have a station with NO toilets? that's what I'm asking, obviously if there are toilets they must be accessible.

I would argue that a car is being used for commuting if driving to a station, supporting small chains when commuting by car is difficult as it is only the large chains that have ample parking.

I'm not saying to get rid of the car parks, but to free up spaces in them, expecting ten suburbs to all park at one or two stations is ridiculous, especially if half of those suburbs are on the rail corridor with no stations.

Multi-stopping patterns are a nightmare agreed, but are unfortunately a since the Sydney metropolitan area has become unsustainably large, they are a necessity, it's not practical to build stations far apart and expect everyone to park and ride, especially since the 9-5 working day is quickly becoming a thing of the past in Australia.
Say someone works 2:00pm to 10:00pm in a location with no on-site parking, how do they get to work? there is no space in the commuter car park and no feeder buses when their shift finishes.

Yeah well not everywhere is lucky to have such amplification. If you don't have the amplification then you lose capacity running multiple stopping patterns.

Hence the need for such amplification in order to run multiple stopping patterns, it's unfortunate that we need such complex stopping patterns, but the Sydney metropolitan area is some 12,368 km² across - it never should have been allowed to get that big but we are stuck with it now.

The station must have DDA access built to certain statards. It applies from the carpark to accessing the trains and everything in between and toilets and includes the staff.

Staff are not required, but on large stations its far more common for a number of reasons and its not linked to clearing trains to proceed.

Lines were built and cars came along, most car journey's are not commuting, but doing shopping etc, something PT is not always well suited to.

Where you choose to spend your money is your choice and if you choose to support large chains over smaller shops then you are the problem you are trying to solve. We do not need social engineering to control where I buy a can of coke from.

Many of these little stations you propose will not support shops. Newspapers and magazines which used to be almost compulsory item for commuters are things of the past and as such these outlets are in decline.

Not all stations have such car-parks and no guarantee you will get rid of it and I very much doubt you will.

Multi stopping patterns are a capacity reducing bloody night mare and being phased out, just look at T3 as Sim's pointed out and why the Metro's have a single stoping pattern, all stops, stations spaced a few km apart. The old lines with stations spaced on average 1km to 1mile apart the trains frequently never reach top speed or do not sustain it for long before breaking, making the trip uncomfortable.

Are you legally allowed to have a station with NO toilets? that's what I'm asking, obviously if there are toilets they must be accessible.

I would argue that a car is being used for commuting if driving to a station, supporting small chains when commuting by car is difficult as it is only the large chains that have ample parking.

I'm not saying to get rid of the car parks, but to free up spaces in them, expecting ten suburbs to all park at one or two stations is ridiculous, especially if half of those suburbs are on the rail corridor with no stations.

Multi-stopping patterns are a nightmare agreed, but are unfortunately a since the Sydney metropolitan area has become unsustainably large, they are a necessity, it's not practical to build stations far apart and expect everyone to park and ride, especially since the 9-5 working day is quickly becoming a thing of the past in Australia.
Say someone works 2:00pm to 10:00pm in a location with no on-site parking, how do they get to work? there is no space in the commuter car park and no feeder buses when their shift finishes.

Amplification costs money. You don't build 4 tracks where there isn't enough demand for 4 tracks. I think most people agree 4 tracks would be nice, but its about priorities with limited funds. The infill of stations will come with time on the existing surface lines, it will not occur on elevated or underground lines.

Not all stations have toilets, but these are covered under grandfathering, I suspect you will not get away with building new stations in the suburban area without toilets nor should we.

The whole link of building $10M's of infrastructure just to support a relatively small number of shops is absurd. Focus on building the stations because they are needed for the cost effective movement of people.

Most rail commuters are CBD bound or major centres and working normal business hours, the data supports this.

Yes parked at Kellyville station outside a proper park last year, 3mths after it opened at 2pm because it was all full. Parking needs to be improved along with connecting buses.